What is the strongest argument for the existence of God?

Unarmed Gunman said:
You're describing agnosticism, not atheism. Atheism absolutely requires faith since there is no direct evidence to support there either being or not being a creator. Agnosticism just acknowledges the unknowable, which this is in fact unknowable.

There is just as much evidence to support the fact there is a god, as there is evidence to support that there isn't a god. Which is to say there is no evidence in either direction, so either position requires faith due to the lack of direct evidence.
Click to expand...
If I suddenly proclaim everything that happens in our universe is caused by diminutive goblins moving atoms around, but they're so small you can't see them, you negating their existence doesn't mean you are choosing to uphold a faith of there not being sub-atomic goblins. You would be simply, and rationally, not believing something is true without any proof. A lack of faith isn't faith.
 
  • Like
  • Autistic
Reactions: WingsOfTarkov and Gender: Xenomorph
Grog said:
If I suddenly proclaim everything that happens in our universe is caused by diminutive goblins moving atoms around, but they're so small you can't see them, you negating their existence doesn't mean you are choosing to uphold a faith of there not being sub-atomic goblins. You would be simply, and rationally, not believing something is true without any proof. A lack of faith isn't faith.
Click to expand...
You do have faith, you have faith in your own skills of rationalization and faith in the scientific method, ie faith in yourself and faith in the works of men. The problem is that you don't think this is a faith system because it's grounded in the material and not the metaphysical, when the reality is that the metaphysical and the material are very closely intertwined, but we make often make a conscious choice to blind ourselves to one or the other to our own detriment.

Everyone has faith in something, it's not possible for us to not have faith because that's simply not how we were created. You're a very good example of this, to be honest. Glory to God!
 
  • Disagree
  • Autistic
Reactions: One Winged Pear Farmer and Grog
Unarmed Gunman said:
Pretty much this, atheism requires as much faith as any religion does.

For instance, if we are to believe everything originated from the Big Bang, then what existed prior to that? Something caused the bang, and something had to exist to bang. But supposedly there was nothing, but then there was something, and then that something continues to expand outwardly? But it's expanding into what? Well it's expanding into the furthest reaches of nothing, apparently.

I dunno dog, you're asking me to take a lot on faith there lol
Click to expand...
You can't have faith in the big bang, that's a theory
 
  • Agree
  • Dumb
Reactions: Mark Robinson BussyLiquor and Grog
Likely the same for believing there is anything beyond the veil of death.

It's a rare sort of broken,pitiful, and tortured creature who craves true oblivion. Everyone desires to continue on. Why not envision paradises beyond our understanding?
 
  • Autistic
Reactions: One Winged Pear Farmer
Brightstar777 said:
You can't have faith in the big bang, that's a theory
Click to expand...
The Greek term translated as "faith" and "belief" in the New Testament (cf. Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes [in me] has eternal life. - Jesus, John 6:47) is the Greek philosophical term "pistis". [ed. to be precise, that verse says "ho pisteuon", which is more accurately "one who believes"; root is the same]

To elucidate, here are a couple quotes from: https://epublications.marquette.edu...article=1809&context=phil_fac&type=additional

The core sense of pistis as understood in Posterior Analytics, De Anima, and the Rhetoric is not that of a logical relation in which cognitively grasped propositions stand in respect to one another, but the result of an act of socially embedded interpersonal communication, a willing acceptance of guidance offered in respect to action. Even when pistis seems to have an exclusively epistemological sense, this focal meaning of pistis is implicit; to have pistis in a proposition is to willingly accept that proposition as a basis for some kind of activity (albeit possibly theoretical) as a result of some kind of communicative act. This is in accordance with Aristotle’s understanding of argumentation as a social practice, entered into in order lead others to certain actions, for certain ends. Understanding pistis in this way allows us to understand how it is that pistis admits of quantitative variation.
Click to expand...

Aristotle’s point would be that the pistis we have in the principles is the foundation or cause of the pistis that we have in the demonstrative conclusions.
Click to expand...

Thus, in the sense Scripture and Aristotle mean, you can only believe in anything to the degree that you believe in the principles of its foundation. Thus, the rejection of God can only ever be as certain as its cause. In other words, you can only rationally believe that God does not exist insofar as you rationally believe in a cause without God. As there is no competing atheistic cause to the Big Bang Theory, belief in the absence of God (ie. rejection of the belief in God) is contingent upon belief in a cause that does not invoke God.

This is all logic and reason, however, so there is no implication that your reasoning is consistent, which is how the case appears to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brightstar777
I posted it somewhere else in one of your million threads, but for me, it's the existence of our own consciousness. I find it deeply intuitive, like a spiritual truth, that each stream of consciousness is a fork off of other already-existing consciousness, and that all of them must be intertwined, so if you trace it back to the original source that would be God since it is the consciousness that generates the rest of it by its existence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brightstar777
Señora Airi said:
1. Christ and the Theotokos
2. The Saints and their miracles
3. Seraphim Rose's life of finding the Truth
4. Science's alternatives to God are nihilistic and Antichristesque, that they do feel like a Jewish plot to kill the Goy's soul.
Click to expand...
What is the difference between the stuff in the bible and the whole xenu scientology shit?
 
In the first planck instant after the big bang, the laws of physics as we know them don't describe the condition of the universe

those laws literally didn't exist

then from the second planck instant until present, they did exist and have been the rules of reality

science can't explain why things were the way they were in that first planck instant, or the processes that made the change from planck instant #1 to planck instant #2

so reality, somehow, organized itself in that moment to the way it has been ever since, or something organized it
 
  • Like
Reactions: WingsOfTarkov
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back