Solid Arguments for God(s)?

Dr. Loon

Hi all,

Just before I ask my question you should know I'm atheist, so I'm not looking for a debate here. I know there's loads of silly arguments between here and the Christianity forum for and against the existence of God, but these tend to collapse into arguments on semantics, and pointless things like the composition of fire or the complete irrelevance of whether Einstein believed in God or not.

I wanted to see if any of the non-believers here have heard any genuinely good arguments for the existence of God, or good reasons to believe? I'm doing some writing at the moment which is to include good arguments, and I can honestly not think of any! I genuinely cannot think of a good reason to believe. So I was hoping you guys might be able to help, but please let's not get into a ridiculous debate.

Also if anyone mentions Nazi's they should be banned. I've had a brief browse through some threads here, in Christianity and on other forums, and the amount of times religious apologists start bringing Hitler into the debate is truly laughable.

So have any of you heard any truly convincing arguments for the existence of God, or a good reason to be religious?

Thanks in advance for your help folks.

Loon.

PS - Believers more than welcome to give opinion here, but as above please don't let's get into a debate. If it involves Hitler or the design of the human eye, don't post.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dr. Loon

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Damn! Me neither. Surely there's something even remotely convincing.

Here's another way of putting it then. How do you think people who suddenly turn to God are convinced?

ColmDawson

I've never heard one that was more convincing than a rational explanation.

hiorta

Good topic.
I doubt whether such a being could be proven or disproven by argument, which is only differing forms of words used to clothe thoughts. Surely a real 'god' would be beyond thought?

If the spectacle of our known universe, where the planets move in orderly sequence and the seasons follow one another in exact precision in our own wee corner of it all, where a tiny seed can contain a massive tree or creature, could be said to demonstrate 'evidence' of some great central being behind Life, then maybe.

The term 'god' would need to be defined, but can the lesser define the greater?
The discarded 'god' of religion was no more a god than a window dressers dummy and about as useful.
In addition, what is 'being religious'?
Great subject, though.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sink

The strongest argument I've heard for the existence of God is that there is something rather than nothing and this could be attributed to some god like entity. But it is just one among many countless possibilities, and does nothing to convince me that there is one.

Dr. Loon

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Indeed.

There are people who are not sick, lonely or poor that have been convinced to believe in God. How does this happen? What are the arguments that convince them?

I'm of the opinion that most people who believe in Religion haven't really thought it through deeply. What I'm trying to imagine here is a situation where someone who has never believed is convinced to believe. What would the convincer - for want of a better word - say to convince the non-believer?

tricky D

A read of Aquinas should be mandated for those who solidly believe.


As far as Nazis, Stalin and Mao are concerned, there should be some equivalent of Godwin's Law invoked. The reason these guys removed gods was simply to prop up their own Cult of Personality. Last thing a dictator needs is the rabble coming up with things like, 'but God says otherwise...', so the potential opposition is eliminated.

seamus

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

An interesting one that I remembered recently;

About five years ago, I woke up in the middle of the night, dazed and confused. I looked to my right and saw that Padre Pio was kneeling at the side of my bed, praying. This image stayed for a good five seconds while I blinked and panicked.

When the image faded, I took another look and realised that various optical combinations - clothes on the back of a chair, light against the wall, had all combined to form a "likeness" of P.P., and my half-asleep brain had (as half-asleep brains tend to do) picked up this pattern, added some false clarity to the image and told me it was Padre Pio.

So I laughed at the randomness of it all and went back to sleep. But another thread relating to "divine revelation" made me think of this again. If I had been in a bad place - if I had been seriously depressed, very ill or otherwise not rational, that image could easily have become a whole lot more.

If I didn't have knowledge of optical illusions - if I wasn't aware of the extreme fallibility of the eye, I would never known what caused that image. Hell, I might have trusted my brain and believed that I saw a real live spirit.

If I had been particularly religious, this would have been a "divine revelation", I had been "touched" by Padre Pio (no laughing down the back) and I would tell all my friends from that day forward about how I had been blessed.

My point here is that the actual facts of what happened would remain constant - It was a trick of the light. But the interpretation of the incident is massively subjective and dependent on a person's state of mind.

This is primarily why no single personal account of any "divine revelation" is reliable as any form of evidence. And without personal testimony, religions have nothing. All religious evidence is based on various personal testimonies, and nothing more.

Ickle Magoo

I haven't heard any solid argument for the god as described in any religion, so I suppose "god" needs better definition. Theists generally just keep moving "god" back to be whatever point is a nano-second prior to where our current understanding begins and on that basis, no, no solid arguments at all so far.

Dr. Loon

So the most solid thing I have is in the numbers - Why would so many people be deluded? Surely there is truth in the belief of the masses. Hmmm.... it's not good enough.

Fear? To a young mind, fear of hell can be pretty powerful.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ickle Magoo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Or prior to the popularisation of cameras, camera phones & camcorders - unless held by a very shaky hand, slightly out of focus....hmmm.... :pac:

iUseVi

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Or prior to the popularisation of cameras, camera phones & camcorders - unless held by a very shaky hand, slightly out of focus....hmmm.... :pac:

And I was thinking this morning all these miraculous resurrections happened before modern medical practitioners were around, very convenient. Some Christian friends of mine were telling me about supposed modern day resurrections, but of course they only happen in remote villages in Africa where no proper doctors are around.

Its almost as if Christianity isn't true! Shocking.

Galvasean

Mr. Loon wrote: »

Also if anyone mentions Nazi's they should be banned. I've had a brief browse through some threads here, in Christianity and on other forums, and the amount of times religious apologists start bringing Hitler into the debate is truly laughable.

"Hi, I'm Mike Godwin. Have you heard of my law?"

Rancidmaniac13

The best argument I've come across is about the 'fine-tuning' of the Universe. Whatever about what caused the big bang, the way the Universe developed is a direct result of certain coincidences after the big bang. If the rapid expansion had been even the slightest bit longer or shorter the Universe as we know it would not exist. The same can be said for the temperature and pressure that allowed molecules to form. Any minute changes in these would render life impossible. Look it up on Google if you want more specific examples.

Many physcisists refuse to believe that the events after the big bang we're mere conincidence as the probability of them is so low. God could be one solution to this problem.

As for reasons to believe, Pascal's wager is a good example of a rationalist approach. If the pay-off for believing in God is heaven or some other kind of eternal paradise, that would be infinitely beneficial. The possibility of this pay-off, regardless of other draw-backs or pay-offs involved, justifies belief. Even if the probability of the infinite pay-off is very low, it is still an infinite pay-off.

The simple reason for belief is normally faith. Faith is not rational so of course you can't rationally argue against it. There are so many things in this world that cannot be explained rationally and everybody has different ways of coping with this. When your rationality reaches it's boundaries sometimes Faith is the best response.

Zillah

Rancidmaniac13 wrote: »

Many physcisists refuse to believe that the events after the big bang we're mere conincidence as the probability of them is so low. God could be one solution to this problem.

Life as we know it. Different variables could have created a race of moon sized sentient crystals that communicate with each other across light years using quantum entanglement. Do you think that these immortal super beings would ponder how fine tuned the universe is to allow for their existence? Do you think that they lament that rocky planets with molten cores and gaseous atmospheres with jellied primates scampering across the surface failed to come into existence?

The fact that the universe we see allows us to exist is not nearly so interesting an observation as some might think.

Put it this way: Pick a number between one and ten billion. Let's just say you pick 947. WOW OH MY GOD! There was a one in ten billion chance of you picking the number 947. That cannot be a coincidence!


Mr. Loon, this writing that you are doing, what is the purpose for which you want to include these arguments? If you're aiming for some gesture at objectivity then I'm afraid it will just look like a vapid, and possibly condescending, one. Were I to write my philosophical thesis I would include all the common arguments for God and explain why they are flawed. I think they are all flawed, so there are no good ones.

seamus

Rancidmaniac13 wrote: »

The best argument I've come across is about the 'fine-tuning' of the Universe. Whatever about what caused the big bang, the way the Universe developed is a direct result of certain coincidences after the big bang. If the rapid expansion had been even the slightest bit longer or shorter the Universe as we know it would not exist. The same can be said for the temperature and pressure that allowed molecules to form. Any minute changes in these would render life impossible. Look it up on Google if you want more specific examples.

You could argue that even before the big bang, these rules already existed, so the big bang couldn't have unfolded in any other way. What ifs and buts may be irrelevant

Many physcisists refuse to believe that the events after the big bang we're mere conincidence as the probability of them is so low. God could be one solution to this problem.

God could be an additional layer of complexity to this problem, it wouldn't actually solve it though. The problem here is finding a reason why the laws governing the movement of atoms are set the way that they are. There is probably something even simpler which we're missing, which can explain why gravity acts the way it does and why subatomic forces act the way that they do. The entire universe may be reliant on one single force, the nature of which changes depending on sub-sub-atomic configurations, giving rise to gravity and strong and weak nuclear forces.

As for reasons to believe, Pascal's wager is a good example of a rationalist approach. If the pay-off for believing in God is heaven or some other kind of eternal paradise, that would be infinitely beneficial. The possibility of this pay-off, regardless of other draw-backs or pay-offs involved, justifies belief. Even if the probability of the infinite pay-off is very low, it is still an infinite pay-off.

Unfortunately Pascal's wager is something of a fallacy because it presumes that you're hedging your bets by declaring a belief in a God which requires you to believe in it.
However, any God which requires belief and which promises an eternal afterlife must be "all-knowing" and so would be perfectly aware that you're simply hedging your bets and not displaying any real faith at all. So such a God would reject you

Goduznt Xzst

The way I see it, a person who follows any Religion is faced with providing for themselves the answers to 4 tiered questions, which are:

1. Does this Universe require that it be created by a God?

If so...

2. Does this God interact directly with this Universe now?

Upon proof of this...

3. Which Religious text contains his words and commands (if any)?

Should be easy enough after proving the first two, and finally

4. Which sect based off this Religious text has a true understanding of it?

The way I see it, Religious people are content to just not ask the first 2 questions, and will accept, blindly, any simplistic analogies they are given to explain them. The third question is also irrelevant as the text that these individuals follow is held as perfect and unique. When something is believed to be unique in it's perfection everything else will be seen as inferior.

What these Religious people seem to care most about is squabbling over Question 4 alone. Question 4 is irrelevant if there are no answers to the previous 3. There is no purpose in arguing over how to correctly understand a Religious text that was supposedly inspired by a God when you can't provide answers to the existence of a God in the first place.

So in answer to the OP, No! No I have never heard of a solid argument for God because these arguments tend to revolve around the words of some old text that they believe in, and not the actual big questions that they are happy to ignore to continue believing.

liamw

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

The way I see it, a person who follows any Religion is faced with providing for themselves the answers to 4 tiered questions, which are:

1. Does this Universe require that it be created by a God?

If so...

But any Christian or Muslim that argues with an atheist will always focus on point 1. Because there's a gap there. And they commit the fallacy of thinking that if 1. is shown true, then their particular God and sect is correct.

robindch

Mr. Loon wrote: »

Just before I ask my question you should know I'm atheist, so I'm not looking for a debate here.

No debate? You've come to the wrong place

Mr. Loon wrote: »

I wanted to see if any of the non-believers here have heard any genuinely good arguments for the existence of God, or good reasons to believe?

I'm with donegalfella on this one -- no.

If you want reasons, I'd start a new thread in the Other Forum asking posters to list their top ten.

Rancidmaniac13

The 'fine-tuning' argument is not so much about humans existing as it is about anything existing at all. It you were creating a universe you would be careful not to create a big mass of space with nothing in it. That would be a bit of a waste of effort.

It's nothing to do with the laws of nature and why they are either. Because of the laws the Universe had to develop in a very specific way for there to be any chance of life or anything else developing. The co-incidence (note the 'co' part) was that the Universe did develop in this way. I'm not saying this is definitive proof, it's just the best argument I've come across. Have a read of it.

As for Pascal's wager, it is your assumption that God would not accept you for using this method. It is only a starting point for developing real faith and even if there is a good chance that God won't accept you, it would still be an infinite pay-off!

Zillah

Rancidmaniac13 wrote: »

I'm not saying this is definitive proof, it's just the best argument I've come across. Have a read of it.

I have read it before, quite extensively. I've also read about studies done to hypothesize what other varieties of universe are possible, and there are many that are neither ours nor total collapse or chaos, including things as exotic as dark stars and other interesting things.

This is all of course not addressing the fact that the argument is a complete tautology: The universe we observe is one that allows us to exist. Well duh.

As for Pascal's wager, it is your assumption that God would not accept you for using this method. It is only a starting point for developing real faith and even if there is a good chance that God won't accept you, it would still be an infinite pay-off!

Other crucial flaws with this over-quoted nonsense is the fact that one cannot choose to believe or to not believe, and the fact that the safety or potential gains of a belief have exactly zero to do with the credibility of that belief.

If I told you standing on one foot for one second would cure cancer, aids and world hunger then it is probably worth your while to give it a shot, because you stand to lose nothing but stand to gain everything. Doesn't mean you wouldn't be a complete moron for believing me though.

Dr. Loon

Zillah wrote: »

Mr. Loon, this writing that you are doing, what is the purpose for which you want to include these arguments? If you're aiming for some gesture at objectivity then I'm afraid it will just look like a vapid, and possibly condescending, one. Were I to write my philosophical thesis I would include all the common arguments for God and explain why they are flawed. I think they are all flawed, so there are no good ones.

It's a work of fiction I'm writing, I'm not writing a thesis or anything. Just a relatively convincing argument for the existence of God. The idea is of a young lad (14) with no belief, who is convinced to believe.

To Robindch, I understand debate is common and healthy here, but the idea of the thread is not to debate but literally to detail any half decent arguments you've ever been given. Not to argue against them, but just to elaborate on why they were half decent. There are plenty of other threads where existence of god(s) is debated, thus the agenda is to debate against. Here I'm asking to discuss for... it's counter intuitive I know, but that's where my trouble lies, so I thought I'd see what others thought.

The reason I've asked the question here is to escape bias. I wanted to see if atheists/agnostics had ever actually been presented with decent arguments. In Christianity they'll just tell me of faith and so on, which isn't a good argument. I wanted to see has there been any points put to atheists etc that have made them go "Hmmm... maybe".

Zillah

Mr. Loon wrote: »

The reason I've asked the question here is to escape bias. I wanted to see if atheists/agnostics had ever actually been presented with decent arguments. In Christianity they'll just tell me of faith and so on, which isn't a good argument. I wanted to see has there been any points put to atheists etc that have made them go "Hmmm... maybe".

No.

I could, however, tell you all sorts of devious ways one could convince a 14 year old to believe something. You don't need good arguments, just blatantly abuse your position as an adult, take advantage of their trust and insecurities and underdeveloped critical faculties. Why, if you really beat them down and make them feel worthless enough I'm sure you could have them begging the sky for mercy in no time.

Dr. Loon

Zillah wrote: »

No.

I could, however, tell you all sorts of devious ways one could convince a 14 year old to believe something. You don't need good arguments, just blatantly abuse your position as an adult, take advantage of their trust and insecurities and underdeveloped critical faculties. Why, if you really beat them down and make them feel worthless enough I'm sure you could have them begging the sky for mercy in no time.

Please do elaborate. I was hoping for honest arguments, but it looks like I'll have to go the route of fear, guilt, abuse of power etc.

Mark Hamill

Rancidmaniac13 wrote: »

The 'fine-tuning' argument is not so much about humans existing as it is about anything existing at all. It you were creating a universe you would be careful not to create a big mass of space with nothing in it. That would be a bit of a waste of effort.

The universe was created and 13 billion years later man arrived. Is that not still a bit of a waste of effort?

Rancidmaniac13 wrote: »

As for Pascal's wager, it is your assumption that God would not accept you for using this method. It is only a starting point for developing real faith and even if there is a good chance that God won't accept you, it would still be an infinite pay-off!

It is your assumption that god wont punish you more for being a cheeky fecker trying to cover your bases even though you dont really believe.

Ickle Magoo

Rancidmaniac13 wrote: »

The 'fine-tuning' argument is not so much about humans existing as it is about anything existing at all. It you were creating a universe you would be careful not to create a big mass of space with nothing in it. That would be a bit of a waste of effort.

Why? If I had the ability to bend/conjure time and space to create a universe why would I have to be careful about anything, let alone wasting effort?

Rancidmaniac13 wrote: »

It's nothing to do with the laws of nature and why they are either. Because of the laws the Universe had to develop in a very specific way for there to be any chance of life or anything else developing. The co-incidence (note the 'co' part) was that the Universe did develop in this way. I'm not saying this is definitive proof, it's just the best argument I've come across.

If the universe existed under any other conditions then "we" may not be here in our present form - but you have no way of knowing what would be here instead, I wouldn't necessarily assume nothing.

Rancidmaniac13 wrote: »

As for Pascal's wager, it is your assumption that God would not accept you for using this method. It is only a starting point for developing real faith and even if there is a good chance that God won't accept you, it would still be an infinite pay-off!

It would only be of any use if you were to worship every god equally on the basis that they could all be the god that actually exists & throw in some more for good measure that no-one has thought of yet because they might be "god" too...it's worthless placing a wager unless you know the odds, no?

Glenster

There is the medieval "that which no greater can be imagined" argument of Anselm and Descartes.

There are arguments from personal testimony, fulfillment of prophesy etc.

And there are arguments from design.

The first argument requires that God be perfect, and can be circular.

The second is an argument without hard evidence and requires belief in someone's testimony.

The third is an unprovable nebulous argument, you might as well argue that your mom designed life through "unknown means".


It depends on how you want to portray your 14 year old protagonist. Is he an artistic soul? Have him look at a sunset and have a 'revelation'. Is he impressionable? Have him be swept up in one of those evangelical movements. Is he a cynical rationalist? Maimonides' nessesary beliefs.

Good luck with the book.

Dr. Loon

Appreciate the input thus far folks. It has given me some good stuff to chew over, and possibly work in.

kelly1

Mr. Loon wrote: »

I wanted to see if any of the non-believers here have heard any genuinely good arguments for the existence of God, or good reasons to believe?

Hello, you might try Thomas Aquinas. I haven't read this yet but have a look at his 5 ways arguments and see what you make of it.

EDIT: Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide sounds like a good read too.

Dr. Loon

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello, you might try Thomas Aquinas. I haven't read this yet but have a look at his 5 ways arguments and see what you make of it.

EDIT: Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide sounds like a good read too.

Thanks for that. I'm aware of these arguments however, and they are at best, weak. Though probably quite convincing to a 14 year old. I was hoping for something original, but it looks like I won't find that. Cheers though!

kelly1

Mr. Loon wrote: »

Thanks for that. I'm aware of these arguments however, and they are at best, weak. Though probably quite convincing to a 14 year old. I was hoping for something original, but it looks like I won't find that. Cheers though!

Sarcasm noted.

Dr. Loon

kelly1 wrote: »

Sarcasm noted.

Eh? I wasn't being sarcastic!

kelly1

Mr. Loon wrote: »

Eh? I wasn't being sarcastic!

Sorry, sarcastic is the wrong word but your post comes across to me as a bit arrogant and dismissive.

Have you really studied Aquinas in depth and refuted his arguments? I'd like to hear your refutation!

Dr. Loon

No I haven't studied him in depth and I won't be. I also won't be refuting all his arguments.

Read back a bit and you'll see I just wanted genuine "original" arguments for the existence of God(s) for a piece of fiction I'm writing. I also requested we don't start debating. I'm not going to start studying philosphy in depth. Look anywhere you want to see refutations of Aquinas. There are far more intelligent posters on this board that I'm sure would gladly refute these for you also, but it's not why I'm here.

Apologies if you read it differently, it's not what I intended. I also think that once things start meandering too far into the realm of philosophy, that the argument becomes silly.

Glenster

Mr. Loon wrote: »

Thanks for that. I'm aware of these arguments however, and they are at best, weak. Though probably quite convincing to a 14 year old. I was hoping for something original, but it looks like I won't find that. Cheers though!

Passive agressive much?

Mark Hamill

kelly1 wrote: »

Sorry, sarcastic is the wrong word but your post comes across to me as a bit arrogant and dismissive.

Have you really studied Aquinas in depth and refuted his arguments? I'd like to hear your refutation!

Just read his five arguements here. The first three are actually the same argument (there must be a first first mover/cause/self necessating being because movement/causation/contingent beings canot regress infinitely), and these are flawed for not realising that time-space doesn't regress infinitely either. Since causation (essentially what all three arguments are talking about) is chronologically dependent (happens linearly in time) and time is not eternal, it means causation is not eternal. Therefore things that occur outside of space-time are not subject to our rules of causation (this has recently been explained to your before, see these two threads, here and here, which you yourself starter, to remind you of why in more detail.)
As it is written in the link above, the fourth argument is flawed in its second statement (things are described as hotter relative to anything colder than them, not to some hottest ideal), its third statement (its nonsense, did the ideal hammer cause the existence of all other hammers?) and the fourth statement is flawed because the previous two are flawed (also because it arbitrarily throws in goodness and perfection, without acknowledging the subjectivity of these words).
The last argument is made completely ignorant of evolutionary science, not to mention the laws of physics.

Dr. Loon

Glenster wrote: »

Passive agressive much?

I think ye are taking me completely out of context. Jump to conclusions much?

I'm writing a work of fiction. The character in question is 14 years old. The arguments presented are weak, and not original. They probably wouldn't have convinced me when I was 14.

I was hoping for some direct experience from someone here. Maybe somebody said something to them to make them think "Hmmm, that's a good argument."

This isn't the case, so I've indicated it looks like I'm barking up the wrong tree.

How do you think this is passive agressive? I'm not dismissing anyone. For the purposes of my story, they are weak arguments. I'm not getting into actual arguments here.

uncleoswald

I don't think your character could be argued into believing in God. Its a gut thing and arguments are formed to support that gut feeling.

On a side note I have always wondered how someone who had no indoctrination of a certain religion as a child can suddenly whole heartedly embrace that religions beliefs. I just can't get my head around it and I have tried.

For example, Scientology. Okay so you have taken the Dianetics test thingy and its told you things about yourself that makes sense and you want to learn more. I understand that they drip feed you their beliefs over time but, sooner or later, they have to get around to mentioning Xenu. So what stops someone, who in many cases has gone through life without dedicating themselves to a supernatural cause, from bolting or at least breaking down in floods of laughter until they are escorted off the premises?

Galvasean

If there were any really strong arguments for God tehre probably wouldn't be any atheists TBH.

Dr. Loon

uncleoswald wrote: »

I don't think your character could be argued into believing in God. Its a gut thing and arguments are formed to support that gut feeling.

But it happens all the time no? Surely an impressionable 14 year old could be (kindly) convinced to believe?

It isn't necessarily an argument, rather a long series of conversations that convince him. Possibly a tragedy.

uncleoswald

Mr. Loon wrote: »

But it happens all the time no? Surely an impressionable 14 year old could be (kindly) convinced to believe?

It isn't necessarily an argument, rather a long series of conversations that convince him. Possibly a tragedy.

Yeah but kids are dumb.

I think a tragedy would help because then the mind could be open for hopeful possibilities. That's what I mean that a belief (even a wishy-washy undefined one) would have to come before the arguments to get a hold.

Dr. Loon

uncleoswald wrote: »

Yeah but kids are dumb.

I think a tragedy would help because then the mind could be open for hopeful possibilities. That's what I mean that a belief (even a wishy-washy undefined one) would have to come before the arguments to get a hold.

Aye. Good point. A friend of mine has suggested similar. Thanks.

Stercus Accidit

Rather than an argument, the loss of a loved one (as mentioned) and psychological manipulation, guilt, fear and peer pressure and the influence of adults could be the cause of belief. They often are in reality so why not tackle the real issue and causes of belief, the gradual indoctrination of naive children.