I believe in God because...

[Spiralz]

That leaves us at "I don't know", not "make up whatever you want".


I wasn't calling you ignorant personally. It's just the name of the fallacy.


You do realize that you just used another logical fallacy, right? Appeal to popularity. The mere fact that many people believe soething doesn't make it correct.

Regardless, elimination can be used in some situations... but only when you're sure that you have an exhaustive list that includes every possible explanation for the thing you're trying to explain.

If you're willng to provide us with an exhaustive list of every single possible cause for the universe and demonstrate that it really is exhaustive, then it would be valid for you to argue for God by process of elimination.. Not until then, though.

It has nothing to do with soothing thoughts, it has to do with my logic. Obviously the discussion on God being real has gone on since the beginning and will go on until the end. At this time in my life God is my conclusion to why we are here. Appeal to popularity has nothing to do with it either in that it is MY process of elimination not anyone else. To me its about weeding out the ideas that aren't logical to me. It's a never ending process that I go through but if you can't show proof on anything your debating it will always go on forever. I'm sure this comment that I'm typing will have some type of fallacy in it too, but if you look at any type of religious discussion close enough, you can find something to nitpick about.

 

[Dan4reason]

It has nothing to do with soothing thoughts, it has to do with my logic. Obviously the discussion on God being real has gone on since the beginning and will go on until the end. At this time in my life God is my conclusion to why we are here. Appeal to popularity has nothing to do with it either in that it is MY process of elimination not anyone else. To me its about weeding out the ideas that aren't logical to me. It's a never ending process that I go through but if you can't show proof on anything your debating it will always go on forever. I'm sure this comment that I'm typing will have some type of fallacy in it too, but if you look at any type of religious discussion close enough, you can find something to nitpick about.

What if the universe formed without a designer through natural processes?

 

[Willamena]

What if the cause of the contingent things is contingent itself?

Then it has something before it, therefore is not the original cause.

Why do you think that? Why isn't the original cause contingent?

Because of what "contingent" means: dependent on circumstance or happenstance, or as Aquinas uses it, a thing dependent on something else to bring it about, having the allowance that it could fail to exist.

The "original cause" could not fail to exist--that's what it is to be "necessary."

 

[Spiralz]

What if the universe formed without a designer through natural processes?

The only problem I have with that is the lack of nothing forming into something with no help.

 

[hahajebus]

Does god really exist? I reckon you're asking the wrong people. People all looking for answers themselves.

If he so exists, ask him to present himself to you. If he's all that he says he is, and your not just asking to be cocky or prove yourself to someone, but asking from a genuine heart.... then what have you've got to lose?

 

[Quintessence]

So what things in the universe are grander than human design?

Define "human design." Do you mean human technology? Human anatomy? What?

 

[Dan4reason]

Define "human design." Do you mean human technology? Human anatomy? What?

Human anatomy.

 

[Dan4reason]

The only problem I have with that is the lack of nothing forming into something with no help.

Where does naturalism ever say that the universe came from nothing?

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

...

well?

Can you give me 1 logical, fact-based argument as to why God exists, or you should be religious?

I believe in God because... I can.

 

[Thief]

Does god really exist? I reckon you're asking the wrong people. People all looking for answers themselves.

If he so exists, ask him to present himself to you. If he's all that he says he is, and your not just asking to be cocky or prove yourself to someone, but asking from a genuine heart.... then what have you've got to lose?

Have you read the book of Job?
The opening scene involved 'presentation'.

Presentation is directed to Someone Greater...not the other way around.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It has nothing to do with soothing thoughts, it has to do with my logic. Obviously the discussion on God being real has gone on since the beginning and will go on until the end. At this time in my life God is my conclusion to why we are here. Appeal to popularity has nothing to do with it either in that it is MY process of elimination not anyone else. To me its about weeding out the ideas that aren't logical to me. It's a never ending process that I go through but if you can't show proof on anything your debating it will always go on forever. I'm sure this comment that I'm typing will have some type of fallacy in it too, but if you look at any type of religious discussion close enough, you can find something to nitpick about.

Here's the key problem with this, though: if we can't make any headway at all on the question of whether God exists or not, then this suggests that it's unreasonable to believe in God.

There are any number of things that can neither be proven nor disproven - Google "Russell's Teapot" or Carl Sagan's "invisible dragon in the garage" for examples. With these things, even though they can't be disproven, the fact that no evidence points to their existence at all means that the most reasonable course of action is to not accept that they exist until given good reason to do so.

So... does your claim that God exists have anything more going for it than Carl Sagan's claim that he has an invisible, undetectable dragon living in his garage? IOW, can you give us any valid reason to treat the claim of God with any more regard than a claim that we know was made up?

 

[HeatherAnn]

I believe in God because...

Can you give me 1 logical, fact-based argument as to why God exists, or you should be religious?

Why do you equate God with religion?
God is not religion.
God is a word to represent possibility, attraction & the space that everything happens.

If you magnify yourself or anything enough times, you will see mostly space between atoms. Dark energy/matter make up most of the universe & permeate everything, including us. Aristotle explained that every event is preceded by another event, except in the case of the "Prime Mover" (some call God or Big Bang). The Prime Mover could only truly be prime (with no preceding event) by attraction. Dark energy & matter, especially the condensed stuff that create stars to explode, is considered to be attraction in the extreme.

And you cannot help but worship God.
God is attraction & you are indeed attracted to many things... your ultimate concern, I don't know you well enough to know, but I do know you are attracted to living & to posting on this forum. God moves you. God is that which is most important to you, what you worship or are most concerned with. You just don't call it God.

 

[Riverwolf]

...

well?

Can you give me 1 logical, fact-based argument as to why God exists, or you should be religious?

From someone who believes in God...

No, not why God exists.

As for religion, the only argument that I can think of is community, but participation in such things should not be mandatory, nor is it necessary in today's world of hundreds of subcultures.

 

[cablescavenger]

...

well?

Can you give me 1 logical, fact-based argument as to why God exists, or you should be religious?

I find it hard to believe a mere mortal thought to put strawberry syrup in ice cream. A master stroke!

 

[waitasec]

God is a word to represent possibility, attraction & the space that everything happens.

in other words, your higher self...

 

[George-ananda]

...

Can you give me 1 logical, fact-based argument as to why God exists, or you should be religious?

After much study of the paranormal evidence, I concluded that conciousness is independant of a physical brain.

That lead to an interest in spirituality and religion. I concluded that theosophy provides the best framework for understanding the mechanisms of paranormal phenomena.

I studied eastern religions and found Advaita (non-dual hinduism; all is god and god alone is real) as the highest understanding.

So, for me it is not faith-based but evidence and reason based.

 

[blackout]

I believe in God because.....

I believe in MySelf.

 

[beerisit]

Coz the bible tells me so.
I believe in the bible coz god tells me so....................in the bible.

 

[4consideration]

The empty set exists. All else follows.

Is there a meaningful difference between these?

empty set
zero
no (or none)
​

In real life application, I may use them interchangably. I have an empty set of pickles. I have zero pickles. I have no pickles.

If there is a meaningful and/or mathematical distinction, I would like to understand what that is. And, can empty set be proven -- as opposed to zero (unless I have it wrong and zero can be proven.)

I think of zero as something that can't be mathematically proven, yet is an assumption taken on "faith" and used because it can be demonstrated to have valid application. It works. Am I missing something here?

I view mathematical zero as somewhat similar to the subject of the reasonableness of a belief in God -- while not being able to prove the existence of God -- within ones own life, it can be a valid concept to work with in approaching life. Of course, in both cases I would guess it helps to be aware that an assumption is part of, or establishes, a perspective.