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

[Watson]

Okay! I'm finally capable of writing out a decent reply and will try to do so in as concise a manner as I possibly can. Heeeeeere we go!

Definitions are the meaning of a word. To get a definition, you look the word up in the dictionary. When creating a new word, you use your observations and reasoning to create a definition. There is a difference. You were asking Zhalentine for his own definition of an already existing word. There is no point in doing so, and he told you this much. If everyone used their own definition for words, nobody would know what each other were talking about. Instead of asking people for their own definitions of words, explain what you actually mean by "coincidence" and "accident" and we can compare this with a standard definition of those words.

Then we can assert that observances lead to words, and words lead to definitions, because obviously if we have a word we must define it so that we know what it means. Thus, the word is the standard set, that is how language works. The definition merely comes after the fact, with the preconceived idea of what a certain word is supposed to mean being incorporated into our minds at an early age.

I.E.- I know that to be a 'cloud' the criteria is to be white and fluffy and in the sky, because that is the meaning of the word cloud in the English language.(Note: there is a distinction between meaning and definition.) It's what I've been taught since birth, if I want to point to that white, fluffy thing in the sky and have people understand what I am talking about, I must say the word 'cloud.'

Therefore, whenever I see something that is white, fluffy, and in the sky I know that it is a cloud. When I observe something that is white, fluffy, and in the sky in real life, I can then define it as a cloud because that's the meaning of cloud.

Now, when we come to the idea of a standard definition, if the standard definition of something is flawed, then you would certainly agree we must rely more on our observances and our knowledge of the meaning of the word, for example the word coincidence, than the definition. Because if the definition is flawed we cannot possibly measure it up to the real thing.

In this case, I have pointed out several times that the definition of coincidence is inherrantly incorrect based on examination of it's own dictionary definition.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-2559-pos...l#pid53078

H.) But why use the dictionary definition when, in past experiences, said definition has failed to shed light on the experience in question? My own definition is based upon real life observance of coincidence as it has occured before me. It would be like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. You also point out that that definition is accepted by the majority of people as true, but remember, so is Christianity.

I.) And on top of that, I have outlined where the dictionary definition itself can be faulty and used against itself in contradiction. "happenstance (something which might have been arranged but is actually accidental.)" By it's nature, this definition rules out and simultaneously confirms that the perceived 'coincidence' could actually have been arranged. So in the case where something seems purely random or uncaused, the actual event was arranged and the most likely candidate since you surely cannot produce any other being in His place, is God.

I would also like to point out that I pretty much knew I would be accoted for using 'my own' definition of the word coincidence.

I agree, and this wasn't what I was arguing at all. I was arguing against your assertion that we get definitions from observation, and whilst this is true when creating a new word, it isn't when dealing with already defined ones. To get the definition of pre-defined words, you look up the definition in a dictionary. As Zhalentine and I have already said, making up your own definitions for words is chaotic and ridiculous.

See my answer above.

You might know their reason for believing such a thing, but there is a difference between knowing and understanding. If you understand how someone can believe a position, there is no reason from your point of view not to follow that position along with that person.

I agree, there is a difference between knowing and understanding. And if what you say were the case, all good detectives and all good criminal profilers would also be serial killers and mass murderers, because their very job is to understand the POV of these people and to see from that person's perspective, without actually agreeing with it at all. It is called empathy and it is a human trait to express such a sentiment.

See A.) Are you suggesting that we should view reality based on definition, rather than create definition based on reality? That's ridiculous.

No. I'm fine with creating definitions based on reality. What I'm not fine doing is creating personal definitions for pre-defined words, and then asking people to do the same in hopes of having a rational comparison. As I've said before, this leads to chaos. If I define a cloud as "a warm feeling inside", and you define it as "a dog with long legs", it leads to disagreement. All the while, the people with the actual standard definition of a cloud are looking at us in confusion.

Once again, see my answer above on the nature of definitons and words.

E.) I agree with this and will concede a bit on the subject. However, if you work from the basis of their being a God, then you can understand that being(God) much better than if you work from the assumption that there is not a God.

Well that's a bit obvious. Assuming there is no God means you cannot understand anything about such a being, since from that perspective it doesn't exist. However, do not make the error of thinking that because assuming the existence of something you can logically deduce attributes, you can "understand" God as a reality. It doesn't work like that. If you start from an assumption in a logical argument, you cannot use the same argument to prove the assumption.

I am not using the assumption to prove the understanding. I believe and have faith that God exists(I don't assume He does, an assumption is baseless), and from that belief I recognize God as He is around me. Now, due to God's nature, when one recognizes and acknowledge's His existance, they can logically deduce attributes of Him which lead to their understanding. Having accepted God as He is, I can understand him, as I would a good friend.

I'm not lecturing you, but admitting to a character fault is not absolving of it. You would do well to speak to people respectfully in a discussion. Otherwise, why would they want to understand your side at all?

So you claim to not be lecturing me, and then go on in the next sentence to lecture me. Jebus.

Advice and lecture are not the same thing. I'm offering my advice to you, not forcing it upon you or teaching it to you as a teacher to a student would in a lecture.

I'll speak respectfully when the argument given is logically sound. You currently don't have that luxury. Do some convincing arguing, stop wasting our time with meaningless drivel about personal definitions, and we might get somewhere. The theists here who are respected members of the community are the ones who at least try to have a decent conversation, to present their views, and to be logically coherent.

1.) I am not, nor have I ever been arguing. If I were arguing, the end goal would be to have you agree with me and have been 'converted' to my side of the spectrum. That is not my aim. My aim is to hold a discussion, which is not synonymous with argument. In a discussion, one simply wishes to understand the other side better, to empathize with it and hopefully have the other person empathize with & understand their point of view, as well. That's what I'm trying to do. Not too sure about you.

2.) You're the one who digressed the discussion from the original topic into the discussion of personal definitions. Instead of trying to understand my point of view on that subject, you decided to counter my views on it and in so doing you muddled the original intent of the discussion.

3.) No offense, but from what I have read on this forum, the 'respected theists' here are the ones who choose to keep their mouths shut and who don't present a large enough 'threat' to your world-view to be viewed as bad. I'm not insulting or accusing them at all; it's an imposing thing, to come into a place where so many are so misunderstanding of your beliefs and to try and discuss them. I'm merely observing that the 'respect' you give your theist members only holds so long as they hold their tongue.

Take fr0d0, for example, who seems to be fairly well liked around here. From what I've seen he's a very smart individual, and his points are very logically sound. From what i can tell, without his knowledge, he's the guy you can all point to and say "See! We can get along with Christians too!...if they don't disagree with us enough to be a problem." When he starts making sense and raising heavy points, however, the so-called 'respect' is down and it's anybody's game who gets to rip fr0d0's beliefs apart limb-from-limb this time.

Your argument makes no sense. For instance, assume person A knew person B from childhood, and then went to separate corners of the world for 20 years, without any contact whatsoever. If person A plans a holiday to Venice, and person B does the same (separately), and they meet up in Venice, it is a coincidence. There is now "plan" to meet up, no pre-ordained series of events. The two people had no contact for 20 years, and "just happened" to meet up in Venice because they "just happened" to book their holidays to the same destination at the same time. Nobody "knew" they were going to meet, nor did they "have" to as you seem to think.

If they were planning the meeting, or they "had" to meet up for some reason, it isn't coincidence, since the two events are connected pretty directly. Coincidence only occurs when those two events converge at some point but not on purpose.

What I am suggesting is that there is no more likely explanation than that a God intervened and affected the world around them. He did not, as you might suggest now, interfere with free will, but He let A and B know that there was a certain place they had to be at a certain time, and left it open to them whether or not to act on that. Then, when the two did choose the path that was there for them all along, God affected the universe in such a way as to get them there at the right time to meet up with each other. The idea that all of this is 'less likely' than the idea that it 'just happened' is prepostorous.

Your inability to see what is more likely has no affect on what happened. Your inability to come up with another explanation does not mean the only explanation that you have is the correct one. It's a standard argument from personal incredulity, and it's a logical fallacy. We gave you an explanation, that it was a coincidence, and you have failed to disprove that explanation. Whilst it is not disproven, it is still a possibility. Throwing definitions around like they don't matter and quoting Holmes isn't going to do you any favours here. There is indeed beauty in simplicity. God, however, is not simple. Coincidence, is.

See above. This point is fundamentally flawed at it's core because, to suggest coincidence is to surely dismiss simplicity completely! For a coincidence to have occured, several events must have transpired all at once in a converging way, with seemingly no cause and for no reason at all, and then to have gathered in the one single event, the coincidence. If these events are all interconnected at the convergent point, then why and how were each of them drawn to the convergent point?

God is simple, and your misunderstanding of His nature as such is the reason for your inability to see simplicity for what it really is.

God is a mere friend, an ally, one who walks beside us at all times and who offers sagely advice when it is asked of Him. He knows of the path a person must walk and will do all He can to help them along the path, for it is He who created it for the person. That is what a good friend should do, and if ever there were a more simple ideal, I don't know of it.

Might I interject, that if you think I don't understand what you are talking about, you should attempt to explain yourself more clearly?

haha, Figure it out for yourself Mr. Open-minded-Smart-Guy. Clearly you are intellectually above me, should you not be capable of understanding my words very easily and knowing just what I mean?

The thing is, you don't understand because you have not even opened your mind to my view of life and what it is to be me. I do not say this out of malice, but because I know that all people are capable of empathy, if only they would open themselves to it completely. It upsets me, therefore, to see that you have not. And hence why I discuss these things with people such as you, to hope that you will come into a better understanding of what I believe and that I can further my understanding.

Cut the cryptic bullshit. Explain how a story is evidence / proof of God's existence, when stories are written by people, people who are fallible, subjective, and capable of lying or misrepresenting a point. Write a mistake down on paper and get enough people to believe it, and you have yourself a problem. This is why we rely on things other than anecdotal evidence to prove something.

It's not cryptic, it's very simple. See my previous response above about simplicity being beautiful and about opening oneself to empathy. A story is evidence if one recognizes it for what it is, and believes that it is evidence. Furthermore this is not merely a story, but a real event which occured and involved very real people. How do you know this? Well, you don't, you merely have to take my word for it. You have to believe me.

In response to your story about your friend, it is quote possible that he was just in the right place at the right time. He didn't accept the ride, as you said, because he was being polite. He didn't ask you out because there were police cars. To assume that these things happened because God was guiding him is to say that God manipulates reality in such a way that would interfere with "free will" (or are you sensible and don't believe in such a thing?). The point is, to say that God was guiding him, without any actual evidence, is to be completely moronic. You have no reason to believe that God guides people. God isn't even in the story. The guy just happened to be in the right place at the right time, and your assumption that God guides us leads you to conclude that this is evidence of that. However, as I've already pointed out to you, you cannot prove an assumption is the assumption forms part of the basis of the argument.

God is in the story. What, do you expect Him to manifest Himself in the form of a lowly beggar or some cliche thing, and to have told my friend "you must be in a certain place at a certain time, or face grave consequences"? That is not how God works, my friend, He shows Himself in ways which leave it up to us to believe.

And another thing, you say that for a God to exist, there would have to be no free will...then you go on to state that you do not believe in free will. That's an enormous hole in your logic. If there is no free will, and your view of God is that free will would not exist if He did, then why can't God exist...?

And I do not assume that God exists, I believe that He exists because of the evidence I have seen, namely, events like this where the most likely explanation is God, due to His nature being such that he would present Himself in this way
See here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-2559-pos...l#pid52907
And here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-2559-pos...l#pid53042
Read both posts, please, all the way through, for my explanation and examination on the nature of free will.

So at some point in time, God didn't exist? I think that's what I'm getting from your argument. So please, if this is your view, explain what caused God to exist. You claim everything needs a cause. What is God's? Oh, and it wasn't an ultimatum, it was a dichotomy. Either everything has a cause, or it doesn't. Hence why I wanted (and still want) you to explain how God cannot have cause, given that you seem to think everything needs one.

I admit that this is the weakest point in my logic, but what I said still stands. According to you, within quantum mechanics, things can simply 'pop' into existance. If that is true, and your theory of how the universe was created via a singularity is true, then couldn't the universe have simply 'popped' into existance? Since I recognize God as being the entire universe, and being synonymous with it, then that could mean that God merely 'popped' into existance when once there was nothingness.

Ad hominem's aren't about insults in general. They are about distracting from an argument because you draw attention to a supposed fault or flaw of the opponent. In this case, you assert (without evidence or reason) that the only reason I don't understand your argument is because I don't want to. It's a baseless claim, and completely untrue.

I assert that you do not understand it because you do not want to, but only because you willingly close your mind to certain trains of thought and evidences which are before you. That is not baseless, it is quite true.

I already told you, simple coincidence presents a reasonable and rational conclusion that is far more likely, namely because the events are not connected by some supernatural unseen force. If they "just happened", they do not require further explanation. The same cannot be said for your God though, since the existence of such a being itself is a extraordinary claim. Sherlock Holmes would have been proud of the saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". You have a book and your personal feelings. Somehow I think the good Holmes wouldn't be impressed.

My friend, you clearly lack an enormous amount of understanding in the way of Sherlock Holmes! Not only would he not have been proud of that statement, I whole-heartedly believe he would have been appalled at the very idea. Sherlock's entire methodology relies on drawing large inferences from small clues. He searched for small hints as to the individuality of the person he was after, rather than looking for the same kind of clues to find every single person.

Holmes took deductive reasoning very seriously, in that he would observe the result of a situation, and then work backward from that result, considering all possible scenarios which could have amounted to that. He was broad-minded enough to work through each possibility that could have occured within his mind, and then pick the most likely of those out of the lot. He had to believe in the person he was chasing's existance, based on the clues of individuality which they left behind. So all he has were his beliefs, too.

Let's take the case of my friend, who we will hence refer to a J:

The result is this: J wound up in the right place at the right time so that he was able to comfort his family and be there when they needed him. How did this come about? He left the party early, he decided not to go to my house, his cousin denied picking him up, he walked a ta certain rate, and a person he knew showed up to lure him into the house where he needed to be at that time.

Now, looking at this evidence, there are many likely explanations as to how it occured: simple chance can be ruled out as low on the spectrum, because that would suggest that all these events were not inter-connected, and obviously they were because of their convergant point that led J to the place he needed to be.

So then, we're looking for a culprit now, since we have very nearly eliminated the idea of a coincidence. What clues has this cuprit left behind as to their identity? Well, they were very obviously trying to help J, since the end result of this scenario was beneficial to him.

That means the culprit is a friend, not a foe. For the culprit to have been a friend, that means we are looking for a sentient being, something which has actual thought processes.

We can also deduce that since this friend knew of the events to occur before they happened, the friend is all-knowing of the world around J, or at least extremely clairovoyant. This is someone with exstensive knowledge of the choices available in life for J, and also of the path which he resides on, namely his life.

One final deduction we may make is that this culprit is capable of leaving behind evidence of his individuality seemingly without having been there at all, since obviously the only proofs we have of His existance are these clues he has left us.

Therefore, we have deduced:
-random chance is less likely because it suggests no inter-connectivity between events, when we see clearly that these events did have a connected result.*
-the culprit is a friend because the event benefited J.
-the culprit is sentient because non-sentient life forms cannot be considered 'friends.'
-the culprit is all-knowing or clairovoyant, since it was aware of the events to come and of what path would most benefit J.
-the culprit is capable of leaving behindclues, seemingly without having been there.

You figure it out. Who does the culprit sound like to you?

*you may at this point suggest "Well, the convergent point is the inter-connectivity" but I counter and ask "then how and why did seemingly unattached events converge at all?" You cannot suggest that it 'just happened' that way, since we have already ruled that out as less likely.

As I've said repeatedly now, enlighten me. Present your evidence or piss off. Give me the section or sections of the book that support your point, and explain them. If you have to explain the underlying message too, do that as well! It's really not that hard. If you have a point which you claim is supported by your book, you should easily be able to explain it. Otherwise all I have to go on is your word, and I'm afraid I don't trust that one bit.

This would be like cutting off a human arm and showing it to an alien, then expecting the alien to know exactly what humans are like based on that arm. If the alien has never seen a human and has no knowledge or understanding of it, then it isn' tgoing to undertsand the function of the arm, either.(this is assuming the alien is not humanoid at all.) The Bible itself is the entire message, and I already explained it to you in three simple words. Three words which you don't understand at all.

I plan on posting a topic about my views on religion later, which will expand upon some of my beliefs. However, you are still snipping and cutting into my views at all odd angles, while ignoring the bigger picture at hand which they create.

Here's a highlight of some explanation into the Bible:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-2559-pos...l#pid53078

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Book of Genesis is in the Old Testament, no? Regarding the Old Testament: that was God learning. God sees the world through the eyes of love, but at one time, He did not fully understand this Himself. So within the Old Testament is God laying down groundwork, and then, like a child playing with His new friend, He had to learn the proper and improper way of treating those He loved.

Within the New Testament is Jesus, whom is God's way of manifesting Himself in a way which humans are all capable of recognizing; a man who could perform extraordinary feats, and with extraordinary understanding of man and God and the relationship between the two. Jesus foresook the actions of God in the Old Testament, as a way of showing that God had changed.

"The sins of the fathers", y'know?

N.) Eintstein's theory of relativity is something, correct me if I am wrong, has been brought into contention time and time again. As such it is still a theory, becaue it is a hypothesis supported by several 'facts' which may or may not be true. (Assumptions.)

A universal law such as gravity is something we do not understand, but which we know to work and be true. We may speculate and come rather close, but for the time being there is no certain 'fact' of gravity. On top of that, what do black holes have to do with anything we've been talking about?

No, it's stood pretty well for the last 95 years. All evidence currently supports it. A "theory" in the scientific sense is not a "theory" in the general sense.[/quote]
Oh, so now we're making up our own definitions for things, are we? HMMMMMMMM.

A scientific theory is the best explanation which covers all the facts. It has surpassed hypothesis stage because experiments have confirmed it. There are no assumptions behind the facts that science has extrapolated, other than the assumption upon which science lies: materialism. Having said that, if materialism is proven untrue, it doesn't mean that matter and energy don't exist, just that there might be more to matter and energy. The facts behind Einstein's theory would remain the same.

I agree, a scientific theory covers all the known scientific facts available to it, but that's just it; it only covers the scientific facts. If your position that we cannot use an assumption to prove that the assumption itself is true, then you cannot say materialism is true simply on the grouns that all you can prove is materialism, by examining materialistic things. Examine the world from different view-points and looking for different kinds of evidence, and you will find that there are othe things which are true in other senses, other than materialism.

This is the problem, you cannot look at the bigger picture whilst there parts of your picture that are supported by fallacious logic. If one part of your picture is wrong, you cannot hope to suggest that the entirety of it is correct.

If you wish, I could simply not break up your post into sections and then write my criticisms afterwards. It would be the same words, but the formatting would be terrible. If your argument cannot withstand scrutiny, being picked apart, and poked at, it isn't a good argument at all. The best arguments can be sliced and diced and withstand every counter-argument successfully. Yours can't.

The best arguments can be picked apart and poked at while still retaining their original message, but only if the person doing the picking understands that message to begin with. Because you refuse to understand the biger picture, all you can look at is the indivdual small parts, and claim they are disjointed because you are not taking a step back, and observing the larger picture.

It's not a matter of your format, it's a matter of your understanding and grasp of that which you are picking apart.

You also asked me to specify certain passages from the Bible which would back up my point. Do you really want me to do that? It's impossible, because then I'd be breaking the Bible down into bits and pieces and tearing down the original message of the book as a whole. That doesn't mean you have to read the entire Bible, by the way, because guess what? I have not ever read on single page frm the Bible. Not a one.

But with my understanding and knowledge of it's message, I can see the big picture and what the Bible is trying to communicate. If you want a basic answer for this, here it is; peace, love, and understanding. That's it. That's the Bible.

-Watson

So you base your belief around a book you have not read, and make assumptions about a God you believe in because (fuck, I don't know why you believe in it if that is the case), and your proof is nothing other than you like the story of peace, love, and understanding. I have plenty of stories like that, and all of them are more peaceful and loving than the Bible is. You can claim the Bible is a peaceful book all you like, but you haven't read it, and your claim doesn't reflect the book itself. There are plenty of hate-filled messages in the Bible, plenty of violence, and plenty of misunderstanding. Perhaps you should read it...you might learn what is actually in it.
[/quote]
And still you examine the little pieces, you see the 'violence' as simply violence, the hatred as simply hatred...God had to learn, too, but because you don't understand His nature, you can't hope to understand His message, either. I don't make assumptions about God. If God created this world around us, and gave it to us to live in, then I would say that makes him a pretty fucking loving God. He views the world through the eyes of love, but even he did not understand true love, at one time. I don't need to have read the book to understand the message contained within, which is a beautifully simple message: peace, love, and understanding.

That is it, Adrian, it's not complex or convoluted. My knowledge of the Bible, my understanding of God, is drawn from my observances of the real world around me, not the book itself. But the book is merely an outlet which speaks to those thoughts I have already concluded on my own, and, I am in the process of reading the Bible. So far, it is still completely what I knew it as.

Perhaps you should RE-read the Bible...since science is based upon RE-search...you might learn something new about what is actually in it.

-Watson