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: 421

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The most compelling argument for God's existance is that so MANY millions of Christians believe he does.
If a billion people believe a stupid thing - it's still a stupid thing.
How's the quote go?

If one person believes in impossible things, he's called delusional . . .
. . . if many people believe the same impossible things, it's called a religion.

Something like that.
That would be evidence of Humanism, not god.
And the best counter to such an "argument" is the atheist who lives an even fuller, happier, selfless and fulfilled life filled with even more love and an intense desire to help people regardless of who they are or what they believe. I have met lots of them in the helping professions.
Actually, I did happen to forget about Information Theory and DNA, where they try to argue for design (in this case, yes, I suppose it is still an argument from design, but as a subset....) by saying that DNA inside the genes is a code, a program, a set of information, that could only have been devised by a intelligence of some sort.

Quite frankly, the guy who puts forth this argument, at least where and as I found it, is a bit overpresumptuous, I think.

Here's the link if you want to check that out: http://cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm
Yep, I think he's as smart as a religious apologist can be. Too bad for him his initial argument is flawed:

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

In other words - "That raven doesn't look black, but all other known ravens are black, so that raven is black".

Good scientists always question conclusions born from inductive reasoning when given evidence that infirms (or at least seems to infirm) them.
There is no argument for "God" but since I didn't make myself there must be various processes in the universe (including post and pre-conscious "higher" phenomena (or unrelated to anything so far known) that operate in the universe. As we hopefully evolve and become more like the gods we dream of (for that is where this god thing comes from) we may get to know more of these processes (see mathematics and generalized consciousness etc).
If and when the human succeeds in becoming more godlike (relatively) in the future, and if time is like an island, then we may "hear" this vibration from the future and think it is somebody other than us.
That wouldn't be a bad plot for a Science Fiction novel - seriously
The argument from design never cut ice with me. If you do not live a sheltered life it is obvious that a great deal in this world is extremely poorly "designed". Nature is very cruel. It is not at all full of "all things bright and beautiful.

The cosmological argument falls flat on its face when it is considered that almost the entire universeis lethal to man and will eventually kill him and destroy the earth, its sun and its galaxy.

The most effective argument is emotional. Ply a person with music, rhythm, hand waving, chanting, repeated phrases, lilting voice cadence in the presence of strong emotion, especially grief, failure, loss of self-esteem, loneliness – and you will turn off the critical part of the brain and get your message of joy in before the person knows what hit them. After that it is easy because the mind likes to confirm its choices.

Darren Brown, mentalist and magician, can convert atheists to Christianity in minutes. (Fortunately, he does remove the spell before he lets them loose again.)
Just to add something equally puzzling, the Catholic Church and the average European (exclude Poles, Irish and maybe Italians where it is mixed with nationalism -another problem).
This average then neither believes nor questions the idiotic stories the Vatican disseminates.
They seem to be treating this religious whodonit as a scar that neither heals nor gets worse and in any case should not be scratched.
We're talking about 80% of the French and the others about as high. The average Catholic does not believe 60% of what their church teaches.
"How do you balance your spiritual books?" I sometimes ask them.
It does not seem that they do.
a great deal in this world is extremely poorly "designed".
I had an anatomy prof that said that the human body is something designed by a D student in Mechanical Engineering.




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service