What Argument Do You Use for God's Existence?

[BrandonRTyler]

3 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

No problem. I was just interested to see the microbiologists!

 

I have made the modification. =) I should form my arguments clearer and with better wording, and I appreciate you helping me to see this. 

[A Christian 1985]

Logical

January 18, 2020

 

 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.”

The inevitable implication is the existence and reality of God. Summary of Ch. Two: “The fool has said in his heart; there is no God.” (Psalm 12:1)

I.   Divine Purpose

            What would an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent being, possibly want? The only possible thing that such a being would want would be an entity, perfectly complementary to Him, that was His of its own choice, and not out of necessity.

II.   THE NECESSITY FOR A SECONDARY WILL

Obviously, if there existed only one will (God’s) in the universe, there would be no possible way for such a divine purpose to be realized. It is essential to the attainment of such a divine purpose that there exist to divine will a secondary, opposing will.                                               III.   FREE WILL

            It should be equally apparent that, in order for such a complementary entity to choose to belong to God, it must have an independent, free will.

Comments

 

[choir loft]

17 hours ago, A Christian 1985 said:

Logical

January 18, 2020

 

 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.”

The inevitable implication is the existence and reality of God. Summary of Ch. Two: “The fool has said in his heart; there is no God.” (Psalm 12:1)

I.   Divine Purpose

            What would an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent being, possibly want? The only possible thing that such a being would want would be an entity, perfectly complementary to Him, that was His of its own choice, and not out of necessity.

II.   THE NECESSITY FOR A SECONDARY WILL

Obviously, if there existed only one will (God’s) in the universe, there would be no possible way for such a divine purpose to be realized. It is essential to the attainment of such a divine purpose that there exist to divine will a secondary, opposing will.                                               III.   FREE WILL

            It should be equally apparent that, in order for such a complementary entity to choose to belong to God, it must have an independent, free will.

Comments

 

17 hours ago, A Christian 1985 said:

 

Your questions are valid and logical.   Your assumptions, based upon human limitations, are not.

To begin with God is a personality, not altogether a force like gravity or electricity.  

Human perception of God is normally limited to attempts to understand the mechanisms and results of divine action.  The human method for accomplishing this is known as science.  Understanding the mind and heart and purpose of God is as physically impossible as similar attempts to understand human thought.  Such efforts are purely speculative and subject to error.  Psychology, for example, is more of an art form than a science as any practitioner will tell you.   

I. Divine purpose and character is revealed in the LAW (of Moses).  (read the books of Exodus & Leviticus)   This applies on two levels.  One level is spiritual/moral principle and/or divine intelligence.  The second level is an actionable component - the hand of God, so to speak.   Ironically, Christianity has a big problem with this as I'll explain later.

The 'entity' which is perfectly complimentary to God and which comes to God of its own choice is described in the Bible as the Bride of Christ.  (read the book of Revelation)  The Bride of Christ is symbolic language to describe those who have willingly joined themselves to God and who are perfectly complimentary to God because God Himself has made them so. (Google the definition of 'sanctification')

II. You are correct about the impossibility of deciphering the will of God as far as humanity is concerned.  No man can probe the mind and heart of God.  Indeed, most people don't even know the reasons for their own actions.   Can anyone other than a doctor explain the complex process of food digestion?   If these matters are difficult or impossible, how much more troubling is it to attempt to discern the mind and actions of the Almighty?   Apart from the LAW it's impossible.   

I'm astounded by people who want to 'know' the universe when it's hard enough to find your way around Chinatown. - Woody Allen

The secondary will you suggest is known as The Opposer, or the devil.  Equal to the archangel Michael rather than God, the opposer teases persuades and appropriates human authority unto itself so as to subvert and obfuscate divine purpose in the mind and heart of man.  (read Genesis chapter 3) 

III. There is no such thing as Free Will as it is commonly asserted in American society.  

I'm not siding with John Calvin when I make that statement.  During the Enlightenment, western culture redefined the Biblical understanding of Free Will as a sort of human autonomy.  There is no such thing as human autonomy.  With but one exception, no one can freely choose their path.   We are hampered by the consequences of our own choices, constrained by social mores, restricted by community and national laws and captured by spiritual authority.  Martin Luther once said man's only choice is between God and the devil.   There are no other purposeful choices.  No man can sit on a fence.  Christianity isn't a spectator sport.

Christianity has a problem with the LAW of Moses.

The EDICT OF MILAN issued in 313 AD by Emperor Constantine made Christianity a legitimate religion.   The edict allowed the church to exist, to openly promote its religious values without persecution and to own property.   In other words, Christianity became a licensed institution - a corporation.  Devoid of governmental restrictions Christian anti-semitism flourished as never before.

In the New Testament, believers in the Lordship of Jesus Christ are primarily Jews.  Religious meetings were still held in synagogues.  Jewish tradition and LAW is discussed in the pages of the Epistles.  With the exception of the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts the entire New Testament was written by Jews for Jews.  It's estimated that 33% of the Jews of Jesus' time became believers.   Gentiles also believed and were welcomed into the congregation of believers.  Unfortunately, before the last letter of the New Testament was put to pen and paper, gentile influence began to change the nature of the religion.   Not mentioned in these canonical debates was an underlying hatred of Jews and Jewish culture.   Today we call this attitude anti-semitism.

As time went on pagan gentile customs and culture were adopted into the church even as Jewish customs and LAW was excluded.  The Edict of Milan made it legal - after a fashion.  If a Jew didn't convert to the new customs and unBiblical definitions of the church he or she was excluded and subject to persecution.   As time went on Christianity became the greatest persecutor of Jews of any religion.   Jews as well as Jewish LAW was rejected - as it is to this day.

Therefore because the LAW of Moses has been summarily rejected by the church (not by Christ, read Matthew 5:17), the church now has a vague and confused idea of the nature and purpose of God.  Christianity has come to reject Jews, God's LAW as well as the divine inspiration of the Bible itself.   Today the leadership of most major denominations (Baptist excepted) have rejected the Bible as the unique and inspired Word of God.   Consequently Christianity no longer adheres to the spiritual inspiration and basis of its own organization.  It is left with nothing more than a thin veneer of religious philosophy which is suitable for little more than consolation of the demented.

God has revealed His own mind and heart to us in the form of His LAW.   The LAW even provides a template of the organization of heaven itself.  The LAW tells us how spiritual things work and why.  The LAW shows us how to be saved - to achieve that level of personal relationship that was lost when SIN appeared in the mind and heart of man.  Jesus fulfilled the LAW.  He didn't abolish it as Christians like to assert.   Instead Christians substitute their own form of pagan legalism - thinking it will please God when God's own LAW tells us it won't.

No one can be saved apart from the LAW and no one can know God without abiding by it.   Those who do not live by the LAW will die by the LAW.  (Prov 19:16)

Therefore it is time to humble ourselves, to repent of our sins and wickedness and to ask God for forgiveness that only He can give.

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

Edited January 24, 2020 by choir loft

[choir loft]

22 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I’m guessing that Leyla was referring to natural selection.

There is a lot of misunderstanding that results from people using different definitions for the word. In its simplest form, evolution is simply “heritable change in a population over time”, which is directly observed and verifiable. In other contexts, evolution is used to refer to some of the implications of basic evolution, like universal common ancestry, which obviously are not directly observed. In a very similar fashion to forensic scientists that can solve criminal cases through evidence that has been left behind, biologists use the available evidence (genetics, paleontology, etc) to make these conclusions. There is a large amount of evidence that supports those implications that cannot be directly observed.

I’m curious about what you mean here. Could you elaborate?

My purpose in posting my thoughts was in line with the title of this thread - arguing for the existence of God. 

If you wish to explore the different theories of evolution I invite you to consider literature along those lines.   I'm not concerned with detailed debate regarding tangential issues.

Thank you for providing the explanations I requested.

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

[Behold]

An atheist says.  "what argument can you use to prove God's existence. "

A skeptic says.  "well, you can't prove that God doesn't exist"..

A Christian says.  "well, there is nothing that exists that does not have a Creator", and that includes........ everything."

A Scientist says. "well, the idea that the universe just started itself from NOTHING, out of blank nothingness, is impossible, even if that is what science tries to pretend is the truth".

Edited January 24, 2020 by Behold

[one.opinion]

14 minutes ago, choir loft said:

If you wish to explore the different theories of evolution I invite you to consider literature along those lines.   I'm not concerned with detailed debate regarding tangential issues.

True, evolution discussions are trending away from the OP. So would you consider responding to my question in a different thread? "Evolution is an unproven theory.   There are at least three theories of evolution each of which insists the other two theories don't exist.   Which one are you talking about?" is quite a bombshell without an explanation of what you mean.

Personally, I have two favorite arguments for the existence of God, one more theological/historical and one more scientific.

In an argument popularized by apologists like Lee Strobel, I think there is sufficient reason to believe that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a real event in history. Mainstream historians now admit the existence of the historical figure of Jesus, and there are several aspects of history that support a real death and a real resurrection. The persistence of His earliest followers, despite persecution (including death), strongly suggests that they truly believed His death and resurrection. Some have suggested a group delusion, but this is not rational as so many of His followers believed the exact same details. Theologically, the resurrection significantly supports other claims of scripture like the sinful condition of humanity, the promise of a Redeemer in the person of Jesus Christ, the offered forgiveness of our sinful condition through the sacrificial death through Jesus, and the acceptance of a new life through His resurrection.

Scientifically, I believe the biology of the simplest cells is a very powerful argument for the existence of a God that created life. Researchers have attempted for about 70 years to develop solid naturalistic explanations for the existence of the first cells but the evidence has been sparse, at best. Based on the current evidence, I believe that a creating God is a much more plausible explanation than the random arrangement of pre-biotic chemicals into a living cell. I would also argue that the development (evolution) of life as we now see it is not fully explained by scientific evidence at this point. I believe there are certain events (like the Cambrian explosion) that are somewhat difficult to explain without divine action, but these are not nearly the solid cases (in my mind, at least) that abiogenesis represents.

[choir loft]

On 1/24/2020 at 12:33 PM, one.opinion said:

True, evolution discussions are trending away from the OP. So would you consider responding to my question in a different thread? "Evolution is an unproven theory.   There are at least three theories of evolution each of which insists the other two theories don't exist.   Which one are you talking about?" is quite a bombshell without an explanation of what you mean.

Personally, I have two favorite arguments for the existence of God, one more theological/historical and one more scientific.

In an argument popularized by apologists like Lee Strobel, I think there is sufficient reason to believe that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a real event in history. Mainstream historians now admit the existence of the historical figure of Jesus, and there are several aspects of history that support a real death and a real resurrection. The persistence of His earliest followers, despite persecution (including death), strongly suggests that they truly believed His death and resurrection. Some have suggested a group delusion, but this is not rational as so many of His followers believed the exact same details. Theologically, the resurrection significantly supports other claims of scripture like the sinful condition of humanity, the promise of a Redeemer in the person of Jesus Christ, the offered forgiveness of our sinful condition through the sacrificial death through Jesus, and the acceptance of a new life through His resurrection.

Scientifically, I believe the biology of the simplest cells is a very powerful argument for the existence of a God that created life. Researchers have attempted for about 70 years to develop solid naturalistic explanations for the existence of the first cells but the evidence has been sparse, at best. Based on the current evidence, I believe that a creating God is a much more plausible explanation than the random arrangement of pre-biotic chemicals into a living cell. I would also argue that the development (evolution) of life as we now see it is not fully explained by scientific evidence at this point. I believe there are certain events (like the Cambrian explosion) that are somewhat difficult to explain without divine action, but these are not nearly the solid cases (in my mind, at least) that abiogenesis represents.

On 1/24/2020 at 12:33 PM, one.opinion said:

 

I have big problems with Christian apologists like Strobel.  

For the most part their rhetoric is intended to manipulate rather than to instruct - to resort to clever philosophical anecdotes rather than references to Mosaic LAW.  Christian apologetics has degenerated into an intellectual chess game where words and phrases are employed to counter a debaters assertion rather than to instruct.   The really good ones, like Ravi Zacharias, have a wide philosophical background and are entertaining to watch.   They use clever philosophical phrases to counter an opponents' argument or to back their opponent into a corner.  The really inept ones, like Kirk Cameron, are embarrassing to watch.  Despite Kirks' sincerity the poor man hasn't a clue as to what he's doing.  

Arguments pro and con concerning God and creationism are usually based upon philosophy.  

Atheist philosophy grew out of the European Enlightenment and relies upon the new religion of science to validate their assertions whether those arguments are true or not.   Additionally they rely upon secular hedonism and a general admission by current Christian leaders that the Bible is NOT the inspired Word of God.   Therefore, passages of the Bible aren't accepted as a form of validation for any philosophical argument by either atheists or Christian apologists.  This is why certain atheists now refuse to engage a Christian apologist in debate.   It's also why Zacharias is so good at using philosophy to make a point and why Cameron is so terribly bad at it.  Ravi doesn't rely upon scripture to make his point.  Cameron does, but he's not an accomplished scholar and consequently falls on his face when he uses it. 

Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain fell, the torrents raged, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because its foundation was on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain fell, the torrents raged, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell—and great was its collapse! - Jesus as quoted by Matthew 7:24-27

The parable of the spiritual real estate debacle is an example of the relationship between differing schools of thought.   One method is philosophy and the other is the LAW of Moses.  Philosophy changes like the wind.   Today one thing is popular and tomorrow it's out - replaced by an upgraded version.   This is equivalent to a life, or house, built upon shifting sand.  One cannot build one's life upon changing values or goals.  Before the goal is reached someone changes it on you and all your efforts are for nothing.   The house built on solid rock is tantamount to a value system built upon God's unchangeable LAW.  Philosophy changes, but the LAW does not.   Some things never change and the LAW is one of them.

I did not come to abolish the LAW.  I came to fulfill it.  - Jesus as quoted by Matthew 5:17

Despite the popular Christian phrase 'saved by grace not law', Jesus did NOT destroy the LAW.  Everything God has established in it still stands.   Christians are notoriously opposed to Jews and Jewish LAW and claim it leads to legalism.   Even as they reject God's LAW they establish their own legalism and fall into the same trap ancient Israel once did.  Legalism, whether its Christian or Jewish won't save anybody.  It is nothing less than overt rebellion against God and satanic lawLESSness.

Science is no longer based on physical laws.  Its based upon philosophy.

Few know this truth, but it is being forced upon students in the halls of our universities.  I retired from one, so I know the game plan.  Textbook publishers change their books every year.   This results in confusion and extra work for instructors and the inability of students to sell their old books for money.  The trend is getting worse. 

A friend of mine, who was an instructor in our chemistry department, confided to me that publishers are even working to alter the Periodic Table of Elements to such a degree that it can be edited every year - thus requiring newer more expensive textbooks to be purchased by students.  Science doesn't get more basic than the Periodic Table, but its being changed as often as secular philosophy.  Publisher profit is the motivation, but the result is the same - intellectual and spiritual darkness.

When intelligent design is promoted the certainty of God's mind is argued.   What isn't argued is the method by which He performs it - the hand of God so to speak.   His 'hand' as it were, is the LAW.  I submit to the reader that without this actionable component no divine purpose can be ascertained.   Is there a purpose to God's plan and work?  Philosophy does not know.  Science is silent because it can only watch.  Christianity is mute - silenced by self-imposed Biblical illiteracy.

The LAW gives us a pattern by which God designed the heavens (all three), what He expects of us and how He plans to implement the redemption of man.  Christians deny the LAW and as a result have no idea what their religion is about.   They stumble about in the darkness of their own confusion looking for answers in religious legalism and find nothing.  Apart from the LAW there is nothing to discover.  The face and hand of God remain hidden to them.

The church thus falls into a kind of hypocritical obfuscation and cannot successfully mount an argument against atheistic philosophy.   Both wander in the darkness of their own minds and neither knows the nature of truth.   The atheist denies it exists and the Christian mingles it with hedonistic deceit.  Both wander without purpose and neither can claim hope apart from their own slogans and buzz words.

It is time to repent of our sins and wickedness and to humble ourselves before God - who IS able to execute curses as well as blessings.

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

Edited January 26, 2020 by choir loft

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, choir loft said:

I have big problems with Christian apologists like Strobel.  

Ok, please address what Strobel has said that you disagree with. You just mentioned you have a problem with him and didn't offer any sort of explanation why.

 

1 hour ago, choir loft said:

The really good ones, like Ravi Zacharias, have a wide philosophical background and are entertaining to watch.

Agreed. William Lane Craig is also excellent in this regard.

1 hour ago, choir loft said:

Science is no longer based on physical laws.  Its based upon philosophy.

You have again made a bold statement (and highlighted it in bold) without any sort of supporting explanation.

1 hour ago, choir loft said:

Few know this truth, but it is being forced upon students in the halls of our universities.  I retired from one, so I know the game plan.

Again, zero explanation. This seems to be a pattern. You just head directly from unsupported statement to a complaint against textbooks. Don't get me wrong, I'm a biology professor at a Christian university, so I completely agree that many textbook editions come out way before they are needed, primarily to bring more money in to the publishers.

I completely agree that this is frustrating, but I really don't see the relevance to the argument. What does this have to do with the OP or my post that this is in reply to? You refused to answer my question earlier because it wasn't directly related to the OP, but now you are getting carried away on an unrelated tangent. Your issues with with textbooks and the periodic table (and the rest of the post) have nothing to do with evidence for God.

[choir loft]

On 1/26/2020 at 3:22 PM, one.opinion said:

Ok, please address what Strobel has said that you disagree with. You just mentioned you have a problem with him and didn't offer any sort of explanation why.

 

Agreed. William Lane Craig is also excellent in this regard.

You have again made a bold statement (and highlighted it in bold) without any sort of supporting explanation.

Again, zero explanation. This seems to be a pattern. You just head directly from unsupported statement to a complaint against textbooks. Don't get me wrong, I'm a biology professor at a Christian university, so I completely agree that many textbook editions come out way before they are needed, primarily to bring more money in to the publishers.

I completely agree that this is frustrating, but I really don't see the relevance to the argument. What does this have to do with the OP or my post that this is in reply to? You refused to answer my question earlier because it wasn't directly related to the OP, but now you are getting carried away on an unrelated tangent. Your issues with with textbooks and the periodic table (and the rest of the post) have nothing to do with evidence for God.

Evidence for God is consistent with objective data - mathematical operation/intelligent design of the known universe, testimony of millions of people, historic records, accuracy and truth of Holy Scripture, and unchanging values of Mosaic LAW.

MY POINT is that scoffers utilize subjective opinion to deny the reality of God.  

Present day subjective (changeable) opinion originated with the Enlightenment and takes two forms.  The first form is hedonism while the second form is denial of the divine inspiration and veracity of scripture.  Obtuse references to science are used to justify illogical assumptions and conclusions that God does not exist.  If God doesn't exist, then neither does a divine spark exist in man, which in turn provides political justification for infanticide, euthanasia, and genocide.

I SUPPORTED my assertion by stating that science has degenerated into a profiteering false religion which now embraces an inconsistent method for weighing and measuring the physical world.  Appeals to science to justify anti-religious attitudes are therefore inadequate to the task.

Those who defer to pseudo-science to justify disbelief also appeal to philosophical illogic and confusion so as to create an artificial environment within which personal faith in the personal God (as well as morality) can be assaulted by the academic community and those who do not respect the rights of others (or due process of law).

The consequence of our failed educational system has resulted in a generation of students who cannot and will not reason.  "It hurts to think," as a they've told a high school teacher I know.  When a generation is taught to react without reason they are fit for nothing less than robotic allegiance to an autocratic government and a society that respects neither God nor human life.

THE ISSUE isn't adequate proofs or explanations, sir.  The issue is suppression of them.  

I believe I've made my initial points clear enough.  

If you cannot or will not understand the manipulative nature of philosophical argument and its religious cousin (apologetics), then I refer you to that department of your nearest library and/or seminary.  Courses are offered in seminaries and Bible colleges that teach manipulation.  (I've been there & done that too.) Apologetics and propaganda (*) are primary tools of the curriculum - NOT scripture.  My purpose is and was to contrast the defective nature of philosophy used either to support religion or to oppose it as contrasted with the objective nature of Mosaic LAW.

The house of American society now stands on shifting sands that are being washed away beneath us even as we argue amongst ourselves.

It is time to repent of our sins and wickedness.  Perhaps we may find individual forgiveness from the merciful hand of God.  

It's too late for our country.  Judgment is already upon us.

A religious slogan mindless puppets like to quote is that, "God is able".  The intent of the quote is to imply God will bless us and our country even when we sin.  

I submit that "God is able" also to judge, which indeed HE is in the process of doing - proof positive that there is indeed a God of justice.

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

(*) Religious propaganda is here defined as religious slogans and buzz words, few of which may be found in the Bible.

Edited January 27, 2020 by choir loft

[one.opinion]

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