List of reasons to believe God exists?

[Jehanne]

Another proof I have not presented is the existence proof.

That is existence is the default state. Non-existence is impossible. 

I would take it further and say any non-existence is impossible. This proves existence is maximal existence and absolute existence.

To say why any non-existence is impossible - is the same reason why non-existence by definition is impossible.

This is an argument in favor of atheistic naturalism, not theism. (See Grifiths proof above.)

[henryp]

Another proof I have not presented is the existence proof.

That is existence is the default state. Non-existence is impossible. 

---

I think you believe there is a universal experience.  That we're all feeling the same thing, and ultimately looking at the world through generally the same lens. 

You are mistaken,  I believe the light comes in different forms according to our relative state, but that it stills manifests an absolute light.

I see why you'd use that proof for proving God, morals, and value and such.  But how do you keep non-existence being impossible from also proving that Thor, God of Thunder, or Ants having an immortal soul exist.   Seems like you'd get a lot of collateral damage so to speak trying to prove the things you believe to be true with that strategy.

As for the experience, you seem pretty confident you know what others are experiencing.  Is that because you have to?  Is everybody being exposed to the absolute light a fundamental part of your belief?  My mother uses the same pitch with Catholicism.  That I also know THAT God is real, and I'm just being dishonest with myself.  People like telling me I'm lying to myself about the existence of all sorts of Gods.

If I told her she was lying to herself about the Catholic God, when she should be worshipping your God, would that be true too?  I'm curious how compatible you find Christianity and Islam?

[The Grand Nudger]

If the truth of some persons religious beliefs depend on my secretly "knowing" that god exists, than by the brute force of my mere existence, that persons religious beliefs are demonstrably false.  

There's an "existence" argument, for ya.

Meanwhile, Mystics gibberish, in particular, speaks out of both ends of it's mouth. On the one hand it's patently incapable of accepting the reality of a world in which there are people who don't believe in god...but on the other invokes sorcerors and demons placing magic locks on peoples hearts....so that they don't believe in gods..........really gonna have to pick one or the other, there, fellas.

I have to wonder about the competency of the person who originally came up with that little knot. Maybe, hough, they were just sheltered, and because they;d never had any contact with members outside of their own tiny god believing tribe didn;t realize that anyone didn;t believe, or that some explanation for that lack of belief (or even palpable disbelief) had to be cobbled together ad hoc. I can imagine them standing there, pontificating "We all know that our god is real!" - and some rando in the back pops his head up and says "huh?" leaving said pontificators in a state of perpetual befuddlement....not entirely unlike our boy Mystic.

[Drich]

It seems to me people believe in God through a combination of explaining the physical world and explaining a desired non-physical world.

You want people to have intrinsic value.  Objective morals.  An afterlife.  A soul.  There's a laundry list of things like that where you can assert those may exist if there's a God.  But they are not tangible things.  I don't think there's any reason to believe them other than wanting to believe them.  

Meaning, there's nothing tangible to make you think humans go to 'heaven' when they die.  You can't pick up a fork, and measure it, and say "See, there's probably a heaven, and human soul will continue to exist in some form for all eternity!"

With this stuff, I would say these are consequences of God's existence, rather than things you use to prove God.   More dismissively, I'd call it a wish list.  Here's a bunch of things we'd like to be true.  Only way for that to be possible is for there to be a God.  I would not consider the things to be an argument for God, rather they are possible but unverifiable (while living) consequences in the event there is a God.  Is that fair to say?
---
So with that in mind, that all of the previously mentioned things ride on God existing; Arguments for God existing rely on explaining the physical world.

The big one is that existence exists, and it seems like there's probably some explanation for that.  From what I've gathered, the argument is intuitively, it seems like something needs to have set the ball rolling a few billion years ago.  Why not some type of God like thing?

If I'm making a list of why believe in God:

1) God could explain why we exist.
2) ...
3) ...
4) ...

What's #2 and on?  Are there any other tangible things where God seems like a needed or likely explanation? 

Or does it all come down to the guess that maybe billions of years ago, God created stuff seems like a good enough guess that you're all in on God, and while you're at it, why not all the soul/heaven/angels stuff too? 

Doesn't it seem flimsy?  If that domino falls, and some nerd explains the origins of the universe, would that be the end of it?  Is there anything left?

What f absolute verification of God on an individual level was a simple as going to location A, bringing Item B and Simply knocking on a door till it was opened? Then the flood Gates of the knowledge of God was open to you?

What else could you possible need?

[The Grand Nudger]

Functioning brain cells.

[Catholic_Lady]

It's really hard to answer that since I don't think any of us would be here at all if it weren't for a sort of higher force.

Honestly, I dont think so. As far as morality goes, while I believe in evolution and evolutionary behavior and all that, I still do think it was planned/foreseen to be this way. As you can recall, i believe in natural law. So I think nature and the way the world works is specifically designed with these moral laws in place, which is why we can discover them through logic and observation of our world. In other words, everything just seems "a little too perfect." If a God didn't exist and we really were just purely material accidents, i don't think things would be quite as ordered in terms of morality, knowing goodness from evil, etc. I can't really say how I think they would be like instead... perhaps more animalistic without an existance of good and evil? Just that I think things are the way they are as a result of an intelligent designer.

As for religion, I think the same principles apply. I can see how religion was a part of the evolutionary process and survival of the fittest, but I think it was designed to be that way, if you will.

So when the Norse are praying to Thor during a storm, do you think that's probably only possible because of a Christian God?  I didn't consider you'd say no to the previous answer, so I'm working out the implications on the fly.  In the face of unexplained frightening power, what would keep a mind capable of rational thought from considering the concept of something more?  You find it intuitive, do you not think intuitivity could exist?  Or is it that extra little jump in evolution in our brains, that you consider a little too perfect, that you blame for that, and you don't think we could get to these brains without a designer?

And when animals behave in a way that mimics morality, do you think it has anything to do with morality, or it's just instinctive?

To answer the question about Norse and Thor, yes. 

Let me put it this way: I think it was no accident that the world is such that we evolved to have a natural inclination to believe in some sort of God(s). Just as I think it was no accident that we evolved to have a basic understanding of good and evil. I get that we naturally evolved to be that way, but my belief is that it was planned. 

I'm not sure about intuitivity in general not existing... like I said, I can't really say how I think the world would be like if everything was just entirely accident and chance, and so I have no idea how we would have evolved to fit into such a world.   

And again, this is a very difficult question to answer since I don't think anything would exist in the first place without God existing.  

As far as animals go, I'm no animal expert, but as far as I understand it animals don't have moral awareness. They act on instinct. When I hear or see an animal being violent or cruel to another animal, I certainly don't think "Wow, what a shitty thing to do... that dog sure is super morally depraved." I suppose I could be wrong on that though.

[henryp]

What f absolute verification of God on an individual level was a simple as going to location A, bringing Item B and Simply knocking on a door till it was opened? Then the flood Gates of the knowledge of God was open to you?

What else could you possible need?

I'm not following what you're getting at.  

That being said, go to locatoin A, bring Item B, knock on the door....





There are no mormons here right?  I think we can all join together and laugh at those silly-billy's.

[Catholic_Lady]

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.

1. 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?  
2. 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!"

1. It was certainly convenient and self gratifying to think a whole other race of people is inferior to yourself. It means you can force them to do your work for you without having to feel bad about it, and you get to feel superior about yourself which always feels good. I do think morality is objective and that we have a basic understanding of right from wrong. But that doesn't mean there aren't other things at play going on in our brains that could silence or override that moral compass. Humans have found excuses to do heinous things when doing so is convenient in some way. In fact, what you said there kind of proves my point: we couldn't have done those horrible things to black people if we hadn't first rationalized that blacks weren't actually human enough. Because intuitively we know that treating humans this way is wrong. And this is exactly what I think is happening right now with abortion, btw, but again... don't want to have that conversation in this thread. Or on these forums for that matter. Not now. But do you see what I mean? We have to tell ourselves they aren't quite human enough in order to justify doing these things to them.   

2. That's not what I meant at all by the post you are responding to above. What I'm showing is that the notion of subjective morality doesn't actually work in practice. A person can believe all they want that morality is subjective and that there isn't any real right and wrong, or good and evil. And yet they certainly don't act like it when they hear about someone being murdered or raped. Or even when they hear Trump spewing his BS for that matter. They act as though these people are objectively wrong and bad, not that they are merely people who just happen to have a different "opinion." I was trying to show that morality is a much deeper and more real thing than a subjective personal opinion.

[The Grand Nudger]

Subjective morality is not the notion that there is no "real right or wrong", subjective opinions -are- a "real thing", the source of any deepity we can imagine..... and we don't have to tell ourselves that the other guys are less human..we can simply assert:

[GrandizerII]

Let me put it this way: I think it was no accident that the world is such that we evolved to have a natural inclination to believe in some sort of God(s). Just as I think it was no accident that we evolved to have a basic understanding of good and evil. I get that we naturally evolved to be that way, but my belief is that it was planned.

So you concede there's a very good naturalistic explanation for why we have the tendency to believe in gods or spirits (animism, by the way, came before any sort of theism in the history of mankind) and have moral intuition, and yet you still had to force your God there somewhere.