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

[tackattack]

[tavarish]

I don't believe God exists, I have faith in that.

I do believe God exists for other reasons.

I love a nice contradiction in the morning.

[Edwardo Piet]

1-I have faith that God exists, not based on empirical evidence or proof, therefore not belief.

How therefore not belief? Faith is belief that lacks evidence, but it's still belief is it not? How can you trust or have faith in something without actually believing in it at all unless you're merely pretending?

2-My faith is based of reason , experience, and a set of subjective proofs that lean to a conclusion that a God is more liekely to exist than not.

'Subjective proofs' - how is that not what you believe to be your evidence for God's existence?

3-I'll restate it better here: I have no proof God exists as more than a thought or ideal that is verifiable and not subjective. I do believe God exists for other reasons. Is that stated a little better?

Yes, that makes more sense. And is a complete contradiction of the above when you have said you don't actually believe that God exists. When you said you have 'faith in God' but you don't believe he exists, that made no sense. Just as it makes no sense when fr0d0 says he believes God 'is' but he doesn't believe God exists. How can something non-existent be or do anything at all?

EvF

[tackattack]

Fair enough it was a good contradiction... I am fairly doped up though so please allow me to reitterate. I tend to use belief as more of a know and faith as more of a hope.

I have no proof for God's existence therefore I can't know that God exists without a leap of faith. Therefore I believe God exists without proof, resting on my faith.

I know God exists at the very minimum as a concept therefore God does exists as an abstract thought. However further evidence for God would require a definition of God, which can't be amicably reached.

My subjective proofs only point to what a definition of God would entail, not wheter that being exists or not. Since they are subjective reaching a universal defintion is highly unlikely, therefore we (many Christians) say God is unknowable (plus it's in the scripture).

I hope this is a much better explination. I'm going to take a Vicodin now.

[tavarish]

Fair enough it was a good contradiction... I am fairly doped up though so please allow me to reitterate. I tend to use belief as more of a know and faith as more of a hope.

Ok, instead of using words how you see fit, let's define them first so we don't get confused later on.

Belief:

1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/belief

Faith:

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

I have no proof for God's existence therefore I can't know that God exists without a leap of faith. Therefore I believe God exists without proof, resting on my faith.

Which is the great divide between theists and atheists. I contend that I wouldn't believe something existed if I didn't have evidence for it, even if I really wanted it to be true and it gave me comfort. I really don't understand why anyone else would do such a thing. Without evidence, you're quite literally willfully lying to yourself.

I know God exists at the very minimum as a concept therefore God does exists as an abstract thought.

Yes, but I doubt anyone has any issues with God existing purely as a concept. The issue is when people make decisions based on the belief that he exists objectively. I make the point that perhaps God doesn't go any further than that, and is purely a concept.

However further evidence for God would require a definition of God, which can't be amicably reached.

You would require a definition of God first, before existence can be verified.

My subjective proofs only point to what a definition of God would entail, not wheter that being exists or not.

So if you have no good reason to assert that such a being exists, why believe in the first place?

Since they are subjective reaching a universal defintion is highly unlikely, therefore we (many Christians) say God is unknowable (plus it's in the scripture).

No you don't. Christianity is based on the tenets that God is indeed knowable. He has specific qualities and performed specific actions to achieve a specific result based on specific intentions which are necessarily part of his character.

Scripture:

Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, Let not the mighty man glory in his might, Nor let the rich man glory in his riches; But let him who glories glory in this, That he understands and knows Me, That I am the LORD, exercising lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth. For in these I delight,” says the Lord (Jeremiah 9:23-24)

And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent (John 17:3)

[tackattack]

[KichigaiNeko]

Your god must really hate you .....

All you have proven so far is that you belive in fairies at the bottom of the garden with no evidence.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I tend to use belief as more of a know and faith as more of a hope.

I think you are conflating certainty and personal certitude. When a believer says " I KNOW there is a God" My understanding is he is referring to Gnosis,which is very different from scientific evidence based knowledge..

If I understand you,it seems to me that your position is based on Neo Platonism,in that you assert truth may be inferred though reason alone.That is a position I reject outright. A materialist, I assert that knowledge must be based on evidence, or it remains an hypothesis.

My position on the existence of God(s) is simple but as yet unsatisfied: You believe in God(s)? Fine; show me.


From wiki on Gnosis ,which is pretty much how I understand your claim to 'know'. Are we on the same page or in different books?

Gnosis (from one of the Greek words for knowledge, γνῶσις) is the spiritual knowledge of a saint[1] or mystically enlightened human being. Within the cultures of the term's provenance (Byzantine and Hellenic) gnosis was a special knowledge or insight into the infinite, divine and uncreated in all and above all,[2] rather than knowledge strictly into the finite, natural or material world which is called Epistemological knowledge.[


Gnosis is a transcendental as well as mature understanding.[4] It indicates direct spiritual experiential knowledge[5] and intuitive knowledge, mystic rather than that from rational or reasoned thinking. Gnosis itself is obtained through understanding at which one can arrive via inner experience or contemplation such as an internal epiphany of intuition and external epiphany such as the Theophany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis


Here I am not mocking or arguing with you,but trying to understand your position. I have never seen religious belief as a matter of choice. I am neither anti theist nor anti religion. (although I consider organised religion as parasitic)

[tackattack]

@ padriac, nor would I infer you were. No, I'm not gnostic if that's what you're asking. I'm more agnostic in many of my philosophical views. I was reading the wiki on neoplatonism and that is nowhere near my stance. Belief can either be with or w/o evidence. Faith is beief in the absence of evidence not despite evidence to the contrary. I accept subjective and objective evidence as evidence for subjective truth. I validate that personal truth through reason, logic, peer verification, eliminating as much bias as possible, and constant testing and review. I'm not sure what "societal construct" you would call that. But I know I'm not a materialist for many things. I am a reductivist for some things. Mosre than that, I'll need to study. I'll say if I were to say, "I know there is a God", That would mean I'm probably dead and in front of him. When I say "I believe there is a God" I'm saying there's evidence that I see as relevant, valid and compelling indicating a more than likely scenario of God's existance.

You've never seen religious belief as a matter of choice? I thought you used to be a theist, and then you chose to question and found evidence lacking, thus leaving you and agnostic atheist that's anti-organized religion? That's a choice. I chose to question , found evidence lacking, new evidence presented itself, I reevaluated and thus my stance as theist.

edit- removed

[KichigaiNeko]

@KichigaiNeko - wow, and why must he hate me? If you're going to be just as dismissive .. you're really not worth the keystrokes. Chime in with something productive next time, or at least something funny or relevant.

As opposed to the drivel you have been coming out with???

You are right ...not worthy of the keystrokes ....I Win !! Thank you

(personal attacks only PROVE your argument is weak)