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

Best argument by far - Aquinas'.

http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web publishing/aquinasFiveWays_ArgumentAnalysis.htm

Using a link cos I don't want to explode the post with bits and pieces hanging out everywhere. Have a read. It's a beautiful argument.

It doesn't prove a damn thing but it's a beautiful argument.

 

I agree with that. And the difference is subtle but significant. So many words to simplicity.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

 

Hm, I only ever saw the fifth of those as even partially intriguing. The rest are based on outdated commitments to Aristotle's physics. The first is particularly terrible and ignores some of the most basic elements of physics. It assumes that absolute rest is the natural state of the world, whereas modern physics isn't even sure that absolute rest is possible in the first place. It has certainly never been observed in nature and runs counter to basic thermodynamics and relativity.

Best argument for the time? Definitely. But only for the time and absent modern scientific discovery.

 

Yes indeed. We tend to forget how long ago he formulated the argument so that's a very relevant point. We also forget that science was just about non-existent at the time he wrote. And yes he relied on Aristotle's physics which I think is more about ontology than what we now know as science. All true. All valid. But I still find myself appreciating the logical progression involved in his thinking. Not bad for a bloke from the 13th Century.

I appreciate its loveliness but I also think I understand it's a theoretical (is that the right word?) proof, an exercise in a chain of logic that has a slight reference to reality but is really just a bunch of abstract, albeit, connected thoughts.

I would think when he wrote this in the Summa Theologica that the Church would have been very pleased and the ordinary folks would have been wowed about it when it was explained to them. Thomas indeed "proved" the existence of God to all those who had a vested interest in hearing/reading/knowing/understanding/accepting such a proof.

There was Thomas getting the accolades and at the same time (almost) Roger Bacon was doing over the scholastics by giving good old science a shove.

Funny old world innit?

 

Have heard many debates with William lane craig
He argues that everything that happens must have a cause
And that scientists are convinced the universe "began". With a Big Bang
This event must have a cause
And that cause must be god

Some people argue that the supernatural divinity of jesus rising from the dead is a indisputable historical fact

Some people argue based on miracles and the fulfilled prophesy of the Old Testament

Some people argue based upon a personal experience of god in their life

Some people argue based on the pragmatic safety of believing in god vs the risk of being an unbeliever

 

God as the opiate if the masses... what ya got to lose, it may be true
Practical, yes. But not a convincing argument

 

A greater god?
You mean the god that created the god we worship?

 

Many things are thought to exist independently of what you or I believe. It would seem absurd to debate whether we believe that the moon exists. somehow the existence of god is of a different character than the existence of god. Debating the Existence of god seems to be as fundamentally irresolvable as debating the truth of string theory

 

Imo these sorts of "proofs" are fundamentally rooted in our common sense view of the world
But we know that our common sense only accurately applies applies within the realm of Newtonian physics. Once you explore realities such as quantum mechanics and , astrophysics, .... our feeble common sense view of reality does not apply.

It is "common sense" that our intricate universe must have been designed, and therefore must have been created. But it was also common sense that the earth is flat, and later that the earth is the center of the universe. Sadly, common sense is not a viable proof of very much... including god

 

Full marks for defining which god your are discussing from the start.

 

My issue with ehrman is that he seems not to address the chasam between an itinerant Jewish apocalyptic preacher, and the emergence of a fulfledged separate religion. I surmise that ehrman's focus is upon things which can be "known". And that the process of the emergence of Christiananity is lost in the fog of history and therefore a discussion of this question would devolve to speculation rather than a subject of academic study

 

The "believe" word bandied about in this thread is the major problem with discussions of this sort.

A "belief" in the context of a discussion about whether gods exist or not...

...is nothing but a guess...a blind guess, at that.

You can blindly guess that gods exist...or you can blindly guess that there are no gods. You can disguise the fact that you are guessing by calling it a "belief"...mostly so that you can request (or demand) that others "respect" your blind guesses.

Atheists use the "belief" disguise for guess by using its negative. They talk about "not believing" gods exist...meaning they do not blindly guess that gods do exist. But any reasonable consideration of what they are saying is that they do guess that there are no gods.

We ought all to get away from the guessing...or at very least to acknowledge it as guessing. There might be a significant positive impact from doing so.

 

Believe in nothing is not a convincing argument either. Ignorance is also the opiate of the masses...well ignorance and Kardashians....

 

What, exactly, do you mean with the expression, "believing in nothing?"

Are you suggesting an active "belief" (or guess) that there is "nothing?"

Or are you actually suggesting an absence of "belief"...or a refusal to hazard a guess?

 

No Frank, that is your straw man that you have to maintain in order to attempt to make sense of your own evangelical agnosticism. If you stopped telling atheists what they believe and listened to them, you'd start learning something.

 

Hey, William. Good to see you are still around and rousing...as usual.

Most of you atheists do guess there are no gods.

It seems most Internet atheists pretend the only reason they call themselves atheists...is because the dictionary dictates that they do so, but that seems like flimsy rationalization. I am convinced that atheists use the designation "atheist" because of their guesses that gods do not exist.

Anyway...there is nothing worthwhile to learn from atheists. All they are selling is their guesses about the REALITY of existence.

Quite frankly, they are not doing as good a job as are the theists...who are also selling their guesses about that REALITY.

I'm not buying from either.

 

Okay Frank, shall we do 'somemanymostism' again? Exactly what do you mean by 'most'?

You are guessing Frank, just like you always have done when you have used this particular line of evangelical agnostic apologetics.

You have no idea what atheists actually assert because you never listen to them, I have yet to see you acknowledge this and not just continue to post your evangelical agnostic dogma over and over again; your repetition doesn't make it true. Remember in the last forum where I started a thread asking the atheists there to say what they actually thought and it turned out that all but one or two pretty much used 'I don't believe' as shorthand for, 'I lack belief in the absence of evidence supporting the positive assertion'. Like a true evangelical you have ignored that lesson and just carried on posting your nonsense anyway Frank. It's getting old and it's probably time you hung up your agnostic cassock.

You have two ears and one mouth for a reason Frank.

 

I'm not a huge fan of Carrier. There is a certain snobbery about him...at least for me. And Carrier, I believe, denies the Jesus of history. It's very fringe to claim the man, Jesus, was pure myth. I don't mind Price but I agree he can " ramble".

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

 

Most: More than half? What do you mean by most?

When I guess...I say I am guessing. If you want to identify something YOU THINK I am guessing about here...we can talk about it.

BALONEY!

I listen. And I reject stuff I consider baloney.

No, but I remember several of that sort...so...go on.

I have never said that atheits do not say that. They do...and I have acknowledged that they do.

But every indication is that MOST guess that there are no gods.

My guess is that you guess there are no gods.

In any case, I LACK BELIEF IN ANY GODS. That does not make me an atheist.

Excuse me for laughing out loud at you for saying that, because that must mean something to you.

Let me know if you want to explain what it is supposed to mean.

 

What is the best argument you've heard for the existence of the God of the Bible. I should have been more precise from the beginning. I'm brand new to this forum and forums in general.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

 

Sure they do. The third one, for example, proves that there must be some necessarily existing thing capable of giving rise to everything else we see in nature, all of which is contingent in its existence.



We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.

Assume that every being is a contingent being.

For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.

Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.

Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.

Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.

Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.

We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.

Therefore not every being is a contingent being.

Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

 

To me this seems like nothing more than special pleading.

 

How so?

 

OK Frank, so present your evidence for the claim that more than 50% of atheists believe exactly as you assert.

And, 'I lack belief' does make you an atheist Frank, you are just in denial.

 

People don't need arguments for God. They need arguments against God's existence. Stick your head outside and look around. There's your best argument for God.