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

[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.

---

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.

The singularity is also 'timeless' as described in relativity as it gave birth to both time and space. There is no difference between the claim that God is outside of the universe and that the singularity is outside of time - both are infinite by definition and do not require a 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?

The Decay it's self is uncaused (not part of a causal chain)

How does that even remotely disprove the big bang? Your argument makes no sense.

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.

The big bang theory is that all matter and energy was condensed into a point of zero size (no space) which became unstable and expanded into the universe we know today - it is an attempt at the first cause for the universe, and right or wrong their is actually evidence to suggest it happened, weighing in favor of the singularity whereas the case for God has no such supporting evidence. You can still place God behind the singularity but that is yet another assumption and therefore violates Occams Razor.

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.

The rarity of life proves nothing more than life is rare, whether the origins of life are naturalistic or supernatural is another issue entirely, however the idea that God put the first life forms of life is unfalsifiable and also has no evidence in favor for it and therefore cannot be proof for the existence of God.

[fr0d0]

The singularity is also 'timeless' as described in relativity as it gave birth to both time and space. There is no difference between the claim that God is outside of the universe and that the singularity is outside of time - both are infinite by definition and do not require a cause.

So the two are the same. That's what I thought.

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?

The Decay it's self is uncaused (not part of a causal chain)

How does that even remotely disprove the big bang? Your argument makes no sense.

That it's part of the physical universe makes it consistent with both the singularity and first cause. If it doesn't then your first statement (above) is incorrect.

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.

The rarity of life proves nothing more than life is rare, whether the origins of life are naturalistic or supernatural is another issue entirely, however the idea that God put the first life forms of life is unfalsifiable and also has no evidence in favor for it and therefore cannot be proof for the existence of God.

& the same applies conversely. You're using a 50/ 50 argument.

[theVOID]

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.

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.

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.

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

1) Whether you personally believe the universe is eternal or not is not relevant, if you want to use it as an argument you must prove it first.

2) Causality is not proof of god, just proof of mechanism so suggesting that because the parts of the universe influence each other there must be a god is illogical.

3) The universe not being eternal is not relevant - the matter and energy that make up the universe cannot be created nor destroyed as stated by the thermodynamic law for the conservation of energy , whether it be in the form of a singularity or a vast empty universe plagues by entropy does not matter.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

---

The singularity is also 'timeless' as described in relativity as it gave birth to both time and space. There is no difference between the claim that God is outside of the universe and that the singularity is outside of time - both are infinite by definition and do not require a cause.

So the two are the same. That's what I thought.

Yes and thus disproves the First-cause argument for the existence of god.

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?

The Decay it's self is uncaused (not part of a causal chain)

How does that even remotely disprove the big bang? Your argument makes no sense.

That it's part of the physical universe makes it consistent with both the singularity and first cause. If it doesn't then your first statement (above) is incorrect.

That what is part of the universe? I have no idea what you are trying to get at here,, can you make it more clear?

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.

The rarity of life proves nothing more than life is rare, whether the origins of life are naturalistic or supernatural is another issue entirely, however the idea that God put the first life forms of life is unfalsifiable and also has no evidence in favor for it and therefore cannot be proof for the existence of God.

& the same applies conversely. You're using a 50/ 50 argument.

Yes, but i am not trying to prove one position over another, i am trying to disprove it as an argument for the existence of God, which i did, because it moves the argument no further from the initial assumption than it was at the beginning.

[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.

Well, on the face of it, it should be stated clearly that science does not claim any definite (or even a near definite) answers on the beginning of the Universe. This at the moment is still a highly speculative field of research. But what science already shows, is that there are more possible models that fit the big bang and in each of them there is no part for a god. Yet these still clumsy models have more predictive and explanative power than the religious claim has ever had.

One model is that time itself originated from the big bang. Another model is that we are living in a Multiverse and that the big bang was triggered by collision of parallel universes (branes). The parallel universe model is the first model on the block that gives some clue about the distribution of matter in the early universe. Religion has no part in these discussions whatsoever. Still christians, theologians and followers, are putting forward the same totally unsubstantiated claims. These religious claims have no predictive and explanative power whatsoever since they say nothing on facts we can check (like why the cosmic microwave background (CMB) is at 3K or why there can be lumps of matter in what looks like a perfect symmetrical event, the expansion of the universe, the amount of hydrogen in the early universe, and so on). But predictive and explanative power are exactly the hallmark of reliable models. Religion only offers dogma and reinterpreted dogma instead.

Also observe how the world of christianity has outrageously grown, from the simple up in the sky and below our feet of the bible, to this immensely expanding observable universe in which humanity has a very minor role. Christianity has been trying to keep up with this by restating old claims (genesis is an accurate account of creation) in new ones (genesis is metaphor, but god is first cause for the universe). The bible addresses only humans on planet earth, but since there are roughly some 10 to the 22th planets in the visible universe it is unlikely that humans will be unique.

Where is the predictive and explanative power of christianity, one might ask. The baffling answer is that there is none whatsoever even after centuries of hard theological labour, literal and metaphorical interpretation and re-interpretation. The only conclusion can be that religion has no substance at all in explaning anything about this world we live in.

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.

Please christianity, leave these things to science, since the embarassment is taking on humongous proportions. Hide your gods, (arch) angels, prophecies, and all supernatural claims deep in the sand before it becomes impossible to avoid the eternal laughter of the multiverse.

[theVOID]

And the best part is this:

How many of the false claims did the religious authorities disprove themselves? None, they weren't interested in the truth, they were only interested in being right.

[fr0d0]

So from a perspective of science you are dismissing Christianity Rabbit? Reason enough to attract the eternal laughter of the universe in itself. What we're talking about here are indeed explanations from different perspectives... how the theological proposition may be found wanting compared to current scientific knowledge. So far the goatherders are doing perfectly well. Be a good chap and crawl back up your rectum until summoned.

[Purple Rabbit]

So from a perspective of science you are dismissing Christianity Rabbit? Reason enough to attract the eternal laughter of the universe in itself. What we're talking about here are indeed explanations from different perspectives... how the theological proposition may be found wanting compared to current scientific knowledge. So far the goatherders are doing perfectly well. Be a good chap and crawl back up your rectum until summoned.

I won't crawl in places where religion hides, thank you.

You still owe me that list of great beneficial achievements of century long theological fermentation on goatherders texts. Theology eplains nothing at all. But I'm sure you can tell me how the non-contingent actuality with theological certainty roams your arse.

Your anal preoccupation shows it got your deep attention. I have no part in the dismissal of any claims of christianity on phyiscal fact however. Christianity has dismissed itself explicitly since Galileo. Consider it sort of a suppository, my friend.

[tackattack]

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.
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.
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.

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.

1) Whether you personally believe the universe is eternal or not is not relevant, if you want to use it as an argument you must prove it first.

2) Causality is not proof of god, just proof of mechanism so suggesting that because the parts of the universe influence each other there must be a god is illogical.

3) The universe not being eternal is not relevant - the matter and energy that make up the universe cannot be created nor destroyed as stated by the thermodynamic law for the conservation of energy , whether it be in the form of a singularity or a vast empty universe plagues by entropy does not matter.

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.
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.

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.
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.
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.

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.

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. I

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.

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.
.

-Dave

[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

[tackattack]

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.