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

[roundsquare]

Padriac thanks for your response first of all. now without time to spare lets take a look at what you said. you said that quantum events happen without a cause, meaning they are acausal. thus u conclude that premise 1 of the kca has been defeated. well then, care to give us a list these acausal quantum events? atheists usually have virtual particle formation that lead to hawking radiation in mind when they talk of acausal events. however they are not these particles arent uncaused. they are fluctuations of the energy vacuum. the quantum vacuum wherein they form is not nothing. it is a sea of energy. so in quantum physics as in everyday experience there are always causes. there is no known exception to the causal principle. then you said that there isnt enough evidence to think that the causal principles applied prior to the big bang. but why would we think it didnt apply before the big bang? its a principle that permeates every aspect of normal day experience even the subatomic level. can you provide valid reasons as to why it might not apply before the big bang. maybe you are under the impression that the causal principal is akin to a law of nature, like the boyles law, or entropy which only hold within our universe. but the causal principle is not a physical law of nature, but a metaphysical principle. this principle is not contigent on any property of the universe, so why wouldnt it apply prior to the big bang?

---

Tavarish to my philosophical argument against an eternal universe you say that i am again assuming the causal principle was applicable prior to the big bang. its not clear to me how i have assumed this, infact how can i do this when im dealing with a eternal universe and not a finite one? moving on you are yet to deal with the philosophical argument ive presented. your claim that i said there is a God because everything has a cause is at best a terrible distortion of what i actually said. refer to the relevant post to see what i said. as a result your counter analogy of a unicorn fails as it doesnt deal with the kca but a caricature of it. as to your objections regarding my argument from id, it is irrelevant that natural systems replicate, natural systems still are ordered complexities with interworking interacting parts that are no less complex. and these sort of complexity has never been observed to arise apart from an intelligent cause. your driftwood example of complexity doesnt come close, infact it is a categorical error to compare it with biological systems or a pocket watch. evolutionist have never provided evidence for evolution producing biological complexity. instead theyve only provided handwaving and bedtime stories, and what james shapiro call wishfull speculation. as to your genetic similarities argument it can just as well be better used as an argument for the creator. we should expect a designer to use similar designs in his different inventions. also if genes from different organisms were utterly different what would we eat. genetic similarity between organisms allow our bodies to digest and use the food we eat.

---

genetic similarities has raised challenges for evolution, because there have been situations where phylogenetic tree based on gene similarity doesnt rhyme with the fossil record.

[chatpilot]

roundsquare wrote: "1. everything that begins to exist has a cause outside itself. 2.the universe began to exist. hence it is deduced that the universe has a cause. "

I was going to ask you if the above statement is true then what brought your god into existence? But upon second thought I already know what your reply would most likely be. God did not begin to exist he is eternal and has no beginning nor end. Now does that make sense to you?Your god being the uncaused cause makes no sense at all and it would take a leap of faith to accept it.

The argument from design fails miserably when it is put to the test. There are many things that are designed that could have been done better. Our own bodies have organs we don't even use and the eye itself is not so perfect as many think.

[roundsquare]

In an earlier post i pointed out that space-time including energy/matter had a beginning, this is what modern cosmology in the form of the big bang would have us understand. so whatever the cause of the universe is, it has to be non-spatial and timeless because these things began to exist at finite past, 15-20 billion years ago is cosmologists estimations of when the big bang occured, the cause of the universe also has to be immaterial because matter began to exist again at a finite past. the complexity of lifeforms and the simple yet mightilly effective laws that run the universe hint that the cause of the universe should also be intelligent and powerfull. it is up to you to decide what or who you want to identify as the creator but this creator of the universe curiously fit the description of the judeo-christian GOD. NOW the question what caused the creator is irrelevant caused or uncaused he is still the creator, however to avoid an infinite regress of creators, in keeping with occams razor its better to say that GOD has no cause, to keep things clean and simple.

[chatpilot]

roundtable wrote: "NOW the question what caused the creator is irrelevant caused or uncaused he is still the creator, however to avoid an infinite regress of creators, in keeping with occams razor its better to say that GOD has no cause, to keep things clean and simple."

Exactly!! You answered the way I expected you to. Faith is as I always like to say the ultimate equalizer in arguments of logic and reason since you don't need either to accept anything by faith.

[Darwinian]

All that modern cosmology says is that the universe that we know and love came into existence 13.7 billion years ago in the form of a big bang. Although this is not really the best description. A better description would be a sudden and unstoppable expansion of a singularity which then caused inflation.

We do not know that time started at this point as we cannot peer beyond it. As far as we know this singularity which has lead to our universe had always existed so, in keeping with Occams Razor it's better to say that the singularity and therefore the Universe has no cause, to keep things clean and simple.

[roundsquare]

ABOUT id you say that when put to the test it doesnt just fail it fails "MISERABLY". that is a huge claim and i was suprised that you didnt specify what test it is that id fails miserably when put to. but you mention bad design for which you give the inverted human retina as an example 2ndly you mention vestigal organs. i dont c how either one of these things object to the id argument, organs badly designed or useless still are composed of intricately complex cells and cellular machinery. many of the human designs are not efficient and plain bad and just by considering the history of air transport this becomes clear, yet no ever said that a plain wasnt designed regardless of how badly designed it was. basically the only point you may raise here is that the designer is a bad designer, i am not sure that even that conclusion is valid, because if we regard the designers motives, it could be that the designer felt like creating bad designs or including what some may allude to as useless parts in his designs like male nipples for cosmetic reasons like the peacocks brightly coloured feathers. about the human eyes i dont think any seeing person would give them up and any blind folk would reject them on the basis of them being supposedly badly designed, even those that assert they are will not give them up on any day. as to vestigal organs, the number of these is always decreasing as more and more knowledge is secured about the human body. also certain organs may have lost function overtime, perhaps due to mutations, and are trully useles today, e.g. blind fish that live in caves, they have non-functional eyes, what use is eyesight in dark caves, so the function is not selected as it were and is eventually lost.

---

The singularity hasnt always existed in what form may i ask? it too came to be. since space-time, matter/energy all began to exist, there was basically nothing prior. what caused these things to begin to exist?

---

shrinking space-time to its extreme, a point is arrived at when all distances in the universe is shrunk to zero. we no longer speak of dimensions or time at this point, and cosmologist quit here, because here we have NOTHING.

[tavarish]

First off, you might want to use the Return or Enter key, it's not very much fun scaling a wall of text.

Ok, let's get on with it.

Tavarish to my philosophical argument against an eternal universe you say that i am again assuming the causal principle was applicable prior to the big bang. its not clear to me how i have assumed this, infact how can i do this when im dealing with a eternal universe and not a finite one?

How are you dealing with an eternal universe if you contend that it had a creator?

e·ter·nal (-tûrnl)
adj.
1. Being without beginning or end; existing outside of time. See Synonyms at infinite.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/eternal

moving on you are yet to deal with the philosophical argument ive presented. your claim that i said there is a God because everything has a cause is at best a terrible distortion of what i actually said. refer to the relevant post to see what i said.

The kalam cosmological argument is an argument that states everything has a cause, and the first cause is God. Was I missing something there?

as a result your counter analogy of a unicorn fails as it doesnt deal with the kca but a caricature of it.

My analogy deals with the exact same method of assuming an outcome based on a single facet or observation. In order for it to be consistent with reality, the kalam first has to define God, then demonstrate that he exists. Only after that, observations can be made as to his nature and possible intentions. The argument covers none of that, and assumes his necessary existence beforehand. Tell me, if we replaced "God" with "committee of fairies", what would change?

as to your objections regarding my argument from id, it is irrelevant that natural systems replicate, natural systems still are ordered complexities with interworking interacting parts that are no less complex.

And that's where your argument fails. The fact that these organisms replicate is exactly why complexity occurs. It is ONLY through development of imperfect self-replicating genes and environmental pressure, all of it is accounted for pretty conclusively. However, it is important to note that natural selection does not always favor more complex organisms, as evolution isn't progressive.

Here are a few peer-reviewed articles to further the point:

What is complexity?
Christoph Adami

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journ...1&SRETRY=0

Evolution of biological complexity

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/9/4463.full

and these sort of complexity has never been observed to arise apart from an intelligent cause.

Provide evidence for this.

your driftwood example of complexity doesnt come close, infact it is a categorical error to compare it with biological systems or a pocket watch.

The driftwood in my example is a complex biological system.

evolutionist have never provided evidence for evolution producing biological complexity. instead theyve only provided handwaving and bedtime stories, and what james shapiro call wishfull speculation.

I'll refer you to the two scholarly articles I posted above, and I'll add this one, as it doesn't seem like you fully understand what evolution actually is.

Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer

Francisco J. Ayala

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl.1/8567.full

as to your genetic similarities argument it can just as well be better used as an argument for the creator. we should expect a designer to use similar designs in his different inventions.

We can make any claim we want when it doesn't require supporting evidence and its basis is logically fallacious.

also if genes from different organisms were utterly different what would we eat. genetic similarity between organisms allow our bodies to digest and use the food we eat.

What the hell are you talking about? You're saying we were created with similar genetic structures because of diet? How does that argument make any sense?

genetic similarities has raised challenges for evolution, because there have been situations where phylogenetic tree based on gene similarity doesnt rhyme with the fossil record.

1. Challenges for evolution are apparent and numerous, but they don't disprove or negate the theory. There are debates all the time within the field (time period of specific speciation and evolution events mainly), but none of them, to my knowledge, have to do with the theory somehow not lining up with its own assertions.

2. Provide evidence for your claim.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

but why would we think it didnt apply before the big bang?

I asked a friend of mine exactly that question. He's an astrophysicist so he dumbed it right down for me.: "There was no 'before ' the Big bang"

you said that quantum events happen without a cause

As far as I can recall, I said no such thing. I think I said some physicists have made the argument.It may be true, it may not.

"Nothing comes from nothing" Is a broad statement which may or may not be true. In claiming God is self causing or timeless,the theist negates the claim by equivocation and special pleading. The atheist is left with the possibilities that either nothing can and did come from nothing,or the universe has always existed. I have no opinion on the matter.


There is also another argument which posits a fact justifies it's own existence. That the only thing which may be inferred (concluded) from a fact is itself. EG a watch IMPLIES(suggests) a watchmaker, but does not infer it.

I don't know "the answer" or even if there is only one. Nor do I have any problem with saying " I don't know". Everything I think I know,without exception, remains always open to question. This position is called 'scepticism'. It is the antithesis of faith.

There are a limited number of arguments for the existence of God(s). All have been refuted. ID is an only extension of the teleological argument,a very old and mouldy chestnut..


My overall position is God cannot be argued into or out of existence. Logic does NOT guarantee truth,regardless off what some neo Platonists argue.The existence of God can either be proven by evidence or it cannot. So far there is no evidence.

God exists? Fine show me God or stop wasting my time. It's not a complex idea. Why is it so hard for so many believers grasp?

[Tiberius]

however to avoid an infinite regress of creators, in keeping with occams razor its better to say that GOD has no cause, to keep things clean and simple.

Actually, occams razor would propose that no Gods existed, given that the universe is vastly less complex than God.

You said previously that an infinity cannot be realised ontologically, yet you are fine with the whole concept of an "eternal" God, a being who is by definition infinite. Thus, your assertion that infinities cannot be realised ontologically is either invalid (and thus there is no argument against infinite regression of cause and effect) or you must sacrifice the infinite nature of your God.

[tackattack]

I've ad several conversatios with severalatheists. I thinka major difference of opinion is how complicated is Go. Those who believe in God usualy see him as one omnipowerful absolute creator. As an absolute and singular entity he seems far less cmplicated than a never ending list of laws and rules dependant on complex reations and causes and effects. I'm not sure of a better way to put this. Here's a question. Could an absolute singularity create a more complex singularity?