@CapturingChristianity | What Is The Best Argument For God's Existence?

Take the OMA Apologetics Crash Course

Do you ever doubt your ability to answer bigger than life questions like, “Why do I exist? What is the purpose of life? Can I know God? If so, how? Are miracles possible?” And if God exists what’s with all the evil in the world? Do questions like these ever nag at you? If so, you’ve come to the right channel. I too am a fellow wonderer who thinks about stuff like this.

#apologetics #christianapologetics #oneminapologist #Christianity #God #bobbyconway #doubtingGod #doubtingJesus #doubtingtowardfaith

[DanielApologetics]

Before watching, I bet its a version of the Contingency Argument!

EDIT: I was right!! As a married man, I must say, that this was s rare, satisfying feeling.

[sqlblindman]

His best argument for God's existence isn't even an argument for God's existence?
of sad, actually.

[loveasapologetics]

If you’re only in the comments to hate on people... maybe you should keep looking for a new worldview?

If you assume all Christians believe the same thing and you can judge all of them based on something... perhaps you’re prejudice and this is the only area you can openly throw insults and not be judged. Shouldn’t strict prejudice against Christians be looked down on the same as being a racist? Both involve complete assumptions.

What an odd paradigm. To be openly prejudice while simultaneously thinking its wrong. Something is happening in the background there and all I can think of it spiritual warfare.

There’s a worldview that respects everyone. Keep looking :) American Christians are preaching about a God they’ve created. The Bible shows you the God who is real.

[Derek_Baumgartner]

Oftentimes with arguments like these (the Kalam, especially!) we see pushback something like this:
"Hah, but how does that get you to Christianity? I see nothing arguing for Jesus here!", etc.

To do so is to misunderstand the point of these arguments.
These arguments in no way need to prove the 'entire thing', but rather can just act as evidence, similar to evidence in a criminal trial.

For example:
-If you had a suspect's DNA on the murder weapon - so what? Just because he touched the weapon, doesn't mean he's the guy that used it.
-If you had a video recording of the suspect at the scene when the crime was committed - so what? Innocent people have been at the place where the crime was committed. Else you wouldn't have a victim!
-If you had three witnesses claiming they saw the guy leave right after the crime was committed - so what? People go in and out of places all the time.
-If you had an eyewitness to the guy swinging something that looked like the murder weapon - so what? Doesn't mean it was him.
-If you had the suspect's blood on the victim - so what? He might have been caught in an altercation with him prior to the actual murder event.
-If he confesses to the crime - so what? People have made false confessions before for all sorts of reasons!

At every step you can 'so what?' it.
In fact, you can even say 'Now, take all of the above. So what? Someone might have set him up!'

But notice: every time you combine one piece of evidence with the other, the probability changes: and 'so what?' starts becoming less and less reasonable.
If you cannot debunk an argument, it stands as evidence for something. Depending on the argument that doesn't necessarily mean that something is true - but it makes it more probable.

[snuffywuffykiss]

Contingency and special pleading...
Sad the theists keep trotting out the same old debunked arguments from the dark ages.
If a god was real you wouldn't have to try and argue it into existence.

[MrFossilabgfyth]

I like the teleological argument for God.

[ChrisFineganTunes]

Special pleading.

You're perfectly happy to have a God that is not dependent on anything external while being unhappy to have a cosmos that is not dependent on anything external.

Why can't the energy in the cosmos be the necessary thing that everything else is contingent on?

[rehanabdullah]

One major issue with this reasoning though is that it only factors in human experience which only exists within a certain scale of time and space i.e. our experiences tell us that everything physical is dependant on something else that is physical. For example, there is so much we know is unexplained outside of what we have been able to observe so far in space, there are things we know we can never know (the speed of light limiting the observable universe) and the questions arise from what we have observed about the behaviour of matter and forces on a quantum scale. All explanations for any gods are human-centric and yet the more we discover about the universe and nature, the more questions arise about the place of humanity in it and our irrelevance to the scale of it. That also means our thought processes and reasoning are based on local and historical experiences that we have gathered. If this reasoning does open the door to the possibility of a god then it also opens the possibility that any knowledge of such a god has not been found and never will be. It also makes it highly possible that any explanations of god that have arisen from human experience were dependant on something physical and local within our sphere of understanding at the time that such religions were formed. Belief by its nature requires assumptions of certain fundamental concepts that are unknowable or have not been proved/observed yet so the biggest question that I have from this logic is, why does human observation or human experience have anything to do with such a god and why would humanity matter to such a god given that in the scale of the universe that we have observed SO FAR, one instance of a bacterium on planet earth is far more significant to the earth than the earth is to just our galaxy alone?

[kylealandercivilianname]

I'm glad that Cameron likes that argument. If anyone is interested in the argument he is talking about I recommend you check out this video series currently in the works

[anthonyrowden]

I disagree. Cam's hair has necessary existence. It could not NOT exist. Cam's hair explains all contingent reality. It is the reason why there is something rather than nothing. It is the reason I exists. Lol, just kidding Cam.

[GDKLockout]

So basically you feel that you have to know the answer to the nature of reality.
And because you cant think of a better answer. It must be god.

Ever considered that you dont know the answer? Maybe we dont have enough info yet to be able to understand the begining?

[Stuffingsalad]

This is the equivalent to the old ‘uncaused cause’ argument. If not essentially identical. Just worded a bit different since these things would be somewhat synonymous. Of which again, is a complete god of the gaps argument. You need to demonstrate this god is that thing, not just emptily assert it.

[andydee]

OK, let's imagine that all of reality DOESN'T fit inside your phone, what then? If you're comparing the entire universe to a smartphone, you've stopped looking way to early, bro.

[chestersweeney]

"...the world by wisdom knew not God, ..."...once you open the smallest Chinese box...you discover it's empty...but God has repeatedly made Himself known...even if No man has seen God... at anytime...

[darrenplies]

Two great pompadours collide

Joshua Rasmussen is unfathomably valuable!

FYI Bobby you’re killing it on Pastors Perspective, it’s the best it’s ever been 👍

[davide]

So basically the argument from contingency.

[sqlblindman]

Just had another Christian, David Judkins, run away when confronted with his own

[jtremaine]

So in other words....God is the necessary precondition of intelligibility and with that, we have justification for the uniformity in logic, science, nature & morality.

[camdynbruce]

I know the video explicitly says that this is an argument for gods existence and not an argument for christianity, however I wish that christian apologist would actually argue for the God that they believe in. Even if this argument convinced me that there’s a God it does not logically follow that I should be a Christian. All that you could possibly ascertain from this argument is that God is the necessary foundation for reality, and that’s all. At best this argument gets you to deism but Cameron is not a deist he’s a christian.

[ardbegthequestion]

This is the best argument? All it seems is that this argument lays the groundwork for one’s particular faith to answer that gap. It still doesn’t convincingly get us to Jesus dying on a cross for our sins. Crap ton more work to make that leap.