What is the best argument for the existence of God?

As a completely nonreligious person, the only thing I have trouble wrapping my head around is where the first thing that eventually turned into the universe as we know it came from. According to basic logic, everything comes from something else. Unless in this case it doesn't.

In my opinion the creation of the universe or a creator is a concept so advanced we could never possibly begin to understand it with our stupid little human brains. I don't think we even have a decent grasp on what anything is, how reality functions, etc.

I get a sense of tacit approval. "You may not be perfect, but you're good enough to crack the skull of an unbeliever"

Rational explanations for god are cool and all and I'm glad they exist and I'm glad theologians like Aquinas dedicated their lives to the search for these answers but at the end of the day god can't be explained by rationalism as it is a tool of humanity and as such is lesser than god who transcends human understanding.

Aquinas was pretty close. Same with Descartes. Shakespeare, too. Exodus 3:14. There are quite a few more. The fact that you even ask the question is where you'll find your answer.

>In my opinion the creation of the universe or a creator is a concept so advanced we could never possibly begin to understand it with our stupid little human brains.
Congratulations, Son. Humility is a beautiful thing. You've just found God.

>I Am That I Am
Honestly fucking kino

Twitter's blue checkmark seems to be the strongest proof of identity in today's society. Would you accept a picture of God holding a recent newspaper, posted to God's verified Twitter page? Would that convince you of God's presence?
Or an official Reddit AMA with a moderator attesting verification?
Maybe Facebook has a copy of his Drivers License on file.
Or are we to deduce God's presence by manipulating logical symbols with peer review in a big-name journal? Or maybe if we smash baryonic matter at high speeds then God will pop out in a particle along with Nelson Mandela and the Berenstain Bears.

If you want to find God you have to find him yourself. Maybe you will. Maybe you won't. People spend lifetimes trying. There are many annoying types who go door-to-door with offers to help for free! But when a good or service is free then YOU are the product.
Personally, I see God's manifestation in everything. But that's not proof or an argument, and it's non-transferable. What works for me won't work for you.

In that case all I need is a definition or example or introduction.

God is a lot like love: it's all a feeling

Oh. So some chemical in the brain.

Newfriend detected

>the creation of the universe or a creator is a concept so advanced we could never possibly begin to understand it with our stupid little human brains.

I actually don't see a problem with understanding either of those things (unless you mean understanding them on an atomic/methematical level, in which case, yeah you're right).

> The universe began to exist at one point. Therefore, someone/thing had to make it.

This has to be true. We can't have an eternally existing universe because of all the logical contradictions that come from having an infinite... well, anything. All research regarding the Big Bang, entropy, and eventual heat-death of the universe make it clear that the universe started at some point when things were VERY hot, and will eventually become VERY cold and "die."

Now, how does a universe create itself? Well... it can't, for the same reasons a cake can't bake itself without using ingredients. Research from people like Alexander Vilenkin point to a specific point in time when the universe (and space-time itself as well) began. So, what was there before that point?

Nothing. Literally nothing.

So, how do you make a universe without any materials?

You don't. It's impossible. Someone/thing *outside* of space and time must have been responsible for creating what we see around us. No other theory really makes any sense.

God is an un-created being who exists outside of space and time and is thus the best explanation of who made the universe.

Oh. So it's not just like love, it's not a feeling, it's something else. I wish user had answered with the answer instead of their opinion about god.

Not him, but how do you go from that to being religious?

> The Bible claims that God is an un-created being. He had no designer and has always existed. How is this possible?

Because God is a *necessary* being. The laws of mathematics, for example, are necessary laws. 2 + 2 = 4 exists and is true regardless of whether or not the universe exists. It is true because it is NECESSARY for it to be true. Any other outcome for 2 + 2 would be illogical.

God exists in a similar fashion. Since the universe and space and time began to exist at a certain point, and we just established that God is the best explanation for the creation of the universe, then God must exist OUTSIDE of space and time. Thus, he must be a necessary being. Just like 2 + 2 = 4 with or without a universe, God exists with or without a universe.

I really don't feel its hard to understand how the universe was made or who made it from a logical perspective. Now, you want to explain God from a mathematical/scientific perspective? Ok, yeah, that's a herculean task that no man can perform.

Isn't that Popeye's catchphrase?

>he still doesn't get it

Of course. If I got it I'd believe in god. But nobody is ever willing to say what it is that convinced them god exists.

You've gotta be new as fuck, I only came here starting in 2012 and even I get the meme

Not a philosophical one, but Christianity becoming what it is today against everything and everyone makes me stop and think for a second. Jesus was a real person, no question about that. So what did happen that made such an impact to the population? Spreading through a powerful empire without interest in a message of "equality" and "kindness". A miracle wouldn't exactly prove the existence of God, but at least it would support this narrative

Because humility is the most profound and fundamental realization of religion and spirituality. You can not be without it. There's a reason pride is the "deadliest" of the deadly sins. There's a reason for the Satan story, an angel who thought himself greater than He Who Is. You can see elements in Icarus. Ask James Joyce.

Humility, user. The acceptance of the overwhelming, undeniable, and incontrovertible fact that you can not possibly understand yourself let alone the universe let alone existence. You should be afraid. Terrified, in fact. At the same time you should feel great comfort. Comfort because, despite this utter terror at your sheer inconsequence, you have equally overwhelming, undeniable, and incontrovertible proof that you exist. You ARE. So you are not inconsequence. Quite the opposite.

Sleep well tonight, friend. Because you have been given the gift. The great gift. The breath of life. Dont let it go to waste.

I don't really get what you want to mean but that's nice to read, thanks user.

>You can not be without it.

you can

>There's a reason pride is the "deadliest" of the deadly sins

why so? because it is written is not valid

>There's a reason for the Satan story, an angel who thought himself greater than He Who Is. You can see elements in Icarus. Ask James Joyce.

all nice literature, nothing to do with god

> understand yourself let alone the universe let alone existence

maybe now we can't but at different points in history we didnt understand how a fire works and now we can. we have to keep researching and if we can't reach any conclusions why the fuck are we supposed to jump to god

>despite this utter terror at your sheer inconsequence, you have equally overwhelming, undeniable, and incontrovertible proof that you exist.

again what is the proof?

Literally the only "not awful" argument for theism is the argument from fine-tuning. Everything else is trash

Do you or do you not exist?

I get your point but you need to explain why feeling the way you feel translates into reality

The best argument for god is that Bloodborne exists. Only by divine purpose could us sinners by damned with playing one of the easiest games in the history of gaming franchises. Seriously each area following the "chosen hunter" and his excessively buffed weapons from assorted game locations as he fights brainless enemies has been less engaging than the last. Aside from the handholding, the game's only consistency is providing you with absolutely retarded balancing that either lets you win or has you die based entirely on luck and unfair game design. All to make the easy feel difficult, to make achievement seem arbitrary.
Perhaps the die was cast when From Software voted to make the game a PS4 exclusive; they made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything. just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for the souls series. Bloodborne might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-Final Fantasy 7 in its refusal of challenge, skill and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the Dark Souls games were good though

"No!"
The enemies were easy; the bosses were unfairly hard. As I played, I noticed that every time I died to a boss, it was because I got hit by an unfair hitbox and it wasn't my fault. I began marking on the back of an envelope every time I died to stupid unfair bullshit. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope a several dozen times. I was incredulous. Miyazaki's mind is so governed by outdated game design philosophies that he has no other style of challenge besides luck. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Dark Souls by the same Kevin-V from Gamespot. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are playing Bloodborne at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to think the Ottomans were Roman." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you play "Bloodborne" you are, in fact, trained to be a stupid faggot.

It's quite clear you don't. I exist. The burden is on you to prove you don't. And if you can't prove you don't, where did you come from?

You're arguing about as well in favor of mathematics as a real ontic structure as God.

>You're arguing about as well in favor of mathematics as a real ontic structure as God.
Can you expand on that? You're saying I'm making it sound like math is just as likely to have created the universe as God?

I don't feel I am. Math can't make anything, only people can. A hockey puck doesn't launch itself into a goal, a hockey player launches it into a goal.

The universe can't create itself, only a person of untold power and knowledge can do that.

32nd post best post

>first cause issue

>everything to basic logic everything comes from something
Causation has issues. Its been pointed out by few key people in history. "everything comes from something" is a problem in causality, but not so in common speech or "common sense". Read up on Hume's work on causality. There's also Nagarjuna(buddhist philosopher) on causality. Both take different routes on problems of commonly understood notion of causality.

In short, Hume thinks commonly understood Cause-Effect have no connection and the two are entirely separate things with the connection coming into play only from our own minds or something of that nature. Nagarjuna also notes the problem of distinct identity for cause-effect as such would create problems trying to create an connection between cause-effect. However he's implying that because there are no distinct cause-effect, the causes-effects are changeable and possibly reversible given that he believes causes-effects are simply a slice of a bigger picture at hand with every cause and every effect being part of a mesh of network(also not arguing the mesh is the cause or effect).

Both of them come from different backgrounds and motives, Humes was a practical way to show limits of knowledge and such. Nagarjuna was to show limits of human mind on trying to create self-identities/individuals/separation from the whole.

Hume was a brainlet

Very well said. It's interesting how incredibly accurate the Bible is in explaining the human condition and predicting that people cannot be happy without God. What does the Bible predict would be the primary trait of those who turn from God would be? Pride. What do modern atheists display so brazenly? Pride.

When you really read the Bible it's either divinely inspired or the most insightful work on human nature ever compiled.

That's not an issue. The real issue is using that "first-cause" and adding non-intrinsic characteristics to it to push the narrative of Theism.

This is just an edit of the Harry Potter copypasta. I see through your lies.

That people who follow his rules are better off and happier than atheists.
Not even christian btw.

It's an incredibly insightful work which is what makes it divine. Even your post indicates that there's no way the ancients could have been that insightful into human nature without it being divine. That it MUST have been divine. My argument has always been that it's divine because it's eternal truths that they observed to the best of their honesty and ability and that's what makes it divine.

One of my biggest problems with the modern age is our the hubris to think that we've grown so far ahead of any ancient people that they wouldn't be able to keep up with us on anything. This is entirely irrational. The truth is, many ancients, if they were alive today, would be able to keep up with the smartest of us, if they had the same educational background as we did. The difference in modern society with ancient society is there are far more people with the time and money to be educated in other matters because they don't have to spend all day hunting and farming. This is because we build on each other's hard work. Standing on the shoulders of giants, so to speak.

What's amazing to me is the dismissal of the modern man, particularly the atheist, of ancient people's ruminations on God, the self, and the universe. These are people who spent thousands and thousands and thousands of nights staring up at a lightless sky, save for a campfire, or the candle on the bow of their ship. All they had was to think about their place in the universe and tell stories to each other. Pass those stories down to their sons. Debate with each other. Whittle their arguments.

To dismiss ancient people's theories about God, the self, and the universe as "dumb" because they didn't have a technology like the internet or understand how particle physics works or couldn't build the large hadron collider yet is mind bogglingly obtuse. And yet, atomism is a thing from about 500 BC.

Did they get everything right? No. Of course not. It's just the casual dismissal of it that I can't stand.

>christians aren't proud

I don't think they were dumb, I'm just gonna have faith in one of the religions they made.
I fail to see how it's arrogant?

*just not gonna have faith in one of the religions they made

Would't the existence of Bloodborn indicate the God is Amaterasu?

I never said you had to have faith in one of the religions they made, but it's easier to find the things you like and notice the positives in something rather than rebel over the little things beyond your control. This whole "life" thing is a process of refinement. We're stones in the tide or the river. Being refined. Smoothed.

Take that for what you will, but it's my belief that if you're not present in your culture and your time, if you're not present in the now moment that you exist, then you will live a lonely life that's a version of prideful vanity and rebellion itself. I believe that all of us should go out into the world and participate, be involved. I'm not saying that drawing away is entirely bad or you're bad if it happens for a while, by any means. Sometimes we need to go into the personal cave/basement to come out into the light again. That's an eternal story in itself. To go down into the underworld.

Personally, I believe this is not what we're ultimately here for. I believe we're here to interact with our fellow man. Find the positives from our perspective and reflect those positives in return. Listen, all I'm trying to do is highly advise you to have faith in whatever you want to refer to as God. You can call God whatever you wish. As long as you're humbling yourself before something. Acknowledge those who came before you and remember those who will come after you.

Being present how?

Be a part of something. Something tangible. Something that exists in the real world. Be it a group, a community, a relationship, a family. Be a part. Prove your value to someone else. Don't ever demand they be proud of you. Work hard for them so they are proud of you. Let them see the good in you. Do that, and you'll find God, user. And hey, if you still don't believe me, at the very least, you'll have made a friend.

Some day you'll realize there isn't a difference.

Sorry, that was for

Not the person you're responding to, but are you by any chance legit or just trolling as you go along?

I'm very serious about this stuff.

Who made God?

See

Ahh a troll. Makes sense. No one could be this retarded.

Nah. Sorry, kiddo.

youtube.com/watch?v=kKKIvmcO5LQ

Why does religion make people so angry?

Also why do you call someone a fedora when they are against religion but not when they are against something as equally ridiculous as being a flat-earther? Why is being a fedora bad at all?

I disagree completely. Why should I care for uneducated Bedouin sheperders? The complete lack of sense that religion makes also makes me question their ability to think critically about anything. You don't need science to know that you should claim ignorance on events you can't explain. They're a dissapointment if anything. Should I respect alchemy or people who thought drinking mercury would make them live longer? Why would I read something like the Bible for any reason aside from historical significance? The fact religion existed at all should bring a sense of shame to mankind. There are other ideas in there dealing with morality and such but I see no reason to ever respect voodoo magic bullshit

You said a whole lot of words to say nothing at all.

the existence of infinite dictates it as an easy conclusion.

I disagree. I enjoyed his writing. Substance as well as eloquence

There is not. Either you believe or not.

I've given up on that entirely. You believe or you do not.

The necessity of belief in God though, that's easier.

Best arguments are the arguments that deists have always used, such as Aristotle. Prime mover arguments, cosmological arguments etc.

Which are pretty good.

However, theism itself is indefensible. Even if one accepts the existence of a deity through some philosophical or logical pathway, there's no way to know the deity's will, his mind or his goals, hence theism is completely untenable.

>Prime mover arguments
This argument wrongfully assumes that the laws of physics are the same in the "outside" environment of our universe as within it. You can't apply any reasoning whatsoever to a medium you have no/can't obtain information about, since it's unknowable, which makes any logic chain constructed upon this argument invalid.

>there's no way to know the deity's will
What if the god flat out tells you what he wants, like Jesus?

In order to believe Jesus is god, you must first believe that revelation actually is possible, and second you have to rationalize to yourself why you exclude all other revelations to the exception of one.

Can you do that? Why believe in Jesus, when Islam says Muhammad is the last prophet? Why believe in Muhammad and Allah, when Hinduism says Shiva is the creator of the universe? Why believe Hunduism when Buddhism says there are no gods, there are only enlightened souls free from the wheel of death and rebirth?

There really aren't any. There are arguments that are stronger than others, and there are arguments that will convince people who lack knowledge in the area the argument deals in, but there are no arguments that have not been debunked a thousand times.
>The necessity of belief in God
People can and do not believe in him, so there is no such necessity, and this "argument" works for believing in the Tooth Fairy as much as it does Yahweh.

It also has the flaws that events DO happen without apparent cause, as in quantum vacuum fluctuations, and that we have never observed anything that did not begin to exist, meaning you can't simply assume such a thing is even possible.

You have to prove the existence of God BEFORE you can claim Jesus is God.
>"I'm an Atlantean! Let me tell you what Atlantis was like..."

t. Kirillov

Jesus's Divinity goes both ways.

He came as God but he also Became God. (Theosis)

Divinity and Humanity share a burden.

>You have to prove the existence of God BEFORE you can claim Jesus is God.
Okay, what issues do you have with:

What does "necessary existence" even mean? It implies there would be some kind of paradox or contradiction if said thing did NOT exist, but this is not the case because a universe without a god looks exactly the same as one WITH a god. Also, why can't the universe be the necessarily existing thing?

The universe may have a cau8se, but it seems more likely it is self-caused, or even that it eternally recurs. Until you can prove the universe had one, singular cause, you can't use this cause to prove a God. Same problem as with claiming what Jesus said as proof, begging the question fallacy.

>reading comprehension

>In order to believe Jesus is god, you must first believe that revelation actually is possible, and second you have to rationalize to yourself why you exclude all other revelations to the exception of one.
Well, no other religion has the historical evidence, logical reason, or practical utility of Christianity. Like, not by a long shot. So, I feel I can exclude all other religious worldviews.

> Can you do that?
Honestly? Yes.

The world is a horribly complicated place, sure. But, it is perfectly possible to have a correct answer in contrast to other answers. If I ask 100 people, "what is 1 + 1?" and only 1 person says "2," well, I know that person was right. Just because there are a lot of answers doesn't mean they're all right.

>Why believe in Jesus, when Islam says Muhammad is the last prophet?
Because Muhammad said blatantly illogical things which make no sense. He claimed Jesus was a prophet, was "the word of God," and was born of a virgin. Also, Muslims believe that prophets are perfect people and thus can't commit evil acts.

So, we have a problem.

Jesus claimed to be the only way to God. Islam teaches that Jesus did not die by crucifixion and was not God. So, if Muslims believe that prophets are perfect we have to ask a question:

"Can a Muslim prophet tell a lie?"

If the answer is "yes," then we have a problem with everything in the Koran because it calls into question everything the Muslim prophets said including the part where prophets are supposed to be perfect people. If the answer is "no," then Muhammad is coming into DIRECT contradiction with Jesus, who came before him and whom Muhammad said was a prophet.

Islam can't stand on any logical ground. I feel confident in my ability to dismiss it.

>Well, no other religion has the historical evidence, logical reason, or practical utility of Christianity. Like, not by a long shot. So, I feel I can exclude all other religious worldviews.
You see by saying this you prove beyond any doubt that you know nothing at all about other religions. You merely assume you know what they say, probably because that's what your priest told you. Ironically, your Toad-fatuous self-righteous certainty does nothing to persuade, but merely leads us to dismiss everything you have to say as coming from an ignorant child.

Jesus said he would not drink wine again after the last supper, but then he drank some while on the cross. Ergo, Jesus was a liar and nothing he said can be trusted.

>You see by saying this you prove beyond any doubt that you know nothing at all about other religions.
How so?
>Jesus said he would not drink wine again after the last supper, but then he drank some while on the cross.
Where in the Bible does it say that? I'm reading Mark 15 and it says Jesus was offered wine but didn't take it.

Why don't we just look at this logically and simply. We do not and never will know what happens after death. Now just because of that there is already a chance of God existing in the unknown. Now considering that there is a chance, and that we have nothing to lose, why not believe in Jesus? We have absolutely nothing to lose and an eternity of pure good and love to gain.

>How so?
Because had you studied even one religion other than your own, you would know this to be untrue. It's as tho you said, "well, since all birds are mammals, it is clear that the fruit bat is the best bird". Your statement by itself proves you don't know what you're talking about, which makes the certainty of your position all the more absurd.

Because worshiping a false idol will send you to hell, according to the Bible. The real question is why aren't YOU a devout Muslim? They have way more verses about how bad hell is, many Christians question whether hell even exists but for a Muslim there is no doubt, surely that should worry you?

How do other religions compare to Christianity in a way that makes you think they are as valid as Christianity?

In literally every possible way. There is nothing unique about Christianity, not its message, not its claims, not its methods, not its liturgies and rituals.

because Islam teaches violence and dominance. Christianity teaches about God's love and sacrifice for humanity even though we do not deserve anything at all.

>because Islam teaches violence and dominance.
>I came to bring a sword...
Also Islam is not the only religion, try Jainism if peaceful and loving is what you want, Jains are so committed to peace and love that they wear cloths over their mouths so they don't accidentally breathe in and kill a bug.
>Christianity teaches about God's love and sacrifice for humanity even though we do not deserve anything at all.
How is this different than Judaism, or really any salvation-based religion, such as Zoroasterism or Orphism?

For the christian deity? There are none.
A deist creator(or group of creators) deity/deities has a prime mover argument that can be made, but even that is rather weak as we have no real way of knowing that the Universe actually needed a cause in order to exist.

>In literally every possible way.
... that's really not a good answer. Can you give me specifics?

Name anything at all about your religion, it is found in other religions, too. Taking wine at communion? Straight lift from Orphism. Savior born of a virgin? Dionysos. If you drop the virgin clause then there are a thousand savior god-men who will help you reach heaven in exchange for your worship. None of this proves Christianity is false, of course, but to claim it is unlike other religions simply shows you don't know anything about other religions.

jews are evil user. we all know that come on

Kalem is pretty straightforward.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. The universe therefore has a cause.

They might be but their religion is just a religion like any other. Don't like Jews? Consider its close cousins, Yazidism and Mandaeism. Both have theologies of a god sacrificing for the sake of an unworthy human race.

God knows, and the people who have died know, and you will eventually know.

So what you say is not true.

If god exists then he might know, depending on whether he is omniscient. You can't prove either so to pretend you can is simply dishonest.