Does God exist? I've listed 4 logical arguments for yes. Are there more for/against?

Question

Creation argument:
The universe had a beginning.
Anything that had a beginning must have been caused by something else.
Therefore, the universe was caused by something else, and this cause was God.
Design argument:
All designs imply a designer.
There is a great design in the universe.
Therefore, there must be a Great Designer of the universe.
Moral law argument:
All men are conscious of an objective moral law.
Moral laws imply a moral Lawgiver.
Therefore, there must be a supreme moral Lawgiver.
Being argument:
Whatever perfection can be attributed to the most perfect Being possible (conceivable) must be attributed to it (otherwise it would not be the most perfect being possible).
Necessary existence is a perfection which can be attributed to the most perfect Being.
Therefore, necessary existence must be attributed to the most perfect Being. Are there more 'debatable' arguments? I'm seeking genuine answers from those of all religious faiths and spiritual backgrounds.

I believe God exists because of my faith alone. I am a Christian. I am simply seeking debatable, logical arguments as I clearly asked in my question.

I've researched since posting. Some say that the universe is eternal, that it's always existed - the Steady State Theory. It has supposedly constantly been producing hydrogen atoms from nothing and it suddenly came into being cataclysmically - the Big Bang Theory. A sound explanation may exist for this, but, science, from what I've read, can't find out what it is. Scientifically, the main evidence points to the second law of thermodynamics, which says the univers is running out of usable energy. The amount of usable energy in any closed system (the whole universe) is decreasing. The universe is running down. If our overall amount of energy stays the same, but we're running out of usable energy then what we started with was not an infinite amount. Therefore, the universe is & always has been finite. It couldn't have existed forever & won't exist forever. It must have had a beginning.

As far as design is concerned, we know that science is based on repeated observation - not chance. Even if you want to consider the possibility that life occured randomly or by chance, the odds are too high to calculate. The design in the universe is complex, not simple patterns that are repeated over and over again. A DNA molecule carries the same amount of information contained in an entire volume of an encyclopedia - chance? I think not.

Moral laws. They don't tells us what is. They tell us what ought to be. Are they objective or subjective? It's hard to argue this one, because if you do and you say there can be no right or wrong value judgments and views of morality are subjective, then so are yours. But if you claim to make an objective statement, and imply there is a moral law. Your caught both ways.

Answer 1

Your arguments are logical. Only problem is, you're not speaking their language. Go to this question, and read lordaviii's answer.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkcJPVr0lEAARn6fjWcvGwHsy6IX?qid=1006050804312
I verified that he was correct by researching his answer.
Also, try reading some apologetics' books (Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, Ralph O. Muncaster, John F. Ashton, Ph.D...). In order to argue with those who base their entire argument on science, you have to be able to hold your own in science.
One more thing:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Summary.htm
Can you debunk these? I'm working on this right now. I'm almost done, I think. If you can, then you can debate just about any atheist.

Answer 2

Some interesting points though the first one is the only one with any strength. Design argument, read "The Blind Watchmaker", even if you hate Richard Dawkins there is no denying that this is one of the great popular biology books and one of his most famous works.

Moral Law argument, actually, I think that moral law is subjective (its heavily dependent on culture, character, situation etc), this doesn't necessarily imply a lawgiver.

Being argument: Very difficult to follow the logic, but I'm sure there must be a whole in there somewhere else everyone would believe in god. At a first glance, why is necessary existance a perfection? This statement needs justification, as I see our existance as very imperfect, if nothing existed then there could be no imperfection.

Going back to the creation argument, this is infallible, however you end up with the god of the gaps theories. What if eventually we find a cause for the universe outside our own (e.g in a multiverse or on a higher dimensional p-brane etc.) You further relegate the god further back to the cause of this. Also, quantum theory shows that not everything is caused, and the universe could be just a result of spontaneous fluctuations in higher spacetime (look up hawking radiation for an example of how particles can just pop into being on the edge of black holes to counter information loss, this is uncaused but a result of quantum mechanics).

Answer 3

This is an excellent argument. Of course, there are counter arguments....
"The universe had a beginning." This is faulty logic (the Begging the Question fallacy). No human has ever seen anything be created. Everything (matter and energy) as far as we know, does not begin or end. Everything always was, there is no need to believe it was created.
The design of the universe very well could be random. The universe had trillions upon trillions upon trillions of years to happen upon a design that worked. As amazing as life is, if it was unbalanced we would not be around to ask these questions.
Moral laws could definitely be self-imposed, very well as a result of evolution. Creatures without a moral center perhaps died off due to their disharmony. In addition, humans break the "law" all the time with no apparent consequences, in fact, many seem to be rewarded.
I don't really understand your "Being argument" so I'll leave that alone. But thanks for posting this, it seems really well thought out. Hope it opens up a discussion.

Answer 4

Creation arguement: Science is currently looking at the universe as it is today, being part of a huge cyclical event. This means that after eons of expansion, there is an equal amount of contraction, eventually repeating the Big Bang. (string theory and superstring theory.) The Big Bang has been proven scientifically, god(s) have not.

Design argument: The universe has no design, rather it is a random event, on a cosmic scale, bound by certain laws (gravity and physics).

Moral argument: Morals are an abstract concept, defined and accepted by men. What is "right" or "moral" in one culture, may or may not be in another. There are cultures on this planet that ate the brains (and other body parts) of the dead. This was not only "moral" to those cultures, but a reason for celebration.

Being argument: The argument you pose is attempting to give definition to another abstract, human concept (the perfect being or god). A perfect being, as described, would make all of its creations perfect as well. We see disease, suffering, hunger, etc. Birth defects that cannot be "cured" only corrected exist. There are obvious weaknesses to the human form (an eye that can only see a limited degree of the spectrum, vulnerable reproductive organs, etc.) We witness massive inconsistencies on a cosmic scale, where as only one planet (that we know of) is capable of supporting life.

Answer 5

Matter only changes form when force/energy is exerted over it.

Go back to the beginning and something had to exert force over matter. That, in itself implies consciousness as something had the will to change matter.

Personally, I'd go back further and say that if matter exists at all, it had to be created or come in to existence by the exertion of force.

And if we consider the possibility that the material Cosmos is totally paradoxical to the point where we could argue that it's just an illusion - ie. infinity disables us from defining our Universe in it's totality.

The next step beyond the paradoxical universe is the spirit world.
It's the only logical possibility.
It's a relatively new idea - about 10,000+ years old.

farkas419, it's eay to debunk the stuff on the colorado.edu site:
The author has taken the cowards way out and reflected the most shallow, dogmatic traits of "God". He defines inconsistency as proof but his evidence/ identification of God is drawn from the writings/ dogma of man. As our perceptons are flawed, we can't possibly attempt to define the Supreme Being. And if we did, we'd be wrong.

He's a poor scientist as he's drawn from untested evidence and sought to establish a theory around it.

As the question of the existence of God is a metaphysical one, it goes beyond the physical world. It can't be proved or disproved and never will be.

Some things are meant to be a thing of faith.

God obviously wants it this way.

Answer 6

Oh boy.

Those aren't very good arguments.

"The universe had a beginning." Oh? How do you know? And even if it did, what makes you think the "cause" has the characteristics you associate with "God"?

Universal design? Chaos theory does quite fine without postulating a "designer." And again, even if there is a designer, what makes you think he's the same as the "God" of traditional religion?

And Anselm... I'll give the classic response: I can conceive of a perfect island. Does it therefore exist?

Here's the knockdown argument AGAINST the existence of the God conceived of by traditional theism:

(1) If God were all-good, he would wish to prevent all senseless evil.

(2) If God were all-powerful, he could prevent all senseless evil.

(3) But senseless evil exists.

(4) Therefore: either God is not all-good, or God is not all-powerful, or God does not exist.

Human freedom is no answer to this problem (does human freedom cause earthquakes?). Supposing that all evils contribute to a greater good is no answer to this problem (will you really tell me that the atrocities of the Holocaust are redeemed by their contribution to some "greater good"?). There is no answer to this problem... take your pick from (4).

Answer 7

exciting question. Websters dictionary defines the word faith as follows; a million.- a.) allegiance to accountability or a individual. b.) constancy to a minimum of one's grants. c.) sincerity of intentions. 2.- a.) theory and have confidence in and loyalty to God b.) theory in the classic doctrines of a faith. c.)enterprise theory in something for which there is not any info, d.) finished have confidence. 3.- something this is assumed particularly with stable conviction. Synonyms = On faith: without question. i.e. -took each and every thing he suggested on faith. you're maximum appropriate to declare that faith isn't mandatory if somebody pronounces something to be actual a hundred%. human beings would desire to declare "I even have self belief that God exists" extremely then asserting "i'm a hundred% beneficial that God exists." Your inquisition does make experience by utilising definition. yet faith additionally ability have confidence by utilising definition. i think of that's why human beings say, "i comprehend a hundred% that God exists." that's how they demonstrate their have confidence (or faith) with words.

Answer 8

Please read my words carefully:
If you see footmark in the sand, you'll say that someone passed from here...
If you see a piece of dog sh*t on the ground, you'll say that a dog passed from here...
So what about the enormous universe, the sky, stars, planets, earth and all the beauty in it, doesn't it lead to that someone made it?!!!

Some people say that everything is created by itself after the big-bang... I won't ask you about what caused the big-bang, but I'll ask you a simple question:
If you take all the letters of the alphabet, multiples of them, and you threw them randomly on the floor. Do you expect (by a chance of one in infinity) to get a poem like shakespear's??!!

Can't you see how organized our universe is, the planets, the eco-system on earth, look even in your own body... Can you control your heart-beat? Can you control your breath while you're sleeping? Who stopped your eye-lashes from growing after reaching a certain length? Who told the baby turtles to move towards the sea and not to the earth after they come out of their eggs? Who taught the bird how to make nests?

My friend, think with your heart and brain. If you're still lost, think about the following:

Do you know how to play safe?
Your point:
If there's no God and you do all what you want in life, then nothing will happen to you after life. But if there was God and you were mistaken, then you'll blame yourself FOREVER...

Believer's point:
If there's God and I followed His commands in life, then I'll be in Heaven after life FOREVER. But if there was no God and we're mistaken, then nothing bad will happen to us after life...

Now you know how to play-safe, in case you're not convinced?

Answer 9

Proof That God Doesn't Exist,
Prayer Doesn't Work
And Religion Creates Psychosis

Answer 10

You didn't list any logical arguments. You listed ignorant assertions There is no evidence for anything you listed, only attributions by humans.

I don't know what creationist website you copied this tripe from, but it's entirely unimpressive.