List of reasons to believe God exists?

[Angrboda]

What caused that to exist? Divide a circle by its radius and what figure do you get? From memory it is 3.14159362859, yes it does go on for a bit. The laws of physics are immutable. π is the same in Andromeda as it is here. π Is not caused by anything, it is a property of the universe.

Just cuz?

You might not have gotten the memo, but there's this little thing called the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

Yes, the supposed "principle" that theists tap dance around in order to make it not apply to their god. Very sound reasoning, Neo.

[Jehanne]

[Godscreated]

When illiterate Muhammed created the Koran the concept of other planets did not exist! Why? The human sourced gods never knew more than their human creators know.

 In Abraham's time men knew there were about 6000 stars, yet God told Abraham they were innumerable. So the God of Abraham knew more than Abraham and all other people.

GC

[GrandizerII]

When illiterate Muhammed created the Koran the concept of other planets did not exist! Why? The human sourced gods never knew more than their human creators know.

 In Abraham's time men knew there were about 6000 stars, yet God told Abraham they were innumerable. So the God of Abraham knew more than Abraham and all other people.

GC

Thats so lame, and you know it.

[Jehanne]

 In Abraham's time men knew there were about 6000 stars, yet God told Abraham they were innumerable. So the God of Abraham knew more than Abraham and all other people.

GC

Thats so lame, and you know it.

He also does not read very well:

I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed.. (Genesis 26:4)

http://biblehub.com/genesis/26-4.htm

[Brian37]

No it cannot. You have been misinformed. There are valid criticisms of the PSR but that's not one of them.

Yes it is . PSR can apply to fairies . Theists just special plead.

---

Morality is a human invention . But it none the less remains true and objective.

No, our morality certainly is natural, not handed down by something super natural, but hardly objective. On a planet of 7 billion we are still tribal and have a tendency to defend that which is local and are familiar with. The morality is our social grouping, that "morality" however can be based on very false or bad ideas. 

Unfortunately evolution does not care if cooperation or cruelty work. We can and do often, as a species cooperate to fight other groups, and we can see that as good for our group, but the other group will see it as negative. 

But, our evolutionary empathy is the morality that can be described in natural terms. It is why the elephant and cat in the videos I posted before did what they did. They see their own, or that they have been accustom to as a resource, and the cooperation creates greater potential for survival. 


Our human word we call "morality" is claimed by every religion, and that says to me the religious motifs are superfluous, so in that context it is a human construct as an abstract. But it is not an abstract in evolutionary terms. Other life does the same thing. Other life groups to survive too. Other life protects other group members too. In that context morality is real. But regardless, since all life competes, what can be seen as good by one can be seen as negative by another.

[chimp3]

When illiterate Muhammed created the Koran the concept of other planets did not exist! Why? The human sourced gods never knew more than their human creators know.

 In Abraham's time men knew there were about 6000 stars, yet God told Abraham they were innumerable. So the God of Abraham knew more than Abraham and all other people.

GC

That was just god's creators taking a wild guess! The stars are not innumerable and some of them are planets. Good try!

[Amarok]

Yes it is . PSR can apply to fairies . Theists just special plead.

---

Morality is a human invention . But it none the less remains true and objective.

No, our morality certainly is natural, not handed down by something super natural, but hardly objective. On a planet of 7 billion we are still tribal and have a tendency to defend that which is local and are familiar with. The morality is our social grouping, that "morality" however can be based on very false or bad ideas. 

Unfortunately evolution does not care if cooperation or cruelty work. We can and do often, as a species cooperate to fight other groups, and we can see that as good for our group, but the other group will see it as negative. 

But, our evolutionary empathy is the morality that can be described in natural terms. It is why the elephant and cat in the videos I posted before did what they did. They see their own, or that they have been accustom to as a resource, and the cooperation creates greater potential for survival. 


Our human word we call "morality" is claimed by every religion, and that says to me the religious motifs are superfluous, so in that context it is a human construct as an abstract. But it is not an abstract in evolutionary terms. Other life does the same thing. Other life groups to survive too. Other life protects other group members too. In that context morality is real. But regardless, since all life competes, what can be seen as good by one can be seen as negative by another.

I must disagree brian morality is invented but it remain true and their are objective ought . I see no way to deny either . As for evolution it does not play a massive role . Certainly some role just not the deciding role . But yes religion is morally bankrupt .

[The Grand Nudger]

Evolution provided us the means by which we might determine moral facts, if there are any; but the process of evolution itself did not, does not, and cannot determine what is right.  It only describes what is natural.

When we ask ourselves. "What is right" we are not asking "what is natural". Amusingly, "natural law" falls to this same....properly basic...objection. So what if dicks were "made" for making babies. That doesn't tell us whether or not it's right to use them in that manner, only that it's natural. It;s strange that believers commonly recognize this issue whenever some non-believer describes their moral justification by reference to evolved empathetic traits....but develop amnesia when discussing their gods grand design.

[Amarok]

Evolution provided us the means by which we might determine moral facts, if there are any; but the process of evolution itself did not, does not, and cannot determine what is right.  It only describes what is natural.

When we ask ourselves.  "What is right" we are not asking "what is natural".  Amusingly, "natural law" falls to this same....properly basic...objection.  So what if dicks were "made" for making babies.  That doesn't tell us whether or not it's right to use them in that manner, only that it's natural.  It;s strange that believers commonly recognize this issue whenever some non-believer describes their moral justification by reference to evolved empathetic traits....but develop amnesia when discussing their gods grand design.

Oh no denial their without an evolved brain we would not be able to determine anything .On that we absolutely agree . As for theists and their internal inconsistencies that's really par for the course .