What Argument Do You Use for God's Existence?

[choir loft]

12 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

@choir loft, what does any of this have to do with the substance of my post regarding my arguments for God's existence?

Quite simply - nothing at all, sir.

I'm responding to the question at the head of this thread, "What arguments do you use for God's existence?"

You may respond or not, as you choose.   You are not headmaster here.   You do not dictate the terms of the discussion or the direction it may take.  

I've made my argument for the existence of God.  In addition I outlined how such belief is opposed or accepted as well as the logical problems with each assertion.  These are matters of fact.

If my methods are not palatable to you, that is your problem not mine.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

Edited January 27, 2020 by choir loft

[one.opinion]

My mistake, @choir loft. I assumed since you replied to my post, that you were attempting to address what I had written. My apologies for the confusion.

[A Christian 1985]

truthseekersasciencespiritual.blogspot.com/

Share this with atheists.

CHAPTER ONE

 

THE AXIOM

 

I did not speak in secret, in a land of darkness;

I did not say . . . Seek me in chaos.

--(Isaiah 5:19 D.S.V.)

 

There are two possible schools of thought pertaining to the evaluation of the Universe that we live in.  One school of thought is embodied in the philosophy known as Solipsism. This philosophy expounds that all external reality is relative to the perception of the individual, or, in other words, all reality is subjective and cannot be described by objective analysis.  As an example, Solipsism is the belief that everything that individuals perceive is a projection of the thoughts of their mind. Taken to its fullest implications, Solipsism means that if you think strongly that an object that you perceive does not really exist, then you will cease to perceive it and it will thus disappear.  Conversely, if you think strongly enough that an object does exist, then you will perceive it and it will thus exist.  Understandably, the ardent adherents of this school of thought soon lost what sanity they had.

 

                When we lead from ignorance, we can come to no conclusions.  When we say, “Anything can happen, and anything can be, because we know so little that we have no right to say ‘This is’ or ‘This isn’t,’” then all reasoning comes to a halt right there.  We can eliminate nothing; we can assert nothing.  All we can do is put words and thoughts together on the basis of intuition or faith or revelation and, unfortunately, no two people seem to share the same intuition or faith or revelation.

                What we must do is place rules and set limits, however arbitrary these may seem to be.  We then discover what we can say within these rules and limits.  The scientific view of the Universe is such as to admit only those phenomena that can, in one way or another, be observed in a fashion accessible to all, and to admit those generalizations (which we call laws of nature) that can be induced from those observations.¹

 

      Most importantly, Einstein presumed that all the laws of nature must be entirely equivalent in all conceivable systems of reference, differing only by uniform velocities.  Without an ether, reasoned Einstein, there is no real physical basis for absolute spatial positions or orientations; all, therefore, must be relative to the observer.  At the same time, all observers must see the many laws of nature in an identical way.²

 

      Science deals only with phenomena that can be reproduced; observations that, under certain fixed conditions, can be made by anybody of normal intelligence; observations upon which reasonable men can agree.³

 

In opposition to Solipsism is the school of thought that objective interpretation of the universe we live in is possible.  Since the validity of Solipsism would mean that it would be impossible to make logical sense out of what we are aware of, we will assume that Solipsism is invalid.  Bearing this in mind, I propose the following axiom, which we may call the Axiom of Interdependency:

 

If a “spiritual universe” exists, there likewise must also exist laws or principles common to both such a “spiritual universe” and to the physical universe, in order for us to be able to perceive any manifestation of such a “spiritual universe.”

 

Notice that this axiom in no way assumes the existence of a spiritual universe.  The reason why seeking objective proof of the existence of a spiritual universe is futile will be dealt with in later chapters.

 

What this axiom does say is that if a spiritual universe exists that does not have laws or principles in common with our physical universe, then we cannot be aware of it and thus it would be of no concern to us.  However, if a spiritual universe exists such that we are aware of some of its manifestations, then it will have laws or principles in common with our physical universe.  Thus, for any postulated assertion of a spiritual reality, there should be corresponding evidence of that reality reflected in our physical universe.  Conversely, it should be possible to formulate a framework of characteristics of the physical universe that will indicate the nature of the corresponding spiritual reality. Practically speaking, this axiom means that it is possible to construct a logical theory encompassing virtually every field of science that will explain the purpose behind everything known to man.    

 

 

Chapter Two

 

AN EXTRAPOLATION

 

“... before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.”        (Isaiah 43:10)

 

 

There are two, and only two, explanations for the means whereby life now exists on this planet.

 

First, there is the explanation that life on earth was divinely created. Regardless of the great variety of legends depicting such an occurrence, all such legends have in common two things: Life was originated by some supernatural means, and some divine being or beings employed this means.

 

Since, obviously, there is no way that the above explanation of the origin of life can be subjected to any scientific analysis, it would be profitless to discuss its merits (at this point). Therefore, let us examine the other explanation for the origin of life and see what conclusions may be derived from such an analysis.

 

The other means I am referring to is, of course, the theory of evolution. By evolution, I mean the process or processes whereby life as we now know it has come about from an originally inorganic universe through purely mechanistic actions in conformity with the laws of the physical universe. Keeping these parameters in mind, let us now see what relevant conclusions may be derived:

 

              

 

               Evolution is the climbing of a ladder from simple to complex by steps, each of which is stable in itself. …That is what has brought life by slow steps but constantly up a ladder of increasing complexity- which is the central progress and problem in evolution. ²⁷

 

               

Given the vastness of the universe and the consequent profusion of life, what must the ultimate consummation of the process of evolution be?

It is my contention that the inevitable and ultimate result of evolution is this: that somewhere, sooner or later, an entity would be evolved through either natural or artificial means which would no longer be subject to time.

 

What are the implications of such a conclusion?

 

 

Such an entity would in all practicality be:

 

1.                  Omnipotent and

2.                  Omniscient and

3.                  Omnipresent.

 

 

Such an entity would, by definition, be God.

By no means am I intending to speculate about the origin of God.

Such speculation is vain at best and blasphemous at worst. My intention is to show that no matter what method that you employ to explain the existence of life; the inevitable implication is the existence and reality of God.

 

 

Summary of Chapter Two:

 

 

“The fool has said in his heart; there is no God.” (Psalm 12:1)

 

           

 

---

 

 

 

 

[The Barbarian]

On 1/12/2019 at 4:30 PM, ksolomon said:

Each DNA contains 100 million pages worth of instructions to build the entire body.  Do instructions write themselves?  Nope.  Instructions don't write themselves. 

For many years, we've had computer code that does that.  

Does someone put together a highly complex system like a hurricane?   Nope.   Does someone design a highly complex and orderly river system?   Nope.   God made a universe in which very complex systems can appear spontaneously.

If this seems odd to you, this might help:

 

https://www.amazon.com/Design-Nature-Constructal-Technology-Organization-ebook/dp/B004YWKKC8/ref=sr_1_1?gclid=CjwKCAiAy9jyBRA6EiwAeclQhMfoAsAX8kqt_OeYd3-03nAmALOL2yg0rsig0h95JEGzlAP4doAGaxoCQWQQAvD_BwE&hvadid=241623320088&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9026821&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=4826025826981709580&hvtargid=aud-835997443427%3Akwd-390736710910&hydadcr=22592_10356144&keywords=design+in+nature+-+adrian+bejan&qid=1582763436&sr=8-1

 

Edited February 27, 2020 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

Abdicate writes:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Yes.   Darwin made a number of predictions based on his research, and these have been repeatedly tested and confirmed over the years.   Would you like to learn about some of them?

By this definition, evolution cannot exist.

It's directly observed.   Perhaps you don't know what "evolution" means.  What do you think it means?

It's not observable, and it's not repeatable

It's observed daily, and it can be repeatedly tested.   I think you're probably confusing evolution with agencies of evolution like natural selection, or consequences of evolution like common descent.  What do you think "evolution" means?

 

 

[A Christian 1985]

amazon.com/s?k=9781641407922&ref=nb_sb_noss

 

CHAPTER ONE

 

THE AXIOM

 

I did not speak in secret, in a land of darkness;

I did not say . . . Seek me in chaos.

--(Isaiah 5:19 D.S.V.)

 

There are two possible schools of thought pertaining to the evaluation of the #Universe that we live in.  One school of thought is embodied in the philosophy known as Solipsism. This philosophy expounds that all external reality is relative to the perception of the individual, or, in other words, all reality is subjective and cannot be described by objective analysis.  As an example, Solipsism is the belief that everything that individuals perceive is a projection of the thoughts of their mind. Taken to its fullest implications, Solipsism means that if you think strongly that an object that you perceive does not really exist, then you will cease to perceive it and it will thus disappear.  Conversely, if you think strongly enough that an object does exist, then you will perceive it and it will thus exist.  Understandably, the ardent adherents of this school of thought soon lost what sanity they had.

 

 When we lead from ignorance, we can come to no conclusions.  When we say, “Anything can happen, and anything can be, because we know so little that we have no right to say ‘This is’ or ‘This isn’t,’” then all reasoning comes to a halt right there.  We can eliminate nothing; we can assert nothing.  All we can do is put words and thoughts together on the basis of intuition or faith or revelation and, unfortunately, no two people seem to share the same intuition or faith or revelation.

What we must do is place rules and set limits, however arbitrary these may seem to be.  We then discover what we can say within these rules and limits.  The scientific view of the Universe is such as to admit only those phenomena that can, in one way or another, be observed in a fashion accessible to all, and to admit those generalizations (which we call laws of nature) that can be induced from those observations.¹

 

 Most importantly, Einstein presumed that all the laws of nature must be entirely equivalent in all conceivable systems of reference, differing only by uniform velocities.  Without an ether, reasoned Einstein, there is no real physical basis for absolute spatial positions or orientations; all, therefore, must be relative to the observer.  At the same time, all observers must see the many laws of nature in an identical way.²

 

 Science deals only with phenomena that can be reproduced; observations that, under certain fixed conditions, can be made by anybody of normal intelligence; observations upon which reasonable men can agree.³

 

In opposition to Solipsism is the school of thought that objective interpretation of the universe we live in is possible.  Since the validity of Solipsism would mean that it would be impossible to make logical sense out of what we are aware of, we will assume that Solipsism is invalid.  Bearing this in mind, I propose the following axiom, which we may call the Axiom of Interdependency:

 

If a “#spiritual #universe” exists, there likewise must also exist laws or principles common to both such a “spiritual universe” and to the physical universe, in order for us to be able to perceive any manifestation of such a “spiritual universe.”

 

Notice that this axiom in no way assumes the existence of a spiritual universe.  The reason why seeking objective proof of the existence of a spiritual universe is futile will be dealt with in later chapters.

 

What this axiom does say is that if a spiritual universe exists that does not have laws or principles in common with our physical universe, then we cannot be aware of it and thus it would be of no concern to us.  However, if a spiritual universe exists such that we are aware of some of its manifestations, then it will have laws or principles in common with our physical universe.  Thus, for any postulated assertion of a spiritual reality, there should be corresponding evidence of that reality reflected in our physical universe.  Conversely, it should be possible to formulate a framework of characteristics of the physical universe that will indicate the nature of the corresponding spiritual reality. Practically speaking, this axiom means that it is possible to construct a #logical theory encompassing virtually every field of science that will explain the purpose behind everything known to man.    

 

Chapter Two

 

AN EXTRAPOLATION

 

“... before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.”        (Isaiah 43:10)

 

      There are two, and only two, explanations for the means whereby #life now exists on this planet.

 

      First, there is the explanation that life on earth was divinely created. Regardless of the great variety of legends depicting such an occurrence, all such legends have in common two things: Life was originated by some supernatural means, and some divine being or beings employed this means.

 

      Since, obviously, there is no way that the above explanation of the origin of life can be subjected to any scientific analysis, it would be profitless to discuss its merits (at this point). Therefore, let us examine the other explanation for the origin of life and see what conclusions may be derived from such an analysis.

 

The other means I am referring to is, of course, the theory of #evolution. By evolution, I mean the process or processes whereby life as we now know it has come about from an originally inorganic universe through purely mechanistic actions in conformity with the laws of the physical universe. Keeping these parameters in mind, let us now see what relevant conclusions may be derived:

 

 Evolution is the climbing of a ladder from simple to complex by steps, each of which Is stable in itself. …That is what has brought life by slow steps but constantly up a ladder of increasing complexity- which is the central progress and problem in evolution. ²⁷

     

Given the vastness of the universe and the consequent profusion of life, what must the ultimate consummation of the process of evolution be?

It is my contention that the inevitable and ultimate result of evolution is this: that somewhere, sooner or later, an entity would be evolved through either natural or artificial means which would no longer be subject to time.

 

What are the implications of such a conclusion?

 

      Such an entity would in all practicality be:

 

1.                              #Omnipotent and

2.                              #Omniscient and

3.                              #Omnipresent.

 

Such an entity would, by definition, be God.

By no means am I intending to speculate about the origin of God.

Such speculation is vain at best and blasphemous at worst. My intention is to show that no matter what method that you employ to explain the existence of life; the inevitable implication is the existence and reality of God.

 

Summary of Chapter Two:

 

“The fool has said in his heart; there is no God.” (Psalm 12:1)

 

     

 

 

---

 

 

 

[Uber Genius]

On January 12, 2019 at 7:57 PM, ByFaithAlone said:

This is essentially an argument from biological complexity. In other words, how could life be so complicated with out a creator? 

This is not the way to represent the argument! It is setting up design arguments as arguments from ignorance and they are NOT!

the argument from the appearance of complex specified information is made based on our uniform and repeated experience that information of this type ONLY comes from intelligent agents. 

Forensic science, and computer science (algorithmic complex specification) work off the premise above. 

So so all design arguments give three inferences (explanations) for any effect:

1- necessity (laws of physics produce that effect always), 

2- chance

3- design

p1 - effect x was either caused by chance, necessity, or design

p2 - effect X was not caused by chance or necessity,

A - therefore X was caused by a designer. 

I agree that the atheist may not find the argument compelling. Further, there is no silver bullet. But in combination with cosmological, other teleological, transcendent, and moral arguments, certainly the reasonable atheist can be softened.

 

[Uber Genius]

On February 29, 2020 at 1:30 PM, A Christian 1985 said:

By no means am I intending to speculate about the origin of God.

Why is a discussion on the evangelical benefits of a design argument from the existence of sudden complex specified information being subverted into an epistemic discussion about the out working of Cartesian skepticism? Seems like a non-sequitur. 

God in monotheism is eternal (aseity). No beginning, no end. 

[A Christian 1985]

 

CHAPTER ONE

 

THE AXIOM

 

I did not speak in secret, in a land of darkness;

I did not say . . . Seek me in chaos.

--(Isaiah 5:19 D.S.V.)

 

There are two possible schools of thought pertaining to the evaluation of the Universe that we live in.  One school of thought is embodied in the philosophy known as Solipsism. This philosophy expounds that all external reality is relative to the perception of the individual, or, in other words, all reality is subjective and cannot be described by objective analysis.  As an example, Solipsism is the belief that everything that individuals perceive is a projection of the thoughts of their mind. Taken to its fullest implications, Solipsism means that if you think strongly that an object that you perceive does not really exist, then you will cease to perceive it and it will thus disappear.  Conversely, if you think strongly enough that an object does exist, then you will perceive it and it will thus exist.  Understandably, the ardent adherents of this school of thought soon lost what sanity they had.

 

                When we lead from ignorance, we can come to no conclusions.  When we say, “Anything can happen, and anything can be, because we know so little that we have no right to say ‘This is’ or ‘This isn’t,’” then all reasoning comes to a halt right there.  We can eliminate nothing; we can assert nothing.  All we can do is put words and thoughts together on the basis of intuition or faith or revelation and, unfortunately, no two people seem to share the same intuition or faith or revelation.

                What we must do is place rules and set limits, however arbitrary these may seem to be.  We then discover what we can say within these rules and limits.  The scientific view of the Universe is such as to admit only those phenomena that can, in one way or another, be observed in a fashion accessible to all, and to admit those generalizations (which we call laws of nature) that can be induced from those observations.¹

 

      Most importantly, Einstein presumed that all the laws of nature must be entirely equivalent in all conceivable systems of reference, differing only by uniform velocities.  Without an ether, reasoned Einstein, there is no real physical basis for absolute spatial positions or orientations; all, therefore, must be relative to the observer.  At the same time, all observers must see the many laws of nature in an identical way.²

 

      Science deals only with phenomena that can be reproduced; observations that, under certain fixed conditions, can be made by anybody of normal intelligence; observations upon which reasonable men can agree.³

 

In opposition to Solipsism is the school of thought that objective interpretation of the universe we live in is possible.  Since the validity of Solipsism would mean that it would be impossible to make logical sense out of what we are aware of, we will assume that Solipsism is invalid.  Bearing this in mind, I propose the following axiom, which we may call the Axiom of Interdependency:

 

If a “spiritual universe” exists, there likewise must also exist laws or principles common to both such a “spiritual universe” and to the physical universe, in order for us to be able to perceive any manifestation of such a “spiritual universe.”

 

Notice that this axiom in no way assumes the existence of a spiritual universe.  The reason why seeking objective proof of the existence of a spiritual universe is futile will be dealt with in later chapters.

 

What this axiom does say is that if a spiritual universe exists that does not have laws or principles in common with our physical universe, then we cannot be aware of it and thus it would be of no concern to us.  However, if a spiritual universe exists such that we are aware of some of its manifestations, then it will have laws or principles in common with our physical universe.  Thus, for any postulated assertion of a spiritual reality, there should be corresponding evidence of that reality reflected in our physical universe.  Conversely, it should be possible to formulate a framework of characteristics of the physical universe that will indicate the nature of the corresponding spiritual reality. Practically speaking, this axiom means that it is possible to construct a logical theory encompassing virtually every field of science that will explain the purpose behind everything known to man.    

 

 

Chapter Two

 

AN EXTRAPOLATION

 

“... before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.”        (Isaiah 43:10)

 

 

There are two, and only two, explanations for the means whereby life now exists on this planet.

 

First, there is the explanation that life on earth was divinely created. Regardless of the great variety of legends depicting such an occurrence, all such legends have in common two things: Life was originated by some supernatural means, and some divine being or beings employed this means.

 

Since, obviously, there is no way that the above explanation of the origin of life can be subjected to any scientific analysis, it would be profitless to discuss its merits (at this point). Therefore, let us examine the other explanation for the origin of life and see what conclusions may be derived from such an analysis.

 

The other means I am referring to is, of course, the theory of evolution. By evolution, I mean the process or processes whereby life as we now know it has come about from an originally inorganic universe through purely mechanistic actions in conformity with the laws of the physical universe. Keeping these parameters in mind, let us now see what relevant conclusions may be derived:

 

              

 

               Evolution is the climbing of a ladder from simple to complex by steps, each of which is stable in itself. …That is what has brought life by slow steps but constantly up a ladder of increasing complexity- which is the central progress and problem in evolution. ²⁷

 

               

Given the vastness of the universe and the consequent profusion of life, what must the ultimate consummation of the process of evolution be?

It is my contention that the inevitable and ultimate result of evolution is this: that somewhere, sooner or later, an entity would be evolved through either natural or artificial means which would no longer be subject to time.

 

What are the implications of such a conclusion?

 

 

Such an entity would in all practicality be:

 

1.                  Omnipotent and

2.                  Omniscient and

3.                  Omnipresent.

 

 

Such an entity would, by definition, be God.

By no means am I intending to speculate about the origin of God.

Such speculation is vain at best and blasphemous at worst. My intention is to show that no matter what method that you employ to explain the existence of life; the inevitable implication is the existence and reality of God.

 

 

Summary of Chapter Two:

 

 

“The fool has said in his heart; there is no God.” (Psalm 12:1)

 

           

 

---

 

 

 

[Behold]

On 1/27/2020 at 3:47 PM, one.opinion said:

@choir loft, what does any of this have to do with the substance of my post regarding my arguments for God's existence?

If you are actually talking to an unbeliever, then dont waste a lot of  your time trying to get them to believe God created what they see.

God has already told us in Romans that even tho creation plainly shows them God, they are not going to believe it.

We are told that unbelievers have a mind that is "blinded by the devil", so, an argument about Creation is a dead end.

They will see God in Creation when Jesus becomes real to them, so, deal with them about that.... instead.

Imagine this.   You are 97 yrs old, and are at the judgment seat of Christ, and He says...."so, how many did you lead to my Cross and to God's Grace?  And you say, "well, ummmm, none, but, i told a lot of people that the theory of evolution isn't true and that God created it all".

Reader..... we have to keep the main thing, the main thing, and rabbit trail arguments about pre or mid trib, and are tongues for today, and is the prosperity Gospel false, and so forth, ......   do not matter.

Time/Life is a gift from God. Don't waste it....... as you only have so much left.

Edited March 29, 2020 by Behold