What, in your opinion, is the best or most effective argument FOR the existence of god?

I was so curious as to the opinions of others about this question, that I had to come back on here and ask (I have been gone from here for about a month and a half or so, have been extremely sidetracked and disillusioned; I keep jumping from different activities as my mainstays, so there for a while I was on here for 6 hours a day, then I got burned out and went to reading for several hours a day).

So what is the best or most effective argument for the existence of god? I would have to say that, in my opinion, I think it would have be the teleological argument, or the argument from design. Even with the challenge of having to explain *against* natural mechanisms of self-structuring (like Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking that Victor Stenger talks about in God: The Failed Hypothesis), or all of the flaws, errors, and irregularities in the "creation" itself, and its seeming randomness and majority lack of order. (I always find myself wondering about what we know must exist way out there in space; why create that?) This seems to go hand in hand with the constants argument (I know there must be some other name for it), you know, where they talk about the dials being just so that we're in a Goldilocks zone.

Anyways, what's your take on this?

Views: 120

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Of course! Cows are ignorant and happy as effect
'What do you mean by god?' is the big question. Teleological and cosmological arguments only seem to show, if proved, that something supernatural orders or creates reality, as we know it. They don't demonstrate the classical definition of god - unlimited conscious power, knowledge and goodness.

Or, perhaps, it should be the ontological argument as it's hard to refute by argument. Of course to most people it's plain word-magic.

Alex
Alex's Heresies - Embracing a Physical Reality
Are you serious? What are you mean by 'argument'? God is not a geometrical sum. There are no need in wuxi-pusi arguments. Believe it without proofs...moreover 'Credo quia absurdum est'... So what arguments are u need?
so there's this god, right. he looks like a human being, and that's why we're so special because he made us all look a bit like him, while he also made other things like mosquitoes that don't look anything like him. Imagine if god that looked like a mosquito - that would be so funny! No, god looks just like us, really. Anyway, this god decided to make us and when he made us, what he really, really wanted us all to do most is to believe in him, the one who made us. That's why he made us. It sounds like he was very clever but a little bit insecure too. But mostly clever. Anyway, he made a bit of a mistake and made us capable of not believing in him - though it wasn't a mistake because it's really what he wanted to do. He wanted us to be capable of not believing in him, but still to believe in him, see, because it was a really clever idea. And all the people that he made who do not believe in him, well, he will punish them really badly for not doing what he wanted. So when we do believe in him, which is what he wants, he then wants us to spend a lot of time singing to him and talking to him and telling him how good he is and how lucky we are that he chose to make us, and if we don't do this then he'll punish us really badly and make us spend all of time in a really yukky place that you would never want to be in. And he wants us all to tell those people who don't believe in him how silly they are being and to come and join us when we sing songs saying how great god is. So god made us, and he made everything else too, like the beautiful hills and seas and the weather, so we should all remember when we are talking to him and singing to him to thank him and praise him for being so clever. He was so clever that he even made some bad weather, like earthquakes and tsunamis and hurricanes, that can kill a lot of us. Though that's a good thing because even though it's really naughty of us if we ever feel unhappy and say we want to die - because then we would be being really ungrateful to him for making us - we're really lucky if and when we do die because that means that, even though this world that he made is so good and incredibly clever, it's even better when we get to leave it when we die and go to live with god forever and ever amen. But it's ok to be sad when god decides to send an earthquake or something to kill lots of people. Though we must also remember to be happy and praise god and know that ony he can help us all at that terrible time that he has just decided to create.

that sounds like the best argument to me
Hm. Christianity is easy!
Death and suffering are good! Really good. Our souls are sublimate under pressure of pain. The more pain the better purification level. It is holy physics.
So, cry havoc and let slip the angels of heavens!
Thanks! I thought that the correct answer to Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything is 42... From now I dont think so )
It is impossible! Or God or 42!!!! Hm... But maybe 42 is God? Or God is 42?
how old are you?
Are you planned to use 'argumentum ad hominem circumstantiae'? ;) ... Ok... 42 )
Accounts of miracles - both anecdotical and historical - work better than they should for the unsure crowd as well as the theists. Every single account is relatively easy to refute as a fraud, exaggeration or mistake, so they don't bring them up in actual discussions all that often. However, given the sheer number of those accounts circulating around, people get this feeling of 'those can't all be wrong' and 'there must be something about it all'. And that's what makes the whole faith thing effectively work for them.
To me, the best argument for God is the ineffable mystery of existence: ALL existence. At the root of this mystery is eternity -- time being infinite in both directions (forward and back). Looking back in time, it's almost impossible to imagine infinity. For argument's sake, let's say the universe has been going through the same cycle of singularity-Big Bang-expansion-collapse-singularity over and over again. Of course there would be no way of knowing how many cycles we've been through. Is this the first cycle . . . the tenth cycle . . . the millionth cycle?

Okay, now, let's presume that cosmologists have figured out that one cycle takes 20 billion years. If we knew how many cycles the universe has been through, that would, in effect put a date on the beginning of the universe -- it was X cycles ago.

If that were the case, then the universe is NOT eternal: it had a beginning. But if it had a beginning, that means it appeared out of nothing. This is impossible in the natural realm. Something from nothing is supernatural. And that can only mean God.

So, we're faced with a conundrum: if existence is not eternal, then it must have been literally created out of nothing. That very strongly argues for a supernatural Creator. But if existence is eternal, that means the universe simply IS and ALWAYS WAS -- despite our human difficulty in grasping the concept of eternity.

To me, the deciding factor is that one or the other MUST be eternal: God or the universe. The God hypothesis adds an additional layer to existence that doesn't need to be there in the first place if it's the universe that's eternal.
But if it had a beginning, that means it appeared out of nothing. This is impossible in the natural realm.

There's a logical flaw in this reasoning, since the "natural realm" is nothing but our universe itself. It might be that concepts like "time" and "creation" have no meaning outside of it.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Supporting Membership

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service