Looking for arguments for the existence of God

[Jayhawker Soule]

Stupid answer.

Stupid or not, Bouncing Ball's argument is at best problematic. The (panen)theist argument is a fundamentally sound one. If nature is caused that cause must by definition be preternatural. The only way out of this is to posit some meta-nature for which there is no "First Cause". String theory and its kin move in this direction, but they remain highly speculative and, perhaps, unfalsifiable.

 

[Rioku]

Stupid or not, Bouncing Ball's argument is at best problematic. The (panen)theist argument is a fundamentally sound one. If nature is caused that cause must by definition be preternatural. The only way out of this is to posit some meta-nature for which there is no "First Cause". String theory and its kin move in this direction, but they remain highly speculative and, perhaps, unfalsifiable.

True, but Bouncing Ball's point is a simple one, perhaps too simple, it is true that there has to be an original mover. But that is all that is true and nothing more, so the claim that god is the original mover is even more problematic then Ball's attempt showing the error in the theist twist on the valid argument. That is unless you take it as a definition of god, but once one does that they raise a whole other realm of issues.

 

[Willamena]

Stupid or not, Bouncing Ball's argument is at best problematic. The (panen)theist argument is a fundamentally sound one. If nature is caused that cause must by definition be preternatural. The only way out of this is to posit some meta-nature for which there is no "First Cause". String theory and its kin move in this direction, but they remain highly speculative and, perhaps, unfalsifiable.

What is "meta-nature"? and are you aware that you are presenting a very one-sided argument?

 

[Rioku]

and are you aware that you are presenting a very one-sided argument?

It is not an argument it is more a correction. Like someone corrects incorrect grammar, Jay is correcting erroneous arguing points.

 

[Willamena]

It is not an argument it is more a correction. Like someone corrects incorrect grammar, Jay is correcting erroneous arguing points.

...with an alternative agrument.

 

[emiliano]

Ok. I re-direct you to the topic of this this discussion “I am looking for rational intellectual arguments for the existence of God” You can’t start a rational argument by placing a pancake as the first mover, can you?

You say: Second. I say, for example, the first mover was an explosion (not specially the big bang, just an explosion).

And this is proof of what? Let say that this is proof that God did not created life and that you are saying that this is how inorganic matter turned into organic mater. Then without direction, intelligent design or will, this organic simple matter formed complex creature, this is like thinking that if a tornado goes through a junk yard, in the other end of it, there would be TV sets, cars, aeroplanes , cellular phone etc, etc.
You say:

You can't understand that an explosion just happened, but a mystical "something" which you actually really don't know (AKA God) is much easier to understand.

BB, there cannot be an effect without a cause (natural observation and reasoning). And the cause of an intelligent designed universe can only be God. As Einstein said God does not play dice …………..
This are weak arguments “it just happened, is a fortuitus, random and directionless event, thing are what they are is irrational.

 

[emiliano]

Stupid question. Typical of atheists who doesn't know what they're talking about or think things through.

Right on! It’s related to rationality. What we believe about our origin determines what we accept as valid and rational, if someone does not understand how unique humans are (create in God’s image) and how separated human are from other animals by their intellect and rationality they'll accept anything. Evolutionist are trying to sustain their beliefs by pushing the time of the origin back into the billion of year back and predicting that frogs will turn into princes, that is only a metter of time, I don’t know if they kiss them though.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

True, but Bouncing Ball's point is a simple one, perhaps too simple, it is true that there has to be an original mover. But ...

No, it is an assumption.

But that is all that is true and nothing more, so the claim that god is the original mover is even more problematic ... unless you take it as a definition of god, but once one does that they raise a whole other realm of issues.

Of course one is to "take it as a definition of god" and of course it "raise a whole realm of issues" - none of which are relevant to this thread.

 

[BucephalusBB]

No, it is an assumption.

Nope, it was a question..

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Nope, it was a question..

:tribal::bow:The hair was officially split. And the natives rejoiced!:bow::tribal:

 

[Rioku]

No, it is an assumption.

Agreed

 

[Rioku]

Ok. I re-direct you to the topic of this this discussion “I am looking for rational intellectual arguments for the existence of God” You can’t start a rational argument by placing a pancake as the first mover, can you?
And this is proof of what? Let say that this is proof that God did not created life and that you are saying that this is how inorganic matter turned into organic mater. Then without direction, intelligent design or will, this organic simple matter formed complex creature, this is like thinking that if a tornado goes through a junk yard, in the other end of it, there would be TV sets, cars, aeroplanes , cellular phone etc, etc.
You say: BB, there cannot be an effect without a cause (natural observation and reasoning). And the cause of an intelligent designed universe can only be God. As Einstein said God does not play dice …………..
This are weak arguments “it just happened, is a fortuitus, random and directionless event, thing are what they are is irrational.

Dude you are great, I love people like you because you make me smile. I can not believe no one has had your train of thought before, because if they had I would have never become an atheist. Thank you for converting me, LOL.

 

[emiliano]

Dude you are great, I love people like you because you make me smile. I can not believe no one has had your train of thought before, because if they had I would have never become an atheist. Thank you for converting me, LOL.

Wait on mate, you were damaged long before you read any of my posts. Lol

What I wanted to point out to you is that the topic is asking for arguments for the existence of God, that is that at his command an intelligent, orderly, directed, purposeful creation is done, God said and is done. You came up with an explosion as a possible first mover. You’re a funny guy!
God reveals himself to us by his creation just look around and see the things made, think and reason 2. The "nothing is caused by itself" argument. For example, a table is brought into being by a carpenter, who is caused by his parents. Again, we cannot go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause, which is God. Cause and effect, the creation it intelligent design cannot be caused by anything but an almighty, all knowing God.
consider: All physical things, even mountains, boulders, and rivers, come into being and go out of existence, no matter how long they last. Therefore, since time is infinite, there must be some time at which none of these things existed. But if there were nothing at that point in time, how could there be anything at all now, since nothing cannot cause anything? Thus, there must always have been at least one necessary thing that is eternal, which is God. I think that Aquinas is pretty good and I recommend his five way to Rorschach, as for making you smile, you don’t have to thank you, there is nothing that I like more than make peoples happy.

 

[K.Venugopal]

All physical things, even mountains, boulders, and rivers, come into being and go out of existence, no matter how long they last. Therefore, since time is infinite, there must be some time at which none of these things existed. But if there were nothing at that point in time, how could there be anything at all now, since nothing cannot cause anything? Thus, there must always have been at least one necessary thing that is eternal, which is God.

Since, as you say, creation could not have come from nothing, then God could have created us only from Himself. In that case, a better word would be "manifest". That is, instead of, "God created so many things", it would be truer to say, "God manifested in so many ways". Of course, habits die hard and we are unlikely to give up the word "creation". Therefore let us realize that whichever word we use, the Creator and the created is one.

 

[Random]

Therefore let us realize that whichever word we use, the Creator and the created is one.

Right.

"I" exist, therefore God exists.

Disco! :flirt:

 

[Scott C.]

Silly person. To look for God on purely irrational grounds is irrational. :yes:

To look for God on spiritual grounds is rational. To look for God only on physical grounds is irrational.

 

[farfignewton]

Hi

I am looking for rational intellectual arguments for the existence of God, and why a particular religion is true. Why I am looking for this? Because so far I haven't found any, and I want to seek out arguments that opposes my present intellectual conclusion.

So..

How do you know your religion is right concerning what it states to be true about the universe? On what ground did you come to the conclusion that your religious explanation was the most plausible one as opposed to other religions' explanations or atheism?

well... *hehehe* Christianaty is the smart choice.

Heres my argument towards that.
Buddhists belive in reincarnation, so if your wrong by them, you get to try again.
Jews belive the same a christians, save the waiting on the Massiah. Your still living by their rules, just in case.
Muslims belive in a purity of self that many christians belive also. Dont kill, lust, steel, etc. That purity is all that is required.
Hindus belive the same as Buddhists. You get another shot.
Mormons belive in the layers of heaven, and as a christian, you get to the second, with a chance in the afterlife at ataining the first.
Catholics belive that good deeds grant salvation. Christians just belive in doing good deeds.
Atheists belive in nothing, so there is nothing lost.
Christians say one chance, one shot. If their right, and your wrong, you go to hell. If the other religions are right, and christians are wrong, your still covered.

Hows that for logic?

 

[Rioku]

well... *hehehe* Christianaty is the smart choice.

Heres my argument towards that.
Buddhists belive in reincarnation, so if your wrong by them, you get to try again.
Jews belive the same a christians, save the waiting on the Massiah. Your still living by their rules, just in case.
Muslims belive in a purity of self that many christians belive also. Dont kill, lust, steel, etc. That purity is all that is required.
Hindus belive the same as Buddhists. You get another shot.
Mormons belive in the layers of heaven, and as a christian, you get to the second, with a chance in the afterlife at ataining the first.
Catholics belive that good deeds grant salvation. Christians just belive in doing good deeds.
Atheists belive in nothing, so there is nothing lost.
Christians say one chance, one shot. If their right, and your wrong, you go to hell. If the other religions are right, and christians are wrong, your still covered.

Hows that for logic?

I applaud your optimism, but have to point out a couple vital flaws. First you do not take into consideration the fact that there are downs to following a religion, often relating to discrimination, hatred and death. And almost all of the religions you mentioned believe that if you do not follow their religion you go to hell, i.e. if you are Christian because you believe in Jesus you will go to hell because you were swayed by a trick of the devil, based on Jewish belief. So just by pure chance if you follow one of the above religions correctly you have a one in 7 chance of going to a better place.

 

[kmkemp]

well... *hehehe* Christianaty is the smart choice.

Heres my argument towards that.
Buddhists belive in reincarnation, so if your wrong by them, you get to try again.
Jews belive the same a christians, save the waiting on the Massiah. Your still living by their rules, just in case.
Muslims belive in a purity of self that many christians belive also. Dont kill, lust, steel, etc. That purity is all that is required.
Hindus belive the same as Buddhists. You get another shot.
Mormons belive in the layers of heaven, and as a christian, you get to the second, with a chance in the afterlife at ataining the first.
Catholics belive that good deeds grant salvation. Christians just belive in doing good deeds.
Atheists belive in nothing, so there is nothing lost.
Christians say one chance, one shot. If their right, and your wrong, you go to hell. If the other religions are right, and christians are wrong, your still covered.

Hows that for logic?

I would say that, Biblically, you cannot be following Christ unless you have "considered all things loss for the sake of Christ" as Paul did. That kind of logic would eliminate you from Christianity, for starters. I'm pretty sure you have the Catholics pegged incorrectly, as well (post-Reformation). As far as I know, they read the same Bible that I do (not completely literally, of course).

 

[farfignewton]

I know... I am a beliver in Christ, not for the reasons of the "safe choice", but rather for what I know to be true. I was just feeling in a jovial mood, and didnt feel like going through all the facts and quazi facts that people are able to twist and put holes into. Causes to many debates. He asked for a solid, logic based, scienctificly minded answer to a spiritual question, and I gave him one in regards to logic. THere are many logical reasons, but so many of them are still based on faith in history, faith in truth, faith in the works and knowlages of others, that it is exausting to go through them all, and try to explain them all away.

The simple matter of it is this. Even to a so called "logic based" thinker, there can be holes in any argument made, wether it be evolution, or scientology, or christianty, or gravity. People can twist truth or lies to suit their own desires, so it all boils down to this.

If you want to have faith, you will. If you choose to deny faith in anything you will. If you want to belive in a flying spegitti monster mearly beacuse someone says it exists, you will. The same is true with god. You can take the words of others, or try to apply logic, either way, the concultion you reach will have to be your own, and no one elses.