Are there any good arguments for God?

[outhouse]

Other people's experiences have no credibility?

Not for certain claims.

Personal perception has no credibility when making many claims

 

[George-ananda]

I am an agnostic atheist. That means that while I don't believe in God, I don't say that I know for a fact that he doesn't exist. I am perfectly willing to change my position, but I will need some good evidence.

So, what do you think is the most convincing argument for the existence of God? I'm pretty sure I've heard them all. If you post an argument that I've rejected, I'll try to explain why I have rejected it.

I argue for a non-dual (God and creation are not-two) pantheistic God concept. God is the core of all consciousness in the universe. The argument I make unfortunately does not fit into a short reply post but it starts with 'beyond the normal' evidence that consciousness can not be explained materialistically. From there it includes the insights of those who perceive beyond the normal and advanced souls that take birth for the purpose of leading us to the truth. But unfortunately all this would take consideration and looking into so I don't have an argument for a short reply post but I wanted to spend my 2 cents anyway.

 

[outhouse]

There are definitely a good number of people who have reported experiences of what they describes as God or the divine but what is more important to me is that some of them I trust as honest, intelligent and intellectually curious people.

These kinds of claims have no credibility what so ever.

The problem is the human mind is very weak, and most people will see what ever they want to see, they will experience what they want to experience.

Example the ghost hunters hear thing that go bump in the night, and every last noise is a ghost. yet nothing is ever there. This is not evidence of ghost it is evidence of unexplained noises.

But you will never get the ghost hunters to admit it.

 

[outhouse]

God is the core of all consciousness in the universe.

Which is factually 100% unsubstantiated.

'beyond the normal' evidence

You mean credible

 

[George-ananda]

Which is factually 100% unsubstantiated.

Curses, foiled again

 

[Yerda]

No. Just no. Anecdotal evidence never has been and never will be reliable in any way whatsoever.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
http://blog.minitab.com/blog/adventures-in-statistics/why-anecdotal-evidence-is-unreliable
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-anecdotal-evidence-can-undermine-scientific-results/
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-role-of-anecdotes-in-science-based-medicine/

So stop using it.



Ever wonder why they believe that stuff? Because they are convinced by anecdotal evidence. "My grandfather's best friend's cousin's dad worked on the film set with Stanley Kubrick when he faked the moon landings, so I know it was faked." "My little boy had a vaccine and got sick a few days later, but my daughter was never vaccinated and she has never been sick. So vaccines cause illness!"

Anecdotal evidence is worth crap.

Look, I don't want to play at debate, and I don't really fancy being lectured. I've tried to have a polite chat with you about what I think is the only thing that pushes me towards open-mindedness regarding God, the divine, the ground of all being or whatever people are calling it these days.

So yes, anecdotal evidence is of no use in verifying a claim. Agreed. I'm not verifying a claim (and much less asking you to accept it). I am saying that there are people who have had experiences pertaining to what they call God that (to my mind) are worth remaining open-minded about.

You want to know another (sometimes related) experience people have had that (to my mind) is worth remaining open-minded about? Meditative states. Now, it might be that the evidence I have is anecdotal. I don't care. Several people I know and trust have reported experiences of hightly altered congitive states and I am willing to remain open-minded until I can confirm or disconfirm the likelyhood for myself.

Then why did you ever bring up the fact that lots of people believe?

I don't care how many people believe in God and it was not my intention to suggest to you it was an argument worth considering. My apologies for the confusion.

 

[Yerda]

Personal perception has no credibility when making many claims

If I claim to be experiencing a hallucination my personal perception has no credibility?

 

[McBell]

If I claim to be experiencing a hallucination my personal perception has no credibility?

Depends upon the case specific variables.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Anecdotal evidence never has been and never will be reliable in any way whatsoever.

It forms the bulk of data used in the entirety of the study of human history. It is a primary source of evidence in journalism. It is a key component of evidence in legal systems the world over. It is vital to many sciences (it is integral to cognitive interviewing, essential in fields as diverse as cognitive neuroscience to functional linguistics, practically equivalent to case studies in many sciences which are essentially the use of a single subject's experience as scientific evidence, etc.), and in many ways were and remain the primary method for scientific advancement (some of the central issues in modern physics result from contradictions between various theories and the expectations of various scientists based on anecdotal/subjective evidence, and since the advent of modern physics a central guiding principle has been how to proceed when the "intuitive" guide for progress that is subjective experience consists of which personal experiences/anecdotal evidence one finds more aesthetically appealing).
In a very real sense, all evidence is anecdotal. The difference between the popular science journalists who call up the authors of important publish studies to write some sensationalist account and the actual published study is technicality; both the popular account of the findings and the peer-reviewed one are individuals writing up anecdotal experiences that are accepted as true (that is, it is accepted that the personal, anecdotal accounts are not lies).
Now, there is a reason why we give far, far greater credence to scientists who say "this is what I saw happen" and the account of any random individual: scientists try to create conditions under which what they said happened can be tested in different ways (from an idealized "recreation" to testing the logic of the inferences drawn from the conclusions). But the evidence is still anecdotal. All events are unrepeatable. They are history, and thus the study of history is largely the study of anecdotal evidence (the definition of an anecdote, according to the OED, is "The narrative of a detached incident, or of a single event, told as being in itself interesting or striking"). Criminal investigators, lawyers, and the law itself tend to favor "eyewitness" accounts (anecdotes) over inferences from more "permanent" evidence (often deemed circumstantial). Academic literature across fields is replete with anecdotal evidence because most fields are filled with research based upon human experience, which exists primarily as anecdotal evidence.

Anecdotal evidence is worth crap.

Unless one wishes to understand culture, history, society, cognition, etc., or appreciates the news, or is involved/part of/interested in the legal system.

 

[George-ananda]

Anecdotal evidence has no relevance.

Anecdotal evidence is certainly relevant. Anecdotal evidence should not be blindly accepted nor blindly dismissed. One way we can learn about the human experience is to study a body of anecdotal experiences for quantity, quality and consistency and then theories 'normal' and 'beyond the normal' can be considered to see how they fit the data. We may not be able to prove what happen but certainly some theories will become more reasonable than others. Eyewitness evidence is anecdotal but not considered worthless. The scientific method can not really be used with unpredictable/spontaneous phenomena; we have to intelligently consider anecdotal evidence in these cases.

 

[rusra02]

Exactly what was designed and created? There's an estimated 8.7 million species on the planet today and who knows how many are extinct. Did your god design and create all those on an individual basis? There are more than 3,500 species of mosquitoes. Did your god design and create 3,000 and then went "good, only 500 to go..."?

The Bible says that God created the plants and animals "according to their kinds." (Genesis 1) Within each kind is the potential for great variety, just as in humankind there is great diversity of size, color, and form. But one kind never becomes another kind. I assume all 3,500 species of mosquitos you mention are of a single kind, or just a few kinds.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The Bible says that God created the plants and animals "according to their kinds." (Genesis 1) Within each kind is the potential for great variety, just as in humankind there is great diversity of size, color, and form. But one kind never becomes another kind. I assume all 3,500 species of mosquitos you mention are of a single kind, or just a few kinds.

Define "kind". If I present two animals and claim they are two different "kinds", what can you do to demonstrate whether or not the two animals are the same or different "kinds"?

 

[Aiviu]

Testable evidence which withstands scrutiny.

Thoughts and words, the communication about an evidence of something unseen are imprisioned in the cage of logic in advance. What you claim for cant be given.

What makes you think I haven't?

I have looked at the various arguments for and against God for years. I have looked at the responses by each side to the other side's arguments. I have carefully considered both sides.

Its not about to observe things for and against. Your life has its own arguments. You seem to claim for an evidence of something unseen before you can see the evidence. But only the evidence will make you see.

And do you think that the evidence for relativity is nothing more than "subjective speculation" because someone else came up with it?

No. To have evidence is based on each ones life. Looking back reveals the most about oneself. Ones life will be the objective evidence but for another its a subjective speculation which is not based on his logic or sense thats why we disregard it. We simply cant imagine it. And to be honest we think its totally weird and laughable. An evidence cant be asked from those who probably have it. Evidence still relies on you.

And what is this question that I haven't even asked myself?

You didnt asked yourself for an evidence. You want this evidence to be shown from others.

I don't see how using a subjective emotion is capable of producing an objective truth.

Emotions are created by your experiences of your past and simply have a solid background story. Emotions are compressed events where love and the loss of it are the strongest which are also the oldest.

 

[johnhanks]

I assume all 3,500 species of mosquitos you mention are of a single kind, or just a few kinds.

There are some 400 000 species of beetle (a conservative estimate). How many "kinds"? One? Just a few?

If you expect this "kind" idea to be taken seriously, you really need to be able to tell people what it means; otherwise we're justified in dismissing it as hogwash.

 

[viole]

I am an agnostic atheist. That means that while I don't believe in God, I don't say that I know for a fact that he doesn't exist. I am perfectly willing to change my position, but I will need some good evidence.

So, what do you think is the most convincing argument for the existence of God? I'm pretty sure I've heard them all. If you post an argument that I've rejected, I'll try to explain why I have rejected it.

Probably the first part of the modal Leibnitz argument for a necessary being, even though I am a bit skeptical about the principle of sufficient reason to be water proof. Nevertheless, I think it is the only viable cosmological argument. Kalam strenght pales in comparison.

On second thought, this argument does not say much about the qualities of this necessary being and might very well be consistent with naturalism.

Moral arguments are generally hopelessly circular. In most cases they try to deduce the existence of God by the existence of objective moral values defined by what God emanates.

Ontological arguments are... well.

Personal experiences prove God as much as experiences of UFO abductees prove the existence of life outside earth.

Now, teleological arguments. Evidence of teleology would be the real defeater of naturalism. I do not see any of those being convincing, obviously, by not being convinced. I think I could defeat the fine tuning one even without invoking multiverses or anthropic principles.

Empty tomb arguments have also some theological relevance. However, if conclusive, they would make the previous ones superflous.

Some say that even though none of these arguments are conclusive, they provide cumulative evidence of God. Alas, a cumulation of no conclusions is not a conclusion.

But all this does not entail the non existence of God. I am not an atheist because the arguments are weak. It just entails that all these arguments are not sufficient to deduce His existence. Yet.

Ciao

- viole

 

[McBell]

There's only one fact: The universe started.

Prove it.
Until you can, it is not a fact.

 

[outhouse]

Thoughts and words, the communication about an evidence of something unseen are imprisioned in the cage of logic in advance. What you claim for cant be given.


Its not about to observe things for and against. Your life has its own arguments. You seem to claim for an evidence of something unseen before you can see the evidence. But only the evidence will make you see.


No. To have evidence is based on each ones life. Looking back reveals the most about oneself. Ones life will be the objective evidence but for another its a subjective speculation which is not based on his logic or sense thats why we disregard it. We simply cant imagine it. And to be honest we think its totally weird and laughable. An evidence cant be asked from those who probably have it. Evidence still relies on you.


You didnt asked yourself for an evidence. You want this evidence to be shown from others.


Emotions are created by your experiences of your past and simply have a solid background story. Emotions are compressed events where love and the loss of it are the strongest which are also the oldest.

Every word you stated still applies 100% in full, even if the bible was factual 100% mythology and no god existed.


Your helping OP more then making a case for a god actually existing outside mythology.

 

[outhouse]

If you expect this "kind" idea to be taken seriously, you really need to be able to tell people what it means; otherwise we're justified in dismissing it as hogwash.

I agree whole hearted

Academia will not waste any time to even dismiss these claims of mythology that has evolved into modern rhetoric.

 

[Tiberius]

Look, I don't want to play at debate, and I don't really fancy being lectured. I've tried to have a polite chat with you about what I think is the only thing that pushes me towards open-mindedness regarding God, the divine, the ground of all being or whatever people are calling it these days.

And I'm trying to explain why I don't find the fact that lots of people believe to be even remotely convincing.

So yes, anecdotal evidence is of no use in verifying a claim. Agreed. I'm not verifying a claim (and much less asking you to accept it). I am saying that there are people who have had experiences pertaining to what they call God that (to my mind) are worth remaining open-minded about.

If the only support for an idea is anecdotal evidence, it's not really support.

You want to know another (sometimes related) experience people have had that (to my mind) is worth remaining open-minded about? Meditative states. Now, it might be that the evidence I have is anecdotal. I don't care. Several people I know and trust have reported experiences of hightly altered congitive states and I am willing to remain open-minded until I can confirm or disconfirm the likelyhood for myself.

There is evidence that meditative states can have physiological changes, but that comes from the reduction of stress etc.

 

[outhouse]

If I claim to be experiencing a hallucination my personal perception has no credibility?

Not in this example. Now if someone is observing you, there perception may be credible.


Do you want people who see things not there describing reality for you?