Are there any good arguments for God?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Non-technical sources exist to provide explanations to the non-specialist, and these explanations provide what? Background? Accurate understanding?

Generally, they provide misleading sensationalism over and against reasonably accurate simplifications. But then, I am biased here. I spend waaayyyy too much time studying fields unrelated or barely related to my own simply because I don't like to rely on the inevitable distortions of the technical literature present in even the best popular literature.
The point is that I was not simply presenting a "convenient" point of view, but responding to a common misconception about the nature of what our currently best theory of the origins of the universe really entail rather than the ways in which I find this same theory (the big bang theory) misused or mischaracterized. Causality is anything but simple, and simplistic treatments are present even in many technical sources. Yet from the most nuanced metaphysical/philosophical treatments to the entirely naive, intuitive models we might expect even a child to understand, we find at least one thing common to all: for x to cause y there must be some time and place (or point/region in spacetime) wherein this cause can occur.
The big bang theory, in the form most supported by our evidence and with the least speculations from theoretical physics and cosmology (e.g., references to quantum gravity, the oh-so-popular but highly problematic inflationary models, etc.), rules out any possibility for such a cause. There was no place at which the big bang occurred nor time for it to occur in nor space whence it could have originated in and expanded into. It occurred everywhere and nowhere at no time. So there is no way that one can, within the picture painted by the theory, speak about what caused it, for any questions about what happened before the big bang are meaningless as there was no "before", let alone a state of affairs before in which it makes sense to speak about something "causing" the universe".
This is not to say that it is impossible to speak about what "caused" or didn't "cause" the universe, even having accepted the big bang theory (or extensions of it). It is just that such discussions require a considerably more nuanced approach then is typical even in literature on the nature of causality (or technical theological/philosophical literature on "first cause"-type arguments; see e.g., Logic and Theism: Arguments for and against Beliefs in God)

And all this for the sake of accurately representing the history/origin of the physical universe?

No, to clarify why I said what I did and why I don't think it fair to dismiss it (or to seemingly dismiss it) with the response "how convenient".

 

[Acim]

It would make supernatural and natural the same, which leads to pantheism... which I am. If supernatural and natural are just the same thing, and natural science is showing the nature of God, then God and nature are the same. But, unfortunately, people say that I'm play word games when I call nature or the universe God, so I try to avoid it.

I don't see it as making them the same. Like far from it. If it's already understood as not the same, I don't see how that necessarily changes understanding it as (plausibly) co-existing while (quite possibly) diametrically opposed. It strikes me as perfectly logical that the supernatural (paradigm) would, without hesitation, allow for the natural (paradigm), while not so unsurprisingly, and also logical that the natural might deny the supernatural ever existed or could possibly exist.

Claiming what the supernatural is (or is not) is most interesting, to me. Seems we have lots (and lots) of claims, expressions on what it is, might be, is not, can't be.

I strongly believe the argument for God / Divinity benefits from the fact that it comes up at all. That not only is the 'natural' universe aware of the natural universe (or at least partially aware through us), it* is also aware of the supernatural. Doubts and denial of the supernatural don't erase it from being, at least not observably so. From awareness? Heck ya, that's precisely what doubt and denial appears to do. But not from being whatever it is for us, and what it is not.

Pantheism works for me. God and nature, as if nature only refers to physical existence, does not work for me as being the same. I don't believe that's observable or verifiable. I have faith that both exist, that both co-exist, but witness to clear distinctions made often, or a lot of time for me.

Of course they are. But do you now that you're showing the existence of God or nature or both or neither if you're using a natural science method to prove it? I pour coffee into my cup. That proves God! Simple. But does it? Or does it rather prove my view of what God is?

If using methodological naturalism for natural science, I would say the bias is inherent for disassociating nature with plausible existence of God or gods. Which I find highly questionable, but that's really neither here nor there as the notion that the natural needs proof of the supernatural is, I believe absurd. It's not like we're finding objective evidence for existence of the physical, which is clearly intersubjective.

Well then, then you agree to pantheism if there's no real difference between supernatural and natural. In this thread however, I don't think the discussion was about God as Nature, but rather God according to the traditional theistic sense of a personal/anthropomorphized entity outside of nature. It's those theistic/philosophical ideas that this thread (I assume) is discussing, and not alternative definitions of God. I'm good with alternatives, but for the sake of this thread, it will probably just confuse.

I don't get this from OP. I get most convincing argument, give it your best shot. I feel I'm in process of doing that. Not even sure if I've gotten started yet.

If there's a difference between supernatural and natural. Yes. Because it's in the words that they're not the same and the traditional view of theism is that they're not the same.

But if we're talking pantheism, then no. Supernatural and natural are just different aspects of the same ultimate reality.

I find that quite interesting. I am inclined to disagree, but not strongly. I see the physical being undone. How that looks exactly, not sure, don't really care. I do not see it ending horribly. I'm always fascinated when I hear tales of just how horrible it will be at the end. Usually humors me. Assuming it is not horrible and supernatural is all there is, I see how that could align with pantheism but also see how it is undoubtedly monotheism (at that point). That the 'end' can plausibly be seen now as if it is all supernatural existing (or co-existing) is incredibly fun to think about (while also bizarre and a range of other possible reactions), but that it can be seen is most pertinent to the discussion at hand.

Perhaps we're in agreement but just using the terms from different aspects. In this thread, the discussion was mostly about God in the traditional sense and natural vs supernatural, natural world vs spiritual world, was assumed. But if we're changing the premise to include more mystical or other views of the spiritual world, then yes, we're probably on the same path.

Again, not getting from OP, 'only argue from traditional sense of God.' If that is the case then I'd have no problem bowing out. Thing is, not like mysticism is not ancient.
Would be like saying, give me your best view on science as to how its impacted human development, oh and btw, I mean by ancient standards. None of this modern stuff form last hundred years or so is to be considered fair game. Even if the modern principles were around thousands of years ago.

Personally, I think that ultimately there's no dividing line between the natural world that we experience and other "worlds" or dimensions out there. And what we're experiencing is far from what is really going on "behind the scene" so to speak. Just looking into how quantum mechanics work, you know that what we consider real is just an illusion of something else which is the real "real".

Given how I read OP, I grant you full permission to continue arguing for God. I find your take interesting. If I say it overlaps with mine, and can point to how, does this mean it is entirely subjective on your (or my) end? If so, then I say let the games continue. Cause I want to have that debate.

 

[Kori]

Well if you look at scripture then the answer is no. Being Anti-Woman and Anti-Freedom. If you look at many, not all, of people that follow it. Then no. Many zealots that have power that promote the idea of god want nothing more than to control people. Few Religions promote the idea of living life as one is meant to without blaming a force brought on by a Deity.

 

[Ouroboros]

Pantheism works for me.

I'm good with that. Rest is probably a discussion for another day.

I don't get this from OP.

Perhaps not, but you can see it going that direction in the discussions that follow.

I have discussed on this forum before for a more pantheistic God in this kind of threads, but it doesn't always work so well.

Again, not getting from OP, 'only argue from traditional sense of God.' If that is the case then I'd have no problem bowing out. Thing is, not like mysticism is not ancient.

You're right, it's not in the OP, but when you picked up talking to me, it was in a discussion where this seemed to be commonly assumed by those who participated. It's impossible to start each post with summarizing all the previous posts in a line of discussion, each and every time, just for the benefit of someone else dropping in and having some comments or insights. I appreciate your input, but at the point when you dropped in, it wasn't a discussion regarding Brahman, pantheism, hinduism, or Greek pantheons, but I do think that everyone were in the line that it was a theistic or monotheistic God.

Given how I read OP, I grant you full permission to continue arguing for God. I find your take interesting. If I say it overlaps with mine, and can point to how, does this mean it is entirely subjective on your (or my) end? If so, then I say let the games continue. Cause I want to have that debate.

I'd like to have that debate with you as well, but my experience from debates on forums is that things can get really out of hand and very confusing when too many different aspects are dealt with at the same time. Perhaps consider starting a thread that's more focused on the particulates that you want to discuss?

 

[Acim]

I'm good with that. Rest is probably a discussion for another day.


Perhaps not, but you can see it going that direction in the discussions that follow.

I have discussed on this forum before for a more pantheistic God in this kind of threads, but it doesn't always work so well.


You're right, it's not in the OP, but when you picked up talking to me, it was in a discussion where this seemed to be commonly assumed by those who participated. It's impossible to start each post with summarizing all the previous posts in a line of discussion, each and every time, just for the benefit of someone else dropping in and having some comments or insights. I appreciate your input, but at the point when you dropped in, it wasn't a discussion regarding Brahman, pantheism, hinduism, or Greek pantheons, but I do think that everyone were in the line that it was a theistic or monotheistic God.


I'd like to have that debate with you as well, but my experience from debates on forums is that things can get really out of hand and very confusing when too many different aspects are dealt with at the same time. Perhaps consider starting a thread that's more focused on the particulates that you want to discuss?

Since all your comments are suggesting the same thing, I'll just respond with saying if it aligns with what OP is asking, then I do not see it as out of line. Seems this forum (RF) has ways of asking for similar things where you limit the scope. That this wasn't done tells me, any argument for God is fair game. OP said, "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 am eagerly awaiting for that to occur. Having it not occur with my posts (as in no response) plausibly means it is not one that's been heard before. I doubt that, but gotta draw OP out from the shadows somehow.

 

[Ouroboros]

Since all your comments are suggesting the same thing, I'll just respond with saying if it aligns with what OP is asking, then I do not see it as out of line.

Sure. You're right. I'm not going to stop you.

Seems this forum (RF) has ways of asking for similar things where you limit the scope. That this wasn't done tells me, any argument for God is fair game. OP said, "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 am eagerly awaiting for that to occur. Having it not occur with my posts (as in no response) plausibly means it is not one that's been heard before. I doubt that, but gotta draw OP out from the shadows somehow.

Good luck!