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.

[Jashwell]

Replying to post 546 by kenblogton

1. Something that comes from no thing is something that does not come from any thing.

Does God come from a thing?
No? Then God comes from no thing.

2. I don't believe John Lennox has addressed anything, I haven't seen the movie but from what I remember of the Cambridge Union debate he didn't say anything new or impressive.

Reply to 1. God does not come from nothing or no thing. God did not come into existence. God is, and always was.

Your definition of nothing does not fit with "no thing".

"I'm going nowhere" means "I'm not going <anywhere>"
"I'll never do that" means "I'll not <ever> do that"


My definition of nothing is "no thing".
Hence "I've got nothing" means "I've not got anything"
"I'm doing nothing" means "I'm not doing anything"
"I came from nothing" means "I didn't come from anything".

Regardless, the definition doesn't matter but this point does.
Prove that only God is the only thing without origin.

Reply to 2. Hawking in The Grand Design is quoted as saying "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing"
Professor Lennox uses a tautology (the saying of the same thing twice in different words) of Hawking's assertion to show its nonsense in paraphrasing it as follows:
"The universe exists because it needed to exist.
Because the universe needed to exist, therefore it created itself."
Lennox concludes his remarks by stating;
"Nonsense remains nonsense, even when spoken by a famous scientist."
kenblogton

What he actually meant is pretty much unknown, he hasn't really qualified.
The best interpretation I've found is that he was referring to gravity as it acts as negative energy.

Meaning if you add energy and a corresponding amount of gravity, then conservation isn't violated. (because it's like adding a negative amount of energy)[/list]

[Zzyzx]

.

Atheists deny the existence of God

An "argument" that begins with an obviously false premise is not likely to go anywhere significant.

Kindly review the many discussions of the definition of Atheism -- and learn that DISBELIEF in "gods" does NOT equate to DENIAL.

Although many Christians and their preachers are seeped in the tradition that Non-Believers ("Atheists" to many) must be god-deniers, it doesn't take much investigation of the real world to realize that god-denial does NOT equate to Atheism (or to Non-Belief).

Any thinking person is free to decline acceptance of ANY of the thousands of proposed "gods" without a requirement that they DENY the existence of said "gods." That is simply a straw man that is imposed by Theists / Christians.

yet are unable to provide either evidence or logical support for 2 pillars of their case:
Pillar 1. That something can come from nothing.

Non-Belief (or "Atheism") does NOT require "something came from nothing." That is simply another straw man "argument" by god-proponents.

Many Non-Believers (myself included) readily acknowledge that we do not know the origin of the universe. Not knowing the origin does NOT require that one accept anyone's claim of knowledge.

Atheists can give NO examples of such, yet confidently assert its truth. If something always comes from something, then the physical universe came from something which must therefore be non-physical; enter God.

Blanket statements are often false. This Non-Believer absolutely does not assert any claim of knowledge – and does not accept ANY of the proposed scenarios for origin of the universe (religious or scientific) as being truthful and accurate.

Pillar 2. That an infinite regress is possible.

Many Non-Believers (me included) consider the "infinite regress" arguments (pro and con) as pure conjecture.

Atheists can give NO examples of such,

Why expect examples to counter conjecture?

yet confidently assert its truth. If there are no infinite regresses, then an always was God is logically possible,

Regardless of meaningless arguments, ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, worshiped, feared, loved, venerated by humans MAY be "logically possible." All that is lacking is evidence that one or more of them ACTUALLY exists outside of human imagination.

and, based on the caused by something existence of the physical universe, logically necessary.

Yes, "gods" are "logically necessary" for those who choose to believe in gods. However, when they attempt to present such notions in debate they are asked for evidence – which seems to be nothing more than opinion, conjecture, hypothesis, guess, and unverifiable testimonials or unverifiable ancient religion-promotion literature.

[lightbeamrider]

[Replying to post 1 by Jashwell] New here. First post. So i will have to learn how to navigate as i go along. God belief explains things whereas atheism explains nothing. God belief assumes human rights derive from God and not men as indicated in our Declaration of Independence.
God belief, in one form or another, has always been the majority report in all of human history.
Theism assumes accountability to God. That means if people escape human justice they are still accountable to God. Theism assumes justice for all. Theism assumes Divine Intelligence behind the natural order of the Universe. From micro to macro, there is Design and order. That far better explains those facts than to assume the universe ''self assembled'' for no reason what so ever. Theism explains why there is something rather than nothing whereas atheism is totally deficient. Atheism assumes there is no accountability to God and no real justice along with rights deriving from men. That would be a giant step backwards.

[Divine Insight]

Theism assumes accountability to God. That means if people escape human justice they are still accountable to God. Theism assumes justice for all.

Theisms also try very hard to unjustly condemn everyone who doesn't believe in their particular theism.

Theism assumes Divine Intelligence behind the natural order of the Universe. From micro to macro, there is Design and order. That far better explains those facts than to assume the universe ''self assembled'' for no reason what so ever.

Secular evolution does not claim that the universe self assembled "for no reason whatsoever". So you are grossly misrepresenting secular philosophy on that point.

Theism explains why there is something rather than nothing whereas atheism is totally deficient.

Not true. Theism merely assumes the existence of an imaginary invisible magician. That's hardly and explanation for anything. If they can't explain where the magician came from then they have an infinite regression that has no solid foundation.

Atheism assumes there is no accountability to God and no real justice along with rights deriving from men. That would be a giant step backwards.

Recognizing that we are actually the stewards of our own human rights is actually a giant step forward. Taking responsibility for how we treat each other is far better than pretending that some invisible daddy in the sky is supposedly taking are of this. In fact, it should be pretty clear that the invisible daddy in the sky is failing to take care of this at all. If we don't step up to the plate and take a stand for civil rights and human rights ourselves it won't get done.

So religious superstitions along these lines is actually holding us back from taking full responsibility for this ourselves. In fact, in many theistic countries where Islam is the main theism human rights are actually being oppressed by these theistic views.

So theism often plays a very derogatory and oppressive role in human rights.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 1 by Jashwell] New here. First post. So i will have to learn how to navigate as i go along.

Welcome!

God belief explains things whereas atheism explains nothing.

The two sides of the thread are theism and weak atheism.
If you've been exposed to apologetics, you probably think agnosticism has the same meaning as weak atheism.
Weak atheism, unlike strong atheism, is the "middle ground" of no belief either way.
(though really they're different issues with results that influence each other)

I see no reason to think that the existence of a God is necessary to explain anything, but this will probably be in the rest of the post.

God belief assumes human rights derive from God and not men as indicated in our Declaration of Independence.

Not necessarily - belief in a God does not require belief that rights come from a God.

But still, you don't need to believe in a God to think that rights descend from something other than man.

And even beyond that, would it be wrong if rights did "descend from man" (what that actually means is somewhat vague)?
Mathematics and logic descend from man.

God belief, in one form or another, has always been the majority report in all of human history.

Popularity of a belief among the general public does not conform to accuracy.
(Nor does correlation imply causation - the greenness of leaves doesn't allow photosynthesis, the presence of chlorophyll allows photosynthesis and creates the greenness of the leaves)

Theism assumes accountability to God.

Some forms, not theism in general.

That means if people escape human justice they are still accountable to God. Theism assumes justice for all.

Accountable to God and justice are two separate concepts.
Why would human justice be necessary anyway?

Theism assumes Divine Intelligence behind the natural order of the Universe. From micro to macro, there is Design and order.

There is order, but no evidence of design.
Snowflakes are ordered. Snowflakes aren't designed.

That far better explains those facts than to assume the universe ''self assembled'' for no reason what so ever.

I'm not sure what's even meant by this.
... but this assumption isn't needed anyway.
Lacking the assumption "the Universe was intentionally made" isn't itself an assumption.

Theism explains why there is something rather than nothing whereas atheism is totally deficient.

And Greek mythology explains why Zeus can throw lightning bolts.
And the tides. (if only Bill O'Reilly believed in the ancient Greek pantheon)

As Sidney Morgenbesser said (paraphrasing somewhat), "If there were nothing you'd still be complaining"

Atheism assumes there is no accountability to God

Strong atheism (unlike weak atheism) assumes that God does not exist. Is this what you mean?
Why do you bring up this specific issue and not something like "Atheism assumes there is no such thing as God's favourite number" or "Atheism assumes there is no such thing as God's left foot". (I'm sure some theists assume these too)

and no real justice along with rights deriving from men. That would be a giant step backwards.

That would also not be true of atheism.

[lightbeamrider]

Theisms also try very hard to unjustly condemn everyone who doesn't believe in their particular theism.

That is really not part of the program, condemning others, that is. Again, Theism assumes justice for all. Atheism does not.

Secular evolution does not claim that the universe self assembled "for no reason whatsoever". So you are grossly misrepresenting secular philosophy on that point.

Abiogenesis as taught in non theistic environments assumes self assembly for no reason. If there is no intelligence then there is no real reason for the beginning of the universe. Secular macro evolution does not deal with origins and either does atheism which really explains nothing. Do we agree on that?

Not true.

Was not making a truth claim.

Theism merely assumes the existence of an imaginary invisible magician.

Based on everything. Imaginary invisible magician is a caricature.

That's hardly and explanation for anything.

You got a better one? We are all ears? Whatever the cause of the big bang it had nothing to do with Intelligence or with God? Effects have Causes. If you do not believe the Cause has anything to do with Intelligence or with God then what is the Cause? We say God. You say?????

If they can't explain where the magician came from then they have an infinite regression that has no solid foundation.

Explanations do not need explanations. God depicted is outside time space and matter from the get go. Probably 3000 or so years ago they wrote.

In the beginning (Time)
God created the heavens (Space)
and the Earth (Matter)

The inverse of that argument is from the movie God Not Dead.

If the universe created you then who created the universe?

Recognizing that we are actually the stewards of our own human rights is actually a giant step forward. Taking responsibility for how we treat each other is far better than pretending that some invisible daddy in the sky is supposedly taking are of this. In fact, it should be pretty clear that the invisible daddy in the sky is failing to take care of this at all. If we don't step up to the plate and take a stand for civil rights and human rights ourselves it won't get done.

Why do you use derogatory terms like ''invisible daddy in the sky?'' If you assume the ''invisible daddy in the sky'' is failing to take care of us then you must also assume we as ''stewards of our own human rights'' are failing to take care of us. Under atheism, brutality and kindness are equally valid, since DNA neither knows nor cares.

So religious superstitions along these lines is actually holding us back from taking full responsibility for this ourselves. In fact, in many theistic countries where Islam is the main theism human rights are actually being oppressed by these theistic views.

So theism often plays a very derogatory and oppressive role in human rights.

Not an Islamofasist.

[lightbeamrider]

God belief assumes human rights derive from God and not men as indicated in our Declaration of Independence.

Not necessarily - belief in a God does not require belief that rights come from a God.
But still, you don't need to believe in a God to think that rights descend from something other than man.

If human rights do not come from God and they do not come from men, then where do they come from?

Mathematics and logic descend from man.

What? Man is the source for math and logic? Was there ever a time the simple equation 1+1=2 not true? Man discovers what is already there. You have man down as the source.

Popularity of a belief among the general public does not conform to accuracy.

It does add weight. The majority report is not always wrong.

Why would human justice be necessary anyway?

Ask Ted Bundy. Charlie Manson is probably asking the same question.

There is order, but no evidence of design.

Order is the evidence.

Snowflakes are ordered. Snowflakes aren't designed.

Good ole snowflakes. There is a world of difference between a DNA molecule which shows Intelligent design and information transfer. You can use a snowflake to assume your car self assembled absent intelligence or the sun will fix your self assembled car and remove the rust at the same time. Generally speaking most can draw a distinction between the Grand Canyon and Mt. Rushmore. To assume Intelligent Design is based on what we know about design and information. It is your camp who must assume the possibility your own posts are the result of natural forces and not intelligence. Which is more reasonable? What is the source of the natural forces?

And Greek mythology explains why Zeus can throw lightning bolts.
And the tides. (if only Bill O'Reilly believed in the ancient Greek pantheon)
As Sidney Morgenbesser said (paraphrasing somewhat), "If there were nothing you'd still be complaining"

Not arguing for Zeus and i know of nobody who does. The non existence of Zeus does not invalidate the real existence of God anymore than Spiderman does. The comparison is trivial.

Strong atheism (unlike weak atheism) assumes that God does not exist. Is this what you mean?

If there is no God then there is no accountability to God. That means if a Ted Bundy type goes out and rapes and kills and escapes human justice there is no justice for the victims who are innocent or to Ted Bundy for his crimes. Under atheism, justice is a sham. That is counter intuitive to human experience.

[Divine Insight]

Theism assumes justice for all. Atheism does not.

Justice for all is potentially an attractive thought, depending on what a persons considered to be justice.

Just because theism assumes justice for all does not mean that this ideal exists. So how does wishful thinking support theism?

Abiogenesis as taught in non theistic environments assumes self assembly for no reason.

No, it doesn't. This is a grossly false claim on your behalf. There are not only many physical reasons for self-assembly, but self-assembly is actually a natural result of the natural properties of the elements and the forces of nature. In fact, we can see self-assembly in the lab of rudimentary parts that are used in biological entities.

If there is no intelligence then there is no real reason for the beginning of the universe.

Not true. There is no reason that any intelligence would need to be involved. Can you please provide evidence for your claim here?

Secular macro evolution does not deal with origins and either does atheism which really explains nothing. Do we agree on that?

Atheism does not claim to be an explanation for anything. Atheism is simply a philosophy that does not embrace any particular theism.

Genetic evolution clearly does not deal with pre-genetic origins. But chemistry and biology do. That would also be a form of evolution, but it would be different from genetic evolution.

Theism merely assumes the existence of an imaginary invisible magician.

Based on everything. Imaginary invisible magician is a caricature.

Well theism typically asserts that this magician is intelligent, conscious, sentient, and even had an ego along with human failings like jealousy etc. Christian theism claims that this entity spoke to people from a burning bush, and again from a cloud. Probably in some other cases too. Clearly this God has appeared to many in their dreams. But people have also dreamed of faeries too, so there's nothing unique there.

That's hardly and explanation for anything.

You got a better one? We are all ears?

I don't need a 'better'' one since no coherent explanation has been given other than "The Wizard of Oz Did It".

Whatever the cause of the big bang it had nothing to do with Intelligence or with God? Effects have Causes. If you do not believe the Cause has anything to do with Intelligence or with God then what is the Cause? We say God. You say?????

The current evidence points to a random quantum fluctuation. No sentient intelligence, design, or purpose required.

If they can't explain where the magician came from then they have an infinite regression that has no solid foundation.

Explanations do not need explanations. God depicted is outside time space and matter from the get go. Probably 3000 or so years ago they wrote.

In the beginning (Time)
God created the heavens (Space)
and the Earth (Matter)

The inverse of that argument is from the movie God Not Dead.

If the universe created you then who created the universe?

Why would the universe need a creator?

And if it had a creator why wouldn't that creator need a creator and so on.

Even the Wizard of Oz turned out to just be a little man behind a curtain. But where did he come from? Who created him?

The buck has to stop somewhere.

Recognizing that we are actually the stewards of our own human rights is actually a giant step forward. Taking responsibility for how we treat each other is far better than pretending that some invisible daddy in the sky is supposedly taking are of this. In fact, it should be pretty clear that the invisible daddy in the sky is failing to take care of this at all. If we don't step up to the plate and take a stand for civil rights and human rights ourselves it won't get done.

Why do you use derogatory terms like ''invisible daddy in the sky?'' If you assume the ''invisible daddy in the sky'' is failing to take care of us then you must also assume we as ''stewards of our own human rights'' are failing to take care of us. Under atheism, brutality and kindness are equally valid, since DNA neither knows nor cares.

I'm not arguing that a secular universe is "perfect" or that it would be "better" than one created by a God. That's irrelevant. I'm just pointing out the fact that we only get the human rights that we fight for. That's just the hardcore fact on the ground.

So religious superstitions along these lines is actually holding us back from taking full responsibility for this ourselves. In fact, in many theistic countries where Islam is the main theism human rights are actually being oppressed by these theistic views.

So theism often plays a very derogatory and oppressive role in human rights.

Not an Islamofasist.

Sorry, I thought you were arguing for theism in general. Are you arguing for a specific Theistic dogma?

[Zzyzx]

.

If human rights do not come from God and they do not come from men, then where do they come from?

In my opinion what is regarded as "human rights" VARIES greatly through time and place because societies decide such things – basically a human process.

Mathematics and logic descend from man.

What? Man is the source for math and logic? Was there ever a time the simple equation 1+1=2 not true? Man discovers what is already there. You have man down as the source.

Single objects existed prior to human existence; however, the concept of "one" or "two" and the concept of addition are of human origin – our means of describing objects.

Popularity of a belief among the general public does not conform to accuracy.

It does add weight.

That is the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum

The majority report is not always wrong.

The majority opinion (or report) is not always right. Evidence and reasoning can often be used to determine truth and accuracy. Those who lack evidence that their position is true often argue that "it is widely believed so therefore it must be true" (or words to that effect).

The majority at one time probably thought that disease was caused by demons and that droughts were caused by displeased "gods" (and some still believe that). Did that make them right?

There is order, but no evidence of design.

Order is the evidence.

This is the logical fallacy known as Circular reasoning (also known as paradoxical thinking or circular logic) -- a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.

It is your camp who must assume the possibility your own posts are the result of natural forces and not intelligence. Which is more reasonable? What is the source of the natural forces?

I do not disagree with those who do not consider their posts to be a product of their own intelligence.

If some or all Theist posts represent "intelligent design" they often reflect very poorly on the designer – when they contain logical fallacies, inconsistencies, unwarranted assumptions, faulty conclusions, etc – and when they fail to be at all convincing except possibly to some Theists.

Perhaps the supposed "designer" was not fair to "his" supporters when / if they do not fare well in debate?

And Greek mythology explains why Zeus can throw lightning bolts.
And the tides. (if only Bill O'Reilly believed in the ancient Greek pantheon)
As Sidney Morgenbesser said (paraphrasing somewhat), "If there were nothing you'd still be complaining"

Not arguing for Zeus and i know of nobody who does. The non existence of Zeus does not invalidate the real existence of God anymore than Spiderman does. The comparison is trivial.

Zeus was once accepted probably as well as the bible God is currently – but has since been added to the list of discarded "gods."

Thousands of "gods" are and have been proposed, worshiped, feared, loved, venerated by humans. Evidence supporting them is similar – imagination, opinion, myth, folklore, conjecture, hearsay, testimonials and unverifiable tales by unidentified writers claiming knowledge of supernatural entities and events.

Strong atheism (unlike weak atheism) assumes that God does not exist. Is this what you mean?

If there is no God then there is no accountability to God.

That is correct.

That means if a Ted Bundy type goes out and rapes and kills and escapes human justice there is no justice for the victims who are innocent or to Ted Bundy for his crimes.

Justice, if it is achieved, seldom accrues to victims. Murder victims are not brought back to life and no one is un-raped.

That some religions propose that justice is achieved in a proposed "afterlife" may be comforting to believers; however, neither the "afterlife" nor the "justice" has been shown to be anything more than wishful thinking.

Under atheism, justice is a sham. That is counter intuitive to human experience.

There is no such thing as "under Atheism". How can anything be under "I don't believe you?"

Justice is a function of society, not religious belief (except in theocracy such as much of the Middle East currently and Europe during the Dark Ages).

[lightbeamrider]

Zzyzx Wrote

In my opinion what is regarded as "human rights" VARIES greatly through time and place because societies decide such things – basically a human process.

Then slavery for profit is equally as valid as the alternative.

Single objects existed prior to human existence; however, the concept of "one" or "two" and the concept of addition are of human origin – our means of describing objects.

I asked if the equation of 1+1=2 ever not exist? It is a simple question. If you are saying man invented 1+1=2 then i suppose you are assuming there was a time 1+1=2 did not exist. Why does math work if there is no God? That is, since mathematics is the foundation and language of science and is not science?

Popularity of a belief among the general public does not conform to accuracy.

It does add weight.

--------------------

That is the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum

The majority report is not always wrong.

The majority opinion (or report) is not always right. Evidence and reasoning can often be used to determine truth and accuracy. Those who lack evidence that their position is true often argue that "it is widely believed so therefore it must be true" (or words to that effect).

Evidence is not the problem in the first place since atheist assumptions require no evidence. Nor can any be provided.

The majority at one time probably thought that disease was caused by demons and that droughts were caused by displeased "gods" (and some still believe that). Did that make them right?

Prove it wrong. I think you are assuming these things are never a factor at all times in all places. I don't live in that box. You do.

There is order, but no evidence of design.

Order is the evidence.

This is the logical fallacy known as Circular reasoning (also known as paradoxical thinking or circular logic) -- a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.

Well i am assuming there is an intelligent source behind this post i am responding to. You know why? It indicates intelligent design. That is circular according to you and i am right since you are an intelligent source.

I do not disagree with those who do not consider their posts to be a product of their own intelligence.

Nonsensical.

If some or all Theist posts represent "intelligent design" they often reflect very poorly on the designer – when they contain logical fallacies, inconsistencies, unwarranted assumptions, faulty conclusions, etc – and when they fail to be at all convincing except possibly to some Theists.

Am sure you meant that snarky criticism for our own benefit.

Perhaps the supposed "designer" was not fair to "his" supporters when / if they do not fare well in debate?

Are you trying to provoke or give a grade?

Justice, if it is achieved, seldom accrues to victims. Murder victims are not brought back to life and no one is un-raped.

Justice is never achieved under atheism since no one is brought back to life and no one is unraped and no one is accountable to God since God does not exist. By the way. In Christianity one murder victim is brought back to life. That is a lot easier to believe than it is to believe in abiogenesis in which life is from non life and intelligence is from non intelligence for no reason. Also in violation with established science of biogenesis which conforms with Theism. From life comes life and from Intelligence comes intelligence. With resurrection you have sufficient Cause since God is the source of all life. Not all that hard to understand if even in theory.

That some religions propose that justice is achieved in a proposed "afterlife" may be comforting to believers; however, neither the "afterlife" nor the "justice" has been shown to be anything more than wishful thinking.

Wishful thinking cuts both ways. Plenty find comfort they can live any way then choose. Say anything they want. Hurt anybody they want to. Blaspheme the Living God and there are no consequences. Like i said. Theism better explains the universal human sense of justice far better than does atheism.

Under atheism, justice is a sham. That is counter intuitive to human experience.

There is no such thing as "under Atheism". How can anything be under "I don't believe you?"

Ok. You are quibbling about word meaning and ignoring the argument. That means you have no answer.