I think most sane people would agree that to believe in something without evidence is foolishness. So then why do many people believe in a “God” or other supreme being. To believe in something based on a intuitive feeling of faith alone is not enough. There must be evidence or a basis for this faith somewhere. This evidence will not be easy to find unless you try to look for it. Dismissing the notion of a “God” without searching for evidence unbiasedly is as foolish as believing based on blind faith alone. So where is this logical, physical, personal or supernatural evidence?
Also don’t be misled by thinking God is made in our image (greek god personalities and whatnot are very human).
“A comprehended God is not God”
Why don’t we start with this near death experience phenomenon
how do we explain this happening to many people of various cultures, faiths, ages, those with drugs beforehand in hospitals, those who died outside without medical interference (accidents), those dead for a couple minutes, those dead for days, ect ect.
To people who choose to follow a religion, in my anecdotal experience, anyway – there has always been an evidence in the quality of life. Some people “Find God” (whatever that “God” may be), and it provides them with happiness, which is enough evidence to justify the notion of a supreme deity.
Those arguing for religion would argue that if evidence of God was easy to obtain, then there wouldn’t be a choice to believe in him. It’s not like people can turn off their minds and believe that cancer doesn’t exist, or that the sky is red. Knowing whether or not God exists would make the experiment of “finding” him very pointless.
Someone brought up happiness. The pursuit of happiness, and the finding of it with belief in God, is enough for some people. But certainly this isn’t a good philosophical reason for believing in God. “X makes me happy” doesn’t entail “X is true.” But still, there is nothing wrong with pursuing God for one’s happiness; after all, we do it with everything else. Many non-religious people get very upset that belief in God promotes happiness, but they fail to see a) if God did exist, doesn’t it make sense that God’s existence would be a source of happiness? how could it be otherwise? and b) people have many other reasons for believing in God (besides their own happiness).
In my experience, all the evidence and reasons for God’s existence comes by indirect information (the natural world, mostly) and arguments from analogy. Mystics, I suppose, have direct information, but they have a tough time sharing it. The indirect information and consequent arguments is due to the fact that God, by definition, is transcendant. To me, the indirect information is abundant, and the arguments from analogy are convincing enough. By arguments from analogy, I simple mean something like: “a house exhibits design. it was created by a mind. the natural world exhibits design. Therefore, by analogy, the natural world was created by a mind.” Very simple and understandable argument, and convincing to many people. Of course, it has problems: logically speaking, arguments from analogy are formally flawed; also, analogies can be better than others so you have to be careful and pick a good analogy (this was Hume’s critique of the design argument). Also, theistic arguments from analogy must, by definition, start with something perceived (like nature), and conclude with something unperceived (God). This makes the analogy more loose than one dealing with two perceived things. I think these arguments are good enough for these reasons: 1) there are several of them (i could write out a list if someone wants) 2) given the nature of what God could be, it makes sense that we are left with indirect evidence and analogies; 3) there are more argument for God than against (I know this is debatable, but I think the one’s against are usually critiques of the ones for); and 4) if we can justify God’s existence, and not lose any of our rationality, shouldn’t we? In other words, ignoring all the bad things people have used religion and the idea for, is not the idea of God a perfectly good idea; and therefore if it can be justified, all the better for everyone! We should only reject God’s existence, I think, if we really think it has no rational basis; I respect that.
someone brought up near death experiences. If this is any evidence for the existence of God, then it would be comparible to a direct, mystical experience of God. They were ones who experienced it, not us. If we accept it, we base it on their testimony and our trust. It is direct evidence for them; indirect for us accepting it. But it is evidence.
It was also mentioned: “How are we to explain these near death experiences?” implying that there is no explanation except for God-type explanations. Maybe you were not implying this, but if so, this is a trap. To assume that there is no physical, scientific, explanation for near death experiences (or anything, really) is a trap, and you will eventually lose that argument. Everything has an explanation, and everything we perceive has a physical explanation in principle, and eventually will in the future. That does not, however, discount that a person has a “mystical” or “near death” experience. Perhaps they really did see the afterlife. This could be true, and yet a physical explanation for their vision could also be true. We should consider the former and assume the latter (science must assume the latter).
After all, nature has a physical explanation, but it is also a gaint argument for God’s existence (see argument from analogy above). This just means that there are two layers of explanation for believers: physical/metaphysical (or take your pick among dualisms).
There are various ways to solve this , NDE’s reported by various people could show that individual wants attention from the media maybe even fame. Not everything they report may be accurate, anything they would have seen could have been random senarios in random places at random times , this variation of different expierences shows its different peoples different lives acting out in different ways , If this is evidence for God why aren’t all events the same?