List of reasons to believe God exists?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'll cuss out a wrench, and because of the situations that lead me to cussing out a wrench it's a wonder I still have fingers.  The notion of being favored (or cursed) by the gods is a common one.  I, like you, think that it's informed at least to some extent by the same thing that makes me feel as though the wrench is trying to get me maimed.

The amusing bit, ofc, is that most of us realize that the wrench is doing no such thing (when we're done calling it;s mother a whore, obviously)..but some of us retain that feeling in the form of an amorphous floating intent when we put the wrench down. It's difficult to determine where, at any point in this..we're discussing a god or a reason to believe in gods..unless we're using the term reason -very- loosely (which I'm certain that every single believer in this thread has, in this thread, so I guess there's that).

Me..if I had to name the "cosmic fucker with"...would I call it god? No. If I wanted to pick from superstition I'd call it miasma, or fortune.

[henryp]

Do you think sharing a species designation is enough to objectively invest me in the well-being of 8 billion other humans?

This isn't about being emotionally invested in the well-being of all your fellow human beings. The discussion is about what morality should be like, regardless of whether you choose to invest in that or not.

Doesn't that seem silly? It seems silly to me. But you need that premise for harm being objectively bad.

Nah, I don't need that premise to be true. That's open to discussion. Just be real with me, and don't give me an explanation that involves a practically non-existent entity.

1) I'm an atheist.  You're an atheist. Why do you keep bringing up what religious people think?  It's like tourettes with you people on here. 
2) The discussion is about whether humans being harmed is objectively immoral.  Which is tricky, because you're going to have a hard time pulling up morality in the lab.  So right of the bat, if you are a believer in science and 'show me proof', objective morality probably isn't for you.  But it sounds like you're just getting into this stuff.  I think you'll find that most people here think objective morality is dopey idea.  You just caught a bad break that the person you were taking the side of held such a lousy opinion.

[Haipule]

Theists have "reasons" to believe that god exists, just no good reasons to believe such.

Most theists remind me of bad hold 'em players. The kind that go all in with 3 and seven, off suit hole card and a ton of faith that gawd will fill the inside straight on the flop.

Yet, how many times are we betting big enough to scare them of with a pair of aces because we don't want to see the flop! They stay with us with a 7, 3 off suit, for God only knows why, they bet without bluffing, and get their card on the river! Shit! In the long run, I will eat them alive! Probability math speaking.

[Amarok]

1. Because this is a forum were said topics are talked about . But if you regard it as such a waste then why are you still here? . 

2. This shit has already been explained over and over . Your starting to sound like a creationist . But your free to join them in denial of the obvious .

[Haipule]

This isn't about being emotionally invested in the well-being of all your fellow human beings. The discussion is about what morality should be like, regardless of whether you choose to invest in that or not.


Nah, I don't need that premise to be true. That's open to discussion. Just be real with me, and don't give me an explanation that involves a practically non-existent entity.

1) I'm an atheist.  You're an atheist. Why do you keep bringing up what religious people think?  It's like tourettes with you people on here. 
2) The discussion is about whether humans being harmed is objectively immoral.  Which is tricky, because you're going to have a hard time pulling up morality in the lab.  So right of the bat, if you are a believer in science and 'show me proof', objective morality probably isn't for you.  But it sounds like you're just getting into this stuff.  I think you'll find that most people here think objective morality is dopey idea.  You just caught a bad break that the person you were taking the side of held such a lousy opinion.

Reality is relative. Morality is relative. How can we be objective when our 5 senses are all telling us different things. And what's wrong with that? It seems pointless then to argue relative things like how much I hate lima beans! Truth then is not relative reality: it is absolute! So, to make "truth" relative also seems pointless. "What is truth?"--Pontius Pilot

[henryp]

1. Because this is a forum were said topics are talked about . But if you regard it as such a waste then why are you still here? . 

2. This shit has already been explained over and over . Your starting to sound like a creationist . But your free to join them in denial of the obvious .

Too get wisdom from ewe of coarse.  Hoo wouldn't want too tap into you're intellect.

[Mystic]

What you're doing by saying "Hitler is evil, right?"  Is trojan horsing a bunch of your beliefs in a more palatable form.  I don't think humans have value.  I don't believe in morality.  I don't think existence is bettered or worsened in any way by humans being murdered.  In fact, I don't think there is even a measurement of the state of existence.  It just is.  

But by presenting "Hitler is evil, right?" everybody has to agree on all the things that go into Hitler being evil.  I'm familiar with the strategy, because as a christian apologist in my younger years, I did the same thing.

I agree with William Lane Craig that people just give lip service against free-will and morality, everyone actually believes in these things, no one actually doesn't believe in these things.

Frankly, I don't believe Atheists when they say God has not been proven to them, a few might be like that, but there is a great amount that isn't. They lack faith and don't believe, fine, doesn't mean it hasn't been proven.

There is another argument I made that is along the following lines that summarize it:

If objective morality is not real, we would not know an objective moral fact.
We know objective morality requires an absolute source and origin and judge that maintains it if it were real.
That is an objective moral fact we know to be true.
Therefore morality is real.


Premise 2 is not really disputable with you. So perhaps premise 1? I can explain, elaborate, and support it, and I have had a discussion on this premise in the past as a Deist.

[henryp]

What you're doing by saying "Hitler is evil, right?"  Is trojan horsing a bunch of your beliefs in a more palatable form.  I don't think humans have value.  I don't believe in morality.  I don't think existence is bettered or worsened in any way by humans being murdered.  In fact, I don't think there is even a measurement of the state of existence.  It just is.  

But by presenting "Hitler is evil, right?" everybody has to agree on all the things that go into Hitler being evil.  I'm familiar with the strategy, because as a christian apologist in my younger years, I did the same thing.

I agree with William Lane Craig that people just give lip service against free-will and morality, everyone actually believes in these things, no one actually doesn't believe in these things.

Frankly, I don't believe Atheists when they say God has not been proven to them, a few might be like that, but there is a great amount that isn't. They lack faith and don't believe, fine, doesn't mean it hasn't been proven.

There is another argument I made that is along the following lines that summarize it:

If objective morality is not real, we would not know an objective moral fact.
We know objective morality requires an absolute source and origin and judge that maintains it if it were real.
That is an objective moral fact we know to be true.
Therefore morality is real.


Premise 2 is not really disputable with you. So perhaps premise 1? I can explain, elaborate, and support it, and I have had a discussion on this premise in the past as a Deist.

There's no way to truly be certain of anything outside our reality, because we only have access to the rules of the reality we are in.  

So for premise 2, I don't know that to be true.  I don't have access to a reality where objective morality exists, so I can't say what it would take for it to logically make sense.  We have some intuitive guesses, I suppose.  But really we're saying there'd have to be a lot of unknown stuff I don't think exists in to make this other thing I don't think exists possible.  But when you're talking about things that don't exist, as you say in premise 1, you can't ever really have facts about it.

[Amarok]

Too get wisdom from ewe of coarse.  Hoo wouldn't want too tap into you're intellect.

1. Mocking my grammar how original 

2. It's clear you have not even scratched the bark let alone tapped anything

---

What you're doing by saying "Hitler is evil, right?"  Is trojan horsing a bunch of your beliefs in a more palatable form.  I don't think humans have value.  I don't believe in morality.  I don't think existence is bettered or worsened in any way by humans being murdered.  In fact, I don't think there is even a measurement of the state of existence.  It just is.  

But by presenting "Hitler is evil, right?" everybody has to agree on all the things that go into Hitler being evil.  I'm familiar with the strategy, because as a christian apologist in my younger years, I did the same thing.

I agree with William Lane Craig that people just give lip service against free-will and morality, everyone actually believes in these things, no one actually doesn't believe in these things.

Frankly, I don't believe Atheists when they say God has not been proven to them, a few might be like that, but there is a great amount that isn't. They lack faith and don't believe, fine, doesn't mean it hasn't been proven.

There is another argument I made that is along the following lines that summarize it:

If objective morality is not real, we would not know an objective moral fact.
We know objective morality requires an absolute source and origin and judge that maintains it if it were real.
That is an objective moral fact we know to be true.
Therefore morality is real.


Premise 2 is not really disputable with you. So perhaps premise 1? I can explain, elaborate, and support it, and I have had a discussion on this premise in the past as a Deist.

No matter how much you assert this nonsense Mystic. It does not stop being nonsense. And you have been refuted over and over and over . Your a broken record player at this point .And Craig has gone from a champion of Thomist apologetics to a laughable meme .

[henryp]

Too get wisdom from ewe of coarse.  Hoo wouldn't want too tap into you're intellect.

1. Mocking my grammar how original 

2. It's clear you have not even scratched the bark let alone tapped anything

I thought the way I mocked it was fairly original.