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]

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.

Let me make it easy for you. According to Webster:

spiritual:

1. incorporeal

2. of or relating to sacred matters

3. concerned with religious values

4. related or joined in spirit

5. of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena

If you can't tell through context which your opponent is referring to, simply ask.

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.

You mean that science can't find any trace of? Aren't you simply repeating the same point?

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

Excuse me? What 'bias' is that?

scientism: the belief that the scientific method is the only means of human understanding

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.

Some scientists display more interest in these phenomena. Why is it so pervasive in human culture?

Consider this article from the Horizon Research Center:


Are Religious Experiences Real?

For many who have had a near death experiences (NDE), the experience has had a profoundly religious effect on them, changed their outlook and led them to live more altruistic, less materialistic lives. Perhaps, in order to understand NDEs better, we need to understand religious experiences better. Many people have in fact likened NDEs to religious experiences.
Although the scientific study of religious experience is still in its infancy, there has certainly been some progress in this area in the last 30 years. Dr Andrew Newberg, a radiology professor and neurological imaging specialist at the University of Pennsylvania, is a leading figure in the study of the brain biology (neurobiology) of religious experiences. He has used high-tech imaging techniques to observe changes in brain function that occur during meditation and deep prayer. It is thought that his work may ultimately help to show how our minds move beyond the self and open to the divine.
In his book Why God Won't Go Away and numerous scientific publications Newberg has described the results of experiments that he and others have carried out. These have demonstrated that prayerful meditation is correlated with a quieting of activity and reduction in blood flow in the posterior superior parietal lobe, an area that lies towards the middle of the brain and is normally responsible for providing us with our sense of orientation. This may indicate how the person meditating is experiencing oneness with the 'sacred' and a loss of boundaries of the self. Studies have also demonstrated that the frontal and temporal areas of the brain become active during meditation.
At the same time various chemical changes have been shown to take place in the blood. There is an increase in melatonin and serotonin levels and a reduction in cortisol (a steroid hormone) and epinephrine levels. This makes sense, as the former two hormones are involved in relaxation, whereas the latter two are increased during physical stress.
During an interview with a magazine, Professor Newberg was asked whether the experiences of people meditating were externally real or not. He explained that scientifically proving the religious reality of his studies might not be possible:
'While I think we have provided the most comprehensive neurological model of meditation and prayer to date, I can't prove or disprove that when somebody connects with God, he or she has actually connected. My publisher originally wanted me to call this a "real" experience - which we have no way of proving. Eventually, we compromised with the term "neurologically real" and we are in fact seeing something that is real from that perspective.'
Ultimately, from a scientific point of view, all that we experience, including religious experiences and NDEs, are mediated by the brain. Undoubtedly we will one day discover the molecular mediators of religious experiences and NDEs and also the exact areas of the brain that mediate them, but this will only tell us what parts of the brain are involved in the experiences, not whether the experiences are real.
Our brain and our senses limit our ability to determine what is truly real. Therefore until the correct experiments can be done, we may have to move away from thinking about whether NDEs are real or not. We do not have the physical senses to determine whether there is an external reality beyond what we can perceive and we have not yet developed the scientific instruments that will allow us to determine this .

Kayky: 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.

I have no problem with non-believers. Fundamentalists can add quite a bit of spice to any debate. But you should also consider the arguments of progressive believers.

There is nothing whatsoever bad about demanding evidence for somebody's claim. You are asking me to believe without evidence. That is blind faith. That gets us nowhere.

It simply doesn't work in the "God" debate. You and I both already know there is no empirical evidence. What is the point of debating this topic if no other arguments will be considered? We would simply be talking past each other with no real engagement ever taking place. That's why I say this would be a waste of time.

[FaerieStories]

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.

'Faith' is utterly incompatible with reason, learning or finding out the validity of things. I utterly reject the very concept of faith. Not out of 'stubbornness' or 'closed mindedness', but because I know what faith is, and I know that it is a very poor way to learn things about the world. Faith is believing something with no good reason to just because it makes you feel good to do so. This is intellectual dishonesty of the highest degree and the utter antithesis of learning.

[connermt]

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.

'Faith' is utterly incompatible with reason, learning or finding out the validity of things. I utterly reject the very concept of faith. Not out of 'stubbornness' or 'closed mindedness', but because I know what faith is, and I know that it is a very poor way to learn things about the world. Faith is believing something with no good reason to just because it makes you feel good to do so. This is intellectual dishonesty of the highest degree and the utter antithesis of learning.

Faith is believing something with no good reason to just because it makes you feel good to do so. I like this definition! Well said

[FaerieStories]

You mean that science can't find any trace of? Aren't you simply repeating the same point?

If it hasn't interacted with the universe in any way then nothing can find trace of it.

scientism: the belief that the scientific method is the only means of human understanding

When did I ever say that? Science is by no means the only method of human understanding, but it is demonstrably the best we have. Science is responsible for almost everything we know about the universe. Science is the reason you and I are even having this conversation right now. If you can demonstrate that a better method than science exists to find things out about the universe, then I'm all ears.

Some scientists display more interest in these phenomena. Why is it so pervasive in human culture?

Consider this article from the Horizon Research Center:


Are Religious Experiences Real?

For many who have had a near death experiences (NDE), the experience has had a profoundly religious effect on them, changed their outlook and led them to live more altruistic, less materialistic lives. Perhaps, in order to understand NDEs better, we need to understand religious experiences better. Many people have in fact likened NDEs to religious experiences.
Although the scientific study of religious experience is still in its infancy, there has certainly been some progress in this area in the last 30 years. Dr Andrew Newberg, a radiology professor and neurological imaging specialist at the University of Pennsylvania, is a leading figure in the study of the brain biology (neurobiology) of religious experiences. He has used high-tech imaging techniques to observe changes in brain function that occur during meditation and deep prayer. It is thought that his work may ultimately help to show how our minds move beyond the self and open to the divine.
In his book Why God Won't Go Away and numerous scientific publications Newberg has described the results of experiments that he and others have carried out. These have demonstrated that prayerful meditation is correlated with a quieting of activity and reduction in blood flow in the posterior superior parietal lobe, an area that lies towards the middle of the brain and is normally responsible for providing us with our sense of orientation. This may indicate how the person meditating is experiencing oneness with the 'sacred' and a loss of boundaries of the self. Studies have also demonstrated that the frontal and temporal areas of the brain become active during meditation.
At the same time various chemical changes have been shown to take place in the blood. There is an increase in melatonin and serotonin levels and a reduction in cortisol (a steroid hormone) and epinephrine levels. This makes sense, as the former two hormones are involved in relaxation, whereas the latter two are increased during physical stress.
During an interview with a magazine, Professor Newberg was asked whether the experiences of people meditating were externally real or not. He explained that scientifically proving the religious reality of his studies might not be possible:
'While I think we have provided the most comprehensive neurological model of meditation and prayer to date, I can't prove or disprove that when somebody connects with God, he or she has actually connected. My publisher originally wanted me to call this a "real" experience - which we have no way of proving. Eventually, we compromised with the term "neurologically real" and we are in fact seeing something that is real from that perspective.'
Ultimately, from a scientific point of view, all that we experience, including religious experiences and NDEs, are mediated by the brain. Undoubtedly we will one day discover the molecular mediators of religious experiences and NDEs and also the exact areas of the brain that mediate them, but this will only tell us what parts of the brain are involved in the experiences, not whether the experiences are real.
Our brain and our senses limit our ability to determine what is truly real. Therefore until the correct experiments can be done, we may have to move away from thinking about whether NDEs are real or not. We do not have the physical senses to determine whether there is an external reality beyond what we can perceive and we have not yet developed the scientific instruments that will allow us to determine this .

Your quote seems to express exactly the same thing I've been trying to tell you. Personal religious experiences are not possible to justify to others.

Arguably though many 'experiences' already have been explained through science- namely psychology. Never underestimate the power of the human brain to deceive the senses.

I have no problem with non-believers. Fundamentalists can add quite a bit of spice to any debate. But you should also consider the arguments of progressive believers.

Of course I 'consider the arguments'. And no, fundementalists add nothing to debate. Someone who is not willing to have their mind changed is not even fit to be debated with. There can be no reasoning with the unreasonable.

It simply doesn't work in the "God" debate. You and I both already know there is no empirical evidence.

I would never be so arrogant as to assert that. Of course I do not 'know' there is no evidence. I have not yet SEEN any evidence, but I do not KNOW there is no evidence.

What is the point of debating this topic if no other arguments will be considered?

What do you mean? I will consider every argument presented to me. 'Considering' is different from 'accepting'.

[Rkrause]

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.

'Faith' is utterly incompatible with reason, learning or finding out the validity of things. I utterly reject the very concept of faith. Not out of 'stubbornness' or 'closed mindedness', but because I know what faith is, and I know that it is a very poor way to learn things about the world. Faith is believing something with no good reason to just because it makes you feel good to do so. This is intellectual dishonesty of the highest degree and the utter antithesis of learning.

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.

So did viruses exist before 1915?

[FaerieStories]

Than you reject learning by not participating in the learning process.

No. I reject the 'learning process'. It is not a learning process. It does not allow us to learn anything because it is not capable of validifying anything. Coming up with an idea and then just believing it without any reason to is not 'learning', it's self-delusion.

[Rkrause]

Than you reject learning by not participating in the learning process.

No. I reject the 'learning process'. It is not a learning process. It does not allow us to learn anything because it is not capable of validifying anything. Coming up with an idea and then just believing it without any reason to is not 'learning', it's self-delusion.

So you are rejecting knowledge and thats not close mindedness or bigoted?

[Rkrause]

So did viruses exist before 1915?[/quote]

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

[FaerieStories]

So you are rejecting knowledge and thats not close mindedness or bigoted?

You have yet to prove to me that it IS knowledge. If I tell you I have powers of telepathy, and you do not believe me because I have not given you any reason to believe I am telling the truth- are you being 'bigoted and closed-minded' for rejecting this 'knowledge'?

'Knowledge' is 'knowledge' because it can be demonstrably shown to be true. If you cannot show it to be true, it is not knowledge.

So no, I am not rejecting knowledge.

[FaerieStories]

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.