Submit a question to our community and get an answer from real people.
Submit

What is the most convincing argument for the existence of god(s)?

Report as

So far, none that I have heard.

Helpful (12) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (7)
Report as
You have never heard of exorcisms,or miracles,or possession,lol
Report as
Since those are primitive mythology, they are not convincing.
Report as
Primitive. I didn't know that it was so primitive to have miracles, so perhaps then, that isn't what happens to me occasionally, it's just random stuff, please try to unprove God.
Report as
"Miracles" are just superstitious people trying to put a supernatural explanation to things they don't understand.

You haven't proven it in the first place. To "unprove" something it must first be proven.

Have fun with that. YOU claim a god exists. YOU must prove it.
Report as
Okay, my proof if God's love is how Jesus lived, and how he died, he died for us upon a CROSS and saved ME he saved YOU, and he saved EVERYONE, you have no proof of evolution either, remember that it's just a theory too, so before you try to shove things down people's throats check yourself too
Report as
You have no evidence Jesus lived. There isn't any contemporary historical evidence for his existence.

And yes, dear, the entire last two centuries of science shows evolution is a fact.
Report as
...and that is yet another example why religion is harmful.
Report as
Add a comment...

That so many people believe.

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (2)
Report as
That only proves PT Barnum was right.
Report as
Indeed- the popularity of an idea doesn't make it correct or even more likely to be correct.

The vast majority of humankind once believed the sun revolved around the earth and demons caused disease, too.
Report as
Add a comment...

none since the creation of science

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

going by the Schrodinger's cat experiment, because we cannot observe that there is or isn't, we can assume that there are both at the same time

Helpful (1) Fun (1) Thanks for voting Comments (10)
Report as
Uh, no. Schroedinger's work was about quantum uncertainty, not deities.
Report as
you can apply the same principals. we are uncertain about a god. so we can apply it
Report as
No, you really can't. It's not about just plain uncertainty- you can't apply Schroedinger's work any time you're not sure of something. That is an utter piece of nonsense that people with no scientific background have distorted, just like they have distorted Chaos theory when making bad movies about the "Butterfly Effect".

Schroedinger's Equation describes how the quantum state of a physical system changes over time. Schroedinger's Cat was a thought experiment meant to highlight what he thought were the problems in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. It doesn't apply to anything outside quantum mechanics.
Report as
I agree with Apetro
Report as
Whether you agree or not the science is clear- you're misusing scientific terms.
Report as
Ah, but that's where your wrong also, scientific theories aren't proven and people still belief them, so please, tell me, how can you believe in something like that that is so unfinished and unpromising, you are acting lime such a hypocrite now
Report as
Like
Report as
Apparently you have no idea of the scientific definition of the word "theory".

In science, a theory is not a guess. A theory in SCIENCE is the closest thing to proven scientific ideas can get- there is no such thing as "proof" in science, proof is for mathematics.

Gravity is a theory. The heliocentric model of the universe is a theory. That germs exist is a theory.

What is hypocritical is you attempting to refute a scientific argument when you clearly have not a shred of scientific knowledge. That "just a theory" bit is always a red flag for scientific ignorance.
Report as
Look look look, ok I took intro to chemistry and Earth/space science, the Heliocentric model is proven, because we know that our solar system is like that, gravity is proven also, so is bacteria.
Report as
I did a bit of research. and yes, I was wrong. can I change my answer, no. does it matter at this point, no
Report as
Add a comment...

The law of non contradiction and the law of conservation of mass. There is either an eternal creator, or matter just appeared form nowhere.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (39)
Report as
We know where matter came from. That isn't the question.
Report as
Can you prove where it came from?
Report as
Exactly.
Report as
Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit.
Scientifically, Creator is a Theory with weight and Evolution is a simple Premise.

Hypothetically, I would rather place my faith in the possibility of a Creator, and be wrong, than place my faith in Evolution and be right.
Report as
Wise words. I completely agree.
Report as
Niether of us have evidence for a deity and if there is any deities, there is no guarantee that it is the God of your bible. In fact, it might have all the characteristics of the God of your bible and act exactly as you expect it to but here is the clincher. There is a possibility that this God despises Christians. He sees them as no more than morally bankrupt yes men kissing his feet to try to save their obviously worthless souls that can no more carry them selves with integrity than they can act in accordance with his real wish for humanity to act. This God might just throw all the Christians in hell for their infernal impudence. This God might even be on this planet silently waiting for others to change as he tries tirelessly to convince them the error of their ways. This God might just be someone very close to you.Furthermore, he might only let atheists into heaven.
Report as
Or in other words- your faith is not wise- it is merely obedient.
Report as
As for your little tantrum about where matter came from, you have no evidence of origin either- you are in no greater position to criticize his alleged ignorance being completely ignorant your self. All you have is conjecture backed by your obedient and inappropriate faith.
Report as
Sounds like you are confusing big bang theory with evolution, that makes you sound ignorant rather than wise.
Report as
It's funny how people trying to claim science supports their god do nothing but illustrate how little they know about science.
Report as
I have a bachelors of science in biochemistry and I'm getting my pharmD. I know a lot about silence, and I believe in God. I study a lot of chemistry. I see God's wisdom and His inelegance within every single subatomic particle that makes up this world. If studying years of science has thought me anything, it is that a divine creator is the only logical explanation. Everything is to complicated and beautiful to be the result of an accident. I know I can't physically prove my beliefs, but I have yet to have been shown one single example of Darwinian evolution in my whole life. I have seen examples of microevolution, but not Darwinian. I have seen bacteria turn into other bacteria, and birds turn to thee birds, but I have yet to have been shown one single example of evidence for a bacteria becoming a mammal, or a fish becoming a bird. As soon as someone shows me scientific proof that I am wrong and that evolution is truth, then I will believe. But until then, I see it only as divine orchestration.
Report as
Other
Report as
"but I have yet to have been shown one single example of evidence for a bacteria becoming a mammal, or a fish becoming a bird. "

You think this is what evolution is? It is disgusting that you can study biochemistry and still not have a clue about evolution. This is truly terrifying.
Report as
I would suspect in your pharmacy you will only have drugs that YOU approve of, and none of that 'yucky stuff' your church doesn't support, huh?
Report as
If Darwinian evolution is not the change of kinds overtime than what is it?
Report as
You are confusing the 'change of kinds' (which sounds exactly like a creationism term) with evolution.

Evolution is the gradual adaptation of a species through years of generational change. You are NOT going to 'see' this change. That would be like 'seeing' the way man has changed over the last couple thousand years in height, weight, build, hair, health. It does not happen in sight of a person. it happens over years. Hundreds of years. The religious people can never admit that the persons who 'dreamt up' Religion are NOT the same physically or health wise as we are now (only 2000 years hence) Nevermind the differences between the 'caveman' of hundreds of thousands of years ago. But, boy do they shout about how we are 'not related'. How closed minded.
Report as
No one believes you have a science degree when you don't even know what evolution or the Big Bang ARE, or how the law of conservation of mass applies to the universe.

People with a science education don't say such foolishness as thinking evolution says a bacteria will magically turn into a mammal, nor do they use nonsense, no scientific phrases like "kinds".
Report as
Evolution is the change in allelic frequencies of a population over time, end of list.
Report as
I agree with you. I believe in micro evolutions. But what you are supporting is the theory that the origin of all species came from one common ancestor. That would include the bacteria, the birds, mammals, everything came from one single common point of origin. Am I not correct?
Report as
humans, birds, bacteria, apples, all life, there is no concrete proof for the theory that they all came from one common ancestor. Jus as there is no proof for creationism.
Report as
As soon as someone can prove to me that Darwinian evolution is truth than I will openly accept it. So far all I have heard are claims that it is true without any concrete evidence. But until then, I will believe what I feel makes more logical sense.
Report as
Report as
I can't because you didn't put a space between them
Report as
And I am not being closed-minded. I am simply saying that there is no more proof for Darwinian evolution than there is for creationism, both beliefs have to be taken on faith because there is no physical proof for either argument. Reason is the only logic that we can apply to deduce truth, and it is being very closed-minded discrediting my views when your views have no more proof than mine. I believe that the answer to life and development of creatures is a result of divine orchestration. You believe that it was an accident. I'm saying we can't say for sure which one it is since there is not enough proof to scientifically deduce an answer. Stop saying that I am wrong when you can't prove that I am. If you prove that I am wrong I will gladly agree with you and believe in Darwinian evolution. But so far that hasn't happened.
Report as
Again- someone actually educated in science does not use nonsense creationist terms like "microevolution"- there is just evolution. Where do you imagine the magical barrier is that keeps small changes from building up in a population until it speciates?

How do you expect anyone to believe you have a science education when you use nonsense terms like "Darwinian evolution", and seem completely unaware of the entire field of genetics supporting common descent?

How can you expect us to believe you have a science degree when you are clearly so woefully scientifically ignorant?

Report as
Ahhh. There's the evidence of evolution. The 98% does not understand why the 2% gets it! And, I'm not talking about jobs!
Report as
I'm not sure how calling me ignorant was showing me evidence of evolution. I am not ignorant. I have studied Darwin and read many of his works. I do agree with a good majority of what he said. But I do not believe that there is enough evidence to discredit the idea of a sovereign creator. And by the way, I would appreciate it if you didn't call people who had opposing views idiotic. Im not saying evolution is wrong. I am just saying that there is not enough proof for it to make it fact. Either show me proof of its existence, or stop calling me ignorant.
Report as
So, you're argument is: I can't 'prove' my point, so unless you can 'prove' your point, mine is correct. Ok. I see how it works. So, there is no evidence you would believe to show that all animals have evolved from primitive ancestors? None? Not an iota? Nada? No? Then you either have too much Religion in you, or you missed the signs on the highway of life. I'm not talking in the last 50 years here. I'm talking in the last say couple hundred thousand years. Try looking at this and see if any of it makes sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolutionary_history_of_life
Report as
Biochemistry is one of the best proofs of common decent, of the trillions of possible combinations of chemistry, all life on earth shares just handful combos, because we inherited them from the same common ancestor.

Every field of biology creates a map of evolution which is identical to the map created by ever other field of biology. Every field of science from geology to Genetics supports and is further proof of evolution with not a single contradiction in almost 200 years of testing and experimentation by hundreds of thousands of scientists.

Asides from this, what you are calling macro-evolution has been observed happening in 5-6 species including rodents and lizards.

Evolution is a FACT. I find it hard to believe, even if you have preachers lying to you, that you could have a BS in biochemistry and not be aware of this.

All the evidence is for evolution, all the proofs are for evolution, creationism has absolutely nothing. In this you are completely wrong.
Report as
I think the BS stands for something completely different than what you suspect!
Report as
Again that did not prove to me that I am wrong and that you are right. Just saying that you know the truth when you can't prove it is the same a people with religions do. You are taking what you believe on faith that it is true and are relying on evidences that you believe point in your favor. There are also evidences that point in the favor or creationism. There is no proof either way. You can say that evolution is fact all that you want, but if you do not have proof that you are right than why should I believe the anymore than I should believe in divine creation? Instead of claiming that it is fact, prove to me that it is and then I will believe. I have looked for evidence myself, I've talked to lots of people who swear by evolution, I still have not seen anymore proof for it than there is proof for creationism. So you are saying it is fact, I want to see it, show me how it is without a shadow of a doubt a fact and I will agree with you.
Report as
BS is bachelors of science
Report as
I posted some youtube links and you didn't bother to follow them. What are we supposed to do? Copy/paste in some transitional forms? What exactly are ye expecting from a comments section?

Study biology at any reputable school, they will show you it is a fact. Any legitimately accredited university will instruct you in the same thing.

My links work. Here is another which should give you some clues:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBz-aoEMPPY

if the link doesn't work, just use this code and gogle it :- QBz-aoEMPPY
Report as
Again, considering the complete nonsense you keep uttering about science, no one believes you have a degree in it. Unless your "degree" is from an unaccredited bible college.

Try here, and pay attention:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
Report as
For goodness' sakes, every single piece of evidence in every field of biology for the last two hundred years supports evolution. We can actually WITNESS it happening. We've witnessed speciation, in both the lab and the wild. To deny it as this point is like denying the Earth revolves around the sun.
Report as
It's also amusing how you claim we should have to prove evolution "without a shadow of a doubt" (which proves you have no science education- all science is by definition falsifiable), when you have not a single SHRED of evidence any creator even exists.

Ah, double standards.
Report as
It's so amusing that you try to disprove God without the slightest shred of evidence
Report as
I don't need to "disprove" any gods because none have been proven in the first place.

See, YOU claim a god exists. YOU must prove it. It's called the Burden of Proof. Have fun with that, since you have not a shred of evidence for any god, much less whatever flavor you happen to worship. Until you manage it, your claims can be dismissed as unsupported by any logical person.


Not that evolution has a thing to do with a god existing or not in the first place.
Report as
I actually have an associates in science and if one thing is glaringly obvious, it is that taberlony is not educated. They do not have proper grammar and espouse total nonsense. If this person does have a degree, it was wasted on them. If they even went to college, they did not listen in biology and passed with strait C's. At best they merely memorized the curriculum and regurgitated it learning nothing along the way which is the opposite of what higher education stands for. The fallacy and apologetics used are atypical of an uneducated, backwater preacher with the scientific education of a 3rd grader. Honestly, if you have degrees in science bologna, you should ask for your money back.
Report as
Add a comment...

If you read bible but none it's our choice to believe it can't hurt I do it gives you hope after death

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (6)
Report as
Say what?
Report as
I'm Christian there's some good points in bible and I'm trying to say believe won't hurt it gives hope for some
Report as
But it's just a delusional religious fantasy from the iron age. How does that translate into hope? Wouldn't it be better to be happy with purposful life in reality.
Report as
If your atheist you won't get it
Report as
I am a Christian and I have no idea what you are saying haha
Report as
I "get it" ; I was an active, dedicated believer into my 40s.
Study of the bible and religious history led me to being atheist.
Report as
Add a comment...

Does a tree make a sound when it falls and nothing is there to hear it?

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

It is YOUR opinion and belief that decide and guide you on this decision.

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

In science none

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

I've seen no argument. Just hearsay and fan fiction.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

Under the assumption that either there is a Creator (ie God), or Evolution is true: All seven Laws (The 3 Laws of Thermal Dynamics, the 3 Laws of Newton and the Zeroth Law.) require the existence of a Creator over the premise of Evolution. In addition, philosophy speaks of a Necessary Being, a Prime Mover, the Quintessential. (Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit.)

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (7)
Report as
I recognise that name from ancient mythology.
Report as
No they don't. None of the laws of Thermal Dynamics [sic] have any conflict with the theory of Evolution by natural selection.

Philosophy from 300BC that speaks of a "Necessary Being" may not have kept up with the latest scientific knowledge.

Having a creator would mean throwing all the laws of physics out of the window to allow for the universe to be farted into existence by magic.

Report as
In addition, the flawed concept of "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit" is NOT a scientific theory. In fact, we know, scientifically, that it is incorrect.

The concept of "something cannot come from nothing" is not supported by any branch, theory, or law of science; especially NOT the first law of thermodynamics.

That incorrect assumption was first put forward (at least as far as we have written record of) by Greek philosophers around 500 BC. This was LONG before we even had an inkling of the laws of thermodynamics (which we just started to get a firm grasp of right around the 1600's). People took the emerging laws of thermodynamics and attempted to use them as proof the old Greek philosophical assumption of "something cannot come from nothing" is true. Unfortunately for them, they do NOT support it.

All the law really says is that the total net energy of a closed system cannot change (go up or down) over time. It says absolutely NOTHING about whether "something" can come from "nothing". In fact, the law easily allows for the creation of "something" from "nothing".

A VERY simple mathematical problem will illustrate. Lets assume we have a closed system with a net energy of 0. This means an equation such as 0 + 1 (or even 0 - 1) breaks the law of conservation of energy. It changes the total net energy of the closed system. HOWEVER, this equation works just fine: 0 + (1-1). The total net energy is still 0. It has not changed. However, "something" was created and even destroyed. We see this happen in reality when particle/antiparticle pairs are "created from nothing" in the vacuum of space, hang around for a (VERY SHORT) amount of time, and then annihilate each other. That is why the first law of thermodynamics has that last part "over time" tacked onto the end.

***CONTINUED***
Report as
Look up and study Quantum Fluctuations to delve into actual specific, technical information on the subject. In addition, I would suggest looking up the Zero-energy Universe theory. It illustrates how, using these concepts, the Universe could have, indeed, "come from nothing". In fact, our calculations showing the Universe is perfectly flat heavily support the Zero-energy Universe theory.

Whatever you do, please do yourself a favor and discard the outdated, incorrect notion of "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit". It is not scientifically sound, and kind of shows an incorrect, high-school understanding of physics (especially quantum mechanics).
Report as
What is really interesting is that you can explain this stuff to an apologists, especially a professional apologists like William Lane Craig.... and guess what? They won't change their pitch one iota. They will carry on repeating the same lies over and over and over again for years. Which just goes to prove they have no interest in science, they are just interested in selling their dishonest DVDs to gullible Christians.
Report as
Philosophy and science are not the same thing. Philosophy will exist without regard to science. Tell me how natural selection doesn't conflict with "all things tend toward disorder"? Just to name one. By the By, Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit, though philosophical, is the Law of Conservation, though not science, nor intended to be science. You can pity Christians as much as you like. I'm sure they will do the same, toward you.

Remember two things:
Many scientists are Christians.
Many Christians hold Masters or Doctorate degrees.

I sense that you feel you understand the universe, but I'm pretty sure you have a grasp on only a small percentage. Be careful in assuming to know the rest.
Report as
Natural selection and evolution on earth is an isolated system with its own energy source, the sun.
Entropy and disorder apply to the universe as a whole, not isolated environments with their own energy source. Ultimately the universe's matter and energy will be dispersed to be slightly above absolute zero.
Your misunderstanding would never allow a simple fertile egg to result in the birth of a complex human.
Report as
Add a comment...

The slaughtering of each other within religious fractions and cults. Gods don't have to annihilate humanity with floods, we'll kill each other with belief in them instead. Cannibals are good example they ate each other as do Gods when morphing into each other, as does anyone that takes holy communion. That stemmed from cult worship dressing someone up as their God, who had to act like their God, be treated like their God, then they would sacrifice them to their God, and the high ranking cult leaders would eat the body parts of the human sacrifice. Glass of red wine anyone?

Helpful (3) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (1)
Report as
You are so stinking ignorant, the Holy Communion was taken on Passover by Jesus and his disciples. Not cult leaders eating human flesh and all of this bull crap your trying to sell to people
Report as
Add a comment...

Believing in God isn't build upon arguments nor does it need any . A marvelous system that is perfectly composed, restricted, balanced and controlled necessitates an ultimately perfect composer, restrictor, balancer, and controller! This is not a statement that people make from blind faith in any given religion, it is an argument that is as axiomatic and self-evident -in terms of language and reason . Our minds are designed to believe in a Creator . But to answer the question : Some of the argument (Though no need for them ) :

1 - The cosmological argument (First cause )
2 - The teleological argument (Design in nature)

And many others such as beginning of the universe ,order in the universe , human nature , prophets and scriptures ... Etc ...

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (5)
Report as
Firstly, quantum fluctuations show the "cosmological argument" to be heavily unsound. There is uncertainty and chaos in the Universe, and something can (and regularly does) come from nothing. There is no need for a "first cause". Events on the quantum level do not necessarily follow causality.

Secondly, the teleological argument is pure nonsense. It is an argument based purely upon analogy; and BAD analogies at that. A watch doesn't reproduce, have genes that mutate, and pass those mutations on over several generations. If it did, then it COULD have come about by evolution instead of creation. If you leave a load of lumber alone, it won't turn into a human house. However, it will turn into an excellent home for rodents, insects, and other creatures. These creatures (if they could speak) would undoubtably express how "perfect this home is. It fits us so well it just HAD to be designed!". And, of course, there was no design in it at all. In addition, snowflakes are INCREDIBLY complex, but build that complexity slowly, gradually, and in "evolutionary" style steps (one thing built off of another over time). No designer or creator needed to shape each snowflake, yet they remain mind-bogglingly complex despite OBVIOUSLY having been formed through natural forces acting upon it without purpose, design, or intent.

Even worse is the teleological argument hits "god" just as hard, if we take it at face value. It says "anything complex had to be designed by a creator". Nothing would be more complex than god, so if it is true then god would HAVE to have been designed by a creator.

The teleological argument is utter nonsense, even if you take it at face value.

Despite your bold assumption, none of these provide anything even approaching evidence or reason for god. They actually do the opposite, and show how there is no evidence or need for one.
Report as
Hi , i wonder why do you seem impatient and disrespectful and i wonder why you are using these straw man arguments , However (Though i am not interested in the discussion in the first place ) i will comment in brief :

Firstly, quantum fluctuations . (It seems that you have some misunderstanding here ) ...

What is exactly " Nothing " ? And is there is such thing called " Nothing " ? Scientist are not agreeing on that -yet- ... Never mind .

The empty space is not " Nothing "

" An important consequence of that (HUP) is that there is no such thing as empty space. That is because empty space means that both the value of a field and its rate of change are exactly zero. (If the field's rate of change were not zero, the space would not remain empty.) Since the uncertainty principle does not allow the values of both the field and the rate of change to be exact, space is never empty. " The Grand Design by Stephen Hawkin .
===
The spontaneous (but short-lived) appearance of subatomic particles from a vacuum is called a quantum fluctuation.When virtual particles momentarily appear within a vacuum, they are appearing in a space that already exists.

The fact that we are relying on something called a " fluctuation" should give us a hint that there's something more than nothing going on. You see a fluctuation implies that at the very least something is changing. But a proper definition of time is the change in some state of affairs. If you have any set of circumstances and then those circumstances are somehow different, you can know that time has elapsed. You have a " before " and an " after". So the fact that there are quantum fluctuations means that by definition time is already in existence .

Hence , quantum fluctuations require space and time to already exist, then how can they explain the beginning of the universe? The answer is: they can't.

~ Continue please ...
Report as
" A quantum vacuum is a physically necessary condition of a virtual particle coming into existence and, in this 'physically necessary' sense of causation, virtual particles may be said to have causes. A probabilistic definition of causality would also enable us to say that virtual particles have causes, for given a quantum vacuum there is a certain probability that virtual particles will be emitted by it." Quentin Smith, "Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology"

While quantum fluctuations are a theoretical construct :) , they really can't explain why the universe is here at all, because two of the universe's conditions must already exist for the quantum fluctuations to exist .

So no , a first cause is still necessary or that will lead us to infinitive regress which is impossible .
===
Secondly, the teleological argument .

A straw man argument ... who spoke about watches or rodents here ?!

Let us speak a little about " Proteins " ...

Continue please ...
Report as
A living cell maintains itself with the harmonious co-operation of many organelles. If only one of these organelles fails to function, the cell cannot
remain alive. It is not possible for a cell to wait for unconscious mechanisms
like natural selection or mutation to permit it to develop. Thus, the first cell on earth was necessarily a complete cell possessing all the required organelles and functions, and this definitely means that this cell had to have been created.

In order for a functional protein to be formed by chance, three conditions are required :

First condition: that all the amino acids in the protein chain are of the right type and in the right sequence .

Second condition: that all the amino acids in the chain are left-handed .

Third condition: that all of these amino acids are united between them by forming a chemical bond called " peptide bond " .

And guess what is the probability for a functional protein to be formed by accidentally by chance ?

Quote " For instance, an average-sized protein molecule composed of 288
amino acids, and contains twelve different types of amino acids can be
arranged in 10^300 different ways. (This is an astronomically huge number,
consisting of 1 followed by 300 zeros.) Of all these possible sequences, only
one forms the desired protein molecule. The rest of them are amino-acid
chains that are either totally useless or else potentially harmful to living
things.

(In practice, probabilities smaller than 1 over 10^50 are thought of as "zero
probability").

And all the atoms in the universe are10 ^ 80 atom . And since the BB 10 ^ 17 seconds had passed . So a probability of 10 ^ 300 is impossible to happen . Let alone that the simplest of the creatures have thousands of specialized proteins ! So the design is pretty obvious in whatever your eyes observe ... Non deny that except an arrogant .

~ Continue please
Report as
And i can continue in the design and balance in the systems in the creatures but i see no necessity for that .

You said : It says "anything complex had to be designed by a creator".

Straw man argument . No one said this . Beside that . God is not comparable to any of His creatures .
===
You said : " Despite your bold assumption "

Thanks for your respect and intellectual empathy .
===
Thanks for your comment and have a good day .

Regards .
Report as
Add a comment...

I have heard none.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

"most" convincing from a selection of near nothing. Perhaps the appeal to ignorance concerning the origin of the big bang.
Gods have migrated from mountain tops to above the firmament so with current technology it seems they're left hiding before the universe existed.

Helpful (3) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (2)
Report as
Our ignorance,lol
Report as
My money is on a quantum fluctuation giving rise to the hot, dense state that resulted in the Big Bang. The fact that our Universe (as far as we have been able to determine) is almost perfectly flat helps to support this. No god needed, and no evidence of one.
Report as
Add a comment...

There is none.

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

Science actually proves that ALL existence came from one energy source. That's enough for me !!!

Helpful (3) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (8)
Report as
A singularity.
Report as
A Creator.
Report as
Science shows it was the singularity actually. Abusing science to try and twist it to supernatural deities is unconvincing to anyone with any knowledge of science.
Report as
Show me how you are right. You can't prove you're theory any more than religion can.
Report as
Except that all observation, measurements, and testing show the Universe coming from the expansion of a hot, dense mass of energy. We have a literal TON of evidence to support this. If you are attempting to claim "god" is nothing more than that mass of energy, then you are basically attempting to take a Pantheistic view of the Universe. In which case, we may not be able to say you are exactly wrong (mostly because you aren't really claiming "god" exists as much as you are saying the "Big Bang" existed and you are just wanting to consider that as your god), but we definitely can still say all current religions are wrong.

We have plenty of scientific evidence, logic, and reason to dismiss all of them.
Report as
& that mass of ENERGY is the BEGINNING & END.
Report as
Shay...What you're describing is nature worship. The Big Bang is your God. By the way the universe does not end the way it began into a singularity. It ends with all matter and energy of the universe being dispersed to slightly above absolute zero.
Report as
Believers aren't interested in what science actually shows- they just want to take a tiny piece of it, twist it desperately so it sounds like it supports their god, then ignore the rest.
Report as
Add a comment...

The complexity of life, but then I remember that we haven't figured out EVERYTHING about life in the first place.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

I've never seen a convincing one.

A great many people ignorant of logic and philosophy seem convinced by the ontological argument though- they know it sounds ridiculous but can't place why without the background and thus might be convinced.

Helpful (3) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (5)
Report as
Allowing that "God" is a title of power, God is that being than which none greater exists. Therefore, many a great person has yielded voluntarily to this power, even if unknown, or misunderstood. Claiming superior knowledge or analytics, or a lacking of such in your opponent, merely makes your argument weaker.
Report as
No it doesn't. The ontological argument fails philosophically and logically, and the vast majority of folks convinced by its nonsense are unversed in either area.
Report as
I recite my second statement, Claiming superior knowledge or analytics, or a lacking of such in your opponent, merely makes your argument weaker. You should be especially careful, in this area, when you are completely unaware to whom you speak, less you be made the fool.

You merely misunderstand the premise. Everyone yields to authority, period. Whatever the ultimate authority maybe, it is by title "god", thus an emperor is god to those within the empire. There is nothing illogical about that, it is true by definition. If you deny this, you are the one lacking in education, and should thus refrain from speaking.
Report as
Ridiculous- claiming superior knowledge to the average person does not make an argument weaker in any way. It's a simple fact that in many areas- including philosophy and logic- the average person is woefully uneducated.

Perhaps you should become aware of your grammar as well when pronouncing your vague, intentionally condescending tripe- it's "LEST you be made a fool", not "less".

Calling an authority of any kind "god" is the ludicrous sophistry necessary for most theists to try and make their arguments for magic deities seem reasonable. A "god" has a specific definition, particularly in the context of this argument- you attempting to substitute one, colloquial definition for the definition intended in the argument at hand as though they are equal is an equivocation fallacy.

Apparently your education is the one severely lacking. Do refrain from speaking if all you have is logical fallacies and nonsense.
Report as
There are two reasons your argument is weakened, with your haughty attitude. The first is the debate itself, using an AD HOMINEM reduces the strength of "voice".

The other is a "general life" reason. Whenever one speaks with arrogant condescension, the hearer is put off, thus reducing the strength of your argument to rubbish. This is particularly true, when what you acclaim is mere fluff, and your hearer is well versed.

The reason that I am right is twofold, firstly, a deity with supreme authority is God, because there is no one who can claim higher authority, the second is because the question does not ask about a specific god, but rather includes any god of any degree. Toward that end, every emperor was a god to his empire, as a point of fact.

Anyone can hit a wrong key, to argue supreme knowledge based on a keystroke in a low rank website is to be too self absorbed. That being said, you are nothing LESS than a fool if you believe yourself superior to an unknown opponent. If I were you, I would make myself of low degree, and allow others to make themselves the fool.
Report as
Add a comment...

That His name is still spoken thousands of times daily by belief or nonbelief. When I'm dead and gone...... No one will speak my name after 10 years.
God keeps His name alive and well by placing it in the heart of every human.

Helpful (2) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (4)
Report as
They also still say the name of Krishna, Kali, Zeus, Odin, Buddha, Hecate, Cernunnos, the Matron/Mother/Crone, Mithra, Ra, Horus, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc... on and on and on and on and on... many of them were spoken WAYYYYYYYYYYYYY before god was even thought of. So, if the longevity of their "name" is a measure of how true they are, then god is the LEAST of the true amongst MANY gods.
Report as
If you think so BUT since God created it ALL....... I think NOT.
Report as
Since the premise of the question asked is yet answered here, Fight, you have not the argument you wish. The point that betty is making is indeed an argument for the existence of a thing. In the spirit of Christmas, Santa Claus was actual two real people. Therefore, in similar regard, the fact that every culture that has existed, from the earliest writing until this day, has had the belief of a higher power of some sort would imply that some such power probably exists.

Oh, and you're wrong, about which god was first known and spoken. The NAME of the Judeo-Christian deity was late on the scene, but His existence was known and spoken before that.
Report as
@Tradesmen: The reason why gods were invented (yes, they were invented) is because of political reasons; for control. Also another reason: People (everybody) has a tendency to explain the unexplainable, that's why people who are ignorant of science, tend to believe in Gods and people who are educated do not. Also another reason: there is a positive correlation between how wealthy a country is and the number of people who believes in gods, (the wealthier a country is, the less likely you will believe in god), this implies that religion is not important to people who have everything they need (food, water, clothes etc. etc.) and do not depend on that God to protect them. This means that the earliest writings that have some belief in a higher power really doesn't mean that there probably IS one. Any questions just tell me.

Report as
Add a comment...

It depends on the person. Something that may not impress you may impress another.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

My life, Jesus saved me he died to save all of us and I will tell you that my life is the proof.

Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (1)
Report as
amen
Report as
Add a comment...

Hi Vicky.

The most convincing argument is made by Almighty God when He interacts with your life at the spiritual level and you become born again. After that, when you can look back at who you were and who you have become since, you can't deny Him any longer.

So I guess in a nutshell my answer is; being reborn is the most powerful argument any individual can have, and this is a gift from God Himself.

Love ya.

Helpful (3) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (14)
Report as
All religious people of all religions all over the world report feeling exactly the same thing.

So either all gods are true, or you are feeling something else.
Report as
No they don't.
Report as
Yes, they really do. Ever speak to a Hindu who talks about the transformative powers of Brahma? Or a pagan who speaks of becoming filled with the awareness of their patron deity?

Obviously not- they all sound just like you.
Report as
They're deceived.
Report as
and you're not? Hmmm
Report as
please tell me the difference
Report as
Oh right- they're all deceived but you're magically not. Funny, that's what they all say about you folks too.

The old Special Pleading fallacy rears its ugly head.
Report as
Start with polytheism. It's self contradictory.
Pagans... We don't have time to discuss it!

:-)
Report as
That does not indicate why theirs or any other belief system is any less believable then yours. Each requires faith. And with enough convincing yourself it true, then you believe. Hindu's have as much faith as most Christians, they just don't go around trying to tell everyone that they're going to burn in hell if they don't convert. Hindus as well only have one God, with multiple manifestations, a few more then the christian God that only has 3.
Report as
It takes faith to know beyond doubt that any of the many gods are true.
Report as
We believe in one God who manifests Himself in three persons. Not three separate Gods, seedy. You know this.

If the doctrines of Christ were logically equivalent to Hindu doctrines you atheists would have an easy job disproving our beliefs. As it is, you try and equate Christs teachings of God to Brahms and that's not right. :-)

But, alas, I've given my answer and I see y'all don't like it. I expect that much and there's no point going back and forth for days. Have a good one!
Report as
It is easy to show your beliefs are illogical and contradictory. The trinity doctrine is flat nonsensical, and the atonement is a joke.

Your special pleading fallacy is again dismissed. You are basically arguing that your personal fuzzy feelings where you think you're experiencing your god are right and theirs are wrong... Because you say so.

Please.
Report as
Ex, Hindus only have one god that manifests himself in thousands of persons so to speak, the only difference is that Christians only manifest their God in three. And no the religions are totally different, I'm just comparing the multiple god idea. You, I'm sure, feel that Hindus have many gods, but they do not, they're God is much like the Christian God in that he manifests himself in thousands of different forms, yours does just 3 forms.
Report as
Okay, thanks! :-)
Report as
Add a comment...

Understanding God,s existence REQUIRES spiritual investigation. A man who does not believe on spiritual things will not be able to understand things of God which thing is a sad thing, there are really unfortunate people.

for believers, the existence of God is no longer a question.
we believe in God because we have understanding beyond physical universe, we know that the universe is not going to exist without a creator and that creator is God.

the reason these people (atheists and non believers) do not believe in God is because their mind is only limited to physical things, they DENY the existence of SPIRITUAL reality.

If they deny the existence of spiritual realities, which can be experienced and feel etc. how much more the existence of God.

let us read,

1 Corinthians 2:14

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.


Helpful (1) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (1)
Report as
amen brother
Report as
Add a comment...

Are there some things that we cannot see with our eyes but that we believe exist because there are sound reasons to do so? What about the air we breathe? We may feel it when there is a breeze. We can tell that it fills our lungs, even though we do not see it. Because we see the effects, there is good reason to believe in it, isn't that so? Well, is there evidence that an invisible God really exists?

Are there sound reason for believing in God?

Psalm 104:24: "How many your works are, O Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions."

Romans 1:20: "His invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made.

Illustration: When we see a camera, a radio, or a computer, we readily acknowledge that it must have been produced by an intelligent designer. Would it be reasonable, then, to say that far more complex things - the eye, the ear, and the human brain - did not originate with an intelligent Designer?

Psalm 83:18: May people know that you alone whose name, O Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth.
www.jw.org



Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...
Do you have an answer?
Answer this question...
Did you mean?
Login or Join the Community to answer
Popular Searches