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.

[Francis Thomas]

EITHER

1. He said that and so you can’t get to God through logic

OR

2. He didn’t say that and so the way to God is ambiguous

OR

3. The god which exists isn’t your God (so things such as the afterlife may not exist)

OR

4. No god exists so the whole “getting to God” aim is pointless and futile.

Also possibility 3 contains an almost infinite amount of sub-possibilities as this god could be any god except your God.

Do you have an almost-infinite-sided dice?

Juanita said:

>>>

You are so smart. Not being condescending. LOL. But, my point is that you won't find a relationship with God that way. Why? Because He said. So... using logic

EITHER

1. He said and it is the way it is. If that is the case, then you can't get to God through your approach.

OR.

2. He doesn't exist and someone wrote things and ascribed them to 'God said.' In that case, God may or may not exist and you may be able to find out with your approach.

So? Do your have a coin? You could flip it. How about heads = 1 & tails = 2?

J/k.

[Juanita]

Francis,

True, the possiblities and sub possiblilities are endless.

I know that people develop many theories to explain away through reason and logic what I and others experience. I think I see reason and logic used to support any possible point of view. It is how we approach the world, of course, as you say: we use logic.

I have seen God heal a 2 year old of a 2nd degree burn when my husband prayed for him & numerous other things that would fill a book. God has shown me many things that he intended to do and then he did them. The most significant thing was the business we started: I was reading scripture one night and said, "God, show me something new." He impressed upon me that the tiny business we were struggling to do was going to grow, employ many people & be a blessing to many. I showed it to my husband and together we showed it to our pastor. It happened, our business has twice been recognized as an Inc. 500 business. These things aren't 'anomolies' - most Christians I know can tell you many things that are similar.

I am offering none of these as 'emperical' laboratory evidence. I am just saying that I and others experience a world where we interact with God, we are in relationship to God. That is different than what you experience. The experience of God is not available through the approach you are taking. I see that I didn't do a good job communicating the difference in approaches. It is amazing, we all speak English, but communication is really difficult.

I will take a minute to describe something that may better frame what I was trying to say.

I use a formal process sometimes when I am going to faciliate a particular type of discussion with a group of people. I move the group to inquiry. To help the group understand, I compare advocacy and inquiry. Advocacy: presenting the best argument with facts and logic, answering objections, invalidating contradictory evidence, etc. Inquiry would entail: Suspend assumptions, assume we don't have the full and right answer, consider the other point of view-not for the purpose of invalidating it, but for the purpose of fully comprehending it, reflecting on the new data we take in and remolding our point of view.

Here is what I am suggesting: That you do inquiry with God. This is, of course, reflects an embedded assumption: that humans are body (physical), soul (our thoughts and natural drives/desires), and spirit (the part of us that connects to God/religion/etc.).


Francis Thomas said:

EITHER

1. He said that and so you can’t get to God through logic

OR

2. He didn’t say that and so the way to God is ambiguous

OR

3. The god which exists isn’t your God (so things such as the afterlife may not exist)

OR

4. No god exists so the whole “getting to God” aim is pointless and futile.

Also possibility 3 contains an almost infinite amount of sub-possibilities as this god could be any god except your God.

Do you have an almost-infinite-sided dice?

Juanita said:

>>>

You are so smart. Not being condescending. LOL. But, my point is that you won't find a relationship with God that way. Why? Because He said. So... using logic

EITHER

1. He said and it is the way it is. If that is the case, then you can't get to God through your approach.

OR.

2. He doesn't exist and someone wrote things and ascribed them to 'God said.' In that case, God may or may not exist and you may be able to find out with your approach.

So? Do your have a coin? You could flip it. How about heads = 1 & tails = 2?

J/k.

[Francis Thomas]

You cannot support any point of view with logic; if I said that a piece of paper is blue and red at the same time then it would be illogical. Basically, x = x, x =/= not x

You are aware that the body has the ability to heal itself from quite a lot of things, right? However when it comes to things like lost limbs God’s healing seems to be lacking. I could easily counter you story with those of parents who have prayed for their children while denying them medical care, guess what? The children died.

I’m glad that you realize that you aren’t offering any empirical evidence, and instead offering purely anecdotal evidence, the very thing science has leaned cannot be relied upon.

I wasn’t able to find him in this cosmic hide-and-seek which he insists on playing (and seems to be doing very well at hiding) because apparently you shouldn’t rely on empirical evidence and instead you should use blind faith.

I never claimed to have the “full and right answer” and I, at least try to, consider other points of view to better understand them. I think this is why I am so opposed to your faith (and many other faiths).

Juanita said:

Francis,

True, the possiblities and sub possiblilities are endless.

I know that people develop many theories to explain away through reason and logic what I and others experience. I think I see reason and logic used to support any possible point of view. It is how we approach the world, of course, as you say: we use logic.

I have seen God heal a 2 year old of a 2nd degree burn when my husband prayed for him & numerous other things that would fill a book. God has shown me many things that he intended to do and then he did them. The most significant thing was the business we started: I was reading scripture one night and said, "God, show me something new." He impressed upon me that the tiny business we were struggling to do was going to grow, employ many people & be a blessing to many. I showed it to my husband and together we showed it to our pastor. It happened, our business has twice been recognized as an Inc. 500 business. These things aren't 'anomolies' - most Christians I know can tell you many things that are similar.

I am offering none of these as 'emperical' laboratory evidence. I am just saying that I and others experience a world where we interact with God, we are in relationship to God. That is different than what you experience. The experience of God is not available through the approach you are taking. I see that I didn't do a good job communicating the difference in approaches. It is amazing, we all speak English, but communication is really difficult.

I will take a minute to describe something that may better frame what I was trying to say.

I use a formal process sometimes when I am going to faciliate a particular type of discussion with a group of people. I move the group to inquiry. To help the group understand, I compare advocacy and inquiry. Advocacy: presenting the best argument with facts and logic, answering objections, invalidating contradictory evidence, etc. Inquiry would entail: Suspend assumptions, assume we don't have the full and right answer, consider the other point of view-not for the purpose of invalidating it, but for the purpose of fully comprehending it, reflecting on the new data we take in and remolding our point of view.

Here is what I am suggesting: That you do inquiry with God. This is, of course, reflects an embedded assumption: that humans are body (physical), soul (our thoughts and natural drives/desires), and spirit (the part of us that connects to God/religion/etc.).

[Juanita]

I see and understand your point of view.



Francis Thomas said:

You cannot support any point of view with logic; if I said that a piece of paper is blue and red at the same time then it would be illogical. Basically, x = x, x =/= not x

You are aware that the body has the ability to heal itself from quite a lot of things, right? However when it comes to things like lost limbs God’s healing seems to be lacking. I could easily counter you story with those of parents who have prayed for their children while denying them medical care, guess what? The children died.

I’m glad that you realize that you aren’t offering any empirical evidence, and instead offering purely anecdotal evidence, the very thing science has leaned cannot be relied upon.

I wasn’t able to find him in this cosmic hide-and-seek which he insists on playing (and seems to be doing very well at hiding) because apparently you shouldn’t rely on empirical evidence and instead you should use blind faith.

I never claimed to have the “full and right answer” and I, at least try to, consider other points of view to better understand them. I think this is why I am so opposed to your faith (and many other faiths).

Juanita said:

Francis,

True, the possiblities and sub possiblilities are endless.

I know that people develop many theories to explain away through reason and logic what I and others experience. I think I see reason and logic used to support any possible point of view. It is how we approach the world, of course, as you say: we use logic.

I have seen God heal a 2 year old of a 2nd degree burn when my husband prayed for him & numerous other things that would fill a book. God has shown me many things that he intended to do and then he did them. The most significant thing was the business we started: I was reading scripture one night and said, "God, show me something new." He impressed upon me that the tiny business we were struggling to do was going to grow, employ many people & be a blessing to many. I showed it to my husband and together we showed it to our pastor. It happened, our business has twice been recognized as an Inc. 500 business. These things aren't 'anomolies' - most Christians I know can tell you many things that are similar.

I am offering none of these as 'emperical' laboratory evidence. I am just saying that I and others experience a world where we interact with God, we are in relationship to God. That is different than what you experience. The experience of God is not available through the approach you are taking. I see that I didn't do a good job communicating the difference in approaches. It is amazing, we all speak English, but communication is really difficult.

I will take a minute to describe something that may better frame what I was trying to say.

I use a formal process sometimes when I am going to faciliate a particular type of discussion with a group of people. I move the group to inquiry. To help the group understand, I compare advocacy and inquiry. Advocacy: presenting the best argument with facts and logic, answering objections, invalidating contradictory evidence, etc. Inquiry would entail: Suspend assumptions, assume we don't have the full and right answer, consider the other point of view-not for the purpose of invalidating it, but for the purpose of fully comprehending it, reflecting on the new data we take in and remolding our point of view.

Here is what I am suggesting: That you do inquiry with God. This is, of course, reflects an embedded assumption: that humans are body (physical), soul (our thoughts and natural drives/desires), and spirit (the part of us that connects to God/religion/etc.).

[Francis Thomas]

But surely you don't agree with me...

Juanita said:

I see and understand your point of view.

[Juanita]

What do you think?

((((((((( smile )))))))))))



Francis Thomas said:

But surely you don't agree with me...

Juanita said:

I see and understand your point of view.

[Francis Thomas]

So why not discuss our differences?

Juanita said:

What do you think?

((((((((( smile )))))))))))

[Juanita]

Discuss?

Why? What is your objective? What do you hope to accomplish?

Francis Thomas said:

So why not discuss our differences?

Juanita said:

What do you think?

((((((((( smile )))))))))))

[Francis Thomas]

Surely discussing opinions will either strengthen them or convince us to take the correct opinion.

Juanita said:

Discuss?

Why? What is your objective? What do you hope to accomplish?

[DENNY]

Francis,

Christians do have tons of empirical evidence and the evidence is overwhelming. We simply have never had anyone be able to falsify the evidence; however, Juanita is saying that faith in Jesus makes our knowledge certain.

Juanita is absolutely certain that the skeptics are unjustified in their skeptism as they are unable to provide any evidence to falsify the evidence. In addition, she knows the God who loves us and made us for Himself.

You simply keep on coming up with wild imaginary arguments that really have no basis in reality. You skeptism is a bunch of questions that really will never be answered. There is a lot of things in reality that we will never have the answer about. As just one example, we will never know if Strings do in fact exist, we will never know the size of the universe itself, we can never know for certain why a certain genetic code results in wings and another results in legs. It is part of the design and we can only say that this is the way that it was designed.

You have to come up with cold hard evidence to falsify the cold hard evidence that we have for Christianity. You simply are unable to do it which means your skeptism is unjustified and the only approach to God that will work for you is the humble yourself and place your faith in Jesus Christ and pray that you will come to know the love of God in the same way we do...

God Bless..

[Francis Thomas]

Present the evidence.

ZDENNY said:

Francis,

Christians do have tons of empirical evidence and the evidence is overwhelming. We simply have never had anyone be able to falsify the evidence; however, Juanita is saying that faith in Jesus makes our knowledge certain.

Juanita is absolutely certain that the skeptics are unjustified in their skeptism as they are unable to provide any evidence to falsify the evidence. In addition, she knows the God who loves us and made us for Himself.

You simply keep on coming up with wild imaginary arguments that really have no basis in reality. You skeptism is a bunch of questions that really will never be answered. There is a lot of things in reality that we will never have the answer about. As just one example, we will never know if Strings do in fact exist, we will never know the size of the universe itself, we can never know for certain why a certain genetic code results in wings and another results in legs. It is part of the design and we can only say that this is the way that it was designed.

You have to come up with cold hard evidence to falsify the cold hard evidence that we have for Christianity. You simply are unable to do it which means your skeptism is unjustified and the only approach to God that will work for you is the humble yourself and place your faith in Jesus Christ and pray that you will come to know the love of God in the same way we do...

God Bless..

[Juanita]

Francis,
I had said earlier, "you can't get to a personal relationship with God through your approach."

The scripture says that you are unlikely to find God by normal wisdom that exists in the world. The world can be perceived by our body/soul (or intellect), but God is perceived through our spirit. I told you this earlier. Your reply indicated that you didn't agree. Ok. That is fine.

So... if your objective is to 'play with Christians' - I would say that is a waste of time for everyone, although people are free agents to make their own choice.

On the other hand, if, at some level, your objective is to see if there is a God, I would suggest this...

Ask Him if he is there to help you to see and understand him. If he is not there, it would be a foolish exercize like leaving cookies for Santa. If He is there, you may find what you are looking for. :-)


Francis Thomas said:

Surely discussing opinions will either strengthen them or convince us to take the correct opinion.

Juanita said:

Discuss?

Why? What is your objective? What do you hope to accomplish?