Five Reasons to Believe in God

[lunamoth]

Five Reasons to Believe in God

1. It is highly unlikely that the material world we have access to through our senses is all that there is.

2. There is something, rather than nothing.

3. Higher reasoning, abstract thinking (including logic), and philosphy are not rational without an objective basis outside of our sensory world.

4. Ethics (responsibility to others) are an illusion without an objective basis of right and wrong.

5. Values/virtues (personal integrity) are an illusion without an objective basis for good.

Discuss. :seesaw:

 

[Engyo]

Without disputing any of your 5 points, I don't find any of them to be reasons to believe in a humanocentric omnipotent omniscient creator deity. Just my own opinion, of course.

 

[Skwim]

Five Reasons to Believe in God

1. It is highly unlikely that the material world we have access to through our senses is all that there is.

I agree. Sometimes we need the insturments of science to help us where our sense fail.

2. There is something, rather than nothing.

Okay, but what's the relevance of this?

3. Higher reasoning, abstract thinking (including logic), and philosphy are not rational without an objective basis outside of our sensory world.

Then I assume you're including reasoning, abstract thinking , etc as inside our sensory world. But why would "higher" forms of these necessarily need to transcend our sensory world?

4. Ethics (responsibility to others) are an illusion without an objective basis of right and wrong.

Illusion or not, why would the existence of a god bring them into reality?

5. Values/virtues (personal integrity) are an illusion without an objective basis for good.

Illusion or not, why would the existence of a god bring them into reality?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Five Reasons to Believe in God

1. It is highly unlikely that the material world we have access to through our senses is all that there is.

2. There is something, rather than nothing.

3. Higher reasoning, abstract thinking (including logic), and philosphy are not rational without an objective basis outside of our sensory world.

4. Ethics (responsibility to others) are an illusion without an objective basis of right and wrong.

5. Values/virtues (personal integrity) are an illusion without an objective basis for good.

Discuss. :seesaw:

1. I know, I believe in other things like parallel universes, just not a god.

2. Explain.

3. They are rational when we do not guess at things and try not to observe it or test it, thus they'd be rational.

4. Not really, it is pretty obvious to know right from wrong yourself.

5. Same answer as number 4.

 

[lunakilo]

Five Reasons to Believe in God

1. It is highly unlikely that the material world we have access to through our senses is all that there is.

Why?

Even if this is true I don't see that this implies you need to believe in God to have access to all there is. If our senses are not enough maybe a microscope or something like it will do

2. There is something, rather than nothing.

I am not sure I know what you mean here.
Is the "something" you refer to God?

If you feel that God exists rather than not exists, then you should probably examine why you feel that way.
It is a very subjective argument though, and on its own is rather pointless as I see it.

3. Higher reasoning, abstract thinking (including logic), and philosphy are not rational without an objective basis outside of our sensory world.

This makes no sense to me what so ever.

4. Ethics (responsibility to others) are an illusion without an objective basis of right and wrong.

What is important is that you and the person you interact with agree on what is right and wrong. You don't need God for that.

5. Values/virtues (personal integrity) are an illusion without an objective basis for good.

I agree that you need a basis, but again, I don't see where God comes into this.

About the objective basis you refer to:
God (if such a thing exists) does not seem to be very good at communicating clearly for all to understand what is right/wrong/good/evil, so using God as an objective reference point seems rathet silly to me.

The only reason I can see for a person to believe in God is if that person has had an experience where he or she has clearly felt Gods presence or better yes has in some way communicated with God.

 

[Vendetta]

Lunamoth,

When you mention God define which god you are referring to?

 

[Tathagata]

Five Reasons to Believe in God

1. It is highly unlikely that the material world we have access to through our senses is all that there is.

That's not an argument for God. That's an argument for anything outside what we can observe such as parallel universes, other dimensions, alien life on other planets, and many other things.

If you're saying materialism or physicalism is false, then please provide an argument to demonstrate this.

2. There is something, rather than nothing.

That's not a reason for belief in God. It's possible that the universe is eternal, has no source, and as one philosopher said, existence might just be a brute fact. Please demonstrate why the God hypotheses is more likely than the other possibilities I just listed.

3. Higher reasoning, abstract thinking (including logic), and philosphy are not rational without an objective basis outside of our sensory world.

Where's your reasoning for this assertion?

What if reality itself IS the objective basis for rationality and abstract thinking?

4. Ethics (responsibility to others) are an illusion without an objective basis of right and wrong.

Appeal to Consequences fallacy. Just because you don't like the idea that ethics may be illusory doesn't mean you can conclude that objective morality is true, therefore God exists.


Also, there are many objective moral theories that don't require God. Deontological Ethics, Intentionality Ethics, Consequencialism, Moral Universalism.

5. Values/virtues (personal integrity) are an illusion without an objective basis for good.

You just repeated 4 which I already addressed.

 

[lunamoth]

Why?

Even if this is true I don't see that this implies you need to believe in God to have access to all there is. If our senses are not enough maybe a microscope or something like it will do

Even a microscope relies upon our senses, as does any instrument that we can devise to amplify our senses. A rock exists but it does not 'sense' anything more. We would be like rocks compared to the something more that could potentially exist.

I am not sure I know what you mean here.
Is the "something" you refer to God?

In this case I just mean that there is anything, our universe, ourselves. Why?

If you feel that God exists rather than not exists, then you should probably examine why you feel that way.
It is a very subjective argument though, and on its own is rather pointless as I see it.

Good point!

This makes no sense to me what so ever.

How can higher reasoning (not directly impacted by senses) arise from knowledge that is totally sensory? How would you know if your reason is giving you true results?

"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."
— J.B.S. Haldane (Possible Worlds)

What is important is that you and the person you interact with agree on what is right and wrong. You don't need God for that.

If ethics are subjective, why should others share your ethics if they do not agree with them? Who is right? How do you know?

I agree that you need a basis, but again, I don't see where God comes into this.

Who gets to decide what is good?

About the objective basis you refer to:
God (if such a thing exists) does not seem to be very good at communicating clearly for all to understand what is right/wrong/good/evil, so using God as an objective reference point seems rathet silly to me.

The only reason I can see for a person to believe in God is if that person has had an experience where he or she has clearly felt Gods presence or better yes has in some way communicated with God.

Thanks for your thoughts! Good points!

 

[lunamoth]

That's not an argument for God. That's an argument for anything outside what we can observe such as parallel universes, other dimensions, alien life on other planets, and many other things.

If you're saying materialism or physicalism is false, then please provide an argument to demonstrate this.




That's not a reason for belief in God. It's possible that the universe is eternal, has no source, and as one philosopher said, existence might just be a brute fact. Please demonstrate why the God hypotheses is more likely than the other possibilities I just listed.



Where's your reasoning for this assertion?

What if reality itself IS the objective basis for rationality and abstract thinking?



Appeal to Consequences fallacy. Just because you don't like the idea that ethics may be illusory doesn't mean you can conclude that objective morality is true, therefore God exists.


Also, there are many objective moral theories that don't require God. Deontological Ethics, Intentionality Ethics, Consequencialism, Moral Universalism.



You just repeated 4 which I already addressed.

Are there true, factual answers that we can know conclusively for any of the five points I raise? How can we use science to address them?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Five Reasons to Believe in God

1. It is highly unlikely that the material world we have access to through our senses is all that there is.

That is obvious and agree. Yet scientific instruments have extended/expanded our senses exponentially. Of course, there is much more to explore such as what comprises dark matter and ether to name a few. Hopefully science will discover and confirm more as we go along.

2. There is something, rather than nothing.

This would require a fixed ratio of something verses nothing. In light of the fluidity of the universe ,this statement may well flip flop based on observations so far dependent upon one's perspective and approach taken. Like Alan Watt's had put it. Everything in nature is wiggly.

3. Higher reasoning, abstract thinking (including logic), and philosophy are not rational without an objective basis outside of our sensory world.

How is that objective basis identified to which this is established? It may very well become a difficult undertaking in coming across the direct answer.

4. Ethics (responsibility to others) are an illusion without an objective basis of right and wrong.

Well experience and consequence plays a significant role in determining how we generally behave. Cause and effect can be objective so I can agree here at least that karmic influences determine behavior to which ethics arise. Yet ethics vary person to person.

5. Values/virtues (personal integrity) are an illusion without an objective basis for good.

Just what exactly can be interpreted as being good when viewed through the eyes of a criminal or that of a saint? Good to steal and harm or good to give and help respectively. Both can arguably become good by way of perspective.


Like Engyo and others, I as well don't see how any of the aforementioned supports a reason to believe in God. Some further elaboration would be useful to make a clearer picture as to how all this connects to which this attributes towards a belief in God.

 

[Tathagata]

Are there true, factual answers that we can know conclusively for any of the five points I raise? How can we use science to address them?

I addressed your arguments directly, now address my arguments. Right now you are simply evading my arguments, thus you must concede or rebute.

.

 

[lunamoth]

How is that objective basis identified to which this is established? It may very well become a difficult undertaking in coming across the direct answer.

As far as I can tell, the only things that can make our reason true would be 1) truth = utility or 2) God.

How would you go about showing that a naturalistic view of the universe is true?

 

[lunamoth]

I addressed your arguments directly, now address my arguments. Right now you are simply evading my arguments, thus you must concede or rebute.

.

I'm not debating.

 

[lunamoth]

Then I assume you're including reasoning, abstract thinking , etc as inside our sensory world. But why would "higher" forms of these necessarily need to transcend our sensory world?

How do you know that your brain is made of atoms?

 

[Tathagata]

I'm not debating.

Then why are you in the Religious DEBATES forum? Also, yes, you are debating. You listed five premises to support a conclusion. By definition, that is an argument in formal logic terms, thus you are debating.

Anyways, you are still evading my criticisms of your argument, so now you must concede and renounce your belief in God. If you still think that your belief in God is justified, then please JUSTIFY it.



.

 

[lunamoth]

Then why are you in the Religious DEBATES forum?

Because there is no Religious Discussion forum at RF. I have considered bringing this up with the staff, but figured that no matter where I post, unless it is in the DIRs, people will want to debate.

Also, yes, you are debating. You listed five premises to support a conclusion. By definition, that is an argument in formal logic terms, thus you are debating.

No, I listed five reasons why one might believe in God.

Can debate really find the truth about God? WL Craig wins most of the technical points in his debates hands down. Does that mean he is right about God?

Anyways, you are still evading my criticisms of your argument, so now you must concede and renounce your belief in God. If you still think that your belief in God is justified, then please JUSTIFY it.

Lol! OK, so what is 'reality?' How do you know?

 

[Twilight Hue]

As far as I can tell, the only things that can make our reason true would be 1) truth = utility or 2) God.

How would you go about showing that a naturalistic view of the universe is true?

Obviously I would be unable to establish satisfactory by my own violition that a completely naturalistic universe is true in its entirety. That being said however, it must be noted that directly there is nothing by way of establishment that suggests anything other than that of a naturalistic universe at the moment. In other words, I see no notable evidence or indicators of God, yet abounding evidence confirms a naturalistic universe as it stands at present of which is easily observed and experienced.

 

[Gloone]

Five Reasons to Believe in God

1. It is highly unlikely that the material world we have access to through our senses is all that there is.

2. There is something, rather than nothing.

I like these two.

3. Higher reasoning, abstract thinking (including logic), and philosphy are not rational without an objective basis outside of our sensory world.

I'm not real sure why those things are not rational with an objective basis. Just not practical when it is outside "the sensory world".

4. Ethics (responsibility to others) are an illusion without an objective basis of right and wrong.

If they have an objective basis, does that mean they are not an illusion?

5. Values/virtues (personal integrity) are an illusion without an objective basis for good.

I agree, but then again I think it has to do with what you consider objective. You have subjective reasoning, why would objective be impossible.

Discuss. :seesaw:

:redx:

 

[lunamoth]

Hi All! I'll be back later! Thanks for everyone's replies! I look forward to continuing the discussion.

Live, love, learn,
~ luna

 

[Vendetta]

Lunamoth
You never answered my question on what you define as God?