The Stage is Yours.

[FallentoReason]

I've noticed that there's been quite a flux of new theist members in the past few days. I personally think that's awesome for this forum. I've also noticed that the thread about trying to prove God doesn't exist has become quite the battle field. So I thought I would make this thread and ask my question:

What are your arguments in favour of God? I mean, it's of no use to say that atheists can't disprove God. However true it might be, it doesn't then follow that God necessarily exists. So I would very much like to see you guys collectively give arguments to back up the claim.

The stage is yours!

[Rayaan]

*steps in shyly*

Well, I don't think that there is any solid and undeniable evidence for the existence of God. However, I do believe that there are possible clues (or signs) of His existence. And some of those clues are present in things that we see every day such as the variety of living things, the plants, the foods that we eat, the water that we drink, sex, reproduction, our brains, our hearts, emotions, intelligence, consciousness, the earth, and many other things. To me, all of these things are clues for the existence of God, or the existence of something intelligent operating in the universe, whether it is a person, a program, a field of consciousness, or whatever it is. In other words, I believe that there is a mind behind all of this and not simply a result of blind and accidental forces because that seems very unlikely to me although still possible.

I don't actually know what is Allah (or God). As Muslims, we only claim to know Allah's secondary attributes (which are mentioned in the Quran), but we do not know Allah's primary attribute as the Quran says, "No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision. He is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things" (6:103). And He doesn't show Himself to us directly, but we believe that He manifests Himself in other ways, i.e. through the Prophets, the scriptures, and through His creations.

If God revealed Himself, then there wouldn't be any value or reward in believing in Him because He already showed Himself. It would be kind of like giving away the answer.

I don't think that it's possible to prove God through logical arguments either. Why? Because to do that we have to know certain things and/or qualities of God which are not possible to know, and therefore, we can't be too sure if all the premises are true or not. We have to understand God's essential nature (or His primary attribute) before we attempt to form any ontological proofs, but that is not possible since God is something/someone beyond our comprehension.

But then the question is, what are the reasons for me thinking that this specific god and this specific religion is most likely to be true out of all the other ones?

I've made a much longer post where I answered that question and I put down more of my ideas in the thread below:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-11855.html

[fr0d0]

The Christian God neccessarily exists as the only reasonable conclusion (world view). All other conclusions fail.

The proposition that empiricism alone can inform a world view is a contradicting metaphysical claim.

---

@Rayaan
Everything is and isn't proof of god. Assuming God everything is him.
I think you highlight a conflict in your reasoning attributing complexity to God whilst at the same time claiming scientific truths. (I'm paraphrasing what ive seen you write and widely stated Islamic position on that)

[Napoléon]

The Christian God neccessarily exists as the only reasonable conclusion (world view). All other conclusions fail.

So, so much fail.

The proposition that empiricism alone can inform a world view is a contradicting metaphysical claim.

Ergo god. I see the connection thar.

[fr0d0]

No, ergo God because of the positive reason. The disproof proves nothing besides that which is disproven :p

[Napoléon]

No, ergo God because of the positive reason. The disproof proves nothing besides that which is disproven :p

Positive reason? What? You're referring to this?

"The Christian God neccessarily exists as the only reasonable conclusion (world view). All other conclusions fail."

So what about Islam? Or Judaism, or Hinduism, or Sikhism, or Buddhism, or every other bunch of ism's I cannot think of.

All other conclusions fail you say?

But not yours? Ohhh, ok. But how then did you come to the conclusion that all others failed?

Was it by... Empiricism by any chance?

[Rayaan]

@Rayaan
Everything is and isn't proof of god. Assuming God everything is him.
I think you highlight a conflict in your reasoning attributing complexity to God whilst at the same time claiming scientific truths. (I'm paraphrasing what ive seen you write and widely stated Islamic position on that)

Technically, I was actually attributing complexity to my belief in some kind of an intelligence or a mind in the universe which would be God/Allah/or whatever name you want to call it. I never said that complexity necessarily implies the existence of God, though, unlike you where you simply said that the Christian God "necessarily exists as the only reasonable conclusion" without providing any reasoning.

Also, you haven't pointed out exactly which of my scientific claims are in conflict according to your opinion and/or why they are in conflict. Easier said than done.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

The Christian God neccessarily exists as the only reasonable conclusion (world view). All other conclusions fail.

The proposition that empiricism alone can inform a world view is a contradicting metaphysical claim.

[Reforged]

I would be interested to learn what the Christian God has over the Muslim Allah or vicer versa, aren't they equal in terms of implausability?
For that matter what do either have over the other countless religions that populate the world?
Can you disprove them?

[Napoléon]

More Christians in Wales than there are Muslims. That's what makes fr0d0 a Christian and not a Muslim.