ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

My argument for the existence of God

Updated on December 12, 2015

Introduction:

I will refute the following arguments for the existence of God:

* The cosmological argument - States that the universe had a first cause and that it was God. I believe this is logically inconsistent because the universe could have been caused by something that is not God.

* The ontological argument - States that we can find God's existence through reason alone. My refutation of this is that by definition, God is too complex to be understood by human reasoning. Not to mention that You can rationally prove the existence of anything even if you invented it.

* The moral argument - States that without God, morality is impossible. There must be a lawgiver who originates and stands by moral law. A universal law cannot exist, therefore God exists. The flaw in this argument is that like the cosmological argument, morals do not necessarily point to God's existence. Humans could've invented morals themselves.

Now, Does that mean i don't believe in God? No, i wanted to be honest in admitting that proving God is more difficult than it seems. No matter how much you look at the beauty of the universe, you cannot completely prove his existence in a logical fashion. I will describe my argument for his existence in a more indirect approach, but i would like to first to give a brief introduction on important factors involved in the argument.

As a Christian, I believe that the heart is the center of a person's character. It can be stubborn or can be open. Realize that if a person's heart is "closed" as the bible describes, it is fruitless to keep arguing with them on any matter. You may as well speak to a brick wall. I understand that this is defined differently in psychological terms, nevertheless, this is an important concept to understand because it will involve observing the nature of each human being.

Secondly, before i can create a solid foundation for my argument, i believe it's necessary to argue against arguments disproving the existence of God. Below are some of the common arguments showing God to be nonexistent:

* "There is no scientific evidence for him, therefore he doesn't exist" A counterexample is that there is no scientific evidence of something unknown in the universe, so you may as well conclude that it doesn't exist, but it's been shown millions of times that scientific discoveries have been made, therefore this argument is very weak.

* "The natural world shows that supernatural events such as miracles are almost impossible to happen" My counter-argument for this is that if God did create the universe then he controls the laws of nature. It doesn't matter how impossible something is to happen. If God wants it to happen, it will, and there is no argument against it. Whether he exists or not, you cannot use the universe itself to disprove his existence.

* The last argument is the problem of evil argument, the logic is as follows:

  1. God exists.
  2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
  3. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
  4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
  5. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
  6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
  7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then evil shouldn't exist
  8. Evil exists, therefore there is a logical contradiction

Some then point out that because God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good at the same time, he doesn't exist because it is in contradiction to the Definition of What God is. I cannot argue using reason alone because God works through divine revelation. The Bible contains the definition of God and how he works. I find it utterly absurd that people think that they can use logic without Studying a specific definition of God, let alone not read the bible. It's like ignoring several of the most important and accurate manuscripts laying in front of you and finding an easier method because the manuscripts are too difficult to understand. Firstly, The definition of "Perfectly Good" isn't the same definition that you are using, therefore you cannot fully know what a "Perfectly Good" being would do. Secondly, In the book of job; We see that Satan claimed that if calamity fell upon Job, God's servant then he would turn against God. In the end, Job proved to be faithful and God blessed him more than before. In conclusion, God is simply using evil to not only show that evil is completely defeated to the faithful believers, but that God is absolutely omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and completely able to defeat evil in an instant.

Anyone who makes claims about God on logic without knowing about their subject will only be flaunting their ignorance. It's very disappointing to see so many bibles available to people worldwide and no one bothers to even study them before speaking about God.

Body:

Now, for my definition of God. When confronted with the questions "Which God are you speaking of? The Christian God? Jewish God? Hindu Gods? What if we're wrong in picking The christian God and then get sent to the Buddhist or a Hindu hell?" It's erroneous to mention other religions because each have their own set of belief's. There is no Buddhist or Hindu hell because they believe in a reincarnation. You simply do good and prosper and if you do evil, evil will follow you. You are not punished because you don't believe in their doctrines. There isn't even a unified set of belief's in Buddhism because Buddha never left a book as organized as the Bible or the Qur'an. As a matter of fact, Some religions believe you will reap the rewards in heaven, no matter how immoral your life on earth was. Most eastern religions that i have studied have their own sects of belief's. It seems that you won't even be punished for worshiping every God in the universe. I will say that God is defined as the only supreme being(s) in existence.

Why did i define God in this way? Because humans lack the ability to present objective interpretations of the universe, If any supernatural beings exist, they should reveal themselves to mankind by supernatural means. Now, how will we know whether the observers of supernatural acts indeed are receiving a divine revelation or hallucinating? I will explain important points when using Scientific explanations before answering the following question.

* Science isn't concerned with studying any supernatural phenomena because definitions of the supernatural are too vague

* Science isn't concerned with the existence of the natural realm, Only with giving explanations for how things work in a system. It should be the philosophers task to find what it means to exist

* Many experiments can be done to support a theory, however it's still a theory. Science basically uses inductive reasoning, not deductive.

Now, as for the belief that mental disorders are caused by the brain, there is no concrete scientific evidence to support this hypothesis. Indeed, teachers, scientists, professors, psychologists, psychiatrists, etc. will boldly claim there is proof, this is a lie and just because it's widely accepted, doesn't mean it's true. They are all supporting a biased and unproven viewpoint. The answer to the question is You can't because only the person experiencing it knows what they are seeing. Even if you discover the supernatural acts are fake, there is no way to eliminate the possibility that the supernatural act happened at that specific moment and then the supernatural being hid it.

We have been blinded to believe that science has gained enough enlightenment to be more than able to fully able to explain supernatural phenomenon. We have only plunged deeper into more ignorance than in the dark ages. The fact that we have made significant progress in the fields of science in no way makes us "immune" or intelligent enough to no longer have any need for any religion or spiritual claim of the sort. We are still unable to wipe out God from being the cause of the universe.

Conclusion:

The argument is clear, we let whichever deity reveal to us it's own existence; more importantly, it's plan for our lives. I have personally found that Jesus Christ is the revelation of the son of God. I don't have to defend this claim because i am the one experiencing it. I advise everyone to not question ancient belief's strictly because we are in the "age of reason." I encourage you to seek the truth for yourself and search for new ideas on it's significance.




Was this hub helpful?

See results

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Jonas James profile image

      Jonas James 4 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

      How do you justify the claim that space and matter were created?

    • Sojourner1234 profile image

      John Marshall 4 years ago from Ohio

      IsaiasPablo90, thanks for the Hub. I can appreciate the presentation on your perspective of God's existence.

      I do believe that the Cosmological, Ontological, and Moral arguments for God's existence can be useful actually. There is evidence that can be used through multiple areas, but I see your approach as personal to you. Though I do think you had some good arguments people may want more definite proof... though I understand again this is your perspective on the issue.

      Jonas James, both space & matter had a beginning point. We can understand that by the red shift and the expanding universe. Also, the fact that it seems evident that there was a beginning point of time & space (as demonstrated by the findings of Stephen Hawking) shows that matter had to have a ‘starting point’.

      Ib radmasters, actually it has been found that the Bible is quite authentic and of all the books of antiquity it has far more manuscripts than any other. It was written by multiple human authors and One God at the same time (quite incredible actually). Genesis is also accurate in the creation account, if not then perhaps you can demonstrate an inadequacy. If there is a God, then how would you even know if said god is good or bad? How would you know what good or bad even is if there is a god? It does not make sense that a god who made everything, including mankind, could be bad (as far as we are concerned) because God wrote within us and wrote (literally) what good and bad are defined as… so, who can then claim God is bad? And by what means or measure?

    • Jonas James profile image

      Jonas James 4 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

      Sojourner,

      Unfortunately all you have done is made further claims regarding redshift and the alleged expansion of a concept and appealed to the authority of Hawking. This does not JUSTIFY any claim that space and matter were 'created'. There really is no reason to assume that matter came from somewhere. Think about it this way, how does nothing suddenly acquire length, width, and height in zero time?

    • Sojourner1234 profile image

      John Marshall 4 years ago from Ohio

      Jonas James, you asked the question... how does nothing suddenly acquire length, width, and height in zero time? Obviously matter could not have just come into being by itself. What the redshif and expansion shows is that there was a beginning point. There is more evidence than just this, but it is a quick piece of evidence to show that matter began. If matter began where did it come from? Could it create itself? No. It would need something outside of time and space, not made of matter, to create it. God fits the bill. What else does?

    • Jonas James profile image

      Jonas James 4 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

      Sojouner, you have not justified your claim that "matter began", you have simply stated that it does! You are assuming without justification that nothing can spontaneously turn into something. Creation is an ontological impossibility, it is impossible to make a brick wall without any bricks. Please explain how God turns nothing into something (performs an action) while not being something Himself. It is impossible for nothing to perform an action.

    • Sojourner1234 profile image

      John Marshall 4 years ago from Ohio

      Jonas James, are you suggesting that God is made of matter? Is God held within time & space? It is not difficult to conclude that the best logical explanation for us being here is Creation. If you try to use matter you envoke impossible scenarios of matter creating matter, or at least just as improbable as a god being around forever... matter being around forever. The claim is more than justified, anything else does not add up. Justify any other possibility.

    • Jonas James profile image

      Jonas James 4 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

      Sojourner, what rational argument do you have to support the claim that matter was created? The only rational conclusion here is that space and matter are eternal. This is easily justified by understanding that it is impossible to create nothing (ie, space) and it is also impossible to create something out of nothing, hence the brick wall comment. When it comes to God, the only thing I am suggesting is that God is defined as the creator of space and matter (ie, the universe) and in order to perform the action of creation (that inescapably requires motion) God must necessarily be an object already surrounded by space.

    • Sojourner1234 profile image

      John Marshall 4 years ago from Ohio

      Jonas James, the only rational conclusion is to follow the evidence where it leads. It does not seem space & matter are eternal, according to scientific findings. Also, you are trying to define God by the laws which it seems were made by this Being. How can that be? It makes no sense to confine Something/Someone which, it seems, is the Creator. By very definition there is nothing holding this One back from seemingly doing the impossible... like Creation itself. This actually makes much more sense than an eternal space/matter alternative in lining up with evidence.

    • Jonas James profile image

      Jonas James 4 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

      "the only rational conclusion is to follow the evidence where it leads."

      Following your opinion where it leads you is practically the definition of religion and has nothing to do with science! That's right, evidence is strictly your opinion. Why? Because it requires YOU to determine it as such! There is no such thing as 'objective evidence' because evidence necessarily requires an observer. According to me these footprints are evidence of Bigfoot, but according to you they are evidence of pranksters. Evidence = opinion.

      "It does not seem space & matter are eternal, according to scientific findings."

      And again you have failed to justify this conclusion with a rational explanation of how nothing can spontaneously acquire length, width, and height in zero time. Please explain the process by which a rabbit can suddenly appear out of the void.

      "Also, you are trying to define God by the laws which it seems were made by this Being. How can that be?"

      God: creator of the universe (space and matter).

      God is an object if He is the creator and if He can move (ie, create). God is also an object by His own word (read your Bible).

      Numbers 12:8 -- “With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the FORM of the LORD.”

      Object: that which has shape/form.

      In other words, God has SHAPE, and if He has shape He is inescapably contoured by space (ie, nothing). If God has shape then it is impossible for Him to have created space because space precedes all objects without exception! IF God is without form then He is either lying or He is incapable of motion.

    • Sojourner1234 profile image

      John Marshall 4 years ago from Ohio

      Jonas James, the situation remains the same. You are trying to negate matter/space/time beginning, but science is not on your side in this assertion. Evidence also can be objective if it can be observed by people... truth does not change upon your opinion of what the evidence may point to if there is no possible way the evidence reveals something. A specific evidence can show a specific reality, despite anyone's attempt to juke reality.

      The 'form' situation is beyond just your philosophical dance to try to push God into a box. God is outside of the box of which He built, unless He enters it. In other words, God is outside of time/space/matter unless He decides to act upon it in additional ways after creation. The logical process to find a cosmological process for the beginning points towards God because there is no other reasonable explanation for how we got here. Please present your opinion of how we got here.

    • Jonas James profile image

      Jonas James 4 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

      "the situation remains the same. You are trying to negate matter/space/time beginning, but science is not on your side in this assertion."

      Science is the discipline of explaining physical phenomena. In science we propose objects to act as mediators and explain how and why particular phenomena like light, magnetism, and gravity occur. When you can explain how a rabbit can spontaneously appear out of the void in zero time then your position regarding creation of the universe can be justified, but so far you have failed to do this and your conclusion is merely a religious claim (ie, you have NO explanation for your assertions). Science is not on YOUR side Sojourner. Eternal space and matter is the default position in this discussion because there is nothing to explain. I am not making any 'claim' because eternal universe implies that no first event occurred. It is the creationist/bigbanger who makes the positive claim that "something happened", and thus it is up to them (and you) to justify your claim. Put simply, it is irrational to try to explain a process that did not occur, and that is what you seem to expect from me! If the universe was created, it is up to you to EXPLAIN with the luxury of detail just how that is possible. Saying that God did it is not an explanation, it is a description.

      "Evidence also can be objective if it can be observed by people..."

      You're not much of a philosopher, huh? You just contradicted yourself! Objective means that it is not predicated on observer opinion. If your version of 'objective evidence' requires an observer to perform a process of validation based on its limited sensory system then it is entirely subjective (predicated on observer opinion). There is no such object called evidence in science! Evidence is essentially like saying 'object + opinion'. Without the inclusion of the observer opinion all we have left is objects. One last time, without you to declare it as 'true evidence' it is just an object

      "truth does not change upon your opinion of what the evidence may point to if there is no possible way the evidence reveals something."

      Truth is also your opinion, Sojourner! Truth is a concept that requires you to perform a validation process using your limited sensory system. Truth inescapably requires an observer's opinion. Again, there is no object in science called truth; all truth requires an observer to validate a proposition regarding objects. Without the observer there is no truth and that is why truth is always a subjective opinion. If you beg to differ please define the term unambiguously.

      Truth: _______________ (fill in the blank). Do this BEFORE your lecture me on truth, okay?

      "A specific evidence can show a specific reality, despite anyone's attempt to juke reality."

      According to whom? Can you now understand why truth and evidence necessarily requires an opinion?

      "The 'form' situation is beyond just your philosophical dance to try to push God into a box."

      Allegedly the Bible is the literal "word of God". God describes himself as having form and that He can be communicated with face-to-face. Here it is again...

      Numbers 12:8 -- “With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the FORM of the LORD.”

      He observes the shape of God and speaks to Him as if another man without riddles and in plain sight! Who are YOU, Sojourner, to defy the word of God? As everyone can now see, it is you who is dancing around trying to push God into YOUR box!

      If God can perform actions He is necessarily an object. If God is without form it is impossible for Him to move, think, speak, smite, or make clay pots.

      "God is outside of the box of which He built, unless He enters it. In other words, God is outside of time/space/matter unless He decides to act upon it in additional ways after creation."

      You are loading up your claims with unjustified assumptions! You are implying that space is finite and has a terminating border. How do you justify this claim? Space is nothing but location for objects, and it is in that sense that it is a noun of science, but in reality space is without shape and has no outer boundary for God to exist beyond. What is beyond your alleged boundary, more space perhaps?

      "... unless He decides to act upon it..."

      You see, God must have shape in order to 'act upon decisions'. You're unwittingly implying matterless motion in the majority of your claims and obviously do not understand the inherent contradiction contained therein.

      "The logical process to find a cosmological process for the beginning points towards God because there is no other reasonable explanation for how we got here."

      Sojourner, you haven't offered ANY explanations yet! All you've offered is opinion and description (ie, God did it, God is unfathomable).

      "Please present your opinion of how we got here."

      Opinions are irrelevant here! The relevant issue here is the impossibility of creation and how the claim that the universe has a beginning can be justified by those who claim it.

      So far all you have done is sidetrack this issue with tangents and appeals to authority. If you feel inclined to respond make sure you provide your definitions and respond to the actual issue: creation of space and matter.

    • Sojourner1234 profile image

      John Marshall 4 years ago from Ohio

      Ha!... Really? Jonas James, I apologize for the chuckle but at the same time must say your tangent does not attack the foundation of my indications nor does it help your perspective. You do not believe you have anything to defend because your belief is that matter has always been, however, that is a perspective which is not universally held and which is not supported.

      Let me first begin, Truth: is Reality. You cannot change reality, like the beginning, because you do not think God can be possible (or at least that He cannot create everything). I believe the definition of what occurred at the beginning would be the "Big Bang", though the precise definition does not matter because all it is would be a simple description of what happened, it is not the causal power behind it. Because of the expanding universe, redshift, zero point it seems evident that a rapid expansion happened at the beginning... perhaps in order for us to understand there was a beginning from the standpoint of science (perhaps God purposely made it possible for us to 'track' this evidence). So, Reality, the 'Big Bang', and what else were you looking for? God's 'form'? Ah yes, the Bible is a literal book. Though it also uses poetry, philosophical word pictures, is an autobiography, a biography, prophecy, and uses multiple types of word language to describe situations. We can understand God in particular ways with our limited mind, so God's 'form' being used in words is for our benefit. We are made also in God's 'image', perhaps more words you can use as your argument against God's 'matter'. However, these words are descriptive for our benefit and just because God has any kind of 'image', 'form', 'voice', etc. does not make Him a material being. It would be our understanding trying to press Him into a 'matter-box' when that does not line up with a realistic assessment of Who or What God is.

      So, as you indicated, "opinions are irrelevant here", so do not try to use your opinion based argument against God and the Word of God.

      And to take a step back, with regards to Truth being Reality... there are observable objective truths that are real. There is no way to indicate everything is subjective or relative, to do so would result in philosophical nonsense and simply is an impossibility. You indicated that I am not a very good with philosophy, but then how can you indicate such nonsense as objectivity being impossible? That is quite silly actually. Just because one has an opinion and a perspective does not mean that which is being observed has no reality or truth about it.

      Anyway, I have presented a definition of truth, a perspective on what happened at the beginning, information about God's 'form', and even on objectivity. So, please let me know how your opinion is less than a subjective perspective, and how it is based upon some type of evidence; the ball is in your court to provide some backing to what you believe, and putting the burden of proof on one side of the equation does not work... if there is no way to know eternity for matter is on your side, no way to rebut the beginning evidence which is present then yield to the truth of the situation.

    • Jonas James profile image

      Jonas James 4 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

      Before I respond please define your usage of the word 'reality'.

      Reality: ___________ (fill in the blank).

      Until you have done this your so-called definition of truth is meaningless.

    • Sojourner1234 profile image

      John Marshall 4 years ago from Ohio

      Jonas James, that is ridiculous. However, I will use a Webster's Dictionary to define reality: "That which has actual existence; fact, truth; an actual person or thing."

    • Jonas James profile image

      Jonas James 4 years ago from Adelaide, South Australia

      Sojourner, you have provided me with synonyms of the word 'reality' according to someone else. Please define what the term 'reality' actually means in relation to your so-called definition of truth. Synonyms are not definitions!

      Reality = existence = ?

    • profile image

      mmartin 4 years ago

      Sojourner, I've watched with interest as conversations like this unfold and right now it is following a very predictable route which involves a lot of words and very little progress.

      At the moment the sticking point is actually about how the discussion is conducted. You are arguing to use the tools that have always been used - authority, popularity/majority, logic, evidence, proof, truth and so on. The problem with this is that the debate is only ever about who is the most skillful at using those tools and not about tackling the issue that is up for discussion.

      The alternative is for two humans to sit down and use the collective power of their brains to objectively reason out an explanation that is either possible or not possible. Doing so gives us the best opportunity to put aside the biases, predudices, sensory limitations etc that would otherwise influence our argument.

      Its ok if you don't proceed , I'm just interested in a productive exchange between two people who might otherwise just be talking past each other.

    Click to Rate This Article