Arguments in favour of the existence of God

One idea which I have been tossing around my head (very much a work in progress for me) is the concept of natural law and evil.

The materialist philosophy (which seems to be the prevailing one at present, or at least the one making the most waves) essentially holds that everything is the result of material interactions and that there is nothing higher. One manifestation we can see of this philosophy is the idea that things like gender are a social construct.

But it goes deeper too, when played out, materialism states that even things like our mental state, thoughts, consciousness, ideas, etc. are all a product and result of material interactions.

"Natural Law" supposes that there are certain laws that are intrinsic to human beings/nature and are universal. That is to say, they exist on a "higher plane" and are not a product of our material interactions. Extended further, we can say that there are acts that are evil now, were always evil, and will always be evil. If one subscribes to the "Natural Law" theory it must have a source, i.e something higher than our own conscience or faculty of reason, i.e. God. This also leads us nicely on to virtue ethics, but another time maybe.

Obviously, this concept of "natural law" is entirely incompatible with materialism.

So if we feel that morality stems from something more than our material interactions (if we feel that actual, true evil exists in our world, something I feel is self and instinctually obvious and evident) this would lead us towards the concept of natural law, and in turn the possible existence of something "higher", i.e. God.

Leroy42 wrote: »

You didn't really start your journey as you say. You were well aware of the idea of God, it wasn't that it simply came to you. So you were not starting from an unbiased position.

But you don't have any evidence, just ideas. A 'could be' position.

But there are lots of other 'could be' positions that you don't mention as to why you have decided they cannot be.

And what type of God? The traditional Christian God, the old testament God, Jesus, or some other version?

I have to say I thought I'd get my first post on this thread out before people replied, didn't think there was that much traffic in this forum!

I don't think there is such a thing as a truly unbiased position, I think it's impossible.

A "could be" position is different than a "can't be" position. But I do feel that a lot of these "ideas" point towards the probability of the existence of God.

The "type" of God is skipping ahead !

Leroy42 wrote: »

So what other ideas have you considered but set aside?

And if you don't know what type of god, isn't that just saying that you simply don't know, why place a label on that?

I mentioned Aquinas' five ways, as an example, as they point towards the probability of the existence of something we understand as God. These type of arguments and ideas tend not to so much to point towards the space where something could be explained by the existence of God or a load of other ideas, but rather to space where the only satisfactory answer is God.

If you were to say that God exists but you are unsure of the nature of God, this is saying that God exists! Hence the basis for your understanding of the world must be based on this foundation.

Being unsure of the nature of God is not an argument against the existence of God.

Leroy42 wrote: »

But what is God, if you don't know what type of god. That is like saying you have a car, when its actually a bike, but you like to call it a car!

I don't agree with the analogy, but to take it on your terms, both are a method of transport.

It appears you believe that there is something either controlling or responsible for everything, which you label as God, but have no idea what it is or what it does.

The purpose of this thread was not to explore what I believe. (I am a Catholic). Rather, to discuss arguments for the existence of God, or a God.

That makes discussing the evidence almost impossible as you have no actual position.

How does it? It seems perfectly reasonable to me to start at the question of "does God exist" before deciding on the precise nature and characteristics of such a God.

I asked what other ideas had you considered that you decided against that didn't include a god? Have you considered other religions? Have you read their scriptures?

Have you considered no god? That the universe just is? Have you considered that a god did indeed start the universe but has no impact or interest in its ongoing? Have you considered that a god exists, but we are no more important than we believe a dog is, and in fact the universe was created for s9me other life form?

Or that this is heaven, given that we can love, live, dream, and have a direct relationship with God?

You are all over the place here, and missing the point of the thread. "Have I considered that a God exists", this is the first thing we must address.

Why don't you start with directly addressing Aquinas 5 ways (I am not saying these are the be all and end all but they are probably the most famous) as you seem to be saying that arguments such as these that put forward the existence of God can be addressed in the ways you outline?

Leroy42 wrote: »

"The purpose of this thread was not to explore what I believe. (I am a Catholic). Rather, to discuss arguments for the existence of God, or a God. "

Ok, so what are your arguements for the existence of god? That is what I am trying to get to.

At least we now know it is the Christian God you believe in. So why not any of the other gods? What caused you to reject them? The god you believe in, one that acts on prayers, watches everything we do, can save certain people but not others. Can do miracles, but also not. Announces his existance by moving statues but refuses to make himself known because of free will?

So go with your best argument. So far its been that there there probably is. That's it.

It is perfectly reasonable to ask does god exist, but you apparently have already reached that conclusion, or maybe you haven't and I misunderstood your OP. If so, I apologise for the misunderstanding

I think you should review my posts again.

The precise nature of God is entirely separate from the question of whether God exists. You are insisting on skipping over this.

As or arguments, why not engage with Aquinas' five ways?

Leroy42 wrote: »

How can you say something exists if you can't even describe what that something is.

Instead of god, why not call it 'something'? Why do you insist in putting a label, with such conataticions already attached to it?

But even allowing for this uncertain and non definined god, there is still no evidence. People have certainly put forward arguments in favour, some quite compelling, but none of them exclude other gods, or multiple gods, or any of the other questions that I asked.

"Aquinas' Five Ways are based ultimately on sense experience. Sense experience can never be infallible. Thus by themselves these arguments cannot establish the existence of God with complete certainty. However, should his arguments be valid, the existence of God would be an established fact on par with many of the discoveries of modern science.

The Roman Catholic Church considers the first three ways of Aquinas (collectively called The "Cosmological Arguments" [a]) as conclusive evidence for establishing the existence of God. [4] The Catholic Church notwithstanding, we will now proceed to examine for ourselves the validity of Aquinas' arguments.

We will now see how none of the five ways prove the existence of God:

* The First Way: God, the Prime Mover
* The Second Way: God, the First Cause
* The Third Way: God, the Necessary Being
* The Fourth Way: God, the Absolute Being
* The Fifth Way: God, the Grand Designer "


https://web.csulb.edu/~cwallis/100/st2.html#:~:text=Thus%20Aquinas'%20five%20ways%20defined,aspects%20of%20the%20sensible%20world.

But they exclude there being no God.

What would you call it, if not God?

You seem determined to miss the point of this thread, or have a different conversation altogether.

Leroy42 wrote: »

I am not missing the point. You want to explore the evidence for god, or a god.

All I am asking for is a definition of what you would consider to be a god. What are the attributes of this god thing that you would want to see evidenced? How would you know that you have evidence of a god, if you cannot describe what a god is supposed to be?

It this god eternal? How could we demonstrate that?
If it omniscient? How do we show that?
Is it a single entity or a collective? Is the collective of one mind or different minds?
Is it consistent across the universe or individual to our part of it and changes in other parts?

I don't understand why you are so reluctant to define what god is?

I want to explore rational arguments for the existence of God. The "evidence" is the logic of the argument.

Aquinas five ways point towards the existence of something which we understand to be God.

Should there be such a thing it is not unreasonable to, as Aquinas does (although he gives us 8 attributes), say that we cannot and are incapable of understanding the complete and precise nature of God (in the Earthly phase of our life at least ).

But if you insist on a definition, a general one could could be a "supreme being, creator and ruler of the universe, source of all moral authority" (I have plucked a few quotes here from the dictionary, they are not my words).

By skipping ahead as you are, you are setting the table to discredit the existence of a certain God, rather than discredit the fundamental existence of God which is what we need to discuss first.

smacl wrote: »

Could you give an example of such a natural law which is intrinsic to our nature that demands a god to have created it? Reason that I ask is that I can think of many natural laws which are intrinsic to our nature, e.g. the need to love and be loved, but on inspection they arise from biological imperatives.

I think the point is that if it is indeed intrinsic, or universal, it must have been created by God. If it is just as a result of our material interactions it should hold that once they change, this "law" would change also - it is not universal and commonly held, but rather a product of our environment.

As I said in my post I am at the "thinking" stage of this particular topic and do not have it worked out, so I hope (and honestly expect given your other posts, so please note that I am not having a dig) that an interesting discussion can be had on this, and not a "gotcha!" one.

But lets take one example, the right to life (and indeed other "natural" or universal rights). I think it is evident that humanity holds, universally, that innocent people have a right to life and should not be killed. Influences on positive law from this are evident, right across the spectrum, from workplace safety laws to laws against murder and assault. Now you could say that this idea that life should be protected, or that there is a right to life, has evolved as it serves a biological interest for our species, but we can see that this law applies universally, even when its application serves against this biological, and indeed immediate personal, interest. There are many examples of people consciously making (what we often view as heroic ) decisions often against their instinct. The opposite is true too, there are many examples of cruel acts of evil which disgust us, even though it could be argued, on a strictly rational basis, that they could or did serve the "greater good".

Incidentally, I sometimes observe the "I don't need to be religious to be moral" arguments with some degree of amusement, as of course the response would be here in the context of our discussion that of course you don't because these natural laws have been "written on your heart" before you were born. If you did need religion to be in any way moral (religion can help and guide those wishing to live the moral life of course) then that would be an argument in and of itself against the existence of natural law, and in turn, God.

My belief is that while we may indeed live in a deterministic universe, our combined collective intellect for the period that mankind has been, and will be, in existence is infinitesimal when compared to the potential complexity of that universe. As such, while the universe may be deterministic, it is highly unlikely that we will ever be able to comprehend it as such. On that basis, there will always be more knowledge that we don't posses than we do and therefore much we will never understand. Personally I think it is more sensible to simply acknowledge this ignorance than plug the knowledge gap with religious fable. I appreciate my ignorance as it enables my to have a sense of wonder safe in the knowledge that there will always be more to discover.

But religion does not "plug" this gap at all. Certainly Catholicism doesn't - it is accepted that, while we are "alive" at least we can never understand the nature of God (and thus the Universe etc.) but through philosophy and the sciences we can come closer to understanding the nature of the universe, and thus, its creator. In fact, it is imperative that we continue to search for the truth around us - this is one of the reasons why the Catholic Church has put so much emphasis on education and often patronized the sciences (which it still does). So you still get all the wonder - even more wonder, and more to contemplate. A life led in the search for truth, for wisdom, is a noble one.

I'd also question how many people hold to a entirely materialistic philosophy. For example, anyone involved in the sciences works with mathematics which is a pure abstract. If you consider something as elementary as Pythagoras' theorem for example it deals with points on a plane, yet those points and plane do not actually exist. Similarly, materialism is an exceptionally blunt tool if you were to try to describe emotion, the arts, politics etc... and I doubt many would seriously limit themselves to this approach.

I think if you asked most people through what underlying philosophical "prism" they view the world you would get a reply of "huh"? I think we cannot really deal with it on a personal level but rather we have to ask what the dominant philosophy in society is. Or if not dominant, then the most influential. Currently I think it is pretty clear that it is materialism, in the "western world", certainly. Now, people are probably not sitting down and consciously deciding how to apply this philosophy to a particular topic and then proceeding accordingly. You know what I mean, it's in the zeitgeist.

I think the materialistic outlook is seriously unsatisfactory, not to mention depressing, for the reasons you mention and others beside. It's also very damaging too. I don't see how someone can, logically, "partially" espouse materialism to a point, surely it must apply to everything in order for it to stand. But I get your point, I do think this is happening in some ways. This serves to underline how incoherent things have become in society.

Even if you manage to dance around the "free will" implications, I think that a lot of people, should it be explained to them, would find it unsatisfactory too, if the philosophy is played out for them beyond that which is immediate.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Only if you can define what that something is, and how you would be able to recognise it. Neither of which seems to be the case. Couldn't we replace god with Satan and come to the same conclusions?

You could call it what you want, but it would still end up being "what we understand as God". I am not saying a specific God, I am saying "God", a Deity, Supreme Being, Creator, etc. Please try to stop getting hung up on this point. Or answer this question, when you hear "god" what do you think that is, generally? (In terms of the meaning of the word).

Isn't that the question I asked you, you can't ignore me question and ask me the very same. You used right to life as an example of morals, which you believe come from god. Animals seem to have the same belief, but you don't think animals are the same as humans in terms of god do you?

I see zero evidence that animals have any beliefs. I do not believe that animals have the capacity to think and make decisions the way we do. I don't think it is a minority position to say that human beings are unique and different to animals.

We cannot break natural laws.

Of course we can. With respect, I don't think you understand what is meant by "natural law".

So I would argue that morals are merely constructs based on what a person believes to be in their best interest. Evil is carried out, either because people want something or don't care. In many cases, though not all, the people doing the evil do not see it as evil at the time.

If it is a construct than how can you consider it to be evil?

They believe they are doing what is required. The same, one could argue, as god laying waste to countless lives throughout the old testament.

Ah yes, you seem to be leaving behind trying to get me to lay the table and are doing it yourself instead.

But I can see that you would prefer to have this discussion on the basis that your version of god is the only possibility. So let continue on that position.

I have said it many times now that I am expressly interested in logical arguments for "a" God, or what we understand as God. I have pointed out, more than once, that these logical arguments would point towards the existence of "a" God, and not necessarily the Christian one. Why would you state that I want to have this discussion based on my version or definition of God when I have said umpteen times that I am not interested, for this discussion, in defining the precise nature of God, but that I want to discuss arguments about the existence of "a" God. This is dishonest of you.

What does it mean if it is true. If this god does exist, so what?

That a God exists and created the Universe is surely a "big deal"? The implications of this as massive for our understanding of the origins of the Universe and our place in it.

Do you believe it interacts in our lives? Do you believe in takes an interest in what we do? And to what end? If this god is the creator of the universe, the source of all morals, what possible difference does it make if certain people either pray to him or not, or be nice or not? You are currently one of 7 bn people on this planet, with an estimated 100bn having lived throughout time. You really think what you individually do is important of makes a difference?


That is the bit that I struggle with. Why? Why wait for thousands of years to send Jesus down, and then never return to clarify the clear issues left behind. Did he not care about the previous people that lived before? Does he not care about the death and evil that occurs, many of it nothing to do with free will.

So having set the table, you now seek to sweep it clean.

I certainly see plenty that I would like to think came from a god, but that is offset by much that I think only something evil, or uninterested, could allow. I look at the wonders of the world, and the universe, and then look at the waste al around us. Why develop a planet when so much if it we cannot live on? Why create such a vast and amazing universe but gives us no means by which to explore and enjoy it?

Why would you like to think it came from God?

I can appreciate the argument that superior being created the universe, but I see no evidence of any interaction with it afterwards. I see no evidence that, if this god exists, he is remotely interested in this tiny part of the universe, and indeed not only that, but a tiny portion of this tiny part.

Like the previous paragraph, worthy questions, but entirely separate from a discussion on whether a God exists. If you conclude that "a" God exists it is perfectly legitimate, and necessary, to then move on and ask such questions as whether He interacts with the world. But whether or not He does directly interact with the world through miracles etc., or did send his Son, or did whatever in any sacred scripture has no bearing on whether "a" God exists.

indioblack wrote: »

You seem to want to set the limits on what should be included in this "search" for god, or "god" as you put it. You want to reason a deity, perhaps an entity of some description, [yet you do not wish description or definition]. Even so, you make references to Christianity, [it seems to me that that is your direction], and yet pull back from some basic aspects of the Christian god and the world.
It could be god or God or "god" - or something else.
Your posts indicate a moving toward Christianity - yet you seem to want to separate that from your search for a creator's existence.

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.