What Is The Best Argument For The Existence Of God?

[bcuzbcuz]

Oh just give it up. You lost already.

Glad to see you think this is a subject/opinion/argument that can be "lost".

But I will assume that you don't believe in God, IF that definition of God doesn't fit your opinion of what defines God.

You don't believe in the god that was worshipped at the time of Stonehenge, do you? I'm going to assume you don't believe in any of the Norse Viking gods. I've never read anything that you've posted that states a belief in the god of Zorasts. You have never declared belief in any of the Greek or Roman Gods. I've never seen you submit your praise to Allah. I can only assume you don't pray to any of the Aztec or Mayan Gods or the multiple gods of Peruvian cultures, or ancient Egypt (they had hundreds of them).

You probably don't even believe in the same god as the Catholics, or Calvinists, or Baptists pray to.

In fact, out of the hundreds, if not thousands of gods that civilizations have believed in throughout time, the only god you believe in is the god of your own, Mormon religion. That makes you 99.9999% atheist.

[MormonFreeThinker]

In fact, out of the hundreds, if not thousands of gods that civilizations have believed in throughout time, the only god you believe in is the god of your own, Mormon religion. That makes you 99.9999% atheist.

 

Same old argument. An atheist does not believe in any God, so a Theist is not an Atheist. 

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

A "doctrinal exposition" is not the same thing as a logical proof, and Lehi is not engaging in systematic theology.  He is instead making assertions about the nature of reality as he understands it based on revelation from God (II Nephi 2), and one can find very similar views in the Bible and in ancient Egyptian theology:  The doctrine of the Two Ways.  None of them are proofs for the existence of God, and Mark is correct to refer to use of them as circular.

 

 Believers often use circular arguments without recognizing the problem in their logic.  This is a problem common to evangelical and Roman Catholic theologians.  Unlike Mormons, they fail to recognize the prime importance of personal revelation as a source of knowledge of the existence of God.

 

[LOSTONE]

Believe if you want, don’t if you don’t. Can’t make a thirsty person drink just because you give them a glass of water. All I can do is to share my testimony and offer support. My testimony is proof that God is real and God is alive and God cares. Without God, I wouldn’t be here. I would be dead and suffered before death. My life as it is and will be is a blessing and proof of God. Believe or don’t. My thirst has been quenched.

[bcuzbcuz]

Same old argument. An atheist does not believe in any God, so a Theist is not an Atheist.

Same old argument????? WWhat did I do that you have to insult me? Same old argument. I`m Canadian, so I`m a little upset. (google upset Canadian, if you don`t get the reference)

[MormonFreeThinker]

Same old argument????? WWhat did I do that you have to insult me? Same old argument. I`m Canadian, so I`m a little upset. (google upset Canadian, if you don`t get the reference)

 

Please do not accuse me of making ad hominem arguments. 

I did not insult you. 

Edited November 7, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Ahab]

Glad to see you think this is a subject/opinion/argument that can be "lost".

But I will assume that you don't believe in God, IF that definition of God doesn't fit your opinion of what defines God.

You don't believe in the god that was worshipped at the time of Stonehenge, do you? I'm going to assume you don't believe in any of the Norse Viking gods. I've never read anything that you've posted that states a belief in the god of Zorasts. You have never declared belief in any of the Greek or Roman Gods. I've never seen you submit your praise to Allah. I can only assume you don't pray to any of the Aztec or Mayan Gods or the multiple gods of Peruvian cultures, or ancient Egypt (they had hundreds of them).

You probably don't even believe in the same god as the Catholics, or Calvinists, or Baptists pray to.

In fact, out of the hundreds, if not thousands of gods that civilizations have believed in throughout time, the only god you believe in is the god of your own, Mormon religion. That makes you 99.9999% atheist.

God is a word used generally to refer to the supreme being or supreme kind of being among all other kinds of beings in existence, whoever or whatever kind of being that is. To not believe in God is to not believe in a supreme kind of being, and in that case the only options left to believe in are that either (b) each kind of being is equal to every other kind of being or © that there is a never ending heirarchy with one kind of being being more supreme than another but never one that is or could be the most supreme over all of the others. But even in those cases it is still a belief in God. Option (b) would mean that every kind of being is God, with all being equally supreme, and option © would mean there is more than one kind of God, with some kinds being God and some not.

I'm in the option (a) crowd. Which group are you in?

[Ahab]

Please do not accuse me of making ad hominem arguments.

Isn't ad hominem what people say when they talk with their mouth full? I hate it when people do that.

[Silhouette]

Isn't ad hominem what people say when they talk with their mouth full? I hate it when people do that.

[teddyaware]

A "doctrinal exposition" is not the same thing as a logical proof, and Lehi is not engaging in systematic theology.  He is instead making assertions about the nature of reality as he understands it based on revelation from God (II Nephi 2), and one can find very similar views in the Bible and in ancient Egyptian theology:  The doctrine of the Two Ways.  None of them are proofs for the existence of God, and Mark is correct to refer to use of them as circular.

 

 Believers often use circular arguments without recognizing the problem in their logic.  This is a problem common to evangelical and Roman Catholic theologians.  Unlike Mormons, they fail to recognize the prime importance of personal revelation as a source of knowledge of the existence of God.

In my post, I used the expression "doctrinal exposition" because in 2 Nephi 2 Lehi logically and systematically expounds upon profound Gospel theories and doctrines  Sorry if I didn't use the expression in the precise manner scholars would use it.

 

Anyway, I believe Lehi does engage in systematic theology in 2 Nephi 2. Just because the Nephite patriarch is possessed of a blessed spiritual gift that enables him to quickly and clearly elucidate important Gospel concepts without having to endlessly blather on and on about them does not mean that the chapter is not fully systematic and logical. The brevity of his exposition is evidence of the fact that the Spirit has given him perfect clarity of thought, a clarity that enables him to hit doctrinal nails on the head again and again, and drive each one 'home,' without having to grope for expression. Inspired precision of holy language enables the prophets to "speak volumes" without having to say very much.

In light of this thread's dialogue, I'm wondering what you think of the strength (or weakness) of the prophet Alma's points of argumentation when he answers Korihor the anti-Christ's request for proof that there is a God?

43 And now Korihor said unto Alma: If thou wilt show me a sign, that I may be convinced that there is a God, yea, show unto me that he hath power, and then will I be convinced of the truth of thy words.

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. (Alma 30)

Edited November 7, 2014 by teddyaware

[Silhouette]

In my post, I used the expression "doctrinal exposition" because in 2 Nephi 2 Lehi logically and systematically expounds upon profound Gospel theories and doctrines Sorry if I didn't use the expression in the precise manner scholars would use it.

Anyway, I believe Lehi does engage in systematic theology in 2 Nephi 2. Just because the Nephite patriarch is possessed of a blessed spiritual gift that enables him to quickly and clearly elucidate important Gospel concepts without having to endlessly blather on and on about them does not mean that the chapter is not fully systematic and logical. The brevity of his exposition is evidence of the fact that the Spirit has given him perfect clarity of thought, a clarity that enables him to hit doctrinal nails on the head again and again, and drive each one 'home,' without having to grope for expression. Inspired precision of holy language enables the prophets to "speak volumes" without having to say very much.

In light of this thread's dialogue, I'm wondering what you think of the strength (or weakness) of the prophet Alma's points of argumentation when he answers Korihor the anti-Christ's request for proof that there is a God?

43 And now Korihor said unto Alma: If thou wilt show me a sign, that I may be convinced that there is a God, yea, show unto me that he hath power, and then will I be convinced of the truth of thy words.

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. (Alma 30)

This is a very powerful scripture. Thank you for posting it. I've not read the Book of Mormon for awhile, and had forgotten about this one.

[mfbukowski]

God is a word used generally to refer to the supreme being or supreme kind of being among all other kinds of beings in existence, whoever or whatever kind of being that is. To not believe in God is to not believe in a supreme kind of being, and in that case the only options left to believe in are that either (b) each kind of being is equal to every other kind of being or © that there is a never ending heirarchy with one kind of being being more supreme than another but never one that is or could be the most supreme over all of the others. But even in those cases it is still a belief in God. Option (b) would mean that every kind of being is God, with all being equally supreme, and option © would mean there is more than one kind of God, with some kinds being God and some not.

I'm in the option (a) crowd. Which group are you in?

There are a million options you cannot even concede.  I will leave it at that.

Edit: That was a typo- it was supposed to say "conceive".

Edited November 8, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Ok here is an example of a GEN- YOU- INE argument for the existence of God, the Kalam cosmological argument

 

Craig states the KalÄm cosmological argument as a brief syllogism, most commonly rendered as follows:^%5B2%5D

• Everything that begins to exist has a cause;
• The universe began to exist; Therefore:
• The universe has a cause.

From the conclusion of the initial syllogism, he appends a further premise and conclusion based upon ontological analysis of the properties of the cause:^%5B3%5D

• The universe has a cause;
• If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful; Therefore:
• An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

Referring to the implications of Classical Theism that follow from this argument, Craig writes:

"This, as Thomas Aquinas was wont to remark, is what everybody means by 'God".

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

Unfortunately, this argument was debunked by Hume in the 18th century.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/

The problem is essentially the definition of "cause". What was the "cause" for your personal existence? Was it the gleam in your father's eye before he married your mom? But if it was that, how about the gleam in your grandfather's eye? Why not Adam's knowledge that he should multiply and replenish the earth?

You cannot define the "cause" of anything as one discreet event, and causality itself is poorly understood by most.

But this is an example of an argument for the existence of God.

Saying that "God exists because all things are in opposition" is not an argument. It is a statement of beliefs like "I have a testimony.....".

It may be true, but that doesn't make it an "argument"

Edited November 7, 2014 by mfbukowski

[teddyaware]

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."

 

1) Lehi doesn't have to say exist or existence because he says without God all things would vanish away (non-existence). And Lehi knows for a surety, not theoretically, that without God nothing could or ever would exist.

 

2) Lehi isn't presuming because he actually saw God in the theophanic vision recorded in 1 Nephi 1.

 

The bottom line here is that you can never prove to a natural man that God exists. Even if God appears to a natural man -- as he often did in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John -- the natural man will never believe he is God, even if he raises Lazarus from the dead right in front of his eyes. Even the devil himself  (the epitome of a natural man) doesn't believe in Christ, even though he's seen and talked to him a great many times. You see, the devil thinks he's the real son of god and that Jesus a usurper and an imposture. The only thing that can prove to a man that God exists is revelation from the Spirit. And once one has received such revelation from the Spirit, Lehi's words testify and prove beyond all doubt that there is a God. The true and living God is either revealed by revelation or He forever remains unknown and hidden.    

Edited November 7, 2014 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

Here are twenty more arguments for the existence of God

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

All of them have been made by other philosophers, all of them debated, all of them have been debunked or not debunked according to what you want to believe about them.

ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE ABOUT THEM.

What you want to believe is the bottom line. The rest is just jibber-jabber.

Edited November 8, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

The bottom line here is that you can never prove to a natural man that God exists.

Exactly what I have been saying.

What's your point?

The rest is just jibber-jabber.

Edited November 8, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

There are a million options you cannot even concede. I will leave it at that.

Blatant obfuscation. Got it.

[Ahab]

The problem is essentially the definition of "cause". What was the "cause" for your personal existence?

No. Cause is not a factor in the existence of God. The problem is essentially the definition of "God".

Once anyone understands what God is, and I'm talking about what the word God really means, they will admit God exists, if they are honest.

They will not agree with everyone else's idea about who is God or which kind of being among all kinds is the kind that is God... not everyone agrees on those particulars... but if they are honest they will have to admit God exists.

[cdowis]

In the youtube video of the discussion between Dawkins and Hawking,  Hawking gave him two alternatives -- there is either a creator or there is a multiuniverse.  This was based on the vast improbability for the existence of the  exact conditions making life possible.

 

Basically Dawkins had no response to that question, "how was the universe so carefully designed?".  Just fireworks and explosions in the video to hide his non-answer.

 

The first minute and half. 

Edited November 11, 2014 by cdowis

[Robert F. Smith]

In my post, I used the expression "doctrinal exposition" because in 2 Nephi 2 Lehi logically and systematically expounds upon profound Gospel theories and doctrines  Sorry if I didn't use the expression in the precise manner scholars would use it.

Anyway, I believe Lehi does engage in systematic theology in 2 Nephi 2.

I have no problem with your use of the term "doctrinal exposition," because that is indeed what Lehi is engaged in there.  However, that does not constitute a logical and philosophically profound systematic theology.  If you want to know what systematic theology is, read the Summa Theologiae of Thomas Aquinas -- who also failed to prove the existence of God.  Your sincere intent and that of many others is not in question.  Their and your circular arguments are the basic problem, even if you don't recognize it.

 

..............................Just because the Nephite patriarch is possessed of a blessed spiritual gift that enables him to quickly and clearly elucidate important Gospel concepts without having to endlessly blather on and on about them does not mean that the chapter is not fully systematic and logical. The brevity of his exposition is evidence of the fact that the Spirit has given him perfect clarity of thought, a clarity that enables him to hit doctrinal nails on the head again and again, and drive each one 'home,' without having to grope for expression. Inspired precision of holy language enables the prophets to "speak volumes" without having to say very much.

In light of this thread's dialogue, I'm wondering what you think of the strength (or weakness) of the prophet Alma's points of argumentation when he answers Korihor the anti-Christ's request for proof that there is a God?

43 And now Korihor said unto Alma: If thou wilt show me a sign, that I may be convinced that there is a God, yea, show unto me that he hath power, and then will I be convinced of the truth of thy words.

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. (Alma 30)

I don't mind someone making a scientific argument of fine-tuning of the Earth, solar system, galaxy, or universe as a type of proof of the existence of a designer of such fine-tuned systems, and some people do indeed make that argument (see under "Goldilocks planet" where everything is oddly "just right").  But that is not the argument which Alma (and some biblical sources) makes here in Alma 30.  Assertion is not the same as fact or truth, no matter how much we dress it up.  The Book of Mormon is not a philosophical or theological textbook, even though we can derive theological principles from it.  The same is true of the Bible.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

No. Cause is not a factor in the existence of God. The problem is essentially the definition of "God".

Once anyone understands what God is, and I'm talking about what the word God really means, they will admit God exists, if they are honest.

They will not agree with everyone else's idea about who is God or which kind of being among all kinds is the kind that is God... not everyone agrees on those particulars... but if they are honest they will have to admit God exists.

Honesty has nothing to do with such arguments, Ahab, and you yourself stress that it is actually a matter of defining the term "God."

 

However, abstract definitions, no matter how clever and profound, cannot close the logical gap between assertion and proof.  Merely defining something does not bring it into existence, nor can a thought experiment become concrete simply because someone says it ("poof") must be.  That does not mean that your argument is not part of a very old tradition (from scholastic times), only that it does not meet the minimal standards of logical coherence.  All of which reminds me of the classic debate on "The Existence of God" between Bertrand Russell and Father Coplestone in 1948 (see online at http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p20.htm).

 

Had a knowledgeable Mormon debated Lord Russell on that occasion, the result would have been far different, but Father Coplestone was hamstrung by apriori and illogical theological dogma.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Ahab]

Honesty has nothing to do with such arguments, Ahab, and you yourself stress that it is actually a matter of defining the term "God."

However, abstract definitions, no matter how clever and profound, cannot close the logical gap between assertion and proof. Merely defining something does not bring it into existence, nor can a thought experiment become concrete simply because someone says it ("poof") must be. That does not mean that your argument is not part of a very old tradition (from scholastic times), only that it does not meet the minimal standards of logical coherence. All of which reminds me of the classic debate on "The Existence of God" between Bertrand Russell and Father Coplestone in 1948 (see online at http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p20.htm).

Had a knowledgeable Mormon debated Lord Russell on that occasion, the result would have been far different, but Father Coplestone was hamstrung by apriori and illogical theological dogma.

The question, if someone wanted to ask, would be basically this: Does God exist? From that point it becomes a question of what God is, and anyone who understands what God is, and is honest, must answer in the affirmative. It is as simple as that.

Maybe you could do someone a favor and explain to them what God is, in simple terms, so that they can understand. Like, the supreme kind of being among all that exist.

[teddyaware]

I have no problem with your use of the term "doctrinal exposition," because that is indeed what Lehi is engaged in there.  However, that does not constitute a logical and philosophically profound systematic theology.  If you want to know what systematic theology is, read the Summa Theologiae of Thomas Aquinas -- who also failed to prove the existence of God.  Your sincere intent and that of many others is not in question.  Their and your circular arguments are the basic problem, even if you don't recognize it.

 

I don't mind someone making a scientific argument of fine-tuning of the Earth, solar system, galaxy, or universe as a type of proof of the existence of a designer of such fine-tuned systems, and some people do indeed make that argument (see under "Goldilocks planet" where everything is oddly "just right").  But that is not the argument which Alma (and some biblical sources) makes here in Alma 30.  Assertion is not the same as fact or truth, no matter how much we dress it up.  The Book of Mormon is not a philosophical or theological textbook, even though we can derive theological principles from it.  The same is true of the Bible.

Hi Robert,

I'm fascinated by Alma's list of 'proofs' given to Korihor to establish the fact that God exists, because based on what I'm reading on this thread it would seem Alma's list of proofs is very weak and philosophically ineffectual. Yet Alma is a great prophet/theologian and seems to think his list of proofs is all that's needed for a sincere seeker to be convinced that there is a God. If I had come on this thread and offered the exact same list of evidences to prove God exists, without giving Alma attribution, it's likely I'd get laughed off the stage, as it were. So does Alma know something modern philosophers and scholars don't know or is his list of evidences actually weak in spite of the fact that he is otherwise a great prophet.

According to Alma the combined testimonies of local Church leaders, living prophets, scripture and the thoughtful observation of the wonders of nature and the universe are all that's needed to establish that fact that there is indeed a God. So in light of what's been said on this thread,  I'm wondering why a prophet of God, whom I'm sure is a greater theologian than either you or I, would confidently make such apparently weak arguments (and would you say they are circular?) to prove to an atheist that God exists. I'm wondering if Alma is truly onto something but because of ignorance we're simply missing the power of his point. What do you think?

Edited November 11, 2014 by teddyaware

[Rob Osborn]

Hi Robert,

I'm fascinated by Alma's list of 'proofs' given to Korihor to establish the fact that God exists, because based on what I'm reading on this thread it would seem Alma's list of proofs is very weak and philosophically ineffectual. Yet Alma is a great prophet/theologian and seems to think his list of proofs is all that's needed for a sincere seeker to be convinced that there is a God. If I had come on this thread and offered the exact same list of evidences to prove God exists, without giving Alma attribution, it's likely I'd get laughed off the stage, as it were. So does Alma know something modern philosophers and scholars don't know or is his list of evidences actually weak in spite of the fact that he is otherwise a great prophet.

According to Alma the combined testimonies of local Church leaders, living prophets, scripture and the thoughtful observation of the wonders of nature and the universe are all that's needed to establish that fact that there is indeed a God. So in light of what's been said on this thread,  I'm wondering why a prophet of God, whom I'm sure is a greater theologian than either you or I, would confidently make such apparently weak arguments (and would you say they are circular?) to prove to an atheist that God exists. I'm wondering if Alma is truly onto something but because of ignorance we're simply missing the power of his point. What do you think?

It truly (seriously and honestly) baffles me that people cannot see the proof given by Alma for the existence of God. If one looks at it just like Alma proposes one cannot possibly question. So then, why do so many question regardless? We must be surrounded by idiots! Its all I can think of.

[bcuzbcuz]

Maybe you could do someone a favor and explain to them what God is, in simple terms, so that they can understand. Like, the supreme kind of being among all that exist.

Right back at ya. Since you seem to know the answer, I'm all ears.