Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?

[Jashwell]

"Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?"

Doesn't seem like much preamble is needed, but expect this largely to be filled (if at all) with arguments in favour of the existence of a God and counter-arguments. (Because the question is not "Are there good reasons to believe that a god does not exist?"). Though if you do think you have a good argument that shows it is reasonable to believe God does not exist, that is also valid.

This question comes up a lot in other threads where various classical arguments (e.g. ontological, axiological, cosmological) have been given in those threads.

If possible, try not to shotgun debate by raising lots of arguments at once. One sound argument should be sufficient.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 1 by Jashwell] New here. First post. So i will have to learn how to navigate as i go along.

Welcome.

Theism explains why there is something rather than nothing

Unless theism explains why its God exists, then it most certainly does not.

whereas atheism is totally deficient. Atheism assumes there is no accountability to God and no real justice along with rights deriving from men.

So if it's from men it's not "real" justice? That's an interesting no true Scotsman.

Furthermore, so what? Even if what you say here is true, it doesn't provide any logical or evidentiary support for the existence of God. It boils down to an emotional appeal to the desirability of this so-called "real justice" you speak of as a "good reason" to believe in God.

Yet I reject your emotional appeal even on its own terms. I do not see how the "real justice" of God is desirable, because I do not have strong desires to for anyone to suffer, however villainous they may be.

Would you mind explaining what it is that makes you find God's "real justice" desirable?

[Bust Nak]

there is no such thing as an infinite regression; no atheist has been able to give me an example of one. To say "infinite regress" without an example is a hollow alternative.

No more hollow than "God did it." You cannot discount it simply because there are no examples, there are no examples of uncaused cause either.

I'm don't know what a circular regression is, and neither does the Google universe; please explain your alternative.

It's quite simple A explains B, B explains C, C explains D and D explains A.

the big bang is the beginning of the universe, it is not its cause.

Being the beginning of the universe is not mutually exclusive to to being the cause of the universe.

This is your most sensible alternative; I can support this one.

Which highlights the special pleading nature of sticking the Christian God into the uncaused cause slot, even if there was an uncaused cause.

I couldn't follow or understand your reasoning.

Then ask me for clarification.

[instantc]

there is no such thing as an infinite regression; no atheist has been able to give me an example of one. To say "infinite regress" without an example is a hollow alternative.

No more hollow than "God did it." You cannot discount it simply because there are no examples, there are no examples of uncaused cause either.

The universe we live in could be an example of an infinite regression, or it could be an example of an uncaused cause. Therefore, we are not justified to conclude whether examples of those things exist or not.

Moreover, this user is arguing that something cannot come from nothing, since there are no examples of that. However, something can come from God, the universe being an example of that. He knows that the universe is an example of the latter rather than the former, because something cannot come from nothing.

Woefully question-begging as it is, this must be the worst attempt at logic that I have yet seen.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to instantc]

Who are you criticizing?

[lightbeamrider]

Welcome.

Thank you.

Unless theism explains why its God exists, then it most certainly does not.

Sounds like special pleading. Unless this and unless that. Theism far better explains everything far better then any of the alternative non God non Intelligence assertions presented here.

whereas atheism is totally deficient. Atheism assumes there is no accountability to God and no real justice along with rights deriving from men.

So if it's from men it's not "real" justice?

Did not say that. Create a phantom. Why don't non believers just admit the obvious. Persons get away with murder every day. Many die unpunished. Theism, spec. Biblical Theism assumes justice for all. Atheism does not. Again, Theism better explains.

Furthermore, so what? Even if what you say here is true, it doesn't provide any logical or evidentiary support for the existence of God.

There is a universal human sense of justice and rights. They have a source and a reason. That is, in part why the founders assumed the legal basis for the American Revolution was universal Human Rights derived from God. Law is King and not the reverse which would be the natural non believer position. King is law. The King abrogated right to rule based on abuse of power. ''God give no moral power to the king to commit immoral acts.''

http://joshuaredivivus.wordpress.com/lex-rex/

1) God gives no moral power to the King to commit immoral acts. 2) Kings can and must be justly held to their constitutional oaths, no less so than the people. 3) God stamps no person with the imprint of king, leaving such a designation to the people. 4) All kings owe their offices and powers to Christ. 5) Obedience to kings in unlawful acts is rebellion against Christ.
---------------------------------

It boils down to an emotional appeal to the desirability of this so-called "real justice" you speak of as a "good reason" to believe in God.

It is good reason. Far better than fixed blind no God no Intelligence assumptions in which the consequences are king is law. Under that scenario slavery for profit is equally as valid as liberty. Bad ideas have bad consequences.

Yet I reject your emotional appeal even on its own terms. I do not see how the "real justice" of God is desirable, because I do not have strong desires to for anyone to suffer, however villainous they may be.

I would not reduce universal human sense of justice and rights to ''emotional appeal'' but i do realize you must justify your atheism at any cost.

Would you mind explaining what it is that makes you find God's "real justice" desirable?

Mercy from God is more desirable. Mercy from God is possible as opposed to justice from God.

[lightbeamrider]

God kills all the time. When will God be judged?

Why is raping and killing objectively (not subjectively) wrong? That is in a world without God? Is there not plenty of precedent in history for slavery raping and killing? Are these things out of line with nature?

"In line with nature"?

You did not answer my legit question. Why is raping and killing objectively (not subjectively) wrong in a universe which self assembled for no reason and which humans are nothing more than big brained ape like creatures? What is your objective reference point?

What relevance does that have?

You made it relevant when you brought it up.

Why would I care what precedence there is for slavery, raping and killing?

You do not care?

What relevance does it have?

You brought it up.

You do realise that a moral system based on God isn't objective, right?

No.

That it's subjective? Based on one individual?

God is the objective for moral accountability. We are accountable to Him. That makes it objective relative to us. God is the objective reference point.

I'm no moral nihilist, and I'm no moral subjectivist. I also don't believe that morals 'exist as facts' in the same sense Plato seemed to think numbers did. I'm a moral universalist.

Well under your moral subjectivism slavery for profit is as valid as liberty for all.

[Jashwell]

God kills all the time. When will God be judged?

Why is raping and killing objectively (not subjectively) wrong? That is in a world without God? Is there not plenty of precedent in history for slavery raping and killing? Are these things out of line with nature?

"In line with nature"?

You did not answer my legit question.

The title of the thread is "Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?" not "Are there good reasons to believe there is such a thing as objective morality?"

Why is raping and killing objectively (not subjectively) wrong, what is your objective reference point?

Because the best way to maintain maximum happiness for all (which is desirable by definition) is by avoiding raping and killing?
The best way for any individual to be happy is for everyone to be happy, including rehabilitating psychopaths because that maintains maximum happiness. It's also better for their own innate survival for everyone else to be happy.
Now it's a bit more complicated than that, but that isn't really the topic.
What about you? Why is it objectively and not subjectively wrong?

in a universe which self assembled for no reason and which humans are nothing more than big brained ape like creatures?

(poisoning the well & no relevance whatsoever)
I'm sorry, but it's a fact that humans are big brained apes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
The classification of ape includes humans.
Humans have bigger brains than any other ape.

This would be like if I added "in a Universe in which humans are nothing more than mammals".

What relevance does that have?

You made it relevant when you brought it up.

Why would I care what precedence there is for slavery, raping and killing?

You do not care?

What relevance does it have?

You brought it up.

I didn't bring it up, you did below, but you've missed the point on that too.

f there is no God then there is no accountability to God. That means if a Ted Bundy type goes out and rapes and kills and escapes human justice there is no justice for the victims who are innocent or to Ted Bundy for his crimes. Under atheism, justice is a sham. That is counter intuitive to human experience.

I was curious how this was consistent with the Biblical God, but that's not what I was saying when I was asking how it's relevant.

In what possible way would what is "in line with nature" or "precedence in history" have anything to do with morality at all?
Where is the relevance?

You do realise that a moral system based on God isn't objective, right?

No.

That it's subjective? Based on one individual?

God is the objective for moral accountability. We are accountable to Him. That makes it objective relative to us. God is the objective reference point.

... No, God is an individual. This is a subjective morality.
"We are all accountable to Him" in what way? Surely you aren't saying "he's the strongest guy around so what he says goes and is therefore objective"?

I'm no moral nihilist, and I'm no moral subjectivist. I also don't believe that morals 'exist as facts' in the same sense Plato seemed to think numbers did. I'm a moral universalist.

Well under your moral subjectivism slavery for profit is as valid as liberty for all.

"I'm no moral subjectivist"
"under your moral subjectivism"
I'm sorry, what?


Could we get back to reasons to believe in a God? You started off with loads, and now we're on this weird tangent about morality.

[lightbeamrider]

God belief assumes human rights derive from God and not men as indicated in our Declaration of Independence.

Not necessarily - belief in a God does not require belief that rights come from a God.
But still, you don't need to believe in a God to think that rights descend from something other than man.

If human rights do not come from God and they do not come from men, then where do they come from?

Hmm?
Someone could easily believe that they are fundamental and exist in their own unique plane, for example, and are facts that just exist abstractly.

I'm not saying they don't come from either, just that they don't have to.

You're not saying much of anything.

Popularity of a belief among the general public does not conform to accuracy.

It does add weight. The majority report is not always wrong.

It does not add weight.

Theism in one form or another has been the majority report in all of human history. A simple dismissal is insufficient.

The majority of scientists are not religious.

Does that mean they do not attend or belong to a church or they simple are non God believers? (And i can just anticipate the question now, what is a non God believer?) Your quote above indicates popularity of belief in the general public (in all history) does not conform to accuracy. Since you believe none of this adds weight even if the majority report is not always wrong then perhaps you can show all us humans at all time where we are all wrong? Now you appeal to a majority report of Scientist on religion?

Literally all the people who lived over 3000 years ago were definitely not Christian.

Wow.

Why would human justice be necessary anyway?

Ask Ted Bundy. Charlie Manson is probably asking the same question.

You think they'll be dealt with in the afterlife.

We all will.

Unless God doesn't care,

He does.

surely he'll deal only the necessary punishment, not unnecessary punishment like a sadist will. The amount they deserve in full, and not a bit more.

There is either justice or mercy from God. No injustice.

So surely human justice for you is just unnecessary punishment at best, and at it's worse can punish the wrong people.

No and yes. I don't know why you would make such a ridiculous assumption about human justice being unnecessary. There is no biblical precedent for it and i know of no serious Christian who believes it.

There is order, but no evidence of design.

Order is the evidence.

No it isn't. Emergence is the process by which order arises out of chaos without personal agency.

No personal agency is a blind faith assumption. If there is order and massive info transfer then the logical deduction is Intelligent Cause. No non believer assertions offered fits with observable facts around us.

It is your camp who must assume the possibility your own posts are the result of natural forces and not intelligence. Which is more reasonable? What is the source of the natural forces?

Why would they need a source?

Because effects have causes. Why do you answer legit questions with questions? Do you believe it is possible for the sun to fix your car and remove rust? Do you believe a house can self assemble via natural forces absent intelligence? Do you believe a donkey can pop into your living room due to quantum fluctuations? Yes or no?

Natural forces exist, and can plausibly create life and other things.

Baloney. Natural forces absent intelligence do not create life. Non believers come up with these preposterous assertions to avoid the obvious and assume whatever the Cause it cannot be God or Intelligence. Lightning assembled and created the Frankenstein Monster. No Dr Frankenstein needed. Not science fiction. Its bad science fiction.

[lightbeamrider]

God kills all the time. When will God be judged?

Why is raping and killing objectively (not subjectively) wrong? That is in a world without God? Is there not plenty of precedent in history for slavery raping and killing? Are these things out of line with nature?

"In line with nature"?

You did not answer my legit question.

The title of the thread is "Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?" not "Are there good reasons to believe there is such a thing as objective morality?"

Objective morality via accountability is a good reason to assume God since it better explains the human sense of justice and right and wrong. Justice for all. Its called the moral argument.

[Jashwell]

God belief assumes human rights derive from God and not men as indicated in our Declaration of Independence.

Not necessarily - belief in a God does not require belief that rights come from a God.
But still, you don't need to believe in a God to think that rights descend from something other than man.

If human rights do not come from God and they do not come from men, then where do they come from?

Hmm?
Someone could easily believe that they are fundamental and exist in their own unique plane, for example, and are facts that just exist abstractly.

I'm not saying they don't come from either, just that they don't have to.

You're not saying much of anything.

I just gave you an example of indisputably objective rights that could be believed in and are in no way associated with a God.
QED?

Popularity of a belief among the general public does not conform to accuracy.

It does add weight. The majority report is not always wrong.

It does not add weight.

Theism in one form or another has been the majority report in all of human history. A simple dismissal is insufficient.

Doesn't matter if it's the majority report. What comes after should give examples, but this is still an appeal to popularity fallacy.

The majority of scientists are not religious.

Does that mean they do not attend or belong to a church or they simple are non God believers? (And i can just anticipate the question now, what is a non God believer?) Your quote above indicates popularity of belief in the general public (in all history) does not conform to accuracy. Since you believe none of this adds weight even if the majority report is not always wrong then perhaps you can show all us humans at all time where we are all wrong? Now you appeal to a majority report of Scientist on religion?

Literally all the people who lived over 3000 years ago were definitely not Christian.

Wow.

You (paraphrasing) "majority report = weight/evidence"
Me: "majority at x weren't Christian, majority of x aren't religious"
You: "doesn't count"
Only 7% of the national academy of sciences expressed belief in a personal God.

This is an argument ad absurdum. I do not believe that the majority report in and of itself puts any weight on the truth of a claim. You do. I'm showing it's inconsistent with your beliefs.

There are many examples I can give as to why popularity and evidence are two very different things.

Why would human justice be necessary anyway?

Ask Ted Bundy. Charlie Manson is probably asking the same question.

You think they'll be dealt with in the afterlife.

We all will.

Not only is this an unjustified claim but you are you effectively saying "yes I do".

Unless God doesn't care,

He does.

Do you need to state your unsupported personal beliefs in between my every clause? Why not wait until I've finished the sentence?

surely he'll deal only the necessary punishment, not unnecessary punishment like a sadist will. The amount they deserve in full, and not a bit more.

There is either justice or mercy from God. No injustice.

Mercy is either injustice or nothing to be proud of.
If I take two men, both of whom committed the same crime, and spared one half the sentence of the other, that would be mercy and injustice.

You also haven't addressed what I said.
If God deals justice perfectly, then in the afterlife God will give everyone what they deserve and not punish them more than they deserve. What need is their for human punishment? You think God does it all anyway. Not only that, but human punishment can be misplaced, and humans could punish a man in a way God wouldn't have. Human punishment, under your beliefs, can only go wrong.

So surely human justice for you is just unnecessary punishment at best, and at it's worse can punish the wrong people.

No and yes. I don't know why you would make such a ridiculous assumption about human justice being unnecessary. There is no biblical precedent for it and i know of no serious Christian who believes it.

See above. This is what happens when you split up what someone says at the wrong point.

There is order, but no evidence of design.

Order is the evidence.

No it isn't. Emergence is the process by which order arises out of chaos without personal agency.

No personal agency is a blind faith assumption. If there is order and massive info transfer then the logical deduction is Intelligent Cause. No non believer assertions offered fits with observable facts around us.

No, emergence is a well known process by which order arises.
"No personal agency" isn't an assumption - it's the lack of the assumption "personal agency".
If I don't believe your claim, I don't need to give evidence why it's wrong, you need to give evidence why it's right. Either you prove that personal agency is required, or the default (that it isn't required) stands.

You haven't done this, you've simply reasserted your beliefs.
Does it take intelligence for sand to gather in a pit? The gathering of sand is an increase in order.
Does it take intelligence for a snowflake to form?
etc

It is your camp who must assume the possibility your own posts are the result of natural forces and not intelligence. Which is more reasonable? What is the source of the natural forces?

Previously addressed. I know these posts are artificial because A) I've seen them made before, B) they don't occur outside the influence of intelligence and C) I'm aware of making them.

Why would they need a source?

Because effects have causes. Why do you answer legit questions with questions? Do you believe it is possible for the sun to fix your car and remove rust? Do you believe a house can self assemble via natural forces absent intelligence? Do you believe a donkey can pop into your living room due to quantum fluctuations? Yes or no?

Because it's the best way to address the complex question fallacy, and the best way to make clear the unsupported assumptions you make.

The fact is, I don't need to give a source for natural forces.
You assume there must be one.

Not only this, but every question you give me that's asking ME for an explanation is, quite frankly, in the wrong thread. This is about evidence for God - I don't need to give a competing explanation for anything.
You need to show that your God is real. This means showing that there CAN'T be another explanation, not asking for one or showing that there isn't currently one.

"Effects have causes" By definition. Can you show that natural forces are effects?
This is like saying "the Universe is a creation therefore there is a creator", the obvious response is "Can you prove it's a creation?"

If I assumed that God had a source and asked you "ah but whenceforth cometh God?" you'd probably give the response "God doesn't have a source" or something similar. It'd be wrong of me to assume that you thought he did and it's wrong of you to assume natural forces do.
Not that the question is wrong, just that it makes the form of answering inconvenient. (I.e. to answer the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" with either "I don't beat my wife", or "I don't have a wife", one answers "No" and is grouped with those that do)

Natural forces exist, and can plausibly create life and other things.

Baloney. Natural forces absent intelligence do not create life.

Could you give evidence for that?
(and I wonder what intelligence you think is involved in cell reproduction and in conception)

Non believers come up with these preposterous assertions to avoid the obvious and assume whatever the Cause it cannot be God or Intelligence.

I said plausibly, not possibly. I do of course believe it's possible because there's no reason to think otherwise.
I don't have to and haven't assumed that it can't be God or can't be intelligent (it can, humans can possibly make life artificially), you're making an argument that requires that it can ONLY be God. I don't believe that. Show that's true.


Not only have you not established that a God is required - merely postulated your own assumptions, (I'm not the one saying it can't be God so don't act like I need to assume anything) - but you haven't even established that a God is plausible.