The Existence of God

How do you believe is the best way to argue for the existence of God?

Comments

  • JanJan Posts: 269

    I find the cosmological argument the most convincing, as it can't be seen as "defining God into existence" like for example the ontological argument.

    It also seems to be the most attacked argument by new atheism, which I take as an indicator that it bothers them the most. Why does Richard Dawkins refuse to debate William Lane Craig? Is it because he "doesn't debate creationists" or is it because the cosmological argument scares the creeps out of him?

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,328
    edited January 2018

    @davidtaylorjr said:
    How do you believe is the best way to argue for the existence of God?

    I think the cosmological argument works well. But I simply present the reason why I believe God exists based on years of personal experiences that are difficult to explain apart from him.

  • dct112685dct112685 Posts: 1,111

    @Dave_L said:

    @davidtaylorjr said:
    How do you believe is the best way to argue for the existence of God?

    I think the cosmological argument works well. But I simply present the reason why I believe God exists based on years of personal experiences that are difficult to explain apart from him.

    Would love to hear your examples.

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,328

    @davidtaylorjr said:

    @Dave_L said:

    @davidtaylorjr said:
    How do you believe is the best way to argue for the existence of God?

    I think the cosmological argument works well. But I simply present the reason why I believe God exists based on years of personal experiences that are difficult to explain apart from him.

    Would love to hear your examples.

    Possibly a new thread for personal testimonies?

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,173

    Jan & Dave,

    Not so fast!

    1. What is the "cosmological argument" for the existence of God?
    2. Since you think it's "the most convincing" or "works well" why you "believe God exists", how do you address the question of suffering and revolt?

    What says ye? CM

  • JanJan Posts: 269

    Very good points @C_M_

    Actually, I changed my view, and now consider the moral argument the most convincing one, and the cosmological argument the strongest one.

    The cosmological argument works as follows:

    (1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

    (2) The universe began to exist.

    (3) Therefore, the universe has a Cause.

    There is no way you can evade the need for a First Cause, or an "Unmoved Mover" as Aristotle called it.

    Naturalists claim that before the Big Bang there was nothing (no time/space/matter...) Nothing can't cause something. If there ever was a true "nothing", then there would always be "nothing".

    Now the moral argument does seem to define God into existence at first sight.

    (1) Absolute moral law requires a Moral Law Giver.

    (2) There is an absolute moral law.

    (3) Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver.

    Premise (2) is the one to investigate closely. It's the obvious link that attracks attacks.However, denying it would mean that there is no moral law. Therefore, moral values would be arbitrary, and everyone could define their own. Hitler would have been morally justified killing 6 million jews.

    It also answers the problem of evil. In order to define evil, and to distinguish good from evil, one requires an absolute moral law. Just asking the question on the problem of evil already confirms the argument.

Sign In or Register to comment.