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?).

[Rkrause]

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.

So? Does it lead to results? Does it lead to something we can demonstrably prove to others to be true in some way?

Yes....

[LiamOS]

Good point, and I would like to point out that I am well aware these definitions are loose and not very helpful, I have expressed to another user earlier. What would you suggest as the definitions for 'the universe' and 'to exist'?

Frankly, I haven't the faintest idea. Defining the universe as the set of existent things or the set of all energy, space, and time or something similar seems appropriate, but 'existence' is a pretty problematic concept, mostly because of how it underpins everything.

As far as somebody who says "God exists." goes, I find it a lot more fun to ask them to define existence than define God.

[FaerieStories]

Yes....

Oh really? Such as what?

[Rkrause]

Yes....

Oh really? Such as what?

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

[FaerieStories]

Good point, and I would like to point out that I am well aware these definitions are loose and not very helpful, I have expressed to another user earlier. What would you suggest as the definitions for 'the universe' and 'to exist'?

Frankly, I haven't the faintest idea. Defining the universe as the set of existent things or the set of all energy, space, and time or something similar seems appropriate, but 'existence' is a pretty problematic concept, mostly because of how it underpins everything.

As far as somebody who says "God exists." goes, I find it a lot more fun to ask them to define existence than define God.

This is all just semantic fun and games though. It's interesting but not that useful. If scientists had this debate before every discovery they made, nothing would get discovered. Sub-atomic particles would not exist to anyone because the scientists who discovered them found they couldn't explain what existence was. On some fundamental level, we all know what someone means when they say 'god exists', so that's good enough for me unless for any reason it becomes necessary to dive into the shortcomings of the english language.

[FaerieStories]

Yes....

Oh really? Such as what?

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

I meant what can faith prove to us to be demonstrably true as a system for finding things out about the universe. Of course it changes lives and thought patterns, so does any belief system, that's not the issue at hand here.

[Rkrause]

Yes....

Oh really? Such as what?

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

I meant what can faith prove to us to be demonstrably true as a system for finding things out about the universe. Of course it changes lives and thought patterns, so does any belief system, that's not the issue at hand here.

The Bible isn't a scientific text book nor does faith lead to scientific discoveries.

I am not a scientologist, I am a Luthran

The Bible explains WHY God created the world.
Science explains HOW God created the world.

So in that regard people gain the full understanding of why and how verses just the how.

[LiamOS]

This is all just semantic fun and games though. It's interesting but not that useful. If scientists had this debate before every discovery they made, nothing would get discovered. Sub-atomic particles would not exist to anyone because the scientists who discovered them found they couldn't explain what existence was. On some fundamental level, we all know what someone means when they say 'god exists', so that's good enough for me unless for any reason it becomes necessary to dive into the shortcomings of the english language.

This is actually an emerging problem(problem might be the wrong word) in the sciences. In biology, the distinction between something living and non-living is extremely vague. In physics, we're left questioning what energy, mass, space and such actually are, which is where all those crazy things like string theory come from.

In casual conversation, to say that mug exists is fairly trivial, but when you start to talk about something outlandish(God, an electron, a black hole), it's necessary to actually understand what labels you apply to these and why.

[FaerieStories]

This is all just semantic fun and games though. It's interesting but not that useful. If scientists had this debate before every discovery they made, nothing would get discovered. Sub-atomic particles would not exist to anyone because the scientists who discovered them found they couldn't explain what existence was. On some fundamental level, we all know what someone means when they say 'god exists', so that's good enough for me unless for any reason it becomes necessary to dive into the shortcomings of the english language.

This is actually an emerging problem(problem might be the wrong word) in the sciences. In biology, the distinction between something living and non-living is extremely vague. In physics, we're left questioning what energy, mass, space and such actually are, which is where all those crazy things like string theory come from.

In casual conversation, to say that mug exists is fairly trivial, but when you start to talk about something outlandish(God, an electron, a black hole), it's necessary to actually understand what labels you apply to these and why.

Yes, it's just another reason why the English language- though useful and beautiful- is in many ways a flawed means of communication.

[theopoesis]

The first way to prove something's existence is to just show it. "Seeing is believing." Unfortunately, God isn't visible, and most people don't get the opportunity that the gospel of John says that Thomas did, to put their fingers in the nail wounds in the hands of the risen Jesus.

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

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

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.

Indeed. You are paraphrasing Sagan: 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'.

Yep, he'd be one of those secular thinkers I looked into.

The third way to prove something is by experimentation. This is the method of science. It's probably a better approach than the previous two, but is less limited in scope. Some things you just can't prove by experiment. God's existence is one of them (unless you can think of an experiment that would work).

If god has in some way dipped his hand into the cosmic ocean and interacted in some way with the known universe, then theoretically there should always be something that can be experimented on. If it exists, science has the capacity to find it. That's not to say that it can at present, but it has the potential to in the future.

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.

The fourth way to prove something is by philosophical argument. This is normally deductive, whereas science is inductive. Some apologists have tried this, with arguments like the cosmological argument, the ontological argument, the teleological argument. The problem is that your deductive arguments always begin with a first premise, which is always assumed. Often there are additional assumptions. So as you noted for the cosmological argument: why must we assume God is uncaused? Why must the universe be caused? So, there just isn't any conclusive deductive proof for the existence of God.

Yes. And in any case, you can't prove a positive through reason alone. You can prove a negative thorough reason alone- for example I can prove to you that a box in a room cannot contain the Eiffel Tower without looking inside it or shaking it, but I cannot prove to you that it contains a can of coke without looking in it or shaking it.

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. And you don't seem to understand a priori argumentation. So it would seem you are asking for what you already believe is impossible. Why bother asking?

The final way is an a priori form of argument. We must assume that we exist in order to be having this discussion. It's a pre-requisite for thinking. In the same way, some apologists suggest that faith in God, and not just in any God but in the Trinitarian God, is a pre-requisite for forming a coherent worldview. For making sense of the world. For developing an explanation for how we think, how there can be good and evil, and so forth. This is called "presuppositional apologetics."

aka: god of the gaps. We have no good explanation therefore we will just fill the gap of our knowledge with god. Lack of any other option does not make this option any more viable.

*sigh*

No, not aka God of the gaps. You say secularism can explain communication. I think secularist Jacques Derrida effectively proves that the logical conclusion of secularism is that there is no communication. But secularism communicates, so it is self defeating. It's not a "lack of explanation." Its a "I've done Phd level work here and the explanations shoot themselves in the foot. They are logically self-defeating. Therefore I can believe theism or nothing."

Here, one more try:

According to Immanuel Kant, there are three types of propositions:

(1) synthetic a priori
(2) analytic a posteriori
(3) analytic a priori

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.

So where does this leave us? I can't point to God, but that's no problem for me because God is invisible, but I do believe that I have experiences of God. I can't conclusively prove that God exists by evidence, even though I think there is enough evidence to show that there is historical plausibility behind many Biblical events, and not enough counter evidence to persuade me to abandon my position. I can't conclusively prove that God exists through science, but that's ok by me. I wouldn't turn to science for a question like that anyway. And I can't develop a logical syllogism to prove that God exists. There are some arguments that make some sense, but only if you are already a Christian. They do some small thing to strengthen my faith, but I would never expect anyone to convert over them.

Therefore, I take the last approach. I say that there are some basic things that a worldview must be able to make sense of in order to function. It must explain knowledge, morality, human nature, communication, history, society.

You are taking your conclusion and fitting everything else around that. Things like morality, human nature, communication history and society can all be explained completely secularly. Even if they couldn't- this does no mean we have any right to jump to the conclusion of 'god' just because we ant that to be the case.

I've not found that to be the case in my studies.

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. If 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.