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?).

[JohnPaul]

Nothing happened by mere chance. The universe had an ETERNITY to throw up the correct combination of elements to form life. Statistically, it HAD to happen some time.

The universe did not exist before the Big Bang according to my understanding of the theory. Just a singularity that heated up until it exploded into just the right universe to give rise to life. Sounds fishy to me.

The Big Bank describes only the particular universe we happen to live in, with its dimensions of time and 3-dimensional space, which exploded from a singularity which occurred in a larger multi-dimensional reality. An infinity of slightly different such universes may exist, most of them incompatible with life. We happened to develop in this particular universe only because it happened to contain conditions compatible with our life-form.

You do realize that many non-believers would counter your whole idea with the very common "Prove it" statement.

Which of course you can't

I admit it is only logical speculation largely derived from String Theory, which is a long way from being ready to be "proved" yet. Can you do better?

[Rkrause]

Nothing happened by mere chance. The universe had an ETERNITY to throw up the correct combination of elements to form life. Statistically, it HAD to happen some time.

The universe did not exist before the Big Bang according to my understanding of the theory. Just a singularity that heated up until it exploded into just the right universe to give rise to life. Sounds fishy to me.

The Big Bank describes only the particular universe we happen to live in, with its dimensions of time and 3-dimensional space, which exploded from a singularity which occurred in a larger multi-dimensional reality. An infinity of slightly different such universes may exist, most of them incompatible with life. We happened to develop in this particular universe only because it happened to contain conditions compatible with our life-form.

You do realize that many non-believers would counter your whole idea with the very common "Prove it" statement.

Which of course you can't

I admit it is only logical speculation largely derived from String Theory, which is a long way from being ready to be "proved" yet. Can you do better?

Nope...

[Mithrae]

But I wonder why you say that the claim of theism is massive? Ultimately the most fundamental nature of reality is either thinking and choosing, or non-thinking and deterministic/random. Why would you say that one perspective is any stranger than the other?

The claim that there exists a magical being who is somehow in an external plane from everything we know is a massive one.

You have already ruled that out as a valid possibility:
Kayky wrote: Are you asking for evidence of a god with physicality?
FaerieStories wrote: Let's not mince around the confusing and misleading terms of 'physical' and 'spiritual'.
I think you're correct to do so; the term 'physical' can be quite misleading, as can 'spiritual' depending on context. Moreover, no theist that I know of describes God as either magical, nor that its existence is external to everything we know. Your comments appear to be a strawman, in other words.

However, I'd be interesting in knowing what you mean by 'magical' and what this plane of everything we know you're talking about is?

The claim that we can know what this being has done is even bigger. The claim that this being personally interacts with every one of us is even bigger.

These are claims of some sects of some religions, not of theism. I see in this thread and elsewhere some confusion on the part of some theists as to what atheism means; but why is that atheists often have difficulty understanding in turn what theism means?

If your criteria require something "observable, testable, repeatable, demonstrable," more akin to the natural sciences than the social sciences, you'll presumably agree that there's a certain deterministic bias there?

What do you mean by this? As I have explained to others, if a god has dipped his hand into our universe in any way, he has in some way altered cause and effect and then can be potentially observed by science.

Certainly the potential would be there in that scenario. There is the potential for science to examine and reach conclusions on the contents of my toilet also, but that doesn't mean that it's ever likely to happen - firstly because scientists don't usually spend their time looking at suburban folks' toilets, and secondly because I would object if they attempted it. In fact odds are they'd find nothing but water in there in any case.

If we want to examine gravity, we can do so at any time and place and feel fairly confident that we'll get the same results as we would at any other time and place. Our subject matter is, as you say, observable, testable, repeatable and demonstrable. But if our subject matter is a human being, its behaviour and the consequences of its behaviour are often not very repeatable or testable, especially if we don't have some kind of control over the individual. So if those are the criteria by which you seek evidence or knowledge of a deity, it seems obvious that your methodology is extremely limiting for what results you could acquire even in theory and, arguably, inappropriate for the subject matter.

[dianaiad]

Your characterization of the evidence theists put their trust (FAITH) into does not mean that they don't put their faith in evidence. It just means that you have contempt for the validity of the evidence they trust.

Most Theists I have heard allude to both 'evidence' and faith. They say- for example- they have the evidence of the bible, but the faith that the bible is the word of god.

Yes...and have you ever asked them WHY they have this faith? Nobody is going to say "I dunno." They'll probably point to the bible and say something about it being evidence for itself, or something else. However, they will all have a reason for having faith that the bible is the Word of God.....and the evidence will be the bible.

But scientists have had a very long history of putting faith in things that turned out to be untrue. I wrote in another thread about Semmelweiss, who told his fellow physicians that if they would only wash their hands between procedures, that far fewer patients would die of infections. He was laughed at, mocked...indeed, he spent his last years in an insane asylum, and his ideas were not widely accepted until considerably after his death. Those scientists who disagreed with him put a considerable amount of faith..er, trust...in what they knew of science.

Does this mean that those scientists only had faith, not 'trust' as you so cavalierly dismiss it?

Nope. They were just wrong. And even if you are correct and they did have 'faith', that would not have anything to do with science, because science and the scientific method is designed to be completely opposite to the principles of 'faith'.

You are equivocating. You are insisting that 'faith' can ONLY mean 'belief in religious things without reason.' when indeed even the religious who have faith have reasons. You simply don't like those reasons. In sum, what they are, to you, is 'simply wrong,'

"Faith,' if you look it up (as someone already has) means trust in something...and the specific meaning YOU want to attach to it, ignoring all the other meanings which basically nail the meaning down to 'trust,' is only #2 in the definition list.

Faith is...the willingness to behave as if what you believe to be true is true.

It is a property of the believer, NOT of the evidence in which the trust is placed, but there is ALWAYS something in which that trust is placed.

But feel quite free to show me anybody who puts faith in...nothing at all; who absolutely has no reason for his faith (not 'a faulty' reason, or an 'illogical' one...NONE.) I think that you will find that you can't do that.

The evidence that person uses may not prompt YOU to faith. In fact, you might find it utterly incomprehensible that anybody would put any credence in it...but that's not the point. there's some sort of 'it' there in which to place faith, whether you personally approve of it or not.

There always, ALWAYS, is, and you can always, ALWAYS, pin that down if you ask.

What of plate tectonics? For nearly a century a few mavericks told their fellow scientists that there was continental drift, and that this was the result of gigantic plates that floated on the sea of molten rock...the mantle. Which group had 'trust,' then, and which only 'faith' (in your definition of belief without reason)? Was it the group that struggled for decades under the disapprobation of their fellow geologists, who sacrificed jobs, careers and reputations because they, by golly, had faith in the evidence in front of them?

Or was it the far greater number of geologists who had faith in what they had always been taught, that the earth was static?

Now me, I'm old. My father first majored in geology when he got home from WWII, and I still have his books. Not ONE of them mentioned plate tectonics.

Well, that's not quite true. One does...as a crackpot theory to be dismissed as a throwaway idea.

When I took geology, the idea of plate tectonics was just then gaining acceptance; still a little controversial, but not by much. There were still a few hide bound people out there who didn't like it.

Now, of course, it would truly be a crackpot who did not accept plate tectonics as a scientific truth.

Now ALL of these scientists trusted in the evidence that they relied on to inform their world view. All of them put faith in that evidence...and a bunch of 'em were flat out wrong. Looking back at the evidence they relied on, it's difficult to imagine how they could possibly have put any reliance in that evidence, so obvious is the evidence for plate tectonics, but they did.

They believed something and were wrong.

Exactly.

So? If they arrived at their initial conclusion through using the scientific method, it would have been ascertained through observation and experimentation. NOT through 'faith'. And if they DID have 'faith' then as I say- this is not science we are talking about.

Nobody believes BECAUSE of faith. People have faith in the evidence that prompts their beliefs.

But here...you want scientific evidence? Let's try this. Get every theist you know who actually believes and ask them WHY they believe. If they try to fob you off with 'I have faith..." then respond to 'faith in WHAT?" Then ask 'why do you believe in that?" If you don't put 'em off by being obviously about to mock and deride their beliefs, if you can convince them that you really want to know why, and not simply to make fun of 'em, you WILL get a reason why they have faith.

You will get the evidence they have faith IN.

But believe me, nobody has faith in gutleplotzes simply because they have faith in gutleplotzes. Nobody has faith in something they don't have evidence for, no matter how odd, insane, irrelevent or illogical that evidence may seem to you.

Is the difference between 'faith' and 'trust' REALLY that you personally dismiss and deride the evidence in which it is placed?

That's a bit simplistic, I do think.

No. Trust is based on evidence. Faith is inserted instead of evidence.

Wrong. ABsolutely wrong. There is no such thing as faith in 'nothing.' There is ALWAYS something around to have faith in; some evidence. It may not be good evidence. It may not be logical, empirical, or even understandable to the non-believer...but there is always something.

....and exactly like those geologists who had faith (or trust) in the wrong evidence, or in evidence that didn't support the conclusions they came to, if people have faith in the wrong thing, it only means that they are wrong, not that their trust in religious things is any more blameworthy or risible than a scientist's trust in evidence that isn't...or that doesn't support his conclusions.

Trust/faith...absolute synonyms. It doesn't change because someone ELSE doesn't like the evidence in which that trust/faith is placed.

[McCulloch]

Yes...and have you ever asked them WHY they have this faith? Nobody is going to say "I dunno." They'll probably point to the bible and say something about it being evidence for itself, or something else. However, they will all have a reason for having faith that the bible is the Word of God.....and the evidence will be the bible.

I have asked. They seldom get down to specifics. The Bible is the Word of God, they say, but they generally do not have a whole lot of support for that assertion. They trot out internal evidence (the false assertion that the writers of the Bible claim that the Bible is God's word), fulfilled prophesy (generally quite easy to dismiss if you have even an ounce of skepticism), scientific knowledge that would have been unavailable in the society of the writers (countered by scientific errors and by ambiguous wording), historic accuracy (as if that proves anything), unity of theme and message (a very subjective judgement) and God's apparent providential care and oversight of his word (unavailable to quite a few people in various times in history and missing bits).

You are equivocating. You are insisting that 'faith' can ONLY mean 'belief in religious things without reason.' when indeed even the religious who have faith have reasons. You simply don't like those reasons. In sum, what they are, to you, is 'simply wrong,'

The difference is that in science the reasons are open to question and rigorous scrutiny. In faith, they are not.

[dianaiad]

Yes...and have you ever asked them WHY they have this faith? Nobody is going to say "I dunno." They'll probably point to the bible and say something about it being evidence for itself, or something else. However, they will all have a reason for having faith that the bible is the Word of God.....and the evidence will be the bible.

I have asked. They seldom get down to specifics. The Bible is the Word of God, they say, but they generally do not have a whole lot of support for that assertion. They trot out internal evidence (the false assertion that the writers of the Bible claim that the Bible is God's word), fulfilled prophesy (generally quite easy to dismiss if you have even an ounce of skepticism), scientific knowledge that would have been unavailable in the society of the writers (countered by scientific errors and by ambiguous wording), historic accuracy (as if that proves anything), unity of theme and message (a very subjective judgement) and God's apparent providential care and oversight of his word (unavailable to quite a few people in various times in history and missing bits).

There you go, deciding that the evidence they point to doesn't exist because you don't like it, don't agree with it, and don't see it as valid. In other words, it doesn't MATTER what you think about internal evidence, fulfilled prophecy, historical accuracy and consistency of theme and message..that's quite a list of reasons to believe, after all. You cannot claim that these things simply do not exist because you don't like them, or believe that you can counter them. They are sufficient for those who believe, and they ARE reasons.

In fact, you are missing the point here. It's not about whether or not YOU accept this evidence as valid, or if, in your opinion, anybody 'with an ounce of skepticism' would dismiss it as valid. It's about what the BELIEVER thinks of it. I'm quite certain that there are things you put faith/trust in that I would think you were idiotic to trust. Does that mean that the evidence you trust doesn't exist?

In sum, if somebody saw a stray bit of red plastic bag wafting about in the wind, decided that it was a heretofore unknown species of butterfly and spent years afterword in pursuit of another specimen..........yeah, as silly as such evidence as a 'corner of the eye' sighting of a fluttery red thing is EVIDENCE to the person who trusts enough in it to go looking for another fluttery red thing. YOU may think he's an idiot. I might...but as slender a bit of evidence as it is, it is sufficient for the searcher to PUT FAITH IN.

He can be wrong, and the evidence he has may be faulty, or flawed, or impossibly thin...but don't tell me that what he puts his faith in literally does not exist. I mean, it must exist...you just listed a bunch of 'em.

/viewtopic.php?p=488727#488727]McCulloch[/url]"]

You are equivocating. You are insisting that 'faith' can ONLY mean 'belief in religious things without reason.' when indeed even the religious who have faith have reasons. You simply don't like those reasons. In sum, what they are, to you, is 'simply wrong,'

The difference is that in science the reasons are open to question and rigorous scrutiny. In faith, they are not.[/quote]

Of course they are, Just not scientific scrutiny. If you don't think these things are not open to scrutiny, you haven't been to a divinity college lately, spoken with a Jesuit, or had lunch with a bunch of Rabbi's on a roll.

Or, for that matter, been to an LDS Gospel Doctrine class. (grin)

There are, after all, a great many more books on religious doctrine around than there are books on cosmology....and if that's not 'being under scrutiny,' I don't quite know what is.

[99percentatheism]

McCulloch[/url]"]

Yes...and have you ever asked them WHY they have this faith? Nobody is going to say "I dunno." They'll probably point to the bible and say something about it being evidence for itself, or something else. However, they will all have a reason for having faith that the bible is the Word of God.....and the evidence will be the bible.

I have asked. They seldom get down to specifics. The Bible is the Word of God, they say, but they generally do not have a whole lot of support for that assertion. They trot out internal evidence (the false assertion that the writers of the Bible claim that the Bible is God's word),

Aren't the writings "in the Bible" written for the people of Isreal and about their interactions with the "God" of Abraham (or the God of Moses)?

fulfilled prophesy (generally quite easy to dismiss if you have even an ounce of skepticism),

What about being skeptical of the skeptics? Aren't they just people trying to prove their positions that atheism is "the way"?

scientific knowledge that would have been unavailable in the society of the writers (countered by scientific errors and by ambiguous wording),

But the deal about burying your excrement Deut. 23:12-14? Fairly impressive don't you think? In Europe centuries later, people had know idea that horros were visiting them due to the sanitary practices.

All sorts of diseases occur from raw sewage in places where people live in close proximity.

. . . historic accuracy (as if that proves anything),

It actually proves quite a lot doesn't it?

. . . unity of theme and message (a very subjective judgement) and God's apparent providential care and oversight of his word (unavailable to quite a few people in various times in history and missing bits).

The Bible is not "a" book, but many booklets and reportings and letters gathered together under one binding. The Tankh and the New Testament for Christians. Impressively consistent of theme.

You are equivocating. You are insisting that 'faith' can ONLY mean 'belief in religious things without reason.' when indeed even the religious who have faith have reasons. You simply don't like those reasons. In sum, what they are, to you, is 'simply wrong,'

The difference is that in science the reasons are open to question and rigorous scrutiny. In faith, they are not.

I'd say that histotry has bourne out that bible-based religion has implemented the testing process quite impressively. And, like scientific fact, there is testing and then there is validation. No one questions gravity do they?

[FaerieStories]

That is interesting you seem to believe in the Big Bang because there was plenty of time to create those conditions. Could a god have been created in those same conditions?

Sure, why not? But we have evidence the Big Bang existed, and we don't for god.

[99percentatheism]

By the way, our very thinking process, isn't that a good answer for the OP's search?

It is very much a "proof" of the knowledge of good and evil that was brought to bear by God.

Other animals cannot violate their conscience. There is no right and wrong. No good or evil. Just time marching and munching on.

It seems to me that the belief that there is no God/Creator/First Cause, takes either a giant egotistical-academic leap into a vat of intellect-blinding philisophical acid, or is something the base-thinking brute does without a moment's hesitation. With both generated by the same need.

It's an observation.

[FaerieStories]

However, I'd be interesting in knowing what you mean by 'magical' and what this plane of everything we know you're talking about is?

By magical I mean supernatural. And I personally would not even make those distinctions between physical and "spiritual" at all- but the people who believe in this god usually do, so I have no choice but to work with them. I have not yet met someone (who isn't just a pantheist) who claims god is a physical being rather than a 'spiritual' one (whatever the hell that means).

These are claims of some sects of some religions, not of theism. I see in this thread and elsewhere some confusion on the part of some theists as to what atheism means; but why is that atheists often have difficulty understanding in turn what theism means?

Theism is the belief in a personal god. By which I mean: one that is around today and interacts somehow with the universe. Deism is the belief in a god but not a personal one.

Certainly the potential would be there in that scenario. There is the potential for science to examine and reach conclusions on the contents of my toilet also, but that doesn't mean that it's ever likely to happen - firstly because scientists don't usually spend their time looking at suburban folks' toilets, and secondly because I would object if they attempted it. In fact odds are they'd find nothing but water in there in any case.

I do not remember ever stipulating how likely it was.

If we want to examine gravity, we can do so at any time and place and feel fairly confident that we'll get the same results as we would at any other time and place. Our subject matter is, as you say, observable, testable, repeatable and demonstrable. But if our subject matter is a human being, its behaviour and the consequences of its behaviour are often not very repeatable or testable, especially if we don't have some kind of control over the individual. So if those are the criteria by which you seek evidence or knowledge of a deity, it seems obvious that your methodology is extremely limiting for what results you could acquire even in theory and, arguably, inappropriate for the subject matter.

Well I completely disagree. My 'subject matter' is merely that this thing is even THERE. Not the intricacies of its behaviour.

Yes...and have you ever asked them WHY they have this faith?

Of course. They then often say 'because the bible tells me to'- which is circular logic.

However, they will all have a reason for having faith that the bible is the Word of God.....and the evidence will be the bible.

And the logic will be completely circular. You can't use the bible to validate the bible. That's absurd. That's like looking at a comic in which a character says "I exist" and then saying that we can tell he exists because that same character says so.

You are equivocating. You are insisting that 'faith' can ONLY mean 'belief in religious things without reason.' when indeed even the religious who have faith have reasons. You simply don't like those reasons. In sum, what they are, to you, is 'simply wrong,'

"Faith,' if you look it up (as someone already has) means trust in something...and the specific meaning YOU want to attach to it, ignoring all the other meanings which basically nail the meaning down to 'trust,' is only #2 in the definition list.

Faith is...the willingness to behave as if what you believe to be true is true.

It is a property of the believer, NOT of the evidence in which the trust is placed, but there is ALWAYS something in which that trust is placed.

But feel quite free to show me anybody who puts faith in...nothing at all; who absolutely has no reason for his faith (not 'a faulty' reason, or an 'illogical' one...NONE.) I think that you will find that you can't do that.

The evidence that person uses may not prompt YOU to faith. In fact, you might find it utterly incomprehensible that anybody would put any credence in it...but that's not the point. there's some sort of 'it' there in which to place faith, whether you personally approve of it or not.

There always, ALWAYS, is, and you can always, ALWAYS, pin that down if you ask.

I have already explained to you that faith is a term that means different things to different people. If your definition of faith is a synonym of trust, then fine- I have no problem with that. Just as long as we are reading from the same hymn-sheet. But personally I would make a distinction between faith and trust in that trust is based on evidence or good reason, and faith is more about believing something not because it appears to be true but because you personally want it to be for whatever reason.

Nobody believes BECAUSE of faith. People have faith in the evidence that prompts their beliefs.

I'm pretty sure what this was what I was arguing to you yesterday- that religious people use both 'faith' and (what they think is) 'evidence. Of course, it's always entirely circular.

"but why do you have faith"
"because of the bible"
"but why do you believe in the bible?"
"because I have faith"
"but why do you have faith"
"because of the bible"
"but why do you believe in the bible?"
"because I have faith"
"but why do you have faith"
"because of the bible"
"but why do you believe in the bible?"
"because I have faith"
"but why do you have faith"
"because of the bible"
"but why do you believe in the bible?"
"because I have faith"

etc etc etc round and round in circles

But here...you want scientific evidence? Let's try this. Get every theist you know who actually believes and ask them WHY they believe.

...well yes, that was rather the point of this thread.

Wrong. ABsolutely wrong. There is no such thing as faith in 'nothing.' There is ALWAYS something around to have faith in; some evidence. It may not be good evidence. It may not be logical, empirical, or even understandable to the non-believer...but there is always something.

But the 'evidence' needs evidence. There is no evidence that the bible is the word of god, and so the leap of faith is that of just believing without reason that the bible is the word of god purely because the bible itself tells someone to.