Is there any sound argument for God's existence?

[MaryL]

What kind of proof do ya need? An embroidered hankie? We are here, maybe that doesn’t mean anything. But there it is….

 

[MaryL]

Is there any sound proof of existence, at all ? Maybe this is all just a dream and we are figments of god’s imagination? Disprove it. So you can’t, is that proof? What is reality, anyway?

 

[MaryL]

Perhaps GOD would condescend and actually answer a simple question. Are you there? No fair with the metaphors and ambiguities. A simple YES would do. Ever say something like that and…actually expect an honest reply from God? Without being jerked around by religion X Y Z? With NO response ? Why , oh why, do people believe for over 1000 years in something they can’t prove? That is more to the question.

 

[HenryBHough]

It was all pre-conditioning so people would believe they'd be able to keep their plan; keep their doctor.

 

[Boss]

one too many Starbucks mocha latte grande double shots and 10 sugars?

No, just answering the challenge. Sorry if it seemed a bit long but considering the topic, I thought it was quite concise. Did you have anything productive to offer or just your typical snarky retort?

yes, an argument for the IDEA OF GOD is sound but there is no quantifiable evidence to verify it...to say no hard evidence is needed is erroneou...

Well I addressed "evidence" in the first paragraph of my post, didn't I?

Having what you call "no quantifiable evidence" doesn't really mean anything in terms of what does or does not actually exist. Did black holes exist before we had observed them? If we were still unable to observe them, would they actually exist? I surmise they would indeed still exist, in spite of our ability to quantifiably confirm them.

Now as for "quantifiable evidence" I think nature, science and life are quantifiable evidence of God. You may disagree, but that brings us back to my original point about what is "evidence?" Indeed it is clear, if there were some indisputable factor which proved God beyond any rational doubt to everyone who isn't insane, then we wouldn't likely continue having this debate, would we? But then again, that is what Einstein faced with Newton's Law of Motion, and he still challenged what we thought we already knew.

 

[Gracie]

Is there any sound argument for God's existence? Things like the cosmological argument, the design argument, the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience, the moral argument, the "five ways", and so on?

In continental philosophy, it is widely assumed that the attempt to argue for God's existence is pointless and has been ruled out since Kant. But in analytic philosophy, the debate goes on with increasingly technical arguments...

Your thoughts, please.

Faith. That's it. Just faith. Either ya have it...or ya don't.

 

[Unkotare]

Perhaps GOD would condescend and actually answer a simple question. Are you there? No fair with the metaphors and ambiguities. A simple YES would do.

Wow, I didn't think you were this much of a simpleton.

 

[hobelim]

Perhaps GOD would condescend and actually answer a simple question. Are you there? No fair with the metaphors and ambiguities. A simple YES would do. Ever say something like that and…actually expect an honest reply from God? Without being jerked around by religion X Y Z? With NO response ? Why , oh why, do people believe for over 1000 years in something they can’t prove? That is more to the question.

"I will begin the subject of this chapter with a simile. A king is in his palace, and all his subjects are partly in the country, and partly abroad. Of the former, some have their backs turned towards the king's palace, and their faces in another direction; and some are desirous and zealous to go to the palace, seeking "to inquire in his temple," and to minister before him, but have not yet seen even the face of the wall of the house. Of those that desire to go to the palace, some reach it, and go round about in search of the entrance gate; others have passed through the gate, and walk about in the ante-chamber; and others have succeeded in entering into the inner part of the palace, and being in the same room with the king in the royal palace. But even the latter do not immediately on entering the palace see the king, or speak to him; for, after having entered the inner part of the palace, another effort is required before they can stand before the king--at a distance, or close by--hear his words, or speak to him......."

Guide for the Perplexed, by Moses Maimonides, chapter 51,pg. 384

 

[TheShinyOne]

who?

...said the owl. Just smile and count to ten.

 

[PainefulTruth]

Is there any sound argument for God's existence? Things like the cosmological argument, the design argument, the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience, the moral argument, the "five ways", and so on?

In continental philosophy, it is widely assumed that the attempt to argue for God's existence is pointless and has been ruled out since Kant. But in analytic philosophy, the debate goes on with increasingly technical arguments...

Your thoughts, please.

No, there's no argument/evidence for or against God's existence either way. The universe, and our existence, demand and explanation, but there is none. The Big Bang is a firewall, blocking any information from "before". For us, the only difference between atheism and deism (the only reasonable position for God), is hope. Either way, we must live our lives in this world with reason in a rational universe as our only guidance.

 

[hobelim]

Is there any sound argument for God's existence? Things like the cosmological argument, the design argument, the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience, the moral argument, the "five ways", and so on?

In continental philosophy, it is widely assumed that the attempt to argue for God's existence is pointless and has been ruled out since Kant. But in analytic philosophy, the debate goes on with increasingly technical arguments...

Your thoughts, please.

No, there's no argument/evidence for or against God's existence either way. The universe, and our existence, demand and explanation, but there is none. The Big Bang is a firewall, blocking any information from "before". For us, the only difference between atheism and deism (the only reasonable position for God), is hope. Either way, we must live our lives in this world with reason in a rational universe as our only guidance.

I don't think the universe can be considered rational. Even so, in the universe, specifically here on earth, there is ample evidence of the ascendant nature of life and that all life forms evolve and adapt to changing circumstances or go extinct.

That may not be evidence of God but it does suggest that if a deity does exist a reasonable and rational assumption would be that he could only be perceived by the more highly evolved and adaptable intelligences.

However vast the universe might be it is made infinitely smaller if one thinks that nothing exists beyond what can currently be perceived by the human mind.

Obviously, given the things that come out of some peoples minds, there is much room for improvement.

Thousands of years have passed since the story of adam and eve was first put in writing and some people still haven't figured out that a talking snake indicates a fairy tale. Some people still don't realize that a fairy tale can convey truth even if it is impossible to be literally true. The teaching of the story written by men still remains above the grasp of most believers and unbelievers alike.

Is it any wonder that God remains unseen?

 

[editec]

Question:

When is a wave not a wave?

Answer

When it's a particle.​

Now that we know Newtonian Physics is more a set of suggestions than a set of laws?

Well shoot folks, we know even believing in SCIENCE is becoming a matter of faith.

Its getting really hard to be a committed atheist in light of the fact that we now THINK we know that the law of CAUSE AND EFFECT may not actually work in only one direction, too.

Everything most of us think we know is basically ...well not exactly wrong, just not right ALL THE TIME.

 

[Boss]

all know evidence of god is anecdotal and subjective and not quantifiable.
The definition of quantifiable is something that is capable of being measured or counted.

So what if mankind suddenly lost all ability to measure or count? Would things stop existing?

What you and many non-believers do is demand something "quantifiable" to prove God. But all things quantifiable rely on your five limited senses. A spiritual force, which is what God is, doesn't necessarily provide something your five limited senses can quantify. This only confirms that a spiritual entity is not a physical entity. It doesn't confirm there is no spiritual existence.

Let's look at something that we both know has a physical existence-- Jupiter. Now we know that Jupiter exists because we can see it in a telescope but if we travel back in time to the Stone Age, before man had the ability to 'see' into space-- Did Jupiter exist? Of course it did, we just didn't have the physical capability of confirming it. I've never been to Jupiter, and neither have you, but we know it is there because we can verify this with one of our five senses. Having never been there, we rely on our faith in our sense of sight to confirm this information and we can rationalize we haven't simply 'imagined' Jupiter into existence. But what if we suddenly lost our ability to see? Would Jupiter cease to exist? Could we still rationalize that Jupiter is probably still there?

 

[daws101]

No, just answering the challenge. Sorry if it seemed a bit long but considering the topic, I thought it was quite concise. Did you have anything productive to offer or just your typical snarky retort?

yes, an argument for the IDEA OF GOD is sound but there is no quantifiable evidence to verify it...to say no hard evidence is needed is erroneou...

Well I addressed "evidence" in the first paragraph of my post, didn't I?

Having what you call "no quantifiable evidence" doesn't really mean anything in terms of what does or does not actually exist. Did black holes exist before we had observed them? If we were still unable to observe them, would they actually exist? I surmise they would indeed still exist, in spite of our ability to quantifiably confirm them.

Now as for "quantifiable evidence" I think nature, science and life are quantifiable evidence of God. You may disagree, but that brings us back to my original point about what is "evidence?" Indeed it is clear, if there were some indisputable factor which proved God beyond any rational doubt to everyone who isn't insane, then we wouldn't likely continue having this debate, would we? But then again, that is what Einstein faced with Newton's Law of Motion, and he still challenged what we thought we already knew.

brevity is not one of your strengths.

 

[daws101]

all know evidence of god is anecdotal and subjective and not quantifiable.
The definition of quantifiable is something that is capable of being measured or counted.

So what if mankind suddenly lost all ability to measure or count? Would things stop existing?

What you and many non-believers do is demand something "quantifiable" to prove God. But all things quantifiable rely on your five limited senses. A spiritual force, which is what God is, doesn't necessarily provide something your five limited senses can quantify. This only confirms that a spiritual entity is not a physical entity. It doesn't confirm there is no spiritual existence.

Let's look at something that we both know has a physical existence-- Jupiter. Now we know that Jupiter exists because we can see it in a telescope but if we travel back in time to the Stone Age, before man had the ability to 'see' into space-- Did Jupiter exist? Of course it did, we just didn't have the physical capability of confirming it. I've never been to Jupiter, and neither have you, but we know it is there because we can verify this with one of our five senses. Having never been there, we rely on our faith in our sense of sight to confirm this information and we can rationalize we haven't simply 'imagined' Jupiter into existence. But what if we suddenly lost our ability to see? Would Jupiter cease to exist? Could we still rationalize that Jupiter is probably still there?

brevity is not one of your strengths.

 

[Dante]

Is there any sound argument for God's existence? Things like the cosmological argument, the design argument, the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience, the moral argument, the "five ways", and so on?

In continental philosophy, it is widely assumed that the attempt to argue for God's existence is pointless and has been ruled out since Kant. But in analytic philosophy, the debate goes on with increasingly technical arguments...

Your thoughts, please.

Sound argument(s)? Sure. But...an argument is not proof of anything

 

[PainefulTruth]

I don't think the universe can be considered rational. Even so, in the universe, specifically here on earth, there is ample evidence of the ascendant nature of life and that all life forms evolve and adapt to changing circumstances or go extinct.

The universe is the ultimate example of rationality. It's governed by rational, natural law. As we acquire knowledge, it fits into the puzzle and validates what was already there, or we chuck it.

That may not be evidence of God but it does suggest that if a deity does exist a reasonable and rational assumption would be that he could only be perceived by the more highly evolved and adaptable intelligences.

I think, if God exists, It crated the universe as a rational stage for us to exercise our free will without It's influence. To do so, God needed to create the universe so that there would be NO evidence for or at against It's existence.

However vast the universe might be it is made infinitely smaller if one thinks that nothing exists beyond what can currently be perceived by the human mind.

True. I doubt we'll ever have perfect knowledge--that is knowledge of everything. That doesn't mean that the knowledge we do possess isn't true.

Obviously, given the things that come out of some peoples minds, there is much room for improvement.

True again. Claiming to possess knowledge does not make that possession a fact. The biggest obstacle to Truth is the lies we tell ourselves.

Thousands of years have passed since the story of adam and eve was first put in writing and some people still haven't figured out that a talking snake indicates a fairy tale. Some people still don't realize that a fairy tale can convey truth even if it is impossible to be literally true. The teaching of the story written by men still remains above the grasp of most believers and unbelievers alike.

True once again. Adam an Eve (like Job) is an excellent allegory, and amazingly ahead of its time. The knowledge of good and evil is born of our acquisition of self-awareness; and our full self-awareness is born of the knowledge of our ultimate mortality. It forces us to realize the consequences our actions have on others because of our ability to put ourselves in other's shoes. All immorality is derived from convincing ourselves that our vanity is justified in spite of how we violate the equal rights of others.

Is it any wonder that God remains unseen?

God, if It exists, certainly designed it that way.

Now that we know Newtonian Physics is more a set of suggestions than a set of laws?

Well shoot folks, we know even believing in SCIENCE is becoming a matter of faith.

Faith that is validated by massive amounts of facts and experience that always adheres to those facts every day. Blind faith is the belief in the violation of natural law without any facts or evidence (other than hearsay) to back it up.

Its getting really hard to be a committed atheist in light of the fact that we now THINK we know that the law of CAUSE AND EFFECT may not actually work in only one direction, too.

Everything most of us think we know is basically ...well not exactly wrong, just not right ALL THE TIME.

We have facts and evidence, and we have theories which must adhere to them. Disproving a tentative theory doesn't disprove the facts and evidence it was established to attempt to explain. Declaring that you believe God parted the Red Sea is based on nothing but 3000+ year old hearsay, and absolutely nothing more--regardless of the historical likelihood that the Israelites migrated from Egypt to Canaan at one point.

all know evidence of god is anecdotal and subjective and not quantifiable.
The definition of quantifiable is something that is capable of being measured or counted.

The Big Bang and birth of the universe isn't anecdotal. It's just that we have no evidence whatsoever as to whether its creation was willful or not. Both are equally likely/unlikely.

So what if mankind suddenly lost all ability to measure or count? Would things stop existing?

The universe existed long before we came on the scene.

What you and many non-believers do is demand something "quantifiable" to prove God. But all things quantifiable rely on your five limited senses. A spiritual force, which is what God is, doesn't necessarily provide something your five limited senses can quantify. This only confirms that a spiritual entity is not a physical entity. It doesn't confirm there is no spiritual existence.

It doesn't confirm that there is a spiritual existence either--again, by design, if It exists.

Let's look at something that we both know has a physical existence-- Jupiter. Now we know that Jupiter exists because we can see it in a telescope but if we travel back in time to the Stone Age, before man had the ability to 'see' into space-- Did Jupiter exist? Of course it did, we just didn't have the physical capability of confirming it. I've never been to Jupiter, and neither have you, but we know it is there because we can verify this with one of our five senses. Having never been there, we rely on our faith in our sense of sight to confirm this information and we can rationalize we haven't simply 'imagined' Jupiter into existence. But what if we suddenly lost our ability to see? Would Jupiter cease to exist? Could we still rationalize that Jupiter is probably still there?

We rely on more than our sense of sight to verify its existence. It's gravitational field affects all other bodies in the solar system (and technically, in the universe), which we deduce by math, not faith.

If we die, does the universe cease to exist? Judging by all those who've died before us, no. And science tells us it was here long before we were. Where do we choose to put our faith: science with all the facts and evidence building up in its support, or revelation, with nothing but ancient hearsay, which becomes harder and harder to believe with every passing day.

 

[Moonglow]

Is there any sound argument for God's existence? Things like the cosmological argument, the design argument, the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience, the moral argument, the "five ways", and so on?

In continental philosophy, it is widely assumed that the attempt to argue for God's existence is pointless and has been ruled out since Kant. But in analytic philosophy, the debate goes on with increasingly technical arguments...

Your thoughts, please.

Is there any sound argument for God's existence?

God told me to ask you the same.

 

[Boss]

We rely on more than our sense of sight to verify its existence. It's gravitational field affects all other bodies in the solar system (and technically, in the universe), which we deduce by math, not faith.

Yeah, I figured some smarty pants would come along and argue that we could still verify Jupiter through one of our other five limited senses. I guess the point skipped comfortably over your head? Relying on math requires faith, I hate to tell you that. You have faith that math will work predictably as it alway has. With gravity, what we have discovered is perplexing, it doesn't always work as math says it should. Can you explain why gravity exists in the universe? Simple question.

If we die, does the universe cease to exist? Judging by all those who've died before us, no. And science tells us it was here long before we were. Where do we choose to put our faith: science with all the facts and evidence building up in its support, or revelation, with nothing but ancient hearsay, which becomes harder and harder to believe with every passing day.

I didn't say "if we die" in my argument. I asked if we lost our sense of sight, would Jupiter still exist? Science tells us all kinds of things, WE make a determination when to have faith in science. We're not always correct to put our faith in science, it has been wrong many times. The "facts and evidence" you speak of are physical attributes we can confirm with our five limited senses. We rely on faith that our senses aren't lying and we can depend on them to be accurate.

As for human spirituality, it is hardly just "ancient hearsay" as you put it. This is the most defining attribute of the human species and has been present in mankind since the beginning. Ever since there has been human civilization, there has been human spirituality. Ancient, modern, post-modern, current. From then until now, man has believed in something greater than self. To dismiss this as "ancient hearsay" is pure ignorance. Now maybe your argument works to contradict certain religious teachings, but religion is simply a manifestation of our human spirituality. It is the proof that humans are spiritually connected.

Now the really curious thing is the 'sense of spirituality' that most humans have. Billions of testimonials spanning all of humanity through the ages, attesting to the power of spiritual belief. If humans gained nothing from this and it served no valid purpose, it would have been a discarded attribute along the way. Yet what our history shows is thousands of years of people being persecuted, murdered, razed and pilaged, locked away, tortured and abused... all the while, refusing to depart with their connection to something spiritual. It can't be stomped out of the hearts of man. It still persists as strongly today as ever.

If you were a scientist studying any other creature on the planet, and it exhibited a certain behavioral attribute consistently through time, regardless of conditions or circumstances, you'd have to conclude the attribute was beneficial and important to the survival of the species. This is from Darwin himself, by the way. So the real "evidence" shows that something spiritual probably does exist, else humans would have given up on the concept long ago.

 

[PainefulTruth]

We rely on more than our sense of sight to verify its existence. It's gravitational field affects all other bodies in the solar system (and technically, in the universe), which we deduce by math, not faith.

Yeah, I figured some smarty pants would come along and argue that we could still verify Jupiter through one of our other five limited senses.

Math/reason/science isn't a sense.

I guess the point skipped comfortably over your head? Relying on math requires faith, I hate to tell you that.

Faith that the universe is rational, is an assumption that is validated every second of our existence both by what we know, and what we are accumulating at an ever accelerating pace to our knowledge.

You have faith that math will work predictably as it alway has.

...because the universe always has. How do we know that, because the further away we look, the further back in history we can see.

With gravity, what we have discovered is perplexing, it doesn't always work as math says it should. Can you explain why gravity exists in the universe? Simple question.

No, but it is and has been rationally consistent, immutable and universal. Just because we don't know everything, that doesn't mean we can't know anything.

I didn't say "if we die" in my argument. I asked if we lost our sense of sight, would Jupiter still exist?

Either way, if we die or go blind, others still live and see. And anyway, as I said, the universe preceded us by billions of years.

Science tells us all kinds of things, WE make a determination when to have faith in science. We're not always correct to put our faith in science, it has been wrong many times. The "facts and evidence" you speak of are physical attributes we can confirm with our five limited senses. We rely on faith that our senses aren't lying and we can depend on them to be accurate.

As I said, science is more than our five senses; the universe exists beyond our senses. And faith in science is merely accepting that the universe is and has been a rational entity, a rationality that is displayed in every direction as we look back into time.

As for human spirituality, it is hardly just "ancient hearsay" as you put it. This is the most defining attribute of the human species and has been present in mankind since the beginning. Ever since there has been human civilization, there has been human spirituality. Ancient, modern, post-modern, current. From then until now, man has believed in something greater than self. To dismiss this as "ancient hearsay" is pure ignorance. Now maybe your argument works to contradict certain religious teachings, but religion is simply a manifestation of our human spirituality. It is the proof that humans are spiritually connected.

What does "spiritually connected" mean? Nothing more than having that big unanswered question, "Why?" I don't deny the question, only that there has ever been an answer, divine or otherwise. What answer is anything other than ancient hearsay? Can you give one example that isn't self-justifying.

Now the really curious thing is the 'sense of spirituality' that most humans have. Billions of testimonials spanning all of humanity through the ages, attesting to the power of spiritual belief. If humans gained nothing from this and it served no valid purpose, it would have been a discarded attribute along the way.

Why? It's nothing more than wondering if our spirit survives, and why good things happen to bad people and vice versa.

Yet what our history shows is thousands of years of people being persecuted, murdered, razed and pilaged, locked away, tortured and abused... all the while, refusing to depart with their connection to something spiritual. It can't be stomped out of the hearts of man. It still persists as strongly today as ever.

What you're describing is either the power of superstition, or hope.

If you were a scientist studying any other creature on the planet, and it exhibited a certain behavioral attribute consistently through time, regardless of conditions or circumstances, you'd have to conclude the attribute was beneficial and important to the survival of the species. This is from Darwin himself, by the way. So the real "evidence" shows that something spiritual probably does exist, else humans would have given up on the concept long ago.

To give up would be to admit the mortality of our soul, nothing more. Beyond that, far too many people subsist on emotion (blind faith) without recourse to reason. There is no rationality behind any of the revealed religions, but people adhere to them blindly by the billions because it makes them feel good to do so.

And note that I say "blind" faith. The motivation of faith (e.g. courage, integrity, loyalty, honor) is a necessary partner to reason. To paraphrase Einstein, a ship without reason at the controls runs aground, and without the engine of faith, it's dead in the water.