Here is why you should believe in God.

[The Grand Nudger]

..duuuuuh

You do realise you're just repeating an empty tautology, right? Even in the existence of a deity in your worldview, you would still repeat the same stupid objection you just wrote.

Imagine dolls suddenly becoming conscious and thinking that they solved all the age-old philosophical problems of their existence by saying" there is no need to think of the possibility of a manufacturer... we're clearly brought here because requirement of our existence are met".... stupid right..?

The first reaction of a fucking doll becoming conscious is to think it has to have a creator, a manufacturer. And just because the subsequent dolls changed shape and evolved after billions of years shouldn't make them forget their gracious first manufacturer... it's really that simple.

Yes, the anthropomorphic principle is tautologically true.  That's why empty headed wonder about the sheer fact of your existence lacks the inferential value required to persuasively argue for a god. 

Regardless of whether a god exists, and regardless of how we came to be what we are - the requirements for the existence of an organism we'll call "Kloro" must have been met - for this organism called "Kloro" to be here..asking the question.

A worse universe with conscious beings like us/worse than us is entirely possible, it's not hard to imagine much simpler scenarios of some naive notion of consciousness in some unidimensional existence, which makes the question even more pressing : how come we have a better universe than infinitely many worse outcomes ? It doesn't take more than to understand sanely the question, to conclude that it took a personal cause to come up with a good enough universe for its ultimate purpose.

Back to the ex nihilo question, "something can't come from nothing" tautology is not broken in the case of a deity. A deity was always there, to say it came from nothing already presupposes the deity was preceded by this nothing, but a deity is eternal by definition.

I don't know why you keep repeating this.  I'm sure that a "worse" or "better" universe is entirely possible.  That doesn't tell us anything about a god.  How come our universe is worse than infinitely many better outcomes? 

If you think that this is a rule..and I want to stress that it isn't...then fine, we'll go with it.  Gods a fuckup, that's why.  I somehow doubt that you really want to assert this non rule as a rule.

Belief in a god can of course be justified in a cumulative argument. Something caused all this. A first cause's properties can be inferred from its effects since, again, something can't give what it doesn't have - and this holds true in your 747 example when investigated closely -. We already have a personal, eternal agent outside of our universe.

All the objections I know against what's above are nothing more than dishonest wordplay. All the premises to get to a personal, eternal cause are the simplest elements of reasoning possible. And they're all it takes to justify belief in god. 

It only remains to justify how a first personal cause would possess the justness property. One this is done, justness directly implies this eternal agent provided us with guidance.

I'm sure that belief in god can be justified any number of ways.  Human beings are good at justifying things.  Pretty much anything, really.  

If you have any good reasons, you should hurry up and get to them.

[Pat Mustard]

Plantinga writes: “Our verdict on these reformulated versions of St. Anselm’s argument must be as follows. They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion. But since it is rational to accept their central premise, they do show that it is rational to accept that conclusion”

Or to put it in layman's terms "god is real because I really, really want it to be real".

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I notice that my requests for equal time are always ignored. Shows how weak they really think their positions are.

[R00tKiT]

Yes, the anthropomorphic principle is tautologically true.  That's why empty headed wonder about the sheer fact of your existence lacks the inferential value required to persuasively argue for a god. 

Inference is perfectly reasonable, pal. This inferential value is exactly what we're justified to have because it works in every corner of our universe. Every complex machine or building observable is necessarily manufactured, why are you making biological creatures an exception? Just because we -maybe- know better how they evolved isn't a substitute for a first manufacturer. It's like saying the Windows operating system has no programmers because apparently users' feedbacks and constant updates brought us all the way to Windows 10.

Regardless of whether a god exists, and regardless of how we came to be what we are - the requirements for the existence of an organism we'll call "Kloro" must have been met - for this organism called "Kloro" to be here..asking the question.

And these requirements are best explained by a supernatural creature to be realised, how hard can that be? Are you really saying here the fine tuning of our universe has zero argumentative value for you?

I'm sure that belief in god can be justified any number of ways.  Human beings are good at justifying things.  Pretty much anything, really. 

I think you're not addressing the arguments I'm making. It's about time you acknoweldge a first cause, or a cause at least, to this universe.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, the anthropomorphic principle is tautologically true.  That's why empty headed wonder about the sheer fact of your existence lacks the inferential value required to persuasively argue for a god. 

Inference is perfectly reasonable, pal. This inferential value is exactly what we're justified to have because it works in every corner of our universe. Every complex machine or building observable is necessarily manufactured, why are you making biological creatures an exception? Just because we -maybe- know better how they evolved isn't a substitute for a first manufacturer. It's like saying the Windows operating system has no programmers because apparently users' feedbacks and constant updates brought us all the way to Windows 10.

OFC inference is reasonable.  No one is arguing that point, lol?  

I don't even know why you're bitching about biology, here.  The point of the principle being tautologically true..as you sought to "correct" me, is that -no matter- how we got here, our being here necessitates the requirements of our existence being met.  Our sheer existence is incapable of certifying any particular way that we got here.  

That is the specific inference that is not reasonable, upon which this particular non reason of yours rests.  

And these requirements are best explained by a supernatural creature to be realised, how hard can that be? Are you really saying here the fine tuning of our universe has zero argumentative value for you?

I'm informing you that it has zero argumentative value for you......

It may in fact be that because of this you believe in a god (it isn't, Im just being nice - somebody told you that a magic book was true and you went with it, that's why you believe, lol)- but that would not be a good reason, and that's what you claimed to have.

I think you're not addressing the arguments I'm making. It's about time you acknoweldge a first cause, or a cause at least, to this universe.

Why, you're telling me you have good reasons that I should believe in a god, not that you have good reasons to think that this universe has a cause.  I think that too, and have actual good reasons to think so....none of which involve or require a god of any kind.

You have been made to fit the universe, not the other way around. You find yourself in a position that many before you have been in, as the proverbial puddle of water exclaiming that the hole is just the right size for you. Amazing! Djinn must have done it.

It's time to shit or get off the pot with those good reasons, Kloro. It's fine if you don't have them - they're not requirements of belief...obviously...but assuming that there is a god and that there are good reasons, why not step down off the soapbox and let someone who does possess them get to the important work of spreading them? All that you seem to have is counterproductive noise.

[R00tKiT]

OFC inference is reasonable.  No one is arguing that point, lol? 

Then why don't you go with it? It's definitely more reasonable than claming that our laws arose spontaneously from symmetry

I don't even know why you're bitching about biology, here.  The point of the principle being tautologically true..as you sought to "correct" me, is that -no matter- how we got here, our being here necessitates the requirements of our existence being met.  Our sheer existence is incapable of certifying any particular way that we got here. 

I didn't correct you on the tautology, pal. I said it's an empty sentence. Namely, it's doesn't undermine the inference you just agreed with me about. Our sheer existence requires an uncaused cause, it's an arguable position. We're contingent beings, after all.

That is the specific inference that is not reasonable, upon which this particular non reason of yours rests. 

You could've said that if we were some unidimensional spots in some Nokia snake game. You have a fucking DNA, an actual encoded information, instructions on what a cell should build. A whole detailed manual in every cell of your body. Doesn't that justify the inference? If it doesn't, then your position is not falsifiable, no amount of precision will convince you that the entire thing was engineered.

It may in fact be that because of this you believe in a god (it isn't, Im just being nice - somebody told you that a magic book was true and you went with it, that's why you believe, lol

Here's why I believe, I'm waiting for someone to pick an option;

A sidenote on the Qur'anic revelation;

There is only one question a skeptic should be concerned about when investigating the truth of Islam, that is, of Muhammad's extraordinary claims; which is : what happened to Muhammad[PBUH] in the Hira cave ? The latter being where Muslims believe he literally met a supernatual creature [for the first time].

The story of the first revelation goes as follows : during one such occasion while he was in contemplation, an angel appeared before him and said, "Read", upon which he replied, "I am unable to read". Thereupon the angel caught hold of him and embraced him heavily. This happened two more times after which the angel commanded Muhammad t
Perplexed by this new experience, Muhammad made his way to home where he was consoled by his wife, who also took him to her Ebionite cousin Waraqah', who was a Christian. Islamic tradition holds that Waraqah, upon hearing the description, testified to Muhammad's prophethood.

There are only four options ;

1) Muhammad faked the event, including the replies from the supposed angel, AND his reaction when he came back to his wife. Subsequently, he mastered the craft of pretending to receive revelation, delude crowds of people, make them conduct wars in the name of a huge scam, including relatives of his, who knew him before he started claiming prophecy. That is, he lied knowingly to everyone he's met or known before for a full twenty three years.

2) A medical condition, such as temporal lobe epilepsy, made Muhammad imagine supernatural beings AND be able to utter spontaneously the literary achievement called the Qur'an. He was absolutely convinced and honest in his preachings.

3) The entire story of revelation is made up. Muhammad might have never existed. Everything about him, including his teachings, legacy, conquests, was a colossal historical invention.

4) He really received revelation from a deity

I am curious to know which option members here will pick.

Why, you're telling me you have good reasons that I should believe in a god, not that you have good reasons to think that this universe has a cause.  I think that too, and have actual good reasons to think so....none of which involve or require a god of any kind.

It's not really that different. You can pick your own label for an uncaused, eternal, personal cause, we just happen to usually call it god.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'll chalk the above up to a language barrier for generosity. I didn't agree with you on any inference. I detailed exactly why your proposition could not support the inference you make, or the conclusion derived from it.

It's a non sequitur - logically invalid. That's why it's not a good reason. Are you using the term good reason in some other way?*

"We exist, therefore the requirements of our existence are met" - follows

"We exist, therefore moongod"....simply does not.

Yes, ofc we have dna...so what? Explain how this is something other than one more example of empty headed wondering which does not and cannot follow? Similarly, I could call a cat a god and that wouldn't make it one. No one doubts (well.....lol) trhat we have dna...no one doubts that many god botherers call many things gods, no one doubts that the requirements of our existence are not met. What alot of people doubt - and specifically here on this board...is that you actually possess a good reason to believe in a god, and even more so, that you possess a good reason that someone else should believe in a god.

So hop hop.

*
If you are using good reason™ some other way, I can think of plenty of good reasons™ that you should believe in god..even if they still wouldn't be good reasons™ for me to believe in god. Right down to "I think I saw one" - ...fine, at some level if you're convinced that you've had a personal experience with the divine - well..that's the reason that most of us believe in anything. Unfortunately for that contention..I have never seen one, and I don't believe in things just because some nutball says he saw a ghost. The good reasons™ you're offering are even less persuasive than that....think about that for a moment, lol.

Which handily applies to Big Mo..huh? Assume he existed, assume he saw something, assume that what he saw is faithfully recounted in magic book. So what...no one doubts that religious loons see shit and start religions because of that -

You said you had good reasons to for me to believe in gods, not that some 7th century warlord was a fucking nut - I already believe that...for good reason.

[R00tKiT]

I'll chalk the above up to a language barrier for generosity.  I didn't agree with you on any inference. I detailed exactly why your proposition could not support the inference you make, or the conclusion derived from it. 

You clearly said inference is reasonable, that no one is arguing about it. If so, why won't you go with what's actually reasonable..?

It's a non sequitur - logically invalid.  That's why it's not a good reason.  Are you using the term good reason in some other way?*

"We exist, therefore the requirements of our existence are met" - follows

"We exist, therefore moongod"....simply does not.

Of course it doesn't logically follow. That's what my post is about - logical proofs don't actually matter that much practically, we inferred a burglar from some hints on a crime scene, we have billions more hints around us to infer a creator.
Nothing a detective gathers as evidence logically implies a personal, intelligent criminal. But he acts and infers on hints he finds. And that's what you have in real life, precise physical/chemical laws, diversity of creation, DNA, etc........

If you are using good reason™ some other way, I can think of plenty of good reasons™ that you should believe in god..even if they still wouldn't be good reasons™ for me to believe in god.  Right down to "I think I saw one" - ...fine, at some level if you're convinced that you've had a personal experience with the divine

I don't have any personal experience with the divine, you're mistaking us for christians here, I think.

Unfortunately for that contention..I have never seen one, and I don't believe in things just because some nutball says he saw a ghost. 

I have never seen one either. Now you better pick an option on what happened to Muhammad back in the Hira cave, I hope you don't think he lied knowingly to everyone surrounding him for 23 years, that he was at least sincere and convinced that he saw an angel, so well that he uttered a landmark literary work ..........

[no one]

There's a wish granting house elf in my bedroom closet, provide me evidence to the contrary.

[Succubus#2]

... A first cause's properties can be inferred from its effects...

Begging the question.
Your proposition relies on the truth of the conclusion and you can't do that it's a logical fallacy. But then without logical fallacies you have nothing left, your armoury is empty.

a) Every cause has a cause.

Ok lets be generous and give you a buy on that one.

b) A first cause has no cause.

What! This is in direct conflict with 'a'.

c) That first cause is (insert name) god.

How do you get from 'a' to 'c' and how is it that 'c' is the god of your particular religion?

d) Look a squirrel!

---

If the world comes to an end and god is real and he devised this whole universe just for me and my fellow believers as part of his plan I would be more than a bit nervous at this stage. I doubt you could fit an American Express card between the cheeks of my arse.
Meanwhile there are countless billions burning in the pits of hell.

Be careful what you wish for.