What is your best argument for the existence of God?

[St. SteVen]

narf

being that existence implies "objective evidence," that Yah does not exist at all
but rather causes to exist

one of my fave things about "doesnt exist" is that part--no argument

Yes. Really gets their attention when you AGREE with them. - Ha!

Build bridges instead of walls.

 

[St. SteVen]

The person asking the question in the first place is the best evidence. They are proof themselves. The answer is inherent in the questioner, by the question.​

That's interesting. How so?
What would you say in response to the questioner?

 

[David in NJ]

Both at the same time. In the chicken, was the egg. Just as in the trees was the fruit and the seed. Even in the man was the woman, and in the woman the egg of her own.

Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.​

​

Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.​

"Both at the same time (egg inside the hen)" = incorrect

The Chicken came first = Rooster/Male

YES, BOTH were created at the same time, however the Male is the Beginning/First Order

This is the Order that God established and which satan always seeks to reverse and/or turn upside down.

The Correct answer always is the 'Chicken came first, then the egg.'

 

[Webers_Home]

.
• Gen 1:1a . . In the beginning God

The first chapter of the first book of the Bible doesn't waste words with an
argument to convince skeptic minds that a supreme being exists; rather, it
starts off by candidly asserting that the existence of the cosmos is due to
intelligent design. I mean: if the complexity of the cosmos-- its extent, its
objects, and all of its forms of life, matter, and energy --isn't enough to
convince the critics; then they're pretty much beyond reach.

However, in God's estimation the wonders and complexity of the cosmos--
all its forms of life, matter, and energy --is a strong enough argument to
convince people that everything came about by intelligent design and the
handiwork of a higher power, i.e. a supreme being.

Plus, their own sense of justice-- their conscience --is enough to warn
people that there's coming an ultimate reckoning to make things right, i.e.
to reward people for their good, and to punish them for their bad.

But I remember what I told you;
That in time you're gonna pay.
"Funny How Time Slips Away"
Willie Nelson, Billy Walker, 1961
_

 

[St. SteVen]

The first chapter of the first book of the Bible doesn't waste words with an
argument to convince skeptic minds that a supreme being exists; rather, it
starts off by candidly asserting that the existence of the cosmos is due to
intelligent design.

Do you leave any room for skepticism in Christianity?

 

[Bob Estey]

Pick from the tiers in this video, or present your own. Thanks.

WARNING --- You may find this video challenging, or even offensive.
Viewer discretion is advised.

Want to know how to prove that God exists, or how to convince an atheist of God's existence? This tier list may shed light on the difficulties in doing that, and the tools at your disposal.

What is the best argument for God's existence? Although I haven't yet found any which are without error, some arguments are better, or more convincing, than others. Apologetics can appear dry on the surface, but they're fascinating upon closer inspection. These arguments often sneak in false premises and tricky debate tactics which many don't catch. Here, though, I've analyzed some of the most popular arguments for God, charted their stats, examined their special abilities, and ranked them accordingly.

The arguments discussed here are, in no particular order:
- The Ontological Argument,
- The Argument from Personal Experience,
- The Kalam Cosmological Argument,
- the Teleological Argument,
- Paschal's Wager, and
- the Moral Argument.

God solves all my problems for me - why wouldn't I believe in him?

 

[St. SteVen]

God solves all my problems for me - why wouldn't I believe in him?

Good. I agree. But how would an atheist respond?
That's an Argument from Personal Experience. Not proof to them.
On the positive side, that argument rated highly in the tier of arguments from the video.
Did you watch the video? (read the WARNING)

 

[Behold]

Creation.

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; = for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world = are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that = they are without excuse:

Paraphrase..... "CREATION proves that God exists" as you can't have creation without a Creator.

Can a book write itself?
Can a painting paint itself?
Can a song write itself?

Can all of Creation, create itself from NOTHING?

Only a fool would believe that, and that is Why God says that "they" are """" without excuse""""" as the Proof He exists.....= they are standing on it.
They are eating it.
They are breathing it.

 

[St. SteVen]

Creation.

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; = for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world = are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that = they are without excuse:

Good. I agree. But how would an atheist respond?
That's The Kalam Cosmological Argument. (I think) Not proof to them.
On the positive side, that argument rated well in the tier of arguments from the video.
Did you watch the video? (read the WARNING)

 

[Bob Estey]

Good. I agree. But how would an atheist respond?
That's an Argument from Personal Experience. Not proof to them.
On the positive side, that argument rated highly in the tier of arguments from the video.
Did you watch the video? (read the WARNING)

Yes, but we don't need to prove anything to atheists, do we? If they aren't willing to love the Lord, that's their problem, isn't it?

 

[St. SteVen]

Yes, but we don't need to prove anything to atheists, do we? If they aren't willing to love the Lord, that's their problem, isn't it?

Right. I got mine, everyone else can burn. (feel the love)

 

[Bob Estey]

Right. I got mine, everyone else can burn. (feel the love)

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

 

[quietthinker]

What is your best argument for the existence of God?​

Mirrors!

 

[St. SteVen]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Anyone who claims that they hate God haven't met Him yet. God IS love.

 

[Bob Estey]

Anyone who claims that they hate God haven't met Him yet. God IS love.

How can an atheist hate God if he doesn't believe in him?

 

[Webers_Home]

.

God solves all my problems for me - why wouldn't I believe in him?

Your personal experiences are subjective, and likely unacceptable to
scientific minds like Carl Sagan, Michio Kaku, Neal deGrasse Tyson, and
Michelle Thaller as they usually prefer something a bit more empirical.
_

 

[St. SteVen]

How can an atheist hate God if he doesn't believe in him?

Good question.
Christians often claim that God-haters will burn. To which I respond...
Anyone who claims that they hate God hasn't met Him yet.

But you are right. You can't really hate something you don't believe exists.
Although you could hate the problems caused by those who do.

 

[Chadrho]

Pick from the tiers in this video, or present your own. Thanks.

WARNING --- You may find this video challenging, or even offensive.
Viewer discretion is advised.

Want to know how to prove that God exists, or how to convince an atheist of God's existence? This tier list may shed light on the difficulties in doing that, and the tools at your disposal.

What is the best argument for God's existence? Although I haven't yet found any which are without error, some arguments are better, or more convincing, than others. Apologetics can appear dry on the surface, but they're fascinating upon closer inspection. These arguments often sneak in false premises and tricky debate tactics which many don't catch. Here, though, I've analyzed some of the most popular arguments for God, charted their stats, examined their special abilities, and ranked them accordingly.

The arguments discussed here are, in no particular order:
- The Ontological Argument,
- The Argument from Personal Experience,
- The Kalam Cosmological Argument,
- the Teleological Argument,
- Paschal's Wager, and
- the Moral Argument.

I agree with the presenter that the teleological and personal experience arguments are the best arguments. His observations about how these can be used to mistreat atheists/agnostics is helpful but using them in that way are not essential to the arguments.

Kalam is a good one but doesn't say much.

I've always liked the ontological argument and disagree with Kant when he says that existence is not a predicate. Regardless of defining God as existent prior to concluding the argument, i.e. begging the question, it does seem intuitively true that the greatest of all possible beings would have to exist or it's not the greatest of all possible beings.

I'm not a fan of the moral argument, especially when used as a hammer to bludgeon atheists/agnostics by saying they have no morals. I think an argument based on transcendentals (goodness, truth, justice) and probability might make the existence of a Source and Ground for them seem more likely. Something like: Most of humanity recognizes the reality of transcendental like goodness, truth, justice, etc. These cannot be easily explained without positing a Transcental X (God) that is the ground and source of those transcendentals. Therefore, it is more likely the case that such a Source and Ground exists than not. Once you move from arguing from strict premises and conclusions to probable conclusions based in experience your argument becomes more realistic and not nearly as easy to refute, imo.

I think Pascal's wager is horrible because it is so black and white, and it assumes an eschatological outcome that I find untenable for other reasons. Lol

Honestly, I think our best argument for our faith and the One in whom we have faith is our love and our way of being in the world. (Argument from personal experience, maybe?)

 

[Bob Estey]

.


Your personal experiences are subjective, and likely unacceptable to
scientific minds like Carl Sagan, Michio Kaku, Neal deGrasse Tyson, and
Michelle Thaller as they usually prefer something a bit more empirical.
_

Subjective? You don't think the Lord solves my problems for me?

 

[Gottservant]

You have to exist, to be able to say "God doesn't"