What Argument Do You Use for God's Existence?

[ksolomon]

Here's mine.

 

Proof God exists is SUPER EASY for anyone to understand (sadly, the stubborn denier is the exception):  

1)  Each DNA contains 100 million pages worth of instructions to build the entire body.  Do instructions write themselves?  Nope.  Instructions don't write themselves.  Behind every instruction is an 'instructor' who authored it.  Carl Sagan said:  "The information content of a simple cell has been established as around one trillion bits, comparable to about 100 million pages of the Encyclopaedia Britannica."

2)  Every genome is written as a quaternary molecular digital code:  "All present life is based on digitally-encoded information."  (American Academy of Sciences). Do digital programs write themselves?  Nope again.

3)  Each cell contains hi-tech miniature organs (organelles - nucleus, golgi bodies, mitochondria, chloroplasts, etc.) - none of which are naturally found elsewhere - hence no natural explanation for their existence.

4)  Who can write a 100 million pages worth of instructions and then stuff it into every cell of our body?  This hyper-intellect is who we will face on Judgment Day. 

[other one]

mine is even simpler than that.....    I met the devil and God snatched me out of the devil's grasp and set me free.

 

[ByFaithAlone]

3 hours ago, ksolomon said:

Here's mine.

 

Proof God exists is SUPER EASY for anyone to understand (sadly, the stubborn denier is the exception):  

1)  Each DNA contains 100 million pages worth of instructions to build the entire body.  Do instructions write themselves?  Nope.  Instructions don't write themselves.  Behind every instruction is an 'instructor' who authored it.  Carl Sagan said:  "The information content of a simple cell has been established as around one trillion bits, comparable to about 100 million pages of the Encyclopaedia Britannica."

2)  Every genome is written as a quaternary molecular digital code:  "All present life is based on digitally-encoded information."  (American Academy of Sciences). Do digital programs write themselves?  Nope again.

3)  Each cell contains hi-tech miniature organs (organelles - nucleus, golgi bodies, mitochondria, chloroplasts, etc.) - none of which are naturally found elsewhere - hence no natural explanation for their existence.

4)  Who can write a 100 million pages worth of instructions and then stuff it into every cell of our body?  This hyper-intellect is who we will face on Judgment Day. 

Personally, I would not use this argument. This is certainly a classical argument along the lines of the Watchmaker Argument and has been used in the past but is probably one of the weaker way to argue for God's existence. This is essentially an argument from biological complexity. In other words, how could life be so complicated with out a creator? 

Although this argument may be convincing to some, I don't think atheists who are well-versed in evolutionary biology will have much of a problem with this argument as although evolution gives no answers as to the origins of life (that falls under the study of abiogenesis) it does present a reasonable explanation as to the development of complexity through mutations. Of course, you are free to disagree with those explanations. But I would say it would not be particularly effective as an argument if you want to convince an atheist especially if they are well-versed in evolutionary biology. 

Arguments based around modal logic or the past-finite nature of the universe would be much more interesting to me personally and would be more effective in my view. 

[choir loft]

The issue isn't about facts and figures and proofs.

Its about denial of proof, not the veracity of it.

A fool will refuse to believe proof of anything if he or she so chooses.

"What a fool believes he sees, No wise man can reason away." - Doobie Brothers  WHAT A FOOL BELIEVES song of the year 1980

We are called to give testimony to that which God has made - to stand upon a wall and give warning.   If a fool refuses to believe it, he or she will condemn themselves.  The onus is on them and they will perish because of their foolishness.

You can tell a Muslim by his love of Mohammad [pbuh].

You can tell a Jew by his love of Torah.

You can tell a Christian by his love of Christ.

You can tell an atheist,

but you can't tell him much.

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

 

Edited March 28, 2019 by choir loft

[Spock]

On 1/12/2019 at 8:57 PM, ByFaithAlone said:

Personally, I would not use this argument. This is certainly a classical argument along the lines of the Watchmaker Argument and has been used in the past but is probably one of the weaker way to argue for God's existence. This is essentially an argument from biological complexity. In other words, how could life be so complicated with out a creator? 

Although this argument may be convincing to some, I don't think atheists who are well-versed in evolutionary biology will have much of a problem with this argument as although evolution gives no answers as to the origins of life (that falls under the study of abiogenesis) it does present a reasonable explanation as to the development of complexity through mutations. Of course, you are free to disagree with those explanations. But I would say it would not be particularly effective as an argument if you want to convince an atheist especially if they are well-versed in evolutionary biology. 

Arguments based around modal logic or the past-finite nature of the universe would be much more interesting to me personally and would be more effective in my view. 

Is it even possible, apart from a huge bang on the head from God, to convince a hardcore atheist that God exists period?  I doubt it. 

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? If they say they are certain he is a myth, I don’t even bother (pearls before swine). 

But, I stay away from science and go right to the existence of Christ...his life, his death, and his resurrection. Let them deny that.....so be it. Free will......

[Behold]

There are a lot of ways to approach a hostile audience with your question.

 

A few examples that are effective would inclued these.

1.) Tell them that.... they can't prove that God does not exist....  as this is something that most atheists and similar have never been told, or given the opportunity to think about.

See, its a fact that you can't prove that God does not exist, all you can do is argue against His EXISTENCE< which in fact is admitting that there is something there you are arguing about.

 

and then...

 

2.) Point out that you can't have creation with a Creator.

And this means, everything that exists, has a starting point, an invention point, and a creator who created it..... including the universe and all that we understand that this word means.

 

another one is.....   3.)  Science likes to start in the middle of the argument, regarding "how did it all get here"....and in this way they can hide from, avoid, and lead others away from "how did it all start". 'begin"

What Science likes to do, is start with the "big bang", as in this way, they are hiding some facts, by pretending that whatever it is that "banged", is made up of stuff......that "banged"....so, the STUFF that was a part of their "big bang theory", didn't create itself.   In other words, no matter how you look at how IT all did whatever it is that Science tries to use as proof...the fact is, ....molecules, atoms, quarks, ......call "original matter" whatever you like, but you have to understand that matter can't create itself from blank  nothingness....it had to be CREATED......... and so, Science likes to skip that part and run to the "big bang", which of course is talking about what stuff did AFTER it was already here. (Created/Creator).

 

Lastly, you can use this.......... Its my Rose explanation...   And its really simple......which is.....  4.) We are living in 2019, and Science is very advanced regarding study, equipment, and thought process, YET, there is no science and no scientist who can CREAT a ROSE from nothing.

They can clone it, hybrid it, and grow it from parts, or seeds, but all this is just manipulation of what already is created..........as SCIENCE cannot create a rose from NOTHING, as only GOD can do this, and did.

As a matter of fact, everything that man creates, is created from what already exists, and is manipulated into something else...

Man can't even create himself without preexisting parts, including a seed and a womb..... 

Only God can create man out of his imagination, out of  dirt, out of a rib, out of a virgin, and of course by combining Adam and Eve as "one".

Edited March 28, 2019 by Behold

[Leyla]

On 1/12/2019 at 11:30 PM, ksolomon said:

Here's mine.

 

Proof God exists is SUPER EASY for anyone to understand (sadly, the stubborn denier is the exception):  

1)  Each DNA contains 100 million pages worth of instructions to build the entire body.  Do instructions write themselves?  Nope.  Instructions don't write themselves.  Behind every instruction is an 'instructor' who authored it.  Carl Sagan said:  "The information content of a simple cell has been established as around one trillion bits, comparable to about 100 million pages of the Encyclopaedia Britannica."

2)  Every genome is written as a quaternary molecular digital code:  "All present life is based on digitally-encoded information."  (American Academy of Sciences). Do digital programs write themselves?  Nope again.

3)  Each cell contains hi-tech miniature organs (organelles - nucleus, golgi bodies, mitochondria, chloroplasts, etc.) - none of which are naturally found elsewhere - hence no natural explanation for their existence.

4)  Who can write a 100 million pages worth of instructions and then stuff it into every cell of our body?  This hyper-intellect is who we will face on Judgment Day. 

1. DNA doesnt just write itself, there is an evolutionary pressure that favours favourable genetic mutations and weeds out bad ones. Over time this will make highly adapted life forms that can give of the impression of an instructor.  2. Point 1 basically  3. Not finding cell organells elsewhere doesnt proof that they are not natural, it only proofs that cell organells exist only in life forms. To proof that cell organells are not natural, we need to proof that life itself is not natural first  Just because something seems complex or seems to require a "hyper intellect". 

 

On 1/29/2019 at 3:44 PM, Abdicate said:

Use Google: 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.

By this definition, evolution cannot exist. It's why it's a theory - six to eight to be exact. It's not observable, and it's not repeatable, and pseudo-science hides it in "well, it happened over billions or trillions of years." What a joke.

You seem to think I'm anti-science, but I am not, since I'm a biochemist enthusiast. My issue is with when scientists and "Christians" say the word of God is not realistic.

talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html    for example is a good source for observed speciation. Other observation are for example our almost identical DNA with great apes and similiar DNA to other mammals, the fossil record etc. Genetics is an absolutely strong  and sophisticated field, and the proof in genetics cant be ignored.           

 

On 3/28/2019 at 4:21 PM, choir loft said:

The issue isn't about facts and figures and proofs.

Its about denial of proof, not the veracity of it.

A fool will refuse to believe proof of anything if he or she so chooses.

"What a fool believes he sees, No wise man can reason away." - Doobie Brothers  WHAT A FOOL BELIEVES song of the year 1980

We are called to give testimony to that which God has made - to stand upon a wall and give warning.   If a fool refuses to believe it, he or she will condemn themselves.  The onus is on them and they will perish because of their foolishness.

You can tell a Muslim by his love of Mohammad [pbuh].

You can tell a Jew by his love of Torah.

You can tell a Christian by his love of Christ.

You can tell an atheist,

but you can't tell him much.

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

 

So far noone was able to provide proof that point to a God. How can there be a denial, to something that was not presented yet.

 

Edited May 6, 2019 by Leyla

[Leyla]

On 3/28/2019 at 6:26 PM, Behold said:

There are a lot of ways to approach a hostile audience with your question.

 

A few examples that are effective would inclued these.

1.) Tell them that.... they can't prove that God does not exist....  as this is something that most atheists and similar have never been told, or given the opportunity to think about.

See, its a fact that you can't prove that God does not exist, all you can do is argue against His EXISTENCE< which in fact is admitting that there is something there you are arguing about.

 

and then...

 

2.) Point out that you can't have creation with a Creator.

And this means, everything that exists, has a starting point, an invention point, and a creator who created it..... including the universe and all that we understand that this word means.

 

another one is.....   3.)  Science likes to start in the middle of the argument, regarding "how did it all get here"....and in this way they can hide from, avoid, and lead others away from "how did it all start". 'begin"

What Science likes to do, is start with the "big bang", as in this way, they are hiding some facts, by pretending that whatever it is that "banged", is made up of stuff......that "banged"....so, the STUFF that was a part of their "big bang theory", didn't create itself.   In other words, no matter how you look at how IT all did whatever it is that Science tries to use as proof...the fact is, ....molecules, atoms, quarks, ......call "original matter" whatever you like, but you have to understand that matter can't create itself from blank  nothingness....it had to be CREATED......... and so, Science likes to skip that part and run to the "big bang", which of course is talking about what stuff did AFTER it was already here. (Created/Creator).

 

Lastly, you can use this.......... Its my Rose explanation...   And its really simple......which is.....  4.) We are living in 2019, and Science is very advanced regarding study, equipment, and thought process, YET, there is no science and no scientist who can CREAT a ROSE from nothing.

They can clone it, hybrid it, and grow it from parts, or seeds, but all this is just manipulation of what already is created..........as SCIENCE cannot create a rose from NOTHING, as only GOD can do this, and did.

As a matter of fact, everything that man creates, is created from what already exists, and is manipulated into something else...

Man can't even create himself without preexisting parts, including a seed and a womb..... 

Only God can create man out of his imagination, out of  dirt, out of a rib, out of a virgin, and of course by combining Adam and Eve as "one".

1. Almost noone explicitly says that God does not exist. You cant proof an unfalsifiable hypothesis wrong, so its a waste of time to bring it up.   There is no reason to believe in a God and the default position for everything is to not believe it until its proven to be true. To make that statement shorter many people just say they dont believe in a God.                                                                                   2. Some things have a creator, for others there is no reason to believe that they had one. There are tendencies and laws in our universe that form things like planets without the interference of a God. You could say that a God initiated and made these laws, but that would only point to a Deist God, and not the personal God of christianity.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     3. A few hundreds years ago, we could not even split water into its two parts and we did not even have a way to make humans fly. We need to give science more time to answer things, that are as tough as the beginning or everything or  the big bang completly. Noone rejects the idea of a creator fundamentally, there is just no reason to believe that there was one.                                                 4. Ofcourse we cant make a rose yet. But I think you underestimate how complex modern flowers are. They went through billions of years of toughest evolutionary pressure to make them into what they are now, or until they were picked up by humans and slightly modified.  We need more time to expand our understanding of the world and the universe                                 

Edited April 28, 2019 by Leyla

[thomas t]

On 4/28/2019 at 2:31 PM, Leyla said:

the default position for everything is to not believe it until its proven to be true.

Guten Tag Leyla!

Here is beauty (see attached picture). It's a perfect interaction between nature and man. No beauty intended (by man). And no evolutionist easily explains how the beauty yet arose. So I don't believe it .

Normally, I don't respond in these threads because the "evidence is everywhere!"-folks do. They say science proved the Creator while scientists say they don't.

Not knowing who is right... I don't want to plug this hole for them trying to solve the issue. But this time, they didn't say anything in answering you.

So, enjoy the beauty.

Thomas

[Michael37]

56 minutes ago, thomas t said:

Normally, I don't respond in these threads because the "evidence is everywhere!"-folks do. They say science proved the Creator while scientists say they don't.

Anyone that claims science has proved anything to do with God, whether He exists or doesn't exist, doesn't have a very good grasp of what science is, and who God is.

True Science does these 5 things:

1. Observes
2. Records
3. Measures
4. Repeats 1,2,3,
5. Predicts

God has done, is doing, and will do things that science has no-way to:

1. Observe
2. Record
3. Measure
4. Repeat
5. Predict

As an aside, the creation of "Intelligence Quotient" is an example of bad science. It stems from work by Alfred Binet who was asked by the French Ministry of Education in 1904 to develop a test that would help identify students with learning difficulties. Since then intelligence tests have had two elements:

• Dreaming up questions to include in the test
• Modifying the test so that when applied to a large group of people it produces scores that correlate with other tests considered to have measured intelligence.

In his book "Yes, We Have No Neutrons - An Eye-Opening Tour through the Twists and Turns of Bad Science", A.K. Dewdney states this:

"From Binet's day to the present time, no general theory of intelligence has emerged from the field of psychology. The state of our knowledge about this key phenomenon has remained in almost the same state for the last hundred years. It follows as a deduction that no one has ever confirmed that intelligence tests measure intelligence. It is even possible that research in this field has been inhibited by the belief that we already know what intelligence is." [Chapter 2: Mind Numbers. The Curious Theory of the Intelligence Quotient]