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

[FaerieStories]

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

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

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

[JohnPaul]

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.

I consider myself to be an Agnostic. I admit the possibility of something beyond what we can see, but I require some evidence before I csn really "believe" it even as a possibility. If some "god" does exist, I think it will eventually be detected by science and found to conform to some natural laws so far unknown.

If anything beyond what we can see does exist, I would be very disappointed if it turned out to be anything like the God of the Bible. I see the Bible as a very interesting and valuable collection of ancient writings, but the God it depicts is an ancient and primitive tribal wargod, vindictive, evil, petty, boastful, all the unpleasant characteristics expected of a barbarian tribal chieftain. It has no place in a modern sophisticated society, and is here now only through ancient political accidents. Certainly there must be something better available. I think Christianity throughout its history has been more evil than good.

I like Emerson's poem "Brahma." It makes sense and has always appealed to me, but I don't know much else about him.

If a blind man could be given an education even in basic Physics, he could detect and "believe" in the existence of light revealed through his instruments, even if he lacked eyes to actually see it. We just need to develop the proper instruments to detect God. That may take some time.

[FaerieStories]

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.

Uh no. I am merely describing it as Theists seem to present it. Hence the "somehow".

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?

Yes. Of course it can. I know rocks are not like me. They have no nervous system, no eyes, no respiratory system. They cannot experience the world in the way I can. That is not an assumption humans make, that is a demonstrable fact we can examine and prove.

If you are looking for an assumption we all make without being able to prove it- as far as I can tell there is really just one: I assume that everyone else is conscious. I have no way of verifying this, but nonetheless I assume it. And so does everyone else.

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

The universe? We can say to a great degree of certainty the universe exists. Not 100% certainty, because we cannot have absolute knowledge about anything- Decartes again. But I think the idea that "something" is there and we have called it the universe is about the most certain thing we humans could claim to have knowledge of.

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.

I would interject that maybe these 'other folk' have not read enough about human psychology if they think that a person's 'honesty' or 'judgement' is really all that relevant here.

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.

So what? I am in full agreement that we don't know all there is to know about reality, and that there may be some kind of 'spiritual plane' (though arguably once we find it, and find what stuff it's made from, it would just be labelled 'physical'. 'Spiritual': appropriately- seems to only apply to anything we cannot justify.

But I don't see why you keep bringing up these 'religious experiences' as if they carry any weight. People experience a great deal of strange things about a great deal of many subjects. We have in this world people who think they've been abducted by aliens, people who think they are messiahs, people who think Jesus told them to kill women ect ect There is no reason to assume these are the work of divine beings and every reason to assume that it is just the human mind being typically deceptive. We KNOW how fallible the human mind is.

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?

...well indeed.

[olavisjo]

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?

It took science thousands of years after religion said "God said: 'Let there be light.'" to figure out that the universe began as the brightest flash of light that we can ever imagine. Who would have ever thought that all the stuff in this universe is made out of light? You would have to be an Einstein to figure that one out.

[FaerieStories]

It took science thousands of years after religion said "God said: 'Let there be light.'" to figure out that the universe began as the brightest flash of light that we can ever imagine. Who would have ever thought that all the stuff in this universe is made out of light? You would have to be an Einstein to figure that one out.

It's incredibly easy to take ancient poetry to mean whatever you like. You are imposing your own interpretation upon a pretty vague passage which isn't in the slightest convincing. You could apply the same interpretation to any other mythology. Greek and Egyptian mythologies for example also reference light as a beginning, light from darkness. The Christian mythology gets a great deal of things wrong. This 'light' you refer to in Genesis is created by god AFTER plants are. Yet we know for a fact that the sun was around LONG before plants.

[Mithrae]

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.

Uh no. I am merely describing it as Theists seem to present it. Hence the "somehow".

As you wish.

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?

Yes. Of course it can. I know rocks are not like me. They have no nervous system, no eyes, no respiratory system. They cannot experience the world in the way I can. That is not an assumption humans make, that is a demonstrable fact we can examine and prove.

If you are looking for an assumption we all make without being able to prove it- as far as I can tell there is really just one: I assume that everyone else is conscious. I have no way of verifying this, but nonetheless I assume it. And so does everyone else.

That's not an assumption so much as an argument or belief from analogy; similar things are likely to have similar properties. Not completely justified by logic or evidence, I agree, but not quite an assumption. However you're trying to make it work in reverse, which is fallacious. If we are not wholly justified in presuming that the presence of similar complex organic structures implies the presence of similar mental phenomena, we are entirely unjustified in presuming that the absense of such structures implies the absense of mental phenomena. That does require an assumption, namely that mental phenomena can only be associated with the right types of complex organic structures - an even greater assumption than the basic analogy which we all make. You're trying to do your philosophy all backwards there

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?

The universe? We can say to a great degree of certainty the universe exists. Not 100% certainty, because we cannot have absolute knowledge about anything- Decartes again. But I think the idea that "something" is there and we have called it the universe is about the most certain thing we humans could claim to have knowledge of.

'Something' exists outside of your mind, and you call it the 'universe' and think that the things you experience in your mind are substantially different from pretty much all the rest of this 'universe.' Gotcha.

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?

...well indeed.

That's not a very convincing argument.

Obviously, until we have some reason to suppose that there can be any aspects of reality of a different type to the mental phenomena which we all experience, such a notion must be viewed with considerable scepticism. Some reason better than babies' earliest and most basic developments of perception and interpretation, I mean. I wouldn't say - as some folk might - that it is irrational to believe such a thing without valid reason, because obviously many intelligent and learned people through history have indeed believed precisely that. For my part I reckon it's an interesting notion to speculate on, but that's about it. You are welcome to your beliefs

[FaerieStories]

That's not an assumption so much as an argument or belief from analogy; similar things are likely to have similar properties. Not completely justified by logic or evidence, I agree, but not quite an assumption. However you're trying to make it work in reverse, which is fallacious. If we are not wholly justified in presuming that the presence of similar complex organic structures implies the presence of similar mental phenomena, we are entirely unjustified in presuming that the absense of such structures implies the absense of mental phenomena. That does require an assumption, namely that mental phenomena can only be associated with the right types of complex organic structures - an even greater assumption than the basic analogy which we all make. You're trying to do your philosophy all backwards there

I disagree. We know that whatever the mind and consciousness actually is- it is a product of the brain. It is not an 'assumption' that rocks are not conscious because we know that rocks do not actually possess anything that we know to produce consciousness. Now yes, maybe we are wrong and somehow all clusters of atoms have consciousness. But with our current understanding it is so unlikely that we are sure enough that rocks are not conscious to say that we know that rocks are not conscious. We are not 100% sure, but we are not 100% sure about anything.

'Something' exists outside of your mind, and you call it the 'universe' and think that the things you experience in your mind are substantially different from pretty much all the rest of this 'universe.' Gotcha.

Wait, what? No. My mind is part of the universe. Obviously. But yes, there is a difference between the physical and metaphysical. A turtle is a rather different entity to 'justice'.

Obviously, until we have some reason to suppose that there can be any aspects of reality of a different type to the mental phenomena which we all experience, such a notion must be viewed with considerable scepticism. Some reason better than babies' earliest and most basic developments of perception and interpretation, I mean. I wouldn't say - as some folk might - that it is irrational to believe such a thing without valid reason, because obviously many intelligent and learned people through history have indeed believed precisely that. For my part I reckon it's an interesting notion to speculate on, but that's about it. You are welcome to your beliefs

Well I agree. It is something interesting to think about. It's one of a good deal of subjects which are interesting to think about, but not worth any consideration until we are presented with some evidence for the positive.

[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.

I consider myself to be an Agnostic. I admit the possibility of something beyond what we can see, but I require some evidence before I csn really "believe" it even as a possibility. If some "god" does exist, I think it will eventually be detected by science and found to conform to some natural laws so far unknown.

If anything beyond what we can see does exist, I would be very disappointed if it turned out to be anything like the God of the Bible. I see the Bible as a very interesting and valuable collection of ancient writings, but the God it depicts is an ancient and primitive tribal wargod, vindictive, evil, petty, boastful, all the unpleasant characteristics expected of a barbarian tribal chieftain. It has no place in a modern sophisticated society, and is here now only through ancient political accidents. Certainly there must be something better available. I think Christianity throughout its history has been more evil than good.

I like Emerson's poem "Brahma." It makes sense and has always appealed to me, but I don't know much else about him.

If a blind man could be given an education even in basic Physics, he could detect and "believe" in the existence of light revealed through his instruments, even if he lacked eyes to actually see it. We just need to develop the proper instruments to detect God. That may take some time.

I will agree with most of this except the barbarian God and Christianity being more evil than good.

The world was a much different place when the Bible was written. Cultures were more barbaric. A less barbaric nation was fodder to the others. God worked with limited resources to bring about good things for His people. That may seem barbaric to us now but back them it was very common and accepted by society.

As far as Christianity being more evil than good I think you are forgetting all the soup kitchens of the 1930's, the monks in the dark ages etc...

[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?).

Lets see how you respond to just one example of my personal evidence for God.

10 years ago my father was diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer. During that time I had many dreams about a smile. The smile didn't belong to a face it just hung there in mid air in my dreams. I knew it was related to my father some how so I hated the smile, but I kept dreaming of it. In my sketch pad I drew pictures of it and wrote about it. I hated it.

The night my father died 2 of my sisters called me about midnight to tell me to come to the nursing home because my father was about to die. I told them to call me again when it was all over. About 3 am I recieved another call from my sister saying my father was dead.

I got to the nursing home were I was told about the beautiful smile my dad had on his face when toke his last breath. I told my sisters I had already seen the smile and showed them my sketch pad (which was at the nursing home because we all took turns staying with him). My sketch pad had the dates when I drew or wrote something in it.

How do you explain the dreams?

[FaerieStories]

Lets see how you respond to just one example of my personal evidence for God.

10 years ago my father was diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer. During that time I had many dreams about a smile. The smile didn't belong to a face it just hung there in mid air in my dreams. I knew it was related to my father some how so I hated the smile, but I kept dreaming of it. In my sketch pad I drew pictures of it and wrote about it. I hated it.

The night my father died 2 of my sisters called me about midnight to tell me to come to the nursing home because my father was about to die. I told them to call me again when it was all over. About 3 am I recieved another call from my sister saying my father was dead.

I got to the nursing home were I was told about the beautiful smile my dad had on his face when toke his last breath. I told my sisters I had already seen the smile and showed them my sketch pad (which was at the nursing home because we all took turns staying with him). My sketch pad had the dates when I drew or wrote something in it.

How do you explain the dreams?

So... the only possible way you can explain this is a god? Really? Your best and most logical explanation is the throw up an even bigger mystery?

In your situation I would simply say: "I do not know". Because that is the truth. I know mysteries are uncomfortable things, and knowing is always more comforting than not-knowing, but just ASSUMING it is the work of a god is grossly unreasonable. You would be more justified in assuming it is coincidence, because at least that answers the mystery completely and totally rather than throwing up any larger questions about where this 'god' came from.

Anyway, if it actually was a god, don't you think he would have better things to do- like stopping his beloved children from destroying each other- than giving some people mild psychic powers for fun?

[Tex]

Lets see how you respond to just one example of my personal evidence for God.

10 years ago my father was diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer. During that time I had many dreams about a smile. The smile didn't belong to a face it just hung there in mid air in my dreams. I knew it was related to my father some how so I hated the smile, but I kept dreaming of it. In my sketch pad I drew pictures of it and wrote about it. I hated it.

The night my father died 2 of my sisters called me about midnight to tell me to come to the nursing home because my father was about to die. I told them to call me again when it was all over. About 3 am I recieved another call from my sister saying my father was dead.

I got to the nursing home were I was told about the beautiful smile my dad had on his face when toke his last breath. I told my sisters I had already seen the smile and showed them my sketch pad (which was at the nursing home because we all took turns staying with him). My sketch pad had the dates when I drew or wrote something in it.

How do you explain the dreams?

So... the only possible way you can explain this is a god? Really? Your best and most logical explanation is the throw up an even bigger mystery?

In your situation I would simply say: "I do not know". Because that is the truth. I know mysteries are uncomfortable things, and knowing is always more comforting than not-knowing, but just ASSUMING it is the work of a god is grossly unreasonable. You would be more justified in assuming it is coincidence, because at least that answers the mystery completely and totally rather than throwing up any larger questions about where this 'god' came from.

Anyway, if it actually was a god, don't you think he would have better things to do- like stopping his beloved children from destroying each other- than giving some people mild psychic powers for fun?

Rkrause, for you to think that your answer would actually bring hope to one who see death as the cure for life.....Waste of time.
No admitted atheist wants to say... " God exist".