H
heronimo
Guest
Our prof. is an ex-seminarian and he don’t believe in God he said we can get a flat 1 if we can proove to him that God exist!
Can you give some example of your favorite arguments about the existence of God
- Status
G
geometer
Guest
Is he an English teacher???
T
terrysa
Guest
First of all, your teacher has put you in an impossible position. No one can “prove” by argument that God exists. That’s why there’s such a thing as faith. We can only believe, unless we are lucky to be given special revelations/visions. (Even then, you would have to believe your sense of sight etc.) However, I think it would be even harder to prove that He does not exist. Looking at the complexity and order of the Universe it is perhaps more difficult to believe that it all happened by chance.
My favorite “argument” is the guy who walks along a beach and finds a watch. He picks it up and marvels at its complexity. Does he say “Oh wow, all the elements came together randomly out of the chaos of the universe, in exactly the right way, to produce this great marvel that tells time!” Or, does he say, “Wow! Look at the workmanship here! Someone has specially created this marvelous gadget to help tell mark the passing of time!” More likely, he would say the latter: it would take much more effort to believe that the watch was the result of thousands of random happenings producing complex and useful end, than it would to believe that it was created by an intelligent being. Thus, we can in the same way point to the workings of the universe down to the smallest atom and marvel at what its Creator has made.
Hope this helps a little! God bless!
My favorite “argument” is the guy who walks along a beach and finds a watch. He picks it up and marvels at its complexity. Does he say “Oh wow, all the elements came together randomly out of the chaos of the universe, in exactly the right way, to produce this great marvel that tells time!” Or, does he say, “Wow! Look at the workmanship here! Someone has specially created this marvelous gadget to help tell mark the passing of time!” More likely, he would say the latter: it would take much more effort to believe that the watch was the result of thousands of random happenings producing complex and useful end, than it would to believe that it was created by an intelligent being. Thus, we can in the same way point to the workings of the universe down to the smallest atom and marvel at what its Creator has made.
Hope this helps a little! God bless!
Y
yppop
Guest
Here’s one I tried on another thread and got no response, but you might want to try it on your prof:
God is nothing.
Nothing exists.
Therefore, God exists!
If he claims the first premise is false and God is not nothing then God must be something and if God is something then God exists. Case closed!
If he claims the second premise is false ask him what came before the Big Bang? According to Steven Hawking: nothing came before the Big Bang, so nothing must exist.
Paradoxes are fun.
Good Luck
Yppop
A
AndyT_81
Guest
Lol yppop, that’s a good one, I haven’t heard of it before (not sure if it’s valid though!) 
B
Blade_and_Blood
Guest
Favorite argument? No. Worst arguments? Yes. 
Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood
Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood
R
Revere1618
Guest
My favorite “angle” is to go on the attack… (maybe not helpful in a classroom, but here goes…) My expereince with that question is that the party asking the question is someone trying to prove their own agnostic or athiest agenda… like a lawyer, they have manipulated the language so that you are behind the eight ball before you even start. My favorite example is this: Consider the word “judgment.” If someone accuses you of lacking judgment, you are bad. If someone accuses you of being judgmental you are also bad… the irony is that they have used the same word to mean two different things in the context of the statement. Same here… the key word is “proof.” First and foremost, the person with the athiest agenda probably wouldn’t accept your proof anyway… but before it goes that far the real issue is, “What is proof?”
Proof in a courtroom is largely circumstantial and might be defined as “beyond a reasonable doubt” --where God is concerned, this is about as close as you’re going to get. Proof in a mathematical expression however, probably comes closer to the “boilerplate”
definition of proof that your prof wants to hold out for. Both sides of the equation are visible and testible and any imbalance can be corrected… the obvious conclusion is that this sort of absolute proof exists no where else but math… since all things are ultimately doubtable, the only “proof” that can be expected in a best case scenario can be no more demanding than that required to prove… lets say what you had for dinner last night… and under those guidelines the ample evidence that life can not rise from non-life, or that a singularity comprised of all the matter in the universe would remain so until acted upon from a source beyond this realm-- are both iron clad “courtroom” proof of God’s existance! …cue applause.
Proof in a courtroom is largely circumstantial and might be defined as “beyond a reasonable doubt” --where God is concerned, this is about as close as you’re going to get. Proof in a mathematical expression however, probably comes closer to the “boilerplate”
definition of proof that your prof wants to hold out for. Both sides of the equation are visible and testible and any imbalance can be corrected… the obvious conclusion is that this sort of absolute proof exists no where else but math… since all things are ultimately doubtable, the only “proof” that can be expected in a best case scenario can be no more demanding than that required to prove… lets say what you had for dinner last night… and under those guidelines the ample evidence that life can not rise from non-life, or that a singularity comprised of all the matter in the universe would remain so until acted upon from a source beyond this realm-- are both iron clad “courtroom” proof of God’s existance!
…cue applause.
J
JDaniel
Guest
:clapping::clapping::clapping:My favorite “angle” is to go on the attack… (maybe not helpful in a classroom, but here goes…) My expereince with that question is that the party asking the question is someone trying to prove their own agnostic or athiest agenda… like a lawyer, they have manipulated the language so that you are behind the eight ball before you even start. My favorite example is this: Consider the word “judgment.” If someone accuses you of lacking judgment, you are bad. If someone accuses you of being judgmental you are also bad… the irony is that they have used the same word to mean two different things in the context of the statement. Same here… the key word is “proof.” First and foremost, the person with the athiest agenda probably wouldn’t accept your proof anyway… but before it goes that far the real issue is, “What is proof?”
Proof in a courtroom is largely circumstantial and might be defined as “beyond a reasonable doubt” --where God is concerned, this is about as close as you’re going to get. Proof in a mathematical expression however, probably comes closer to the “boilerplate”
definition of proof that your prof wants to hold out for. Both sides of the equation are visible and testible and any imbalance can be corrected… the obvious conclusion is that this sort of absolute proof exists no where else but math… since all things are ultimately doubtable, the only “proof” that can be expected in a best case scenario can be no more demanding than that required to prove… lets say what you had for dinner last night… and under those guidelines the ample evidence that life can not rise from non-life, or that a singularity comprised of all the matter in the universe would remain so until acted upon from a source beyond this realm-- are both iron clad “courtroom” proof of God’s existance!
jd
C
cpayne
Guest
Not really a “favorite,” but one I like:
- If God exists now, God could not pass out of existence. (being a perfect being, God could not decline from existence). Therefore God would have to exist.
- If God does not exist now, God cannot come into existence. (since perfect, God’s existence could not be contingent) Therefore, God could not exist, now or ever.
- If # 1 is true, God exists of necessity.
- If # 2 is true, it is impossible for God to exist.
- Either God exists now or God does not exist now.
- Therefore, either God has to exist or it is impossible for God to exist.
- It is not impossible for God to exist.
- The only option left is that God has to exist, necessarily.
By the way, professors are often touchy and resent challenges. If your grade is threatened, don’t push it.
C
cpayne
Guest
By the way, don’t entirely blame your prof for any grade problems. There may be other reasons.
H
heronimo
Guest
A philosophy Teacher
A
agangbern
Guest
Jesus Christ is my proof that God exists, for Jesus Christ is God. He came to earth, lived with men and showed the powers exclusive of God, raising the dead back to life. The truth of his existence is recorded in history. In fact, his existence divided history into BC and AD, so that every time we celebrate our birthday, we remember that the year of our birth is reckoned with A.D., an unquestionable confirmation of Christ’s existence.
A
agangbern
Guest
Sorry, but that syllogism violates the rule that the middle term must be distributed.
C
CoG
Guest
Your teacher is not asking for proof. Proof of the existence of God is all around him. Your teacher very existence requires a source that has the ability to produce him.
The primary purpose of God’s creation is freewill choice. That choice starts with the acceptance of objective facts. Your teacher for personal reasons has made the choice to close his mind to logic. Your teacher is asking God to deny His intent and design and override your teacher’s freewill. God is not schizophrenic and does not act against Himself. The only way your teacher will obtain the proof of God is for him to ask for that proof from God. The asking is called prayer.
The ability to ask God of even to search for the existence of God must start with admitting why he does not want to believe in God. It is in man’s nature to want to seek God. Only the desire for something else against the natural law is a choice made to deny the search and the existence of God.
The fact that your teacher asked for proof says that that desire to find God is still there. Even the strongest atheist must constantly look for justification. Otherwise, there would not be the constant attack on or questioning of people of faith. You do not see people with faith going around asking for proof that there is no God.
The primary purpose of God’s creation is freewill choice. That choice starts with the acceptance of objective facts. Your teacher for personal reasons has made the choice to close his mind to logic. Your teacher is asking God to deny His intent and design and override your teacher’s freewill. God is not schizophrenic and does not act against Himself. The only way your teacher will obtain the proof of God is for him to ask for that proof from God. The asking is called prayer.
The ability to ask God of even to search for the existence of God must start with admitting why he does not want to believe in God. It is in man’s nature to want to seek God. Only the desire for something else against the natural law is a choice made to deny the search and the existence of God.
The fact that your teacher asked for proof says that that desire to find God is still there. Even the strongest atheist must constantly look for justification. Otherwise, there would not be the constant attack on or questioning of people of faith. You do not see people with faith going around asking for proof that there is no God.
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
This is the most poorest and bizarre argument i have ever seen. If you show that to a teacher, you will get F grades for the next 3 years!!!
Not really; since you cannot really prove Gods existence by merely defining God as something.
Thats probably gonna be the case.
Well, most intelligent atheists would say that the Universe simply exists as a brute fact. They would also say that asking what came before the big bang is like asking whats north of the north pole.
Sorry for dissing your post man, i am just kidding around.
Thanks; i need it.
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
This is a very interesting argument, but what would you say to this…
1. God is neither a possibility nor an impossibility since God is defined as perfection; a necessary being. There for one cannot include God in arguments that rely purely on the notion of possibilities.
Conclusion Therefore the argument is invalid.
- Status