Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?

[Jashwell]

"Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?"

Doesn't seem like much preamble is needed, but expect this largely to be filled (if at all) with arguments in favour of the existence of a God and counter-arguments. (Because the question is not "Are there good reasons to believe that a god does not exist?"). Though if you do think you have a good argument that shows it is reasonable to believe God does not exist, that is also valid.

This question comes up a lot in other threads where various classical arguments (e.g. ontological, axiological, cosmological) have been given in those threads.

If possible, try not to shotgun debate by raising lots of arguments at once. One sound argument should be sufficient.

[Apollo]

Have you ever considered what this sounds like to atheists who don't get drunk, don't get into trouble with the law, and live productive wholesome lives all on their own without any need to believe in a God?

It also brings up other serious philosophical questions. Would you actually rather be breaking the law?

The idea that the only reason you are not drunk or in trouble with the law is because you believe in a God is not impressive at all.

I think that's unfair. I believe you are reading in an implication that "the only thing that keeps *anyone* from getting drunk or being in jail is the belief in god". That would be offensive. If he said the only reason he isn't doing these things is because he's worried about hell, that would be disturbing.

But I don't see a reason to think he's saying either of those things here. Lots of people say that they could never have stopped drinking without the support of their family. Do you find that insulting to people that manage to stop drinking without the help of a supportive family?

I don't think that belief is valid or necessary to quitting drinking or staying out of prison, but I think you're reading some extra baggage into the statement when, really, it sounds like he was just suggesting a personal frailty. He claimed that HE required god, not that others required god.

[Divine Insight]

Have you ever considered what this sounds like to atheists who don't get drunk, don't get into trouble with the law, and live productive wholesome lives all on their own without any need to believe in a God?

It also brings up other serious philosophical questions. Would you actually rather be breaking the law?

The idea that the only reason you are not drunk or in trouble with the law is because you believe in a God is not impressive at all.

I think that's unfair. I believe you are reading in an implication that "the only thing that keeps *anyone* from getting drunk or being in jail is the belief in god". That would be offensive. If he said the only reason he isn't doing these things is because he's worried about hell, that would be disturbing.

But I don't see a reason to think he's saying either of those things here. Lots of people say that they could never have stopped drinking without the support of their family. Do you find that insulting to people that manage to stop drinking without the help of a supportive family?

I don't think that belief is valid or necessary to quitting drinking or staying out of prison, but I think you're reading some extra baggage into the statement when, really, it sounds like he was just suggesting a personal frailty. He claimed that HE required god, not that others required god.

Well he did say, "The only thing" that keeps him sober, etc. is a belief in God.

That's actually scary to hear anyone say that. What if a person who feels that way loses their faith and stops believing? What then?

Are they then going to become dangerous since they no longer have any reason to be a "good person"?

Also, doesn't it bring into question the whole philosophy of morality?

Is a person truly "good" if they require a belief in a God in order to be good?

Like I say, an atheist who is a good person is clearly a good person, because they are being good by their own desire.

I just can never understand the view that a person would only be good if they believe in a God. It seems to me that this is actually a statement that they wouldn't be good if there wasn't a God. (clearly the polar opposite of what a good atheist represents).

A person who implies that they wouldn't be a good person if they didn't believe in a God seems to me to be saying that they are fundamentally a bad person at their core. Otherwise, why would they suggest that they would do bad things if they didn't believe in a God?

[Apollo]

[Replying to post 22 by Divine Insight]

I think you're conflating only-moral-because-of-god with only-able-to-control-my-addiction-to-substance-abuse-because -of-god.

Both claims are troubling, but the second one is more in the "only because of my family" camp. If your family dies, will you start using? Maybe, and that's scary, but lots of things are considerably scarier.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 22 by Divine Insight]

I think you're conflating only-moral-because-of-god with only-able-to-control-my-addiction-to-substance-abuse-because -of-god.

Both claims are troubling, but the second one is more in the "only because of my family" camp. If your family dies, will you start using? Maybe, and that's scary, but lots of things are considerably scarier.

I see your point. And in truth I think anyone in that situation is actually making the choice because it's what they truly desire anyway. The idea that they need a crutch doesn't really change the fact that they are actually doing what they truly want to do in the end.

It's always easier to do anything with support, so having imaginary support is better than no support at all I guess.

[Swrrws]

[Replying to post 18 by Swrrws]

Great to hear from you. =)


1) Historicity of Jesus
Many historians believe there is sufficient evidence that a man called Jesus probably existed and did many things described. However, the supernatural claims do not have enough evidence to support them. Can you demonstrate reliable, historical evidence of the magical things claimed in the bible? Can you demonstrate it more concretely than the evidence we have for alien abductions today?

It's perfectly possible that a man called Jesus walked the earth and said a lot of interesting things. It's also possible that the supernatural side of things got added on later to make the stories cooler. There's a theory that the same thing happened with Dracula - that the stories were based on a real person later endowed with vampire powers. The folklore surrounding Davy Crocket is another solid example, in a day with a lot more evidence surrounding and supporting his existence.

Ultimately, even if the bible is right that Jesus existed (without evidence enough to support the miracle claims) - that doesn't mean the rest of it is correct. Being right about some things doesn't mean you're right about the more extraordinary claims. If people start worshiping Spiderman in the far future - and then they find the ruins of New York City as described in the Spiderman comics, should the conclusion be "The comics were right about the historicity of New York City - Spiderman must be real." Is that reasonable?


2) Conversion of St. Paul and James
I can point to evidence of people claiming religious experiences and converting to all sorts of different religions and supernatural beliefs in the modern world that directly contradict each other. Clearly, conversion stories aren't great evidence of truth. Mormonism is growing quickly, as is atheism. What makes these stories special?


3) I can point to many, many, many people in different religions - most popularly Islam - willing to die for what they believe in without evidence to support it. What makes this claim special?

1) I was initially surprised that there was scholarly consensus on this. One part which hooked me was that I always thought the claim of resurrection was concocted by these 11 guys and the women who followed Jesus. In Acts it is claimed Jesus made appearances for over a month and once to a group of 500. Certainly this nor any other supernatural act performed or not perfomed 2,000 yrs ago cant be proven either way, but these people believing it had happened was not in contention. There really was a large group of people who believed they interacted or saw a person who was publicly executed.

2) Paul was not a run of the mill conversion. Saul of Tarsus was, as he describes himself, a Jew's Jew. He learned the Law under one of the most renowned teachers of his time, Gamaliel. Saul stood to take his place in society when he died or left public life. This meant power and wealth beyond what he had ever had as a tent maker. Possibly a seat in the Sanhedrin. Saul also liked to kill and terrorize Christians. He was given permission to root out followers of the Way and basically do what he wanted with them. Now all we have to explain his conversion is his own assertion that a supernatural occurrence happened. Objectively one cannot prove that. Something, however, caused this man to go from celebrated Pharisee and self appointed Christian hunter to the most influential christian who ever lived. And the christians accepted him as a revered authority.

3) It isnt the fact that they ended up as martyrs that is incredible. It is what could have possibly motivated them. This ties in directly to the claims of resurrection. These 11 guys (not Judas) fled Jerusalem after the crucifixion. Most of them scattered at Gethsemane. The Sanhedrin had won and it was over. They were now the most wanted men in Israel. A month of Jesus sightings occurs and then these guys end up preaching in the Temple. The only reason Peter isnt killed then and there is because of a political decision. Something caused these men to go from leaderless rabble to martyrs for a faith that couldnt even be called anything but a small sect. One of them went all the way to India.

Of course there are other explanations that can be made for all of this. Some legitimate and some grasping. When I looked at what had been researched and accepted I was suddenly confronted with the fact that the supernatural explanation wasnt some outlandish thing that had to be tortured to explain away inconsistencies. That it, just like the mundane explanations worked. This was unexpected to me. I went further and explored the faith with a much more open mind. Also my life was at a crisis point. Everyday is a crisis for an addict. During this time I experienced what I consider to be just unequivocal proof of God. Which is useless for convincing anyone in a debate. These 3 points were, for me, the start of a journey I never expected to take.

Of course your spiderman reference is not reaonable. But that isnt a description of the history of Christianity is it? We didnt just stumble upon some book, locate tangential evidence and then start building altars. The Judeo-Christian faiths played out in real time in an unbroken sequence of events leading from a distant past to today. One of those events was a man named Jesus who lived in the early first century. This isnt a far in the future scenario. Paul's epistles were written less than 30 years after Jesus died.

[Swrrws]

[Replying to post 22 by Divine Insight]

Didnt mean to make it sound like all addicts need religion to stay sober. Although a "higher power" is a huge part of AA. Whatever works long term is fine by me. I was just responding to the "real reason" vs "good reason" post by sharing my real reason.

I hope that if for some reason my faith is shaken then the habits ive developed will support me. Also it isnt like I just pray and hope for the best. I did rehab and an active recovery plan. I had to incorporate medical help because my health was in real danger.

If all else fails dont worry...I wont come take your stuff. I have my own stuff now.

[Apollo]

1) I was initially surprised that there was scholarly consensus on this. One part which hooked me was that I always thought the claim of resurrection was concocted by these 11 guys and the women who followed Jesus. In Acts it is claimed Jesus made appearances for over a month and once to a group of 500. Certainly this nor any other supernatural act performed or not perfomed 2,000 yrs ago cant be proven either way, but these people believing it had happened was not in contention. There really was a large group of people who believed they interacted or saw a person who was publicly executed.

There is also a large number of people that believe they have seen alien abductions, or believe they have witnessed miracles from many other religions. The historical evidence for what you're talking about isn't actually as solid as you refer to (unless you found a lot of stuff I didn't, which is totally possible), but that's not relevant to the discussion. If we have reports from 2000 years ago that 500 people saw this thing happen (and by the way, it's not 500 individual reports - it's a few reports that 500 people saw a thing, which is very different) - this isn't very impressive. We know that large groups of people can be absolutely convinced that certain religious events happened from lots of different religions. Also I'd like to reference alien abductions again and so on.

We already know that such reports aren't good evidence - or we'd have to believe in all sorts of contradictory claims about various religions. Why do you consider this impressive?

2) Paul was not a run of the mill conversion. Saul of Tarsus was, as he describes himself, a Jew's Jew. He learned the Law under one of the most renowned teachers of his time, Gamaliel. Saul stood to take his place in society when he died or left public life. This meant power and wealth beyond what he had ever had as a tent maker. Possibly a seat in the Sanhedrin. Saul also liked to kill and terrorize Christians. He was given permission to root out followers of the Way and basically do what he wanted with them. Now all we have to explain his conversion is his own assertion that a supernatural occurrence happened. Objectively one cannot prove that. Something, however, caused this man to go from celebrated Pharisee and self appointed Christian hunter to the most influential christian who ever lived. And the christians accepted him as a revered authority.

So we have a story in the bible that claims a man was seriously against the religion, but now he's for it. Isn't this the biblical equivalent of manipulative before-and-after videos?

I can hold up dozens of examples of entirely devout god-fearing/loving Christians claiming to have their eyes opened and becoming atheists, or converting to other religions. Does this prove Christianity is wrong (especaily when my reports can be verified as accurate, not a long-ago story in an ancient book)? If devout christians converting away from christianity isn't evidence that christianity is false, why would devout non-christians converting to christianity be evidence that christianity is true?

3) It isnt the fact that they ended up as martyrs that is incredible. It is what could have possibly motivated them. This ties in directly to the claims of resurrection. These 11 guys (not Judas) fled Jerusalem after the crucifixion. Most of them scattered at Gethsemane. The Sanhedrin had won and it was over. They were now the most wanted men in Israel. A month of Jesus sightings occurs and then these guys end up preaching in the Temple. The only reason Peter isnt killed then and there is because of a political decision. Something caused these men to go from leaderless rabble to martyrs for a faith that couldnt even be called anything but a small sect. One of them went all the way to India.

And Islamic terrorists blow themselves up for what they believe. Is that evidence that Islam is correct?

How strongly a person believes a claim has no impact on that claim's truth. Furthermore, where is our account that this even happened? It still comes from the bible which you need to provide evidence for in the first place.

Of course there are other explanations that can be made for all of this.

This is the core of the issue. There are perfectly normal, natural explanations for all of this. Saying that you choose to believe in an all-powerful being did it, when we already have perfectly normal explanations, is like saying...

"That forest is on fire and we don't know for sure how it started. Therefore, I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe that an invisible dragon is the cause. It's just as reasonable as mundane explanations like lightning strikes setting some trees on fire.

No, it isn't. Occam's Razor applies here. If you can have a perfectly normal, natural explanation for an occurrence - it isn't evidence that a supernatural being did it.

Of course your spiderman reference is not reaonable. But that isnt a description of the history of Christianity is it? We didnt just stumble upon some book, locate tangential evidence and then start building altars.

That is not the point of the analogy. The analogy demonstrates a flaw in logic. The flaw is that just because some parts of a text are accurate, like the location and existence of New York City, does not mean that all parts of the text are accurate - like the existence of Spiderman. Do you disagree with this principle?

[1213]

"Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?"

I think Bible and the existence of this world as Bible describes it is good reason to believe that God exists.

[Apollo]

I think Bible and the existence of this world as Bible describes it is good reason to believe that God exists.

You're going to have to go into more detail than that, if you want the statement to be clear or meaningful.

[Jashwell]

This threads been more active than I've expected, but as Apollo put it, by a good reason I mean something along the lines of a "reliable method of determining the accuracy of claims". Personal intuition, incredulity or aesthetics (for example "this book is so perfect and full of good advice") are not good reasons, especially considering this is a debate thread, and could at least be first formalised to show there is more of a solid ground to it than personal appeal.

I'm mainly surprised by the lack of any real arguments being put forward. It's nice to hear a theist say that they think the only reasons for believing are personal ones, but not necessarily in the interest of a debate thread, and what I don't want (and I hope others don't want) is this thread to be mainly assorted straw men arguments, rhetoric and poisoning the well from atheists. A debate should be between two opposing sides. Let the other side make their own case, don't make it for them.

With that said, are there any theists who can put forward sound arguments (or reliable experimental evidence) for the existence of God?