Are there ANY valid pro-theistic arguments?

[Dumbledore]

But we know we have limits without the concept of a God. We know that there is more to existence than we will ever know without the concept of a God. What does the concept of God add that we would not have anyway?

But the choice doesn't exist, you cannot just choose to long for something. You either long for it or you don't. Longing comes from a desire within you. If you don't have that desire then you can't just insert it into your mind.

You bring up a good point, I would have to say that adding the God concept would bring in more directly the question what is our role in the universe and what is God's. But you are quite correct in asserting that we don't need God to know we have limits, we don't.

I would have to disagree with you about longing. The choice to long for something is a choice inherently. I could choose not to long for God by deciding that I am merely deluding myself by believing in God. In counter to that an atheist could start longing for God by deciding that God does exist. Longing for something is an emotional reaction base on decision, not something that is inherent in a person. Longing for God is based on faith in God which is based on the decision to believe in God.

 

[Robin]

Longing for God is based on faith in God which is based on the decision to believe in God.

How do you decide to believe something? I would have thought that a contradiction in terms. Or at least, speaking for myself, I could not simply decide to believe something that I didn't believe.

 

[Dumbledore]

How do you decide to believe something? I would have thought that a contradiction in terms. Or at least, speaking for myself, I could not simply decide to believe something that I didn't believe.

Did you read my posts after this initial post? You would have to decide to believe in God for what ever reason, this happens to quite a few people. After this decision they long for God, this is my point.

For example if you were in a near fatal car accident and you felt that someone or something saved you from death you might choose to believe in God, this does often happen to people. You would then long for God, because you have decided to believe in God. In short you have chosen to long for God.

 

[Nancarrow]

Brains!

BRrraaiiinsss!


BRRRRAAAAIIIIIIIINNNNNNSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Dumbledore]

Brains!

BRrraaiiinsss!


BRRRRAAAAIIIIIIIINNNNNNSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ahhhh, the zombies are finally here, close the gate. (Resident Evil 2)

 

[Robin]

Did you read my posts after this initial post?

"this initial post"???? The post I quoted and responded to was not your initial post, it was the your very latest post. I have responded to a number of your posts. What an odd question.

You would have to decide to believe in God for what ever reason, this happens to quite a few people. After this decision they long for God, this is my point.

For example if you were in a near fatal car accident and you felt that someone or something saved you from death you might choose to believe in God, this does often happen to people. You would then long for God, because you have decided to believe in God. In short you have chosen to long for God.

I am not denying that people often start to believe in God. I am questioning whether this represents "choosing" to believe in God.

However I don't see that I can get any traction in this issue. Theists on this site and elsewhere seem to be utterly convinced that belief in God is a matter of choice.

I could understand orthodox Christians or Muslims having to believe that atheists are choosing to reject God, because without that the whole concept of Hell becomes contradictory to the nature of God.

But you don't seem to fit the orthodox mold. Making belief a choice would seem to suggest that, not only atheists, but theist are insincere about their beliefs. If you really did believe something it would not be a choice.

 

[Thanz]

Making belief a choice would seem to suggest that, not only atheists, but theist are insincere about their beliefs. If you really did believe something it would not be a choice.

I am unclear as to what you mean by this. Why does having belief be a choice make it insincere? Why would 'really believing something' not make it a choice?

What you seem to be saying is that you can only really believe in something if you have no choice but to believe. That makes no sense to me.

 

[Robin]

I am unclear as to what you mean by this. Why does having belief be a choice make it insincere? Why would 'really believing something' not make it a choice?

Belief implies some kind of confidence that something is true. If there was a choice to believe something incompatible then that would imply there was some doubt and therefore a lack of confidence about the truth of the belief.

What you seem to be saying is that you can only really believe in something if you have no choice but to believe. That makes no sense to me.

That is exactly what I am saying. I can't even understand anybody who thinks otherwise. I don't believe in God, not because I am stubborn or rebellious or because I hate God. I couldn't believe in God no matter how hard I tried, because I see no evidence or reasons that could possibly convince me.

But I could if I found some good reason to believe. If I found evidence or reasons that were good enough to convince me then I couldn't help but believe - I couldn't ignore the reasons by choice.

That really goes for any belief. I couldn't choose to believe that the Sun goes round the Earth, nor could you I will bet, no matter how hard I tried.

The very fact that there could be a choice means that there is some doubt about the matter.

 

[Thanz]

Belief implies some kind of confidence that something is true. If there was a choice to believe something incompatible then that would imply there was some doubt and therefore a lack of confidence about the truth of the belief.

I disagree. You can have perfect confidence in your choice. I believe that I have found the right woman for me. Luckily, she thought I was not too hideous. We have been married for 11 years, and I have perfect condfidence in my choice.

That is exactly what I am saying. I can't even understand anybody who thinks otherwise. I don't believe in God, not because I am stubborn or rebellious or because I hate God. I couldn't believe in God no matter how hard I tried, because I see no evidence or reasons that could possibly convince me.

But I could if I found some good reason to believe. If I found evidence or reasons that were good enough to convince me then I couldn't help but believe - I couldn't ignore the reasons by choice.

By admitting this possiblility, does that make you insincere in your atheism?

Seriously, you are mixing the reasons for the belief with the belief itself. In your example here, you would believe because you chose to accept the evidence. You are taking a far too passive approach to what would be your evaluation of the evidence.

That really goes for any belief. I couldn't choose to believe that the Sun goes round the Earth, nor could you I will bet, no matter how hard I tried.

That just speaks to the level of evidence there is for the earth oribiting the sun, rather than any larger point regarding choosing beliefs. For a large period of time, many did believe the sun rotated the Earth. There may still be some who believe it. Were those in the past insincere? Are those now insincere?

The very fact that there could be a choice means that there is some
doubt about the matter.

So what?

It is like the thing with bravery: The person who is truly brave is not the person who doesn't get scared - it is the person who is scared, but does the heroic thing anyway.

 

[Robin]

I disagree. You can have perfect confidence in your choice. I believe that I have found the right woman for me. Luckily, she thought I was not too hideous. We have been married for 11 years, and I have perfect condfidence in my choice.

But could you easily choose to believe that you made a ghastly mistake and wasted those 11 years? I don't think you could. So you may have chosen the woman, but you have not chosen to believe that she was the right woman for you.

Seriously, you are mixing the reasons for the belief with the belief itself.

I don't see them as different. The reasons don't go away once a belief is in your mind. So long as you have a belief then those reasons should still be there.

In your example here, you would believe because you chose to accept the evidence. You are taking a far too passive approach to what would be your evaluation of the evidence.

I could choose not to look at, listen to or read the evidence. That would be different than choosing not to believe.

But if I had seen the evidence and it was good then I would have no choice but to believe. I cannot understand how there could be a situation where I had seen good evidence for a proposition and still chose not to believe.

That is why it is sometimes called "compelling" evidence. It compels your to believe.

That just speaks to the level of evidence there is for the earth oribiting the sun, rather than any larger point regarding choosing beliefs. For a large period of time, many did believe the sun rotated the Earth. There may still be some who believe it. Were those in the past insincere? Are those now insincere?

Clearly not, since they were using available evidence.

Oresme, for example, looked at the evidence and concluded that it did not indicate that the Sun orbited the Earth, or the Sun stayed still and the Earth rotated. Yet he said at the end that he still believed the Sun orbited the Earth. That is insincere. He just chose to believe, without any good reason.

So what?

It is like the thing with bravery: The person who is truly brave is not the person who doesn't get scared - it is the person who is scared, but does the heroic thing anyway.

So the comparable sentence would be "The person who truly believes is not the person that doesn't doubt - it is the person who does doubt but believes anyway.".

Apples and oranges, if something applies to bravery/fear it does not follow that the same principle applies to belief/doubt.

There appear to be three possibilities:
1. Reasons to believe sufficiently outweigh reasons to doubt
2. Reasons to doubt sufficiently outweigh reasons to believe
3. Neither 1 nor 2 is the case.

So in which of these cases would it be reasonable to choose to believe?

 

[Dumbledore]

"this initial post"???? The post I quoted and responded to was not your initial post, it was the your very latest post. I have responded to a number of your posts. What an odd question.

I am not denying that people often start to believe in God. I am questioning whether this represents "choosing" to believe in God.

However I don't see that I can get any traction in this issue. Theists on this site and elsewhere seem to be utterly convinced that belief in God is a matter of choice.

I could understand orthodox Christians or Muslims having to believe that atheists are choosing to reject God, because without that the whole concept of Hell becomes contradictory to the nature of God.

But you don't seem to fit the orthodox mold. Making belief a choice would seem to suggest that, not only atheists, but theist are insincere about their beliefs. If you really did believe something it would not be a choice.

Why would it not be a choice? I realize what you are saying, it is not a choice like having eggs for breakfast, but it is still a choice. You have to believe in your choice, you can't just say I believe in God today with no real belief behind it. You would have to choose to believe in God and actually believe in your choice. Hence the example with the near fatal car accident, if you feel that something saved you from death you might choose to start believing in God. You are choosing to believe in God and you believe in your choice. I understand your confusion, it is a difficult issue to fully explain and clarify. Nor do people lightly choose or not choose to believe in God, the fact that they must have conviction behind their belief makes the issue of choice in believing in God all the more confusing.

Another example is an atheist one who use to believe in God. At some time in the past this person lost their belief and or conviction that God exists, they then decided that God does not exist. The believe in their choice that God does not exist. If they did not believe in their choice they would of not made that choice not to believe in God.

So in short a person has to choose to believe in God and believe in that choice. If they don't believe in that choice they don't really believe in God. I believe that I have made this as clear as I can.

 

[Dumbledore]

Belief implies some kind of confidence that something is true. If there was a choice to believe something incompatible then that would imply there was some doubt and therefore a lack of confidence about the truth of the belief.

That is exactly what I am saying. I can't even understand anybody who thinks otherwise. I don't believe in God, not because I am stubborn or rebellious or because I hate God. I couldn't believe in God no matter how hard I tried, because I see no evidence or reasons that could possibly convince me.

But I could if I found some good reason to believe. If I found evidence or reasons that were good enough to convince me then I couldn't help but believe - I couldn't ignore the reasons by choice.

That really goes for any belief. I couldn't choose to believe that the Sun goes round the Earth, nor could you I will bet, no matter how hard I tried.

The very fact that there could be a choice means that there is some doubt about the matter.

Ahhhhh!, dawning comprehension!

If you were given evidence of God's existence you would have to choose to believe that evidence, hence choice comes into the picture. Most religious people believe that you cannot give irrefutable evidence that God exists or does not exist. So religious people choose to believe in God even though they have no direct proof of God's existence, and they choose to believe in their choice despite the lack of evidence or proof. Now you will not like this but, atheists do this also, they cannot prove God does not exist, but the choose to believe that God does not exist and they believe in that choice despite the lack of evidence and proof that God does not exist. In short each group chooses to believe in the evidence they have been given even though neither group has irrefutable or conclusive evidence to prove their belief.

 

[Dumbledore]

So the comparable sentence would be "The person who truly believes is not the person that doesn't doubt - it is the person who does doubt but believes anyway.".

And that would describe me and many other religious people. Doubt in God is part of faith and belief in God. If you blindly believe in God, I don't really believe you gain anything from your relationship with God. But if you challenge your belief and your relationship with God, it becomes a dynamic faith and belief that is able to grow and change. As opposed to blind belief that has no real chance to change or grow. Doubt is important, there is no absolute proof of God, you should doubt what you cannot prove, but you can choose to still believe in God despite the doubt.

 

[Robin]

Ahhhhh!, dawning comprehension!

If you were given evidence of God's existence you would have to choose to believe that evidence, hence choice comes into the picture.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

If I were given evidence of God's existence I would then evaluate the evidence. If it was sufficient then I would have no choice but to believe. If it were insufficient then I would have no choice except to continue not believing. Where does choice come in?

Most religious people believe that you cannot give irrefutable evidence that God exists or does not exist.

And most irreligious people also believe this.

Now you will not like this but, atheists do this also, they cannot prove God does not exist, but the choose to believe that God does not exist and they believe in that choice despite the lack of evidence and proof that God does not exist.

No, think about it - is there a difference between these?:

1. I don't believe p is true, and
2. I believe p is false

You would have us believe that 1 and 2 are equivalent sentences. But they are not. You have to think carefully about the difference between 1 and 2.

Where there is insufficient evidence for p then (1) above is the only rational position.

So if there is insufficient evidence for the existence of God then the only rational position is "I don't believe in God". In other words - atheism.

 

[Dumbledore]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

If I were given evidence of God's existence I would then evaluate the evidence. If it was sufficient then I would have no choice but to believe. If it were insufficient then I would have no choice except to continue not believing. Where does choice come in?

And most irreligious people also believe this.

No, think about it - is there a difference between these?:

1. I don't believe p is true, and
2. I believe p is false

You would have us believe that 1 and 2 are equivalent sentences. But they are not. You have to think carefully about the difference between 1 and 2.

Where there is insufficient evidence for p then (1) above is the only rational position.

So if there is insufficient evidence for the existence of God then the only rational position is "I don't believe in God". In other words - atheism.

Sigh I will try this again. In your evaluation of the evidence for God you would have to choose to believe in your evaluation. In short you are making a choice to believe in your evaluation and the evidence. This is where choice comes in, evidence itself does not compel you to believe one thing or another, nor does evaluating that evidence. Your choice to believe in your evaluation and that evidence makes you believe in this supposed evidence for God. This is where choice comes in.

Ahh, you choice to believe that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of God. Now you may argue that I have no hard scientific evidence for the existence of God, and this is true, but that does not mean there is not enough evidence for the existence of God. When I was discussing evidence before, I was assuming that evidence would be limited to scientific evidence that could not be refuted, but actual evidence is not just limited to scientific evidence. What evidence are you using? What evidence do you believe, what evidence do you not believe in? Most people choose to believe in certain types of evidence and not others. In making an absolute statement that there is not enough evidence for the existence of God you must qualify what evidence and what type of evidence you are talking about. Many religious people would disagree with you, there is plenty of "evidence" for the existence of God. However this most likely is not evidence that you yourself would choose to believe in.

Finally I believe, that is I am choosing to believe, that we will have to agree to disagree. If my posts up till now have not convinced you of what I am saying, I doubt this current or future posts will.

 

[Thanz]

If I were given evidence of God's existence I would then evaluate the evidence. If it was sufficient then I would have no choice but to believe. If it were insufficient then I would have no choice except to continue not believing. Where does choice come in?

Choice comes in in the weighing of the evidence for its sufficiency. The evaluation of the evidence involves choices - as in, do you choose to accept the veracity of any particular piece of evidence? What meaning do you choose to ascribe to it? How much weight do you give various pieces of evidence? At what point do you decide that something is more likely than not?

These are all choices - and all of them lead to whether you choose to believe or not. You make it seem like the sufficiency of evidence is determined outside of your own decision making process, as if by magic.

 

[Dumbledore]

Choice comes in in the weighing of the evidence for its sufficiency. The evaluation of the evidence involves choices - as in, do you choose to accept the veracity of any particular piece of evidence? What meaning do you choose to ascribe to it? How much weight do you give various pieces of evidence? At what point do you decide that something is more likely than not?

These are all choices - and all of them lead to whether you choose to believe or not. You make it seem like the sufficiency of evidence is determined outside of your own decision making process, as if by magic.

Thanks, you just summed up what I was trying to explain, much better than I could. What a great post!

 

[Bri]

Although I imagine that most theists believe in God based on faith and therefore probably don't care all that much about logical arguments for the existence of God, I thought I'd post this reference in case nobody had done so yet:

Wikipedia article: Existence of God

See the section "Arguments for the Existence of God" for a list of some arguments for the existence of God.

-Bri

 

[plumjam]

arguments are fine
you just need to keep in mind that reality is not determined by arguments. If God exists he exists independently of the existence of good or otherwise theistic arguments
history shows that people come to be sure of God's existence through experience/revelation rather than argumentation.

 

[Bri]

True, reality is not determined by arguments.

The same page has a reference to the Argument from Evil (an argument against the existence of God), which you seem to be alluding to.

Of course, reality is not determined by arguments.

-Bri