The most convincing theistic argument? [Archive]

Pate

January 28th 2003, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by RightIdea
How can a personal experience be convincing in any way? Mormons have personal experience. Buddhists, Wiccans (like I used to be), Hindus and others all have personal experiences that confirm to them that they are right and you are wrong.

Personal experience is purely subjective, and constitutes no evidence whatsoever.

To a certain extent, this certainly is true. But It could be argued that even though the religious experiences can vary quite much, depending on the persons who experiences them, the universality of such experiences constitute evidence for some kind of divine reality beyond the material reality. The differences in those experiences can be explained by the fact that there are always limits to the reliability of perception (even normal sense perception is not completely reliable) and by the fact that in different cultures people have different frames of reference by which they interpret reality.

bar Jonah

January 28th 2003, 06:51 PM

People also used to universally experience that the earth was flat, not spherical. Human wisdom is extremely limited, and one can easily argue that in the area of spirituality, the vast majority of personal experiences are false.

Pate

January 28th 2003, 06:56 PM

This brings up the question of what we are justified to believe, based on our experience. That's an interesting question. I have no time to write about it now, but I'll probably do so later.

GrayPilgrim

January 28th 2003, 08:18 PM

Although, I tend to follow Francis Schaeffer that barring the work of the Holy Spirit no argument will prevail and as Rudolf Otto in The Idead of the Holy inspeaking on the psychology of religion rightly points out that while the subjective feelings are no basis for belief, until one has subejectively experience das ganze Anderes (the wholly other) no amount of arguing will bring about a change in position, I voted ontological, because as Satre said, the problem is that something is there.

Boy GP needs to step away from that German a little more to make his sentences more intelligible.

I think the feelings of allienation that the non-beleiver has are best met by Anselm's ontological argument.

Gavin

January 29th 2003, 12:58 AM

I think the feelings of allienation that the non-beleiver has are best met by Anselm's ontological argument.

Really?!? I think the argument is interesting and sound, but I always thought that it was the least convincing and weirdest.

I guess different arguments work for different people.

GrayPilgrim

January 29th 2003, 01:25 AM

Hey, philosophy has always been one of my weakest areas. I generally am very eclectic in my tastes, hence I usually like things others find boring, e.g. Leviticus is one of my favorite books of the Bible.

bar Jonah

January 29th 2003, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by GrayPilgrim
Hey, philosophy has always been one of my weakest areas. I generally am very eclectic in my tastes, hence I usually like things others find boring, e.g. Leviticus is one of my favorite books of the Bible.
When you look at it from a dispensational perspective, it certainly can be. ;)

Pilgrim

January 29th 2003, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by RightIdea
People also used to universally experience that the earth was flat, not spherical.

Really? They all got on ships and sailed to the end of the earth to personally experience the flatness?

Pate

January 29th 2003, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by Pilgrim
Really? They all got on ships and sailed to the end of the earth to personally experience the flatness?

That's just about the same question I was going to ask.

They may have believed it, but not experienced it.

bar Jonah

January 29th 2003, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by Pilgrim
Really? They all got on ships and sailed to the end of the earth to personally experience the flatness?
Uhm, no, people only attempted to sail around the world when it became the general concensus that the world was spherical, just a few centuries ago.

Yes, in Columbus' day, the majority of scholars agreed the world was round, contrary to what most public schools teach. The argument wasn't whether the world was flat. It was how big the world was. One group said that weather patterns indicated there was a continental mass to the west that was within reach of sailing, so this must be the Indies. The other group said their astronomical calculations indicated the Earth must be significantly larger than that, therefore there must be a gargantuan expanse of ocean going west before one would reach Asia.

They were both right, and they were both wrong. Both groups failed to take into account the possibility of another continent -- North America. LOL Fortunately, Columbus (being knowledgeable in the study of meteorology in his day) belonged to the first group and not the second.

Anyway, point is, I was obviously not talking about people 5 or 6 centuries ago, any more than I was talking about people 100 years ago. There was, indeed, a point in history -- long ago, mind you -- when people thought the world was flat. People were drawing buffalo and dinosaurs on cave walls in France. Surely you can concede that much? LOL

Pilgrim

January 29th 2003, 02:22 PM

No that's not what I was getting at. A personal experience is different than personal knowledge. In order for a person to personally experience that "flat earth" they would have had to have had a direct interaction with it (sailed to the end of the earth and touched the end of the flatness for example), not just have faith in what a scholar etc. had.

Pate

January 29th 2003, 04:17 PM

I would also add, that in the final analysis, any knowledge is impossible without the principle that if we have no evidence to the contrary, we can believe our experience to be reliable. If anyone here denies this principle, I want to know how they justify their belief in the existence of external world (any reality outside their own consciousness).

Faramir

January 29th 2003, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by RightIdea
How can a personal experience be convincing in any way? Mormons have personal experience. Buddhists, Wiccans (like I used to be), Hindus and others all have personal experiences that confirm to them that they are right and you are wrong.

Personal experience is purely subjective, and constitutes no evidence whatsoever.

You assume that all people are convinced by evidence. Some people think with thier heads, some people think with their heart.

There are some people who lack the intellectual capacity to grasp the arguments for theism. That’s OK.

And sadly there are many people who just do not care enough to developed their God given intellect enough to comprehend these arguments. I am not saying that they are stupid, just intellectually apathetic. Especially Christians. :rant: Sorry for the rant, but this is just a pet peeve of mine.

No! I am not just upset that only two people (one of whom was my wife)came to my apologetics class that I spent months preparing for.

GrayPilgrim

January 29th 2003, 05:19 PM

Faramir:
No! I am not just upset that only two people (one of whom was my wife)came to my apologetics class that I spent months preparing for.

I would have been. I agree with you that in general Christians in America are too apethetic. I have heard the old tired line too many times "I'm saved all that theology stuff is silly and just kills our experience of God." How can you truly expereince the Living God if the God you believe in is more like Molech or Marduk than the God of the Bible?:rant: This all falls back to American pragmatism. Last Friday night I was teaching the difference between mutual submission within the Godhead and the Eternal Subordination of the Son to the Father and just got blank stairs, until I explained practical ways that the differences pan out. Then everyone payed attention! :rant:

Faramir

January 29th 2003, 05:37 PM

GrayPilgrim:
I would have been. I agree with you that in general Christians in America are too apethetic. I have heard the old tired line too many times "I'm saved all that theology stuff is silly and just kills our experience of God." How can you truly expereince the Living God if the God you believe in is more like Molech or Marduk than the God of the Bible?:rant: This all falls back to American pragmatism. Last Friday night I was teaching the difference between mutual submission within the Godhead and the Eternal Subordination of the Son to the Father and just got blank stairs, until I explained practical ways that the differences pan out. Then everyone payed attention! :rant:

How about this one. "All you need is blind faith".

That drives me insane :rant:

Freak

January 29th 2003, 09:27 PM

GrayPilgrim:
Although, I tend to follow Francis Schaeffer that barring the work of the Holy Spirit no argument will prevail and as Rudolf Otto in The Idead of the Holy inspeaking on the psychology of religion rightly points out that while the subjective feelings are no basis for belief, until one has subejectively experience das ganze Anderes (the wholly other) no amount of arguing will bring about a change in position, I voted ontological, because as Satre said, the problem is that something is there.

Boy GP needs to step away from that German a little more to make his sentences more intelligible.

I think the feelings of allienation that the non-beleiver has are best met by Anselm's ontological argument.

Pretty much right on about Francis....God's Word is sufficent for we have the promise that His Word would not return back void. It will accomplish what God intends for it to accomplish.

Ishmael

January 29th 2003, 09:31 PM

Ontological is king of all arguments. Always wins!

Has skeptics looking for electron particles in black holes in outer space....

Demolition Man

January 29th 2003, 09:56 PM

I think a convincing theistic God argument comes from C.S. Lewis in his book "The Case for Christianity". I don't believe it has a specific name, but I call it the "thought argument". The basic reasoning behind it is that if no intelligent mind created someone's brain for the purpose of thinking, then all thought is accidental. Just the randomness of somebody's brain's make-up that gives them "thought". But if thought is an accident, how can you trust that your accident thought is true over other accident thoughts? So he can't even believe in thought without believing in God. I think that's it.

Pereynol of Sheer Dread

January 29th 2003, 10:18 PM

GrayPilgrim:
Although, I tend to follow Francis Schaeffer that barring the work of the Holy Spirit no argument will prevail and as Rudolf Otto in The Idead of the Holy inspeaking on the psychology of religion rightly points out that while the subjective feelings are no basis for belief, until one has subejectively experience das ganze Anderes (the wholly other) no amount of arguing will bring about a change in position, I voted ontological, because as Satre said, the problem is that something is there.

GP,
Your Schaeffer/Otto combo ROCKS.

Although I'm kind of a cumulative case guy myself, combining all of these arguments after the fashion of Richard Swinburne, I voted for the Kalam argument. I particularly like William Lane Craig's reformulation of it.

Blake Reas

January 30th 2003, 12:04 AM

The thing that is special about the Transcendental Argument is that I can use all of these arguments with in my argument. The Transcendental Argument is a Macro Argument. Once you make the unbeliever realize that their is no neutral postion and you show the futility of his thought without God the rest of the Arguments become Valid.

It is a COMMON misconception with the presuppositional method(transcendental) that its users do not use any of the Classical or evidential arguments this is totally false. I would say that the last two sets of Arguments become more convincing if used with in the Presuppositional Method. Just a few tid bits from my view point!

In Christ,
Blake Reas:) :argue:

Blake Reas

January 30th 2003, 12:06 AM

Demolition Man:
I think a convincing theistic God argument comes from C.S. Lewis in his book "The Case for Christianity". I don't believe it has a specific name, but I call it the "thought argument". The basic reasoning behind it is that if no intelligent mind created someone's brain for the purpose of thinking, then all thought is accidental. Just the randomness of somebody's brain's make-up that gives them "thought". But if thought is an accident, how can you trust that your accident thought is true over other accident thoughts? So he can't even believe in thought without believing in God. I think that's it.
Lewis Actually got pretty close to the Transcendental argument. The argument is also in his book "miracles" to an extent.

In Christ,
Blake Reas:hi:

smilax

January 30th 2003, 12:20 AM

No one is really an atheist. (Romans i, 20.) It's a problem of sin, not the intellect. (Romans viii, 7.) So just preach at them. (Romans x, 17.)

I like the ontological argument because non-contingency is in God's name. However, I admit there are limitations to classical apologetics, simply because God as revealed in Scripture can't be constructed in entirety from such arguments, (and certainly not the intricacies of the God of the Reformed faith!) So I let my theology govern my apologetics and stick to presuppositionalism, meaning the transcendental one is appealing, too. (Or better yet, something like this (http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/credenda-agenda/milk_buying.html).)

Note: I believe classical apologetics falls under general revelation and is thus valid as logical arguments for God's existence. I am not a fideist.

Blake Reas

January 30th 2003, 12:28 AM

smilax:
No one is really an atheist. (Romans i, 20.) It's a problem of sin, not the intellect. (Romans viii, 7.) So just preach at them. (Romans x, 17.)

I like the ontological argument because non-contingency is in God's name. However, I admit there are limitations to classical apologetics, simply because God as revealed in Scripture can't be constructed in entirety from such arguments, (and certainly not the intricacies of the God of the Reformed faith!) So I let my theology govern my apologetics and stick to presuppositionalism, meaning the transcendental one is appealing, too. (Or better yet, something like this (http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/credenda-agenda/milk_buying.html).)

Note: I believe classical apologetics falls under general revelation and is thus valid as logical arguments for God's existence. I am not a fideist.

I like you already, my fellow presuppostionalist!

Blake Reas:thumb:

bar Jonah

January 30th 2003, 02:17 AM

Blake, while I still claim the design argument is best of all, I very much agree... that Presup rocks!

The GODISNOWHERE ministry uses presup all the time, man. And to excellent effect. No serious, in-the-trenches apologist or evangelist should be without that arrow in their quiver.

GrayPilgrim

January 30th 2003, 02:25 AM

pereynol:
GP,
Your Schaeffer/Otto combo ROCKS.

Even I stumble across some things that aren't in Hebrew occasionally :)

Blake Reas

January 30th 2003, 03:14 AM

RightIdea:
Blake, while I still claim the design argument is best of all, I very much agree... that Presup rocks!

The GODISNOWHERE ministry uses presup all the time, man. And to excellent effect. No serious, in-the-trenches apologist or evangelist should be without that arrow in their quiver.

I like the design argument a lot also but yet again I would use it as part of the Transcendental argument. Bahnsen says a great deal in his book on Van Til which i have read half of. I would like to read more of it but school is killing me with 4 or 5 book reviews due. GODISNOWHERE is a cool ministry if you know them why don't you see if they want to hook up with my friend and I's ministry www.truthis.net!

In Christ,
Blake Reas

bar Jonah

January 30th 2003, 03:20 AM

I don't know them. I'm one of them. :)

Blake Reas

January 30th 2003, 03:30 AM

RightIdea:
I don't know them. I'm one of them. :)

Oh cool! I like your guy's site you guys put a lot of work into it I can tell. Well if you want to talk to me you have my AOL handle and my E-mail address is in my profile. We are going to start writing articles for our website soon but with school it is a little hectic right now:help:

Soli Deo Gloria,
Blake Reas

smilax

January 30th 2003, 04:19 AM

Hmm... A presuppositionalist open theist...

Out of curiosity, what do you think of just Calvinistic total depravity?

bar Jonah

January 30th 2003, 02:45 PM

I disagree with Calvinist total depravity, as I hold a free will view and believe anything other than a free will view holds to a diminished relationship with God and His grace for us.

Blake Reas

January 30th 2003, 02:48 PM

For clarification I am a Calvinist and yes I affirm the Total Depravity of man kind.

In Christ,
Blake

automatthew

January 30th 2003, 10:35 PM

Chapter 2: That God Really Exists
Therefore, Lord, you who give knowledge of the faith, give me as much knowledge as you know to be fitting for me, because you are as we believe and that which we believe. And indeed we believe you are something greater than which cannot be thought. Or is there no such kind of thing, for "the fool said in his heart, 'there is no God'" (Ps. 13:1, 52:1)? But certainly that same fool, having heard what I just said, "something greater than which cannot be thought," understands what he heard, and what he understands is in his thought, even if he does not think it exists. For it is one thing for something to exist in a person's thought and quite another for the person to think that thing exists. For when a painter thinks ahead to what he will paint, he has that picture in his thought, but he does not yet think it exists, because he has not done it yet. Once he has painted it he has it in his thought and thinks it exists because he has done it. Thus even the fool is compelled to grant that something greater than which cannot be thought exists in thought, because he understands what he hears, and whatever is understood exists in thought. And certainly that greater than which cannot be understood cannot exist only in thought, for if it exists only in thought it could also be thought of as existing in reality as well, which is greater. If, therefore, that than which greater cannot be thought exists in thought alone, then that than which greater cannot be thought turns out to be that than which something greater actually can be thought, but that is obviously impossible. Therefore something than which greater cannot be thought undoubtedly exists both in thought and in reality.

Chapter 3: That God Cannot be Thought Not to Exist
In fact, it so undoubtedly exists that it cannot be thought of as not existing. For one can think there exists something that cannot be thought of as not existing, and that would be greater than something which can be thought of as not existing. For if that greater than which cannot be thought can be thought of as not existing, then that greater than which cannot be thought is not that greater than which cannot be thought, which does not make sense. Thus that than which nothing can be thought so undoubtedly exists that it cannot even be thought of as not existing.

And you, Lord God, are this being. You exist so undoubtedly, my Lord God, that you cannot even be thought of as not existing. And deservedly, for if some mind could think of something greater than you, that creature would rise above the creator and could pass judgment on the creator, which is absurd. And indeed whatever exists except you alone can be thought of as not existing. You alone of all things most truly exists and thus enjoy existence to the fullest degree of all things, because nothing else exists so undoubtedly, and thus everything else enjoys being in a lesser degree. Why therefore did the fool say in his heart "there is no God," since it is so evident to any rational mind that you above all things exist? Why indeed, except precisely because he is stupid and foolish?

phantaz sunlyk

January 30th 2003, 11:02 PM

say hey, i think that the best argument for the existence of God is the argument from design. i think that every argument pro God's existence takes the teleological for its point of departure. on the side, of all the arguments pro God's existence, it also coincides with the specifically personal element of human persons (affectation, taste, aesthetic appetite and coordination, etc.).
peace.

flipper

January 30th 2003, 11:26 PM

automathew:

Chapter 3: That God Cannot be Thought Not to Exist
In fact, it so undoubtedly exists that it cannot be thought of as not existing. For one can think there exists something that cannot be thought of as not existing, and that would be greater than something which can be thought of as not existing.

Yes, I am imagining now the Super Chair. A chair so perfect that no chair like it could exist on earth. It has all the qualities of a barca-lounger but its operation is utterly frictionless and anticipates the sitter's every need before it happens. The chair is completely indestructible, and will outlast the end of time itself. It has little swing table that is made of the finest formica and it is never empty of snacks. It is supremely comfortable - many have died of sheer pleasure at even the thought of sitting upon one of its arms for just five seconds. It's inbuild massage function releases knots and soothes muscles as if you were worked on by a team of tiny and expert South Korean masseuses.

All other chairs fall far, far short and are not worthy to even reuphoster The Chair's tiniest cushion. Not that The Chair would require such, for it is stainproof and wearproof. It is without compare.

I can't wait to sit in it. I bet St. Anselm couldn't wait either.

You don't like the chair?

Well then, I'm thinking of the world's most perfect unicorn....

smilax

January 31st 2003, 01:40 AM

Attempting to mix mathematics with philosophy...

Suppose you attempted to quantify greatness, and suppose you were working in an infinite-dimensional Clifford space to which you mapped, let's say, encoding and exemplification for every single quantifiable quality, (excluding all things that have a theoretical upper limit, such as coldness.) You would run into an interesting problem: it is impossible to compare any two objects and thereby determine greatness. (Example of this in action: it is impossible to say that one complex number is greater than another in any meaningful way.) There are two notable exceptions:

1. You are comparing a single quality.
2. You are dealing with infinity, at which there is one-point compactification.

By your description of the perfect chair, we do not have the first. Therefore, we are dealing with the latter, and therefore, God is precisely this Super Chair with what you've described in addition to having infinity for the other qualities.

Of course, if you insist on certain attributes of the Super Chair that force it to be finite, then it is self-contradictory and cannot exist, unlike God, who is greatest in every attribute.

automatthew

January 31st 2003, 02:28 AM

Chairs are receptacles for human posteriors. Superchair must be considered greater than a human, therefore Superchair must be logically prior to humans. Humans, in fact must be designed to be supported by Superchair. It then follows, if Superchair is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, that we were designed by Superchair.

Thou shalt have no other chairs before Me, as they are poor imitations and will cause pains in thy parts.

flipper

January 31st 2003, 03:13 AM

Haw! Funny, and yet strangely troubling!

"A planet where slipcovers evolved from men???"

I'm not convinced, to torture the Superchair analogy still further, that you could assume that Superchair can be considered greater than a human although I like your point about man being designed for superchair. In that case I must regretfully pursue the perfect unicorn analogy instead, as it is less loaded.

Ishmael

January 31st 2003, 09:39 AM

flipper:
automathew:

Yes, I am imagining now the Super Chair. A chair so perfect that no chair like it could exist on earth. It has all the qualities of a barca-lounger but its operation is utterly frictionless and anticipates the sitter's every need before it happens. The chair is completely indestructible, and will outlast the end of time itself. It has little swing table that is made of the finest formica and it is never empty of snacks. It is supremely comfortable - many have died of sheer pleasure at even the thought of sitting upon one of its arms for just five seconds. It's inbuild massage function releases knots and soothes muscles as if you were worked on by a team of tiny and expert South Korean masseuses.

All other chairs fall far, far short and are not worthy to even reuphoster The Chair's tiniest cushion. Not that The Chair would require such, for it is stainproof and wearproof. It is without compare.

I can't wait to sit in it. I bet St. Anselm couldn't wait either.

You don't like the chair?

Well then, I'm thinking of the world's most perfect unicorn....

Anselm's "proof" and the other ontological proofs which came after it allow for the contingent "being" to be a chair or a unicorn... they never claim to proove one God over another.

So I guess I am missing the point of making the non-contingent supernatural being an easy boy, but to each his own.

Solly

January 31st 2003, 10:23 AM

I voted for "other", that other being Jesus Christ. He convinced me there is a God, and I am not trying to be a wiseacre.

I knew most of the other arguments from my philosophical reading; but they are just intellectual arguments, made up by those who already believe, to clarify their belief. Do they convert anyone? The Bible says we have the knowledge that God exists, but we surpress it Rom 1, so intellectual arguments can only lead to an intellectual position and not to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as Pascal found out: NOT the God of the Philosophers.

There main interest for me is that, individually, they each have defeaters; but corporately, they make quite a case, in that they can be made at all; in a Godless universe, isn't it conceivable that they could not be made?

Interesting how the bible does not fall back on such arguments, except perhaps the one from experience already mentioned.

Solly. The humbled mind.

automatthew

January 31st 2003, 12:58 PM

Anselm's argument can be used with any starting point, even a chair.

Imagine a chair so great that nothing greater than it can be conceived. Is your chair comfy? Does it have soft cushions? If not, then it is not a chair greater than which nothing can be conceived. Okay, add that and continue. Does your comfy chair with soft cushions have a built in keg and tap? Can your comfy chair take you to the mall? If not, then it is not a chair greater than which nothing can be conceived. Can it fly? Can it fly so fast that it turns back time so you can save Lois Lane? Can it make Lois Lane as hot as Lana Lang? Can it belabor the point longer than I can?

At some point, an object greater than which nothing can be conceived stops being an object and becomes God. Than which nothing greater can be conceived.

Sparko

August 31st 2006, 09:55 PM

:grin:

shunyadragon

September 10th 2006, 07:40 PM

Which theistic argument do you find to be the most convincing one? Why?

For my part, I think that some of the best versions of Cosmological argument, Teleological Argument and Moral Argument are most convincing. The first two probably have more "cold facts" to support them, but on the other hand, Moral Argument has (at least to me) a very strong intuitive appeal.

What do you think?

All of the above arguments are to one extent or another front loaded to prove the result that is desired from one point of view. It gets worse when the question of which God exists if God exists is added to the mix. I believe that there is a good argument for a 'Source' some call God, but unfortunately the best argument essentially falsifies any single narrow view of God as presented by the different churches and religions. The apparent most popular Kalam argument is likely the weakest.

An effective argument for or against God should be presented from a relatively unbiased perspective. None of the above qualify.

MysticSonic

September 24th 2006, 12:57 AM

None of the arguments listed are valid from my epistemic perspective.

djdavo

October 9th 2006, 08:35 PM

All of the above arguments are to one extent or another front loaded to prove the result that is desired from one point of view. It gets worse when the question of which God exists if God exists is added to the mix. I believe that there is a good argument for a 'Source' some call God, but unfortunately the best argument essentially falsifies any single narrow view of God as presented by the different churches and religions. The apparent most popular Kalam argument is likely the weakest.

An effective argument for or against God should be presented from a relatively unbiased perspective. None of the above qualify.

these arguments arent' biased,but rather come to a logical conclusion that there is a God.
they don't prove or falsify any religion (other than atheism..heheh).

dont' know if it's the best,but i like the moral argument. no absolute moral truths can exist outside of a transcendent source....i'm already posting on 3 threads about that,so don't want to type an extensive post on it again.