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]

Do you believe in "mild psychic powers"?

No, I do not have any good reason to.

So the vivid dreams of that smile was coincidence.

Uh, no, I am not claiming that. I would say that is likely, but we really don't have enough information to go on to jump to any conclusions.

Now if I told you events like this have happened throughout my life (just not written down in my journels) would you agree there is something supernatrual going on in my life? or all these events coincidences?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Anecdotal evidence is not extraordinary evidence, it's incredibly weak evidence. So no, I'm not going to just believe you that you've personally witnessed certain laws of physics being broken just because you say so. Maybe if I experienced what you experienced, it would convince me- but as I have said what must be a hundred times: personal experiences such as these can ONLY be used to justify the belief of the person who has them and they are not able to be used to justify that belief to anyone else.

Now, if you could prove your psychic powers to me in some way then that would be a different story. Maybe you should be in contact with James Randi- he has for the best part of his long life offered a million dollars to anyone who can prove their psychic abilities, and as far as I am aware that money is still up for grabs.

[kayky]

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.

That, of course, is entirely up to you. I refuse to climb into the box you have placed yourself in, and I have never claimed to have proven anything to anyone.

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.

Well, it does require the ability for abstract thought.

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.

I'm not in the least offended. It is your own choice to limit your perception of reality to only that which is subject to "reliable" methodology. It does require a certain degree of courage to accept what is merely pointed to without the need for certainty.

Scourge:

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.

Kayky:

Another claim you keep making. I see very little evidence of this in the world.

Scourge:

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.

You keep claiming that nontheists can achieve the same degree of personal transformation without God. But I see no evidence to accept such a claim on face value.

A well-placed sentence fragment is an effective rhetorical device. But I suppose you're as rigid with your syntax as you are with your view of reality as a whole.

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.

I actually agree with you. I'm just giving you a taste of your own medicine. Bitter, isn't it?

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.

I am just as interested in truth and knowledge as you are. If my conclusions happen to lead to happiness, well, I suppose that's just a bonus.

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.

I find this an ironic comment. I see you as the one unable to deal with the discomfort of uncertainty.

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?

A close encounter of the third kind. As I have said before, I don't require a fool-proof test. I know what I have experienced, and I know what it has meant in my life. That's enough for me.

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.

This would be amusing if it wasn't so desperate sounding. You are the most extreme atheist I have ever debated on this site. I realize that you may have been burned by religion (former Mormon?). I know what that feels like. You are just unable to comprehend, it seems, how someone could respond to it in a way different from yours.

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

The universal human desire for meaning points to the possibility of meaning.

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.

If we are part of an intelligence much larger than the universe itself, that would be pretty 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.

Stop feigning ignorance. Unless you were raised by wolves, you know exactly what I'm talking about. But I'll play along and try to put it in simpler language for you:

What if there is a profound intelligence behind the universe?

Or even simpler:

What if there is a God?

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.

How are we communicating with each other right now? Your claim of "vagueness" and "attempted profundity" does not dismiss these concepts as beyond the realm of human understanding.

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.

I know exactly the nature of your criticism as I have addressed it more than once on this very post. I hope I have made it clearer to you my criticism of your limited view of reality.

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.

Experience is only valid to the experiencer. It helps though to know how universal this experience is.

[Rkrause]

Do you believe in "mild psychic powers"?

No, I do not have any good reason to.

So the vivid dreams of that smile was coincidence.

Uh, no, I am not claiming that. I would say that is likely, but we really don't have enough information to go on to jump to any conclusions.

Now if I told you events like this have happened throughout my life (just not written down in my journels) would you agree there is something supernatrual going on in my life? or all these events coincidences?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Anecdotal evidence is not extraordinary evidence, it's incredibly weak evidence. So no, I'm not going to just believe you that you've personally witnessed certain laws of physics being broken just because you say so. Maybe if I experienced what you experienced, it would convince me- but as I have said what must be a hundred times: personal experiences such as these can ONLY be used to justify the belief of the person who has them and they are not able to be used to justify that belief to anyone else.

Now, if you could prove your psychic powers to me in some way then that would be a different story. Maybe you should be in contact with James Randi- he has for the best part of his long life offered a million dollars to anyone who can prove their psychic abilities, and as far as I am aware that money is still up for grabs.

I was just wondering how open you were to "outside of your box" you would accept.

Thanks for your honesty. BTW the vivid smile dream story was real however, the other dreams I made up. If my dreams came true this would be one strange world.

[FaerieStories]

oops accidental post

[dusk]

So the vivid dreams of that smile was coincidence. Now if I told you events like this have happened throughout my life (just not written down in my journels) would you agree there is something supernatrual going on in my life? or all these events coincidences?

A simple explanation maybe that you only think those happend. Therefore dismissing the evidence as weak because that seems to be the case with many similar claims.

You have many people claiming all kinds of unbelievable experiences. There are contradictory experiences. There are many cases where it could be proven that those experiences where made up, creative interpretations or just plain lies.

so in order to convince anyone
a) There needs to be more information about the person making that claim. Is there a reason for trusting him/her to tell the truth?
b) Is the person sane, under no influence of drugs, traumatic incidences, is the experience in the moment or later fabricated in detail. All these things matter. There are people that truly believe some testimony but they unintentionally lie because it can be proven that they fabricated the experience later when their mind was trying to cope or deny certain things. Important in court/witness psychology after traumatic stuff.
c) Detail and interpretation. What was the actual experience and how detailed is it and what are the possible interpretations?

Things aren't so simple always.
There are many people into Astrology. An uncle of mine once said: "Hey you just need to see how it works. It either works or it does not."
On pure logic just about anything about Astrology is complete nonsense. Even if there was some magical influence from stars at the date of our birth, it is completely unreasonable to assume it works the way they say it does.
The experiences of it works are also very subjective. I have some people in the family who like that stuff and I watched people receiving their interpretations and talking about the truth parts. You really have to be very gullible.
Language is fuzzy and about as often as they ignore parts that don't fit so well, they would also agree with a horoscope of some completely irrelevant date and time. I have yet to meet the person that can match horoscope to peoples consistently.

So I guess the biggest question I would have is how gullible a person are you, when you tell such stories. If my god mother who believes in angels, fairies, astrology and all that esotherical stuff tells me weird stuff, it is something else than when a person I know to be very rational says the same say a philosopher I know and value.

[Rkrause]

So the vivid dreams of that smile was coincidence. Now if I told you events like this have happened throughout my life (just not written down in my journels) would you agree there is something supernatrual going on in my life? or all these events coincidences?

A simple explanation maybe that you only think those happend. Therefore dismissing the evidence as weak because that seems to be the case with many similar claims.

You have many people claiming all kinds of unbelievable experiences. There are contradictory experiences. There are many cases where it could be proven that those experiences where made up, creative interpretations or just plain lies.

so in order to convince anyone
a) There needs to be more information about the person making that claim. Is there a reason for trusting him/her to tell the truth?
b) Is the person sane, under no influence of drugs, traumatic incidences, is the experience in the moment or later fabricated in detail. All these things matter. There are people that truly believe some testimony but they unintentionally lie because it can be proven that they fabricated the experience later when their mind was trying to cope or deny certain things. Important in court/witness psychology after traumatic stuff.
c) Detail and interpretation. What was the actual experience and how detailed is it and what are the possible interpretations?

Things aren't so simple always.
There are many people into Astrology. An uncle of mine once said: "Hey you just need to see how it works. It either works or it does not."
On pure logic just about anything about Astrology is complete nonsense. Even if there was some magical influence from stars at the date of our birth, it is completely unreasonable to assume it works the way they say it does.
The experiences of it works are also very subjective. I have some people in the family who like that stuff and I watched people receiving their interpretations and talking about the truth parts. You really have to be very gullible.
Language is fuzzy and about as often as they ignore parts that don't fit so well, they would also agree with a horoscope of some completely irrelevant date and time. I have yet to meet the person that can match horoscope to peoples consistently.

So I guess the biggest question I would have is how gullible a person are you, when you tell such stories. If my god mother who believes in angels, fairies, astrology and all that esotherical stuff tells me weird stuff, it is something else than when a person I know to be very rational says the same say a philosopher I know and value.

I agree with what you wrote. The difference with the smile dream (I made up the others) is that I drew and wrote down the dreams in my sketch pad. So I did have proof of those dreams.

The only real problem is, I wrote in pencil (which could be erased) however, I showed my sketch pad to my sisters right after his death and I wasn't there to change the dates when my dad died. The other problem is that my sisters are the only ones to read and see the journel. I understand the problems.

I am not gullible by any means but I do listen to others stories with interest. I am not a "God talker" etc...

[kayky]

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

That's my favorite poem of his too. He was a Transcendentalist, influenced by Emmanuel Kant. He, in turn, has had a great deal of influence on my own thinking.

In brief, he believed that everything is connected as part of a larger reality he referred to as the Oversoul. Because of this connection, humans have the ability to intuit certain truths about reality. But this can only be accomplished by transcending the ego, which he viewed as a very limited device for understanding when compared to the soul.

[kayky]

Faeriestories: 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.

There is no scientific consensus on the relationship between the "brain" and the "mind." Your reductionist bias that the human mind is merely the firing of neurons in the brain cannot be justified with any current evidence.

[dusk]

Enlightenment is mans leaving his self-caused immaturity. Immaturity is the incapacity to use one's intelligence without the guidance of another.

That is my favorite Kant quote. Never new the proper English translation. For that kind of immaturity we got a special word that Kant introduce in German.
A bit off topic but I think this quote should be on every voting booth in huge letters.

[Tex]

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".

Who cares whether anyone 'wants' to say that god exists or not? I do not care whether he exists or doesn't, I only want to have the best understanding of reality that I possibly can- and that means making sure that I base my beliefs on logic, reason and evidence.

In your "beliefs" What is more logical to you? That God exist or doesn't exist.

It is logical to believe in what we have evidence for- and it is illogical to believe in things that we don't. And I have not yet seen convincing evidence that a god exists. So therefore I do not believe in god.

That is not the question.
What would be more logical in your mind? That a God exist or doesn't exist.

It's not a difficult question.

I've already answered the question. Given that we have no evidence that this god exists, it is not logical to assume that he does.

So if you don't believe it is logical that God exist, then I say: you being here(site), is for no reason and just a waste of your time and space. Wouldn't you agree.
Unless you are not sure of your atheism.

To you, existing for no reason is logical, because you can't even fantom why you exist and for what purpose. You are here on earth to learn for nothing. You go through life for nothing....In the end your life has no purpose. Your life has no value. It is the same as the fly I just killed. This you see as logical....Interesting.