Whats your favorite argument for the existence of God?

[johngh]

So i’m taking a Philosophy of Religion class this semester, so far really enjoying it. All we have talked about for the first month is all the arguments for the existence of God. We have gone over the Ontological, Cosmological, Design, Coherence, and Moral arguments for the existence of God. It got me wondering about a hypothetical situation.

Say you met an atheist, and he said you have just one chance to convince him. You can only give him one argument, and that’s it. My question is, what is the argument you would use to try and convince him?

Personally I like all of the arguments and think they all have merit. As far as psychological effectiveness, the argument from Design seems to have the most weight probably. However I am starting to feel as if the Moral argument might be the best argument overall. So it would definitely be a tossup between those two, but if I had to choose I might go with the Moral argument.

What would you choose?

 

[James_S_Saint]

My favorite;

Atheist; I can’t believe in God
Saint; Do you believe in Reality?
Atheist; Yeah, but not one with a God in it.
Saint; If instead of calling it Reality, I called it God, would you believe in God then?
Atheist, That’s stupid. I am talking about the God of the Bible.
Saint; Funny, so am I. Maybe you have just misunderstood the ancient 3000 year old scripture written for other people in a completely different culture in their language for their children in their way of expressing themselves for their sake to preserve their offspring in such a manner that their offspring could understand it added to several generations of people mouthing off about something they never bothered to really study. …Or maybe they just didn’t have a convenient English Science dictionary way back then. But good to see that we worship the same God.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Out of nothing comes nothing. Thus there is an infinite, perfect and timeless being that eternally willed all potential beings and change into existence.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So i’m taking a Philosophy of Religion class this semester, so far really enjoying it. All we have talked about for the first month is all the arguments for the existence of God. We have gone over the Ontological, Cosmological, Design, Coherence, and Moral arguments for the existence of God. It got me wondering about a hypothetical situation.

Say you met an atheist, and he said you have just one chance to convince him. You can only give him one argument, and that’s it. My question is, what is the argument you would use to try and convince him?

Personally I like all of the arguments and think they all have merit. As far as psychological effectiveness, the argument from Design seems to have the most weight probably. However I am starting to feel as if the Moral argument might be the best argument overall. So it would definitely be a tossup between those two, but if I had to choose I might go with the Moral argument.

What would you choose?

coplestons heirarchical contingency, it gives atheist fits.

 

[PrayHarder]

Out of nothing comes nothing. Thus there is an infinite, perfect and timeless being that eternally willed all potential beings and change into existence.

Exactly! Where did it all start? What created that little dot of matter which resulted in the Big Bang?

I always hear the atheist drumbeat that you cannot prove the existence of God. And yet, where’s the evidence and categorical proof that the universe and existence has existed infinitely?

 

[Hubriss]

So i’m taking a Philosophy of Religion class this semester, so far really enjoying it. All we have talked about for the first month is all the arguments for the existence of God. We have gone over the Ontological, Cosmological, Design, Coherence, and Moral arguments for the existence of God. It got me wondering about a hypothetical situation.

Say you met an atheist, and he said you have just one chance to convince him. You can only give him one argument, and that’s it. My question is, what is the argument you would use to try and convince him?

Personally I like all of the arguments and think they all have merit. As far as psychological effectiveness, the argument from Design seems to have the most weight probably. However I am starting to feel as if the Moral argument might be the best argument overall. So it would definitely be a tossup between those two, but if I had to choose I might go with the Moral argument.

What would you choose?

Definitely not Ontological, definitely not moral, don’t know what Coherence is, a learned atheist will know that Design has no backing, no credit. Cosmological is probably the best one to use in arguments. Staples tried to use it with me.

Cosmological has a lot of flaws though because it mostly uses word play that does not accurately reflect reality (maybe depends on the version). You can easily get an atheist to agree that there is some infinite (time) thing that had started the whole cause and effect process, but logically it could also not be God. You have to then justify all the attributes that Christians give to their God, which is far more dificult. Plus there is no reasoning to suggest that whatever began everything is still in its initial state and has not morphed into or become all that now exists, because if you base the argument on cause and effect then thermodynamics should also be taken into account. Like MoM said, “out of nothing comes nothing.” This infinite beginning must lose in order to create. If you are not consistent, the whole argument is moot.

 

[AnAtheist]

Out of nothing comes nothing. Thus there is an infinite, perfect and timeless being that eternally willed all potential beings and change into existence.

non sequitur

Other possibilities:

• Everything there is has always been. The observable change in the universe is part of an eternal cycle.
• In sum there is nothing, like the total energy of the universe is 0.
• Things actually do come out of nothing.
• There are many infinite, perfect and timeless beings. (Don’t try to logically refute this. Those beings are above mere human logic, they have intvented it anyway.)

 

[tonyrey]

I believe the strongest argument is the Personal Argument:

1. Personal existence is the highest form of existence we know because persons are creative, conscious, rational, autonomous, moral, purposeful and have a capacity for love
2. The most adequate explanation of reality is in terms of the highest form of existence
3. Therefore the most adequate, intelligible and economical explanation of reality is a supremely creative, conscious, rational, autonomous, moral, purposeful and loving Being

 

[geometer]

Say you met an atheist, and he said you have just one chance to convince him. You can only give him one argument, and that’s it. My question is, what is the argument you would use to try and convince him?

I would use the same argument as I would to convince him that there is beer in my refrigerator. I would argue that he has to look into the refrigerator, grab a beer, open it and taste the beer.

Its the wake up and smell the coffee argument…

Logic is insufficient proof of existence, and I have no idea why proofs of God have been invented. If there is any merit to this kind of proof, then give me the logical statement that proves how many beers are in my refrigerator.

Tell me the number and I’ll go count the beers. I would love to know divination works…

 

[Just_Lurking]

and I have no idea why proofs of God have been invented.

They date from historical periods where everyone speculated on whether a heavier rock would fall faster than a lighter rock, but no one thought to actually drop a couple of rocks from a high vantage point and find out.

P.S. My favorite argument for God is that He sent His only son down to earth to die for our sins.

 

[punkforchrist]

Cosmological Arguments are, I think, the most rationally compelling. Alexander Pruss’ contribution to the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology is available for free online: bearspace.baylor.edu/Alexander_Pruss/www/papers/LCA.html

It’s not the easiest essay to tackle, but if one can master an argument based on the PSR, he/she is in good company. Other than Cosmological Arguments, the argument based on the fine-tuning of the universe is quite good (former atheistic philosopher, Antony Flew, was even convinced by it), as are most Teleological Arguments.

In your everyday, run-of-the-mill conversation, most people are strongly attracted to Teleological Arguments. St. Thomas Aquinas states his so-called “fifth way” like this: “We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.”

I especially like this argument, since it can appeal to evolutionists. There’s nothing about Creationism, especially YEC, so at least one of two very basic premises needs to be denied in order to reject the argument.

1. Everything that a) lacks intelligence, and b) acts always, or nearly always, for a certain end is designed by some intelligence.
2. Nature lacks intelligence and acts always, or nearly always, for a certain end.
3. Therefore, nature is designed by some intelligence.

The argument has, I think, much intuitive support, but perhaps more importantly, is supported by induction (Thomas himself uses the example of an archer guiding the arrow).

 

[punkforchrist]

Just Lurking:

P.S. My favorite argument for God is that He sent His only son down to earth to die for our sins.

 

[wanstronian]

Atheism is the conclusion that there is no God, based on the absence of evidence.

The only way to refute this position is to provide evidence. Arguments from contingency, morality or personal ‘experience’ prove nothing. Nor are they particularly logical because they each make assertions or assumptions that cannot be shown to be true.

For example:

MindOverMatter:

Out of nothing comes nothing. Thus there is an infinite, perfect and timeless being that eternally willed all potential beings and change into existence.

A contingency argument based on bare assertion (and with large chunks of intermediate ‘logic’ missing). MoM, prove that the first statement is true. Then prove that, even if it were, how that incontrivertibly leads to a being such as you describe.

warpspeedpetey:

coplestons heirarchical contingency, it gives atheist fits.

Reference to another contingency argument, effectively gutted by Bertrand Russell and also based on assumptions that can’t be proved. WSP, prove that a non-contingent entity exists. Then prove that it’s God.

tonyrey:

1. Personal existence is the highest form of existence we know because persons are creative, conscious, rational, autonomous, moral, purposeful and have a capacity for love

Subjective use of ‘highest’, but no big deal.

1. The most adequate explanation of reality is in terms of the highest form of existence

An assertion without foundation or explanation. Also an apparent semantic redefinition of ‘existence’ from the previous step.

1. Therefore the most adequate, intelligible and economical explanation of reality is a supremely creative, conscious, rational, autonomous, moral, purposeful and loving Being

The result: subjective and undefined interpretations of ‘economical,’ ‘intelligible’ and ‘adequate’; warped and inadequate chain of logic; supported by and supportive of, a clear desire to arrive at the presupposed conclusion.

If you want to convince an atheist of God’s existence, you need evidence not empty rhetoric.

 

[liquidpele]

Say you met an atheist, and he said you have just one chance to convince him. You can only give him one argument, and that’s it. My question is, what is the argument you would use to try and convince him?

There is a guide on this actually…
ebonmusings.org/atheism/theistguide.html

Also one on how not to convert an atheist:
ebonmusings.org/atheism/hownot.html

 

[James_S_Saint]

Atheism is the conclusion that there is no God, based on the absence of evidence…

Though I have absolutely no doubt in God, and because of that, I have to agree with wanstronian’s assessments throughout.

This is a guy who wouldn’t stay an atheist or agnostic more than a few hours around me in person. I like it when they think clearly (faith not required until given).

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Out of nothing comes nothing. Thus there is an infinite, perfect and timeless being that eternally willed all potential beings and change into existence.

“Out of nothing comes nothing.”… except god

 

[James_S_Saint]

“Out of nothing comes nothing.”… except god

Careful with that one. Out of nothing actually DOES come something. You just don’t understand how. The religious don’t understand how either. They just have faith. That is all they claim (well, most of them). And they call that reason for something coming out of nothing, “God”.

Don’t presume. They are actually right despite not knowing how.

 

[liquidpele]

Careful with that one. Out of nothing actually DOES come something. You just don’t understand how. The religious don’t understand how either. They just have faith. That is all they claim (well, most of them). And they call that reason for something coming out of nothing, “God”.

Don’t presume. They are actually right despite not knowing how.

Perhaps you can elaborate on how something comes from nothing then?

 

[liquidpele]

Actually, there was a great video released by Qualiasoup just the other day on flawed arguments for the existence of God… it doesn’t go into specific arguments, but instead goes into the limitations of such arguments… maybe you’ll like it.

youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo

 

[James_S_Saint]

Actually, there was a great video released by Qualiasoup just the other day on flawed arguments for the existence of God… it doesn’t go into specific arguments, but instead goes into the limitations of such arguments… maybe you’ll like it.

youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo

I liked the use of logic in that video, but not his manipulation of psychology.

The fun thing is that he did exactly what he called fallacy in his reasoning, he assumed without evidence.

I would love to get such clear thinkers in person, but I would blow… them… out… of the… water.

Online discussions has a serious disadvantage that most people do not recognize. Online it is too difficult to gain committal of what someone really does agree to so that progress can be made. This could be fixed, but it requires a different forum format. Given that format, I seriously doubt any atheist would remain so for long at all.