Christians, what is your VERY BEST arguments for the existence of God?

[Zhalentine]

Oh yes, and I'd like to see some evidence for this "free will" you speak of. If we are organisms, there is no explanation for "free will", merely the illusion of free will. Currently, the scientific evidence points away from its existence.

Please correct me if I am wrong, Adrian:

Your position is that free will is merely an illusion, i.e., we do not have free will.

It would then seem to follow from this:

1) that the only reason why you debate or discuss anything with anybody else is because you are compelled to based on your genetics, environment, etc.;

2) you have no reason to believe that anything you say could convince someone that you are "correct" in any position you take because the person you are talking to is compelled to think what they think also (unless of course you are compelled to believe such a thing);

3) there is no such thing as "correct", "right", "true", "correct application of logic" etc., it is only what a person is compelled to perceive/think; and

4) in reality, scientists are compelled to think free will doesn't exist regardless of what evidence they look at.

I guess that would mean there is no real point to any communication and it certainly diminishes (to zero)the weight of any argument put forth here on this forum.

I, for one, am glad we don't live like there is no free will. It would make a boring world (or maybe I am just compelled to think this).

My comments above were a bit "tongue in cheek" (I suspect I am missing some things regarding your point of view that would make my conclusions above not really apply). So my serious question, Adrian, is could you please elaborate on what you mean and how it works from your point of view?

I do not think that we have free will. When you look at very complex things very closely, it all boils down to the basics. Our brains are made up of atoms as is everything else. If you were to mix any strong acid and strong base together you'll get a salt and water because that is how the atoms react. Our brains are nothing more than very complex chemical reactions. In theory we should be able to predict what will happen, but because there are near an infinite amount of actions and reactions and other variables I do not think we'll ever be able to truly predict the future.

1) There could be an infinite amount of reasons for why he decides to debate, it is whatever stimulated his brain to do so.

The rest of the numbers are blatantly false.

haha I do not, in fact, have a problem with coincidence and I do not take offense or see ad himinem in what you said. However, I find my own definition of coincidence has brought me much more accurate and applicable results when going about my day to day life. This is because I believe in my own words as true, and put the utmost faith in them first and foremost.

You can define any word you want to have its own meaning to you, but that doesn't make your definition correct. The definition found in the dictionary is the definition accepted by the majority of people today. It doesn't matter how you define coincidence because I assume you go by the accepted definition, if you want to change the definition to fit your reasoning, then you are no longer using the word correctly.

B.) You still have failed to point out the original 'action', however. You must take into consideration the event and it's pieces as a whole, look at the bigger picture, and tell me where there is a more likely cause than God that set the chain of events in motion.

To do so is impossible. I have absolutely no way of knowing what was stimulating his brain.

D.) There appears to be no natural stimuli for my friend's having made the choices he did in the sequence he did, as I have already showed you where the definition of 'coincidence' could be considered faulty or to my use, and there still appears to be no original 'action' which he could have acted and reacted upon.

I don't care if there doesn't appear to be a natural stimuli or not. Does there appear to be a force acting on my calculator on my desk? It doesn't appear so, but actually the force of gravity is pushing down and the force of my desk is pushing up, along with any other invisible force acting on my calculator such as wind or anything else. Only your definition is considered faulty. Anything straying from the accepted definition is no longer a correct representation of the word unless we have both agreed to what we want the word coincidence to represent.


I didn't see the very last part of your post until I double checked your post and I already wrote a response so I'm just going to post it. I have a ton of homework to do and I don't know if I'll be on again today so just post a reply to this instead of editing your original post.