Are there any new arguments for God?

[daedalus 2.0]

It seems all the arguments for God have been offered and answered. There are also arguments against God, which Theists have tried to answer. The atheists are clearly winning in the area of logic, reason and rationality.

I haven't seen a new argument for God in years and would love for someone to offer one.

[McCulloch]

For the sake of argument, could you identify the method you use to determine the truth of things and present an argument within that framework please?

I dont deny logic, I REJECT (not deny) much of the subjective premise of it. If you wish to present logic ala-Bertrand Russell style , I find him most abusrd.

2Bits does not deny logic, he just denies that what every modern logician calls logic is logic without presenting a well articulated alternative.

[daedalus 2.0]

List your premises and the reasoning that leads you to conclude that there is a God. I really would like to understand it.

I have ad nauseum.

Would you please indulge me? Identify just one such example. Either link to it, or tell me the posting number in which debate or repost. You see, I have been blinded by formal training in what the academics call logic and fail to recognize it in any of your posts. If you would just point me to one example of yours, I might be greatly enlightened.

Ho hum...No, I wont; indulge you again. You keep asking..I keep asserting...then you ignore it and then ask again. Not to forget to mention the many questions I ask that are ignored by you. Apparently whatever your "if" in your premise blinds you. Maybe you can have Realthinker do your thinking for you again and let you know how logical you are. Daedalus stated my premise as "God exists, therefore God exists" something I think he may gave gotten from you... but is a great example of a premise being built on with subjective half-truths and then being called objective "logic" by a voice of one or more. However, I will agree with this comment of yours and we will just call it good: "I have been blinded by formal training in what the academics call logic and fail to recognize it in any of your posts."

So, this is what a man on the ropes looks like. I've known many Xians willing to discuss their reasons:

Paul wrote to Titus that overseers (pastors and elders) in the church are required to be especially adept at refuting those who oppose the truth of God (Titus 1:9). However this is not merely the assigned task of ordained men. All believers are commanded to engage in it as well. Addressing himself to all members of the congregation, Peter penned the following command: "sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to give an answer to anyone who asks from you a reason for the hope that is within you, yet with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15). It is God Himself, speaking through Peter's inspired words, who calls upon us as believers -- each and every one of us -- to be prepared to defend the faith in the face of challenges and questions which come from unbelievers -- any one of them.

You are right: you keep ASSERTING - NOT giving reasons. Assertions are statements, not reasons.

ASSERTION:
1 a declaration that is made emphatically (as if no supporting evidence were necessary)
2 affirmation: the act of affirming or asserting or stating something

REASON:
# a rational motive for a belief or action; "the reason that war was declared"; "the grounds for their declaration"
# an explanation of the cause of some phenomenon; "the reason a steady state was never reached was that the back pressure built up too slowly"
# the capacity for rational thought or inference or discrimination; "we are told that man is endowed with reason and capable of distinguishing good from evil"
# rationality: the state of having good sense and sound judgment; "his rationality may have been impaired"; "he had to rely less on reason than on rousing their emotions"
# decide by reasoning; draw or come to a conclusion; "We reasoned that it was cheaper to rent than to buy a house"
# cause: a justification for something existing or happening; "he had no cause to complain"; "they had good reason to rejoice"
# argue: present reasons and arguments
# a fact that logically justifies some premise or conclusion; "there is reason to believe he is lying"
# think logically; "The children must learn to reason"

The Bible says - commands you - to come up with a REASON, not an ASSERTION.

[olavisjo]

2Bits does not deny logic, he just denies that what every modern logician calls logic is logic without presenting a well articulated alternative.

Logic is very useful in a lot of fields of inquiry, but it has its limits.
Imagine a person who has never fallen in love, he has had girl friends and even sex but never that Hollywood falling in love fantasy, so he asks for proof that such a thing even exists. I would not expect logic to be useful in proving it to him. Likewise, God is beyond the realm of logic, reason and rationality.

I haven't seen a new argument for God in years and would love for someone to offer one.

Why would you 'love' to see one? Do you want to believe?
Albert Einstein once said "There are two ways to live your life - one is as though nothing is a miracle, the other is as though everything is a miracle".
Everything that I see is an argument for God. Just look around your room, everything you see is made out of three different particles arranged in intricate ways, to most people that is a 'so what', but to me these particles have properties that are balanced as carefully as a sewing needle standing on a razors edge. Is it more 'logical' to say "they just happened to be like that" or "they were made to be like that"?
Consider the origin of these particles, science has shown that the universe was created 13.7 billion years ago, is it not 'logical' to say that all created things were made from and by something greater? What is greater than the universe? Can we call it God?
The Bible says...

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

The gateway to knowing God is not by evidence, but rather by faith. If you want a new argument for God, ask Jesus to come into your life, ask him to forgive your sins and give you a new mind. You will never regret your decision to do so.

[McCulloch]

2Bits does not deny logic, he just denies that what every modern logician calls logic is logic without presenting a well articulated alternative.

Logic is very useful in a lot of fields of inquiry, but it has its limits.
Imagine a person who has never fallen in love, he has had girl friends and even sex but never that Hollywood falling in love fantasy, so he asks for proof that such a thing even exists. I would not expect logic to be useful in proving it to him. Likewise, God is beyond the realm of logic, reason and rationality.

Love is a construct of the human mind and the human condition. I will accept your argument, if you accept that God also is a construct of the human mind and the human condition.

I haven't seen a new argument for God in years and would love for someone to offer one.

Why would you 'love' to see one? Do you want to believe?

I expect that it is more that we get tired of refuting the old ones. You know, been there, done that. But, yes, more than one atheist would like to believe. Why not? Give us a good reason, and we will believe.

Everything that I see is an argument for God. Just look around your room, everything you see is made out of three different particles arranged in intricate ways, to most people that is a 'so what', but to me these particles have properties that are balanced as carefully as a sewing needle standing on a razors edge. Is it more 'logical' to say "they just happened to be like that" or "they were made to be like that"?

Let's see. Things exist, therefore God. Or is it Things are the way that they are, therefore God. This argument, at best, is an argument for the Deist or Einstein's non-personal idea of god, but certainly not for the Christian God.

Consider the origin of these particles, science has shown that the universe was created 13.7 billion years ago, is it not 'logical' to say that all created things were made from and by something greater? What is greater than the universe? Can we call it God?

Great things can only be caused by greater things? Then where did God come from? If you believe in a self-created personal God or non-created personal God, why not just a self or non created universe instead.

The Bible says...

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

The gateway to knowing God is not by evidence, but rather by faith. If you want a new argument for God, ask Jesus to come into your life, ask him to forgive your sins and give you a new mind. You will never regret your decision to do so.

Abandon all reason all ye who enter here! [apologies to Dante Alighieri]
Believe not because of evidence, believe because of belief.

[twobitsmedia]

For the sake of argument, could you identify the method you use to determine the truth of things and present an argument within that framework please?

I dont deny logic, I REJECT (not deny) much of the subjective premise of it. If you wish to present logic ala-Bertrand Russell style , I find him most abusrd.

2Bits does not deny logic, he just denies that what every modern logician calls logic is logic without presenting a well articulated alternative.

Considering that you have yet to present anything logical on the subject of your own creation I am no longer surprised that what you just asserted is what you read. It is not what I said. Are you like pulling this stuff from a book or something?

[twobitsmedia]

List your premises and the reasoning that leads you to conclude that there is a God. I really would like to understand it.

I have ad nauseum.

Would you please indulge me? Identify just one such example. Either link to it, or tell me the posting number in which debate or repost. You see, I have been blinded by formal training in what the academics call logic and fail to recognize it in any of your posts. If you would just point me to one example of yours, I might be greatly enlightened.

Ho hum...No, I wont; indulge you again. You keep asking..I keep asserting...then you ignore it and then ask again. Not to forget to mention the many questions I ask that are ignored by you. Apparently whatever your "if" in your premise blinds you. Maybe you can have Realthinker do your thinking for you again and let you know how logical you are. Daedalus stated my premise as "God exists, therefore God exists" something I think he may gave gotten from you... but is a great example of a premise being built on with subjective half-truths and then being called objective "logic" by a voice of one or more. However, I will agree with this comment of yours and we will just call it good: "I have been blinded by formal training in what the academics call logic and fail to recognize it in any of your posts."

So, this is what a man on the ropes looks like. I've known many Xians willing to discuss their reasons:

I don't know what an Xian is. But if you are referring to Christianity (or typing four more ket strokes it too hard) in your usual disrepectful way, then I have given reasons. In fact it is in the very paragraph you claim you cannot read.

Paul wrote to Titus that overseers (pastors and elders) in the church are required to be especially adept at refuting those who oppose the truth of God (Titus 1:9). However this is not merely the assigned task of ordained men. All believers are commanded to engage in it as well. Addressing himself to all members of the congregation, Peter penned the following command: "sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to give an answer to anyone who asks from you a reason for the hope that is within you, yet with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15). It is God Himself, speaking through Peter's inspired words, who calls upon us as believers -- each and every one of us -- to be prepared to defend the faith in the face of challenges and questions which come from unbelievers -- any one of them.

You are right: you keep ASSERTING - NOT giving reasons. Assertions are statements, not reasons.

Maybe if you read your verse in context it is reason for the "hope that is within me." You seem to zero in on the word "reason" and think it means something however you use it. I presume you think it is logical to do so. I do not. But is is indicative still of your subjective interpretation of it. Your problems with logic are of no consequence to that hope "within" me.

ASSERTION:
1 a declaration that is made emphatically (as if no supporting evidence were necessary)
2 affirmation: the act of affirming or asserting or stating something

REASON:
# a rational motive for a belief or action; "the reason that war was declared"; "the grounds for their declaration"
# an explanation of the cause of some phenomenon; "the reason a steady state was never reached was that the back pressure built up too slowly"
# the capacity for rational thought or inference or discrimination; "we are told that man is endowed with reason and capable of distinguishing good from evil"
# rationality: the state of having good sense and sound judgment; "his rationality may have been impaired"; "he had to rely less on reason than on rousing their emotions"
# decide by reasoning; draw or come to a conclusion; "We reasoned that it was cheaper to rent than to buy a house"
# cause: a justification for something existing or happening; "he had no cause to complain"; "they had good reason to rejoice"
# argue: present reasons and arguments
# a fact that logically justifies some premise or conclusion; "there is reason to believe he is lying"
# think logically; "The children must learn to reason"

I am sure you are impresed with your lesson.

The Bible says - commands you - to come up with a REASON, not an ASSERTION.

1) "The Bible commands me?"...what kind of talk is that?

2) If you would read for comprehension, it would be clear. The REASON is the SUBJECTIVE NATURE of it!!! But it is irrelevant to any hope within me and your Bible verse.

[daedalus 2.0]

is it not 'logical' to say that all created things were made from and by something greater? What is greater than the universe? Can we call it God?
The Bible says...

No, it's not logical. Ice is made from water and a lower temperature, at the right temperature, snowflakes appear.

Water, Ice, temperature and snow are all related - not Greater to each other, yet they create some wonderful things - with no God involved.

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

The gateway to knowing God is not by evidence, but rather by faith. If you want a new argument for God, ask Jesus to come into your life, ask him to forgive your sins and give you a new mind. You will never regret your decision to do so.

Faith again! yikes! You mean that feeling the suicide bombers feel?

[twobitsmedia]

Faith again! yikes! You mean that feeling the suicide bombers feel?

What feelings do suicide bombers feel?

[olavisjo]

Love is a construct of the human mind and the human condition.

And who told you that?

I expect that it is more that we get tired of refuting the old ones. You know, been there, done that. But, yes, more than one atheist would like to believe. Why not? Give us a good reason, and we will believe.

No, if the Bible is right you will not believe unless God gives it to you to believe. You were predestined to think the way you think. More in this post.

Let's see. Things exist, therefore God. Or is it Things are the way that they are, therefore God. This argument, at best, is an argument for the Deist or Einstein's non-personal idea of god, but certainly not for the Christian God.

Things exist, therefore highly likely God. Things are the way that they are, therefore highly likely God.

Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.

Great things can only be caused by greater things? Then where did God come from? If you believe in a self-created personal God or non-created personal God, why not just a self or non created universe instead.

Scientific observation refutes a self or non created universe, but has no problem with a self or non created God.

Abandon all reason all ye who enter here! [apologies to Dante Alighieri]
Believe not because of evidence, believe because of belief.

Believe not because of evidence, believe because of faith.

[Goat]

Abandon all reason all ye who enter here! [apologies to Dante Alighieri]
Believe not because of evidence, believe because of belief.

Believe not because of evidence, believe because of faith.

I see no substantial differences between those two statements