Hello there!
I wish to present an argument for God and see how it holds up.
It is similar to the argument from morality, which I presented some years back, and I think these 2 arguments are the most easily apprehended and convincing ones. Here it goes:
1. If God does not exist, then truth does not exist.
2. Truth does exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
Explanations:
Truth: Property of statements conforming with reality. The usual meaning of everyday use. Implies an objective viewpoint, as opposed to merely one's opinion. EDIT: I view truth as one's experience of reality. Thus, propositions are expressions of that experience.
God: The classical monotheistic God, as in Judeo-Christianity. All good, all knowing, all powerful, eternal, personal, creator of all things...
1. Truth exists only in a person's mind. Rocks don't know truth. The sky doesn't know truth. It is questionable if animals know truth, even in part. Point is: a mind is required for it to be known, and thus to exist. Now, if human minds are all there is, then truth is contingent on us. Without us, no truth. But that is not what we sense. There is an actual objective standard upon which all statements are evaluated and valid for everyone everywhere at any time. As if reality ought to be interpreted a certain way, the right way. What is that standard? If truth is to exist not merely in human minds, then there must be a supreme mind from which it originated. This mind knows all truths.
If truth exists only in a human mind, then it didn't always exist and will not always either. If so, then truth is an illusion existing only in our mind. If we consider materialism, then it is only an experience caused by biochemical processes in the brain. If we consider evolution of life through natural selection, then it is only the result of selected components of chemistry in the human physiology enhancing survival (see:
). So truth isn't objective. What is it then? Just atoms colliding in our brains and creating subjective experiences? Yes. Do they conform with reality? Not necessarily. Are they subject to change through evolution's process? Yes. In any case, if it depends on humans only, then it doesn't exist objectively. A better explanation of our experience of truth is that God eternally knew basic truths and logical laws. Some truths, of course, are contingent on a created universe. The statement "Gary is eating an apple" requires a guy named Gary to exist and apples, and them being able to be eaten by Gary. But the statement "one plus one equals two" is necessarily true, just as "two contradicting statements are mutually exclusive." If God does not exist, then we're left with relativism and truth-neutrality. Nothing is true nor false but only experiences in one's brain.
If you want to deny the truth, then we will have to not take you seriously and deny that your denial is true. Claiming that no statement can be true is self contradictory.
What's more, why deny that objective truth exists? Because you know there is no God? Because you know naturalistic evolution is true? Because you know materialism is true? If you don't believe truth exists, then you don't know anything! What could possibly be convincing enough to draw the conclusion that there is nothing true... Except perhaps the desire to not submit to a supreme creator whose moral standards are higher than ours...
One more thing, the existence of truth implies our minds were made to interpret reality correctly, as if the world is intelligible. That does suggest a creator who wanted us to understand our surroundings and ourselves. The existence of errors and falsehoods further prove that there is an objective standard which is being deviated from.
2. You can read this sentence. You read English.
3. God exists!
3*. Or at least, a supreme and eternal mind from which all truths originate exists. Along with the moral argument, the design argument, the cosmological arguments, we get a fuller picture of who and what this supreme being must be like.