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?).

[kayky]

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

LOL. I thought that might get your attention!

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.

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.

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

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. Like it or not, there are questions that science will never be able to answer. Does that mean these questions should be simply ignored?

Your question demands certainty. That's why you are so comfortable with science. You seem uncomfortable with any argument that does not provide that certainty. In a way this makes you very much like fundamentalists who believe the Bible provides them with all the answers. I think an authentic spirituality involves a certain humility toward the encounter with mystery. Not everything has to be explained. Sometimes you must simply accept the gifts that have been given.

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."

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.

I mean that the word God may not fit at all in the traditional sense. This is not obfuscation but a simple recognition of the reality of the situation. I'm sorry I cannot offer you the pat answers you request. That doesn't make atheism in its various forms the best conclusion.

[kayky]

Faeriestories:


Are you asking for evidence of a god with physicality? I hope you do not plan to ignore my posts (this is my third one).

[FaerieStories]

Faeriestories:


Are you asking for evidence of a god with physicality? I hope you do not plan to ignore my posts (this is my third one).

Let's not mince around the confusing and misleading terms of 'physical' and 'spiritual'. If it has had- in any way at all- some kind of impact on the universe as we know it, then we have at least some way of ascertaining whether or not it is actually there. If it hasn't had any impact on the universe in any way then it is completely pointless to even assert its existence.

And by the way, I didn't respond to your first post because I didn't really have any comment about it. At least: none that I've not already said in this thread. The argument from personal experience is a dead-end. It isn't something that can be discussed. I can give reasons as to why I may doubt that someone was actually contacted by a deity through what we know about the psychology of the human brain, but at the end of the day, a personal experience is a personal one, and it's not really possible for any outsider to be able to analyse it. On the other side of the coin: it's also not possible for the believer to justify their belief to others through it.

[kayky]

Let's not mince around the confusing and misleading terms of 'physical' and 'spiritual'.

In other words, you get to set the terms of the debate for everyone involved. I don't think so. The words physical and spiritual are perfectly common English words. If you are confused about their definitions, I suggest you consult a dictionary.

If it has had- in any way at all- some kind of impact on the universe as we know it, then we have at least some way of ascertaining whether or not it is actually there. If it hasn't had any impact on the universe in any way then it is completely pointless to even assert its existence.

This of course is not true. What you are really saying is that science has no means to ascertain God. This only reveals your bias. It doesn't explain anything.

And by the way, I didn't respond to your first post because I didn't really have any comment about it.

I find this extremely discourteous since the post directly addressed you.

At least: none that I've not already said in this thread. The argument from personal experience is a dead-end. It isn't something that can be discussed.

This is a ridiculous claim. These experiences have been recorded from around the world for milennia. You can't simply dismiss them out of hand.

I can give reasons as to why I may doubt that someone was actually contacted by a deity through what we know about the psychology of the human brain, but at the end of the day, a personal experience is a personal one, and it's not really possible for any outsider to be able to analyse it. On the other side of the coin: it's also not possible for the believer to justify their belief to others through it.

Well, I certainly don't think that God goes around "contacting" people.

I think what you wanted to happen on this thread was for a bunch of fundamentalists to show up so you could display your superior intellect to them. Sorry, Bub. I understand how frustrating it must be to have to debate someone with a rational belief.

If you are really serious about debating the existence of God, you need to start by asking yourself why intelligent, educated people believe. When they tell you their reasoning in arriving at such a belief, you need to consider that logic seriously--not simply stomp your foot like a toddler and continue to demand empirical evidence. Otherwise you're wasting the time of everyone here.

[Rkrause]

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.

Than why are you asking this question? isn't this thread a waste of time too?

[FaerieStories]

In other words, you get to set the terms of the debate for everyone involved. I don't think so. The words physical and spiritual are perfectly common English words. If you are confused about their definitions, I suggest you consult a dictionary.

It doesn't matter who sets the definitions. The only thing that matters is that both people understand the word in the same way. And you are wrong if you think those words are unambiguous. ESPECIALLY 'spiritual'. 'Spiritual' means many different things to many different people.

This of course is not true. What you are really saying is that science has no means to ascertain God..

If the god has not had any impact on the universe, then no, of course it doesn't. Neither does any other system. Claiming that an entity exists that we have absolutely no means of finding any trace of is like claiming that there is a paperclip inside a sealed wooden box without being able to touch or see inside the box.

This only reveals your bias. It doesn't explain anything.

Excuse me? What 'bias' is that?

This is a ridiculous claim. These experiences have been recorded from around the world for milennia. You can't simply dismiss them out of hand.

You misunderstand me. I am not 'dismissing' them. I am not saying they are not valid to the person having the experience. They may well be: who is to say otherwise? I am saying that my personal spiritual experience may justify my own belief, but it is impossible to use it to justify it to others. Hence why it is a 'personal' experience.

I think what you wanted to happen on this thread was for a bunch of fundamentalists to show up so you could display your superior intellect to them.

I feel sorry for you if that's how you see all non-believers. I can assure you that is the opposite of what I want. There can be no discussion with fundamentalists.

If you are really serious about debating the existence of God, you need to start by asking yourself why intelligent, educated people believe. When they tell you their reasoning in arriving at such a belief, you need to consider that logic seriously--not simply stomp your foot like a toddler and continue to demand empirical evidence. Otherwise you're wasting the time of everyone here.

There is nothing whatsoever bad about demanding evidence for somebody's claim. That's how science works. That's how humanity has got as far as it has done- how we have computers and planes and how we know about evolution and gravity. It's how we've got men to the moon and a robot to mars. Evidence. Knowledge. Finding things out. You are asking me to believe without evidence. That is blind faith. That gets us nowhere. We don't learn anything from that.

[FaerieStories]

Than why are you asking this question? isn't this thread a waste of time too?

Because obviously if someone were to present any convincing reason why a god might exist it would then lead to me praying every night, or meditating in the mountains, or whatever

[Rkrause]

Than why are you asking this question? isn't this thread a waste of time too?

Because obviously if someone were to present any convincing reason why a god might exist it would then lead to me praying every night, or meditating in the mountains, or whatever

Lets say I want to study viruses but I don't accept any research of scientific data or theories before 1915. How far will I get in my research? no where.

You need to be more open minded about what you will listen to as far as "proof" is concerned otherwise we are all wasting time. Nobody will give you convincing reason (it's impossible with your rules of proof) until you accept non-scientific "proofs" and physical evidence of God. You really should experience faith yourself and study God from people who truly know of God.

[FaerieStories]

You need to be more open minded about what you will listen to as far as "proof" is concerned otherwise we are all wasting time.

Being 'open minded' does not mean just letting any old thing into your head. That's an excellent recipe for the acquisition of misinformation.

Nobody will give you convincing reason (it's impossible with your rules of proof) until you accept non-scientific "proofs" and physical evidence of God.

You are asking me to just blindly accept 'proofs' which cannot be validated in any way. That is blind faith and it is the enemy of reason and rationality. That is a demonstrably unreliable way to find things out.

[Rkrause]

You need to be more open minded about what you will listen to as far as "proof" is concerned otherwise we are all wasting time.

Being 'open minded' does not mean just letting any old thing into your head. That's an excellent recipe for the acquisition of misinformation.

Nobody will give you convincing reason (it's impossible with your rules of proof) until you accept non-scientific "proofs" and physical evidence of God.

You are asking me to just blindly accept 'proofs' which cannot be validated in any way. That is blind faith and it is the enemy of reason and rationality. That is a demonstrably unreliable way to find things out.

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.