Most convincing argument for God

[Francis Thomas]

I was wondering which of the many arguments for God (Cosmological, Teleological etc) people found most convincing, or is it the combination of many arguments?

 

Personally I find the Cosmological Argument the most convincing (although it is clearly flawed and I have remained an Atheist) due to the comparative lack of understanding about the origins of our Universe.

 

I suspect that this will turn into a discussion into the validity of the arguments, but discussions will be beneficial for both believers and non-believers, so I would highly encourage people to critique the
arguments.

[DENNY]

I think most Christians don't really argue on this level because we have a personal relationship with Jesus. You come to know the love of God through faith in Jesus Christ.

You can talk about going to the park all you want; however, you don't really enjoy the park until you are in the park. The same is true with Christianity. St. Anselm use to say, "I believe in order to understand."

All the arguments for the existence of God are valid because the resurrection of Jesus Christ has been confirmed scientifically. The leap from the physical world (Creation) to God (the Creator) is valid because the resurrection of Jesus Christ was historically confirmed and is now a scientific fact.

God Bless...

[Francis Thomas]

So would you say that the argument from personal experiences is the most convincing for you then?

ZDENNY said:

I think most Christians don't really argue on this level because we have a personal relationship with Jesus. You come to know the love of God through faith in Jesus Christ.

You can talk about going to the park all you want; however, you don't really enjoy the park until you are in the park. The same is true with Christianity. St. Anselm use to say, "I believe in order to understand."

All the arguments for the existence of God are valid because the resurrection of Jesus Christ has been confirmed scientifically. The leap from the physical world (Creation) to God (the Creator) is valid because the resurrection of Jesus Christ was historically confirmed and is now a scientific fact.

God Bless...

[DENNY]

I don't believe personal experience is the most convincing. However, most Christians know the love of God and this forms the basis for their ministries in the world. We have the eyewitness testimonies, corroboration of the evidence with third parties such as Luke, Mark and Paul, we have the explosion of the church due to the 500 witnesses of the resurrection who spread the gospel throughout the world.

The arguments for God's existence are simple;
1. Creation requires a Creator
2. A beginning requires a cause
3. Life requires Eternal life
4. Love requires eternal love
5. A changing world requires an unchanging foundation
6. Our existence requires a sustainer
7. Man is designed for a relationship
8. Objective morality requires an objective reality
9. Hope requires a future
10. Design requires a designer
11. Life requires a life giver
12. Minds require an eternal mind
13. There is something rather than nothing
14. Meaning requires a purpose

All of these proofs for the existence of God rest on the fact that the effect has to be in the cause. You don't get tomatoes from clouds. We get rain from clouds. The effect of rain is in the cause being the cloud. If you were an ant and could not see the cloud, you would assume when seeing the rain that the rain came from a source that was capable of producing rain. The effect is in the cause.

In order to deny this principle, you have to argue that morality, love, life, reality, knowledge, hope, meaning, existence are all myths. However, if you affirm this principle, you have to agree that God does exist and that morality, love, life, reality, knowledge, hope, meaning and existence all have real existence.

The only thing that can account for everything that we see in reality is a mind that forms the foundation of reality being the cause of reality.

When the DNA code was discovered, no Christian was surprise. DNA is an information system and information comes from a mind. We don't have any evidence that information comes from a non-mental entity. Even Darwinians believe that DNA has to be looked at like an information system (a few are now trying to back track because of the implications, but it doesn't change the fact that our bodies design is found in a information system).

As a result, it is more reasonable to believe that God does exist.

God Bless...

[Francis Thomas]

“1. Creation requires a Creator”

Then what created the creator?

“2. A beginning requires a cause”

What caused the cause?

“3. Life requires Eternal life”

Surely with eternal life, normal life is redundant.

“4. Love requires eternal love”

Surely with eternal love, normal love is redundant.

“5. A changing world requires an unchanging foundation”

How do you know that it requires an unchanging foundation? Why do you come to the conclusion that the Universe has an unchanging foundation?

“6. Our existence requires a sustainer”

How do you know that our existence requires a sustainer? Why do you come to the conclusion that there is a sustainer?

“7. Man is designed for a relationship”

How do you come to the conclusion that man was designed at all? How do you know mans purpose?

“8. Objective morality requires an objective reality”

I thought that with the existence of God absolute morality would exist?

“9. Hope requires a future”

Hope requires the present, not a future.

“10. Design requires a designer”

How do you know that the Universe was designed?

“11. Life requires a life giver”

How did you come to this conclusion?

"12. Minds require an eternal mind"

Surely with an eternal mind, normal minds are redundant.

"13. There is something rather than nothing"

How does this prove that a god exists?

"14. Meaning requires a purpose"

How do you know that the Universe has a meaning? And what is it?


ZDENNY said:

I don't believe personal experience is the most convincing. However, most Christians know the love of God and this forms the basis for their ministries in the world. We have the eyewitness testimonies, corroboration of the evidence with third parties such as Luke, Mark and Paul, we have the explosion of the church due to the 500 witnesses of the resurrection who spread the gospel throughout the world.

The arguments for God's existence are simple;
1. Creation requires a Creator
2. A beginning requires a cause
3. Life requires Eternal life
4. Love requires eternal love
5. A changing world requires an unchanging foundation
6. Our existence requires a sustainer
7. Man is designed for a relationship
8. Objective morality requires an objective reality
9. Hope requires a future
10. Design requires a designer
11. Life requires a life giver
12. Minds require an eternal mind
13. There is something rather than nothing
14. Meaning requires a purpose

All of these proofs for the existence of God rest on the fact that the effect has to be in the cause. You don't get tomatoes from clouds. We get rain from clouds. The effect of rain is in the cause being the cloud. If you were an ant and could not see the cloud, you would assume when seeing the rain that the rain came from a source that was capable of producing rain. The effect is in the cause.

In order to deny this principle, you have to argue that morality, love, life, reality, knowledge, hope, meaning, existence are all myths. However, if you affirm this principle, you have to agree that God does exist and that morality, love, life, reality, knowledge, hope, meaning and existence all have real existence.

The only thing that can account for everything that we see in reality is a mind that forms the foundation of reality being the cause of reality.

When the DNA code was discovered, no Christian was surprise. DNA is an information system and information comes from a mind. We don't have any evidence that information comes from a non-mental entity. Even Darwinians believe that DNA has to be looked at like an information system (a few are now trying to back track because of the implications, but it doesn't change the fact that our bodies design is found in a information system).

As a result, it is more reasonable to believe that God does exist.

God Bless...

[DENNY]

"For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse." (Romans 1:20)

[Francis Thomas]

How does this back up the validity of your claims?

ZDENNY said:

"For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse." (Romans 1:20)

[Juanita]

I would say that people come to believe in God for different reasons.

I tweeted out a mini series on Antony Flew who moved from athiest to theist because of a number of arguments.
Here is the information. http://bit.ly/budeiJ

It is one thing to believe in a god or force or something beyond naturalistic casuses for what we experience, it is another to be a Christian. I will tell you how it is, from my point of view, of course. And, I recognize that you have a different view; that is ok, I am just repling to your question. Ok. :-)

Anyway, a person cannot become a Christian except that God reveals to their heart who Jesus is. At that point, a person has a choice to accept or reject the things they understand. When a person accepts this revelation as truth, something profound happens, they become a new and different person. Perhaps begin to become might be more accurate. Why? Because they no longer live life under their own 'steam', the Holy Spirit indwells them - changing them, empowering them, guiding them, etc.

This probably seems quite mystical and unlikely. It is mystical and unlikely. The difficulty that I see in how you framed your question is this: you cannot know if what I am saying is fact or fiction. You can guess; but you cannot know. That is an issue.

To know requires a 'leap of faith'. You cannot get there without that leap.

Is what I described 'rational'? Probably not in one sense. But, in another sense, there are many 'real' things that are not particularly rational: like love, loyalty, patriotism, joy and sorrow. Rational is one dimension of our lives, but just one. God is truth (rational); God is also love. This description of God as love has a very rational component to it. Love must have an object. If God was alone, He could be loving, but could not be love. However, God is 3 in one, "Within the nature of the one God are three eternal presons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Hence, not only can God be loving, within Himself, He can be love.

[DENNY]

I believe the leap that Juanita is talking about is the experiential leap. The resurrection is a scientific fact; however, there is a leap of faith because faith is the foundation of all knowledge. The leap is merely a decision to believe. For instance, I can make a leap and decide to believe in the law of gravity. I also have the choice to deny the law of gravity. The law of gravity may have overwhelming evidence just like the resurrection does; however, it still requires that choice or leap where a person decides to put their faith in a theory no matter what it is.

God Bless...

[Francis Thomas]

Yet again it's not a scientific fact, but I think both me and Harris have gone over this with you on other threads. I would argue that faith isn't the foundation for all knowledge; I know that I exist (in some form, I might just be a brain in a jar) and this doesn't require faith. Are you really saying that the evidence for the resurrection is equal to that of gravity?

ZDENNY said:

I believe the leap that Juanita is talking about is the experiential leap. The resurrection is a scientific fact; however, there is a leap of faith because faith is the foundation of all knowledge. The leap is merely a decision to believe. For instance, I can make a leap and decide to believe in the law of gravity. I also have the choice to deny the law of gravity. The law of gravity may have overwhelming evidence just like the resurrection does; however, it still requires that choice or leap where a person decides to put their faith in a theory no matter what it is.

God Bless...

[Juanita]

I think zdenny is speaking to how we process the world...

What each of us believes about life and existence is not what we read in a book. Our perceptions are shaped throughout life by all types on inputs. I think this provides for some difficulty in this type of dialog. The naturalist - those who see the world as a natural progression of cosmic laws - assumes that asking for 'proof' will provide a response that fits into their naturalistic perceptions. The Christian may concentrate on providing this type of answer... for a bit, then the Christian launches into other things, especially experiences.

The naturalist becomes frustrated. This approach that the Christian takes – citing experience, is, however, consistent with how we process knowledge..

William Glasser weighed it out like this:
“We Learn . . .
10% of what we read
20% of what we hear
30% of what we see
50% of what we see and hear
70% of what we discuss
80% of what we experience
95% of what we teach others.”

A Christians experience God. A Christian discusses God from this vantage point.

A Christian recognizes that our God-experiences are fundamentally connected to 'faith'. Faith, the supernatural and God are all outside the boundries of naturalism. Indeed, these two view of the universe are mutually exclusive. The view that all can be explained by the natural operation of cosmic laws is juxtaposed to a view of divine intervention. In my opinion, how the naturalist frames questions and search for understanding is NOT likely to provide a vantage point to see something outside of the naturalistic paradigm.

If you were born and lived in a building with no windows, if you have never stepped foot outside, if you have never peered through an open door, you might assume all types of things about the 'outside'. At one time people assumed that the human body would not be able to travel at high velocities. So, just assumptions…

Those of us who experience the power of God are the 'problem' that needs to be dealt with. Do we all have vivid imaginations? Citing that people with different spiritual viewpoints claiming divine encounters doesn’t ‘prove’ that things don’t occur. The first question would be, in my opinion, is there only the natural dimension or are there two (or more) dimensions that intersect in some way. If that question is on the table and there is no answer, then the very base presuppositions haven't been established. Assumptions layered on top of the presupposition that there in ONLY the natural can lead to erroneous conclusions if there are multiple dimensions, if there are multiple universes that make up reality.

[Lisa]

Ok for me the most convincing argument is personal experiece. I'll admit that first I was taught and believed the precepts of Christianity. However, I also got to a pt. where I asked the Lord to show me in a way that I could understand and would mean something to me. He did. The problem with that is these experiences are mostly personal and private. When I share the stories you can believe them or think that I am smoking dope. Either way the only person who who knows the full truth is myself. Although, you may be able to discern from my body language, reputation and general character how likely it is that I am speaking truth.
Incredibly difficult for you to argue me out of that which I am convinced to be true. Equally difficult to argue you into believing it because it is so personal. I'd say that if you really want to know, ask the Lord to show you in a way that you understand and that means something to you.

[DENNY]

Francie stated, "Are you really saying that the evidence for the resurrection is equal to that of gravity?"

Yes, that is what I am saying for certain. All the evidence we have for gravity can only be explained by the law of gravity itself. All the evidence we have for the resurrection can only be explained by the resurrection itself. The evidence is just as strong!

In fact, we now have scientific consensus with 75% of NT scholars who now believe that the disciples did in fact see the resurrected Christ.

Francis, your problem is what Jaunita pointed out, you have redefined Science so that you are begging the question. Your definition of science excludes certain possible causes and then you end up with a non-scientific conclusion which is really a error in your thinking. Science in order to be science has to be open to all possible causes and this is what you disagree with. If you defined science correctly, you would have to conclude that the evidence for the resurrection is just as strong as the evidence for gravity; however, you have been indoctrinated so it will take some time for you to see the big picture.

God Bless...