Tuesday, September 27, 2011

The Top Arguments For The Existence Of God

In an attempt to define this debate better, below is a list of what I believe are the best arguments for the existence of God. I propose two things. First, I propose that you, the atheist, provide your top arguments for the non-existence of God.  As I have said before I do not think this is possible because atheists, rather than having reasons for their belief are defined merely by their attempt to poke holes in what theists believe.  Prove me wrong.

Second, I propose that I will begin a series of posts where I talk about each of the below arguments for the existence of God.  You can then present your argument against each “proof.”  I would ask that rather than simply dismissing the arguments out of hand or old hat, that you actually provide reasons for why you do not believe each argument.

If we are in agreement, then below is the list of what I believe the top arguments for the existence of God:
1. The cosmological argument: There must have been a “first cause” or “prime mover” and this first cause we identify as God.
2. The teleological argument: essentially this is the intelligent design argument.  The world we live in is complex. Because it is so complex, it stand to reason that here must have been a creator. This creator was God. 
3. The argument from experience (includes the arguments from beauty, love, and religious experience): some experiences are best explained by the existence of God.
4.  The argument from morality: any objective morality depends on the existence of God.
5. The ontological argument: God is a "being greater than which cannot be conceived"; therefore, there must be a God.
6. The transcendental argument: logic, science, ethics, and other serious matters do not make sense in the absence of God. Atheistic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.
7. The will to believe doctrine: belief in a God “works”, thus there must be a God. 
8.  The argument from reason: Reason is not the result of physical phenomena.  If naturalism were true, there would be no way to know it.  There must, therefore, be a God.
Have I correctly briefly summarized each of the above arguments? Do you agree to this plan to address each in turn?  Are there any major arguments that I am missing?

No comments:

Post a Comment