Why do you believe in God?

[logical thinking]

Why do you believe in God?

What specific argument or evidence is it, that persuades you?

Can you please outline the argument or piece of evidence that you believe is the STRONGEST reason to believe in God?

For example, is it the beauty and majesty of trees? Is it the Kalam Cosmological argument? Pascal's wager? Is it that you witnessed what you believe is a miracle? Is it the fact that you think the Bible contains prophecies? Is it because it feels good to believe in something greater than yourself?

Why do you believe in God?

[JLB32168]

But should we just IGNORE all of the other possibilities?

I haven’t ignored them. I don’t think any believer has. We have weighed many conclusions and arrived at the one “God did it.� It’s certainly not more fantastical than “Multiple dimensions of being exist in a multiverse where an infinite number of realities exist.�

Your conclusion might be logical/rational. I'm not saying that they are, but I'm conceding that many theistic arguments CAN BE. It's a case by case thing.

Great – you’re one of the few atheists who doesn’t begrudge conceding a point.

But you seem to not appreciate that just because something makes SENSE, like a Harry Potter book idea, it NEVER has to mean that it's TRUE.

I fully understand and appreciate that sentiment. I just reject it.

So, you might have explained how your idea can be INTERNALLY CONSISTENT, like J. K. Rowling does with Harry Potter, but it doesn't mean that your CREATOR is REAL.

I understand. That’s a Cpt. Obvious statement.

When I'm trying to be logical/rational, I do NOT embrace direct contradictory statements.

You said that nobody knows X. You don’t know that. You believe that no one can know something but that is your belief. The fact is that someone might now something about X-topic – in this case our condition upon our death. I make it habit to point out that you don’t know what I know.

Neither possibility enhances your credibility.

I think I have stated before that few people on this board have credibility in my eyes since they generally resort to poor misrepresentations of opposing arguments and they rebut those weaker versions. For that reason I don’t worry about too many people’s opinion of my credibility.

People DO allege all manner of things.

You don’t know what St. Sergius of Radonezh or St. Alexander of Skvir knew. They allegedly spoke w/the deity in question, His mother, SS. Peter and Paul. Why should I conclude they lied or were deceived – because it’s possible that they were? You’ve commented a lot on how possibilities might be wrong. You fall under that same axe.

The point to all of this speculation is... HOW WOULD WE KNOW?

We have to believe somebody.

You seem to be ONLY looking at the side of the question that would prove yourself RIGHT.

I considered atheism while in college. I rejected it. There was no conspiracy involved.

I'm sorry. But I have to agree with this rebuttal.

Then you agree with illogical means of argumentation – the argumentum ad ridiculum.

If someone comes up to you and says that they DO know... they are most probably bluffing. You don't have to believe them.

That is as relevant to the question as the price of tea in Beijing v. that in Shanghai. People who I consider trustworthy have said, “God has revealed this to me/us.�

You think that I'm bluffing about those bluffers. Fair enough.

No, I think you don’t know what others know. You know what you don’t know and what others tell you they don’t know. The mechanism of someone who says they know is typically, “God appeared and said X.� What you know is that they have made a claim. You don’t know anything about that claim – whether it is true or false.

Skeptics don't ACCEPT what might be false as true.

I know that. I never said belief in God was true or false. I said it was logical and that’s different. Once again, it would be nice if skeptics/atheists would address arguments that were actually presented instead of this mis-understandings/-representations.

Dismissing something in a facile, pointed way does NOT increase our credibility in here.

I’ve already spoken my mind on brandishing the word “credibility� like a club.

If you read carefully, I am admitting to IGNORANCE.. when I say that nobody knows, I include myself.

You don’t know that nobody knows. Someone might just know something.

Again, this is the product of confirmation bias. It seems that you can't IMAGINE anything wrong with historical or present day theocracies.

Oh I take issue with Islamic Republics. England has an official Church. No reasonable person would regard it as an oppressive state. The nations of the former Eastern bloc were vehemently anti-religious so I found your suggestion that religious countries automatically translate into oppression to be ironic and comedic at the same time.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 88 by JLB32168]

"But when [strike]Quinn the Eskimo[/strike] Blastcat gets here everybody's gonna jump for joy"
- what Bob Dylan PROBABLY meant

A logical conclusion is a conclusion based on premises that ARE true.

No – a conclusion can be logical if the premises are false. It’s just an unsound argument, but it’s not illogical. That’s forensics/logic 101.

That's got the mighty Blastcat nodding.

Perfectly valid arguments can be OH SO UNTRUE.

Premise 1: Reindeer can fly Premise 2: There is an invisible toy factory in the north poleConclusion: Santa Klaus is real.

Fallacy of too many terms. You should say:
[p1]Reindeer can fly.
[p2]Rudolph is a reindeer.
[c]Rudolph can fly.
There are three terms: reindeer, Rudolph, and fly. The conclusion is logical. It’s unsound because the first premise is false, but it’s still logical.

The Blastcat says "yes and meow"

To be FAIR.. we don't precisely KNOW with any precision if reindeer can fly. Normal reindeer don't seem to be able to.. but Santa's reindeer are supposed to fly.

As a skeptic, I would say that .. "You better have proof that reindeer can fly, buddy, or it's OVER."

The argument may be valid, but until such time as you can demonstrate that at least SOME reindeer can fly, we are given no reason to accept premise P1 is true.

In the case with the present discussion on the creation, you cannot prove that God doesn’t exist; therefore, you cannot assert that premises about him are false (not that it would affect the logic of the argument.)

The big honking Blastcat in the sky is shaking his head NO NO NO at this.

1. It's true that we cannot prove with any accuracy that a creator god DOES NOT exist.
2. Its also true that we cannot prove with any accuracy that a creator god DOES exist.

I wouldn't say that the premise is FALSE, but that it hasn't been demonstrated as TRUE. So, the argument based on such a premise could possibly be VALID, but never SOUND.

So, it might be reasonable to accept that "God exists" is a logical conclusion, it's NOT reasonable to accept that "God exists" is TRUE by the argument.

[1213]

Perfect! So please provide empirical evidence for the great flood!

If great flood happened as the Bible tells, evidence that we should find are (evidence = anything presented in support of an assertion):

1. Marine fossils on mountains:
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/12/us/wh ... m-sea.html

2. Oil and gas fields. Evidence that vast amount of organic material was drowned and forced in earths cavities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_field

3. Orogenic mountains and edges of continents that were result of the one great collapsed continent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea

4. Great formations of sedimentary rocks result of flooding water that carried “dust�.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canyon

5. Ice fields, places where the water was collected. During ice age there was vast glaciers that would be the result, if things went as the Bible tells.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

6. Many stories about great flood. If many different nations have “myth� about great flood, it is probable that there really was great flood.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths

Because we can find those, and they are what should be found, if the flood happened, I think those are evidence for the great flood.

Please point out in which exact way a Christian is better at love than anybody else.

Actually I don’t have any good reason to say some people better than others. But this teaching is great, and better than people usually have:

But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you, that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
Mat. 5:44-45

Never mind that the Bible is obviously not correct. It says that insects have 4 legs, that gay people should be killed and that women shouldn't be allowed to speak in church.

Insects may have 4 legs, if they have more limbs, they are arms, not legs.

On basis of the Bible, all unrighteous will die. And the wage of sin is death. So it is not just gays that could die. I think it is right, if unrighteous people die, because they would cause eternal suffering for all, if they would live forever. But gays are not necessary any more unrighteous than those who for example do adultery.

When women are allowed to speak and lead the church, they make it reject its teachings. If the point is to keep what was once said, they are not good leaders. However, also men should not try to be leaders, because leader is Jesus, for disciples of Jesus. Those who seek high positions are not following Jesus.

For they bind heavy burdens that are grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not lift a finger to help them. But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad, enlarge the fringes of their garments, and love the place of honor at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, the salutations in the marketplaces, and to be called 'Rabbi, Rabbi' by men. But don't you be called 'Rabbi,' for one is your teacher, the Christ, and all of you are brothers. Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for one is your master, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you will be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
Mat. 23:4-12

There is actually study about this which shows that females are causing change. And obviously if the message was meant to remain same, it is not good thing if some cause change.
Female Clergy as Agents of Religious Change
http://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/2/3/358

But even if it was correct, I don't follow your logic. If a text is correct about something, and then also says that a supernatural being is real, does that mean that the supernatural being is real?

If it is true about things that I think people would not otherwise know or understand, then I see it as evidence for God. Also if things happen as Bible promises I believe it is from God, if the matter is something that I think people could not know or cause.

Well lots of people are against the Koran, and Muslims will tell you it's without honest and accurate claims. So does that mean the Koran is accurate and Allah is the one true God?

Actually I think there are not many that have courage or interest to be against Quran. And actually Christians should not be against Quran, because it says:

O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.
Surat An-Nis�' 4:171
http://quran.com/4/171

According to Quran Jesus is messenger of God, as also the Bible says. And we should believe what Jesus says. So If I believe Jesus, I do as Quran says. By what I know, Quran is not very far from the Bible, when it says that about Jesus.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 93 by 1213]


Thank you 1213 for providing readers with a religious viewpoint to compare with non-religious positions.

When women are allowed to speak and lead the church, they make it reject its teachings.

Whoa – Wait a minute. That is pure male chauvinism / misogyny speaking.

WHERE is the evidence that the grandiose claim is true?

If women in general reject a religion's teachings it seems likely that the teachings were developed by chauvinistic males to further their own agenda and favor their own gender.

People still believe this stuff?

If great flood happened as the Bible tells, evidence that we should find are (evidence = anything presented in support of an assertion):

Because we can find those, and they are what should be found, if the flood happened, I think those are evidence for the great flood.

Perhaps a few years studying geology and biology is in order. Study of theology and ancient tales is NOT an adequate basis for understanding the significance of geological and biological information.

Of course, Theists know best because they base their ideas on the knowledge / information available to storytellers and religion promoters who lived thousands of years ago. Don't trouble them citing information gained about the environment over the past few centuries. The ancients knew more.

Many stories about great flood. If many different nations have “myth� about great flood, it is probable that there really was great flood.

If there was a great flood as described in Genesis, there would be NO survivors in multiple cultures to have told about the biblical flood.

In reality, LOCAL floods occur frequently in coastal areas, lowlands, and river valleys – sometimes BIG floods – but NOT “to the tops of mountains� or wiping out all animal life on Earth (save those on an “ark�).

Actually I don’t have any good reason to say some people better than others. But this teaching is great, and better than people usually have:

But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you, that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven.

That teaching should have made the new splinter group religion VERY appealing to Roman officials. Paul/Saul and accomplices did a great promotional job marketing Christianity to Gentiles and Roman emperors. It is not surprising that their religion was adopted as official state religion of the empire.

For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.

Evidently someone did not understand that the Earth revolves around the sun and that rain is a normal process in the atmosphere. It would seem as though modern people would know better – but that may be giving them too much credit.

Never mind that the Bible is obviously not correct. It says that insects have 4 legs, that gay people should be killed and that women shouldn't be allowed to speak in church.

Insects may have 4 legs, if they have more limbs, they are arms, not legs.

That may appear true in Theology but not in Biology (a field that actually studies such things).

Of course, Theists can say ANYTHING to justify or excuse erroneous ancient tales.

On basis of the Bible, all unrighteous will die.

On the basis of Biology (and real world experience) ALL living things die.

And the wage of sin is death.

So say those selling anti-sin or forgiveness of sin services.

So it is not just gays that could die. I think it is right, if unrighteous people die, because they would cause eternal suffering for all, if they would live forever. But gays are not necessary any more unrighteous than those who for example do adultery.

Great commercial and justification for killing gays and “unrighteous�.

There is actually study about this which shows that females are causing change. And obviously if the message was meant to remain same, it is not good thing if some cause change.
Female Clergy as Agents of Religious Change

Those who resist change oppose ANY source of change – including female influence and increasing education / knowledge / information.

[logical thinking]

When women are allowed to speak and lead the church, they make it reject its teachings.

Hey 1213, could you please tell us more about your opinions on women?

I just want people on the fence who read these pages to get a really good sense of what kind of person you are.

Thanks

[JLB32168]

I wouldn't say that the premise is FALSE, but that it hasn't been demonstrated as TRUE. So, the argument based on such a premise could possibly be VALID, but never SOUND.

No – an unsound argument is founded upon a false premise. The truth/falseness of premise “God exists� is UNKNOWN; therefore, the argument is logical like you said, but you cannot say it’s unsound/never sound (there’s no appreciable difference between the two, IMO.) The soundness cannot be determined since the truth of the premise is an open question.

[1213]

WHERE is the evidence that the grandiose claim is true?

This is continued here:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 111#799111

If there was a great flood as described in Genesis, there would be NO survivors in multiple cultures to have told about the biblical flood.

If the Bible is true, 8 people survived and then multiplied and at some point God scattered people abroad the surface of earth, and so caused the multiple nations:

Therefore the name of it was called Babel, because Yahweh confused the language of all the earth, there. From there, Yahweh scattered them abroad on the surface of all the earth.
Gen. 11:9

If that happened, those people could have some idea of the same story. And it is interesting how that idea fits to legends that for example Native Americans have.

[Zzyzx]

.

But you seem to not appreciate that just because something makes SENSE, like a Harry Potter book idea, it NEVER has to mean that it's TRUE.

I fully understand and appreciate that sentiment. I just reject it.

Is that to say that if something makes senses it is true?

If something “makes sense� to one person and NOT to another, is it true or is it not?

If calculations involved in placing a satellite in orbit make sense to a rocket engineer are the calculations true or not? If the satellite does not reach orbit due to erroneous calculations, were the calculations true since they made sense to the rocket scientist?

If a different set of calculations do not make sense to non-engineers but DO succeed in placing a satellite in orbit were they not true because they did not make sense to non-engineers?

When I'm trying to be logical/rational, I do NOT embrace direct contradictory statements.

You said that nobody knows X. You don’t know that. You believe that no one can know something but that is your belief. The fact is that someone might now something about X-topic – in this case our condition upon our death. I make it habit to point out that you don’t know what I know.

Claiming “nobody knows� is overstatement. However, stating “that claim of knowledge has not been demonstrated� is more accurate.

Neither possibility enhances your credibility.

I think I have stated before that few people on this board have credibility in my eyes since they generally resort to poor misrepresentations of opposing arguments and they rebut those weaker versions.

WHERE have the supposed “stronger versions� been presented?

For that reason I don’t worry about too many people’s opinion of my credibility.

Many who debate seem to have little regard for their own credibility in the eyes of readers. Perhaps they are just posting to see themselves in “print� (or other personal reasons). However, the 1200+ views of this thread alone indicate that readers ARE evaluating the credibility of what we present.

People DO allege all manner of things.

You don’t know what St. Sergius of Radonezh or St. Alexander of Skvir knew. They allegedly spoke w/the deity in question, His mother, SS. Peter and Paul. Why should I conclude they lied or were deceived – because it’s possible that they were?

A reasoned conclusion is “They said so� (or were reported as saying so) -- PERIOD.

We have no way of verifying whether the reports are accurate or if the person was accurate and truthful.

WHY take a position in EITHER direction?

If someone claims that certain statements ARE true, I ask for verification. For instance, many people claim that Mary was a virgin. I ask “How do you know that?�

You’ve commented a lot on how possibilities might be wrong. You fall under that same axe.

Possibilities are just . . . possibilities. They may be right, wrong, partially right. Until they can be verified they are JUST possibilities. Opinions regarding their reliability are just . . . opinions.

The point to all of this speculation is... HOW WOULD WE KNOW?

We have to believe somebody.

People often bet on the wrong horse.

You seem to be ONLY looking at the side of the question that would prove yourself RIGHT.

I considered atheism while in college. I rejected it. There was no conspiracy involved.

Did you “consider Atheism� AFTER being indoctrinated into religious beliefs during childhood / youth?

If someone comes up to you and says that they DO know... they are most probably bluffing. You don't have to believe them.

That is as relevant to the question as the price of tea in Beijing v. that in Shanghai. People who I consider trustworthy have said, “God has revealed this to me/us.�

Thus, “take their word for it�

You think that I'm bluffing about those bluffers. Fair enough.

No, I think you don’t know what others know. You know what you don’t know and what others tell you they don’t know. The mechanism of someone who says they know is typically, “God appeared and said X.� What you know is that they have made a claim. You don’t know anything about that claim – whether it is true or false.

Exactly, “you don't know whether it is true or false� when people make claims about God appearances and messages.

WHY assume that what people say is true (or not true)? Why assume anything more than “they said so�?

Skeptics don't ACCEPT what might be false as true.

I know that. I never said belief in God was true or false. I said it was logical and that’s different.

What may seem logical to one person may not to another. Thus, what you state is OPINION.

Once again, it would be nice if skeptics/atheists would address arguments that were actually presented instead of this mis-understandings/-representations.

Skeptics / Atheists / Non-Theists REGULARLY address what IS presented by Theists.

Dismissing something in a facile, pointed way does NOT increase our credibility in here.

I’ve already spoken my mind on brandishing the word “credibility� like a club.

Credibility is the ONLY thing we have (or don't have) with readers of these debates.

If you read carefully, I am admitting to IGNORANCE.. when I say that nobody knows, I include myself.

You don’t know that nobody knows. Someone might just know something.

Those who think they do know something are encouraged to specify exactly what they know and identify their source of information.

Again, this is the product of confirmation bias. It seems that you can't IMAGINE anything wrong with historical or present day theocracies.

Oh I take issue with Islamic Republics. England has an official Church. No reasonable person would regard it as an oppressive state.

Is England a theocracy?

The nations of the former Eastern bloc were vehemently anti-religious so I found your suggestion that religious countries automatically translate into oppression to be ironic and comedic at the same time.

Oppression can be theistic or non-theistic. So what?

[logical thinking]

I wouldn't say that the premise is FALSE, but that it hasn't been demonstrated as TRUE. So, the argument based on such a premise could possibly be VALID, but never SOUND.

No – an unsound argument is founded upon a false premise.

Wrong. An unsound argument is based upon a premise that is NOT TRUE. That's different from FALSE.

FALSE is just one of the several ways in which a premise can be NOT TRUE.

A premise could be MEANINGLESS (for example: ouhriuhgrg)
A premise could be INCOMPLETE (for example: 2+2=....)
A premise could be UNKNOWN (for example: the number of birds with both feet touching the ground in the world right this second)

If a premise is ANYTHING other than TRUE, then the conclusion is NOT TRUE.

The truth/falseness of premise “God exists� is UNKNOWN; therefore, the argument is logical like you said

Nope. The truth of the premise is UNKNOWN, therefore the truth of the conclusion is.... UNKNOWN!!!!

If the conclusion of an argument is unknown, then guess what... WE DON'T KNOW IF IT'S TRUE!

So all your attempts to spin this boil down to this: We don't know if God exists or not.

Much like we don't know if Zeus, Santa, Peter Pan, Allah and Batman exist.

So my question to you is: Why do you believe in God?!

[JLB32168]

Is that to say that if something makes senses it is true?

No, but if something makes sense then I’ve little reason to reject it if someone says, “You can’t know if it’s true.� That’s certainly true if my personal burden of proof has been met.

WHERE have the supposed “stronger versions� been presented?

My comment was directed toward what I see is excessive concern for my credibility. Since I couldn’t care less for others’ opinion of my credibility (w/o my being comatose or dead) – especially given what I perceive are regular misrepresentations of my arguments out outright falsely attributed fabrications – I feel that’s others fussing over my credibility is unnecessary. I would suggest that everyone tend to his/her own knitting as it pertains to credibility and let people decide for themselves if someone is credible but w/o highlighting it (since it really is a discussion of persons rather than arguments, which is ostensibly against the rules of conduct as I recall.)

A reasoned conclusion is “They said so� (or were reported as saying so) -- PERIOD.

I agree.

If someone claims that certain statements ARE true, I ask for verification.

. . . which is why I assert that faith based statements are logical and that’s all. Most here are forced to concede that my arguments are logical. Whether they are sound which means the premises are definitively true/factual is a separate question but I don’t make assertions on truth for things that are faith-based. That seems to be quite irritating for many skeptics here since they clearly are loathe to concede anything to a theist as evidenced the lather that erupts when placed in a position where they’re forced to do so.

People often bet on the wrong horse.

They often bet on the right one. [smile]

Did you “consider Atheism� AFTER being indoctrinated into religious beliefs during childhood / youth?

Yup. Disabuse of religion was supposed to bring enlightenment. They struck me as no less narrow-minded and intolerant than the average street preacher so I concluded that atheism wasn’t true. That was probably an emotion based decision but well away and alas – we often do things that are illogical such as base decisions upon emotion. Had I met TFVesp I might have taken a different route but I didn’t. I see that as an act of Providence.

Thus, “take their word for it�

We have to take someone at their word. From what I infer from skeptic arguments, we should automatically assume that people who speak of “love your neighbor as yourself was delivered by God� are most likely lying or deceived.

What may seem logical to one person may not to another. Thus, what you state is OPINION.

If a conclusion is entailed by premises that might be true then the conclusion is logical. That is FACT. That is how forensics/logic works.

Skeptics / Atheists / Non-Theists REGULARLY address what IS presented by Theists.

They regularly address what they wish one theist – JLB32168 – had presented rather than what he actually presented since their wish-list is a weaker representation than JLB32168’s actual argument.

Is England a theocracy?

Heresy is a crime in England. Are heretics burned in England?

Oppression can be theistic or non-theistic. So what?

I’m just keepin’ it real by pointing out that atheists who say they fear Christian believers are comical when one considers the actions of atheists over the past century and their insurrection against God.