Here is why you should believe in God.

[R00tKiT]

It's fun to ponder.  We may be biological automatons reporting first person perspectives.  I still think that either way, if there's a little man behind the eyes or we're robots...."I" could still know other things.  

We could probably let it ride, and assume that the little man behind the eyes and the robot are both equally capable of rational inference.  Whichever one we happen to be -must- be...since we are, and I can think of no reason why the other would be incapable.  We know that machines can do logic.   

This is hand waving, and I agree with it. It still doesn't amount to rigorous proof for existence. There are no premises I can use to deduce my existence as some forced result.. except my subjective experience and personal awareness. The remarkable thing I am pointing to is that, despite the lack of formal proof... I still affirm that I exist and any further thought on the matter is futile.

There are alot of people who don't interrupt their lives to read or listen to something that would be informative. 

People act on self doubt at all times.  That self doubt might be brought on by some epistemological vacuum...but in the case of reductive theories of consciousness...it's hard to see why. 

I don't think anybody takes the "It's possible I don't exist" line of thought seriously.. it borders on sophistry. And this has nothing to do with the mind-body problem. Either way, our experience of consciousness is still immersing enough to make us feel the way we do, to make us ask these questions, etc. And we don't need to go deeper than what this immersing experience provides for us. That's all we have, basically.

That would be an axiomatic argument.  Do you have a compelling axiomatic argument for the existence of god..such that a person hearing it would find god's existence equally compelling?

I think it's possible to make the existence of a powerful, personal entity a forced result .. for example if I take the usual three premises/axioms;

(1) Something can't come from nothing;

(2) Something can't provide attributes it doesn't/can't have;

(3) Infinite causal regress is impossible

Then we would have, necessarily, a first cause with some desirable attributes. All three premises are defendable, and much more reasonable than their negative counterparts.

Needing good reasons to believe is axiomatic.  I'm not sure what you're clarifying here, or for whom.   I think we can all agree that we all like to have good reasons to believe in anything.  Do you have any of those reasons to share?

Needing good reasons to believe is not any type of formal argument, I think. Our first, instantaneous reflex regarding broken windows and stolen money should apply to the whole universe, basically. Just as the old saying goes " there are no atheists in the foxholes", there are no atheists when money is gone,and the burglar's existence becomes certain even to the most hardcore skeptic.

When stakes are too high - as is the case when we're robbed of our goods, we stop excessive doubt and we become more practical. It's more practical to think that a universe - built on knife edge conditions leading to our existence , was meant to be this way, than to reverse the argument and say any being that came to exist in any world will believe he was meant to exist.

Well, that depends.  Many god claims throughought history - which is to say many claims to good reasons to believe turned out to be natural reactions or events.  In no way separate to be worthy of note as divine™.  There's a literal embarassment of riches to be had here, as to how many times the faithful have exclaimed that some impentrable mystery of god is the only explanation for x...to turn out that sneezes were the explanation for x. 

And believing in these god claims was perfectly justifiable and reasonable. Abraham himself reportedly thought the Moon was god, then turned to the Sun, before *realising* that this ultimate entity doesn't have to be visible. And there is no reason to look for gaps and try to explain them with a god. As I said, we only know the processes, when John eat teryaki ribs at dinner, you can't possibly prove, formally, that John exists, even if you perfectly know the cooking recipe and the complete mechanical process of chewing his food. Nothing in science will lead you to John. And still, we need John to get the whole picture. No lengthy scientific theories can be substitutes for the simple sentence "John had dinner".
Now when one says "God created the universe". It's not a surprise, nor a problem, that nothing in our fields of study leads us to him. It's not a problem that all our breakthroughs in science "can't find god", just as your brilliant understanding of how teryaki ribs are made didn't lead you to John.

No, it isn't.  It's not even -an- explanation.  It's a misunderstanding of natural law.  You believe in a prescriptive lawgiver - that's the kind of law that needs a lawgiver.  Natural law is descriptive.  It's not what anyone says it is or determines it to be, only a description -of- what is.  However things are in any universe, no matter what they are - would be natural law. 

It's true that laws are descriptive, but I don't see how this invalidates my point. If they are descriptive, then they are describing a *carefully built* universe, or at the very least, a universe appearing to be designed, and we only need to act on appearance alone. The prima facie thing again is to warrant a sophisticated creator. Just as breaking into my house and stealing my money is apparently too sophisticated for other batshit explanations like rocks accidently smashing the glass and the wind blowing my money out of the bag.

---

Your argument stupidly assumes that nobody of other religions have ever used the same lingo or tatics.

What I have found in my 19 years of debating online is that every religion has followers who make the same arguments. 

Funny how scientific method always works outside religious bias. But religious bias can never agree on science. 

Scientific method is why a passenger jet will carry a Buddhist and Jew and Hindu and Christian and Muslim. And scientific method is why a computer works in Iran, or Nigeria or Ireland or Japan or South Korea or Saudi Arabia or Mississippi. 

I especially find this logic absurd today, especially knowing that , a microscopic virus is holding the entire planet hostage regardless of nationality, race, religion or politics.

Where did you see religion even mentioned in the post?

---

You can prove a lot of things but not to people who decide the result before looking at the evidence - which is exactly what you are promoting here. Then no amount of evidence can convince you, like let's say people who decided to believe in God say that fossils are created by the devil to make people disbelieve in Jesus. That's why you have to learn how to think first.

Lots of things can convince me. Bring any internal inconsistency/clear mistake/invalid argument in the Qur'an , or in the thousands of authentic sayings of Muhammad you can find in the web. I will gladly leave my religion.