20 Arguments for God's existence?

[Foxaèr]

This has been mentioned in another forum, and people seem to be fawning over it as though it is the holy grail absolutely proving God's existence.

I have not had a chance to look at it thoroughly, but I thought I would present it here to see what you thought of it.

1. The Argument from Change
2. The Argument from Efficient Causality
3. The Argument from Time and Contingency
4. The Argument from Degrees of Perfection
5. The Design Argument
6. The Kalam Argument
7. The Argument from Contingency
8. The Argument from the World as an Interacting Whole
9. The Argument from Miracles
10. The Argument from Consciousness
11. The Argument from Truth
12. The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God
13. The Ontological Argument
14. The Moral Argument
15. The Argument from Conscience
16. The Argument from Desire
17. The Argument from Aesthetic Experience
18. The Argument from Religious Experience
19. The Common Consent Argument
20. Pascal's Wager

In this section you will find arguments of many different kinds for the existence of God. And we make to you, the reader, an initial appeal. We realize that many people, both believers and nonbelievers, doubt that God's existence can be demonstrated or even argued about. You may be one of them. You may in fact have a fairly settled view that it cannot be argued about. But no one can reasonably doubt that attention to these arguments has its place in any book on apologetics. For very many have believed that such arguments are possible, and that some of them actually work.

Continuation of the introduction before starting with the arguments:

---

They have also believed that an effective rational argument for God's existence is an important first step in opening the mind to the possibility of faith—in clearing some of the roadblocks and rubble that prevent people from taking the idea of divine revelation seriously. And in this they have a real point. Suppose our best and most honest reflection on the nature of things led us to see the material universe as self-sufficient and uncaused; to see its form as the result of random motions, devoid of any plan or purpose. Would you then be impressed by reading in an ancient book that there exists a God of love, or that the heavens proclaim his glory? Would you be disposed to take that message seriously? More likely you would excuse yourself from taking seriously anything claimed as a communication from the Creator. As one person put it: I cannot believe that we are children of God, because I cannot believe there is anyone to do the adopting.

It is this sort of cramped and constricted horizon that the proofs presented in this chapter are trying to expand. They are attempts to confront us with the radical insufficiency of what is finite and limited, and to open minds to a level of being beyond it. If they succeed in this—and we can say from experience that some of the proofs do succeed with many people—they can be of very great value indeed.

You may not feel that they are particularly valuable to you. You may be blessed with a vivid sense of God's presence; and that is something for which to be profoundly grateful. But that does not mean you have no obligation to ponder these arguments. For many have not been blessed in that way. And the proofs are designed for them—or some of them at least—to give a kind of help they really need. You may even be asked to provide help.

Besides, are any of us really in so little need of such help as we may claim? Surely in most of us there is something of the skeptic. There is a part of us tempted to believe that nothing is ultimately real beyond what we can see and touch; a part looking for some reason, beyond the assurances of Scripture, to believe that there is more. We have no desire to make exaggerated claims for these demonstrations, or to confuse "good reason" "with scientific proof." But we believe that there are many who want and need the kind of help these proofs offer more than they might at first be willing to admit.

A word about the organization of the arguments. We have organized them into two basic groups: those which take their data from without—cosmological arguments—and those that take it from within—psychological arguments. The group of cosmological arguments begins with our versions of Aquinas's famous "five ways." These are not the simplest of the arguments, and therefore are not the most convincing to many people. Our order is not from the most to the least effective. The first argument, in particular, is quite abstract and difficult.

Not all the arguments are equally demonstrative. One (Pascal's Wager) is not an argument for God at all, but an argument for faith in God as a "wager." Another (the ontological argument) we regard as fundamentally flawed; yet we include it because it is very famous and influential, and may yet be saved by new formulations of it. Others (the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience and the common consent argument) claim only strong probability, not demonstrative certainty. We have included them because they form a strong part of a cumulative case. We believe that only some of these arguments, taken individually and separately, demonstrate the existence of a being that has some of the properties only God can have (no argument proves all the divine attributes); but all twenty taken together, like twined rope, make a very strong case.

---

http://www.strangenotions.com/god-exists/

[The Valkyrie]

21. "Because the bible says so!"

[Esquilax]

Since it ends on Pascal's Wager, I'm not exactly filled with hope for a cogent set of arguments, here.

[Sejanus]

11. The Argument from Truth

[MindForgedManacle]

This has been mentioned in another forum, and people seem to be fawning over it as though it is the holy grail absolutely proving God's existence.

I have not had a chance to look at it thoroughly, but I thought I would present it here to see what you thought of it.

1. The Argument from Change

Not familiar with it, so I can't comment.

2. The Argument from Efficient Causality

An argument from Material Causality would (and does) counter this.

3. The Argument from Time and Contingency

Doesn't work if one (such as me) accepts the B-theory of time. And I'm fairly certain many contingency arguments beg the question by assuming the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

4. The Argument from Degrees of Perfection

If this isn't talking about Robert Maydoyle's argument regarding Great-making properties, I'm not familiar with it.

5. The Design Argument

Which one? And how does it avoid making an argument from ignorance, or contradicting eithe God's omnipotence or omnibenevolence?

6. The Kalam Argument

1) B-theory of Time
2) Quantum Eternity Theorem
3) An argument from Material Causality

7. The Argument from Contingency

Is this really much, if any, different than #3? Again, if it's assuming that the Principle of Sufficient Reason is a metaphysical necessity, yet it doesn't have a reason why it's true, it's just an inconsistent argument.

8. The Argument from the World as an Interacting Whole

Ignoring the stupid name, not familiar with it.

9. The Argument from Miracles

David Hume's argument against miracles.

10. The Argument from Consciousness

-Yawn- Almost certainly just a disguised argument from ignorance.

11. The Argument from Truth

I can't remember this argument. I'll come back to it later perhaps.

12. The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God

They're referencing Descartes' Trademark Argument, REALLY? That was refuted, like, 400-years ago, and no one uses it. They're REALLY getting desparate at this point.

13. The Ontological Argument

Which one? If Anselm's then it wronglt assumes existence is a property, if Plantinga is begs the question because it has to assume Modal Realism. I'll be releasing a video refuting Plantinga's ontological argument soon.

14. The Moral Argument

Which one? If it's W.L. Craig's, then it's 1st premise is demonstrably false. Moral realism is no more incapable of being true if no gods exist than if they do.

15. The Argument from Conscience

Don't know it, sounds stupid.

16. The Argument from Desire

If this is basically Immanuel Kant's idea that "ought implies can", it's more or less just being sneaky with language. After all, I ought to save everyone from dying and help them all live excellent fulfilling lives, yet that's clearly absurd and just physically impossible given thw limited creature that I am.

17. The Argument from Aesthetic Experience

Lulz, I thought that said the "Argument from the Atheist Experience". xD Anyways, I fail to see anything close to a persuasive argument for God on the basis of aesthetics alone.

18. The Argument from Religious Experience

This cannot convince anyone but the experiencer by mere virtue of the nature of experience.

19. The Common Consent Argument

Don't know, don't care.

20. Pascal's Wager

Oh go fuck Pascal in the ass, why don't they.


And as a counter, I present:

1. Logical Problem of Evil
2. Evidential Problem of Evil
3. Theistic Argument Against Apologetics
4. Argument from Divine Hiddenness
5. Cantorian Argument Against Omniscience
6. Problem of Heaven
7. Problem of Divine Freedom
8. Moral Argument for Atheism
9. Argument from Material Causality
10. Argument from Inconsistent Revelations
11. Euthyphro Dilemma
12. Platonic-Theodicy Dilemma (that's right, dropping in my own argument like a dick)
13. Reverse Modal Ontological Argument
14. Problem of Non-God Objects
15. Argument from Corruption
16. Ray Comfort, Kent Hovind and Ken Ham
17. The Imperfection of Scripture
18. Cosmological Argument for Atheism
19. Problems with God's attributes
20. Hume's Argument Against Miracles

/somewhat thorough

[max-greece]

The most powerful argument I know for God is the Max evolutionary Argument. As follows:

Christians and Muslims are too stupid to have evolved naturally, therefore God.

[Minimalist]

I wonder how Lucy would feel knowing that some of her descendants evolved in creatard morons?

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-na...180951155/

[max-greece]

She looks like she just discovered the other way a banana is designed to be used - brought tears to her eyes so it did.

[ThomM]

This has been mentioned in another forum, and people seem to be fawning over it as though it is the holy grail absolutely proving God's existence.

I have not had a chance to look at it thoroughly, but I thought I would present it here to see what you thought of it.

1. The Argument from Change
2. The Argument from Efficient Causality
3. The Argument from Time and Contingency
4. The Argument from Degrees of Perfection
5. The Design Argument
6. The Kalam Argument
7. The Argument from Contingency
8. The Argument from the World as an Interacting Whole
9. The Argument from Miracles
10. The Argument from Consciousness
11. The Argument from Truth
12. The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God
13. The Ontological Argument
14. The Moral Argument
15. The Argument from Conscience
16. The Argument from Desire
17. The Argument from Aesthetic Experience
18. The Argument from Religious Experience
19. The Common Consent Argument
20. Pascal's Wager

In this section you will find arguments of many different kinds for the existence of God. And we make to you, the reader, an initial appeal. We realize that many people, both believers and nonbelievers, doubt that God's existence can be demonstrated or even argued about. You may be one of them. You may in fact have a fairly settled view that it cannot be argued about. But no one can reasonably doubt that attention to these arguments has its place in any book on apologetics. For very many have believed that such arguments are possible, and that some of them actually work.

Continuation of the introduction before starting with the arguments:

---

They have also believed that an effective rational argument for God's existence is an important first step in opening the mind to the possibility of faith—in clearing some of the roadblocks and rubble that prevent people from taking the idea of divine revelation seriously. And in this they have a real point. Suppose our best and most honest reflection on the nature of things led us to see the material universe as self-sufficient and uncaused; to see its form as the result of random motions, devoid of any plan or purpose. Would you then be impressed by reading in an ancient book that there exists a God of love, or that the heavens proclaim his glory? Would you be disposed to take that message seriously? More likely you would excuse yourself from taking seriously anything claimed as a communication from the Creator. As one person put it: I cannot believe that we are children of God, because I cannot believe there is anyone to do the adopting.

It is this sort of cramped and constricted horizon that the proofs presented in this chapter are trying to expand. They are attempts to confront us with the radical insufficiency of what is finite and limited, and to open minds to a level of being beyond it. If they succeed in this—and we can say from experience that some of the proofs do succeed with many people—they can be of very great value indeed.

You may not feel that they are particularly valuable to you. You may be blessed with a vivid sense of God's presence; and that is something for which to be profoundly grateful. But that does not mean you have no obligation to ponder these arguments. For many have not been blessed in that way. And the proofs are designed for them—or some of them at least—to give a kind of help they really need. You may even be asked to provide help.

Besides, are any of us really in so little need of such help as we may claim? Surely in most of us there is something of the skeptic. There is a part of us tempted to believe that nothing is ultimately real beyond what we can see and touch; a part looking for some reason, beyond the assurances of Scripture, to believe that there is more. We have no desire to make exaggerated claims for these demonstrations, or to confuse "good reason" "with scientific proof." But we believe that there are many who want and need the kind of help these proofs offer more than they might at first be willing to admit.

A word about the organization of the arguments. We have organized them into two basic groups: those which take their data from without—cosmological arguments—and those that take it from within—psychological arguments. The group of cosmological arguments begins with our versions of Aquinas's famous "five ways." These are not the simplest of the arguments, and therefore are not the most convincing to many people. Our order is not from the most to the least effective. The first argument, in particular, is quite abstract and difficult.

Not all the arguments are equally demonstrative. One (Pascal's Wager) is not an argument for God at all, but an argument for faith in God as a "wager." Another (the ontological argument) we regard as fundamentally flawed; yet we include it because it is very famous and influential, and may yet be saved by new formulations of it. Others (the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience and the common consent argument) claim only strong probability, not demonstrative certainty. We have included them because they form a strong part of a cumulative case. We believe that only some of these arguments, taken individually and separately, demonstrate the existence of a being that has some of the properties only God can have (no argument proves all the divine attributes); but all twenty taken together, like twined rope, make a very strong case.

---

http://www.strangenotions.com/god-exists/

Even if ANY of the above could prove the existence of a higher power - that still leaves a HUGE obstacle for religion - connect the dots ONLY to YOUR religion and eliminate all others.

There have been tens of thousands of gods claimed - and we actually have real proof of the existence of some of them (Among others - the egyptian Pharaohs)

IF you get an xtian who claims a god - simply say - I don't believe in RELIGION - rather than I don't believe in a god. They will try the strawman - can you prove a god does not exist - and call them on it by saying -
I never said that - what I said was that I do not believe in RELIGION - because no religion has ever proven that a god is their god - and that the rest of the supernatural story of their religion has any basis - or that anything the religion does has any effect beyond chance.

Why is it that cancer rates are virtually the same for all religious groups?

[JesusHChrist]

Here's hundreds of arguments for God's existence!

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

Now Godless Scum! What do you have to say?!?