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

[chatpilot]

People who claim to see god all around them only see it that way because they choose to see it. I have searched for god everywhere and have not found him/it anywhere. Gods are the creation of the vivid imagination of man.

People speak about the laws of nature and the order in the universe etc. And forget that amidst all that order there is chaos as well. When it comes to the laws of nature those are known to us through observation and investigation. We made those laws according to our own understanding and calling them laws of nature is our way of defining those very natural acts.

[Rhizomorph13]

CP,

I don't think it is a matter of choice. I don't choose NOT to see god everywhere any more than I choose not to believe in god. People who see god in everything are simply convinced differently than you or I. The more time I get under my belt the more I believe that we ARE all just little clockwork oranges.

Rhizo

[chatpilot]

Ditto I agree with your statement Rhizo.

[Pippy]

So I choose to see god.

But you do not choose atheism.

belief is a mental illness, a mistake at best and a lie at worst...

But belief if no god is logical, and scientific?

That is silly man. We both believe in shit. For you to pretend that I see faeries and you know how it really is is super ignorant fallacious drivel. We both either choose to see it our way, or we do not. Make up your mind, but don't call your belief somehow more or less valid than mine, and completely gloss over the whole 'freedom to believe what you want' thing.

That to me, would be a flaw of the "New Atheism" I was asked to define. New Atheism is Dawkins style combative, double standard rudeness disguised as some kind of better understanding of evolution or something. It is flawed, and I have pointed that out over and again. As soon as anyone says they want to rid the world of religion, they shoot themselves in the foot. The problem with religion is not it's existence, but that it can make people fanatic, and controlling of others. Not every believer has something wrong with them, only fanatical ones. And fanaticism is a level of dangerous self righteousness that leads you to think you're right and others are wrong, and that you should help them see it your way (which is undeniably and obviously correct). This "New Atheism" is compared to "atheism", the quiet and polite doubt and "atheism 3.0" that is, I feel, the most solid. Those guys are much more polite about other peoples beliefs.

It's something I have brought up here before, and had a cool reception. Dawkins is important to some of you guys, which I find kind of amusing, because a lot of you consider his arguments paramount to you world view, and I find him grating and see-through. Same with the Maher movie, that is a good example of the flaw of "New Atheism", how he refuses to acknowledge that fanaticism is a problem, and that 90% of believers are better people because of it, and in the end proudly declares himself a fanatic.

There, that is my take on other peoples words of "New Atheism".

We all beleive what we will, neither of us is more or less right than the other. I don't feel the need to mock your random just-so-happened world, try not to mock my god. It makes you sound ignorant when you don't even realize you are setting a double standard.

Thanks.

[theVOID]

Our human intuition is subjective and infallible and very much guided by our presuppositions. This is not proof for the existence of god in any way, and to accept the standard of intuition as evidence then you must also accept any claims based on the intuition of others.

The Geometrical analogy is also fundamentally flawed as it can be demonstrated as true mathematically to support the intuition, whereas there is no such way to demonstrate that your intuition about God is true. Human intuition has failed us numerous times in the past, from the Sun orbiting the earth to the flat earth theory and beyond, our intuition is in no way a measure of truth, rather an estimate based on our presuppositions that needs to be objectively verified to have any credence.

1.I emphatically agree that intuition is completely subjective and personally infallible. However that statement is incongruous with the following statements so perhaps you should check your definition and reassert.

If you consider intuition evidence for God then you must also accept all other claims based on an argument for intuition, such as all other gods, psychic phenomenon ghosts etc. The problem with holding intuition as a standard for evidence is that the bar is set as low as possible and damn near anything can pass it. So lets set the bar higher to weed out the falsities.

2.How is demonstratability in proofs a fundamental flaw? While scientific, mathmatical or historical demonstratability is best used in its' according fields; I propose you use spiritual demonstratability to test spiritual truths.

Your analogy was flawed, it wasn't even "comparing Apples and oranges" more like comparing Apples and Thunderbolts.

Spiritual Truths are far too subjective to be held as proof for anything, just as intuition is.

3.Your assertion that intuition has failed us is flawed in that more correctly is is actions based on beliefs that have failed us. Theese beliefs can be partly because of intuition, but I highly suspect that few people act on intuition alone, and that is is the lesser of the parts of action.

Trying to put words in my mouth now? I was not talking about how belief affects intuition, just intuition it's self. Take Quantum Mechanics for example - the things that happen at the very foundation of matter and energy constantly defy intuition, a good example of how intuition is often not linked to reality at all.

Intuition is not proof of god.

Would you like to explain how that is in any way evidence for the existence of god?

Sure. I was referring to the strength of conviction of man's inate sense of God in the assertion that most religious texts presupose their respective God/Gods and to not attempt to prove them.

Which is not proof of God, just proof that some people strongly believe in God.

1. Isn't the Big Bang theory one of the most provable and most widely accepted scientific theories? If something had a begining and a history, then it by definition is finite, not infinite.

The universe as we know it, ie all matter and energy confined in space and time, had a beginning. the singularity however was before time existed, so to talk about it causally is one of the most meaningless pursuits you could possibly engage in.

2. proof of universal or anthropic mechanism doesn't explain the human mind. On a universal scale though it does indicate that the laws of nature do apply to the universe and that it all works in a predescribed fasion. I know of no known self-sustaining machine in this universe. Why would I assume that the sum of it's parts are different from it's whole? Thusly I'm inclined to believe that mechanism implies design as does the nature of laws implies a law-giver.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam (Argument from ignorance)

Again, i did not ask what you are inclined to believe, i asked for proof of the existence of God.

1)That is an argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy.

2)Nature does the selection... through survival of the fittest, hence the name. The fact that you even had to ask the most basic question of natural selection suggests your knowledge of the theory is entirely inadequate to be using it as a serious argument anyway.

1. Yes it was I will reassert. When you see a watch you instinctively assume that it had a designer. When I see the complex developement of Granodiorite in Yosemite. The more science has found out about the complexity of the universe the less it appears random causality.

Paley's watch... really?

The idea that something in nature is too complex to be formed by natural process is the fallacy Argument from ignorance.

2. If there is a requirement for certain degrees I must have before a discussion please list them and I will kindly bow out. If you feel I am underqualified to even mention certain subjects please list them. However I believe it is called Ad Hominem.

No, you just need to stop committing logical fallacies.

3. Natural selection is subjective if selective pressure can be produced by any aspect of the environment including human nature and choice. Therefore it is not a complete arguement. When human choice is applied to selective evolution, and is based off intuition or predisposition, it logically leads to likened developement. I subconsciously must want me kids to be like me because they've learned how to "be" by observation. We are constantly evolving into more effecient and "usefull" beings. Ergo, we've learned how to "be" by imitating not nature but an idealistic and external existance that is greater than us.

1) Natural selection = Hostilities in the environment leading to fatalities of individuals that in turn will see that those best adapted to survive have a higher chance of surviving, intelligent hostilities and natural hostilities in this sense are no different.

2) Humans did not evolve in a particular direction towards specific predetermined goals, the fact that we are the way we are now is one of an inconceivably many ways we could have turned out, or not turned out at all, was the environment different from the beginning of evolution.

3) We don't imitate nature, we survive it.

Absolute nonsense, this is the weakest single argument i have ever seen for the existence of God. The fact that man can conceive of the infinite means nothing, whether this infinite thing be God or a number series.

It is not proof of God's existance but proof of what god is if he does exists. If evidence is cummulative this applies.

100 bad arguments do not culminate into a single valid one.

There is no proof there what-so-ever, just you asserting that morals require external authority, a completely unproven assumption in it's self.

Do you deny there is a moral law to society throughout history and today? Explain to me then how right and wrong are self-imposed or completely developed from natural instincts please.

There is moral law, it is subjective and changes over time, for instance your own holy book has an injunction that legalizes slavery - something i consider totally immoral, yet God apparently approves. There is also cases like Gay rights, i believe they should have every right everyone else has, yet other people disagree, this is evidence for subjective morality.

I believe moral laws arose from the development of social structures - but i have no idea why you think it is relevant - i asked for evidence for the existence of God.

What makes more sense to an individual is not in any way a reflection of what is true. Of course God makes it easy to explain everything, it is a literal blank Cheque you have given yourself, but just because you have a theory of everything still does not make it true.

Nor do I indeed state that I know what is the truth of the true God. I have an idea of God and it is backed by percievable evidence and they are congruent and that fascillitates belief of existance.

Whether you think you know the truth about God or not is irrelevant, i asked for evidence for his existence whether logical or empirical and you have provided nothing of the sort.

[Rhizomorph13]

Aw did Pippy get his feelings hurt? We mock everything here, even each other, why do you think you are special? Besides CP already agreed with my addendum to his memo. I do have one serious question though.

Do you really believe that you choose to see god? If so, can you choose to NOT see god?

I vividly remember seeing god everywhere and in everything and it was overwhelming to the point I could not ignore it, then I continued to think about it and read up about how nature works; as knowledge grew, god shrank with no effort on my part. In fact, I exerted great effort to redefine god so it still had a place in my life. I say "it" not to poke fun, but to be inclusive. You see, god was a man(according to biblical teaching), then mother nature, then everything, and then me. I ran around those identities of god in no particular order, trying desperatly to fit it into my life, but eventually, like a slippery bar of soap, god slipped out of my grasp.

Rhizo

[ib.me.ub]

So, I pose the question, What is the point of arguing about things that are far from actual understanding?

Please define 'actual understanding' since you seem to pose that all fora should shut down without it.

Understanding how things actually work! And, yes we should all stop arguing

[tackattack]

---

I was reading all of this and was just wondering why we argue points that we know nothing about, in terms of both arguments.

Ok, so we believe there is a God for example, but it is inconcievable to determine how an entitiy/mass such as this would/could work at the present point in human evolution. It is beyond any possible human comprehension at the present point in time.

Then, we all think the Universe started at a singular point, but once again it inconceivable to determine that this is what actually happened or how it actually works at the present point in human evolution. It is beyond any possible human comprehension at the present point in time.

So, until we know anything for certain, how can we argue the point. Really, we haven't come very far in terms of evolution!! It's all well and good to say 'but look what we have done', 'look at what we do understand', but in the context of actual knowledge we understand very little.

So, I pose the question, What is the point of arguing about things that are far from actual understanding?

---

It is a common acceptance in the christian belief that God can not be truely known. An idea of God can be had because he has revealed himself to us. Gathering a definition of what you are trying to know is the first step on the road to truth. Definition is the reason to ask abouth things far from actual understanding.

---

As usual these discussions turn into alot of psychological, theological, and apologetic bull shit in the name of looking and sounding intelligent. God does not exist and there is no evidence of his existence. He exist in the hearts and minds of those who choose to believe in him by faith in ancient texts written by a bunch of ignorant nomads thousands of years ago.

---

While I respect your opinion and your background in religion. It's blatently obvious by your belittling dismissal that you are far too emotional to further the productivity of this topic.

---

well the whole "designs must have a designer" thing comes up alot, but like many excuses ther are logical explinations that can push that idea away

please list some for my edification. Thank you.

well, for one, if god designed the universe, why is there no peace and whats with the natural disasters? why are there murderers and thieves and deseases, do you really think our so called designer would create so many situations that would destroy his "creations"

if we were designed, we would have started off as the smart humans we are now, instead of needing to evolve to live in our environment, surely god would have the best design for us to live in the world he created, lets face it, if he did design earth he would know exactly what we needed to live there staight away

---

1. Murderers and thieves (some of the best of which are christians) are self-deluded men justifing their actions. Natural disasters are part of the cycle of the life of matter as is death. No peace on earth, well there would be if free will and knowledge of evil didn't exist.
2.What is the value of a brand new gun? Just it's cost. Now add 1000 years to it and some interaction with history and it's value increases exponentially. In the flow of time, history and action have a compounding effect on the worth of something the farther it progresses from it's originating source.

---

So I choose to see god.

But you do not choose atheism.

belief is a mental illness, a mistake at best and a lie at worst...

But belief if no god is logical, and scientific?

That is silly man. We both believe in shit. For you to pretend that I see faeries and you know how it really is is super ignorant fallacious drivel. We both either choose to see it our way, or we do not. Make up your mind, but don't call your belief somehow more or less valid than mine, and completely gloss over the whole 'freedom to believe what you want' thing.

That to me, would be a flaw of the "New Atheism" I was asked to define. New Atheism is Dawkins style combative, double standard rudeness disguised as some kind of better understanding of evolution or something. It is flawed, and I have pointed that out over and again. As soon as anyone says they want to rid the world of religion, they shoot themselves in the foot. The problem with religion is not it's existence, but that it can make people fanatic, and controlling of others. Not every believer has something wrong with them, only fanatical ones. And fanaticism is a level of dangerous self righteousness that leads you to think you're right and others are wrong, and that you should help them see it your way (which is undeniably and obviously correct). This "New Atheism" is compared to "atheism", the quiet and polite doubt and "atheism 3.0" that is, I feel, the most solid. Those guys are much more polite about other peoples beliefs.

It's something I have brought up here before, and had a cool reception. Dawkins is important to some of you guys, which I find kind of amusing, because a lot of you consider his arguments paramount to you world view, and I find him grating and see-through. Same with the Maher movie, that is a good example of the flaw of "New Atheism", how he refuses to acknowledge that fanaticism is a problem, and that 90% of believers are better people because of it, and in the end proudly declares himself a fanatic.

There, that is my take on other peoples words of "New Atheism".

We all beleive what we will, neither of us is more or less right than the other. I don't feel the need to mock your random just-so-happened world, try not to mock my god. It makes you sound ignorant when you don't even realize you are setting a double standard.

Thanks.

---

I wouldn't have gone as far as to assign a new name to atheism, but I definately agree with your frustration. I especially like "The problem with religion is not it's existence, but that it can make people fanatic, and controlling of others. Not every believer has something wrong with them, only fanatical ones. " may I quote you on that.

---

Our human intuition is subjective and infallible and very much guided by our presuppositions. This is not proof for the existence of god in any way, and to accept the standard of intuition as evidence then you must also accept any claims based on the intuition of others.

The Geometrical analogy is also fundamentally flawed as it can be demonstrated as true mathematically to support the intuition, whereas there is no such way to demonstrate that your intuition about God is true. Human intuition has failed us numerous times in the past, from the Sun orbiting the earth to the flat earth theory and beyond, our intuition is in no way a measure of truth, rather an estimate based on our presuppositions that needs to be objectively verified to have any credence.

1.I emphatically agree that intuition is completely subjective and personally infallible. However that statement is incongruous with the following statements so perhaps you should check your definition and reassert.

If you consider intuition evidence for God then you must also accept all other claims based on an argument for intuition, such as all other gods, psychic phenomenon ghosts etc. The problem with holding intuition as a standard for evidence is that the bar is set as low as possible and damn near anything can pass it. So lets set the bar higher to weed out the falsities.

2.How is demonstratability in proofs a fundamental flaw? While scientific, mathmatical or historical demonstratability is best used in its' according fields; I propose you use spiritual demonstratability to test spiritual truths.

Your analogy was flawed, it wasn't even "comparing Apples and oranges" more like comparing Apples and Thunderbolts.

Spiritual Truths are far too subjective to be held as proof for anything, just as intuition is.

3.Your assertion that intuition has failed us is flawed in that more correctly is is actions based on beliefs that have failed us. Theese beliefs can be partly because of intuition, but I highly suspect that few people act on intuition alone, and that is is the lesser of the parts of action.

Trying to put words in my mouth now? I was not talking about how belief affects intuition, just intuition it's self. Take Quantum Mechanics for example - the things that happen at the very foundation of matter and energy constantly defy intuition, a good example of how intuition is often not linked to reality at all.

Intuition is not proof of god.

Would you like to explain how that is in any way evidence for the existence of god?

Sure. I was referring to the strength of conviction of man's inate sense of God in the assertion that most religious texts presupose their respective God/Gods and to not attempt to prove them.

Which is not proof of God, just proof that some people strongly believe in God.

1. Isn't the Big Bang theory one of the most provable and most widely accepted scientific theories? If something had a begining and a history, then it by definition is finite, not infinite.

The universe as we know it, ie all matter and energy confined in space and time, had a beginning. the singularity however was before time existed, so to talk about it causally is one of the most meaningless pursuits you could possibly engage in.

2. proof of universal or anthropic mechanism doesn't explain the human mind. On a universal scale though it does indicate that the laws of nature do apply to the universe and that it all works in a predescribed fasion. I know of no known self-sustaining machine in this universe. Why would I assume that the sum of it's parts are different from it's whole? Thusly I'm inclined to believe that mechanism implies design as does the nature of laws implies a law-giver.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam (Argument from ignorance)

Again, i did not ask what you are inclined to believe, i asked for proof of the existence of God.

1)That is an argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy.

2)Nature does the selection... through survival of the fittest, hence the name. The fact that you even had to ask the most basic question of natural selection suggests your knowledge of the theory is entirely inadequate to be using it as a serious argument anyway.

1. Yes it was I will reassert. When you see a watch you instinctively assume that it had a designer. When I see the complex developement of Granodiorite in Yosemite. The more science has found out about the complexity of the universe the less it appears random causality.

Paley's watch... really?

The idea that something in nature is too complex to be formed by natural process is the fallacy Argument from ignorance.

2. If there is a requirement for certain degrees I must have before a discussion please list them and I will kindly bow out. If you feel I am underqualified to even mention certain subjects please list them. However I believe it is called Ad Hominem.

No, you just need to stop committing logical fallacies.

3. Natural selection is subjective if selective pressure can be produced by any aspect of the environment including human nature and choice. Therefore it is not a complete arguement. When human choice is applied to selective evolution, and is based off intuition or predisposition, it logically leads to likened developement. I subconsciously must want me kids to be like me because they've learned how to "be" by observation. We are constantly evolving into more effecient and "usefull" beings. Ergo, we've learned how to "be" by imitating not nature but an idealistic and external existance that is greater than us.

1) Natural selection = Hostilities in the environment leading to fatalities of individuals that in turn will see that those best adapted to survive have a higher chance of surviving, intelligent hostilities and natural hostilities in this sense are no different.

2) Humans did not evolve in a particular direction towards specific predetermined goals, the fact that we are the way we are now is one of an inconceivably many ways we could have turned out, or not turned out at all, was the environment different from the beginning of evolution.

3) We don't imitate nature, we survive it.

Absolute nonsense, this is the weakest single argument i have ever seen for the existence of God. The fact that man can conceive of the infinite means nothing, whether this infinite thing be God or a number series.

It is not proof of God's existance but proof of what god is if he does exists. If evidence is cummulative this applies.

100 bad arguments do not culminate into a single valid one.

There is no proof there what-so-ever, just you asserting that morals require external authority, a completely unproven assumption in it's self.

Do you deny there is a moral law to society throughout history and today? Explain to me then how right and wrong are self-imposed or completely developed from natural instincts please.

There is moral law, it is subjective and changes over time, for instance your own holy book has an injunction that legalizes slavery - something i consider totally immoral, yet God apparently approves. There is also cases like Gay rights, i believe they should have every right everyone else has, yet other people disagree, this is evidence for subjective morality.

I believe moral laws arose from the development of social structures - but i have no idea why you think it is relevant - i asked for evidence for the existence of God.

What makes more sense to an individual is not in any way a reflection of what is true. Of course God makes it easy to explain everything, it is a literal blank Cheque you have given yourself, but just because you have a theory of everything still does not make it true.

Nor do I indeed state that I know what is the truth of the true God. I have an idea of God and it is backed by percievable evidence and they are congruent and that fascillitates belief of existance.

Whether you think you know the truth about God or not is irrelevant, i asked for evidence for his existence whether logical or empirical and you have provided nothing of the sort.

---

1. I do consider intuition evidence of God and do accept psychic phenomenon, ghosts and other people's belief systems. Intuition is also subjective; and, en masse, usually unreliable. On a personal, trial and error on effects, bassis though I've found my intuition very reliable.

2. Yes I've made some arguements from ignorance and lack of imagination. That's why I'm here. Thank you for pointing them out.

3. I'm glad we agree the universe had a beginning at least.

4."Many theories in physics have mathematical singularities of one kind or another. Equations for these physical theories predict that the rate of change of some quantity becomes infinite or increases without limit. This is generally a sign for a missing piece in the theory, as in the Ultraviolet Catastrophe and in renormalization." (ref) While I'm just parroting and have barely the foggiest idea of singularities and quantum physics, it seems to me that singularities are to science what God is to religion.

5. I had to look up Paley's watch, so thank you. While it indeed is a small analogy and by itself useless, everything in nature (human or the laws of) can't be explained by natural selection either. Why can't natural selection and evolution be a foundation for God's design?

6. What you're asking for throughout the rest is not evidence. Are you looking for objective, tangible scientific proof perhaps? If that's the case, since experience and parts of existance are subjective, and spiritual things are intangible I'm not sure I could provide you with any. Aside from that you probably wouldn't accept Geomagnetometers of EMF meters.

7. What I've come to realize in my brief time here is that In trying to "see God" a lot of atheists rely only on tangible, objective and scientific proof for their "world view". Am I wrong? Is this any worse than accepting belief on blind faith? I don't think it is. Let's use another metaphor:
You're told by 5 people that the twin towers have been blown up. You're skeptical, but after 100 people tell you and some of them were there, you want to see for yourself. You look in the news and internet for pictures and other "reliable evidence". You're still skeptical because the newspapers have an agenda and pictures can be doctored. You've determined to go "see it for yourself", which you can because it's a tangible place. You do and you believe. Long gone are the days when God takes people into the heavens and shows them true miracles. Maybe it's due to our skepticism, or lack of faith, idk. IMO heaven or the afterlife isn't a tangible place, but I believe it could exist and most likely does. If it does exist (which is unknowable) then I wouldn't need that much evidence to define what it really takes to get there. I can respect your search for truth and am perhaps the weaker for not struggling harder for proof. This is where we'll have to agree that without belief in the impossible we could never wholely agree. I'm sorry I couldn't provide the types of proof requested Void.

---

Aw did Pippy get his feelings hurt? We mock everything here, even each other, why do you think you are special? Besides CP already agreed with my addendum to his memo. I do have one serious question though.

Do you really believe that you choose to see god? If so, can you choose to NOT see god?

I vividly remember seeing god everywhere and in everything and it was overwhelming to the point I could not ignore it, then I continued to think about it and read up about how nature works; as knowledge grew, god shrank with no effort on my part. In fact, I exerted great effort to redefine god so it still had a place in my life. I say "it" not to poke fun, but to be inclusive. You see, god was a man(according to biblical teaching), then mother nature, then everything, and then me. I ran around those identities of god in no particular order, trying desperatly to fit it into my life, but eventually, like a slippery bar of soap, god slipped out of my grasp.

---

The question wasn't referenced to me, but I don't believe I choose to see God. What sticks out in me was that you tried desperatly to fit God into your life. Accepting God in your life affords him a place in it and no desperate attempts to justify are necessary. Perhaps you hadn't truly accpeted God?

---

CP,

I don't think it is a matter of choice. I don't choose NOT to see god everywhere any more than I choose not to believe in god. People who see god in everything are simply convinced differently than you or I. The more time I get under my belt the more I believe that we ARE all just little clockwork oranges.

Rhizo

---

With that last sentence are you asserting your belief that free will doesn't exist?


-PS thanx Saerules for the show content stuff. It's getting long and complicated.

[Pippy]

I don't have feelings Rhizo, just speaking my mind about illogical argument.

Of course you can choose not to see god.

Well it is either we can choose to see or not see god, or that we cannot. But either way, your disbelief and my belief are the same thing. That is the important point, the one of us is not convoluted and the other enlightened, but that we both have an opinion, an idea about something.

I had a similar trek as yourself. I was raised kind of christian and kind of Druidic... Then I realized that the Christian POV i was shown (but not the totality of the system) was flawed and I couldn't hold it up to my hyper-skeptical mind. So I became an Atheist for a few years, may be 6 or 8. Then I did some more learning about the systems and the world and nature and the human experience, and concluded that either there is a god that must or does remain a mystery, or not. Either way I choose to believe inasmuch as it is pragmatic. Belief gives me something to say 'thank you' to, and humility is paramount in my life. It gives me an ideal to conceive of. God only got smaller as I learned when I was imagining the wrong god, but the one I picture now only gets bigger with every new discovery.


And of course you can quote me Tack, you can even say you made it up if you want.

Thanks.

[ib.me.ub]

It is a common acceptance in the christian belief that God can not be truely known. An idea of God can be had because he has revealed himself to us. Gathering a definition of what you are trying to know is the first step on the road to truth. Definition is the reason to ask abouth things far from actual understanding.

1. Why do you talk in terms of a so-called Christian god?

2. What is your definition of god?