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?).

[Mithrae]

Howdy again Faerie. While I've got the time (I was at work for my last post) let me congratulate you on one of the most impressively successful entrances to the forum that I've noticed. 61 posts in two days Good stuff, and a good thread with some interesting contributions from numerous posters.

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).

It sounds like you have an idea in mind of what 'physical' means, and to talk of the supernatural you must have an idea of what you'd consider 'natural.' I appreciate that you've answered so many of my questions, so unless you feel the urge I won't ask you to explain what you mean by those concepts

In the Philosophy sub-forum, Ionian Tradition recently started a thread from a similar perspective to your comments above; Can we speak intelligibly about non-physical entities? But it seems to me that while many theists (like many atheists) may not have a great deal of philosophical precision, what they generally mean by calling God, angels or the like 'spiritual' is in fact simply not-physical. Like the term atheist it needn't imply some specific knowledge of what is, it's merely a description of what it's not. The difficulty actually lies in trying to figure out what we mean by 'physical' or 'natural,' and indeed whether those notions are actually meaningful at all. Quoting Ionian Tradition's opening post:

• If one asserts that the term "physical" refers to that which is revealed through the various scientific theories which encapsulate our contemporary understanding of the "physical" world (quantum mechanics, general relativity, atomic theory, etc), one has failed to provide an adequate definition of the the term "physical" given that our contemporary understanding of the physical world is demonstrably incomplete. An example of this would be the fundamental conflict existing between the theory of relativity and quantum theory which presently drives the search for a "Grand unified theory". If one asserts that a future "complete physics" will round out our understanding of the physical world in its totality, one has appealed to a circular form of reasoning which states that all phenomena are explicable in terms of physics because a proper understanding of physics is that which explains all phenomena (including abstract thought, which begs the question that abstractions can be understood in terms of physics). Moreover, if one attempts to define the term "physical" in reference to a physics yet to be developed, has one truly said anything meaningful given that one cannot truly know what new physics will emerge? A cursory review of scientific developments made over the course of our species' history does not instill confidence that our "physics of the future" is guaranteed to reflect a physics similar to physics as it is presently known.

I've spent a lot of time thinking about this over the past couple of years, aided and abetted by various forum members of all persuasions; it started out as wondering why this idea of things 'supernatural' was so objectionable to some folk, and what they actually meant by it. Ideas are the object of reason, and words are the vehicle for both communicating and directing our ideas, so it makes sense to pay a great deal of attention to the kind of words we use, what we think we mean by them and the manner in which they're shaping our thoughts.

My working hypothesis so far is that these distinctions, and ultimately all the most intellectual differences in the theism/atheism discussion are rooted in the fundamental self vs. other dichotomy (love that word). What I mean is that a baby in the womb really cannot have any sense of a world; it has no sight, no taste or smell, little in the way of hearing or touch and no way to contextualise that little it does experience. After birth there'd be something of an explosion of experience so to speak, which I'd guess would be somewhat overwhelming at first, but over the weeks would begin to resolve into some familiar sights, sounds and sensations (such as the mother's face, voice and breasts), and some which change or remain unfamiliar. The development of any kind of reasoning cannot begin until those kinds of differentiations begin, and alongside the recognition that those things are different from each other there can be no sense of 'self' without the recognition that I am different from them.

In fairness what I've read about developmental psychology could probably be printed on quite a small business card depending on font, but I think the above makes sense Following the recognition that the world is not like me, toddlers in a healthy environment will begin to recognise that parts of the world are like them, most obviously their parents with whom they interact in quite different ways than with chairs, toys and the like - and that is followed by the period in which the child seeks to impose its desires on others, rather than being imposed upon, the idiomatic 'terrible twos.' Now most internet debating veterans of an enquiring disposition will probably be familiar with the ages old problem of other minds: How can we really know that behind that face and in the darkness behind those eyes there are experiences like our own, since we can never see or touch them?

But what I consider to be an even more interesting conundrum is the question of other types of being, the sense of otherness which must necessarily precede a sense of self, and hence any concept of other 'selves.' Why, to what extent, and how can I know that the world is not like me?

If I can't truly know except by analogy that bits of the word are like me, how can I possibly know when analogy is so obviously inadequate that the rest of the world is not like me? This is what I was easing into with my earlier comment:
Ultimately the most fundamental nature of reality is either thinking and choosing, or non-thinking and deterministic/random.

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?

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.

I'd say that theism includes polytheism, monotheism, deism, pantheism, panentheism - and possibly others. All of which can involve 'personal' gods (and frankly I think the term is meaningless if it's 'impersonal'). But in any case, non-deistic theism needn't imply that we can know specifically "what this being has done," merely that we can infer it has done, and it certainly needn't imply interaction with every human (or indeed personal interaction with any human).

Another poster on the forum by the name of EduChris has been known to point out that while all atheists hold specific beliefs about the world and all theists hold specific beliefs about the world, if we choose to debate on the basis of bare-bones atheism or a mere lack of belief in a god, it would be rather dishonest to be presuming certain beliefs or consequences related to theism besides mere belief in a god.

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.

I can see where you're coming from, and I'm not saying it's a bad approach. Your perspective (correct me if I'm wrong) is along the lines of pencils might exist, yes we can confirm that; chairs might exist, yes we can confirm that; black holes might exist, yes we can confirm that; God might exist... wait, can we confirm that???

My perspective is that the methodology which you're talking about can't actually confirm anything about the nature of reality. All it can do is observe. By that method we can explain observable phenomena in terms of other observable phenomena, but we can't fully explain anything. For example I noticed in one of the earliest pages of the thread that you made reference to the "laws of the known universe" - but I reckon you have no way of showing that these supposed 'laws' actually exist, or that they're not simply a remarkable series of coincidences, or some Being's choice to behave in that manner.

In other words what we're talking about here is not some additional thing which exists like pencils, chairs or black holes; what we're talking about is different ways of imagining the world. Most atheists imagine the universe - atoms, rocks, planets and so on - as non-thinking stuff which (since we've observed it for so many long centuries!) behaves consistently and presumably deterministically. In fairness most theists somehow imagine the universe as non-thinking stuff also, but nevertheless stuff whose nature and ongoing existence is based in the thought and choice of a greater being. You can't observe the 'laws' or determinism of many atheists' universe, merely the phenomena they're presumed to have caused, and likewise you can't readily observe the God of theists' universe. The difference is that the theistic universe offers some scant possibility that we might acquire such knowledge through means other than our rather limited senses - and even many noted atheists have apparently acknowledged the reality of the numinous experience which Theopoesis mentioned earlier (not to be confused with 'spiritual' or mystical).

[FaerieStories]

Howdy again Faerie. While I've got the time (I was at work for my last post) let me congratulate you on one of the most impressively successful entrances to the forum that I've noticed. 61 posts in two days Good stuff, and a good thread with some interesting contributions from numerous posters.

Well thank you, but I don't seem to be left with much choice when there are people here who accuse me of "offending" them for not responding to their posts. I'm glad I only started one thread here! This is very time-consuming.

It sounds like you have an idea in mind of what 'physical' means, and to talk of the supernatural you must have an idea of what you'd consider 'natural.' I appreciate that you've answered so many of my questions, so unless you feel the urge I won't ask you to explain what you mean by those concepts

Well look. It's a tricky thing. To me- personally- 'natural' is just anything that exists. And supernatural is anything that doesn't. You may think the term supernatural- by my classification- is rather redundant. But I am an English Lit student, and so the distinction between natural and supernatural is very useful- Dorian Gray's portrait is supernatural in Wilde's novel and Dorian Gray is natural.

But to others 'supernatural' or 'spiritual' means something else. Some kind of plane which is wholly different from the physical world in some way (which- by the way- makes things rather convenient for the Theist who insists god is there but can't prove that he is. Refer to Sagan's dragon parable). I don't buy this distinction. If it's there and exists I see no reason to make such a distinction. It overcomplicates things.

In the Philosophy sub-forum, Ionian Tradition recently started a thread from a similar perspective to your comments above; Can we speak intelligibly about non-physical entities? But it seems to me that while many theists (like many atheists) may not have a great deal of philosophical precision, what they generally mean by calling God, angels or the like 'spiritual' is in fact simply not-physical. Like the term atheist it needn't imply some specific knowledge of what is, it's merely a description of what it's not.

Thank you, by the way, for making that distinction. I have not yet encountered someone in this community misusing the word 'atheist'- which definitely bodes well. I've been on other forums whenre 90% of my time is spent correcting people as to what an 'atheist' is.

The difficulty actually lies in trying to figure out what we mean by 'physical' or 'natural,' and indeed whether those notions are actually meaningful at all. Quoting Ionian Tradition's opening post:

• If one asserts that the term "physical" refers to that which is revealed through the various scientific theories which encapsulate our contemporary understanding of the "physical" world (quantum mechanics, general relativity, atomic theory, etc), one has failed to provide an adequate definition of the the term "physical" given that our contemporary understanding of the physical world is demonstrably incomplete. An example of this would be the fundamental conflict existing between the theory of relativity and quantum theory which presently drives the search for a "Grand unified theory". If one asserts that a future "complete physics" will round out our understanding of the physical world in its totality, one has appealed to a circular form of reasoning which states that all phenomena are explicable in terms of physics because a proper understanding of physics is that which explains all phenomena (including abstract thought, which begs the question that abstractions can be understood in terms of physics). Moreover, if one attempts to define the term "physical" in reference to a physics yet to be developed, has one truly said anything meaningful given that one cannot truly know what new physics will emerge? A cursory review of scientific developments made over the course of our species' history does not instill confidence that our "physics of the future" is guaranteed to reflect a physics similar to physics as it is presently known.

I've spent a lot of time thinking about this over the past couple of years, aided and abetted by various forum members of all persuasions; it started out as wondering why this idea of things 'supernatural' was so objectionable to some folk, and what they actually meant by it. Ideas are the object of reason, and words are the vehicle for both communicating and directing our ideas, so it makes sense to pay a great deal of attention to the kind of words we use, what we think we mean by them and the manner in which they're shaping our thoughts.

Indeed. A great deal of philosophy is mere semantics, but it's important nonetheless.

My working hypothesis so far is that these distinctions, and ultimately all the most intellectual differences in the theism/atheism discussion are rooted in the fundamental self vs. other dichotomy (love that word). What I mean is that a baby in the womb really cannot have any sense of a world; it has no sight, no taste or smell, little in the way of hearing or touch and no way to contextualise that little it does experience. After birth there'd be something of an explosion of experience so to speak, which I'd guess would be somewhat overwhelming at first, but over the weeks would begin to resolve into some familiar sights, sounds and sensations (such as the mother's face, voice and breasts), and some which change or remain unfamiliar. The development of any kind of reasoning cannot begin until those kinds of differentiations begin, and alongside the recognition that those things are different from each other there can be no sense of 'self' without the recognition that I am different from them.

In fairness what I've read about developmental psychology could probably be printed on quite a small business card depending on font, but I think the above makes sense Following the recognition that the world is not like me, toddlers in a healthy environment will begin to recognise that parts of the world are like them, most obviously their parents with whom they interact in quite different ways than with chairs, toys and the like - and that is followed by the period in which the child seeks to impose its desires on others, rather than being imposed upon, the idiomatic 'terrible twos.' Now most internet debating veterans of an enquiring disposition will probably be familiar with the ages old problem of other minds: How can we really know that behind that face and in the darkness behind those eyes there are experiences like our own, since we can never see or touch them?

But what I consider to be an even more interesting conundrum is the question of other types of being, the sense of otherness which must necessarily precede a sense of self, and hence any concept of other 'selves.' Why, to what extent, and how can I know that the world is not like me?

Sure, ok. You seem to be saying something not dissimilar from Lacan's Mirror Stage- the time at which an infant realises he is separate from the world around him- his own being.

I'd say that theism includes polytheism, monotheism, deism, pantheism, panentheism - and possibly others. All of which can involve 'personal' gods (and frankly I think the term is meaningless if it's 'impersonal'). But in any case, non-deistic theism needn't imply that we can know specifically "what this being has done," merely that we can infer it has done, and it certainly needn't imply interaction with every human (or indeed personal interaction with any human).

Sure, ok. I've never been sure whether to categorise deism as a subset of Theism or not.

I can see where you're coming from, and I'm not saying it's a bad approach. Your perspective (correct me if I'm wrong) is along the lines of pencils might exist, yes we can confirm that; chairs might exist, yes we can confirm that; black holes might exist, yes we can confirm that; God might exist... wait, can we confirm that???

Well yes, I don't see why gods should be any different from pencils and chairs in the sense that: we should potentially be able to find out to some degree of certainty whether or not it exists.

My perspective is that the methodology which you're talking about can't actually confirm anything about the nature of reality. All it can do is observe. By that method we can explain observable phenomena in terms of other observable phenomena, but we can't fully explain anything. For example I noticed in one of the earliest pages of the thread that you made reference to the "laws of the known universe" - but I reckon you have no way of showing that these supposed 'laws' actually exist, or that they're not simply a remarkable series of coincidences, or some Being's choice to behave in that manner.

I should clarify that I was referring to the laws we have discovered through physics such as the law of gravity. You're right, there's absolutely no real way to have absolute knowledge that gravity exists, and it isn't just a freak coincidence that dropping a pencil will always pull it towards the floor. But that is not the point. We can still 'know' something without having absolute knowledge> We're back to Cartesian semantics again. We cannot deal in absolutes or 100%s- it isn't viable. We have to make do with 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999%s.

The difference is that the theistic universe offers some scant possibility that we might acquire such knowledge through means other than our rather limited senses - and even many noted atheists have apparently acknowledged the reality of the numinous experience which Theopoesis mentioned earlier (not to be confused with 'spiritual' or mystical).

You seem to be merely arguing that the Theistic position is more attractive. This is not at all relevant as to whether or not it is correct.

[kayky]

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.

Incidentally, our universe is only about 14 billion years old, as we measure time. Time as we know it is simply one of the 4 dimensions of our particular universe, and may be completely different in other universes, with no relation to our time.

Even if this could be proven to be true, I don't see how it explains anything. What is cranking out all these universes?

And considering the Big Bang itself, it evidently was the result of the heating up of the singularity. I'm no science whiz, but I do know that energy is required for heat. Where did this energy come from? Now that I'm thinking about it, where did the singularity come from?

[kayky]

But you are trying to tell me that EVERY non-believer got their methodology wrong somewhere. Really? All of them? Not even one of them did the exact same thing a believer did? If someone studies the bible, prays every day, seeks help from all the people you think are best to seek help from and basically does everything you think would lead to faith- and still does not believe, are you seriously telling me that is still his fault?

I thought about this comment overnight, and I think it may be a matter of expectation.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the expectation seems to be that God should respond to your efforts to find him. I know that's what many religious traditions teach, but I have not found this to be true. In my own experience, God is something that can be accessed in a communal way. This is an imperfect analogy, but it's kind of like standing on the bank of a stream and wondering how to go about getting your feet wet. You realize you must step into the stream. The stream is not responding to your desire for wet feet. It is simply available for use.

[austin12345]

I believe there are many good arguments for the existence of God. I will give you a couple ones tested that and two news ones I have thought about myself. Not to much in detail because I am not good with computers but you can give a rebuttal and I will then adress them.

The Kalam Cosmological argument
1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause

The teleological argument.
1. The universe's design is either by necessity, chance or design
2. It is not necessity or chance
3. Therefore it is design

The argument from morality
1. If absolute moral values exist God exists
2. Absolute moral values do exist
3. Therefore God exists.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ

Argument from perfection
1. If man can notice and percieve perfection, than a perfect being exists
2. Man does notice and percieve perfection
3. A perfect being exists

Argument from consciesness
1. If there are rational animals with that can inference and seek truth, a rational being had to give us truth
2. Man is a rational animal
3. Therefore a being gave us rationality and truth

[dianaiad]

<snip to here>

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.

Again you are confusing your opinion of the evidence used with the evidence itself. Yes, it's circular logic. I agree. That's not the point.

On the other hand, have you ever seriously asked anybody why they believe in the bible?

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.

I happen to agree with you that it is illogical to use the bible to validate the bible...because it's circular reasoning. That's not the point, though. THEY use it so. Again, you are confusing your opinion of the validity of the evidence with the presence of the evidence itself.

Think about it this way: that evidence exists, obviously...because if it did not, there would be nothing there for you to have an opinion about, would there?

So...YOU may find that evidence to be invalid...but the believer does not, and the believer trusts it and not your opinion.

Perhaps you could give me one good reason why someone should give up his or her beliefs simply because YOU don't like the evidence they use to support them?

Should you give up your ideas regarding, oh...politics, say (and I have no clue what your opinions are in this matter; it's simply a hypothetical example), because mine are different and I think that you are basing your opinions on really stupid stuff?

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.

Then you are going to have to argue with a great many governments and official promises that use the word 'faith' to mean 'extreme trust,' in very non-religious and official matters; documents like the US Constitution and its 'full faith and credit' clause, for instance, or ,,,here.

From Black's Law Dictionary...the legal definition of 'faith.'

1. Confidence; credit; rellanca Thus, an act may be said to be done on thefaith of certain representations.2. Relief; credence; trust. Thus, the constitution provides that full faith and creditshall be given to the judgments of each state In the courts of the others.3. Purpose; intent; sincerity; state of knowledge or design. This is the meaning ofthe word in the phrases good faith and bad faith.In Scotch law. A solemn pledge; an oath. To make faith is to swear, with theright hand uplifted, that one will declare the truth. 1 Forb. Inst pt. 4, p. 235.

Read more: FAITH | Definition of FAITH (Black's Law Dictionary)

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

Y'know, the only people I have ever heard who actually quote or participate in such dialogues are atheists who claim that people engage in them. I have never seen a theist actually do this.

I have never, EVER, heard the following standard example for circular reasoning used by a theist:

Why do you believe in God?
.......because the bible tells me He exists.

Why do you believe in the Bible?

.......because God wrote it.


I've only ever seen it used by atheists and critics.

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.

But you dismiss their reasons as being non-existent because you don't approve of them.

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.

Irrelevant. This is utterly and completely beside the point. You are, again, confusing the reasons why people believe with your opinion of those reasons, and dismissing them all out of hand.

Faith, ultimately, is not a reason to believe...and nobody believes 'because of faith." That's like saying that someone walks because they put one foot in front of the other. Faith is not WHY someone believes; it is the belief. More accurately, it is the proof of belief.

You know, like this: James 2:

17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

[FaerieStories]

But you are trying to tell me that EVERY non-believer got their methodology wrong somewhere. Really? All of them? Not even one of them did the exact same thing a believer did? If someone studies the bible, prays every day, seeks help from all the people you think are best to seek help from and basically does everything you think would lead to faith- and still does not believe, are you seriously telling me that is still his fault?

I thought about this comment overnight, and I think it may be a matter of expectation.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the expectation seems to be that God should respond to your efforts to find him. I know that's what many religious traditions teach, but I have not found this to be true. In my own experience, God is something that can be accessed in a communal way. This is an imperfect analogy, but it's kind of like standing on the bank of a stream and wondering how to go about getting your feet wet. You realize you must step into the stream. The stream is not responding to your desire for wet feet. It is simply available for use.

Well no, it's not about god 'responding' per se. It's about having the feeling that he is even there. Though even then I fail to see how this feeling could be distinguished from any other basic superstitious feeling we have.

The Kalam Cosmological argument
1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

Points 1 and 2 are just assumptions. And in any case, who says the cause must need be god?

The teleological argument.
1. The universe's design is either by necessity, chance or design
2. It is not necessity or chance
3. Therefore it is design

You already STARTED by calling it a 'design' and then concluded by saying it is a design. It is not a design. I do not know what you mean by 'necessity' but 'chance' or 'design' are not the only 2 options. I can't really go any further with this argument until you explain what you mean by necessity.

The argument from morality
1. If absolute moral values exist God exists
2. Absolute moral values do exist
3. Therefore God exists.

Wait, what? Says who? How do you know 'absolute moral values' exist? How do you know that if they do exist that automatically means a god does?

The resurrection of Jesus Christ

...a story from a mythology? That's an argument in of itself? You may as well have just listed the story of Odysseus for proof of the existence of Poseidon.

Argument from perfection
1. If man can notice and percieve perfection, than a perfect being exists
2. Man does notice and percieve perfection
3. A perfect being exists

Again: says who? Points 1 and 2 are just blind assumptions. In any case I have no idea how even if 1 and 2 are correct, that leads to 3.

Argument from consciesness
1. If there are rational animals with that can inference and seek truth, a rational being had to give us truth
2. Man is a rational animal
3. Therefore a being gave us rationality and truth

Again: says who? Why did a ration being HAVE to give us the ability to seek truth?

-

Almost all of your arguments are based on assumptions that you have not justified.

[Rkrause]

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?).

Try this guy

[FaerieStories]

On the other hand, have you ever seriously asked anybody why they believe in the bible?

Of course.

I happen to agree with you that it is illogical to use the bible to validate the bible...because it's circular reasoning. That's not the point, though. THEY use it so. Again, you are confusing your opinion of the validity of the evidence with the presence of the evidence itself.

Think about it this way: that evidence exists, obviously...because if it did not, there would be nothing there for you to have an opinion about, would there?

Yes but "evidence" with inverted commas over it. It's what they call evidence. I do not call it 'evidence'.

Perhaps you could give me one good reason why someone should give up his or her beliefs simply because YOU don't like the evidence they use to support them?

There is no good reason anyone should give up their beliefs purely because I tell them not to with no explanation. But maybe they should if I were to convince them that The Bible is no different from any other mythology and no more 'evidence' of the events within it than The Odyssey is of the events within that. (a simplification of course: all mythologies contain both fact and fiction).

Should you give up your ideas regarding, oh...politics, say (and I have no clue what your opinions are in this matter; it's simply a hypothetical example), because mine are different and I think that you are basing your opinions on really stupid stuff?

If you convince me that they are indeed based on stupid stuff- then yes, of course I should change my opinions. Everybody should be able and open to having their mind changed if they are convinced they are wrong.

Then you are going to have to argue with a great many governments and official promises that use the word 'faith' to mean 'extreme trust,' in very non-religious and official matters; documents like the US Constitution and its 'full faith and credit' clause, for instance, or ,,,here.

From Black's Law Dictionary...the legal definition of 'faith.'

1. Confidence; credit; rellanca Thus, an act may be said to be done on thefaith of certain representations.2. Relief; credence; trust. Thus, the constitution provides that full faith and creditshall be given to the judgments of each state In the courts of the others.3. Purpose; intent; sincerity; state of knowledge or design. This is the meaning ofthe word in the phrases good faith and bad faith.In Scotch law. A solemn pledge; an oath. To make faith is to swear, with theright hand uplifted, that one will declare the truth. 1 Forb. Inst pt. 4, p. 235.

Read more: FAITH | Definition of FAITH (Black's Law Dictionary)

Words have different meanings in different contexts. For some reason you seem to think that because a word means something in one context, it cannot mean something different in another. the english language does not work like that.

Y'know, the only people I have ever heard who actually quote or participate in such dialogues are atheists who claim that people engage in them. I have never seen a theist actually do this.

Then maybe you don't debate with Theists often enough. I have heard it from Theists more than anyone would want to in their lifetime.

But you dismiss their reasons as being non-existent because you don't approve of them.

I never said I would approve of or agree with everything in the thread. I am pretty sure everything I have disagreed with, I have stated WHY I disagree with it.

[dianaiad]

On the other hand, have you ever seriously asked anybody why they believe in the bible?

Of course.

I happen to agree with you that it is illogical to use the bible to validate the bible...because it's circular reasoning. That's not the point, though. THEY use it so. Again, you are confusing your opinion of the validity of the evidence with the presence of the evidence itself.

Think about it this way: that evidence exists, obviously...because if it did not, there would be nothing there for you to have an opinion about, would there?

Yes but "evidence" with inverted commas over it. It's what they call evidence. I do not call it 'evidence'.

(grin) Again, that's your opinion showing. THEY don't put quotes around the word.

Perhaps you could give me one good reason why someone should give up his or her beliefs simply because YOU don't like the evidence they use to support them?

There is no good reason anyone should give up their beliefs purely because I tell them not to with no explanation. But maybe they should if I were to convince them that The Bible is no different from any other mythology and no more 'evidence' of the events within it than The Odyssey is of the events within that. (a simplification of course: all mythologies contain both fact and fiction).

If you can convince them? Of course. If your evidence trumps theirs...in THEIR opinion, surely.

But that's not what we are talking about, is it?

........................and I agree with you about mythology. It's all true. Or rather, it's all True (capital 'T,' as in, 'providing insights into philosophical, commonly held truths of human existence and relationships')

Should you give up your ideas regarding, oh...politics, say (and I have no clue what your opinions are in this matter; it's simply a hypothetical example), because mine are different and I think that you are basing your opinions on really stupid stuff?

If you convince me that they are indeed based on stupid stuff- then yes, of course I should change my opinions. Everybody should be able and open to having their mind changed if they are convinced they are wrong.

Of course. ...but even saying that is proving my point here...you have to show them evidence that trumps theirs. This means that they HAVE some. You might not agree with it. Indeed, I might not. However, as slim, transparent, flimsy, or illogical as that evidence is, it is 'something,' it is 'there,' and that is what people put faith IN.

Then you are going to have to argue with a great many governments and official promises that use the word 'faith' to mean 'extreme trust,' in very non-religious and official matters; documents like the US Constitution and its 'full faith and credit' clause, for instance, or ,,,here.

From Black's Law Dictionary...the legal definition of 'faith.'

1. Confidence; credit; rellanca Thus, an act may be said to be done on thefaith of certain representations.2. Relief; credence; trust. Thus, the constitution provides that full faith and creditshall be given to the judgments of each state In the courts of the others.3. Purpose; intent; sincerity; state of knowledge or design. This is the meaning ofthe word in the phrases good faith and bad faith.In Scotch law. A solemn pledge; an oath. To make faith is to swear, with theright hand uplifted, that one will declare the truth. 1 Forb. Inst pt. 4, p. 235.

Read more: FAITH | Definition of FAITH (Black's Law Dictionary)

Words have different meanings in different contexts. For some reason you seem to think that because a word means something in one context, it cannot mean something different in another. the english language does not work like that.

I'm aware of that. In fact, that's the POINT...and I'm not the one guilty of this. You are.

Y'know, the only people I have ever heard who actually quote or participate in such dialogues are atheists who claim that people engage in them. I have never seen a theist actually do this.

Then maybe you don't debate with Theists often enough. I have heard it from Theists more than anyone would want to in their lifetime.

Here's a serious question. Is this what you actually hear, or what you think you hear? You seem to have some difficulty getting the concept that your opinion of what constitutes evidence for someone else's belief counts more than theirs does, or that if in your opinion, that evidence IS faulty or illogical, it then doesn't exist at all.

As for me, I'm a Mormon. Most of the people I have debated with over the years have BEEN theists, and many of them over this very topic. It's how I came to think as I do about what faith actually is, and where I learned that, if you are persistent and willing to drill down, you will ALWAYS come to the 'real' reason someone believes.

In fact, given my age and experience and all, I'm willing to predict that I've argued with far more theists than you have.

But you dismiss their reasons as being non-existent because you don't approve of them.

I never said I would approve of or agree with everything in the thread. I am pretty sure everything I have disagreed with, I have stated WHY I disagree with it.

Since when does having a reason to disapprove of something mean that you don't disapprove of it? WHY you don't like the evidence is completely irrelevant here. THAT you don't like it is also irrelevant. The only thing that IS relevant to the idea of faith is what the BELIEVER thinks.