itsjustdave1988:
I recommend the following articles by Peter Kreeft:
Arguments for God’s Existence:
This argument is nonsense. Popular nonsense, but nonsense just the same. As an example take a look at a fractal. It has amazing properties but it is not designed. It is a consequence of certain properties mapped out. Similarly a snowflake is the consequence of chemistry and geometry and shows what you might think of as design were you not educated as to how crystals grow on their own.
The design argument is simply anthropomorphification of geometry and the often symmetrical forces of nature. In other words its a function of pride not logic.
Also nonsense. Things happen without “cause” all the time at the microscopic level. Particle-antiparticle pairs form and annihilate each other for instance.
again this "argument’ is worthless. Even if we posit that each individual feels the need to be good that can be easily explained that each individual defines good differently so “good” is simply a label we apply to how we wish to see ourselves. Expressed like that the argument here becomes an obvious tautology proving nothing.
The first sub argument is based on an assertion (life is a story) for which no proof is offered. The second relies on arbitrarily drawing lines in history to support it’s position, we can easily choose other lines that completely disprove the starting position so the argument is clearly not a proof of anything except the dangers of a poor education in reasoning. The third argument relies on the misunderstanding of coincidence along with events for which there is no actual proof. The fourth, and they claim strongest proof is laughably bad, it claims miracles prove god’s existence, and yet the miracles themselves are unproven and if proven only prove something unexplainable happened! Did God cause it or Thor? If we could explain it it wouldn’t have been a miracle, but not explaining it we can never know how to attribute it. The fifth argument fails to acknowledge the possibility that tales get exaggerated as they get repeated. The sixth argument is as bad as the fourth claiming joy proves God, perhaps the author should try heroin then. Joy proves nothing, it can come from any number of sources. The seventh argument breaks down when you compare christianity to all the other successful religions. The eight argument doesn’t even pretend to be an argument, it simply says if you go looking for something you’re likely to find it, or believe you did (well duh any psychologist can tell you that).
Not a proof only an argument to have
faith.
Another argument which at best proves something and he assumes that something must be God. And yet the argument itself could as easily prove
Thor or
Damballah or
Purple Griznacks from Beyond.
Once again he assumes that everything attributed to Christ was actually said by him. Such an assumption is a matter of faith, not proof. It is in fact counter-rational as such tales always change as they get handed down over generations. Only through faith can a person believe the bible is anywhere close to a 100% accurate description of what happened. In other words from the very start this argument leaps away from any real pretense of proof and is simply another reason to have faith.
As I said there is not and never can be proof of God. That doesn’t mean God can’t exist, only that it has to be a matter of faith. If you can’t have faith in a God without proof then Christianity isn’t for you.
