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

[tavarish]

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?

An absolute singularity that somehow has intentions, natures and emotions. You're still describing something that WILLED the universe into existence, with full knowledge of its actions.

[Tiberius]

We've had this discussion before. It broke down once we established that there is no standard way to measure complexity. Whilst there isn't a standard way, I think you can easily reason that any being that is "omni-powerful" is far more complex than a being (or thing) that isn't omni-powerful.

Certainly if we decided that the standard way of measuring complexity was on the power of the thing to be measured, God would be (by definition) the most complex thing since nothing is more powerful.

As to your singularity question, could you define what you mean by singularity here? You don't seem to be using it in the standard sense.

[tackattack]

@ Adrian, I was looking at it from a more mathmatical definition : a point at which a complex function is undefined because it is neither differentiable nor single-valued while the function is defined in every neighborhood of the point. I agre if that were the definition of complex, but that's not what I'm talking about.

Sorry to rehash old info. When I'm talking complex I mean made up of many interrelated parts. That may not be exaclty measurable, but it should be easy to reason. I can't logically see when comparing one being (however powerful) to a long list of laws, rules, individual entities and anomolies how God is the more complex answer.

@tav- Once again openeing your mouth and not answering the question. No where have I said God somehow has intentions, natures and emotions or will. I can't even fathom me ever saying any of those except nature.

[Tiberius]

"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?

[roundsquare]

Tavarish i appreciate you taking the time to read and respond to my points. ok lets get underway. KCA:again you have misconstrued the kca. it does NOT say everything has a cause and the first cause is GOD. This is y your objections miss the target. VALIDITY OF KCA: deduction is widely used and generally trustworthy logic, an example is. 1. animals are made of cells. 2. a dog is an animal. 3. thus a dog is made of cells. the kca follows from this logic and is a logically valid conclusion. yes iam aware that in some cases deduction is spurious but to challenge the kca, you clearly must show that it is spurious. kca doesnt need to define GOD because it doesnt doesnt make reference to GOD. IT is used as an argument for GOD, the big bang too is used as an argument for GOD. BUT one would never say that the it must first define GOD. THE KCA simply reasons that the universe must have a cause in keeping with the causal principle, because it had a beginning, that is there was a first moment of its existence. there was a moment when no space, no vacuum, no time no matter no energy existed hence the universe, which is simply the sum of these phenomena had a starting point.

---

ID: TAVARISH you say that ID fails because replication and enviromental stressors account for the emergence of specificall complex structures pretty conclusively. my question where is the concrete evidence IN NATURE not in a computer model that accounts for specified complexity? when i asked for evidence you linked me to a paper studying a genetic algorithm, i expected some real evidence from nature. i am compelled to conclude that the absence of examples of upward evolution from nature drives evolutionists to resort computer simulations. so as long as simulations are accepted as support for evolution as a skeptic i can rest assured that no concrete evidence for the monkey-man type of evolution has been found. the exaggerated faith shown to computer simulations by evolutionists is noteworthy since they frequently cant even predict next weeks weather accurately. also simulations need to be testdd in the real world to verify their validity so far simulations that claim to provide insight into evolution r massively oversimplified caricatures of the real world.

---

GENETIC SIMILARITY: TAVARISH, genetic similarity between organisms can be used to support both ID/creation science, so its a tie. also note if there were not strong genetic similarities between us and other organisms we could only eat other humans. for the reason that if every other organism was fundamentally different genetically hence biochemically, there would be no way for us to digest them because their amino acids, sugars etc would be different from the ones in our bodies. ok. here is a link showing how genes r challenging the evolutionary tree of life.

---

Dang it i cant posts any links until i have 10 posts.

[tackattack]

---

"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?

---

As for the comparison: Do you, as a self-asware entity, consider yourself your parts or the sum of those parts? Probably the latter, "I am me". If god exists, and is self-aware, and on top of that incorporeal, why could you even suppose he has any parts, or sees himself any different. That's why I consider God to be one entity. Because of science we understand some of the laws, axioms and rules of the universe (or suppose them with great support) and compartmentalize that knowledge. I can't help but see it as it's parts. I though research was done that chows the universe started with the big bang and had an end in entropy, so I can't call it eternal either btw.

The logical step problem is a little dificult. I didn't bring up the God of the Gaps, or who created God arguements. I don't suppose God didn't have a creator, idk if he did or not, or whether he even needed to. God could be an interdimensional, super advanced and incorporeal alien that had a mommy and daddy alien, idk. From our perspective within this universe though, what could have created the universe or disrupted the quantum singularity or even made the singularity should be as far as we could go. To regress into the circular arguement of who created God is irrelevant, faulty and your point, not mine. I didn't even allude that God is eternal, just that he existed outside of space-time prior to the bigbang.

[roundsquare]

God is not an actual infinity, an actual infinity can be described a completed and definite set which consist of infinitely many elements. GOD IS NOT SUCH AN OBJECT. NO theologian describes him as a collection of an actually infinite number of definite and descrete parts. and there is neither need nor warrant to describe him along those lines. hence GOD isnt an actual infinity whereas the universe would sort of be if it was eternal, but it isnt for the very reason that an actual infinity is ontologically tenable. the universe would have an actually infinite number of past events, and this isnt possible.

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

GENETIC SIMILARITY: TAVARISH, genetic similarity between organisms can be used to support both ID/creation science, so its a tie. also note if there were not strong genetic similarities between us and other organisms we could only eat other humans. for the reason that if every other organism was fundamentally different genetically hence biochemically, there would be no way for us to digest them because their amino acids, sugars etc would be different from the ones in our bodies. ok. here is a link showing how genes r challenging the evolutionary tree of life.

---

Dang it i cant posts any links until i have 10 posts.

I don't see genetic similarity as a tie. How could the apparent 'fusion' between two chromosomes in the other primates (that differentiates us from them by one chromosome) be considered equally an act of the Christian god and an evolutionary mechanism? I'm referring to microbiologist's, K. Miller's reference to fused chromosomes in the Chimp genome here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

I see that a creationist organization has already responded to Miller here: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sho...hp/id/1392

The article was written by an attorney, Casey Luskin. I'm not trying to say that he has no bearing on the subject because of his profession unrelated to genetics or biology but I would be more impressed if Francis Collins, head of the human genome project and geneticist, wrote this article against the hypothesis, in our case, of fused chromosomes being evidence for our common ancestry with the other primates.

"Claiming that banding pattern similarities is evidence of common ancestry with apes simply invokes the 'similarity = common ancestry' argument, and thus begs the question.) It is entirely possible that our genus Homo underwent a chromosomal fusion event within its own separate history. " - Casey Luskin in the link above

I would like to read Miller's response to this article. My question to Luskin would be: How could chromosomal fusion within a population (at any time) not bring about a new species? Luskin suggests that at some point in the existence of Homo 'genus', there was a fusion that did not create a new species. More reasonably, Miller, if i'm not mistaken, suggests that there was a fusion in a population (of an ancestral species that of the Pan genus and the Homo genus) that created two new species, one which was probably the ancestor or our species. Later Luskin suggests that the fusion could have (no evidence involved) occurred 10,000 years ago in our own species without creating any physiological or morphological changes which doesn't make sense since such a fusion intuitively or logically should produce some change.

Anyhow, i don't see the existence of the appearing fusion (among many other genetic phenomena) to be a point for either side of the debate between particularly Christian creationists and evolutionists (of any religion ... keneth miller and francis collins are both Christians and believers in common descent) because a loving god that wants us to believe in him and believe that we were created at once would not create such a controversial genetic anomaly... not to mention that same god that is supposedly against abortion allowing innocent children be born with genetic fallacies.

[Tiberius]

As for the comparison: Do you, as a self-asware entity, consider yourself your parts or the sum of those parts? Probably the latter, "I am me". If god exists, and is self-aware, and on top of that incorporeal, why could you even suppose he has any parts, or sees himself any different. That's why I consider God to be one entity. Because of science we understand some of the laws, axioms and rules of the universe (or suppose them with great support) and compartmentalize that knowledge. I can't help but see it as it's parts. I though research was done that chows the universe started with the big bang and had an end in entropy, so I can't call it eternal either btw.

Why could I suppose that God has parts? Because my rational mind longs for explanation, and I cannot accept that any "self-aware" being doesn't have a reason for being self-aware. For me, there must at least be the "thinking part" of God and the "action part" of God. I should point out at this point that we've both turned towards personal incredulity at this point. My inability to think of God as one single entity and your inability to think of the universe as one single entity are interesting, though ultimately irrelevant things

Oh, and as far as research goes, we know the universe had an expansion, and it is theorized that this expansion was also the expansion of time. What the universe was at the moment of the Big Bang, whether it existed (in a timeless state) before that, or how the Big Bang happened is currently unknown. The Big Bang is an event in the history of the universe, not how the universe came into being.

The logical step problem is a little dificult. I didn't bring up the God of the Gaps, or who created God arguements. I don't suppose God didn't have a creator, idk if he did or not, or whether he even needed to. God could be an interdimensional, super advanced and incorporeal alien that had a mommy and daddy alien, idk. From our perspective within this universe though, what could have created the universe or disrupted the quantum singularity or even made the singularity should be as far as we could go. To regress into the circular arguement of who created God is irrelevant, faulty and your point, not mine. I didn't even allude that God is eternal, just that he existed outside of space-time prior to the bigbang.

Why should it be as far as we should go? I'm sorry but that just seems to me to be an argument *for* ignorance. So we don't need to know what caused the cause because we make the assumption that God is causeless? I respectfully disagree; I think that argument must be made...it is helpful in showing that placing the answer as "God" doesn't help the original question, it only lengthens it.

[roundsquare]

someone said the big bang is an event in the history of the universe not how the universe came into being. isnt this akin to someone saying my birth is an event that took place in my lifetime not how i came into being.