Whats your favorite argument for the existence of God?

[Spock]

I have hundreds of favorites. Read them here: godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

 

[James_S_Saint]

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

That requires a careful discussion of mathematics and logic. I asked the question long ago, “What is the fundamental logic of the impossibility of indifference?”

I found almost no one who could even understand the question, much less handle the answer.

Again, in person, such things can be worked out, but online it is just way too difficult to communicate with any progress (which should be evident on these forums).

A simple logic that tells you that something really must come from nothing is merely that we all agree that everything has a cause (except for some who prefer insanity, but even those can be corrected). But if everything must have a cause, then anything that exists, had to have a cause for it to exist. The question becomes what caused there to be any existence at all?

The typical response is “it has always been”. But that doesn’t actually answer the question. If it has always been, “Why has it always been?” Logically there MUST be a logical cause.

This merely displays that there is indeed a logical cause for Reality to NOT be nothing. Whether it ever had been nothing or not, there MUST be a logical cause for it to have never been merely nothing.

That actual cause requires a little math and logic that I find too difficult to deal with online in this kind of format merely because of not being able to agree upon what we already agree upon such that progress can be made.

 

[liquidpele]

That requires a careful discussion of mathematics and logic. I asked the question long ago, “What is the fundamental logic of the impossibility of indifference?”

I found almost no one who could even understand the question, much less handle the answer.

Again, in person, such things can be worked out, but online it is just way too difficult to communicate with any progress (which should be evident on these forums).

A simple logic that tells you that something really must come from nothing is merely that we all agree that everything has a cause (except for some who prefer insanity, but even those can be corrected). But if everything must have a cause, then anything that exists, had to have a cause for it to exist. The question becomes what caused there to be any existence at all?

The typical response is “it has always been”. But that doesn’t actually answer the question. If it has always been, “Why has it always been?” Logically there MUST be a logical cause.

This merely displays that there is indeed a logical cause for Reality to NOT be nothing. Whether it ever had been nothing or not, there MUST be a logical cause for it to have never been merely nothing.

That actual cause requires a little math and logic that I find too difficult to deal with online in this kind of format merely because of not being able to agree upon what we already agree upon such that progress can be made.

Um… okay? You’ll have to forgive me for rejecting your claim since you can’t provide the specifics then.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Um… okay? You’ll have to forgive me for rejecting your claim since you can’t provide the specifics then.

Oh, I understand and am not offended.

But do you see that there must indeed be a cause for the universe to exist at all? That logic, I did give, although perhaps not very clearly.

A simple logic that tells you that something really must come from nothing is merely that we all agree that everything has a cause (except for some who prefer insanity, but even those can be corrected). But if everything must have a cause, then anything that exists, had to have a cause for it to exist. The question becomes what caused there to be any existence at all?

The typical response is “it has always been”. But that doesn’t actually answer the question. If it has always been, “Why has it always been?” Logically there MUST be a logical cause.

 

[liquidpele]

Oh, I understand and am not offended.

But do you see that there must indeed be a cause for the universe to exist at all? That logic, I did give, although perhaps not very clearly.

Given the oddities of the casimir effect and double slit experiment, I can’t really agree with the claim that something must come from something else in *all *cases. I do agree that it is the general practical consensus and is seems to be true in the realm of higher order matter.

 

[johngh]

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.
.

My first question would be, how many people have ever actually been swayed by logical arguments on either side? Yes they definitely play a part, but I feel that there is something much deeper going on than mere rational thinking. I think for someone to have Faith there has to be something about them that is deep in their soul, unconnected to reason.

Besides, in the end everything is a Faith, even reason. You ask for “proof” of God’s existence? How could you possibly ask for something like that? You cannot even “prove” that the universe exists outside of your own mind! Go ahead and try, you will fail miserably. I think one of the big problems of most atheists is they place way too high a premium on rational thinking, acting like it has no flaws. I think that’s silly because rational thinking is riddled with flaws and the notion that we can ever “know” something is our pride speaking. We would like to believe we can figure everything out, but we can’t. Our minds are nowhere near capable of “proving” even the most simple things.

 

[liquidpele]

My first question would be, how many people have ever actually been swayed by logical arguments on either side? Yes they definitely play a part, but I feel that there is something much deeper going on than mere rational thinking. I think for someone to have Faith there has to be something about them that is deep in their soul, unconnected to reason.

That’s very true… there are usually many other things involved in belief than logic. A fun mind game is considering a world where your parents never admit that Santa Claus is not real but try to keep up the charade as long as possible - do you think you would still believe in Santa today? I doubt it… so why not? This brings out the major difference… you can prove it was your parents, things are physically happening that you can experiment with. This is not the case with God. So while one belief can be tested, trying to test the other is impossible specifically because of its nature.

Besides, in the end everything is a Faith, even reason. You ask for “proof” of God’s existence? How could you possibly ask for something like that? You cannot even “prove” that the universe exists outside of your own mind! Go ahead and try, you will fail miserably. I think one of the big problems of most atheists is they place way too high a premium on rational thinking, acting like it has no flaws. I think that’s silly because rational thinking is riddled with flaws and the notion that we can ever “know” something is our pride speaking. We would like to believe we can figure everything out, but we can’t. Our minds are nowhere near capable of “proving” even the most simple things.

You’re over thinking it. Yes, we could be in the Matrix… but what is the practical point of thinking that? There is no evidence of it even if it is theoretically a possibility. Atheists place high value on logic and science because these things reap benefits. Studies show that medication X could save your life, or logic might show that sending all your money to a Nigerian scammer is not a good idea. Our minds are capable of a great deal, don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater because you’ve realized your senses are able to be fooled.

 

[johngh]

You’re over thinking it. Yes, we could be in the Matrix… but what is the practical point of thinking that? There is no evidence of it even if it is theoretically a possibility. Atheists place high value on logic and science because these things reap benefits. Studies show that medication X could save your life, or logic might show that sending all your money to a Nigerian Scammer is not a good idea. Our minds are capable of a great deal, don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater because you’ve realized your senses are able to be fooled.

Oh i’m not throwing reason out the window. I believe God gave us reason and we should use it, and it is definitely very useful. My whole life I have been a very logical person, always wanting a reason for everything. However I also realize that Reason has many flaws, and that ultimately you never prove anything, which logically makes Reason itself a faith. You must take on faith that your mind is giving you correct data, that you can correctly use logic to show anything, etc. I guess I am just being very resistant to this whole notion that seems to be prevalent in the secular world that logic and reason should be our sole source of judgement and that everything in the universe is “knowable” and “provable”, and therefore if you cannot “prove” that God exists, he therefore must not exist. To me, this notion is to completely ignore reality, which is that you can never truly know or prove anything. Of course I am using logic to come to this conclusion that logic is flawed, but whatever

 

[James_S_Saint]

Given the oddities of the casimir effect and double slit experiment, I can’t really agree with the claim that something must come from something else in *all *cases. I do agree that it is the general practical consensus and is seems to be true in the realm of higher order matter.

Did you mean by that you accept the high probability there is indeed a logical cause for the universe to exist, whether it has always been or not?

Btw, the uncertainty principle was defeated by the Entanglement experiment a few years back. What was certain to be uncertain became predictable and certain.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

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.

I never made any claims i was showing the double standards of that argument.

I don’t really see how there could ever be “nothing”.

 

[AnAtheist]

Btw, the uncertainty principle was defeated by the Entanglement experiment a few years back.

No, it wasn’t.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

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.

I would not be so sure. But fell free to give it your best shot.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

That requires a careful discussion of mathematics and logic. I asked the question long ago, “What is the fundamental logic of the impossibility of indifference?”

I found almost no one who could even understand the question, much less handle the answer.

Again, in person, such things can be worked out, but online it is just way too difficult to communicate with any progress (which should be evident on these forums).

A simple logic that tells you that something really must come from nothing is merely that we all agree that everything has a cause (except for some who prefer insanity, but even those can be corrected). But if everything must have a cause, then anything that exists, had to have a cause for it to exist. The question becomes what caused there to be any existence at all?

The typical response is “it has always been”. But that doesn’t actually answer the question. If it has always been, “Why has it always been?” Logically there MUST be a logical cause.

This merely displays that there is indeed a logical cause for Reality to NOT be nothing. Whether it ever had been nothing or not, there MUST be a logical cause for it to have never been merely nothing.

That actual cause requires a little math and logic that I find too difficult to deal with online in this kind of format merely because of not being able to agree upon what we already agree upon such that progress can be made.

How do you jump from something caused our universe, to the existence of a god?

 

[djeter]

There are a lot of ways to answer this. I think the first is remind ourselves that Aquinas’ five “proofs” of God’s existence were, in the Latin, called “via” or ways. So I think we are better off with the term “approaches to God’s existence.” “Proof,” “evidence” etc. tempts the scientific materialist to think you are about to make an argument based on the scientific method.

Fr. Aidan Nichols has six approaches here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/09/09/approaches-to-god%e2%80%99s-existence/

and not to be outdone I add a seventh and elaborate on it here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/09/11/theodicy-and-the-idea-of-salvation/

regards,

dj

PS Then there is Alan Mittleman’s approach to the question (if you are serious about a “proof” of God’s existence) which I also agree with:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/05/23/asking-the-wrong-question-a-meditation-on-the-question-%e2%80%9cdoes-god-exist%e2%80%9d/

 

[James_S_Saint]

How do you jump from something caused our universe, to the existence of a god?

I was waiting for liquidpele, but since you asked…

Do you believe that logically there must be a logical cause for the existence of the universe whether it has always existed or not? If it has always existed, then there is a logical cause for it to have always existed, right?

 

[liquidpele]

Did you mean by that you accept the high probability there is indeed a logical cause for the universe to exist, whether it has always been or not?

Btw, the uncertainty principle was defeated by the Entanglement experiment a few years back. What was certain to be uncertain became predictable and certain.

Not at all.

The uncertainty principal is not what I was referencing, and I’ve not read of any reason why quantum entanglement would break it (got a citation?)… but now that you mention it entanglement is yet *another *thing that seems counter to our notions of reality.

What I was saying was that given the very strange, counter-intuitive, and not understood nature of the subatomic world, I would not go so far as to say that something must come from something else, at least in respect to subatomic particles.

 

[James_S_Saint]

What I was saying was that given the very strange, counter-intuitive, and not understood nature of the subatomic world, I would not go so far as to say that something must come from something else, at least in respect to subatomic particles.

Okay, so all you are saying is that you don’t believe in logic.

Not a problem, but no argument is going to say anything to someone who doesn’t believe in logic.

 

[liquidpele]

Okay, so all you are saying is that you don’t believe in logic.

Not a problem, but no argument is going to say anything to someone who doesn’t believe in logic.

I do believe in logic… but logic is sometimes built upon false presumptions. You would not logically think an electron would go through 2 different slits at the same time and interfere with itself to cause a waveform pattern, but that’s what seems to happen. In short, while I don’t trust evidence blindly, I typically will hold evidence (reproducible and peer reviewed) over logic because I think the latter is more prone to bias.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I do believe in logic… but logic is sometimes built upon false presumptions. You would not logically think an electron would go through 2 different slits at the same time and interfere with itself to cause a waveform pattern, but that’s what seems to happen. In short, while I don’t trust evidence blindly, I typically will hold evidence (reproducible and peer reviewed) over logic because I think the latter is more prone to bias.

I am talking about real and true logic, not someone’s attempt at logic. Someone presuming that this must be true due to that false assumption, is not using real and true logic because he has accepted a false premise.

The system of real logic requires that you accept that all things have a cause whether you know what that cause is or not. Logic is pointless if you do not accept that principle.

EVERY statement in logic is really, “be-cause of A and B then C must be”.

So do you accept that anything real must have a logical cause? If not, you are not believing in real logic.

…and later, I can explain that electron thing if you care.

 

[wanstronian]

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).

You’re very confident. Would you attempt the reasoning you provided in post #2?