Arguments for God's Existence

[Dan4reason]

I am wondering which arguments are most convincing. Could you list them in an ordered manner from most convincing to least? Here are some famous ones:

Argument from Morality
Teleological Argument
Fine Turing Argument
Argument from Creationism
Cosmological Argument
Ontological Argument
Argument from Religious Experience
Argument from Miracles
Argument from Fulfilled Prophecies
Argument from the Resurrection

You can also put others in your list that are not on this list. You do not have to include arguments above that you either do not know about or are not convinced by.

 

[sonofdad]

Most of these are just argument from ignorance in a fancy dress.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I am wondering which arguments are most convincing. Could you list them in an ordered manner from most convincing to least? Here are some famous ones:

Argument from Morality
Teleological Argument
Fine Turing Argument
Argument from Creationism
Cosmological Argument
Ontological Argument
Argument from Religious Experience
Argument from Miracles
Argument from Fulfilled Prophecies
Argument from the Resurrection

The Fine Turing Argument is certainly pretty convincing. Turing was pretty fine, and are we really supposed to believe his anser to the Entscheidungsproblem was not inspired by God? Or Gödel? Or Godot?

More seriously, you might want to be more specific about what you are refering to. For example, the Fine Tuning Argument is similar to the Anthropic Cosmological Principle and the cosmological argument could be either a fine tuning argument or the kalam argument (which doesn't have a single form anyway). And some of these I've never heard of, which indicates that they aren't that famous, or (more likely) that they aren't necessarily referred to by that name (or I've just never heard of them). A lot of proofs were originally written in Latin by those like Thomas Aquinas. It's kind of hard to rate arguments when you aren't sure what they refer to.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I am going to do my best here..

The fact that I have seen the afterlife
Teleological Argument
Fine Tuning Argument
Ontological Argument
Cosmological Argument
Argument from Creationism
Argument from Morality
Argument from Religious Experience
Argument from Miracles
Argument from the Resurrection
Argument from Fulfilled Prophecies


Also there are plenty of other good argument made and some of the argument are valid only for certain religions

 

[Quintessence]

Honestly, I don't concern myself with argumentation. That became a fad within Western monotheistic theology some time around the Enlightenment, was it? I forget. Argumentation presupposes you've got something that requires a defense. For those of us whose religions aren't in the business of showing everyone that we're the one true path, we just don't care. Believe what you want... or don't. Whatever.

In terms of why I realize there are gods? It's really very simple. Reality is awesome. Things that are awesome are worthy of worship (aka, reverence, respect, celebration, etc.) to me. The word "gods" captures that well. Various aspects of reality are the gods, and the existence of reality is pretty darned obvious. The end. Don't know what "argument" category that would fall into, and don't particularly care.

 

[Thief]

The Fine Turing Argument is certainly pretty convincing. Turing was pretty fine, and are we really supposed to believe his anser to the Entscheidungsproblem was not inspired by God? Or Gödel? Or Godot?

More seriously, you might want to be more specific about what you are refering to. For example, the Fine Tuning Argument is similar to the Anthropic Cosmological Principle and the cosmological argument could be either a fine tuning argument or the kalam argument (which doesn't have a single form anyway). And some of these I've never heard of, which indicates that they aren't that famous, or (more likely) that they aren't necessarily referred to by that name (or I've just never heard of them). A lot of proofs were originally written in Latin by those like Thomas Aquinas. It's kind of hard to rate arguments when you aren't sure what they refer to.

I see you've read some of Aquinas.
Shall we do a more 'private' discussion?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I see you've read some of Aquinas.
Shall we do a more 'private' discussion?

What do you mean by private discussion?

 

[Thief]

What do you mean by private discussion?

I haven't tried it yet....not sure where it is....
but there's a section for such things around here somewhere....

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I haven't tried it yet....not sure where it is....
but there's a section for such things around here somewhere....

The one-on-one debate section? Yes, there's that. But having read scholastic literature isn't exaclty the foundation for debate. There would have to be some focus or point that we would discuss.

 

[Thief]

The one-on-one debate section? Yes, there's that. But having read scholastic literature isn't exaclty the foundation for debate. There would have to be some focus or point that we would discuss.

Aquinas put together a volume of premise and 'logical' terms.
It's been a few years since I've seen it.

I'll do some review and see if I can find a topic point for debate.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Aquinas put together a volume of premise and 'logical' terms.
It's been a few years since I've seen it.

I'll do some review and see if I can find a topic point for debate.

Yes, in his Summa. But both the arguments and logic itself have advanced since. Some of them aren't even written in Latin (or, for those like Descartes, were written in Latin and translated with approval into French, if memory serves. Also, probably the greatest logician ever attempted a proof here too. Gödel's proof is just one of many from Plato to Aristotle to Augustine and Anselm and Aquinas all the way past Leibniz to Gödel, we find logical proofs. And Craig, Swinburne, Plantinga, etc., have captiolized on these. But for me, arguemnts from those like C.S. Lewis, Kreeft, and others are more convincing. The way to god may require reason, but reason cannot find god.

A pub, on the other hand, can be just the right place:

I SAW God. Do you doubt it?
Do you dare to doubt it?
I saw the Almight Man. His hand
Was resting on a mountain, and
He looked upon the World and all about it;
I saw him plainer than you see me now,
You musn't doubt it.

He was not satisfied;
His look was all dissatisfied.
His beard swung on a wind far out of sight
Behind the world's curve, and there was light
Most fearful from His forehead, and He sighed,
"That star went always wrong, and from the start
I was dissatisfied."

He lifted up His hand-
I say He heaved a dreadful hand
Over the spinning Earth. Then I said, "Stay,
You must not strike it, God; I'm in the way;
And I will never mover from where I stand."
He said, "Dear child, I feared that you were dead,"
And stayed His hand.
- James Stephens

 

[darkendless]

I am wondering which arguments are most convincing. Could you list them in an ordered manner from most convincing to least? Here are some famous ones:

Argument from Morality
Teleological Argument
Fine Turing Argument
Argument from Creationism
Cosmological Argument
Ontological Argument
Argument from Religious Experience
Argument from Miracles
Argument from Fulfilled Prophecies
Argument from the Resurrection

You can also put others in your list that are not on this list. You do not have to include arguments above that you either do not know about or are not convinced by.

Argument from Creationism
Argument from Religious Experience
Teleological Argument
Fine Turing Argument
Cosmological Argument
Ontological Argument
Argument from Fulfilled Prophecies
Argument from the Resurrection
Argument from Morality
Argument from Miracles

The miracle argument annoys me the most. People will find convenience where they can instead of looking for reasonable answers. It's just stupid. The morality argument reeks of arrogance. It is an obvious development of co-existance that to suggest an alternative is just plain frustrating.

Creationism for me is open ended. YEC is well.... for people with an IQ under 50. God triggering evolution and the planetary changes cannot be dismissed.

 

[Man of Faith]

Experiences
The DNA code
The differences between mankind and animals
Fine tuned universe
How all the earths environments and sciences work together and depend on each other
Logic
morality
purpose and meaning
Historical religious documents

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Experiences
The DNA code
The differences between mankind and animals
Fine tuned universe
How all the earths environments and sciences work together and depend on each other
Logic
morality
purpose and meaning
Historical religious documents

And do you have any arguments which aren't based on presuppositions?

 

[Man of Faith]

And don't forget design.

 

[Man of Faith]

And do you have any arguments which aren't based on presuppositions?

When they convince atheists then they must be pretty strong arguments.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

When they convince atheists then they must be pretty strong arguments.

Or pretty dumb atheists, considering none of those arguments are in any way convincing.

 

[chinu]

Most convincing is that which convince the most,
Least convincing is that which convince the least,

Depends from person to person.

But, i want to use all of them on the place where they are needed to convince anybody the most and fast.

 

[Quintessence]

And do you have any arguments which aren't based on presuppositions?

All arguments rely on premises that cannot themselves be proven, without exception. There's no such thing as an argument that isn't based on presuppositions, so I'm not sure why this is being brought up.

Or pretty dumb atheists, considering none of those arguments are in any way convincing.

Wow, I'll have to remember next time that only dumb atheists accept logic, history, and experience as a convincing form of argumentation. Thanks for the tip. :sarcastic

Seriously now, the thinly-veiled put down was quite unnecessary. An argument not being convincing to you hardly constitutes stupidity on the part of people who are moved by it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

All arguments rely on premises that cannot themselves be proven, without exception. There's no such thing as an argument that isn't based on presuppositions, so I'm not sure why this is being brought up.

But there is: arguments based on evidence, and arguments which are tentative. The point is that all of the arguments listed by Man of Faith (as I have heard them) contain some kind of circular reasoning, and are backed only by the assertion of God, rather than the evidence of one.

Wow, I'll have to remember next time that only dumb atheists accept logic, history, and experience as a convincing form of argumentation. Thanks for the tip. :sarcastic

And which of those arguments listed by Man of Faith contain all (or any) of those?

Seriously now, the thinly-veiled put down was quite unnecessary. An argument not being convincing to you hardly constitutes stupidity on the part of people who are moved by it.

I disagree. And I don't see why it's any more justifiable to claim that they are "strong arguments" just because some people have been convinced by them, than it is to suggest that some people just lack the intelligence to analyze those arguments critically.