Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Ana the Ist]

Not unless he revealed himself. And we believe he has.

Oh...so he does exist in the universe? In time?

 

[TillICollapse]

If we can find materials that don't shatter at such speeds. And keeping the humans on the inside from dying would be great.

FTL communication is probably a no. Email is our fastest I can think of and even then it takes a couple seconds. But keep up hope!

I was thinking more in terms of theoretical particles (tachyons for example), certain effects in quantum mechanics which some may believe still suggest retrocausality or FTL communication/etc, possible violations of causality, so on and so forth. But no worries.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

But those things did exist....yes? You're aware of the difference between when they happened... and what's happening now....yes?

Is that difference real or imagined?

It's all up to you to determine such. I have memories of dreams like recently a dream that nearly physically suffocated me because I was sleeping in a bad position. I remember the dream vividly and call it "deaf pills" now those ARE memories that I can recall. Thing is they never truly happened.

The brain can also have false memories or incomplete memories. What you trust versus what you don't is up to your discretion and skepticism

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's all up to you to determine such. I have memories of dreams like recently a dream that nearly physically suffocated me because I was sleeping in a bad position. I remember the dream vividly and call it "deaf pills" now those ARE memories that I can recall. Thing is they never truly happened.

The brain can also have false memories or incomplete memories. What you trust versus what you don't is up to your discretion and skepticism

Let's not make this a discussion of the imperfections of memory...

Im asking if you're aware of the difference and if it's real?

 

[FireDragon76]

Where?

In the Bible, in the Church, in the heart of every faithful Christian.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

In the Bible, in the Church, in the heart of every faithful Christian.

Conveniently out of sight of every person

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Let's not make this a discussion of the imperfections of memory...

Im asking if you're aware of the difference and if it's real?

Yes Yes I can tell the difference.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes Yes I can tell the difference.

Alright...

What is that difference then if not the passage of time? True we can only experience now, and remember then...but the existence of both seems to prove a change in time.

It's not that I don't get what you're saying about it only being "now"...but if now was all that existed or ever existed, wouldn't we stand frozen... unmoving...stuck in an eternal now?

We understand more about time than we used to, we seem to have a tenuous grasp on its relation to space...but I'm not sure it's a phenomenon we've been able to completely understand yet.

That said, a being "outside of time" or "apart from time"...is something that's basically nonsensical. Time may not exist outside of our universe the same way it does inside...but it's hard for me to believe it doesn't exist at all.

 

[Ana the Ist]

In the Bible, in the Church, in the heart of every faithful Christian.

That would make him a part of our universe then....

According to some on this thread, he would then be temporal and have a cause.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In the Bible, in the Church, in the heart of every faithful Christian.

The topic of this thread is best arguments, not worst...

 

[Ana the Ist]

After giving it some real thought... I'd say that the best argument against god's existence lies in the arguments for his existence. They all either implicitly or explicitly begin with the conclusion that god exists and then they try to rationalize their way to that conclusion.

I can't think of anything that actually exists that mankind has decided upon with a similar method.

Edit- If there's anything confusing about what I mean here...Anselm's ontological argument is a wonderful example of this exceedingly poor method of reasoning.

 

[Achilles6129]

So is the Divine Flame. You can take anything and claim that it exists "outside" the universe and is therefore exempt from the natural requirements of that thing within the universe.

...and? How does that refute the concept of God? God, by very definition, is outside of the universe. The "Divine Flame," or whatever else, isn't.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Explain how a conscious being would be unable to exist outside of time. You're thinking only within the boundaries of this universe; God, since he created the universe, is obviously outside of the universe, and so therefore outside of all of the properties of the universe.

Whether you define "conscious" as entailing the ability to think or even just being aware...it would place god in a temporal state. You wouldn't necessarily describe time according to incremental measurements like seconds or minutes. You would describe it according to thoughts like "god thought this...and then he thought that".

Trying to make sense of a being "outside of time" doesn't work if we want to imagine that being is capable of anything other than existence.

 

[Achilles6129]

Oh...so he does exist in the universe? In time?

Nope, though he may enter into the universe and break its laws at will.

That would make him a part of our universe then....

According to some on this thread, he would then be temporal and have a cause.

Nope, see above.

After giving it some real thought... I'd say that the best argument against god's existence lies in the arguments for his existence. They all either implicitly or explicitly begin with the conclusion that god exists and then they try to rationalize their way to that conclusion.

How does saying "everything that exists has a cause" and then going all the way back to God "implicitly or explicitly begin with the conclusion that god exists"? On the contrary, it sounds like you're beginning with the conclusion that God doesn't exist!

If I had to pick what I believe is the best argument against the existence of God, it would be this:

At the beginning, when God created this world, he had the choice between a nearly infinite number of possible worlds that he could have created. Instead of any number of those worlds, he chose to create this particular one. Now, that leads us to believe that there would be a world in which Adam/Eve did not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good/evil, and so on. It also leads us to believe that there is a possible world where the significant majority of individuals freely choose to obey God's commands. A perfect example would be the heavenly world where at least 2/3 of the creatures do in fact choose to obey God's commands.

The question then is: why would God freely choose to create a world where the vast majority of free creatures freely choose to disobey his commands over a world where the opposite is true? It makes it sound as though:

1) God is apathetic
2) God is ultimately responsible for whether someone obeys or disobeys him, in other words, he makes them good or evil

That, in my view, is the strongest argument against the existence of God. Obviously, it's an argument based on morality, which is what most arguments against the existence of God are. The problem of evil, in my opinion, is a strong argument against God's existence, but not as formidable as several others.

 

[Achilles6129]

Whether you define "conscious" as entailing the ability to think or even just being aware...it would place god in a temporal state. You wouldn't necessarily describe time according to incremental measurements like seconds or minutes. You would describe it according to thoughts like "god thought this...and then he thought that".

Trying to make sense of a being "outside of time" doesn't work if we want to imagine that being is capable of anything other than existence.

Again, you're defining God by your ideas of and experiences in this universe. God is outside of the universe, so the realities of this universe simply do not apply to him.

 

[TillICollapse]

Again, you're defining God by your ideas of and experiences in this universe. God is outside of the universe, so the realities of this universe simply do not apply to him.

How are you defining "universe" ?

 

[Achilles6129]

Where?

Conveniently out of sight of every person

Here's a question for you: if God manifested himself in a physical revelation, how would you know that it was God? I started a thread on this earlier here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7857147/

I could quote you chapter and verse all day to show you that divine revelation in the Bible is a personal and spiritual experience that only the person who has had it receives. It's given to no-one else, nor could that person prove to someone else what has happened to him/her. The best they could do is make a reasonable case that the Bible is the word of God and encourage you to obey God's commands in order to receive the same personal revelation. This is written all over the NT.

The reason for this is simple: were God to actually manifest himself in a physical revelation to anyone (or to the entire planet), there would be ultimately no way to tell whether it was God or not. For example, someone could claim that it was an extraterrestrial with super-advanced technology, or a really clever human being playing tricks, and no-one could disprove them. For that reason, any manifestation of God has to be a personal experience where only the person who receives it knows for a fact what has happened. It's outside of the five senses.

 

[Achilles6129]

How are you defining "universe" ?

All physical reality - everything that one can grasp or experience with the five senses.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Again, you're defining God by your ideas of and experiences in this universe. God is outside of the universe, so the realities of this universe simply do not apply to him.

Then just describe for me how god thinks in a non-temporal fashion. Even a single thought is created in-time...with a beginning and end.

Without any such description of how a "conscious being exists outside of time"...the very notion of a "conscious being existing outside of time" becomes utterly meaningless.

 

[Ana the Ist]

How does saying "everything that exists has a cause" and then going all the way back to God "implicitly or explicitly begin with the conclusion that god exists"? On the contrary, it sounds like you're beginning with the conclusion that God doesn't exist!

It sounds like you're referring to some version of the cosmological argument in some way that you understand it. If you'd like me to show you where it fails and where you leap to the conclusion that god exists (because even in the cosmological argument you're leaping to that conclusion from the onset), just lay it out how you understand it.

It would be easier if you number it as well, such as...

1. Premise.
2. Premise
3. Premise.
4. Therefore god exists.

I know it probably seems redundant to you, but I've heard so many versions of the cosmological argument that I'm not entirely sure which one you're claiming. So, pretty please, humor me on this.