I'm thinking about posting this to a few more religious forums, but I'd just like to hear what people have to say on here.

So, playing Devil's Advocate, and hopefully without a bunch of straw man replies, what is the best argument for God you've heard? And, if you really can't stand it, why is that argument not good enough?

My favorite is Descartes' Ontological argument- but since I don't have a clear and distinct perception of God, this one still isn't enough for me.

Excited to hear replies!

Views: 2281

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

RE: "I'm certain you are well intended, and a nice guy" - clearly, Mark, you haven't been here long. As Grinches go, he's not too bad.

RE: "I hope I was not too harsh in my response." - actually, you have been far more polite and considerate than most who post here. However, I must ask, wouldn't your proofs be capable of proving that anything, including unicorns, exist?

His seminal papers on Special Relativity, Brownian Motion, the Photoelectic Effect (for which he got the Nobel Prize), and General Relativity each contain mathematics that is MUCH more advanced than anything in my proof, and Einstein provides no math education in his papers.

BUT, Einstein's point was...

This quote on simplicity appears somewhat, but not entirely, at odds with his quote condemning oversimplification.

I have already posted a simplified explanation, in response to the OP. See below.

If he said it, I'm sure he'd stand by it. If it seems at odds, you probably don't understand it well enough.

*Ahem* "Make everything as simple as possible, but not moreso."

In other words: do not oversimplify.

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

In other words: everything we understand can be made simple.

My exact choice of words was, "somewhat, but not entirely, at odds". We have 2 opposite ends of the spectrum: complexity and simplicity. Does the idea of complexity somehow becoming simple not appear paradoxical?

If a "complex" concept just consists of simple ones, layered and woven together in simple ways, then where exactly does complexity arise in the system?

All I meant to say was that these are fascinating concepts, worthy of deep contemplation, rather than simply swallowing the "genius quotes" whole.

The only proof for God that's worth considering is one that's so obvious it's inescapable. It has to be formulated as an argument with a small number of premises, at least some of them empirical not analytical, leading inexorably to the conclusion that God exists.

A complicated proof with no empirical aspect is simply word play.

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

I think rather obviously this one is the dominant rule because it's the one that applies to the understandability of the theory.

The only "God" worth a hang is the one who cares if I murder or steal or cheat on my wife and is prepared to do something about it. A mathematical abstraction simply doesn't meet the basic requirements.

RE: "if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality"

Wouldn't that, of necessity, mean that unicorns and little pink bunnies must also exist in reality, along with all of the other imaginary creatures that our minds have conjured?

Lol, ETs dont wish to be seen as Gods(annoyance of history), but equals, this is not Star Gate SG1... lol


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service