Does God exist? What reasons are there to believe that God is real?
Admin note:
This thread used to be called "Does God exist or not?"
I have renamed this thread to be "Does God exist?"
Another thread has been created to discuss God's nonexistence, "Disproving God".
Does God exist?
Moderator: Moderators
Post #91
Hi,
Theists assert that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator exists. (well, christian theists do)
By definition, there can be no direct evidence of such a supernatural entity, as indentification requires "identity" and a supernatural being cannnot have identity in any naturalistic sense.
So the theist can only argue from ignorance in this situation. He can say "we can't explain X, therefore I will appeal to the supernatural"
It's really not much to go on.
As for belief in such an entity, the theist can only use faith: and whether this is contingent faith or non contingent faith, it is belief without epistemological justification.
So the question of whether god "exists" is moot... for we are discussing an entity that cannot 'exist" as we know existence. And the methods of maintaining belief in such an entity by definition are appeals beyond epistemology.
Theists assert that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator exists. (well, christian theists do)
By definition, there can be no direct evidence of such a supernatural entity, as indentification requires "identity" and a supernatural being cannnot have identity in any naturalistic sense.
So the theist can only argue from ignorance in this situation. He can say "we can't explain X, therefore I will appeal to the supernatural"
It's really not much to go on.
As for belief in such an entity, the theist can only use faith: and whether this is contingent faith or non contingent faith, it is belief without epistemological justification.
So the question of whether god "exists" is moot... for we are discussing an entity that cannot 'exist" as we know existence. And the methods of maintaining belief in such an entity by definition are appeals beyond epistemology.
Post #92
Slight correction, it is belief without credible epistemological justification. One might develop an epistemological standpoint that something is true simply because "X" says it is true. This is still epistemological justification, just a fairly flimsy one.and whether this is contingent faith or non contingent faith, it is belief without epistemological justification
Have we mentioned in this thread yet that the burden of evidence is the responsibility of the person trying to prove the existence in something? So if one wishes to say that green aliens live on a the moon, the burden of evidence is up to them. One does not have to prove the “non-existence” of anything.[/quote]
-
Xanadu Moo
- Student
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 3:37 pm
- Location: Oregon
Existence of God
Post #94The assumption that humans created religions as a reactionary measure to fill a void brings a bias into the discussion, not to mention it's a sweeping generalization. It's very possible for a religion to be established for the purpose of teaching the word of God.
A scenario just as reasonable is that religions and god-worshipping all points back to the same source of god/gods. It's irrational to assume that the only possible explanation is that each culture invents a new separate god. Couldn't it just be there are separate interpretations of a similar god or gods? The idea that each culture's god must be mutually exclusive of another's is a giant leap. That's lazy reasoning.
But even laying that aside for a moment, why did humans create science? Was it to fill a void? Hmm? You can see the whole argument made by atheists is a straw man. We could feed all the cattle in the world with so much hay.
I find the atheistic arguments of Barker to be replete with assumptions couched as foregone conclusions. How convenient for his arguments to often require only one proof -- a self-evidenciary one that puts his position in the best light. It's rather disingenuous to cut corners in reasoning just for posturing. It may appear more impressive on the surface, but those who really think it through -- for either side of the argument -- will detect such attempts at style over substance.
One thing I haven't seen brought up here are the historical claims by religious people of visitations from heavenly beings. Atheists don't seem to talk about that possibility much. If you get that first-hand, that's great evidence. (Not that I have) There are thousands of these claims throughout history, many by people of established credibility. Then the question of the existence of God is no longer restricted to being an invention of man, or something for which there is no way to provide evidence, or no longer on the same level of unicorns (what is it with unicorns anyway?). I know it isn't proof, but it adds more depth to the discussion. This is more than just voices someone hears in their head. Personal testimony of physical encounters has the potential for legitimacy, and it needs to be brought into the discussion. We can't unilaterally disregard all such claims just because some of those making the claims may have been lying or deluded. Likewise, we can't dismiss all religions even if the vast majority of them were to be demonstrated to be scams. This is inductive reasoning at its worst, and atheists are very much guilty of it.
Thoughts?
A scenario just as reasonable is that religions and god-worshipping all points back to the same source of god/gods. It's irrational to assume that the only possible explanation is that each culture invents a new separate god. Couldn't it just be there are separate interpretations of a similar god or gods? The idea that each culture's god must be mutually exclusive of another's is a giant leap. That's lazy reasoning.
But even laying that aside for a moment, why did humans create science? Was it to fill a void? Hmm? You can see the whole argument made by atheists is a straw man. We could feed all the cattle in the world with so much hay.
I find the atheistic arguments of Barker to be replete with assumptions couched as foregone conclusions. How convenient for his arguments to often require only one proof -- a self-evidenciary one that puts his position in the best light. It's rather disingenuous to cut corners in reasoning just for posturing. It may appear more impressive on the surface, but those who really think it through -- for either side of the argument -- will detect such attempts at style over substance.
One thing I haven't seen brought up here are the historical claims by religious people of visitations from heavenly beings. Atheists don't seem to talk about that possibility much. If you get that first-hand, that's great evidence. (Not that I have) There are thousands of these claims throughout history, many by people of established credibility. Then the question of the existence of God is no longer restricted to being an invention of man, or something for which there is no way to provide evidence, or no longer on the same level of unicorns (what is it with unicorns anyway?). I know it isn't proof, but it adds more depth to the discussion. This is more than just voices someone hears in their head. Personal testimony of physical encounters has the potential for legitimacy, and it needs to be brought into the discussion. We can't unilaterally disregard all such claims just because some of those making the claims may have been lying or deluded. Likewise, we can't dismiss all religions even if the vast majority of them were to be demonstrated to be scams. This is inductive reasoning at its worst, and atheists are very much guilty of it.
Thoughts?
Post #95
Yeah, that’s in part correct. The theory that religion was constructed to counter the fear of death (for example) is just a theory. It may be actually false, but lets just be objective about the different explanations. To me, this theory (of religion being “man made”) has got a lot of weight and seems to make a lot of sense.The assumption that humans created religions as a reactionary measure to fill a void brings a bias into the discussion, not to mention it's a sweeping generalization. It's very possible for a religion to be established for the purpose of teaching the word of God.
Feed cattle or burn witches, either way.But even laying that aside for a moment, why did humans create science? Was it to fill a void? Hmm? You can see the whole argument made by atheists is a straw man. We could feed all the cattle in the world with so much hay.
(sorry, just a little joke)Ok, (in my humble opinion) religion and science were both constructed to “fill a void”, or in other words, try to make sense of the world around them. One is based on faith and revelation, and the other on reason and logic. One is highly prone to error, and the other is the most reliable form of knowledge humans can posses. One hushes criticism because it weakens its doctrines, the other invites criticism to help flush out error and to make progress. One holds it’s view in arrogance, the other holds their view tentatively and will admit that they are falsifiable.
Its up to the individual which of these two ways are best for humans describing the world around them.
What you are talking about is rationalization. That is, thinking that you already know the answer, and then pick and choosing the evidence so long as it doesn’t conflict with the original doctrine. Like saying “the bible is 100% true, therefore the world must only be around 10 000 years old”. Whether or not Barker is guilty of rationalization is another issue.How convenient for his arguments to often require only one proof -- a self-evidenciary one that puts his position in the best light. It's rather disingenuous to cut corners in reasoning just for posturing.
Look, there could be angelic being and spiritual dimensions that interferes with our world, but its just that, basically, most of the stories sound like folk law. The kind you tell around a camp fire. People exaggerate to make a story seem more interesting. Facts get twisted, and sooner or later, a ghost made some chains rattle. Of course its possible that they are all (or some of them) are true, but I just think they give an interesting insight into human psychology more than anything else.One thing I haven't seen brought up here are the historical claims by religious people of visitations from heavenly beings. Atheists don't seem to talk about that possibility much.
-
Nameless
What evidences is there that God exists?
Post #96There's enough 'evidence' if you want to 'believe', but not enough if you don't.What evidences is there that God exists?
Re: What evidences is there that God exists?
Post #97If you want to believe why do you need evidence?Nameless wrote:There's enough 'evidence' if you want to 'believe', but not enough if you don't.What evidences is there that God exists?
That said, what do you claim as evidence of the existence of god?
-
Nameless
Re: What evidences is there that God exists?
Post #98Hmmmm, psychology? No matter how 'flimsy' the foundation for belief (and rational flimsiness as a foundation in no way negates the 'power' of that 'belief' for that individual) we are basically a 'rational creature' that needs SOME sort of 'personal' evidence, if nothing more than a 'feeling' to support one's beliefs. Usually. If asked why do you believe, everyone has some sort of answer. That answer might be totally inadequate for YOU, but it works for them!bernee51 wrote:If you want to believe why do you need evidence?
That said, what do you claim as evidence of the existence of god?
I'm not going to get involved in a never-ending cycle of 'logically' attempting to trash another's 'belief'. It has no purpose. Like I said, one can no more 'prove beyond a shadow of doubt' that there is NO 'God' than prove that there is one. What is one culturally/genetically/etc.. predisposed to 'believe'? Does one often progress beyond one's 'predisposition'?
I cannot opine about the 'existence' of that which has no existence, especially since most everyone has a 'different understanding' when the (useless) word 'god' is used. When you speak to a follower of Zeus, a Christian, a Hindu, a Sufi, etc... you use a word, God, that is too 'nebulous' to have meaning except as fodder for arguments.
Me? I Am the 'god' of my world! I 'create' my universe and I tend it. I create 'myself'. Do I fall within your 'definition' of 'god'? Do you feel a need to fall on your face before me and worship me? Don't. You are the 'creator god' of your 'world' also, whether you realize it or not. There CANNOT be a definition for that which transcends all duality, including the limitations of words and mental constructs/concepts.
Post #99
Pfff wanna make a bet?Like I said, one can no more 'prove beyond a shadow of doubt' that there is NO 'God' than prove that there is one.
Ok, maybe not “beyond a shadow of a doubt” but to a degree that should satisfy most people’s level of skepticism. The key point is that the term ‘God’ has a definition, and one can quite easily show that the existence of this ‘God’ doesn’t make much sense. Sure there ‘could’ still be this ‘God’, but there could still be green aliens on Pluto. An atheist doesn’t need 100% certainty of the non-existence of God, but merely to think that it’s more likely that she doesn’t exist.
But this is also largely irrelevant as one does not have to prove the “non-existence” of anything…
Hmmm, this is possibly my most arrogant post…
Ok, to show I’m not super-narrow-minded and just trying to wildly rationalize my world view – If God appeared to me and I video taped him, or even got an audio tape of him telling me something (just to make sure it wasn’t me hallucinating), to which I concluded it would be improbable that someone constructed a hoax for a practical joke, then that would satisfy my level of skepticism and I would further conclude that there is a “God” type creature.
So if you are a Christian, pray that God appears to me when I have a video camera, or suitable audio recording equipment. Seriously.
Evidence
Post #100I have been fortunate enough to meet someone who had an encounter with god. But he doesn't believe in Jesus. He told me that he once had a dream. He went to this place were there it was very bright and he said that he shook hands with three men but got an 'electric' shock from it and after that he woke up and found that he was still alive. I asked him how were the men dressed? And he said that they were dressed in white. And then I asked him about their hair and he replied that they were also white-like. This personal account was definitely evidence but to others I don't know
I want to say that evidences are there but we can choose not to believe in it. Or we are blinded by misconceptions or our own views that reject these evidences.
Again the evidences could not be anymore clearer.
Which of these objects are existent:
witches
unicorns
dracula
even with hearsay accounts, I would not believe.
common sense tells me that they are not possible.
But:
ghosts
aliens (i know that they do not exist)
these are more probable as they seem more realistic.
Lastly:
god
our senses cannot tell us straightforward, right? but if christians, yes a billion of them have something extraordinary to tell though they are in the same positions as atheists in that they don't have tangible evidences.
either these people really have known Jesus or they have just been too superstitious as people who don't believe calls it.
Even if you can disclaim any evidences of god, it is not possible to deny that Jesus really lived, healed the sick, performed miracles, died on the Cross and was raised from the dead to fellowship with his disciples.
To tell the truth, I need my own convictions. I need to convinced too. I am only human and of weak faith.
e.g answering the meaningless in my life.
As Bertrand Russell, an atheist philosopher has said that the question to the purpose life is meaningless unless you assume a god.
Dear DangerDan, can I pray that God appears to you and not to you when you have a video camera or suitable audio recording equipment because it is not like God to get caught on camera. And if you do hear a voice, I don't think that the voice would be molecular vibrations in the air.
I want to say that evidences are there but we can choose not to believe in it. Or we are blinded by misconceptions or our own views that reject these evidences.
Again the evidences could not be anymore clearer.
Which of these objects are existent:
witches
unicorns
dracula
even with hearsay accounts, I would not believe.
common sense tells me that they are not possible.
But:
ghosts
aliens (i know that they do not exist)
these are more probable as they seem more realistic.
Lastly:
god
our senses cannot tell us straightforward, right? but if christians, yes a billion of them have something extraordinary to tell though they are in the same positions as atheists in that they don't have tangible evidences.
either these people really have known Jesus or they have just been too superstitious as people who don't believe calls it.
Even if you can disclaim any evidences of god, it is not possible to deny that Jesus really lived, healed the sick, performed miracles, died on the Cross and was raised from the dead to fellowship with his disciples.
To tell the truth, I need my own convictions. I need to convinced too. I am only human and of weak faith.
e.g answering the meaningless in my life.
As Bertrand Russell, an atheist philosopher has said that the question to the purpose life is meaningless unless you assume a god.
Dear DangerDan, can I pray that God appears to you and not to you when you have a video camera or suitable audio recording equipment because it is not like God to get caught on camera. And if you do hear a voice, I don't think that the voice would be molecular vibrations in the air.
