• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Argument for God's existence.

Discussion in 'Christian Apologetics' started by gradyll, Apr 4, 2019.

  1. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +391
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    Just fast forward to the end of my prior post:

    "What type of evidence is deemed 'credible' to demonstrate existence of any asserted god(s)????..?.?"

    At the end of the day, we can set here and argue for or against the existence of god(s), any defined or undefined god(s). However, as with 'Saul of Tarsus', whom had his 'Damascus road experience', his 'evidence' was then presumably 'revelation' in the desert, via contact.

    Meaning, it wasn't a well prepared set of carefully crafted philosophical arguments from corresponding philosophers, or, heavy practice in logic, or being persuaded by others, or reading books, or even self actualization.

    No, it was good old fashion contact from the claimed all mighty... And here we are, quoting some presumed 14 books of the Bible, whom was 'authored' by him alone.... Because of this one event...

    So again, what type of evidence is actually compelling???? Well, I've been a member of this forum for 2+ years. Seems as though contact is the clear front runner... Not that I'm appealing to majority as truth. But that if God wants to let His presence known, and if god is real, it would seem He likes to contact people.

    Take myself for instance. It could be real simple... You could pray for my amputated limb to grow back, in accordance with one of the many cited verses of the Bible, and I then watch my limb, as it grows back. This may be all that it takes to say, 'hmmm, maybe there is something out there listening?'

    Yes, I may not agree with this newly discovered agent's 'politic's' or suggestions on 'morality', however, the type of evidence which would solidify His truth in existence could easily be 'justified.'

    Hence, we come full circle back around... If a God wants relationships, as it states in the Bible, all He has to do is strike up simple contact.

    It's not too heard, unless you think or want it to be :)

    And yes, God owes humans nothing I guess; like you've stated prior... However, He should not blame the many for truly denying His existence, and instead condemning us for non-belief, for not believing, when He chooses to NOT contact the doubters ;)

    That's all...
     
  2. Silmarien

    Silmarien Existentialist

    +3,490
    United States
    Christian Seeker
    Single
    US-Democrat
    If you think that the only credible evidence would be personally witnessing a miracle, why precisely are you in the apologetics subforum at all? Nobody here is going to be able to provide you with a bona fide miracle. There is a prayer request by non-Christians section, which seems a better match for what you're actually looking for.

    Granted, I don't see how miracles of that sort would actually serve as valid evidence. People will claim that there's a naturalistic explanation, or failing that, point out that there's no reason to expect that one supernatural entity as opposed to any other was responsible. Maybe the leprechauns did it, because they get a kick out of making people believe in the Abrahamic God.
     
  3. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +340
    Atheist
    Excellent points, cvanwey.
    @Silmarien and @Redac , can we point out that cvanwey and I have been here for one hundred and two pages so far, including several with the two of you, and we are still waiting for an answer to the thread topic and title.
    With that said, can I draw your attention to cvanwey's last line, and to the point of this thread:
    What evidence or argument do you have for the existence of God?
     
  4. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +340
    Atheist
    @cvanwey , this seems to me like an admission of defeat.
     
  5. Redac

    Redac Regular Member

    +850
    Catholic
    Single
    I've had very little to say about it, but okay.


    The specific form of the cosmological argument I put forth has its origins with Aristotelian thought and does not proceed from a Bible-based definition of what God is. It's meant to point to some sort of transcendental Prime Mover, though I hesitate to even put it that way, since that implies that the argument is being constructed with the specific intention of pointing toward an already-assumed conclusion. Regardless, the argument for a Prime Mover, or whatever you want to call it, does not automatically point to the God of Abraham by necessity. I'm pretty sure Aristotle didn't conceive of it that way.

    I don't think I've mentioned the Bible even once.



    If your point is that more steps have to be taken to get from the sort of cosmological Prime Mover to the God of Christianity, I wouldn't really dispute that.

    I do wonder what sort of evidence you're waiting for, though. If you're expecting scientific evidence for something that by its very nature lies outside the purview of science, you're going to be waiting for a very long time.



    One can make arguments using reason, philosophy, logic, etc., in favor of certain things. But again, if you're looking for scientific evidence for something like this, you're barking up the wrong epistemological tree.

    You tell me. What kind of evidence is it that you're wanting to see?
     
  6. Silmarien

    Silmarien Existentialist

    +3,490
    United States
    Christian Seeker
    Single
    US-Democrat
    @Redac just posted one. Maybe you should respond to it before whining about wanting another argument?

    How so? If someone said that the only evidence they'd accept for the existence of God was seeing a herd of winged unicorns shoot across the sky, there's not much that can be said in response to that except that it wouldn't mean anything anyway.

    You're the ones focusing on empirical evidence. The onus is on you to figure out how that would even work. I honestly haven't got a clue.
     
  7. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +340
    Atheist
    Please bear the forum rules in mind, Silmarien. We are enjoined to treat each other politely.
    No, that's not how it works at all. You are the ones who believe in God. We are asking you why. We assume that you have some justification that seems reasonable, to you at least, for your beliefs. Your continued refusal to do so is starting to make it look like you don't have any, which is a curious state of affairs. But who am I to judge?
     
  8. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    In the case of the teaching of an expanding universe the bible uses several different verb forms of the Hebrew word "nata" some of them refer to the stretcher out of the heavens, implying the ongoing continual stretching of the universe such as in Job 9:8 and other verses.

    They would never do that, they would be branded a religious fundie and forced out of mainstream academia.

    How do you know your wife loves you? From experience. Experience IS evidence.

    No, it does not apply, we have a written objective definition and description of a Christian, ie the Bible, we dont have that for a Scotsman.
     
  9. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +391
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    You're a smart person, I reckon. Did you happen to actually read what I wrote? Maybe not, as this thread is getting rather tedious...

    Many from the Bible claim contact, as their evidence. Many here also claim contact as their evidence. Heck, practically half the NT writings alone is founded upon God revealing Himself to one dude in the desert, Saul. If God can have this much impact on the ones in which He chooses to actually contact, one can only imagine....

    But instead, us doubters get to instead enjoy countless philosophical and logical 'proofs' from intellectual believers, whom quote philosophers, authors of books, and 'science'. Just seems odd really...?

    Again, If God wished to actually have a relationship with His creation, as it seems to testify in the Bible, then God would know what each person needs as 'evidence' for existence.


    I think I'm just about done with this thread, unless you have something more to add...
     
  10. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +340
    Atheist
    Hmmm. Looks like that's not the only stretching going on here!

    If the evidence did point to the existence of God, then they would be applauded for finding out something new.

    Certainly it is. And yet, with my wife, we have multiple lines of compelling evidence that she exists, and that she loves me. For God, we have no such evidence.
    Put it like this: would you be willing to take my word if I said I went to work each morning by a combination of walking and travelling in motorised vehicles?
    And would you be willing to take my word if I said that each morning I flapped my arms really hard and flew to work? Perhaps not?
    And what if a mutual friend told you that yes, I do regularly fly to work by flapping my arms. Would you then believe it?

    Perhaps you don't know what the No True Scotsman fallacy is?
    And yes, we do have a good, simple definition of a Christian - a person who believes that Jesus Christ was the son of God, for example. But there are many, many people who call themselves Christians, and most of them disagree with each other about the details of their Christianity, and some say that others are in very serious errors, and some would definitely disagree with you about many of the things you believe.
    And why should I take your word over theirs that you are a true and correct Christian, and they are not?
    Logical Fallacies » ‘No True Scotsman’ Fallacy
     
  11. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +391
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private

    I thought I had made myself pretty clear, but I guess not :/

    God could simply go, peek-a-boo, here I am. Yes, maybe some would scoff. Maybe some would doubt. Maybe some would deny. Maybe some would ignore. But remember this, if any of you claim an inkling of 'Christianity', then you are all most likely aware of what the Bible states and claims. 'In the end, everyone will know.' Meaning, He will contact the human race in a way we can no longer doubt, ignore, deny, etc...

    This is why I state it really does not matter to pre-define 'god.' Again, if God wants a relationship, then the ball is in His proverbial court to make the impactful move.


    If God does not really care for us to know, then hey, it is both neither the Christian God, and maybe also a god that does not care if we strike up a relationship with him...

    I certainly know I tried, going the other direct ---> (me towards Him). And NADA....
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2019
  12. Silmarien

    Silmarien Existentialist

    +3,490
    United States
    Christian Seeker
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Then perhaps you should politely respond to an argument presented rather than ignoring it and then demanding additional arguments from the very person who already offered you one? That was incredibly presumptuous.

    It is self-evidently false that people are refusing to offer reasonable justification. I've provided you with multiple resources on the Principle of Sufficient Reason, and @Redac has offered an Aristotelian argument. You seem uninterested in seriously engaging with either line of argumentation, so if anything is looking curious, it's your continued refusal to acknowledge and engage with the arguments that are actually being made.

    Of course, if you are specifically looking for arguments that might satisfy your own personal epistemology, whatever it might be, then you need to first provide some information on what you're even looking for. Nobody can read your mind.
     
  13. Silmarien

    Silmarien Existentialist

    +3,490
    United States
    Christian Seeker
    Single
    US-Democrat
    I don't understand why you are in a thread about arguments for the existence of God, complaining about the fact that arguments exist. If you're not interested in them, then avoid them. If you require personal revelation, then you can go practice mysticism and see if anything happens, or ask for people to pray for you, or whatever else, but I don't see how your need for personal revelation is relevant to a thread like this.

    Jumping straight to revelation in a thread about the existence of God is also backwards. There are theistic belief systems out there like deism, which explicitly denies revelation and holds that God is uninvolved with human history. There are deists on the forum--if they came here and you argued that theism could not be true because of your biblical interpretation, that would be bizarre in the extreme. This thread has never been exclusively about Christian claims concerning God.

    That said, I think you're overstating your case. Direct revelation is fairly rare even in the Bible--you've got your various Prophets and Apostles, yes, but there are also a lot of Ruths and Esthers out there, where spectacular things are not happening everyday. Paul, assuming his experiences were veridical, is more an exception than a norm. Is there any evidence that Priscilla and Aquila, Phoebe, or any of the other people that Paul was in contact with were also receiving similar visions? This stuff primarily seems to happen in the Bible when people are specifically chosen for a purpose, and it tends to involve a great deal of hardship.
     
  14. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +391
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    LOL

    I'll deal with this response when I have time. :)
     
  15. Silmarien

    Silmarien Existentialist

    +3,490
    United States
    Christian Seeker
    Single
    US-Democrat
    If all you have to say is "LOL," do me a favor and don't bother. I'm not interested.
     
  16. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +340
    Atheist
    You contradict yourself. "If all you have to say is that you will reply in full later," then you're not interested? In fact, @cvanwey is being perfectly sensible. He is not, as you seem to think, asking you to pray for him that he might receive a miracle; he is instead making the argument that an all-knowing and all-loving God would answer prayers. Since this is Christian Forums, he is quite right to ask you to prove the Christian God's existence (you are a Christian, it according to your profile).
    And whether or not this agrees with the stories in the Bible is irrelevant; all it shows is that the Bible is inconsistent. The Christian Apologetics forum is exactly the place to make such an argument.

    Anyway, on to what you were saying:
    If I have ignored an argument, then I shall apologise and address it. I welcome your reasoned argument, Silmarien, although have not seen many of them as yet. I have, I'm afraid, neglected to answer a number of points you made because they seemed to me to be off-topic. I'm sorry about that, but this thread has been going on for a very long time, and I don't have time to waste on side-questions, no matter how intriguing.

    You have? I must have missed them. Please can you tell me the post numbers, or quote yourself, or rephrase your arguments, whichever works best for you. I shall look forward to reading them.

    Are you referring to Post #2045? The one which @Redac said "is meant to point to some sort of transcendental Prime Mover" and "does not automatically point to the God of Abraham by necessity."
    Is that the argument?
    If so, then kudos to Redac for pointing out that this does not necessarily point to the Christian God. He's quite right, it doesn't. And of course, since we are on Christian Forums, when we say "do you have arguments for the existence of God" and the answer is no, we might justifiably call the debate concluded.
    But you may wish to fall back to another position - that the cosmological argument still points to some kind of God. But at this point, all we have to do is say "Yes, it's the FSM," and the ridiculousness of the Cosmological Argument becomes clear: it might just as well be an animated plate of pasta as Yahweh. And if you posit an argument under which a patently ridiculous answer can claim to be true, then your argument is obviously faulty. I would be interested in seeing you demonstrate how the Cosmological Argument indicates God but does not allow for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    In fact, we have absolutely no way to judge and, therefore, no right to draw any kind of conclusion. It is entirely pre-emptive to say that the cause of the universe coming into existence (if it even did) was:
    - The creator of the Ten Commandments known as the Christian God.
    - Or was an all-powerful and all-knowing entity which corresponds to the loose definition of "god".
    - Or was a person in any sense.
    - Or even a living being.
    The simple truth is: we don't know. We may never know. Until such time as we do know, or at least do have evidence that points to an answer, it is ridiculous to make claims.

    And that's all that needs to be said about the Cosmological Argument. It's built on special pleading and, like most apologetics arguments, it's just a pretty thinking experiment that ultimately leads nowhere.
     
  17. Silmarien

    Silmarien Existentialist

    +3,490
    United States
    Christian Seeker
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Very well, then. We drop revelation, assert that it is the God of Aristotle whose existence is demonstrated by the argument that nobody bothered to even try to refute, and then declare the debate concluded. That sounds fair to me.
     
  18. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +340
    Atheist
    Can I suggest you re-read my post a little more carefully?
     
  19. Silmarien

    Silmarien Existentialist

    +3,490
    United States
    Christian Seeker
    Single
    US-Democrat
    I read it. All I see are unsubstantiated claims concerning the explanatory power of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, followed by more unsubstantiated claims concerning cosmological arguments. Unless you wish to demonstrate how Aristotelian arguments could be used to demonstrate the existence of such an entity, to paraphrase Hitchens back at you: claims asserted without argumentation can also be dismissed without argumentation.
     
  20. Redac

    Redac Regular Member

    +850
    Catholic
    Single
    The argument I made that was never responded to was in this post.

    Except such arguments do exist. That you haven't been engaging with them for whatever reason doesn't mean they aren't there.

    The Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't have the sorts of divine characteristics that would follow from the cosmological argument, particularly the one I put forth. Your insistence that the FSM and God are both equally valid in this regard doesn't mean that they are. I won't say I don't know why you keep talking about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, because I do, but I will say again that it's not nearly as incisive as you seem to think it is.

    How do you know that?


    Do you take this kind of approach -- that we don't know, so proposing possible explanations is ridiculous and shouldn't be done -- in any other aspect of your life besides questions of God? I'm almost certain you don't, so I have to wonder why this is so special in arousing your skepticism.

    That said, I'll ask you ask well: what sort of evidence is it that you're asking for? What sort of evidence would be acceptable to you?

    Cool assertion. Here's mine: no it's not.
     
Loading...