What Argument Do You Use for God's Existence?

[Mike Mclees]

On 3/29/2020 at 6:16 PM, Behold said:

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.

For me , you, and most here the existence of God is natural. When Jesus sent out the 70 He said carry no pouch. If the people recieve  you  go in and dine with them. If they do not receive you waste no time.sshake the dust from your feet and move on.. God has already given us the things to say in our hearts.  To believe or to not believe, that is the question.

If any man come to God he must believe that God is and is a  rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.    Heb 11:6

Jesus said no man can come to Him except the Father draw him   John 6:44

We must want to believe before we will listen.

 

 

 

Hebrews 

Edited July 29, 2020 by Mike Mclees

[TheBlade]

Hi this is not a argument its just simple 

NF "Oh Lord"

It's easy to blame God but harder to fix things
We look in the sky like, "why ain't You listening?"
Watching the news in our living rooms on the big screens
And talking 'bout "if God's really real, then where is He?"
You see the same God that you saying might not even exist
Becomes real to us, but only when we dying in bed
When ya healthy it's like, we don't really care for Him then
Leave me alone God, I'll call you when I need you again
Which is funny, everyone will sleep in the pews
Then blame God for our problems like He sleeping on you
We turn our backs on Him, what do you expect Him to do?
It's hard to answer prayers when nobody's praying to you
I look around at this world we walk on
It's a smack in the face, don't ever tell me there's no God
And if there isn't then what are we here for?
And what are y'all doing down there? I don't know Lord

[Son of Israel]

The most powerful element of all to argue the existence of God is...
(drum roll...)...

FAITH!

Nothing else matters

(Heb 11:6)  But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Only those who have been given the Gift of Faith, can know that God IS.

Eph_2:8  For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

(Gal 3:22)  But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

(Php 1:29)  For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

Thank you Jesus for giving us to know you by FAITH!
 

[enoob57]

I use the same that God uses

Romans 1:20 (KJV)

²⁰For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

[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)

 

     

 

 

---

 

 

 

[JohnR7]

On 3/28/2019 at 12:52 PM, Spock said:

I usually try to first ask an atheist if they are Open To considering  the existence of God or are they certain God is a myth?

They know God exists. Although I have never met an atheist that had a true understanding. I do not believe in the same God they do not believe in. They just do not have  a right understanding of God. At least not one that they will admit to. Atheists still believe in all of the natural laws. They just do not believe those laws came from God, even though they do not have a better explanation. The do tend not to believe in the Moral laws. Although a lot of them would deny that. 

[Mike Mclees]

Jesus said no man can come to Him except the Father draw him. Only God can truly change a man

It also say no man  can come to God unless he believes God is and is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

 

 

[Mike Mclees]

Everything we see feel touch bares witness of God to deny God is a fools call. There is no other explanation. Does it not  seem strange  that out all we have witnessed of our seeable universe that we have yet to find other humanoid types of intelligent life. I don't remember how old they say the universe is that we are on the one planet that supports  life and intelligent productive beings. Just knowing what we do  know being that we will never come to the end of all. I'll stick with God. That is the only  reasonable intelligent answer.

[FluffyBunny.]

On 10/8/2020 at 12:30 PM, JohnR7 said:

They know God exists. Although I have never met an atheist that had a true understanding. I do not believe in the same God they do not believe in. They just do not have  a right understanding of God. At least not one that they will admit to. Atheists still believe in all of the natural laws. They just do not believe those laws came from God, even though they do not have a better explanation. The do tend not to believe in the Moral laws. Although a lot of them would deny that. 

You don´t have a method to see what´s inside someones head, so you can not assert that atheists believe in God. Morals are not laws, the fact that people have different opinions on topics, that they consider to be moral problems, for example homosexuality or abortion rights, demonstrates that morality is not a universal law.

Edited October 27, 2020 by FluffyBunny.
Typooo

[FluffyBunny.]

I think the best argument for a God, is an argument from personal experience. If God revealed himself to you, then you have a rational justification for believe.

 

Every other argument, such as the argument from design or complexity fails, because if you boil it down to its core, then you will see that it´s just an argument from ignorance or personal incredulity.