Five Reasons to Believe in God

[lunamoth]

I believe in GOD just because i see my self in mirror with my two eyes,i hear the world wit my two ears, i can share my words with my mouth, i can touch the softness and sharpness of neil with my hand. when ever i wish to go out i can use my Foots and legs now do you think this all can be made by some one very easily they need brain for this and brain is just created by some supernatural power and that power is called GOD.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

 

[lunamoth]

Things that can't be explained now doesn't mean it can never be explained. That's why there are scientists and researchers, to know the unknown. I think it's better to search than readily accept any religion.

Good point. So, if God is in charge of anything He must be in charge of what we know, as well as what we don't!

 

[lunamoth]

The answer to all this is quite simple: check it out, do the research, get out of your armchair and look about you.

If there is no evidence that something is the case, one is not justified in holding that it is the case. So much for the non-natural.

For the second, just study some psychology.

You can't sneak gods into the universe merely by being puzzled about a few things.

It is possible that 'this is it.' How will you know for sure? What faculty did you use to come to this conclusion? Why do you trust it?

 

[lunamoth]

Awww, is that right? Then the poor shmuck is debating with people of IQ lesser than himself.

Lawrence Krauss and Sam Harris are dumb, or of lower IQ than Craig?

Then how do you know your god is real? Maybe he is just imaginary,

Good question.

 

[lunamoth]

Though I am ignostic as to your point...I agree with [my semantic interpretation of] all the premises, and though you think your conclusion should be obvious without jotting it in the end, I think it is a big jump: perhaps right off that tetter-totter.

Actually I know that my 'conclusion' does not follow from the statements I made. I am not debating.

Just trying to open the door to reasonable doubt. Materialist castles are also built on sand.

 

[outhouse]

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

doesnt mean a deity is hiding behind a corner because we cant see around it.


2

there was never nothing


3


I dont find that to be true


4


yes but again, nothing to do with a deity


5


sama answer as 4 and 5




what it comes down to is people can be good and kind, its in our nature as well as hatred and evil. religion may point the difference out but does little beyond that

 

[lunamoth]

Thank you for the delightfully rich post. I'm already running out of time, but will take a quick stab and return.

electric fields can be graphs, time can be graphed, magnetic fields,ultra violet and infer-red, supercold (exact temperatures after death of human, so human can't sense it) there are plenty of things which interact with this world that can't be "magnified" for our senses, they can only be graphed. Is what I just said an argument for God? Yes, as much as it is an argument for Satan and Santa, and unicorns and elves, and bigfoot.

But they are only made intelligible to us through our senses.

This is a really good question! which I already have an answer for. The question can be phrased as follows: why would physicalism ever give rise to phenomenal truths? Evolution answes it quite wel.

And that answer from evolution is?

HAHA such a funny person this Haldane is. and you may quote me: "It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of a greater mind. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by that greater mind I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound matter-of-factually, but that does not make them sound truthfully. And hence I have no reason for supposing God to exist."

LOL! Good one! Yeah, I don't think God is controlling us through our reason. It must be that our reason is like God's, but not controlled by God.

Why should they share God's? Why is that being right? Are you sure?
It seems to me that peoples need to agree on what their desires are...so that they can form their ethics from them, instead of pretending that God shares their ethics already, or that their ethics came from God.

That's right, who gets to decide what's good? We should be letting this "god" to decide our presidents for us. :sarcastic maybe through Royal primogeniture. I mean, they were born first by God's will, wheren't they?

OK, so, short answer for all of this, if God is the source of all of these then God determines what is right and good.

If I missed a point you want me to address, please let me know.

 

[lunamoth]

Actually, evolution provides a rather nice explanation for why we have ethics.

But which ethics are true?

 

[lunamoth]

3) truth = agnosticism

Agnosticism is safe. I'm not sure how 'true' applies to it.

I already explained how evolution explains "why" we have phenomenal truths.

You did? I must have missed it. Which post?

I'm out of time again. Later!

 

[Falvlun]

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.

Of your 5, I find this the most compelling. I do find it probable that there are things out there we cannot perceive, that we cannot even dream of.

However, this does not mean I should believe they exist: It means that I should keep myself open to the possibility that they do.

 

[AfterGlow]

I think they're five reasons that someone who believes could use to justify their position, but I wouldn't say they actually support a belief in God any more than they support a belief Tao or the Cosmic Buddha. You could use them to justify belief in any transpersonal governing agent, is what I'm driving at. But their value can only ever be subjective.

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

You fish-slapped the bacteria comment, so I'm guessing that you're not referring to physical forces we can't sense, rather some form of spiritual reality? If that's the case I have to disagree, I'd say there is a possibility that such a dimension exists, but since we are incapable of ever perceiving it we cannot judge whether it's existence is highly likely or unlikely, we cannot assign a likelihood.

2. There is something, rather than nothing.

This is an appeal to cause and effect, phenomena exist therefore there is a first cause. I can't argue against it, but it's an argument that can be used to support an infinite number of potential first causes, which need not have intelligence or purpose in their causation.

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

Firstly, reasoning, abstract thinking and philosophy need not be rational. Secondly, whether or not there exists an objective reality upon which our subjective realities are based doesn't impact the rationality of our faculties, as we can only base our reasoning and thought on the sense-impressions that we do receive. Thirdly, the existence of an objective reality doesn't necessitate a creative agent of said objective reality.

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

Right and wrong in themselves are illusory. The universe is impersonal and amoral, that much is demonstrated in every physical action and reaction we observe in the abiological world around us. It is only biological systems that form concepts of right and wrong, and such concepts are subjective, based on the nature and circumstances of the life form. What is right for some is not right for others.
Ethics are neither real nor illusory as such terms don't apply. They are a system of ideas and rules for how best to live a human life in the context in which one finds themselves. They are an abstract, a framework upon which real-world results can develop, it is the results that may be deemed right or wrong, real or illusory (as in the case of beliefs resulting from ethics) but only on a subjective basis.

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

Integrity is a subjective quality, valuable only to the possessor of such virtues. There is no objective basis for good, only subjective. If there were an objective basis for good, virtue would be self-apparent, there would be no need to teach it or strive to develop it.

 

[Gloone]

I couldn't quite follow all of your argument, but I do see your point if b is really just completely outside our system and can have no contact with a. So, there must be some connection. Is there any way to have a connection that eludes our senses?

Well a simpler way of looking at it is without a purpose there wouldn't be a cause.

A cause for "Higher reasoning, abstract thinking (including logic), and philosophy" through higher understanding of that which isn't reliant on the sensory world.

If it isn't reliant how is it possible for people to understand it. If is objective, but isn't capable of being observed.

It would be possible if it didn't elude the sensory world. So my question is why would it have to?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, if I titled my thread Five Reasons for the Bankruptcy of Philosophy I don't think it would have generated as much interest.

Heh... I probably would've been interested.

But even if philosophy is bankrupt, what conclusion are you drawing from this? Philosophy is bankrupt... therefore God? If that's what you're getting at, I think there are a few steps missing.

If God is Rational, Benevolent, and Good, and is the grounds of our existence, then God would serve as the basis of these things.

But you can't say that God is objectively rational, benevolent or good without an objective standard external to God against which to measure God. Otherwise, all you've got is "God is God" and a subjective (and IMO arbitrary) decision on your part to make God your reference point for rationality, benevolence and goodness.

However, if you do have that external standard with which to measure God, then this negates your claim that God is needed as that standard. IOW, you end up with a paradox.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Oh, I agree the natural universe exists. I'm not a solipsist. However, the question is how do you know that the natural universe is all that exists?

Well there is no personal way of knowing at present that the natural universe is all that there is in a conclusive sense, yet at the moment there is nothing else notable that indicates anything else other than that of a natural universe. In that respect, that's all there is on which my view is based upon, as this is whats all here, as its directly presented.

How do we know that our reason, which evolved from non-rational ancestors at some point in time, is rational? How do we distinguish rational thought from non-rational responses?

Given our presently developed capabilities, we know our natural cognitive skills demonstratively work by which we use reason and rationality to explore, use, and navigate, and explain the various mysteries that we encounter of which we expand our horizons. Irrationality seldom works in that respect therefore it is very difficult to effectively explore, use, and navigate using an irrational mind.

 

[Looncall]

It is possible that 'this is it.' How will you know for sure? What faculty did you use to come to this conclusion? Why do you trust it?

Why would you expect to know either way for sure? However, where there is no evidence, you do not know at all. The honest thing to do in the absence of evidence is to provisionally conclude that "this is it" and be ready to change your mind if good evidence does arrive.

 

[JustWondering]

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

When I was a christian this is one of the questions that helped maintain my faith. It was also one that helped squash it when I started really looking at my faith. It would seem at first glance that there must be a reason for life to exist. The universe is a large, chaotic, and dangerous place. For life to exist in it seems to be too much of a coincidence, something must have put us here. That was how I thought. Not so sure now. If there were a creator god as described in the bible or other faith wouldn't it favor and protect its followers who are doing its will? That doesn't seem to be the case. Calamity (natural and man made) befall everyone in this world and no one seems to have divine protection of any kind. From observing how things work in this world, if there is a god, it chooses not to interfere. Therefore, religions claiming that god comes down to talk to us and interfere in our affairs are false. Thats how I see it anyway.

 

[Luminous]

If I missed a point you want me to address, please let me know.

NO its all good. I think i made a small mistake in my strawmanification of the funny man quote.. and also I meant "theory of evolution" not evolution itself.
I'll return and adress them shortly.

 

[Luminous]

Thank you for the delightfully rich post. I'm already running out of time, but will take a quick stab and return.

But they are only made intelligible to us through our senses.

Yes, I agree. that would appear to be the case.

And that answer from evolution is?

Memory

LOL! Good one! Yeah, I don't think God is controlling us through our reason. It must be that our reason is like God's, but not controlled by God.

I understand your point. Yet such a believe leaves Theists weaponless in their assult against Atheists. Or at least equally par-on-par; The Problem of Atheists is introduced when we define God as a being having our own sense of reason.

OK, so, short answer for all of this, if God is the source of all of these then God determines what is right and good.

true...but then what is right and good becomes meaningless in that they are extensions of a, excuse me for saying this, seemingly meaningless being. If a good being did exist, it would prefer confesion of agnostic.

 

[Autodidact]

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? How would you know? If we don't have access to it through our senses, in what sense can it be said to exist, at least for us, and what difference would it make?

2. There is something, rather than nothing.

Why is this an argument for God? It might help if you define "God."

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

I don't think I know what you mean here, or what it has to do with God.

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

This gets you nowhere. First, it is not the case. Second, God does not provide such an objective basis. Third, if there is an objective basis, there is no reason to suppose it has to be God. Fourth, if there isn't, there isn't. Things don't exist because we need or want them to.

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

I beg to differ, but this is pretty much the same as 4.

 

[Autodidact]

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


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.



This makes no sense to me what so ever.

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.

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.

Just realized that lunamoth and lunakilo are two different people. :tuna: *Hits self on head with tuna.*