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.

[instantc]

I've said so many times it's not even funny, when I say "coming from nothing" I mean "coming from no thing", which means "not coming [from anything]", a subset of which is things that don't begin to exist.

I have no problem with this.

I don't believe the Universe (in the 4D sense) began to exist..

That's another discussion that I have no interest in entering.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 171 by instantc]

That was seemingly the whole point of this conversation.
Otherwise I don't see how it'd relate to god at all.

The entire point was me saying there are alternative models which are more consistent and without God, so the cosmological argument doesn't hold.


Since that was a very long discussion, does anyone have any other arguments for the existence of God? (preferably not cosmological ones)

[kenblogton]

Reply to 1. Anthropological accounts I've read of the earliest humans said they believed in one or a few mighty and demanding gods, perhaps through revelation. Polytheism came much later, and invoked less demanding gods.

Reply to 2. We know the universe began between 8-15 billion years ago, and that Science describes physical reality.

Reply to 3. Human choice in any given situation is a product of learned behaviour and biological predispositions, and perhaps divine inspiration. The learning was influenced by our senses.

Reply to 4. In the book Newberg, A., DAquili, E.G. and Rause, V. WHY GOD WONT GO AWAY: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief. New York: Ballantine Books, 2002, the authors state As the human brain evolved, something remarkable happened: The brain, with its great perceptual powers, began to perceive its own existence, and human beings gained the ability to reflect, as if from a distance, upon the perceptions produced by their own brains. There seems to be, within the human head, an inner personal awareness, a free-standing, observant self. We have come to think of this self, with all its emotions, sensations, and cognitions, as the phenomenon of mind"
What we think of as reality is only a rendition of reality that is created by the brain. Our modern understanding of the brains perceptual powers bears this out. Nothing enters consciousness whole. There is no direct, objective experience of reality. The idea that our experience of reality " all our experiences, for that matter " are only secondhand depictions of what may or may not be objectively real, raises some profound questions about the most basic truths of human existence and the neurological nature of spiritual experience."....

I agree with all of this [and appreciate the long quote from Newberg, A., DAquili, E.G. and Rause. All of this demonstrates exactly why man, when he could think of nothing else to explain natural phenomena, projected his own mind onto a super version of himself as a 'cause' for it all. Very natural, understandable, but wrong. There is no need to speculate and project a giant version of oneself as the cause of everything. I imagine that if human beings born the last 100 years or so were well educated about science and natural explanations, but were not indoctrinated by ancient mythologies, the idea of a 'God' would never emerge at all. "God" quite literally is the product of ignorance; an answer to a question that is not asked when one understands the natural world today.

You are incorrect to suppose man projecting his own mind onto a super version of himself as the origin of the God idea. Sociologist Rodney Stark concludes, based upon the best anthropological evidence, that primitive peoples, such as the Australian aboriginals and a majority of primitive nomads as well as those primitives dependent upon agriculture had a conception of High Gods (54-62). The many similarities of religions around the worldreflect a universal revelation dating from earliest times. (62) Stark notes A fundamental aspect of religion is an exchange relationship between humans and God. Since Gods are the only plausible source of many benefits humans greatly desire, the most basic religious questions are: What do the Gods want? And, how can one gain their favor?... When people conceive of God as a being of infinite power and scope, their answer tends to emphasize morality, good works," His book is Stark, R. 2007. DISCOVERING GOD: The Origins of the Great Religions and the Evolution of Belief. New York: HarperCollins, in case you're interested.
kenblogton

[Danmark]

Your

"You are incorrect to suppose man projecting his own mind onto a super version of himself as the origin of the God idea"

does not follow from the passage you quote from Stark. In fact Stark's book expounds on exactly what I said, that man invents his gods based on his culture what man needs or wants, as well as his fears. Stark is attempting to show how cultures develop their religions based on natural selection, not because there really are gods.

For example Stark writes:

Humans will tend to adopt and retain those elements of culture that appear to produce better results, while those that appear to be less rewarding will tend to be discarded (p. 9). Humans will tend to adopt and retain images of God(s) that appear to provide greater satisfactions, both subjective and material and that humans will prefer God to unconscious divine essences (p. 10). In addition, humans prefer an image of God that is rational and loving (p. 11).

He gives a telling example about Christianity:
What purpose was served by the Crucifixion? Surely a God of miracles could simply have offered universal clemency to those who believed and thereby have dispensed with any need for a blood sacrifice. Although such a sacrifice may have seemed plausible to pagans, it rings quite false in our more enlightened times. But thats the whole point Gods revelations are always geared to the current capacity of humans to comprehend [Christs sacrificial death] spoke powerfully and eloquently to a culture that took sacrifice, especially blood sacrifice, as fundamental to pleasing the Gods (p. 289).
http://creation.com/review-stark-discovering-god - from a review in a Christian creation site, critical of Discovering God.

I am puzzled as to how you could read Stark, and completely misunderstand his point. In fact you got it exactly backwards.

BTW 'in their 1987 book A Theory of Religion, Stark and Bainbridge describe themselves as "personally incapable of religious faith"'
[emphasis applied]
_David Lehmann, "Rational Choice and the Sociology of Religion", in Bryan S. Turner (ed.), The New Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of Religion, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010, pp. 181"200.

[kenblogton]

1. Your

"You are incorrect to suppose man projecting his own mind onto a super version of himself as the origin of the God idea"

does not follow from the passage you quote from Stark. In fact Stark's book expounds on exactly what I said, that man invents his gods based on his culture what man needs or wants, as well as his fears. Stark is attempting to show how cultures develop their religions based on natural selection, not because there really are gods.

2. For example Stark writes:

"Humans will tend to adopt and retain those elements of culture that appear to produce better results, while those that appear to be less rewarding will tend to be discarded" (p. 9). "Humans will tend to adopt and retain images of God(s) that appear to provide greater satisfactions, both subjective and material" and that "humans will prefer God to unconscious divine essences" (p. 10). In addition, humans prefer an image of God that is "rational and loving" (p. 11).

3. He gives a telling example about Christianity:
"What purpose was served by the Crucifixion? Surely a God of miracles could simply have offered universal clemency to those who believed and thereby have dispensed with any need for a blood sacrifice. Although such a sacrifice may have seemed plausible to pagans, it rings quite false in our more enlightened times. But thats the whole point Gods revelations are always geared to the current capacity of humans to comprehend [Christs sacrificial death] spoke powerfully and eloquently to a culture that took sacrifice, especially blood sacrifice, as fundamental to pleasing the Gods" (p. 289).
http://creation.com/review-stark-discovering-god - from a review in a Christian creation site, critical of Discovering God.

4. I am puzzled as to how you could read Stark, and completely misunderstand his point. In fact you got it exactly backwards.

BTW 'in their 1987 book A Theory of Religion, Stark and Bainbridge describe themselves as "personally incapable of religious faith"'
[emphasis applied]
_David Lehmann, "Rational Choice and the Sociology of Religion", in Bryan S. Turner (ed.), The New Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of Religion, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010, pp. 181200.

Reply to 1. I repeat my quote "Stark notes "A fundamental aspect of religion is an exchange relationship between humans and God. Since Gods are the only plausible source of many benefits humans greatly desire, the most basic religious questions are: What do the Gods want? And, how can one gain their favor?... When people conceive of God as a being of infinite power and scope, their answer tends to emphasize morality, good works," God as a being of infinite power and scope who desires morality and good works of people is not gods in man's image.

Reply to 2. Polytheistic gods are of the sort that provide greater satisfaction, not the primary gods of original belief.

Reply to 3. I'm not sure how this is a telling example - please explain?
I'll tell you the biblical understanding of your quote. When humans sin, they die spiritually. Until Christ, and since, there have been no perfect - sinless - people. Christ was humankind's sacrificial redeeming scapegoat. I refer you to the gospel of John, chapter 10, verses 14-18 " "14 I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me-- 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father--and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life--only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

Reply to 4. I believe I have it correct.

kenblogton

[Danmark]

Reply to 1. I repeat my quote "Stark notes A fundamental aspect of religion is an exchange relationship between humans and God. Since Gods are the only plausible source of many benefits humans greatly desire, ....

Here is the unsupported assumption that makes you completely miss everything Stark has written. Gods are certainly not the "only plausible source" of what humans want. "They" don't even exist. 'The gods' are, as Stark points out, merely an assumption or hope that ancient humans had because they did not understand nature's bounty and terrors, nor how they worked. So they invented 'gods,' and as Stark points out, those gods fit their needs. If they did not, those aspects were discarded. There is nothing in Stark's work that shows these make believe gods ever existed.
What you present is one of those Woody Allen movie moments:

when Woody actually brings Marshall McLuhan over to dispute the interpretation of his works. I'd like to bring Rodney Stark to this argument.
Since you get the words of Star himself wrong by 180 degrees,
the best I can do is refer you to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_Stark

[Bust Nak]

It's like saying that tomorrow I'm in two places at once, because I haven't decided yet. If I give you a list of places I could be and the chances I'll be there, that's not the same as saying I'll be in all those places at once. But for all practical purposes, my position tomorrow is in flux.

First of all we are talking about yesterday, not tomorrow, the photon has ready reached the screen to form the interference pattern. Then we ask, so where were you, you were at all those places at once, it was your presence at those places that caused the interference pattern. The experiment demostrate more than the mere uncertainty as to where a particle is.

There isn't a "place of the photon" until the wavefunction collapses.

That is if the photon was observed at one of the slit. In which case the interference pattern disappear.

The problem is claiming that it is a particle in the first place (or even an "it"). It isn't a particle until it collapses. That's why there's an interference pattern. Because there isn't "a photon" there's a wave of excitations in the photon field, which under collapsed circumstances is perceived as a particle.

Which goes back to what I said before. "A photon is not anywhere until it hits the screen" is no more coherent than "two places at once." But it looks like the conversation has moved on quite a bit.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 177 by Bust Nak]

What's more coherent: "the coin is both heads and tails until it lands"; "the coin is neither heads nor tails until it lands"?

A) Mutual exclusives
B) Not mutual exclusives

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 176 by Danmark]
I stand by my previous post, which explains my position, and have nothing further to add to it. You are, of course, entitled to your own interpretation.
kenblogton

[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 Occams 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 Occams 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

In the above post, I have succinctly answered this sub-forum topic question, Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists? In all subsequent posts, there has been no substantive refutation, but rather evasion.
The key issue is whether something can come from nothing. Some small number of atheists have acknowledged that something cannot come from nothing, but the vast majority claim that something can come from nothing. However, none has provided a single example, relying instead on evasion of the issue.
Therefore, I declare victory for the Deists.
kenblogton