Major Arguments for the Existence of God

[Vera_Ljuba]

Sounds like that guy is on the verge of discovering the law of gravity. Good thing he didn’t just blindly assume that rocks always fall down simply because they always fall down.

What kind of evidence would you like God to provide? What would be convincing, to you?

Should He come here Himself? Walk around among us? Perform miracles before our very eyes? Heal people? Revive them from the dead? Feed them? Teach them? Forgive their sins?

Would that convince you? You’d still be skeptical, maybe.

What would be the ultimate proof? If He allowed Himself to be killed, and returned to life - showing mastery over death, itself?

Would that convince you?

Oh, there are many ways. A conversation with God, where he would illuminate us concerning the “problem of evil”. Or a nice evocation, which would allow anyone to summon up a demon, or and angel. Imagine the effect of summoning a few demons on a live television show! Or a guided tour in heaven and hell, so we could make an informed decision of which one is preferable. Or have a conversation with my deceased parents and friends. Skepticism can be overcome with actual evidence… but not using hearsay stories. As I said, there are many ways and means.

 

[EnosJadon]

It proves that Islam is a culture and a way of life that has great influence in the world today. Unlike solipsism which no one believes in and has no influence on anyone. Not only is there no evidence for the validity of solipsism, but also there is no reason why anyone would even want to believe it. Solipsism is a useless theory. It won’t do you or anyone else any good to be a solipsist.

You seem to have a rather naive understanding of solipsism. Which is to be expected I suppose, as one rarely encounters any in-depth discussions of it, even on philosophy forums. So it’s easy to see how simply reading a synopsis of solipsism could give one the impression that solipsism leads to an indifferent, egotistical, pointless ideology, but that is by no means the case. The overriding tenet of solipsism isn’t the idea that the mind is all that exists, but rather that I in my ignorance am limited in my understanding of what exists, even to the point of being uncertain of the nature of reality itself. Solipsism really isn’t about the nature of you, and whether or not you’re real. It’s about the nature of the conscious mind, and what each of us can and cannot know. And of course it’s about being willing to accept that we cannot know.

Rather than being a useless theory that no one could possibly want to believe, it may instead be a theory that everyone should strive to embrace. For it teaches us how careful we need to be in judging the beliefs of others. For none of us can truly know, whether any of us, or none of us, is right. So we should judge, and act, accordingly. That’s what solipsism is really about.

And as for evidence, the solipsist would simply ask you to look inside yourself, set aside your biases and preconceptions, and accept that there are things that you simply cannot know.

 

[Glassjester]

Oh, there are many ways. A conversation with God, where he would illuminate us concerning the “problem of evil”. Or a nice evocation, which would allow anyone to summon up a demon, or and angel. Imagine the effect of summoning a few demons on a live television show! Or a guided tour in heaven and hell, so we could make an informed decision of which one is preferable. Or have a conversation with my deceased parents and friends. Skepticism can be overcome with actual evidence… but not using hearsay stories. As I said, there are many ways and means.

And what, for you, would distinguish any of those experiences from an illusion or hallucination?

 

[STT]

Especially if an **intellectual being **is directing the process.

We have strong evidence that a simple embryo can evolve to a human being given enough time only by following laws of nature. I don’t see any room for intervention of God. You cannot defend your theses unless you prove that there is no laws of nature.

“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.” Albert Einstein

I admire Einstein for what he did in physics but of course philosophy was not his field of study.

 

[STT]

Actually that is not true. Matter cannot become Mind. DNA is Mind - it is a set of instructions telling Matter how to be. DNA is perfect evidence of the Mind of God, our Creator.

DNA is a mere code, a sort of packed information. Mind processes information and creates knowledge.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

And what, for you, would distinguish any of those experiences from an illusion or hallucination?

Very simple. I have zillions of questions, for which no human knows the answer, but once the answer is given, it is very easy to verify if it is correct or not.

 

[Glassjester]

Very simple. I have zillions of questions, for which no human knows the answer, but once the answer is given, it is very easy to verify if it is correct or not.

Ok… could you mention one?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Ok… could you mention one?

Sure, here are a few.

Many (but not all) of them are all connected to mathematics. For example: “which are the smallest prime twins which have one million digits”? No one knows the answer, but if God would present it, we could verify it quite easily.

Or we could ask God to show us “The Book” as Paul Erdős called the collection of the most beautiful proofs of the most difficult mathematical problems. Erdős was an atheist, but he believed in the existence of “The Book”.

Or we could ask God about the cures for all the diseases, AIDS, cancers, etc…

Or we could ask how to construct a nuclear power plant, which operates not of fission, but fusion.

As I said, the possibilities are endless to separate God from the illusionists and charlatans.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Oh, there are many ways. A conversation with God, where he would illuminate us concerning the “problem of evil”. Or a nice evocation, which would allow anyone to summon up a demon, or and angel. Imagine the effect of summoning a few demons on a live television show! Or a guided tour in heaven and hell, so we could make an informed decision of which one is preferable. Or have a conversation with my deceased parents and friends. Skepticism can be overcome with actual evidence… but not using hearsay stories. As I said, there are many ways and means.

Have you never had dreams of your dead loved ones? Never broke down and cried out to God? Is everything materialistic and cold science in your life?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Have you never had dreams of your dead loved ones? Never broke down and cried out to God?

Nope, it never happened. Not even when I still believed in God.

Is everything materialistic and cold science in your life?

My life is not “cold” at all. Love, caring, fun fills it up to the brim - and that is how I like it. If God would really wish to be part of it, I am ready to accommodate him. Too bad that he does not seem to want it.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Nope, it never happened. Not even when I still believed in God.

My life is not “cold” at all. Love, caring, fun fills it up to the brim - and that is how I like it. If God would really wish to be part of it, I am ready to accommodate him. Too bad that he does not seem to want it.

God is with you always. Whether you choose to recognize Him is up to you. Please don’t think it is all up to you. While everything is fun and love and caring - you may think “Who needs God?” but believe me, you need Him. He is pure love and cares deeply for you and your soul.

 

[Tomdstone]

Sure, here are a few.

Many (but not all) of them are all connected to mathematics. For example: “which are the smallest prime twins which have one million digits”? No one knows the answer, but if God would present it, we could verify it quite easily.

Or we could ask God to show us “The Book” as Paul Erdős called the collection of the most beautiful proofs of the most difficult mathematical problems. Erdős was an atheist, but he believed in the existence of “The Book”.

Or we could ask God about the cures for all the diseases, AIDS, cancers, etc…

Or we could ask how to construct a nuclear power plant, which operates not of fission, but fusion.

As I said, the possibilities are endless to separate God from the illusionists and charlatans.

Yes, there are a whole lot of unsolved problem Some difficult to understand, others easier to understand. Here’s one which is not too hard to understand:
Does every Jordan curve have an inscribed square?

 

[IWantGod]

MAJOR ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

Kalam Cosmological Argument
youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0

1. 
   *]Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
   *]The universe began to exist.
   *]Therefore, the universe has a cause.

1. 
   Yes but what does that say about the cause?
   

   Leibniz’ Contingency Argument
   youtube.com/watch?v=FPCzEP0oD7I
   
   

   1. 
      *]Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence either in the necessity of its existence or in an external cause.
      *]If the universe has an explanation for its existence, then that explanation is God.
      *]The universe exists.
      *]Therefore, God is the explanation for the existence of the universe.

   1. 
      This is a circular Argument. It doesn’t explain why God must be the cause, it just asserts it.
      

      Kreeft’s Contingency Argument
      strangenotions.com/the-contingency-argument-for-god/
      
      

      1. 
         *]If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
         *]The universe—the collection of beings in space and time—exists.
         *]Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist.
         *]What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time.
         *]Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.

      1. 
         This argument doesn’t seem to work either. It doesn’t explain why the reason for the universe cannot be found in its essence.
         

         Teleological (Fine-Tuning) Argument
         youtube.com/watch?v=UpIiIaC4kRA
         
         

         1. 
            *]The universe appears to be finely-tuned to support life.
            *]The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to necessity, chance, or design.
            *]The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to necessity.
            *]The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to chance.
            *]Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to a designer.

         1. 
            I think this argument is interesting, but i haven’t read enough about it. Its not my favourite argument.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Atheism is simply a LACK of belief.

It is simply a belief that there is no God.

 

[ericc]

Stephen hawking and Brian Greene have said nice things about the cyclical universe theory advanced by Princeton Professor Paul Steinhardt. Interested readers can see for themselves how he has answered all of the objections against it.Please see:
Endless Universe: Beyond The Big Bang by Paul J. Steinhardt
physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/vaasrev.pdf
physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/dm2004.pdf
edge.org/conversation/paul_steinhardt-the-cyclic-universe-paul-steinhardt
youtube.com/watch?v=cEijLstRLg8

Neil Turok developed the cyclic universe with Paul Steinhardt. According to Turok, their cyclic model predicts zero gravitational waves. scientificamerican.com/article/betting-against-gravitational-waves-neil-turok/

Recently in 2016, “the Advanced LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory) announced its first (and then its second) clear detection of gravitational waves.”

space.com/25088-gravitational-waves.html.

Gravitational waves will disprove the cyclic model as Turok himself admitted previously.

I am not sure when he will pay Stephen Hawkins his bet.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

DNA is a mere code, a sort of packed information. Mind processes information and creates knowledge.

And who packed the information?

You’re right. Einstein was not ma top-notch philosopher, but he was a top-notch physicist, and he could not fathom how the laws of the universe came to be constructed as they are without a governing intelligence behind them.

For him this was a very intelligent question to ask with a very intelligent answer to give.

 

[tonyrey]

DNA is a mere code, a sort of packed information. Mind processes information and creates knowledge.

It is a similar issue to STT’s question about truth. These problems usually lead to God. Where else?

 

[Glassjester]

Sure, here are a few.

Many (but not all) of them are all connected to mathematics. For example: “which are the smallest prime twins which have one million digits”? No one knows the answer, but if God would present it, we could verify it quite easily.

Or we could ask God to show us “The Book” as Paul Erdős called the collection of the most beautiful proofs of the most difficult mathematical problems. Erdős was an atheist, but he believed in the existence of “The Book”.

Or we could ask God about the cures for all the diseases, AIDS, cancers, etc…

Or we could ask how to construct a nuclear power plant, which operates not of fission, but fusion.

As I said, the possibilities are endless to separate God from the illusionists and charlatans.

Even if some being answered all of those questions, you don’t think every staunch atheist would insist it was some highly advanced extra-terrestrial?

And why not believe that?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It is a similar issue to STT’s question about truth. These problems usually lead to God. Where else?

Some might say they lead nowhere. Others will say they lead to the devil.

 

[Tomdstone]

Neil Turok developed the cyclic universe with Paul Steinhardt. According to Turok, their cyclic model predicts zero gravitational waves. scientificamerican.com/article/betting-against-gravitational-waves-neil-turok/

Recently in 2016, “the Advanced LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory) announced its first (and then its second) clear detection of gravitational waves.”

space.com/25088-gravitational-waves.html.

Gravitational waves will disprove the cyclic model as Turok himself admitted previously.

I am not sure when he will pay Stephen Hawkins his bet.

It is true that the cyclic model predicts a blue spectrum of gravitational waves, much smaller than the density perturbation amplitude. But you cannot rule out effects that can add non-gaussian features to the primoridial spectrum before the bounce.