Arguments for a god's existence

[leftace53]

I was wondering about what arguments are used for the existence of god, not only in day to day arguments (there are a few in the High School Atheist guide), but also as presented by theologians/philosophers of religion through rationalism or empiricism (links/names of theologians welcome)? Also why believe in a god (responses by current believers is thoroughly welcomed)?

Maybe this belongs in learning, but it directly relates to religion, and this way, I can get OI responses to why they would believe in a god

Also there might be a thread about this somewhere else, in which case, just throw a link my way please :)

[Demogorgon]

There are a number of different arguments obviously of varying quality, I don't have the time or indeed much inclination to go into them in detail, and not being a believer myself I may not do them justice. But here is one example I came across a while ago:

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html

I won't make any comment on the quality of the argument, needless to say I am unconvinced, but it is a reasonable example I think.

[deLarge]

Arguments for god, or arguments for the belief in god?

[mikelepore]

Arguments for god, or arguments for the belief in god?

Dawkins, 'The God Delusion', page 352, discusses "the belief that it is desirable to believe, even if the belief itself is false." Dawkins there credits Dennett, 'Breaking the Spell' as his own source, and the source of the term "Belief in belief."

[leftace53]

Arguments for god, or arguments for the belief in god?

preferably arguments for god, but I wouldn't mind finding some for the belief as well (other than pascal's wager of course)

Thanks for the link Demogorgon!

[Adi Shankara]

Dawkins, 'The God Delusion', page 352, discusses "the belief that it is desirable to believe, even if the belief itself is false." Dawkins there credits Dennett, 'Breaking the Spell' as his own source, and the source of the term "Belief in belief."

is it belief like the kind of belief in the extremely unlikely, virtually impossible probability that intelligent sentient life would arise in the universe within the Anthropic Principle?

Or is it belief like the belief in the extremely unlikely ability of intelligent alien life in our own universe? (which Dwakins believes)? ;)

[mikelepore]

"Belief in belief" means the belief that belief in God has positive consequences, it leads to us being happy, good, etc., therefore we should try to convince ourselves to believe in God. Pascal's wager is one form of this, where the supposed consequence is reward in the afterlife.

The people who say such things don't seem to care that religion is an existence assertion. It is the assertion that God, the afterlife, etc. exist, which is either true or false.

Personally, I find the statement "it's true FOR ME" to be one of the most irritating things that I hear many people say about religion. Such a statement applies to matters of taste, but is inapplicable to any existence assertion. Each person who takes a stand on whether something in particular exists is either right or wrong, even if we will never find out which it is.

[PilesOfDeadNazis]

Personally, I find the statement "it's true FOR ME" to be one of the most irritating things that I hear many people say about religion. Such a statement applies to matters of taste, but is inapplicable to any existence assertion. Each person who takes a stand on whether something in particular exists is either right or wrong, even if we will never find out which it is.
Usually this is the last resort for so-called Christians who are really just trying to get out of an argument they know won't go well for them. It's usually the more ''I'm a Christian who is going to make Christianity look good to liberals!'' church-goers who use this pathetic attempt at logic, also. It's always fun to watch them get all nervous.

Anywho, for the OP. In my experiance, it's really tough to come across a legitimate argument for the existence of a god outside of space and time. Most ''arguments'' rely almost completely on faith, therefore they rarely have any foundations in physical reality and so aren't really arguments to those of us looking for evidence rather than emotions.

[deLarge]

Dawkins, 'The God Delusion', page 352, discusses "the belief that it is desirable to believe, even if the belief itself is false." Dawkins there credits Dennett, 'Breaking the Spell' as his own source, and the source of the term "Belief in belief."

Eww, Dawkins.

Anyway, I was talking about the function of religion as a coping mechanism, a placebo effect, albeit an effective one. Epistemologically, we believe things to be true if that belief is useful. So, if a belief allows someone to cope emotionally with something, or gives them some sort of confidence, subjectively that belief-concept is essentially 'real'.

As for arguments for theism, that is, the thing-being-believed-in, there are many. The transcendental argument is that objective statements (e.g., morality, statements of fact) must be grounded in an objective supra-universal being in order to actually be objective true. The teleological argument is quite common, arguing that the existence of emergent patterns in nature necessitate the existence of a creator, though by nature this doesn't lend much credence to the idea of a personal god or any specific mythology. There is the ontological argument, which argues that god, by definition, must exist (it's quite complicated, read for yourself at Wikipedia). The cosmological argument is that there must be a prime-mover or first-cause (if the universe is by nature causal, but cannot have caused itself due to infinite regression, and cannot have come from nothing, then it must have been an outside source not subject to our physical laws?).

Then there are epistemic arguments, such as claims of near-death experiences, miracles, or historical revelation.

[Adi Shankara]

Personally, I find the statement "it's true FOR ME" to be one of the most irritating things that I hear many people say about religion. Such a statement applies to matters of taste, but is inapplicable to any existence assertion

okay, then let me ask you this question: do minds other than your own exist, and if so, how do you prove it in a tangible context that they aren't just figments of one's imagination?

better yet, why are hallucinogenics not real? if that is what we perceive and everything we view is subjective to our own world view, what makes that less real than the hairs on your own head?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

okay, then let me ask you this question: do minds other than your own exist, and if so, how do you prove it in a tangible context that they aren't just figments of one's imagination?

If mind is an illusion, then my own consciousness is also an illusion (because I have no reason to believe I am special in that regard) and everyone is a zombie. Therefore it make no difference whether minds exist or not, because everyone including myself acts the same whatever my belief.

So you're asking an incredibly pointless question.


better yet, why are hallucinogenics not real? if that is what we perceive and everything we view is subjective to our own world view, what makes that less real than the hairs on your own head?

Because while I may feel that the floor is rippling while I'm under the influence of LSD, other people who are not under the influence do not report any movement in the floor at all.

[mikelepore]

okay, then let me ask you this question: do minds other than your own exist, and if so, how do you prove it in a tangible context that they aren't just figments of one's imagination?

Yes, other minds exist, and it's unnecessary to prove it.

We don't have to prove everything. Life is a series of actions that assume continuity. With every footstep we have to assume that the ground beneath us won't collapse. If the bridge looks rickety, we may stop and reconsider that assumption, but otherwise we just go. Once we have made the initial attempt to make the roof sturdy, we assume forever afterwards that it won't fall on us. There's no other practical way to live.

A materialist outlook (the laws of nature are never violated) is consistent with that practice. A religious outlook, for example, praying for a special outcome of a chance event, assumes an absense of stability. If there's a a hurricane we get advised to take some time away from rescuing the drowning people so that we may hold a national day of prayer. By this magical thinking, the ability to differentiate between effective and ineffective actions has been impaired.


better yet, why are hallucinogenics not real? if that is what we perceive and everything we view is subjective to our own world view, what makes that less real than the hairs on your own head?

Measurement instruments pointed in the direction of hallucinations don't register anything being there.

It is not true that everything we perceive is subjective. The objective truth of things is demonstrated whenever people get surprised. We have heard of such cases as: - he thought the gun was unloaded, but then he accidentally shot himself - she felt certain that no traffic was coming, but as she crossed the highway a truck ran over her. The ability of reality to surprise us informs us that reality is independent of what we may have thought it was, that is, it is objective.

[Adi Shankara]

Because while I may feel that the floor is rippling while I'm under the influence of LSD, other people who are not under the influence do not report any movement in the floor at all.

but if we can only know others exist through our own subjective perception, how is that in any way a reliable source on what other people experience? If I see everything as a purple zombie, but no one else does... 1.) how would I know that is what no one else sees if I can clearly see it in front of me, and 2.) if I was under the influence of Salvia Divinorum (which does create experience hallucinations), and everyone was telling me strange stuff that wasn't real...how would I know that was or wasn't real life, if it is as real to me as night and day?

tl;dr: if everything is subjective to out own experiences, how do we know we aren't being misled by our own eyes?

[The Feral Underclass]

tl;dr: if everything is subjective to out own experiences, how do we know we aren't being misled by our own eyes?

People are being misled by their eyes. On a day-to-day basis.

[Adi Shankara]

People are being misled by their eyes. On a day-to-day basis.

objectively define being "misled by one's eyes". Who's eyes is the standard for what is objective?

[The Feral Underclass]

objectively define being "misled by one's eyes". Who's eyes is the standard for what is objective?

What are you talking about?

[ChrisK]

I'll post a longer reply later, but the Thomists have alot of arguments for the existance of God. I'd look into Aquinas' arguments for God. He had five if I recall.

[leftace53]

I'll post a longer reply later, but the Thomists have alot of arguments for the existance of God. I'd look into Aquinas' arguments for God. He had five if I recall.

Yup, I got Aquinas', I wonder what Thomists might have augmented on the original Aquinas arguments, I'll look for some summary right after this post :)

[NecroCommie]

There is none. Every single method of thought that would result even in plausible existence of god, is either inconsistent or denies the notion of objective knowledge all together.

[black magick hustla]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_Thomism

this is the best ive encountered so far

[ChrisK]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_Thomism

this is the best ive encountered so far

I would seriously hate having to debate someone like Geach or Anescomb. Analytical Thomists seem like the best of the best in terms of the philosophy of religion. Do you know if any of them expanded on Aquanis' arguments for the existance of god?

[ChrisK]

For those interested here is a summary of Aquanis' arguments for God's existance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinquae_viae

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

but if we can only know others exist through our own subjective perception, how is that in any way a reliable source on what other people experience? If I see everything as a purple zombie, but no one else does... 1.) how would I know that is what no one else sees if I can clearly see it in front of me, and 2.) if I was under the influence of Salvia Divinorum (which does create experience hallucinations), and everyone was telling me strange stuff that wasn't real...how would I know that was or wasn't real life, if it is as real to me as night and day?

tl;dr: if everything is subjective to out own experiences, how do we know we aren't being misled by our own eyes?

Because everything isn't subjective. Money may be an economic fiction but it still has a widely-agreed value. You will drown if submerged in water long enough, no matter what your personal beliefs are regarding water. People will act like people no matter how you treat them - what actual, measurable difference does it make unless you believe in some form of dualism, which thanks to evidence otherwise has its intellectual credentials shattered.

[Adi Shankara]

Because everything isn't subjective. Money may be an economic fiction but it still has a widely-agreed value. You will drown if submerged in water long enough, no matter what your personal beliefs are regarding water. People will act like people no matter how you treat them - what actual, measurable difference does it make unless you believe in some form of dualism, which thanks to evidence otherwise has its intellectual credentials shattered.

You missed my point entirely. how do we know that other minds exist? what if everything is just a photo-play created to explain a gap in our thinking and create a shortcut for intellectual cognitive dissonance?

after all, in an existence that supposedly arose out of nowhere for no reason at all only to give complex life, I don't see how that wouldn't be equally unlikely.

[Raúl Duke]

how do we know that other minds exist?


what if everything is just a photo-play created to explain a gap in our thinking and create a shortcut for intellectual cognitive dissonance?

Well, how do you know that this is true?

You don't, do you?

Ever heard of Occam's Razor?
Accept the less hypothetical/simplest explanation-answer.

The least hypothetical/simplest scenario is that other minds exist compared to the "Matrix" scenario.

[Adi Shankara]

Ever heard of Occam's Razor?
Accept the less hypothetical/simplest explanation-answer.
.

You know, the funny thing about Occam's razor was it was proposed by a Franciscan priest who wanted that simplest explanation answer to be god? I know it's unrelated, but it's just ironic in a way, since the original meaning of the razor was to assist in explaining everything through god.

[mikelepore]

For those interested here is a summary of Aquanis' arguments for God's existance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinquae_viae

You all know how much I hate to bore others by repeating myself {smile} but ....

When I see those kinds of arguments, there is one thing that jumps out at me: The writer is cleverly taking advantage of the ambiguity in the popular use of the word "God."

Even assuming that his argument for the need for some creative agency is solid and persuasive, then the only conclusion he could claim would be the existence of some unknown creative agency. In order to be honest with the reader, Aquinas would then have to suggest throwing the Bible and all other religious dogma into the garbage can, because those teachings go beyond the statement that there exists some sort of creative agency, and they purports to provide details that didn't emerge from his proofs.

It's those unrelated details, added by story tellers, that religion consists of almost entirely. There is not one person in a thousand who uses the word God simply to mean "mysterious creative tendency" and then refrains from adding unrelated assumptions. As soon as a follower of Aquinas's argument says "God, help me escape from this bad situation", the individual is being dishonest, because the assumption that God hears and responds to prayers doesn't follow from the proofs. The only bottom line of the reasoning was the existence of some unknowable creative source. By playing fast-switch with the meaning of the word "God", the use of Aquinas's arguments is dishonest.

[Adi Shankara]

There is not one person in a thousand who uses the word God simply to mean "mysterious creative tendency" and then refrains from adding unrelated assumptions.

Hinduism does. for the ultimate reality, Brahman, it literally came from nowhere and has no form.

[Thirsty Crow]

after all, in an existence that supposedly arose out of nowhere for no reason at all only to give complex life, I don't see how that wouldn't be equally unlikely.
"Reason" is a term that should apply only to human actions. You are misusing the language.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You missed my point entirely. how do we know that other minds exist? what if everything is just a photo-play created to explain a gap in our thinking and create a shortcut for intellectual cognitive dissonance?

I'm asking, what detectable difference does it make?


after all, in an existence that supposedly arose out of nowhere for no reason at all only to give complex life, I don't see how that wouldn't be equally unlikely.

As Menocchio pointed out, only (apparently) thinking beings have reasons. You might as well ask the reason for electromagnetism.

[Adi Shankara]

I'm asking, what detectable difference does it make?



As Menocchio pointed out, only (apparently) thinking beings have reasons. You might as well ask the reason for electromagnetism.

I might as well. why is there such a thing as electromagnetism?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I might as well. why is there such a thing as electromagnetism?

Ask a theoretical physicist. As I understand it, the electromagnetic force was at one point in the history of the universe unified with the three other forces; as the ambient temperature of the universe dropped, the superforce divided into four. Why four forces and not any other number is the sort of stuff they're working on.

And that's the point; they're working on the problem, not blithely assuming that a bunch of primitives had all the answers.