List of reasons to believe God exists?

[Amarok]

How in the world could anyone find atheism a coherent and satisfying intellectual stance?

How could anyone find theism the same. God is not an explanation it's label for ignorance .

[Succubus]

... i believe in natural law...

Why did you stop capitalising 'Natural Law'?

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, I don't see a problem that.  I don't have a moral problem with any behaviors, because I think morality is just something people made up as a tool to get more people in line, or exert power over groups, or various other things of that nature.  

One of the perks of having slaves is raping them.  I think humans have established that as a rule of thumb over the years, no?

I appreciate your honesty.

:roflmao:

[Succubus]

@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.

 The "meta-ethical paradigm" is the problem I have with philosophy.

[GrandizerII]

You're being led down the rabbit hole, lol. CL asked you to explain some shit that never happened. Any explanation is entertaining her fantasy.

The actual story of what it took for the two cultures to have -any- significant contact at all is impressive. It involved successively dead dropped provisions in the sand over 400 miles and a one of a kind military campaign that would never be repeated.

Well, to be accurate, she didnt ask me. She asked wally. But yeah, I have a thing for going down rabbit holes.

---

... i believe in natural law...

Why did you stop capitalising 'Natural Law'?

Im more questioning her usage of the phrase "I believe in".

[Amarok]

i believe in natural law

I do too as descriptions of the natural consistency in natural phenomenon . What has that to do with a god?

[drfuzzy]

Wallym, just as it is not a reason to believe in something because you wish it to be true, the same is true of dismissing something because you believe it's too good to be true or think it's what everyone wants any ways.

It happens that the best thing possible is true, that is God exists. There is plenty of proofs for it regardless of whether we desire it or hate it.

If there was "proof" there would be only one religion.  No factions, sects, schisms.  The second after a deity provides proof, all of the "competing" religions would disappear - unless the creature didn't claim any of them.  There would be no more need for books, priests, preachers, imams, gurus, etc.  No more speculation, no more getting paid to lie.  And if a human being provided that proof, they would gain instant fame.

[emjay]

We don't just want there to be morality, accountability and intrinsic value, we know these things exist.  If you come to the table denying all these things because they are not physical, well first prove five senses measures reality, I am 100% sure you cannot. Because even if material things exist without spiritual nature, it would not be defined by five senses and the way they exist would be beyond it. It's not touching that defines essence, neither vision, etc, something else defines it.

But we see ourselves exist, and that is our best bet of what reality is, and it's spiritual. We also have a perpetual identity and it's not simply our want of that to be the case, but is the case that it is something we perceive to be.

I understand where you're coming from here (maybe), that our senses only provide a limited... at best... window on the true nature of reality, and that they do not speak at all to the nature of what it is to actually be... to experience consciousness and qualia. That may well be true; that science can never address the 'hard questions' of consciousness... the nature of qualia and experience itself... but what it can and does address, is the correlation between the physical world and the mental world; it cannot explain why or how we see colours as we do for instance, but it (neuroscience... ie from the perspective of this, scientific study of the external world, as it relates to the brain, through our senses and expanded through the instruments of science) does undeniably show a correlation between what is 'out there' (external, physical world as perceived by the senses)' and what is 'in here' (experience/perception itself); the nature of experience itself can be reliably and predictably influenced by neuroscientific intervention on the brain itself; either through brain surgery or drugs... such as painkillers... that effect the physical brain.

So from my perspective, any theory of mind, religious or otherwise, that sees the mind as completely separate from the physical... or call it 'external'... world (ie that which is perceived as 'out there', whether it comes from the perspective of materialism or idealism, has to explain this ever-increasing correlation between physical brain (external... out there) and mental experience (in here), as studied by the scientific field of neuroscience.

If you let Cx stand for 'conscious experience x' and Px stand for corresponding physical brain state x, then neuroscience is in the business of studying C1 = P1, C2 = P2, C3 = P3, Cn = Pn to ever-increasing levels of detail, mapping the mind. It can never address the actual experiential character of any given C... that will forever be a question for philosophy and speculation... but it nonetheless maps the mind and its mechanisms from the outside as it were, correlated with internal experiences, in ever-increasing levels of detail and with greater and greater predictive accuracy. So though it never touches on the whys and hows of how conscious qualia itself is actually produced/generated, it doesn't need to in order to be a productive and useful science about the nature and mechanisms of the mind, as it evidently is.

So for me in order for a religious theory to have any weight with me, it has to address and/or account for the findings of psychology and neuroscience, rather than ignore them.

[Mystic]

@Wallym

I would say I appreciate your honest stance, but my honest view is, I don't believe you are honest about it. I believe honesty to oneself leads to God and sees his light evidently manifest and connected.

What the light and mystic link is ofcourse is a real living being, a human, and precisely the leader of time, and this age, who is the 12th Successor of Mohammad.

He is with you calling you to God no matter how much you put him on ignore.

I can't force you to believe in morality or sacred language of love, but, it won't make God's proof go away neither the mystic link, all I can do is remind you and tell you not to lie to yourself about this issue which is by definition the most essential issue a human can face.

To deny who you are just to deny God, that is one next level of dishonesty.

---

We don't just want there to be morality, accountability and intrinsic value, we know these things exist.  If you come to the table denying all these things because they are not physical, well first prove five senses measures reality, I am 100% sure you cannot. Because even if material things exist without spiritual nature, it would not be defined by five senses and the way they exist would be beyond it. It's not touching that defines essence, neither vision, etc, something else defines it.

But we see ourselves exist, and that is our best bet of what reality is, and it's spiritual. We also have a perpetual identity and it's not simply our want of that to be the case, but is the case that it is something we perceive to be.

I understand where you're coming from here (maybe), that our senses only provide a limited... at best... window on the true nature of reality, and that they do not speak at all to the nature of what it is to actually be... to experience consciousness and qualia. That may well be true; that science can never address the 'hard questions' of consciousness... the nature of qualia and experience itself... but what it can and does address, is the correlation between the physical world and the mental world; it cannot explain why or how we see colours as we do for instance, but it (neuroscience... ie from the perspective of this, scientific study of the external world, as it relates to the brain, through our senses and expanded through the instruments of science) does undeniably show a correlation between what is 'out there' (external, physical world as perceived by the senses)' and what is 'in here' (experience/perception itself); the nature of experience itself can be reliably and predictably influenced by neuroscientific intervention on the brain itself; either through brain surgery or drugs... such as painkillers... that effect the physical brain.

So from my perspective, any theory of mind, religious or otherwise, that sees the mind as completely separate from the physical... or call it 'external'... world (ie that which is perceived as 'out there', whether it comes from the perspective of materialism or idealism, has to explain this ever-increasing correlation between physical brain (external... out there) and mental experience (in here), as studied by the scientific field of neuroscience.

If you let Cx stand for 'conscious experience x' and Px stand for corresponding physical brain state x, then neuroscience is in the business of studying C1 = P1, C2 = P2, C3 = P3, Cn = Pn to ever-increasing levels of detail, mapping the mind. It can never address the actual experiential character of any given C... that will forever be a question for philosophy and speculation... but it nonetheless maps the mind and its mechanisms from the outside as it were, correlated with internal experiences, in ever-increasing levels of detail and with greater and greater predictive accuracy. So though it never touches on the whys and hows of how conscious qualia itself is actually produced/generated, it doesn't need to in order to be a productive and useful science about the nature and mechanisms of the mind, as it evidently is.

So for me in order for a religious theory to have any weight with me, it has to address and/or account for the findings of psychology and neuroscience, rather than ignore them.

One way to look at is, is to say "humans throughout times are justified to believe they have intrinsic value"

So this would be before neuroscience and psychology. 

It is possible in purely naturalism perspective, that free-will is an illusion, intrinsic value is an illusion, perpetual identity is an illusion, praise is an illusion.

The next premise, if we are justified through out time we are, then we must know the cause of morality. That is if we don't know the cause and source, and don't know what is, and don't what makes the essence of value and rights and all love appreciates and praises, then, we aren't justified in belief in it.

So that means we know what is, the question is, whether we are honest about it or not.

[henryp]

With that beimg said, this is why I don't think morality is subjective to empathy, as many people here claim. Because some folks, such as yourself as an admitted sociopath, don't have it. If morality is built on empathy, how can we really tell a sociopath to not rape (for example) because it is immoral? He can just as easily say "Well, I don't feel sorry for that girl, she means nothing to me, raping her will have 0 negative impact on myself or my community, and im horny... so why should it still be immoral for me to do so?" Its seems logical then that I can't really tell this person that rape is wrong, if my arguments against it is purely subjective empathy. Yet even folks who claim that morality is subjective would still not be ok with that answer from the rapist. Which brings me back to my point #2 - most people still act as though morality is objective even though they claim not to think it is.

Most people think/act as though morality is objective.  But 150 years ago, most people thought/acted as though black people were subhuman.  What conclusion can you draw from a bunch of people thinking the same thing?  
But again, going back to my OP, what I think we are seeing here, is that you are wishing to have the authority to tell everybody unequivocally "No raping!"  But that authority just doesn't exist.  So you say "what if there's a God, then I have the authority!"  Which is true, but it doesn't make God any more likely.

This probably plays a part in the establishment of religion way back when.  Do as I say!  "No!"  Do as I say or I'll take your stuff.  "I don't have any stuff."  Do as I say or I'll kill you.  "Meh, my life's shit anyways, I'll risk it."  Do as I say...Because God said for me to tell you this, and he said you'll go to hell if you don't.  "Well, I don't want to go to hell!"