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.

[mwtech]

Theory is theory and not an undisputable fact. Reputable scientists today still admit they have a lot to learn about the universe and its beginning. Until they have learned all there is to learn, their theory is only theory.

What you say is true, but you say it in a way that implies that since science just has theories, we might as well go with your ideas since we can't know which is true. To get the name theory it had to graduate from hypothesis through the summation of multiple repeatable experiments and overwhelming evidence. The God hypothesis, is just a hypothesis. Any testing that has been done (I only know of one, seeing as it scientists insist on being NOMA friendy) has failed. We have no reason to believe God exists, and plenty of reason to believe the theory of Gravity is true. Same goes for all other theories.

Can you also agree, that nothing on any subject can be accepted as the last word until EVERYTHING is understood about it and there is nothing more to learn?

I think the only people who woudn't agree with that are those who think the Bible is the unchangable infallable word of God and think they know all the answers already. You will not find many scientists or freethinkers who claim to be gnostic about anything.

Christianity and science today are basically in the same boat. Both have considerable to learn about what is the truth the whole truth and nothing about the truth.

Thay absolutely are not in the same boat. Unless your only two boats are "I know everything for sure," and "I still have things to learn" they are not in the same boat at all. Science is based on evidence. Christianity is not. The whole point of this thread is whether there are good reasons to believe God exists. There have not been provided any good reasons. All you can offer is "well, you don't know everything so you know just as much as Christians do."

the Bible is the only physical source available for saying anything about God. But you do not accept nor want to hear anything that comes from it.

This was your response to "No justification is required for not accepting the Bible while no epistemological capability has been given."
If the Bible is the only source of knowledge for a character, then that is justification for assuming him to be fictional. And it isn't as if atheists don't want to hear from the Bible because we just hate it and foam at the mouths when we hear scripture. Most of us here have read it, many were Christians at some point. It just doesn't belong in a scientiic discussion about evidence. It is not evidence. To consider the Bible good evidence of God's existence, you would need proper evidence that the Bible is actually truth. We don't have that either.

I do not interpret. I find meaning through comparing verses with other verses, as they are written.

That is called interpretation. You have to interpret what you read. Otherwise you have just seen letters ad don't know what they mean. Taking verses into context with other verses and deciding what they mean is interpreting them.


So after all this, do you actually have a legitimate responce to the OP? All you have offered is why some vague interpretation of a 3 verses correlates with a highly discredited model of the universe, and that

Scientist will eventually prove the existence of a Supreme Power and a creation. They are not far from it now.. They only have a few more dots to connect

This is not evidence for the existence of God. This is not a good reason to believe a god exists.

[jcb]

Why was this thread ever started? It should have been known the believer side of this forum would respond by quoting the Bible or other religious material. These never receive the opportunity to state their side of the question simply because it is not accepted.

Why not choose whatever from the Bible relating to God to finding an answer to the question... After all, the name of this forum is Debating Christianity & Religion. All I have seen so far is Debating Science Against Christianity & Religion. There can be no debate if the literature of Christianity & Religion is not permitted or accepted into the debate.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 301 by jcb]

... Because it's expected that those who want to convince those that don't believe will have some external evidence.
How are you going to convince someone that the Bible is true by saying "because the Bible says so"?

If you want to take the Bible for granted, go into the theology section.

Similarly, if this had been "Are there good reasons to believe that Gandalf exists?", would it be reasonable for a number of people to quote from the Lord of the Rings books?

Many Christian apologists do believe there are good reasons to believe a God exists that aren't based on the Bible. This is for them to give convincing arguments, not to say "it's true because I say so" or "it's true because it says so".

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 301 by jcb]

I am sorry that I view the bible as a mythological book but to me that is what it appears to be. For me to consider it true I would need "good reasons" . Hence the reason for this thread. What are reasons for belief? are those reasons good? this is what is being asked. For many of us the "bible" is not a good reason to believe. So what are the other reasons?

[jcb]

[Replying to post 300 by mwtech]
'What you say is true, but you say it in a way that implies that since science just has theories, we might as well go with your ideas since we can't know which is true.'

This is not what I intend. I am simply saying that more needs to be understood before drawing a final conclusion to a theory, be it the science of the universe or God. Nether can be rejected just because there is lack of understanding and obvious misunderstanding.


jcb wrote:
Can you also agree, that nothing on any subject can be accepted as the last word until EVERYTHING is understood about it and there is nothing more to learn?

I said any subject.


jcb wrote:
I do not interpret. I find meaning through comparing verses with other verses, as they are written.

That is called interpretation. You have to interpret what you read. Otherwise you have just seen letters ad don't know what they mean. Taking verses into context with other verses and deciding what they mean is interpreting them.

It is not interpretation. If I see written 2+2=4 and see elsewhere why 2+2=4 it is reading the words for what is written. Then if I experiment with this further and find it is true for what is described, I have confirmation. Interpretation is seeing the moon greenish in colour and later saying it is because the moon is made of green cheese.

I presented in previous posts why there is good reason to believe there is a God. DanielTheDragon dismissed this with MRI's and EEG's that show how the brain functions when dealing with whatever. This does not repute the fact that history has shown knowledge all related to it has been in the mind for centuries. It has not evolved, cannot evolve and the only thing that has evolved is the understanding of the knowledge from other source in the brain. Since all has always been there it had to be put there by some source that had the knowledge and traits needed to work with it.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 304 by jcb]

This does not repute the fact that history has shown knowledge all related to it has been in the mind for centuries. It has not evolved, cannot evolve and the only thing that has evolved is the understanding of the knowledge from other source in the brain. Since all has always been there it had to be put there by some source that had the knowledge and traits needed to work with it.

Perhaps this needs its own discussion thread as I don't perceive this as a true statement.

[jcb]

[Replying to post 303 by DanieltheDragon]

Am I correcting in assuming contradictions in the Bible, the extreme division among Christian, each denomination having their own explanation completely different from the other and a wide variety of Christian Bibles that also do not agree, are what has turned people away from Christianity and the existence of God?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 306 by jcb]

those can be some reasons but they are not all encompassing. There are quite a few logical failures depending on your particular belief systems that make such a god a logical impossibility.

The big reason for me though is I don't take things on face value I need an evidence based reason to believe in something. I am also ok admitting when I don't know.

There very well could be a god(s)/supernatural entity/higher intelligence that created everything; but I don't see any good evidence to support this so I see no reason why I should believe in it. In other words the arguments supporting god(s)/supernatural entity/higher intelligence are not convincing to me in order to believe them.

[jcb]

[Replying to post 307 by DanieltheDragon]

I am not quitting but I will try to find a sub-forum where I can use the Bible (KJV) for explanation.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 308 by jcb]

Theology,religion, and dogma.