Theists, How well can you defend your beilief that God exists?

Hi Fil... my point is that e.g. soccer lovers, love soccer not because it is the most logical activity but because they can have, and hope to have, a positive emotional experience when they play soccer. If someone proved that it would be more rational to stop playing soccer and do another provably more rational activity... most wouldn't. This could also be true for someone who loves logic i.e. they do it because they get a positive emotional experience from the activity not because it is more logical. Even a scientist's or a mathematician's motivation can and is very probably driven by this emotional need.

This is why we should respect what others do and believe in because we are all doing what we do primarily in the hope that either directly or indirectly we will be able to have positive emotional experiences. If what we do or believe is illogical... well it doesn't need to be logical for it to have this hoped for experiential result.

I don't know, because an omni God is a pretty old idea.

Take a look at Saint Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) who came up with the ontological argument.
A very interesting argument that at first looks to be a joke but it is very puzzling and intriguing.

Speaking of statistics, it reminds of Pascal's wager.

It's interesting that he said that existence of God can't be proven with reason alone, and what mattered most was faith.

He suggests that belief in God promises a higher expected utility than not believing in God and possible going to hell.

What is the difference between Pascal's Wager and for example someone writing a so called 'holy book' where they state that we are surrounded by invisible wasps but if you put your left finger in your right nostril you will not be stung by them. Should those who have read the 'holy book' go around with a finger in their nose to be on the safe side just in case there are invisible wasps who sting those who do not put their fingers in their nose?

It can be correct for some people to believe in God but not because of the logic of Pascal's Wager.

Well, the after life is a mystery, and sometimes scary for people. Fear of hell or damnation is what makes people adhere to Pascal's wager.

Doesn't a belief in Pascal's Wager create the fear of hell because it depends on those who take it seriously also believing that there might be a God and therefore as a consequence... hell?

So for this reason a belief in Pascal's Wager is the cause of fear especially if 'predestination' is also correct (also this makes the wager useless) but it could be applied to all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination

Faith should be the cause of a belief in God not Pascal's Wager and only for some people; those who have a disposition for it.

Pascal's wager is a joke. The only way it works is if you posit a god who is an idiot. And if your god is an idiot...why bother to make the wager?

It's just gambling, and statistics.

Blackjack, video poker, etc, basically all casino games are unfair games, and those who choose to play the games surely face a negative expected utility. In spite of such obvious truth, tons of people play them and it makes huge money for casinos (religious institutions??).

So the question to ask is whether all those people who play the game and waste some time and money irrational decision makers?

And if God exists, he surely doesn't need religion, and if he doesn't need religion, why do people insist on making up religions?

Reasons for belief at large are related with our evolutionary process and the advantageous position one might have had upon a guess of danger to act on it and run...of course guess work is one thing and deep impressions quite another as impressions are justified on a general non guided perception while belief is justified in satisfying emotional needs...while one might well be at guess work when subjectively describing deep rooted impressions and how they impact our conscience and perception deep impressions themselves must be justified in something else, that is, the cause of what we are describing is not the same thing we are describing...this distinction is fundamental to separate concepts and their cultural background baggage from the original causes who triggered the emergence of such concepts rooted on those deep impressions...

Just to clarify it further while for instance the array of possible descriptions of God conceptually are justified in subjective experiences and personal emotional needs limited by the cosmological holistic background one is embed with in culture through education as equally in the computing potential power on which awareness is bounded displayed by IQ, the cause for the need of the concept itself, is justified in something else, that is, the sense of unity one infers in reality all around us in all its multiple manifestations and that is the primitive factor upon which conceptual frames upon the meaning of God end up emerging...

Forget stats I'd say qualitative trumps quantitative... AI and algorithims will not replicate the human condition.. what do you think?

I'd go with Hume and say that (to paraphrase) reason is the slave of the emotions.

I am not so sure...although it may take some time till we figure AI properly...Emotion may serve reason to an extent the dissociation it is not straightforward...of course evidently it is not always the case.

Ya, a false positive is better than a false negative.

Hearing rustle in the bush, and running and climbing a tree for fear of a lion is better than reasoning whether what made that sound. And then finding out that it's a porcupine, and being wrong, is better than staying there and on the off chance, a lion pouncing upon you.

At first thought, I guessed that if reason is the slave of emotion, then it would be the demise of humans, but maybe not, and evolution will not probably won't get rid of such characteristic from the human species.

the thing about pascals wager is that it only deals with one theology, it completely ignores all other possible religions. When you take other religions into consideration pascals wager because meaningless because you must be consistent and consider that other religions could be plausable as well. Yet christians completely ignore this aspect when they envoke pascals wager.

Here is an example of what I mean. What if buddhism is true and all other religions are false? Well believing in god or not beliving in god will get you the same thing, nothing.

...oh not quite, its all in the name...if you call it T.O.E instead of theory about "God" you might even earn a Nobel...the prejudice doesn't go with the causal common factor but rather with the cultural one...

T.O.E??

How does string theory play into all of this??

Have you been reading my posts ? Well both processes respond to the same need of unifying the all of reality...the difference goes strictly with culture and intellectual competence...

As far as I can tell the entire argument can be summarized i the following:

God exists because we tell you he exists

All these guys who wrote that God exists cant be lying can they?

There is no evidence out there that says that God doesnt exist , so there!!

Our God is better than anyone elses god.

People need more mental exercises like this, keep on posting about such thing..
Every story has a little seed of truth . Though we all know that us,humans obviously turn that seed grow into an elephant. I watched the video bellow,its very right,people love stories,stories are influential .Do we know exact facts about "God"? No. We know stories,we love stories,we learn from stories and are influenced by them,we are told these stories since we're kids . For example superstitious people ,are told "the superstitious " stories since they are children ,their subconscious is influenced by these stories,so afterwards they remain with that belief. I was born and taught Christian religion ,at the age of 15,16 i started questioning myself more, and looking more into scientific matters,and i started being more "realistic".
Good and bad, are two needed stories. Its as well about the mental state, rationality,people still know what s good and bad ,and yet they do bad things .
Now we know life can be difficult,humans need something to rely on mentally and keep hope. Telling someone he's gonna die ,be buried and its his end of existance without going to "heaven" and that s the story ,well he wont like the story,what will he hold on onto anymore ?no more hopes for after death,as he knows he s gonna end one day,he will become scared "to death".We say "we have one life,live it up" , because we do have one life. So he does need "God story" to rely on,and try and stay rational , and feel he has "the shoulder " to cry on , and to forgive his bads and "lead" him on a better path ( but actually he is the one who is forgiving himself ,and leading himself thru a rational way to a better path".
Human mind is such a powerful things,it leaves me breathless at times.
We know that once upon a time,humans weren't "very " intelectual ,as we ll be probably compared by the human that will be here (if earth will still exist) as being lower in IQ .There might have been ,once upon that time, an intellectual individual ,compared to most of the humans by then which created this seed of story,because of several reasons that he had,trying to be rational or just he had a great imagination n he just tried to be foolish.
There aren't really any facts to contradict the existance of "God",but no facts to show "Gods" exists.
"God" is one,but religion is becoming scary to me nowadays . There are people who are "obsessive" about religion, they miss out their real lives and families to spend a great amount in church , obsessing their kids with this matter,or being so restrictive about doing things .
I have nothing to do against people to believe in "God" ,i actually happy for them,that it helps them in life matters. But i wanna know and live the truth, and learn about our beautiful Universe, and the possibility of existance of the other alien entities instead of Going to the church and praying to some walls,letting the time pass by and waste with a "prayer" than get more knowledge and die knowing the world we lived in.
People ,unfortunately , are and have to be sometimes blinded by our plastic world,to survive,but to TRULY live ,Even if God existed , humans shouldn t be so obsessive about it,they are on earth ,Universe,its a magic place,learn about the world you live in,the real world. And even if there was a heaven, why do people look so much forward to it ? They should look around,and leave away their artificial worries and look at the real world,not the plastic world that has been created,and if u truly see thru ur eyes and feels how it is, you will not look forward to "heaven".
Im not saying that i am right being agnostic as in religion , i am yet at an young age,and have still so much more to learn,and if i learn one day thru facts and proofs that god exists,i will receive it with my open arms because its a beautiful story,but until then i will appreciate Universe.

What are you talking about ? certainly you are not addressing that to me are you ? Are you feeling well ? to verify an hypothesis you need an hypothesis I suppose you agree...a definition right ? its simple...
If I carefully explained my hypothesis matches the sum of reality all that exists in unity what is it that cannot be verified ???
Please don't confuse my arguments with other blokes around...to each its own !

...now I am not debating here if one explanation for that inner sense of unity is better then another that was not the point, once we all agree here on which explanation is more sound...my point instead has been all along on whether the word "god" or any other can or cannot fit the bill on what everybody is trying to describe be it with more folklore or with some more rational substance to it !

...given I pretty much in an informal way established that the origin or the cause to look for a T.O.E. or to look for a "god" are bonded in the same need deeply rooted in the sense of unity we all experience in our lives, I think I actually made a point concerning the purpose of this debate being the prejudice of a controversial name and not the prejudice of the substance one aims to describe...we are as usual debating peanuts...

...the all thing is just plain stupid bottom to top...trying to get people to have a new vision of "god" by replacing the name without replacing the IQ and the comprehension will not solve the problem at all...although some of you guys are so way past reality that you seam inclined to believe you can make a real revolution...you remind me of those guys who blamed the money and not the people...oh dear !