What are the best arguments for the existence of God?

[SocratesNow]

I am very curious what arguments you all find most convincing for the existence of God, especially in the face of arguments individuals such as Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, or others bring up when contending with God's existence in the exchange of ideas. If you could share it would mean a lot, and hopefully we can find which ones are best!

 

[Light_Conquers]

creature

 

[section9+1]

As the years go by I get less enthused about convincing others there is a God. For me who became a Christian into my adult years enough time has gone by to compare my life before Christ and after Christ. That's enough evidence for me. Also science seems terribly inadequate to explain much of the important questions. I am not against science but when it comes to God or the material world, it doesn't have much to say that is very convincing. And that's ok. I wouldn't expect it to.

 

[Chris V++]

Fulfilled Bible prophecy and NDE accounts. Some of the details in the prophecy are astoundingly accurate. Yesterday I was reading about the destruction of Tyre (foretold by Isaiah and Ezekiel) for it's part in the Babylonian exile being fulfilled by Nebuchadnezzar and then centuries later by Alexander the Great. It was so specific it even suggested how Alexander had rocks thrown into the water to create a causeway so that Alexander's troops could threaten the island fortress. You can see the causeway to this day. Siege of Tyre (332 BC) - Wikipedia

 

[SocratesNow]

Thanks for responding!
So, for the sake of argumentation, couldn't the same be said of anyone else making predictions which happen to come true at a later date? After all, the Bible makes an extraordinary number of prophecies, predictions, and assertions about the future, and their fulfillment rate isn't perfect, nor even reliable. Furthermore, specifically in regards to prophecies, it seems common for interpretations of biblical text to be inconsistently literal or subjective, in the sense that if and when the Bible includes a statement similar to the one you referenced, which appears to be fulfilled verbatim, we interpret it literally, while in other, non-fulfilled prophetic instances, we declare that said text was symbolic, or didn't mean exactly what it said, no matter how specific it was. In short, how are the fulfillment of certain biblical prophecies true if our metric for determining prophetic fulfillment is inconsistent, and if there are many times more biblical prophecies which have not as of yet been fulfilled rather than the other way around?

 

[solid_core]

For me personally, Leibniz contingency argument and fine tuning of the Universe.

 

[SocratesNow]

Thanks for your insight, that's really interesting! I am curious, what kind of important questions are you referencing when you say science fails to answer those questions?

 

[SocratesNow]

For me personally, Leibniz contingency argument and fine tuning of the Universe.

Thanks for responding! The Leibniz contingency argument is definitely a fundamental proposal in the reason-based defense of God, however, I am curious if you could just clarify how you personally feel that argument provides a logically defensible position for God, in order to provide an opportunity for productive discussion on that argument? Thanks!

 

[solid_core]

Thanks for responding! The Leibniz contingency argument is definitely a fundamental proposal in the reason-based defense of God, however, I am curious if you could just clarify how you personally feel that argument provides a logically defensible position for God, in order to provide an opportunity for productive discussion on that argument? Thanks!

Definitions:
God = eternal being outside of matter, space and time, who has all perfections
The universe = everything that exists - space, time, matter and energy

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence
- either in other things (i.e. it is contingent) or in the necessity of its own nature (abstract objects, God)

2. The universe exists.
- proof: I think and experience, therefore I exist. I am part of the universe, therefore the universe exists (Descartes)

3. The universe has an explanation of its existence.

4. The explanation of the universe must be outside of its matter, space and time.

Conclusion: The explanation of the universe is God.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I am very curious what arguments you all find most convincing for the existence of God, especially in the face of arguments individuals such as Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, or others bring up when contending with God's existence in the exchange of ideas. If you could share it would mean a lot, and hopefully we can find which ones are best!

Hi, Sir:

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Hebrews 11.6)

 

[SocratesNow]

Definitions:
God = eternal being outside of matter, space and time, who has all perfections
The universe = everything that exists - space, time, matter and energy

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence
- either in other things (i.e. it is contingent) or in the necessity of its own nature (abstract objects, God)

2. The universe exists.
- proof: I think and experience, therefore I exist. I am part of the universe, therefore the universe exists (Descartes)

3. The universe has an explanation of its existence.

4. The explanation of the universe must be outside of its matter, space and time.

Conclusion: The explanation of the universe is God.

It seems to me that the first issue with this theory insofar as it supports your definition of God, is that it assumes that one explanation for the universe's existence must be the explanation for the universe's existence. Simply because the concept of God explains the universe's existence, it does not inherently grant it validity or even truth, in the same way that ancient peoples believing in Zeus explained but did not factually prove what lightning was, what caused it, or why it was. In short, simply because another explanation has not yet been determined, say, by science, does not in fact mean that such an explanation does not exist. Again, this is similar to the fact that people used to believe that diseases were non-preventable the direct result of God's wrath, all while being ignorant of germs. Simply put, the "God of the gap" idea, the concept that God is the ultimate explanatory model for a lack of another explanatory model, seems to me a deeply flawed theory. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this!

 

[SocratesNow]

Hi, Sir:

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Hebrews 11.6)

Hello, and thank you for contributing!
I suppose that since the Bible is not something everyone believes to be the word of God, how would you prove that the Bible is the word of God? After all, until this is proven, verses from the Bible attesting to God's existence are merely circular evidence.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

I am very curious what arguments you all find most convincing for the existence of God, especially in the face of arguments individuals such as Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, or others bring up when contending with God's existence in the exchange of ideas. If you could share it would mean a lot, and hopefully we can find which ones are best!

All of the above, and that God says from the beginning what will be in the end. Everything that has been written in the Bible happened/will happen.

My dad has done a genetic test last year, and our DNA proves the events in the Bible. We were there exactly when the bible says, our ancestors were there where Noah came out after the flood and exactly as the Bible says. Plus the lab where dad had his DNA test said, and it's not only them but all these companies say it, that our DNA tracks us exactly back to Adam.

 

[solid_core]

It seems to me that the first issue with this theory insofar as it supports your definition of God, is that it assumes that one explanation for the universe's existence must be the explanation for the universe's existence. Simply because the concept of God explains the universe's existence, it does not inherently grant it validity or even truth, in the same way that ancient peoples believing in Zeus explained but did not factually prove what lightning was, what caused it, or why it was. In short, simply because another explanation has not yet been determined, say, by science, does not in fact mean that such an explanation does not exist. Again, this is similar to the fact that people used to believe that diseases were non-preventable the direct result of God's wrath, all while being ignorant of germs. Simply put, the "God of the gap" idea, the concept that God is the ultimate explanatory model for a lack of another explanatory model, seems to me a deeply flawed theory. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this!

It will be better if you will quote the point you do not agree with and formulate some formal denial of it instead of such long bunch of text ;-)

 

[eleos1954]

I am very curious what arguments you all find most convincing for the existence of God, especially in the face of arguments individuals such as Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, or others bring up when contending with God's existence in the exchange of ideas. If you could share it would mean a lot, and hopefully we can find which ones are best!

The complexity of the universe and nature are way way WAY to intricate and complex to have "evolved" into what we see.

Something does not come from nothing.

Micro Evolution =
change within a species Macro (this is supported biblically) after their own kind.

vs.

Macro Evolution Micro = = process of genetic mutation that allows one species to evolve into a new species.

1) The potential of an EFFECT cannot be greater than the potential of the CAUSE. a. If you wanted to break wood (EFFECT) with a punch (CAUSE) you must have enough force to accomplish it. b. If you want to achieve self consciousness (EFFECT) you cannot start with non self conscious material. c. Synergy cannot overcome this problem.

2) Macro evolution teaches: a. TIME + CHANCE = ORDER i. Alpha Bits cereal ii. Monkey typing your term paper iii. 10 dismantled clocks mixed together in a box b. TIME + CHANCE = CHAOS Either “a” is true or “b” is true. Both cannot be true OR both can be false.

3) Science has never witnessed an increase in genetic information from one generation to the next. a. Truth = actual genetic change is always a reduction of information b. Truth = mutations result in death, not greater life forms. i. Transparent reptile living in a cave ii. Line of all humans at the edge of a cliff will not result in growing wings

4) Irreducible Specified Complexity a. The complexity we see my be in existence from the beginning i. Giraffe…heart/neck/valve/sponge. Drink water and survival from predators ii. Human cell cannot function with more or less complexity.

5) Macro Evolution is NOT scientific a. True science must be TESTABLE, REPEATABLE, and OBSERVABLE b. Textbooks teach evolution as scientific fact--- IT IS THEORY... period!

 

[faroukfarouk]

Hello, and thank you for contributing!
I suppose that since the Bible is not something everyone believes to be the word of God, how would you prove that the Bible is the word of God? After all, until this is proven, verses from the Bible attesting to God's existence are merely circular evidence.

I can't help you any further.

 

[SocratesNow]

All of the above, and that God says from the beginning what will be in the end. Everything that has been written in the Bible happened/will happen.

My dad has done a genetic test last year, and our DNA proves the events in the Bible. We were there exactly when the bible says, our ancestors were there where Noah came out after the flood and exactly as the Bible says. Plus the lab where dad had his DNA test said, and it's not only them but all these companies say it, that our DNA tracks us exactly back to Adam.

Thanks for responding!
However, I am afraid I don't see the universal application of your example, in the sense that many tens of millions of people have taken DNA tests and gotten completely different results than yours. I am also curious whether or not whichever institution or service provided the DNA test and its results was connected to Christianity in any way? I ask because most relevant scientific study, including opinions of christian scientists, has formed a consensus that our species is at least 100,000 years old, and if one follows the timelines of Adam's heritage found within the Bible, this fact contradicts the Adam and Eve story, and furthermore there is no genetic proof of their existence, and thus it seems that whichever service provided the DNA test was likely influenced by christianity, although I could be wrong. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this!

 

[SocratesNow]

The complexity of the universe and nature are way way WAY to intricate and complex to have "evolved" into what we see.

Something does not come from nothing.

Micro Evolution =
change within a species Macro (this is supported biblically) after their own kind.

vs.

Macro Evolution Micro = = process of genetic mutation that allows one species to evolve into a new species.

1) The potential of an EFFECT cannot be greater than the potential of the CAUSE. a. If you wanted to break wood (EFFECT) with a punch (CAUSE) you must have enough force to accomplish it. b. If you want to achieve self consciousness (EFFECT) you cannot start with non self conscious material. c. Synergy cannot overcome this problem.

2) Macro evolution teaches: a. TIME + CHANCE = ORDER i. Alpha Bits cereal ii. Monkey typing your term paper iii. 10 dismantled clocks mixed together in a box b. TIME + CHANCE = CHAOS Either “a” is true or “b” is true. Both cannot be true OR both can be false.

3) Science has never witnessed an increase in genetic information from one generation to the next. a. Truth = actual genetic change is always a reduction of information b. Truth = mutations result in death, not greater life forms. i. Transparent reptile living in a cave ii. Line of all humans at the edge of a cliff will not result in growing wings

4) Irreducible Specified Complexity a. The complexity we see my be in existence from the beginning i. Giraffe…heart/neck/valve/sponge. Drink water and survival from predators ii. Human cell cannot function with more or less complexity.

5) Macro Evolution is NOT scientific a. True science must be TESTABLE, REPEATABLE, and OBSERVABLE b. Textbooks teach evolution as scientific fact--- IT IS THEORY... period!

Thank you for your input!
However, while the discussion around evolution is indeed a fascinating one, arguing against the scientific validity of macro evolution does not seem to inherently prove the existence of God. After all, the existence of God is a proposition, and must be treated as such. This means that in order to support the theory of God's existence, one must provide evidence and reason of their own in order to defend this thesis. While your response was fascinating and well thought-out, I don't feel that it proved God's existence in any measurable way. If you disagree, I'd love to hear your response!

 

[SocratesNow]

It will be better if you will quote the point you do not agree with and formulate some formal denial of it instead of such long bunch of text ;-)

I apologize, I believed that I had done this. Hopefully this response will be more concise and less distracting. In one sentence, my rebuttal was addressing the entire contingency argument, and it was as follows. The contingency argument you supplied has one key flaw in my mind, specifically that it assumes that because the existence of God explains something, therefore it must be the correct explanation for that thing. This seems to be a logical fallacy and circular reasoning.

 

[eleos1954]

Thank you for your input!
However, while the discussion around evolution is indeed a fascinating one, arguing against the scientific validity of macro evolution does not seem to inherently prove the existence of God. After all, the existence of God is a proposition, and must be treated as such. This means that in order to support the theory of God's existence, one must provide evidence and reason of their own in order to defend this thesis. While your response was fascinating and well thought-out, I don't feel that it proved God's existence in any measurable way. If you disagree, I'd love to hear your response!

Neither evolution nor God can be proved "scientifically".

True science must be TESTABLE, REPEATABLE, and OBSERVABLE