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]

It doesn't matter what God you believe in or what you think it is. I think assuming that because we don't know what caused something a God (of whatever holy text you choose) did it is wrong. If we don't know the answer, that means we don't know the answer. It doesn't mean a god is the answer.

Many of us are simply looking for reasons to lean one way or the other. To me these debates have never been about knowing things for verifiable certainty, although that would be nice of course. People who promote the KCA, for example, tend to make the claim that it is more likely than not that the universe has a creator. To jump into the conversation and proclaim that nobody really knows the answer is simply irrelevant, and I don't understand why so many people feel the need to do it.

[Zzyzx]

.

If we don't know the answer, that means we don't know the answer. It doesn't mean a god is the answer.

Exactly

Also, those who accept "goddidit" are less inclined (or not motivated) to seek other answers -- which may well be an accurate answer. Some are hostile toward any answer that does not involve their favorite "god" and actively work to discredit or "debunk" any non-god answer (as can be observed in many of these threads).

[mwtech]

It doesn't matter what God you believe in or what you think it is. I think assuming that because we don't know what caused something a God (of whatever holy text you choose) did it is wrong. If we don't know the answer, that means we don't know the answer. It doesn't mean a god is the answer.

Many of us are simply looking for reasons to lean one way or the other. To me these debates have never been about knowing things for verifiable certainty, although that would be nice of course. People who promote the KCA, for example, tend to make the claim that it is more likely than not that the universe has a creator. To jump into the conversation and proclaim that nobody really knows the answer is simply irrelevant, and I don't understand why so many people feel the need to do it.

You act as though believing in God is just a harmless hypothesis and there is no need for any nonbeliever to point out that they might be wrong. The belief is not harmless. Diabetic children who live with parents who believe in faith healing gasp for water and bleed from eye tumors because their parents pray instead of treating with insulin. Islamists kill innocent people just to earn the title of martyr in a heaven that doesn't exist. Christians are so sure they know who god is and how he works that they refuse to let their children learn about science and how the observable world behaves. So I think it is completely necessary to jump in and point out that you might not know, especially if your certainty is costing other humans their well-being or their future, or in some sad cases their lives.

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 272 by mwtech]

mwtech said: 1. You act as though believing in God is just a harmless hypothesis and there is no need for any nonbeliever to point out that they might be wrong. The belief is not harmless.
2.Diabetic children who live with parents who believe in faith healing gasp for water and bleed from eye tumors because their parents pray instead of treating with insulin. Islamists kill innocent people just to earn the title of martyr in a heaven that doesn't exist.
3. Christians are so sure they know who god is and how he works that they refuse to let their children learn about science and how the observable world behaves. So I think it is completely necessary to jump in and point out that you might not know, especially if your certainty is costing other humans their well-being or their future, or in some sad cases their lives.
Reply to 1. Any belief misapplied can be harmful, just as it can be harmful to not apply the truth.
Reply to 2. Why blame God for what ignorant parents or misguided martyrdom-seeking Islamists do; it's their doing, not God's.
Reply to 3. Ignorant Christians may do that. In fact, Christians have nothing to fear from truth, scientific or biblical.
In my research, I have found that people are atheists for one of three reasons.
1. They had an abusive father, and are unable to overlook the connection between their father and God the Father.
2. They have been disappointed in how God acted, or failed to act, in some situation. However, in many of those situations, it is humankind's failure. For instance, all wars are started by humans, and humankind has the means to alleviate the suffering from famine, and much of the suffering from disease.
3. They have been told by a spirit that there is no God.
I have read of a fourth reason for atheism: God is too demanding; a godless world is less restrictive.
kenblogton

[mwtech]

[Replying to post 272 by mwtech]

mwtech said: 1. You act as though believing in God is just a harmless hypothesis and there is no need for any nonbeliever to point out that they might be wrong. The belief is not harmless.
2.Diabetic children who live with parents who believe in faith healing gasp for water and bleed from eye tumors because their parents pray instead of treating with insulin. Islamists kill innocent people just to earn the title of martyr in a heaven that doesn't exist.
3. Christians are so sure they know who god is and how he works that they refuse to let their children learn about science and how the observable world behaves. So I think it is completely necessary to jump in and point out that you might not know, especially if your certainty is costing other humans their well-being or their future, or in some sad cases their lives.
Reply to 1. Any belief misapplied can be harmful, just as it can be harmful to not apply the truth.
Reply to 2. Why blame God for what ignorant parents or misguided martyrdom-seeking Islamists do; it's their doing, not God's.
Reply to 3. Ignorant Christians may do that. In fact, Christians have nothing to fear from truth, scientific or biblical.
In my research, I have found that people are atheists for one of three reasons.
1. They had an abusive father, and are unable to overlook the connection between their father and God the Father.
2. They have been disappointed in how God acted, or failed to act, in some situation. However, in many of those situations, it is humankind's failure. For instance, all wars are started by humans, and humankind has the means to alleviate the suffering from famine, and much of the suffering from disease.
3. They have been told by a spirit that there is no God.
I have read of a fourth reason for atheism: God is too demanding; a godless world is less restrictive.
kenblogton

I don't blame God for the actions of abusive parents. I don't believe God exist, how could it be his fault. But these people do this in the name of their imaginary God. And this is why I feel obligated to condemn such beliefs. I don't know what point there was to you taking a guess at why people are atheists, but in my experience it has nothing to do with any tragic event or the actions of god (since they don't believe in him) and certainly they don't disbelieve in the supernatural because a supernatural spirit told them to. In most of the cases I have seen people don't believe in God because they feel that there is no evidence pointing to the existence of a god, let alone the one of the Bible above others. Why would you believe in something if you feel there is no reason to believe in him.

[jcb]

[Replying to post 268 by jcb]

JCB it is hard to make sure to quote one accurately when your position is relatively ambiguous. It would help if your responses had a more coherent and direct message.
If you feel like I keep missing the mark on what your position is perhaps you have not clearly defined it.

When I say God I use the word because it is the name understood by all.

Here is where I stand.. and very firmly

1. I believe a Supreme Power (God) does exist.
2. This Supreme Power did create all things above and in this universe.
3. The Father, the Word, Holy Spirit are 1, yet in the Bible they are referred to as 3.
4. God, Jesus, and the Father have their own individualism.
5. Science and Bible do agree on multiple subjects, beginning with Genesis 1.
6. Science will eventually agree there was a Supreme Power that did start the universe and all that is in it.
7. This Supreme Power had a very specific purpose for 'ITS' actions in the beginning.
8. This universe and all ( stars planets etc) in it will come to and end, never to exist again.
9. Christianity has a drastic misunderstanding of the Bible: in particular the New Testament.

There is no point in including all else.

[Zzyzx]

.

In my research, I have found that people are atheists for one of three reasons.

Since you refer to your research as though it had meaning, kindly tell us about the research; how it was conducted, what sources of information were used (and vetted) with citations, work reviewed by whom, where published (if done)?

Note: If "research" refers to talking to some people, reading some articles, failing to explore alternatives, etc that is NOT worthy of the term research but is personal OPINION " possibly very biased opinion formed by someone who favors theism.

Rather than "three reasons" there are as many reasons for disbelief in "gods" as there are non-believers. Among the strongest reasons expressed in these threads and elsewhere is the lack of evidence that "gods" exist or influence human lives. Ancient writings by anonymous religion promoters plus emotional / psychological / mental episodes may convince some people, but others regard such things as unconvincing (to put it mildly).

I have read of a fourth reason for atheism: God is too demanding; a godless world is less restrictive.

Since there is no credible indication of restrictiveness directly from a "god", any restrictions are imposed by PREACHERS and religion organizations claiming to represent a "god."

Of course the multitude of preachers and religions instigate widely differing restrictions but claim to know what "god wants."

[kenblogton]

.
1.

In my research, I have found that people are atheists for one of three reasons.

Since you refer to your research as though it had meaning, kindly tell us about the research; how it was conducted, what sources of information were used (and vetted) with citations, work reviewed by whom, where published (if done)?

Note: If "research" refers to talking to some people, reading some articles, failing to explore alternatives, etc that is NOT worthy of the term research but is personal OPINION " possibly very biased opinion formed by someone who favors theism.

2. Rather than "three reasons" there are as many reasons for disbelief in "gods" as there are non-believers. Among the strongest reasons expressed in these threads and elsewhere is the lack of evidence that "gods" exist or influence human lives. Ancient writings by anonymous religion promoters plus emotional / psychological / mental episodes may convince some people, but others regard such things as unconvincing (to put it mildly).

3.

I have read of a fourth reason for atheism: God is too demanding; a godless world is less restrictive.

Since there is no credible indication of restrictiveness directly from a "god", any restrictions are imposed by PREACHERS and religion organizations claiming to represent a "god."

Of course the multitude of preachers and religions instigate widely differing restrictions but claim to know what "god wants."

Reply to 1. By "research" I meant personal investigation or experience, not research in the academic sense.

Reply to 2. In my experience, there are many intellectual arguments for and against God, but I've only discovered the 3 emotional reasons I listed.

Reply to 3. In the book Stark, R. 2007. DISCOVERING GOD: The Origins of the Great Religions and the Evolution of Belief. New York: HarperCollins, 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). 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, and faith. But when [polytheistic] Gods are conceived of as humans with superpowers, the answers tend to focus on basic human desires " food, drink, wealth, sex, and deference. (105), making polytheistic gods more popular people probably are more comfortable with the far more humanlike and far less demanding Gods of polytheism " Gods whose demands can quite easily be satisfied. In comparison, monotheism is a much more demanding and far less comfortable faith. (111)
In other words, it is people's conceptions of gods that guides them, not the preaching they hear.
kenblogton

[Danmark]

Reply to 3. In the book Stark, R. 2007. DISCOVERING GOD: The Origins of the Great Religions and the Evolution of Belief. New York: HarperCollins, 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). 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, and faith. But when [polytheistic] Gods are conceived of as humans with superpowers, the answers tend to focus on basic human desires " food, drink, wealth, sex, and deference. (105), making polytheistic gods more popular people probably are more comfortable with the far more humanlike and far less demanding Gods of polytheism " Gods whose demands can quite easily be satisfied. In comparison, monotheism is a much more demanding and far less comfortable faith. (111)
In other words, it is people's conceptions of gods that guides them, not the preaching they hear.
kenblogton

I don't know why you keep bring Stark's work up as a reason for a real God to exist. Stark never makes an argument for an actual supreme being, or beings. His approach is purely Anthropological, explaining why man invents various forms of gods depending on his culture.

It is hardly surprising that a 'god' would be 'demanding,' since man has invented 'god' for man's own purposes, one of which is to control other men and get their goods by invoking 'god.' As I wrote in the 'money' thread:

'Malachi 3:10 - Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that [there shall] not [be room] enough [to receive it].

The 'Lord of hosts' wants meat in 'his' house. As an inducement he will 'pour out a blessing.' We know the Lord is not going to eat the meat. That will be done by the men running the con. The ones who wrote the inducement and attributed it to 'the Lord of hosts' so they could receive the meat.'

It is obvious that the 'creator of the universe' does not need meat or anything else. That goes to the inventor of the myth and his figurative descendants who continue to promulgate the rationale.

[kenblogton]

Reply to 3. In the book Stark, R. 2007. DISCOVERING GOD: The Origins of the Great Religions and the Evolution of Belief. New York: HarperCollins, 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). 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, and faith. But when [polytheistic] Gods are conceived of as humans with superpowers, the answers tend to focus on basic human desires " food, drink, wealth, sex, and deference. (105), making polytheistic gods more popular people probably are more comfortable with the far more humanlike and far less demanding Gods of polytheism " Gods whose demands can quite easily be satisfied. In comparison, monotheism is a much more demanding and far less comfortable faith. (111)
In other words, it is people's conceptions of gods that guides them, not the preaching they hear.
kenblogton

I don't know why you keep bring Stark's work up as a reason for a real God to exist. Stark never makes an argument for an actual supreme being, or beings. His approach is purely Anthropological, explaining why man invents various forms of gods depending on his culture.

It is hardly surprising that a 'god' would be 'demanding,' since man has invented 'god' for man's own purposes, one of which is to control other men and get their goods by invoking 'god.' As I wrote in the 'money' thread:

'Malachi 3:10 - Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that [there shall] not [be room] enough [to receive it].

The 'Lord of hosts' wants meat in 'his' house. As an inducement he will 'pour out a blessing.' We know the Lord is not going to eat the meat. That will be done by the men running the con. The ones who wrote the inducement and attributed it to 'the Lord of hosts' so they could receive the meat.'

It is obvious that the 'creator of the universe' does not need meat or anything else. That goes to the inventor of the myth and his figurative descendants who continue to promulgate the rationale.

Stark gives the reason why humans came to believe in gods: because they believed the gods were vital to their survival, and he says they abandoned the initial high gods because they were too demanding and invented more human-like and much less demanding polytheistic gods. The initial gods were more like the real thing, the more easy-going gods were invented.

It is obvious that the creator of the universe does not need meat or anything. So why such stuff in the Bible?
The Bible's purpose is to communicate what God expects of humans. Since it was written for fairly primitive humans, it contains anthropomorphisms to help primitive folk relate to God and to better understand what God expects.
kenblogton