What is your favorite argument for the existence of God?

Author: OntologicalSpider ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 294
  • OntologicalSpider
    OntologicalSpider avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 86
    0
    0
    4
    OntologicalSpider avatar
    OntologicalSpider
    What is your favorite argument for the existence of God? Why is it your favorite argument? What are some objections to this argument and how do you deal with them?
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,239
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @OntologicalSpider
    What we mean by "God" with a capital "G" is The Ultimate Reality.

    If this is disputed, then I don't believe in the god you are talking about either.


    If you say there is no ultimate reality, then you are expressing the position of nihilism, which discredits you as a total crank.


  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,211
    2
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @OntologicalSpider
    What is your favorite argument for the existence of God?

    Correlation, or better known as the Logical Common Sense Argument (LCSA).
    I made it up myself lol.

    It basically uses energy as its premise, then correlating intelligent processes observed in the universe with an intelligent Creator.

    What are some objections to this argument and how do you deal with them?

    One of the objections I get would include "there is no need for a Creator in regards to processes"....
    My rebuttal is simple, I just have them answer for the LCSA and ask them why are they satisfied with making the assumption that processes occur all by themselves.

    Another objective would be the ol "God of the Gaps argument"....
    My response is from common sense. If God fits into the gaps it is because God indeed exists, I mean it speaks for itself and is rather a silly objection.

  • ludofl3x
    ludofl3x avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,200
    2
    2
    2
    ludofl3x avatar
    ludofl3x
    --> @EtrnlVw
    Correlation, or better known as the Logical Common Sense Argument (LCSA).
    I made it up myself lol.

    Another objective would be the ol "God of the Gaps argument"....
    Both of your arguments ignore one huge problem each. THe first is that "common sense" changes all the time, across various cultures. Using this argument argues (poorly) at best for desim, not theism. The second is that God of the Gaps is infinite regress, it doesn't explain anything, it merely finds the last point of mystery and inserts "god."

    For example, schizophrenia is caused by demons, use common sense! God has accursed this person for some sin his father committed. 

    Study demonstrates schizophrenia to be a chemical brain disorder, not demonic possession. That seems common sense NOW. It wasn't three hundred years ago. 

    But maybe god is using brain chemistry to accurse this wretch! Okay, but that's (a) not what you originally said or thought and (b) why would god need to hide in that way, what would the point of doing so be if he's trying to deliver his message? "God created life!" and we discover DNA, which turns into "Yeah, and he did it using DNA! Duh, what didn't you get the first time??"

    Both are extremely poor defenses. 


  • logicae
    logicae avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 14
    0
    0
    4
    logicae avatar
    logicae
    --> @OntologicalSpider
    Hello! Thought I might drop in and a good question indeed. 

    I would like to answer the question like this: First we have a Big WHY for everything. We ask this question about everything, from the daily decisions we make, up to the origins of ourselves and the universe itself. In order to answer that most important why about the universe as a whole you must assess the options at hand: 

    1 Nothing actually exists.
    2 Something does exist (the universe) but it always was.
    3 Something does exist and it began (universe began)
    a. it came from nothing.
    b. it came from something beyond itself.

    This must be answered first because it decides why we look towards an outside source instead of a system of naturalism (material only).

    First we know that, since we are able to observe things, existence is real. This means option 1 can't be true. 
    Second, option two brings up the absurdity of the infinite paradox (which underlines the impossibility of an infinite universe) and further is negated by the observable contingency of the universe (meaning that the universe is always seeking a cause for itself).  
    Thirdly, option three arrives at the pinnacle of philosophic reasoning and current modern scientific understanding (that is to say that we know the universe began to exists through the experiment of the big bang and deductive reasoning dating back centuries). Sub-point a makes no sense of the universe, acting as though it appeared as though magically, while sub-point b declares that a source beyond the universe is necessary. 

    That is where we begin, seeing no other option we must then ask the question what is this cause? 
    That's where my favorite argument for God's existence comes into play:

    KCA (Kalam Cosmological Argument) It is formulated similar to this: 

    Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
    Premise 2: The universe began to Exist
    Conclusion: The universe has a cause

    The key to remember here is that if the premises are true, then the conclusion necessarily follows. Also, though the Kalam does not point out God directly, it does show a creator is necessary, like if someones points out that an artist is necessary for a painting (the universe is the painting). We can explore the attributes of this creator, leading the well known and timeless God of theism. here is a link to my debates on the Kalam where I outline and explore each attribute in detail if you are curious: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1287/it-takes-more-faith-to-be-an-atheist

    I will try and answer the rest of your questions now: 

    -The Kalam is my favorite argument for God because it follows an easy to understand structure and gets right to the point. 
    -The main objections I get now include a misunderstanding of the necessity of God and also a misunderstanding of who God is. To deal with these two points I must first make clear that God, the simplest and most concise definition, is the creator or cause of the universe (this is key because this is the most important thing we can know of him, like the painting of a painter). Everything else is more of a wash. To the misunderstanding of God's necessity: You must first get them to recognize a cause of the universe, then have them understand how some things are necessary (like the three-ness of a three sided triangle) and since the universe is not necessary, the cause of it (God) must be, else it would not exist. 

    To Truth!
    -logicae
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,196
    4
    6
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    1.Ontological Argument
    2. Leziben Contingency Argument(best cosmological argument)
    3.the Moral Argument
    4.Argument from Abundance

  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 902
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @ludofl3x
    Study demonstrates schizophrenia to be a chemical brain disorder, not demonic possession.
    Which study?
  • ludofl3x
    ludofl3x avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,200
    2
    2
    2
    ludofl3x avatar
    ludofl3x
    --> @Athias
    I mean it's a condition that corresponds with things you can diagnose with various brain scans and other medical methods. It's no longer blamed on demons or external entities. 
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 902
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @OntologicalSpider
    What is your favorite argument for the existence of God?
    I wouldn't call it "favorite" but I usually offer this argument:

    1. All things that are perceived must exist (given that the nonexistent can't be perceived.)
    2. God is perceived (believed in by his adherents.)
    3. Therefore God exists.

    Why is it your favorite argument?

    Because the logic is sound.

    What are some objections to this argument and how do you deal with them?
    Well, usually opponents will attempt to create equivalences to that which they believe also doesn't exist, i.e. Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, FSM, etc. intended to have me concede to some faulty logic. I don't because I do acknowledge that the aforementioned also exist. The fault is in conflating immaterial perception (cognition, imagination, etc.) with nonexistent. I then challenge them to rationalize their environment, even their perceptions, isolated from their "imaginations." Thus far, no has been able to do this. If one is going to argue that the incorporation of imagination trivializes a perspective, then one should at least be consistent. And materialists, in my experience, almost never are.
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 902
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @ludofl3x
    I mean it's a condition that corresponds with things you can diagnose with various brain scans and other medical methods. It's no longer blamed on demons or external entities. 
    I asked because as far as I understood, there has yet to be a biochemical basis demonstrated for any mental disorder. There have been hypotheses, surely. So, when you mentioned "brain chemistry" I thought you might be able to reference a study that demonstrates biochemistry. 

  • ludofl3x
    ludofl3x avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,200
    2
    2
    2
    ludofl3x avatar
    ludofl3x
    --> @Athias
    I know someone whose relative was diagnosed clinically with it and their brain scan indicated unusual activity associated with the condition. I don't spend a lot of time reading JAMA or anything. But my point remains: the doctor never said "Look, we think based on what we see here it might be schizophrenia, and there are medicines we use to treat and control that condition (which would infer that brain chemistry is involved as the medicines would modify that in some way). It's either that, or you're cursed by demons, in which case, there's a guy I know in this building down the street who can say some magic words, see if that works."
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 902
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @ludofl3x
    I know someone whose relative was diagnosed clinically with it and their brain scan indicated unusual activity associated with the condition. I don't spend a lot of time reading JAMA or anything. But my point remains: the doctor never said "Look, we think based on what we see here it might be schizophrenia, and there are medicines we use to treat and control that condition (which would infer that brain chemistry is involved as the medicines would modify that in some way).
    I'm not denying that brain chemistry exists. Only that schizophrenia has yet to be demonstrated as a biochemical condition/illness. Drugs are in fact chemical. But after doing research into the subject, you'll discover that most antipsychiotic drugs are just relaxants (stimulating the release of dopamine.) And they usually treat just a few "symptoms." If you're interested in the subject, I'd suggest reading the works of David Kaiser and Thomas Szasz.

  • Stronn
    Stronn avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 512
    2
    1
    4
    Stronn avatar
    Stronn
    --> @Athias
    1. All things that are perceived must exist (given that the nonexistent can't be perceived.)
    2. God is perceived (believed in by his adherents.)
    3. Therefore God exists.
    That is among the most absurd arguments I've seen. It essentially says that anything someone believes must exist..
  • ludofl3x
    ludofl3x avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,200
    2
    2
    2
    ludofl3x avatar
    ludofl3x
    --> @Stronn
    I feel like it makes a distinction between "exists" and "is real" or "is true," but those are all very slippery semantics as far as I can tell. It seems akin to 'anything in possible' when in practical terms, that's just not true: for example, it's strictly speaking possible I could somehow find myself manning second base for the Yankees, but in practical terms, it is so improbable that it cannot be practically distinguished from impossible. 

  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 902
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @Stronn
    That is among the most absurd arguments I've seen. It essentially says that anything someone believes must exist..
    Yes, that's the extension of my argument to its logical conclusion. Can you present the absurdity? Or are you just proffering an irrelevant impression that you simply describe as absurd?

  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 902
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @ludofl3x
    I feel like it makes a distinction between "exists" and "is real" or "is true," but those are all very slippery semantics as far as I can tell. It seems akin to 'anything in possible' when in practical terms, that's just not true: for example, it's strictly speaking possible I could somehow find myself manning second base for the Yankees, but in practical terms, it is so improbable that it cannot be practically distinguished from impossible. 
    If I decide to name the action of standing still "manning" and name one plank on my wooden floor "second base" and my living room "The Yankees," then I would be manning second base for the Yankees. Now you can argue that I'm not using those words correctly, but the basis of your counterclaim would be entirely dependent on consensus, which informs an amount, not truth. You attempt to exclude belief from "reality," and yet what capacity do you bear to rationalize "reality" without your beliefs? Case in point: there's yet to be material evidence presented for numbers. Yet numbers are essential in Mathematics, which itself is essential to Science. You believe the numbers exist because they helps you rationalize the environment as you believe you see it. You believe that the words as you speak or type them will communicate the content of your thoughts to the best of their ability, don't you? If I were to ask you to test for the true meaning of a word, how would you go about doing this? And if you can't, are they no longer part of (your) reality?


  • OntologicalSpider
    OntologicalSpider avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 86
    0
    0
    4
    OntologicalSpider avatar
    OntologicalSpider
    --> @Athias @ludofl3x @Stronn


    All things that are perceived must exist (given that the nonexistent can't be perceived.)
    2. God is perceived (believed in by his adherents.)
    3. Therefore God exists.



    I got up at two in the morning and saw this, and was like, this is like the ontological argument's older sibling that got tired of the rules of modal logic and said, "I'm going all in"....

    I love it. I'm not sure that it works but  love it.






  • OntologicalSpider
    OntologicalSpider avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 86
    0
    0
    4
    OntologicalSpider avatar
    OntologicalSpider

    Let's call this the Athian Ontological super argument


    Atheist: How do you know God exists?

    Athian Ontological super argument believer:.   I believe in Him... Problem?


    Atheist: No sir...


    Boom... Checkmate atheists

  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,239
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    1. All things that are perceived must exist (given that the nonexistent can't be perceived.)


    2. God is perceived (believed in by his adherents.)


    3. Therefore God exists.


    I think this argument works better to prove that illusions exist. 

    What defines an illusion but its unreality? Yet illusions do exist as illusions.

    Why I don't think this is a good argument for God is that it obscures the identity of God while at the same time trivializing it.

  • ludofl3x
    ludofl3x avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,200
    2
    2
    2
    ludofl3x avatar
    ludofl3x
    --> @Athias
    I admit it's a sophisticated phrasing and you've clearly spent time crafting it, I applaud the effort, but it's hinged on a very broad version of the verb "to exist," one that doesn't argue for "is factual and real." It seems semantic, not the sort of thing that would make one, say, fly a plane into a building for passion of belief. At best, doesn't it argue for deism? Or does it argue that all versions of all gods ever conceived existed? Is it possible using your argument If, for the sake of discussion, anyone who believed in Thor the norse god suddenly vanished, leaving no one to conceive of him, would he then cease to exist?  

    If indeed I made the argument that my office is now called the Yankees, that sitting behind my desk is the act of "manning," and my desk is named second base, I am capable and welcome to believe that, sure. Does that, though, compel anyone else to accept my definitions?

    I still think you're arguing for the mechanics of ability or right to believe something. I think the spirit of the question is more along the lines of what causes people to have conversion experiences or go out an proselytize, which is a bit different than "has anyone ever imagined a god, if so, that god exists." 

    Numbers are just names we've given to amounts, as I see it. If all people ceased to exist, two asteroids plus two more asteroids would still equal our asteroids, even if no one could count them. They're essential to our expression of mathematical concepts, but math isn't contingent on numbers, oddly enough. As far as testing for the "true" meaning of a word, it would depend on the word, wouldn't it? 
  • Stronn
    Stronn avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 512
    2
    1
    4
    Stronn avatar
    Stronn
    --> @Athias
    Can you present the absurdity?
    Sure. All you need are people who believe self-contradictory things. One person, say, believes there is a house at a certain address. Another believes there is a factory at that address. At least one must be wrong, therefore we have a reductio ad absurdum and the argument is not sound.. Or, sticking with religion, some people believe one God exists. Some believe many Gods exist. Both cannot be right.


  • Deb-8-a-bull
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 983
    2
    2
    3
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Deb-8-a-bull
    The sun is a God.
    The sun exists. 
    Thus God exists.

     


  • Deb-8-a-bull
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 983
    2
    2
    3
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Deb-8-a-bull
    The ( God revealed himself to me. ) argument. 

    The ( God appearing on things like toast and kit kats and shlt ) ummmm, argument. 



  • Deb-8-a-bull
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 983
    2
    2
    3
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Deb-8-a-bull
    The Large number of people that belive in God. 
    The fact that more people believe in a god thing then don't.  
    ( ad popular or something ) isn't it . 
    A fallacy yes.  but it has to be a argument. Well it must be taken into consideration.    



  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 902
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @OntologicalSpider
    All things that are perceived must exist (given that the nonexistent can't be perceived.)
    2. God is perceived (believed in by his adherents.)
    3. Therefore God exists.



    I got up at two in the morning and saw this, and was like, this is like the ontological argument's older sibling that got tired of the rules of modal logic and said, "I'm going all in"....

    I love it. I'm not sure that it works but  love it.

    It works out quite well actually. But it is contingent on one's description of nonexistent. When I use nonexistent, I'm using it in the same way as I would use the term "nothing." So then, the trouble this presents many atheists in my experience is the burden to somehow explain how they're able to perceive the nonexistence of the nonexistent. The nonexistent can provide no perceivable information on itself (not only because it's "nothing" but also we use perception to process and rationalize reality.) That is, if something doesn't exist, how could one know that it doesn't exist if it in fact does not exist?

    So then, some atheists will try to conflate nonexistent with imaginary, at which point I would challenge them to rationalize reality without any use of conceptualization (another way of saying "imagination.") That means, no science, no math, no logic, no words. In order to do so, they'd have to be able to acquire information isolated from their capacity to perceive. Some will argue that these concepts themselves aren't real but that which they rationalize is. If that's in fact the case, then that would necessarily suggest that existent and nonexistent can interact or connect. And as a consequence, one would have to ask: what is the epistemological significance in creating the distinction?