Open invitation: best arguments for God

[Darth Wong]

In your opinion, what are the best arguments for the existence of God? I don't mean that you necessarily find them personally convincing (although if you do, then by all means, post them), but even if you don't find them convincing, which ones do you think are the most rhetorically effective?

I think I've spent too much time arguing with creationists. I've heard them all, and to me, they all sound equally stupid. But I doubt the general population feels that way; surely there are some arguments the average person finds more convincing than others.

[Surlethe]

In terms of rhetorical effectiveness, "Where did the universe come from? What started it all? Therefore God" is up there. There aren't many people who can wrap their heads around the facts that time started with the universe, that hence it is impossible for a cause to precede the universe, and that if you're going to go with an uncaused cause you might as well go with the universe itself. Besides, too few people understand that the universe itself was tiny, not just that all the matter in the universe was packed into a tiny ball.

[Liberty]

I'm with Surlethe. The thing that still pulls at me sometimes is the simple question "where did everything come from?" Evolution makes perfect sense, but - what made the matter? Something doesn't come out of nothing. Etc. On a gut level, that still doesn't make sense to me.

[spartasman]

I've never been completely sure whether or not god exists. My mother is over the top with that sort of thing, but for the most part her extreme faith often turns me off to the concept. On a basic level I do believe that their is a god, Things just seem to be too in order for their not to be. Other than that, its a simple reflex to believe in god, it is an ingrained part of most Western culture.

[Surlethe]

This thread is about rhetorically effective arguments for the existence of God, not whether or not you or your mother personally believe in God. So, what about things being in order is convincing to you?

[Liberty]

I've never been completely sure whether or not god exists. My mother is over the top with that sort of thing, but for the most part her extreme faith often turns me off to the concept. On a basic level I do believe that their is a god, Things just seem to be too in order for their not to be. Other than that, its a simple reflex to believe in god, it is an ingrained part of most Western culture.

First, how about you provide the actual argument that leads you to believe in god? You were incredibly vague in this post.

Second, you need to show that people would naturally believe in god without being taught to do so. My understanding is that most people follow their parents' religion on default. And besides, if you're told from day one that there is a god, of course it's a reflex to believe in god. But what if someone isn't told that? What if cultural norms don't push belief in god on people? The question "why am I here?" is natural; belief in god isn't. In fact, I would argue that belief in god occurs as a way to fill in gaps in scientific knowledge. For instance, the ancient Romans believed the god Vulcan lived in volcanos. Now, people who believe in evolution sometimes evoke god to answer the question of what started it all. As the gaps have disappeared so has the "natural" need to believe in a god.

[Lord of the Abyss]

The argument from design is one of the most effective rhetorically speaking. It just feels intuitively true to most people that anything as complex as life or the universe must be designed. That's true even with other things than God; look at all the people who treat evolution as if it had some sort of goal and plan.

[Samuel]

Things just seem to be too in order for their not to be.

What specifically? Human society is in order because of the hard work of a large number of people (and it keeps falling apart), the cycles in the natural world exist because of the ability of bacteria to eat anything, the planet and plates because of convection in the mantle due to radioactive decay and residual heat in the interior... none of the order we see needs God to explain it. In fact the most orderly things are the easiest to explain- crystal formation forms perfect patterns just by following a few simple rules.

The argument from design is one of the most effective rhetorically speaking. It just feels intuitively true to most people that anything as complex as life or the universe must be designed. That's true even with other things than God; look at all the people who treat evolution as if it had some sort of goal and plan.

I wonder if pointing out that is the same kind of thinking behind Marx's 5 stages of society would have any effect on them.

[RazorOutlaw]

St. Anslem's ontological argument is the most interesting, even if it's not really compelling enough for me to believe. Fully stated it looks like a logician's wet dream and I would say it's rhetorically effectively because it doesn't appear to hinge on emotions or feeling. It's more of a thinking person's argument for God and not one that I've ever heard stated in church (where nothing is really up for debate anyway).

The cosmological argument is the next one, because it's a question we can't answer as fully as we can as, say, evolution. I personally never tied my amazement with the universe to God because I'm a bit more of a natural naturalist, but I can easily see how people would take the beauty of a nebula and conclude their is a God.

[Formless]

In fact, I would argue that belief in god occurs as a way to fill in gaps in scientific knowledge. For instance, the ancient Romans believed the god Vulcan lived in volcanos. Now, people who believe in evolution sometimes evoke god to answer the question of what started it all. As the gaps have disappeared so has the "natural" need to believe in a god.

Its funny, but before I was an atheist I once actually explicitly defined "god" as the gaps and the meaning of life as the pursuit of those gaps. Then I realized that as soon as they were filled they would no longer be called god. And that even if I didn't call it god I would still be interested in filling those gaps. So the term was useless, and the baggage it carried poisonous to myself. That's when I stopped being a believer.

As to the OP, I would say that most of the arguments for God are rhetorically effective-- the religious have been practicing their rhetoric for centuries, so they should be rhetorically effective. However, I would say that the Cosmological argument is probably the most understandable, Intelligent Design the most poisonous in society, the Ontological argument the most clever yet subtly dishonest, and the appeal to faith ignorance faith the most frustrating to confront.

[spartasman]

what about things being in order is convincing to you?
So, what about things being in order is convincing to you?
Post Posted: 2010-03-28 09:30pm

Life, or more specifically, how life exists in some areas of the world, seems far too convenient for it to all be a series of random developments in some species of amoeba 15 billion years ago. For instance, I do not understand why it is Polar Bears live in frigid climates when they could easily have established themselves as predators in North America instead of the Arctic Circle. Though I am sure that there are explanations for this, migratory patterns, food source and the lot. But the fact that life seems to endure where it shouldn't simply looks like more like some sort of design or plan than any random occurrence.

Second, you need to show that people would naturally believe in god without being taught to do so. My understanding is that most people follow their parents' religion on default. And besides, if you're told from day one that there is a god, of course it's a reflex to believe in god. But what if someone isn't told that? What if cultural norms don't push belief in god on people? The question "why am I here?" is natural; belief in god isn't. In fact, I would argue that belief in god occurs as a way to fill in gaps in scientific knowledge. For instance, the ancient Romans believed the god Vulcan lived in volcanoes. Now, people who believe in evolution sometimes evoke god to answer the question of what started it all. As the gaps have disappeared so has the "natural" need to believe in a god.

The only reason that Romans believed in Vulcan was because they had no scientific explanation behind volcanoes, and therefore created ( or adopted from the Greeks) a god to explain the occurrence. This goes for Christianity as well, as the only way for the early Jews to contemplate the seemingly random occurrences around them was to call them acts of god. Now, I do believe in God, and I do, at least on some level, believe the Bible (though any 2000 year old manuscript that has been edited countless times is to be taken with a certain measure of skepticism). But this does not mean I simply close my eyes, plug my ears and sing NANANANANA whenever someone tries to discount Gods existence. But neither does this mean I believe someone who tells me God loves me and expects that to be enough. This has hurt my belief, but for some reason I simply not bring myself to stop believing, it is too much a part of how I form who I am around, too much a base for my morality and ethics for me to give up. This of course simply be a childish wish to not face the real world, but then again it may be me just trying to keep the faith against all the non-believers.

The most effective way to convert people is to NOT be logical. You must appeal to the average persons own understanding of the universe. For instance, when Christianity was initially spreading throughout Scandinavia, many of the local people would not convert because they did not believe that the Christian God was strong. To convert them, the Christian Scandinavians adapted the religion to the local culture, and challenged the heathens to see who's god was stronger. Two symbols, the cross and the pagan gods' symbol were placed in a fire to see which one would burn first. This is how you convert people, you appeal to their baser instincts, you make them see your beliefs as true through their own beliefs.

[Simon_Jester]

St. Anslem's ontological argument is the most interesting, even if it's not really compelling enough for me to believe. Fully stated it looks like a logician's wet dream and I would say it's rhetorically effectively because it doesn't appear to hinge on emotions or feeling. It's more of a thinking person's argument for God and not one that I've ever heard stated in church (where nothing is really up for debate anyway).

But it's such a bad argument.

I mean, you can refute, say, the argument "the universe is too orderly for God to not exist." But it's not transparently foolish; you have to really think about the question "does the existence of order imply an orderer?" It's not something you can laugh off the first time you see it, unless you were heavily vaccinated against it before you ever saw it.

But the ontological argument can be trivially refuted, because it takes the form "we can imagine perfection, therefore perfection must exist." That fails, and badly.

[Formless]

Well, remember, like I said most of these arguments are rhetorically effective. I'm personally convinced that the reason they keep getting used despite being terrible arguments full of invalid assumptions is because their target audience is not atheists and non-believers-- otherwise we would see arguments designed to prove which god to believe in. They are actually targeted at believers to reinforce their pre-existing faith by giving them a thin veneer of rationality about it. Notice after all that all these arguments came from philosophers who already believed in God before they thought to ask the question. Its apologetics. Not reason.

[Samuel]

random developments in some species of amoeba 15 billion years ago.

I should hope so- the universe is only about 14 billion and the Earth 4.5 billion years old.

For instance, I do not understand why it is Polar Bears live in frigid climates when they could easily have established themselves as predators in North America instead of the Arctic Circle.

It is the same exact reason that comparative advantage exists. Because the marginal product of labor is the same...

Er, what I mean is that first the plants come and even though it is harsher, there are no predators and few other plants can compete with them and so it is a better place to survive... until it gets saturated with plants and moves to an equilibrium. The same goes with animals. When they first come, it is a better deal. Sure, there is less food, but with less predators it is easier to get.

But the fact that life seems to endure where it shouldn't simply looks like more like some sort of design or plan than any random occurrence.

You mean like how eskimos are shorter and fatter than average which means they were designed to live in the Artic circle? Or black people have dark skin which means they were meant to live in the tropics?

it is too much a part of how I form who I am around, too much a base for my morality and ethics for me to give up.

How does belief in God work as a base of morality and ethics? I thought you did good things for other people, not God.

This of course simply be a childish wish to not face the real world, but then again it may be me just trying to keep the faith against all the non-believers.

... but I repeat myself. Seriously, why is faith something valuable.

The most effective way to convert people is to NOT be logical. You must appeal to the average persons own understanding of the universe. For instance, when Christianity was initially spreading throughout Scandinavia, many of the local people would not convert because they did not believe that the Christian God was strong. To convert them, the Christian Scandinavians adapted the religion to the local culture, and challenged the heathens to see who's god was stronger. Two symbols, the cross and the pagan gods' symbol were placed in a fire to see which one would burn first. This is how you convert people, you appeal to their baser instincts, you make them see your beliefs as true through their own beliefs.

Unless your beliefs are true and when they ask "why should we believe you" and "what has science done for us" you point at things like modern medicene and the like.

[SirNitram]

Well, this is likely not a good argument, but I figure I should throw it up and see how it's slaughtered.

1) Universe exists. We can all agree on this.
2) The Universe began. We currently have no conception of how this could happen, and it would indeed provoke the feelings of awe, amazement, and beyond-the-beleivable to see the answer, that people associate with God.
3) Any cause, must therefore be God. Being a great pillar of fire on a mountain in the middle of the desert is not required. Water into wine is far less impressive than sunlight into wine, which is a result of this hypothesized 'God'.

[Samuel]

Carl Sagan got that alot. When asked is he believed in an all powerful force pervading the universe and affecting all living things he agreed. Said it was known as gravity.

Changing labels doesn't work because God has attributes besides those of making the universe. For the first cause argument, just calling it first cause would be more accurate.

[Formless]

Well, this is likely not a good argument, but I figure I should throw it up and see how it's slaughtered.

Gladly.

1) Universe exists. We can all agree on this.
2) The Universe began. We currently have no conception of how this could happen, and it would indeed provoke the feelings of awe, amazement, and beyond-the-beleivable to see the answer, that people associate with God.
3) Any cause, must therefore be God. Being a great pillar of fire on a mountain in the middle of the desert is not required. Water into wine is far less impressive than sunlight into wine, which is a result of this hypothesized 'God'.

1) IF the cause turns out to be intelligent scientists preforming experiments with a particle accelerator (thus meaning our universe is nested in another one like a matryoshka doll), would we therefor have to call these beings gods? And would we therefor have to call ourselves gods if we managed to do just that using the LHC? Note that this is no small question, as one of the goals of the LHC and other particle accelerator experiments (iirc) is to simulate the early universe-- we could in theory end up making a miniature universe within our universe this way.

2) who created god? To tie this with the previous point, if it turns out that god is a cosmic scientist not unlike ourselves, could it be that they are the result of similar experiments, and that its turtles all the way down like a fractal?

3) building from the last two points, clearly God as a term has no explanatory power. It could refer to scientists experimenting with a particle accelerator or a massive supercomputer simulation or an author writing a novel of our lives or of course outright magic. The last part is the most damning, IMO, since "a wizard did it" is generally considered poor form in science, to say the least. So we're back where we started-- "we don't know." And that is arguably fine. Better to have no explanation than a wrong explanation.

4) notice that this god does not have to be like the Abrahamic god-- in fact, as my particle accelerator hypothesis shows, we can't even be certain that there is only one god we're talking about here. In fact we aren't any closer to answering the question "who is god? Which religion is the right one?" It might not even be a sentient, sapient being-- would we really want to call an automatic process "god?" That sounds like you're stretching the term till it has no meaning at all.

5) modern physics suggests that time is an intrinsic property of the universe-- that is, nothing can cause the universe in the first place because time itself started when the universe started. So as incomprehensible as it is to a human mind, the question "what created the universe" itself may be meaningless.

There you go! Five problems with your proposition. Enjoy!

[Alyrium Denryle]

The most effective argument for god is probably the argument from to, and subsequently from design.
The argument to design is the classic Watchmaker analogy that rhetorically establishes that design exists, the argument from design is the one that they use to conclude that god did it.

It is easily defeated by someone who knows the material, but it is perfectly designed (irony yes) in order to appeal to the common experiences of humans, and to our cognitive biases. Humans are natural designers, and this gives us a bias in that we assume everything has a teleological purpose. Accepting that this is not the case is actually somewhat difficult and even biologists find it easier to speak as if biological systems do. Even our language itself makes it difficult to specify that it is not.

For instance, I do not understand why it is Polar Bears live in frigid climates when they could easily have established themselves as predators in North America instead of the Arctic Circle.

But they did. The other species of bear. Bears are widespread habitat generalists for the most part. They radiated prior to the full break-up of Laurasia and thus can be found in the americas, europe and asia. Some species have specialized in certain climates. For example northern populations of what was essentially a brown or black bear (I dont remember which) specialized to hunt on ice. They did this because seals provided a really nutrient rich source of food, and the ability to utilize the seal in these climates gave these bears an advantage over those that could not.

But the fact that life seems to endure where it shouldn't simply looks like more like some sort of design or plan than any random occurrence.

Why shouldn't life exist in those areas? It seems to do just fine, in fact those areas are excellent for certain forms of life such as plankton that form the basis of marine ecosystems. Cold oceans are highly productive, at least seasonally, it makes sense that both vertebrates and invertebrates would evolve to take advantage of those areas.

too much a base for my morality and ethics for me to give up.

It is a poor one. Command ethics are weak compared to more flexible and contextually sensitive ethical philosophies.

[Samuel]

Why shouldn't life exist in those areas? It seems to do just fine, in fact those areas are excellent for certain forms of life such as plankton that form the basis of marine ecosystems. Cold oceans are highly productive, at least seasonally, it makes sense that both vertebrates and invertebrates would evolve to take advantage of those areas.

Really? I thought the ocean had low productivity. Is there something special about the northern reaches, is it productive compared to land, was I misinformed, or does quantity make up for low average productivity?

[Covenant]

Creationists are fighting against "cool" evidence that kids hear about and love, like Dinosaurs and Asteroids and such. The idea of prehistoric Earth is so visceral and tactile that it's much easier to get people to believe in evolution than it is to get them to understand, let alone believe, that the entire Universe started without a touch of the Divine Spirit.

In that case, cast another vote for the Origin of the Universe. "If the universe began in this singularity thing, where you say there was no time, space, or other forces at work... where did it come from, where was it sitting, and what made it inflate? Doesn't that insinuate a force and place outside of this universe, and greater than it?"

This is one of the 'better' arguments on the face because there's almost no such thing as a Big Bang Fossil, and any explanation requires admitting a lack of complete picture, explaining a lot of complex science, and making best-guess analysis based on current theories. Your best fossil is Microwave Background Radiation, but that doesn't exactly stir the heart with wonder.

The main enemy here is the fact that high-energy physics is not only uncool math, but it's confusing, and it's very non-tactile. As has been stated, even smart people have a hard time grasping and visualizing things like space-time, multidimensional constructs, big bangs and just the enormity of the Universe.

Furthermore, even if you've got them hooked for that second, what do you tell them? Dare you mention things as quantum gravity? Or broach the subject of dark energy? Or say "We're not sure about that yet?" These things lead a faithful to say "I've got an easy solution--let there be light."

Since so much of this is currently beyond our ability to experiment on successfully, we don't have much of a scientific consensus. Public perception lags behind scientific consensus, as science is filtered through media and education and entertainment. The lag can be quite severe in some cases, and since this is non-physical evidence that is hard to touch, you will need to come up with very concrete theories with some variety of testable conclusion in order to convince the faithful it is otherwise.

Even so, this is so beyond the normal realm of understanding that people who deliberately shun science will find it easy to tune it out.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Really? I thought the ocean had low productivity. Is there something special about the northern reaches, is it productive compared to land, was I misinformed, or does quantity make up for low average productivity?

Colder oceans have more dissolved O2, and the the temperature driven upwellings bring nutrients from the depths that feed plankton. Basically they are productive compared to warmer oceans.

[Channel72]

There's really no contest here: the Argument from Design is the most intuitively compelling argument for theism ever presented. When I was younger it was really one of the only reasons I entertained the idea of some kind of "Cosmic Creator." It's also a rather ubiquitous argument throughout Christian thought: it's been proposed by some of the "greatest" Christian philosophers in history, from Paul, to Aquinas, to Paley. But it's also quite popular as an "appeal to common-sense" among lay people. Most people simply can't conceive that complex physical apparati (such as biological or cosmological systems) can arise through purposeless natural processes, with no Designer required.

The most effective rebuttal is probably to point out that the Designer Himself would necessarily be an incredibly complex entity, and therefore the logic behind the "Argument from Design" would ultimately require that the Designer was designed by some higher designer, ad finitum. However, in practice, most Christians are content to simply declare that the "Designer" (i.e. God) simply exists for no reason, end of story.

[Patrick Degan]

Purpose —the assumption that life and the universe must have some sort of object to their existence, a reason for their creation. A corollary to the Argument from Design perhaps but the one which gives an apparent why to existence.

[Skgoa]

The "where did it all begin" question has been the most difficult to argue against for me, too. I guess it just shows how far we have pushed them back, when they have to argue that "god" is not part of the universe and doesn't have any impact on it, but just pushed the start button.

But another argument that I have found to be rhetoricaly effective is:

Other than that, its a simple reflex to believe in god, it is an ingrained part of most Western culture.

"God" seems to be just EVERYWHERE. There are temples and monuments dedicated to him in every town, every european language I know is filled with references to him (i.e. "oh my god") and its societaly (is that the right word?) accepted that everyone believes in him. Here in germany most people don't really believe in him, but most people show a token respect(i.e. listening to what the pope says, paying church tax), as if believing in "god" is just what you are supposed to do.
I guess its just intelectualy harder and more dangerous to think for yourself and admit that the king magical sky fairy doesn't have any clothes on exist...

[Formless]

societaly (is that the right word?)

The word you are looking for is "culturally" FYI.