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

[Purple Rabbit]

---

What these discussions time after time show is that christianity claims definite answers with unsound reasoning and competes for it with science. If NOMA applies then why should christianity bother with the origin of the physical universe at all? Right, cause NOMA isn't accepted by christianity either. Christianity claims that the border between the supernatural and the natural world is somehow magically tresspassed. Accordingly, and most conveniently for christians, it is trespassed right at the borders of scientific understanding right now: in our brains and as the cause of the big bang.

Science, not religious dogma, showed us that the earth is not flat.
Science, not religious claims, showed us that the earth is not in the center of the world and that with the heliocentric model, the orbits of the planets could be predicted very accurately.
Science, not religious magic, has shown that our sun is nothing but a star in a vast ocean of stars.
Science, not holy scripture, has shown that the 'bang' of the big bang can still be heard as 3K cosmical background radiation.
Science, not religious prayer, has shown that time and space are intertwined and that there is more to causation and detemination than a simple 'god did it'.
Science, not religious fortune cookies, has shown that the big bang took place 13.7 billions years ago.
Science, not religious healing sessions, has brought us deep insights in the working of the human body, medical treatment and some understanding of the human brain and mind.

---

I didn't know science and religion were so diametricaly opposed.

Around 330 BC, Aristotle provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth. The Jerusalem Talmud says that Alexander of Macedon was lifted by birds to the point that he saw the curvature of the earth. This story is mentioned as well by the Tosafos commentary on the Babylonian Talmud. This is used to explain why a statue of a person holding a sphere in his hand is assumed to be an idol. The sphere being held in its hand symbolizing the idol's purported dominion over the world whose shape is a sphere. (ref) I don't see how Early Christianty did anything but help procreate the correct scientific opinion in this instance. Please extrapolate your point. Thank you.

In fact they were never more opposed than today.

In the old days before science emerged as a separate method there was no strong divide between philosophy, science and religion. The word science had not been invented yet. The closest thing to it were the activities of the greek philosophers, though the empirical approach to it, which is so typical for the scientific method, was regarded as inferior to thought about nature. This thought-based view on nature led to all sorts of predispositions and concepts, some rooted in aesthetic ideas. The circle for instance was regarded to have superior form. These thoughts about superior form were supported by the emergence of mathematics, predominantly geometry, which is an entirely thought-based discipline and was greatly developed by the greek philosophers.

Please observe that Aristotle provided no observational evidence himself, he merely used anecdotal evidence to arrive at a conclusion. It was a great achievement of Erasthosthenes, roughly a century after Aristotle, and one of the first recorded cases of application of empirical methodology of that magnitude we know of, to measure the circumference of the earth with astonishing accuracy.

Aristotle surely was a great philosopher however and it would be unfair to judge him on the basis of what we know today. Aristotle set a standard for the western world and it was widely regarded as such at the time. Because of that, in the early centuries of christianity the cosmological basis that Aristotle had provided, a geocentrical one, was merged with christian dogma knowingly and willingly by the church. So in those days christian dogma was in perfect accordance with what was seen as the best knowledge around. Because of this self-chosen bond between christian dogma and Aristotelian cosmology later it would become very difficult indeed for the church to acknowledge that their Aristotelian geocentrical view proved to be wrong. In essence the church had not anticipated the tentative nature of human knowledge. And that's what time after time keeps surfacing as a huge problem for religion in relation to science. The basic difference between religious and scientific truth finding is that the scientific method incorporates the dynamics of new evidence to arrive at tentative knowledge while the religious truth finding relies on interpretation and re-interpretation of dogma alone to arrive at absolute claims. Anyone can see that this means trouble and that the divide will keep on growing.

The divide has astronomical proportions right now, yet vast groups of christian believers ignore the fact that the church did claim knowledge of the physical world in the past and still claims knowledge of the physical world in every niche that is left. There's vastly more reliable evidence available now than 2000 years ago. In those days the vast majority was illiterate, now the availability of knowledge is greater than ever before. And the gaping hole between science and biblical account is so appalling that the only way around this is building hide outs in metaphorical bible interpretation. But really, if the religious and scientific aspiration about truth would really be on totally different aspects of existence, then why claim first cause as an explanation for the big bang?

[ib.me.ub]

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?

[Pippy]

Hey,

This is slowly getting over my head, and form the outset I am in the wrong place. I do not intend to defend any "christian" concept of god, only to show why I believe in the god I personally believe in. So that makes it kind of out of place, as you were addressing a group of believers and concepts I am not part of...

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...

That demonstrates my point. If I choose any point in time and specify no end, then that would establish a theoretical infinity. But that has nothing to do with reality, only with me picking and choosing points to make a mathematical theory. If I may repeat, infinity can exist as an abstract concept, but I would ask for proof that infinity can exist in the real world. Infinity is not even a number, or symbol of a real thing, but a lack of a number, a symbol of a concept. It is akin to zero.

You can argue that infinity can be conceived of, but not that is exists. My argument for god is that it is less likley that things in reality can exist in a state of infinity than it is that there is some creative force to this universe and reality.

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?

Then I fear you did not understand much from my post. I believe in a creator because it is more likely, not based on some "small chance". That the likelihood of creation trumps the likelihood of random chance, in terms of the construction of our universe and reality. That a designer is a much more plausible idea than happenstance, even taking in the problem of defining reality from within.

That sounds a lot like you're saying that the universe built itself up around life,

That is also a point I did not make. I am not positing that a creator god made life, and then a world in which to place it. I am arguing that the functions of the systems do not fit neatly into a trial and error world of chance.

A point I like to make is that there are two options when facing such large concepts. Either there is randomness, and we perceive patterns incorrectly from it, or there is a pattern of such scale that it has the appearance of randomness. I lean towards the second, as a really random system would be infinite, and a patterned system would have a beginning and an end.

The whole argument that is positing a no-god world is to include infinity within reality, and those cannot be congruent.

Void, you are closer to actually arguing my points, thank you. To me the singularity is akin to infinity, it seems very, very unlikely in reality. I would disagree that quantum mechanics involve effects without causes, but that we are missing the causes. Like the god argument, it is about weighing one likelihood versus another. It seems unlikely that even the quantum world breaks the rules of reality, but that we are misunderstanding it's structure.

But it is a good example of how fundamental workings of systems can be beyond our current comprehension, that we are not at the edge of human knowledge, but have a ways to travel yet.

Thanks for your time,
I'm gonna go to the bookstore, but it is -20 and windy, so I might not make it back. Why do I live in such an inhospitable climate? Oh yeah, the politics...

[chatpilot]

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.

[Ashes1995]

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

[Pippy]

She didn't design humans with the end result of us "smart" modern creatures, she made the rules and systems that after long progress those made us.

The fact that there are natural disasters and murders does not mean there is no god. The god you are envisioning would be about as smart as a two year old. The existence of "bad" things does not mean god failed, but that we haven't taken into account the necessity of these things.

You can tell yourself that because the world is not perfect in your little bubble, that there is no god, but it is fallacious. There would not be human life, and the ability to have these discussions if the world was not exactly the way it is, good and bad.

And Chat, I appreciate your take. Whether or not there is this much touted evidence of gods existence is circumstantial and subjective. I see evidence of god everywhere I look, you do not. Neither of us is wrong until we try to tell the other to see it our way.

And either way, we will know at the end of this journey. So let us remain open to each others beliefs, and not descend that "New Atheism" (or old religion) spiral of fanaticism and intolerance.

Thanks.

[leo-rcc]

Can you define this "new atheism" for me please?

[Minimalist]

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.

Bravo!

[Pope Alfred]

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.

Bravo!

Seconded.

[Purple Rabbit]

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.