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?).

[FaerieStories]

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

Uh, no, of course they don't. What is your point here? When did I ever say that was anything other than my opinion?

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?

Yes it is.

Of course. ...but even saying that is proving my point here...you have to show them evidence that trumps theirs.

Uh, no. If I show you a photo I took with a blur on it that I am claiming is the ghost of Winston Churchill- do you have to provide 'evidence' that my evidence is incorrect, or do you have to simply explain why my evidence is incorrect?

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

Uh... I am? Oh... ok then. You've lost me.

Here's a serious question. Is this what you actually hear, or what you think you hear?

Maybe this forum of well-spoken and intelligent people has let your guard down a bit. I used to frequent another forum and I could give a list of things they've said which are far more illogical and hilarious than mere circular logic. I actually have a collection of these hilariously nonsensical statements people have made on forums. I'll post a few if you like.

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.

Well I agree.

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.

That may well be so.

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.

Right, so if I believe in my 'evidence' of Winston Churchill's ghost, it would be 'irrelevant' for you to tell me it's absurd?

[Hawkins]

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.
[/i]

The scenario is that, a group of witnesses claim that there's bomb near your house. And they'd die for that piece of information to be spreaded out. It is said by them that someone will lead you out to a safe place.

So now what? You choose to stay to wait for other evidence? Still others choose to listen and leave.

[FaerieStories]

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.
[/i]

The scenario is that, a group of witnesses claim that there's bomb near your house. And they'd die for that piece of information to be spreaded out. It is said by them that someone will lead you out to a safe place.

So now what? You choose to stay to wait for other evidence? Still others choose to listen and leave.

Uh, right... so? If finding out whether a god existed or not was as simple as digging in the ground for the bomb they claim to be there, I would do so right away.

Not sure what your point is here.

[dusk]

So what is the REAL reason deep down as to why you believe?

Someone on another thread added one like this.
A child has a father which it loves and adores. A grown up can only have god in the same way. It may be a reason to seek god so as to find someone/thing as a shoulder to cry own, to thank for stuff that nobody can be thanked for, to hope, to explain stuff that doesn't make sense to one.
Yet all that is imo a reason to seek out a faith and maybe feel drawn to one. What I wouldn't be able to shake off is the knowledge of my own bias (the reasons above). There would have to be reasons to believe which are different from the ones for which one seeks.
I think this is the biggest problem for many pronounced atheists that they cannot ignore their knowledge of their own bias and thus have difficulty accepting weak evidence as anything worthwhile.

The bible as one holy book among others full of all kinds of things source of all kinds of interpretations is near impossible to respect as anything more than ancient writings, like so many others. It may be different when one grows up in a place where one gets the idea this is the only book worthy of note, but that isn't really the case anymore and now who would trust that the first book they investigate is the right one, while being aware of all the others.

To formulate this in a short questions.
Why trust your own bias when it is so obvious?
Why trust evidence whose main pro is that it is or has been more accessible to you than similar stuff?

[Hawkins]

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.
[/i]

The scenario is that, a group of witnesses claim that there's bomb near your house. And they'd die for that piece of information to be spreaded out. It is said by them that someone will lead you out to a safe place.

So now what? You choose to stay to wait for other evidence? Still others choose to listen and leave.

Uh, right... so? If finding out whether a god existed or not was as simple as digging in the ground for the bomb they claim to be there, I would do so right away.

Not sure what your point is here.

The point is Christianity is about the same warning. Leaving in fact is a good choice. Digging is a risking of your own life because the bomb may explode at anytime (analogue to that you may die physically anytime and may lose your spiritual life at the same time).

[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.

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.

This is the reason I place so much stock in my religious experience. The experience itself is like being connected to perfect love. Most significantly, it results in a spontaneous healing of my psyche. Now perhaps I have the power to access my brain in such a way to bring this about. But you should know I spend a great deal of time looking for my keys.

One reason I rejected fundamentalism is because it seemed to be about just "feelings." Going to church made me feel happy, but as the week went on I would fall back into the same thought patterns that brought me so much pain to begin with. I didn't feel the core issues were being addressed.

I became an atheist for a while and even sought counseling, but it turned into a meaningless pursuit. I knew there had been people throughout history who had claimed a profound experience of God that had transformed their lives. I began to study their writings and experimenting with their techniques. I was determined to reach a breakthrough. Pain will do that to you. It finally came. For me it was the beginning of a journey toward wholeness.

[JohnPaul]

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?

It doesn't explain anything. It simply pushes the question back a step. But at least science is working on it. That is more than can be said for religion, which in several thousand years has never gotten beyond the point of saying "God said: 'Let there be light.'" I tried that and it doesn't work, so obviously some explaining is lacking in the Bible. Did God use a magic wand, like Harry Potter?

[Rkrause]

Maybe this forum of well-spoken and intelligent people has let your guard down a bit. I used to frequent another forum and I could give a list of things they've said which are far more illogical and hilarious than mere circular logic. I actually have a collection of these hilariously nonsensical statements people have made on forums. I'll post a few if you like.

Do you also have a list of the good things and logical things theists have said to you? I would like to read that list.

Of course it doesn't exist does it?

[kayky]

It doesn't explain anything. It simply pushes the question back a step. But at least science is working on it. That is more than can be said for religion, which in several thousand years has never gotten beyond the point of saying "God said: 'Let there be light.'" I tried that and it doesn't work, so obviously some explaining is lacking in the Bible. Did God use a magic wand, like Harry Potter?

And I'm glad science is working on it, but what science will never be able to provide is meaning or value. I think most people see these concepts as important concepts to pursue. Religion, if practiced well, can be a vehicle in such a pursuit.

I have to say that many of the people on this thread who are arguing in favor of a God belief are doing so very badly. I see no value in reading the Bible as literal history or in thinking it is the word of God. Believing in God because a book or a tradition says you should makes no sense at all.

I don't know "who" or "what" God is. I don't know the logistics of how God brought the universe into existence. Like everyone else here, I'm simply trying to make sense of my observation and experience of the world.

I am a big fan of Ralph Waldo Emerson. He believed in the human power to intuit the sacred in everything around us. That is how I experience the world.

[dianaiad]

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

Uh, no, of course they don't. What is your point here? When did I ever say that was anything other than my opinion?

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

OK...from what I see, it is YOUR OPINION that 'faith' is belief based upon nothing at all; one believes because one believes.

this your claim, and the point we are debating. I am saying that no, there is no such thing as belief 'because one believes.' There is always something to believe in, and a reason to believe--that is not 'just because I believe." Always.

In this sense, you are missing the point, because you seem also to be claiming that you are the ultimate judge, not of whether the evidence used by people of faith is valid, but of whether it even exists.

You keep throwing up your opinion of those reasons as being somehow proof that those reasons do not, after all, actually exist.

My point is that your opinion of those reasons, (and my opinion of them) is completely beside the point. Those opinions are specious. Irrelevant. It does not, in fact, matter two whits WHAT you and I think of them. It only matters that they exist, and that the believers use them as evidence for the validity of their beliefs, and as justification for their faith.

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?

Yes it is.

Then we are absolutely talking past each other, and I choose to believe that it's your fault.

Of course. ...but even saying that is proving my point here...you have to show them evidence that trumps theirs.

Uh, no. If I show you a photo I took with a blur on it that I am claiming is the ghost of Winston Churchill- do you have to provide 'evidence' that my evidence is incorrect, or do you have to simply explain why my evidence is incorrect?

uh...don't look now, but even admitting that I would have to explain why your evidence is incorrect is an admission that you actually have it. There it is. That photo which you think is a picture of the ghost of Winston Churchill, in which you place your faith. That's the reason you believe (have faith that) Winston Churchill left a ghost.

It doesn't matter whether I think that picture is of a bit of laundry on a line. It doesn't matter if I can change your mind...right here, right now, you have this picture that is evidence enough for YOU to believe in Churchill's ghost.

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

Uh... I am? Oh... ok then. You've lost me.

I'm the one who was pointing out the different definitions of the word 'faith,' and what they all had in common. YOU are the one that insists that the only definition that works is yours...the second one in the list.

Here's a serious question. Is this what you actually hear, or what you think you hear?

Maybe this forum of well-spoken and intelligent people has let your guard down a bit. I used to frequent another forum and I could give a list of things they've said which are far more illogical and hilarious than mere circular logic. I actually have a collection of these hilariously nonsensical statements people have made on forums. I'll post a few if you like.

Might be fun...but to be honest, I've been to those forums too...or ones like them. I have ALWAYS been able to get the believer to 'drill down' to the real reason they believe, and it has never been 'because I believe."

I can readily believe, however, that on forums such as the ones you and I have frequented, people of faith get their backs up...usually as a result of being mocked and derided about their beliefs. In situations like that, people don't generally expose their real reasons...such things tend to be special to them, and exposing them to forums like those you speak of is akin to...well, the new testament has a perfect analogy; you remember the bit about not casting your pearls before swine, lest they 'turn again, and rend you?" You have to admit that in those forums there was a fair bit of rending going on.

............and if you don't think so, try being a Mormon in one of those places. Whew...we get it from ALL sides.

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.

Well I agree.

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.

That may well be so.

I think...well....given that I really am three times your age, and have been a missionary and everything, it's past a 'may well be,' and pretty close to 'almost certainly."

Shoot, I used to moderate usenet newsgroups, and nobody got wilder or woolier.

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.

Right, so if I believe in my 'evidence' of Winston Churchill's ghost, it would be 'irrelevant' for you to tell me it's absurd?

In terms of claiming that you believe only because you believe, yes.

However, in terms of trying to get your mind changed, no.