Does a God exist?

[GrandizerII]

Don't mind Iggy.  He's just being an ignoramus for some reason.  I think your cross is very becoming.  Don't let us hold you back.  If you feel a true calling then maybe you're meant for better things?  So are you going to be a proselytizer or just leave our sorry asses down here to fry?  You might try to give poor Steve a hand.

I'm definitely not a proselytizer. In fact, I think my religion is stupid and God is probably not real. I know all that, and yet it's an emotional experience that I can't say no to. It makes me feel better to let go of reason in this one area and believe in miracles.

Is this an attention thing?

[Veritas_Vincit]

No, miracles don't count because only an idiot would believe in magic on here say.

Hearsay (note the spelling) is a pejorative term that describes EVERY historical document. You are attempting to make an exception to the normal standards of assessing historical documents because the content includes miracles.  Your argument is circular. 

As long as you realize you are on shaky philosophical ground, believe whatever you want. Just don't lecture me and other Christians how superior your 'thinking' is.

Lol this from the guy who believes in magic. My thinking isn't especially remarkable, but yours is just plain retarded. I'm still not completely sure you aren't just a troll taking the piss.

[Whateverist]

Don't mind Iggy.  He's just being an ignoramus for some reason.  I think your cross is very becoming.  Don't let us hold you back.  If you feel a true calling then maybe you're meant for better things?  So are you going to be a proselytizer or just leave our sorry asses down here to fry?  You might try to give poor Steve a hand.

I'm definitely not a proselytizer. In fact, I think my religion is stupid and God is probably not real. I know all that, and yet it's an emotional experience that I can't say no to. It makes me feel better to let go of reason in this one area and believe in miracles.

So you're saying you've found these fantastic feelings and just want to keep them to your self.  I think I will start an opposing belief system.  You my friend are no true believer!

[Excited Penguin]

I'm definitely not a proselytizer. In fact, I think my religion is stupid and God is probably not real. I know all that, and yet it's an emotional experience that I can't say no to. It makes me feel better to let go of reason in this one area and believe in miracles.

Is this an attention thing?

Am I being too "visible"? If so, just tell me, and I'll take a long break from the forums. I'm sorry if my activity looks too much like attention-whoring to you, I truly am.

[Whateverist]

I'm definitely not a proselytizer. In fact, I think my religion is stupid and God is probably not real. I know all that, and yet it's an emotional experience that I can't say no to. It makes me feel better to let go of reason in this one area and believe in miracles.

Is this an attention thing?

I wasn't held enough as an infant.  Please, don't judge me.

[Whateverist]

Is this an attention thing?

Am I being too "visible"? If so, just tell me, and I'll take a long break from the forums. I'm sorry if my activity looks too much like attention-whoring to you, I truly am.

Yes, I confess I truly am attention whoring too.

[Excited Penguin]

Damn, this atheist guy is funny as hell. :insert emoticon that doesn't make me look like a dangerous psychopath:

Not that hell is funny like that :insert astonished emoticon:

[Whateverist]

Those imagined emoticons are pretty convincing. Perhaps there is ecumenical hope for our belief systems yet.

[SteveII]

I choose to believe that the authors of the NT were truthful in what they wrote and that the core content was not changed at a later date--both evidenced by the existence of a growing church as little as 15-20 years after Jesus' death. I would expect to see minor contradictions and minor transcribing errors. I believe the life and death of Jesus is one of the most attested to events in ancient history. 

I also believe the denial of the above consists mainly of a belief that miracles do not happen. This is a circular argument because you are asking for evidence that God exists and then say, well, you can't use miracles because...God does not exist.

Jim Jones' cult was a "growing church" until he liquidated it all. Mormonism is a "growing church". How come you believe neither are right, especially seeing as they fit the criteria you give in your post for a justified belief?

I replied to Jor with this:

1) Content of the NT is internally consistent within itself and with the OT. 
2) More historical support for more actual documents written by more than one person
3) Historical support of first century church
4) Person of Jesus is a compelling figure
5) Observations of personal effect of Jesus in the lives of other people
6) Personal experience.

[Pat Mustard]

1) Probably not in a way you will find convincing.

2) Defining god at the outset is backwards, but since you asked: 'god' is subsistent-being, i.e. that-which-exists-as-'god' is being whatever-it-is completely by the power of its own act of being: no other act of being is a necessary condition for that-which-exists-as-god to be 

3) Empirical evidence (EE): 

a) Some things exist on the condition that other thing(s) simultaneously exist. (e.g. I exist on the condition that a certain ordering and configuration of human cells also exist simultaneously with 'me', and the 'ordering and configuration' of those cells exist on the condition that a certain amount and quality of cells exist simultaneously with the 'ordering and configuration', and the 'certain amount and quality of those cells' exist on the condition that a certain ordering and configuration of molecules exist simultaneously with the 'amount and quality of those cells', etc.)

b) No non-abstract (i.e. non-mathematical) actual infinity of things is known to exist (i.e. All aggregates of 'things' are finite aggregates)

Logical axiom (LA): Non-abstract actual infinities cannot exist

Logical Demonstration:

Given EE(a) is true, then either:

i) All things exist on the condition that other thing(s) simultaneously exist, or

ii) At least one thing exists without the condition that other thing(s) exist.

If EE(a) is true, then there is no possibility besides (i) and (ii)

Suppose (i) is true. Then all things are aggregates of an infinity of simultaneously existing things, which are themselves aggregates of an infinity of simultaneously existing things, etc.)

However, supposing LA (which is consistent with EE(b)), then (i) cannot be true.

Therefore, (ii) must be true: at least one thing exists without the condition that other thing(s) exist.

What is this thing(s)? The demonstration cannot answer that. Does such a thing(s) exist? Yes, and it exists in the most simple and fundamental way: it just is.

To facilitate the discussion about this thing or things, call it/them whatever you want. I happen to call it/them 'god'

Your one is true, because there is no convincing evidence for the existence of god, as it stands we have no evidence for the existence of any god.

Your two isn't empirical evidence, it is an assumption. Now you can easily find evidence for your assumption (e.g. I exist because of my parents). But, and this is a HUGE BUT, your extrapolation out that we are created beings dependent on god is an unevidenced assertion. First of all we have the fact of evolution, all creatures (we know) in existence have evolved from a single common ancestor. Secondly we've got abiogenesis, where the problem isn't, as creatards like yourself suggest, that we don't have a plausible mechanism, but that we've got too many plausible mechanisms. Even if the Miller-Urey experiment has, ultimately, nothing to say about how life began, it is very important, because it conclusively demonstrated that life could begin with just inanimate materials readily at hand here on earth with no outside influence.

Finally your "uncaused cause" doesn't hold up at all. There are multiple threads on this forum which shows that, the main objection being, why is god given a special pass on the condition that everything has to be created, a question that no theist has answered, most don't even bother trying.

So your whole "god exists" schtick hangs on a premise which is not only faulty but nonsensical and unsupported by any evidence.