Yes, God Does exist

[Cole D]

Now, I could list many different evidences as to why he does but to save time I'd prefer direct questions individuals may have. However, I will post one, the one that is most prominent to me.

The most prominent evidence is the way the universe(people,plants, animals, and environment, solar system, etc.) function and how it relates to the "it just happened" mindset. Take a look at the human body for example and how distinct it is; how every part of it has a certain purpose, how complex it is. Its too complex to "just happen" and everything be perfect. Or take our solar system. What made earth rotate in the perfect dimensions, if you will, so that life could be supported?
What I am trying to get it is that if you stop and look around and actually think about it everything is a bit too perfect for it to all just randomly happen.


Please elaborate or disagree. I love a good argument.

[randis]

Cole,

I completely agree with you but if you don't mind can I play 'devil's advocate' with you? This is the response you're going to face at college.

You talk about the design of humans and animals and say that this goes against the "just is" mindset of naturalism. However, because of Hawkings and Gould, very few evolutionists now hold to such a position of simple evolutionary "chance". Natural selection isn't "chance" alone but rather a combination of "necessity and chance". If this is the case, cannot evolution account for the design we see?

Also, in terms of the universe, many philosophers will revert to espousing an infinite number of universes (a multiverse). Given enough rolls of the dice you will eventually get snake eyes.

How would you respond?

[dsgirl]

I’ve heard this hypothesis posed by philosophers. I understand why scientists go here, as they just can’t otherwise explain certain things with any other answer. But it has always puzzled me why philosophers go here. Most people that give this answer like to limit the scope of their hypothesis to the creation of Earth and life. However, if one is to give such a pat answer, then it must hold water in all situations rather than just pick and choose.

Therefore, given an infinite number of universes, aren’t there an unlimited number of universes in which good is evil and evil is good? How about an unlimited number of universes in which life could not exist as well as an infinite number in which life could exist? How about an infinite number of universes in which there are no infinite numbers? Aren’t all things possible? How about a universe in which everyone recognized such an argument for the kind of garbage it is?

Philosophers like to pose hypotheticals and that’s fine. However, what we are talking about with the multiverse theory is simply an illogical and unsupported concept that is meant as a catch-all to argue from a fixed philosophical standpoint rather than face evidence that is contradictory to that standpoint.

What amazes me however, is not so much the philosophers’ idea of a multiverse theory. We have come up with wacky ideas for as long as man has been around and it never hurts to discuss them. What astounds me is that people will bet the eternal state of their soul on an idea without a single point of evidence and stack billions of maybes towards an illogical conclusion instead of accepting the single more logical conclusion that someone actually planned the universe in a way that works.

[Linz]

Understanding that there are those who bet their eternity on something that doesn't hold, what would you say to them? Why do you think they are so adamant about this perspective? How do you combat someone who holds to a position such as that? I mean to say that for us, who are believers in the truth of the Bible, why is it so simple of an idea to us to believe in God who created the universe and obviously not as simple to them? Obviously, there is another issue in the picture here for if the truth of the universe was clear to all as it seems to be for us, then wouldn't everyone believe?

[dsgirl]

For me personally, I don't "combat" them. There are those that will deny God's existance even at the expense of the logic and science they put forth, those that start with an agenda based on prejudice and hate, and those that have a lifestyle to defend that is far more important to them than their eternal soul. These could look God in the eyes and still deny his existance. There's no point in engaging much less arguing with anyone coming from this perspective. If there was, Christ could have offered the words to convince the Pharisees that he was the Messiah they say they were waiting for.

It is one thing to defend your own faith, teach or debate those that are seeking for truth, or provide information and alternate perspectives to those who maybe haven't heard anything else other than an atheistic world view. It's another thing to engage someone who is only in it for the experience of combat and to toss insults. In many cases, it's hard to tell what someone's predisposition and agenda are. One needs to have a way to engage anyone, determine the difference between those that will debate but have a desire for the truth and those that only wish to waste your time. Christians need to be able to disengage from those that simply have no purpose other than to argue, defame, and then move on without losing credibility. For me, it starts but is not limited to their willingness to share mutual respect.

The only time I see any purpose in combating anyone is if there are others that may be influenced by their arguments. This would include those that use their position such as teacher/professor to influence those that sit under their tutelage. They have the advantages of age, education, position of authority, and the floor. I have also found that many substitute their opinion for fact or at least don't differentiate between the two. If these are not publically challenged, there are many of their students that will never realize there is another perspective.

The reality however, is that most Christians are not taught why they believe what they do other than "because the Bible tells me so" - really crummy reasoning if a person doesn't start out with an understanding of why the Bible is true. Neither do they teach people how and when to engage. Learning HOW to engage those that would debate you is very important and it starts with making them define their own terms. I've seen many challenges won right here when the person making claims against God simply can't define his own terms in a logical manner. However, if Christians only learned that THEIR faith isn't the only one that needs defending, they would be miles ahead in most cases. Non-believers make claims all the time, presented as fact. Christians argue these, but they rarely ask why someone believes them and they almost never ask how the person claiming such KNOWS what they claim is true. Ask an atheist how he KNOWS God does not exist. He can't - so haven't you just made him into an agnostic? You are already half way home.

[Apologist]

I quite agree. God calls us to battle the forces of evil and to defend our faith. However, the defense is to be offered to those that would offer reasonable question or to defend the faith in front of those that would be swayed by malicious or ignorant defamation of the faith.

Should we offer defense to all? Absolutely, but it becomes pretty obvious pretty quick whether someone has an agenda to use their bully-pulpit, argue for the sake of confrontation, or simply waste your time. The internet is especially stupid with time-wasters. Ever notice those people that have thousands of posts in just a few months on boards they don't own or even manage? Don't get involved with these people. Expressing an opinion is never enough for them, they rarely have posts that are more than a few words long, they are almost always blathering about something, and they are more interested in arguing than they are in the discussion. The arguments often become silly and random, are often repeated even when adequately reasoned against, are very often copied verbatim from other sources, and they almost always then become personal and hostile when refuted - if they even bother to read half what you write.

Christians can also fall victim to silly arguments, hostility, and wasted time as well. I've seen many that have been outgunned - not necessarily because they were wrong, but that they weren't prepared to defend why they were right. Christians need to understand the difference between defending our faith, arguing, and trying to make others believe. Only the first is what we are expected to do and the rest of it is a distraction at best and an effort in futility at worst.

Christians do need to have a way to call garbage for what it is, even if it offends the garbage-maker, and then walk away. To do so can be more powerful that getting into a silly titfertat confrontation or going down foolish roads.

I like the name of the organization as it infers reason rather than argument.