Back to basics: Give me an argument as to why a god exists

[FaerieStories]

Hi, I'm new here and I see a lot of active topics on specific concepts where users are already heavily engaged in debate, making it a little hard for me to join in. So to test the waters a little (and to help me decide whether or not to stick around here), let's go back to basics and have a debate about the most fundamental question at hand here: does a god exist?

As a non-believer, I have yet to discover any convincing reason as to why I should believe in a god. So, if a Theist would like to get the ball rolling by giving me a reason why god exists, that would be great.

(PS: unrelated question: what is the general breakdown of belief/non-belief on these forums? Is it an even mix of believers and non-believers, or is there- as tends to happen on the internet- a larger proportion of atheists to Theists?).

[LiamOS]

The tools of science are absolutely perfect and demonstrably reliable for discovering anything that exists.

How are you defining existence?

Something that manifests physically in the universe as opposed to purely in human imagination.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that something created the universe, with having us exist in mind. If it does not manifest itself in the universe, it therefore does not exist by your definition, which could either renders your question moot or leaves you in logical circle.
It's also interesting to consider whether or not the universe as an entity exists by this definition; I've not tried to figure it out yet, but it'd be a mighty bad definition if it said that the universe didn't exist.

[FaerieStories]

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that something created the universe, with having us exist in mind. If it does not manifest itself in the universe, it therefore does not exist by your definition, which could either renders your question moot or leaves you in logical circle.

This is just a problem with definitions though. I define the universe as 'all that exists'. Anything external to that is by definition 'nonexistent'.

[Rkrause]

So did viruses exist before 1915?

You never answered that question... becareful science couldn't prove they did....

Of course science can prove that they did.

But before 1915 science couldn't prove they did but the effects of viruses were real. Science can't prove God so the only way to learn about God is to experience it. That is my point. You are looking for proof in the wrong places and you know it.

Either you are a bigot, close minded, dishonest with yourself or totally afraid (Christainphobe?) to experience it yourself and try to understand it from our level.

[theopoesis]

But I'm not asking you to prove generic Theism. I'm asking you to prove your specific brand of Theism. But first and foremost, I am still confused as to why exactly you do not think you can argue that your specific trinitarian deity exists. You say the question isn't relevant- maybe not to you- but it is to me. How could it not be relevant? It's a massive part of your life that is utterly absent in mine. Don't you feel that if the existence of this being is so certain in your mind, that everyone else should believe it?

Hmmm. Let me see if I can think of a different way to explain this....

Ok. How do you usually prove something exists?
(1) You point to it. Show it to someone. Find it. So, if someone thought I was lying about being married, I could call my wife over and introduce her. Maybe she's a friend I've asked to pretend to be my wife. Maybe we're about to get a divorce, so she won't be my wife for long. But it's one way to prove something, not irrefutably.

(2) Accumulate evidence for its existence. Maybe my wife is out of town, so I can't show the person who thinks I am lying about her that I didn't make her up. But I could point to the various women's clothing articles in the closet, the marriage license in my safe, and the photos on the wall. Sure, I could have photoshopped the photos, bought a bunch of women's clothing, forged the license, but the data is there.

(3) Maybe someone thinks the woman I introduced is an actress, so they want to experiment. They see her in a bar, and continue to send various men and women to ask her out on a date. If she says yes, then she isn't my wife (or I guess she could be an adulteress). If she says no, that confirms my claim. But maybe she just wants to be alone, so it's not conclusive proof.

(4) Maybe I'm in a philosophy class, and the professor is more annoying than usual. He's wanting me to prove my wife exists as an essay question on an exam. As a result, I develop some unwieldy (and ultimately flawed) logical syllogism to prove the existence of my wife. In theory, my argument could be water tight, but even then it would still be no stronger than its individual premises.

(5) Finally, suppose I am losing my mind. I am the one telling myself that my wife doesn't exist, and she doesn't exist because I don't exist, and so I can't have a wife and she can't be one. Hopefully, I'll follow Descartes here, "I think therefore I am." The very fact that I am doubting, that I am thinking these things at all, necessarily means that there must be something doing the thinking. Admittedly, the details of what this thinking thing exactly is aren't established, but my existence is a necessary presupposition for everything else that I do. Therefore, my reasons for doubting that my wife can be a wife (namely that her husband doesn't exist) fail.

Ok, that's a bit awkward, but hopefully it will illustrate.

The first way to prove something's existence is to just show it. "Seeing is believing." Unfortunately, God isn't visible, and most people don't get the opportunity that the gospel of John says that Thomas did, to put their fingers in the nail wounds in the hands of the risen Jesus.

The second way to prove something is just to accumulate evidence. Some apologists use this approach, and they point to archaeological artifacts, historical documents and the like to demonstrate the truth of the gospels. Unfortunately, huge claims take huge amounts of evidence, and the evidence for anything is almost never conclusive, so this approach won't work to demonstrate the existence of God.

The third way to prove something is by experimentation. This is the method of science. It's probably a better approach than the previous two, but is less limited in scope. Some things you just can't prove by experiment. God's existence is one of them (unless you can think of an experiment that would work).

The fourth way to prove something is by philosophical argument. This is normally deductive, whereas science is inductive. Some apologists have tried this, with arguments like the cosmological argument, the ontological argument, the teleological argument. The problem is that your deductive arguments always begin with a first premise, which is always assumed. Often there are additional assumptions. So as you noted for the cosmological argument: why must we assume God is uncaused? Why must the universe be caused? So, there just isn't any conclusive deductive proof for the existence of God.

The final way is an a priori form of argument. We must assume that we exist in order to be having this discussion. It's a pre-requisite for thinking. In the same way, some apologists suggest that faith in God, and not just in any God but in the Trinitarian God, is a pre-requisite for forming a coherent worldview. For making sense of the world. For developing an explanation for how we think, how there can be good and evil, and so forth. This is called "presuppositional apologetics."

So where does this leave us? I can't point to God, but that's no problem for me because God is invisible, but I do believe that I have experiences of God. I can't conclusively prove that God exists by evidence, even though I think there is enough evidence to show that there is historical plausibility behind many Biblical events, and not enough counter evidence to persuade me to abandon my position. I can't conclusively prove that God exists through science, but that's ok by me. I wouldn't turn to science for a question like that anyway. And I can't develop a logical syllogism to prove that God exists. There are some arguments that make some sense, but only if you are already a Christian. They do some small thing to strengthen my faith, but I would never expect anyone to convert over them.

Therefore, I take the last approach. I say that there are some basic things that a worldview must be able to make sense of in order to function. It must explain knowledge, morality, human nature, communication, history, society. I surveyed a few options out there: Christianity, Islam (more briefly), Judaism (more briefly), secular humanism (very thoroughly), Marxism, existentialism. Christian beliefs about God were able to buttress up a solid view of morality, epistemology, human nature in ways that I did not think the other views could. But I feel that I need to be able to know that I can arrive at truth, to know that it is immoral to follow a lie rather than the truth, and to know that when I read books about these things that real communication has happened, and so forth to even be able to think about the question "does God exist." So I believe in God, I believe I've experienced God, and I believe that these beliefs are pre-requisites to my being able to even ask the sort of questions I do around here.

I hope that helps explain.

[FaerieStories]

But before 1915 science couldn't prove they did but the effects of viruses were real. Science can't prove God so the only way to learn about God is to experience it. That is my point. You are looking for proof in the wrong places and you know it.

You have done absolutely nothing to convince me that your purported 'right places' actually lead to valid, reliable knowledge. I have explained already why 'faith' does not lead to knowledge.

Either you are a bigot, close minded, dishonest with yourself or totally afraid (Christainphobe?) to experience it yourself and try to understand it from our level.

I am none of those things, though I have no doubt it makes you feel better to try and label me in as many derogatory lights as satisfies you. I am merely someone who values whether or not his beliefs are true, and so is not going to start using a demonstrably faulty system (faith) with absolutely no reason to do so.

You are asking me to jump off a cliff to see if I can fly and then calling me closed-minded and bigoted when I refuse. Either convince me that your system of faith demonstrably WORKS (ie: leads to actual reliable demonstrable results) or stop wasting both of our time by repeating over and over again for me to start using your system when you haven't even demonstrated any good reason why I should.

[LiamOS]

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that something created the universe, with having us exist in mind. If it does not manifest itself in the universe, it therefore does not exist by your definition, which could either renders your question moot or leaves you in logical circle.

This is just a problem with definitions though. I define the universe as 'all that exists'. Anything external to that is by definition 'nonexistent'.

Earlier you defined an existent object to be "Something that manifests physically in the universe[...]", but just here you've defined the universe as the totality or set of those things, which doesn't really get us anywhere.

When you're attempting to figure out whether God(Or anything else) exists, this is a problem.

[Rkrause]

But before 1915 science couldn't prove they did but the effects of viruses were real. Science can't prove God so the only way to learn about God is to experience it. That is my point. You are looking for proof in the wrong places and you know it.

You have done absolutely nothing to convince me that your purported 'right places' actually lead to valid, reliable knowledge. I have explained already why 'faith' does not lead to knowledge.

Either you are a bigot, close minded, dishonest with yourself or totally afraid (Christainphobe?) to experience it yourself and try to understand it from our level.

I am none of those things, though I have no doubt it makes you feel better to try and label me in as many derogatory lights as satisfies you. I am merely someone who values whether or not his beliefs are true, and so is not going to start using a demonstrably faulty system (faith) with absolutely no reason to do so.

You are asking me to jump off a cliff to see if I can fly and then calling me closed-minded and bigoted when I refuse. Either convince me that your system of faith demonstrably WORKS (ie: leads to actual reliable demonstrable results) or stop wasting both of our time by repeating over and over again for me to start using your system when you haven't even demonstrated any good reason why I should.

You are wrong...Knowledge leads to faith and thats why you need to attend church, pray and go to Bible studies.

I personally know two people who have done what I just said and gained faith.

[FaerieStories]

Ok. How do you usually prove something exists?
(1) You point to it. Show it to someone. Find it. So, if someone thought I was lying about being married, I could call my wife over and introduce her. Maybe she's a friend I've asked to pretend to be my wife. Maybe we're about to get a divorce, so she won't be my wife for long. But it's one way to prove something, not irrefutably.

(2) Accumulate evidence for its existence. Maybe my wife is out of town, so I can't show the person who thinks I am lying about her that I didn't make her up. But I could point to the various women's clothing articles in the closet, the marriage license in my safe, and the photos on the wall. Sure, I could have photoshopped the photos, bought a bunch of women's clothing, forged the license, but the data is there.

(3) Maybe someone thinks the woman I introduced is an actress, so they want to experiment. They see her in a bar, and continue to send various men and women to ask her out on a date. If she says yes, then she isn't my wife (or I guess she could be an adulteress). If she says no, that confirms my claim. But maybe she just wants to be alone, so it's not conclusive proof.

(4) Maybe I'm in a philosophy class, and the professor is more annoying than usual. He's wanting me to prove my wife exists as an essay question on an exam. As a result, I develop some unwieldy (and ultimately flawed) logical syllogism to prove the existence of my wife. In theory, my argument could be water tight, but even then it would still be no stronger than its individual premises.

(5) Finally, suppose I am losing my mind. I am the one telling myself that my wife doesn't exist, and she doesn't exist because I don't exist, and so I can't have a wife and she can't be one. Hopefully, I'll follow Descartes here, "I think therefore I am." The very fact that I am doubting, that I am thinking these things at all, necessarily means that there must be something doing the thinking. Admittedly, the details of what this thinking thing exactly is aren't established, but my existence is a necessary presupposition for everything else that I do. Therefore, my reasons for doubting that my wife can be a wife (namely that her husband doesn't exist) fail.

Ok, that's a bit awkward, but hopefully it will illustrate.

The first way to prove something's existence is to just show it. "Seeing is believing." Unfortunately, God isn't visible, and most people don't get the opportunity that the gospel of John says that Thomas did, to put their fingers in the nail wounds in the hands of the risen Jesus.

Right. And you would think that a god who wanted to be believed in would give everyone that experience. But that's another matter.

The second way to prove something is just to accumulate evidence. Some apologists use this approach, and they point to archaeological artifacts, historical documents and the like to demonstrate the truth of the gospels. Unfortunately, huge claims take huge amounts of evidence, and the evidence for anything is almost never conclusive, so this approach won't work to demonstrate the existence of God.

Indeed. You are paraphrasing Sagan: 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'.

The third way to prove something is by experimentation. This is the method of science. It's probably a better approach than the previous two, but is less limited in scope. Some things you just can't prove by experiment. God's existence is one of them (unless you can think of an experiment that would work).

If god has in some way dipped his hand into the cosmic ocean and interacted in some way with the known universe, then theoretically there should always be something that can be experimented on. If it exists, science has the capacity to find it. That's not to say that it can at present, but it has the potential to in the future.

The fourth way to prove something is by philosophical argument. This is normally deductive, whereas science is inductive. Some apologists have tried this, with arguments like the cosmological argument, the ontological argument, the teleological argument. The problem is that your deductive arguments always begin with a first premise, which is always assumed. Often there are additional assumptions. So as you noted for the cosmological argument: why must we assume God is uncaused? Why must the universe be caused? So, there just isn't any conclusive deductive proof for the existence of God.

Yes. And in any case, you can't prove a positive through reason alone. You can prove a negative thorough reason alone- for example I can prove to you that a box in a room cannot contain the Eiffel Tower without looking inside it or shaking it, but I cannot prove to you that it contains a can of coke without looking in it or shaking it.

The final way is an a priori form of argument. We must assume that we exist in order to be having this discussion. It's a pre-requisite for thinking. In the same way, some apologists suggest that faith in God, and not just in any God but in the Trinitarian God, is a pre-requisite for forming a coherent worldview. For making sense of the world. For developing an explanation for how we think, how there can be good and evil, and so forth. This is called "presuppositional apologetics."

aka: god of the gaps. We have no good explanation therefore we will just fill the gap of our knowledge with god. Lack of any other option does not make this option any more viable.

So where does this leave us? I can't point to God, but that's no problem for me because God is invisible, but I do believe that I have experiences of God. I can't conclusively prove that God exists by evidence, even though I think there is enough evidence to show that there is historical plausibility behind many Biblical events, and not enough counter evidence to persuade me to abandon my position. I can't conclusively prove that God exists through science, but that's ok by me. I wouldn't turn to science for a question like that anyway. And I can't develop a logical syllogism to prove that God exists. There are some arguments that make some sense, but only if you are already a Christian. They do some small thing to strengthen my faith, but I would never expect anyone to convert over them.

Therefore, I take the last approach. I say that there are some basic things that a worldview must be able to make sense of in order to function. It must explain knowledge, morality, human nature, communication, history, society.

You are taking your conclusion and fitting everything else around that. Things like morality, human nature, communication history and society can all be explained completely secularly. Even if they couldn't- this does no mean we have any right to jump to the conclusion of 'god' just because we ant that to be the case.

[scourge99]

Kayky:
There is such a thing as religious experience (woo woo, scourge).

LOL. I thought that might get your attention!

The debaters i respect aren't proud of trollish behavior like baiting.

You misunderstand or are deliberately misrepresenting.

I don't think anyone doubts that people have certain experiences. What is dubious is that these experiences are attributed to magic/supernatural/paranormal/spirit.

It's especially dubious if you believe that the scientific method is our only source of understanding.

I'm discussing knowledge and justified belief. Your talk about "sources of understanding" is a redherring. Or worse, more obfuscation.

And as stated repeatedly before, i do not claim science is the only possible way to know. But if someone proposes another methodology then its necessary that there be some way to confirm its reliability.

And the problem you repeatedly overlook is your assumption that the experience you had is spiritual/magical/supernatural/paranormal.

You are assuming that I am assuming. I look at it this way. How do these experiences affect how I operate in the world?



I find that they have assisted me in three ways:

1. They have brought me emotional healing, sometimes instantaneously.

2. They have made me a more loving and hence more moral human being.

3. They have provided me with a sense of groundedness and peace and made me more comfortable in my own skin.

You are avoiding the problem. That you find your beliefs useful is irrelevant to whether they are actually true. E.G., It may be extraordinarily comforting to believe certain things (for example, that I am the most beautiful person in the world or that i will be reunited with loved ones after i die,) but our beliefs must not take precedence over reality, because reality cannot be fooled.

When do these experiences occur? They occur only when I make a conscious decision to "seek God."

Many non-theists accomplish all that without such beliefs. That you require faux beliefs to accomplish those things you listed is a personal failing on your part alone. Similarly, some Christians claim that without a belief in god then they would be hedonistic, rapists, and criminals. It appears you suffer from a similar defect but in different aspect.

False dichotomy.

The question is this:
1. Is this something generated only by the brain? How do i know or find out?

2. Is this something i actually encountered larger than myself or not? How do i know or find out?

Well, you certainly can't find out by using the scientific method.

Then present an alternative method and explain how we can verify the reliability of this method.

Like it or not, there are questions that science will never be able to answer.

I have never claimed that science can or cannot answer everything we can meaningfully ask. I simply don't know.

Your blind faith that science cannot is quite telling.

Does that mean these questions should be simply ignored?

Which questions exactly?

Your question demands certainty.

Wrong. I do not claim certainty. Never have.

I think an authentic spirituality involves a certain humility toward the encounter with mystery. Not everything has to be explained.

If anyone here should be charged with attempting to explain away mysteries and a lack of humility, it is you. I'm perfectly fine without absolute certainty and complete knowledge. You are the one who invents answers to mysteries with nothing to justify them but emotional desire. Your list is indisputable proof of that:

1. They have brought me emotional healing, sometimes instantaneously.

2. They have made me a more loving and hence more moral human being.

3. They have provided me with a sense of groundedness and peace and made me more comfortable in my own skin.

He/she directly stated that the science was the only method she knows to obtain knowledge. But she did not claim that science is the only way.

If you have some other reliable method then please present it and explain how we can verify its reliability.

The problem lies in your need for "reliability."

What exactly do you propose we use then if we are to discard reliable methods? Are you proposing that we should use unreliable methods or just invent answers based on intuition or whatever feels right?

[FaerieStories]

You are wrong...Knowledge leads to faith and thats why you need to attend church, pray and go to Bible studies.

I personally know two people who have done what I just said and gained faith.

So? Does it lead to results? Does it lead to something we can demonstrably prove to others to be true in some way?

Earlier you defined an existent object to be "Something that manifests physically in the universe[...]", but just here you've defined the universe as the totality or set of those things, which doesn't really get us anywhere.

When you're attempting to figure out whether God(Or anything else) exists, this is a problem.

Good point, and I would like to point out that I am well aware these definitions are loose and not very helpful, I have expressed to another user earlier. What would you suggest as the definitions for 'the universe' and 'to exist'?