What is the Most Convincing Argument for God?

[aclausen]

I would think for most people it would be the same arguments that the Bible uses. Argument by design first. And, secondly, the moral argument. However, if someone is not open to the possibility of belief in God then no argument can convince them.

Aquinas’ arguments are strong, but most people don’t really understand them. The simple arguments are probably the best for most people.

For instance I like Peter Kreefts simple ways of stating the argument for design. He says the possibility that we are here by chance is like the possibility of a tornado going through a junk yard and assembling a fully functioning Boeing 747. Now, would you trust a flight in a plane that was made by random chance? If your brain is a product of chance how could you trust it to understand anything?

The problem with the 747 claim is that it is a strawmen. Absolutely no one claims that the universe or any aspect of it went from a sort of total chaos/entropy to complexity in one single fell swoop. It also presumes that all things are left to chance, which clearly is not the case in our universe, where a set of basic laws make many outcomes impossible.

 

[fisherman_carl]

What objection would suffice, considering this notion of “motion” seems to have little or anything to do with modern physics. Are we talking about energy (which is the source of motion)? The concept is too vague to be useful.

Actually, the terminology is a little different today then in Aquinas’ day. The word motion would actually mean change in today’s understanding. It’s not just motion in space, but all change.

 

[aclausen]

Actually, the terminology is a little different today then in Aquinas’ day. The word motion would actually mean change in today’s understanding. It’s not just motion in space, but all change.

Which seems just as vague as “motion”. Be specific, what are you talking about? Are you talking about the expansion of space? Are you talking about momentum? Are you talking about spin?

If you want me to buy into this concept, then present an actual concept that relates in some way to the Universe.

 

[Entwhistler]

Which seems just as vague as “motion”. Be specific, what are you talking about? Are you talking about the expansion of space? Are you talking about momentum? Are you talking about spin?

If you want me to buy into this concept, then present an actual concept that relates in some way to the Universe.

Fisherman Carl is talking about Potentiality and Actuality I believe. For instance, a log has the potential to become a pile of ash. Moving from potentiality to actuality is what Aquinas means by motion. Something has to move the log from potentiality to actuality. Note that this change does not take place over time. It takes place in the here and now and not in some long chain of events that stretches into the past. That is a separate argument.

 

[Wesrock]

Which seems just as vague as “motion”. Be specific, what are you talking about? Are you talking about the expansion of space? Are you talking about momentum? Are you talking about spin?

If you want me to buy into this concept, then present an actual concept that relates in some way to the Universe.

Motion just means change. Any change. The modern, more limited usage of the word motion is actually a recent development.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Motion just means change. Any change. The modern, more limited usage of the word motion is actually a recent development.

If I’m not mistaken, modern physics does allow for change without a cause. Radioactive decay being an example.

 

[boomerang]

Some questions.

1. How do you know that our universe ‘came out of nothing’?
2. How do you know that life exists only on this planet?
3. There are descriptive laws that tell us how the universe behaves, but what prescriptive laws are there that ‘govern’ the universe?
4. How do you know that prayers were ‘answered’? What about the many instances when the thing prayed for does not come true?

1. Scientists theorize that the universe and time itself had a beginning, at the Big Bang. Nothing physically existed before the Big Bang, just a “quantum nothingness”. Big Bang proponents believe that the physical universe as well as time sprang into existence from some ancient and unknown type of energy when the Big Bang happened. Could that be God saying, “Let there be light”? I believe so.
2. There isn’t a shred of evidence that life exists outside of this planet. Scientists have been trying to find the evidence, to no avail. The de facto state of the universe is: life only exists on earth. Anything else is strictly a hypothesis.
3. There are known laws of physics, science and medicine that enable us to understand the universe and nature and to see that they behave in predictable ways.
4. I know because my prayers have been answered. I can’t speak for you and your prayers, or lack of.

 

[boomerang]

The problem with the 747 claim is that it is a strawmen. Absolutely no one claims that the universe or any aspect of it went from a sort of total chaos/entropy to complexity in one single fell swoop. It also presumes that all things are left to chance, which clearly is not the case in our universe, where a set of basic laws make many outcomes impossible.

When you read the theories of how the universe came into existence, it seems that it really was a case of order out of chaos, where basic laws cannot be taken for granted. I was reading this:

How did the universe come into existence? Most scientists now believe that the answer to this question is that the universe sprang into existence from a singularity – a term physicists use to describe regions of space that defy the laws of physics. We know very little about singularities, but we believe that others probably exist in the cores of black holes.

Singularities are defined as some kind of “pathological behavior” that takes place on an orderly stage provided by space and time…The laws of normal spacetime could not exist within a singularity.

Sounds like there was plenty of weirdness in the universe’s beginnings where the basic laws that we take for granted were not at work. In fact, a gigantic explosion like the Big Bang should be chaotic and destructive. Instead we have an orderly universe and a veritable garden on planet earth in defiance of the singularity of the Big Bang.

 

[Wesrock]

If I’m not mistaken, modern physics does allow for change without a cause. Radioactive decay being an example.

It’s not predictable, at least not now, but it still has a cause. We know it’s due to unstable nuclei whose inner forces are not strong enough to keep it together. Indeterminancy should also not be mistaken for no cause.

 

[Partinobodycula]

It’s not predictable, at least not now, but it still has a cause. Indeterminancy shouod also not be mistaken for ni cause.

When someone can identify that cause, I’ll consider Aquinas’ First Way, until then the evidence suggests that it’s based on a false premise.

First you must prove that everything requires a cause, before you can begin to argue that God is that cause. As it stands, it’s a contradictory argument, for it argues that everything requires a cause, except for that which doesn’t require a cause.

 

[Entwhistler]

When someone can identify that cause, I’ll consider Aquinas’ First Way, until then the evidence suggests that it’s based on a false premise.

First you must prove that everything requires a cause, before you can begin to argue that God is that cause. As it stands, it’s a contradictory argument, for it argues that everything requires a cause, except for that which doesn’t require a cause.

Aquinas never said that everything needs a cause. His arguments do not rest on that assumption.

 

[e_c]

When someone can identify that cause, I’ll consider Aquinas’ First Way, until then the evidence suggests that it’s based on a false premise.

First you must prove that everything requires a cause, before you can begin to argue that God is that cause. As it stands, it’s a contradictory argument, for it argues that everything requires a cause, except for that which doesn’t require a cause.

Well Wesrock doesn’t even exist, right, so how will he provide a demonstration of God’s existence? You have an impossible standard for knowledge. Let your faculties function naturally. Your salvation is gravely threatened by not doing so.

OP: how about 2?

Believers and nonbelievers. They are the best arguments for God.

…

They are likewise the best arguments against.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Aquinas never said that everything needs a cause. His arguments do not rest on that assumption.

Aquinas presents five specific arguments, not one of which offers any logical proof for God, even if they’re correct. Let me repeat that…even if they’re correct, they offer no logical proof for God. Most scholars of Aquinas will admit this. It’s only when taken in aggregate that they begin to form a coherent argument for the existence of God.

In this case we’re concerning ourselves with the first one, the unmoved mover. One problem with the unmoved mover argument is that it makes an assumption. It assumes that what’s true on the macro scale, is also true on the micro scale. A dichotomy that Aquinas couldn’t have been aware of. As any of us who has a passing familiarity with quantum mechanics knows, there are a great many things that are impossible at the macro scale, but are none-the-less commonplace at the micro scale. One of these commonplace events, is that change can seemingly occur without a cause.

Now you can argue that the absence of evidence for a cause, isn’t evidence for the absence of a cause, and this is indeed true. But what it does do is render Aquinas’ first argument invalid. He can no longer argue that all change requires a cause, when some things apparently do change without a cause. You must first prove your premise, before you can argue your conclusion. What was obvious in Aquinas’ day, isn’t obvious in ours.

At this point you may choose to reiterate your previous post, and argue that Aquinas never said that everything needs a cause. In which case you’re going to have to expand upon what it is that you think Aquinas was actually arguing. I can’t rebut what you think Aquinas was saying, until you tell me what you think Aquinas was saying.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Well Wesrock doesn’t even exist, right, so how will he provide a demonstration of God’s existence?

Of course Wesrock exists. You misunderstand solipsism. Wesrock is perfectly capable of providing a demonstration of God’s existence, if such a demonstration is possible, and he can find it.

You have an impossible standard for knowledge.

I don’t have an impossible standard, I have a rational standard. If you want me to believe that something is true, you’re going to have to prove that it’s true. This is exactly what Aquinas attempted to do, use reason to prove something’s existence, especially when its existence cannot be proven in any other way.

Let your faculties function naturally.

That’s exactly what I do. I have a natural tendency to question everything.

Your salvation is gravely threatened by not doing so.

I don’t know what my salvation is dependent upon, if anything. What I do know is that I will question everything, holding fast to what’s true, and discarding what isn’t, no matter how beguiling it may seem.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I have a rational standard. If you want me to believe that something is true, you’re going to have to prove that it’s true. This is exactly what Aquinas attempted to do, use reason to prove something’s existence, especially when its existence cannot be proven in any other way. . . What I do know is that I will question everything, holding fast to what’s true, and discarding what isn’t, no matter how beguiling it may seem.

I don’t know how long ago it was, but it was after Japan began importing cars into my country. I was talking to a fellow who claimed that he was being followed everywhere by someone in a grey Honda. It did not seem likely as there would be no motive. I asked how he was able to figure it out seeing that pretty much every Honda was grey (at the time). He knew it to be the case because, even though the stalker was not present all the time, it wouldn’t be long before he would be spotted, either in the rear view mirror or driving by. Skeptical, I asked him if he had taken note of the license numbers. He had it all figured out; he knew they were up to no good because they kept changing the plates in an obvious (to him) attempt to trick him.

Logic is only as good as one’s assumptions about reality. It can point to some truth beyond our grasp or lead us astray. In the end, as St Aquinas observed, its arguments are straw compared to the living bread who is Jesus Christ.

Here’s a bunch of questions:
What is it to know and think? Who is the knower and how is that person related to the object that he can know it? Can the knower ever be known? Can the object ever be known?

As to what I would hold as true:
What is true is in being.
Being contains the simple complexity that is the moment in transition.
It is rooted in an act of creation through which this I-in-the-world is brought into existence, participating in everything else, cleaving time and space into the here and now.
In Christian terms, the primary relationship is with the Father and is made known by the grace of the Holy Spirit, through which the person is able to know, in the love that forms the True Vine and the true self towards whom we grow as we travel the Way to God.
No atheist can begin to understand what I am talking about here and there is no logic that can reach it from a state of ignorance.
Lost in a dream, all we do is dream until we awaken and the Truth is revealed, glorious and completely logical.

 

[Entwhistler]

Aquinas presents five specific arguments, not one of which offers any logical proof for God, even if they’re correct. Let me repeat that…even if they’re correct, they offer no logical proof for God. Most scholars of Aquinas will admit this. It’s only when taken in aggregate that they begin to form a coherent argument for the existence of God.

In this case we’re concerning ourselves with the first one, the unmoved mover. One problem with the unmoved mover argument is that it makes an assumption. It assumes that what’s true on the macro scale, is also true on the micro scale. A dichotomy that Aquinas couldn’t have been aware of. As any of us who has a passing familiarity with quantum mechanics knows, there are a great many things that are impossible at the macro scale, but are none-the-less commonplace at the micro scale. One of these commonplace events, is that change can seemingly occur without a cause.

Now you can argue that the absence of evidence for a cause, isn’t evidence for the absence of a cause, and this is indeed true. But what it does do is render Aquinas’ first argument invalid. He can no longer argue that all change requires a cause, when some things apparently do change without a cause. You must first prove your premise, before you can argue your conclusion. What was obvious in Aquinas’ day, isn’t obvious in ours.

At this point you may choose to reiterate your previous post, and argue that Aquinas never said that everything needs a cause. In which case you’re going to have to expand upon what it is that you think Aquinas was actually arguing. I can’t rebut what you think Aquinas was saying, until you tell me what you think Aquinas was saying.

I was going to say that everything in motion (or change) needs a cause not everything that exists. However, I see that it has already been brought up. I apologize profusely.

As for there being somethings which do not need a cause, are you saying that X has the cause of change inherent in itself? X moves itself? X has the principle of its own motion?

If that is the case, according to Aquinas, it must be moved by reason of itself or primarily moved. Not by reason of one of its parts. There is a difference between the whole and its parts. The whole being must move otherwise it would be caused by something other than itself. If it was moved by one of its parts it would not move itself. Like a horse being moved by its feet.

Thus, when one of its parts is at rest, the whole must be at rest. Otherwise, it would not be primarily moved (moved by itself). It would be moved by part of itself. Nothing that is at rest because something else is at rest can move itself. It depends on its parts and depends on them to move. Thus, it does not move itself.

I hope that makes some sense. If someone would like to simplify this better than I attempted to do, please go for it.

 

[Partinobodycula]

I don’t know how long ago it was, but it was after Japan began importing cars into my country. I was talking to a fellow who claimed that he was being followed everywhere by someone in a grey Honda. It did not seem likely as there would be no motive. I asked how he was able to figure it out seeing that pretty much every Honda was grey (at the time). He knew it to be the case because, even though the stalker was not present all the time, it wouldn’t be long before he would be spotted, either in the rear view mirror or driving by. Skeptical, I asked him if he had taken note of the license numbers. He had it all figured out; he knew they were up to no good because they kept changing the plates in an obvious (to him) attempt to trick him.

Logic is only as good as one’s assumptions about reality. It can point to some truth beyond our grasp or lead us astray. In the end, as St Aquinas observed, its arguments are straw compared to the living bread who is Jesus Christ.

Here’s a bunch of questions:
What is it to know and think? Who is the knower and how is that person related to the object that he can know it? Can the knower ever be known? Can the object ever be known?

As to what I would hold as true:
What is true is in being.
Being contains the simple complexity that is the moment in transition.
It is rooted in an act of creation through which this I-in-the-world is brought into existence, participating in everything else, cleaving time and space into the here and now.

I absolutely love this. Well done.

In Christian terms, the primary relationship is with the Father and is made known by the grace of the Holy Spirit, through which the person is able to know, in the love that forms the True Vine and the true self towards whom we grow as we travel the Way to God.
No atheist can begin to understand what I am talking about here and there is no logic that can reach it from a state of ignorance.
Lost in a dream, all we do is dream until we awaken and the Truth is revealed, glorious and completely logical.

Hopefully you do realize that it says Christian Solipsist in the upper right hand corner of this post, so I do recognize the need for the spiritual, along with the rational. Each should be used to temper the other. We find in the spiritual that which gives ourselves peace, and purpose, and hope. In a world that all too often offers none. And we find evidence for this in the rational, for I didn’t give rise to myself.

In the end, which is the truth? I don’t know, and so I’m a Christian Solipsist. I simply try to balance faith, with reason.

 

[fisherman_carl]

The problem with the 747 claim is that it is a strawmen. Absolutely no one claims that the universe or any aspect of it went from a sort of total chaos/entropy to complexity in one single fell swoop. It also presumes that all things are left to chance, which clearly is not the case in our universe, where a set of basic laws make many outcomes impossible.

This is the standard response I have seen coming from atheists is to deny or downplay the roal of random chance in say Evolution, etc. They make it sound like the forces of nature almost conspire together to direct things to what they are today. But, if they are directed then there must be a director. Since in my mind if there is no director then it is by chance. Since even the laws of nature would be by chance. There is nothing that says the laws of nature must be this way. In fact science can not even tell us why they are the way they are. Science is very limited in what it can tell us about even the physical world.

 

[Partinobodycula]

If that is the case, according to Aquinas, it must be moved by reason of itself or primarily moved. Not by reason of one of its parts. There is a difference between the whole and its parts. The whole being must move otherwise it would be caused by something other than itself. If it was moved by one of its parts it would not move itself. Like a horse being moved by its feet.

Thus, when one of its parts is at rest, the whole must be at rest. Otherwise, it would not be primarily moved (moved by itself). It would be moved by part of itself. Nothing that is at rest because something else is at rest can move itself. It depends on its parts and depends on them to move. Thus, it does not move itself.

I hope that makes some sense. If someone would like to simplify this better than I attempted to do, please go for it.

I think that you did an excellent job.

As for there being somethings which do not need a cause, are you saying that X has the cause of change inherent in itself? X moves itself? X has the principle of its own motion?

This could get into a very deep discussion, one for which we’re very unlikely to reach a satisfactory conclusion. Partly because we approach it with differing assumptions and perspectives, and partly because neither of us has any way of being certain which of these assumptions and perspectives are true. But as a solipsist I would posit that there exists that which doesn’t change, for it contains within itself every possible state of being. As Aquinas puts it, it’s actuality without potentiality. So no, I don’t think that X has change inherent within itself. I think that I have change inherent within myself. I think that we may live in an observer created reality, and change occurs only from the perspective of the observer. I see X change, seemingly without a cause. But in reality X may not have changed at all, but only my perspective of X has changed. The root of all perceived change, may be me.

I realize that this is a difficult concept to grasp, and one that’s foreign to most people’s worldview. But I don’t need for you to accept that it’s true, for not even I accept that it’s true. I only accept that it’s possible, and in the end that’s what we’re all attempting to do, reason out what’s possible. So is it possible that there’s a God? Yes. Do I know that there’s a God? No. My ultimate point is that we’re all limited by our natures to an egocentric worldview. There are some things that we simply cannot know. So to do what Aquinas did, and attempt to reason out the truth is a noble quest, but one that may ultimately be doomed to fail.

So this thread is about the evidence for God, but ultimately the belief in God will always remain a matter of faith. This is something that none of us should ever forget…we can’t be sure. Reason must always give way to faith. So it says Christian Solipsist in the upper right hand corner of this post, because there’s an ideal to which I aspire, but there’s also an ignorance from which I can never escape. We can’t through reason make people believe, but we can sometimes through our actions, make them want to believe. And wanting to believe, will of its own accord, find reasons to believe.

 

[e_c]

I don’t know what my salvation is dependent upon, if anything. What I do know is that I will question everything, holding fast to what’s true, and discarding what isn’t, no matter how beguiling it may seem.

Then whence the “Christian” in “Christian Solipsist”?

I seem to recall an incident where Christ waits for a man to take away his qualification (“if you can do anything”) to exorcise a demon… Mark 9:22. Imagine that! There can be no relationship with possibilities, probabilities and guesses.