Your best argument that god exists

[The Sum of Awe]

The universe's properties have a pattern, from what I see at least. The main properties I'm talking about are; causality, the universe operating under the same constant laws of physics, all that reality consists of are made of the same things at atomic level, the way everything happens.

This pattern can be aligned with the feeling of being ONE with all existence, eliminating the illusion of ego and self. It is a shoe that fits well. Practicing around the belief in the absolute makes it easier to see this. The less attached you are to physical reality, the closer you are to spiritual reality. God is the combination of both, existence itself.

The outlook of oneness becomes more noticeable the more you apply it to life, and what comes of that is realizing interconnection of all existing things, and thus divinity behind it. Conclusively practice detachment with this view, God becomes more clear. Physical beings like us are more used to physical reality, sort of like an addiction and not wanting to let go. So the individual soul is unaware of itself and enters into physical reality again. God can't be found until you look and notice this pattern Similar, metaphorically speaking, to how in a dark room, sitting on small screen (computer screen for example) the room around you is not visible, not as much at least.

I'm convinced that by the behavior of the universe, it seems the universe has freewill. Its decisions are made, but it is a hivemind of all living beings, even thought the beings themselves aren't aware of it.

Sorry if that wasted your time

 

[Jumi]

This could open the Door for some lacking faith.....and I don't mind.
I know at least one who has renounced is faith but carries on as if bound to caring his fellowman.
He might get a slap in the face for his denial.
But the angel will abide otherwise....they will do unto him as he did unto others.

When we aren't theist, we don't do good things because we are afraid of punishment. To us the punishment you describe doesn't exist, like the punishments of other religions don't exist for you.

Non-theists help our fellow man because we want to. It's our conscience, morality that guides us to work for better things.

I have seen it written....a sin against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

So he has no reason to "repent" in your religion as he is doomed to hell for eternity?

 

[Thief]

When we aren't theist, we don't do good things because we are afraid of punishment. To us the punishment you describe doesn't exist, like the punishments of other religions don't exist for you.

Non-theists help our fellow man because we want to. It's our conscience, morality that guides us to work for better things.


So he has no reason to "repent" in your religion as he is doomed to hell for eternity?

I happen to think heaven and hell are close to each other.

If your Prophet is there to greet you, show you around, the scheme of things, etc............good for you.
If someone of ill repute shows up.....too bad for him!

I say as such because there is scripture to support the notion.

Picture it this way.....
Jesus, Judas, and Hitler....sharing bread and a sauce bowl....
looking each other in the eye!

 

[Jumi]

I happen to think heaven and hell are close to each other.

I don't think either exist.

If your Prophet is there to greet you, show you around, the scheme of things, etc............good for you.

If you think I have some prophet you are confused. Did you not read the post you replied to?

 

[Thief]

I don't think either exist.


If you think I have some prophet you are confused. Did you not read the post you replied to?

As an agnostic.....would you make any claim to knowing Something Greater than yourself?

 

[Jumi]

As an agnostic.....would you make any claim to knowing Something Greater than yourself?

Yes. The universe is much greater than I am and I know it's here.

 

[Thief]

Yes. The universe is much greater than I am and I know it's here.

We are leaning to discussion of Spirit.....rather than substance.
I am .....anyway....

 

[kepha31]

There are so many more things that I do not believe in than that I do believe in (including all those things that I never considered, hence do not believe in ) that it would be rather impossible to even know where to begin on such an impossible task.

Which affirms my point. There may be as many reasons for not believing in God as there are atheists. The theist is left guessing as to what the reasons are for any particular atheist. Until the premise is identified, discussion is impossible. What bothers me about atheists is they think the theist has no argument or defense. I find them narrow minded and arrogant in refusing to accept metaphysical arguments as valid. What is really presented is a rational warrant for belief, not proof per se, because the existence of God cannot be proven with test tubes or DNA. If I present a rational warrant for belief, the atheist must take the stand of an irrational warrant for unbelief.

 

[Skwim]

There may be as many reasons for not believing in God as there are atheists. The theist is left guessing as to what the reasons are for any particular atheist. Until the premise is identified, discussion is impossible.

All they have to do is ask.

What bothers me about atheists is they think the theist has no argument or defense. I find them narrow minded and arrogant in refusing to accept metaphysical arguments as valid.

So, if they agreed with you then they would be broad minded and humble. We get it.

What is really presented is a rational warrant for belief, not proof per se, because the existence of God cannot be proven with test tubes or DNA. If I present a rational warrant for belief, the atheist must take the stand of an irrational warrant for unbelief.

Thing is, what you consider rational, atheists do not. Simple as that. Atheists, and agnostics, are not persuaded by the Christian argument, whatever it may be. Do you really think that presented by an incontrovertible argument for the existence of god the atheist is going to say "Nope, I prefer to remain an atheist"? They ain't. It comes down to:

And so far there is none.​

 

[Sapiens]

Which affirms my point. There may be as many reasons for not believing in God as there are atheists. The theist is left guessing as to what the reasons are for any particular atheist. Until the premise is identified, discussion is impossible. What bothers me about atheists is they think the theist has no argument or defense. I find them narrow minded and arrogant in refusing to accept metaphysical arguments as valid. What is really presented is a rational warrant for belief, not proof per se, because the existence of God cannot be proven with test tubes or DNA. If I present a rational warrant for belief, the atheist must take the stand of an irrational warrant for unbelief.

When you can demonstrate that metaphysical arguments are meaningful I will be happy to consider them ... until such time they are little more than naval gazing. I need no reason to not have a belief in something. Verily, believing in something demands a trigger, an indicator, at least some sort of evidence that falls short of proof. I do not reject belief in a god, I reject the concept of belief itself. I work hard to maintain a view of the universe that is based on probability and likelihood rather than belief or non-belief. I find the concept of a god to have a rather low probability, I recognize that most people, rather than actually developing a construct that identifies the existence of a god as having a reasonable (or even just even) likelihood, actually come to their belief on the basis of an argument from ignorance that they then back-fill with a whole lot of claptrap. Your idea of a rational warrant for belief in a deity is an oxymoron unworthy of serious consideration or attention by itself, it requires more than just your say-so. Without some form of rational support, without some form of objective evidence, it is nothing more than another unsuccessful attempt to put belief and non-belief on the same level and making the issue merely a matter of opinion.

 

[atpollard]

I recognize that most people, rather than actually developing a construct that identifies the existence of a god as having a reasonable (or even just even) likelihood, actually come to their belief on the basis of an argument from ignorance that they then back-fill with a whole lot of claptrap.

Do you have data to back up this claim? What is its probability of being correct? Has it been independently verified?
Just teasing. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

I actually agree (with the methodology, not the conclusions).
My examination of the evidence and lack of evidence yielded a different probability that warranted a different conclusion.
You are not bound by my evidence any more than I am bound by your evidence.
... but at least we both made our choices with our eyes open rather than closing our eyes and just making a wild guess.

 

[Sapiens]

Do you have data to back up this claim? What is its probability of being correct? Has it been independently verified?
Just teasing. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

I actually agree (with the methodology, not the conclusions).
My examination of the evidence and lack of evidence yielded a different probability that warranted a different conclusion.
You are not bound by my evidence any more than I am bound by your evidence.
... but at least we both made our choices with our eyes open rather than closing our eyes and just making a wild guess.

It is the absolute lack of data that makes the probability approach zero. Since you come up with a different probability I would be indebted to you were you to share your data and conclusions.

 

[raph]

There are of course no real proofs that God exist, but for me it is enough, to not be an atheist.

1. I think, that in this world, every effect has a cause. So I think there needs to be a first cause, that is not subject to cause and effect, for the world to exist.
2. Prayers work sometimes and make me feel good.
3. following God's law is good for me

The biggest one for me is this: If you want to believe, there is nothing stopping you.

There is no real argument that God doesn't exist. So we might aswell be optimists, and believe in life after death. I was an atheist, but one day I found out this truth.
It is a decision, wether in your world God exists.
Believe in God is not something that can be proven to be false. Believers are not stupid people, who are ignorant of the truth. They are optimists. Theistic belief is as much true as atheistic believe. I have been there. I could start being an atheist now, and I would probably think that it is true. But I am an optimist, believe in life after death and in a deity, Who loves me. And I am not stupid for being a believer, there is no proof for atheism, and theism feels as true as atheism for me. I am just an optimist.

I think that every atheist could start believing now, and find out that theism is as true as atheism. If you don't like it and want more freedom, it is okay.. But it is a question of taste and not one of truth.

 

[Skwim]

There are of course no real proofs that God exist, but for me it is enough, to not be an atheist.

So, if I understand you, you believe because you don't want to not believe. Gotta say, I haven't heard that one before.

1. I think, that in this world, every effect has a cause. So I think there needs to be a first cause, that is not subject to cause and effect, for the world to exist.

Spoken like a true determinist.

2. Prayers work sometimes and make me feel good.

Sure about that. That prayers work? What evidence do you have that it couldn't be something else?

3. following God's law is good for me

How about if they were concocted by man. Would they be just as good for you?

The biggest one for me is this: If you want to believe, there is nothing stopping you.

Are you saying that god exists because there's nothing stopping you from believing he does? Would unicorns exist for you if there's nothing stopping you from believing they do?

There is no real argument that God doesn't exist. So we might aswell be optimists, and believe in life after death.

If there's no real argument that unicorns don't exist would it be reasonable to believe everything people have said about them?

Believe in God is not something that can be proven to be false. Believers are not stupid people, who are ignorant of the truth. They are optimists. Theistic belief is as much true as atheistic believe.

Not sure what you mean by atheistic belief being true, but all that atheists are saying is that the convincing evidence for god's existence just isn't there, just like the convincing evidence for the existence of unicorns isn't there. On the other hand, your assertion that the elements of your theistic belief are true demands evidence if not proof. And to the atheist, so far it doesn't make the grade.

 

[atpollard]

It is the absolute lack of data that makes the probability approach zero.

My jest about providing your data and the certainty of your conclusions was aimed at your claims of why most people believe what they believe.
The lack of reproducible objective data on God may be described as an "absolute lack of data that makes the probability approach zero".
That is not an illogical position or conclusion concerning the existence of God.
However, I find it unlikely that you have actually gathered any quantifiable data at all on why people hold specific beliefs ... at best you probably have anecdotal evidence that leads you to state an opinion that they "come to their belief on the basis of an argument from ignorance".
There is not an "absolute lack of data" on why people believe.

Since you come up with a different probability I would be indebted to you were you to share your data and conclusions.

I doubt that.
It would largely be both subjective and non-reproducible.
Furthermore, some of it is statistical and you have undoubtedly heard the odds and rejected them as well as logical arguments such as 'first cause'.
I found the subjective statistical data made God a remote possibility, but one worth examining further.
I found the correlation between how scripture describes human nature and what a hypothetical God might be like intriguing, preserving a plausibility that the God of the OT and NT may in fact be The hypothetical God (note that other sacred writings which I examined failed this test of plausibility IMO).
A fully personal and subjective examination of the veracity of the hypothetically plausible God, convinced me that a preponderance of the evidence supported his existence.
Pursuit of answers to the questions "What is this probable God like?" and "What does this probable God want from me?" led to completely metaphysical (and therefore utterly subjective and non-quantifiable) proof that God does exist and his name is Jesus Christ. The entire world is free to reject this truth, but to me it has a probability of truth approaching one over zero ... a virtual certainty.

Unfortunately, my data will not help you.
You will need to find your own data and conclusions (which you already have).

 

[kepha31]

When you can demonstrate that metaphysical arguments are meaningful I will be happy to consider them ... until such time they are little more than naval gazing.

Again, you affirm my point. You reject metaphysical arguments not because of their own merits but because you have already made up your mind they have no validity. It won't matter what or how they are demonstrated.

I need no reason to not have a belief in something. Verily, believing in something demands a trigger, an indicator, at least some sort of evidence that falls short of proof.

Belief is not blind acceptance. That is an atheistic premise imposed on theists and it's false. Faith and reason are compatible, dichotomizing them is erroneous.

I do not reject belief in a god, I reject the concept of belief itself. I work hard to maintain a view of the universe that is based on probability and likelihood rather than belief or non-belief. I find the concept of a god to have a rather low probability, I recognize that most people, rather than actually developing a construct that identifies the existence of a god as having a reasonable (or even just even) likelihood, actually come to their belief on the basis of an argument from ignorance that they then back-fill with a whole lot of claptrap.

Then why assert a dogma of probability and likelihood, then dismiss theists for having dogmas? It looks to me like a double standard.

Your idea of a rational warrant for belief in a deity is an oxymoron unworthy of serious consideration or attention by itself, it requires more than just your say-so. Without some form of rational support, without some form of objective evidence, it is nothing more than another unsuccessful attempt to put belief and non-belief on the same level and making the issue merely a matter of opinion.

What would be the point? A rational warrant for belief is all "navel gazing", isn't it? And your dogmatic probability and likelihood is rational and mine is claptrap? Isn't that what you are saying?

 

[Sapiens]

My jest about providing your data and the certainty of your conclusions was aimed at your claims of why most people believe what they believe.

OK

The lack of reproducible objective data on God may be described as an "absolute lack of data that makes the probability approach zero".
That is not an illogical position or conclusion concerning the existence of God.

I'm glad you can recognize that.

However, I find it unlikely that you have actually gathered any quantifiable data at all on why people hold specific beliefs ... at best you probably have anecdotal evidence that leads you to state an opinion that they "come to their belief on the basis of an argument from ignorance".
There is not an "absolute lack of data" on why people believe.

There is data on what it is that people believe makes them believe, but nothing I've ever seen (at least hard and fast) on what actually sits behind their motivation. In my experience, and I suspect that were you to take the time analyzing threads on any broad spectrum religious debate forum, at the base is usually an appeal to ignorance ... the old, "well ... what else could it be?"

I doubt that.

Please don't doubt it. If you have an alternative data set that is amiable to any sort of statistical analysis (even if just a line connecting the limits) I'd be interested.

It would largely be both subjective and non-reproducible.

Ah ... so you do not have an alternative data set or analysis, just personal opinions.

Furthermore, some of it is statistical and you have undoubtedly heard the odds and rejected them as well as logical arguments such as 'first cause'.

You are wise to understand that the apologists' analysis of the odds of the universe being fine tuned for humans and such (is that what you are referring to so obliquely?) if fatally flawed by a woeful and willful misunderstanding and misuse of prospective vs. respective statistics. As to first cause ... I see that as a simply a limitation of humans with our short life span and even shorter attention span. We can not imagine anything in the natural world that is without beginning or end so we rev up an argument from ignorance and call it "God." I just say, "I don't know ... (perhaps) yet." I may never know, we may never know, and I accept that without the need to invent a supernatural answer.

I found the subjective statistical data made God a remote possibility, but one worth examining further.

In any scientific study it is good to keep it all possibilities on the table for as long as possible. But expending a whole lot of effort (or even coming back to, unless brought back there by the data set) on possibilities with probabilities down in the noise, is neither good science nor clear thinking. It reeks of a need to fill some need other than a pursuit of knowledge for knowledge's sake.

I found the correlation between how scripture describes human nature and what a hypothetical God might be like intriguing, preserving a plausibility that the God of the OT and NT may in fact be The hypothetical God (note that other sacred writings which I examined failed this test of plausibility IMO).

IMHO historical novelists like Bernard Cornwell, who walk a totally fictional character through actual historical settings and occurrences, where their fictional characters not only interact with real historical figures but supply explanations to unsolved historical mysteries. We do not know who killed the Tippoo Sultan, but Cornwell has the fictional Richard Sharpe do the deed in or near the Water Gate, where the Tippoo's body was actually found. Fraser tells a seamless (far more seamless than the Bible) story that, given suspension of disbelief in the reality of Richard Sharpe, would cause one to say, with a high level of personal confidence, "Richard Sharpe killed the Tippoo." The Bible is not even that good.

A fully personal and subjective examination of the veracity of the hypothetically plausible God, convinced me that a preponderance of the evidence supported his existence.

Again, what evidence? There is no evidence, all I see you presenting is wishful thinking born of an appeal to ignorance.

Pursuit of answers to the questions "What is this probable God like?" and "What does this probable God want from me?" led to completely metaphysical (and therefore utterly subjective and non-quantifiable) proof that God does exist and his name is Jesus Christ.

Please, first present some creditable contemporaneous evidence that Christ existed before you elevate him to godhood.

The entire world is free to reject this truth, but to me it has a probability of truth approaching one over zero ... a virtual certainty.

Yet you say this with nothing more than a personal feeling to support it. While you have a right to whatever personal opinions you wish, rational people have the right to question your (fill in the blank: veracity, analysis, sanity, opinion, etc.) when you present such a view in public.

Unfortunately, my data will not help you.

It does not appear to me that you have any data to offer, just anecdotes of your own journey ... which is not without meaning, but is off the topic.

You will need to find your own data and conclusions (which you already have).

True, true.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Nope. We are bound by our morality just as the religious are bound by theirs. There's no proof of hell so the punishment doesn't work as well as earthly punishment.

I think the point he was trying to get across is that if there is no afterlife and no ultimate Judge, that there is no real justice in this world. The evil people just get away with it and the innocent who suffer never get their recompense. In other words, no one gets what they deserve. This a good point, imo.

 

[kepha31]

Natural "laws" (themselves metaphysical abstractions in a large sense, even though they have to do with matter) still have to attain their remarkable organizing abilities at some point. One either explains them by natural laws or by humbly bowing to divine teleology at some point as an explanation every bit as plausible as a scenario which boils down to materialism any way you cut the cake (everything is explained by material processes).

Matter becomes god in the atheist/materialist/naturalist view, as far as I am concerned, and this is patently obvious, because in the godless universe, matter has the inherent power to do everything by itself, which Christians believe God caused, by putting these potentialities and actual characteristics into matter and natural laws, being their ultimate Creator and even Ongoing Preserver and Sustainer.

Quite obviously, then, since all these marvels which we observe in the universe are attributed to matter, just as we attribute the same capacities and designs to God's creative power, from our perspective, matter is the atheist's god, in which he places extraordinary faith; more faith even than we place in God, because it is far more difficult to explain everything that god-matter does by science alone. Yet atheists manage to believe this anyway because they refuse to acknowledge a God behind all the Design. Indeed, this is faith of the most un-rational, childlike kind. It is quite humorous, then, to observe the constant charge that we Christians have the blind, childlike, gullible, fideistic faith, rather than "rational, intellectual, sophisticated" atheists who possess it in far greater measure.

Babylonian idols, c. 18th-16th century B.C.

Ancient polytheist idolaters are put to shame by the trillions and
trillions of gods of modern atheist idolatrous polytheism

Such belief is, in effect and in substance, closely-examined, a kind of poytheistic idolatry of the crudest, most primitive sort, which puts to shame the pagan worship and incredulities of the ancient Babylonians, Philistines, Aztecs, and other primitive groups. They believed that their silver amulets and wooden idols could make the sun shine or defeat an enemy or cause crops to flourish. The polytheistic materialist is far, far more religious than that: he thinks that trillions of his Atom-gods and their distant relatives, the Cell-gods, can make absolutelyeverything in the universe occur, of their own power, possessed eternally either in full or in inevitably-unfolding potentiality.

One might call this (to coin a phrase) Deo-Atomism ("belief that the Atom is God"). The omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, ubiquitous (if not omnipresent) Atom (especially trillions of them) can do absolutely everything that the Christian God can do, and for little or no reason which we can understand (i.e., why and how the Atom-God came to possess such powers in the first place). The Deo-Atomist worships his trillions of gods unreservedly, with the most perfect, trusting, non-rational faith imaginable. He is what sociologists call a "true believer."

http://socrates58.blogspot.ca/2006/12/atheists-boundless-faith-in-deo.html​

 

[Ouroboros]

Your best argument that god exists

Simple as that.

Identify your god and convince us that it exists.

Well, I am.