Atheists/Theists: What is the best argument FOR theism (a God's existence) you have heard?

by Spook 45 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Spook

  The issue of the scope of our "free will" is nicely covered by Mark Driscoll in this video-check it out and see what you think.

  Chalam,

  Thanks for chiming in, but you gave me a link to a theological explanation / exegesis. I could waste a hundred pages on the rampant conflicts within the scriptures on this issue and I think any reader not pre-committed to biblical innerancy would agree that different writers of bible books had different beliefs about this. So different that it has taken 2000 years to cobble together a fairly poor and largely offensive mish-mash of interpretations.

  Besides, the argument I was discussing is the logical impossibility of GOD having freewill and knowing the future, not humans having free will.

  XJW4EVR,

  The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG) often used by Bahnsen (Against not only Stein, but Tabash, Smith, etc.) is not taken seriously by academics, even by most of the Theist philosophers out there. It's convincing to laymen because it treads on metaphysics which is a difficult terrain for those new to philosophy. TAG has several flawed premises which I won't get into here. Maybe I'll start up a thread dedicated to each one of these eventually.
• 

  Chalam

  Hi spook,

  I don't know if you watched the vid but Mark goes on to explain the (limited) level of our free will and how that reconciles with the biblical principle of predestination i.e. God's will.

  Anyhow, check it out if you fancy it. IMHO he has done his homework and more importantly, the reasoning is biblically sound. Also, as a bonus the style is easy to follow, just the way I like it!

  All the best,

  Stephen
• 

  Spook

  Oh, heck, here's 2 cents on TAG:

  The theist claims that there are transcendental / metaphysical (non-physical) realities such as the laws of logic and numbers. The theist assumes that these require an explanation for their origins. The theist accounts God as the origin, the atheist not being able to account for a natural cause of metaphysics is deemed to fail in the theists reconning.

  Problems with TAG:

  1. The theist assumes, without merit, that If metaphysical entities are *real*, they require an explanation of origin.

  2. The theist claims, without substantiation, that postulating an ultimate source solves this dilemma.

  Most academic theists will not claim that God can do things which are logically impossible (can't create a round square). If the belief is that God can operate only within the laws of logic, then these are separate from her, and TAG is just a regress. Claiming that God CREATED the laws of logic, the number two, or the set of the square root of all prime numbers amounts to explaining the unkown with something more unknown. Fecundity would have us stop at the first brute fact (something clearly unknown or unkowable).
• 

  Spook

  Chalam,

  I don't think you understand the difference between a theological argument (Explanation of accounts contained in the bible.) and a logical or philosophical argument about the existence of a God. In short, the bible could have a perfect, consistent, coherent account on this matter and it wouldn't matter one bit. The only difference is that it would be OBVIOUS what the bible was saying...which it isn't.

  The issue of human free will pertains to the argument from evil, not the free-will argument for the non-existence of God.

  The issue of divine free will pertains to the logical possibility of a god existing who has free will and is omniscient.

  It is logically impossibly for any being to exist which knows the future and has free will. Either the future is not knowable, or the being does not have free will. Dancing around this one is a language game (coincidentally not supported by the text of the bible if you're claiming that as your basis) using phrases like "limited freedom."
• 

  Chalam

  Hi Spook,

  OK I got it now! Forgive me.

  Well I don't believe we can use logic to work God out like He is a machine or equation, He is a person being.

  For example, 1+1=God

  I think it is more like 1+universe+faith=God

  i.e. huge incomprehendible variables and still the spanner in the works, faith which God has left there-an unknown factor which we inherently could never "calculate" because were don't have the mind of God. Come to think of it, I think Einstein was onto this when he found his equation didn't work out as perfectly in practice as the theory suggested.

  If it were just about "finding where He lives" or "working out His modus operandi" then surely mankind would have done it now or be well on the way? As it is we still don't have a cure for the common cold.

  So I agree with the bible, we are stuck with faith whether we like it or not, not just purely "working out the facts".

  Hope that explains my thoughts?

  All the best,

  Stephen
• 

  Spook

  Chalam,

  If I understand you: You are answering the question by saying the best argument you can give to support god's existence is that you claim to have a personal relationship with him and find the accounts in the bible to be persuasive evidence which accurately describes real historical events.