Over 100 Arguments for the Existence of God

[Aetixintro]

"Over 100 Arguments for the Existence of God" presented by Capturing Christianity on YouTube.

In this video, Dr. Chad McIntosh presents over 100 arguments for the existence of God. Each argument is presented in visual form followed by recommended sources for further research.

4.5 hrs of material. Good resource?

For discussion: Is God finally proved to exist?

[The Tanager]

Then there's no discussion to be had with me on that point.

There is a discussion to be had on that point. You have joined a thread talking about arguments for God's existence. Those arguments either point to or arise within the context of this term (God) describing an immaterial being. Your critique misses/ignores this and, therefore, says nothing against God's existence. Sure, you can do that, but it's also perfectly fine for people to point out that you are doing that.

No, if I understand your usage of 'arguments' here.
Anyone can believe anything they want. They don't need facts, data, arguments, proof, evidence, tales. All a person needs is a want to believe in something.
Want to believe a yellow unicorn lives on Venus and craps burgers and rainbows and is responsible for the population of three legged pandas on the fifth planet in a system 2.2 million light years away, all the time dancing in the moonlight? That's your* choice even though I doubt you* could find any reference, evidence, facts or data pointing to it being true, real or even likely. Not to mention you'd probably get laughed at about it. But that's your* choice to choose to believe, no matter how rational it may be or no. You* can justify it how ever you want, but that's all that means. It doesn't prove or disprove the belief.

I agree with everything you say here. I'm talking about those who want to hold rational beliefs.

[The Tanager]

I think it possible only to detect beyond reasonable doubt that there is a creator behind this creation.

Then we are agreed there.

There are a variety of instruments which can help one to establish something of verification with the idea that the immaterial intelligence can communicate with the material intelligence.
Certainly the hearing of stories points to that being the case...

How could you establish that the communication is coming from something immaterial?

[William]

For discussion: Is God finally proved to exist?

Sure, for some people. Probably had been proven for years. Scientifically is another story as I haven't seen anything scientific speaking to that.

How could we have, much less expect, scientific proof for or against God? Science plus philosophy, sure, but not science alone.

If God is verifiable it stands to reason there could be scientific proof one way or the other. If you don't want scientific proof that's fine, but don't poopoo the idea that others do. That's rude and disingenuous.

That is a big 'if'.

Some beliefs have it that one will eventually actually see "God" sitting on a throne in a heavenly realm...others believe that no one will ever see "God" because The Creator is immaterial and cannot be seen...I 'see' a Creator in the handiwork of the Creation [ I also think the creation is a simulated interactive holographic thing which can be and is being experienced as real ]

I see less evidence for religious claims as to who or what The Creator is. Including the one the Christians refer to as "God".

Yes the if is rather large, for sure!
But, aside from belief (which requires only a person to accept said belief - no facts or data or supporting evidence is necessary for that belief to be viable to some), that's all we have.
Some may be content with beliefs and faith, not requiring anything else. And for them, I suppose that's fine. However, there are others that need more and, as such, need the 'if', no matter how large or small, to exist.
We are probably 'out of luck' as they say, but it is what it is in the regard.

By my reckoning, if one could 'see' that intelligence is 'behind' what we call 'reality' [and I do] then it should be possible to somehow connect with that intelligence and have some type of relationship...specifically the type that gives feedback...intelligent response...but what type of device outside of the human mind, would that be.

Books do not take us to that point...sure they help - but the intelligence is static within the book and requires the mind in order to breathe life [belief] into it...but this all can be done in the head...what is required is something which can be done in relation to the physical domain...much like we each communicate over the internet ... we are all quiet invisible to each other yet are still able to convey something of intelligent communication with each other in spite of that...but how does one do that with the mind behind the physical domain...

It should be possible...IF such a mind actually exists...

[William]

I think it possible only to detect beyond reasonable doubt that there is a creator behind this creation.

Then we are agreed there.

There are a variety of instruments which can help one to establish something of verification with the idea that the immaterial intelligence can communicate with the material intelligence.
Certainly the hearing of stories points to that being the case...

How could you establish that the communication is coming from something immaterial?

We could establish that in the same way we establish it with one another.

After all, when it comes to the immaterial, the mind surely is a leading candidate for the role/position...we use the material in which to convey what we see in our individuate minds.

In that we recognize intelligence when we 'see' it. There is feedback...which creates a ripple effect back and forth...

Thus, it should be possible to create a device in which a non material intelligence [the mind behind the "creation" - if such exists], there should be some physical manner in which we can 'get its message' which isn't static [like a book] but boundless and alive...

[nobspeople]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #32]

There is a discussion to be had on that point.

One you can have with another, not with me.

You have joined a thread talking about arguments for God's existence.

Where did anyone say otherwise?
I made a comment and you brought up an offshoot that isn't something I'm going to speak about
I'm not required to discuss every topic brought up, now am I?
The answer is NO, just FYI

I'm talking about those who want to hold rational beliefs.

The only rationale that one can hold about the modern Christian god - the need to believe in it - is to fulfill their needy personality: the need to believe in something bigger than themselves no matter how ludicrous it sounds (talking burning bushes that aren't consumed); the need to look past evidence pointing to something other than their belief (see the myriad of arguments on this very site between "Christians" telling each other they're right or wrong); the incessant need to make others believe as they do (see previous, bolded comment); the need to belittle others for their lackluster ability to justify a belief system they believe to be true, but know deep down it's a farce (see many Christian actions in the USA with ID and Creationism); the need to amend definitions of words to suit their fancy (most any 'discussion' on this site); the need to be 'right' and others be 'wrong' (see previous bolded comment); the need to get to eternal paradise instead of helping their fellow mankind with things that matter (see EVERY Christian's motives on the planet).
But that's the rationale as I see it and as much as I'm going to discuss it. I'm sure you don't agree, which, itself, is immaterial as that's all I'm saying on the matter.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #32]

There is a discussion to be had on that point.

One you can have with another, not with me.

You have joined a thread talking about arguments for God's existence.

Where did anyone say otherwise?
I made a comment and you brought up an offshoot that isn't something I'm going to speak about
I'm not required to discuss every topic brought up, now am I?
The answer is NO, just FYI

I'm talking about those who want to hold rational beliefs.

The only rationale that one can hold about the modern Christian god - the need to believe in it - is to fulfill their needy personality: the need to believe in something bigger than themselves no matter how ludicrous it sounds (talking burning bushes that aren't consumed); the need to look past evidence pointing to something other than their belief (see the myriad of arguments on this very site between "Christians" telling each other they're right or wrong); the incessant need to make others believe as they do (see previous, bolded comment); the need to belittle others for their lackluster ability to justify a belief system they believe to be true, but know deep down it's a farce (see many Christian actions in the USA with ID and Creationism); the need to amend definitions of words to suit their fancy (most any 'discussion' on this site); the need to be 'right' and others be 'wrong' (see previous bolded comment); the need to get to eternal paradise instead of helping their fellow mankind with things that matter (see EVERY Christian's motives on the planet).
But that's the rationale as I see it and as much as I'm going to discuss it. I'm sure you don't agree, which, itself, is immaterial as that's all I'm saying on the matter.

The main problem I would see with your reasoning above is that you are rejecting ALL ideas of Creator/Creation based solely on the activities of only one branch of theism. The religious one.
This in turn creates a barrier which you allow to be in place because it is convenient to your position of 'not wanting to go there' which is really the underlying thing acting as the preventative.

So it is not Christian beliefs or behaviors that are the main reason you do not want to go there. They are simply convenient excuses. Why not just front up and say it. You are not interested period. There is no reason that you have to be, is there?

Otherwise examine your interest in the subject - perhaps you are interested because it might be the case that we exist within a creation and that there is some kind of creator...but then you would have to move past pointing at Christians [and religions in general] as your excuse for not going there and investigating for yourself...

[nobspeople]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #32]

There is a discussion to be had on that point.

One you can have with another, not with me.

You have joined a thread talking about arguments for God's existence.

Where did anyone say otherwise?
I made a comment and you brought up an offshoot that isn't something I'm going to speak about
I'm not required to discuss every topic brought up, now am I?
The answer is NO, just FYI

I'm talking about those who want to hold rational beliefs.

The only rationale that one can hold about the modern Christian god - the need to believe in it - is to fulfill their needy personality: the need to believe in something bigger than themselves no matter how ludicrous it sounds (talking burning bushes that aren't consumed); the need to look past evidence pointing to something other than their belief (see the myriad of arguments on this very site between "Christians" telling each other they're right or wrong); the incessant need to make others believe as they do (see previous, bolded comment); the need to belittle others for their lackluster ability to justify a belief system they believe to be true, but know deep down it's a farce (see many Christian actions in the USA with ID and Creationism); the need to amend definitions of words to suit their fancy (most any 'discussion' on this site); the need to be 'right' and others be 'wrong' (see previous bolded comment); the need to get to eternal paradise instead of helping their fellow mankind with things that matter (see EVERY Christian's motives on the planet).
But that's the rationale as I see it and as much as I'm going to discuss it. I'm sure you don't agree, which, itself, is immaterial as that's all I'm saying on the matter.

The main problem I would see with your reasoning above is that you are rejecting ALL ideas of Creator/Creation based solely on the activities of only one branch of theism. The religious one.

First, what you see or don't see as right or wrong doesn't matter to me.
Second, no where -no where - did I reject ALL ideas as you say. No where. Let me reiterate again: no where.
I specifically said MODERN CHRISTIAN GOD, that does NOT exclude any other possibilities.
You're either striving to argue a non-existent point, or reading without comprehension.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to William in post #37]

Why not just front up and say it. You are not interested period. There is no reason that you have to be, is there?

About Christianity in modern times? No. Not in the least. Been there done that bought the t shirt and returned it for a full refund.
I've said, numerous times on this very site, I'm more interested in the PEOPLE of Christianity, the 'whys' of their beliefs, not theis antiquated beliefs itself as I have determined (see it again) Modern Christianity as nothing but a waste of time, energy and money.

It's my opinion, not that you care but I'm putting it out there anyway, that we should be MORE interested in the PEOPLE of a religion than the cult-like rituals and the arguing about this or that, which will have little to no impact on ones already set-in-stone beliefs.

[The Tanager]

In that we recognize intelligence when we 'see' it. There is feedback...which creates a ripple effect back and forth...

How do we recognize intelligence when we see it? I think we have to connect physical (i.e., scientific) observations to an immaterial intelligent source through the use of philosophical arguments by the very definition of science being the study of physical reality rather than non-physical reality.

[Tcg]

I think we have to connect physical (i.e., scientific) observations to an immaterial intelligent source through the use of philosophical arguments by the very definition of science being the study of physical reality rather than non-physical reality.

How can you use science, which you admit is the study of physical reality, to connect to non-physical reality? This question of course assumes that there is a non-physical reality simply for the sake of discussion. You've not provided any verifiable evidence that the "immaterial intelligent source" exists.


Tcg