Are there ANY valid pro-theistic arguments?

[JoeEllison]

If so, theists sure like arguing with fallacy and invalid points... moreso than any valid arguments.

I've had more than enough "You can't prove God doesn't exist!", and such.

The closest I've ever heard to a defensible position is "I believe, even though I know there's no evidence". It doesn't trump any real argument, it doesn't win any debates, but it is an honest answer, and it moves the conversation out of the realm of the rational. You can no more debate it than you can debate someone about their favorite color.

 

[lolurigeller]

Because there are unanswerable questions, which are strangely neither pro-theistic or atheist.

If god created everything who made god?

If the beggining of the universe was the big bang, what came before it?

How do I know I'm the only concious living thing and everyone else is not just a meat puppet made for my amusement?

on and on and on....

 

[fuelair]

Beauty is subjective. I enjoy rainy days. What does subjective thought have to do with God's objective existence?

The same relationship that philosophy has to do with real life - it may be fun to play with but your existence does not depend on it. Dog's , on the other hand, depends entirely on it.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a train leaves Pittsburgh heading south at 9:00 on a Saturday while the regular crowd shuffles in?

 

[Miss Anthrope]

I think the best pro-theistic arguments are going to be psycho-social: the ego needs the comfort of a belief in God; religion fosters family coherence; historically, religion has helped instill obedience to a central authority necessary for group survival - those kinds of things.

These are probably more in the realm of evolutionary psychology and anthropology, but it is probably the most valid answer I can think of.

 

[Roboramma]

I have found that the world has some extremely beautiful places, many of which are completely inhospitable to me for any length of time. Finding beauty in such things seems unlikely to be a product of natural selection. Perhaps I was programmed by God to appreciate beauty that serves no pragmatic function?

It's an interesting point, but I think it leads more in the direction of "what an amazing universe with so much left that we don't fully understand" than in the direction, "I understand that - it's god."
It might seem unlikley that the sense of beauty in inhospitable places could arise from natural selection, but I don't find it implausible.
Some ways that it would make sense to me (none of these is necessarily the correct explanation:
1. This sense of beauty for these specific types of places is directly selected for because those individuals who have it are more likely to explore new parts of their habitat, or to cross difficult terrain, and find new and valuable places beyond those inhospitable places. Our other tendancies will be enough to make those individuals not want to stay in those inhospitable places for long, but the sense of beauty might make them go their when either there is a need, or when times are good enough that they can afford to explore a little.
2. The sense of beauty for these specific types of places is a result of something else that was selected for - for instance a sense of beauty for open spaces (where we can see predators [or prey] from long distances), a varied landscape (because those who find varied landscapes beautiful might be more likely to explore them, and varied landscapes will hide things (behind the next hill) that are of value.
3. It might be an indirect result of something that was selected for - for instance a general liking of symetry, of bright and clear colours, etc.
4. It might be an indirect result of something apparently completely unrelated: for instance, cognition might be faster and more efficient due to a minor change in brain anatomy that happens to have a number of other minor biproducts. One of these might be finding beauty in inhospitable places.

And that's not even looking at cultural explanations. The point is that its concievable that it is an adaptation, and that the adaptive function simply isn't yet known, or it might not be an adaptation, but that doesn't suggest that it isn't a product of evolution. Finally, it might not be a product of evolutoin, but that doesn't suggest that it's a product of god.

I think the answer to the rest of your post follow much the same lines, so I'll leave it as an excerise for the reader.

 

[YouBelieveWHAT?]

MdC,

An Orange!

YBW

 

[OXEL]

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a train leaves Pittsburgh heading south at 9:00 on a Saturday while the regular crowd shuffles in?

About 27 pounds sterling I think?

 

[fuelair]

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a train leaves Pittsburgh heading south at 9:00 on a Saturday while the regular crowd shuffles in?

If it is Thursday, 15.7 cords.

 

[Piscivore]

Five tons of flax.

 

[Dumbledore]

The closest I've ever heard to a defensible position is "I believe, even though I know there's no evidence". It doesn't trump any real argument, it doesn't win any debates, but it is an honest answer, and it moves the conversation out of the realm of the rational. You can no more debate it than you can debate someone about their favorite color.

That is the stance I take. If you are looking for some valid argument that stands up to scientific rigor you will be disappointed, I don't believe there is one. All I can do is point things that lead me to believe in God. No doubt this will not be good enough for the athesits, but then again I am not trying to convert anyone here, just stating my views.

Things that make me believe, feel free to take them apart, I will enjoy seeing your logic behind refuting them.

1. Where did the big bang come from?
2. Life and conscience in general, I understand there are scientific understands of these things but the fact they exist makes me question whether or not their is an ultimate creator.
3. What exists outside of the universe, is there an outside of the universe?
4. The longing for god itself, I understand that there are psychological understandings why we would want their to be a god, but such a deep longing and need for a connection to an ultimate creator makes me wonder if God exists. Furthermore maybe we aren't just fooling ourselves, maybe their is something beyond our comprehension we are suppose to long for?
5. Human knowledge is limited and always will be limited, i.e. our knowledge cannot rule out a creator, nor prove a creator.
6. Ultimately it is just a belief and a feeling. A sense that I have, that isn't going prove it to anyone, but there it is. Have fun, I look forward to your responses!!

 

[Robin]

That is the stance I take. If you are looking for some valid argument that stands up to scientific rigor you will be disappointed, I don't believe there is one. All I can do is point things that lead me to believe in God. No doubt this will not be good enough for the athesits, but then again I am not trying to convert anyone here, just stating my views.

Things that make me believe, feel free to take them apart, I will enjoy seeing your logic behind refuting them.

1. Where did the big bang come from?

Nobody knows. But don't know does not equal God.

2. Life and conscience in general, I understand there are scientific understands of these things but the fact they exist makes me question whether or not their is an ultimate creator.

It seems to me that life and conscience could equally be features of a designed or a non-designed universe, so they don't really contribute anything either way.

3. What exists outside of the universe, is there an outside of the universe?

Again, nobody knows. Maybe a multiverse. Maybe something else. Maybe a God. Don't know does not equal God.

4. The longing for god itself, I understand that there are psychological understandings why we would want their to be a god, but such a deep longing and need for a connection to an ultimate creator makes me wonder if God exists. Furthermore maybe we aren't just fooling ourselves, maybe their is something beyond our comprehension we are suppose to long for?

To those of us without any such deep longing it is hard to say. If this longing was the result of some real God then why don't we all have it?

What form does this longing take? Could it be described in a precise way?

5. Human knowledge is limited and always will be limited, i.e. our knowledge cannot rule out a creator, nor prove a creator.

There is not really much you can prove or rule out, except when doing mathematics. Everything else is a matter of evidence. The evidence for the existence of a God is simply not good.

6. Ultimately it is just a belief and a feeling. A sense that I have, that isn't going prove it to anyone, but there it is.

Can you describe the feeling or sense? I mean I am not asking you to share something deeply personal, but just, could you describe it to yourself in a precise manner? Or is it too vague to describe?

 

[Dumbledore]

Nobody knows. But don't know does not equal God.

It seems to me that life and conscience could equally be features of a designed or a non-designed universe, so they don't really contribute anything either way.

To those of us without any such deep longing it is hard to say. If this longing was the result of some real God then why don't we all have it?

There is not really much you can prove or rule out, except when doing mathematics. Everything else is a matter of evidence. The evidence for the existence of a God is simply not good.

Can you describe the feeling or sense? I mean I am not asking you to share something deeply personal, but just, could you describe it to yourself in a precise manner? Or is it too vague to describe?

Not knowing does not also disprove God.

This is assuming God is part of a designed universe. What if God does exist and is part of an undesigned universe?

I don't think God would make a longing for God necessary, it would be something you would choose to engage in.

The longing for God, is a longing to connect to something greater than yourself or your species.

Why isn't the evidence for God good? And what is this evidence?

My own personal sense of God, is of being of part of something much greater than myself or humanity. That there is order in the universe, even though I may not understand that order, and no I am not talking about intelligent design or any other such rubbish. And that there is a great source of all things that we will all eventually return to.

 

[Loss Leader]

I am not trying to convert anyone here, just stating my views.

Can't ask for better than that.

 

[joobz]

Not knowing does not also disprove a tasty bacon sandwich.

This is assuming a tasty bacon sandwich is part of a designed universe. What if a tasty bacon sandwhich does exist and is part of an undesigned universe?

I don't think a tasty bacon sandwich would make a longing for a tasty bacon sandwich necessary, it would be something you would choose to engage in.

The longing for a tasty bacon sandwich, is a longing to connect to something greater than yourself or your species.

Why isn't the evidence for a tasty bacon sandwich good? And what is this evidence?

My own personal sense of a tasty bacon sandwich, is of being of part of something much greater than myself or humanity. That there is order in the universe, even though I may not understand that order, and no I am not talking about intelligent design or any other such rubbish. And that there is a great source of all things that we will all eventually return to.

Sorry for the rewording of your post, but by your argument of not-knowing what god is but believing it is there, this holds equal meaning.
Why would or should we choose to apply the word god to such an undefined thing?

 

[Robin]

Not knowing does not also disprove God.

But what use is a concept you can neither prove nor disprove? If after millenia of the best minds of the world working on the subject the very best you can come up with for the concept is "it can't be disproven", then isn't it perhaps time to give up on the concept?

This is assuming God is part of a designed universe. What if God does exist and is part of an undesigned universe?

Then that would be a God of a very different sort.

I don't think God would make a longing for God necessary, it would be something you would choose to engage in.

Then how can longing for God be part of the reason for believing in him.

Why isn't the evidence for God good? And what is this evidence?

I think that this was the very question posed in the OP. So far we have come up blank. There are a couple of arguments from Mere Christianity, but I don't even think them worthy of mention.

Perhaps some possible reasons there is no good evidence for God is that God is ineffable, God is hiding or God does not exist

My own personal sense of God, is of being of part of something much greater than myself or humanity. That there is order in the universe, even though I may not understand that order, and no I am not talking about intelligent design or any other such rubbish. And that there is a great source of all things that we will all eventually return to.

But even a materialist might believe that there is order in the universe (we observe order after all) and that we are part of something greater than man and that we will eventually return to it (or that we were always a part of it). They just wont think that whatever it is has purpose or meaning.

 

[Matt the Poet]

1. Where did the big bang come from?
2. Life and conscience in general, I understand there are scientific understands of these things but the fact they exist makes me question whether or not their is an ultimate creator.
3. What exists outside of the universe, is there an outside of the universe?
4. The longing for god itself, I understand that there are psychological understandings why we would want their to be a god, but such a deep longing and need for a connection to an ultimate creator makes me wonder if God exists. Furthermore maybe we aren't just fooling ourselves, maybe their is something beyond our comprehension we are suppose to long for?
5. Human knowledge is limited and always will be limited, i.e. our knowledge cannot rule out a creator, nor prove a creator.
6. Ultimately it is just a belief and a feeling. A sense that I have, that isn't going prove it to anyone, but there it is. Have fun, I look forward to your responses!!

OK – 4 and 6 are impregnable to logical attack, but you’ve admitted as much yourself. All that I can say is that, yes, sometimes I do feel as though some presence enfolds the world. Sometimes I feel like everyone’s out to get me. I feel all sorts of things. They could be evidence of an underlying truth, they could be deeply embedded stuff generated by my upbringing. They could be what my temporal lobe does to stave off boredom because it isn’t helping me to visualise the forthcoming gazelle hunt like it evolved to. Either way, they are interesting, but not terribly useful.

There are physicists who can answer 1 much better than me, but my limited understanding is that this is something of a non-question when you look at the underlying maths.

2,3 and 5 are where you get into interesting metaphysics. Yes, our senses and understanding are limited. Bees and electric eels, for example, can experience and in some way ‘know about’ the universe in ways that no human ever will. It seems reasonable to me to extend this and assume that there are aspects of reality that no existing conscious being has access to (which is about as close to a meaningful definition of ‘outside the universe’ as I think you can get), and which may be crucial in generating what we perceive as our own existence and consciousness in the world.

Which is as far as I’m prepared to go in defining something that one might call ‘God’. The problem starts when you meld in points 4 and 6 and start imbuing these ‘external aspects’ with human-like consciousness, assuming that they care about how you behave – or, even worse, thinking that you can make meaningful assertions about how they want you to behave.

 

[Dumbledore]

Sorry for the rewording of your post, but by your argument of not-knowing what god is but believing it is there, this holds equal meaning.
Why would or should we choose to apply the word god to such an undefined thing?

Do you have a better word for it, the word itself means nothing. It is simply the agreed upon word for this concept in our culture.

 

[Dumbledore]

Which is as far as I’m prepared to go in defining something that one might call ‘God’. The problem starts when you meld in points 4 and 6 and start imbuing these ‘external aspects’ with human-like consciousness, assuming that they care about how you behave – or, even worse, thinking that you can make meaningful assertions about how they want you to behave.

But I don't and neither do many people who believe in God. We assume that we know nothing about God. God is not something that we can define by ourselves, or through our beliefs. We assume that our human consciousness limits use to viewing at best only a tiny sliver of God. Moral codes based on God are simply culturally constructed, we as a culture define these moral codes, not God.

 

[joobz]

Do you have a better word for it, the word itself means nothing. It is simply the agreed upon word for this concept in our culture.

How about a tasty bacon Sandwich?

BTW, I've enjoyed your posts and find your attitude qutie refreshing.