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?).

[theopoesis]

You'll have to find your own reason for your own God (or lack thereof) in my view. But I'll share my story since not too many people have answered seriously as a theist on behalf of theists yet.

I believe in a Trinitarian God. One being eternally subsisting in three Persons.

The language there is quite precise: God is one being, one thing, one entity. But every entity, every being, every thing (everything even) subsists/exists in a specific determinate form. It exists in a specific fashion, in a specific way, etc. One way of existing is to exist as a Person. For a human being, this would mean that our ontology (human nature, DNA/cells, whatever way you want to look at it) exists in a specific way we would call "personal." To be a person, we might suggest several attributes are required: (1) consciousness; (2) volition; (3) agency; (4) self-awareness; (5) relationality. God, I am saying, is a single being that exists simultaneously as three persons, much like a triplicated version of the way that a single human being exists as a single person.

Ok, thank you for the clarification.

The typical response around here is to say that the Trinity is a logically incomprehensible concept, so I've learned if I mention it, I go ahead and explain it in a precise way. Plus, the unity in diversity is relevant for later arguments.

There are more problems with that cosmological argument than those you have just listed. Firstly: that everything must have a cause is an assumption and not an inherently undeniable truth. Secondly: who says this cause need be a god? Thirdly: why does this god not need a cause? And if you're willing to say this go can be causeless, why not adhere to Occam's razor and remove a step from the equation and say that the universe is causeless?

I'm aware you don't subscribe to that argument but I thought I'd throw those out there anyway.

I think your points would fall under "most evidentialist philosophical arguments don't stand up under scrutiny." What you fail to apprehend is that I am not arguing against the cosmological argument, but against the evidentialist approach that would even suggest an argument like the cosmological argument in the first place.

So we reach the second school: the presuppositionalists. (Of course, this is very simplified and we could create a much more complex schema if we so desired). The presuppositionalist suggests that there is no archimedian point (Herman Dooyeweerd). This goes back to the famous story of Archimedes, a geometrician, who said of a lever, "Give me a place to stand on, and I shall move the earth." Of course, there is nowhere to stand, and therefore no way to use a lever to move the earth. Similarly, if we are to seek a way to change our worldview, we must find a place of sufficient leverage outside of our worldview. The problem is that any thinking we do already occurs within our worldview, and is already skewed by it. Therefore, our presuppositions, our accepted worldview, shapes any conclusions that we may reach, thereby undermining the true neutrality of our analysis. How do we discern the truth, then? For smaller questions (what is 2+2) there is very little that any worldview can do to skew our answers. For larger questions (when is it acceptable to kill someone, or is it) we begin to see a larger divergence of answers partly as a result of the divergence of worldviews. But when we reach meta-theoretical questions (is there a God? What is the meaning of life? What is my fundamental identity and purpose? Why do I suffer?), worldview means everything. What this means is that certain brute experiences, certain philosophical commitments, certain psychological dispositions, inevitably lead to certain conclusions, or at least to certain possible conclusions. As I see it, there are only two ways to really shift a worldview: (1) to have dramatic new experiences or psychological dispositions; (2) to reach a point of crisis where current philosophical commitments can no longer adequately explain reality and where new commitments must therefore be adopted. Therefore, the presuppositionalist is always focused on two related questions: (1) does my worldview correspond to my experiences and psychological existence? (2) does my worldview offer adequate coherence and sufficiently explain the world around me, or am I at a point of crisis?

I would agree with you if we were talking about something subjective, like morality. But for anything objective- like the existence of something- there is a right and a wrong answer and therefore your 'worldview' is irrelevent as to whether something is right or wrong. All that matters is evidence.

What I'm suggesting here is that the objectivity which you speak of in meta-theoritical questions like this is illusory. It does not exist. It's impossible. For example, in saying "all that matters is evidence" you are already operating within an empiricist epistemology, i.e. within a worldview that says that truth is determined inductively through evidence. However, there are many other worldviews with many other epistemologies. I am operating within an epistemology which is built upon a priori reasoning. It asks, "what set of assumptions allows me to logically function the most successfully." It's argument of choice is not the inductive or even deductive, but the reductio ad absurdam. Even your fundamental question is based on an assumed premise. So again, I think the best questions would test how far your assumed premises can really get you. Do they hold up to scrutiny, or are they self defeating? But instead of considering this, you are simply-reasserting your presuppositionally determined demand for evidentialist arguments, which I above explained were faulty.

I believe in God because I encounter God in everything around me.

What do you mean by this exactly?

This paragraph sums up the two bases of presuppositionalist thought: brute experience, logical consistency. I experience God in many ways all around me in the experience of life, and I interpret everything in light of Trinitarian intellectual commitments. I then elaborated on this in the next paragraph.

If you are asking how I experience God, then there are multiple answers. It can be the recognition of beauty inspiring a sense of worship. It can be in seeing purpose in the unfolding of events. It can be in daily prayers which offer comfort and strength. It is in the ideas which make up my identity and help me to understand myself, in the understanding of why I do what I do. It is through the "knowledge of the numinous" to use the theological term, just the experience of something transcendent. But even experience is ultimately fed through interpretative heuristics. Our mind has to learn what to make of experiences, how to respond to them, how to categorize them.

Furthermore, certain philosophical views seem to answer fundamental questions better than the alternatives.

It's a fallacy to assume that because one school of thought can't find something out, another must automatically be correct.

Not what I'm arguing.

Let's think of it this way. Suppose you are using reason through empirical analysis to determine whether God exists. You decide he doesn't. You then communicate your beliefs to another individual, and in that communication, you conclude that belief in God is actually evil.

Now, let's also suppose that you spend some time analyzing your worldview, and you realize that it cannot validate our ability to know and use reason, our ability to communicate, or our ability to say that good or evil exists.

At best, you are inconsistent. At worst, your worldview is woefully inadequate.

Now, there are those who, using the epistemological argument, the linguistic argument, and the moral argument for the existence of God would accuse you the secularist of doing exactly those things. And they would say, "I cannot conclusively prove God, but God allows me to validate reason and communication, and to make moral judgments. You condemn me because I have one belief which I cannot validate: God. But I condemn you because you have three beliefs which you cannot: reason, communication, morality." That would be a weak form of my argument. "You cannot validate something, you cannot explain it, therefore your view is wrong."

I'm ultimately going to take things a step further: I'll say that not only can you not validate these things, but that many of the greatest secular minds of the last two centuries have actually said that such things do not even exist. There is no morality, there is no truth, there is no communication. So this means two things: (1) Your worldview depends upon your use of truth (etc) but then says that truth itself does not exist. Therefore, it is a self-defeating worldview. and (2) Truth, communication, and morality do seem to exist, and therefore your worldview doesn't seem to correspond to the evidence.

The latter is the sort of argument I'd make (though in a much more complex way). A worldview's inability to explain something doesn't make the alternative true, but it does give me a good reason to not accept that worldview. But I've got to have some worldview, some way of thinking and making sense of the world. And, though I grant Christianity will always partly depend upon faith, I do not see where it is self-defeating, and I do find it has superiority to other worldviews in how well it works. And so I accept the worldview that seems best to me.

but if you ask for a reason why I believe, the first and most simple answer must be that I just do.

Well yes, I had a feeling it might come down to that. From a debating standpoint that's a dead-end. There's nothing I can say to refute that and simultaneously, that is no reason for you to be able to prove or validate your beliefs to anyone else (though I think you are aware of that).

I'm trying to suggest that faith or lack thereof is more basic, more fundamental than, prior to argument. Even if you argued your way into belief or lack of belief. "Why was the third convincing argument the breaking point rather than the second or fourth?" "I don't know. It just was."

I very clearly said that I don't expect this to answer any questions for you. But I think I've also been pretty clear that this shouldn't be a dead-end for the debate. I suggested (and this is fairly standard sociology of knowledge here) that we abandon our worldviews, our philosophical systems, when we reach a point of crisis, when the worldview fails, when we uncover a fatal flaw or contradiction. Presumably, neither of us at this point are in a state of crisis. Still, you are asking for an argument for the existence of God as if I could give you a simple argument and then *bam* you'd believe. I guess that happens sometimes, but more often what is needed is that point of crisis. It would be better for us to argue on any number of issues, and if your worldview reaches a crisis, if it encounters enough internal contradictions, enough questions it won't answer, then you'll no longer be entrenched behind it, and you'd be open to considering Christianity. I could explain to you how Christianity resolves the contradictions, answers the unanswerable questions, and then you'd be likely to convert. Or, perhaps your worldview is superior, it would stand up to my arguments, but your counterarguments would crush my worldview by uncovering contradictions, weaknesses, unanswerable questions. Then I'd reach the point of crisis, you could explain where your worldview resolved the issues, and I could de-convert.

But to sit around looking for a one-size-fits all argument for the existence of God seems a waste of time to me. More on this below.

I'd suggest to you a slight change in approach, a change which, to be honest, I'd love to see from pretty much everyone here. Instead of focusing on the question of "does God exist", why don't we focus on questions like, "how can a system of morality exist?", "how does communication work?", "what is the human being?", "how should society function?", "how do we know what we know?", "what is the best kind of historiography?", "what role do beliefs play in politics or economics?", and so forth. If my claims are correct, most people won't convert or de-convert as a result of a philosophical argument for the existence of a God. But if we see how our respective world views are able to answer these sorts of questions, we'll both learn more about how to apply our world views, and about their weaknesses. And perhaps, we'll find what we believe is inadequate as a worldview. Then, the obligatory debates about whether Jesus existed, whether Nicea was a Constantinian conspiracy, and so forth can be a sideshow instead of the main course around here.

meh, just wishful thinking.

I shall respectfully disagree on that one. Your other questions are all perfectly good debating points, but I see nothing wrong with getting to the heart of the matter. In my mind, regardless of how this belief has come about- it all comes down to the very simple case that some people believe something exists which others do not. And so the question of whether or not this claim is true is highly relevant.

Again, I think this is an example of a worldview's presuppositions being played out. To the non-theist, God is a non-existing thing, and so the fundamental question is whether God exists. The non-theist thinks the answer is no, and so the point of discussion is in defense of that conclusion in order to undermine the opposition's viewpoints. If no God exists, who could possibly care about what that non-existent God supposedly thinks or does or says? To the theist, God exists, but the fact of his existence is one of the least important things about him. God's plan, God's offer of salvation, God's purpose for humanity, God's standards of morality, God's beauty, God's forgiveness, God's second coming, God's judgment, God's presence or distance - these are all fundamentally more important questions to the theist. The theist usually isn't just a generic theist - "some God exists." Rather, the theist is a specific kind of theist - "Trinitarian Christian", "Unitarian Christian", "Sunni Muslim", "Sufi Muslim", "Zoroastrian", whatever. God's mere existence, though believed in, has very little relevance for the theist apart from the broader system of religion. Therefore, the theist wants to discuss the religion as a package deal. Even if we proved the existence of God, it still wouldn't answer any of the questions we think are important. I would say that it's not a "Very simple case of some people believing a thing exists that others do not." Rather, it's a "very complex case of some people building their entire life, system of thought, and self-understanding on a different premise than others."

Therefore, since I think that the existence of God, though important, doesn't really answer any of the big questions anyway, and since I do not accept the inductive empiricist approach to establishing God's existence, I do not offer evidentialist arguments for the mere existence of God.

[FaerieStories]

Still, you are asking for an argument for the existence of God as if I could give you a simple argument and then *bam* you'd believe.

I don't believe this to be an unreasonable request. You and I are both intelligent human beings, perfectly capable of learning and finding things out. Any way that you have been able to find out that a god exists should surely be available to me.

To the non-theist, God is a non-existing thing, and so the fundamental question is whether God exists. The non-theist thinks the answer is no

Or 'maybe'. Or 'not sure'. Or 'we can't possibly know'.

[Rkrause]

Still, you are asking for an argument for the existence of God as if I could give you a simple argument and then *bam* you'd believe.

I don't believe this to be an unreasonable request. You and I are both intelligent human beings, perfectly capable of learning and finding things out. Any way that you have been able to find out that a god exists should surely be available to me.

To the non-theist, God is a non-existing thing, and so the fundamental question is whether God exists. The non-theist thinks the answer is no

Or 'maybe'. Or 'not sure'. Or 'we can't possibly know'.

Have you seriously tried Bible studies and church and prayer as a means to find God. I am talking seriously not a one time deal but a long term commitment?

[LiamOS]

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

How are you defining existence?

[scourge99]

Welcome, Faeriestories

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

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.

If you have one, you then have to decide what to do with it.

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

Is this something generated only by the human brain, or have I actually encountered something larger than myself?

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?

If you believe that the scientific method is the only way to obtain knowledge, you will probably insist that it is the former.

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.

Is God the right word to describe what has been encountered? Maybe not. But it takes a long time to type "ground of all being" with your thumbs.

Typical equivocation by a liberal Christian. Please say what you mean instead of obfuscating.

[theopoesis]

Still, you are asking for an argument for the existence of God as if I could give you a simple argument and then *bam* you'd believe.

I don't believe this to be an unreasonable request. You and I are both intelligent human beings, perfectly capable of learning and finding things out. Any way that you have been able to find out that a god exists should surely be available to me.

I've explained to you in great detail the way that I came to become a Christian. It was not through a single argument for the existence of a God. I've explained to you in great detail my understanding of how worldviews work or why people change. It is not as a result of a single argument for the existence of a God. I've also explained that God's existence is about as relevant to me as the existence of my wife. I'm glad she does, but I'm much more concerned about other aspects of our relationship.

It seems like you're either not understanding or are ignoring most of what I say about why this discussion, in my opinion, should proceed on other grounds than on evidentialist arguments for the existence of God. And I agree that we are both, indeed, intelligent human beings, perfectly capable of learning and finding things out. Thus, it would seem possible that we could learn to examine the debate outside of the basic "arguments for the existence of God" approach.

I'll be happy to dialogue more if you are willing to address my arguments in the prior two posts. Or, if they made no sense, I'd be happy to try to clarify. But re-asserting the need for an argument for the existence of God in spite of my claim that such an assertion is a result of empiricist epistemology (which I do not hold to) and proves only generic theism (which I do not hold to, I believe in trinitarian Christianity), is like me asking you to prove a generic deism (which you do not seem to hold) through using a Bible-only approach to arguing (which you also do not hold). It's a silly request, especially if you had made effort to describe in great detail why your approach was otherwise.

Anyway, welcome to the forum, and best of luck to you here.

[FaerieStories]

Have you seriously tried Bible studies and church and prayer as a means to find God. I am talking seriously not a one time deal but a long term commitment?

No. I haven't tried a Oujji board seance either. I haven't gone looking in the Himalayas for yetis, or lived in a cave for 2 years to try and develop my powers of telepathy. I have, so far, no good reason to try any of these things, and plenty of good reasons as to why doing these things would be a waste of my time.

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.

[theopoesis]

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

Do interest rates exist?

If so, what is their physical nature?

If not, where does the money in my savings account come from?

(couldn't resist. Ok, off to lunch)

[FaerieStories]

I've also explained that God's existence is about as relevant to me as the existence of my wife. I'm glad she does, but I'm much more concerned about other aspects of our relationship.

But that's because no-one (presumably) has outright questioned her existence to you. If someone were to disbelieve your wife exists, then suddenly the question of her existence would be relevant- at least insofar as the amount of time it would take you to swiftly silence the doubting voice.

It seems like you're either not understanding or are ignoring most of what I say about why this discussion, in my opinion, should proceed on other grounds than on evidentialist arguments for the existence of God. And I agree that we are both, indeed, intelligent human beings, perfectly capable of learning and finding things out. Thus, it would seem possible that we could learn to examine the debate outside of the basic "arguments for the existence of God" approach.

Well in that case maybe I was a little hasty in asserting we are both on equal footing, for I am completely out of my depth in your approach towards this question. I am not sure I quite follow yet. Why YOU believe seems to boil down to your personal experience- which can be neither refuted nor debated. But the other question: why anyone else should believe- I am still unclear as to what you are asserting.

But re-asserting the need for an argument for the existence of God in spite of my claim that such an assertion is a result of empiricist epistemology (which I do not hold to) and proves only generic theism (which I do not hold to, I believe in trinitarian Christianity), is like me asking you to prove a generic deism (which you do not seem to hold) through using a Bible-only approach to arguing (which you also do not hold). It's a silly request, especially if you had made effort to describe in great detail why your approach was otherwise

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?

[FaerieStories]

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

Do interest rates exist?

If so, what is their physical nature?

If not, where does the money in my savings account come from?

(couldn't resist. Ok, off to lunch)

Within the context of what I was talking about, existence has a specific meaning. For the purposes of this argument, metaphysical things like 'happiness' or 'justice' are not really relevant to the discussion. For the purposes of the discussion, I am using 'exist' to mean something external to the productions of the human mind. AKA: physical things.