What Is The Best Argument For The Existence Of God?

[thesometimesaint]

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

 

You are constructing a "Straw Man" argument on something I never said.

 

No scientist that I know of says that design is a random event. Which itself an argument from design.

SEE A teleological or physico-theological argument, also known as an argument from design, is an argument for the existence of God or, more generally, for an intelligent creator "based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural or physical world".

 

Additionally no scientist that I know of say that evolution is a totally random event.

SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

SEE http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32

SEE http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1aRandom.shtml

SEE http://www.livescience.com/48103-evolution-not-random.html

[Rob Osborn]

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

 

 

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

Well, it isnt observable that we came from single celled organisms. So, that must not be science eh?

We see intelligent design in every aspect of life. DNA is completely an intelligent design. Where does DNA come from? From the design and intelligence preceding it. We observe this constantly in science- it is science!

[Rob Osborn]

You are constructing a "Straw Man" argument on something I never said.

 

No scientist that I know of says that design is a random event. Which itself an argument from design.

SEE A teleological or physico-theological argument, also known as an argument from design, is an argument for the existence of God or, more generally, for an intelligent creator "based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural or physical world".

 

Additionally no scientist that I know of say that evolution is a totally random event.

SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

SEE http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32

SEE http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1aRandom.shtml

SEE http://www.livescience.com/48103-evolution-not-random.html

So, random mutations is not random?

[Rob Osborn]

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

They can say anything they want, they do anyway regardless of evidence- whatever suits their atheistic paradigm.

[mfbukowski]

Here we go.

That what's happens when you talk about science and not arguments for the existence of God.

This thread was derailed from the first post.

[Robert F. Smith]

.......................................................................................   

 

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.

 

 

It is precisely the validity of these observations which puts normative religious discussion in limbo and prevents it from being taken seriously as a matter of logic or science.

 

It is only at the point where we are willing to posit a god who is part of the natural order that we begin to escape the nonsense and make the argument from intelligent design (ID) both intelligible and worthwhile.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

It is precisely the validity of these observations which puts normative religious discussion in limbo and prevents it from being taken seriously as a matter of logic or science.

 

It is only at the point where we are willing to posit a god who is part of the natural order that we begin to escape the nonsense and make the argument from intelligent design (ID) both intelligible and worthwhile.

 

That's the key, and no one sees it.  We are the only ones who know such a God.  I really wish LDS could put away this silliness.

Edited October 29, 2014 by mfbukowski

[MormonFreeThinker]

Here we go.

That what's happens when you talk about science and not arguments for the existence of God.

 

 

The Fine Tuning is a scientific question, the explanation is a philosophy or metaphysics.  

 

 

Here is an interesting video, they argue that aliens almost certainly exist, but they do not realize that a super intelligent alien is God. 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

 

Excellent video.  Well worth watching, since it deals with theological questions in ways unintentionally favorable to both physics and Mormonism.

[mfbukowski]

Excellent video.  Well worth watching, since it deals with theological questions in ways unintentionally favorable to both physics and Mormonism.

That's the problem.  We seldom see how close we are to science and humanism- topics you and I have discussed at length

 

I am considering writing something on the idea of Paul teaching about the "Unknown God" in Athens, and the parallel with this exact point- that the scientists and humanists worship the "unknown god" who is just a whisker away from our God, yet in their minds beyond comprehension.  Instead of preaching to the Greeks in Greek, we need to preach to the Humanists in Humanist language- but the parallels with Paul are quite clear.

 

I think we need to develop a parallel humanistic vocabulary which will bridge that gap, so that our myths can be translated into their myths.

[teddyaware]

The best argument for the existence of God is that there an existence and that within that existence it is manifestly true that there is an opposition in all things. This is the argument Lehi makes and I wholeheartedly agree with his thesis...

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.
12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.
13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. (2 Nephi 2)

[teddyaware]

The best argument for the existence of God is that there an existence and that within that existence it is manifestly true that there is an opposition in all things. This is the argument Lehi makes and I wholeheartedly agree with his thesis...

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.
12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.
13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. (2 Nephi 2)

[mfbukowski]

The best argument for the existence of God is that there an existence ...

Just a tad circular.

What use has the word "existence" anyway.  Can you think of anything that does NOT exist?

 

If you can think about it and name it, it has "existence" in some sense, even if "just in your mind".   But of course for each of us everything is "just in our minds".  Can you think a thought that is not in your mind? 

Edited November 6, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

That's the key, and no one sees it. We are the only ones who know such a God. I really wish LDS could put away this silliness.

Many see it but keep running into discussions with people who don't while expecting the people who don't see it to see it.

It goes something like this:

"I see it! Don't you see it?"

"No I don't see and it can not be seen!"

Ugh. What else are we gonna do?

Those who do not see God just do not see him.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Excellent video.  Well worth watching, since it deals with theological questions in ways unintentionally favorable to both physics and Mormonism.

 

It is, a Super Intelligent alien must be benevolent and a creator = God. 

 

[teddyaware]

Just a tad circular.

What use has the word "existence" anyway.  Can you think of anything that does NOT exist?

 

If you can think about it and name it, it has "existence" in some sense, even if "just in your mind".   But of course for each of us everything is "just in our minds".  Can you think a thought that is not in your mind? 

Rather than take up a debate with me and my poor summation of Lehi's doctrinal exposition as to the reason why God exists, I'd enjoy seeing you take up the debate directly with Lehi Himself. I will quote him below and would love to see if you can find any weakness and circularity in his reasoning.

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. (2 Nephi 2)

Edited November 6, 2014 by teddyaware

[ELF1024]

It depends on what you mean by good. If you mean an  argument that will convince someone who is an avowed Atheist; one does not exist.

 

Frankly, the fact that anything exists at all is an argument for the existence of God. Without God, there would be nothing, no matter, no energy, no vacuum, nothing.

[Silhouette]

What is the best argument for the existence of God?

"The Spirit whispers this to me and tells me it is true...and tells me it is true."

[mfbukowski]

Rather than take up a debate with me and my poor summation of Lehi's doctrinal exposition as to the reason why God exists, I'd enjoy seeing you take up the debate directly with Lehi Himself. I will quote him below and would love to see if you can find any weakness and circularity in his reasoning.

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. (2 Nephi 2)

Nope, no weakness or circularity because he knows that he is not making an argument about the existence of God. It is not an argument at all.  He is stating a metaphysical position- you either accept it or you don't.  Notice the word "exist" doesn't appear once.  How could that possibly be an argument for God's existence if it never says that???!!!

 

He says that if there is no God then we are not.  OK- he is just presuming that- it is not an argument.  Obviously an atheist would disagree.  An atheist would say, "Well, here we are, but there IS no God, so much for that."

 

It's like saying that "blue is a beautiful color". or "God is a spirit" or "God is a man" or "The moon is made of green cheese". 

 

There are no arguments there, just statements which one either accepts or doesn't. There is nothing to debate.  His opinion is as good as anyone's.

 

Better, of course for us because we believe he was a prophet.

Edited November 7, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

What is the best argument for the existence of God?

"The Spirit whispers this to me and tells me it is true...and tells me it is true."

This is by far the best point.   It is the only possible way to know.

[Ahab]

Nope, no weakness or circularity because he knows that he is not making an argument about the existence of God. It is not an argument at all. He is stating a metaphysical position- you either accept it or you don't. Notice the word "exist" doesn't appear once. How could that possibly be an argument for God's existence if it never says that???!!!

He says that if there is no God then we are not. OK- he is just presuming that- it is not an argument. Obviously an atheist would disagree. An atheist would say, "Well, here we are, but there IS no God, so much for that."

It's like saying that "blue is a beautiful color". or "God is a spirit" or "God is a man" or "The moon is made of green cheese".

There are no arguments there, just statements which one either accepts or doesn't. There is nothing to debate. His opinion is as good as anyone's.

Oh just give it up. You lost already.

[MormonFreeThinker]

This is by far the best point.   It is the only possible way to know.

 

True, but it is a personal experience, not an argument. 

[mfbukowski]

True, but it is a personal experience, not an argument. 

So?

[mfbukowski]

Oh just give it up. You lost already.

Now there's a brilliant argument. 

[Silhouette]

True, but it is a personal experience, not an argument.

It's MY argument... Not intended to be snarky or anything, but for me, it's quite a valid argument, too. I can't think of anything more convincing. Now, whether others want to give my argument credence is another story.

Do I have any solid evidence to present? No. But I don't think anyone else does either. It's all going to be thoughts and opinions from every one of us. So I think what I DO bring to the table about me knowing by the Spirit is just as valuable an argument as anyone else's here.

As mfbukowski pointed out in an earlier post, there are no arguments here, just statements that one either accepts or doesn't. One person's opinion is just as good as anyone else's.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Silhouette