What Is The Best Argument For The Existence Of God?

[MormonFreeThinker]

Either believe in God or don’t.

 

Why should you believe in a God without good reasons? I believe in God because I have good reasons, not wishful thinking. 

[LOSTONE]

Why should you believe in a God without good reasons? I believe in God because I have good reasons, not wishful thinking. 

 

If you have a reason you are comfortable with than you have a good reason to believe in God. No one needs to justify their reason to believe to anyone. It's a personal choice to believe for the reasons a person holds comfort to. I believe because I have such reason. Others may not believe because they have comfortable reasons not to believe. It's a choice and that choice decided it on a person level.

[thesometimesaint]

If you have a reason you are comfortable with than you have a good reason to believe in God. No one needs to justify their reason to believe to anyone. It's a personal choice to believe for the reasons a person holds comfort to. I believe because I have such reason. Others may not believe because they have comfortable reasons not to believe. It's a choice and that choice decided it on a person level.

 

Agreed. I choose to believe.

[Grudunza]

The idea that there must be an end of time and space and yet there can't be an end of time and space is something that points me to the idea of a higher intelligence that is beyond that conundrum and/or solves that conundrum.  I know that doesn't necessarily mean that, but to me, personally, that informs my faith in a God and some kind of greater purpose in order to not just go insane thinking about it.  I mean, life is BIG.  We have some measure of consciousness and intelligence, so I feel like it would be myopic to not presume that some more sophisticated version of that exists within (or outside) of the universe, and preceded ours.  I don't begrudge athiests their beliefs (or lack thereof), but to me that mindset kind of exhibits a lack of imagination...  Sure, it's fine to be rational and want to stick with what we know and can observe for the sake of science and day to day practicality, but to be sure that there is nothing of a greater intelligence or power behind everything?  Why not be agnostic, at least?  Why rule out the possibility?  I take my particular theological belief on faith, but I'm also sure there's a lot going on that is so far beyond my miniscule understanding of things, both scientifically and theologically.  I look to the idea of God as something to give sense and direction to that.

[mfbukowski]

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

 

 

 

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. 

What is meaning?

 

A human invention.   WE give life meaning because we value it- AS WE SHOULD. 

 

How does "meaning" exist objectively without people??   Can you see it?  Weigh it?  What is "meaning" without someone to give it "meaning".

 

It is "important" because we find it so.  Why is good, "good"?  Is goodness floating around objectively to be measured?

 

See my point?   This is not a philosophical argument for anything,   There is no basis in reason for this position.

 

And if reason was what religion was about, there would be no reasonable athiests.   Do you think atheists like Dawkins are stupid people who don't know how to reason?

 

Religion is not reasonable.  Do you know what "faith" is??   It is a HOPE for things UNSEEN.  Reason is based on what IS seen.

 

There seems to be no more point in carrying this on.  I have said about all I have to say.

[mfbukowski]

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. 

That's a very good answer and I agree.  It's ok.

 

They used to sell these things in souvenir shops in Rome in the '50's and '60's, and doctrinally it is strictly bogus I am sure.   I didn't mean to stir the nest further.

 

It was presented to my family by a relative who vistited Rome and believed it was "true", but after I myself visited Rome for the first time in 1968, they were everywhere.   It has some kind of fancy seal, and some illegible signatures and caligraphy, and a picture of the Pope.   I am sure my poor relative paid a few hundred dollars for it, but such as life.

[mfbukowski]

It seems reasonable to me because I need it.

Oh, ok then. 

[mfbukowski]

OK folks, I am outa here.

[MormonFreeThinker]

What is meaning?

 

A human invention.   WE give life meaning because we value it- AS WE SHOULD. 

 

How does "meaning" exist objectively without people??   Can you see it?  Weigh it?  What is "meaning" without someone to give it "meaning".

 

That is the point, a universe without life is meaningless. 

 

 

Religion is not reasonable.  Do you know what "faith" is??   It is a HOPE for things UNSEEN.  Reason is based on what IS seen.

 

We should try to use faith and reason to understand religion, not faith alone, or reason alone. 

Unseen is not unreasonble. 

 

The multiverse theory is reasonoble, but nobody has seen it. There are a lot of unseen theories that are reasonable. 

Religion can be reasonable, there are some things we do not understand yet, but it doesn't mean that we have to suspend reason like the Jim Jones Cult. 

 

Do not compare anyone on this board to a criminal if you expect to stay in a thread.

[Rob Osborn]

Not really sure what it was exactly that Lincoln Cannon was getting at. Seemed like he did a whole lot of rambling about nothing with made up words and phrases- really hard to get at what he was saying. The fine tunning theory as presented is plausible to a degree but again it gets into rambling about nothing. Honestly, the Book of Mormon to me is the greatest argument that there is God. The Nephites explained God in such a logical manner that it defies all other and sets in stone once and for all that truly- "all things denote there is a God"(Alma 30:44)

44 But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

I simply do not know how one can refute this logic. Even the motion of the planets, as witnessed by the ancient Nephites, caused them them to aknowledge that it wasnt mere chance that they could possibly exist and have their order without a Supreme Creator. LDS are in the unique position of teaching this truth so then why dont we really teach it? Why do we always fall upon some scholar with some bizarre theory to explain what it takes the BoM one verse to do?

[changed]

40 And now what evidence have ye that there is no God, or that Christ cometh not? I say unto you that ye have none, save it be your word only.

 41 But, behold, I have all things as a testimony that these things are true; and ye also have all things as a testimony unto you that they are true
 44 ...Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/30.44?lang=eng#43


The fine tuning argument is a good one -
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html

As is the idea that humans have the ability to eternally progress = the existence of exalted beings.

Personally, the universe (or multiverse if you want to go that route) is old and big enough, that I think everything that can exist, does. 

Edited October 27, 2014 by changed

[mfbukowski]

We should try to use faith and reason to understand religion, not faith alone, or reason alone.

Good luck.  You will never convince anyone that your religion is right using reason.  It's a dead end.

 

And who said it "should"?  Can you show that using reason alone?

 

Go ahead and convert a few atheists with your logic, and then tell me how well that approach worked.

[Robert F. Smith]

Not really sure what it was exactly that Lincoln Cannon was getting at. Seemed like he did a whole lot of rambling about nothing with made up words and phrases- really hard to get at what he was saying. The fine tunning theory as presented is plausible to a degree but again it gets into rambling about nothing. Honestly, the Book of Mormon to me is the greatest argument that there is God. The Nephites explained God in such a logical manner that it defies all other and sets in stone once and for all that truly- "all things denote there is a God"(Alma 30:44)

44 But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

I simply do not know how one can refute this logic. Even the motion of the planets, as witnessed by the ancient Nephites, caused them them to aknowledge that it wasnt mere chance that they could possibly exist and have their order without a Supreme Creator. LDS are in the unique position of teaching this truth so then why dont we really teach it? Why do we always fall upon some scholar with some bizarre theory to explain what it takes the BoM one verse to do?

It is true that such statements have been made in Holy Writ (Psalm 19:1, Romans 1:20), but they are religious beliefs and assertions rather than philosophical or logical arguments -- which is what the OP is apparently looking for.

 

In fact, many physicists accept the non-religious arguments from the nature of a fine-tuned universe -- a view which an atheist could support.  Richard Deem, AEvidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe,@ Evidence for God blog, online at http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html .  These are not bizarre arguments, and are based on science.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Good luck.  You will never convince anyone that your religion is right using reason.  It's a dead end.

"the Church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together" 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

The fine tuning argument has helped former atheists 

The New God argument also helps, I like what changed said, 

 

Personally, the universe (or multiverse if you want to go that route) is old and big enough, that I think everything that can exist, does. 

[Rob Osborn]

Well, it comes down to design and purpose. Everything we know about nature tells us that design in the universe and in living things is not nor cannot be a result of nature.

[mfbukowski]

It is true that such statements have been made in Holy Writ (Psalm 19:1, Romans 1:20), but they are religious beliefs and assertions rather than philosophical or logical arguments -- which is what the OP is apparently looking for.

 

In fact, many physicists accept the non-religious arguments from the nature of a fine-tuned universe -- a view which an atheist could support.  Richard Deem, AEvidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe,@ Evidence for God blog, online at http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html .  These are not bizarre arguments, and are based on science.

This is exactly the point I am trying to make, nothing more and nothing less.

 

If the thread title was "Interesting Scientific Theories Which Might Be Understood Theistically" I would not have even commented.  And indeed Multiverse theories also fall in that category.

 

I have been trying to show the difference between philosophical arguments and scientific theories, and in doing so unfortunately, by labeled science as "reason", and I suppose that is the source of the confusion here.  We need to understand that "Faith" and "Reason" are labels for two tools we use in organizing our understanding of reality.

 

But this thread really has notning to do with "Best Arguments for the Existence of God", as you have pointed out.

[mfbukowski]

"the Church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together" 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

The fine tuning argument has helped former atheists 

The New God argument also helps, I like what changed said, 

I would suggest you study the difference between scientific theories and philosophical arguments for the existence of God.

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

 

The problem of the supernatural

One problem posed by the question of the existence of God is that traditional beliefs usually ascribe to God various supernatural powers. Supernatural beings may be able to conceal and reveal themselves for their own purposes, as for example in the tale of Baucis and Philemon. In addition, according to concepts of God, God is not part of the natural order, but the ultimate creator of nature and of the scientific laws. Thus, in Aristotelian philosophy, God is viewed as part of the explanatory structure needed to support scientific conclusions, and any powers God possesses are, strictly speaking, of the natural order—that is, derived from God's place as originator of nature. (See also Monadology)

Some^[who?] religious apologists offer the supernatural nature of God as the explanation for the inability of empirical methods to decide the question of God's existence. In Karl Popper's philosophy of science, belief in a supernatural God is outside the natural domain of scientific investigation because all scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable in the natural world. The Non-overlapping Magisteria view proposed by Stephen Jay Gould also holds that the existence (or otherwise) of God is irrelevant to and beyond the domain of science.

Logical positivists, such as Rudolf Carnap and A. J. Ayer viewed any talk of gods as literal nonsense. For the logical positivists and adherents of similar schools of thought, statements about religious or other transcendent experiences could not have a truth value, and were deemed to be without meaning, because metaphysical naturalism, the philosophical basis for logical positivism, automatically excludes the possibility of the supernatural a priori without proof. As the Christian biologist Scott C. Todd put it "Even if all the data pointed to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."^[8] This argument limits the domain of science to the empirically observable and limits the domain of God to the unprovable.

 

Edited October 28, 2014 by mfbukowski

[MormonFreeThinker]

 

I would suggest you study the difference between scientific theories and philosophical arguments for the existence of God.

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

 

 

 

Thank you, but I understand the difference. 

 

The Fine Tuning is a scientific question. 

The explanations are philosophy (God, multiverse, something unknown)  

Edited October 28, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[thesometimesaint]

Well, it comes down to design and purpose. Everything we know about nature tells us that design in the universe and in living things is not nor cannot be a result of nature.

 

Unsupported teleological argument.

[mfbukowski]

Unsupported teleological argument.

Actually, he is right.  Of course it is an unsupported teleological argument.

 

He is essentially saying the same thing the quote in post 42 says.  You cannot "prove" God naturalistically.  That's all he seems to be saying here.

 

But it's odd because he also thinks intelligent design is scientific, but in this case, what he says is the opposite.

 

Well, it comes down to design and purpose. Everything we know about nature tells us that design in the universe and in living things is not nor cannot be a result of nature.

If ID is "not a result of nature" then ID is not scientific because what science studies IS nature.

 

So I don't know how this post coheres with his other positions on the topic.

Edited October 28, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Rob Osborn]

Unsupported teleological argument.

So, CFR that design in nature is a random event.

[Rob Osborn]

Actually, he is right. Of course it is an unsupported teleological argument.

He is essentially saying the same thing the quote in post 42 says. You cannot "prove" God naturalistically. That's all he seems to be saying here.

But it's odd because he also thinks intelligent design is scientific, but in this case, what he says is the opposite.

If ID is "not a result of nature" then ID is not scientific because what science studies IS nature.

So I don't know how this post coheres with his other positions on the topic.

Science is the study of nature and how it works. Scientific study has shown that design in nature only comes from a design preceding it. Thus, ID is covered by science it being a part of nature (the design element) Edited October 28, 2014 by Rob Osborn

[pogi]

So, CFR that design in nature is a random event.

 

Any basic biology book will explain "design" as a product of random mutations and natural selection favoring certain phenotype/genotypes.  

[pogi]

 Scientific study has shown that design in nature only comes from a design preceding it. 

 

Design in nature comes from a mutation of the design preceding it, or we'd all be single celled organisms (according to science).

 

  Thus, ID is covered by science it being a part of nature (the design element)

 

 

Is ID observable in nature?  Science has yet to observe it as such, so it is not yet science. 

Edited October 28, 2014 by pogi

[pogi]

oops 

Edited October 28, 2014 by pogi