Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?

Jashwell · Post by **Jashwell** » Sat Jun 14, 2014 1:14 pm

"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.

Jashwell · Post by **Jashwell** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 1:07 pm

[Replying to post 199 by jcb]

Billion+ is not indicative of 40 Billion +.
It's like saying "there were 3 or more people there" and meaning "there were 43 people there", while it is true in a literal sense, the implication and connotation is that 3 is a reasonable approximation. 1 Billion is not a reasonable approximation (in this context) of 40-50 Billion.

Similarly, if someone had thought that the Universe is 6-10,000 years old or older, it'd be wrong of them to then turn around and say "ah, but you see I said older" when they discovered the truth.

"If scientist is false on this they must be false on all else they claim the same as people say about the existence of God."
1) It is fallacious (flawed) to suggest that because one person is wrong one one claim, that they are wrong on any other claim.
2) It is fallacious to suggest that because one person is wrong on one claim, that an entire field of people are wrong on another specific claim
3) It is fallacious to suggest that because any number of people in the same field were wrong on one claim, that another claim they support must be wrong.

It is analogous to arguing that Hitler ate food, and Hitler was evil, therefore eating food is evil.

If that one scientist was wrong about what the said, then that's it. There's nothing else you can take from that statement.

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 1:12 pm

jcb wrote:If scientist is false on this they must then be false on all else they claim the same as people say about the existence of God.

I'm not sure I catch your meaning. Are you contending that if science is in error on one thing, than everything science claims is wrong?

Are you claiming that if a scientist is mistaken about one conclusion, then he must be in error regarding all of his conclusions?

jcb · Post by **jcb** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 1:57 pm

"If scientist is false on this they must be false on all else they claim the same as people say about the existence of God."
1) It is fallacious (flawed) to suggest that because one person is wrong one one claim, that they are wrong on any other claim.
2) It is fallacious to suggest that because one person is wrong on one claim, that an entire field of people are wrong on another specific claim
3) It is fallacious to suggest that because any number of people in the same field were wrong on one claim, that another claim they support must be wrong.

Your point 2 and 3 would apply also to the Bible and claim of an existence of a God. Do you reject all claims because a few make a false claim? That would be for each individual to decide.

My point is a group of reputable scientist participated in the documentary and all agreed that the universe will eventually retract to what it was before expanding. There guess is it could be in several billion years, be it 1, 50, or a million billion years.

Another well know publicised fact is every year more and more scientist are leaning towards a creation and a Supreme Power having started.

I totally agree with the scientists on both of these issues.. Why? Because the Bible says they are exactly right. That Supreme Power you can call God the sun the moon or the stars. They will eventually prove this Supreme Power exists and has existed since what they know as the beginning.

Jashwell · Post by **Jashwell** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 2:07 pm

jcb wrote: "If scientist is false on this they must be false on all else they claim the same as people say about the existence of God."
1) It is fallacious (flawed) to suggest that because one person is wrong one one claim, that they are wrong on any other claim.
2) It is fallacious to suggest that because one person is wrong on one claim, that an entire field of people are wrong on another specific claim
3) It is fallacious to suggest that because any number of people in the same field were wrong on one claim, that another claim they support must be wrong.

Your point 2 and 3 would apply also to the Bible and claim of an existence of a God. Do you reject all claims because a few make a false claim? That would be for each individual to decide.

No, one false claim in the Bible does not make its other claims false.
The problem is that there's no reason to think any of them are true in the first place.

If people think that the bible is infallible however, then a single falsity is certainly a problem.

My point is a group of reputable scientist participated in the documentary and all agreed that the universe will eventually retract to what it was before expanding. There guess is it could be in several billion years, be it 1, 50, or a million billion years.

Did they say "if" or "given" at any point?
Regardless, name the documentary/source, otherwise I don't see justification for claiming a group of reputable scientists said this.

Another well know publicised fact is every year more and more scientist are leaning towards a creation and a Supreme Power having started.

This is not a well known publicised fact. This is the first time I've heard a single person assert this.
Are you aware that in a poll of the National Academy of Sciences, only 7% believed in a God that answered prayers (in any sense)?

I totally agree with the scientists on both of these issues.. Why? Because the Bible says they are exactly right. That Supreme Power you can call God the sun the moon or the stars. They will eventually prove this Supreme Power exists and has existed since what they know as the beginning.

Name some well respected scientists that think that the big crunch is the prevailing cosmological model for the 'end' of the Universe.

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 2:12 pm

jcb wrote: "If scientist is false on this they must be false on all else they claim the same as people say about the existence of God."
1) It is fallacious (flawed) to suggest that because one person is wrong one one claim, that they are wrong on any other claim.
2) It is fallacious to suggest that because one person is wrong on one claim, that an entire field of people are wrong on another specific claim
3) It is fallacious to suggest that because any number of people in the same field were wrong on one claim, that another claim they support must be wrong.

Your point 2 and 3 would apply also to the Bible and claim of an existence of a God. Do you reject all claims because a few make a false claim? That would be for each individual to decide.

My point is a group of reputable scientist participated in the documentary and all agreed that the universe will eventually retract to what it was before expanding. There guess is it could be in several billion years, be it 1, 50, or a million billion years.

Another well know publicised fact is every year more and more scientist are leaning towards a creation and a Supreme Power having started.

I totally agree with the scientists on both of these issues.. Why? Because the Bible says they are exactly right. That Supreme Power you can call God the sun the moon or the stars. They will eventually prove this Supreme Power exists and has existed since what they know as the beginning.

Your points might be considered if you supported any of them. Please, either retract your claims, or support them with evidence such as a URL citation.

Please support your "well know [sic] fact" that "more and more scientist are leaning towards a creation and a Supreme Power having started [sic]."

Among other things, perhaps if you reread and then rewrote your submissions you would enhance the clarity of your meaning.

jcb · Post by **jcb** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 2:16 pm

[Replying to post 203 by Jashwell]

The documentary of retraction of the universe and more and more scientists leaning towards 'A' creation were both on the Discovery Science channel.

I am not saying more about this unless I can google it.

Zzyzx · Post by **Zzyzx** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 2:20 pm

.

jcb wrote: Another well know publicised fact is every year more and more scientist are leaning towards a creation and a Supreme Power having started.

Kindly provide links to creationist websites (or others) that document this claim.

jcb wrote: That Supreme Power you can call God the sun the moon or the stars. They will eventually prove this Supreme Power exists and has existed since what they know as the beginning.

Is this to suggest that the sun, moon and stars constitute (collectively or separately) a "supreme power" that KNOW(S) "the beginning?"

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 2:20 pm

[Replying to post 205 by jcb]

I really would not recommend the discovery or science channel to get a basis for current scientific thought on most matters. These are ratings driven broadcasts and they have and have shown to have no problem in manipulating studies to drive a point that sells.
[/quote]
I was disappointed to note that recently the Discovery Channel has gone over completely to fiction and highly speculative 'science' reports about mermaids and other nonsense.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... 8LQ2o1dW68

jcb · Post by **jcb** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 2:23 pm

[Replying to post 207 by DanieltheDragon]

I will find url's relating to this. Even then I think it will be rejected the same as all else is rejected

jcb · Post by **jcb** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 2:27 pm

[Replying to post 206 by Zzyzx]

I asked for this.

Here is 1 url: http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoverie ... iverse.php