Arguments in favour of the existence of God

indioblack

John Hutton wrote: »

Well I did start this thread in the Christianity forum, in the context of how these logical arguments have impacted on me on my "faith journey". The point of the thread was basically to ask people what arguments like these have helped them, and for them to share and to discuss them. Only one poster has really done this in some fashion. Now it's not a loss because the conversation has been interesting.

My concern is that by moving on to the nature of God, or specific Christian beliefs, we are jumping over and skipping the fundamental logical "proofs" regarding the existence of 'god or God or "god"' as you put it.

It's a bit like wanting to talk about the basics of an internal combustion engine and how it works, the physics involved etc. but then just skipping over that and talking about what model of car is coolest. I'm bad at analogies but you know what I mean.

I do.
As you point out this is the Christianity forum - so that gives direction and some definition. Still a broad church, [no pun intended!], so plenty of room.
One basic argument often put forward is that there is something, [the material world], rather than nothing. In the context of the forum therefore this requires a cause, first cause, and who or what is that originator.

smacl

John Hutton wrote: »

This is interesting. Would you regard morality as simply a more layered and sophisticated "biological imperative"? Does humanity, through our minds, not have the capacity to "rise above" and rationalize, think and act outside and beyond biological imperatives? Should a new "biological imperative" arise which, through thinking etc. it is realised that the only solution is one which is in complete conflict with longstanding human rights or natural laws, would it then be justified to violate those rights/laws? In other words, is anything "always" evil?

I think morality is a highly dynamic social construct, necessary to allow us to live together and work together to form a society. While there is the underlying biological imperative that we are social animals, morality goes well beyond that. It is also worth noting that different societies adhere to different morals, so in addition to behaving in a moral or immoral fashion we can also be amoral and choose not to recognise a given moral code. Morality can and does change and evolve as our societies and habitat evolves. For example, many people are vegetarian today where they consider slaughter of animals for meat to be immoral. Others are vegan on the basis that intensive farming is contributing to climate change which will wipe out humanity. In a country such as our own, homosexuality was not just immoral but also illegal until relatively recently whereas now we are fully subscribed to the idea that it is a violation of basic human rights to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation. I don't think good or evil exist independently of people and how they behave, they are more a way of describing someone's actions or behaviour in a given context.

Yes I don't want to go down the abortion rabbit hole, but the fact that it is a contentious issue in the first place, and that it involves the balancing of rights, or arguing over whether or not something is really "a life" illustrates that in the first instance there is a fundamental "right to life". If this wasn't a fundamental viewpoint for all concerned it wouldn't be contentious at all.

Similar to my point above, the fact that a just war doctrine was in the first place necessary illustrates that there was a "hurdle", for humanity, of a "right to life" which had to be navigated (successful or otherwise it was felt necessary to try). But for the purposes of this discussion my point is that a natural law, such as the "right to life", is a intrinsic part of humanity itself and not something that a religion dreamed up and implemented. In fact, for the purposes of our discussion, you could easily argue that a man made religion is immoral/evil etc., entirely contrary to natural law, and my central point would remain intact.

This merely indicates that we consider life to be precious, which I doubt anyone would dispute. While it is arguably sad, I don't think many if any societies consider the right to life to be inviolable regardless of context. Just war, for example, is an excuse that has enabled ruthless imperial expansion on more than one occasion. I think if you were to investigate your natural law a bit closer, it would state that life is precious, primarily one's own life and the lives of loved ones. The lives of others who are at arms length seem to be of little concern to the masses.

As for the right to life being extrinsic, the fact that is was formulated and written down does not mean it is a wholly positive law. I think that people would have believed and adhered to it (or disapproved of deviations from it) "naturally". The human belief in the "right to life" didn't just begin when Moses wrote it down.

Doesn't the fact that there is some fundamental commonality to be found in the first place suggest that there are some core fundamental "morals" or natural laws, which exist independent of any (or no) religion?

In fact, one could easily argue that the search for completely secular laws is an effort to strip away "religious add-ons" and to bore down to fundamental and universal laws that humanity should govern itself by. Natural laws, in other words. (Of course this does not necessarily mean that any secular positive law is perfectly in accordance with natural law).

I think there are fundamental human rights which can be agreed on and should be held as inviolable. Some have been enshrined in different religious beliefs and cultural traditions, many other have not. Others run contrary to the tenets of some religions. These are not natural laws, they are made by humanity for humanity and arrived at through a process of consensus. I'd agree that secularism is the mechanism to strip away "religious add-ons" but above and beyond that it is also a mechanism that allows for the respect of others regardless of their creed. i.e. freedom of religion alongside freedom from religion.

Logical arguments leading to a conclusion that there must be a creator are not mythology. You may argue that the conclusions or arguments are incorrect, but that is much different from saying it is a myth. Now, myth may be built on the foundation of these conclusions, but if you strip away this myth the conclusion is still there, the conclusion is not dependent upon the myth.

Rather depends on your definition of myth, I usually go with Merriam-Webster which gives "a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon". I would say that your arguments are dependent on your myth.

I'm a Catholic and I think that the fundamental views on right and wrong that you and I have would be more similar than different. Of course there would differences but I think these would be more about the extents, application, degree etc. rather than the fundamental idea.

Would you agree with this, and would you think that your "morality" etc. is a product of Judaeo-Christian historic influence or rather "basic" human decency and reasoning?

In my opinion many aspects of morality are heavily influenced by Judaeo-Christian tradition but others are not. The main issue that I have with Judaeo-Christian morality is that it is static and to a large extent anachronistic. So for example, at the time of Christ the world population was ~300 million, life expectancy was short, and the exhortation to "go forth and multiply" was pragmatic and sensible. World population today is 7.8 billion people, life expectancy is far greater and suggesting people should "go forth and multiply" is damaging to the point of being potentially catastrophic for our species.

Again, just my opinion, but looking for natural laws which aren't based on the broadest possible consensus are prone to lead you to a position where you judge others from a skewed view point. Better perhaps to avoid judging others wherever possible.

smacl

John Hutton wrote: »

Well I did start this thread in the Christianity forum, in the context of how these logical arguments have impacted on me on my "faith journey". The point of the thread was basically to ask people what arguments like these have helped them, and for them to share and to discuss them. Only one poster has really done this in some fashion. Now it's not a loss because the conversation has been interesting.

Just looking at this now and possibly better I leave the discussion at this point as my position clearly runs contrary to your above stated intention for the thread. Interesting enough for all that.

antiskeptic

John Hutton wrote: »

Everyone has a different journey to make regarding God, and He speaks to us and makes His presence known to each individual in different ways.

Personally, the exciting road I am on started off when I became truly open to the idea of the existence of "a" God. Before this I was a lapsed Catholic, probably agnostic if not atheist, only "resorting" to my faith in desperate times of crisis. In many ways I was a victim of the prevailing idea that there were no rational, philosophical or otherwise, arguments for the existence of God, and that you could only believe in this type of thing if you were stupid, or denied science.

But having the hunger for the truth, I began to explore these things more deeply, and discovered that there are "rational" arguments for the existence of God. Once I became open to the idea and possibility, indeed probability, of "a" God existing, things have flowed from there and as times goes on and I explore the scriptures etc, my faith has grown. But this wouldn't have happened without getting over that first hurdle.

As one example, I found Aquinas' five ways helpful. But I am interested in what other "rational" (by this I mean knowledge and understanding gained outside of immediate personal encounters with God/Holy Spirit/Grace etc.) arguments posters here have found helpful, because I think these open the door (they have for me anyway). So please do share.

It seems to me (and it seems to make sense to me) that every argument for God, no matter how compelling on face value, can be met with an equally compelling argument to the contrary.

The fine tuned universe, for example, finds it's most compelling aspect in the sheer magicality of what has occurred on Earth.

But magicality, whilst overcomingly powerful to some - usually the already converted, finds, understandably, no such purchase in others. They.may be astounded in micro mode just like us. But in macro mode its simply: "There are an infinite number of Lotto numbers and we just happen to be Lotto winners"


I don't think it's humanly possible to argue for (or against God). The argument will just to and fro until the strands become too large for any human minds to hold together. On a public discussion forum at any rate.

Anyway. You were convinced of God's existence by arguments. Or something else?

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

I think morality is a highly dynamic social construct, necessary to allow us to live together and work together to form a society. While there is the underlying biological imperative that we are social animals, morality goes well beyond that. It is also worth noting that different societies adhere to different morals, so in addition to behaving in a moral or immoral fashion we can also be amoral and choose not to recognise a given moral code. Morality can and does change and evolve as our societies and habitat evolves. For example, many people are vegetarian today where they consider slaughter of animals for meat to be immoral. Others are vegan on the basis that intensive farming is contributing to climate change which will wipe out humanity. In a country such as our own, homosexuality was not just immoral but also illegal until relatively recently whereas now we are fully subscribed to the idea that it is a violation of basic human rights to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation. I don't think good or evil exist independently of people and how they behave, they are more a way of describing someone's actions or behaviour in a given context.



This merely indicates that we consider life to be precious, which I doubt anyone would dispute. While it is arguably sad, I don't think many if any societies consider the right to life to be inviolable regardless of context. Just war, for example, is an excuse that has enabled ruthless imperial expansion on more than one occasion. I think if you were to investigate your natural law a bit closer, it would state that life is precious, primarily one's own life and the lives of loved ones. The lives of others who are at arms length seem to be of little concern to the masses.



I think there are fundamental human rights which can be agreed on and should be held as inviolable. Some have been enshrined in different religious beliefs and cultural traditions, many other have not. Others run contrary to the tenets of some religions. These are not natural laws, they are made by humanity for humanity and arrived at through a process of consensus. I'd agree that secularism is the mechanism to strip away "religious add-ons" but above and beyond that it is also a mechanism that allows for the respect of others regardless of their creed. i.e. freedom of religion alongside freedom from religion.



Rather depends on your definition of myth, I usually go with Merriam-Webster which gives "a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon". I would say that your arguments are dependent on your myth.



In my opinion many aspects of morality are heavily influenced by Judaeo-Christian tradition but others are not. The main issue that I have with Judaeo-Christian morality is that it is static and to a large extent anachronistic. So for example, at the time of Christ the world population was ~300 million, life expectancy was short, and the exhortation to "go forth and multiply" was pragmatic and sensible. World population today is 7.8 billion people, life expectancy is far greater and suggesting people should "go forth and multiply" is damaging to the point of being potentially catastrophic for our species.

Again, just my opinion, but looking for natural laws which aren't based on the broadest possible consensus are prone to lead you to a position where you judge others from a skewed view point. Better perhaps to avoid judging others wherever possible.

I don't understand this 'secularisim' gig.

Everybody has a belief system. And that belief system drives views. And if in a position of power, those views can form policy affecting the many.

How do you get a secular society (a society in which personal beliefs don't hold sway).

Defining it as non-religious merely excludes a particular segment of views, namely the religious view.

But since all belief are religious (as in they answer fundamental existential questions), how to pick and choose?

You exclude say "Catholicism" but don't exclude viewpoints that see life as the product of.merely natural processes??

John Hutton

smacl wrote: »

I think morality is a highly dynamic social construct, necessary to allow us to live together and work together to form a society. While there is the underlying biological imperative that we are social animals, morality goes well beyond that. It is also worth noting that different societies adhere to different morals, so in addition to behaving in a moral or immoral fashion we can also be amoral and choose not to recognise a given moral code. Morality can and does change and evolve as our societies and habitat evolves. For example, many people are vegetarian today where they consider slaughter of animals for meat to be immoral. Others are vegan on the basis that intensive farming is contributing to climate change which will wipe out humanity. In a country such as our own, homosexuality was not just immoral but also illegal until relatively recently whereas now we are fully subscribed to the idea that it is a violation of basic human rights to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation. I don't think good or evil exist independently of people and how they behave, they are more a way of describing someone's actions or behaviour in a given context.

Different societies can and do have different views on what is and is not moral, but my point would be that there are still commonalities. People can be, and in many instances are, "trained" to believe that certain immoral acts are moral by either society, or sometimes individuals or groups.

This merely indicates that we consider life to be precious, which I doubt anyone would dispute. While it is arguably sad, I don't think many if any societies consider the right to life to be inviolable regardless of context. Just war, for example, is an excuse that has enabled ruthless imperial expansion on more than one occasion. I think if you were to investigate your natural law a bit closer, it would state that life is precious, primarily one's own life and the lives of loved ones. The lives of others who are at arms length seem to be of little concern to the masses.

But why do we view it as precious though? They do not view it as inviolable, but do believe that it is necessary to think up a "good excuse" to violate it.

I think there are fundamental human rights which can be agreed on and should be held as inviolable. Some have been enshrined in different religious beliefs and cultural traditions, many other have not. Others run contrary to the tenets of some religions. These are not natural laws, they are made by humanity for humanity and arrived at through a process of consensus. I'd agree that secularism is the mechanism to strip away "religious add-ons" but above and beyond that it is also a mechanism that allows for the respect of others regardless of their creed. i.e. freedom of religion alongside freedom from religion.

If they have to be "agreed on", then how can they be held as inviolable for all time? Couldn't a country, or indeed an individual, just toss it aside and say they no longer agree? And how could we say that that is illegitimate?

Rather depends on your definition of myth, I usually go with Merriam-Webster which gives "a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon". I would say that your arguments are dependent on your myth.

My point is this, saying that the Bible was made up, or even proving that, would not "prove" or even move us closer to proving, that God doesn't exist. Nor would it undermine the logic arguments I have been referring to.

In my opinion many aspects of morality are heavily influenced by Judaeo-Christian tradition but others are not. The main issue that I have with Judaeo-Christian morality is that it is static and to a large extent anachronistic. So for example, at the time of Christ the world population was ~300 million, life expectancy was short, and the exhortation to "go forth and multiply" was pragmatic and sensible. World population today is 7.8 billion people, life expectancy is far greater and suggesting people should "go forth and multiply" is damaging to the point of being potentially catastrophic for our species.

I profoundly disagree here - it is the current situation of late stage capitalism that is destroying the planet - greed and over-consumption - not that there is too many people. Humanity can adjust the way it lives and support more people. The fact that we can't support billions more (although even this is debatable) they we are living now, doesn't mean they cannot be supported no matter what.

I think the commodification of children by would be parents is far more damaging to individuals, families (and thus society) than by a family having five kids. (Although anecdotally, many people are now waiting until their mid thirties before "settling now", not leaving much time to have 5 or 10 kids!).