Are there any good arguments for God?

[Tiberius]

I am an agnostic atheist. That means that while I don't believe in God, I don't say that I know for a fact that he doesn't exist. I am perfectly willing to change my position, but I will need some good evidence.

So, what do you think is the most convincing argument for the existence of God? I'm pretty sure I've heard them all. If you post an argument that I've rejected, I'll try to explain why I have rejected it.

 

[Kueid]

First you need to define "existence" and then "God". Even if "God" could be summarized in words it would be virtual impossible to come up with an ultimate argument, if that's what you are looking for. I think you'll get in here what humans think "God" IS in conjunction of what they think "existence" IS, nothing new. I don't know for sure what you really want with this. Showoff? A change of heart? I wish you good luck for whatever it is.

 

[Tiberius]

First you need to define "existence" and then "God". Even if "God" could be summarized in words it would be virtual impossible to come up with an ultimate argument, if that's what you are looking for. I think you'll get in here what humans think "God" IS in conjunction of what they think "existence" IS, nothing new. I don't know for sure what you really want with this. Showoff? A change of heart? I wish you good luck for whatever it is.

Well, by "existence" I mean "existing in reality, as opposed to things that exist only in the imagination."

By "God", I am referring to any supernatural being/creator of the universe, etc, but I'm happy to keep it confined to any of the variations on a theme worshipped by Christians.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So, what do you think is the most convincing argument for the existence of God?

The fine-tuning problem and related problems in cosmology and theoretical physics. I'm not convinced, nor am I prepared (as other agnostic/atheist physicists seem to be) to assert that the problem is so great as to necessitate an infinite number of universes in which our own is simply "fine-tuned" because out of infinite possibilities it is the one in which we could exist (nor yet am I prepared to yield to a particular method of anthropic reasoning I see as clearly correct, e.g., that espoused in Anthropic Bias). I am still trying to find what I believe to be defensible ways to conclude the issues are only seemingly so. But such issues continue to irk me.

 

[ArtieE]

I am an agnostic atheist. That means that while I don't believe in God, I don't say that I know for a fact that he doesn't exist. I am perfectly willing to change my position, but I will need some good evidence.

So, what do you think is the most convincing argument for the existence of God? I'm pretty sure I've heard them all. If you post an argument that I've rejected, I'll try to explain why I have rejected it.

If there's an infinite amount of universes there could be an infinite amount of things in them including an infinite amount of gods?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I am an agnostic atheist. That means that while I don't believe in God, I don't say that I know for a fact that he doesn't exist. I am perfectly willing to change my position, but I will need some good evidence.

So, what do you think is the most convincing argument for the existence of God? I'm pretty sure I've heard them all. If you post an argument that I've rejected, I'll try to explain why I have rejected it.

The argument about the existence of God boils down to one question, how did the universe come to be. God creating it is just as fantastic as its coming to be spontaneously. There's absolutely no evidence for or against either proposition, with the Big Bang being a perfect firewall beyond which we can retrieve no evidence at all, at least so far. In fact the perfect lack of evidence would appear to be designed, which would seem to indicate a divine design--but we can't use a lack of evidence, as evidence.

The only two reasonable positions on God that fit with this perfect lack of evidence are agnostic-atheism and agnostic-deism; the only difference between them being hope offered by the latter, which is why I've adopted it as my preference. One advantage, if I'm wrong, I'll never know it. If the atheists are wrong, they'll have me ragging on them for all eternity....though all in good humor of course.

 

[Kueid]

Well, by "existence" I mean "existing in reality, as opposed to things that exist only in the imagination."

You are using the same world to describe it. It's super hard for me to follow. I'll assume that you are saying "things that don't have an 'material' body don't exist" e.g. "thought". I think I don't need to say how wrong you are.

By "God", I am referring to any supernatural being/creator of the universe, etc, but I'm happy to keep it confined to any of the variations on a theme worshipped by Christians.

If you change that concept for, let's say, "GOD = REALITY" would that make sense? With this concept of God you could easily say "God exist", no?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

If there's an infinite amount of universes there could be an infinite amount of things in them including an infinite amount of gods?

That presumes an assumption of facts not in evidence, which leads to a false conclusion. I think the multiverse theory is pretty much out of favor.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

If you change that concept for, let's say, "GOD = REALITY" would that make sense? With this concept of God you could easily say "God exist", no?

I put it God = Truth. Whatever the Truth is, there be God, whether it's a divine super-consciousness or just a conglomerate of matter and energy.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

God creating it is just as fantastic as its coming to be spontaneously.

If this is true (or if there is any way of determining that it isn't), that would be a fantastic leap forward. I would be absolutely thrilled to hear the reasoning behind this! Thanks.

In fact the perfect lack of evidence would appear to be designed, which would seem to indicate a divine design--but we can't use a lack of evidence, as evidence.

I'm not sure how the "perfect lack of evidence would appear to be designed", still less how lack of evidence isn't evidence (in the sciences, metaphysics, philosophy, and even in everyday inference absence of evidence is evidence of absence; the fallacy lies in taking absence of evidence as PROOF for evidence of absence).

 

[ArtieE]

The argument about the existence of God boils down to one question, how did the universe come to be.

Why? Wouldn't God exist even if he hadn't created the universe? If we knew exactly how the universe came to be we wouldn't need for God to exist?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I think the multiverse theory is pretty much out of favor.

It is, or rather they are, somewhat mainstream. A swathe of physicists interpret quantum mechanics as implying this (the so-called "many-worlds interpretation" which Everett began although the name came later) and which was shown by Susskind and co-author to be equivalent to (at least certain versions of) multiverse cosmology. In fact, rather trivial forms of multiverse cosmology are somewhat beyond question

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You are using the same world to describe it.

That's how definitions work: we define words in terms of other words that are either synonyms of those we wish to define or variant forms of that word (or which contain that word). Semantic concept is by definition and is trivially ambiguous, informal, and ill-suited to formal logical analysis (which is why it is largely absent from proofs and logical derivations).

With this concept of God you could easily say "God exist", no?

No. Trivial proof by definition and semantic equivalences amount to nothing. Demands for specific, formal definitions of concepts are likewise bereft of value, serve no purpose in dialogue (except insofar as they are intended not as arguments but to clarify), and run counter to meaningful dialogue. Semantic games benefit no one but can be exploited by anyone.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I put it God = Truth. Whatever the Truth is, there be God, whether it's a divine super-consciousness or just a conglomerate of matter and energy.

If this is true (or if there is any way of determining that it isn't), that would be a fantastic leap forward. I would be absolutely thrilled to hear the reasoning behind this! Thanks.

The reasoning behind what, the lack of evidence (the lack of evidence being none for spontaneous creation, or ANY supernatural event or revelation that is anything other than hearsay, except possibly the Big Bang)?

I'm not sure how the "perfect lack of evidence would appear to be designed", still less how lack of evidence isn't evidence (in the sciences, metaphysics, philosophy, and even in everyday inference absence of evidence is evidence of absence; the fallacy lies in taking absence of evidence as PROOF for evidence of absence).

True, which is why the lack of evidence can't be used as evidence or for proof. And one would expect that if the Big Bang was not designed, some evidence would likely have become evident by now with no will available to will to be hidden.

The only possible reason for God to create the universe is to isolate us from It so as to maintain our free will. God could have done anything else instantly. By creating time God was able to put that Big Bang firewall 13 billion years ago. The more out of sight, the more out of mind, leaving us to exercise our moral free will....free from divine influence.[/QUOTE]

 

[Laika]

I am an agnostic atheist. That means that while I don't believe in God, I don't say that I know for a fact that he doesn't exist. I am perfectly willing to change my position, but I will need some good evidence.

So, what do you think is the most convincing argument for the existence of God? I'm pretty sure I've heard them all. If you post an argument that I've rejected, I'll try to explain why I have rejected it.

I would advise looking up Natural Theology and Deism. As an area, they provide a series of rational arguments for god's existence. I think it is important to keep in mind that not all religious views are built on "revelation" or "blind faith" and therefore should not be dis-qualified outright. There are some intresting arguments as to why, assuming that man created god, it becomes logically untenable to believe that revelation is an entirely false source of knowledge (given it has a man-made source and so must come from our experiences).

I am an atheist, but it is hard to account for the historical prevelance without making some considerable leaps. neither mental illness, ignorance or sheer lying can account for the existence of religious belief. religious belief is part of the evolution of human knowledge and understanding of the universe. the "false" nature of religious belief is not absolute and there may be very real, material/physical origins for those beliefs or a rational basis for some of its content. regardless as to whether there is a god or not, the philosophical exercise you have to do to establish it either way is considerable. When it comes down to it, we have to re-asses what we can and cannot know and how we can know something is true/does exist.

I am happy to say god does not exist, but have come to recognise that there are dimension of that that would qualify as "faith" if I were to make the opposing argument. Nor am I entirely satisfied that I have exhausted the argument as I can poke holes in my own reasoning (the big bang as a form of cosmological argument is the biggest and most serious). I think, if you consider the subject as a whole, there is more to it than a yes or no response because it is at the most abstract outer limits of human knowledge.

 

[allfoak]

Proof that God exists starts with us.

The Hermetic teachings are the most straight forward teachings i know of on how this question should be approached and understood.

THE ALL
"Under, and back of, the Universe of Time, Space and Change,
is ever to be found The Substantial Reality--the Fundamental
Truth."--The Kybalion.

"Substance" means: "that which underlies all outward manifestations; the essence; the essential reality; the thing in itself," etc. "Substantial" means: "actually existing; being the essential element; being real," etc. "Reality" means: "the state of being real; true, enduring; valid; fixed; permanent; actual," etc.

Under and behind all outward appearances or manifestations, there must always be a Substantial Reality. This is the Law. Man considering the Universe, of which he is a unit, sees nothing but change in matter, forces, and mental states. He sees that nothing really IS, but that everything is BECOMING and CHANGING. Nothing stands still-everything is being born, growing, dying-the very instant a thing reaches its height, it begins to decline--the law of rhythm is in constant operation--there is no reality, enduring quality, fixity, or substantiality in anything-- nothing is permanent but Change. He sees all things evolving from other things, and resolving into other things--constant action and reaction; inflow and outflow; building up and tearing down; creation and destruction; birth, growth and death. Nothing endures but Change. And if he be a thinking man, he realizes that all of these changing things must be but outward appearances or manifestations of some Underlying Power--some Substantial Reality.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/kyb/kyb06.htm

 

[ArtieE]

The only possible reason for God to create the universe is to isolate us from It so as to maintain our free will. God could have done anything else instantly. By creating time God was able to put that Big Bang firewall 13 billion years ago. The more out of sight, the more out of mind, leaving us to exercise our moral free will....free from divine influence.

Then he shouldn't go around mooning people.

Exodus
"33:21 And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
33:22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen."

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The reasoning behind what, the lack of evidence (the lack of evidence being none for spontaneous creation, or ANY supernatural event or revelation that is anything other than hearsay, except possibly the Big Bang)?

God creating it is just as fantastic as its coming to be spontaneously.

If this is true (or if there is any way of determining that it isn't), that would be a fantastic leap forward. I would be absolutely thrilled to hear the reasoning behind this! Thanks.

I reiterate: you equate probabilities, namely that "God creating it is just as fantastic as its coming to be spontaneously". What is the probability function, rational basis, argument, or whatever it is that you rely on to justify this statement? Thanks.

True, which is why the lack of evidence can't be used as evidence or for proof.

Evidence isn't used in proofs. That's because proofs requires a closed discourse realm such as that found in mathematics where we can appeal to assumptions/axioms and rules of inference in the merely syntactical manipulation that IS proof. Anything else involves a variety of assumptions.

And one would expect that if the Big Bang was not designed, some evidence would likely have become evident by now with no will available to will to be hidden.

On what basis would one expect this?

The only possible reason for God to create the universe is to isolate us from It so as to maintain our free will.

I understand that to be one possible (offered) reason. Why the only?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

It is, or rather they are, somewhat mainstream. A swathe of physicists interpret quantum mechanics as implying this (the so-called "many-worlds interpretation" which Everett began although the name came later) and which was shown by Susskind and co-author to be equivalent to (at least certain versions of) multiverse cosmology. In fact, rather trivial forms of multiverse cosmology are somewhat beyond question

Only one interpretation addresses all quantum weirdness, the Transactional Interpretation. But physicists have been bending over backwards to try and show anything else is the answer, all because TI is a manipulation of time. ("How many times have I told you, Watson....) I think a big reason some are finally coming around is that instead of thinking of TI as transactions backward and forward in time, they're actually taking place outside, or in the absence of time. This "quantumland" explanation links timelessness to dark matter and dark energy. I think of it as multi-dimensions (another way to think of multi-worlds???) swamping the one dimension of time, which dimension can only exert itself in our 4-D universe which was extruded from all the other dimensions by the Big Bang.

May we continue to live in interesting times.

 

[allfoak]

Then he shouldn't go around mooning people.

Exodus
"33:21 And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
33:22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen."

We are looking at God's backside every time we look in the mirror.
It's not really the backside but more the outside.
Like our skin is outside of us but yet it is part of us.

It is rather difficult to imagine i know, but the material world is the backside of God.
God's face is hidden to us because it is to be found within us.
Everything is kind of turned inside out or outside in depending upon what you prefer.