What Is The Best Argument For The Existence Of God?

[MormonFreeThinker]

 

The New God Argument 

 

Fine Tuning argument 

Edited October 25, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Robert F. Smith]

The fine-tuning argument is interesting, but it may be too amorphous.  To be properly appreciated, it requires a familiarity with science and the laws of probability which most of us lack.

 

On balance, I consider the most logical and convincing argument for the existence of God (or gods) to be the same argument accepted by Richard Dawkins:

"It's highly plausible that in the universe there are Godlike creatures."  But he was careful to add that "these Gods came into being by an explicable scientific progression of incremental evolution." (He would not have wanted to see "Gods" capitalized, however.)

 

This is the same argument accepted by the late Carl Sagan, who 

"believed in superior beings in space, creatures so intelligent, so powerful, as to resemble gods." He affirmed that a new civilization is formed just in our galaxy every 10 years. "There are a million technical civilizations in the [Milky Way] galaxy," he believed.

 

See Tom Bethell, “Extraterrestrial Intelligence and the Search for God.” American Spectator, Nov 2011, online at http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/08/extraterrestrial-intelligence .

[The Nehor]

The Book of Mormon.

[Avatar4321]

The fact that He speaks. I don't know anyone who speaks that doesn't exist.

[Bernard Gui]

There is no good argument for the existence of God.

[toujours]

I don't know much about those theories but I do like this excerpt from Truman Madsen's Joseph Smith the Prophet

"It is the first principle of the gospel," he said, "to know for a certainty the character of God." That is more than saying it is the first principle to know that God exists. He doesn't use the word existence at all in this context. You can't find one argument in Joseph Smith for the existence of God. Why not? One answer: Because one does not begin to argue about a thing's existence until serious doubts have arisen. The arguments for God are a kind of whistling in the dark. In the absence of experience with God, men have invented arguments to justify the experience of the absence of God. They have built a rational Tower of Babel, from which they comfort themselves with, "We haven't heard from God, but he must still be there."

But Joseph wasn't speculating. He was reporting his firsthand experience. Prophets always have. On the other hand, the philosophers have expended some of the greatest ingenuity of the western world in inventing what turn out to be specious and invalid arguments for the existence of God. No. "It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character [the personality, the attributes] of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another." That is the testimony of Joseph Smith from beginning to end. He is talking about all of us, now. A man, a woman-it is the first principle for any of us. That is where we begin.

And lest we should say, as occasionally we do, "But his remarkable life and experience is utterly beyond my own," we should note that Joseph said in 1839: "God hath not revealed anything to Joseph [calling himself by name], but what He will make known unto the Twelve, and even the least Saint may know all things as fast as he is able to bear them." Even the least Saint, I repeat. The Prophet continued: "For the day must come when no man need say to his neighbor, Know ye the Lord; for all shall know Him (who remain) from the least to the greatest." Note that "all shall know him" is different from knowing about him.

[Damien the Leper]

The existence of God cannot be proven. Arguing from the perspective of authority does nothing to advance his existence.

Personally, I believe the question of how to prove he exists is worthless. Asking why one believes is a better option.

Claiming God exists because of scripture, or because someone else says so is nothing more than hearsay and is an inadmissible argument.

[LOSTONE]

Oh the answer is simple. I am still alive. Despite my own stupidity and old life style, I am still alive with very little damage done. That can only of happen with God.

[3DOP]

Oh the answer is simple. I am still alive. Despite my own stupidity and old life style, I am still alive with very little damage done. That can only of happen with God.

 

Stupidity and "old life styles" ordinarily lead to death?

 

Have you ever seen the Shawshank Redemption? I like the compelling scene where Red is sitting in front of the parole board again and talking about himself and the murder he committed when he was young, so long ago. He spoke about how that "dumb kid" no longer exists. At 58 years, neither ancient nor youthful, I can relate to that. There are things I did when I was young, some of which I could be proud, many of which make me ashamed. But in a very real way, it seems like another guy. There is no proof that without God we are immediately made dead by stupid mistakes, or even malicious mistakes. To tell the truth, I think our deaths would offer as great a proof of God as our lives. It could be argued that my continuing life or yours prove there is NO God. I couldn't have blamed a good God for snuffing me out in my youth, in my middle age, or in my last week. That you and I still live? It doesn't prove there is a good God.

 

I need other reasons for believing in a good God than that I am approaching my 59th winter or that you are approaching a number that seems big to you.

Edited October 26, 2014 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

Nevermind

Edited October 26, 2014 by mfbukowski

[3DOP]

Nevermind

 

Good job. May I follow your example when needed. Trying to be good is more important than trying to be right. Not to put aside either one. God love you, Mark. 

 

A blessed Lord's Day to you.

 

Rory

[3DOP]

Good job. May I follow your example when needed. Trying to be good is more important than trying to be right. Not to put aside either one. God love you, Mark. 

 

A blessed Lord's Day to you.

 

Rory

 Mark! But now I am too curious. Go ahead. Say it. I won't be mad. You are not quite unpredictable anyway!

[LOSTONE]

Stupidity and "old life styles" ordinarily lead to death?

 

Have you ever seen the Shawshank Redemption? I like the compelling scene where Red is sitting in front of the parole board again and talking about himself and the murder he committed when he was young, so long ago. He spoke about how that "dumb kid" no longer exists. At 58 years, neither ancient nor youthful, I can relate to that. There are things I did when I was young, some of which I could be proud, many of which make me ashamed. But in a very real way, it seems like another guy. There is no proof that without God we are immediately made dead by stupid mistakes, or even malicious mistakes. To tell the truth, I think our deaths would offer as great a proof of God as our lives. It could be argued that my continuing life or yours prove there is NO God. I couldn't have blamed a good God for snuffing me out in my youth, in my middle age, or in my last week. That you and I still live? It doesn't prove there is a good God.

 

I need other reasons for believing in a good God than that I am approaching my 59th winter or that you are approaching a number that seems big to you.

 

I wasn't speaking for proof in anyone else eyes or minds other than mine own. This I shared in my previous reply was proof for me and I am very much okay with that. To other people, they must find their own comforts in their own proof.

 

I know that I lived a life that by human condition should have gotten me killed ( war vet ), but why am I still here? Because God is alive and does exist and he has greater plans for me before my grave comes to past. I can not explain why I am alive in any other way but God.

[3DOP]

I wasn't speaking for proof in anyone else eyes or minds other than mine own. This I shared in my previous reply was proof for me and I am very much okay with that. To other people, they must find their own comforts in their own proof.

 

I know that I lived a life that by human condition should have gotten me killed ( war vet ), but why am I still here? Because God is alive and does exist and he has greater plans for me before my grave comes to past. I can not explain why I am alive in any other way but God.

 

Understood LOSTONE. Carry on in the love of that merciful God who has proven His existence to you. 

 

To be honest, if I offered the objective "proof" in which I believe, everybody here would strenuously disagree. At this time, I lack the energy to fight a losing cause (losing in the sense of inability to persuade). Thanks for sharing your own personal belief without regard to the criticism that might have resulted from it.

Edited October 26, 2014 by 3DOP

[MormonFreeThinker]

The existence of God cannot be proven. Arguing from the perspective of authority does nothing to advance his existence.

Personally, I believe the question of how to prove he exists is worthless. 

 

Nobody here is trying to prove the existence of God. An argument is not proof. 

[mfbukowski]

OK now I am ready

 

I don't like either one.

 

First, Lincoln admits that his is NOT an argument for the existence of God- if you actually listen to what he says, and he is right.

 

What it is is a scientific assessment of the probability that we will evolve technologically to a stage beyond which for some reason, the definition of "human" is changed.

 

That's science and semantics, it is not philosophy, and it is not an argument for the existence of God

 

It is kind of like the historicity problem in reverse.  Belief in the historicity of the scriptures is a religious belief, not a belief based on science.  Lincoln's argument is a religious belief based on the direction he thinks science will take- "historically"- but in the future.  We don't have a word for "future history" about what WILL happen "historically" in the future, but that is what he is proposing.   The presumption is that xyz "really happened" in the past, and that abc "really will" happen in the future, all of that as a religious position.   He has religious faith that it happened that way and will happen that way in the future.

 

For me, it is Star Trek turned relgious.

 

Susskind presents a different but related problem.

 

He believes that he can show scientifically that the universe IS "fine tuned" for life.  Again it is a SCIENTIFIC position, not a philosophical argument.

 

I love Susskind and have thought a lot about his position, and I think he is right, but his argument is still a bad argument.

 

I think he is open to the charge that his argument is question-begging, or circular.

 

It could be argued that from an from a Human-centric point of view, we just SEE it as "fine tuned" for us because IT HAS CREATED US (EVOLVED US) TO SEE IT THAT WAY

 

Of couse, from the top of the food chain, it appears that the universe PUT us at the top of the food chain because in a sense it did! 

 

It would be like the president of the US arguing that the universe was fine-tuned to make him president- because he IS president.  The universe is fine tuned for me to write on this board because I DO write on this board.

 

The position assumes there is a "purpose" for the universe just because it has all turned out that way- there could be no purpose at all.

 

So I don't like either argument. 

 

The first admits it is not an argument for the existence of God and the second presumes from the get-go that the universe has a purpose and we are it.

 

Two no-goes in my not so humble opinion

[mfbukowski]

Good job. May I follow your example when needed. Trying to be good is more important than trying to be right. Not to put aside either one. God love you, Mark. 

 

A blessed Lord's Day to you.

 

Rory

Well yeah, but I could not help myself in the long run.

 

Must be that original sin still in there  

[MormonFreeThinker]

 

 

Susskind presents a different but related problem.

 

He believes that he can show scientifically that the universe IS "fine tuned" for life.  Again it is a SCIENTIFIC position, not a philosophical argument.

 

Susskind is one of the most brilliant minds in physicis, he is not religious. 

Of course, nobody can prove the universe is fined tuned for life, but it looks fined tuned for life. Certainly the universe is fined tuned for life as we know it.  The fine tuning argument is not proof, but it is plausible. 

 

See 

 

 

 

The New God argument is about reasonable possibilities. 

[mfbukowski]

Susskind is one of the most brilliant minds in physicis, he is not religious. 

Of course, nobody can prove the universe is fined tuned for life, but it looks fined tuned for life.

Sure, if you are alive and looking. I don't think the rocks see it that way. What does oxygen think about it?

 

 

The New God argument is about reasonable possibilities.

 

Is it reasonably possible that two thousand years ago some human died and because of that all the sins of humanity are forgiven and we can return to God?

 

That person also is said to have resurrected, passed through walls, and still is alive but invisible except to a few believers who allege they have seen him.  And because of this, we also will all come back to life in the future.

 

Is that a reasonable possibility?

 

Religion is not about reasonable possibilities.

[3DOP]

Well yeah, but I could not help myself in the long run.

 

Must be that original sin still in there  

 

Hah. Oh no. From my perspective, you are baptized. Any indulgence that was against the will of God, (which Is highly debatable anyway) was only just the "wounds" of original sin, otherwise called concupiscence. You remember?

[mfbukowski]

Hah. Oh no. From my perspective, you are baptized. Any indulgence that was against the will of God, (which Is highly debatable anyway) was only just the "wounds" of original sin, otherwise called concupiscence. You remember?

Heck yeah!

 

And around here I have a piece of paper somewhere from Pope Pius XII granting me a plenary indulgence if I just say the word "Jesus" on my deathbed.  (no lie)

 

Hey man- I am just sitting on freeway ramp to heaven in my GTO with a 389, waiting to stomp on the gas. 

Edited October 26, 2014 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

Is it reasonably possible that two thousand years ago some human died and because of that all the sins of humanity are forgiven and we can return to God?

 

That person also is said to have resurrected, passed through walls, and still is alive but invisible except to a few believers who allege they have seen him.  And because of this, we also will all come back to life in the future.

 

Is that a reasonable possibility?

 

Religion is not about reasonable possibilities.

 

It seems reasonable to me because I need it. I would argue that many of the ills of modern society come from a general complacency about sin and evil. When Christianity went to the pagans in Europe they ate it up. They knew how bad they were in the sight of ultimate good and that they needed help.

 

I need forgiveness I can't give myself. It may not be the mode I would have expected it to come in but if there is a God who put us here it makes sense that He would do something about the general feeling of guilt and falleness that pervades our lives.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Sure, if you are alive and looking. I don't think the rocks see it that way. What does oxygen think about it?

 

That is the point, life is special. A universe without life is meaningless. 

 

 

Religion is not about reasonable possibilities.

 

As I understand it, the new God argument is saying that benevolent creators probably exists, even atheists like Dawkins agree. 

We have to use faith and reason to understand religion. 

[3DOP]

Heck yeah!

 

And around here I have a piece of paper somewhere from Pope Pius XII granting me a plenary indulgence if I just say the word "Jesus" on my deathbed.  (no lie)

 

Hey man- I am just sitting on freeway ramp to heaven in my GTO with a 389, waiting to stomp on the gas. 

 

Wow. Are you saying that the piece of paper is essential and is applicable to you alone? I have to admit that this would not accord with how I understand indulgences. I kind of think it was probably universally applicable. Pius XII's successor, Paul VI, among many other reforms, made some changes with regards to indulgences. Among other things, there is now only partial indulgences and plenary indulgences as opposed to the partials formerly being meted out in terms of equality with the value of days of penance. While I could not be confident that this plenary indulgence from Pius XII is still binding, it nevertheless demonstrates the value the Catholic Church would attach to it if any saint or sinner should find himself or herself in extremity, and call on the name of God's only begotten Son. I would find It impossible to imagine, that anyone for whom Christ died, and while in their final moments, could have the grace to humbly call out on the precious of name of Jesus, without God pouring out His mercy upon a soul who could make such an act before death.

 

It sure sounds worth a try to me. God helping me, I'll do it when the time comes. 

Edited October 26, 2014 by 3DOP

[LOSTONE]

Either believe in God or don’t. It’s a personal chose that only needs to be proven to yourself, not anyone else.

If you believe in God, than to you, God exist.
If you don’t believe in God, than to you, God doesn’t exist.

Your personal chose to believe or not to believe in the only proof there is and the only one you need. When you die, you’ll find out for sure if your choice was correct or not. I see not further debate on this matter.