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

[fr0d0]

That's one hell of a pile of unsubstantiated claims chatty. All seemingly irrelevant to the topic in hand too.

[Violet]

You mean that someone else had created a camera prior to your creation of matter? Then sir, i'm arfaid you aren't all that godly

Huh... I didn't think of that.

Like all other Gods before him Dotard disappears in a puff of logic

Who's to say your creation of the universe was instantaneous? Perhaps you could have created the camera and taken a picture sometime during the creation process

[leo-rcc]

You mean that someone else had created a camera prior to your creation of matter? Then sir, i'm arfaid you aren't all that godly

Huh... I didn't think of that.

Like all other Gods before him Dotard disappears in a puff of logic

Love the Douglas Adams reference.

[theVOID]

..which equates to the same thing in my opinion... so can you explain how you can dismiss those two arguments so I can see?

It IS NOT the same thing. Disproving two arguments for the existence of God does not mean i have disproved God entirely.

The 'first cause' argument is easy two disprove for two simple reasons, though there are many arguments that take it out:

1) It is a blatantly obvious case of special pleading, ie 'everything that has a beginning has a cause, except God'

2) Not everything that has a beginning has a cause, for example a Carbon-14 atom can spontaneously decay into Nitrogen 14 emitting ionizing particles without anything at all acting upon it, no force, no energy, nothing. It is a truly random process that is entirely uncaused. Therefore claiming that everything that has a beginning has a cause is false. Considering that, Occams razor can be applied to show that the Creator/Prime Mover requires one more assumption than the singularity while not having any basis in necessity and is therefore not the preferred explanation logically.

The argument from fine tuning is destroyed by the context and scale of the universe. The argument that the universe was made for life is rendered ridiculous by the fact that for one life supporting planet in a tiny corner of the galaxy is accompanied by incomprehensibly vast regions of empty space, galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars and a universe with hundreds of billions of galaxies. In this scale life does appear as an extremely low probability occurrence that can take place only in very rare circumstances.

[chatpilot]

Unsubstantiated by you fr0d0 since you are so dismissive of anything that contradicts your claims of truth based upon your conviction that god exists.

[Pippy]

"It is a blatantly obvious case of special pleading, ie 'everything that has a beginning has a cause, except God'"

No, it's a case of mental flatulence to consider that there is no end to the chain of causality. You're right that the best two arguments are causality and design, but I agree with Frodo, that I would like to see you try to topple them.
Either cause and effect go back in literal infinite quantities (which I forward CAN NOT exist in this reality, we can make a name for the infinite, and pretend to understand it, but it is not real in the sense that it can never happen). So it is special pleading that nothing made the universe, because it seems less likely that there is the impossibility of infinity, and slightly more likely that there is something we haven't figured out yet. you think god is impossible, but I think infinity in reality is more impossible.

And perceived design, also strong. There are a lot of factors that make life, and sentient life possible here today. It is either that they happened by chance, or by design. Either us being here now is fantastic good luck (and the further back, and smaller scale you look, it really is fantastic good) or it is not.

So we have two ideas. One is that the universe never really started, or that the thing that started the universe never really started, or that it did by chance. Then the universe built up to support billions of years of action, and million of life. Tens of thousands of years of advanced hominid life, and a few thousand years of sentience. As much as we can appreciate the beauty of the system, it is all just random. There is no reason that it ended up as such a beautiful machine.

Or, and I think more likely, there is more to the picture, if only because that world view is showing obvious flaws.

[Zhalentine]

"It is a blatantly obvious case of special pleading, ie 'everything that has a beginning has a cause, except God'"

No, it's a case of mental flatulence to consider that there is no end to the chain of causality. You're right that the best two arguments are causality and design, but I agree with Frodo, that I would like to see you try to topple them.
Either cause and effect go back in literal infinite quantities (which I forward CAN NOT exist in this reality, we can make a name for the infinite, and pretend to understand it, but it is not real in the sense that it can never happen). So it is special pleading that nothing made the universe, because it seems less likely that there is the impossibility of infinity, and slightly more likely that there is something we haven't figured out yet. you think god is impossible, but I think infinity in reality is more impossible.

And perceived design, also strong. There are a lot of factors that make life, and sentient life possible here today. It is either that they happened by chance, or by design. Either us being here now is fantastic good luck (and the further back, and smaller scale you look, it really is fantastic good) or it is not.

So we have two ideas. One is that the universe never really started, or that the thing that started the universe never really started, or that it did by chance. Then the universe built up to support billions of years of action, and million of life. Tens of thousands of years of advanced hominid life, and a few thousand years of sentience. As much as we can appreciate the beauty of the system, it is all just random. There is no reason that it ended up as such a beautiful machine.

Or, and I think more likely, there is more to the picture, if only because that world view is showing obvious flaws.

Time is simply the period between two points. If I choose any point in time and specify no end, would you agree that time would therefore be infinite? I don't see how you can claim that infinity can not exist...

From what I understand of your post, you believe in a creator because there is a small chance that random events occurred that lead to life? What do you think the odds of are of a creator coming from no where, or simply always existing (a lot more unlikely than random events)? Why do you think the creator coming from no where or always existing is more likely than matter always existing? Perhaps you can connect the dots for me on how you went from something having a low chance of occurring to a creator must exist in order for it to happen.

"Then the universe built up to support billions of years of action, and million of life. Tens of thousands of years of advanced hominid life, and a few thousand years of sentience. As much as we can appreciate the beauty of the system, it is all just random. There is no reason that it ended up as such a beautiful machine."

That sounds a lot like you're saying that the universe built itself up around life, whereas the saying "structure affects function" could never be more true. The universe is the structure and life is the function. Life is building itself around the universe. This can be seen by observing all the species on Earth and what features they have compared to what environment they are in. There is a reason you don't see reptiles in Antarctica, because the structure(cold weather) doesn't support the function (cold blooded animals with no way to generate heat internally)

[theVOID]

"It is a blatantly obvious case of special pleading, ie 'everything that has a beginning has a cause, except God'"

No, it's a case of mental flatulence to consider that there is no end to the chain of causality. You're right that the best two arguments are causality and design, but I agree with Frodo, that I would like to see you try to topple them.
Either cause and effect go back in literal infinite quantities (which I forward CAN NOT exist in this reality, we can make a name for the infinite, and pretend to understand it, but it is not real in the sense that it can never happen). So it is special pleading that nothing made the universe, because it seems less likely that there is the impossibility of infinity, and slightly more likely that there is something we haven't figured out yet. you think god is impossible, but I think infinity in reality is more impossible.

And perceived design, also strong. There are a lot of factors that make life, and sentient life possible here today. It is either that they happened by chance, or by design. Either us being here now is fantastic good luck (and the further back, and smaller scale you look, it really is fantastic good) or it is not.

So we have two ideas. One is that the universe never really started, or that the thing that started the universe never really started, or that it did by chance. Then the universe built up to support billions of years of action, and million of life. Tens of thousands of years of advanced hominid life, and a few thousand years of sentience. As much as we can appreciate the beauty of the system, it is all just random. There is no reason that it ended up as such a beautiful machine.

Or, and I think more likely, there is more to the picture, if only because that world view is showing obvious flaws.

Did i ever say once that this proves an infinite regress or multi-verse theory or the while hole hypothesis? NO - My position is that we do not know, all of these explanations are thus far unprovable and offer no more substance in favor than each other. The singularity is the only one with any supporting evidence, so it requires the least amount of assumptions, and considering that space and time in our universe came from the big bang and did not exist prior in this theory the logical conclusion is it would be infinite. We know for a fact that events on the Quantum level can be uncaused, so there is also support for the idea that the singularity spontaneously lost stability because in infinity in terms of quantum mechanics, every event that can possibly happen will happen, and if only stability and non-stability are possible then they must both happen. Of course this idea isn't a certain at all, but this far it is the explanation with the most evidence supporting it, evidentiary or otherwise.

For the record, i do not claim that God can be disproved for the reason that it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis - my position is that there is no evidence for the existence of God and therefore i withhold belief and will continue to do so until the evidence presents it's self, assuming it exists at all.

So before you go arguing against a position i don't hold again you might want to carefully process what it is i actually said.

[tackattack]

I would be interested to see what you consider to be the very best arguments for the existence of God are. Do you think you have a solid argument for the existence of God? Please share

Okay, back from the holidays and I see a lot has been going on,

presupositions
1-The best evidence should be suitable to the object of proof. Historical truth requires historical evidence. empirical truth, the testimony of experience. mathmatical truth, mathmatical evidence and equation. Thusly; spiritual truth , demonstrations of the spirit.
2- evidence is cummulative and once a threshold is attained belief can superimpose faith.
3- Without allowing for the possiblity of the impossible, one can believe in nothing.

John 12-15"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.

arguments
1- Intuition. Religious elements, or a belief system, of our nature is as universal as rational elements and social elements. Sensory perceptions, intellectual intuitions and moral intutions being 3 types of intuition. "When a man feels pain, he may refer it to the wrong place, or to a wrong cause; but he knows that it is pain. If he sees an object, he may be mistaken as to its nature; but he knows that he sees, and that what he sees is the cause of the sensation which he experiences. These are intuitions, because they are immediate perceptions of what is true. The conviction which attends our sensations is due not to instruction but to the constitution of our nature."-Hodge (ref) Intuition allows no proof necessary. I don't have to convince anyone that the shortest distance between 2 lines, geometrically, is a straight line, or that there exists right and wrong. It can be supported by current practical experience, but none is necessary for convition of belief.

2- The bible doesn't try to convince man that God exists, it is the presuposition that "In the begining God..." And was written by believers for believers. It does contain analytical accounts on the idea of God and a developing idea of the properties of said God. Other religious works use the same presupositions for their diety/ dieties allowing for intuitive acceptance of a God.

3- Creator arguement. I don't believe the universe to be eternal. Existance in this universe is contigent, or dependant. Meaning every part of it is dependent on or affect the other parts. Cause produce effect, which are themselves an effect unto themselves. From current observation we have seen stars cease, buildings crumble, corpses decay to dust. Nothing within our observation (being finite creatures) is independant or self-sustaining. Why then would I assume that our universe is eternal and independant. I personally feel the universe will entropy and had a beginning, but won't reference the second law seing as it doesn't apply. If it is not self-sustaining and began, it needs a catalyst for it's inception. No where in here did I state that God can't have a creator. I won't make suppositions outside of my percievable existance though.

4-Intelligent design. While I agree with evolution and some part of natural selection leading to today's society, I can not account for the idealistic morals, societal developement and hugely complicated eco-system which we live in and reasonably accept the lack of extra-terrestial life elswhere as not having a specific design. While I agree that intellegent design, as a movement, is very small minded and "junk science" you can't really scientifically measure the intangible. Selective evolution has shown a lot of real promise for creation. It begs the question who did the selecting though.

5- If God is intuitive, man "argues that we have an idea of God. This idea of God is infinitely greater than man himself. Hence, it cannot have it's origin in man. It can only have it's origin in God himself"-Hoeksema

6-Moralistic arguement. Everyone has a belief of right and wrong. We'll call it a voice or conscience. I'm sure I'd enjoy life a lot more if I didn't feel guilty when going to a stip club or wanting to bash in the head of that jerk in the office. This sense of duty has no regard for my inclinations and is not self-imposed wholely. It also supposes a speaker.

7- Congruity. The postulate that God exists best explains moral, mental and religious nature, matter in the universe and the laws of the material universe. Can we really see every particle that science inffers, or do we postulate an explination that harmonizes the observable results?

I'm too tired to type more ATM.

[fr0d0]

---

..which equates to the same thing in my opinion... so can you explain how you can dismiss those two arguments so I can see?

It IS NOT the same thing. Disproving two arguments for the existence of God does not mean i have disproved God entirely.

The 'first cause' argument is easy two disprove for two simple reasons, though there are many arguments that take it out:

1) It is a blatantly obvious case of special pleading, ie 'everything that has a beginning has a cause, except God'

2) Not everything that has a beginning has a cause, for example a Carbon-14 atom can spontaneously decay into Nitrogen 14 emitting ionizing particles without anything at all acting upon it, no force, no energy, nothing. It is a truly random process that is entirely uncaused. Therefore claiming that everything that has a beginning has a cause is false. Considering that, Occams razor can be applied to show that the Creator/Prime Mover requires one more assumption than the singularity while not having any basis in necessity and is therefore not the preferred explanation logically.

The argument from fine tuning is destroyed by the context and scale of the universe. The argument that the universe was made for life is rendered ridiculous by the fact that for one life supporting planet in a tiny corner of the galaxy is accompanied by incomprehensibly vast regions of empty space, galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars and a universe with hundreds of billions of galaxies. In this scale life does appear as an extremely low probability occurrence that can take place only in very rare circumstances.

---

Thanks for doing that VOID Unfortunately I just lost a reply due to an error posting. Here goes again...

That God is timeless and therefore defies first cause logically is not special pleading. Special pleading would be evoked if the claim was that God was constrained by time the same as the universe but was also exempt from first cause.

Carbon-14 atom produced Nitrogen 14 emitting ionizing particles are created by the Carbon 14 atom are they not? Can you show me a source for that if I'm wrong? And does this fact not then equally disprove the theory of a big bang? / Presumably these particles don't fall outside of the physical universe we understand to have emanated from a first cause?

Does the big bang theory offer a solution to first cause? It fits with first cause. So we're not adding to something complete. Occam's razor doesn't apply. We aren't invoking an illogicality.

Equally to fine tuning we could apply the opposite standpoint: the rarity of life proving divine providence. I don't assume confirmation from 50/ 50 scenarios & wouldn't expect science to either.