E, how did you reach the conclusion that God can't be proven by an argument? If God can't be proven, what can?

Not disagreeing with you, just curious.

Dan,

The fact that there are 20 arguments illustrates that no argument by itself proves God exists.

If there were one killer argument Aquinas, Plantinga, Geisler, Kreeft and William Craig would simply give that ONE argument.

Even if people laughed at it, if there were ONE proof for God's existence, we would use it exclusively - if that was The Proof.

The rationale is that when you put all arguments together, Theism is more rational than Atheism.

Thoughts?

p.s. If there was one argument, it would have to be Aristotle's The Unmoved Mover (First Cause). Nothing comes out of nothing.

I believe no one argument proves the Christian God's existence. As far as proving a generic Creator God, kalam on its own proves it to me.

20 arguments sort of unfold the picture of God. Also, not everyone is convinced by kalam or any one argument, so the more the merrier.

Yeah that's my beef with evidentialist apologetics, Christianity is only MORE rational than Atheism. It is only more likely true. That is why I am a presuppositionalist, without a Christian foundation there is no basis for rationality at all. So I disagree, I think God's existance isn't unproovable, it is certain because without it you can't proove anything.

Hi Bob,

I totally agree with you in how presuppositionalism relates to Paul's take on this.

The things of the Spirit are foolish to the flesh. There's no one who understands. No one who seeks God. No one that pleases him (Romans 3).

"All facts are either interpreted through a regenerate eyes or fallen eyes."

You may also be referring to the Laws of Logic and - even - to Epistemology. We must pre-suppose certain things.

St. Augustine put it nicely, Unless you believe, you won't understand.

Thoughts?

Kreeft's arguments are poor; they are mostly borrowed from very old theistic thinking. The argument from design is simply something there is no evidence for at all, for example. His argument from contingency, that the universe is contingent on something else assumes that, despite the unknowability of what is "outside" the universe, such arguments as Kreeft's bear relation that reality. And that's the problem here really - assumption piled upon assumption.
That there is no ONE argument proving the existence of God is no proof of his non-existence, of course. But it would help if the arguments were stronger. To propose many different arguments, each reliant on very questionable assumptions or interpretation of evidence amounts to trying to persuade the jury as to what is more likely, rather than what is solid fact. That is to appeal to subjectivity and therefore to undermine the claim that God is objectively demonstrable.

Hi Luke,

Thanks for the comment. There is always subjectivity and that is why we look for something objective - especially for serious philosophical or scientific thought. Otherwise, truth claims are tough to make - including truths about God.

But to say that God is subjectively true is to place it in the company of some outrageous claims as well as good ones. The madman's proclamation that he is Napoleon (when he clearly is not) is a subjective reality for him, though he will have terrible trouble convincing others that it is a correct view. It does not benefit from evidence and suffers from subjectivity - incredibly similar to God, wouldn't you say?

What is also interesting is that God doesn't seem too worried about proving himself with tricks and such. He is quite confident that way - just check out the Bible. Romans 1:18-20 makes it clear that He has revealed himself in his creation such that to deny him is a serious sin:

Romans 1:18-20 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

God seemed pretty impressed with his magic tricks in the OT, what with appearing as a pillar of flame and all that. He was constanly proving himself to the jews.

Gods invisible qualities are obviously not clearly seen, as most of the population don't believe in him. If the scientific process keeps providing us with explanations for "what was made" which don't need god's intervention or assistance, where does that leave the big guy?

Maybe he should rely on the magic tricks a little more?

"Most of the population doesn't believe in him"? Where do you get such a notion?

"If the scientific process keeps providing us with explanations for "what was made" which don't need god's intervention or assistance, where does that leave the big guy?"

Are you implying science is the sole arbiter of truth? If so, please prove the scientific method determines truth to the exclusion of God.

The atheist demands God perform tricks for him. The humble Christian understands man is not the center of the universe. Your magic appeal to "science" to answer everything has no place on this here site.

Jesus did miracles left and right, until someone asked him to do one for entertainment (I guess that made them the "Old Atheists"). Then he stopped.

Matthew 12:38-40 Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you.” He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Dan, the population of the planet is ~6billion. Of that ~2billion profess to be christians of some sect. Less than 50%, therefore most people do not believe in your god. Simple

Science is a process which allows us to find things out about reality. It's has been more effective than religion in this regard, and there is currently no reason to think that will change in the future. It has consistently pushed back our ignorance and increased our knowledge. We know how many things work which were once attributed to God(s) - lightning/electricity, Evolution or species, creation of earth, disease etc. When we had no knowledge of how things worked, God(s) did everything. God is placed into the gaps in our scientific knowledge , until our knowledge progresses and god is displaced - from creating the earth in situ, to starting the big bang. From creating humans from dust to starting life and letting evolution do the work.

Neil, you have a book written well after the fact, by a scientifically illiterate group of people.
Outside of the bible there is scant evidence for the existence of Jesus, let alone for the miracles you say he performed.
Why are the stories of the bible true, while those of the Hindu's, egyptians, greeks, Muslims etc etc false?

Dan,

No science isn't the "sole" arbiter of truth, it is however the only one that provides REAL evidence for the hypothesis that it puts forward.

As John Cornforth said in, "Scientists and Citizens":

"Scientists do not believe they check. I am not asking you to believe anything I say on a scientific matter, only that there is tested evidence for all of it and I know the nature of that evidence and can make a judgement on it's worth."

As for the 20 aruguments for the existence for god, they are laughable, they don't even argue for your god. What about Zeus? Osiris? Thor? Can all of those arguements not be used to support them?

The only arguement for god, is the god of the gaps, "We have no answer to that yet, so god did it". Unfortunately for theism... those gaps are getting less and less.

Johnny,

"No science isn't the "sole" arbiter of truth, it is however the only one that provides REAL evidence for the hypothesis that it puts forward."

Prove it.

"Can all of those arguements not be used to support them?"

No.

"The only arguement for god, is the god of the gaps, "We have no answer to that yet, so god did it". Unfortunately for theism... those gaps are getting less and less."

I assume you would apply the same "logic" to Darwinism? Still waiting for those missing links Johnny...

Dan, (again... lol)

Prove it.

I am laughing at this because I think (and hope) it is a joke. A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing, observations or accurate predictions. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis. These are all made by using Scientific Mathods:
1) The observation of phenomena
2) The formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena
3) The development of protocols to test the validity of the hypothesis
4) Experimentation/Observation/Prediction
5) A conclusion that supports or modifies the hypothesis

No.

Which arguement can't be used to "prove" the existence of a different god to your own?

I assume you would apply the same "logic" to Darwinism? Still waiting for those missing links Johnny...

I hope you're not a creationist Dan? I'd be very disappointed. The thing about missing links is that every time a gap is filled Creationists say that two more have appeared. There is no way that there will be a progressive line of fossils for every species, but there is more than enough evidence to support "most" of what Darwin said. Much of what he wrote is wrong, he knew nothing about genetics for instance, but the basic theory of Natural selection is as strong now as it was in 1859.

Just for fun, give me an animal and I'll give you some "missing links"

Dan Says:
E, how did you reach the conclusion that God can't be proven by an argument? If God can't be proven, what can?

Not disagreeing with you, just curious.

Paarsurrey says:

One of my Jewish friends says, and I do agree with him, that the most of the atheists are those Christians who in fact don't believe that Jesus was God; otherwise they are theists. They are prepared to believe in OneGod, the creator of the universe but they don't believe the Trinity, that Jesus was God or Jesus was Son of God.And you know that these concepts were invented by deviant Paul. Jesus never believed in them.

I love Jesus, Mary and Muhammad
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Most of the high-profile atheists may have once said they were Christians. However, most Christians would say they were never Christians in the first place.

Also, atheists are not willing to believe in One God, by definition. They might be prepared to do so since God has written on the tablet of their hearts, but they suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

As far as believing the Trinity, you seem to be stating that the doctrine of the Trinity somehow makes a conversion to atheism more likely. I don't believe I've ever heard an atheist claim that Trinitarianism caused him to abandon Christianity. Most of those types simply adopt heretical views and still claim to be Christians. Others abandon belief in God altogether.

I noticed you have asserted Paul is a deviant. I wonder have you read "Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity?" by Wenham? In this book he details every Pauline teaching and compares them to Christ's teachings. He concludes that Paul was familiar with the Jesus tradition and for the most part did not deviate from it. I have been reading this book because I have the same concerns as you that Paul somehow invented Christianity.

One must remember, however, that Paul's writings are the earliest Christian written records, so any deviation between Paul and the Injil must in fact give Paul the benefit of the doubt. The early Christians knew this, which is why the Pauline corpus was first to be accepted as canonical. It was only later the Injil were accepted as authentic. Did you know the earliest Christian heretics wanted to throw out the Injil and only keep what Paul had written? This was because it was widely accepted that Paul's writings were the earliest and most accurate New Testament documents.

What specific evidence do you have of Paul's deviance?

Hi Dan!

You must be knowing, I think, that Paul had differences with Jesus. They had hardly anything in common. Jesus believed in OneGod in simple terms; Paul believed in his own invention of Trinity. Jesus and the twelve believed that Jesus was to show a sign of Jonah; that is he would survive death on Cross. Paul invented a new religion based on Jesus dying on Cross; while Jesus was unaware of this doctrine. The differences have to be removed.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Jesus of Nazareth predicted that he would be killed and resurrected on the third day. How does this fit with your beliefs?

One of my Jewish friends says, and I do agree with him, that the most of the atheists are those Christians who in fact don't believe that Jesus was God

No, not at all. There probably are more Atheists who live in the "Christian" countries, but that is because of the following:

Higher standards of Education. There is better access to the kind of scientific education that helped me affirm my Atheism.

There is no death for apostasy in Christianity, unlike certain other religions. With no fear of being killed for changing your mind there more freedom to become an Athiest in the a "Christian" country.

Also, atheists are not willing to believe in One God, by definition.

Willingness has nothing to do with it Dan. We don't see any "reason" to believe in one, or several God(s). We aren't biased, we are multicultural heretics ;-).

Paul invented a new religion based on Jesus dying on Cross

That he did, Jesus was a good Jewish boy. What invention is Islam based on Paarsurrey?

It's like us unrighteous heathens say... "God was created in Man's image"

Willingness has nothing to do with it Dan. We don't see any "reason" to believe in one, or several God(s). We aren't biased, we are multicultural heretics ;-).

If you look at it from my point of view, a Biblical one, you will understand where I'm coming from when I say you're not willing to believe.

Not that I expect you to agree with me or anything...:)

If you look at it from my point of view, a Biblical one

Very difficult for me to do that, but I'll take your word for it.

Not that I expect you to agree with me or anything...:)

See I did agree. Have a little faith.

Sorry couldn't resist...lol