RE: Christians, what is your VERY BEST arguments for the existence of God?
April 3, 2010 at 1:07 pm
"How do you know that God isn't made up of interrelated parts?" is how I would respond to that. The problem I see with your argument is that you are interpreting God singularly (which is fine) but then interpreting the universe as the sum of its parts. Such is an invalid comparison.
It would be like saying the computer monitor as a single entity isn't complex (all it does is display images!), and then say that an circuit board is so intrinsically complex, with so many tiny connections, the microchips doing all the processing, etc, etc. Of course, this argument forgets that there are lots of circuit boards inside the monitor.
So the problems with suggesting God isn't complex is two-fold. One, you are making a dodgy comparison, and two, you have no way of knowing what God is made of, what constitutes "God" as a being, and as such cannot make a clear comparison whatever the other entity is.
As for not seeing the logical step as to why God is not the less complex answer, I'll admit it is a hard one. Our minds want there to be a cause to everything, and God fulfills that cause so easily. Of course, when we ask for the cause of God, we have a neat answer "he has no cause; he's eternal". But now consider our original proposal, that the universe has a cause. If we have come up with the cause as "God" to sort out this problem, only to then say that God has no cause, surely the simpler solution is to take out the supposed being "God" from the equation and say that the universe itself had no cause? We know the universe exists; we do not know that God exists. Thus to suppose God and yet not subject that supposition to the same rules we have for evaluating the existence of the universe is faulty logic. If God can be eternal, why can't the universe?
It would be like saying the computer monitor as a single entity isn't complex (all it does is display images!), and then say that an circuit board is so intrinsically complex, with so many tiny connections, the microchips doing all the processing, etc, etc. Of course, this argument forgets that there are lots of circuit boards inside the monitor.
So the problems with suggesting God isn't complex is two-fold. One, you are making a dodgy comparison, and two, you have no way of knowing what God is made of, what constitutes "God" as a being, and as such cannot make a clear comparison whatever the other entity is.
As for not seeing the logical step as to why God is not the less complex answer, I'll admit it is a hard one. Our minds want there to be a cause to everything, and God fulfills that cause so easily. Of course, when we ask for the cause of God, we have a neat answer "he has no cause; he's eternal". But now consider our original proposal, that the universe has a cause. If we have come up with the cause as "God" to sort out this problem, only to then say that God has no cause, surely the simpler solution is to take out the supposed being "God" from the equation and say that the universe itself had no cause? We know the universe exists; we do not know that God exists. Thus to suppose God and yet not subject that supposition to the same rules we have for evaluating the existence of the universe is faulty logic. If God can be eternal, why can't the universe?
