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.

[Divine Insight]

[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.

Actually, on on personal level I support people who are inspired by believing in a God or something supernatural. I think a belief in a God can be a good thing for many people even if there is no God. But at the very same time it can also have dangerous side-affects. The most prominent being that people who tend to believe in a God also tend to support religious dogma, even if when they aren't truly aware of it.

It both saddens me, and angers me that the AA uses religion as a crutch in their program. One could argue that the crutch works for many people, but then again, it's a crutch that simultaneously supports a very specific religious dogma (in this case Christianity).

Ironically, for me personally I would be instantly turned off by the religious component of AA. Not because I have any problems believing in a God in general, but I find Christianity in particular extremely repulsive. So in my case, the very crutch they are attempting to use to help people would actually drive me away from their program. Although, I can't truly say this since I have no idea what it would be like viewing the world from the mindset of be helplessly addicted to drugs or alcohol. I've always been able to maintain my own control over either. So the whole concept of being unable to control my own behavior is alien to me. It's just not something that I can even imagine experiencing. Especially whilst being able to say that I have any sense of free will left at all.

I just wonder also,... If the AA would have preached Islam as their religious inspiration would recovering addicts then praise Allah as the God who saved them from their addiction instead of Jesus? And if so, then doesn't this simple fact expose the absurdity of the whole system?

But yeah, if a belief in something supernatural has helped you to get out of a rut, then I certainly support that. But it's not going to carry much weight in a debate forum just the same.

[Divine Insight]

"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.

I see several problems with this.

To begin with the world isn't truly like the Bible describes at all. On the contrary many things that the Bible claims about the real world are simply false. My favorite example is the fact that the Bible says that there are not good atheists, not a one. That is clearly false, so the Bible does not describe the world as it truly is.

Another example comes from Jesus proclaiming that "God feeds the birds", yet another falsehood. Birds need to go out at great risk and peril to their own life just to scrap up food for their babies, and the biological truth of the matter is that many birds actually do starve to death. So Jesus had no clue what he was talking about. He was simply flat out wrong.

Another point came to me from watching a debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox. Lennox was arguing that the Bible got it right that the universe had a beginning even before science knew about this. Richard Dawkins argued that it's a simple 50/50 chance. The universe either had a beginning or it didn't, the Bible just happened to get it right.

But I would go much further than this. Not only did the Bible get it right on this particular issue, but so did every single creation story every created by mankind. All religion have a "creation story" and therefore all religions accidentally "got it right" that the universe had a beginning simply because this is what creation stories tend to claim in general. Mankind simple thinks in terms of things always having a beginning, and sure enough the universe itself is not exempt from this.

So where does the Bible excel in a description of the natural world? Especially to the exclusion or superiority of any other man-made creation stories or religions?

As far as I'm concerned it fails miserable on several major points. The ones I've mentioned above, and also in terms of the Great Flood, which we now know could not possibly have happened in human history. There actually exists human genome evidence that shows that it could not have occurred. So the Bible did get that one wrong for certain.

[1213]

My favorite example is the fact that the Bible says that there are not good atheists, not a one.

That depends on how you define good. By Bible standards even I don’t think any human is good.

Another example comes from Jesus proclaiming that "God feeds the birds", yet another falsehood. Birds need to go out at great risk and peril to their own life just to scrap up food for their babies, and the biological truth of the matter is that many birds actually do starve to death.

See the birds of the sky, that they don't sow, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns. Your heavenly Father feeds them. Aren't you of much more value than they?
Matt. 6:26

I think birds get the food without sowing and reaping and gathering into barns. Therefore I think Jesus was correct.

Especially to the exclusion or superiority of any other man-made creation stories or religions?

About how the Great Flood happened.

As far as I'm concerned it fails miserable on several major points. The ones I've mentioned above, and also in terms of the Great Flood, which we now know could not possibly have happened in human history. There actually exists human genome evidence that shows that it could not have occurred. So the Bible did get that one wrong for certain.

So you say. I don’t believe you, because I don’t have any good reason to believe you.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 33 by 1213]

Even if the bible is has some non-contradictory interpretation, or even if the overwhelming majority of interpretations were non-contradictory, that leads no credence to the existence of a God nor the truth of biblical claims.

Being logically consistent is not difficult for any number of things that aren't true.

[kenblogton]

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?

Here are some: 1. The existence of something. The question is “Why is there something rather than nothing?� If we accept that something exists, it follows that something cannot come from nothing. If it were possible for something to come from nothing, we would expect to find examples of such. However, we find no such examples. Therefore, based on Occam’s razor, we reject all notions of something coming from nothing. It follows that a creative entity is needed to create something from nothing, whether or not that something changes.
2. The existence of something which changes. Change implies a beginning. The changed state may also be viewed as the effect of a cause. It is a well-accepted axiom of logic that a cause precedes its effect; that a cause never follows its effect. A creative entity is needed to begin, or cause, a changing something which was preceded by nothing.
3. The nature of the creative entity. The first two points demonstrate that the creative entity itself cannot be created and cannot change. If this creative entity were created or changing, we get into an infinite regress: this changing creative entity is created by another changing creative entity which is created by another changing creative and so on ad infinitum. Therefore, using Occam’s razor, we cut off the creative entities at one uncreated and unchanging creative entity.
If we consider the physical universe of space, time, matter and energy as the created something, then we can infer some of the attributes of its non-physical creative entity: non-material, usually referred to as spiritual; not occupying space, usually referred to as invisible, and outside of time, usually referred to as eternal. We can also infer this creative entity is of supreme intelligence or omniscience, given the marvelous design observed in the inception and evolution of the physical universe, and has supreme power or omnipotence, given accepted scientific theory which states nothing physical or material – matter and energy – can either be created or destroyed. Further knowledge of the nature of the creative entity cannot be inferred directly from the physical, and requires further revelation from the creative entity itself.
4. The limitations of scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge consists of two types, generally speaking, empirical or observational knowledge regarding the physical universe, and theoretical or inferred or deduced knowledge about that universe, such as quantum theory. Scientific knowledge of the creative entity is impossible given that it, the creative entity, is not physical. It is logical error to negate the existence of the creative entity based on scientific reasoning; the creative entity is outside the domain of the scientific.
kenblogton

[Jashwell]

Here are some: 1. The existence of something. The question is “Why is there something rather than nothing?� If we accept that something exists, it follows that something cannot come from nothing. If it were possible for something to come from nothing, we would expect to find examples of such. However, we find no such examples. Therefore, based on Occam’s razor, we reject all notions of something coming from nothing. It follows that a creative entity is needed to create something from nothing, whether or not that something changes.

Initially, I object to the implication that there is a reason.
There is no observation of a reason for there being something "rather than nothing" (you almost appear to imply that there should be nothing, or that nothing is somehow preferable or default), and so by Occam's razor we should not believe there is a reason - that's merely imposing reason and agency.

It is also not true that if something can come from nothing, we should expect to see this occur.
I'd like to see an example of nothing. Because everywhere I look, there are things. Nothing does not exist - or in otherwords - things do exist. So where is the nothing from whence you would expect something to come under this hypothesis?

There are all kinds of reasons that might not be the case. Similarly to the first example, it might only be able to occur once.

Oh, and another thing with regards to "there should be things coming from nothing all the time".
Maybe there are.

As Morgenbesser put it, "even if there were nothing you'd still be complaining"
(the implication is of course that you could abstractly ask "Why is there nothing rather than something?" if that were the case)

2. The existence of something which changes. Change implies a beginning. The changed state may also be viewed as the effect of a cause. It is a well-accepted axiom of logic that a cause precedes its effect; that a cause never follows its effect. A creative entity is needed to begin, or cause, a changing something which was preceded by nothing.


3. The nature of the creative entity. The first two points demonstrate that the creative entity itself cannot be created and cannot change. If this creative entity were created or changing, we get into an infinite regress: this changing creative entity is created by another changing creative entity which is created by another changing creative and so on ad infinitum. Therefore, using Occam’s razor, we cut off the creative entities at one uncreated and unchanging creative entity.
If we consider the physical universe of space, time, matter and energy as the created something, then we can infer some of the attributes of its non-physical creative entity: non-material, usually referred to as spiritual; not occupying space, usually referred to as invisible, and outside of time, usually referred to as eternal.

Change does not imply a beginning. However, thought does imply change.
The first cause cannot meaningfully be conscious or sentient if it cannot think. It can think if it can change, as it could not no longer be the first cause. (by your premises)

Extrapolating a first cause is taking causality beyond it's rational limits. The A theory of time requires change for time to be said to exist - and hence by your logic, a cause is needed for time or those that are timed as they change.
But cause precedes effect; and the cause cannot precede the beginning of time; and so a contradiction occurs. One or more of the premises isn't justified.

We can also infer this creative entity is of supreme intelligence or omniscience, given the marvelous design observed in the inception and evolution of the physical universe, and has supreme power or omnipotence, given accepted scientific theory which states nothing physical or material – matter and energy – can either be created or destroyed. Further knowledge of the nature of the creative entity cannot be inferred directly from the physical, and requires further revelation from the creative entity itself.

What design?
Oh, and matter and energy conservation is violated for brief periods of time, this is a known consequence of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
Current estimates suggest it's possible the 'net energy' of the Universe could be close to zero, meaning the entire Universe could exist as borrowed energy for a long period of time.

How could one possibly distinguish revelation from the entity from delusion or from another entity?

[Strider324]

kenblogton scribed:

If we accept that something exists, it follows that something cannot come from nothing.

No, it does not follow. This is a fundamental error in logic, and your entire argument fails as a result.

If you want to argue that something cannot come from nothing, please present a valid case for that claim. The fact that something exists in no way supports it.

[kenblogton]

Here are some: 1. The existence of something. The question is �Why is there something rather than nothing?� If we accept that something exists, it follows that something cannot come from nothing. If it were possible for something to come from nothing, we would expect to find examples of such. However, we find no such examples. Therefore, based on Occam�s razor, we reject all notions of something coming from nothing. It follows that a creative entity is needed to create something from nothing, whether or not that something changes.

A. 1. Initially, I object to the implication that there is a reason. . There is no observation of a reason for there being something "rather than nothing" (you almost appear to imply that there should be nothing, or that nothing is somehow preferable or default), and so by Occam's razor we should not believe there is a reason - that's merely imposing reason and agency.

A. 2. It is also not true that if something can come from nothing, we should expect to see this occur.
I'd like to see an example of nothing. Because everywhere I look, there are things. Nothing does not exist - or in otherwords - things do exist. So where is the nothing from whence you would expect something to come under this hypothesis?

There are all kinds of reasons that might not be the case. Similarly to the first example, it might only be able to occur once.

Oh, and another thing with regards to "there should be things coming from nothing all the time".
Maybe there are.

As Morgenbesser put it, "even if there were nothing you'd still be complaining"
(the implication is of course that you could abstractly ask "Why is there nothing rather than something?" if that were the case)

2. The existence of something which changes. Change implies a beginning. The changed state may also be viewed as the effect of a cause. It is a well-accepted axiom of logic that a cause precedes its effect; that a cause never follows its effect. A creative entity is needed to begin, or cause, a changing something which was preceded by nothing.


3. The nature of the creative entity. The first two points demonstrate that the creative entity itself cannot be created and cannot change. If this creative entity were created or changing, we get into an infinite regress: this changing creative entity is created by another changing creative entity which is created by another changing creative and so on ad infinitum. Therefore, using Occam�s razor, we cut off the creative entities at one uncreated and unchanging creative entity.
If we consider the physical universe of space, time, matter and energy as the created something, then we can infer some of the attributes of its non-physical creative entity: non-material, usually referred to as spiritual; not occupying space, usually referred to as invisible, and outside of time, usually referred to as eternal.

B. 1. Change does not imply a beginning. However, thought does imply change.
The first cause cannot meaningfully be conscious or sentient if it cannot think. It can think if it can change, as it could not no longer be the first cause. (by your premises)

Extrapolating a first cause is taking causality beyond it's rational limits. The A theory of time requires change for time to be said to exist - and hence by your logic, a cause is needed for time or those that are timed as they change.
But cause precedes effect; and the cause cannot precede the beginning of time; and so a contradiction occurs. One or more of the premises isn't justified.

We can also infer this creative entity is of supreme intelligence or omniscience, given the marvelous design observed in the inception and evolution of the physical universe, and has supreme power or omnipotence, given accepted scientific theory which states nothing physical or material � matter and energy � can either be created or destroyed. Further knowledge of the nature of the creative entity cannot be inferred directly from the physical, and requires further revelation from the creative entity itself.

What design?
B. 2. Oh, and matter and energy conservation is violated for brief periods of time, this is a known consequence of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
Current estimates suggest it's possible the 'net energy' of the Universe could be close to zero, meaning the entire Universe could exist as borrowed energy for a long period of time.

B. 3. How could one possibly distinguish revelation from the entity from delusion or from another entity?

Reply to A. 1. Of course, there should be nothing. The existence of something demands explanation, not nothing. If you want to read further on the topic, read Ken Dzugan, How to Prove There Is a God: Mortimer J. Adler's Writings and Thoughts about God, published by Open Court Publishing of Chicago in 2012.
Reply to A. 2. Occam's razor tells us to eliminate all ad hoc explanations, like maybe something can come from nothing.
Reply to B. 1. Of course change implies a beginning. Give me one example where something that changes does not have a beginning.
Reply to B. 2. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states "The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa." It has to do with the impossibility of measurement of both position and momentum simultaneously, not energy conservation.
Reply to B. 3. The book Newberg, A., D'Aquili, E.G. and Rause, V. WHY GOD WON'T GO AWAY: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief. New York: Ballantine Books, 2002 tells you how to distinguish delusion from transcendence.
kenblogton

[Cephus]

kenblogton scribed:

If we accept that something exists, it follows that something cannot come from nothing.

No, it does not follow. This is a fundamental error in logic, and your entire argument fails as a result.

If you want to argue that something cannot come from nothing, please present a valid case for that claim. The fact that something exists in no way supports it.

Exactly. It's an assertion, not a conclusion. There is no demonstration that something existing requires that something cannot come from nothing. It's yet another example of the fallacy from personal incredulity, where the theist just doesn't get the situation, therefore they make up an answer that appeals to them, whether or not it actually has any application.

[Cephus]

Reply to B. 1. Of course change implies a beginning. Give me one example where something that changes does not have a beginning.

Sorry, I had to respond to this part. Give me one example of something that demonstrably does not have a beginning. Not faith. Not claims. Evidence. Otherwise, this is just an unsubstantiated claim.