Back to basics: Give me an argument as to why a god exists

[FaerieStories]

Hi, I'm new here and I see a lot of active topics on specific concepts where users are already heavily engaged in debate, making it a little hard for me to join in. So to test the waters a little (and to help me decide whether or not to stick around here), let's go back to basics and have a debate about the most fundamental question at hand here: does a god exist?

As a non-believer, I have yet to discover any convincing reason as to why I should believe in a god. So, if a Theist would like to get the ball rolling by giving me a reason why god exists, that would be great.

(PS: unrelated question: what is the general breakdown of belief/non-belief on these forums? Is it an even mix of believers and non-believers, or is there- as tends to happen on the internet- a larger proportion of atheists to Theists?).

[Rkrause]

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.

A person who is challenged to a swimming race that is forced to have his arms and legs cut off before the match will always swim poorly in that race.

My point is that christians are seriously limited in our abilities to explain why we believe in God or to even express why we believe the way we do.

We can't use the Bible, personal experiences, our own opinions, other christians opinions and the list goes on.

Many times it is like trying to convince a blind man that colors exist but the blind man refuses to except any proof except what he understand from his working senses only. ie The blind man doesn't believe in light because he can't hear it, see it, feel it or smell it.

[scourge99]

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?).

Reason cannot, by itself, explain why there is reason. Science cannot, by itself, explan why there is science. Man's descovery and application of science are products of reason.

Reason and science can explain the existence of matter, but cannot explain why there is matter. They can explain the existence of the universe, but they cannot explain why there is a universe. They can xplain the existence of life, but they cannot explain why there is life. They can explain the existence of consciousness, but they cannot explain why there is consciousness.

Science is a critical aspect of human existence, but it cannot address the spiritual nature of man. In theis respect, science is a dead end around which the Atheist refuses to reason. Reason itself informs man of its limitations and, in doing so, directs him to the discovery of a force greater than himself --a supernatural force responsible for the origins of not only human existence but all existence, and which itself has always existed and will always exist. For most, the supernatural reveals itself in the Creator --God. Man seeks God's guidance through faith and prayer. The Agnostic accepts the supernatural, but is not so sure of the form of its existence. The Deist accepts that God created the universe and man's condition but left it to man to sort things out through reason.

--Mark Levin, Liberty and Tyranny.

That sums it up...

A perfect example of how a god becomes the explanation for anything and everything a believer is ignorant about. A god of the gaps.

If what you read in the above is the 'god of the gaps' argument, then you really do need to go back and read it again. The god of the gaps idea is that anything that science attempts to explain, and cannot (or isn't 'there' yet) is explained away with 'God did it."

That is one idea of what the god of the gaps is.

The God-of-the-gaps I was referring to would be: if something isn't explained (whether by science or anything else) then it is explained with "god-did-it".

Why does lightening and thunder happen? God-did-it.
What did my crops fail? god-did-it.
Why did I win that battle? because i prayed to god and god-did-it.
Why are there so many different forms of life? god-did-it.
How did life start? god-did-it.
Why are there conscious life forms? Because god-did-it.
How did the universe begin? god-did-it.
How is it that logic works? god-did-it.

God-of-the-gaps answers have been part of human "explanations" since humans could first record history. This primitive and demonstrably flawed conclusions hasn't been discarded in 4000 years. The evolution of god-did-it answers is clear as day.

But that's not what was written. Indeed, Levin didn't come close to that. He's right; science doesn't even attempt to address the 'why' of things, just the 'how,' and the 'what.' THAT evolution works, and HOW it works...that is the province of science. Why (if there is a why) life began in the first place?

Sometimes there is not a "why". Or the why is the "how" and the "what".

1) Why does water turn to ice?
2) Why does the universe exist?

I presume you view the first question in purely natural terms. But i bet you anthropomorphize the second question. You make invalid assumptions when you ask certain WHY questions by invalidly eliminating particular types of possible answers. In particular, scientific answers.

As for me, my first thought when some theist tells me that 'God did this.." is to say, yes, He did. Now let's find out how, shall we?

Oh i see. Heads you win, tails i lose. God did everything and anything therefore even if there is a natural answer, god is somewhere in the mix therefore god-did-it.

Water freezes because god did-it and water freezes because when water is cooled the particles slow and bind together in a crystal structure.

I.E., a god can be used as an explanation for anything and everything. Thus, if you can't explain or don't know X then a god must be responsible.

.........and you can't accept that God explains the why, and science is about us figuring out what and how, can you?

I accept that god is an explanation in the same respect that magic, or chi, or leprechauns are also explanations. I just don't find explanations that are based on nothing much more than imaginings as very good explanations, though. In other words, god, leprechauns, magic, and chi are all possible explanations. But i see no good reason to believe any of these are the correct explanation.

My grandmother made an awesome apple pie. Science can tell us how she made it, what ingredients she used, how each one was harvested or gathered, what each one did in the pie and how, all the laws behind the changes made to it while it baked, the laws that governed how the oven works, the laws that define when it was safe to eat it without burning one's tongue, the laws that govern what happens to the calories ingested when we all ate it, even why, after eating one of Grandma's meals, we all wanted to take naps.

What science cannot do, and does not address, is why she baked the pie in the first place.

Science can explain exactly how clouds, winds, rain, snow, sleet, hail, and snow forms. But science cannot predict with much success exactly when and where particular weather patterns occur beyond a week (and even then its fairly inaccurate). Is the weather created by god then? Is predicting weather patterns something science cannot do? No, its an entirely different problem. The problem is that there are far too many variables to accurately forecast at this time. We have to use heuristics. The same goes for why your grandmother bakes a pie. Our knowledge in the domain of neuroscience has progressed that we can predict certain choices people make before they even become aware of their choice. http://www.wired.com/science/discoverie ... _decision/ And now we can sometimes figure out what people are thinking about by just scanning their brain:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... ughts.html

The groundwork is set. The basis proven. In the not too distant future we may very well know exactly why your grandmother baked her pie just by scanning her brain. And we might be able to predict when she will bake her pie before it even happens. But like weather patterns it is a very very very complex problem due to the extraordinary number of variables.

---

There are two extremes I witness on this forum. One extreme says science cannot do X. Another says science will do X. Both are in error. The happy medium is to remain skeptical of what science can do until it actually achieves it.

Do not discount what science can achieve. Likewise, I will remain skeptical of what science can achieve until it actually does.

[FaerieStories]

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?

No, indeed it doesn't, because it is not in any way hilarious and does not make me chuckle. For your information, there have been multiple Theists on that very forum who have very much inspired me and I am in very great respect of their learning and wisdom- and I have learnt a hell of a lot from them. So please do not make baseless assumptions about me.

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).

So what if I told you, right now, that there was a bomb under your house set to explode in one hour. Would you leave? Of course not. Because you don't believe me.

[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?

No, indeed it doesn't, because it is not in any way hilarious and does not make me chuckle. For your information, there have been multiple Theists on that very forum who have very much inspired me and I am in very great respect of their learning and wisdom- and I have learnt a hell of a lot from them. So please do not make baseless assumptions about me.

Did you check out the videos of Ravi Zacharias I linked to you. If what you say is true than you will like him as well. I like his books better but the videos are free.

[FaerieStories]

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

Well no, not quite. One believes because of the fact that one wants to believe. Or rather: one keeps believing without there being any good reason to and uses 'faith' as an excuse instead of evidence or reasoning.

Of course, the reality is there IS a reason they believe. And more often than not that reason is they are simply practising a religion they have been told was correct since birth.

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.

I think I see where we are getting muddled here and it's probably my fault

I have posited that 'faith' is the belief without evidence. So Theist A holds up the bible as evidence of god

And yes, they do claim to have evidence of god. But that's not the 'evidence' that faith replaces. Faith is the thing that they use to justify to themselves and others that the bible is actual evidence. In other words: they have faith that their evidence is valid.

Now I am not saying they have no 'reason' for faith. There is always a reason. Everything has a 'reason'. Though this reason, incidentally, often turns out to be the bible itself, and round we go in a circle.

But anyway, as I have said at least twice- this is merely one definition of faith and I am more than happy to work with the alternate definition- as a synonym of trust- just so long as we are reading from the same proverbial hymn sheet.

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.

Wait, what? When have I ever insisted that? I have been saying repeatedly that there are more than one definition, and that though I think the one I have stated is the best one, I am happy to use the other one (synonym of trust) if it means we are reading from the same hymnsheet.

As with anything else in philosophy the actual definition is not so important as just making sure both people are using the same one, regardless of what that one may be.

IMight 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."

Well no, but that was not what I was saying they said

(though incidentally as a side note "because I just do" is actually a response I have indeed heard from Theists before)

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.

Sure but on the other hand there were- to put it bluntly- a lot of stupid people. Stupid atheists too. Though admittedly I suppose not all of them were serious and some were trolls. In any case, I have heard some very astoundingly stupid arguments from people.

I might as well go ahead and paste one of my favourites just for fun. I kid you not, this is a direct quote:

[i]"Also, by mentioning the very word, "God", you prove its existence, No? Think about it. If God never existed, then we wouldn't be aware of the very word itself."[/i]

That's right. She was actually arguing that because we have the word 'god', 'god' must exist. I guess that must mean Pokemon exist too.

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

I can imagine

[Rkrause]

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

Well no, not quite. One believes because of the fact that one wants to believe. Or rather: one keeps believing without there being any good reason to and uses 'faith' as an excuse instead of evidence or reasoning.

Of course, the reality is there IS a reason they believe. And more often than not that reason is they are simply practising a religion they have been told was correct since birth.

I have both evidence and reasons to believe that aren't based on blind faith or the fact I was born in a christian family. The problem is you won't except the evidence or reasons that I have.

I can only tell you my beliefs and why I believe them. I can't control your reaction.

[scourge99]

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 you do not understand why a method must be shown as reliable before we should trust it results then I am afraid we have nothing more to discuss on that matter. This reminds me of a debate I had where my opponent made a claim that i disagreed with. I explained that his claim was not necessarily true because he was committing a logical fallacy. He conceded that he was committing a logical fallacy but nonetheless insisted that the logical fallacy proved his point. There was nothing more to do at the point in the debate.

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?

I don't even know what it means to discuss "another realm of knowledge". Its word-salad to me much like square-circles and a place north of the north pole. I don't know what those things even mean or are so I can't comment.

I find it bizarre in the extreme that you would question the need for a reliable method. A reliable method by definition can be trusted because its result are dependable/accurate. If you use a method which is not dependable/accurate (reliable) then the results are undependable/inaccurate (unreliable) by defintion. In other words, unreliable methods have a high probability of returning FALSE results. Methods with unknown reliability have an unknown probability of returning false and true results.

I feel like its insulting to have to explain this.

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.

I have no idea what you are referring to and I'm not going to guess. Try to be a bit more specific. Use complete sentences.

Why should I believe you have developed any positive qualities at all?

You are under no obligation. But at this point it seems you are merely being intransigent. After all its pretty damn bold to claim that non-theistic beliefs:

1. Can't provide one emotional healing, sometimes instantaneously.

2. Can't make one a more loving and hence more moral human being.

3. Can't provide a sense of groundedness and peace and make one more comfortable in their own skin.

One example that comes to mind is McCullouch. Talk with him if you think these things are impossible or rare for non-theists.

You have come very close on more than one occasion on these forums to calling me a liar (or at least an exaggerator).

I don't recall ever calling or even implying you are a liar. I find your beliefs irrational. Which I think you'll accept as a fair assessment if allow me to explain. As you have stated before, your priority seems to be more about obtaining personal comfort and happiness even at the expense of truth and knowledge.

This difference in was perfectly put forth in one of our previous encounters:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 294#482294

I toyed with atheism for a while but found it very unsatisfying. It did not ring true for me. So I began to look into various religious traditions. I was especially attracted to Buddhism.

After reading the work of John Shelby Spong and other progressive Christian theologians, I found an intellectually satisfying way to return to Christianity and joined the Espicopalian church. I've been a member for around 12 years now.

Your description perfectly characterizes the difference in thought between many atheists and theists. [some] Theists are concerned with finding satisfying beliefs that ring true. [some] Atheists are concerned with having true beliefs regardless of how unsettling, uncomfortable, or unsatisfying they may or may not be.

Like Ralph Waldo Emerson, I place a great deal of stock in human intuition.

Why should I be expected to believe that anyone can achieve this level of personal transformation without a spiritual practice of some kind?

I don't expect you to believe anything. I expect you to learn and find out yourself. Your apathy and incredulity isn't something I can control.

As I suggested before, ask non-theists. I suggested McCulluch because of his reputation and his history.

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.

By what means or method did you arrive at this knowledge? If your method cannot be shown as reliable then how do you know the "knowledge" you gained from it is reliable? In what sense is it "knowledge" if its can't be shown as reliable or true oir probable?

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?

It tells me you are entirely oblivious that your criticism of others applies equally as well to you. ( I think there's a word for that but it escapes me. I was thinking hypocrite but that is for someone who knowingly does what they criticize others for.)

You criticize non-theists for having blind faith when they claim that science can figure out everything (which I agree with you on) but then you turn around and commit the same type of error you criticize them for by having blind faith that science cannot ever figure out some things. You are an extremist just like the non-theists you criticize but in the opposite end of the spectrum.

Which questions exactly?

Meaning of life kind of questions.

WHy do you assume there is meaning? THat is, why do you assume that there is anymore meaning then we make for ourselves?

Are we more than simply smart apes?

We are classified as apes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

I don't even know what it means to ask if we are more than smart apes? More than WHAT in regards to smart apes? Your question is, once again, vague, probably meaningless. Probably another attempt at obfuscation while trying to sound profound.

Is there more to existence than meets the eye?

What does that even mean??? Do you speak English or do you just try to speak in riddles because you think it makes you sound profound?

Say what you mean. Stop obfuscating.

Is there an intelligence behind the universe?

The only intelligence I am aware of are us and some other animals that exist on earth. I don't know if anything else in the universe is intelligent.

Furthermore, its highly controversial what it "intelligence" exactly means. Colloquially its a vague and imprecise term.

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.

Red-herring.

My criticism hasn't ever been that you need to shutup about your experiences or anything about decorum. That you think this tells me that you either aren't paying attention or are being hysterical.

My criticism of your beliefs has ALWAYS been about HOW you interpret your experiences and HOW you reach the conclusions you do.

He directly stated that the science was the only method she knows to obtain knowledge. But she did not claim that science is the only way.

If you have some other reliable method then please present it and explain how we can verify its reliability.

The problem lies in your need for "reliability."

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.

Please explain in what way these other methods are "valid". Also please cite one of these methods AND explain this method in a little bit of detail. Also explain the scope of its "validity"--I.E., what are its limits of application.

[Filthy Tugboat]

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

This classic is based on the logical fallacy of equivocation. It equivocates begins to exist in two different senses of the terminology. For instant, the universe began to exist in the sense that it became the universe from a preexisting group of matter/energy, that matter/energy as far as anyone can tell has not ever been non-existent, it has always existed in some form or other. Beginning to exist in the sense that it actually came into existence and is not merely constituted by a different organization of preexisting parts has never been observed and any notion that the universe fits this definition is simply lacking in evidential support.

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 first premise as far as I can tell is invalid. How is the universe's structure possibly derived from design? If you can actually demonstrate how this is a valid hypothesis then the first premise might have some weight. Second premise is also invalid, or at least, until shown to be true.

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

Premise 1 & 2 need evidentiary support.

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

Premise 1 & 2 appear to be invalid. Premise 2 demonstrably so.

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

Premise 1 appears to be invalid, needs support.

[dianaiad]

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?

That part is OUR job to figure out.

What makes you think that we should take the bible as a science text, anyway? T

[Mithrae]

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.

Yet by earlier describing god as "a magical being who is somehow in an external plane from everything we know" you appear not only to have bought into that distinction, but expanded on it beyond any claim I've ever seen theists make. Instead of understanding a vague term like 'spiritual' as referring to something other than our normal sensory experience, you have chosen to interpret it as apart from all knowledge. Instead of explaining what you mean by 'natural' so as to have any meaning for the term supernatural, you have chosen simply to throw out 'magical' as your description for others' beliefs. It seems to be a strawman at best, as I commented, but more importantly describing things in a way which neither you nor others consider appropriate could be considered obfuscationary.

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.

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.

Something along those lines, though I wasn't very clear that those aren't intended to be rhetorical questions. I agree with you that the distinction between a so-called 'physical' aspect of reality and a 'spiritual' aspect can be confusing and at times even irrational - how can two different types of substances be said to interact? - just as the distinction between body and mind can be. (Though of course all these terms can also be useful if used carefully.) But it seems to me that the root of this confusion is the infantile notion that the world is not like me, except the bits such as parents and other people which are mostly like me. What we're most intimately familiar with - in fact the content of all experience, reason and choices - are mental phenomena, and yet thanks to our earliest and most basic developments of perception and interpretation we all somehow wind up with the opinion that atoms or rocks or planets do not experience mental phenomena and are not part of our or any other being's mental phenomena. Supposedly they are 'physical' things.

Can that belief be justified?

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.

By what means and with what degree of certainty can we confirm that the universe 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.

I'm arguing that the grounds on which 'theism' is considered a distinct, new proposition are (as far as I can tell at least) entirely unjustified. Theists simply do not make the supposition that there can be any ultimate nature to reality different from the mental phenomena with which we're most intimately familiar. Of course there's differences in nuance and imprecisions in terminology - I would say the reasonable view is panentheism, rather than any kind of God/universe duality - but I think the basic principle is the same in all non-polytheistic cases; what we're most familiar with is presumed, pending contrary evidence, to be a likely indicator of the fundamentals of reality.

Mystical or 'spiritual' experiences might confirm something of that nature of reality to some individuals, which can provide valid evidence even for other folk whose evaluation of their honesty and judgement is sufficiently high. We know how limited the scope of our external senses are after all, and we have no reason for supposing that our instruments can yet detect everything there is to reality (in fact we know that they can't). And moreover the numinous experiences which most of us probably have at least a few times in our lives might provide even further basis for supposing that there is indeed a greater being/s out there. But these are secondary concerns to my mind, merely the icing on the cake as it were.

Since the distinct new proposition that's really in question here is that there can be some aspects of reality different from mental phenomena, what is the justification for that?