• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Your Best Argument for God's Existence

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Here's mine:
Proof God exists is SUPER EASY for anyone to understand (sadly, the stubborn denier is the exception):

1) Each DNA contains 100 million pages worth of instructions to build the entire body. Do instructions write themselves? Nope. Instructions don't write themselves. Behind every instruction is an 'instructor' who authored it. Carl Sagan said: "The information content of a simple cell has been established as around one trillion bits, comparable to about 100 million pages of the Encyclopaedia Britannica."

2) Every genome is written as a quaternary molecular digital code: "All present life is based on digitally-encoded information." (American Academy of Sciences). Do digital programs write themselves? Nope again.

3) Each cell contains hi-tech miniature organs (organelles - nucleus, golgi bodies, mitochondria, chloroplasts, etc.) - none of which are naturally found elsewhere - hence no natural explanation for their existence.

4) Who can write a 100 million pages worth of instructions and then stuff it into every cell of our body? This hyper-intellect is who we will face on Judgment Day.

With item (1) almost every reasonable person acknowledges that they have never seen nor heard of instructions writing themselves. This is common sense to most people although not all.

Some argue they see all the above occur in nature when cells reproduce. However, there is still no explanation how the very first living cell came about with all those instructions in its DNA, and although some theorize that organelles were first formed by bacteria invading a host 'cell', we've never seen organelles produced by such a mechanism nor has such a mechanism ever been DEMONSTRATED and VALIDATED by any study.

Anyway, I would like to hear your argument for God's existence. Thank you.

So, my ancestors had a point to believe that Thor was involved in lighnings, since no study back then validated electromagnetism, which did not even exist?

Ciao

- viole
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Testimony remains the most fundamental way for humans to get a truth of any kind! At least that's the way how our history is written.

Yeah. Once you ball down to it, it's just personal experiences, perspective, and testimony. We can attribute our beliefs on any part of the natural world and human interaction in order to make sense of it. That's how we make sense of the world. When we start using our perspectives and beliefs as logical facts, that's where the problem comes in.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
We have lots....not proof. But we have lots of evidence. You have lots of denial of it.
Outside of things like I feel it or sense it, or filling in the gaps with premature conclusions when it comes to artifacts and explaining natural complexity solely on the basis its complex, therefore it must be God , demonstrates the low standards of believability disregarding the importance of intense critique and scrutiny required for establishing the facts of the matter.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Here's mine:
Proof God exists is SUPER EASY for anyone to understand (sadly, the stubborn denier is the exception):

1) Each DNA contains 100 million pages worth of instructions to build the entire body. Do instructions write themselves? Nope. Instructions don't write themselves. Behind every instruction is an 'instructor' who authored it. Carl Sagan said: "The information content of a simple cell has been established as around one trillion bits, comparable to about 100 million pages of the Encyclopaedia Britannica."

2) Every genome is written as a quaternary molecular digital code: "All present life is based on digitally-encoded information." (American Academy of Sciences). Do digital programs write themselves? Nope again.

3) Each cell contains hi-tech miniature organs (organelles - nucleus, golgi bodies, mitochondria, chloroplasts, etc.) - none of which are naturally found elsewhere - hence no natural explanation for their existence.

4) Who can write a 100 million pages worth of instructions and then stuff it into every cell of our body? This hyper-intellect is who we will face on Judgment Day.

With item (1) almost every reasonable person acknowledges that they have never seen nor heard of instructions writing themselves. This is common sense to most people although not all.

Some argue they see all the above occur in nature when cells reproduce. However, there is still no explanation how the very first living cell came about with all those instructions in its DNA, and although some theorize that organelles were first formed by bacteria invading a host 'cell', we've never seen organelles produced by such a mechanism nor has such a mechanism ever been DEMONSTRATED and VALIDATED by any study.

Anyway, I would like to hear your argument for God's existence. Thank you.

It’s just chemistry, actually. The use of words like instructions and code are just ways of making the process understandable in a less technical way for a lay aunience. They aren’t meant to be literal.

But for the sake of the argument, assume they are. ahow does that prove the existence of your god? You just have a big mystery with no explanation now.....
 
Outside of things like I feel it or sense it, or filling in the gaps with premature conclusions when it comes to artifacts and explaining natural complexity solely on the basis its complex, therefore it must be God , demonstrates the low standards of believability disregarding the importance of intense critique and scrutiny required for establishing the facts of the matter.

When the atheist position is scrutinized it falls apart. When the God one gets scrutinized it holds up.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Lol, the evidence is everywhere. Im convinced there is two kinds of blindness, physical and mental blindness.

Sure, because you are a dualist. I, on the other end, am convinced that there is only one type of delusion. That is, seeing things that do not exist and believing that who does not see them is blind. Obviously, since the mental is reducible to the physical, like everything else.

So, this argument is not taking you anywhere. Since you have no more evidence to say I am blnd, then I have to say you are deluded.

But I will cut you some slack here. Show me some evidence, or what you consider evidence, that all we see, the marvels of the world, the beauty, the DNA, the infinite with all the stars, the poetry of a beautiful sunset, love, compassion, our moral feelings, etc. could serve as evidence that Apollo exists.

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Here's mine:
Proof God exists is SUPER EASY for anyone to understand (sadly, the stubborn denier is the exception):

1) Each DNA contains 100 million pages worth of instructions to build the entire body. Do instructions write themselves? Nope. Instructions don't write themselves. Behind every instruction is an 'instructor' who authored it. Carl Sagan said: "The information content of a simple cell has been established as around one trillion bits, comparable to about 100 million pages of the Encyclopaedia Britannica."

2) Every genome is written as a quaternary molecular digital code: "All present life is based on digitally-encoded information." (American Academy of Sciences). Do digital programs write themselves? Nope again.

3) Each cell contains hi-tech miniature organs (organelles - nucleus, golgi bodies, mitochondria, chloroplasts, etc.) - none of which are naturally found elsewhere - hence no natural explanation for their existence.

4) Who can write a 100 million pages worth of instructions and then stuff it into every cell of our body? This hyper-intellect is who we will face on Judgment Day.

With item (1) almost every reasonable person acknowledges that they have never seen nor heard of instructions writing themselves. This is common sense to most people although not all.

Some argue they see all the above occur in nature when cells reproduce. However, there is still no explanation how the very first living cell came about with all those instructions in its DNA, and although some theorize that organelles were first formed by bacteria invading a host 'cell', we've never seen organelles produced by such a mechanism nor has such a mechanism ever been DEMONSTRATED and VALIDATED by any study.

Anyway, I would like to hear your argument for God's existence. Thank you.

Well, we know that DNA and chemical processes unconsciously produce brains that consciously create things.

So, to argue that conscious creative acts are ultimately the first ones of the chain, is begging the question. And therefore logically unwarranted.

Ciao

- viole
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Theres both kinds of evidence for God. Theres design and spiritual experiences

Spiritual experiences are assumed spiritual. But assuming a spiritual reality is question begging and circular. They could be very well be simple neuronal storms. I believe they can even be reproduced with some physical substances. Obviously. I have similar things every night when I sleep REM.

For what concern design. Can you make me an example of something in the universe that is definetely not designed?

Ciao

- viole
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
"God" is self evident, this is why atheists have such a hard time understanding "theists".

If God were self evident, wouldn't you expect a more universal understanding of Him, Her, It, Them?
...but the theist tries to understand it rather than force atheistic dogmas on the truth.
Atheists have dogmas? I don't know of any general atheist dogma.
But theist need to have a solid definition of god. Atheists are all over the place because theist can' find or have a central definition of what god is.
No, it's not the definition that has us flummoxed. What we want is evidence.
Atheist is a reflective opposite of a theist. So, there needs to be a theist explanation in order for the atheist can disagree to. If the theist doesnt have a solid definition, how do they expect atheists to respond?
Not quite following you here, Artist.
 
Please don't shout. I read everything.

I was only emphasising, not shouting. But, ill lower the caps for you in respect.

Can you find evidence and with that evidence prove that design leads to an creator?

If you can demonstrate the connection between the evidence of design and creator, than I'd understand what you're talking about. I'm not an evidence wanting person. I'm just asking you to use what you consider as evidence and demonstrate how design leads to a creator apart from your belief.

Everyone has two eyes, two ears, one mouth, all in the same spot. Does that not show order? Each of those parts serve a function. Does that not show design?

Yes. It comes from the mind. It's an experience. DNA doesn't come from the mind. How did you get DNA show god? What's the connection outside of your mind?

DNA is information. Information or codes from what we know in everyday life, comes from minds.

But the design of DNA doesn't show me a creator. If you were to explain to me how it does, how would you start?

"This information can be thought of as the basic set of inheritable "instructions" for the development and function of a human being."

An Overview of the Human Genome Project

Instructions come from mind or intelligence.

I know in RF pantheist and polytheist don't think that way. It varies. Probably deists. Not all theists. That's a broad stroke there.

Thats some weird theist then who does not adhere to design. They believe God created and designed the world, but yet they dont adhere to intelligent design. Thats crazy. What are they? Fence sitters?

But, can you explain how these people as a group see the "intelligent design" outside their mind?

Patterns, order, complexity, information.

Facts arent dependent on a person's theological stance.

Like i said, its not about proof, its about evidence, inference and philosophical thought.
 
Spiritual experiences are assumed spiritual. But assuming a spiritual reality is question begging and circular. They could be very well be simple neuronal storms. I believe they can even be reproduced with some physical substances. Obviously. I have similar things every night when I sleep REM.

For what concern design. Can you make me an example of something in the universe that is definetely not designed?

Ciao

- viole

There is no example of anything that is not designed. Absolutely everything is designed.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
No, it's not the definition that has us flummoxed. What we want is evidence.

Evidence for which god? Theists have so many personal definitions and interpretations from scriptures, it's very hard to know what evidence to look for.

Not quite following you here, Artist.

You're not the only one :p

How can an atheist address the issues he has with god when the theist doesn't have a solid definition to which that atheist can properly build his own argument?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Everyone has two eyes, two ears, one mouth, all in the same spot. Does that not show order? Each of those parts serve a function. Does that not show design?

Good way to see it is that the parts of the body function together. If it weren't "design" if one likes, parts won't work together as they do. As far as calling it "intelligent design" as though it has a mind as a creator is a bit far.

DNA is information. Information or codes from what we know in everyday life, comes from minds.

"This information can be thought of as the basic set of inheritable "instructions" for the development and function of a human being."

How does that relate to god, though?

Thats some weird theist then who does not adhere to design. They believe God created and designed the world, but yet they dont adhere to intelligent design. Thats crazy. What are they? Fence sitters?

No. They just have different beliefs not flawed. I don't take that negative view. God/creator isn't the default god-religion. If anything, polytheism is.

Patterns, order, complexity, information.

But to a creator? How does one get a creator or draw that conclusion just from patterns, order, and complexity?

Like i said, its not about proof, its about evidence, inference and philosophical thought.

What is the evidence, though? Facts arent dependent on one's inference and philosophy. If evidence is outside of these things, what is it and how does it connect with god?
 
Good way to see it is that the parts of the body function together. If it weren't "design" if one likes, parts won't work together as they do. As far as calling it "intelligent design" as though it has a mind as a creator is a bit far.





How does that relate to god, though?



No. They just have different beliefs not flawed. I don't take that negative view. God/creator isn't the default god-religion. If anything, polytheism is.



But to a creator? How does one get a creator or draw that conclusion just from patterns, order, and complexity?



What is the evidence, though? Facts arent dependent on one's inference and philosophy. If evidence is outside of these things, what is it and how does it connect with god?

That is the evidence (not proof) design, order and information. Thats the evidence that God created it. The inference that God actually created it comes out of the evidence.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
That is the evidence (not proof) design, order and information. Thats the evidence that God created it. The inference that God actually created it comes out of the evidence.

Take out the words evidence and proof. In a sentence (rather than dictionary; english is contextual), if you have evidence for something, you can either keep it as that or chose to use it as proof to validate a claim of somesort.

I can careless about proof. Can you demonstrate how the evidence of patterns and order mean god? How did you (?) draw that conclusion?
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I believe testimony comes from the Holy Ghost. John 7:17 says, "If any man shall do the will of the Father, he shall know for himself, whether I speak of God or am just a man" (something like that).

But I will be happy to present my sharpest argument:

In Judaism, there are 10 characteristics of God:

1 Keter - "Crown"
2 Chokhmah - "Wisdom"
3 Binah - "Understanding"
4 Chesed - "Kindness"
5 Gevurah - "Discipline"
6 Tiferet - "Beauty"
7 Netzach - "Eternity"
8 Hod - "Splendour"
9 Yesod - "Foundation"
10 Malkuth - "Kingship"

I like Hod, splendor, the best. Stephen Hawking said he needed to find an initial variety in the Universe to explain it's diversity. It seems like any way to initiate it does not provide that variety. I have even tried making my own class of numbers to explain the variety, but it didn't work:

"Debunking my Stephen Hawking variety problem solution - like centrifuge problem

So Stephen Hawking wanted a way for the Universe to start where matter wasn't uniform so it would form into a variety of shapes.

The Real numbers don't do it.

My solution, or so I thought, was the defined class of numbers. Take '0','1','2',...,'9','.','+','-','*','/','^','root', 'ln', 'cos', 'sin', sum, sequence, product,'(',')', and maybe a delta function. Some variety is possible in the definition but the point is the same. By going through the digits like a number base, you get all the defined numbers. We want to divide all the numbers between concrete, defined numbers and random numbers that spread themselves everywhere and cannot even be defined. We don't need to know if numbers are infinite or if we are repeating numbers and should be able to tell if the expressions are legitimate.

Again, by going through the digits like a number base, you get all the defined numbers. Do they form a variety? You might think so. Consider just these three points.

0 ln (2) 1
.............................

It seems that irrational numbers like logarithms will be in different arrangements around different rational numbers, providing a variety.

Finite decimals exist. Repeating decimals exist, and for things like logarithms there are infinite endings for which the endings stick even if a repeating decimal part modifies them systematically.

It seems that these infinite endings will provide the variety trick.

Let's say we had defined just 0, ln(2) and 1. We can include the extension of ln (2) to 0 and 1 to twice as far. We get -ln(2) and 2-ln(2).

Each time we introduce a logarithm, in the process of counting, we add and subtract its value to all the other non-logarithm points. We extend all line segments involving the logarithm to twice their length and add the endpoint. Then we combine each pair of two logarithms, each set of three, until we have used all the logarithms so far.

It takes almost forever to count but not forever and the point is unmistakeable. Every rational point has all the other rational points and the same logarithm parts on either side of it and extending as long as wanted. Every logarithm point also has all the the other rational points and the same logarithm parts on either side of it and extending as long as wanted. Perfectly balanced Universe.

Logarithms should be the only thing that provides trouble but we can do this with other things.

So we conclude two things:

(1) The defined class of numbers does not provide the variety Stephen Hawking wanted in his initial Universe and
(2) I should give you a discount on my books.

Would anyone else like to try explaining initial diversity in the Universe?

You never get all the real numbers with the defined class because the Reals are uncountable and the latter are countable, but you still fill up everywhere evenly."

The only explanation is that part of the Universe is alive and dictating diversity for the rest of it. I think that is clearly God!
 
Top