Christians: Give me your best logical argument for the existence of God?

Question

10 points for the most logical, rational, sincere argument. C'mon show those atheists that you can make a profound coherent argument for your faith

Guys and gals. I'm not asking for mathematical proof I used the word argument for a reason. Perhaps the "logical" is throwing people off. Also some seem to ffel this is a challenge from an atheist to "trap" Christians. Not at all. I just wondering who can best articulate why the believe in God and think others should too.

Answer 1

E.coli bacteria can be clustered on the surface of a pin point.
Each one of these bacteria is a single cell with capabilities which outstrip anything our technology has been able to put together. Among its many astonishing features is the ability to make a complete copy of itself in only a few minutes.
E. coli bacteria has left the silicon chip far, far behind in miniaturization. Within each of these bacterial cells is their most ‘high-tech’ feature, namely their ‘central command module’—the amazingly designed DNA molecule, with its incredible capacity to store information.
Each DNA strand is so thin that if you drew out a pinhead with a 2mm diameter till it was a wire as thin as DNA, the wire would be long enough to go around the equator 33 times!
This fantastic molecule is so far… far beyond the capacity of even our most advanced information storage systems as to almost defy our capacity to describe it. It represents the highest storage density of anything on Earth, i.e. the highest amount of information which can be packed into a given space.

The ‘general theory of evolution’ (GTE) as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.
Evolutionary propagandists are guilty of switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument -to simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the GTE is thereby proven or even essential, and creation disproved.
The main scientific objection to the GTE is not that changes occur through time, and neither is it about the size of the change The key issue is the type of change required—to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content. The three billion DNA ‘letters’ stored in each human cell nucleus convey a great deal more information (known as ‘specified complexity’) than the over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism. The DNA sequences in a ‘higher’ organism, such as a human being or a horse, for instance, code for structures and functions unknown in the sort of ‘primitive first cell’ from which all other organisms are said to have evolved.
NONE of the alleged proofs of ‘evolution in action’ provide a single example of functional new information being added to genes. Rather, they all involve sorting and loss of information.

All languages, codes, protocols and encoding / decoding mechanisms come from a mind - there are no known exceptions.
DNA is a language, a code, a protocol, and an encoding / decoding mechanism
Therefore DNA came from a mind.

We now have pretty strong evidence that the universe is not eternal in the past but had an absolute beginning about 13 billion years ago in a cataclysmic event known as the Big Bang. What makes the Big Bang so startling is that it represents the origin of the universe from literally nothing. For all matter and energy, even physical space and time themselves, came into being at the Big Bang. As the physicist P. C. W. Davies explains, "the coming into being of the universe, as discussed in modern science . . . is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization . . . upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming-into-being of all physical things from nothing."
Alternative theories have been crafted over the years to try to avoid this absolute beginning, but none of these theories has commended itself to the scientific community as more plausible than the Big Bang theory. In fact, in 2003 Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal in the past but must have an absolute beginning. Vilenkin pulls no punches:
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The odds against the universe's being life-permitting are so incomprehensibly great that they cannot be reasonably faced. Even though there will be a huge number of life-permitting universes lying within the cosmic landscape, nevertheless the number of life-permitting worlds will be unfathomably tiny compared to the entire landscape, so that the existence of a life-permitting universe is fantastically improbable. Those who blithely assert, "It could have happened by chance!" simply have no conception of the fantastic precision of the fine-tuning requisite for life. They would never embrace such a hypothesis in any other area of their lives.
Some people have tried to escape this problem by claiming that we really shouldn't be surprised at the finely-tuned conditions of the universe, for if the universe were not fine-tuned, then we wouldn't be here to be surprised about it! Given that we are here, we should expect the universe to be fine-tuned. But such reasoning is logically fallacious. We can show this by means of a parallel illustration. Imagine you're traveling abroad and are arrested on trumped-up drug charges and dragged in front of a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all with rifles aimed at your heart, to be executed. You hear the command given: "Ready! Aim! Fire!" and you hear the deafening roar of the guns. And then you observe that you are still alive, that all of the 100 trained marksmen missed! Now what would you conclude? "Well, I guess I really shouldn't be surprised that they all missed. After all, if they hadn't all missed, then I wouldn't be here to be surprised about it! Given that I am here, I should expect them all to miss."

Answer 2

First of all, according to surveys of the National Academy of Sciences less than 20% of scientists believe there is a god and fewer still believe in a personal god. That said, no logical fallacy is a good argument for anything. If believers actually had faith in what they call "God's Word" being special revelation, they'd let the stories and letters speak for themselves instead of arguing over degrees of inerrancy, historiosity, scientific reliability and infallibility, something scripture itself never does. If the Bible is a special revelation from God, then it's point is the contents, not the analysis of the contents. My advice to believers: let your stories and letters do your talking. If it really is a revelation from God it will do more than all your grade-school level apologetics and name-calling. Tell the story of David and Goliath and let it do what your God intends instead of starting fights over whether giants exist or the story is a literal history. Tell the story of the resurrection without fighting about proving people can rise from the dead after three days. Tell the Eden story without fighting about how God could make plants before sunlight. Christians in particular waste a lot of time here making arguments about such things, none of which are persuasive, but the stories of the Bible, the letters of the apostles, have persuaded millions over the years without the fabulous apologetic talents of the untrained and largely ignorant laity.

Answer 3

While I tend to be hesitant to answer questions like these, here is my best shot: There is not a "best logical argument for the existence of God". Don't get me wrong. I believe in the existence of God. However, it is a fairly useless pursuit to try and derive some logical explanation for an entity that, if indeed transcendent, would not be bound by logic.

I believe in God for a myriad of reasons having mostly to deal with personal experiences. And though I use logic and do not believe that my belief in God conflicts with that use of logic, I've read enough history to know that very intelligent people have tried to make logical arguments for and against God and no one has been successful at creating one that has convinced the world of one way or another.

Oh, and I am interested to see the various answers for this question because I have a feeling you will mostly get folks saying essentially "Just believe. God needs no proof." or "You can't make an argument since God doesn't exist." Good luck with your search for arguments.

Answer 4

Logically speaking...

1. We live in a perfectly prepared and balanced universe - a virtual impossibility of being created by something other than a creator.

2. We see the work and the results of supernatural events everyday - events that go unexplained other than to attach a supernatural entity.

3. We have a paper trail created over thousands of years, written by various people, that points to the same creator.

4. Personal - my life has been changed in many ways and I have accomplished things I never anticipated all after accepting Christ. Whether or not these events are related could be argued but statistical tools would likely show a direct correlation.

5. One could obviously not "prove" there IS a God just so much as one could not disprove the existence of God. So providing a clear, concise, factual argument in favor of the existence of God must include the irrationality of faith. Faith, in itself, is irrational. If it were based on proven fact, it would not be faith, it would be understanding. But as it is, my "faith" is based only partially on understanding and logic... but is based mostly on the irrational subconscious calling of God. And that can't be put into words (oh how I wish I could).

BTW - I'm a reformed agnostic who argued with God every step of the way as I ventured into Hid domain of faith. I was very very uncomfortable with the whole thing as I was only comfortable with what was logical and provable. But, He won...

Be blessed.

Answer 5

First off, you cannot use logic and rationale to argue, defend or discuss faith outside of the particular faith. Faith fills the very voids logic cannot. Faith cannot prove it's correct one way or the other, that's why it's called faith. Faith by it's very definition is a belief in something that cannot be supported by logic or rationale. Everyone has faith in somethings.

As far as the existence or non existence of God as argued between atheists and Christians. Both believe in an unexplainable cause of the universe. One party believes that this unexplaniable cause is an all knowing being that is relevant in our lives and is much much more than just the "unexplainable cause of the universe". By using the standard of logic as it pertains to the scientific method, this cannot be proven. However, it cannot be disproven either. Thus faith fills this void.

Suffice to say, an atheist simply chooses not to have faith that the "unexplainble cause of the universe" is anything more than that. Still, one could argue that admitting that there is an "unexplainable cause of the universe" is pretty much admitting that there is a God.

Answer 6

Order, Design, and Beauty

Order is not random. The universe is in order. Therefore the universe is not random. If the universe is not a random happening, Then someone had to create that order.

If I walk through a city and see a sky scrapper. I automatically know that it is created and is not an accident. It has
order, design, and beauty. If I see a Ferrari, I know that there was some kind of explosion in a factory that resulted in a Ferrari. No, it was created. Order, design, and beauty has never NEVER come from chaos. The human body, the eco-system, the solar system - these are not accidents. They all possess order, design, and beauty and therefore cannot be accidental. There always has to be a creator (in this case The Creator) when order, design, and beauty are present.

Answer 7

You cant because belief in God isnt based on logic but on personal revelation of his existance. You cant prove personal revelation therefor noone can prove God to anyone. God must prove himself to the individual.

You can, however, make logical arguments about which sect or religion is the most correct or makes the most sense based on sound logic. But that is a much more in depth question and answer.

Answer 8

Scientifically, it all points to there being a Creator.

Example: The Ozone layer in the outer layer is there to protect humans & all other living creators from the cancer-causing rays of the sun.

Another example: Animals & plants survive by living off each others'breathing. Humans & animals breath in oxygen & breath out carbondioxide. Plants breath in carbondioxide & breath out oxygen.

Answer 9

God is the only being in existance who's reason for existance is in himself. I believe that if if you take the simplest form of matter, and reduce it to its simplest form its reason for existance makes no sence, its reason for existance can't be in itself, there has to be an outside power, a power of intellegence, a power thats outside of the realm of space, time and matter..... its seems to be the only logical answer...

Answer 10

Stop saying the mathematical probabibility as a proof.

You obviously know nothing about math. If you knew something about statistics youd know that the variants used in such an equation are purely subjective.

In any case the statistical probability of life existing on any given planet is probably 1 in a few billion. But since the universe is so big these are very good odds.