Existence of God

<"One has the onus of bearing the burden of proof if one were to make an assertion." I propose that things aren't that simple. " I have, as I've outlined previously, made none." Incorrect, rejection does not equal no assertion. As I have stated previously, the idea of God is such a basic and widespread belief that one must add some resistance to it before one rejects it.> Is no credible evidence to support the claim, no matter how popular it is, not enough? This seems to me to be not much more than an argument ad populum. Actually, everyone is born an atheist. Once they are introduced to the concept of god and believes it, that's when they become a theist. Part 1: "How does one know they've experienced god? " A: One prays -----> The prayer is fulfilled.> Interestingly, a case study done on the efficacy of prayer has shown prayer to actually NOT have any significant, if any effects. http://www.msnbc.msn.com... http://www.timesonline.co.uk... One keeps on seeing God (not literally, obviously). C: The video (This was exactly my experience).> How do you know what you were experiencing wasn't a misinterpretation of natural phenomena? Part 2: <"In fact, how could one verify such claims?" A: How can one refute such claims ?> Why must I accept such an unverifiable piece of "evidence"? This seems to amount to little more than "well prove it isn't true!" That's not how it works, unfortunately. Being the claimant, it is up to YOU to substantiate your assertions. C: We can play a game of probabilities. Lets assume I am lying and I never experienced this.> Or more likely that you were genuinely mistaken. A: No, the old testament and the new testament prohibits lying.> The old testament also prohibited the eating of shellfish or wearing blended fabric. Your point? A: One must note that God can produce good things out of sin for example Judas betrayal led to the salvation of mankind. Nevertheless betrayal is a sin and God does not approve it ; Judas is nowadays considered a villain . Likewise with lairs.> Why do we assume god's existence in a debate regarding its existence? A: If so then this is the most unorthodox and lengthy prank in the history of mankind. Also the joke would be on me.> Since I have not suggested the above "explanations" it seems to me like you're trying to strawman my arguments and/or commit the fallacy of false dilemma. A: Sure, you may think of a rather plausible explanation. Nevertheless it seems and its more probable that I am sincere and that I am not alone.> You could be sincere, and mistaken. Would you also argue that because say a Hindu or a Muslim had a religious experience, it also validates Vishnu or Allah? Argument from Contingency "Examples of such a being (or beings)?" <"All of the human artefacts around us might not have existed; for each one of them, whoever made it might have decided not to do so. Their existence, therefore, is contingent. You and I, too, might not have existed; our respective parents might never have met, or might have decided not to have children, or might have decided to have children at a different time. Our existence, therefore, is contingent. Even the world around us seems to be contingent; the universe might have developed in such a way that none of the observable stars and planets existed at all." http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...; This does not refute my point at all. I've already pointed out any and all "beginnings" that we in fact do have evidence for, are of a transformative cause. You have an artist who "causes" a sculpture to exist. However, that's a label given to a newly rearranged medium. Because of the limitations of what we call "beginning", it really cannot be used to support god's existence, much less as a creator. At best, this would suggest that god is himself not much more than a "rearranger" who used materials already existing and manipulated them to form things. With god considered the creator in the sense that he "created ex nihilo", and because such mundane creations as manipulation of matter are in fact superfluous to explanation of the universe, it is crossed out on both theological and logical razor of Occam. <"It's important to note that for something to be "caused to exist" is, as far as we have evidence for, is actually a transformative process than one where new things are truly created. With this in mind, what, then, would stop us from claiming the "necessary being" is the universe itself?" I don't quite understand you, nevertheless, you conclude that the universe may be a necessary being. However that is unlikely: "To say that the universe is necessary is to say that its non-existence is impossible. Most impossibilities are easily recognised because they involve obvious logical contradiction. The existence of a square circle is impossible, because the idea of a square circle is self-contradictory. Where, though, is the logical contradiction in the idea of the universe not existing? There seems to be none; the universe does appear to be contingent." http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...; How is the universe's existence as a "necessary being", particularly if we were to define it as "all that exists" any less of a contradiction than calling god one? Again more assertions about god that has no backing. In fact, the fact that we are discussing the status of god's existence itself suggests that god's nonexistence is POSSIBLE. Also, BECAUSE nothing has yet been established to have any "beginnings", and because the First Law of Thermodynamics states that "energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted", it certainly suggests that the universe is the brute fact. Kalam Cosmological Argument <1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause " 'beginnings' we have evidence for are not 'beginnings' in the strict sense but are 'changes'? Indeed, in the strict sense we have only observed "changes" but as you said this is "in the strict sense".> And this is notable because…? <2. The universe more likely than not began to exist I assumed that you are aware of the "Big Bang" and other scientific theories: http://skyserver.sdss.org...... http://en.wikipedia.org...... "Scientists generally agree that "the Big Bang" birthed the universe about 15 billion years ago." Tom Parisi, Northern Illinois University> Bzzt, try again. It has not been established that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. Perhaps of THIS local universe, from previous material at the point of singularity, but to say that the universe in fact BEGAN in a creation ex nihilo sense that an argument such as this would require has in fact not been established. O Note <"All arguments stand on the soundness of their claims. I also don't see how we would be theists here?" Indeed, I meant to say that I don't have to prove God with 100% certainty instead it may be 60% or even 50.1% (it would be insane to reject the more possible).> Well good luck then, sir.