Why Christianity? discussion

What is the best arguments for Gods existence?

Marcusss - from a geneticist's perspective, it is that life, consisting of incredibly intricate cells capable of reproducing themselves, nourishing themselves, and operating under the instructions of the billions of perfectly assembled nucleotides that make up DNA are far too chemically complex to be arrived at randomly. This implies a Being of higher intelligence. Of course, the nature of that Being is up for grabs.

Whichever Holy book matches our reality the best: Wins!

But our reality is much more complex than most lazily assume. Good and evil itself. Origins and destination. Family and honour. Love and hate. History and geography. Consciousness and insanity. Peace and violence...

Marcusss wrote: "What is the best arguments for Gods existence?"

I'm sure there are many. But, for starters, the fact that there are many different things that if any one were just slightly different life on Earth would not exist nor be possible. All the things that needed to line up in the cosmos exactly right.

That's one.

And the fact that the universe had a beginning. Which implies a Beginner.

Just for starters :D

A powerful, knowing, good being (X) wants to create other moral agents, (beings capable of choosing between actions that are good and actions that are evil).

For this to happen X must:
1. Create a space/ realm for these creatures.
2. This space must obviously be compatible with the creatures existing in it.
3. The space must have regularity. The creatures must know that lightning another persons house on fire will burn it down and not causing it become more beautiful. If there is no regularity the beings wouldn’t know what actions would result in good and what actions in bad consequently not be able to choose between good and evil.
4. These being must be conscious to be able to choose from right and wrong.
5. The being must have some knowledge of good and evil.

So with the first proposition we can explain:
1. The existence and creation of the universe.
2. The existence of physical laws.
3. The fine-tuning of these laws for life.
4. Consciousness.
5. The strong intuition that deliberately telling another being something false (lying) is bad and would have been bad if another creature were to exist in stead of humans.

Therefore its reasonable to believe in a personal cause of the universe.

Creation ... the natural world ... all of this is not some random convergence of matter.

Tyrone wrote: "Creation ... the natural world ... all of this is not some random convergence of matter."

It's not for nothing that Scripture states the heavens declare the Glory of God and,

Romans 1:20
"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. "

Alexandra wrote: "Tyrone wrote: "Creation ... the natural world ... all of this is not some random convergence of matter."

It's not for nothing that Scripture states the heavens declare the Glory of God and,

Roman..."

Big time AMEN to that!

Yes, reason alone (although reason is never alone) can conclude that the Biblical God exists.

Now how would someone Word the opposing claim?

Marcuss - you have started with X, not worked your way in a logical pattern toward the unmitigated existence of X

A fool says in his heart "There is not God." Psalms 14.

It's part of the diversity of His creation___the wise, foolish, lazy, simple, worldly, godly, etc.

John - wise, but that's using the Bible to prove the Bible - not admissible in a discussion about logic.

Robert wrote: "John - wise, but that's using the Bible to prove the Bible - not admissible in a discussion about logic."

Robert, the best answer in message 7 was already stated so I just added a comment about the mindset of someone that denies the existence of God. So logically everyone is without excuse.

I was using abduction. A personal being who wanted to create moral agents is the best explanation to the facts I listed.

Do you think that your 3, 4 and 5th requirement (added below) for what a powerful, all-knowing, good being would do is innate or societal? If it's societal, does it matter? If it's societal we're very much like dogs that are taught that somethings are rewarded and some things punished, what they exactly are is pretty ambiguous and varies in cultures and times.

What is your first preposition?
I don't understand how it follows.
Also if intuitions are either enforced (like animals), or societally chosen (might be the same thing, forced, that is), how is it clear that there is a personal entity that created it all?

(3. The space must have regularity. The creatures must know that lightning another persons house on fire will burn it down and not causing it become more beautiful. If there is no regularity the beings wouldn’t know what actions would result in good and what actions in bad consequently not be able to choose between good and evil.
4. These being must be conscious to be able to choose from right and wrong.
5. The being must have some knowledge of good and evil.)

These are criterions that make a theory more plausible:
1. It explains facts in a satisfactory way.
2. It explains many facts.
3 it is a simple theory (few postulates).

My point is that there are many facts about our world for example the regularity, the fine tuning of this regularity. The very existence of our universe, consciousness and the very real intuition that some acts are good and some acts are bad, all of these facts are explained in a satisfactory way with a simple hypothesis, namely, that a powerful, good and knowing being created moral agents.
For him to do this he need to create a place that follows laws. He needs to fine tune these laws. He needs to make the moral agents conscious and create in them some sense of good and evil.

The theory is simple yet it explains many deep facts about us and the universe and I believe that makes the theory plausible.

Marcusss - you would have a better case if the universe or it's inhabitants followed some hallowed laws, but many actions are simply random and chaotic.

There are physical laws. And cultures may differ on what constitutes a good/just action but have the vast majority of cultures not agreed on that there at least exist a distinction between good and evil action/ just and unjust actions?

Marcuss - the vast majority of American's would wholehearted state that peace is better than war, but when international exigencies collide, it's amazing how fast we gear up for war and unite behind it. Morality and justice often rest on no more of a platform than "whose ox is gored".

I dont see how that shows my abductive argument to be a bad one.

I am able to explain several fundamental facts that we seem to be miles away from explaining in any other way with a simple theory. A powerful, knowing, good and personal being wanted to create moral agents.
The facts that this theory is explaining are deep unexplained facts about our universe and ourselves, such as, consciousness, the fine tuning of the physical laws to allow for life, the very existence of this universe and the existence of these laws. A theory that can explain all of these facts I think is probable as long as there isn’t some other fact that makes it improbable.

Marcuss - your theories are all on one side of a philosophical schism. On the other side, there is nothing to indicate beyond a shadow of a doubt that life is anything but random, chaotic, and meaningless.

Robert wrote: "On the other side, there is nothing to indicate beyond a shadow of a doubt that life is anything but random, chaotic, and meaningless. "

Sure there is, you just missed seeing it :D

Ya know, seeing as people are fallible, never reaching perfection, my answer to this topic would be no. I don’t think reason alone “proves” Gods existence. Or brings you to God. You need an open, humble, willing heart as well. Through faith you are saved right? It can’t be faith alone but you still need some! Of course, its the facts and logic and reasoning that support your belief in God, but I think true belief is only fully realized with faith.

I often tell atheists: "I can prove to you that God exists... but your more likely to hate him than worship him."

Alexandra - no, I see it just fine. I'm a Believer, but it's entirely a journey of Faith. Syllogisms and logic trees don't counter what I said in message 21. That is a rational observation of life as we know it. Jesus gives us a different pathway - I'll take it!

Robert wrote: "Alexandra - no, I see it just fine.

And yet, in this case, you missed it.

"Syllogisms and logic trees don't counter what I said in message 21. "

No one said they did Robert, do try to keep up.

You claimed, "On the other side, there is nothing to indicate beyond a shadow of a doubt that life is anything but random, chaotic, and meaningless. "

I pointed out, "Sure there is, you just missed seeing it :D"

I did not say anything about "Syllogisms and logic trees".

Alexandra - you might want to try not being so self-centered. Syllogisms and logic trees were in response to the overall tenor of this topic, not to anything you provided. I know ego is a tough customer to exorcise, but give it a whirl - when your nose is facing forward instead of up in the air you don't get hit in the snoz by so many falling objects!

Robert wrote: "Syllogisms and logic trees were in response to the overall tenor of this topic, not to anything you provided."

No doubt. My comment wasn't regarding anything I provided. Nor regarding the "overall tenor of this topic".

It was in response to your comment to Marcus:

""On the other side, there is nothing to indicate beyond a shadow of a doubt that life is anything but random, chaotic, and meaningless."

To which, I pointed out, "Sure there is, you just missed seeing it :D"

Which you apparently are still missing.

As far as "ego", back at ya dude!

Rod - “I often say to atheists, I can prove that God exists”
Please prove it here!

There are a few ways. But they all require comprehension and a Sherlock Holmes cap. (Atheists generally have neither)

See how the world reacts to Jesus.

But that statement is a 10 volume book series. Most people can't do more than make a small paragraph out of it. That is why they fail.

Marcuss - see msg. 2. I don't imagine you have much scientific aptitude, and the scientific atheists are loud and persistent, but once one cuts through all the noise and drills down to the basic chemical compositions of DNA and the mechanics of biochemistry, the complexity of the processes quickly convinces the open minded truthseeker that something beyond randomness is happening here. I'm not sure how you define "God", but a creational higher intelligence is what I'm proving.

I do not see any value in proving that God exists through reason, except to entertain one's intellect. The value of life in found loving God and others. This can only be accomplished through a regenerated nature by the Spirit of God.

John - Reason? That's philosophical claptrap. Uncovering the very building blocks that God meticulously strung together to institute the amazingly complex entity that is life gives Man a personal insight into one extraordinary part of the Creation puzzle. The universe is another matter altogether and maybe beyond the ken of man. The Spirit of God is a melodious phrase which is supposed to mean something, but actually understanding the methodology of his works is a truly humbling experience as to how frail is our human understanding

Alexandra - I've just given Marcuss a reiteration of my "proof" for higher existence. Of course, this is somewhat esoteric and is gleaned from much research in my profession. It cannot withstand the "beyond a shadow of a doubt" threshold that few assertions can mount. A supernatural entity that cannot be quantified will never exist in the literature as a physical law. However, the truth seeking Believer, abundant in Faith and living the tenets of that Faith, as I have no reason to doubt that you are, can come as humanly close to marrying Belief and Truth as the uncertainties of the situation allow.

John wrote: "I do not see any value in proving that God exists through reason, except to entertain one's intellect. The value of life in found loving God and others. This can only be accomplished through a rege..."

Typically reasonable people don't speak of proof, but of evidence, and there is quite a significant amount of compelling and convincing evidence. Even in the purely scientific realm. For those inclined to look at the evidence in an unbiased and rational way.

But quite often people aren't so inclined. I do think there is quite a bit of value in seeking evidence, as I think it'd be foolish to accept such a thing with no reasonable evidence.

However, as we know, finding the Truth requires a change only God can provide.

Truth is truth. And God isn't contrary to truth. Accepting something on blind faith without reason tends to lead one to folly.

Alexandra - in hard science, where one needs to mathematically defend one's hypothesis in order to get published we speak in terms of proof. In law or the arts, squishy stuff like evidence which can be manufactured out of thin air with nothing behind it other than words holds sway. You decide, smart girl, which is more solid.

Robert wrote: "Alexandra - in hard science, where one needs to mathematically defend one's hypothesis in order to get published we speak in terms of proof. In law or the arts, squishy stuff like evidence which ca..."

We already know how fond you are of assumptions, and you're a bit of a misogynist.

It is amusing though to see you declare evidence has no place in science and is simply "squishy" "arts", when the reality is science quite often presents evidence. :D

There's quite a bit of mathematical and scientific evidence in this regard, but if you want to poo poo that as "squishy" that's certainly up to you. Personally, I'm quite open to considering evidence of the hard sciences, and I know experts in the fields who would certainly not consider the scientific evidence "squishy" "art".

As I already pointed out, there is quite a significant amount of compelling and convincing evidence. Even in the purely scientific realm. For those inclined to look at the evidence in an unbiased and rational way. So, while reasonable people do not speak of proof, there certainly is evidence.

Alexandra - I'm glad you're so fond of evidence. I suppose if you're not in a position to make any new discoveries in any field, that's the best you can hope for. However, if you want to advance the ball and carve inroads into the future, you need PROOF you're on the right track. Misogynistically yours, Robert

Perhaps these thoughts from Scotus Erigena can solve the issue about the natural world; evidence and proof.

“Nature, which is created and does not create, or the phenomenal world and its union in man. In the Logos all things existed from eternity. Creation is their appearance in time. The principle of the development of the primordial ideas is the Holy Spirit. The materiality of the world is only apparent, space and time only exist in the mind. The “Nothing” from which God made the heavens and the earth was his own incomprehensible essence. The whole phenomenal world is but the shadow of the real existence. Man is the centre of the phenomenal world, uniting in himself all the contradictions and differences of creation. His intellect has the power to grasp the sensuous and intelligible, and is itself the substance of things. So all nature is created in man, and subsists in him, because the idea of all its parts is implanted in him. The divine thought is the primary, the human the secondary substance of things.”

Then again, perhaps Scotus is only amusing.

John - this is useful for sitting on top of a mountain and musing about all things natural and God-created. To understand the workings of things he created takes more than just dreaminess. Research is hard work, often with dead ends - it won't get done in some transcendental stupor.

Mathematicians and logicians speak of proof. Evidence is used by everyone else.

Proof and evidence are very interpreted terms.

You can philosophize your way out of anything. Denying things is easy: 6 year olds are great at it.

Get this going again:

EVIL

Rod - when God created Man, he gave him choice - thus entered evil. What specifically bothers you about that?

If there was no evil - I might not need a God.

Although you can't properly define evil without a holy God.

Rod - although I believe in a supernatural God, I try to deal with reality on earth. Reality dictates evil exists. Coincidently, so does Scripture. I, in my dotage, now try to avoid it whereas in my youth it was a constant companion. The wages of sin in my case was death to sin as it became a companion too painful to endure so I turned to Jesus. I was lucky. I try to guide others, but they need their quota of good and bad experience to make lasting decisions. The road to salvation does appear to be narrow and, if anything, is getting narrower. God save us from ourselves!

"Reality dictates evil exists."

Robert... I am not sure this is accurate. Please explain why you believe this to be true.

Without God: evil can not be defined as anything more than subjective

Rod wrote: "Without God: evil can not be defined as anything more than subjective"

Great point!

Rod - even with God it gets subjective. How much anger and pride is sinful? Surely, there's a threshold as it takes a little anger to pursue justice and a little pride to accomplish anything worthwhile.