Are there any good arguments for God?

[Tiberius]

No. I'm simply pointing out that believing in perfect standards of rationality and objectivity is as illusionary as believing in an omniscient god.

I disagree. We know for a fact that rationality can give us useful information about the universe.

 

[Laika]

I disagree. We know for a fact that rationality can give us useful information about the universe.

If truth is the correspondance between our ideas and objective reality, and we establish it by whether our ideas "work" in practice (i.e. are useful) that only means some of the content of our ideas is true. it does not demonstrate that they are wholly or absolutely true. rather they are "true enough" to be "useful".

 

[allfoak]

So what you propose has no actual use. It';s just a feel good thing, but it can't actually tell us anything real about the universe.

So consider this argument for God to be rejected.

It was rejected before it was stated.

 

[Aiviu]

Arbitrary redefinition.

Please dont give arbitrary answers which make me feel ashamed about my previous statement. Pardon. it was the purpose I illusioned to be mine ... well, Me too was blinded because you asked in illusion. I understand you did.

Citation needed. Provide evidence that my heart is a being separate to myself.

Evidence? For something which has been overgrown by the illusions from "your" heart?

Yeah, this really is new age mumbo jumbo.

Ridiculation can be mumbo jumbo too but is old age.

 

[rusra02]

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.

"For [God's] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they [who deny God] are inexcusable." The Bible- Romans 1:20.

 

[Yerda]

Ah, so you are invoking the argument from popularity? Lots of people believe it, so maybe there's something to it?

Reality doesn't work like that.

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.

I'm not making any claims about how reality works.

 

[allfoak]

The first cause argument for the existence of God holds up under scrutiny if we understand that all that is, is not a separate creation but rather we and all things exist in the mind of God.
If all is in the mind of God all of the objections to the first cause argument fall away.

Science says that as long as there has been a vacuum the has been light.
Unless i am misunderstanding, this solves the problem of God (if God is Light) needing a cause.
There are things that do not seem to have a cause, one of those things seems to be a spectrum of light that is not visible with the eye alone.
The other is radioactive decay.
Neither of these things seem to be a very good objection to all things existing in the mind of God.

Perhaps i am misunderstanding but i am not afraid to be wrong.
If there are those that are familiar with the objections to the first cause argument for the existence of God i would like to here from them.

It seems to me that the objections no longer have merit.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_first_cause

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The first cause argument for the existence of God holds up under scrutiny if we understand that all that is, is not a separate creation but rather we and all things exist in the mind of God.
If all is in the mind of God all of the objections to the first cause argument fall away.

How is that not just circular reasoning? It also doesn't solve any problem with the First Cause argument, which still relies entirely on making very specific claims about an event that we know extremely little about.

Science says that as long as there has been a vacuum the has been light.
Unless i am misunderstanding, this solves the problem of God (if God is Light) needing a cause.

How, exactly?

There are things that do not seem to have a cause, one of those things seems to be a spectrum of light that is not visible with the eye alone.
The other is radioactive decay.
Neither of these things seem to be a very good objection to all things existing in the mind of God.

What on earth are you saying? What makes you think that light of any kind or radioactive decay aren't caused, and what do these things have to do with "existing in the mind of God"?

Perhaps i am misunderstanding but i am not afraid to be wrong.
If there are those that are familiar with the objections to the first cause argument for the existence of God i would like to here from them.

It makes specific claims about an event we know little about, uses physical laws to explain the origin of physical laws, begs the question of what caused the cause, commits a fallacy of special pleading by inventing an exception to the law of cause and effect, and all-in-all cannot adequately support almost any of its premises.

 

[LuisDantas]

But religion doesn't do that. In fact, I;d say that religion encourages the LACK of reason.

It often does at that, in real practice.

Whether that is its true path or instead abusing it is to a degree a matter of opinion.

In any case, it is nothing to be passively accepted.

Then perhaps you could explain what you meant by this:

Certainly not that we should bother to forbid religion by law. I care little about attempts to "improve" society by way of law.

Instead, I meant exactly what I said. That we shold not allow religion to run unleashed. Religious privilege is something of an odd concept, IMO.

Both the Bible and the Koran have passages that call on followers to spread their religion. And I'm sure you know what those books suggest be done to non-believers...

Scripture literalism is, quite simply, stupid. No one should accept it. Ever.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Is this the old, "We don't know everything, so religion MIGHT be true" argument?

Who can say either way , all I know we are stuck to a ball of a few lumps of rock and dense heavy water held together by some force within an atmosphere of more water just not as dense flying through space at a stupid speed on a magical mystery tour to no where .
Maybe is some personal thing you cling onto .
Is all really irrelevant you know , all that really matters on this planet is what happens today and that tomorrow arrives .
In bible is a story of an apostle that didn't believe had nothing to do with love , was just all to much for his knapper .
It doesn't matter ! Pretend your the only man on earth in subjective thought and it is a possibility.
However most are looking for a rose garden to find a bed of thorns .
So go on what is your thing ? We all have a thing whether that be an horrific childhood or something else.
Is lent for Christians , story says he went to the wilderness for 40\40 to tempted ( I don't care if reality he went to hide from the romans is irrelevant ) thought I would try 40 days in subjective , from 10th of Feb .Then is holidays with a clean slate lol is good to be a christian justifies all my sins and more sin , would be ungrateful after the sacrifice not to let your hair down , lots of cheap holidays , and lots of me time
You know this kind of thought over to long a period is self destructive I'm experiencing it , Escapism is my thing , not that I don't enjoy my life , is just better things to do on the other side.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The first cause argument for the existence of God holds up under scrutiny if we understand that all that is, is not a separate creation but rather we and all things exist in the mind of God.
If all is in the mind of God all of the objections to the first cause argument fall away.

IOW, if you presuppose God, you can conclude God? Hardly useful.

The first cause argument does not work logically. It either violates its own premises (in the "standard" version) or makes unsupported leaps (in the "Kalam" version). It also fails in the way that most of the classical arguments for theism do: it overreaches. It ends with "...and we call this 'God'" when all that's actually supported by the argument - if it was valid at all - would be something like "... and this is consistent with God and an unknown number of other things."

Science says that as long as there has been a vacuum the has been light.
Unless i am misunderstanding, this solves the problem of God (if God is Light) needing a cause.
There are things that do not seem to have a cause, one of those things seems to be a spectrum of light that is not visible with the eye alone.
The other is radioactive decay.
Neither of these things seem to be a very good objection to all things existing in the mind of God.

Perhaps i am misunderstanding but i am not afraid to be wrong.
If there are those that are familiar with the objections to the first cause argument for the existence of God i would like to here from them.

It seems to me that the objections no longer have merit.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_first_cause

IMO, the First Cause Argument has been soundly refuted.

However, I fail to see what all that "existing in the mind of God" stuff has to do with the First Cause Argument. If anything, I would think that if we're all in someone's imagination, then there's reason to assume causality will always work, which would cause the argument to unravel (even more than it has already).

 

[allfoak]

Okay, i don't agree with all of the arguments but i do see how some would think a presupposition may be necessary.

I would say that if science has found something that has always existed, that being light, then we can make a supposition about that light.

Light is considered a constant for a reason.

 

[atanu]

So, what do you think is the most convincing argument for the existence of God? ....

There is none.

 

[outhouse]

I would say that if science has found something that has always existed, that being light

You have any sources for that?

 

[allfoak]

You have any sources for that?

No

 

[outhouse]

No

because light has not always existed.

 

[atanu]

Mind and word return from it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Okay, i don't agree with all of the arguments but i do see how some would think a presupposition may be necessary.

How can a presupposition ever be "necessary"?

I would say that if science has found something that has always existed, that being light, then we can make a supposition about that light.

Light is considered a constant for a reason.

So you're saying that as long as science says something exists, you're justified in asserting whatever you want about that thing regardless of whether it's actually based on any facts?

Also, what makes you think that light has always existed?

 

[Willamena]

If you want to know how the clock works, you can take it apart, study the pendulum, the cogs, the wind up springs, etc. And then you can figure out how it works.

The principle is a little bit more complicated when it comes to finding out reality, but it has been done many times. It's called observation and experimentation. Newton did it with falling objects to figure out how gravity works. Darwin did it to figure out how evolution works.

Besides, if we don't get our raw data from reality, where should we get it from?

How do you take reality apart?

 

[Tiberius]

If truth is the correspondance between our ideas and objective reality, and we establish it by whether our ideas "work" in practice (i.e. are useful) that only means some of the content of our ideas is true. it does not demonstrate that they are wholly or absolutely true. rather they are "true enough" to be "useful".

An objective truth does not require our ideas. It is true whether we are aware of it or not.