Thread 17910136

What's the best argument for God?

>>17910136 (OP)
Without intentional design we cannot be entirely confident that evolution would've mapped our internal logic onto reality. Intentional design requires a subject to have intent, and this grand designer may be called God.

>>17910136 (OP)
1. The Bible is the perfect word of God.
2. The Bible records God doing stuff.
3. Therefore, God exists.

>>17910139
How can you even call our design intelligent when we have vestigial tailbones and useless muscles in our ears that never develop enough to be functional? These things literally only make sense from an evolutionary standpoint, as they can easily be explained as remnants from earlier in our evolution

>>17910144
I didn't say that evolution didn't exist, I said that evolution without intentional design doesn't exist. To believe in no God destroys your epistemology. If you believe in random evolution, how would we know that evolution would have given us reason that leads us to the truth?

>>17910139
You can't be certain that our internal logic maps onto reality even with God since it requires having a justified belief in God and that He desires man to know the truth, a mental state which relies on that same internal logic which you have already concluded is potentially faulty.

>>17910151
>I didn't say that evolution didn't exist,
I didn't say you didn't. I'm asking why you think our design is inherently intelligent when evidence points to the contrary
>If you believe in random evolution, how would we know that evolution would have given us reason that leads us to the truth?
Why not? 99.999% of species that have ever lived will never be as intelligent as us, which actually supports random evolution, as human intelligence clearly isn't the norm. And even then, we're actually terrible at being "lead to the truth" so-to-speak, humans are extremely prone to fallacious thinking. That's not to say random evolution disproves God either, but "intelligent design" is a terrible argument for God. Nobody even has a standard for what "intelligent design" even means anyways.

>>17910156
It's only potentially faulty if God doesn't exist.

>>17910166
No, it can be faulty if God exists and does not want us to grasp the world as it truly is. Haven't you read Descartes?

>>17910158
>I'm asking why you think our design is inherently intelligent when evidence points to the contrary
Because we have the ability to reason.
>Nobody even has a standard for what "intelligent design" even means anyways.
I do actually. It means that our internal logic and model of the world leads us to objective truth.

>>17910169
>it can be faulty if God exists and does not want us to grasp the world as it truly is
If this were the case then rational discourse would serve no purpose.

>>17910170
At best you're arguing in favor of a Deist God, since Deists believe that God is just a metaphysical manifestation of inherent order in the universe, and one could argue that we only have the ability to reason and think logically specifically because we were forced to evolve in a universe that is inherently logical.

>>17910176
>you're arguing in favor of a Deist God
Correct

The best proof of God is the survival and rise of civilizations that bind themselves to divine law. Rome without the gods was a brawl of tribes. Rome with the gods became an empire. In the same way, our modern State without God would become a mob; with God, it becomes eternal.

>>17910136 (OP)
Natural design. I'm atheist but it's that.

>>17910136 (OP)
Violence. If threatened with violence for disbelief, people are substantially more likely to agree that god exists. Therefore if you want to prove that god exists point a gun at someone and demand them to agree with the idea that god is real.

>>17910187
>In the same way, our modern State without God would become a mob; with God, it becomes eternal.
Modern society has been based on a secular body of law for hundreds of years with no God required. Unless by "God" you just mean some vague civic-religion or Mandate of Heaven type shit where "God" is just randomly inserted into a countries slogans to give the state some level of metaphysical legitimacy without having to go into any sort of specifics about said God or why that given country is part of his will.

>>17910136 (OP)

TAG.

>>17910199
this

>>17910136 (OP)
Presuppositional because it aggraves people. Not because its necessarily true.

>>17910199
>>17910189
>>17910187
Sorry, why are you continuing on as if the answer to OP wasn't definitively given in >>17910141
?

>>17910199
Violence isn't an argument
It's an act
It doesn't directly convince people to change their minds either usually it makes them more obstinate

>>17910438
I'm just politely adding my own personal take into the conversation.

>>17910438
>God exists because God exists

>>17910136 (OP)
Which god? The gods that made Heavy Metal?

>>17910501
peak christian argumentation

>>17910569
The brownoids of Judea had to explain philosophical ideas through their fairy tale myths lmao

God doesn't need an argument. People with weak faith do.