Open invitation: best arguments for God

[Sela]

The best argument I've ever heard for God's existence is denial of Parsimony. To be honest this is how I continue to believe in God in whatever trivial way I still do.

Begin with the premise that anything which is known by induction is not something we can be 100% certain of. How can we be sure that we exist? That matter exists? A good scientist must be rooted in the idea that we can use induction to be 'reasonably sure of reality'. This argument steps one step further out: "Cogito Ergo Sum" need not be considered valid at all! Yes this opens a philosophical bag of worms - but that isn't a problem if you're willing to see through all those different threads.

Remember: The goal of *science* is to try and generate useful predictions. Science seeks to produce a consensus reality. This is not necessarily true of all other philosophical frameworks, or indeed of all human endeavors.

So you deny this basis that we need evidence in order to know something is true. When asked about using modern technology or the implicit belief that people have in object-permanence and reality, simply respond that we accept those because they're convenient to us. They make us happy. Ultimately the only reality is that which we believe to be real. A scientist must *CHOOSE* to believe that objects exist; that he himself exists. While the 'evidence' that a wall exists is strong - the evidence of our senses, of several other peoples' senses, the fact that it bars our movement, etc - none of these will be sufficent for someone who has begun by denying that the simplest explanation that explains all the facts is the best/preferred one. The interminably more complex explanation that nothing is real; that all that we see and hear is a projection of our mind as it sits atop a vat in a jar on someone else's table is still there.
Further, any proof relying on induction fails in such a situation. Since we've denied Parsimony, we easily can believe that gravity may well stop working the umpteen-illionth time we try an experiment to verify its existence. All the evidence in the world can't *prove* that gravity must *ALWAYS* work as we have understood it to. Or that combustion reactions producing fire must always be hot. Or that water can freeze at sufficiently low temperatures. Or that universal CONSTANTS cannot be turned variable.

Once you stand at this point (referred to hereafter as 'absolute denial'), then you can simply look at others who accept scientific understanding of consensus reality and, honestly, tell them "That's your opinion."

Now once you're at that point that you've decided nothing is real; the question next becomes what do you choose to believe? You can choose to believe in the scientific models that most closely approximate what will happen from day to day and are seldom proven wrong (and even when proven wrong are designed to be self-correcting and refining)! You can choose to believe that God created the universal constants and all that exists stems from his first act of creation. Whatever you choose, you do so with the implicit understanding that all this is only being treated as reality by you because you *CHOSE* to imbue them with your acceptance of them as real. Nothing is actually known to be real. Both the idea that God did it or It just did itself are perfectly equivalent since both are perfectly unprovable. And, like "Willful suspension of disbelief" applied to real life, we choose to accept one. You're able to -without betraying yourself philosophically- accept and even believe in all that science demonstrates. Hell, you can even choose to add to that framework and conduct scientifically valid experiments without betraying the fact that at the root of it all rests an unprovable, unproven assumption: Things are real, things exist, and things are constant. And then when someone discusses Zeus, Unicorns, and Alien Abductions; you smile at them and tell them "I doubt they're true." Or "I don't believe that bullcrap." But when you yourself choose to believe in a world of unseen Angels and Demons, Hell, Heaven, and divine judgment; it marries perfectly with your worldview.

It's an unprovable assumption, but then so is the assumption that things exist and are real. That things are constant and will continue to be so. "Which is more provable than the other?" is a totally irrelevant question. Neither is provable in the slightest from the 'absolute denial' position we began with. The only reason we got to where we are now from thta absolute denial position is because we *CHOSE* to temporarily suspend our disbelief and *PRETEND* that objects existed, and that things worked in a predictable manner. Remember, our senses are just as suspect as everything else when standing in the 'absolute denial' position. We made a totally unprovable jump to get where we are now and it is every bit as unprovable a jump as stating that an Abrahamic God exists.


The reason this is a good argument is because this person is *immune* to discussion and evidence. You CANT disprove this position (or for the most part prove a negative). The person with this position can continue to tell you that you have no proof that anything is real, and that your step away from 'absolute denial' is no different than his; regardless of the outcomes. You can demonstrate how this person has no way of disproving Harry Potter as reality - and he'll nod and agree with you. If you ask him *WHY* he doesn't believe it's reality, he'll tell you because he CHOOSES to live as though concensus reality is real and from that paradigm he does not accept Harry Potter. He will agree, however, that choosing to deny that Harry Potter is real takes the same jump as choosing to deny that God is real, as choosing to deny that objects exist.

Nothing is real outside of what you accept as reality.

[Darth Wong]

So you deny this basis that we need evidence in order to know something is true.

Except that the logical principle of parsimony is not that something is untrue in the absence of evidence. It's that an idea is groundless nonsense in the absence of evidence. There's a difference. People who dislike the logical principle of parsimony often try to attack it by employing a strawman fallacy and misrepresenting it.

Ultimately the only reality is that which we believe to be real.

That's just solipsism. If you have to deny the existence of the universe in order to cling to your religious beliefs, that really says more about the weakness of your beliefs than anything I could say.

The fact is that logic is a machine for deriving inferences from data. You still need data, and in your mind, you have only one real input: sensory information. Ergo, the only logical conclusions you can derive about anything must come from sensory information. If you declare that sensory information is not real, then it becomes impossible to derive any kind of logical conclusion about anything which you didn't make up. Even the structure of things you make up in your head are still derived from sensory information.

Now once you're at that point that you've decided nothing is real; the question next becomes what do you choose to believe? You can choose to believe in the scientific models that most closely approximate what will happen from day to day and are seldom proven wrong (and even when proven wrong are designed to be self-correcting and refining)! You can choose to believe that God created the universal constants and all that exists stems from his first act of creation. Whatever you choose, you do so with the implicit understanding that all this is only being treated as reality by you because you *CHOSE* to imbue them with your acceptance of them as real. Nothing is actually known to be real.

That is correct in an absolutist sense: nothing is absolutely known to be real. However, that's also a red herring. Whether the universe is "real" or not (and one can get into an endless philosophical discussion of what it means to be "real"), it is the environment in which your mind operates. Ergo, all logical conclusions are derived from data derived from the observable universe. Anything else you come up with is just groundless nonsense: conclusions which are not derived from anything.

In short, you're looking for excuses to prefer nonsense.

[Channel72]

This is just a defense of solipsism via the problem of induction. Your argument can be worded succinctly as: induction isn't proven to work, therefore anything is possible, even God. Strictly speaking this is true, but nobody really cares what's strictly possible; rather, most people are interested in what's probable. Induction is really about probabilities, not possibilities. That's why this argument isn't likely to convince anyone other than people who already desperately want to believe in God. It's not enough to argue that something is remotely possible; you need to show that it's probable.

[Formless]

Begin with the premise that anything which is known by induction is not something we can be 100% certain of. How can we be sure that we exist? That matter exists? A good scientist must be rooted in the idea that we can use induction to be 'reasonably sure of reality'.

Not being 100% certain of things =! they must be categorically false. Your argument falls apart as soon as it leaves the gate. I highly suggest you watch the following video which explains how wrong you are; as you watch just ask yourself "how certain are we that the earth is round?":

This argument steps one step further out: "Cogito Ergo Sum" need not be considered valid at all!

Cogito is based on deductive reasoning, not inductive. It is true by definition, because if you don't exist you can't really say "I do not exist"; that's absurd.

Remember: The goal of *science* is to try and generate useful predictions. Science seeks to produce a consensus reality. This is not necessarily true of all other philosophical frameworks, or indeed of all human endeavors.

Useful predictions are indistinguishable from reality. I challenge you to show otherwise. Other philosophical frameworks are generally useless if they do not incorporate a useful understanding of reality into them or make accurate predictions about reality. They are in effect mental masturbation. Human endeavors are similarly doomed to fail if they assume a model of reality that does not hold.

So you deny this basis that we need evidence in order to know something is true.

Wrong. "Truth" is a property of logical arguments, not reality: what we need evidence for is to establish the existence and properties of things. Again, you have confused deductive and inductive reasoning and their respective limitations.

Ultimately the only reality is that which we believe to be real.

If you are going to take this and go "we can arbitrarily decide what to believe in or not" I know some very nice people in white lab coats who want to take you to a nice padded room.

Once you stand at this point (referred to hereafter as 'absolute denial'), then you can simply look at others who accept scientific understanding of consensus reality and, honestly, tell them "That's your opinion."

So you are a Sophist then and its all a matter of opinion?

The reason this is a good argument is because this person is *immune* to discussion and evidence. You CANT disprove this position (or for the most part prove a negative).

Or any other belief that person holds for that matter.

[General Brock]

The best argument would simply be to 'have faith' that there is a god or gods and not go any further. Discrete religions may trot out items they consider 'proof', all of which can be refuted as having other explanations.

Its easy enough to simply trust that something untestable is true, and not much point in challenging such belief except where it causes objectively irrational, harmful behavior. Of course, such behavior usually arises from trying to prove the unproveable.

[Hamstray]

The reason this is a good argument is because this person is *immune* to discussion and evidence. You CANT disprove this position (or for the most part prove a negative). The person with this position can continue to tell you that you have no proof that anything is real, and that your step away from 'absolute denial' is no different than his; regardless of the outcomes.

So, can you also suspend your acceptance of the existence of pain?

[Sela]

No offense intended - to anyone who commented on what I posted - but I have no intention of debating or trying to defend it.

While I feel that some people have horribly misinterpreted my meaning, I think Darth wong hit it dead on the head. "If you have to deny the existence of the universe in order to cling to your religious beliefs, that really says more about the weakness of your beliefs than anything I could say."

Touche, and 100% agreed. I don't claim to have "faith that will shake the mountains" and I quite acknowledge that. I need to live with myself and this is how I get around it.


Consider this a concession; as I said earlier I had no wish to debate. You wanted to know the argument for God? The argument is - we can't know *ANYTHING* is real; so scientists believe just like we do since you either know 100% or know 0%. You want me to argue that position? Go fuck yourself.

[Sela]

@Hamstray:

On a tangential note, I just want to point this out. You ask if I can suspend belief in pain?

I can't make myself do that - or most of what appears reality - but that doesn't make it real. If a psychiatric patient has a tactile hallucination and believes ants are biting him; its not real. He is screaming in pain, but its not real. Just because he can't "suspend belief in pain" does not mean what he 'senses' is real.

[Samuel]

The argument is - we can't know *ANYTHING* is real; so scientists believe just like we do since you either know 100% or know 0%. You want me to argue that position? Go fuck yourself.

I hope you live consistently, because if so we can levy 90% tax rates on you and take care of the people who do believe reality is real. Your contribution to the utilitarian cause is appreciated.

Just because he can't "suspend belief in pain" does not mean what he 'senses' is real.

Actually the pain is real. It just doesn't origionate with an external stimula, but from nerves that have been messed up.