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]

Objective morality via accountability is a good reason to assume God since it better explains the human sense of justice and right and wrong. Justice for all. Its called the moral argument.

Please prove all of these claims.

1) We would be accountable to God if he existed
2) The human sense of justice, or right and wrong, can only be descriptive of reality
3) ONLY God can explain right and wrong
4) We would have justice if (1)
5) We would ALL have justice if (4)

[wiploc]

You do realise that a moral system based on God isn't objective, right?

No.

That it's subjective? Based on one individual?

God is the objective for moral accountability. We are accountable to Him. That makes it objective relative to us. God is the objective reference point.

That needs explaining.

Spose my neighbor kid is named Timmy. Spose I say Timmy is the objective for moral accountability. We are accountable to hIM. That makes it objective relative to us. Timmy is the objective reference point.

Now maybe you can explain how your system works better than mine, how your god is more objective than Timmy.

Because I don't get it. I'm curious, but nobody has ever explained this to me.

[FarWanderer]

Unless theism explains why its God exists, then it most certainly does not.

Sounds like special pleading. Unless this and unless that. Theism far better explains everything far better then any of the alternative non God non Intelligence assertions presented here.

A special pleading? I don't understand why you would think that. It's simply logic. You claimed that theism explains why there is something rather than nothing. God, if he were to exist, would be something. Theism doesn't explain God's existence. Therefore, theism doesn't explain why there is something rather than nothing.

Neither does atheism, of course. But that's not the point.

whereas atheism is totally deficient. Atheism assumes there is no accountability to God and no real justice along with rights deriving from men.

So if it's from men it's not "real" justice?

Did not say that. Create a phantom. Why don't non believers just admit the obvious. Persons get away with murder every day. Many die unpunished.

And belief in God does something about this?

Theism, spec. Biblical Theism assumes justice for all. Atheism does not. Again, Theism better explains.

Assuming justice for all doesn't explain anything.

Furthermore, so what? Even if what you say here is true, it doesn't provide any logical or evidentiary support for the existence of God.

There is a universal human sense of justice and rights. They have a source and a reason.

I prove your point inadequate simply by disagreeing with you. Insofar as there is disagreement about justice, human sentiment about justice is not universal.

It boils down to an emotional appeal to the desirability of this so-called "real justice" you speak of as a "good reason" to believe in God.

It is good reason. Far better than fixed blind no God no Intelligence assumptions in which the consequences are king is law. Under that scenario slavery for profit is equally as valid as liberty. Bad ideas have bad consequences.

Or I can simply assume that liberty is more valid than slavery, just like you assume God exists in order to justify the notion that liberty is more valid than slavery.

Yet I reject your emotional appeal even on its own terms. I do not see how the "real justice" of God is desirable, because I do not have strong desires to for anyone to suffer, however villainous they may be.

I would not reduce universal human sense of justice and rights to ''emotional appeal'' but i do realize you must justify your atheism at any cost.[/quote]

You're projecting.

It is simply a matter of intellectual honesty for us to acknowledge when an emotional appeal is an emotional appeal. For example, you are appealing to the desirability of liberty over slavery. I too find liberty desirable over slavery.

There's actually nothing wrong with emotional appeals, in my opinion, so I do not mean to belittle your point by calling it an emotional appeal. Rather, I mean to say that as such it has a certain scope of application- and that you are trying to apply it beyond that scope.

Would you mind explaining what it is that makes you find God's "real justice" desirable?

Mercy from God is more desirable. Mercy from God is possible as opposed to justice from God.

That doesn't answer my question. I'm not asking about mercy. I'm asking why it's important to you that God's "real justice" exists.

[lightbeamrider]

Objective morality via accountability is a good reason to assume God since it better explains the human sense of justice and right and wrong. Justice for all. Its called the moral argument.

Please prove all of these claims.

1) We would be accountable to God if he existed
2) The human sense of justice, or right and wrong, can only be descriptive of reality
3) ONLY God can explain right and wrong
4) We would have justice if (1)
5) We would ALL have justice if (4)

I really don't have to prove them. I have stated my reasons for believing them to be true. They better explain universal human sense of justice and human rights which even children have when they recognize unfairness. That is all i have to do. Non God positions do not assume justice for all. Oh, and another thing. Mercy is not injustice. Mercy is non justice. If you own me a hundred dollars and cannot pay me i can either collect the value in some other manner or forgive the debt. To forgive the debt is mercy. We receive either one of two things from God. Mercy or justice.

[Jashwell]

Objective morality via accountability is a good reason to assume God since it better explains the human sense of justice and right and wrong. Justice for all. Its called the moral argument.

Please prove all of these claims.

1) We would be accountable to God if he existed
2) The human sense of justice, or right and wrong, can only be descriptive of reality
3) ONLY God can explain right and wrong
4) We would have justice if (1)
5) We would ALL have justice if (4)

I really don't have to prove them. I have stated my reasons for believing them to be true.

They better explain universal human sense of justice and human rights which even children have when they recognize unfairness.

No, this is why you need to support these claims. What you've said is only true if you support ALL of these claims.
You haven't supported ANY of them.

As for children having them - you do realise that children need to LEARN fairness and justice? They aren't born with it?
And that people DON'T have a universal sense of justice? People disagree on right and wrong all the time?

That is all i have to do. Non God positions do not assume justice for all.

False.

Oh, and another thing. Mercy is not injustice. Mercy is non justice. If you own me a hundred dollars and cannot pay me i can either collect the value in some other manner or forgive the debt. To forgive the debt is mercy.

If you forgive the debt for one person, and not for another, it is injustice.
Unless God treats everyone fairly, it is injustice. If you forgive everyone, then no one is punished, and there likely isn't any justice in the first place.

I also assume you don't believe in hell, or heaven, because that would be unjust and not consistent with your belief in a just God.

[lightbeamrider]

[quote="lightbeamrider"

Oh, and another thing. Mercy is not injustice. Mercy is non justice. If you own me a hundred dollars and cannot pay me i can either collect the value in some other manner or forgive the debt. To forgive the debt is mercy.

If you forgive the debt for one person, and not for another, it is injustice.

No. I can forgive a single mother who has to feed her child and hold a working man accountable because he has ability to pay. There are all kinds of circumstances.

Unless God treats everyone fairly, it is injustice.

He does. He has given humanity an out. Cross of Christ. Haven't you heard?

If you forgive everyone, then no one is punished, and there likely isn't any justice in the first place.

Right.

I also assume you don't believe in hell, or heaven, because that would be unjust and not consistent with your belief in a just God.

You assume wrong. Off to work. Bye.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 595 by lightbeamrider]

Once again, no arguments in favour of God, no support for the claims you make, no rebuttal for counterarguments against previous points.

All you address are matters of doctrine that can't be proven either way, expressing your own beliefs.

There's a difference between mercy and proper punishment.
If there is a proper punishment, giving a different punishment (mercy) is unjust.
Treating all crimes, indiscriminate of circumstance, as the same would not be justice.

Treating someone that can't and someone that won't pay a debt separately isn't mercy, it's normal justice. You can't call God merciful for saying he's nearly as good as the real justice system. Not that God would need a debt paying at all. (Nor would he need to have someone else pay a debt)

The heaven/hell statement was rhetoric, and somewhat sarcastic.
It's clear that the common idea of heaven and hell are inconsistent with mercy and justice.
Even if heaven and hell were merely separated, it would make heaven a miserable place to live.

[higgy1911]

The idea that universal Justice for all is better explained by God concepts is entirely irrelevant if you don't first prove that there is universal Justice for all. It seems incredibly obvious to me that injustice happens and frequently goes unpunished. I would love it if there was universal justice, but the best explanation that allows for it matters not at all if it doesn't exist.

[Danmark]

He has given humanity an out. Cross of Christ. Haven't you heard?
.... Right.
.... You assume wrong. Off to work. Bye.

Moderator Comment
These comments are sarcastic, dismissive, and in the nature of a 'one-liner.' This post would receive a 'warning' if written by someone who had been on the forum longer.
Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster, or would warrant a warning if the poster had more experience here. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 595 by lightbeamrider]

Moderator Intervention

Posts and comments should contribute to the debate -- or not be made.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.