Whats your favorite argument for the existence of God?

[Charles_Darwin]

Precisely. You use your power of reason to infer that it exists. So you assume you have the power of reason - which is an intangible reality.
The power of reason, self-awareness and free will.

I would say chimps can also reason, are self aware and have free will.

The physical universe does not know it exists.

I am part of the physical universe, i am made from the stars, so i guess it does.

“we are a way for the universe to know itself” - Carl Sagan

It is one of your assumptions. Do you believe the basic elements of reality are atomic particles?

I don’t believe we have enough knowledge to say for sure, so no. I would answer i don’t know. However on current evidence we know of nothing else, though i could be wrong about that too, I’m not a physicist.

You already have the evidence within you - the power of reason, self-awareness and free will.

And? That is not evidence of anything.

Please give a reference to a scientific paper which explains how simplicity produced complexity.

Are you for real? Dude… Big bang, Star formation, Abiogenesis, Evolution… Ever heard of any of these things?

So if I ask you **why **you don’t believe God exists you will explain how you are thinking rather than give me a reason for your disbelief?. If I ask you why you love somebody you will give me a scientific explanation of how you have developed physically?

I don’t believe in any god for there is not a single shred of evidence to suggest one exists. Why do you think its called faith, if there was real evidence one would not need faith.

Can you explain how purposeful activity emerged from purposeless activity?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[mathematician]

Science does not prove anything . Like i said philosophy has its uses, but when it comes to understanding the cosmos science is the king.

Only if it has a pretty clear understanding of what does and what does not constitute scientific method before it starts out. Otherwise it stands a good chance of having its theories torn to shreds. So you think philosophy is irrelevant to cosmology? I don’t think so.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I don’t believe in any god for there is not a single shred of evidence to suggest one exists. Why do you think its called faith, if there was real evidence one would not need faith.

Not at all true.

Faith is required due to the lack of intelligence necessary to see the evidence. Science has this same issue. People must have FAITH that Science has indeed done as reported because most people cannot obtain the intelligence required to verify it.

And in your case, the lack of willingness to accept the very definition of “God”.

When you deny the definition, you display the lack of intelligence REQUIRED by Science or anything else to “see the evidence” presented.

Science has more than proven the existence of God. It is mere politics preventing it from being presented or displayed.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Science does not prove anything . Like i said philosophy has its uses, but when it comes to understanding the cosmos science is the king.

The “king”??? Haha… without logicians (philosophers), Science is meaningless and lost.

ALL Science depends entirely on proper experimentation and observation DEDUCTIONS. ALL of that was provided by philosophy, specifically backed by logicians, not scientists.

Scientists are the technicians of Logicians.

 

[Hubriss]

The prime mover and the first efficient cause are inseparable.

The prime mover is fully actual and cannot have potential. Since the prime mover cannot have potentiality it is impossible for it to exist temporally.

To me prime implies one. But I don’t see any reason why there may not be more than one, same with “first” efficient “cause.”

And what does this actual and potential mean? They seem meaningless. They are at least not based on any reality.

 

[Hubriss]

Not at all true.

Faith is required due to the lack of intelligence necessary to see the evidence. Science has this same issue. People must have FAITH that Science has indeed done as reported because most people cannot obtain the intelligence required to verify it.

And in your case, the lack of willingness to accept the very definition of “God”.

When you deny the definition, you display the lack of intelligence REQUIRED by Science or anything else to “see the evidence” presented.

Science has more than proven the existence of God. It is mere politics preventing it from being presented or displayed.

lol?

I wonder how someone with total blind faith is supposed to destroy atheist arguments. You are clearly trying to justify your faith with more faith. Your second sentence in that quote proves it. You acknowledge that we cannot empirically, logically, or reasonably point to God (you say our intelligence is limited), yet you still assert it is there, without any explanation or reasoning.

It is the reason why people of faith insist that science is also based on faith: to bring it down to their level of reasoning. Faith in empiricism or the scientific method disappears once you accept that our senses and reasoning are at least somewhat accurate and our world is real. Faith is the opposite of empiricism. Faith is belief things that are contradictory to empiricism, intuition, logic, and/or that are irrational. For example: belief in virgin births, resurrections, assumptions, miracles, original sin, infallibility, are all matters of faith, the real kind of faith.

Furthermore, once you define “God,” you must justify each of the attributes you give it. I have never heard a logical justification for any of God’s attributes besides first or uncaused cause, but that doesn’t really say much.

 

[wanstronian]

What precisely is illogical about the omniscient Creator Who creates beings to share His creativity, capacity for love and freedom to choose their own destiny?
It would be more illogical if the Creator did not know anything about the beings He created and created them for no purpose whatsoever!
It is more illogical to claim we are beings who know an unknowing universe and create our own purposes in an uncreated, purposeless existence…

In your opinion.

 

[mathematician]

In your opinion.

WOODY ALLEN: That’s quite a lovely Jackson Pollock, isn’t it?

GIRL IN MUSEUM: Yes it is.

WOODY ALLEN: What does it say to you?

GIRL IN MUSEUM: It restates the negativeness of the universe, the hideous lonely emptiness of existence, nothingness, the predicament of man forced to live in a barren, godless eternity, like a tiny flame flickering in an immense void, with nothing but waste, horror, and degradation, forming a useless bleak straightjacket in a black absurd cosmos.

WOODY ALLEN: What are you doing Saturday night?

GIRL IN MUSEUM: Committing suicide.

WOODY ALLEN: What about Friday night?

 

[MindOverMatter]

And what does this actual and potential mean? They seem meaningless. They are at least not based on any reality.

You cannot be seriously suggesting that the words potentiality and actuality have no truth value in terms of objective reality. Please tell me that you are joking.

 

[tonyrey]

                 Originally Posted by **tonyrey**                     
               *Precisely. You use your power of reason to infer that it exists. So you assume you have the power of reason - which is an intangible reality.

The power of reason, self-awareness and free will.*

I would say chimps can also reason, are self aware and have free will.

In that case they must be responsible for their actions. Why aren’t they taken to court?

The physical universe does not know it exists.
I am part of the physical universe, i am made from the stars, so i guess it does.
“we are a way for the universe to know itself” - Carl Sagan

“guess” is the operative word! An absurd quotation does not justify your statement. Does the physical universe as a whole know it exists? Do the nebulae know they exist? Do atomic particles know they exist? Do the quanta of physical energy know they exist?

             *It is one of your assumptions. Do you believe the **basic*** elements of reality are atomic particles?
                             I don't believe we have enough knowledge to say for sure, so no. I would answer i don't know.

Therefore it is another of your assumptions.

                                                                  *You already have the evidence within you - the power of reason, self-awareness and free will.*

That is not evidence of anything.

Then you must be mindless!

Please give a reference to a scientific paper which explains how simplicity produced complexity.
Big bang, Star formation, Abiogenesis, evolution…

Names are not explanations. Please give a reference to a scientific paper which explains how simplicity produced complexity.

*So if I ask you **why ***you don’t believe God exists you will explain how you are thinking rather than give me a reason for your disbelief?. If I ask you why you love somebody you will give me a scientific explanation of how you have developed physically?
I don’t believe in any god for there is not a single shred of evidence to suggest one exists.

Thank you for proving my point. You have given me reasons, not explanations in terms of “how”. Why you love a person? Because of **how **you have developed?

Can you explain how purposeful activity emerged from purposeless activity?
I have no idea what you are talking about.

You mean you have no idea how to answer the question…

 

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by tonyrey
What precisely is illogical about the omniscient Creator Who creates beings to share His creativity, capacity for love and freedom to choose their own destiny?
It would be more illogical if the Creator did not know anything about the beings He created and created them for no purpose whatsoever!
It is more illogical to claim we are beings who know an unknowing universe and create our own purposes in an uncreated, purposeless existence…

In your opinion.

Please explain why it is not your opinion.

 

[James_S_Saint]

tonyrey:

What precisely is illogical about the omniscient Creator Who creates beings to share His creativity, capacity for love and freedom to choose their own destiny?

It is “opinion” in that it has no foundation other than speculation.

 

[Jason_1977]

I’m 900 miles from my mother, I’m no longer on active duty, SOMEONE is insistant on treating me like an adult lately…lol

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey

It is a metaphysical explanation based on evidence:

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.

My question remains unanswered:

What precisely is illogical about the omniscient Creator Who creates beings to share His creativity, capacity for love and freedom to choose their own destiny?

 

[PJM]

=johngh;5705046]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?

Here is my suggestion.

It can be demonistrated that in all of the Created Universe, only humanity are gifted with a mind, intellect and freewill. One can demonistrate and prove this thesis.

Because only humanity is so gifted, and it can further be shown that these attributes are in there Nature, Spiritual, [non-matter THINGS] and cannot be quantifed as to size, weight, shape or color. Logic implies that there must be a specific reason for this annomaly.

The greatest evidence of God lies in the FACT that in all the Created Universe, only humanity, so gifted, has the ability to accept and give LOVE. Love requires use of mind, intellect and freewill, all Spiritual Things. God too is Spirit!

Love and prayers, and good luck:thumbsup:

 

[Jason_1977]

Nobody asks you if you’re saved when you’re in heaven? LMAO

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Only if it has a pretty clear understanding of what does and what does not constitute scientific method before it starts out. Otherwise it stands a good chance of having its theories torn to shreds. So you think philosophy is irrelevant to cosmology? I don’t think so.

Well… when we talk about science we actually mean the scientific method. Dude why do you keep trying to put words in my mouth, i have told you what i mean. When it comes to understanding the cosmos the scientific method is by far and away the best method.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

People must have FAITH that Science has indeed done as reported because most people cannot obtain the intelligence required to verify it.

I can see your have never studied a science based subject .

 

[Charles_Darwin]

The “king”??? Haha… without logicians (philosophers), Science is meaningless and lost.

ALL Science depends entirely on proper experimentation and observation DEDUCTIONS. ALL of that was provided by philosophy, specifically backed by logicians, not scientists.

Scientists are the technicians of Logicians.

I am talking about the method .

 

[Charles_Darwin]

lol?

I wonder how someone with total blind faith is supposed to destroy atheist arguments. You are clearly trying to justify your faith with more faith. Your second sentence in that quote proves it. You acknowledge that we cannot empirically, logically, or reasonably point to God (you say our intelligence is limited), yet you still assert it is there, without any explanation or reasoning.

It is the reason why people of faith insist that science is also based on faith: to bring it down to their level of reasoning. Faith in empiricism or the scientific method disappears once you accept that our senses and reasoning are at least somewhat accurate and our world is real. Faith is the opposite of empiricism. Faith is belief things that are contradictory to empiricism, intuition, logic, and/or that are irrational. For example: belief in virgin births, resurrections, assumptions, miracles, original sin, infallibility, are all matters of faith, the real kind of faith.

Furthermore, once you define “God,” you must justify each of the attributes you give it. I have never heard a logical justification for any of God’s attributes besides first or uncaused cause, but that doesn’t really say much.

Great post, i wish i could be bothered tackling obtuseness with such class