What Convinced you God Exists?

[Clizby WampusCat]

If indeed it is evidence, then it is not bad epistemology. You are saying it is not, which is something you don't know.

You can't know whether the things you can see (or reason to be there) are the only good evidence. You are attempting to discuss what is beyond you to comprehend.

It is evidence. But there is good and bad evidence. Believing something because you hope or expect it to be true is bad evidence.

I expect to win the lottery so I will go into debt knowing I will have it covered. That is a bad idea.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

You simply can't know that. The fact that you can't see the evidence doesn't mean it isn't there. It is of a kind that you have no access to.

I agree. But why would I or you believe something not knowing what the evidence is? If I have no access to good evidence for bigfoots existence then why would I believe bigfoot exists?

Do you have access to the evidence? If so, please share it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I agree. But why would I or you believe something not knowing what the evidence is? If I have no access to good evidence for bigfoots existence then why would I believe bigfoot exists?

Do you have access to the evidence? If so, please share it.

We (not just I) have shared it many many times. It doesn't work for you. There is no way to put it into human words that describes it adequately. As Christ said, "If they don't believe [Moses and the prophets], even if someone was to rise from the dead, they will not believe." -If you won't believe your own eyes and reason, concerning existence and its universe, you won't take my word for anything I say, and certainly you won't accept Scripture. --But here we go again. The faith is the evidence. Not the fact that one has faith --that is not the evidence-- but the faith itself is the evidence. It is not something that one can produce of himself, but it is the work of, and the witness of, the Spirit of God, within a person.

And like I tried to say before, one goes through their day trusting in things with far less evidence, for mere expedience sake. They can also trust, for example, that the floor will be there under their feet when they climb out of bed, because it was every day so far, and no reason to bother to look; habit, and no thanks to any Source or Sustenance of reality; they don't even think about it any more, yet they believe their choices are always from actual options, without evidence of it being so.

Lol, see? It makes no sense to you!

 

[Mark Quayle]

It is evidence. But there is good and bad evidence. Believing something because you hope or expect it to be true is bad evidence.

I expect to win the lottery so I will go into debt knowing I will have it covered. That is a bad idea.

It is not good evidence because I believe it to be true. It is good evidence because it is true. This kind of faith is not like other faith. It is true because the source of it is true.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You need to show that the first cause was some intelligent being or a god. You have not done that. I am not invoking magic. I am simply saying I don't know what the first cause was it could be natural or not.

So do you admit to the logical necessity of First Cause? Not a trick question. I'm not adding to the notion at this time, any implication of Godhood, or even personhood --intent. We can get to that later.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

We (not just I) have shared it many many times. It doesn't work for you. There is no way to put it into human words that describes it adequately. As Christ said, "If they don't believe [Moses and the prophets], even if someone was to rise from the dead, they will not believe." -If you won't believe your own eyes and reason, concerning existence and its universe, you won't take my word for anything I say, and certainly you won't accept Scripture. --But here we go again. The faith is the evidence. Not the fact that one has faith --that is not the evidence-- but the faith itself is the evidence. It is not something that one can produce of himself, but it is the work of, and the witness of, the Spirit of God, within a person.

You are right I am not willing to take your word for it. If God wants me to know he exists and exists then He should be able to provide the evidence for me to evaluate that would convince me. Saying faith is the evidence is bad evidence. I can have faith that bigfoot exists, does that mean bigfoot exists?

And like I tried to say before, one goes through their day trusting in things with far less evidence, for mere expedience sake. They can also trust, for example, that the floor will be there under their feet when they climb out of bed, because it was every day so far, and no reason to bother to look; habit, and no thanks to any Source or Sustenance of reality; they don't even think about it any more, yet they believe their choices are always from actual options, without evidence of it being so.

There is plenty of good evidence that the floor will be there when I get up, faith is not the evidence I believe the floor will be there.

Lol, see? It makes no sense to you!

Believing in something without good evidence makes no sense to me. I admit it.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

It is not good evidence because I believe it to be true. It is good evidence because it is true. This kind of faith is not like other faith. It is true because the source of it is true.

How do you know the source of it is true?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

So do you admit to the logical necessity of First Cause? Not a trick question. I'm not adding to the notion at this time, any implication of Godhood, or even personhood --intent. We can get to that later.

Are you talking about the necessity of a first cause of our universe or the cosmos (everything including our universe if there is more than our universe)?

The universe had a cause for the expansion we are experiencing. As to why the universe is here at all, there is no evidence that the matter was brought into existence. It could be that "nothing" cannot exist. I don't know why the matter the universe is made of is here. Was it caused or not? I don't know.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Are you talking about the necessity of a first cause of our universe or the cosmos (everything including our universe if there is more than our universe)?

The universe had a cause for the expansion we are experiencing. As to why the universe is here at all, there is no evidence that the matter was brought into existence. It could be that "nothing" cannot exist. I don't know why the matter the universe is made of is here. Was it caused or not? I don't know.

First Cause for everything else, except First Cause itself, (since it is self-contradictory to say first cause can cause itself, since it would have to first exist in order to cause anything. First Cause is self-existing.).

The principles you invoke (nothingness, existence, and reason) and substance (matter) all had to come from something --First Cause. You may add to the list: reality and principle, somethingness and nothingness, logic and math, truth, virtue and substance, justice, cause and effect, intent and agency, is and ought, beauty, etc, and yes there is a lot of overlap, and most of these are only our words for them --almost useful words, lol.

And I think I mentioned before, that all these come from his nature, are according to his nature, which is himself, not placed upon him.

Whether the field in which particles exist or the forces of the field induce the appearance and disappearance of particles, or whether the particles induce the field and forces, or whether God directly causes and sustains one or both of them, or whether there are more basic items that God created and sustains, I don't know, but there is no reason to think there is any end to causation, before First Cause.

 

[Mark Quayle]

How do you know the source of it is true?

The nature of the evidence, but like I said, I don't expect that to work for you. Let me just try to put a parallel in view: You trust your eyes; I trust God.

"The lion has roared --who will not be afraid? The Lord has spoken --who can but prophesy!" When God makes himself plain, nobody will doubt.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You are right I am not willing to take your word for it. If God wants me to know he exists and exists then He should be able to provide the evidence for me to evaluate that would convince me. Saying faith is the evidence is bad evidence. I can have faith that bigfoot exists, does that mean bigfoot exists?

There is no doubt that the Omnipotent is able to provide evidence you will accept. But that is pretty obviously not his intention at this point. As CS Lewis says, "When the author walks onto the stage, the play is over."

You still insist faith in God is of the same nature as belief in Bigfoot, as though we believers in God should think that belief in Bigfoot is evidence in itself of the existence of Bigfoot. We think no such thing. If it helps you to understand what we mean, at least to some small degree, God is not limited to form. Bigfoot is. Nor has Bigfoot has changed my heart and intentions, nor does he continue to do so. Nor does Bigfoot show himself to be what I was made for.

There is plenty of good evidence that the floor will be there when I get up, faith is not the evidence I believe the floor will be there.

I'm not saying faith is the evidence that the floor will be there. I'm saying you operate without going through the nature of the evidence before every decision.

Believing in something without good evidence makes no sense to me. I admit it.

 

[cvanwey]

First Cause for everything else, except First Cause itself, (since it is self-contradictory to say first cause can cause itself, since it would have to first exist in order to cause anything. First Cause is self-existing.).

The principles you invoke (nothingness, existence, and reason) and substance (matter) all had to come from something --First Cause. You may add to the list: reality and principle, somethingness and nothingness, logic and math, truth, virtue and substance, justice, cause and effect, intent and agency, is and ought, beauty, etc, and yes there is a lot of overlap, and most of these are only our words for them --almost useful words, lol.

And I think I mentioned before, that all these come from his nature, are according to his nature, which is himself, not placed upon him.

Whether the field in which particles exist or the forces of the field induce the appearance and disappearance of particles, or whether the particles induce the field and forces, or whether God directly causes and sustains one or both of them, or whether there are more basic items that God created and sustains, I don't know, but there is no reason to think there is any end to causation, before First Cause.

I've been skimming your responses, and am now intrigued. The title asks 'what convinced you god exists'. In the last response, you mention 'first cause' five times alone.

Would the topic of 'first cause' be your [front-runner/strongest] go-to argument for the assertion of a "supreme being"?

 

[HitchSlap]

I should probably not say that Atheists actually believe in magic. But if they claim Christians believe in magic, (and they do, as though Christians do not believe in science), then Christians have equal reason to say that Atheists believe in it too.

I'm willing to bet that you believe virgins can give birth to godmen?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I've been skimming your responses, and am now intrigued. The title asks 'what convinced you god exists'. In the last response, you mention 'first cause' five times alone.

Would the topic of 'first cause' be your [front-runner/strongest] go-to argument for the assertion of a "supreme being"?

Yeah, I suppose so. Back a while ago, "It makes more sense to me that God should exist, than even that I should exist, yet here I am." Also, "It boggles the mind to think that God should be able to create anything that is 'other-than] himself, but the notion that that creation should be able to rebel against him, is outrageous!" God is, by definition --at least any definition I am willing to entertain-- First Cause, and Omnipotent. Many other 'attributes' logically must follow.

Edit: That this may be my go-to argument does not imply it is why I believe in God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm willing to bet that you believe virgins can give birth to godmen?

Haha, there we go with the atheist's plural, again! "You believe donkeys and snakes can talk!" What fallacy of argument should that be categorized in -- 'Hasty generalization'? Nah. 'Appeal to emotion'? Not really. Hmmm. 'Shout 'em down'? Maybe. 'Mocking'? yeah, probably.

No, I believe a virgin (singular) became impregnated by the Spirit of God. Matter of fact, to me it doesn't really even matter if she was a virgin --it just helps to understand the nature of her pregnancy. There has only ever been one man who was also God. Plural is not indicated.

 

[cvanwey]

Yeah, I suppose so. Back a while ago, "It makes more sense to me that God should exist, than even that I should exist, yet here I am." Also, "It boggles the mind to think that God should be able to create anything that is 'other-than] himself, but the notion that that creation should be able to rebel against him, is outrageous!" God is, by definition --at least any definition I am willing to entertain-- First Cause, and Omnipotent. Many other 'attributes' logically must follow.

Edit: That this may be my go-to argument does not imply it is why I believe in God.

Thank you for your follow up here... Since this seems to be your 'strongest' reason to believe, do you mind if we explore a bit? If the answer is {no}, then no need to respond I guess

1. Is it even conceivable that the 'universe' is eternal?
2. (For sake of argument) - If you were to somehow find out that the 'universe' is eternal, would your own personal justification for God be weakened at all? Or, would you merely move onto another argument? From your [edit] response, it sounds like you may just concede that the universe is eternal and move on to other point(s)?
3. Assuming the term 'universe' encompassed all time/space/matter/energy/quarks/etc., let's also assume that God is outside these parameters. --- Maybe we call it a "transcendent realm", or other, who knows... Where exactly did/does God dwell, before He decided to create it?

If you instead wish to fast-forward this discussion, my point is that it seems to 'make more sense' to 'conclude'; maybe in haste (mind you); that existence is eternal and not finite? And if existence has no beginning, then it seems illogical to invoke 'creationism'? At best, you can instead argue for a 'change agent'. Maybe the 'Big Bang' represents a placeholder term, which simply means the universe went from one state, to the next; but maybe the 'universe' did not sprout from 'nothing'.?.?.?

[Edit] - If the first cause argument is not the reason you are convinced of a God, then why waste time speaking about it in this thread? What actually convinced you?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

First Cause for everything else, except First Cause itself, (since it is self-contradictory to say first cause can cause itself, since it would have to first exist in order to cause anything. First Cause is self-existing.).

You need to demonstrate this not just assert this. How do you know a first cause existed? You are assuming there was nothing at one time. How have you ruled out that there was always something? God always existed correct? Why not the cosmos has always existed instead?

The principles you invoke (nothingness, existence, and reason) and substance (matter) all had to come from something --First Cause. You may add to the list: reality and principle, somethingness and nothingness, logic and math, truth, virtue and substance, justice, cause and effect, intent and agency, is and ought, beauty, etc, and yes there is a lot of overlap, and most of these are only our words for them --almost useful words, lol.

And I think I mentioned before, that all these come from his nature, are according to his nature, which is himself, not placed upon him.

Now you are just asserting a first cause was a God. How do you justify that and how do you know what attributes it has?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

The nature of the evidence, but like I said, I don't expect that to work for you. Let me just try to put a parallel in view: You trust your eyes; I trust God.

I trust my eyes because they have been demonstrated to work for me (not perfectly) on a regular basis. All you are saying here is I believe God exists because I believe God exists.

 

[HitchSlap]

Haha, there we go with the atheist's plural, again! "You believe donkeys and snakes can talk!" What fallacy of argument should that be categorized in -- 'Hasty generalization'? Nah. 'Appeal to emotion'? Not really. Hmmm. 'Shout 'em down'? Maybe. 'Mocking'? yeah, probably.

No, I believe a virgin (singular) became impregnated by the Spirit of God. Matter of fact, to me it doesn't really even matter if she was a virgin --it just helps to understand the nature of her pregnancy. There has only ever been one man who was also God. Plural is not indicated.

You suggested we both believe in magic. I'm just trying to ascertain the difference. Where do you think I draw the line, and you keep going?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

There is no doubt that the Omnipotent is able to provide evidence you will accept. But that is pretty obviously not his intention at this point. As CS Lewis says, "When the author walks onto the stage, the play is over."[/quote}Ok, then why does God blame me for my unbelief?

You still insist faith in God is of the same nature as belief in Bigfoot, as though we believers in God should think that belief in Bigfoot is evidence in itself of the existence of Bigfoot. We think no such thing. If it helps you to understand what we mean, at least to some small degree, God is not limited to form. Bigfoot is. Nor has Bigfoot has changed my heart and intentions, nor does he continue to do so. Nor does Bigfoot show himself to be what I was made for.

The problem you are convince that god exist by evidence that you cannot share. Also, God is not willing to show me He exists. So I have no choice but to remain in my unbelief until God or you provide good evidence.

I'm not saying faith is the evidence that the floor will be there. I'm saying you operate without going through the nature of the evidence before every decision.

And I explained why. You have not explained why for God.