« Dawkins Religious? | Main | Did Einstein Believe in God? »

November 2, 2006

The Best Argument for the Existence of God?

Here is a question for atheists and agnostics as well as believers:

What is the best of the possible arguments for the existence of God? The one, if you don't believe, that comes closest to making you think twice.

Posted by Mitchell Stephens at November 2, 2006 1:58 AM


The relationship between myself and my husband provides me with either proof or disproof for the existence of a god. Intimacy and love are positive benefits of living and the idea that a supreme being created it does not make sense to me. The idea that our brains have constructed such information in pathways that make us feel better is a more likely. Humans set up pathways of comfort and great feelings (witness the pathway that is associated with orgasm and addiction)… Man's brain is a product of our evolution from our animal origins and we can delude ourselves about almost anything if we do something often enough.

I think religion itself turns me off, not the spiritual aspect of a superior beings existence and I do not need religion to fell spiritual or good. I feel that goodness can be inherent if we experience enough good in our lives. I have had such a good life that I feel thankful (but I'm not sure to whom…possible a byproduct of my Christian upbringing). I like the philosophy and premise of Christianity but I do not like the history that man has generated because of it. Every world religion seems to produce such outcomes. As a result, I do not attend any church but find solace in my own thoughts. Perhaps that is my own religion…

Posted by: Linda Wright at November 2, 2006 8:50 AM

I've read stats somewhere that the proportion of hardcore atheists is something like 5% of the population, so sometimes I do wonder: is it really possible that I am right and 95% of the world is wrong?

Posted by: Wayne at November 2, 2006 10:53 AM

On the other hand, many people respect Paris Hilton too, enough to buy her "music," and think that Larry King is the cat's pajamas, so maybe I am right ... ;-)

Posted by: Wayne at November 2, 2006 10:55 AM

I'm not in the "atheists and agnostics as well as believers" club, but I would suggest uncertainty combined with possibility would be the best argument for anything supernatural.

Don't think twice, it's all right.

Posted by: Jay Saul at November 2, 2006 10:59 AM

The only argument that generates any sympathetic reaction from me is:

"I believe in God because it feels good".

(I believe this is better known as 'Wittgenstinian Fideism).

Unfortunately, it isn't an argument so much as an apology.

The toughest arguments to unravel still belong to Aquinas (IMO).

Love the blog -

Posted by: Cameron Hilton at November 2, 2006 11:19 PM

The most difficult thing for me to comprehend as a non-religious person is the fact that this, the universe, "time," etc. may have always existed. Also: I certainly don't buy into the concept of intelligent design, but the ability to conceptually comprehend infinity makes it much easier to understand and believe in things like evolution.

And now for some fun, here is the "Therefore, God Exists" project:


519 arguments for the existence of God! :-)

Posted by: Josh at November 3, 2006 8:47 AM

The interesting about God, Nature, the Cosmic or "It", is that it does not have any concerns about what we call it, or think of it! It is! The real problem is understanding the correct application of the human ego, which is an illusion that spends an inordinate amount of time focusing on "perceived differences" that arose from a single point of departure. Ultimately, no one can teach another the "actuality" of God in a world of darkness, masquerading as light. This can only happen via a direct and "unique revelation" to the blind, limited ego-personality, as an outcome of its own efforts. All of these divsive arguments advocating the existence, or non existence of cosmic consciosness is just seeking an affirmation of a prejudicial point of view, so we can find comfort in our ignorance! God is too obvious to be proven. We are all on our own!

Posted by: D-of-G at November 7, 2006 6:52 PM

The best argument for the indisputably of God is "We're not going to define 'God'"

Posted by: MT at November 14, 2006 1:23 AM

Ooh: I just remember an astute comment about God talk that I posted elsewhere that isn't really on point but which I'll copy here anyway so don't I forget, just I think it's bound to be valuable to some conversation around here sometime and I'm so darn pleased with myself about it.

I've taken a fancy to assertions of the form "Only God...." I think they're a great rhetorical invention, because at least to me they seem to defy rebuttal. "Only God could make a child," "Only God could make a chicken," "Only God could make a chicken sandwich," "Only God could be the subject of this sentence." You name it. Or no, don't actually. "Only God names things."

Posted by: MT at November 14, 2006 1:35 AM

Well, the thing that tends to be the most convincing(most but actually hardly covincing) is the fact that I'd have to take the path I am not willing ever to take, and that is a path of self-destruction or better known as self brainwashing, self-sabotage or simply as taking many steps backwards in order to take a step forward or in order to "see truth" or be "free" or whatever. It's like turning dumb to be smart or I guess just turning from rational to irrational while trying to fool myself into thinking that it's in my best rational interest to do so. So, I guess you could say that since I'm someone that likes to experience, I'd have to experience something I'm not willing to which by rational thought leaves the concept un-eliminateable, but that's why I'm atheist cause the whole notion seems absurd.

Posted by: Justin at November 15, 2006 1:17 AM

This is slightly away from the topic but at a dinner party recently I raised this question when things were slowing down a bit.

"God comes to you with all his power and asks you to describe a single act he can perform to prove his existence to the world . What would you suggest ?"

The answers surprised me. They were basically brainwash everyone, or (from one recent adult convert to christianity) kill all the non- believers. This is something she is waiting impatiently for and is apparently something that is being transmitted by the American missionaries running around South Asia right now. There were no acts of global saving of human lives requested.

The other Atheist and myself concluded that while curing HIV, Malaria, or restoring the lives of all the people killed in the Tsunami might be most significant from a humaitarian point of view they would all be easy to deny as an act of god unless you knew someone affected and we didnt.

The best I could come up with was putting the World Trade Centre back up overnight with all the people in it, and all of the planes intact back on the ground with an instruction that everyone involved must forgive and be forgiven or it all comes down again. It was an event that received so much global publicity it would be difficult to deny the reversal. Its also a sad fact that restoration of 3,000 lives in America would get significantly more global media attention than the restoration of 200,000 lives in South Asia. It would also bring a strong focus on the stupidity of the events that have happened since 9/11.

Posted by: Mike at November 15, 2006 9:45 PM

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Posted by: Todd Sayre at November 18, 2006 9:57 AM

trick question!
there are no good arguments for the existence of god

Posted by: mike dean at November 23, 2006 11:14 PM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)