What is the Most Convincing Argument for God?

[Charlemagne_III]

Bach.

Really, Mozart is the better argument.

youtube.com/watch?v=6KUDs8KJc_c

 

[Bradski]

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.

Quite right. But they are not. So there isn’t. QED.

 

[Entwhistler]

I think that you did an excellent job.

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.

Interesting. So you would say that reality is (or could be) merely a figment of our imagination? Like virtual reality? Hmmm. I suppose that I would agree with you and say it is possible. We cannot be 100% sure of anything since we place our trust in first principles which have no “proof” other than their obviousness. I would just say we can know things with a 99% chance of certainty.

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.

I agree that ultimately, belief in God is a matter of faith. However, I think through reason we can get extremely close to convincing someone. But someone must take that first leap of “faith”.

By the way, could you explain a bit what you mean by “Christian Solipsist”? I have never heard that term before.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Quite right. But they are not. So there isn’t. QED.

Then, you must believe that is random. Since if it is not directed then what else could it be?

 

[Nixbits]

1. 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.

Now you are suggesting that the universe came from some ‘unknown type of energy’. So it didn’t come from ‘nothing’ as you previously claimed.

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.

I agree. But, similarly, there isn’t a shred of evidence that life exists only on our planet. So this too is only a hypothesis for which you have failed to provide any evidence.

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.

Yes, I agree. As I said, these are descriptive laws. Why then did you use the word ‘govern’?. The laws don’t ‘govern’, they ‘describe’.

4. I know because my prayers have been answered. I can’t speak for you and your prayers, or lack of.

I ask again, what evidence do you have that the thing you prayed for came to pass due to the intervention of God?

 

[Oreoracle]

I don’t find any argument especially convincing, but there is a class of argument that is especially obnoxious to refute–the type of argument that defines God in an unusual fashion that is not easily linked to the properties that are normally ascribed to him.

Pantheism serves as an example. If you define God to be the universe, then obviously I can’t reject “his” existence, but I can object that the universe lacks properties attributed to God such as intelligence. Defining God in this way shifts the debate from God’s existence to God’s properties and creates the illusion that the theist has gained ground. :banghead:

 

[Aloysium]

. . . 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. . . I simply try to balance faith, with reason.

Among other reasons, I am a Christian as opposed to some other religion because it sees the Centre, the Source of being as a Trinity.
Everything that exists mirrors that ultimate Reality, which is relational.
God, as Creator who maintains a loving relationship with His creation, is perfect relationally - Divine Love.

The universe reflects that nature of its relational Ground, from simplest matter which interacts in basic ways to the greater complexities that ultimately manifest themselves in mankind, whose existence it enables.
We have subatomic particles and their processes interacting and organized into atoms and molecules.
This organization, perhaps “soul” of matter is what brings about the new reality of hard objects, where there was far more space than objects which could collide.
Using this substrate, living beings arise, and in their own simplicity, organize these more basic components permitting their integration, and thereby allowing for growth and reproduction.
The soul of these multitude of beings, that which makes them what they are rather than merely bosons, varies from plants to animals, who interact with their environment by moving within it and showing emotional and some degree of cognitive ability.
Moving to human beings, we see a spiritual soul manifested in that we are able to relate to the structure of reality and not simply its superficial aspects.
Among other attributes, we can know beauty, the concept of death and time; we can decide rather than act instinctively and thereby know and do good and evil.
We can seek the truth and are capable of love. This isn’t supernatural; it is obvious!

In terms of our being relational beings, we have the self as knower and actor, who is as much as a mystery as the object which is known and acted upon.
We can treat ourselves as other as part of our spiritual nature, and thereby try to understand who we are.
Between these two fathomless poles is the spark of knowledge, perception, thought, emotion, and perfectly as love that joins the two.
I would consider solipsism to be a form of psychosis. Obviously, you mean something different, perhaps along the lines of phenomenology.
The focus there would be on that spark, rather than on the relationship.

We can chase our tails trying to know who and what we are.
But, we come to know ourselves in being our true self. (extremely vague, I realize, but too long to get into)
At that point we are as God knows and loves us.
May not make much sense, but that’s how it seems to me, pretty clearly.

 

[Bradski]

The most convincing argument used to be that everyone I knew believed in Him. I mean, how could they all be wrong.

 

[Bradski]

Then, you must believe that is random. Since if it is not directed then what else could it be?

Natural processes. If you want to say that God initiated those natural processes then I am happy with that.

 

[boomerang]

Quote by Nixbit

Now you are suggesting that the universe came from some ‘unknown type of energy’. So it didn’t come from ‘nothing’ as you previously claimed.

Stephen Hawking, giving a lecture on the “M-theory” (based partly on ideas put forward years ago by another top physicist, Richard Feynman of Caltech), said the “M-theory” was “the only big idea that really explains what I have observed.”

He went on to explain that the “M-theory” posits that multiple universes are created out of nothing, with many possible histories and many possible states of existence.

I agree. But, similarly, there isn’t a shred of evidence that life exists only on our planet. So this too is only a hypothesis for which you have failed to provide any evidence.

That is the same argument atheists use to challenge believers over the existence of God: “I’ve never seen God, therefore He doesn’t exist.” Well, I’ve never seen extraterrestrials, and no credible person has, therefore life on other planets doesn’t exist until proven.

As an interesting aside, pop physicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson said the entire universe is absolutely, completely hostile to life. I imagine Mr. Tyson prefers not to contemplate why our garden planet exists in a universe completely hostile to life.

Yes, I agree. As I said, these are descriptive laws. Why then did you use the word ‘govern’?. The laws don’t ‘govern’, they ‘describe’.

It’s a figure of speech. If you obey something, it has some level of control over you. You might say it governs you because you cannot just do whatever you want. You must obey the laws of physics whether you understand them or not and whether you like them or not. The concept of ‘governance’ seems to bother both atheists and anarchists alike. “I will not bow down!” When it comes to the laws of physics, or the laws of God, everyone submits. Every knee will bow - Phil. 2:10.

I ask again, what evidence do you have that the thing you prayed for came to pass due to the intervention of God?

That topic is dear to my heart. I don’t think I will share that with you, as Our Lord Jesus admonished us to not to “cast our pearls before swine, lest they turn and trample you under their feet”. I just want to tell you to try praying sincerely and see what happens. There is no other way to tell if God exists. The answer is not found in a book or in a test tube.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Among other reasons, I am a Christian as opposed to some other religion because it sees the Centre, the Source of being as a Trinity.

Oddly enough, solipsism argues for the trinitarian nature of reality as well, but if I may be so bold, I think solipsism does it far more elegantly.

As most of us here are aware solipsism is grounded upon one simple concept, cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am. But solipsism can’t stop there, for not only do I perceive that I am, I perceive what I am. The mind understands the concept of I am, only because reality gives context to what I am. Take away the latter, and what then is the meaning of the former? And so there must be at least two aspects to existence. The mind that perceives that I am, and the reality that defines what I am. And yet solipsism can’t stop there either, for neither of these two things can give rise to themselves, and so there must be something underpinning them both.

Therefore, for the solipsist, there are three aspects to existence, the mind that perceives it, the reality that defines it, and the source that gives rise to it.

 

[Bradski]

I just want to tell you to try praying sincerely and see what happens. There is no other way to tell if God exists. The answer is not found in a book or in a test tube.

And what might we pray for?

Take a stroll over to the section in the forum where people ask for prayers to be said. I don’t see a lot of prayers being requested for a cure for leukaemia or an end to the problems in the Middle East or an end to famine. Surely if prayers work, then we would see an end to the problems. What I do see is prayers being requested for a new job or a missing cat.

And it really shouldn’t need to be pointed out that if you pray to a god that you believe will answer at least some of your prayers, then whenever you get that lucky break, or your friend gets better or you do find that cat, then there is only one explanation you are going to accept.

 

[boomerang]

And what might we pray for?

Take a stroll over to the section in the forum where people ask for prayers to be said. I don’t see a lot of prayers being requested for a cure for leukaemia or an end to the problems in the Middle East or an end to famine. Surely if prayers work, then we would see an end to the problems. What I do see is prayers being requested for a new job or a missing cat.

And it really shouldn’t need to be pointed out that if you pray to a god that you believe will answer at least some of your prayers, then whenever you get that lucky break, or your friend gets better or you do find that cat, then there is only one explanation you are going to accept.

Pray for faith. That’s the best thing to pray for. Hey! That’s Richard Feynman! I just recognized him. Did you ever see the documentary on him and his friend trying to get to Tannu Tuva? That was great! He figured out the reason for the Challenger explosion.

 

[e_c]

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.

I want to challenge this briefly.

If things happen without causes, all hope of knowledge of principles ought to be abandoned, first off. Which would then also seem to render all knowledge a vain endeavor.

Secondly, this argument is not meant for “macro” alone, nor even for the material alone.

Thirdly, it rests directly upon tautologies. It is therefore absolutely watertight.

 

[Solmyr]

If things happen without causes, all hope of knowledge of principles ought to be abandoned, first off. Which would then also seem to render all knowledge a vain endeavor.

Not correct. Quantum mechanics is nothing more than a bunch of wonderful mathematical equations, which allow us to make predictions on the quantum level. As such it qualifies as “knowledge”. What is missing is an easy to understand “translation” into everyday terms. The categories we employ for the macro world are not necessarily applicable to the micro world. Remember the old conundrum of “is light a wave or a particle”? It was the “question” which was wrong.

Reality is much more complicated than we originally thought, and the knowledge in times of Aquinas was extremely limited to modern day’s standards. Of course he should not be blamed for his ignorance. The problem is with the current day followers, who cling to the obsolete metaphysics of Aquinas.

 

[Bradski]

Did you ever see the documentary on him and his friend trying to get to Tannu Tuva? That was great! He figured out the reason for the Challenger explosion.

I’ll have to check out that documentary. I actually watched one about him last week that included the Challenger inquiry. He was a one-of-a-kind, wasn’t he.

If things happen without causes, all hope of knowledge of principles ought to be abandoned, first off. Which would then also seem to render all knowledge a vain endeavor.

Yeah. Imagine if something could also be in two places at the same time. I mean, how could we trust anything?

 

[fisherman_carl]

Natural processes. If you want to say that God initiated those natural processes then I am happy with that.

Natural processes can be random. Is it natural for the universe to come into existence, to assemble itself into some kind of order, to evolve life to eventually have intelligent species? Is that something that just naturally happens on its own?

 

[Partinobodycula]

Natural processes can be random. Is it natural for the universe to come into existence, to assemble itself into some kind of order, to evolve life to eventually have intelligent species? Is that something that just naturally happens on its own?

I would say yes. I would say that it’s not just natural, it’s inevitable.

 

[boomerang]

I’ll have to check out that documentary. I actually watched one about him last week that included the Challenger inquiry. He was a one-of-a-kind, wasn’t he.

He and his best friend spent years wheeling and dealing and scheming to get permission to visit the obscure country of Tannu Tuva that was swallowed up by the Soviet Union. He offered to teach in the Soviet universities, tried to sponsor a Tuvan art show and even wrote a ballet for bongos with the hope of doing a Soviet tour. Great documentary.
dailymotion.com/video/x24ggol_richard-feynman-the-last-journey-of-a-genius_shortfilms

 

[Partinobodycula]

I want to challenge this briefly.

Please do.

If things happen without causes, all hope of knowledge of principles ought to be abandoned, first off. Which would then also seem to render all knowledge a vain endeavor.

This may indeed be the case, but it’s not relevant to a discussion of Aquinas’ First Way. Because Aquinas didn’t argue that all things in motion must have been put in motion by something else, because otherwise all hope of the knowledge of principles ought to be abandoned. No, what Aquinas argued was, that it’s “certain” and “evident” that all things in motion must be put in motion by something else.

This may have been true in Aquinas’ day, but it’s no longer true in our day. In our day it’s neither certain, nor evident, that all change requires a cause. Some change appears to be uncaused. Whether it is or it isn’t, is beside the point, because it definitely isn’t certain nor evident, as Aquinas asserted in his premise.

If you’re going to espouse Aquinas’ Five Ways then you need to let them stand or fall on their own merit. If you have to resort to amending them, then you’re simply admitting that they’re flawed.

Secondly, this argument is not meant for “macro” alone, nor even for the material alone.

This is quite true. Which means that it should hold true for the micro, as well as the macro, but as we now know, it doesn’t.

Thirdly, it rests directly upon tautologies.

It attempts to, but it fails.

It is therefore absolutely watertight.

That was the original intent, but Aquinas couldn’t have foreseen particle physics and quantum mechanics.
.