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: 122

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The correct answer is: neither. The not-chicken came first.
What about this one: the egg came before the rooster.
Even my 7 year old son asks, "If God created us who created God"? I have been asking that same question myself since I was a kid and have never been given a satisfactory response. Like you said Alan, if there is a designer god, then who or what created that god? Logically, a god just doesn't make any sense.

But then where did the energy and matter come from? Is it even possible it just always existed?
The kind that obfuscate the explanation of God so complexly that I just give up trying to machete through their thicket of assumptions and poor reasoning.
Larry, I think he means that the best argument is one that is so dense that he cannot understand it. Big words and technical lingo can confuse many people into assuming that the argument hiding in their somewhere has to be a "good" one.
ah, sorry for the late response. I was addressing the original poster and yes, Rosemary nailed it. Many times deists will try to convince me there is a god with such a mess of reasoning it's like trying to untangle a knot of a million Christmas bulbs only to find upon straightening the line and plugging them in, that they don't work.

I'm metaphor heavy in this thread, man.
Otherwise known as attempting to "blind with science"
It seems we are arguing for at least 2 things when talking about G... One is a collection of generic forces that cause interesting things to happen in and out of the universe in whatever shape and collection with or without unity.

The other is that this collection looks like my middle aged uncle.

Skip the levity and and see the absurdity - where it maybe, or if there is any.
I noticed that in the atheist designation a social concern dominates as well. As in trying to ease the poor shm...s burden from all the crap these god-business types put on them. This angle hasn't occurred to me before.
The Pastafarian reference is great.
I do understand that how we define or conceptualize a certain thing will determine how it can be and will be seen.

But I do get irritated when people say "that depends on how you define god(s)" (I didn't used to get irritated, but have gotten that way).

I know this is more or less true, but the concept of a deity is supernatural. I don't think anyone denies that, even though semantically you have gods that exist in the form of what people may worship or deify (e.g. COFFEE is my god). But actual supernatural beings with intelligence (or if not intelligence, then having a motive, purposive, etc.) of a sort, that's the base definition here, and that, I feel, can be assumed. They may be totemic gods or gods of nature or planetary gods or what have you. But it seems to me that anyone starts with a base assumption that includes the supernatural. No matter how many forms this idea may take, you still have a base there, so it doesn't matter which form you want to argue. The question is essentially which argument or evidence or line of reasoning, etc., has been or is most effective at getting people to truly believe (or even at least SAY they do, i.e. nominally) that something like this even exists?

Doesn't matter if the form is the deist god or Buddhist transcendence (Absolute Unitary Being, I believe it's been called). What best convinces them that something like this actually exists?
This g.. shmear is one of the best conversation starters in the world. Sports were similar. Needless to say what amount of energy went into discussing, witnessing, keeping statistics, excitement etc for "sports."
Religion used to be like that and whoever wasn't interested kept his peace
Now religion got too big for its breeches and we'll have to bring it down a few notches?
the goal is quite clear. We will be god. That's where the concept comes from: a deep seated psychological determination that given the path we traveled and what we lay before us is the evolution to godhead.
Clearly not the dumb, passionate, childish one the republicans talk about in their impatience, the one who plays with anthills and things in its own image but much inferior.

No. A real god - always compared to where we are now.

Or if you prefer the flipping of the time continuum (which you have a perfect right to do) then we can look back from what we decomposed into this and further in the past.

Either way it makes no difference.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service