Here is why you should believe in God.

[Duty]

"Here is why you should believe in God."

Which God? Thor? Odin? Allah? Jesus? Zeus? Anansi? etc etc etc etc etc?

I take it you are unable to answer my question Klorophyl? It was the first reply in this thread...

[Fake Messiah]

Every time some religious person defends, or should I say explains, how some mistake and inconsistency in their holy book is not a mistake, always ends up looking like when Conan o'Brien explains how mistakes in his show are not actually mistakes and how you are the one who is making a mistake

Oh, so when atheists screw up and bring apparent contradictions that really aren't contradictions, we're supposed to clap at their findings ?

Clap? What about just be a man and admit that your holy book is wrong.

And why do you say atheist? If you went to a hindu and said "Listen, Mahabharata lied to you, there is no god with head like an elephant." You know that he would ridicule you, and then he would give you an exercise in dishonesty how "you don't understand Mahabharata" and that it is "telling the truth". Just like you would give me the same exercise in dishonesty if I told you there are no winged horses and that sky can't fall down although Quran claims there are winged horses and that sky can fall.

[Mister Agenda]

So, what's an example of a good reason to believe God is real?

[R00tKiT]

Plenty of people affirm plenty of things without proof - moot point really..since we were discussing good reasons to believe.  I have good reasons to believe I exist..and good reasons to think I might exist in a way that makes the "I" incoherent.  We've just been using those semantics of self for so long they've become a linguistic tick.  Lets say one of those theories of consciousness turns out to be right.  That "I" is an artifact of a system.  It probably wouldn't stop us from calling ourselves I.  It certainly wouldn;t stop us from talking about what else we know, or might know..since not knowing one thing doesn't mean that you don't or can't know anything.  I don't know what form my "I"s existence takes, and I don't know how a cellphone works..but that doesn't prevent me from knowing a great deal of other stuff about a wide range of other things.  Personally, I think it helps.  Anytime I think I know something..I recall that the I is both iffy, and compelling in funny but untrue ways.  You seem to be wholly unaware of that by the laundry list of invalid things you offer below as "good reason" - eradicating your own axiomatic insistence.

I don't think playing on the letter "I", or on the vast set of viewpoints of what actually makes me .. me, will be of any practical use. As you said, it wouldn't stop us from calling ourselves I, and we should continue doing that, unless there is a real incentive to rethink this issue. We move on with our lives, regardless of any particular theory of consciousness. If we can conceive of life and death, the latter literally meaning to cease to exist, then we clearly have a conception of our existence.

Further thought obviously isn't futile, and reductive or eliminitive theories have everything to do with (and whether) there's a mind body problem.  If any of them are true, there isn't.  Obviously..further thought isn't futile - though you may have no interest in engaging in it.  I don't have any trouble taking it seriously, and neither do philosophers or researchers. 

It is futile from a practical point of view. As far as I know, there was never any significant advancement regarding reductive or non reductive theories of consciousness, nor any decisive evidence clearly solving the mind body problem ... it's simply one word against another. That is, one guy who's prepared to believe in metaphysical stuff and the other guy who thinks that WYSIWYG.

Speaking of taking things seriously, I don't think the theological viewpoint of consciousness was taking seriously by "philosophers and researchers", there is a huge, authentic literature about the soul in Islam, and I would be interested in reading the Islamic concept of soul *criticized*. But again all we get as criticism is Muhammad did this, Muhammad didn't do that...

1. If something can't come from nothing, except for god™, it may as well be except for the universe™.  If you do actually believe that something can come from nothing, then you need to rephrase to be more accurate in your special pleading.  

2. Aluminum can't fly, and yet a 747 is made from it.  Parts and wholes.  Human beings are made of organic chemistry.  Carbon is lifeless and yet lifegiving.  Long story short, it's demonstrably true that things can "give properties they don't have".  

3. Flat out wrong..again.  Infinite regress is very much a possibility, it's just not useful to generating conclusions - which is the point of logical inference.  That's the reason that logical inference sees no value in regress - not because of some base impossibility.

1. I think I already addressed this gross misunderstanding in a previous dicussion. a god was always there, there was never any nothing he came out from. So no, there is no special pleading.

2. a 747 is much more than Aluminum. You are strawmaning my axiom. If we take all the components with their needed quantities as in a 747, they clearly have the potential as a whole to actually become a 747, and even more, provided we have really clever aliens way brighter than every Airbus engineer. And a 747 is only a label given by humans, it could be as useless as a single Carbon atom to some aliens. Human beings are made of  (organic chemistry+ the entire set of chemical/physical laws and convenient environment throughout aeons of time to make the evolutionary processes operate as "precisely" as they did). If you think about a little bit more carefully, what could be done with this set of conditions through thousands of centuries is only bounded by your imagination.

3. It actually depends on what you mean by infinity, a very tricky concept in its own right. Under certain definitions of the latter, infinite regress is clearly impossible. If we mean by infinite regress a successive causal chain of events, say ... => A => B => C => our universe => stuff => ... then clearly our universe shouldn't have been here since it's preceded by an infinite amount of events, and since the latter never ends, by definition, the universe never comes into being.

"Abraham" reportedly did those things as a direct criticism of sun and moon worshippers - alot of magic book is a screed written against the competition.  Sure, though, there's no reason to look for gaps to try and fill with god - this wouldn't be "perfectly justifiable and reasonable".  It's not good reason, and we need good reasons. 

Abraham actually believed that the Sun is God, it's clearly stated in the Qur'an. My point is that he was justified, temporarily, in doing so. If I think the Sun's visible properties are too impressive for it to be merely stuff, and I decide to worship it, then at least I have some reason to worship it. 

Similarly we're clearly impressed by the sunset, by the diversity of creature, by the beauty of nature, etc. An atheist jepordizes this overwhelming sense of wonder by appealing to what we know currently. The thing is, it doesn't help, as I said, that we know how things became beautiful and impressive. There are underlying conditions that made all the natural processes we know possible. We're dealing with specified complexity, a universe that could have been much, much worse.

If you're of the opinion that neither I..nor anything in science..can lead us to John..then I can't help you. 

I am curious then. How do you think we can reach John? Knowing cooking recipes clearly doesn't help, nor is the mechanical process of chewing food, but we still know someone ate the food. We skipped through the minutious details and scientific processes of (cooking recipes) and (chewing food) and decided that swallowing a meal requires a conscious agent.. can't you do that for the whole universe? Is it that hard really ...?

Natural law is just a description of the way things are.  Natural law doesn't require a lawgiver - and whatever the natural laws happen to be..however they happen to be - even without a god, they would still be natural law.  Your assertion that natural law is a carefully built universe is just that, and no amount of looking at natural law can tell us that some ghost spoke those laws into existence.  Prima facie? You're really butchering these terms.  Why do balls fall down?  Is the prima facia explanation that ghosts push them?  

Recall, you insisted that natural law requires a lawgiver - but this is factually untrue.  Natural law..descriptive law, does not require any such lawgiver.  Therefore your argument is wrong even if there is such a lawgiver.  In specific terms, you constructed a non sequitur out of an equivocation. 

How can you possibly know that "natural law requires a lawgiver" is *factually untrue*... ? You have no empirical data of universes casually popping out into being which are described by natural laws. And you still have to deal with the ex nihilo problem. It is logically forced that something was always there. And it doesn't take too much honesty to acknoweldge that a universe that could have been infinitely much worse and simplistic, should come from some intelligent agent.

And the real question you should be asking is : what would be carefully built according to you? If you don't think designing this universe warrants intelligent preparation.. what would actually warrant it? If you can't answer that then your objections go both ways, and then they wouldn't be very good objections.

What if magic book got human development wrong because they were mindlessly repeating what a greek philosopher said..verbatim...and he was wrong?  Would that be the kind of glaring omission you wouldn't expect from a god? 

Is that the best you can do? All the greek literature(Aristotle's, Hippocrates', Galen's) on medicine back then presented menstrual blood as involved in embryonic development.. the Qur'an didn't do that. It's pretty impressive for an illiterate merchant to get this detail straight...even more impressive is to take the chance of mentioning that in a book supposed to guide humanity to better spiritual life ... why bother delving into human development in a religious book if you know you're lying?

What if magic book claimed some thing happened which absolutely never did?  Like, say, creation, or the deluge, or the exodus, or the splitting of the moon?

I think I asked for clear mistakes and internal inconsistencies. The Qur'an claims that much more unlikely things will happen, like resurrection. It would just be your word against mine.

What if magic book argued from an assumed conclusion?  If it argued that the children of adam bore witness so no one could say they didn't know that allah was their god?  If it argued an ad pop....that alot of people would say "god" if you asked them who created the world, therefore god.  If it argued that people in distress cry out to god, therefore god.  If it argued that islam made you feel better, therefore god?  If it argued that people who believe in god have more stuff, therefore god.  If it argued that human beings didn't create the universe, therefore god?

First of all, if by "magic book" you're referring to the Qur'an specifically, the existence of God is not a matter of dicussion throughout the whole book. Even Meccan pagans back then worshipped their idols because they believe them to be intermediaries to the highest being, nobody back then denied the highest being. As a result, the Qur'an never presents an argument intended to "prove" God. Speaking of the children of Adam - us - witnessing, it's an event that reportedly happened, clearly not an argument. Speaking of ad pop, the Qur'an is literally the last religious book about which you can make such an accusation, countless verses explcitly state that most people are wrong, misguided, dishonest.

And about the Qur'an stating that "people who believe in god have more stuff", I think you should try and actually find the verse that says that. Good luck.

---

Oh, so when atheists screw up and bring apparent contradictions that really aren't contradictions, we're supposed to clap at their findings ?

Clap? What about just be a man and admit that your holy book is wrong.

And why do you say atheist? If you went to a hindu and said "Listen, Mahabharata lied to you, there is no god with head like an elephant." You know that he would ridicule you, and then he would give you an exercise in dishonesty how "you don't understand Mahabharata" and that it is "telling the truth". Just like you would give me the same exercise in dishonesty if I told you there are no winged horses and that sky can't fall down although Quran claims there are winged horses and that sky can fall.

Okay, enough talking. Bring the internal inconsistency. I promise I'll be a man.

---

I take it you are unable to answer my question Klorophyl? It was the first reply in this thread...

I thought your question is off-topic. I am merely arguing for a supernatural, powerful, intelligent entity, and not any specific kind of deity in any religion.

[Duty]

Editz
I take it you are unable to answer my question Klorophyl? It was the first reply in this thread...

I thought your question is off-topic. I am merely arguing for a supernatural, powerful, intelligent entity, and not any specific kind of deity in any religion.

Those features alone do not meet the criteria of "God" as described in any religion or religious tradition. Most importantly it needs to be able to interfere in human affairs and also give a fuck so as to be inclined to do that. The Spanish flu epidemic of 2018, the Tsunami of 2004, congenital birth defects, childhood cancers, paedophiles etc etc etc are overwhelming evidence that such an entity does not exist. 

Epicurus: 

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

[Gwaithmir]

I have yet to see any good reason for believing in God posted in this discussion. 

[Duty]

This thread should be called:

Here is why you should believe in the cosmic progenitor(s).

[R00tKiT]

Those features alone do not meet the criteria of "God" as described in any religion or religious tradition. Most importantly it needs to be able to interfere in human affairs and also give a fuck so as to be inclined to do that. The Spanish flu epidemic of 2018, the Tsunami of 2004, congenital birth defects, childhood cancers, paedophiles etc etc etc are overwhelming evidence that such an entity does not exist.

I didn't claim my list of features is exhaustive, this is off-topic, as I said. And you should try better than simply invoking the problem of evil, as *overwhelming evidence*. There is extensive theodicy literature addressing each of your concerns,.

[Cecelia]

Now, the existence of physical laws clearly warrant a lawgiver, this is the prima facie explanation that an honest person should go with. Is it wise to suspend judgement? Not at all. The prima facie explanation for the broken window was, recall, the existence of a burglar. No sane person would suspend taking action until he reaches some utopian epistemological certainty about his existence. If you react differently with regards to the god question, then you are, simply put, being fundamentally dishonest.

1. If we assume the Abrahamic God exists (for the sake of this argument) we also must accept that God has his own nature.  Otherwise he is a cruel and unjust god punishing people arbitrarily because they go against his wishes (which themselves are arbitrary)

2. If God does not have his own nature, his rules are entirely arbitrary and meaningless.  If God DOES have his own nature, he must have his own natural laws.  This clearly warrants its own lawgiver.

3. Ergo, God also has a law giver who created his nature.

4. So who's God's lawgiver?  Does he not know?  Or does he simply believe he does not have one?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Can I come to your church and teach evolution?