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]

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

I don't know anyone who believes in a God that has no connection to the universe.

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.

Science is the best tool we have for learning about the physical universe. Nothing more.

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.

The reason these studies are important to this debate is that they demonstrate that these experiences are not uniquely personal. Regardless of the religion involved, in their brains and other bodily functions, these people are having the same experience.

This of course does not prove the cause of these experiences. It is noteworthy, however, that all of these people were actively seeking an experience of the divine. I think it also means that religious experience cannot siimply be dismissed as having no bearing on the "God" debate.

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.

Well, that's harsh.

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.

Fair enough.

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

I am not interested in turning you into a believer. My assertion is that a rational case can be made for the existance of God. At least we've gotten past the point where my posts are viewed as not worthy of a response.

[kayky]

The debaters i respect aren't proud of trollish behavior like baiting.

Oh, get over yourself, scourge.

I'm discussing knowledge and justified belief. Your talk about "sources of understanding" is a redherring. Or worse, more obfuscation.

And as stated repeatedly before, i do not claim science is the only possible way to know. But if someone proposes another methodology then its necessary that there be some way to confirm its reliability.

You keep saying that, but I have yet to see any explanation of why that has to be the case. If there is another realm of knowledge that does not lend itself to this "reliability" you speak of, are we to simply ignore it because of some arbitrary standard you have set?

You are avoiding the problem. That you find your beliefs useful is irrelevant to whether they are actually true. E.G., It may be extraordinarily comforting to believe certain things (for example, that I am the most beautiful person in the world or that i will be reunited with loved ones after i die,) but our beliefs must not take precedence over reality, because reality cannot be fooled.

I disagree entirely. The utility of an idea goes a long way to demonstrate its validity. Some people still scoff at psychology as a "soft" science in spite of the fact that it has brought mental and emotional healing to millions. If there is a method (not a belief, a practice) that can do this spontaneously, then this would be a method that would have to be taken seriously. This is more than comfort. This is transformation. The only question left is the source of this transformation.

Many non-theists accomplish all that without such beliefs. That you require faux beliefs to accomplish those things you listed is a personal failing on your part alone. Similarly, some Christians claim that without a belief in god then they would be hedonistic, rapists, and criminals. It appears you suffer from a similar defect but in different aspect.

Another claim you keep making. I see very little evidence of this in the world. Why should I believe you have developed any positive qualities at all? You have come very close on more than one occasion on these forums to calling me a liar (or at least an exaggerator). Why should I be expected to believe that anyone can achieve this level of personal transformation without a spiritual practice of some kind?

Then present an alternative method and explain how we can verify the reliability of this method.

Your insistence on this does not make it a valid request. Not all knowledge can be subjected to this test. Your insistence that this is the absolute nature of reality does not make it so.

I have never claimed that science can or cannot answer everything we can meaningfully ask. I simply don't know.

Your blind faith that science cannot is quite telling.

Really? What does it tell you? That my standards for explaining reality are different from yours?

Which questions exactly?

Feigned obtuseness? Meaning of life kind of questions. Are we more than simply smart apes? Is there more to existence than meets the eye? Is there an intelligence behind the universe?

Kayky: Your question demands certainty.

Wrong. I do not claim certainty. Never have.

If you say so.

If anyone here should be charged with attempting to explain away mysteries and a lack of humility, it is you. I'm perfectly fine without absolute certainty and complete knowledge. You are the one who invents answers to mysteries with nothing to justify them but emotional desire. Your list is indisputable proof of that:

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.

Yes. You have said as much to me before. I should just keep my mouth shut about my experiences in order to maintain my decorum. Sorry. If my experiences were unique, you might have a case. But they are not. And so you don't.

What exactly do you propose we use then if we are to discard reliable methods? Are you proposing that we should use unreliable methods or just invent answers based on intuition or whatever feels right?

Who said anything about discarding reliable methods? That doesn't mean there is no validity to other methods, such as a spiritual practice.

[kayky]

Faeriestories:

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

I see two problems with this statement. First of all, how can we make assumptions about what God wants? Secondly, why would you assume that God goes around revealing himself to some while ignoring others? My experience has been that these experiences must be sought out and usually occur after a certain adeptness at spiritual practice has been achieved. So I believe this experience is available to anyone who seeks it with discipline.

[Dantalion]

Science is the best way of understanding things in the natural world.

We will never have evidence for the supernatural, because when evidence is found for a phenomenon previously thought to be supernatural, it cease to be 'supernatural' and becomes a part of the natural world.

We can't make any claims about any supernatural entities whatsoever.
Yet religion insists on doing this, without any means to back up their claims.
but unlike their supposed deities, religion IS a part of the natural world, and like it or not, it IS man-made.

There is not any reason to consider the claims these religions make to be anything but wishful thinking or potenitally dangerous means of controlling our fellow man.

There is not one good argument that can exclusively lead to the existence of one particular God. The ones that claim there is, will sooner or later be exposed by manner of pointing out various logical fallacies, an absolute refusal to display intellectual honesty, or any other means, and they all have.

You can't scientifically prove 'God'
You can't logically deduct 'God'
The only thing any of us can do at best is hope/feel/think there is a God, and that's why I am an atheist

Theists have got nothing. No argument that hasn't been refuted.
not in any 'official' debates, not on any of these sites.
The only question is how long people are willing to cling to these myths.

[theopoesis]

Science is the best way of understanding things in the natural world.

We will never have evidence for the supernatural, because when evidence is found for a phenomenon previously thought to be supernatural, it cease to be 'supernatural' and becomes a part of the natural world.

We can't make any claims about any supernatural entities whatsoever.
Yet religion insists on doing this, without any means to back up their claims.
but unlike their supposed deities, religion IS a part of the natural world, and like it or not, it IS man-made.

There is not any reason to consider the claims these religions make to be anything but wishful thinking or potenitally dangerous means of controlling our fellow man.

There is not one good argument that can exclusively lead to the existence of one particular God. The ones that claim there is, will sooner or later be exposed by manner of pointing out various logical fallacies, an absolute refusal to display intellectual honesty, or any other means, and they all have.

You can't scientifically prove 'God'
You can't logically deduct 'God'
The only thing any of us can do at best is hope/feel/think there is a God, and that's why I am an atheist

Theists have got nothing. No argument that hasn't been refuted.
not in any 'official' debates, not on any of these sites.
The only question is how long people are willing to cling to these myths.

Well, it's official. Dantalion called the fight done. Apparently, my years of study were to no avail. I guess I lost. Must be time to delete my account and start watching more Sunday football. Thanks for the heads up man. If I hadn't seen this, I might have spent a few more years around here wasting my time. And the money wasted on tithes! Heaven forbid! (can a new atheist say that? Heaven?). My church will be sad when I leave, but I'll just tell them you showed me the light.

[Dantalion]

Science is the best way of understanding things in the natural world.

We will never have evidence for the supernatural, because when evidence is found for a phenomenon previously thought to be supernatural, it cease to be 'supernatural' and becomes a part of the natural world.

We can't make any claims about any supernatural entities whatsoever.
Yet religion insists on doing this, without any means to back up their claims.
but unlike their supposed deities, religion IS a part of the natural world, and like it or not, it IS man-made.

There is not any reason to consider the claims these religions make to be anything but wishful thinking or potenitally dangerous means of controlling our fellow man.

There is not one good argument that can exclusively lead to the existence of one particular God. The ones that claim there is, will sooner or later be exposed by manner of pointing out various logical fallacies, an absolute refusal to display intellectual honesty, or any other means, and they all have.

You can't scientifically prove 'God'
You can't logically deduct 'God'
The only thing any of us can do at best is hope/feel/think there is a God, and that's why I am an atheist

Theists have got nothing. No argument that hasn't been refuted.
not in any 'official' debates, not on any of these sites.
The only question is how long people are willing to cling to these myths.

Well, it's official. Dantalion called the fight done. Apparently, my years of study were to no avail. I guess I lost. Must be time to delete my account and start watching more Sunday football. Thanks for the heads up man. If I hadn't seen this, I might have spent a few more years around here wasting my time. And the money wasted on tithes! Heaven forbid! (can a new atheist say that? Heaven?). My church will be sad when I leave, but I'll just tell them you showed me the light.

Well dear theopoesis, if at any time you want to bring forth an argument for the existence of your god that hasn't already been refuted, and are willing to discuss it with intellectual honesty, go for it, I'm very curious.

If not, you will be pleased to learn my 'showing you the light' comes free of charge, you don't even have to start hating entire groups of humans or stop eating certain foods.

[99percentatheism]

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?).

Matter from nothing seems the fantasy. The question "what created the Creator" is so utterly devoid of worth, there is no reason to not believe that some Thing caused our reality to come into existence.

It seems that the ground beneath our feet and the stars way above our heads is a sensible fact to believe that some Thing is at work other than utterly nothing do it all.

So, a Cause.

G O D seems a good answer.

If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a great chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing. If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a railroad train moving without an engine. Each car's motion is explained proximately by the motion of the car in front of it: the caboose moves because the boxcar pulls it, the boxcar moves because the cattle car pulls it, et cetera. But there is no engine to pull the first car and the whole train. That would be impossible, of course. But that is what the universe is like if there is no first cause: impossible.

Here is one more analogy. Suppose I tell you there is a book that explains everything you want explained. You want that book very much. You ask me whether I have it. I say no, I have to get it from my wife. Does she have it? No, she has to get it from a neighbor. Does he have it? No, he has to get it from his teacher, who has to get it. . . et cetera, etcetera, ad infinitum.

No one actually has the book. In that case, you will never get it. However long or short the chain of book borrowers may be, you will get the book only if someone actually has it and does not have to borrow it. Well, existence is like that book. Existence is handed down the chain of causes, from cause to effect. If there is no first cause, no being who is eternal and self-sufficient, no being who has existence by his own nature and does not have to borrow it from someone else, then the gift of existence can never be passed down the chain to others, and no one will ever get it. But we did get it. We exist. We got the gift of existence from our causes, down the chain, and so did every actual being in the universe, from atoms to archangels. Therefore there must be a first cause of existence, a God.

In more abstract philosophical language, the proof goes this way. Every being that exists either exists by itself, by its own essence or nature, or it does not exist by itself. If it exists by its own essence, then it exists necessarily and eternally, and explains itself. It cannot not exist, as a triangle cannot not have three sides. If, on the other hand, a being exists but not by its own essence, then it needs a cause, a reason outside itself for its existence. Because it does not explain itself, something else must explain it.

Beings whose essence does not contain the reason for their existence, beings that need causes, are called contingent, or dependent, beings. A being whose essence is to exist is called a necessary being. The universe contains only contingent beings. God would be the only necessary being"if God existed. Does he? Does a necessary being exist? Here is the proof that it does.

Dependent beings cannot cause themselves. They are dependent on their causes. If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist. But they do exist. Therefore there is an independent being.


- http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

[Dantalion]

It seems that the ground beneath our feet and the stars way above our heads is a sensible fact to believe that some Thing is at work other than utterly nothing do it all.

Go from 'some Thing is at work' to any specific religion.
Also, nobody says 'nothing does it all'.

[99percentatheism]

It seems that the ground beneath our feet and the stars way above our heads is a sensible fact to believe that some Thing is at work other than utterly nothing do it all.

Go from 'some Thing is at work' to any specific religion.

Why?

Also, nobody says 'nothing does it all'.

The math proves that atheism is just that. You can pretend that atheism is some polite refrain from theology, and sometimes it may be, but, the literal bottom line to atheism is that nothing created something. In fact, everything to date.

[Dantalion]

It seems that the ground beneath our feet and the stars way above our heads is a sensible fact to believe that some Thing is at work other than utterly nothing do it all.

Go from 'some Thing is at work' to any specific religion.

Why?

Also, nobody says 'nothing does it all'.

The math proves that atheism is just that. You can pretend that atheism is some polite refrain from theology, and sometimes it may be, but, the literal bottom line to atheism is that nothing created something. In fact, everything to date.

See dear forum readers, this is my 'intellectual dishonesty' point in action.

No matter how many times you point somebody to a dictionary, no matter how many times you keep repeating that ATHEISM SAYS NOTHING ABOUT WHO CREATED WHAT, it still gets ignored or misquoted or just flat out lied about it.
atheism as creatio ex nihilo, you should be ashamed. Stop lying.

'the math proves ' 'the literal bottom line' 'in fact, everything to date'
The only thing you seem to have proven is how unwilling you are to debate honestly, and all here are witness to it.