What is your top-notch argument for the existence of God?

[firedragon]

Varying theologies and religions have diverse concepts of a God. As a theist, what would be your number one argument for the existence of God? Of course the response to this would naturally beg for a definition of what you think God is. Is he a transcended God, is he a man, is he a pantheistic God, or is he a panentheistic God? What ever your concept is, without looking at divinities like sometimes people make their own children their deity, what is your top notch argument for the existence of God?

 

[February-Saturday]

The pantheistic God doesn't really require any evidence, because it's essentially just existence. Even in solipsism, the God of pantheism exists; it would be you. The entire reason it's called God is because it fits into a broader context of spiritual philosophies and mystical practices that run parallel with theism, despite being essentially atheist.

Pantheism isn't theism. It's not atheism, either. It's a form of nontheism, and in particular it's transtheism. Talking about evidence for God in this context is nonsensical.

 

[exchemist]

Varying theologies and religions have diverse concepts of a God. As a theist, what would be your number one argument for the existence of God? Of course the response to this would naturally beg for a definition of what you think God is. Is he a transcended God, is he a man, is he a pantheistic God, or is he a panentheistic God? What ever your concept is, without looking at divinities like sometimes people make their own children their deity, what is your top notch argument for the existence of God?

I don't think there is any "top notch argument" for the existence of God. I think it comes down to an aesthetic preference, often bolstered by subjective experience of the numinous that people commonly feel they have.

 

[firedragon]

I don't think there is any "top notch argument" for the existence of God. I think it comes down to an aesthetic preference, often bolstered by subjective experience of the numinous that people commonly feel they have.

IS that your "top-notch" argument for the existence of God?

 

[exchemist]

IS that your "top-notch" argument for the existence of God?

Read what I wrote.

 

[firedragon]

The pantheistic God doesn't really require any evidence, because it's essentially just existence. Even in solipsism, the God of pantheism exists; it would be you. The entire reason it's called God is because it fits into a broader context of spiritual philosophies and mystical practices that run parallel with theism, despite being essentially atheist.

Pantheism isn't theism. It's not atheism, either. It's a form of nontheism, and in particular it's transtheism. Talking about evidence for God in this context is nonsensical.

Thanks for the advice, but what you said is absolutely nonsensical. You can discuss evidence for any God, what ever the concept is. The problem seems to be that you maybe thinking God has to be a cloven entity that can be seen or something.

We shall see what our great people in this forum has to say. Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Read what I wrote.

I did.

 

[PureX]

Varying theologies and religions have diverse concepts of a God. As a theist, what would be your number one argument for the existence of God? Of course the response to this would naturally beg for a definition of what you think God is. Is he a transcended God, is he a man, is he a pantheistic God, or is he a panentheistic God? What ever your concept is, without looking at divinities like sometimes people make their own children their deity, what is your top notch argument for the existence of God?

Only the very naive think religions are about the "existence of God". What they are about is the possibility that a God or gods exist, and that their existence effects our lives in some way, and our choosing to place our faith in that possibility. No one knows if "God exists", or even what such an existence might entail, because even those who think they know, cannot possibly prove that what they think they know to be so, is so.

So although many religious folks claim to "know God", they are really doing so as a profession of their faith-turned-belief, not of any actual knowledge they could possess. And their "God" is a representation of whatever it is that they need/want, and so choose to believe to be true about the reason that they exist, and struggle, and suffer, and ask why. Through their God-images, people find the answers they need to help them to keep moving forward in life when there is so much risk, and so little knowledge.

 

[questfortruth]

Varying theologies and religions have diverse concepts of a God. As a theist, what would be your number one argument for the existence of God? Of course the response to this would naturally beg for a definition of what you think God is. Is he a transcended God, is he a man, is he a pantheistic God, or is he a panentheistic God? What ever your concept is, without looking at divinities like sometimes people make their own children their deity, what is your top notch argument for the existence of God?

ˇ
I believe, that
1. God is the name of God. Idol is the title of the false god.
2. Every decade there are new proofs for God coming, but the proofs for atheism are totally lacking.
3. Omnipresent Being knows about His own existence, thus, there is hidden knowledge of God's existence.
4. Any proof (even of the Pythagorean theorem) is the knowledge of God's mind. Therefore to prove God to God is easy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thanks for the advice, but what you said is absolutely nonsensical. You can discuss evidence for any God, what ever the concept is. The problem seems to be that you maybe thinking God has to be a cloven entity that can be seen or something.

We shall see what our great people in this forum has to say. Cheers.

It is not possible to talk of evidence, if you start with solipsism.
Since in effect a part of my belief system is a form of solipsism, I don't have to give evidence for anything, because I properly don't believe in evidence like you do. To me evidence is the end in one sense a belief system, which appears to work.
I don't believe in truth, proof, evidence and what not. I don't have to, because apparently I am still here and so for the rest of the world. Reality is an illusion, which appears to work none the less.
As for God, God is the reality, which is not an illusion.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It is not possible to talk of evidence, if you start with solipsism.
Since in effect a part of my belief system is a form of solipsism, I don't have to give evidence for anything, because I properly don't believe in evidence like you do. To me evidence is the end in one sense a belief system, which appears to work.
I don't believe in truth, proof, evidence and what not. I don't have to, because apparently I am still here and so for the rest of the world. Reality is an illusion, which appears to work none the less.
As for God, God is the reality, which is not an illusion.

Have you read the book Inverted World, not that it is relevant, but it seems to describe your particular beliefs - if you have any.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Have you read the book Inverted World, not that it is relevant, but it seems to describe your particular beliefs - if you have any.

No, I haven't read it.

 

[Mock Turtle]

No, I haven't read it.

It's by Christopher Priest - a science-fiction novel - and it probably has nothing to do with your comments (long time since I read it), but your views seem to be inverted from what most of us tend to believe - not that it matters.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's by Christopher Priest - a science-fiction novel - and it probably has nothing to do with your comments (long time since I read it), but your views seem to be inverted from what most of us tend to believe - not that it matters.

Well, let me try to explain it.
In short, it appears the a lot of people believe in a version of the world, which is not "correct", "true", "with evidence or proof", yet as far as I can tell they still have a life. So I tried to figure only what reality really is and I couldn't. So I accept that I don't have to and all that matters is how I make sense of my understand of reality; i.e. a version of solipsism. Now I do believe that you do exist, I just haven't found a way to use "evidence and what not" on what reality really is and what my part in that is. So I state what I believe that it is in effect "an illusion, what appears to work for me".

 

[Quintessence]

We have to start with defining two things:

• What does it mean for something to "exist?"
• What does it mean for something to be called a "god?"

Those two questions are both tremendously complicated and have no right or wrong answers. They are philosophical in nature, and because of that I don't see there being a "best" argument. All of the arguments boil down to establishing certain premises (aka, what "exists" and "gods" mean) and having the conclusions logically follow from those premises. There are plenty of those, and they are all good arguments. But people reject them because they don't like them.

So, honestly? The only "argument" that really matters is a question - do you want gods to exist for you? Then sort out the details for yourself, perhaps with inspiration from theologians who preceded you, to your own satisfaction. Follow that up with - what role do you want the gods to have in your way of life? If there is no intended role, just forget about it; armchair theism has paltry value and your limited time/energy is better spent with other things if you don't intend for the gods to actually matter in how you live your life.

I've done this process for myself a long time ago. Not sure the details of that are really important, but I can go into it if asked. It's not my process that's important - it's the process each and everyone of you reading this undertakes. You decide what it means for gods to exist in your life. That will be your best "argument."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The pantheistic God doesn't really require any evidence, because it's essentially just existence. Even in solipsism, the God of pantheism exists; it would be you. The entire reason it's called God is because it fits into a broader context of spiritual philosophies and mystical practices that run parallel with theism, despite being essentially atheist.

Pantheism isn't theism. It's not atheism, either. It's a form of nontheism, and in particular it's transtheism. Talking about evidence for God in this context is nonsensical.

Sounds like the God you describe is indistinguishable from a non-existent God in all practical respects.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

The best argument for the existence of God is that so many people try so hard to prove he does not exist. And fail miserable.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Well, let me try to explain it.
In short, it appears the a lot of people believe in a version of the world, which is not "correct", "true", "with evidence or proof", yet as far as I can tell they still have a life. So I tried to figure only what reality really is and I couldn't. So I accept that I don't have to and all that matters is how I make sense of my understand of reality; i.e. a version of solipsism. Now I do believe that you do exist, I just haven't found a way to use "evidence and what not" on what reality really is and what my part in that is. So I state what I believe that it is in effect "an illusion, what appears to work for me".

Well I doubt that many have such a strict adherence to 'truth' or 'correctness' as you suggest - just that what suffices for them to live in reasonable peace without having to question or categorise everything perhaps. I think it's a tall order to actually know that much about the world, even with modern communications, but we sure know a lot more than we did even just decades ago.

 

[firedragon]

The best argument for the existence of God is that so many people try so hard to prove he does not exist. And fail miserable.

What you said is correct, but that is not a good argument brother. This is akin to denying the antecedent.

 

[Prim969]

Varying theologies and religions have diverse concepts of a God. As a theist, what would be your number one argument for the existence of God? Of course the response to this would naturally beg for a definition of what you think God is. Is he a transcended God, is he a man, is he a pantheistic God, or is he a panentheistic God? What ever your concept is, without looking at divinities like sometimes people make their own children their deity, what is your top notch argument for the existence of God?

From a historical perspective the existence of God seems to be engrained throughout every culture of the world. Definition. To say all are merely myths, man made gods, camp fire stores or purely inventions to control the masses doesn’t fully explain the universal acceptance of a Divine being or beings from another realm from the beginning of our historic accounts.