Best argument FOR God that you've heard....

There is nothing about the human condition that suggests God is like Oprah giving away free cars.

 

Sorry, but I pointed out the flaw in the argument. It is based on an assumption and ends with special pleading. You can not like that all you want, but it doesn't have any effect on reality.

 

The knowledge of both good and evil, leaves us without excuse. On judgment day, one will not be able to say to God, "I didn't know". Because you do know!

Atheists or those who do not believe (most scientists) will say we are animals. Yet we define animals. We separate them by name, category and also anatomy. Other than man, what animal can define other animals by language, thought, or anatomy? The entire earth was given to us, along with everything therein. We were made in the image of God, who said, "Let us make man in our image." God holds dominance of His kingdom, we hold dominance of ours. Complete and unequivocal dominance. Here on earth, man is very godly-like! A dog will do everything it possibly can to be like it's master, as if the dog's feelings for him is of fear and love, or to the dog the master is his God. An indescribable love and loyalty! In the grand scheme of things, is man truly better than the dog, the dog is completely incapable of destroying anything on earth, other than maybe your couch or carpet.

Our entire world or universe, whatever one wants to describe our realm as, was created. And everything therein is created after it's own kind. Man has dominance over it all. What does man do? Completely and utterly destroys it. Anything man touches they corrupt it. We turn it and manipulate it in a way that was not intended at all. Then we turn and blame it on God, saying how He's the one that made it. Completely disregarding the fact that He gave it all to us, leaving us responsible for all outcomes. As if a child looking up to his father saying, "It wasn't me, I didn't do it", all while knowing he is lying to his father.

Those in need of help or less unfortunate, what did man do to them? Enslaved them, completely corrupted what was actually intended. Then turns to those who believe in God, and tells them, "this is what your God made, now get to work before the rod is set upon you."

Trading, given to those in need of food in exchange for their talents, such as clothing or knowledge of building/construction. This was corrupted with money, a form of trade that is controlled by those of spiritual wickedness in high places. Allowing them to have everything with zero labor for it (not earned). Nuclear bombs, weapons of war that would completely destroy what was given to man, let's not forget biological warfare, where diseases are set loose upon the people, and vaccines for those who release them. Man is absolute corrupted and corrupts everything. Mankind's history proves good and evil, and the spiritual battle thereof. Where the suppressed have nothing else to rely on other than faith in God. A life that one screams for deliverance thereof.

For those who do not believe in God, they must be ok with rulers of kingdoms/nations standing over slaves, and whipping them, spitting and pissing on them, stealing their beautiful daughters and raping them. This and other very evil scenarios must be ok with atheists. For we are all just animals anyways, and there is no judgment after death. So how is being survival of the fittest a bad thing? Or how is a tyrannical government a bad thing, for they have earned their way to the top, weather through lies, deception, killing, enslavement, it's all just them being the animals you claim we are, and holding power over those who couldn't get to the top. Don't be mad at the lion who is king of the jungle.

If one sits and truly thinks about the history of man, and the desires of man. They will see that nothing has changed other than technology. Yet this technology was invented for even far superior control. They have gained knowledge in all areas, even in the ability to manipulate the people in a desired direction. This desired direction is that of Satanism. Where everything evil becomes good, and everything good becomes evil.

 

Yeah, the "all men" or "everyone", construed literally, definitely make for false statements at the end of those arguments. I think it would be naive of us, though, to assume he didn't know that, or that he expected any reader to just swallow it whole. If the statement "This everyone understands to be God" were not controversial at the time he wrote it, he would have had no motivation to write any of those arguments in the first place. Had he believed the scope of the conclusion of any one of his arguments to be broad enough to establish the Abrahamic God in all his glory, or even any intelligent creator, we shouldn't expect the idea to append the argument with "This all men speak of as God", or even "and this we call God", to even have occurred to him.

I think he knew the limitations of his arguments, and intentionally put his boldest claim at the weakest point, where he thought the point of contention would really lie, almost as if to invite the opposition to "Start Here".

The question of which is the best argument for God seems too general to answer. It depends on what we want from an argument. If we want a conclusion with the widest scope, or a conclusion tailored to show the Biblical God, we would end up with an argument less likely to be sound. If we shoot for maximum probability of soundness, we have to settle for a more modest conclusion, giving us maybe just a property or characteristic the god in question is said to have.This last is what we get with Thomas' Third Way and other arguments from contingency, Kalam and other cosmological arguments. Teleological arguments seem a bit less plausibly sound, but yield a more robust conclusion(an intelligence with the apparent goal of creating life, as opposed to what could be a mere impersonal cause).

 

I get what you are saying, Maximatic, although it requires that I suppose Aquinas actually thought as you are suggesting he thought. Personally, I have always had the feeling that Aquinas considered his “proofs” to be actual proofs…which, of course, is a question that can never be answered. Best we leave that part be.

In any case, I am not sure of the reasoning you used to come to:

Had he believed the scope of the conclusion of any one of his arguments to be broad enough to establish the Abrahamic God in all his glory, or even any intelligent creator, we shouldn't expect the idea to append the argument with "This all men speak of as God", or even "and this we call God", to even have occurred to him.

Essentially, that seems to be what he is doing (seems to be the way he thought it should be done)…suggesting the scope of his argument WAS sufficient to establish the god that he was intending to establish. In fact, it sounds reasonable to me to make the argument of efficient cause, for instance, and then label that efficient cause “that which we men call god.” Same thing holds for the initial mover argument.

So it seems to me that the suggestion you are making of the connection between his “belief” in the "limited" scope of his arguments and his use of “This all men speak of as God” is tenuous…and perhaps even non-existent.

Perhaps you can expand on how you get there.

------

I would note that in today’s world, an effort of the sort Aquinas undertook would probably start with a different initial (to use your word) scope. Rather than attempting a “proof” of (the existence of God)…the attempt would be directed toward something more along the lines of a “proof” of the existence of a god…which is quite different This would allow for an argument about the possibility of a god (or gods) divorced from the specific of the Abrahamic god with which he actually was dealing. And once we get into the area of “the possibility”…we have an entirely new ballgame.

Just as I have never seen any legitimate “reason from necessity”…I cannot see any reason that a god or gods CANNOT exist. I suspect that argument can be made without much difficulty. I realize that avenue was not open to Aquinas (he’d have ended up dead rather than sainted.)

Anyway, that argument makes for an interesting way to look at the problem…and causes all sorts of difficulties for the arguments coming from those who assert “there is a god” AND “there are no gods.”

 

I just assume that he was a pretty smart guy and that he tried to stay intellectually honest. Then I see that the conclusion, "Therefore God exists", is not found in any of his arguments. Instead, he concludes each argument with with what it can afford(eg: "Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause"), and then appends that conclusion with something like "... and we all call that thing God". It seems to me that, if he really thought he had an argument that, in and of itself, were capable of establishing the existence of God, he would have just come out and said it, "Therefore God exists". The fact that he didn't makes me think that, on some level, he knew that none of them were sufficient to that end.

One could definitely make a strong case from what he wrote around them that he thought they were sufficient to establish the Biblical God. I'm just guessing that, if we were to press him on one of his conclusions, the first mover, for example, that we could have got him to admit that, "yes, it is logically possible for the first mover to be, or have been, evil, or an impersonal thing that erupted out of the necessity of its own nature" and that, "yes, given those possibilities, we cannot conclude with apodictic certainty from this argument alone that God exists". If that were admitted about one, it would have to be admitted about the first three. For what it's worth, those three are the ones with the strongest premises(they are more likely sound), the weakest conclusions(they don't prove as much if sound), and the boldest statements tacked onto the end("everyone understands","everyone gives the name","all men"). The last two, on the other hand, have the weaker premises(they are less likely sound), the strongest conclusions(they prove more if sound), and the more modest statements tacked onto the end("and this we call God","and this being we call God"). If one wanted to draw the opposition toward the point of contention in each argument, getting them to attack the premises of the last two and the what the conclusions give us on the first three, that kind of wording would help.

Maybe I'm overestimating his capacity for intellectual honesty. Like you said, we can't really know, but it can be fun, even if futile, to try and psychoanalyze dead people.

 

Trees, stars and planets exist. Not knowing their origin means a god created them is a baseless opinion.

 

When it comes to GOD, it is my humble belief that some humans have a particular tuning, a talent if you will. Mozart could see the same piano keys we see and create something so new, so creative the music still lasts to this very day.

Some could see GOD in person yet not notice GOD.

Is this planet evidence of GOD?

Well, what would you wish for? Stars????

The curious wants to know the source of stars and the planets. We who say GOD created simply can't imagine a cause but GOD. None of the non believers pose a solution to the origin of not only the universe, but the stuff we call life.

For me, it is just giving GOD credit and moving on.

 

It's fine to just give credit to a god, but it does not establish it as truth or fact. It is just the bad practice of blind faith, which in general is ignorant and possibly dangerous. Not much different than a child being offered candy to get in a strangers car.

 

Actually, it could be.

IF there is god...a creator god...then EVERYTHING is evidence of the god...even if we humans cannot fathom that. At one point in the history of humankind...there was all sorts of evidence of a vast universe. The evidence was evidence...whether the humans of those early days could see it as evidence or not.

Sounds like a deficiency in your collective imagination. I can easily IMAGINE other scenarios...like, it simply has always existed, just like you suppose that god of yours always existed.

Be careful of that "none." After all...I do.

My solution is: We do not know yet.

I'm sure that is reassuring for you. Some of us skip that "just giving GOD credit" step.

 

I do not see stranger danger.

It is not clear to me why you do.

 

I find myself somewhat amused by how this topic often ends up with taunts, smears and insults.

So, I am an imperfect human in your view?

First, this happens to be true. But the topic was never to be me, but GOD.

The steady state theory advanced by some, to wit: It has always existed, may mollify a few, but not me.

As my example of Mozart's music, or for that matter. Einstein's work, a unique type will see what I am discussing.

 

We ALL have our imperfections.

You stated, "We who say GOD created simply can't imagine a cause but GOD."

I am saying that if ANYONE who cannot imagine any other cause...is LACKING imagination.

Sorry you took it so personally. It certainly was not intended that way.

Correct. But you offered a comment...and I commented on that comment.

Why are you getting so upset about it?

Fine. But it is a POSSIBLE alternative solution from the one you apparently think it the only reasonable one.

If you want to think that the people who suppose a creator god exists are special in some way...fine with me. Perhaps you are correct...which is one way of saying, perhaps you are wrong.

It is POSSIBLE what we humans call "the universe" (and everything in it) was "created" by a god...who did not need creating.

It also is POSSIBLE that there are no gods...and that what we humans call "the universe" is part of a greater thing that has itself always existed.

 

I have lived 78 years. I know I have a extremely high IQ.

That is not bragging. I took a number of tests.

My point is during the past 78 years, there are many things I have pondered greatly.

I try to caution people that believing in GOD does not imply GOD must be worshiped. I put it down as reverent respect.

I too have studied science. I was excellent in high school plus college. I know, you need to take my word and maybe you won't. I can live with that too.

It has been one of my joys of life to try to study science issues often. I enjoy posting due to at times, some person will expose the forum to genuine science.

I find much that is supposed to be fact, are embellished opinions.

I do it myself, to be frank. I am certain that times I drift out of fact into opinion without announcing that change.

Back to my concept of creation.

First, may I suggest a good book on life creation?

Professor Schopf of UCLA has an outstanding book in publication called the Cradle of Life. He examines the first life forms we have evidence of.

My hunch is those disputing GOD do this thinking they are told to worship, or to think in the many gods ideology. I don't think of many gods that would not be just like GOD. Jesus for my money is one of the GODS along with Moses.

By the way, in no way am I upset. If you have participated in this topic long enough, you realize it ends up with petty taunts made by particular types of posters.

Though you mention other possibilities, can you name them?

The steady state theory in my view is impossible.

One concept might be the condition of a universal energy and some of that condensed to matter. But if you accept that, how do you account for more than one type of matter.How can you explain the periodic table without using voodoo like stars created matter. They are matter and what created them?

I believe GOD did.

 

I have lived 80 years...and during the times when intelligence tests were important to me, I almost always tested above the 95th percentile (often 98th percentile or better) in all categories. At this point...I am happy when I remember where I put my car keys...and when missing, hope I do not find them in the refrigerator.

Actually, it is bragging...but apparently we both have taken lots of tests.

Good for you. I also.

I agree that if there is a god...that does not imply that the god must be worshiped. I have no idea of what you mean by that "reverent respect."

I also have "studied science"...and I was excellent at it in high school. I almost got suspended once for correcting my science teacher, but the student counselor realized I was correct, and let me go with an admonishment not to correct teachers.

In college I did not study (physical) science. I had three majors in undergraduate studies: economics, philosophy, and religion. My graduate work was in psychology.

Terrific. Science is interesting.

We certainly agree there.

Almost all of what I say in Internet conversations is opinion...and I mention that as often as I can.

I was hoping that would happen.

You certainly may...although I doubt I will read whatever it is you suggest.

Okay, Thank you for that, Robert.

You can have as many hunches as you want. I try never to dispute hunches or guesses. I sometimes dispute "beliefs" if I see them as guesses being disguised using the word "beliefs."

I am NEVER tired of discussing this topic. We can go on about this issue every day for as long as you want...or for as long as two old geezers can.

As for petty taunts...mostly there is a bit of give and take (taunting) that has to be tolerated in every contentious Internet discussions. It goes with the territory.

I already have.

What we humans call "the universe" may be all there is...and may always have existed.

What we humans call "the universe" may be part of a greater whole...and may have been created by something in that creater whole.

What we humans call "the universe" may be nothing but this thing I call "my mind" allowing me to function...that this thing I call "my mind" may be all that exists.

You may be correct about that, Robert...which is another way of saying, you may be totally incorrect about it.

I cannot. And I do not have enough information upon which to base meaningful guesses about it. Which is why I use the expression "I do not know" so often.

I get the impression at times that most participants consider the expression "I do not know" to be a four letter word in Internet discussions.

Now that would be one of those times where I would mention that what you were saying is, "I blindly guess that (a particular) GOD did the creating"...and you used the words "I believe..." rather than "I blindly guess..."...because...

...well, just because.

 

Blind faith has led to suicide bombers, witch burnings and the fleecing of 10% of manys hard earned income.

 

Stars are created by giant balls of celestial hydrogen that goes nuclear. Over time the hydrogen is cooked into new elements. Everything in the universe is a by-product of hydrogen.

 

Can I butt in and ask how can he be both at the same time?
He certainly knew the weaknesses of his human half-
Jesus said -"Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone" (Luke 18:19)

But he could overcome temptation-
Jesus said "Satan has no hold on me" (John 14:30)

 

Damned if I know why you're asking me.

Sure He could; but if He were God, it wouldn't be there for Him to overcome.

 

The God of Abraham/Israel is easily proven, through the knowledge of both good and evil. It is this, that leaves us without excuse! For everybody once at the age of reason, knows both good and evil, and needs nobody to tell them.

Serial killers, rapists, and all those of evil doings knows this. What serial killer or serial rapists was going around telling everyone they was doing this. None of them, they had to hide it, why did they have to hide it? They know it is absolutely wrong.

 

Adding a non-sequitur to your mere assertions, I see. Your growth is astounding.

 

Tell me, do you think you have knowledge of both good and evil? Or are you confused on the matter?

This knowledge of both good and evil...............leaves YOU........................... without excuse!!

 

So, without the Bible, mankind would not know that when Hitler killed millions of Jews and tried to rule the world, that he was acting evil? Get real. We are not stupid mindless animals. Better you judge your god for his mythical atrocities.