The Existence of God
How do you believe is the best way to argue for the existence of God?
Comments
-
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?
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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?
-
Jan & Dave,
Not so fast!
- What is the "cosmological argument" for the existence of God?
- 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
-
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.
-
Jan,
"Very interesting"! In making your case for "the moral argument... to define God", you said:
(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...
Are you referring to the Ten-commandments (Exod. 20:1-7; Deuteronomy 5; and throughout the NT)? If not, what?
Your seminary studies are paying off before your completion. CM
PS.
PLEASE INVITE dct112685 (a.k.a. David Taylor, Jr.) BACK TO shepherd THIS THREAD and discussion through TO ITS FULNESS. All could benefit richly. CM
-
Are you referring to the Ten-commandments (Exod. 20:1-7; Deuteronomy 5; and throughout the NT)? If not, what?
No, it's more than just the 10 Commandmends. It's the entirety of the moral standards defined by God in the whole of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation.
But you won't get non-believers to acknowledge that. Therefore, the argument is that there is an objective moral law, and does not go into defining what the details of the moral law are, but that it needs an origin.
We all know that it objectively wrong to torture little babies to death. It's not a personal opinion, nor the result of evolution, nor cultural norms.
If atheism is true, then the universe will run out of usable energy, and inevitably no longer be able to support life. No matter whether the little babies have been tortured or not, the ultimate end of the universe, according to atheism/naturalism, would be an eternal death of everything.
Therefore, the Moral Argument doesn't so much prove that God exists, but it proves that atheism is meaningless.
PLEASE INVITE dct112685 (a.k.a. David Taylor, Jr.) BACK TO shepherd THIS THREAD and discussion through TO ITS FULNESS. All could benefit richly.
He should have received a mail notification. And now the second one.
-
Thanks for your response.
Jan,
What is "the entirety of the moral standards defined by God"? What better summary is there than the Ten-commandments, "Decalogue"? These laws are-- "clearly established or beyond dispute". Absolute and without explanation, as in a command from God like "Thou shalt not kill", Apodictic law. Written in the form and wordings, man can grasp. You need to give Look at them a little closer before you dismiss them as the key to the "Moral Argument". To relegate them is to weaken your own new found position. You're on to something good, biblical, and defensible.
After all, the Ten-commandments:
- Met all your points outlined above.
- Written by God on stone (two tablets --twice (Deut. 4:12-13).
- Perfect, holy, just, good (Psalm 19:7; Romans 7:12).
- To continue forever (Psalm 111:7, 8; Luke 16:17).
- They are no longer written on tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of heart (Hebrews 8:6-13).
- Existed before Sinai and Abraham (Ps. 119:89, 152 -- "forever"; Ps. 103:20 -- angels obey).*
- They preceded and exceeded the laws of Moses
- They are reflective of God's character.
- Covers "the whole of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation".
- They show love to God and to man.
- A summary of God's will.
Because God is eternal and unchanging, His law is eternal and unchanging. There is a law because there is a God. "If god does not exist everything is permitted" – Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky, a Russian novelist, short story writer, essayist, journalist and philosopher.
These are just some of the salient points I believe the Giver of these principles as you said, one should, “investigate closely”. It makes good sense, good living: for all men (mankind), for all times, in all places. God’s law is a “external summary" of His will. CM
SOURCE:
*For a Tanna of the School of Manasseh taught: The sons of Noah were given seven precepts. viz., [prohibition of] idolatry, adultery, murder, robbery, flesh cut from a living animal, emasculation and forbidden mixtures. R. Judah said: Adam was prohibited idolatry only, for it is written, And the Lord God commanded Adam.24 R. Judah b. Bathyra maintained: He was forbidden blasphemy too. Some add social laws. With whom does the following statement of Rab Judah in the name of Rab agree: viz., [God said to Adam,] I am God, do not curse Me; I am God, do not exchange Me for another; I am God, let My fear be upon you?25 — This agrees with the last mentioned [who adds social laws to the list].
- "And the Lord God commanded Adam" = "Which means that He commanded him to remember His Godhead, and not to reject it for a different deity".
- "I am God, do not curse Me; I am God, do not exchange Me for another; I am God, let My fear be upon you" = "Let my fear be upon you' is an exhortation to dispense justice uprightly, without fear of man"
