Arguments for the Existence of God

EVER WONDERED ABOUT GOD

 

WHO HE IS AND WHY

YOU ARE

 

This is Torque Talk

 

If there's only matter nothing matters, no reason to trust reason, no objective moral values.

No free will - (materialists & atheist Sam Harris and pantheist Albert Einstein)

Scroll down on each page to the text

The search for meaning/purpose in life is ultimately a useless exercise in a blind pitiless indifferent material world - if there is nothing outside the human brain. Molecules alone = no meaning

 

'What is truth?' Pilate asked and turned away ... from the Truth. John 18:38, 14:6

It is not that one cannot but will not believe

The radical change that took place in my heart was not from a rational decision but in response to an overwhelming Love that became rational

The existence of God cannot be proved by scientific means as He is outside of space, time and matter

The apologetic should demonstrate that there is nothing more logic than explaining God.

The more you think, the more you explore,

the clearer God will become to the free, open, seeking mind.

 

Links to Websites:

You have none you've not received. Can bring Me nothing that doesn't belong to Me but You're heart. Love is free. My heart cries'Turn to Me'

(This Page is Still being Built)

It is both Rational and Logic to Believe in God

Here is Why;

 

Arguments for the Existence of God

 

  1. The Cosmological Argument (causation)
  2. Teleological Argument or Fine Tuning of the Universe (design)
  3. Ontological Argument
  4. DNA
  5. Moral Argument
  6. Truth Excists
  7. Why is there Something rather than Nothing?
  8. Historical Argument; Christ's Resurrection and Time the Gospels were written
  9. Are the New Testament Documents Reliable?
  10. Do Miracles Happen?
  11. Practical Argument.

 

 

I. The Cosmological Argument (causation)

 

Throughout the millennia and up to a mere hundred years ago the physicists’ views were that the universe was a ‘steady state’, that it was a vast, perhaps infinite, cosmos that had simply always been there. Bertrand Russel, philosopher and atheist said in a 1948 BBC interview that the universe was a brute fact, that it is just there, and that was all.

 

Wrong; ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’ Genesis 1:1

 

In the second half of the 20th century scientists discovered evidence for a ‘beginning’ of the universe. In the late 1960’s the vast majority cosmologists had accepted some form of ‘Big Bang’ theory confirmed by the observation of the ‘cosmic microwave’ radiation (radiation afterglow), the second law of thermodynamics – universe is cooling down, and the universe is expanding – discovered by Hubble as early as 1929.

 

Stephen Hawking developed theories which predicted that the universe began its expansion from an ‘initial singularity’, an infinitely small, dense and hot point, some 14 billion years ago and the universe has been expanding since. All time, space, energy and matter had its origin at this moment.

 

In 2003, physicists Borde, Guth and Vilekin published a widely accepted theory that there was a cosmic beginning.

 

The universe started out of nothing, the Big Bang.

 

Space, matter, time did to exist before this moment.

 

Something/Someone must have set the Big Bang off.

 

William Lane Graig argues that the concept of anything physical existing infinitely into the past is philosophically nonsensical. If our universe really did extend eternally into the past, we would actually never ‘arrive’ at the present moment.

 

His ‘Kalam Cosmological Argument’ states that if the universe had a beginning to its existence, and if everything that begins to exist has a cause (nothing appears into existence without a cause), then the universe too must have a cause but can’t be space time and matter bound as it did not exist before the Big Band. So, the cause must be outside space, matter and time and decided to cause the Big Bang; Only a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, personal, intelligent being outside space, time and matter can therefore explain the known universe and origin.

 

II. Teleological Argument or Fine Tuning of the Universe (Design)

 

The chances for life to have developed in this universe is infinitesimally small, incredibly improbable.

 

Eg gravity, if one part in 1040 different ( that is if the value of gravity differed 1 part in 10 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000) from what it is, the universe as we know it would not be possible. And so are about 30 fundamental numbers so exact that the tiniest fluctuation from their actual number and life would have been impossible.

 

Fred Hoyle, atheist; ‘A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology …’

 

William Lane Graig said that it appears that there are 3 possibilities; 1. Chance – ruled out by the possibilities involved, logically just impossibly too small 2. Physical necessity – ruled out by the fact that there is no obvious reason why the forces and initial conditions could not have taken different values. 3. That leave design only.

 

The teleological/design argument for God’s existence is logically unavoidable. The universe was designed and points to the existence of a Designer.

 

III. Ontological (Metaphysical-) Argument

 

Dealing with the nature of things, the existence or reality. The ontological necessity for God’s existence; the conclusion that God exists from the premise of reason only. The ontological necessity for God’s existence is strong.

 

The Ontological Argument

 

The ontological argument is an argument based not on observation of the world (like the cosmological and teleological arguments) but rather on reason alone. Specifically, the ontological argument reasons from the study of being (ontology).

 

The first and most popular form of this argument goes back to St. Anselm in the 11th century A.D. He begins with stating that the concept of God is "a being than which no greater can be conceived." Since existence is possible, and to exist is greater than to not exist, then God must exist (if God did not exist, then a greater being could be conceived, but that is self-defeating—you can't have something greater than that which no greater can be conceived!). Therefore, God must exist.

 

Descartes did much the same thing, only starting from the idea of a perfect being.

 

 

IV. DNA or Any Wonder of Creation

 

If you pick up a book and read the content, is it not reasonable to conclude that it was written by someone, that there is intelligence behind the words, behind the facts written? The average language has 20-30 characters in the alphabet and 20 000 to 30 000 words.

 

DNA, that makes up the genetic information of the human cell that determines all the characteristics of the individual has a 3.5 billion letter message.

 

The human fertilized cell, a single cell with its approximately 3.5 billion genes, has the potential to develop into an adult human being with its complex anatomy and physiology, his emotions of love, hate and all the other intricate emotions and creativity. Completely unique to each individual.

 

DNA is made up of four chemicals, abbreviated as letters A, T, G, and C. Much like the ones and zeros in computer software programs, these letters are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. The order in which they are arranged instructs the cell's actions.

 

Within the tiny space in every cell in the body, this code is 3.5 billion letters long!

 

To grasp the amount of DNA information in each cell, "a reader of that code at a rate of three letters per second would take thirty-one years, even if reading continued day and night."

 

It has been determined that 99.9% of the DNA is similar to everyone's genetic makeup. What is uniquely you comes in the fractional difference in how those 3.5 billion letters are sequenced in your cells.

 

Dr. Francis Collins, Christian and director of the Human Genome Project (that mapped the human DNA structure) said that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of each cell."

 

Perry Marshall, an information specialist, comments on the implications of this. "There has never existed a computer program that wasn't designed... (whether it is) a code, or a program, or a message given through a language, there is always an intelligent mind behind it."

 

Former atheist Dr. Antony Flew asked if it is not legitimate to ask oneself regarding this 3.5 billion letter code instructing the cell...who wrote this script? Who placed this working code, inside the cell?

 

It's like walking along the beach and you see in the sand, "Mike loves Michelle." You know the waves rolling up on the beach didn't form that--a person wrote that. It is a precise message. It is clear communication. In the same way, the DNA structure is a complex, three-billion-lettered script, informing and directing the cell's process.

 

Is it not unreasonable to deny an intelligent agent behind the letters and message in a book, the words on the beach, the words/messages contained in DNA?

 

 

V. Moral Argument

 

If there is no objective morality outside the human brain then all moral arguments are about preference.

 

The Moral Argument for God’s Existence;

 

Everyone, including atheists, appeal to a moral standard. A moral standard requires a transcendent law giver. That Lawgiver is can only be God.

 

Atheists can be moral but how do you justify morality.

 

If atheists talk about right and wrong, what is the standard for right and wrong or is it reduced to human opinion. Then whose opinion; Mother Theresa's of Hitler's opinion? Frank Turek

 

Right and wrong is written on our hearts. 'They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right.' Romans 2:15

 

Objective morality means that moral statements like “murder is bad” is independent of the person saying it. Objective morality means that there is a standard of morality that transcends human opinions and judgements.

 

Morals are not invented, they are discovered.

 

Each one of us makes moral judgements and decisions every day, ranging from opening the door for someone to helping someone who just got in a car wreck.

 

Thus

Premise 1: If objective moral values and duties exist then God exists

Premise 2: Objective morals values and duties do exist

Conclusion: Therefore, God exits

 

Think about it; ‘How does an amoral universe through non-moral processes end up with a moral framework?’ Ravi Zacharias

 

It is important to bear in mind that the moral argument pertains to the ultimate source of objective moral values and duties (moral ontology) and not how we know what is moral or immoral (moral epistemology) and not ‘what we mean’ by good/bad or right/wrong (moral semantics). The theistic ethicist maintains that moral values are grounded in the character and nature of God.’

 

Read more

 

VI. Truth Exists.

 

The claim that there is no absolute truth defeats itself as it makes a truth claim. ‘There is no absolute truth’ ’Is that true?’ Everybody makes truth claims all the time.

 

VII. Why is there Something rather than Nothing?

 

The question of whether there is a conclusive argument for the existence of God has been debated throughout history, with exceedingly intelligent people taking both sides of the dispute. In recent times, arguments against the possibility of God’s existence have taken on a militant spirit that accuses anyone daring to believe in God as being delusional and irrational. Karl Marx asserted that anyone believing in God must have a mental disorder that caused invalid thinking. The psychiatrist Sigmund Freud wrote that a person who believed in a Creator God was delusional and only held those beliefs due to a “wish-fulfillment” factor that produced what Freud considered to be an unjustifiable position. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche bluntly said that faith equates to not wanting to know what is true. The voices of these three figures from history (along with others) are simply now parroted by a new generation of atheists who claim that a belief in God is intellectually unwarranted.

 

Is this truly the case? Is belief in God a rationally unacceptable position to hold? Is there a logical and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Outside of referencing the Bible, can a case for the existence of God be made that refutes the positions of both the old and new atheists and gives sufficient warrant for believing in a Creator? The answer is, yes, it can. Moreover, in demonstrating the validity of an argument for the existence of God, the case for atheism is shown to be intellectually weak.

 

To make an argument for the existence of God, we must start by asking the right questions. We begin with the most basic metaphysical question: “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” This is the basic question of existence—why are we here; why is the earth here; why is the universe here rather than nothing? Commenting on this point, one theologian has said, “In one sense man does not ask the question about God, his very existence raises the question about God.”

 

In considering this question, there are four possible answers to why we have something rather than nothing at all:

 

1. Reality is an illusion.

2. Reality is/was self-created.

3. Reality is self-existent (eternal).

4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent.

 

So, which is the most plausible solution? Let’s begin with reality being simply an illusion, which is what a number of Eastern religions believe. This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher Rene Descartes who is famous for the statement, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes, a mathematician, argued that if he is thinking, then he must “be.” In other words, “I think, therefore I am not an illusion.” Illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument. So the possibility of reality being an illusion is eliminated.

 

Next is the option of reality being self-created. When we study philosophy, we learn of “analytically false” statements, which means they are false by definition. The possibility of reality being self-created is one of those types of statements for the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself. If you created yourself, then you must have existed prior to you creating yourself, but that simply cannot be. In evolution this is sometimes referred to as “spontaneous generation” —something coming from nothing—a position that few, if any, reasonable people hold to anymore simply because you cannot get something from nothing. Even the atheist David Hume said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” Since something cannot come from nothing, the alternative of reality being self-created is ruled out.

 

Now we are left with only two choices—an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th-century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this crossroads:

 

• Something exists.

• Nothing cannot create something.

• Therefore, a necessary and eternal “something” exists.

 

Notice that we must go back to an eternal “something.” The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door he can choose. But the question now is, where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence point to matter before mind or mind before matter?

 

To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific standpoint, honest scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal.

 

Further, the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint, completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything that exists. So in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated.

 

Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements:

 

• Something exists.

• You do not get something from nothing.

• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.

• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.

• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.

• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.

 

Former atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God's existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”

 

From got.Questions.org

 

VIII. Historical Argument; Christ's Resurrection and Time the Gospels were written

 

Well, this may not be so much an argument as much as it is admiration. Even the most skeptical of NT historians agree that Jesus was quite tenacious. While I had been hurt by some individuals in the church and was confused by the hypocrisy that I sometimes seen in the church, I was amazed at the example of Jesus. I saw Jesus afresh and anew.

 

IX. Are the New Testament Documents Reliable?

 

One of the arguments; embarrassing details … you don't lie to make yourself look bad. Peter was called Satan. The fact that all the disciples ran away and only the woman stayed cross. And the first witnesses at the tomb. The disciples and Jesus died for ‘the story’ and at different times. Dramatic change in the lives if the disciples after the resurrection; prepared to die for the truth of it and 10 disciples were martyred to death at different times in different places for what they saw and experienced. Died for the love of Christ that lived within them as they preached the message that no one could stop. Should the story of the New Testament be a lie for what purpose did they lie and die. Crimes are committed for three reasons; relationships/sex, for money or fame. None of these were factors in these people’s lives.

The Evidence for the New Testament’s Reliability. The Jesus Seminar was responsible for spiraling my faith downward. However, the massive amount of evidence for the New Testament (i.e., over 24,000 ancient manuscripts), the ability to know what were in the originals to a degree of 99.7%, in addition to the archaeological confirmation, and attestations from extra-biblical texts (at least 86,000 to a million quotations from the early church fathers) all confirmed for me that the Bible is trustworthy in what it says.

 

X. Do Miracles Happen.?

 

First and biggest miracles; Genesis 1:1 God created everything out of nothing. And then it follows that all of the miracles described in the Bible are not really a problematic, not even the resurrection of Christ.

 

XI. Practical Argument.