Arguments to prove God's existence.?

Question

I see a lot of people labeling them as invalid arguments. (Teleological, Cosmelogical, Ontological)
Wouldn't this be seen as someones belief in God is greater and perhaps holds more weight than an a priori or an a posteriori argument proving his existence?
I guess I am asking what it would take to have an actual valid argument in the existence of God. I for one think William Paley's design theory is somewhat valid when you look at it in a simple, broad approach. By the way, aren't complex problems nothing more then numerous simple ones? Could we not apply them to proving the existence of God?
Thanks.

Answer 1

An irrational belief system is an irrational belief system, whether its based on a priori or a posteriori arguments. How can a person's "own" belief system carry more weight, especially when neuroscientists have determined the reason why people have a distorted world view. In fact they can even artificially trigger the 'religious experience' by stimulating a particular area of the limbic system.

You ask what it would take to have an acutal valid argument in the existence of god. Mystical invisible dieties are mystical invisible dieties (ie can never be found by empirical methods.

Consider the Jesus freaks, evangelicals and other deeply religious folks, all have reverted to that primitive limbic systems of our brains, the place where our deepest emotions reside. The 'born-again' Christian phenomena has a scientific basis. When people are in deep despair, near death, nearly starved, or other highly emotional states, the 'religious experience' is triggered. Hormones, dopamine receptors and other chemical reactions take place...all good for the body. They help to fight diseases, etc. It was a survival mechanism our bodies have devloped since the days of our primitive ancestors.

Those that know the truth however, ie Objective Reality, are not allowing themselves the body's defensive mechanizm that has evolved over time. The closest they (we) can come is to believe in the 'power of positive thinking' which is the closest to religion (use of the limbic system of our brains) that we atheists can get.

I've chosen Objective Reality, even knowing that a delusional worldview could be beneficial to my health and body....go figure.

Answer 2

Anything that logically proves that God exists can do nothing more than that: Logically prove that God (or some kind of Creator(s)) exist(s).

One can't logically make the following argument:

It has been proved that God exists. God is in the Bible. Therefore, all things in the Bible have been proved.

Proof of the existence of a God (or gods, or Creator) does not therefore imply the complete proof of the Bible's truth. The Bible is what shapes people's behaviors, NOT God. Most importantly, no thing can prove whether Biblical notions of Heaven, Hell, morality, perfection, God's plan, etc. are true even if he actually CAN prove that a God (or gods, or Creator) exists.

One cannot logically conclude "God's existence has been proved, therefore anything said about Him or His character in Holy Scripture must be true."

That is what should be of concern. Who cares whether God exists? Why should I behave any differently if I knew that he did exist? I'd behave the EXACT same if I knew that God existed simply because all parts of the Bible have yet to be proven, not just the part about God's existence.

I like the Cartesian argument for God's existence (Rene Descartes). It's very interesting and valid athough it proves nothing more about the Bible. There are also some arguments for the non-existence of God that are also valid.

Using faith to "prove" the existence of humanity is NOT science. I see it like this: I wouldn't want my doctor to use "faith" when he's doing surgery on me. I want him to KNOW.

We should accept the fact that we cannot know and do what's in the best interest of humanity rather than what's in the best interest of the Bible.

Answer 3

There are really two parts to this argument.

The first denies that any argument could prove or disprove the existence of a God. Here I tend to agree, though the design theory doesn't work for me. There are too many alternative explanations.

The second I don't really understand. Nothing is as simple as algebra, yet I constantly find students who have no notion of numbers. Could a billion of ignorances make a proof?

I suspect you are trying to derive an intellectual proof from a predetermined conclusion. Give me your proven premisses, and then we can deal.

Answer 4

Arguments for and against the existence of God have been proposed by philosophers, theologians, and other thinkers. In philosophical terminology, existence of God arguments concern schools of thought on the epistemology of the ontology of God. The debate concerning the existence of God raises many philosophical issues. A basic problem is that there is no universally accepted definition of God. Some definitions of God's existence are so non-specific that it is certain that something exists that meets the definition; in stark contrast, there are suggestions that other definitions are self-contradictory. Arguments for the existence of God typically include metaphysical, empirical, inductive, and subjective types. Arguments against the existence of God typically include empirical, deductive, and inductive types. Viewpoints represented include atheism, either no belief in God or the view that God does not exist; theism, the view that God exists; and agnosticism, the view that whether or not God exists is unknown or unknowable. Although once regarded as a non-issue in much of western academia, the question of the existence of God is now subject to lively debate both in philosophy[1] and in popular culture

by

http://www.dhaarvi.blogspot.com

Answer 5

Unfortunately, the greatest proof of the possibility of God isn't being looked at as that. Most probably because it would immediately disprove all of the collective religious works of the world.

NKS model shows a direct linear path from nothingness, to conciousness. A system will evolve into a more complex system. This shows that regardles of our outter form, a self aware, thinking species MUST evolve, given the laws of the physics at the time of the big bang. Strong argument can be made on the existence of God from this premise.

Answer 6

I'll leave the arguments to others, but I want to point out that the existence of "everything," or the existence of the universe, does not imply the existence of God. Anyone who thinks so is wrong.

It might be sufficient to point out that any demand for cause pertaining to the universe can be transferred to any God proposed to have been that cause. And any exception from the rule of causalty made for a deity can be made equally well for the universe itself. For that reason alone, the universe's existence does not imply the existence of God.

But there's actually a more decisive way to discredit the cosmological (First Cause) argument. Scientific experiments have actually shown that not all events have causes, and that the creation of universes may be among the events that are not caused.

Philosophically, teleology is replaced by tautology: the First Cause argument is answered by this equation:

Existence = Energy + Form

The energy here is the energy of physics. Joules, in other words. Form is the set of properties which characterize a locus of energy: shape, state of motion, entropy, etc.

Existence exists because there is no alternative. What exists exists. What does not, there is no such what. Thus energy exists, in some form.

What form is the default? Quantum physics suggests the default form of energy is random distribution in random flux, with vacuum fluctuations of EM fields, virtual particles, and gauge vector bosons to carry force.

So existence in its bare bones form requires no explanation. Special kinds of form - of which our universe is a case - do require explanation, however. And the explanation is this:

Random distributions of energy in random flux do not preclude order. The randomness of energy merely makes order less probable than disorder. Given a sufficient number of permutations, any degree of order is certain to result, including that degree of order that corresponds with a universe such as ours.

Sooner or later, vacuum fluctuations amassed enough energy in a sufficiently small space to create an enclosing event horizon, and the energy fell out of its parent region into is own black hole. The event horizon (perceived by us as "the beginning of time") isolated the energy and denied it a normal thermodynamic dispersal. Seeking to relax to a less wound-up state, the energy phase changed in some interesting ways, with part of it becoming photons and gravitons, and with another part of it becoming spacetime.

The highest energy photons decayed by pair production to generate quarks, leptons, and their antiparticles.

Quarks and antiquarks combined to form hadrons and mesons, thus bringing the nuclear particles into existence as an emergent property.

You can continue following the trail of emergent properties all the way through the formation of stars, through biogenesis, to intelligence and the invention of philosophy... plus whatever else might be coming. Simple properties have been interacting and statistical enveloping for almost 14 billion years, and the process almost certainly has not finished yet.

Intelligent life is to transforming worlds as enzymes are to protein synthesis. It's the same basic principle, carried to a higher level.

If there is a highest level, then perhaps that level is God. God is not in our past. He is not in our present. He might, however, be in our future, if we do our part correctly.

Answer 7

Since there is no god, I can't imagine a valid argument for his existence. If the world were completely different, maybe there would be some evidence, but there isn't.

I'm not following you on the belief in god being greater than an argument for the same. Maybe you had some preliminary thoughts that you left out? Or maybe, as an atheist, I just can't wrap my head around your point.

Answer 8

By asking this question, you have created God if he did not exist before.

When you start thinking about something, that comes to exist in your world!

Answer 9

There is no God then how can pple explain everything that is going on in this world? Did the human race make itself? Did we create ourselves?

Answer 10

He told me he exists - the other night when we had dinner at the Waldorf Astoria. Pax - C.