What is the Best Argument in Favour of God's Existence?

[Smidgey]

I am an Atheist myself, but I thought it would be interesting to see what people thought was the best argument in favour of the existence of God. It doesn't mean you have to accept it, but which one did you have the hardest time refuting or which one rattled your brain the most?

For me I think it has to be the ontological argument. It had me going around my head in circles for a while, although I never accepted it as true, it does make you think. The argument is pretty simple:

God is perfection
Existence if perfection
God, therefore, must exist

Allthough it was an a priori proof of God, it can still be empirically tested. For someone who wanted to refute that argument the problem of evil could be used; why would a perfect being allow evil? Anyway, this was the one I found most interesting.

The Argument from Design

Pretty straight forward, basically your modern Intelligent Design:

1)The universe is so complex.
2)Complex things require a designer
3)The universe has a designer
C)The Designer is God.

The Cosmological Argument

There are many different types of this,some more difficult to refute than others, but the most simple kind is:

1)Nothing comes into existence without a cause
2)There must be a first cause - An uncaused cause
3)The first cause is God
C)Therefore God exists

The Ontological Argument

Again, there have been many different types, the one I gave at the top is the Descartes one, which (although I don't accept it) I find most compelling.

1)God is the greatest being that con be concieved
2)It is greater to exist in reality than in conception
C)Therefore God exists

Argument from Personal Experience

This one says it all in the title, but that doesn't mean there are not problems with it (you should look up David Hume's essay 'On Miracles' if you want to read a good argument against Personal experience. You can read it here, since its about 250 years old and isn't copyright anymore .

http://www.soci.niu.edu/~phildept/Dye/HumeOfMiracles.html

It's pretty short, but I'm sure you could find a commentary on it if you can't be bothered .

The Moral Argument

This argument comes from Immanuel Kant and, like Hume, you can probably find this on the net, because it is old. Kant argues that morality, in order for anyone to make an absolute statement like "Murder is wrong", has to come from a source that is itself absolute. The source is God, and morality comes from God. Without God, there is no morality. I'm sure many atheists have heard this in a more modern form of "How can you be moral without God?"

Pascal's Wager

Although this isn't a proof of God's existence, it is still interesting. Basically Pascal says that we have two choices. Believe in God, or don't. If we choose not to believe then two things will happen to us:

1)We will die with no loss if we are right
2)We will end up in hell if we are wrong

Or if we choose to believe in God, two things will happen:

1)We will die with no loss if we are wrong
2)We will live in heaven if we are right

Basically Pascal argues that we should all believe in God because even if we are wrong, it doesn't matter, but the reward of being right is very good for the believer, but being wrong as an atheist is very bad.

 

[Sidhe]

None of them, it's impossible to prove or disprove God's existence for that matter based on a lack of evidence, so however you want to philosophise you'll get nothing concrete. Any argument of religious belief is strictly personal and strictly a matter of faith, and nothing you can say will make their belief more likely or less. But then faith isn't about reason, if we had logical proofs where would faith be and thus belief?

 

[rysingsun]

design:

i just cannot see myself or the universe poofing into existence without cause.

smidge ... it would help if you would edit your OP to explain what some of these term mean that you use in the poll.

 

[Sims2789]

God is both unfalsifiable and unverifiable. As a result, one cannot try to prove or disprove God using standard logical arguments. The best justification (not to imply that justification is needed) is that deep down inside one just knows that God exists. If God's existence had to be proven it wouldn't be faith.

Of course, deep down I don't know that God exists, hence me being an atheist.

 

[Riffraff]

Think the argument of design is the strongest also - particularly with the universe collapsing if natural constants were just slightly different.

For me I think it has to be the ontological argument. It had me going around my head in circles for a while, although I never accepted it as true, it does make you think. The argument is pretty simple:

God is perfection
Existence if perfection
God, therefore, must exist

Hmm in philosophy class in school, the argument went something like this.

God is the greatest being possible
A existing God is greater than a non-existing God
God exists

 

[Perfection]

"If you don't believe I'll ostracize you from society and possibly burn you at the stake" seems to be the most effective.

 

[Red Door]

As Sidhe said, you can't prove God existed. You just have to have faith that he existed and has created the World, Evolution, his son, Jesus Christ, etc.

 

[Marla_Singer]

It's a matter of emotion, of a feeling of belonging to something. In families were children have been educated with God, renouncing to believe in Him is about renouncing in the way we've grown up and evolved, in the way we see the world, in our very identity... somewhere, it's about renouncing to ourself.

One is attached to God as he's attached to his best remembrances of childhood. Saying that all this was just crap is just too much emotionally. Believing makes people more confident, and more happy. His presence reassures the believer.

This has nothing to do with rationalism. Tell to a kid that Santa Claus doesn't exist and if he did sincerly believe in him, you'll see that he will accuse yourself of lying. God is not a fat old guy distributing gifts once a year, he's the one who is always here for oneself. He's protecting oneself at any time. The relationship with God is something very personal.

We all have something deep in our heart, which would tear us down if removed. No matter if we're atheist or theist, we have necessarily something which matters more than anything else because it's at the basis of ourself, of our identity, of our way to see the world. When people want to remove it from us, the normal reaction is to do everything to oppose such a stealing, to protect our good. All that intelligence design crappy theory has been simply invented because it was important to some believers to protect their belief. That's natural, we're human.

Unfortunately, intelligence design remains crap. It's not their that believers should find the confidence in their faith, but in their heart.

 

[warpus]

The best one I can think of is the "unmoved mover" argument.. I wouldn't exactly call it 'good' tho.

 

[Sidhe]

design:

i just cannot see myself or the universe poofing into existence without cause.

.

Oh it can, but then you'd need some sort of understanding of physics to know why, and frankly physics gets into some philosophy when you get deep down into it's theories about poofing into existence, that said though it does make them slightly more likely than God did it, but not by much.

Scientifcally speaking though, the Big Bang Theory has more supporting evidence than God. But then in science God is irrelevant, maybe worth discussing, but from sciences point of view it's an untennable hypothesis. Can't disprove it but then why do you need to?

 

[Marla_Singer]

design:

i just cannot see myself or the universe poofing into existence without cause.

smidge ... it would help if you would edit your OP to explain what some of these term mean that you use in the poll.

What about God ? Did he simply poof into existence without cause ?

Explaining the mystery of the universe by God is not a satisfying solution since God can explain everything, except his own creation. What was there before God ? did he just poof from nothing ?

Magic !

 

[Smidgey]

Hmm in philosophy class in school, the argument went something like this.

God is the greatest being possible
A existing God is greater than a non-existing God
God exists

I think that one is the Saint Anselm one, but I'm not entirely sure. The version I mentioned was the Descartes one from meditation 3. There are lots of different formulations of the different arguments, probably in order to avoid a criticism that the earlier one recieved.

 

[rysingsun]

What about God ? Did he simply poof into existence without cause ?

I never claimed to understand God's independent existence; only that I do not understand my own independent existence.

But this discussion is like an orphan saying to his friends "I know that somewhere out there I must have a Mom, otherwise I could not exist" and his friend says back to him "but that doesn't solve the problem; you are only left with the question 'where did your Mom come from?' ".

 

[Smidgey]

But this discussion is like an orphan saying to his friends "I know that somewhere out there I must have a Mom, otherwise I could not exist" and his friend says back to him "but that doesn't solve the problem; you are only left with the question 'where did your Mom come from?' ".

It's not the same, because it is a bad analogy. Although you are safe to assume that the orphan has a mother, because it is a human and all humans have mothers (as far as we know). There is direct evidence in support of the orphan having a mother.

However, you can assume that the universe had an uncaused cause, or that it was not caused at all, or that there is an infinite chain of causes because there isn't enough evidence to support each theory (we don't know what happened before the big bang). However, there is no evidence to assume that the uncaused cause is a supernatural being. So that's where the analogy falls down; There is evidence evidence to assume the orphan had a mother, but there is not evidence to assume the universe had a cause or was created.

 

[Norseman2]

There is no good argument for God's existence. Trying any of those just makes you look stupid, it doesn't convince anyone. I'd have to say the best argument for God's existence, though it's not actually an argument, is the benefit of believing things which can help you live a good life, and die a good death. Of course, the American form of Christianity verges on being disgusting, in its contempt for Jesus, and against living and dying as a good person. It has more to do with objectifying yourself, avoiding rational thought, and justifying prejudices than it does with being an ethical person, and acting like a human being and helping others as much as you possibly can. But, Christianity at its core, in other words, Jesus, is very respectable, and would make a good argument for why you should live as he did. It kind of makes me want to be a Christian, just so that I can help American Christians understand what they are pretending to be.

 

[SecretKnowledge]

Personal/mystical experiences would constitute one of the best arguments if you are reasonably certain that they are not induced by certain factors. This would not be able to convince another person however the experiencer would have to seriously look at what happened.

 

[Bluemofia]

None of them. So I voted other.

The Argument from Design: I like to reduce it to argument due to the belief that we are omnicient, as what we can not conceive must be an act of God.

The Cosmological Argument: Why can't the universe be uncaused?

The Ontological Argument: Existence is not perfection. Something could exist in disarray, and not be perfect. At least, that's what I understand from the OP.

Argument from Personal Experience: I cite my dreams on how insane they are, and how other people have their experiences for other gods, which often contradict each other.

The Moral Argument: Absolute morals do not exist. Everyone decides what their morals are, wheather they are going to decide to follow someone else's morals, or their own is a different matter.

Pascals Wager: The question isn't black and white. There are other shades of gray, as Islam might be right, Buddism might be right, Norse Mythology could be right, some religion on a planet 53342345 light years away might be right, or no creature in the universe has the right religion, or a religion that prefers people who don't believe in any gods over the wrong gods.

 

[nihilistic]

The Argument from Design
Suffers from regression: the designer, being complex, should have a designer too; and so on

The Cosmological Argument
"1)Nothing comes into existence without a cause
2)There must be a first cause - An uncaused cause"
(1) doesn't imply (2)

The Ontological Argument
Worthless exercise in equivocation.

Argument from Personal Experience
The only one that can't be disputed. But it also doesn't matter.

The Moral Argument
For those of us that can distinguish between what we think and what we would like to think, this is simply a fairy tale.

Pascal's Wager
False dichotomy. This unknown "god" could be Zeus as well, or some Aztec god that demanded blood sacrifices.

 

[nc-1701]

"If you don't believe I'll ostracize you from society and possibly burn you at the stake" seems to be the most effective.

Yes, people see amazing things when told to while under threat of death...

Pascal's wager is the only one there that makes any sense or has any actual logic in it.

 

[Fifty]

The eye could not have evolved instantly on its own because unfalsifiable evolution violated the second law of thermodynamics right after darwin recanted therefore god exists as depicted in the bible.