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.

[Zzyzx]

.

I am not saying because science doesn't know everything there must be a God.

Many, however, DO take that position " which is known as "God of the Gaps" " "If science can't answer how the universe or life within it began (or anything else) that means that God did it."

What I'm saying is science has a lot to learn about the beginning of the universe.

Humans have a lot to learn " period. How the universe began (or life began) is NOT essential knowledge compared to questions that relate to actual life as we live it.

You know as well as I that anything from the Bible or related to the Bible is neither considered nor acceptable here by the vast majority. You also know the only evidence of a God and creation is the Bible. All other material available and related to it is also not acceptable here or to me.

This is suppose to be a debate between science and Bible.

More accurately the debates are Religious beliefs vs. Naturalism (defined as: "the idea or belief that only laws of nature (physical law) (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) and forces operate in the world; the idea or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world. " that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws.")

Science refers to the method found most effective to study the natural world.

Where is the debate if the Bible is not accepted as part of the debate? There is no debate.

The bible IS part of these debates, obviously. What is not permitted is using the bible to prove that something is true " as in "It is true because the bible says so."

What the bible says MAY be true or may be false or may be fantasy. Those who argue in favor of religion cannot, rationally, use the bible to prove religious beliefs true and accurate in debate " even though doing so is common elsewhere.

[jcb]

[Replying to post 350 by Zzyzx]

When I came here it was with the hope of showing multiple myths Christianity teaches are false. To do that I need to post Bible verses. After it can be debated for or against Christianity. All the world knows Christians obviously have something(s) wrong. Knowing what they have wrong may (I hope) encourage some to look even further.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 351 by jcb]

You can post as many bible verses as you want but don't expect anyone to believe what the scriptures say are true.

[mwtech]

[Replying to post 350 by Zzyzx]

When I came here it was with the hope of showing multiple myths Christianity teaches are false. To do that I need to post Bible verses. After it can be debated for or against Christianity. All the world knows Christians obviously have something(s) wrong. Knowing what they have wrong may (I hope) encourage some to look even further.

You can certainly do that. But you can do it by creating your own theads in apologetics or in the theology and doctrine sub forum. You are probably not going to achieve that goal by debating a topic about whether or not there is good reason to believe in God. Why not create your own thread? I'm sure plent y of people would be happy to discuss your ideas.

[Zzyzx]

.

When I came here it was with the hope of showing multiple myths Christianity teaches are false.

Many of us have been debating here for years " some supporting religion, some opposing. Very few conversions or deconversions have been evident.

To do that I need to post Bible verses.

Quoting bible verses (in moderation) is not objectionable " provided they are not cited as proof of truth.

After it can be debated for or against Christianity.

That is what we do here " debate for and against Christianity (and other supernatural belief systems).

All the world knows Christians obviously have something(s) wrong.

All the world certainly does NOT know that "Christians obviously have something(s) wrong."

Many steadfastly believe that Christianity offers absolute / ultimate / unblemished TRUTH and "the one true path to salvation."

If one starts with a false premise or faulty understanding their "arguments" are likely to be ineffective.

Knowing what they have wrong may (I hope) encourage some to look even further.

Lots of luck convincing true believers that their beliefs are wrong. "It is very difficult to reason a person out of a position that they did not reason themselves into."

[Goat]

1611 and 1769

I am not saying because science doesn't know everything there must be a God. What I'm saying is science has a lot to learn about the beginning of the universe.
You know as well as I that anything from the Bible or related to the Bible is neither considered nor acceptable here by the vast majority. You also know the only evidence of a God and creation is the Bible. All other material available and related to it is also not acceptable here or to me.

This is suppose to be a debate between science and Bible. Where is the debate if the Bible is not accepted as part of the debate? There is no debate.

I am saying that reasoning is horrible. It is the logical fallacy known as 'the argument from ignorance'.

Now, if you can provide tangible evidence of God , and show me that the claims of the bible have validity, I would certainly look at it. Do you have reasons to show about god existing that isn't just 'because I said so', or 'this book says such and such'. Personal testimony is flawed because of confirmation bias. What can you show me. Do you have anything tangible?

[kenblogton]

1611 and 1769

I am not saying because science doesn't know everything there must be a God. What I'm saying is science has a lot to learn about the beginning of the universe.
You know as well as I that anything from the Bible or related to the Bible is neither considered nor acceptable here by the vast majority. You also know the only evidence of a God and creation is the Bible. All other material available and related to it is also not acceptable here or to me.

This is suppose to be a debate between science and Bible. Where is the debate if the Bible is not accepted as part of the debate? There is no debate.

I am saying that reasoning is horrible. It is the logical fallacy known as 'the argument from ignorance'.

Now, if you can provide tangible evidence of God , and show me that the claims of the bible have validity, I would certainly look at it. Do you have reasons to show about god existing that isn't just 'because I said so', or 'this book says such and such'. Personal testimony is flawed because of confirmation bias. What can you show me. Do you have anything tangible?

Asking for tangible evidence for non-physical God is an oxymoronic request. God is Spirit, not human!

However, logical evidence abounds, as I've previously shown, and which only one atheist has taken up. Rather than repeat what I've repeatedly stated, let me ask the question which NO atheist has been able to answer.

Give me ONE example in this world of something coming from nothing? Only one.
If you can't, then you're stuck in your ability to disprove God.

The physical universe had its origin some 8-15 billion years ago. It did not have a physical cause, because its origin is the beginning of the physical: space, time, matter & energy. That origin demands an explanation, and God is the only plausible explanation, as the letter of the Apostle Paul to the Romans states in Chapter 1:
"18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools"

And don't raise the by now tiresome point so who created God? Again, as myself and others have repeatedly shown, asking that question gets into an illogical infinite regress.

kenblogton

[Bust Nak]

Give me ONE example in this world of something coming from nothing? Only one.

Virtual particles.

And don't raise the by now tiresome point so who created God? Again, as myself and others have repeatedly shown, asking that question gets into an illogical infinite regress.

Then why not stop at the Big Bang at the first cause? Beside, I've never seen a sound deductive argument against infinite regression. It's not one of the three horns of Mnchhausen trilemma for nothing.

[kenblogton]

1.

Give me ONE example in this world of something coming from nothing? Only one.

Virtual particles.

2.

And don't raise the by now tiresome point so who created God? Again, as myself and others have repeatedly shown, asking that question gets into an illogical infinite regress.

Then why not stop at the Big Bang at the first cause? Beside, I've never seen a sound deductive argument against infinite regression. It's not one of the three horns of Mnchhausen trilemma for nothing.

Reply to 1. At http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... icles-rea/, it states "Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested.

Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse."

In other words, virtual particles are transformations of other existing particles. They are NOT examples of something coming from nothing.

Reply to 2. At http://www.doxa.ws/cosmological/No_ICR.html, it explains the logical flaw in infinite regress well.
"The Infinite causal regress is an important issue in dealing with the cosmological argument, especially the Kalam version, and the argument form final cause. It basically means that any infinitely recurring causality for any event is impossible, since one never actually arrives at a cause. The importance of this argument applies not only to the now largely abandoned notion of an oscillating universe, but to any finite causes of space/time. This is because in light of the impossibility it means that the ultimate cause of the universe must be a final cause, that is to say, the cause behind all other causes, but itself uncaused and eternal. These are two major issues because they indicate why the ultimate cause of the universe has to be God. Since arbitrary necessities are impossible, the ultimate cause cannot be something which is itself contingent, such as an eternal singularity. The ultimate cause, or "final cause" must be God, since God is a logical necessity."
kenblogton

[mwtech]

kenblogton
You complain about the "who created God" argument being a tired one, but it is a legitimate one. You don't get to make up an end to the regression just because it needs one. And if you did make one up, it wouldn't have to be a sentient, personal creator. Your argument is not an argument for God, it is an argument for a beginning of the universe. Whatever caused it, if it was caused, could be an entity, an event, or any number of things we have absolutely no knowledge of or an ability to comprehend. Just because you can't think of anything to end the regression besides God, does not actually make God the only option. It just leaves us in an agnostic position, not knowing how the universe came to be.