• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What is your single best argument for the existence of god(s)

EverChanging

Well-Known Member
My experience of the "divine" is like a taste, or a smell, or the sense of beauty -- it is a purely subjective experience, and beyond that subjective experience, created by my brain and nervous system interacting with my environment, it has no reality, and thus, I am convinced that there is no god beyond that reality. Yet to connect with this experience that emerges in myself, I use various rituals, prayers, and mantras. Perhaps "god" or "goddess" or "the Divine" are not good words for it, but I don't really have any adequate words for it, anyway, so I suppose what this comes down to is that I am an atheist, as I indicate in my religious titles, yet I still have deity-concepts.

The whole argument between theists and atheists misses the point for me. I love the experience of the divine that I feel. I value it for what it is. I don't need it to be "out there," nor do I desire or believe in a creator or a being with all power, or a being that will look after me and protect me and ensure that I live on after death. To me, this is all wishful thinking, of which I desire no part. But that doesn't stop me from enjoying my own experiences. It doesn't stop me from, at times, feeling the divine embrace me in a way that feels very personal and caring and loving.

I don't understand where these experiences come from, but I think we are getting closer to the answer in studying the brain and in the field of neurotheology.

So the divine, for me, is as real as my experience. It may be an illusion, but it still exists as illusion, and I find it comforting and beneficial to me. While I sympathize with atheists and their general disregard for superstition, their arguments against theistic gods, while I find them valid, are not applicable to my god-concepts, and theists and atheists in general would probably have a hard time relating to my spiritual path.

Still, I understand the need to combat superstition, so I am not at all unsympathetic to writers like Richard Dawkins and other atheists.
 

EverChanging

Well-Known Member
The only argument that has any merit for the existence of a supernatural entity, but one that I don't hold to, is there in no universal existence w/o consciouness, i.e. there must be a universal consciousness for existence.

I'm curious: what merit does this argument have for you? And despite that merit, why do you disagree with it?
 

sonofskeptish

It is what it is
For those who don't believe, no evidence will suffice..

Are you joking? For those who don't believe, the fact there isn't a single shred of evidence is the problem. We cannot believe something simply because we wish it were true.
 

Erebus

Well-Known Member
Are you joking? For those who don't believe, the fact there isn't a single shred of evidence is the problem. We cannot believe something simply because we wish it were true.

Be careful how you throw the word "evidence" around, it's an awfully tricky word. For example, if a religion claims that God created the world, then the fact that the world exists would be evidence of that God... not good evidence and certainly not substantial evidence, but it is still evidence none the less.
"Proof" is a much better word... but having said that, how much can we really prove anyway?
 

Breathe

Hostis humani generis
Are you joking? For those who don't believe, the fact there isn't a single shred of evidence is the problem. We cannot believe something simply because we wish it were true.

Hey, don't shoot the messenger! It's just a saying, calm down. :p

You're right, there is no evidence for God, but absence of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of absence. It's impossible to debate something like this because they are not measurable. Not to mention, what is meant when one refers to 'God' is a major problem, since it can often be vague and/or different for many.

What is meant by 'God' is an important factor before this discussion can seriously be put into effect, since various religions hold different views.

So, what is meant? A beardy man on a cloud? An entity in space? A universal consciousness? A universal energy or force? Is it personal? Impersonal? Transpersonal? Is it sentient? All? None? Other? Attempting to prove there isn't a beardy man sitting on a cloud throwing thunderbolts is not difficult, but attempting to prove or disprove a universal, transpersonal consciousness, or impersonal energy is not going to be so easy.

It gets even more complex when we start adding extra deities into the mix.
 

Caladan

Agnostic Pantheist
In 500 words or less what is your number one single best argument, reasoning, or evidence for your diety?
Well although in general im an atheist who lacks official adherence, I'd say an argument for an intelligent force throughout the universe or behind the universe, would be the universe itself. rather than arguing for a specific deity with anthropomorphic attributes who is concerned about sexual orientation, I would argue for a force which is behind the birth of stars and supernovas, behind the nature of life in our planet in all its diversity and its hundreds of millions of years in history. it would be of course hard to claim im talking about a force which is beyond this universe, or a force which is not the universe itself. I think we need to start from somewhere, and an infinite universe will last for aeons of explorations before we try to give absolute evidence for supreme concepts such 'God'. however the sometimes painful beauty that can be found in the universe, the sensations that we may experience in uplifting moments are things that make people feel connected to a force which is perhaps the sum of all there is.
so this was the pantheist freelancing of an atheist for tonight. ;)
Live long and prosper.
 

nonbeliever_92

Well-Known Member
Be careful how you throw the word "evidence" around, it's an awfully tricky word. For example, if a religion claims that God created the world, then the fact that the world exists would be evidence of that God... not good evidence and certainly not substantial evidence, but it is still evidence none the less.
"Proof" is a much better word... but having said that, how much can we really prove anyway?


the fact that the world exists would not be evidence that god created it. it's evidence of earth existence and that is all.
 

Erebus

Well-Known Member
the fact that the world exists would not be evidence that god created it. it's evidence of earth existence and that is all.

Not quite true, evidence is used to support a hypothesis, in this example the hypothesis is that "God created the Earth". One of the requirements for this is that the Earth must exist, hence the existence of Earth is evidence to support this hypothesis. What it isn't is conclusive evidence (it's also quite a poor example to be honest, but I'm just trying to make a point).
To elaborate further, The Bible claims that God exists, this is evidence to support the existence of God. There are eyewitness accounts of Jesus, Mary etc, again this is evidence. Prayer has helped some people become good people, just as the Bible says it should, yet more evidence.
All of this is evidence, it's just rubbish evidence. Evidence doesn't actually have to prove anything, that would be conclusive evidence and it's something that lots of people trip up on.

I'll give an example which has nothing to do with God as God is a horribly complex subject anyway. I have kissed both males and females in the past, this is evidence for me being bisexual. If somebody were to make the hypothesis "I expect that Dave is bisexual" then the fact that I've kissed both genders would be evidence to support that hypothesis. The fact that I'm heterosexual doesn't change anything, as evidence does not necessarily lead to truth.
Like I say, "evidence" is an incredibly tricky word.
 

Sententia

Well-Known Member
In 500 words or less what is your number one single best argument, reasoning, or evidence for your diety?

I was a young child full of all the normal questions most children ask. Where did the sun come from? Where did we come from? If it takes a mom and a dad to make a child where did the first mom and dad come from?

Adults have long struggled with answering these questions and some time long ago a mental meme was embedded into the minds of those that sought to answer these. They conceived and invented a solution to quell the incessant pining for answers. (likely many but some of these inventions were more sticky then others) They also discovered those with the best ability to describe the construct received great social status and attention from their peers.

As happens with all falsehoods the more it was repeated the more people forgot it was false. Children are imbued with a natural sense of trust of their mentors. Some who are not so imbued learn this sense when they question common wisdom such as do not play with fire and they end up burnt.

Thus they are indoctrinated by their own mind, crowd mentality and repetitious ceremonies. To say these are the only reasons would be a gross simplification and would miss many of the other memetic traps of the mind.

Not long ago people would die or be tortured for questioning such core traditional values. Such an atmosphere has created a mental concept of various gods which many accept by constructing a highly personal, logical justification for their conclusion while forgetting or omitting what originally was arrived at through a different mental process. This ability to omit or ignore the original false construct allows for god, fairies, end of rainbow pots of gold and other superstitious balderdash to be as real as any other rationalization.
 

sonofskeptish

It is what it is
Be careful how you throw the word "evidence" around, it's an awfully tricky word. For example, if a religion claims that God created the world, then the fact that the world exists would be evidence of that God... not good evidence and certainly not substantial evidence, but it is still evidence none the less.
"Proof" is a much better word... but having said that, how much can we really prove anyway?

I hear you... the definition of the word evidence to someone with a natural worldview is very different than the definition of the word to someone with a supernatural worldview. :rolleyes:
 

sonofskeptish

It is what it is
Hey, don't shoot the messenger! It's just a saying, calm down. :p

I'm calm... ;)

Jackson%20Calm%20Down.jpg
 

Erebus

Well-Known Member
I hear you... the definition of the word evidence to someone with a natural worldview is very different than the definition of the word to someone with a supernatural worldview. :rolleyes:

ev·i·dence (
ebreve.gif
v
prime.gif
ibreve.gif
-d
schwa.gif
ns)
n. 1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.


Nope the definition stays the same, what's accepted as conclusive evidence is different.
 

ellenjanuary

Well-Known Member
Only few have actually done what I've asked, I wished for your number one best arguments.

Not a math person? Say I give you your best argument?

Suppose you answer the knock at your door, only to find a fanatical sword-wielding man-mountain who demands of you "Allah, or death." To choose Allah is to accept "circumstance" as "evidence," at least for the nonce; and to choose dead is only to re-affirm the supremacy of Allah. How 'bout them apples? :D

Ya know, this thought got me thinking on the whole "evolution vs. creation" nonsense, and I wonder; what if it ain't about monkeys? What if the faithful always knew what evolution would do to causality? For instance, there is no single "act of creation;" there is a duality. There is an environmental niche, and there is a mutation.

In the case of this topic, what would be the best evidence for "the existence of Allah" would be having become familiarized with the name and the concept some time in the past. Further, along the lines of the above "hypothetical situation;" it is not so much a matter of "convincing evidence," but rather the forum through which such evidence is presented. If someone should appear on your doorstep, displaying all the "necessary evidence" to indicate that such entity (being seven feet tall, six wide, and five hundred pounds deep; engineered of ceramic aluminum in the lowest sub-basement of Fort Meade, and designed with parallel-processing chip-sets continually refining the closed loop reasoning of "fundamentalist Islamic radical," and specifically detailed to keep the "terror" in terrorism from becoming another Weapon of Misappropriated Dictatorship) holds the power of life and death in that instant; is that entity not also in alignment with what is assumed about god?

The stickler is that evolution is a creation, and creation is an evolution; and at the end of the day, if you're still asking questions about god; maybe evidence is not the thing you seek. :D
 

ShakeZula

The Master Shake
A statement such as this, which has no evidence in what was said, and is simply something you created to have been said. A statement such as you made then reveals that you are not actually trying to logically argue anything, but instead simply are trying to advanced your belief. It is not a way to argue, but is instead a way to discredit yourself from the beginning.

Tell me, fallingblood, do you know what this is: "?"

You see, where I come from, we call that a question mark. It indicates a question, not a statement. This is twice now, in the same thread, where two different people don't seem to understand the difference between a question and a statement.

Odion said that he's never seen anyone convinced by any kind of evidence. I asked him–ASKED–if he had testable evidence to prove the claim of god. After all, he did say, as I illustrated before, 'any kind of evidence'.

I made no statements, I merely asked for Odion to support those that he'd made. Besides telling him that a couple of things were not true (and then explaining my reasoning why), can you point me to any actual statements I've made about god or believers in this thread?

It seems as if you are trying to argue something that simply is not there. The idea of something being deep was something you stated. It existed not before you brought it up as an argument. So if there is something you disagree with, why not actually deal with it, instead of making other things up?

No, once again, you fail to comprehend the difference between a question and a statement. I asked Odion if hat he said qualified as deep to him and if it did, I had a quote for him. If that doesn't qualify as something deep, then the quote doesn't apply, does it? It's a conditional quote. If A is true, then B, etc. If A is not true, then B is also not true.

Is this really that hard?

I already explained that I was not 'making other things up', I was extrapolating. I was following Odion's statements to their logical conclusion. I ASKED him if that was indeed true, that he had evidence that could prove god but that all none-believers had rejected. He either doesn't or he is refusing to produce it.

If, as I suspect, he has no evidence that is testable to demonstrate the validity of a god claim, was he then justified in saying that no amount of evidence would convince non-believers?

-S-
 

ShakeZula

The Master Shake
The thing is though, there is no evidence. The only type of "evidence" that exists simply exists only in the minds of those who believe. However, again, that is not actual evidence.

Exactly. So then what basis does Odion have for saying that non-believers reject any evidence of god if there is none? Care to explain?

One can not prove of disprove a deity, as there is no actual evidence either way. With that understanding, I believe the quote is quite right in this case. It was not dishonesty as you would like to claim.

I wasn't calling that Yogi Bhajan quote dishonest, was I. No. I was calling dishonest the statement that non-believers will accept no evidence to prove god. As for the Bhajan quote, I explained why it was nonsense. Nonsense it may be, but I did not say it was dishonest.

It implies no such thing. Maybe if one were to take the statement out of context, and really try to add something, it could imply what you are saying. However, logically, one has to look at it in context, compared to what else was said. If one were to apply logic, it would state that they did not actually believe there was any evidence out there. You simply created a meaning that did not exist.

If one says 'I've yet to see a person convinced of the existence of God based on any form of evidence,' then yes, that implies that there is testable evidence that has been rejected. What other meaning does 'any form' have? Is it supposed to be understood that 'any form' means every form except that which can be tested and verified? Because that's what you seem to be saying. And I did not create anything, I ASKED if that was what Odion was saying. He chose to not explain what he meant. But it's nice to see he has friends who seem to have the same weak grasp of language and reading comprehension as he does.

But what am I saying? You already said there is no evidence. So which is it? Is there evidence or isn't there? One can't have it both ways. Odion said no evidence would suffice and that indeed, they (we) had rejected every bit of evidence when he used the world 'any form'. But then you say there can be no evidence. So what are we rejecting? Care to explain?

I believe in this case, you are one who is being dishonest. You can not claim some one is implying something when it is clear that they are not.

And for the last time, I did not claim Odion was implying anything, I asked if that was what he was implying. When you see a '?' at the end of a string of letters and words, that usually implies a question, not a statement. I hope you are able to grasp that concept as you go forward.

-S-
 
Top