Arguments for and against the belief in God

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Arguments for the existence of God

Wikepeadia

The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God. It starts with some claim about the world, like its containing entities that are caused to exist by other entities.
The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator god. It starts with a rather more complicated claim about the world, id est that it exhibits order and design.
The ontological argument is based on arguments about a "being greater than which can not be conceived". It starts simply with a concept of God. Alvin Plantinga formulates this argument to show that if it is logically possible for God (a necessary being) to exist, then God exists.[18]
The mind-body problem argument suggests that the relation of consciousness to materiality is best understood in terms of the existence of God.
Arguments that some non-physical quality observed in the universe is of fundamental importance and not an epiphenomenon, such as justice, beauty, love or religious experience are arguments for theism as against materialism.
The anthropic argument suggests that basic facts, such as our existence, are best explained by the existence of God.
The moral argument argues that the existence of objective morality depends on the existence of God.
The transcendental argument suggests that logic, science, ethics, and other things we take seriously do not make sense in the absence of God, and that atheistic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.
The will to believe doctrine was pragmatist philosopher William James' attempt to prove God by showing that the adoption of theism as a hypothesis "works" in a believer's life. This doctrine depended heavily on James' pragmatic theory of truth where beliefs are proven by how they work when adopted rather than by proofs before they are believed (a form of the
hypothetico-deductive method).
Arguments based on claims of miracles wrought by God associated with specific historical events or personages

Arguments against belief in God

Each of the following arguments aims at showing either that a particular subset of gods do not exist (by showing them as inherently meaningless, contradictory, or at odds with known scientific or historical facts) or that there is insufficient reason to believe in them.

Empirical arguments

Empirical arguments depend on empirical data in order to prove their conclusions.

The argument from inconsistent revelations contests the existence of the deity called God as described in scriptures -- such as the Jewish Tanakh, the Christian Bible, or the Muslim Qur'an -- by identifying apparent contradictions between different scriptures, within a single scripture, or between scripture and known facts. To be effective this argument requires the other side to hold that its scriptural record is inerrant, or to conflate the record itself with the God it describes.

The problem of evil contests the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god should not permit the existence of evil or suffering. The theist responses are called theodicies.

The argument from poor design contests the idea that God created life on the basis that lifeforms exist which seem to exhibit poor design. For example, many runners get a painful "stitch" in their side due to poor placement of the liver.

The argument from nonbelief contests the existence of an omnipotent God who wants humans to believe in him by arguing that such a god would do a better job of gathering believers.

The argument from parsimony contends that since natural (non-supernatural) theories adequately explain the development of religion and belief in gods,[25] the actual existence of such supernatural agents is superfluous and may be dismissed unless otherwise proven to be required to explain the phenomenon.

It is impossible to prove, or disprove, the "pot of gold at the end of a rainbow's" existence, as it is impossible to actually get to the end of the rainbow and check, due to the (circular, and hence "endless") nature of a rainbow. This "inability to check" is taken by most to be proof that the "pot of gold" does not in fact exist (there is no end of the rainbow for the pot to be at.)
For God, this lack of proof, and the similar lack of ability to check it, is taken by some to be "proof of existence." A case of "absence of proof is not proof of absence." Some see this to be proof that "God must exist, as he/she/it can't be disproved." The absence of proof is taken by others to be the same as the "pot of gold". If you can't get to a place that does not exist, then it's obvious that there is nothing there.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 5 • Views: 18,845 • Replies: 177

[+3] - Setanta - 08/21/2014We get spammed a lot here--people have come to mistrust those who do it, or just seem to be doing it. I don't take personal offense, but i don't want the site to sink in a morass of spam, either.

@Alan McDougall,

The first thing I must ask is what god? secondly, if there was any real evidence for a god the question would not be necessary.

Alan everything comes down to personal experience and personal faith, everything else is hot air. I can see possibilities but not certainties. The list for and against are points of view, they are not adequate reasons.

4 Replies

@xris,

xris;120984 wrote:

The first thing I must ask is what god? secondly, if there was any real evidence for a god the question would not be necessary.

Alan everything comes down to personal experience and personal faith, everything else is hot air. I can see possibilities but not certainties. The list for and against are points of view, they are not adequate reasons.

The God I am thinking about is the "Uncaused Cause" of all existence, not the god of religion!!

We can tackle the rest of the topic point by point by referring back to the original post that started this thread

2 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

The first point. The first event without know cause. It gives a creator credibility but not proof.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;120989 wrote:

The first point. The first event without know cause. It gives a creator credibility but not proof.

He'll be grateful for what He can get.

0 Replies

@xris,

xris;120984 wrote:

The first thing I must ask is what god? secondly, if there was any real evidence for a god the question would not be necessary.

By "what," do you mean "which?"

1 Reply

@fast,

fast;121012 wrote:

By "what," do you mean "which?"

Sorry you will have to rephrase that, I dont understand the question.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;120984 wrote:

The first thing I must ask is what god? secondly, if there was any real evidence for a god the question would not be necessary.

That's like saying that if there were any real evidence for mind, the question, what is mind? would not be necessary. Or, if there were any real evidence for knowledge, the question, what is knowledge? would not be necessary. Or, even, if there were any real evidence for DNA, the question, what is DNA? would not be necessary.

1 Reply

@xris,

[QUOTE=xris;121014]Sorry you will have to rephrase that, I dont understand the question.[/QUOTE]
If I ask you do you like your car, and if you don't have a car, then you may ask, "what car?" since you have no car, but if I ask you do you like your car, and if you have two cars, then you may say, "which car?"

If you really mean "what" when you say "what God", then let me answer by saying the one God that many people believe in.

If you mean "which God" when you say "what God," then let me respond by asking you how many Gods are being purported to exist by theists?

1 Reply

@fast,

fast;121018 wrote:

If I ask you do you like your car, and if you don't have a car, then you may ask, "what car?" since you have no car, but if I ask you do you like your car, and if you have two cars, then you may say, "which car?"

If you really mean "what" when you say "what God", then let me answer by saying the one God that many people believe in.

If you mean "which God" when you say "what God," then let me respond by asking you how many Gods are being purported to exist by theists?

It doesn't matter since Xris's principle is obviously wrong. It is that if you have to ask the question, what is X, there isn't any real evidence for X. But, we have to ask the questions, what is mind? what is knowledge? what is truth? or what is DNA, but that does not mean there is no real evidence for mind, or knowledge, or truth, or DNA. There is real evidence for all of those things. Therefore, Xris is wrong.

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

Men from samoa are 56 times more likely than the average american to go into the NFL, partly because of their faith.

...since we are discussing arguments for the belief in god, not the existence of god. William James's argument is a decent one that I think justifies many people, I'm not sure about the leap of faith part though.

2 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

He didn't ask, "What is God?" He said, "What God?"

1 Reply

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;121024 wrote:

Men from samoa are 56 times more likely than the average american to go into the NFL, partly because of their faith.

...since we are discussing arguments for the belief in god, not the existence of god. William James's argument is a decent one that I think justifies many people, I'm not sure about the leap of faith part though.

Good point. But I am not so sure that what is being discussed is believing in God, rather than the belief that God exists. "Belief" is ambiguous. It might refer to the mental act of believing; or to what is being believed (the proposition).

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

It was a simple request. What god are we to consider. Not cars, as we know cars exist. The original question is asking for arguments for and against the belief in god. We have to determine the god.

1 Reply

@fast,

fast;121025 wrote:

He didn't ask, "What is God?" He said, "What God?"

The first thing I must ask is what god? secondly, if there was any real evidence for a god the question would not be necessary.

Right. So, if someone says, "that dog is vicious", and I ask, "what dog?", that question would not be necessary if there were any real evidence for a dog?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;121041 wrote:

The first thing I must ask is what god? secondly, if there was any real evidence for a god the question would not be necessary.

Right. So, if someone says, "that dog is vicious", and I ask, "what dog?", that question would not be necessary if there were any real evidence for a dog?

The point of the debate is to try and determine if god exists by the evidence that is given. No one is prejudging the evidence by saying we have no evidence for any god, we need to determine what god we are debating. I could say Elvis was a god if my description of god fitted his appearance.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;121040 wrote:

It was a simple request. What god are we to consider. Not cars, as we know cars exist. The original question is asking for arguments for and against the belief in god. We have to determine the god.

And I answered you. The God that is believed by many to exist.

---------- Post added 01-19-2010 at 12:53 PM ----------

kennethamy;121041 wrote:

The first thing I must ask is what god? secondly, if there was any real evidence for a god the question would not be necessary.

Right. So, if someone says, "that dog is vicious", and I ask, "what dog?", that question would not be necessary if there were any real evidence for a dog?

All I ever really wanted was to understand his question. What he meant may not matter, but I did want to know what he meant.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

fast wrote:

All I ever really wanted was to understand his question. What he meant may not matter, but I did want to know what he meant.

He meant that we must clarify what we're trying to prove, before setting out to prove it. God means many different things for many different people.

Maybe this will help you understand the position: Ignosticism.

"The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed."

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;121065 wrote:

He meant that we must clarify what we're trying to prove, before setting out to prove it.

Well, that is false, of course. I have set out to prove propositions without first clarifying what I was trying to prove.

Quote:

God means many different things for many different people.

Means? Explain.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

fast wrote:

Well, that is false, of course. I have set out to prove propositions without first clarifying what I was trying to prove.

If you're going to ask for evidence for something, you should clarify what it is you're asking evidence for. And you should try to clarify what you're trying to prove (even if only to yourself), if you're trying to prove something. Wouldn't you first think, "I am trying to prove X" before trying to prove X? If you didn't have something in mind, what is it you're trying to prove?

Quote:

Means? Explain.

There are many different notions of God. I'd suggest reading the article and then doing some theology research.

1 Reply

Arguments for and against the belief in God

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know