Debate: God Exists

[Neo-Scholastic]

Go on then,...explain why causes have regular effects (for example).

Are you going for an argument from ignorance here? If no one can provide a natural explanation, yours is more likely to be true? You KNOW that doesn't have the slightest bearing on whether your explanation is true. I know you know that.

I'm not attempting to prove that God exists. I am saying that the existence of God is most plausible explanation for the most fundamental questions of human existence. If you have no explanations for those things, then by default God is the best explanation. This has nothing to do with the 'lack of belief' issue. If you believe my conclusions do not follow from the evidence then you should be able to identify the reasons why you believe I have drawn the wrong conclusion.

For example, people who have dedicated their lives to meditation and contemplative prayer have all reported a connection with a divine Other. The reports are similar regardless of whether the practitioners are Hindu yogis, Buddhist monks, Christian nuns, of Sufi mystics. The traditions are largely independent, i.e. they are not borrowing concepts from each other. Those reports are consistent with the philosophical concepts of Necessary Being, Being-As-Such, etc. They are consistent with biblical descriptions of God "I am that I am", "...in whom we live and have our being," etc. They match my own apprehension of the ineffable. They are compatible with the uncanny experiences people from all walks of life and throughout history have described. All that is evidence. The list goes on and the cumulative effect to my mind is very compelling. YMMV, obviously. If you can look at all these things and more and explain it all away then you've done your homework. Now let's go get a Belgium ale at Hopleaf. But if people are going to do the "I just don't believe and its' your job to convince me" routine then I consider them lazy and incurious. They can go drink their Miller Lites alone.