Your Proof For God

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

My hope is to get some honest and well-thought out responses from theists in this thread regarding your belief in God. Your task is as follows.

Begin with the assumption that God does not exist. I completely understand that starting with such an assumption is questionable to begin with, but this thread’s focus is not to discuss whether or not that is the assumption we should begin with. It is simply to begin with the assumption that God doesn’t exist, or at least with complete agnosticism.

Now, provide your proof for God’s existence. Whether it be, I read it in the Bible, therefore it is true, or there is design apparent in all things, therefore God exists, etc. Whatever it may be, I would like to hear from the diverse population of theists on the board as to why they think God exists.

Some, such as Navigator, don’t think of God in a convention sense, and therefore this question might not be appropriate. Your task, instead, is to describe, whether it be in metaphors or otherwise, how God exists, as closely as possible.

I want to extend the discussion eventually to how to weigh out which proof is more probable. I know a completely logical proof can also, in the end, be false, so discussion as to how to determine whether or not the initial premise is true is also welcome. I hope this post draws some great responses, as most of the threads in this section of the forums eventually branch off into some sort of topic related to these. Thanks!

2

I’ve been thinking about Kierkegaard and the leap of faith lately. Now I’m not a theist, but I understand that Kierkegaard thought the type of faith that needed a good looking, visible God was a form of paganism. To him knowledge of God can’t be conveyed directly and must be experienced for oneself. Proofs don’t involve real faith at all- to be convinced on an intellectual level of God’s existance leads to a smugness in the face of faith. What is required is more of a kind of spiritual terror, a process like Luther described where despair in the face of God’s law drives one to the Gospels in search of His grace. To realize one is undeserving of God’s love leads one to seek salvation in God’s promise. But that type of humility comes from introspection an inwardness, not outward proofs.

Okay, I don’t want to put words in the mouth of any theist, but if I was a Christian that would be my answer when asked by someone of my “Proof For God.” Of course, if I found that completely compelling I’d probably be a theist. :slight_smile:

3

Quantum fluctuation shows that atoms randomly appears and disappears. If everything comes from nothing, then everything would equal nothing. Equal opposites could equal out and cancel eachother out.

The Holy Spirit heals the soul. Ghosts can only be seen by their side effects. Showing heaven and hell is a parrelllel universe that has side effects in the physical universe.

Love is spiritual with no known physical cause and effect.
Animals can’t show love but can show affection. This energy isn’t a biochemical reaction.

4

LIke I’ve said, I’m not one that has been convinced by proof, but the basics of my maintainence in the faith is-

It was here first,  it's plausible [i]enough[/i], and atheists have no case to warrant it's abandonment. That's as good as I can do.  Most traditional things like logical arguments and such serve only to break down an atheist's challenges, and wouldn't do much to demonstrate God to someone unfamilliar with the concept.
5

Interesting. I take you must mean it there first for you- almost certainly people predate an idea of God (unless you hold the Book of Genesis to be literal truth). Do you mean you already had the notion of God conditioned into you before you were old enough to question it?

I also assume you must mean no case compelling to you to warrant abandonment. I hate to quibble over grammar but atheists have made countless cases and arguments against the existance of God. You must merely be saying you’re not convinced by them, not arguing the arguments were never offered?

6

FWIW a part of me likes the idea of a good portion of people being religious. Having been raised Catholic I still have a sentimental attachment to the elaborate rituals of Catholicism; it’s almost like Dungeons & Dragons.

Besides, I’m not sure the masses are ready yet to let us kill God(s).

7

Phaedrus

What I meant was first compared to the atheistic, materialistic view of the world that I’m called to justify Christianity in terms of.

That is true as well, yes, though I wouldn’t include it as evidence for anything.

Yes, inasmuch as when the atheist says "There is no evidence", they mean "There is no evidence compelling to me to warrant acceptance".  I am saying none of them convinced me, but I'l also saying none of the arguments I know are particularly good, either. I've heard people argue for other religions, and even paganism better than I've heard people argue for atheism/materialism. To be honest, most atheists are so preoccupied with an attitude that says "Everybody who's smart should already agree with me anyway" that I don't think they are trying as hard as they could. In my heart of hearts, I still think atheism is the third most rational choice after Christianity and Judaism. So in a sense, I'm pulling for you guys.
8

I agree that wouldn’t be a very good argument, but I haven’t heard it used. I would say without trying to be condescending in any way that most of the smartest atheists don’t waste much time trying to “convert” people- that’s a religious idea. While I wouldn’t attempt to lump myself in with the brainiest of the Brights I don’t have much inclination to try to convince people that Christianity is wrong. First, it’s largely pointless- the decision to embrace faith isn’t a rational one (I don’t mean it’s irrational, more that it’s a-rational or not within the realm of reason). If a rational choice didn’t lead to religion there’s little reason to expect a rational argument will lead you out of it. Second, while I recognize the danger of radicalism and slavish fundamentalism I don’t expect that I can do much to change enough hearts and minds to make a difference. Lastly I think people have a right to think and believe what they want.

That said, I certainly do enjoy the debate as an intellectual exercise in the rare instance I can converse with a thoughful and logical theist, like you Ucci, or Bob. It’s really no fun locking swords with guys like kingdaddy. :unamused:

9

I think Buddhism is the second most logical worldview you could have, after a materialistic strong-agnosticism. It posits no creator or omnipotent God, it’s based on the observerable idea that nature is cyclical (therefore it’s reasonable to assume or lives are, too), and it preaches compassion and isn’t much concerned with accumulation of wealth or temporal power. The main quibbles I would have with it are: 1) the Platonic sense of dualism that I personally think is a thought artifact, 2) the dogmatic belief in reincarnation that I think doesn’t match up the idea of finding the truth for yourself experimentally that the Dahli Lama espouses in Freedom in Exile, and 3) it’s rejection of the physical world and a desire to be “delivered” from it.

10

I’m gonna call out the idea of god not being a given. Evidence certainly suggests that we are hardwired to believe in some sort of divinity, something beyond us. Additionally, even the earliest archeological evidence that we have has strong evidence of a religious mindset and the belief in things like spirits. Throw the fact that even elephants have funeral rituals, and other primates have ways of dealing with death/mourning, I think that to suggest that atheism is the default is simply incorrect.

Even the most atheistic-minded of the ancient philosophers believed in some sort of other. Buddha shifted the discussion by simply saying that the Devas were other creatures bound by Samsara, so worshipping them doesn’t make any sense while Confucius was decidedly mute on the issue of spirits, but that is because he felt that one oughtn’t focus on them, not that they didn’t exist.

11

I think that’s a bit of a stretch based on a misunderstanding. Although even is we are programmed to believe (which seems plausible) monotheism is a very recent historical invention. Thus a truly rationale person would believe in many gods. Perhaps all of them.

Of course, there could be some sense of awe of the Universe arising as a peculiar side effect of consciousness. If that were inspiring the elephants (who really seem aware of death, even if “funerals” and spirituality aren’t a given) then perhaps you’ll see how our idea of this Universal Awe becomes embodied in pantheons of deities and how that concept of God evolves over time.

I wonder what the real God will be like in 5,000 years.

12

Yeah, monotheism is definately not an assumed state. However, I also think that calling something that is at least 3,000 years old ‘relatively recent’ is also a bit of a stretch.

I agree with what you are saying, I just think that my definition of ‘atheism’ doesn’t mean ‘not Christian’ but rather something more in line with a strict materialist interpretation of the world, generally coupled with a distain for ritual.

13

Well, humanity goes back somewhere between 1.5 million and 1/2 million years, so 3ooo years seems relatively like a drop in the bucket. Especially since the oldest living religions we know of go back well over 5ooo years. And you can’t really say that’s the definitive evolution of belief since monotheistic religions account for roughly 1/2 of the worlds faithful. But I could have probably phrased it better.

Perhaps there’s a biological “god gene” somewhere in us. We have good evidence that some of the metaphysical & paranormal experiences people have are side effects of injuries or irregularities in the brain. It’s entirely plausible that the idea of the divine is a side effect of brain function, too. I just read today about new research that implies that morality is hardwired into us to a great degree.

This is why I think religion has to embrace Platonic dualism and the Kierkegaardian submission to the absurd. If you want to claim physical evidence to support God I think you’re on a sinking ship. As research keeps pouring in the case just gets worse and worse. From genetics- recent genome mapping of two other primates demonstrates more evidence of their close relationship to us. From neurology- evidence mounts that near death experiences are caused by the brain, as implies ethics comes from our brains (ie it’s a component we imbue our religious and social structures with, not something we learn from them). From genetics and paleontology- analysis from T-Rex fossiles yeilding proteins shows it closely related to the modern chick, giving yet more evidence of evolution of modern species over millions of years. When you try to cite science to support religion, you’d better be sure you know the science, 'else you’re like an attorney putting a witness on the stand without knowing what she’ll say. Plus, the burden in science is always on the affirmative claim.

So it comes down to this idea of dualism. That science explains this mechanistic physical world, religion elucidates truths of the higher, “real” world of Forms, Spirit, Essense, Truth, what have you. I can’t tell you why you should or shouldn’t believe, but if I was going to it would be because I simply chose to make the leap of faith.

14

True, humanity is that old. But civilization? After all, for the idea of a monotheistic God to occur, the concept either has to be real or it has to be somehow derived from human institutions. If it is the latter, then it makes sense that monotheism would be an outgrowth from the centralization of political power.

A clear example of this can be found in Ancient Egypt, where cults would join and break with each other trying to gain political advantage. That is the major reason why Ahkenaton tried to creation a quasi-monotheism, because the Cult of Ra was already pushing for that already and it looked like they were actually going to push for that anyway, only it was going to leave the Pharoah out of the power structure! That is also why the capital (well, really just the capitol) was re-located to Armana.

Now, just because I think that there is a definate god gene, and I do think that morality is biologically hardwired. But that doesn’t mean that I believe in God. I don’t have a concept of the divine. I’m pretty much a materialist.

15

And of course you could simply say God put the “God Gene” there in the first place. :wink: I think in a sense monotheism is a logical progression for a civilization as it advances. The more things we can explain empiracly the less Gods we need to explain them. Of course it that were the whole reason we wouldn’t need God now.

There’s not a materialist answer to death that the average person will find satisfactory. If mind is just a side effect of the brain the way light is a side effect of passing electricity through a lightbulb then odds are mind won’t exist when the brain doesn’t. That isn’t an appealing thought to people laboring under a couple thousand years of Platonic and J/C Dualism. People don’t want to hear their dead parents or children simply cease to be; they want a metaphysical system where the ones we love live on in a better purer world. And we ourselves want that salvation.

Therefore we have God. For the sake of argument I’ll say s/he or it are real, but clearly we’d create God if it wasn’t there.

I guess this is veering off the topic a bit, but I can’t help but relate this to the problem the world is currently having with fundamentalism. Every since the Industrial Revolution religion and science have had an uneasy truce. Certainly there are flareups between them but for the most part science has handled the heavy lifting of human understanding while religion provided the spiritual mean and a context for our lives. But religion has gotten a bit too big for its britches (purely MHO) and is spilling over into areas it doesn’t belong. It’s been that way for a millenia in the Mid East but western imperialism has pulled the cork out the bottle and let it into the wider world. American Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists seem ready for a new version of the Crusades.

Maybe the uneasy truce wasn’t so bad after all.

16

I love Hume’s Dialogues Conerning Natural Religion.

If you haven’t read, it is a great book. In it Cleanthes raises and old Stoic question, “How can an unintelligent Universe create intelligent beings?”

That is my favorite of the lines of arguement, but the last word is great,

“If the whole of natural theology, as some people seem to maintain, resolves itself to one simple, though ambiguous, at least undefined, proposition, That the cause or causes of order in the universe probably bear some remote analogy to human intelligence: If this proposition be not capable of extension, variation, or more particular explication: If it affords no inference that affects human life, or can be the source of any action or forbearance: And if the analogy, imperfect as it is, cannot be transferred, with any appearance of probability, to the other qualities of the mind: If this really be the case, what can the most inquisitive, contemplative, and religious man do more than give a plain, philosophical assent to the proposition, as often as it occurs, and believe that the arguments on which it is established exceed the objections which lie against it?”

17

I must point out that Hume probably didn’t know much of anything about Eastern Philosophy/Religion, which would have had some major impact on this.

18

Phaedrus

 I don't see that as condescending at all. I don't think the wisest religious people waste much time trying to convert atheists, either. It's not a waste of time in the sense that atheists aren't worth it, but if you're going to be a theologian, minister, saint, or whatever, the "Is there a God or not" question is really extremely basic, you kind of have to grow out of it before you can get on to meatier topics. 
 And I don't mean to say atheists actually use "Smart people all agree with me" as an argument. I mean that they seem to feel that way, and it very clearly shows.  Case in point, something I run into all the time:  The atheist who compares something Dawkins said to something his mom said, or something some Christian guy at school said.  If I stress that they may want to raise their hurdle a bit, they insist that "This is what plenty of Christians I know say", and refuse. So I think there's a tendency for the atheist to compare professional, expert-level arguments on their side, to the kind of half-witted crap a guy like me would come up with, which is hardly fair.

As far as talking to intellectual atheists, I have to admit, I’m losing interest in it. If the atheist is actually defending materialism, or naturalism, or secular humanism, or something, then it can be very stimulating. But if they just present themselves as a skeptic simpliciter, then it always goes the same way for me: The endless revolving carosel of arguments. The are free to move from demands for proof, to hard deductive arguments like the P of E, to psychobabble, to appeals to pluralism, to guilt-tripping over the whole hell thing, on and on and on.
Since they present no position of their own, all I can do is defend myself from their attacks until carpal tunnel or boredom grinds me to a halt. The two most irritating things about it are, though,
1.) If they had any visible position of their own, half their arguments would refute IT as well. For example, pluralism defeats every affirmative point of view, not just mine. Since they aren’t offering what they believe, they can use any argument from diverse an contrary perspectives.
2.) I can only lose by attrition- even if I soundly defeat every argument presented to me, there is always this background radiation, I find, in a skeptical argument, and soon the bare fact that all these arguments have even been raised, that they even exist as something the theist should answer for, makes it compelling that the theist is in trouble. Sooner or later, the skeptic can just say “Look at all the criticisms I’ve raised!” and it doesn’t even matter that you put all that time into refuting them.

19

Some very interesting points, Ucci. I shall post my thoughts in reply when I’m sober and less tired. :slight_smile:

20

Looking forward to it!