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

Math is conclusive without deduction, but by computation.
And the same conclusion(result) is seen everytime by everyone attempting the computation. So, NO, a deductive argument is not a conclusion, but a theory.
If one sees a differing premise, it is not conclusive.
Philosophy is noting but hot air. Nothing can be concluded, philosophically. At best a general agreement.

edit - I mostly go by dictionary defintions as the base.
And, yes, a conclusion can be deduced.
I still hold the opinion, that not all will reach the same conclusion. So to those only an assumption is made, not a conclusion.

 

Agreed - Aquinas was writing well before Newton and could only work within what was understood at the time. The borders of common sense have - thankfully - been pushed well beyond what he could have imagined.

 

You obviously don't understand deduction.

 

See my edited post.
You would be correct. And I restated.

You could reach one conclusion and another comes to a different conclusion.

 

Maybe I don't.

The devil does God's will per the Bible.

 

The more than one god really accepts the LDS thinking on GODS.

But the create is but one. Without being certain, perhaps leaving it at Creator helps the argument. It may turn out GOD creates and the "lesser GOD's" simply make use of.

One is free to choose to accept or reject GOD. Will a person rejecting GOD end up with the person simply dead for eternity or do they get a new chance or what? GOD has awesome power is my version of GOD.

 

It turns out that many assumptions are often embedded within the details of deductive arguements

Can objects go faster than the speed of light... deduction tells us yes
Assume an object x traveling at the speed of light
Now you push object x
And it is now traveling faster then the speed of light

Of course this is wrong
It is wrong because of hidden assumptions
But it seems deductively correct

 

Regarding deductive arguments, I have never seen a valid and sound deductive argument for the existence of the Abrahamic God. That being the case (for me at least), you are asking me to identify the least invalid and/or the least unsound deductive argument for the existence of the Abrahamic God. I do not know how to do that. More importantly, if an argument is invalid or unsound it should be rejected. So, in answer to your question, as concerning deductive arguments, my answer is, "There is no best deductive argument for the existence of the God of the Bible".

Concerning inductive arguments for the existence of the Abrahamic God, I note that they are typically plagued with informal logical fallacies, such as arguments from incredulity, popularity and tradition, special pleading, etc. and often contain lies, misrepresentations, duplicity or disingenuousness. As before, I don't know how to identify which of these inductive arguments are the least infected, and suspect it does not matter anyway. Thus, in answer to your question, as pertaining to inductive arguments, my answer is, "There is no best inductive argument for the existence of the God of the Bible".

 

Somehow you got your point across(to me, at least) without making a single true statement.

 

Lol the idea of the God of the Bible died some years ago. Humanity has moved on.

 

This is for those alleging just one GOD.

This does not claim there is one GOD, only that one does not worship the other GOD's.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/ex/20.3?lang=eng#2

 

It's pretty garbled stuff. But really these passages are referring to the one consciousness that we're all a part of. That's why the no graven images part = there's no point.

 

Thanks for the stupid.

Your point being...?

 

or the God that created that God

 

I suppose the best argument for a god (actually it could be any god) would be to explain those things that you don't understand, like sickness and death and natural disasters. It's much better to have an explanation than to be in ignorance. We don't really need that now, though.

The second best argument would be to remove the certainty of death, and oblivion, and replace it with the hope of heaven or paradise. People still search for that comfort.

 

The best argument for a God is the lack of critical thinking ability.

 

You started us down the road. I just cleared the path.

This thread is about the God of the Bible. The Bible is fairly clear on these things, unusually clear as a matter of fact.

 

For starters......
"G-d" is a word..... and is subject to a pretty wide range of definition........

One of the best arguments that I have seen for the G-d of the Bible.....
ties the Jewish Bible in with the UFO phenomena.

http://www.allaboutchristian.com/spirituality/

I like this argument because it would tend to appeal even to
Richard Dawkins Ph. D.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL7CCyuXAS4
Richard Dawkins: Aliens Seeded Earth?

 

No, you went down that road all by yourself.

Your response, OTOH, was a transparent attempt to divert attention from the inanity of your moldy old Pascal's Wager knockoff.

 

Smile,
It seems very odd to propose a "god" who would be impressed by humans who believe without evidence
And to condemn those who have the temerity to do their best to draw evidence based conclusions

I cannot imagine worshiping such a perverse god

 

That is ancient Hebrew thinking for you is all.

But since you called the question over consciounsness, my comment is this.

When I and others say the creator, we mean that in the sense a person creates a home. He finds the lumber, saws the trees down, mills the lumber, gets nails and screws and assembles the structure on a concrete base he purchased.

And on and on. What you have done with your life is your doing. GOD created the human as GOD could. The human took it from there.

 

I am very hesitant to simply take the word of all the various religious leaders talking this over with the public.

I do not accept the Pope nor Jewish leaders to lead my scope of religion nor this man of the past, Mohammed.

Mohammed troubles me for many reasons.

I believe it was Joseph Smith that restored GOD's church.

One needs to truly study the LDS to find out why we accept that.

But caution, we do not worship Joseph Smith. He was the first church president. We have Elder Monson today in that role and we also do not worship him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

 

Hardly.

Nice straw man. You should actually read the Bible before you attempt to troll a discussion of it.

 

I can't see bacteria. I must observe with the normal human eye effects of bacteria.

But if I can't see them with my naked eye, does it hint there is no such thing as bacteria?

I see GOD's impact on the universe.

Years ago, I began to call GOD Awesome power. Many people questioned it and expected of me to discuss a large group of Awesome power brokers.

GOD creates it all. We use what he created. We sail his sea. We walk his earth.

But if you can't believe in the sea and earth, I never can persuade you.

 

Robert
We have entirely different views

In my view, we are as insignificant to god as bacteria are to us
It would be stupid for me to be concerned wheather bacteria believe in me
And it seems stupid for god to care if I believe in him

Sorry Robert, I do not believe there is a god

No,
I believe in the sea and the earth
But, even if I believed in god, I still would not believe that god cares about my life....
Any more than I care about the bacteria, snails, or sardines