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?).

[99percentatheism]

It seems that the ground beneath our feet and the stars way above our heads is a sensible fact to believe that some Thing is at work other than utterly nothing do it all.

Go from 'some Thing is at work' to any specific religion.

Why?

Also, nobody says 'nothing does it all'.

The math proves that atheism is just that. You can pretend that atheism is some polite refrain from theology, and sometimes it may be, but, the literal bottom line to atheism is that nothing created something. In fact, everything to date.

See dear forum readers, this is my 'intellectual dishonesty' point in action.

No matter how many times you point somebody to a dictionary, no matter how many times you keep repeating that ATHEISM SAYS NOTHING ABOUT WHO CREATED WHAT, it still gets ignored or misquoted or just flat out lied about it.
atheism as creatio ex nihilo, you should be ashamed. Stop lying.

'the math proves ' 'the literal bottom line' 'in fact, everything to date'
The only thing you seem to have proven is how unwilling you are to debate honestly, and all here are witness to it.

You must have never heard of Daniel Dennott, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris eta ll, John Does 1 to 100 incluisve . . .

The argument goes like this: There is NO GOD. Evolution caused (created) us.

How? We ask.

'intellectual dishonesty'

Ummmm, dear forum readers, that accusation, or rather red herring, just doesn't cut it. Per the dictionary:

in-tel-lec-tu-al (ntl-kch-l)
adj.
1.
a. Of or relating to the intellect.
b. Rational rather than emotional.
2. Appealing to or engaging the intellect: an intellectual book; an intellectual problem.
3.
a. Having or showing intellect, especially to a high degree. See Synonyms at intelligent.
b. Given to activities or pursuits that require exercise of the intellect

dishonesty [dsnst]
n pl -ties
1. lack of honesty or fairness; deceit
2. (Law) a deceiving act or statement; fraud

It is neither un-intellectual or dishonest to define atheism as the belief that nothing caused everything to be just because a purveyor of atheism demands that to be so. Especially when applying intellectual honesty.

[FaerieStories]

Your ability to surmise what God would or would not do is astounding..

Not really. It's not a huge leap of logic to assume that a god who wanted to be believed in, would make himself be believed in.

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.

Your view of philosophy of science is more ambitious than most philosophers of science that I've read, except strong proponents of scientism like EO Wilson. I've written extensively on my views of scientism elsewhere, but we need to get you to understand a priori vs. a posteriori first.

"Sciencism"? Isn't that one of those buzzwords used by people who don't understand science and think it's akin to a religion, a bit like how creationists use the word "evolutionism"? What is 'sciencism'?

So in essence you're asking for proof for the existence of God, but you know it can't be given through deductive philosophy, sight, or science.

Uh, no, don't put words in my mouth. I know it can't be given through deductive philosophy. It CAN be given through sight and science.

Why bother asking?

Because clearly some people actually do believe it, and we can't both be correct.

No, not aka God of the gaps. You say secularism can explain communication.

What? No, I did not say that. Putting words in my mouth yet again. 'Securalism' is not a tool for explaining things. I said communication can be explained secularly with tools such as biology, sociology and psychology.

I'm saying knowledge of God is synthetic a priori, meaning it is a proposition whose predicate concept is not contained in its subject concept (i.e. not the ontological argument), but whose justification does not rely upon experience but is neessary axiomatically.

For example, in order to pursue science, you must accept the law of cause and effect. But this is not a matter of experience (Hume debunked this), nor is it analytic: "everything has a cause" isnt tautologically true. But it is a necessary axion for science.

Of course it's a matter of experience. How absurd to say that it isn't. Science has proved to us again and again that it works- and that means that whatever it is doing, it is doing something right. By experience we know that science's study of cause and effect is indeed successful. If it wasn't, you and I would not be having this conversation using bits of metal and plastic to send messages along thin bits of metal wire.

And I'm not saying I want there to be a God so I believe. I'm saying I have experiences that seem to be of God.

...and then you make the logical leap that they are indeed of god? How do you get from A (you have experiences) to B (those experiences must have been god)?

f I grant these experiences, I can build a worldview that is not self defeating. If I deny them, I reject my experiences and wind up with a worldview that, in my mind, as a result of postmodernism, is self defeating. So its logic + experiences + God, or its nihilism.

I could come up with a hundred different worldviews, none of which self-defeating, and none of them could be proven to be true. What of it? Filling a gap in knowledge just because something can't be proved not to be the case is incredibly flawed logic.

[Mithrae]

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.

Howdy Faerie, welcome to the forum

I've read up to page 5 of the thread, and I hope you'd agree with me that our happy little forum has some very intelligent, reasonable people who nevertheless hold quite different views from different perspectives. I've spent much time through the years wondering why and how this could be so - how it could be possible that Truth is not evident to everyone? That said, I think a little clarification of my own opinions and yours might help avoid any misunderstanding of your question. I'll write in point form to keep it brief.


A> Besides my own existence nothing is certain (see solipsism).

B> There are assumptions underlying all my knowledge, first and foremost that there's reality beyond my mind, and that what I see, hear or touch are generally reliable indicators of it.

C> While everything is uncertain, some things are more certain than others; I can be far more assured of my parents' existence than the existence of Jupiter, for example.

D> Words like 'knowledge' and 'belief' reflect that spectrum of uncertainty; the notions which we hold in our mind spanning certainty, tautologies, epistemic axioms, personal experience, general knowledge, specialised knowledge, faith, paradigms, beliefs, preferences, hypotheses, speculations and imagination.

E> Even after granting the epistemic axioms in B, it's obvious that my personal experience accounts for only a tiny fraction of the things that I believe. I've never even seen Jupiter, for example, never seen an atom, never timed the orbits and rotations of earth or moon, never measured the speed of light.... In other words, my beliefs are overwhelmingly based on what I have been told by others. I think this would be true of everyone who isn't a solipsist.

F> There's many reasons we believe things from others, many of which are different ways of wanting to believe, but I'd say the primary ones are:
- - 1> Authority/indoctrination/paradigms, as in the case of parents, school teachers, prevailing culture and the mass media
- - 2> Evaluation of character, as when we believe a rumour from one workmate but not another, or take the nun's word rather than the convicted felon's
- - 3> Evaluation of methodology, such as our trust in a public education system more than a billionaire's private school, or our trust in various fields of science more than a mystic's proclamations


Would you agree with me so far? If not, what do you dispute?

If so, then since we obviously can't all have access to the same indoctrination or assessment of others' character, it seems to me that what you're asking for in this thread is something from within the scope of F3, correct?

If so, would you mind clarifying which methodological criteria you use in evaluating information from others, and which you would exclude as invalid or highly dubious? For example one criterion required by the natural sciences is that an observation must be repeatable by all other people with the inclination and equipment to see it, but this is a much less stringent criterion in the life sciences and especially the social sciences.

[FaerieStories]

Science is the best tool we have for learning about the physical universe. Nothing more.

Bingo! And if- as you have just agreed- god has interacted some way with the physical universe, then necessarily he must have left some sort of trace of him and therefore is potentially capable of being found through science.

The reason these studies are important to this debate is that they demonstrate that these experiences are not uniquely personal. Regardless of the religion involved, in their brains and other bodily functions, these people are having the same experience..

Well indeed, we all have very similar genetic makeups and often experience a lo of the same things in life.

Well, that's harsh.

No, it's realistic. I want nothing to do with someone like that. They are the worst sort of people. 'Debating' with a fundie is liking banging your head against a brick wall.

At least we've gotten past the point where my posts are viewed as not worthy of a response.

This isn't a competition, where posts are deemed 'worthy' or 'not worthy'. You made a post which I didn't really have anything to say about (but of course I still read and considered), and I have been spending enough of my time typing lengthy responses to at least 3 other people here, so it isn't anything to get upset about.

[FaerieStories]

Faeriestories:

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

I see two problems with this statement. First of all, how can we make assumptions about what God wants? Secondly, why would you assume that God goes around revealing himself to some while ignoring others? My experience has been that these experiences must be sought out and usually occur after a certain adeptness at spiritual practice has been achieved. So I believe this experience is available to anyone who seeks it with discipline.

I'm not making assumptions. I don't even believe in a god, remember? All I am saying is that IF there were a god who wanted to be believed in, he is doing a lousy job considering how many people don't believe in him.

As for point 2, explain to me please the people who have spent all their lives looking for god only to lose their faith, or convert to another religion. You're probably going to say something like 'they didn't try hard enough' or 'they weren't true christians'. Nonsense. No true scotsman fallacy. There are people who spend all their life questioning and trying to 'find god' only to fail, and there are others who never even bother ask themself the question of god's existence because they've been taught it since the cradle.

Would you agree with me so far? If not, what do you dispute?

Agree

IIf so, would you mind clarifying which methodological criteria you use in evaluating information from others, and which you would exclude as invalid or highly dubious? For example one criterion required by the natural sciences is that an observation must be repeatable by all other people with the inclination and equipment to see it, but this is a much less stringent criterion in the life sciences and especially the social sciences.

Right, exactly. In that case I need something observable, testable, repeatable, demonstrable. Anything less will not do, when the claim being made is this massive. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Anecdotal evidence such as the 'personal religious experience' may be well and good for the experiencee, but- as I have pointed out before in this thread- it cannot be used to justify anything to other people.

[Mithrae]

Would you agree with me so far? If not, what do you dispute?

Agree

If so, would you mind clarifying which methodological criteria you use in evaluating information from others, and which you would exclude as invalid or highly dubious? For example one criterion required by the natural sciences is that an observation must be repeatable by all other people with the inclination and equipment to see it, but this is a much less stringent criterion in the life sciences and especially the social sciences.

Right, exactly. In that case I need something observable, testable, repeatable, demonstrable. Anything less will not do, when the claim being made is this massive. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Anecdotal evidence such as the 'personal religious experience' may be well and good for the experiencee, but- as I have pointed out before in this thread- it cannot be used to justify anything to other people.

A person's experience may well justify things to others who evaluate their character - particularly honesty and soundness of judgement - highly enough to give creedence to their claims. That's my F2 above, and I think some measure of honesty is generally presumed; we're disinclined to believe conspiracy theories about aliens or communist global warming plots primarily because we don't think most information sources are lying to us. If we did think that, most of us wouldn't even know anything about scientific methodology, because our teachers, the media and websites could all be lying to us.

But I wonder why you say that the claim of theism is massive? Ultimately the most fundamental nature of reality is either thinking and choosing, or non-thinking and deterministic/random. Why would you say that one perspective is any stranger than the other?

If your criteria require something "observable, testable, repeatable, demonstrable," more akin to the natural sciences than the social sciences, you'll presumably agree that there's a certain deterministic bias there?

[Dantalion]

It seems that the ground beneath our feet and the stars way above our heads is a sensible fact to believe that some Thing is at work other than utterly nothing do it all.

Go from 'some Thing is at work' to any specific religion.

Why?

Also, nobody says 'nothing does it all'.

The math proves that atheism is just that. You can pretend that atheism is some polite refrain from theology, and sometimes it may be, but, the literal bottom line to atheism is that nothing created something. In fact, everything to date.

See dear forum readers, this is my 'intellectual dishonesty' point in action.

No matter how many times you point somebody to a dictionary, no matter how many times you keep repeating that ATHEISM SAYS NOTHING ABOUT WHO CREATED WHAT, it still gets ignored or misquoted or just flat out lied about it.
atheism as creatio ex nihilo, you should be ashamed. Stop lying.

'the math proves ' 'the literal bottom line' 'in fact, everything to date'
The only thing you seem to have proven is how unwilling you are to debate honestly, and all here are witness to it.

You must have never heard of Daniel Dennott, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris eta ll, John Does 1 to 100 incluisve . . .

The argument goes like this: There is NO GOD. Evolution caused (created) us.

How? We ask.

'intellectual dishonesty'

Ummmm, dear forum readers, that accusation, or rather red herring, just doesn't cut it. Per the dictionary:

in-tel-lec-tu-al (ntl-kch-l)
adj.
1.
a. Of or relating to the intellect.
b. Rational rather than emotional.
2. Appealing to or engaging the intellect: an intellectual book; an intellectual problem.
3.
a. Having or showing intellect, especially to a high degree. See Synonyms at intelligent.
b. Given to activities or pursuits that require exercise of the intellect

dishonesty [dsnst]
n pl -ties
1. lack of honesty or fairness; deceit
2. (Law) a deceiving act or statement; fraud

It is neither un-intellectual or dishonest to define atheism as the belief that nothing caused everything to be just because a purveyor of atheism demands that to be so. Especially when applying intellectual honesty.

It's funny how you provide the definition of intellectual dishonesty and then, once again, are guilty of it in that very same post.

1. Evolution is a fact. This is not open for debate.
2. Being an atheist doesn't say anything about views in regards to who or what created us. This really does not seem to get through to you, no matter how civil or uncivil it gets presented to you.
That, is intellectual dishonesty: you keep stating things that simply are not true, no matter what people say, no matter how often you are shown to be wrong. Intellectual dishonesty, looking at the term atheism, knowing it means 'lack of belief in a god' and thn keep twisting and turning and claiming that somehow that 'atheism' has a view on social justice, sexuality and abiogenesis.

[Filthy Tugboat]

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?).

Reason cannot, by itself, explain why there is reason. Science cannot, by itself, explan why there is science. Man's descovery and application of science are products of reason.

Is that a valid question? Why is there reason? What do you mean by reason? Do you mean an explanation for an event, i.e the reason tom broke the vase? Or do you mean the reasoning as in a method of reaching a conclusion? I would say the answer to the first definition is that due to cause and effect reasons for events occurring exist. The answer to the second definition is that reasoning exists because thought exists, consciousness exists. It is a distinct by product, if not the very function of thought.

Reason and science can explain the existence of matter, but cannot explain why there is matter.

I don't think that is a valid question at all. Is there an answer to this question?

They can explain the existence of the universe, but they cannot explain why there is a universe.

I don't think that is a valid question at all. Is there an answer to this question?

They can xplain the existence of life, but they cannot explain why there is life.

I don't think that is a valid question at all. Is there an answer to this question?

They can explain the existence of consciousness, but they cannot explain why there is consciousness.

I don't think that is a valid question at all. Is there an answer to this question?

Science is a critical aspect of human existence, but it cannot address the spiritual nature of man.

You might need to define 'spiritual nature' here, there are so many definitions for terminology like this and I find very few of them have any real meaning.

In theis respect, science is a dead end around which the Atheist refuses to reason.

The questions as far as I can see are invalid, there is no answer to them and what thy ask is not even clear.

Reason itself informs man of its limitations and, in doing so, directs him to the discovery of a force greater than himself --a supernatural force responsible for the origins of not only human existence but all existence, and which itself has always existed and will always exist. For most, the supernatural reveals itself in the Creator --God. Man seeks God's guidance through faith and prayer.

Care to actually support your assertions?

The Agnostic accepts the supernatural, but is not so sure of the form of its existence.

This is factually incorrect.

The Deist accepts that God created the universe and man's condition but left it to man to sort things out through reason.

This is factually incorrect.

Atheists almost always look for evidence from science. The problem is the tools of science are too primative to prove or disprove God nor is there any scientific field researching God.

Evidence from science? What does that even mean? Are you aware that the term "evidence" is not limited to science?

So the "proof" that believers have is never accepted and always rejected. Atheists will never find "proof" of God using their own accepted evidence.

As far as I'm aware, 'believers' have no proof that can actually be demonstrated to other people. Certainly none has ever been demonstrated to me.

[FaerieStories]

But I wonder why you say that the claim of theism is massive? Ultimately the most fundamental nature of reality is either thinking and choosing, or non-thinking and deterministic/random. Why would you say that one perspective is any stranger than the other?

The claim that there exists a magical being who is somehow in an external plane from everything we know is a massive one. The claim that we can know what this being has done is even bigger. The claim that this being personally interacts with every one of us is even bigger.

If your criteria require something "observable, testable, repeatable, demonstrable," more akin to the natural sciences than the social sciences, you'll presumably agree that there's a certain deterministic bias there?

What do you mean by this? As I have explained to others, if a god has dipped his hand into our universe in any way, he has in some way altered cause and effect and then can be potentially observed by science.

[McCulloch]

Than you are only left with one other option and that is to pray, go to church and a reliable Bible study and experience faith yourself. You are too stubborn to accept anything short of that.

I've gone that route. It does not convince me.

Than you reject learning by not participating in the learning process. You don't need faith to go to church, pray or go to a good Bible Study. Those activities will only bring you closer to learning about faith and God.

Romans 10:17
Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.

Quite the opposite in my case. The more I learned of and about the Bible, the less convinced I was about its validity. In fact, my advice to any atheist who is unfamiliar with the teachings of Christianity is to learn it from the source. I don't go to Russell or Dawkins to learn about Christianity; I don't go to the Bible or Behe to learn about Biology or Cosmology.

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.

I have experienced it. The fear that one tries to ignore while a Christian is that one is talking to an empty room when you think that you are praying.

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.

One should be careful about the effects of group think and confirmation bias.

How becoming a Christian changes peoples lives and thought patterns. Have you ever known anyone who has became a Christian?

Yes, more than a few. Myself included. Becoming a Muslim | Buddhist | Wiccan | Scientologist | Urantia Reader changes people's lives and thought patterns too. That does not mean that they are correct.

Why would you assume that God goes around revealing himself to some while ignoring others? My experience has been that these experiences must be sought out and usually occur after a certain adeptness at spiritual practice has been achieved. So I believe this experience is available to anyone who seeks it with discipline.

Isn't this the line used by every medium? Unlike science, mathematics and logic which is objective an repeatable, religion depends first on belief then experience.

Matter from nothing seems the fantasy. The question "what created the Creator" is so utterly devoid of worth, there is no reason to not believe that some Thing caused our reality to come into existence.

It seems that the ground beneath our feet and the stars way above our heads is a sensible fact to believe that some Thing is at work other than utterly nothing do it all.

So, a Cause.

G O D seems a good answer.

Philosophically, we all have to conclude that there is something which has no cause. I believe that the something is that which can be seen experienced and acknowledged by all to exist. Theists answer God, something they have a difficulty even defining.

The math proves that atheism is just that. You can pretend that atheism is some polite refrain from theology, and sometimes it may be, but, the literal bottom line to atheism is that nothing created something. In fact, everything to date.

No, not at all. To illustrate the fallacy of using the term nothing as if it was a thing: The math proves that theism is just that. You can pretend that theism is some polite refrain from philosophy, and sometimes it may be, but, the literal bottom line to theism is that nothing created God and God created everything else.