List of reasons to believe God exists?

[Catholic_Lady]

...

I kind of ran out of time on the previous reply...

A question, for you (or others).

In a hypothetical (from your perspective) world with no deity, do you suspect we'd still see religion and morality playing a big role in human history?

It's really hard to answer that since I don't think any of us would be here at all if it weren't for a sort of higher force.

Honestly, I dont think so. As far as morality goes, while I believe in evolution and evolutionary behavior and all that, I still do think it was planned/foreseen to be this way. As you can recall, i believe in natural law. So I think nature and the way the world works is specifically designed with these moral laws in place, which is why we can discover them through logic and observation of our world. In other words, everything just seems "a little too perfect." If a God didn't exist and we really were just purely material accidents, i don't think things would be quite as ordered in terms of morality, knowing goodness from evil, etc. I can't really say how I think they would be like instead... perhaps more animalistic without an existance of good and evil? Just that I think things are the way they are as a result of an intelligent designer.

As for religion, I think the same principles apply. I can see how religion was a part of the evolutionary process and survival of the fittest, but I think it was designed to be that way, if you will.

---

I'd also say to theists that reply, if you want to ignore the dipshit atheists that always flood these types threads, and just talk with me (and of course the other non dipshit atheists), that'd be cool and appreciated.  I'm sincerely interested in what you have to say.  But it seems like it's always a race to get a conversation going before the same boring people show up and say the same boring shit over and over and over.

Good call btw.

[The Grand Nudger]

@Succubus
The compulsion to publish is immense, nevertheless her comment is spot on, but only half the story.  Moral realism -is- the majority meta-ethical paradigm..but it's held and advanced predominantly by atheists in a framework that makes no mention of any gods. How a person concludes gods from that, frankly, is beyond me.

[Simon Moon]

We know the Big Bang caused the birth of the universe when a small singularity expanded into the cosmos as we know them today.

Not so.

The universe could have always existed in another form (singularity). All we know if that the BB caused the universe to expand into its present state.

2. The life and death of Jesus. (There is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed as a Jewish man from the Middle East when the Romans were in rule, and that He was crucified by one of the Roman leaders of the time - Punctious Pilot.)

The evidence is not quite as strong as you are claiming. But, yes, it is likely that Jesus is based on some historical figure (or figures). But so what? The fact that he probably existed as real person provides zero evidence for any of the supernatural god claims attributed to him.

The people back then lived in a milieu where many people and events had supernatural connotations. It is not unusual for god/men to emerge from that environment.

3. The rapid fire spread of early Christianity during a time when there was no easy transportation or communication technologies. I feel some extraordinary things must have happened for so many people to be so convinced so quickly.

Until Constantine, it actually did not spread as fast as many believe. It took a conquering soldier to spread it.

If it wasn't for Constantine, you would most likely be a Zoroastrian, and I'd still be an atheist.

4. Jesus' close friends who actually lived with him were SO convinced that He was the real deal and not some fraud, that they ALL voluntarily died horrible painful deaths for Him... when they could have just denounced Him and went on with their lives. 

This is going to be a bit long:


Peter: Although Peter’s death is vaguely alluded to in some parts of the New Testament (e.g. John 21:18; 2 Peter 1:13-15), the actual scene and manner of his death is nowhere to be found within it. Instead, the legendary account of saint Peter being crucified upside down in Rome is first recorded possibly over a century later in the apocryphal Acts of Peter (c. 150 – 200 CE). Modern scholars have doubts that Peter ever even went to Rome (seeing as Paul makes no mention of Peter being there in his Epistle to the Romans, even though tradition claims that Peter traveled there first, and the fact that Peter allegedly founding the church at Rome would serve as propaganda for the leadership of the city’s congregation). The Acts of Peter also includes events such as Peter causing a dog to speak human language, raising a smoked tuna fish from the dead, and battling a magical flying magician named Simon. Apologists quote mine one of the four events above to bolster their arguments. Guess which one it is?

Andrew (Peter’s Brother): After Paul and Peter, the New Testament says even less about the other apostles and many of the later apocryphal accounts of their deaths become even further distant and less reliable (yes, I know that is hard to believe). For one, the Acts of Andrew (c. 150 – 200 CE) records that he was crucified in the Achaean city of Patras. This account is written possibly over a century later, but it could be believable, right? Well, if you also believe the first couple paragraphs of the Acts of Andrew, where Andrew cures a blind man, raises a boy from the dead, and magically summons an earthquake to kill a woman who was trying to have sex with her own son (rather than just killing the woman directly). Andrew later magically heals everyone else who was hurt by the collateral damage of this magical earthquake.

James the son of Zebedee: Here is the grand and detailed narrative of his valiant death:

“It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword.” (Acts 12:1-2)

Surely he was killed because Herod Agrippa and his men, like Orwellian thought police, hunted down James to force him to deny what he knew about the truth of the resurrection! Um, it doesn’t say that. Surely James was tortured and given many opportunities to admit the resurrection was false and be spared, but he confessed its truth each time! Um, nothing about that either. Instead we just have a brief sentence with no details at all about the specifics of James’ death. Later in the chapter an angel appears and helps Peter magically escape from prison, despite being guarded by four squads of soldiers. So magic still surrounds this brief and factually sounding reference. James’ unspecific death, not even a martyrdom since there is no indication that he could have avoided the death, is the best apologists have to offer in this argument…


Matthew: What became of the former tax collector? Well, traditionally he ministered to the Hebrews and wrote a gospel in Aramaic (though the Gospel of Matthew is written in Greek). However, he is also said to have journeyed to Ethiopia (not in Africa, but south of the Caspian Sea), in order to spread the good news (other places he is rumored to have visited are Parthia, Macedonia, and Syria). Even modern Christian sources acknowledge the dubious nature of his death. The Catholic Encyclopedia (“St. Matthew”) writes, “Of Matthew’s subsequent career we have only inaccurate or legendary data … There is a disagreement as to the place of St. Matthew’s martyrdom and the kind of torture inflicted on him, therefore it is not known whether he was burned, stoned, or beheaded.” Well, at least two traditions have to be false, or more likely all three are.

Most of the rest of the disciples' deaths are equally dubious.

Should I keep going?

5. Morality. With that, I will quote points 1-4 from KingPin back when he was still active here: 

...To me, the notion of objective moral laws means there has to be a law giver. I know this doesn't particularly point to the Christian God, but at least it points to one who cares/is involved, which helps support why I believe in more than just Deism.

There are very well described moral systems, that can be said to be objective (based on the physical attributes of the universe, and well being), that require zero gods.

6. There have been multiple things that have happened which I think cannot be explained by science. To me, the most convincing is the miracle of the sun in Fatima. 

Long ago refuted.

But since when does 'not explained by science' ever mean that some supernatural explanation becomes the best?

7. Finally, and most convincing for me personally is that I myself was witness to one of these inexplicable things. I've made it clear before that I don't want to tell the story here because it is sacred to me and I don't want to open it up to ridicule. But something happened in my childhood house in 2006 (I was 20) that both myself and my mother were present for. And because of what it was and what was involved, I can tell you that it was directly related to Christianity.

...And that concludes my "list". The important thing to remember is that it wasn't any one of these things that convinces me. It's all of them together. When I put these all together, it makes logical sense to me that the Christian God is real. And while I know that none of this is "proof", all of these things compiled together serves as sufficient evidence for me to believe that it is more likely that He exists than to believe that He doesn't.

Sure, I can go interview 1000's of people that claim to have witnessed all sorts of supernatural events related to their, different, religions. How convinced would you be that the 'supernatural' events that they witnessed lead to their religion being true?

[Succubus]

7. Finally, and most convincing for me personally is that I myself was witness to one of these inexplicable things. I've made it clear before that I don't want to tell the story here because it is sacred to me and I don't want to open it up to ridicule.

So this isn't the first time you refer to an inexplicable story you can't refer to?
So why did you refer to it in the first place? Why do you refer to it now? Would you please, pretty please, link me to the first instance.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I think it was Herman Melville who said something like, "why should the creature expect to live as long as his Creator." I always considered a life seeking truth and virtue to be its own reward even if it brings discomfort and sorrow. I even believed that back when I was an atheist. There is a certain romantic heroism in the futile challenge of imposing values on an indifferent universe and asserting one's own meaning in defiance of the on-coming darkness. But that was just me, embracing what was as obvious to me then as it is now. What I did not realize back then though was the deep incoherence and absurdity of a world without some transcendent absolutes. From where I sit now, atheism is no longer even a remote option for me. It's not necessarily irrational in a wild-eyed rejection sort of way, although that's quite evident in some members; but rather, it is a kind of hyper-rationality that devours itself, undermining the premises on which it is built. Here I am talking about atheism as an intellectual commitment with respect to the proposition "God exists," not some trivial ignorance. I guess I would turn the question around. How in the world could anyone find atheism a coherent and satisfying intellectual stance?

[The Grand Nudger]

I think it was Herman Melville who said something like, "why should the creature expect to live as long as his Creator." I always considered a life seeking truth and virtue to be its own reward even if it brings discomfort and sorrow. I even believed that back when I was an atheist. There is a certain romantic heroism in the futile challenge of imposing values on an indifferent universe and asserting one's own meaning in defiance of the on-coming darkness. But that was just me, embracing what was as obvious to me then as it is now. What I did not realize back then though was the deep incoherence and absurdity of a world without some transcendent absolutes. From where I sit now, atheism is no longer even a remote option for me. It's not necessarily irrational in a wild-eyed rejection sort of way, although that's quite evident in some members; but rather, it is a kind of hyper-rationality that devours itself, undermining the premises on which it is built. Here I am talking about atheism as an intellectual commitment with respect to the proposition "God exists," not some trivial ignorance.

Transcendent and intrinsic value doesn't give a fuck whether or not the universe is indifferent.  Your religiosity...to hear you tell the story, hinges on the fact that you're bad at words and logic, respectively. I don't actually believe you, I don't think that your incompetence in either regard is actually the explanation for your religiosity. Plenty of idiots are atheists.

[Catholic_Lady]

WallyM, I have a question for you about morality. As I understand it, you believe morality to be a purely societal construct based around what is best for the community in general, and empathy was evolved to reflect that. Is that correct?

Let's go back to the times of ancient civilizations where a powerful Empire enslaved an entire group of people. Let's use the Egyptians enslaving the Jews as the example. Obviously having slaves is good for the Egyptian community. They rely on it for everything, and without the forced labor of these "lesser people" they wouldn't live the comfortable, high quality life they have. Let's say one of these Egyptians is a sociopath... lacks empathy of any sort and to make matters worse has a particular fetish for violence and forced sex. He's super horny one night and so decides to take care of these urges by going out and raping a Jewish slave girl. He's not going to get in trouble for it because no one who matters will believe her instead of him, and even if they did, they wouldn't care... it's just a slave girl anyway. He feels zero remorse, and in his mind, it's not big deal at all. Also, it won't have a single negative effect at all in his community.

Is what he did still immoral? If so, why?

[GrandizerII]

I think it was Herman Melville who said something like, "why should the creature expect to live as long as his Creator." I always considered a life seeking truth and virtue to be its own reward even if it brings discomfort and sorrow. I even believed that back when I was an atheist. There is a certain romantic heroism in the futile challenge of imposing values on an indifferent universe and asserting one's own meaning in defiance of the on-coming darkness. But that was just me, embracing what was as obvious to me then as it is now. What I did not realize back then though was the deep incoherence and absurdity of a world without some transcendent absolutes. From where I sit now, atheism is no longer even a remote option for me. It's not necessarily irrational in a wild-eyed rejection sort of way, although that's quite evident in some members; but rather, it is a kind of hyper-rationality that devours itself, undermining the premises on which it is built. Here I am talking about atheism as an intellectual commitment with respect to the proposition "God exists," not some trivial ignorance. I guess I would turn the question around. How in the world could anyone find atheism a coherent and satisfying intellectual stance?

Hyper-rationality ... lol ...

---

WallyM, I have a question for you about morality. As I understand it, you believe morality to be a purely societal construct based around what is best for the community in general, and empathy was evolved to reflect that. Is that correct?

Let's go back to the times of ancient civilizations where a powerful Empire enslaved an entire group of people. Let's use the Egyptians enslaving the Jews as the example. Obviously having slaves is good for the Egyptian community. They rely on it for everything, and without the forced labor of these "lesser people" they wouldn't live the comfortable, high quality life they have. Let's say one of these Egyptians is a sociopath... lacks empathy of any sort and to make matters worse has a particular fetish for violence and forced sex. He's super horny one night and so decides to take care of these urges by going out and raping a Jewish slave girl. He's not going to get in trouble for it because no one who matters will believe her instead of him, and even if they did, they wouldn't care... it's just a slave girl anyway. He feels zero remorse, and in his mind, it's not big deal at all. Also, it won't have a single negative effect at all in his community.

Is what he did still immoral? If so, why?

Bible God didnt seem to think this was immoral. Why then is it immoral in your views? Maybe because it has something to do with reasoning that doesnt invoke God.

[Jehanne]

1. The majority of philosophers recognize the existence of objective moral facts.
   

The majority of philosophers don't give any sort of fuck what other Philosophers have to say, unless of course it helps to promote their latest book.

Most philosophers are atheists.

[Succubus]

what caused the very first physical thing to exist? It couldn't possibly have materialized itself from nothingness. We know the laws of the natural, physical world calls for physical things to have been the cause of something else...

π
What caused that to exist? Divide a circle by its radius and what figure do you get? From memory it is 3.14159362859, yes it does go on for a bit. The laws of physics are immutable. π is the same in Andromeda as it is here. π Is not caused by anything, it is a property of the universe.