Why do you believe in God?

[McCulloch]

The arguments for believing that there is a God can be categorized as follows:

1. Four Classical Arguments
2. The Argument from First Cause
   1. Everything must have a cause
   2. Causal Chains cannot go on forever
   3. Therefore there must be a first cause, and that is God.
3. The Argument from Design
   1. Something in the universe or the universe itself seems to be designed
   2. Therefore a designer must exist and that is God
4. The Argument from the Anthropic Principle
   1. The universal constants are fine tuned for the existence of humans.
   2. Therefore there must have been a God to fine tune the universe for our existence
5. The Ontological Argument
   1. God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.
   2. Assume that God does not exist.
   3. An existent God is a being greater than a non-existent one
   4. If God did not exist, then we could conceive of a being greater than God -- A God that exists.
   5. This is a contradiction, therefore (2) must be false and God exists
   Courtesy of Saint Anselm.

1. Four Subjective Arguments
2. The Argument from Coincidence
   1. There have been some remarkable coincidences.
   2. There must be a reason for those coincidences.
   3. That reason is God.
3. The Argument from Prophecy
   1. A holy book makes prophesies.
   2. A holy book or the adherents of it report that those prophesies have come true.
   3. Therefore whatever else is in the book, such as the claim that God exists must be true.
4. The Argument from Subjectivity and Faith
   1. People feel sure that God exists.
   2. Therefore God exists.
5. The Argument from Divine Interventions, Miracles and such
   1. A miracle occurs, perhaps as a response to prayer.
   2. God exists as evidenced by the divine intervention

1. Four Psycho-Mathematical Arguments
2. The Argument from Redefinition
   1. God is Love or Goodness or some other such thing.
   2. Love, goodness or whatever, clearly exists.
   3. Therefore God exists.
3. The Argument from Cognitive Tendency
   1. Some cognitive tendencies suggest the existence of an all-powerful agent.
   2. God must be that all-powerful agent
4. The Universality Argument and Morality
   1. Across cultures, the similarities in moral values are quite apparent.
   2. They must come from God
5. The Gambling Argument
   1. We can choose to believe or not in God.
   2. If we choose wrongly then negative consequences of choosing to disbelieve are greater than the negative consequences of choosing to believe.
   3. Therefore it is prudent to believe.

The classifications and much of the synopses are from John Allen Paulos, Professor of Mathematics at Temple University, in his book Irreligion, A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up As fallacious as these might seem, these seriously are the arguments put forth by philosophers, theologians, saints, apologists and preachers.

These are the arguments for God. There are numerous subtle variations on them, but essentially, as far as I can tell those who claim that God exists do so based on one or more of these arguments and nothing else.

Why should I believe that there is a God? What are your reasons? Are any of these reasons valid? If your reasons do not fall into any of the above groupings, please let us know why you believe. If you believe for a combination of these reasons, select the strongest one and explain why.

[catholic crusader]

If Christ is a myth, religionists have constructed tales motivated by human agendas. We have no way of determining the actual reasons behind construction of the myth -- though we can speculate that they were related to promotion of a new religion in competition with existing religions of the era (and in need of product differentiation).

1. The movie isn't a pro christian movie. It's actually extreme anti christian.
2. The mythical elements actually derive from earlier pre existing religions. Adding elements of familiarity probably aided in wide spread acceptance and enhanced conversions.

(and in need of product differentiation)

The mythical elements where actually borrowed from other religions and enhanced similarity not differentiation.

[OnceConvinced]

You are right, he is not quite like my real friends, he is more dependable. When random actions happen far more than probability would allow, they are no longer random.

I guess your the sort of person who does not trust people. You're the sort of person who would say "If you want something done right, do it yourself"?

If I want something done right I will turn it over to God. And definitely not trust myself.

So in other words you'll do it yourself but give credit to God.

It seems to me you may also be the sort of person who doesn't give yourself enough credit for your own strengths.

I had a very strong faith as a Christian. Whether you want to believe that or not it's true. I did not play at being a Christian, I lived it. I believed without a doubt I had a relationship with God.

It seems my point has washed completely over your head. No I was not trying to be humorous. One of the skills of debate is to be able to look at other people's point of view and argue from their perspective. If God exists and I was never a true Christian, then he allowed me to be fooled for 30+ years. So how can you be so sure he's not doing the same for you?

There may be some logic there, but it is a bit twisted. You almost sound like you believe that there is a God but you just don't want any part of him. If you want to talk about how God let you down, I would welcome a PM.
As for me, if God exists, I am his to do with as he wills, if it humors him to 'fool' me then so be it.

Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain mine own ways before him.

I never saw God as that and if he is like that, then he doesn't strike me as a God worthy of worship.

I tend to automatically look at things from a Christian perspective, because it's a habit I haven't broken. Sometimes those perspectives can get a little mixed up as I'm writing and probably leaves me open to misinterpretation. When I first deconverted I classed myself as a Deist, but since then I've come to the conclusion there is not even enough evidence of God to support even that stance. So now I call myself agnostic.

If you want to, feel free to check out these threads where I talk about my deconversion and my life as a Christian:

Member spotlight
What made you give up?
Was I a true Christian?

[OnceConvinced]

.


If Christ is a myth,

What a safe place...If, If, If IF.....

So you would rather he made a decision one way or another and become closed minded to any other possibilities?

I personally think Religion in general is a nice safe place.

[Zzyzx]

.

If Christ is a myth,

What a safe place...If, If, If IF.....

Do you claim that Christ is a real, historical figure?

Can you provide evidence other than religious propaganda to show that Christ actually existed as something other than a myth?

OR,

Do you prefer to continue playing it safe by avoiding actual debate of issues while making disparaging comments from the sidelines?

[Cathar1950]

.

If Christ is a myth,

What a safe place...If, If, If IF.....

Do you claim that Christ is a real, historical figure?

Can you provide evidence other than religious propaganda to show that Christ actually existed as something other than a myth?

OR,

Do you prefer to continue playing it safe by avoiding actual debate of issues while making disparaging comments from the sidelines?

I have noticed the same. Which is more safe, "If" or a positive claim without any thought on the issues? His one-liners are getting anoying.

[Zzyzx]

.

His one-liners are getting anoying.

The one-liners by some present religious promoters and by the late "crusaders" who seem to be largely absent lately are USEFUL. Refusal to debate honorably (instead, imitating cheerleaders on the sidelines) demonstrates very effectively for all to see that proponents of fundamentalism and literalism cannot present convincing arguments in debate to defend the claims they make for their favorite invisible super beings or their favorite religious literature and dogma.

[Cathar1950]

.

His one-liners are getting anoying.

The one-liners by some present religious promoters and by the late "crusaders" who seem to be largely absent lately are USEFUL. Refusal to debate honorably (instead, imitating cheerleaders on the sidelines) demonstrates very effectively for all to see that proponents of fundamentalism and literalism cannot present convincing arguments in debate to defend the claims they make for their favorite invisible super beings or their favorite religious literature and dogma.

On the God or gods question I tend to think the jury is still out as there is no real agreement as to what is meant by deity that alone proof that anyones pet god is real. God exists at least as a concept or concepts and there is little sense to any Biblical God where loyality is more important then understanding but those that claim writings by humans are somehow the "Word of God" and fail to take in to account their history development and selection are simply playing mind games, largely with themselves.

[twobitsmedia]

.

Do you claim that Christ is a real, historical figure?

Yes I do. I guess I could play it safe like you and just say IF...

Can you provide evidence other than religious propaganda to show that Christ actually existed as something other than a myth?

Your mantra is so tiring.

OR,

Do you prefer to continue playing it safe by avoiding actual debate of issues while making disparaging comments from the sidelines?

LOL You need to look in a mirror. It was you and wrekk that started this "comments from the sideline" whole thing........ Apparently the moderators allow you to bait and flame personalities you pass it off as "good debate." LOL LOL!!.

[twobitsmedia]

.

If Christ is a myth,

What a safe place...If, If, If IF.....

Do you claim that Christ is a real, historical figure?

Can you provide evidence other than religious propaganda to show that Christ actually existed as something other than a myth?

OR,

Do you prefer to continue playing it safe by avoiding actual debate of issues while making disparaging comments from the sidelines?

I have noticed the same. Which is more safe, "If" or a positive claim without any thought on the issues? His one-liners are getting anoying.

And Cathar adds another one liner about one liners...... Double

[twobitsmedia]

So you would rather he made a decision one way or another and become closed minded to any other possibilities?

I know you are easily taken in by his "complements", but others have more personal esteem. Present another possibility IF you can.

I personally think Religion in general is a nice safe place.

I do too