• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

20 arguments for the existence of God

Apr 24, 2010
2,476
77
United States
Visit site
✟18,081.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
It contradicts in part, since God no longer wants people to sacrifice animals,but was fine sacrificing its own son for one final sacrifice, going from animal to human barbarism.

Yeshua is our permanent sacrifice. God only commands sacrifice in Leviticus 17:11. The renewing of the covenant did not do away with the sacrifices at all. Instead, Yeshua becomes the red heffer sacrifice, among the others.

Secondly when the high priest returns in Ezekiel 40-48 it describes another temple that comes back, and we will resume the animal sacrifices when this occurs. That alleviates the problem in that, since the temple has been destroyed, those particular sacrifices may not be given, but the Torah and God's nature has not changed.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Apr 24, 2010
2,476
77
United States
Visit site
✟18,081.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Now we have seen the purpose of this thread thus far has been concentrated on looking at why Atheists can not make a judgment for these 20 arguments for the existence of God within a consistent structure of their own understanding. I anticipated two responses for this thread, one being the Atheist being antagonistic towards these arguments, and the other being an appreciation from those who believed in God.

Alright now that we've dismantled the Atheists arguments and main presuppositions, and have seen why they do not have a real ability to critique these arguments in the first place, lets take a look at the critiques themselves. We'll start with the first one here.

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Apr 24, 2010
2,476
77
United States
Visit site
✟18,081.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
This only explains why one might believe in a God, not that one actually exists. It basically says, "You want one to exists, so you believe it does".

Actually, this only serves to explain the existential qualities necessary for a God to exist. See the end here which is key "This something is what people call "God" and "life with God forever."

Also, if you can have an argument from "truth" and an argument from "desire" and call that evidence. What about those who do not desire there to be a God, and the truth to them is that there isn't one? Let me guess, it doesn't apply to just anyone?

I'd like to know someone who really believes that with a true understanding of what God is. Atheists tend not to understand, which is why their arguments are strawmen.


I thought this argument was kind of irrelevant. But from a language perspective and maybe creative capacity it has merit.


I think this overlooks this - Therefore, there exists a "divine" reality which many people of different eras and of widely different cultures have experienced. Its meant to prove an effect which leads to God.

This has always been my absolute favorite of them all.


Because I've honestly investigated Islam and many other religions thoroughly. Including Atheism. Thats why I know.


By what standard would you have had to do this though? Who defines good? Who defines charitable? These are things that one must take into consideration. The difference also is this. Since God has eternal implications and one can live a good life, it is thought to be more beneficial than living a finite existence, and then just dying. Thats what Pascal's Wager is taking into account.



I honestly don't think you're evaluating them fairly. You are overstating their claims, where this doesn't need to take place in many respects.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Apr 24, 2010
2,476
77
United States
Visit site
✟18,081.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
 
Upvote 0
Apr 24, 2010
2,476
77
United States
Visit site
✟18,081.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
 
Upvote 0

SithDoughnut

The Agnostic, Ignostic, Apatheistic Atheist
Jan 2, 2010
9,118
306
The Death Starbucks
✟25,974.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Infinite regression refutes itself.

In what way?

The fact you take an infinite regression lends problems to the rest of your understanding.

OK, if we assume that infinite regression is impossible (which I'll be quite interested to see the evidence for), how do you know the first cause was God?

Yet we still know it exists.

What? Time? We know that time exists. We also know that it is not infinite.

No its a standard with objective merit. Otherwise its unstateable. Its just not something that nonreligious people like to take into consideration.

Is 'tasty' an objective standard? What about 'pretty'? If you asked a group of people on the street what their perfect holiday destination would be, you'd get many different answers, because 'perfect' is a subjective idea. Subjective ideas are perfectly stateable; I can state that a particular painting is the prettiest painting I've seen, but it won't be an objective statement, just a statement of my personal viewpoint.

Unless, of course, you can show that perfection is an objective standard.

Chance is impossible which has been refuted via mathematical calculations.

What calculations?

This is a strawman. The argument is not made that the watch is a part of teh watchmaker. Just that the watch was created by the watchmaker.

Good point, I must have misread that. What about my issue with question 3? You cannot base a logical argument on a supposition and then expect people to take it as fact. The entire argument becomes hypothetical, and cannot be used to say anything about reality.

Not an issue.

It is if you are going to claim that there are 20 arguments, when in fact the number is much less.

Thats fine. Its only meant to prove Theism.

OK then.

Because of the Final Anthropic Principle.

The Final Anthropic Principle is concerned with intelligent information processing within the universe, not outside of it. So unless God came after the Big Bang, the Principle does not apply.

Thats very similar to the circular reasoning of David Hume.

Well the claim that miracles exist is circular, so it would stand to reason that any refutation would also have to take that into account.

Also, you missed this. You posted it, but didn't quote it:

"Demonstrate that point #2 and #3 are true, and then you might have an argument. This argument has the same problem as argument #5."

Can you demonstrate that point #2 and #3 are true?

They dont' need to physically exist. There is more to the world than the external world of affairs.

I agree. However, that argument relies upon the claim that a truth must physically exist in a mind somewhere, which is nonsense. Reality is reality regardless of whether anyone actually knows about it or not.

No, its an objective standard. We have also pointed out with some of your understanding that you are applying objective standards to subjective terms...thus you have things backwards on many levels.

Again, I ask you to demonstrate that 'greater' is objective. I believe you are the one applying objectivity to subjective ideas like 'perfection' or 'greater'.

This proves that the killer is not the highest thought able to be conceived. Secondly, a killer is not conceptual, and need not apply here. It exists in the physical world.

God is not conceptual either, if you're attempting to prove he is real.

Everything seems to be subjective to your understanding.

Not everything. I've pointed this out to you several times, but you fail to pay attention every time. Some things are subjective, some are not. Conceptual ideas such as 'better' or 'greater' are subjective, because they rely upon a hierarchy that is entirely within each individual's mind. Facts, such as the distance from the Earth to the Sun, are objective. Things that exist physically are objective, while things that are entirely conceptual are subjective.

You have no standard to judge that by off of your presupps.

Here we go. This is the point where you start arguing against a strawman, claiming that I think everything is subjective and therefore that I can't make any claims, which is not only nonsensical (I can say things are 'tasty'), but also untrue. You're making a nice strawman here. Not only that, but it doesn't apply to my argument at all.

Morality is a personal thing, there is no evidence of a greater moral obligator. That's why some people support abortion, and some do not - if morality was objective, we would all agree. The fact(this is an objective thing) that we do not demonstrates that people have different morals, which shows that either:

1) There is no external source for morality.
2) There is an external source for morality, but it only gives morals to a select number of people.

Either way, the argument does not work because morals are demonstrably subjective.

And evolution is the product of what?

Mutation and Natural Selection.

The argument isn't being stated this way, and its not trying to prove what you think it is likely.

In a logical argument, all premises must be supported in order for the conclusion to have any chance of being accepted as true. The argument, to my understanding, is saying that we have desires that we cannot achieve, so therefore there must be something that can satisfy them. That does not logically follow. Not all desires require a way of achieving them.

This fails to make a necessary dichotomy between information.

I know. So did the argument in the OP.

Different circumstances, and for political reasons, not thought based.

What political reasons? This sounds suspiciously like an attempt to brush away an argument that you cannot address.

Divine could be thought of as God, but again this is more existential in quality.

The operative word there being 'could'. Until you can demonstrate that divine = God, the argument does not argue for the existence of God.

I'll look at this, but these arguments against Pascal's Wager seem to be redundant after a while. Pascal's WAger does not prove, or attempt to prove God, just that its more beneficial to believe in infinite than not.

Yes, and the video demonstrates that this fails as an argument, because you have to pick which God to follow (remember that many Gods will not give you paradise/heaven if you do not follow them and only them), and in the end you are making one choice out of an infinite number of possibilities. In other words, believing in a God doesn't actually improve your chances.
 
Upvote 0

Delphiki

Well-Known Member
May 7, 2010
4,342
162
Ohio
✟5,685.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
If we narrow down your excuses for dismissing all the debunks that have been posted, you're asking that the existence of God be refuted using only the bible itself...

See, what your basically saying is that since all the counterpoints regarding these 20 arguments are based in reality, we're wrong because we're using realistic arguments. Yes, I'm sure that if you live in the land of make-believe, God exists there. I'll give you that. -- However, so does the unicorn.
 
Upvote 0

ToHoldNothing

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2010
1,730
33
✟2,108.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Libertarian
So God would still be fine with traditional Jews slitting an animal's throat to spill the blood on the ground, and then burn the meat, so that the scent will please God? Or am I still missing something in how God's being pleased by an animal's burning meat is barbaric and primitive?
 
Upvote 0

razeontherock

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2010
26,546
1,480
WI
✟35,597.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
So God would still be fine with traditional Jews slitting an animal's throat to spill the blood on the ground, and then burn the meat, so that the scent will please God?

From my understanding, the idea of the "scent pleasing G-d" was poetic to begin with, and the Temple will have to be re-built first. Under those conditions, yes.
But spilling the blood on the ground is not the objective; the blood must be handled the prescribed way or the offering isn't accepted.

(The whole idea of re-instituting the OT bloody sacrifices leaves me scratching my head, so I hope H will address this)
 
Upvote 0

JJWhite

Newbie
Dec 24, 2009
2,818
95
U.S.A.
✟26,028.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Married

They burned the meat?

We have the ritual of animal sacrifices in Islam, but the meat has to be used... part is cooked and eaten, while the rest is passed out to family, friends, and the poor/needy to cook and eat. I always assumed that when OT 'animal sacrifice' was discussed on here it was the same thing.

From Chapter 22 of the Qur'an:

[22:34] For each nation we have decreed rites whereby they commemorate the name of GOD for providing them with the livestock. Your god is one and the same god; you shall all submit to Him. Give good news to the obedient.
[22:35] They are the ones whose hearts tremble upon mentioning GOD, they steadfastly persevere during adversity, they observe the Prayers, and from our provisions to them, they give to charity.
[22:36] The animal offerings are among the rites decreed by GOD for your own good. You shall mention GOD's name on them while they are standing in line. Once they are offered for sacrifice, you shall eat therefrom and feed the poor and the needy. This is why we subdued them for you, that you may show your appreciation.
[22:37] Neither their meat, nor their blood reaches GOD. What reaches Him is your righteousness. He has subdued them for you, that you may show your appreciation by glorifying GOD for guiding you. Give good news to the charitable.
 
Upvote 0
Apr 24, 2010
2,476
77
United States
Visit site
✟18,081.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Yup. The animal sacrifices were burnt on an altar in the Temple. Other sacrificing cultures did the same thing - the Greeks for example.

Meh. Its not much different from having a steak in today's society. Our society does it in butcher houses. Our societies mistreat animals unlike the ancients, and there is clear evidence that the ancients had a different methodology for doing things. The Greeks had some very unusual customs within their Paganism as well, as they were also prone to drinking blood and other unsanitary things. This could be equated today with someone going to a restaurant and ordering a rare steak though too. Its not very healthy to do such a thing.
 
Upvote 0
Apr 24, 2010
2,476
77
United States
Visit site
✟18,081.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
All backward people do it.

Including yourself. Unless you happen to be the spokesperson for PETA, but then we have different problems in themselves (I'd kind of label them backwards myself). The Jews were just very careful, and caring about the animals that they utilized, treating them with respect, and killing them in the least painful way they possibly could.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Apr 24, 2010
2,476
77
United States
Visit site
✟18,081.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single

It may have a different purpose, it may not. We're not sure. But read Ezekiel 40-48. Then read Revelation 11. Then see how it progresses to where heaven descends to Earth, and we have a temple in the new Jerusalem. If you follow that, you'll see what I mean. Some would term me Dispensational in my views on this point, which is fine. I also have some postmillenial views too. I just say, the Bible.
 
Upvote 0
Apr 24, 2010
2,476
77
United States
Visit site
✟18,081.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single

Though a questionable and incomplete understanding of the origins of how it came about is presented (and rather unpreserved, given it was written in about 586 A.D.), it is pretty consistent somewhat with Judaism. See here - http://www.christian-thinktank.com/inmyplace.html
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Apr 24, 2010
2,476
77
United States
Visit site
✟18,081.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single

This is often misunderstood. It is not about being traditional Jew or being a traditional Christian. Its about following the rules given to mankind by God.

I addressed God's "barbarism" for my friend a long time ago. The main thing is that God is not after animal extinction or mistreatment of animals. On the contrary. See a direct quote from an article I wrote here - "Nor is he out to destroy animals. Another question to address was whether God was cruel to animals or not. In Psalm 147:9, it says he provides food for animals. Also in Luke 12:6 - "Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God." Animals were also to be treated properly as well. They weren't to be overworked per Exodus 23:12, not to be underfed per Dt 25:4 and not to be hunted to extinction per Dt 22:6-7. There are actions we see in today's society where people mistreat and abuse animals prior to killing them, even in certain cases not allowing animals to walk on their own two feet. While this may be true of today's society in certain circumstances, it was and is not at all to be condoned by our mighty God. This sin is not to be put upon those eating of the food, however. It is to be put only onto those who are acting in the manner they do. The purpose for sacrificing animals was to harvest animals, not to destroy and kill them off. They were used by the Israelites as clothing and food. This is perfectly justified and does not contradict a nature of a loving God."

http://hamashiachagape.blogspot.com/2010/09/was-animal-sacrifice-cruel-invention-by.html
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ToHoldNothing

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2010
1,730
33
✟2,108.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Libertarian
So it's a case of the anthropologist's idea of cultural relativism, not saying that they are equal, but that they are culturally derived. I can respect that, like one would respect a cannibal who still sees terror in such things as war
 
Upvote 0