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

I think the continuity of this "belief" seriously broke down 200 or so years ago.
The tribal chief image has been going ever since.

The US is a special madhouse in this together with the Mohammedans.

The future holds less human, less well defined, less personal and more scientific higher powers I think. The peasants will continue to beat their breasts "mea culpa" for a while yet.
I'm not sure why no one else replied to this, I thought it was FUNNY as hell....I don't use LOL on the Internet, but I can tell you that I had a good chuckle at this one. Good stuff.
On the wikipedia page for christian apologetics, the one argument that gave me pause was the presuppositional argument.

"Presuppositional Arguments - Arguments that show basic beliefs of theists and nontheists require God as a necessary precondition."

In other words, believing in god is a necessary precondition to be able to see all of the other evidence that may be around. I now understand that this is just bias, but when I first read it I was impressed by it since all of the other arguments are based on appeal to emotion in one form or another. The Presuppositional argument is a different approach and I liked it because of that even if it is unsound.

I can think of a god.
Therefore it exists?
It's actually a bit more complicated than that. It's based on Kant's concept of "transcendental" which are concepts that simply necessary to experiencing, such as time and space. We cannot experience the world around us without time or space, so these are transcendental concepts.

The presuppositional argument tries to make the existence of god a transcendental concept (not to be confused with the transcendental argument for the existence of god). It fails, obviously since treating the existence of god as a transcendental only helps us to observe the existence of god and not other objects the way time and space do. It is therefore nothing more than bias.
Further to this:
Substitute something else instead of the term "god" in this logical equation.

For example:

"If we do not presuppose the existence of leprechauns then we cannot explain how things apparently get done by magic. And since we do not believe in magic it has got to be leprechauns, doesn't it?"

See, it's not logical at all.
There are plenty of "strong" emotional arguments. The best may be:

If there is no god (of our type), then when you die that is the end of things. No more you. Period. You are terrified of that, aren't you? So believe, or be terrified!
I would say that's the strongest case as well... it's hard for people to believe that the 70 or 80 or so years they spend on this earth is literally all they have! However, isn't more terrifying to think that if you make a misstep or two in life that you could end up eternally damned? Or that if you've "picked" from the plethora of religions the wrong one, that you'll burn in hell forever even though you had no real way of knowing which religion was "true?" Unless you're Catholic, in which case you just better make sure you confess everything right before you die, and then you'll be all set!
Fear of the unknown. The feeling that there is something out there looking out for you. That it's not just over when you die -- there's more out there (if you behave how they want you to behave).

Of course, it's a silly argument. But then again, they're all silly arguments. Rational people have been trampling on these arguments for as long as the theists have been making them.
I can think of two. First, redefining "God". It's easy to convince someone of God's existence when you define it as something nebulous yet obviously extant -- anything from human potential to the process of causality in the universe. From there it's a slippery intellectual slope to a personal God.

The other one is that there is some kind of emergent universal consciousness -- sort of like the Gaia hypothesis except applied to the entire cosmos. Maybe it's not that effective for others -- most people would scoff at it -- but it jibes well with my beliefs on how consciousness works (even if I don't think it's likely, or true.)

A book I once read that, now that I think of it, comes close to combining these two arguments, is God's Debris by Scott Adams -- which, while I can imagine why it would be convincing, was totally ineffective for me.
This is something like the Buddhist and Hindu world view. They take it further to define all humans as part of the divine. That makes you a god.


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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service