Looking for arguments for the existence of God

[Rorschach]

Hi

I am looking for rational intellectual arguments for the existence of God, and why a particular religion is true. Why I am looking for this? Because so far I haven't found any, and I want to seek out arguments that opposes my present intellectual conclusion.

So..

How do you know your religion is right concerning what it states to be true about the universe? On what ground did you come to the conclusion that your religious explanation was the most plausible one as opposed to other religions' explanations or atheism?

 

[methylatedghosts]

This depends on what you consider God to be! If you can tell me what you think God is I will tell you whether or not I could argue for it's existence.

By the way, welcome to the forums! Throw us an intro thread to tell us a little about yourself!

 

[Rorschach]

I am an atheist. I am having bigger and bigger problems with understanding how anyone intelligent and educated can believe in for example (taking mainstream Christianity) a supernatural superpowerful entity simultaneously monitoring over 6 billion people's actions and thoughts, caring what these 6,6 billion people do and think, and compare it to his own 10 moral commandements. How do you arrive at the conclusion that this is the most plausible explanation for everything around you?

I am not trying to insult anyone, the point is that I seriously don't understand what arguments convinced religious intellectuals to believe in one of the organized religions.

 

[nutshell]

Sometime you just know stuff.

For example, I'm assuming you know what salt tastes like, but can you explain how you know?

 

[Rorschach]

I am a biological psychology student so I got a reasonably good understanding of the sense of gustation from several different perspectives. Your reply clearifies nothing with regard to my original question.

 

[methylatedghosts]

I am an atheist. I am having bigger and bigger problems with understanding how anyone intelligent and educated can believe in for example (taking mainstream Christianity) a supernatural superpowerful entity simultaneously monitoring over 6 billion people's actions and thoughts, caring what these 6,6 billion people do and think, and compare it to his own 10 moral commandements. How do you arrive at the conclusion that this is the most plausible explanation for everything around you?

I am not trying to insult anyone, the point is that I seriously don't understand what arguments convinced religious intellectuals to believe in one of the organized religions.

Ok, this god you have outlined - the Christian god - is not what I believe in. In that god I see only some truth. The (god/unity/universe/that-which-is) I am a-part of requires a whole different view. I'm pretty sure it's logical and consistent and I am always learning about it.

But to answer your question - why people believe in a Christian God - that's because it rings true for them. It's what makes sense for those people. It adds value, hope, and a variety of other things to their lives which they feel they may not have without it. We all have different ways of doing that and this is one of them.

 

[Rorschach]

These "arguments" you mention, strictly speaking, do not constitute rational arguments for the truthness of the factual claims of Christianity. They are explanations for why people believe in religions, but are of no concern to the debate over the truth of said claims.

Ex:
"I feel better with myself/it gives me hope if I believe in astrology". This is not an argument for the validity of astrology.

This is why I posted the question. I would like to understand how skeptic, rational, educated people can believe in religious claims.

 

[methylatedghosts]

No they're not. But your question was "how skeptic, rational, educated people can believe in religious claims." and I think this is how.

Rationality and being religious are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

 

[Rorschach]

I am sorry if my topic question was unclear, but the intention for this post is to gain an understanding of the arguments that convinces intellectual people into believing religious claims about the world to be true.

So to clearify what this topic is not meant to be about:
It is not ment to be about explanations for religious belief as a human phenomenon.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Early instillment at a young age.
That and things like "coincidences" that people want to attach meaning to and this personal experience strengthens their personal argument for god.
Some people also have personal experiences of God - which in my book is enough reason.

If you've seen something and interacted with it, then what reason do you have to believe it doesn't exist?

Explanations for religious belief as human phenomena vs. arguments for god that convince people are not necessarily so different. I think there is some overlap

 

[Rorschach]

Okay. Most of these are explanations for religion as a phenomenon. That was not my intent when I posted the topic, so my bad for not framing the question precise enough.

The question should probably be framed like this:
What rational arguments exist for the truthness of religious claims like those posted in my earlier post? What evidence is there?

You cite personal experience with God. Can you explain exactly what you mean by a personal experience with God and how this experience can be concidered valid evidence for God?

 

[Rorschach]

btw, this question is aimed mostly to religious people that believe in a grand set of religious claims about the world (Christians, Muslims etc), not to people that believe there probably is some devine creativ force behind it all but limit their supernatural belief to this.

 

[methylatedghosts]

You cite personal experience with God. Can you explain exactly what you mean by a personal experience with God and how this experience can be concidered valid evidence for God?

Visual, audio etc sensations in meditative states that basically have "god" written on them. Even having conversations. Automatic writing. They are all various ways god communicates. Even what you might call "coincidences" are. The difference between people are the ones who listen and the ones who don't. Experiences are valid if they are experienced! Every experience is vaild! But not necessarily for everyone else, but most definately for the individual

As for rational arguments, I can give none for belief in a Christian God. Like I said before, I don't see much truth in that point of view.

 

[McBell]

Looking for arguments for the existence of God

Are you?
I have to wonder.
Looking back over the thread thus far, you have continuously changed your question in order to dismiss what was previously presented.

This does not seem like an activity of someone who is sincere in their question...
But perhaps that is just me.


Would you be able to present what it is you are actually looking for?
And please provide your definition of the following words:

evidence
God
rational
intellectual
true
argument

​

And then perhaps we will see if there is even the possibility of answering your question.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The anthropic principle fails to prove the existence of God, but it is naive fallacy to equate 'unproven' with 'unlikely'. That there is complexity is remarkable, that there is creative complexity is phenomenal, and to suggest that the evolving paradigm of emergence hints at something beyond the scope of methodological naturalism seems far from unreasonable.

 

[kmkemp]

Does any other species have a concept of religion? I realize that there is no objective grounds for us to prove whether or not this is true, but I would wager that we could at least agree that it is highly probable that they don't. If you can agree this far, then the big question is.. how come?

 

[McBell]

Does any other species have a concept of religion? I realize that there is no objective grounds for us to prove whether or not this is true, but I would wager that we could at least agree that it is highly probable that they don't. If you can agree this far, then the big question is.. how come?

And what makes you think that animals do not have religion?
Hells bells, humans cannot even agree on what religion is, and you want to start speculating on the religions of animals?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I am looking for rational intellectual arguments for the existence of God, and why a particular religion is true.

Good luck, I doubt you'll find any, unless you're "into" ontology.

In any case, religion does not come from the intellect, but from a wholistic experience of the self (existentially speaking) or perhaps with the divine. It's only a recent development of the West (say, from the European Enlightenment) that a rigorous adherence to the scientific method gained a monopoly on the experience of truth. Nevertheless, we can experience the world through senses that have no scientific (or logical) method - the visual arts, poetry, music, and religion.

Reviewing the extra-logical arts with logic is de facto illogical, and yet logic based folk such as yourself insist on doing it over and over again.

 

[methylatedghosts]

In any case, religion does not come from the intellect, but from a wholistic experience of the self (existentially speaking) or perhaps with the divine.

Or a combination of all three!

A person could take their experience of their self, do alot of thinking (intellect) and then have an experience with the divine.

(I've (EDIT: almost) fully completed the first two (EDIT: still constantly learning and changing), still working on the third )

 

[Rorschach]

Would you be able to present what it is you are actually looking for?
And please provide your definition of the following words:

evidence
God
rational
intellectual
true
argument

​

And then perhaps we will see if there is even the possibility of answering your question.

Evidence: facts/observations that support one theory and not the other

God: Supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe

Rational: Based on reason

Intellectual: Much the same as rational

True: In the case of a theory like the Christian world view, true would be if the paradigme is consistent with facts and based on them concidered the most plausible explanation.

Argument: A fact or assertion offered as evidence that something is true

The anthropic principle fails to prove the existence of God, but it is naive fallacy to equate 'unproven' with 'unlikely'. That there is complexity is remarkable, that there is creative complexity is phenomenal, and to suggest that the evolving paradigm of emergence hints at something beyond the scope of methodological naturalism seems far from unreasonable.

I do not agree that "the evolving paradigm of emergence" hints to any creator of any kind, but let's say it would be a reasonable position to believe that. How do you go from the "fact" that there seem to be a creator behind the world to take that as evidence that your holy book is correct or that you can know anything for certain or anything at all about this creator?

Does any other species have a concept of religion? I realize that there is no objective grounds for us to prove whether or not this is true, but I would wager that we could at least agree that it is highly probable that they don't. If you can agree this far, then the big question is.. how come?

How come animals don't have religion? How come humans do?
There are several good explanations of why tendency toward religiousity would be adaptive. To name a few: strengthening of ingroup, anxiety-reducing mechanism, easy method of reinforcing morals in a group.

But even if these explanations are invalid: there exist thousands of different religions, each claiming different things (that are mutually exclusive) about the world to be true. How can the argument for religion as concistently emerging for humans all over the planet be used as evidence for any religious claim about the world?

Didn't have time to reply the last posts..