Are there any good arguments for God?

[Tiberius]

Because the lack of evidence is so perfect.

If the perfect lack of evidence is evidence of design, then how can you say there is a perfect lack of evidence for design?

Not religious, only hopeful that there might be a Hereafter, after death.

I've found such ideas to be wishful thinking, as they don't have any evidence to back them up.

 

[Tiberius]

Ask those who seek religious control. God=Truth means to seek/pursue/worship the Truth. All else is hypocrisy. demagoguery and the frailties of human conduct.

Science has shown itself to be the best way to find the truth. I see no reason to arbitrarily redefine the word God to mean something else.

 

[Tiberius]

I don't think God's existence is a matter to be evidenced at all. People will be theists or not as it fits their natural inclinations.

Then we certainly can't say that religious belief is rational or reasonable.

We should not make too much of it.

When those beliefs are used by the people in a position of power to subjugate certain people and to increase their own wealth at the expense of others, then we should certainly make much of it.

 

[Tiberius]

I didn't understand what was your definition and forgot to write "if that is the case" at the end of the phrase. So, what you are saying?

I'm sorry, but I'm still trying to get over the fact that you apparently use a definition of "exist" that tells you that thoughts don't exist...

Something exists if it has a measurable effect in reality.

You want ME to say WHY you should do something? Seriously? Pick whatever reason you want you don't need me for that.

You're the one telling me to accept that God = Reality. And if you are going to tell me that God equals reality, I'm going to ask you to back up that claim. Because I don't think God equals reality, and if I'm going to change that position on your say-so, you're going to have to give me a good reason to do it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What if the constants are connected?

They are, but in the wrong way. From a popular text (and one that doesn't go too far overboard, in that e.g., it doesn't claim there is any evidence for god) :

"In most analyses of the fine-tuning of the force strengths and constants of nature, only one parameter is adjusted at a time (to make the problems more tractable). This would correspond to changing one dial at a time on our Universe- Creating Machine while leaving the other dials unchanged. Even taken individually, each of these examples of fine-tuning is impressive. But in the real universe the values of all the constants and force strengths must be satisfied simultaneously to have a universe hospitable to life.
So for instance the strong nuclear force must be set to certain narrow limits for stars to produce carbon and oxygen in comparable amounts, for beryllium-8 to remain bound at least 10^-16 seconds, to keep the deuteron bound, to allow a minimum periodic table for life, to keep the light abundant isotopes stable, and to keep the di-proton unbound. The range for each of these parameters is narrow. The range within which all of them are satisfied simultaneously is much smaller, like the bull’s-eye in the middle of an already tiny target. Add the required range for the weak force strength and the bull’s-eye becomes smaller still, and so on for the other forces. Add the specific requirements of simple life (water and carbon chemistries) and it becomes even smaller, and more so for advanced and then technological life.
Eventually, we will have a set of equations, each describing a different constraint on the laws of nature that allows them to permit life. (Determining this complete set of equations may just be the single most important goal of science. We’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader.)"
Gonzalez, G., & Richards, J. W. (2004). The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery. Regnery Publishing.

When values are connected like these, we get a system of equations. Systems of equations are much more difficult to solve than single equations because they depend upon one another. You can't solve each one individually, you have to solve them all at once. This is a good portion of all science: finding solutions to systems of equations. The greater the tuning required for one parameter, the still greater tuning required for any dependent parameters (here I use "tune" and "parameter" in the more general sense to include e.g., actual models like climate models in which the key ingredient is the feedback parameter that is difficult to determine because it depends upon the microphysics of water vapor, cosmic rays, cloud dynamics, and so forth).

I think there is something to be said for the argument that positing a divine creator (or a multiverse, for that matter) just replaces the problem with another that now needs explaining. But I would prefer not to require an explanation at all, still less be left with the argument "well, your god solution doesn't work well either".

 

[Willamena]

Well, since we know that reality exists, and we have used it to provide answers that are useful, why should we invoke anything other than reality when we are faced with something we don't know the answer to?

Or are you saying objective reality doesn't exist? If so, I'd love to see how you justify that claim.

Reality exists. It's not provided any answers, but it exists.

 

[Laika]

But with no way to test it, such claims are meaningless.

The observable universe is 91 billion light years in diameter.

The furthest man has physically travelled as a species is to the moon, which is only 1.3 light seconds away.

given our infintesimally small exploration of the universe, and considering that as a proportion of all the knowledge which may be possible, our certainty is demonstratably dellusional.

 

[allfoak]

New age mumbo jumbo.

*Asks self what a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is.*

*Can't answer.*

*Concludes that question is unanswerable.*

Yeah, that doesn't work.

It seems to work for myself and many others.
We have answers and you do not.
Perhaps you are wrong?

 

[allfoak]

"Objective reality" exists.

So the question becomes, not if subjective reality exists, we know that it does because objective reality exists:

"Everything is dual; everything has poles; everything
has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same;
opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree;
extremes meet; all truths are but half-truths; all paradoxes
may be reconciled."--The Kybalion.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/kyb/kyb12.htm

So what role does subjective reality play in answering the question of the existence of God?

To what degree does subjective reality belong?
Being that subjective reality is of the mind it would seem to be a bit more conducive to understanding the unseen.
I would say of the two, objective and subjective, the higher degree would be subjective because it is of the mind, while "objective" is of the non permanent material.

To get answers about the existence of God we should be trying to understand the workings of our own mind. Objective reality should be used as a medium of explanation for the subjective.
Reason has it's place but that place is not in the exploration of the unseen, it is in the explanation of the unseen at best.

"Under, and back of, the Universe of Time, Space and Change,
is ever to be found The Substantial Reality--the Fundamental
Truth."--The Kybalion.

"Substance" means: "that which underlies all outward manifestations; the essence; the essential reality; the thing in itself," etc. "Substantial" means: "actually existing; being the essential element; being real," etc. "Reality" means: "the state of being real; true, enduring; valid; fixed; permanent; actual," etc.

Under and behind all outward appearances or manifestations, there must always be a Substantial Reality. This is the Law. Man considering the Universe, of which he is a unit, sees nothing but change in matter, forces, and mental states. He sees that nothing really IS, but that everything is BECOMING and CHANGING. Nothing stands still-everything is being born, growing, dying-the very instant a thing reaches its height, it begins to decline--the law of rhythm is in constant operation--there is no reality, enduring quality, fixity, or substantiality in anything-- nothing is permanent but Change.

 

[Aiviu]

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.

God is the Heart. The name was to focus that the heart has its own entity which you can't claim to be your own. If there is an ownership than its you who can give yourself to the heart. An entity which, when a human decide against its natural reason (evil tongues ridicule the natural moral), it will manipulate/illusion the human's senses (emotions, thoughts, eyes, ears, words,etc... > that creates others outer attraction and one's inner rejection) until they realize that the heart is God and cant be theirs. Yourself it to awaken in love of God.

As long as you are alive God is alive as your heart if believed or not.

 

[LuisDantas]

Then we certainly can't say that religious belief is rational or reasonable.

Rational, perhaps not. Reasonable, it often is.

When those beliefs are used by the people in a position of power to subjugate certain people and to increase their own wealth at the expense of others, then we should certainly make much of it.

As in not allowing it at all? Certainly. But that is not so much theism as the habit of giving it free reign.

 

[ArtieE]

I never really understood that hope can only be felt if one is religious. I'm agnostic atheist, and I certainly don't feel hopeless.

What is it exactly that theists hope for?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Science has shown itself to be the best way to find the truth. I see no reason to arbitrarily redefine the word God to mean something else.

It's the best definition for God available, particularly better than hearsay revelations of self-appointed prophets. Science is indeed the best way to find objective Truth, i.e. knowledge, but Truth means a lot more than just knowledge. Science uncovers objective knowledge, but is not involved in the subjective Truth of art (beyond supplying the tools), and is only partially involved in the subjective/objective aspects of Truth, justice and love..

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

The observable universe is 91 billion light years in diameter.

The furthest man has physically travelled as a species is to the moon, which is only 1.3 light seconds away.

given our infintesimally small exploration of the universe, and considering that as a proportion of all the knowledge which may be possible, our certainty is demonstratably dellusional.

Fortunately, knowledge is not limited by our physical limitations.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Rational, perhaps not. Reasonable, it often is.

How is rational different from reasonable?

 

[ArtieE]

Not religious, only hopeful that there might be a Hereafter, after death.

Do we invent gods and heavens and reincarnation and every kind of afterlife beliefs just because we have a survival instinct and want to survive death?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Do we invent gods and heavens and reincarnation and every kind of afterlife beliefs just because we have a survival instinct and want to survive death?

I wouldn't say "invent", which is to lie (which happens), just hope.

 

[ArtieE]

I think there is something to be said for the argument that positing a divine creator (or a multiverse, for that matter) just replaces the problem with another that now needs explaining. But I would prefer not to require an explanation at all, still less be left with the argument "well, your god solution doesn't work well either".

If there is some random number generator for universes producing an infinite number of different universes I don't see how a universe with our parameters could have failed to come up sooner or later.

 

[ArtieE]

I wouldn't say "invent", which is to lie (which happens), just hope.

When I have evolved into a god I'll make my own universe, make some life, give them my version of a holy book and start telling them what to do. Sort of like the live version of a Playstation game.

 

[Kueid]

I'm sorry, but I'm still trying to get over the fact that you apparently use a definition of "exist" that tells you that thoughts don't exist...

I forgive you.

Something exists if it has a measurable effect in reality.

Can you point me to something that has NO effect in reality?

You're the one telling me to accept that God = Reality.

I'm not doing that. From where did you pull that up? I said IF. Do you know what that means? Is up to you to decide IF you want to do that or not and you already made clear what is your choice.

And if you are going to tell me that God equals reality, I'm going to ask you to back up that claim. Because I don't think God equals reality, and if I'm going to change that position on your say-so, you're going to have to give me a good reason to do it.

Again, I'm not saying to you that God equals reality, I said IF God IS reality. I wanted your opinion about that exclusive scenario. I wanted you to at least work a little with that statement and come up with your own opinion about the matter. And what did you do? You shove it off saying NO. You could have said that in the beginning "No, I don't want to think about it, I only want to defend that God doesn't exist".

Obs: The premise here is that you don't want to believe in the "existence of God" and you are here right now just to keep defending that belief. I can be wrong. Maybe you are lost and want to find answers. Maybe you are just another human being like everyone else, who knows?