Most convincing argument for the existence of God?

[cerad2]

My humble opinion, but here’s what I think why. There are certain aspects of our universe that are agreeably fine-tuned to suit the existance of life. The ratio of protons to electrons for example.

Please provide a mechanism by which the ratio could have been different than what it is.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

That is just one example of fine-tuning in the universe. Prominent atheists like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking side-step this issue by believing in the multiverse theory. The problem is, aside from a few calculations, there really is no evidence, and likely never will be for the multiverse. It is my belief that there is more evidence for God than for the multiverse and I believe people who believe neither are falling back on the very slimmest of chances.

By its definitions and mathematics, the multiverse theory shows that it is completely impossible for people in multiverse A to affect or know people of multiverse B. Thus, it takes equal amounts of faith to believe that there is a potential infinitude of multiverses as it does to believe in a single universe in which God exists and interacts with us.

I too find the fine-tuning argument credible.

 

[belorg]

My humble opinion, but here’s what I think why. There are certain aspects of our universe that are agreeably fine-tuned to suit the existance of life. The ratio of protons to electrons for example. If that ratio deviated by one in ten to the thirty-seventh (1037) most things we use that allow us to live wouldn’t exist. Space would be a lot of cold, black, nothing. To give you an idea of what one in ten to the thirty-seventh looks like, think of it this way:
Cover the entire North American continent with dimes. Now stack those dimes all the way to the moon, which is about 239,000 miles. Now repeat that on a billion continents the same size as North America. Paint on dime red and throw it in the mix. Blindfold a friend and tell him/her to pick a dime. The odds of them picking the red dime are appx. one in ten to the thirty-seventh.
That is just one example of fine-tuning in the universe. Prominent atheists like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking side-step this issue by believing in the multiverse theory. The problem is, aside from a few calculations, there really is no evidence, and likely never will be for the multiverse. It is my belief that there is more evidence for God than for the multiverse and I believe people who believe neither are falling back on the very slimmest of chances.
If you see any flaws in my logic or argument, please feel free to point them out.

My main source for this: steubenville.org/topic/blog/686

I don’t think Dawkins or Hawking “believe” in a mutiverse, and even if they do, I don’t. A multiverse is one among various speculations as to how the universe could be fine-tuned.
I agree, if anyone actually starts believing in multiverses, you may be right that this requires much faith.

 

[harinanga101]

Hello,

Pardon me if I’ve resurrected this old thread, but I’d just like to give my own opinion on what I find to be the most convincing argument for God’s existence. It’s funny because between the ontological and cosmological arguments, I used to find the latter more convincing. But after having read stuff from St. Augustine, Meister Eckhart and Descartes, I gradually changed my view. I once thought that the CA was more “grounded” since it took empirical reality as its data, unlike the OA which all seemed to be in the subjective mind. But then I realized that the CA also runs against its own problems like whether causality really exists, the contentious issue of fine tuning/design etc. If causality is denied then the CA (or some versions of it) could become ineffective. And there are indeed belief systems that deny causality such as Buddhism. Fine tuning/design on the other hand…well because I’m not a scientist, I feel that the complications of the issue is just beyond my competence

So about the OA, well I’m not actually sure if what I’ll type here is strictly an OA like that of St. Anselm. It’s more like an epistemological argument, haha. Actually I don’t know what it’s called! But I think Christian philosophers have been pointing this out since Augustine, and I’m certain they have a name for it. It’s about the paradox of human knowledge. How is it that we know the fact that there are things that we don’t know? Heck, why do we even care? Because, strictly speaking, if things that we don’t know are really things that we don’t know then we shouldn’t even know (and care) that we don’t know them. To phrase it differently: We know that we don’t know everything. However, by admitting that, we are also saying that there is precisely this “everything” that can be known, but as of now we only partly know. But the question then arises: How did we become aware of this “everything” and how could our minds even begin to comprehend it? Because the only way that we could be aware of it and comprehend it, is if we already knew everything. And also this “everything” isn’t something we can brush off as an idea we make up. Again, it’s an awareness -it’s simply a “given” without which our minds won’t even work properly. So it seems that the only reasonable answer is that this awareness of totality/everything is something which is "given’ to us by that which already knows everything.

This is actually similar to Descarte’s argument for God’s existence. Decartes said that perfection is an idea in his mind, and yet how could he have had this if he himself, and everything else, wasn’t perfect? Although his language makes it seem that the idea of perfection is more of a concept that he actively imagines, than an awareness.

Anyway, that’s all I have to say. I appreciate any feedback you all have since my knowledge of this is still sketchy at best God bless!

 

[Drinkgasoline]

Hello,

Pardon me if I’ve resurrected this old thread, but I’d just like to give my own opinion on what I find to be the most convincing argument for God’s existence. It’s funny because between the ontological and cosmological arguments, I used to find the latter more convincing. But after having read stuff from St. Augustine, Meister Eckhart and Descartes, I gradually changed my view. I once thought that the CA was more “grounded” since it took empirical reality as its data, unlike the OA which all seemed to be in the subjective mind. But then I realized that the CA also runs against its own problems like whether causality really exists, the contentious issue of fine tuning/design etc. If causality is denied then the CA (or some versions of it) could become ineffective. And there are indeed belief systems that deny causality such as Buddhism. Fine tuning/design on the other hand…well because I’m not a scientist, I feel that the complications of the issue is just beyond my competence

So about the OA, well I’m not actually sure if what I’ll type here is strictly an OA like that of St. Anselm. It’s more like an epistemological argument, haha. Actually I don’t know what it’s called! But I think Christian philosophers have been pointing this out since Augustine, and I’m certain they have a name for it. It’s about the paradox of human knowledge. How is it that we know the fact that there are things that we don’t know? Heck, why do we even care? Because, strictly speaking, if things that we don’t know are really things that we don’t know then we shouldn’t even know (and care) that we don’t know them. To phrase it differently: We know that we don’t know everything. However, by admitting that, we are also saying that there is precisely this “everything” that can be known, but as of now we only partly know. But the question then arises: How did we become aware of this “everything” and how could our minds even begin to comprehend it? Because the only way that we could be aware of it and comprehend it, is if we already knew everything. And also this “everything” isn’t something we can brush off as an idea we make up. Again, it’s an awareness -it’s simply a “given” without which our minds won’t even work properly. So it seems that the only reasonable answer is that this awareness of totality/everything is something which is "given’ to us by that which already knows everything.

This is actually similar to Descarte’s argument for God’s existence. Decartes said that perfection is an idea in his mind, and yet how could he have had this if he himself, and everything else, wasn’t perfect? Although his language makes it seem that the idea of perfection is more of a concept that he actively imagines, than an awareness.

Anyway, that’s all I have to say. I appreciate any feedback you all have since my knowledge of this is still sketchy at best God bless!

Some interesting thoughts my friend. If you would like a comprehensive explanation of the Fine Tuning argument in layman’s terms, please PM me.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The most convincing argument over the centuries seems to be: you will live forever and if you don’t believe in God (as a necessary but not sufficient condition) you will burn forever in hell. When presented by the only educated people in the village this seemed pretty compelling. It still has force today. Fear can induce belief.

On the philosophical level, a ‘convincing’ argument should be assessed by the number of previously non-believing people it ‘convinces’. In another thread a kind CAFer has found for me an example (which I am researching) of someone said to have been convinced by the five proofs. But only the one. How have these other ‘proofs’ done in the real world, with real non-believers?

You miss the point. The proofs were not written to convince anyone. They were meant to show that Reason could arrive at the existence of God and many of his attributes and explain much about his nature.

Whether or not they convince few or many of today’s non-believers is immaterial. Remember that in Christ’s day few believed in him, who was God in the flesh. So it isn’t surprising that not many will accept a reasonable argument even about God’s existence. I suspect though that most of these people have an ax to grind and would not accept any argument. Only God can move them. And even He will not be able to move those determined not to believe.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

You miss the point. The proofs were not written to convince anyone. They were meant to show that Reason could arrive at the existence of God and many of his attributes and explain much about his nature.

Honestly, I STILL don’t get Hokomai’s point. I thought the point of a proof was to prove something, not convince people. How does the validity of a proof rest on the fact that lots of people don’t get them? There’s no connection as far as I can see, or at least a very thin connection that’s more or less functionally useless.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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.

Your claim that because God requires time to start anything entails the contradiction that time existed prior to time is not an irrefutable one. This rebuttal to the KCA is weak in my opinion because it is based upon a presumption that only one sequence of time is possible. That is not a logical necessity.

By analogy, when an author writes a novel, the timeline within that story exists independently of the space-time continuum in which the author resides. The story, in a sense, has its own independently existing space-time reality.

God could have authored the universe, with a distinct beginning and time sequence, independently of the “time,” eternal or otherwise, in which he abides. He need not be constrained by the timeframe of the created universe.

God could exist in an “eternal” timeframe where all other existents are always “present” to Him so there need not to be a before or after to the “fact” of the universe even though for creatures in it, before and after are part of the experience.

On the other hand, God may exist in some other time reality that need not be serial as the one we know but could be a richer, multidimensional one that we have no way of comprehending given our serial time constrained faculties.

On the other, other hand, time may only be a means for created limited intelligent beings to understand the workings of God, but need not be a constraint on him at all.