Most convincing argument for the existence of God?

[ApologiaSophia]

Plantinga himself does not seem to think that his OA is a convincing argument for the existence of God.

The KCA fails. It leads to a logical contradiction.

That is demonstrably false. The KCA, for instance does not work if Thomism is true, and neither dozs the moral argument.

God is not only not the best explananyion, it is actually not even an explanantion at all.

That’s not provable. It’s just an assertion. We have no idea whether ‘natural’ things can be necessary or not, but there is no proff that they acn’t.

Again, this is not provable. Richard Swinburne, a respected Christian philosopher and theologian, e.g. holds that God is eternal and contingent.

Matter could not have existed, therefore it is not necessary, but it may be eternal.

1. He seems to think ots unconvincing? Even if that were the case, properly understood the argument is logical and follow. Necessary entities are those this that could not NOT exist. If you can imagine God as a necessary being in some universe, He is ultimately necessary and MUST exist. The debate then is whether God can be conceived as necessary, i vote yes.
2. You say the KC fails. How does it fail? Dont say “because where did God come from?” Because that is a misunderstanding of the argument.
3. youre right, i apologize for not being clear. By all arguments i meant the different arguments, not the same arguments with different formatting. Cosmological, Fine-tuning-Desing, ontological, etc.
4. it is a philosophical explanation that logically follows. Metaphysical truths and that of transcendence falls out of the realm of science. Science is not the only means of discerning truth. Give an alternative explanation that is logically coherrent. If you can do that God is not necessary and i renounce my position.
5. Necessary, by the definition being used, are those things that MUST exist. You would have to show matter/the natural world must exist with sounds logic. If you cant do that you have no counter-argument.
6. i admire Richard Swinburne. Perhaps he meant that God is contingent but exist as a potential eternal. I disagree with him if that his position however. It creates the same contingency problem as the natural world. It bega the question, where did God come from?

Yo accuse of me assertions, but they logically follow. Honestly, everyone of your responses were counter-assertions without reason.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

Ugh don’t even get me started on Craig, a disgraceful theologian in my opinion, I mean how horrific is it that he tries to justify the killing of children? An awful debater as well as you rightly pointed out. He’s not intellectual, he’s just a literalist Bible-toter, rather than a rational reasoner.

A better example of a Christian debater is the wonderful, respectful, wise and friendly John Lennox, or even Dinesh D’souza who even Christopher Hitchens spoke of as “one of the better apologists out there” and “someone I can imagine kindling a friendship with”.

WLC does not commend the killing of children. He’s making a point about the moral argument. If God does not exist neither do objective moral values. His argument is that BECAUSE killing babies is objectively wrong God must exist. It is the atheist that says morality is subjective. If the atheist does not take this view, she/he logically contradicts his/her position. Look at Nihilism.

 

[Drinkgasoline]

And you DrinkGasoline , what on earth makes you say:

Come on, that’s just a series of insults and some of it is just untrue, but even if you don’t care for his answer to the slaughter of the canaanites (and I think there are better answers myself), some of his other stuff is still worth looking into. I do like Lennox, though, is there a book by him you particularly like? I’ve been looking for some new reading.

God’s Undertaker is his most famous work, and a beautiful work it is, it helped reconcile my own scientific rationale with my faith. As a mathematician, his logical reasoning is outstanding and his rhetoric is evidence-rich and great to link you to other further reading.

WLC does not commend the killing of children. He’s making a point about the moral argument. If God does not exist neither do objective moral values. His argument is that BECAUSE killing babies is objectively wrong God must exist. It is the atheist that says morality is subjective. If the atheist does not take this view, she/he logically contradicts his/her position. Look at Nihilism.

I watched a speech of his at the Oxford university Christian union where he specifically said that God isn’t morally inclined to let anyone live because it’s his world anyway, he went on to say something like “Hey kids die all the time, it’s not a big deal”. Unless I’m profoundly mistaken, what I heard and saw make me dislike the man rather a lot.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

Ok, point taken, but do think that God does NOT kill people? Because that would contradict NT & OT passages and somewhat undermines the crucifixion of Christ. Ill admit my ignorance though since i have not seen this particular interview. If you have a link though could you please send it? If not i might be able to google it.

 

[empther]

This seems to be your private version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. But you fail right from the start. While it is true that every single event was a finite time ago, it does not follow that time really did start. All that follows is that no event can be marked as the beginning. What you are trying to prove is that an infinite past started with an infinitely past event. ( ) But that is false. ( BUT I DIDN’T SAY IT. ) An infinite past did not start. ( BECAUSE THERE COUDN’T BE AN INFINITE PAST. )

Anyway, whether or not an infinite past is possible is not really relevant. :bigyikes: :bigyikes:

This is typical nonsense from the A-team. They just bluster on and on, making unfounded claims, saying somebody else said something they didn’t say and criticizing them for it, and then saying that the whole business is not relevant anyway.

Pretty lame!

 

[ApologiaSophia]

What, in your opinion, is the most convincing argument and why?

A few examples are the classical arguments such as Aquinas’ cosmological arugment or the 5 ways, Descartes’ ontological argument, The many different versions of the teleological argument, The fine-tuning argument, Intelligent design argument, Kant’s moral argument, CS Lewis’ argument from reason etc.
There are many other examples that I haven’t listed, feel free to put them down too.

Also, because I think its worth mentioning, Ive come to believe the personal experience goes further than i used to think it did as an argument. For one, Apostle Paul tells not to be so wrapped up in philo. Arguments and led astray, but that we are to be convinced by the power of God. Furthermore, as Christians we are Theists. If we used all the arguments in the world it would only prove Deism unless actually interacted with His creation. Faith seeks understanding and the power of the Spirit is the only way man can come to know God. We can then come to understand our experience and show it to be reliable, rational, and reasonable by the addition of arguments. Arguments alone never saved a man.

 

[Drinkgasoline]

Also, because I think its worth mentioning, Ive come to believe the personal experience goes further than i used to think it did as an argument. For one, Apostle Paul tells not to be so wrapped up in philo. Arguments and led astray, but that we are to be convinced by the power of God. Furthermore, as Christians we are Theists. If we used all the arguments in the world it would only prove Deism unless actually interacted with His creation. Faith seeks understanding and the power of the Spirit is the only way man can come to know God. We can then come to understand our experience and show it to be reliable, rational, and reasonable by the addition of arguments. Arguments alone never saved a man.

Yeah you’re right, however I think the arguments are an essential foundation, if not that, then at least an interesting topic.
My parish priest once told me (when we were discussing Aquinas), that we must first convince the unbeliever of the cosmological God, before we convince him of the personal God.

 

[wanstronian]

Yes, I have seen you say as much multiple times on this thread alone (with more bluster than actual argument).

On this thread alone? Really? That’s fascinating, because this very post is only my fourth, and I have only mentioned the KCA twice including in the post to which you’ve responded. I suppose you could call that “multiple times” if you’re going for effect rather than intellectual honesty.

You can call it bluster if you like, but you would be wrong. If you need me to spell out why the KCA is wrong, let me know. I can cite links, or I can explain it to you myself. I can’t believe you haven’t seen the refutation before though. Or maybe, as I said on a previous comment, you’ve only been reading pro-KCA material?

You are very repetitive. Here, the relevant section is from 1:30-1:45. Enjoy
youtube.com/watch?v=RSrZ8n7E4dM

I have no idea what this means!

At any rate, your taunt about reading critical arguments aside (do you want to suggest such a source?), the only objection you make is that the KCA doesn’t establish a creator

Wrong - try reading my post again. What I said was, even if the KCA was sound it wouldn’t define what the creator was. But it doesn’t even get as far as being a sound argument.

, but of course, Craig gives three reasons for thinking it does. You can see them at the link I provided above.

I’m afraid that I don’t see how scenes from a remake of “The Little Rascals” are pertinent?

You may not think they are successful (and I would disagree), but you can’t say that the argument at most only shows the universe came from something since, if successful, it shows a creator.

So basically, if someone says something without providing chapter and verse substantiation with full citations, you just label it “bluster?”

Again, this is just bluster, not actual argument. Actually, I am not even sure it is true as you have stated it. Most scholars would agree that there was an empty tomb known to have been the correct tomb,

“…the correct tomb?” In what way is it correct, when there’s not even a reliable independent record (ie. outside of the bible) of Jesus having existed in the first place? Sure, there may be a tomb that can be placed consitently with bible stories, but this hardly counts as reliable evidence.

that Jesus’ apostles experienced appearances of the risen Christ,

But strangely, reports are inconsistent with each other… exactly as you would expect if different people chose to write down camp-fire fables that had been subject to distortion through the many re-tellings. Which is a far more plausible explanation - we know people lie and mis-remember things. We don’t know that people come back to life. In fact, we have pretty good empirical evidence that people don’t come back to life.

and that in spite of every reason to think otherwise, Jesus’ disciples came to believe that he had risen from the dead and was the Messiah.

But there’s no reliable record that this is the case. There’s only the bible, which is full of demonstrable untruths and as a result, can’t be trusted as a historical record.

Since these things are all improbable without the resurrection, but not very surprising with the Resurrection, they count as good evidence for the Resurrection.

And there are far more plausible explanations for the existence of a resurrection fable, as I have posited above.

Come on, that’s just a series of insults and some of it is just untrue,

What’s untrue? He is a bad debater, and he shows no sign of being intellectually gifted. As I said, every one of his arguments can be rebutted if given the opportunity - but in live debates he doesn’t give his opponent an opportunity; this is where his sole gift lies.

but even if you don’t care for his answer to the slaughter of the canaanites

(and I think there are better answers myself), some of his other stuff is still worth looking into.It’s a topic for another thread, but I’d be interested to hear your “better answer.”

 

[wanstronian]

WLC does not commend the killing of children. He’s making a point about the moral argument. If God does not exist neither do objective moral values. His argument is that BECAUSE killing babies is objectively wrong God must exist. It is the atheist that says morality is subjective. If the atheist does not take this view, she/he logically contradicts his/her position. Look at Nihilism.

Wow - what a way to spin the evil actions of your deity!

 

[Drinkgasoline]

Wow - what a way to spin the evil actions of your deity!

Why do you bother spending time on a Catholic forum, I understand users like Hokomai who are generally interested in what makes theists tick, but if you just disagree with everything and want to antagonise the users here, then what’s the point?

 

[cerad2]

In the grand scheme of the universe our 4 million year evolution as a species means nothing. We could get wiped out by a black hole, solar flare, rogue planet, asteroid, etc. What difference would it make? None.

Correct. But how does that relate to this thread?

 

[danserr]

You can call it bluster if you like, but you would be wrong. If you need me to spell out why the KCA is wrong, let me know. I can cite links, or I can explain it to you myself. I can’t believe you haven’t seen the refutation before though. Or maybe, as I said on a previous comment, you’ve only been reading pro-KCA material?
"

I do call it bluster. If you prefer a more technical term, you may also call it “bare assertion.” I have seen several attempted refutations of the KCA, but none I find plausible. I have heard you try to suggest refutations of it on this board before including the absurd claim it it demands the question “what caused God?” If you have a new link or interesting source, or want to provide a few objections, I will happily consider them. In the absence of such, yes, I call your simple assertions the the KCA is a bad argument that is easily refuatable mere bluster.

So basically, if someone says something without providing chapter and verse substantiation with full citations, you just label it “bluster?”

You ridiculed the KCA and provided no reputable links, articles, sources, or argument. Yes, I label that bluster.

Wrong - try reading my post again. What I said was, even if the KCA was sound it wouldn’t define what the creator was. But it doesn’t even get as far as being a sound argument.

This is exactly what I said. And the link I referred to was not the little rascals one, which I merely put here for the amusing effect of Waldo calling Alfalfa redundant, but the link to Craig’s KCA article in my previous post.

And my point still stands. *If *the KCA works, it does indeed tell us the existence of a timeless, immaterial, immensely powerful personal creator of the universe. The doesn’t get us all the way to the Christian God, but it gets us a pretty far way from atheism, agnosticism, and many other religions as well.

As to the Resurection…

You claimed that most scholars would deny the Resurrection happened. Yet now you find yourself contradicting the claims of most scholars who would agree that there was an empty tomb known to have been the correct tomb (ie the tomb in which Jesus was actually buried and left empty, that his followers did experience appearances of the risen Christ, and that the earliest disciples came to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. The last two of these are nearly universally admitted, the empty tomb by about 75% of scholars.

Yet, you place yourself in the radical position of denying each of these and even questioning if Jesus existed. In this radical case, you can have no hope of pretending that most scholars are on your side. NT Wright commented that that GA Wells is the only scholar who has tried to make something of that lately, and a generation ago there was another one who tried to claim that Christianity was all about a cult of the sacred mushroom. Your position is simply a radical and implausible one.

It’s a topic for another thread, but I’d be interested to hear your “better answer.”

To state it simply without argument, I think other options are: 1. the Israelites were mistaken in attributing those commands to God, 2. the command was hyperbole, 3. the places attacked were military outposts where there would have been no civilians and the real command was to drive them out of the land.

 

[oval]

What, in your opinion, is the most convincing argument and why?

A few examples are the classical arguments such as Aquinas’ cosmological argument or the 5 ways, Descartes’ ontological argument, The many different versions of the teleological argument, The fine-tuning argument, Intelligent design argument, Kant’s moral argument, CS Lewis’ argument from reason etc.
There are many other examples that I haven’t listed, feel free to put them down too.

Arguement…?

never had one so tough to relate what would work out for an argument to begin with. You gotta know your an infinite being within yourself. Pious living can excite the bridge to knowing. Ive known ever since I can remember. Its …how it is. Like many Ive hit rock bottom what the heck is this a joke or something, there cannot be anything substantial underlining this madness but it just immediately flips into an anger at the overall plan or idea in the making…left with a hey this is not my doing or responsibility, I just try to get the coat of life experience on and do my best, then get on with whats next whatever that will be…it will be a job, don’t kid yourself, not just the hot tubs, barbecue and round of golf floating around…I don’t have a clue whats going on in peoples mind with proof…I’m my own proof ever since I can remember…reincarnation may be the hell, who knows? I’m ready for that one with a hey, a change in the environment is due…you must know in every moment, including sleep time, thats import. Ive been trying to figure out whats up with people since watching my parents at about 5 and thinking they were cute observing them. If you tell a healthy normal youngster about a good system ( spiritual) they will latch onto it because it complies and conforms with their being, not because it sounds good to go or a Santa Claus thing…most toddlers know Santa Claus is for the parents in trying to pat themselves on the back in a way to say they are doing a good job, at least thats what I did…the fundamentals in the inner self are real and have an infinite potential where healthy and normal…if things go wrong and militating against meaning in creation as a whole come to make for sense for self pity, the place setting for the inner being or soul withers, and can wither into the nothingness and meaninglessness it serves…theres no argument other then self against self…thats why the phrase to become as children fills so many gaps in many different ways…also …why worry about something which we know is natural, and therefore part of everything there IS to begin with…maybe the temptation for intellectual stimulation and compt communication is causing all this God question (ego) and helping others problem solving and curiosity…plus lets face it decent expectations, influence and contemporary product in materialism is showing for interior world war whatever. The OP assumes there is an argument which is embedded in a translation from person to person, I respectfully propose the argument is a translation from person to person re self, societal self and what I like to call…“actual self” BTW, actual self does not respond by name.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

Wow - what a way to spin the evil actions of your deity!

Look up Progressive revelation. Look up the Christological principle of hermenuetics. If you look into Church history and how they wrestled with these passages. To many atheist read the Christian canon of Scripture without looking into Christian understanding or interpretation. Thats because too many atheists are not interested in understanding the Bible or how it relates to Christian theology, they are looking for a foothold to condemn religion.

Also i would love a link or your explanation of why the KC argument fails. Ive seen attempted refutations, but all of them have been on the basis of misunderstanding Craig’s argument. They didnt refute the KC they refuted their misunderstanding of the KC. Matt Dillahunty and the atheist experience, for example, fell into this error.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Look up Progressive revelation. Look up the Christological principle of hermenuetics. If you look into Church history and how they wrestled with these passages. To many atheist read the Christian canon of Scripture without looking into Christian understanding or interpretation. Thats because too many atheists are not interested in understanding the Bible or how it relates to Christian theology, they are looking for a foothold to condemn religion.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

Yeah you’re right, however I think the arguments are an essential foundation, if not that, then at least an interesting topic.
My parish priest once told me (when we were discussing Aquinas), that we must first convince the unbeliever of the cosmological God, before we convince him of the personal God.

I think there’s something to that. Perhaps God uses arguments to til the soil of the heart as to make it more receptive to the seed of the Gospel.

That being said, i imagine it to be something like this;

Bill: John, what’s a theist?

John: well Bill, a theist is someone who believes in a personable God who engages His creation.

Bill: John, are you a theist?

John: Yes, I am.

Bill: Why?

John: Because I experience God and interact with Him daily.

Bill: I think you may be crazy. Dellided perhaps?

John: Perhaps. Then again, maybe im not. Let us see if my experience is rational, reasonable, and corresponds with reality. What’s true cannot be proven false, nor what is false true. (Arguments are formed). Etc.

 

[Qoeleth]

What, in your opinion, is the most convincing argument and why?

A few examples are the classical arguments such as Aquinas’ cosmological arugment or the 5 ways, Descartes’ ontological argument, The many different versions of the teleological argument, The fine-tuning argument, Intelligent design argument, Kant’s moral argument, CS Lewis’ argument from reason etc.
There are many other examples that I haven’t listed, feel free to put them down too.

Aquinas and C.S. Lewis don’t have much to offer by way of convincing proof. Intelligent design is a grotesque paradoy of an argument, I suspect conceived by atheists, to put people off.

Kant’s argument is very convincing, by making God “a necessary hope”. It is more of a prayer than an argument.

The most convincing argument for the is this- the word “God” exists. The word (grapheme) “God” is neither glossolaliasm or asemicism. Therefore, it has (if not a clearly defined referen**dus), at least reference of some kind. Whatever this might ‘be’ (be it in the symbolic, imaginary or ‘real’ orders), it ‘exists’.

If ‘it’ (God) did not ‘exist’, what, then, are we talking about? We are not talking of nothing, therefore “God” exists!

And every Church you see bears witness to the existence of the phenomenon of ‘God’. The people who built them believe in “something”. And this “thing”/“being”/“idea” that they believed in was/is “God”/God.

Whoever believes in (i.e. uses in discourse) the word “God”, believes in God. As Scripture says: Verbum erat Deus ("“God” was a Word"). And God says we are saved if we believe in (N.B) His Name. So, to recapitulate- the existence of the word “God”, proves that “God” exists.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Aquinas and C.S. Lewis don’t have much to offer by way of convincing proof. Intelligent design is a grotesque paradoy of an argument, I suspect conceived by atheists, to put people off.

Lewis I agree with (brilliant theologian, terrible philosopher), but Aquinas? I find his Five Ways to be more or less ironclad.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

Why do you bother spending time on a Catholic forum, I understand users like Hokomai who are generally interested in what makes theists tick, but if you just disagree with everything and want to antagonise the users here, then what’s the point?

Perhaps that his eyes could be open to the Gospel. No? Well if not perhaps God has him here for our sake. If our debate does not benefit him, perhaps it benefits us or other believers or non-believers who learn from our discourse. Perhaps the God he does not believe in is using him for His glory and the benefit of the saints. Perhaps.

 

[belorg]

1. He seems to think ots unconvincing? Even if that were the case, properly understood the argument is logical and follow. Necessary entities are those this that could not NOT exist. If you can imagine God as a necessary being in some universe, He is ultimately necessary and MUST exist. The debate then is whether God can be conceived as necessary, i vote yes.

The debate is not whether God can be conceived as a necessary being because conceivability does not equal logical possibility… The fact that you think they are equal proves that you do not understand modal logic and the reason why the OA convinces you is because you do not understand it.

1. You say the KC fails. How does it fail? Dont say “because where did God come from?” Because that is a misunderstanding of the argument.

I’ll copy past my reply to empther here

A God who is infinite, omniscient, necessary, eternal etc cannot start anything, for the simple reason that to start something requires time. And since you claim (and I granted this FTSOTA) that time started, God would need time in order to start time. IOW if the KCA (or your version of it) is correct then time would have to exist both logically prior and logically posterior to God’s creative act. But that is logically impossible.

1. youre right, i apologize for not being clear. By all arguments i meant the different arguments, not the same arguments with different formatting. Cosmological, Fine-tuning-Desing, ontological, etc.

Thomistic arguments are different arguments, not the same arguments with different formatting. Thomas e.g. has a cosmological argument too.

1. it is a philosophical explanation that logically follows. Metaphysical truths and that of transcendence falls out of the realm of science. Science is not the only means of discerning truth. Give an alternative explanation that is logically coherrent. If you can do that God is not necessary and i renounce my position.

This has nothing to do with science. What is e.g; the logical connection between a green light flashing at position X and a car crashing at position Y?
As long as it has not been established what exactly the conncetion is between God willen X and X occurring, God’s will is not an explanantion. Since my willing something does not make it so, you’ll have to argue why God’s will is an exception. And just thrwoing in words like omnipotence won’t do it. I am asking for arguments, not assertions.

1. Necessary, by the definition being used, are those things that MUST exist. You would have to show matter/the natural world must exist with sounds logic. If you cant do that you have no counter-argument.

No, all I have to show is that it is not impossible that the natural world must exist. That folows from the OA.

1. i admire Richard Swinburne. Perhaps he meant that God is contingent but exist as a potential eternal. I disagree with him if that his position however. It creates the same contingency problem as the natural world. It bega the question, where did God come from?
   You accuse of me assertions, but they logically follow. Honestly, everyone of your responses were counter-assertions without reason.

My objection is that God cannot be proven to be a necessary being, and at leats one prominent christian philospher agrees with me. That means that God as a logically necessary being is NOT uncontroversial. If you say it ‘logically follows’ you are asserting things.