Most convincing argument for the existence of God?

[ApologiaSophia]

Why are you so scared of reality? Just make your own purpose and move on.

Purpose as defined by the Oxford dictionary.
noun
the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists:

If we are here accidentally, or without purpose, then we are purposeless. One cannot actually give one’s self purpose since no one willed their self into existence. Making your own purpose is illusory.

I believe in the existence of God and that we are here with a purpose. However, I will grant you two premises to make a point. 1) God does not exist, 2) We have no purpose (other than what we have subjectively chosen it to be).

Now you said to this individual “Why are you scared of reality? Just make your own purpose and move on.” Well if we have no purpose, inventing a purpose is not facing reality but fleeing from it. Does one invent an imaginary purpose because the are scared of or burdened by the reality that they have no purpose? Furthermore, let’s say I do make my own purpose and move on. And the purpose I invent is God. Why is my imaginary, invented purpose any less valid than the purpose created by your own imagination? So if the two premises I granted you are true in reality, then everyone here has actually invented a purpose and moved on just as you have recommended. If God is imaginary, He is no more imaginary than the purpose you designated for yourself. This makes you no better than the deluded Theist, except you admit that you are willfully deluded… which I think might be worse.

 

[joe370]

ApologiaSophia;9635038]Purpose as defined by the Oxford dictionary.
noun
the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists:

If we are here accidentally, or without purpose, then we are purposeless. One cannot actually give one’s self purpose since no one willed their self into existence. Making your own purpose is illusory.

The whole concept of atheism fizzles out before it has a chance to even get started in my humble opinion. The belief that life sprang from natural forces, as opposed to an intelligent designer e.g. God, and that the Universe created itself - or at least willed itself out of raw materials, or that were simply always there, hurts my head. LOL…Something transcendent, by reason, must have preceded those raw materials and natural forces.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

The whole concept of atheism fizzles out before it has a chance to even get started in my humble opinion. The belief that life sprang from natural forces, as opposed to an intelligent designer e.g. God, and that the Universe created itself - or at least willed itself out of raw materials, or that were simply always there, hurts my head. LOL…Something transcendent, by reason, must have preceded those raw materials and natural forces.

 

[belorg]

sigh belrog, most of your responses arent even engaging what im saying, theyre just shrugging off. Most of the time you dont even give specific reasons or argumentation. Also, i keep an open mind, and i always look at both sides of the argument which is why im so confident in my stance. Naturalism is the theory that all that exists is the natural world, but in order for that to be true the natural world must either be eternal or caused by natural means which seems to be self-refuting. I reject these based on my knowledge of the natural world. This does not mean i reject the truths of natural cosmology, but i also know its limitations. My question to you is if your disbelief is really just a result of intellectual difficulty alone or if it is mostly due to a hardness of heart. Do you just try to find inconsistencies in these arguments, or do you actually play devil’s advocate (or God’s advocate) in your head, contemplating their truth. Ive had my crisis of faith, i wonder if you, the atheist, has ever had a crisis of doubt? If you havent, then its probably because you have predisposed yourself to disbelief. In any case, i hope and pray the best for you. Adieu.

I went to all the trouble defending my refutation of the KCA and the OA. I explained to the best of my ability why Gaunilo’s Island actually does work against the OA…
Now you may agree with my responses or not, but saying that I am not engaging with what you are saying is a downright lie and a personal insult to me.

But, I am willing to believe that your insult is not intentional, so I will answer some of the questions you raise here.
Firstly, I cannot believe you actually keep an open mind when you claim (without any arguments BTW) that there are no naturalistic alternatives, not even hypotheical ones, for theistis cosmology. If you really think that, you haven’t read anything beyond apologetics. Of course you do not have to agree with any of those alternatives, but claiming they just do not exist is either a sign of ignorance or closed-mindedness, or a downright lie.

Your definition of naturalism as ‘all that exists is the natural wolrd’ gets us nowhere because what excatly is ‘the natural world’. There are e.g. people who belive that God exists and is part of the natural world. What I think you are doing is confusing ‘naturalism’ with ‘materialism’. Naturalism is a much broader concept.

My disbelief is the result of neither intellectual difficulty nor hardness of the heart. It is the result of a lot of thinking , reading and listening to arguments on both sides.
And of course I have had my doubts. But I would not describe this as a crisis, because if I would get convinced there is a God that would not bother me in the least. I fact sometimes I even wish God existed. A truly all-good God, I mean, not the God of Christianity. So, no, I have not predisposed myself to disbelief at all.

 

[joe370]

My disbelief is the result of neither intellectual difficulty nor hardness of the heart. It is the result of a lot of thinking , reading and listening to arguments on both sides.
And of course I have had my doubts. But I would not describe this as a crisis, because if I would get convinced there is a God that would not bother me in the least. I fact sometimes I even wish God existed. A truly all-good God, I mean, not the God of Christianity. So, no, I have not predisposed myself to disbelief at all.

Hey Belorg. Certainly we cannot blame the “God of Christianity” for the misdeeds and sometimes outright deplorable acts of certain humans throughout the centuries, can me? Perhaps I misunderstood. Nonetheless, sounds like you have settled the matter regarding the existence of God, considering that you possess no hardness of heart or intellectual difficulties acting as barriers. As a former non-believer, it was the hardness of my heart that kept me at bay. I understand the whole idea that a God of Mercy as well as justice (Christian God) can be a hard pill to swallow. However, in view of the undeniable fact that there are really despicable people who commit heinous acts against others who have nothing but hate in their heart, as well as genuinely altruistic people who make sacrifices and perform incredible acts of kindness and love, you still expect God do be nothing but a God of complete mercy, and I am talking about the existence of heaven (God’s mercy) and hell (Gods justice), for the simple fact that God’s mercy and justice cannot be discerned or perceived by humans in this world?

 

[belorg]

Purpose as defined by the Oxford dictionary.
noun
the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists:

If we are here accidentally, or without purpose, then we are purposeless. One cannot actually give one’s self purpose since no one willed their self into existence. Making your own purpose is illusory.

That’s false accodring to the very definition you gave here. Making your own purpose gives you reasons why you do something.

I believe in the existence of God and that we are here with a purpose. However, I will grant you two premises to make a point. 1) God does not exist, 2) We have no purpose (other than what we have subjectively chosen it to be).

Now you said to this individual “Why are you scared of reality? Just make your own purpose and move on.” Well if we have no purpose, inventing a purpose is not facing reality but fleeing from it. Does one invent an imaginary purpose because the are scared of or burdened by the reality that they have no purpose? Furthermore, let’s say I do make my own purpose and move on. And the purpose I invent is God. Why is my imaginary, invented purpose any less valid than the purpose created by your own imagination? So if the two premises I granted you are true in reality, then everyone here has actually invented a purpose and moved on just as you have recommended. If God is imaginary, He is no more imaginary than the purpose you designated for yourself. This makes you no better than the deluded Theist, except you admit that you are willfully deluded… which I think might be worse.

That is simply not true. In the hypothetical case that God does not exist, there is still a reality which you have to face, and that’s the reality that there is only you and your fellow human beings. And your natural purpose is to survive. And the best way to survive is to live in some sort of community. Loving somebody and being loved by somebody is, for most people, a pleasant sensation, so why couldn’t it be a purpose to enjoy as many pleasant sensations as possible?
That is not willful delusion. That is deriving a purpose from known reality instead of from at best, totally unknown reality.

 

[belorg]

Hey Belorg. Certainly we cannot blame the “God of Christianity” for the misdeeds and sometimes outright deplorable acts of certain humans throughout the centuries, can we?

Yes we can.

Perhaps I misunderstood. Nonetheless, sounds like you have settled the matter regarding the existence of God, considering that you possess no hardness of heart or intellectual difficulties acting as barriers. As a former non-believer, it was the hardness of my heart that kept me at bay.

That may be the case for you, but not for me.

I understand the whole idea that a God of Mercy as well as justice (Christian God) can be a hard pill to swallow. However, in view of the undeniable fact that there are really despicable people who commit heinous acts against others who have nothing but hate in their heart, as well as genuinely altruistic people who make sacrifices and perform incredible acts of kindness and love, you still expect God do be nothing but a God of complete mercy, and I am talking about the existence of heaven (God’s mercy) and hell (Gods justice), for the simple fact that God’s mercy and justice cannot be discerned or perceived by humans in this world?

It is not ‘a hard pill to swallow’ Since apparently perfect mercy and perfect justice are logically incompatible it is false that God is perfectly merciful as well as perfectly just.

I can easily put this in a syllogism.

1 An entity that is perfectly merciful and perfectly just cannot exist
2 The Chrsitian God is an entity that is perfectly merciful and perfectly just
conclusion: The Christian God cannot exist.

And the often-heard mantra: God’s mercy and justice is different frpm man’s etc. does not work. it is simply a fact that both concepts are logically impossible just as it is impossible for something to be fully green and fully red at the same time.

 

[belorg]

The idea of just being here with no purpose, no design and no reason is just a horrible thought. That didn’t keep me from living that way for 40 years.

The most convincing argument comes from the transformation that takes place in your heart when you allow God to come in. But that takes prayer and a willingness for your heart to be convicted and softened.

That something is a horrible thought does not make it false, Bitternolonger.
And you cannot ‘pray to allow God to come in’ because parying alreday presupposes God has come in.

 

[joe370]

belorg;9636097]Yes we can.

Well, I suppose you really don’t blame God because God does not exist, for you that is? So I suppose you will have to blame people after all.

It is not ‘a hard pill to swallow’ Since apparently perfect mercy and perfect justice are logically incompatible it is false that God is perfectly merciful as well as perfectly just.

I can easily put this in a syllogism.

1 An entity that is perfectly merciful and perfectly just cannot exist
2 The Chrsitian God is an entity that is perfectly merciful and perfectly just
conclusion: The Christian God cannot exist.

Prove that perfect justice and perfect mercy are mutually exclusive when it comes to God, and I’ll buy it?

I mean no disrespect when I ask you this and in no way do I want you to leave CAF, but why are here at CAF? What’s the goal if you don’t mind me asking? After all, you have clearly made up your mind regarding God’s existence or should I say, lack of…

 

[ApologiaSophia]

I went to all the trouble defending my refutation of the KCA and the OA. I explained to the best of my ability why Gaunilo’s Island actually does work against the OA…
Now you may agree with my responses or not, but saying that I am not engaging with what you are saying is a downright lie and a personal insult to me.

But, I am willing to believe that your insult is not intentional, so I will answer some of the questions you raise here.
Firstly, I cannot believe you actually keep an open mind when you claim (without any arguments BTW) that there are no naturalistic alternatives, not even hypotheical ones, for theistis cosmology. If you really think that, you haven’t read anything beyond apologetics. Of course you do not have to agree with any of those alternatives, but claiming they just do not exist is either a sign of ignorance or closed-mindedness, or a downright lie.

Your definition of naturalism as ‘all that exists is the natural wolrd’ gets us nowhere because what excatly is ‘the natural world’. There are e.g. people who belive that God exists and is part of the natural world. What I think you are doing is confusing ‘naturalism’ with ‘materialism’. Naturalism is a much broader concept.

My disbelief is the result of neither intellectual difficulty nor hardness of the heart. It is the result of a lot of thinking , reading and listening to arguments on both sides.
And of course I have had my doubts. But I would not describe this as a crisis, because if I would get convinced there is a God that would not bother me in the least. I fact sometimes I even wish God existed. A truly all-good God, I mean, not the God of Christianity. So, no, I have not predisposed myself to disbelief at all.

No insult intended, i apologize if i have insulted you. But i never said you that you didnt engage anything i said. What i meant is many of your responses, if not most of them, where one line sentences. Those one line sentences were not supported with reasons or examples. But the arguments you have engaged… Well i suppose we have to agree to disagree. I believe we have just reached a wall at this point in time.

Perhaps i have phrased my words incorrectly. I did not mean there have been no attempted proposals of naturalism that work. Hawkings proposal, the quantum vacuum proposal, the eternal universe proposals (static or oscilating). I suppose believing these theories dont work is not so different from you believing the KCA doesnt work. However, i can say as a theist that i believe as a theist that theistic arguments work. As a naturalist/materialist or whatever you claim to be, do you believe that there are any naturalistic theories of the universe that work? As for your definition of naturalism vs materialism i suppose i never thought of it like that. However if God is natural he must be contingent and rely on natural laws and be made of natural substances. So as far as i can see the origin of the the natural world would still require materialism. If this is the case, i really dont think these worldviews are so different. Unless i missed something.

Also, by intellectual difficult i was not referring to a lack of intelligence on your part. By intellectual difficulty i meant you find the arguments for God intellectually problematic and insufficient for your belief… Which must be the case if your heart is not hardened.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

That’s false accodring to the very definition you gave here. Making your own purpose gives you reasons why you do something.

No, it definitely contradicts. The argument is not you cant have a purpose in doing something, as i am responding to you on purpose for a purpose. For what was mankind done? For what were created? We exist to do what? What we choose to do with purpose does not give us purpose for purpose is causative. Mommy and daddy may have had you on purpose for a purpose, but as this relates to mankind as a whole and life in general… Nothing.

That is simply not true. In the hypothetical case that God does not exist, there is still a reality which you have to face, and that’s the reality that there is only you and your fellow human beings. And your natural purpose is to survive. And the best way to survive is to live in some sort of community. Loving somebody and being loved by somebody is, for most people, a pleasant sensation, so why couldn’t it be a purpose to enjoy as many pleasant sensations as possible?
That is not willful delusion. That is deriving a purpose from known reality instead of from at best, totally unknown reality.

That is my natural funtion. Purpose requires intentionality which genes and natural selection cannot have since they lack consciousness. As far as function goes, if my function is to survive we all die so we all fail. If it is to keep the hunan race alive then everything i do is done with the ultimate goal of propogating dna. In this we still fails because the human race and life as we know it will all go extinct eventually. Million years, billion years, we’re all doomed. Black holes, expanding universe, ecploding/imploding sun… That not to say what you said is untrue, but it is a byproduct and still invalid as a purpose. Also, if or purpose were natural as you say, then the purpose to whom you responded is wrong for tell us to make our own purpose.

 

[Drinkgasoline]

Who else here has read about Christopher Langan and his Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe?

I just want to point out that he’s the man with the highest IQ ever recorded - 215 and he argues that there must be a God, and says it can be proved by science. He argues that we don’t even need faith anymore, because God can be proved. He famously said in a TV interview that he doesn’t believe in God, but knows His existence to be a fact.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Who else here has read about Christopher Langan and his Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe?

I just want to point out that he’s the man with the highest IQ ever recorded - 215 and he argues that there must be a God, and says it can be proved by science. He argues that we don’t even need faith anymore, because God can be proved. He famously said in a TV interview that he doesn’t believe in God, but knows His existence to be a fact.

That’s interesting-it seems as if he defines faith differently than the standard Catholic definition; Catholics believe that we can prove God’s existence rationally too (in fact, it’s de fide). So I think his comments about God are very interesting and I’m not too worried about his “faith” comments.

 

[Drinkgasoline]

He certainly didn’t mean it in a doubting way, he meant it in the way that it’s not about belief for him, since God’s existence is a fact. It’s the same way in which we don’t believe water exists, it’s not about belief, we know it exists for a fact.
He also isn’t part of any denomination because he argues it would affect his ability to approach his theological studies by introducing dogmatic prejudice.

I’ve watched a few videos, and he’s a wonderfully humble, wise and religious person.

 

[cerad2]

Who else here has read about Christopher Langan and his Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe?

I just want to point out that he’s the man with the highest IQ ever recorded - 215 and he argues that there must be a God, and says it can be proved by science. He argues that we don’t even need faith anymore, because God can be proved. He famously said in a TV interview that he doesn’t believe in God, but knows His existence to be a fact.

Oh no. I guess free will has just gone out the window. Very sad.

 

[Drinkgasoline]

Oh no. I guess free will has just gone out the window. Very sad.

Don’t cry!

 

[ApologiaSophia]

Oh no. I guess free will has just gone out the window. Very sad.

I don’t thin that’s the case cerad… One must still have faith to believe in certian charactistics or attributes of God, that God is good and faithful. That Jesus was God incarnate and died on a cross for our sins. That he resurrected and ascended into heaven and is coming again. Rapture and bodily resurrection, Sanctification, etc. I do not think knowing God exists, a priori or by whatever means, nullifies faith.

 

[cerad2]

I don’t thin that’s the case cerad… One must still have faith to believe in certian charactistics or attributes of God, that God is good and faithful. That Jesus was God incarnate and died on a cross for our sins. That he resurrected and ascended into heaven and is coming again. Rapture and bodily resurrection, Sanctification, etc. I do not think knowing God exists, a priori or by whatever means, nullifies faith.

Nope. Nope. Nope. There are a gazillion threads on this. Once you know for sure that god exists then free will goes bye bye and we all turn in to little robots.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I don’t thin that’s the case cerad… One must still have faith to believe in certian charactistics or attributes of God, that God is good and faithful. That Jesus was God incarnate and died on a cross for our sins. That he resurrected and ascended into heaven and is coming again. Rapture and bodily resurrection, Sanctification, etc. I do not think knowing God exists, a priori or by whatever means, nullifies faith.

 

[joe370]

Nope. Nope. Nope. There are a gazillion threads on this. Once you know for sure that god exists then free will goes bye bye and we all turn in to little robots.

Ergo, free will…