Back to basics: Give me an argument as to why a god exists

[FaerieStories]

Hi, I'm new here and I see a lot of active topics on specific concepts where users are already heavily engaged in debate, making it a little hard for me to join in. So to test the waters a little (and to help me decide whether or not to stick around here), let's go back to basics and have a debate about the most fundamental question at hand here: does a god exist?

As a non-believer, I have yet to discover any convincing reason as to why I should believe in a god. So, if a Theist would like to get the ball rolling by giving me a reason why god exists, that would be great.

(PS: unrelated question: what is the general breakdown of belief/non-belief on these forums? Is it an even mix of believers and non-believers, or is there- as tends to happen on the internet- a larger proportion of atheists to Theists?).

[FaerieStories]

I have no idea then what these people are referring to, but there is certainly a consensus among the psychological community that certain attributes of what we call the mind- such as memory- can be found in certain areas of the brain. If this is not the scientific community agreeing that the brain contains the mind, I am not sure what is.

[kayky]

My point is that there is no consensus as yet. You probably agree with the skeptic at the top of the list. That's fine. But nothing has been proven at this point.

[Mithrae]

That's not an assumption so much as an argument or belief from analogy; similar things are likely to have similar properties. Not completely justified by logic or evidence, I agree, but not quite an assumption. However you're trying to make it work in reverse, which is fallacious. If we are not wholly justified in presuming that the presence of similar complex organic structures implies the presence of similar mental phenomena, we are entirely unjustified in presuming that the absense of such structures implies the absense of mental phenomena. That does require an assumption, namely that mental phenomena can only be associated with the right types of complex organic structures - an even greater assumption than the basic analogy which we all make. You're trying to do your philosophy all backwards there

I disagree. We know that whatever the mind and consciousness actually is- it is a product of the brain. It is not an 'assumption' that rocks are not conscious because we know that rocks do not actually possess anything that we know to produce consciousness. Now yes, maybe we are wrong and somehow all clusters of atoms have consciousness. But with our current understanding it is so unlikely that we are sure enough that rocks are not conscious to say that we know that rocks are not conscious. We are not 100% sure, but we are not 100% sure about anything.

So you're saying that it is an assumption that other people have consciousness (when we know that they possess similar organic structures to ourselves) but it is not an assumption that other things don't have consciousness, because they don't have the same organic structures. You haven't actually added anything new here I'm afraid, you're just making the same assertion in a different way. If, as you've said and I have agreed, we can't prove that other people have consciousness, then how can you possibly claim that consciousness is a product of the brain? By your stated standards, you are merely assuming it; by mine it's a reasonable inference from analogy that consciousness is often associated with brains, but analogies don't work in reverse.

However even if we pretend that you've got a valid argument here, that's only one half of the problem. I wouldn't say that my memories have consciousness, but they're certainly produced by and part of my consciousness. In other words we know from our most constant and intimate experience that things which are not themselves minds/consciousness can be produced by and exist within minds/consciousness. But even assuming, as you choose to, that rocks and so on are things which are not conscious/minds, what is the justification for any notion that they can exist or be produced without a mind? That's generally what's implied by the term 'physical' which gets used so often, after all.

'Something' exists outside of your mind, and you call it the 'universe' and think that the things you experience in your mind are substantially different from pretty much all the rest of this 'universe.' Gotcha.

Wait, what? No. My mind is part of the universe. Obviously. But yes, there is a difference between the physical and metaphysical. A turtle is a rather different entity to 'justice'.

Of course your mind is part of everything there is, whether you choose to call it the 'universe' or 'god' or simply 'stuff.' We're talking about what you experience inside your mind. You're claiming that there's something happening in your mind (consciousness) which is substantially different from pretty much all the rest of this 'universe,' as you call it. Bit of a strange notion from where I'm sitting, that we on this little planet are such an exception admist all that there is, but I guess it takes all sorts

Obviously, until we have some reason to suppose that there can be any aspects of reality of a different type to the mental phenomena which we all experience, such a notion must be viewed with considerable scepticism. Some reason better than babies' earliest and most basic developments of perception and interpretation, I mean. I wouldn't say - as some folk might - that it is irrational to believe such a thing without valid reason, because obviously many intelligent and learned people through history have indeed believed precisely that. For my part I reckon it's an interesting notion to speculate on, but that's about it. You are welcome to your beliefs

Well I agree. It is something interesting to think about. It's one of a good deal of subjects which are interesting to think about, but not worth any consideration until we are presented with some evidence for the positive.

And yet you are asserting this position quite determinedly.

[Tex]

So if you don't believe it is logical that God exist, then I say: you being here(site), is for no reason and just a waste of your time and space. Wouldn't you agree.
Unless you are not sure of your atheism.

To you, existing for no reason is logical, because you can't even fantom why you exist and for what purpose. You are here on earth to learn for nothing. You go through life for nothing....In the end your life has no purpose. Your life has no value. It is the same as the fly I just killed. This you see as logical....Interesting.

I, uh, I don't think I'm even going to dignify that with a response. What absolute nonsense. I thought the users of this forum were better than this.

Are you being serious?

Are you trying to say that you know why we exist?

[Tex]

Joey:

Not hardly. My life has plenty of meaning without attributing it to a god, or without a theist declaring it can have no meaning until I worship the one god they're so proud of.

Really....What are you going to do with everything you experienced in life after you die?

[Mr. LongView]

As a non-believer, some arguments seem plausible for the possible existence of a god type...(to me)
(which is to say, I'm open to the idea.)

Why/How...
Basically, explain the beginning and why that should be.

Tough.

God may live there.
Beyond knowledge, begs the question of how/why.

Of course, the universe may have done it.

Science....
With enough technology/knowledge, can a being survive the heat death of the universe.
Perhaps create a new one on command?

Make a tiny black hole?
Find the smallest particle?
Make stuff?

Trouble.

Perhaps within the realm of science, the potential of an all knowing, powerful being exists.
If you know all the how, then essentially, you could become an all knowing god.
It seems possible?

Answer to symmetry...
Life seems to work.

Knocks and crannies.
Fill in the grooves.

Why not a swarms of flying black widows, the most fit beings, ones that can kill all and then live off dirt.

When does survival of the fitness become a convenient explanation?

Which is to say, that in my mind, I can think of a more fit example of life.

Why does life need friends?

Apparently, "most fit", means that which is dependant on others?

I guess.

Where are the others?...

So much possibility, so little life out there in the universe?
We look and can not find.

Sure, red shift, expansion, song and dance...

Yet, at this point, no alien cable TV detected.

If life is such a slam dunk, a possibility, why here.

Surely, one planet, somewhere, won the cosmic lottery sooner than us, and should be broadcasting their presents.

Many more....

God can not be a ridiculous idea until we/you know enough to be god.

Is that an argument?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

I find it bizarre in the extreme that you would question the need for a reliable method. A reliable method by definition can be trusted because its result are dependable/accurate. If you use a method which is not dependable/accurate (reliable) then the results are undependable/inaccurate (unreliable) by defintion. In other words, unreliable methods have a high probability of returning FALSE results. Methods with unknown reliability have an unknown probability of returning false and true results.

I feel like its insulting to have to explain this.

I'm not in the least offended. It is your own choice to limit your perception of reality to only that which is subject to "reliable" methodology. It does require a certain degree of courage to accept what is merely pointed to without the need for certainty.

You're saying it's courageous to accept the "knowledge" arrived at through unreliable methods, as if this is something to be respected. But you give no justification that I can see. Vague talk about supposed limits of science and appeals to personal revelation don't amount to much for the skeptical thinker, and why should they?

[FaerieStories]

So if you don't believe it is logical that God exist, then I say: you being here(site), is for no reason and just a waste of your time and space. Wouldn't you agree.
Unless you are not sure of your atheism.

To you, existing for no reason is logical, because you can't even fantom why you exist and for what purpose. You are here on earth to learn for nothing. You go through life for nothing....In the end your life has no purpose. Your life has no value. It is the same as the fly I just killed. This you see as logical....Interesting.

I, uh, I don't think I'm even going to dignify that with a response. What absolute nonsense. I thought the users of this forum were better than this.

Are you being serious?

Are you trying to say that you know why we exist?

Uh, no, obviously not. But I'm trying to say my life has meaning, value and purpose. In fact, as someone who believes my life span is finite rather than infinite as you do- my life has infinitely MORE value- because the larger something is, the less value it has. Something that is infinite has next-to-no value. My life is valuable to me only because I know I just have one shot at it.

So you're saying that it is an assumption that other people have consciousness (when we know that they possess similar organic structures to ourselves) but it is not an assumption that other things don't have consciousness, because they don't have the same organic structures. You haven't actually added anything new here I'm afraid, you're just making the same assertion in a different way.

But both go hand in hand. How could you possibly assume one without the other? By the way- to clarify- the assumption is simply that consciousness as we know it is experienced by others in the same way it is for us. That's the assumption. But we can certainly see the products of consciousness happening in others' brains so must assume that it is. Assumption was probably not a good word here. I mean, we know that spatial memory takes place in a certain part of the brain known as the hypocampus. That's no assumption, that's scientific knowledge. The assumption is that your experience of consciousness is the same as mine. And that's not an unfair assumption considering how similar all our brains work. We have absolutely no grounds for thinking objects without brains can contain consciousness, and we have no more reason to believe that than we do to believe that the moon is alive or that trees want to eat us.

SHowever even if we pretend that you've got a valid argument here, that's only one half of the problem. I wouldn't say that my memories have consciousness, but they're certainly produced by and part of my consciousness. In other words we know from our most constant and intimate experience that things which are not themselves minds/consciousness can be produced by and exist within minds/consciousness. But even assuming, as you choose to, that rocks and so on are things which are not conscious/minds, what is the justification for any notion that they can exist or be produced without a mind? That's generally what's implied by the term 'physical' which gets used so often, after all.

Can you give me an example for a notion that can be produced without a mind?

You're claiming that there's something happening in your mind (consciousness) which is substantially different from pretty much all the rest of this 'universe,' as you call it. Bit of a strange notion from where I'm sitting, that we on this little planet are such an exception admist all that there is, but I guess it takes all sorts

Not different from ALL of the universe, no. There is a difference between a process and a physical thing. "Morality" is a very estranged thing from a paperclip. I don't know how anyone could argue to the contrary- namely that thoughts and physical objects are very similar in their properties. They aren't. They're about as different as is possible to get.

And yet you are asserting this position quite determinedly.

What? No I am not. I've never said that there are 'mental phenomena different from other mental phenomena"

[Tex]

Uh, no, obviously not. But I'm trying to say my life has meaning, value and purpose. In fact, as someone who believes my life span is finite rather than infinite as you do- my life has infinitely MORE value- because the larger something is, the less value it has. Something that is infinite has next-to-no value. My life is valuable to me only because I know I just have one shot at it.

This is a delusion you are creating to make sense of your existence. You know you would love to know why we exist. But you lie to yourself, so you don't have to give in to the religious. You don't want to serve anyone, even a God. Why even serve a God, who would this God think he is that he need to be served..... You are your own man.

So you look at life through the eyes of the lost. Proud.

[99percentatheism]

Hi, I'm new here and I see a lot of active topics on specific concepts where users are already heavily engaged in debate, making it a little hard for me to join in. So to test the waters a little (and to help me decide whether or not to stick around here), let's go back to basics and have a debate about the most fundamental question at hand here: does a god exist?

As a non-believer, I have yet to discover any convincing reason as to why I should believe in a god. So, if a Theist would like to get the ball rolling by giving me a reason why god exists, that would be great.

(PS: unrelated question: what is the general breakdown of belief/non-belief on these forums? Is it an even mix of believers and non-believers, or is there- as tends to happen on the internet- a larger proportion of atheists to Theists?).

Two questions. WHY, does any "believer" have to convince "you" in belief in God?

Why not, should we just pat you on the head and move on with "our" lives?

And, the reason that there are a tiny amount of believers to a large number of non believers? Could it be because we know a waste of time when we see it? We've been where you are, and know the futility of that place of contemplation?

The huaghtiness in the common atheist deamnd is sometimes just plain boring to interact with. Most Christians have other things to do than to beat the proverbial dead horse don't you think?

It seems to me, that most atheists seem to think they have stumbled onto something utterly profound, when actually they are just walking an old and common road.

Have they? Are they?

The fool hath said in his heart: 'There is no G-d';

Pslam 14 - The Tanakh

That was written a few thousand years ago.