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: 463

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


Just in case anybody thinks otherwise :-)
I understand the view that the universe is all there is. That was my view until recently, when the idea of multiverse invaded my mind. Since then, the multiverse seems more and more possible. I wouldn't say probable, necessarily: just possible.

But once I imagined multiverses, like a universe of universes, it was hard to return to the comfortable idea of our universe being all there is.

I've been attempting to express some of the ideas I've formed stemming from this notion of a multiverse.

I hope everybody understands that I'm not stating these ideas are facts or even theories. I'm just hoping to get feedback on all these ideas. I've really enjoyed exchanging conjecture. It's fun. I don't think every idea has been understood -- but that's a matter of over-reaching on my part. On the other hand, a lot of the objections I've received were well-reasoned and gave me pause for thought.

I know that most of the objections I received represented scientific consensus or conventional wisdom and don't, for a minute, believe my contrarian opinions are more valid or more logical.

The discussion seemed unusually civil, given the esoteric nature of some of the subject matter.

My big thing was "the void". It was one of the earliest questions I had about cosmology and have never found any answer to be satisfactory: valid, perhaps, but not intuitive or convincing. The bottom line, I believe, is that nobody really knows for sure.

I found feedback from Duane, Juame, Larry and Glen to be both informative and confounding but most of all, honest and earnest.

It was fun.

Hello Joseph Langston,

Except for perhaps a Totem pole(as it can be independently tested/verified) that is actually worshiped as a god, and not just a representation of a god; I see no effective argument for the existence of any of the 4600+ known gods.

I am not sure if my answer makes sense to you. If not I can try to rephrase.

I haven't heard any effective arguments from them either, all of their points I've been fully capable of retorting logically.

The reason they don't realise they've lost the argument is because they all wind up saying "that's not true, it's just a test of my faith, god want's you to test my faith"... and then they proceed to dump the logic you've just given them out of their heads, never to question it again.
Hi Johnsky,

I don't think it's always as fruitless as that. Once our arguments enter their brains, it's there somewhere: conscious or subconscious. I'm not sure anybody ever immediately sheds religion upon hearing a rational explanation for the falsehood of God, the supernatural or religion.

But, over time, those arguments can have a cumulative effect, eventually breaking through the believer's defenses . . . particularly during a very trying period, when faith is sorely tested.

There are many people who aren't really thinkers and have no confidence in their own mental powers. They may never face the facts. And, perhaps, they shouldn't. Not everybody is cut out to be a freethinker.
I've read your blog before, Larry,

I've pulled it up now on another tab and will look for something I can comment on . . .

. . . after lunch.
No . . . I didn't read all of it. Just one entry . . . where you used ghetto-speak to narrate a story about . . .

. . . no, wait, that wasn't you. That was some other guy with a broad-rimmed hat, glasses, bushy beard and suspenders! Sorry, I got you 2 confused. I thought he was the ONLY one decked-out like that.

Okay, Larry,


I've also posted my reply to your scribblerlarry blog to my own blog here on A|N.

I've titled it, "Christianity does not Exist".
Come to think of it, Larry,

I think I visited your blog because I found the link elsewhere; not here at A|N. Do you have a presence elsewhere (another social networking site)? Oops, my mistake. I confused your photo (on the blog) with somebody else's.
Okay, done.

I said bah, humbug to civility. :-)
Think time began with the Big Bang? Think again . . .

Physicists themselves admit the rules of physics, as they know it, don't apply during the Planck epoch.


© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service