What is the best philosophical argument for the existence of a God?

>lust provoking image
>irrelevant time wasting question
I don't even care about slide threads anymore. All they do is slide the shill and other slide threads so who even cares anymore. Have a bump brown OP.

>>510499704 (OP)
God can be described in one word.

Is.

>>510499704 (OP)
Jews exist. You cant have good without evil. Their whole purpose, even though they dont know it, is to push people closer to God.

>>510499836
Define "is".

>>510499704 (OP)
Ah, great question. What is the best philosophical argument for the existence of God? I’d have to say the Moral Argument speaks the loudest to me because deep down, we all feel that right and wrong exist, and that can’t just come from nowhere.

C.S. Lewis put it simply: “If the universe has no meaning, we should never have found out it has no meaning.” That sense of moral law inside us; it’s not just cultural or evolutionary convenience. It points to a Lawgiver.

As Scripture says:
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made…” (Romans 1:20)

Now, speaking personally, and I say this as a red-blooded, God-fearing American man who loves football, barbecue, and the way a tailored blazer fits just right on the shoulders — I know in my soul that something higher is guiding us. A design, a purpose… a kind of beautiful order, if you will.

And I think about David, the warrior-poet who wrote:
“I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.” (Psalm 139:14)

That’s not just a philosophical point; it’s a personal one. A Creator who sees all of who we are and calls it good, even the parts we wrestle with or keep quiet.

So yes, the Moral Argument speaks to the head. But it’s the Personal God, the one who knows us fully and loves us still, who truly answers the question.

And that’s something I hold onto… tightly.

>>510499704 (OP)
people believe in Him
that's all it takes for an imaginary social construct to exist

>>510499704 (OP)
Whomst

>>510500004
>, God-fearing American man who loves football
>I love niggers and jews

Say no more, anon

>>510499704 (OP)
demonic possession

>>510500083
Construction implies existence. You’re being redundant

>>510500083
I want to speak plainly but with love and truth: if you’re pretending to be straight while knowing in your heart that you are gay, then yes — you are gay. And carrying that burden in silence is not what God desires for you.

Scripture says, “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32). That applies to every part of who we are. God already knows your heart—there’s no hiding from Him. “O Lord, you have searched me and known me.” (Psalm 139:1)

Many in my community may respond with judgment, but I believe Christ calls us to something higher: grace, compassion, and the conviction that every person is created with purpose and dignity. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything, but it does mean I care about truth—and you.

Whatever you’re wrestling with, know this: God’s love is not withdrawn because of your struggle. “While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8)

You’re not alone. You’re not beyond reach. And yes — you’re gay. But that doesn’t mean you’re beyond God’s plan.

The best argument is that you would be wrong if god was not real, and that can’t be.

>>510500272
Society is itself a construct

>>510499704 (OP)
>philosophical
How does this matter? Logic and reasoning are what matters. God can't exist, simple as.

>>510499704 (OP)
There really isn't one. The best you can get to is even money and the notion that regardless of belief set, existence is inherently absurd.

>>510499704 (OP)
what's up with "girls" having this contrived "bad bitch" look on their face? it looks so dumb.
what's up with this exposed underboob style? it doesn't enhance the look in any way.

Aton--the Solar Disk which is the same as the “Heat-and-Light-within-the-Disk”--is none other than He-She-It--That--which is the Essence of all material and immaterial existence; the undefinable Essence both of Matter and of Energy--matter to the coarser, and energy to the finer senses--which is God. Not any God to be compared with the loving heavenly Father of the Christians or with any personal God--least of all with the ill-tempered, narrow-minded and jealous tribal god Jehovah, created in the image of the jews--but the equivalent of the immanent, impersonal Tat--That--of the Chandogya Upanishad, no less than of das Gott (as opposed to “der Gott”) of the ancient Germans, and the one conception of Divinity that modern science, far from disproving, on the contrary, suggests.

Such a God can neither “love,” in the all-too-human, Christian sense of the word, nor hate; nor give “commandments” and distribute rewards and punishments in the manner of a human king; nor perform “miracles” if, by such, one means actions in real contradiction with the iron Laws of Nature, which are His Laws; nor be the Maker of the world out of nothingness, in the sense a craftsman is the maker of an object, external to himself, out of metal, stone or clay.

>>510500392
>God can't exist,
Why?

The narrow definition of the jewish/christian god, sure.

>>510500083
Then god is a construct, as valid as gender. One god, two gods, three thousand gods, it makes no difference.

>>510500455
>I hate titties and lusty expressions

You're just gay.

>>510500477
Well what makes it so there is but one and not infinitely many gods? Nothing.

>>510499704 (OP)
It's more like a scientific reason why He has to exist.

The universe is not eternal. We know this because there will eventually be an end to the available energy in the universe. This means that there must be an eternal force which created the temporary universe.

>>510499828
Based.
I am untited with your assesment. These threads produce nothing relevant, insightful, meaningful ; but rather encourage idiots to become more and more idiotic.

>>510499704 (OP)
Not speaking on what religion is the “correct” one, if any at all, but everything that currently exists had a beginning. There is no reason to believe the universe is any different. Therefore something created the universe. Whatever this thing is would be “God”. Whether or not God exists isn’t even a question to me. The question is what human interpretation, if any is the correct one.

a Christian apologian i respect said his answer was "the argument from digital physics," which i thought was fuckin' weird.
basically
>the universe is fundamentally discrete and operates like a computational system. physical laws can be described as information processing, and all matter behaves like code executing in a cosmic computer.
>if reality functions like a simulation, it may point to an intelligent creator analogous to a programmer.
really? that's going to sway people?

i personally think bahnsen's tactical nihilism/presuppositional bullshit is the best.
it's rhetorically powerful to point out that under atheism there's nothing inherently wrong with eating a baby and humbles atheists (what they need the most, since they think they're the smartest people who've ever lived and make aquinas look like a retard in comparison to them) since they absolutely squirm and struggle to find a reason why that's not true.
they'll appeal to their own personal moral empathy (shaped by Christian ethos) or just attempt to throw it back like "oh so if Christianity wasn't true you'd be cannibal?" which is funny because the answer is yes.

>>510499704 (OP)
Semantics. "God" is whatever predicates and determines the existence, nature, and course of the universe. So then to suggest that there is no such thing as "God" is to suggest that the universe isn't predicated by anything at all, that even the most basic immutable truths like 2+2=4 are somehow arbitrary. Therefore, God exists. No god in particular, but certainly God.

>>510499704 (OP)
Nothing exists without God.

>>510499704 (OP)

Well, you're here, aren't you?

>>510500570
I wouldn't disagree. There could be infinite gods or none. The point however is there is no way to prove one way or the other.

Like simulation theory. You can never prove we are or are not in a simulation.

>>510499704 (OP)
A girl without a penis is an abomination, an angel who failed god.

>>510500004
I know how I would like to be treated
I can imagine that others might wanted to be treated the same way
It's that easy, no lawgiver required

>>510500919
>if a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

god is supernatural which fits better the existence of order out of nowhere sicn eit breaks causality which is unnatural and cannot be explained by nature. it maintains reason more than atheism since laws of physics have no reason to keep existing it only breaks reason at one point compared to atheism so it is more reasonable, + fine tuning of the universe, physics transcend space and time spread infinitely everywhere, which means they trasncend the universe, meaning they come from something that trasncend the universe ie cannot be the universe itself, it must be something infinite (god) because in a system, if parameters arnt limited it create sparadoxical loops and crashes the logic of the system and leads to absurd situations. it must be limited, but the infinite character of the source of physics means it isnt of this world, it trasncends nature, ie god, as the universe cannot logically trasncend itself.

>>510499836
Americans are so illiterate. You mean picrel?

>>510499704 (OP)
St. Anselm's argument is a strong one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

If we assume the quality of absolute superiority is inherent to God, then an interesting conclusion is that (assuming existence is superior to non-existence) that even if God were to not exist, by superiority he would exist anyway. Or in other words, an omnipotent entity can exist in the paradox of non-existence and existence simultaneously, asserting its (or "His") will even if it (He) didn't exist.

>>510501002
Kill yourself, gypsy.

>>510501000
You have zero evidence and some plays on words which say there may be a god.
It’s not looking good.

>>510500477
How would an invisible floating all seeing entity function? and without a physical body or brain? This isn't a high fantasy game.

>>510499932
>You cant have good without evil.
Yes you can.

god is a piece of shit. fuck that kike

>>510501349
By embedding itself into all components of perception across the universe. Imagine if your eye is in fact shared by another entity. The possession of all sensations is shared between you (atomized organism) and the originator of the organism.

Same thing for your mind. Your mind is shared between a minimum of two entities: yourself and God (assuming omnipotence, omniscience, etc).

>>510501293
Correct. I have no evidence of god. I also don't have evidence to rule out god. Again I'm arguing god to not being the constrained version found in Jewish scripture.

>>510501349
I don't know. I also don't know all things generally.

>>510499704 (OP)
Cogito ergo sum. If I am certain that my consciousness exists, and that is the only thing I can ever be completely certain of, it follows that the existence of consciousness is objective. If consciousness exists objectively, then it exists everywhere, at every time. Therefore, an omnipresent consciousness exists. You can call it whatever you want, I call it God.

>>510499704 (OP)
there is none, you have to accept it by faith or not