The Best Argument for God's Existence

Every human society that we have records for, every civilization, has nurtured some moral code of behaviour. And in many cases, like the entire developed world of today, those societies have recognized the most critical elements of those moral codes with laws that inflict punitive measures on anyone who transgress those laws.

But what does that mean? What are we allowing when we talk about morality? Morality can be described as a judgement between what ought to occur and what actually occurs.

Now it’s important to notice that the natural sciences as a method of inquiry, in principle, cannot tell us anything about what ought to happen as compared to what does happen. The natural sciences are limited to consideration of the natural universe and are predicated on the assumption that the natural universe behaves according to fixed laws.

And by fixed laws, we mean what always happens. When we describe gravity, we’re talking about what always happens when two bodies of mass come within proximity of each other. There is no option to choose something outside of those laws. There are no alternative possibilities to those laws. A planet cannot choose to break faith with its orbit.
But remember morality tells us what should happen not necessarily what does happen and science only makes observations of what does happen and draws conclusions from that.

But if the natural universe is all there is, then there should be absolutely no grounds for talking about what should happen. All there is is what does happen and that you and I, as fixtures of the natural universe, must be bound to those same inevitable laws.

But in the case of you and I, we notice that there is more going on than fixed laws. We have an intellect and a will that govern the things that we do. We can choose between alternatives and because of this ability to choose and act with will, we recognize that we are responsible for the things we do.
We don’t hold other natural elements responsible for their actions in the same way. If a tsunami crashes ashore and kills hundreds of people, we don’t denounce the oceans for their transgression. We don’t protest along the shorelines demanding that the ocean recognize the value of human life. We don’t say, you should not have done that.

And the reason we don’t is because we recognize that it was behaving in an inevitable and deterministic way according to the fixed laws of the natural universe.

But when a person does something we don’t like, we don’t say, oh he was just acting according to those same fixed laws. No, we say he is responsible for those decisions because he is governed by more than the fixed laws of nature. There is some agency and ability that he draws from outside those laws that frees him from them to some degree.

But if the natural world can only be described by the fixed laws of cause and effect, and we either produce or inherit some quality that breaks free from that sequence, then we have to admit that we’ve found something that is pervasive in the human experience and which exceeds or transcends the natural universe.

In other words, there is something, that is morality, that is relentlessly available to our perception and in our experience that portrays something more to reality than what we can see, taste, and touch. There is something metaphysical or spiritual in our experience and it’s a big part of that experience.

So now that we understand that morality is something that exceeds the natural universe, what does this transcendent fact tell us about what lies outside and beyond physical nature?

It tells us that whatever lies beyond is intensely interested in our behaviour, about right and wrong, unselfishness, and justice. It seems to be instructing us in becoming moral by affirming us in good behaviour and making us uncomfortable and ashamed about our bad behaviour.

The only thing we can compare this to is a mind with will, purpose, and intention. We cannot talk about matter as if it were teaching or guiding us. And we cannot talk about it as if it were a natural law because as we’ve seen, natural laws don’t make allowances to disobey.

And the fact that we can disobey and are not forced to conform ourselves to these moral instructions tells us a little more, I believe. It makes love or the free gift of self, possible. What good are marriage vows if the one reciting them has no choice? What good is a promise if it can’t be broken?
Love acquires its significance because it does not have to be given. So, the fact that the power behind the moral law doesn’t force this law upon us, makes love possible. And it is this aggregate of variables that leads us to a very personal perception of that which lies beyond the natural universe.

[angeloortiz]

Half of the video was spent explaining the already well discussed problem of subjective morality, the other half non sequitur-ing into the argument that objective morality "proves" a higher spiritual existence. This has nothing to do with any gods and frankly was a waste of time... You didn't prove anything about God OR the nature of morality, only that good things are good and therefore there's a source of what makes good and bad. Very non sequitur I think

[everettyoung]

I’m an atheist, and I am completely unpersuaded by your arguments, which I’ve known for years…but you seem like a great guy! Someone it would be fun to have coffee with and talk philosophy for hours! You’re the perfect representative for Christianity. Well done.

[wheels]

Sorry, but that argument fails from the start. Looking at other animals we can see how a sense of morality, albeit more basic, develops in a whole host of animals so what we have as morals is just an enhanced version of what was in other great apes. I'm sure that you can feel all sorts of things but when it comes down to it, it becomes clear that this is the explanation.

Here's something you could test your ideas on. There ought to be no dispute that the bible sanctions and regulates slavery. This was used, by the slave owners in the USA as allowing them to use slavery to make better profits and remains Christian after all, the bible allows it so it must be moral. Yet, other Christian condemned the practice which resulted in the abolition of slavery. So, where are the god given morals - with slavery and the bible or against slavery? I'd love to know.

Meanwhile, even if you think this shows the existence of a god, there is still the need to show this god actually exists. After all, oe cannot prove the existence of something on paper alone!

[fred_derf]

Pascal's Wager? Seriously? You're going with Pascal's Wager? Even Pascal wrote about the massive flaws in that argument…

[CrookedJawProductions]

Grew up in the faith, had an incredibly pious mother, and know the Gospel... However, when challenged to dive into the Bible, it actually brought me out of my faith. So much didn't make sense in the book, and the metaphorical sweater started unraveling. I jumped onto this video because I'm desperate for a good argument for God... Unfortunately, all these were basic, flawed, and could be easily argued against.

The argument that our laws are based around morals only shows that humans are moral creatures that seek order, not that there was a divine creator. In fact, I morally disagree with the God of the Bible quire a bit, so... That argument proves nothing to me.

The argument of what does happen and what should happen again bases itself off of the fact that Humans cannot morally judge themselves. When in fact, time and time again, we can. We as beings, understand there is an intrinsic right and an intrinsic wrong. Does an action harm another? Wrong. Does an action help another? Right. We understand that as children... God did not need to tell us that.

Just grabbing onto two of his explanations... Not trying to even start a fight. In fact, I'd love for someone to swoop in with a logical and intelligent answer. Feeling "lost" barely touches on whats going through my head, and so I pose these questions in hope for salvation and a good answer.

[rerooar]

This is pathetic, that's your best argument? Morals come from our evolution as a social species, that has been explained in great detail by Anthropology for many years. It seems exceptionally dishonest of you to flog this long dead horse. This isn't even 'God of the gaps' as this gap has long been filled with excellent explanations, no room left for your poorly informed bias guess work.

[RoboRocker]

This video does not prove anything related to God's existence. It only depicts what is necessary for humanity to thrive as a species. My moral compass developed from my understanding that my life will suffer greatly if I do not respect and care for the beings around me...including all the species in this vast eco system that is earth. Not just egocentric humans.

[bradleybryer]

I personally consider myself an atheist, but I wanted to thank you for showing respect and not falling into argument like lots of other YouTuber. So thank you

[nmkloster]

Comments from an atheist:
First of all, you have found your beliefs rewarding and conforting. I get it. If you are convinced that someone is watching over you and all you have to do is follow the rules and everything will eventually be ok, then that will feel very comforting and might relieve a lot of stress and anxiety and will ultimately be beneficial regardless of whether or not it is true. I don't think it is a good idea to believe things based on how it makes you feel. I'm not saying you don't care if it is true but for me it is by far much more important that my beliefs are true or likely true. I think I'm being honest in my approach but the fact that whether or not something is true is almost exclusively what I use to judge whether I should believe something means I do not believe any gods exist. In fact I am convinced that no gods exist.

Morals: Yes, even animals have a sense of fairness. It is an important tool for a social species and is thus an important part of our evolution. Treat other members of your society unfairly and they will ceace to cooperate and you are at a detrimental disadvantage. It might not be all that complicated. Laws change. That does not mean we got them wrong. AND no two people agree 100% on all moral standards. So there either is no universal objective moral OR it is hidden.

Using the word "abuse" is poisoning the well. "Abuse" is a word to describe immoral treatment. The natural sciences can indeed tell us what ought happen regarding a desired outcome. I'm only half way through the video but I'll stop here and direct you to any presentation on secular morals. I think you are missing a point or two in understanding what morals are. Have an open mind and examine the flaws in your argmentation.

[ipso-kkft]

For me the contingency or ontological arguments are the best and smoothest. Mostly because I've been helped by St. Thomas and St. Francis on the nature of God!

[Autobotmatt]

I agree that the Moral Argument is the best. Its Also the easiest to explain to people who are not well versed in Philosophy.

[JeffreyBoser]

5:25 This argument is bull. I DO have grounds to say that what you have done is wrong, the grounds IS my preference. What makes social mores, is that I convince a dozen friends to agree with me that what you did is wrong, and we decide to beat you up if you do it. There, we have exactly what happens in the world today. We agree to general moral ideas, we agree to submit to an authority to enforce them, and we agree to changes to those morals and the code and the enforcement as time goes on. This explains what we see.

Your explanation is useless: If we are all agreeing that something is right, but it is objectively wrong, HOW CAN WE TELL IF WE ALL AGREE IT IS RIGHT? The only moral standard that exists is clearly explained by the realities of living organisms and the consensus of social species. We find it in every single social species we examine.

[homfes]

This argument is as solid as Swiss cheese.

[illumoportetcresceremeaute]

Ultimately the best argument for God's existence (i.e. the truth) is subjective. It is the one that brings the person to the foot of the Holy Cross of Jesus in repentance.

For me it was living in sin and achieving everything I ever wanted and stil having that nagging question: are you satisfied? To which I could only ever answer no. It did me no good to gain the whole world but forfeit my soul.

I was restless until I found my rest in Christ

[unsignedmusic]

2:18 Just because your life improved, doesn’t mean a god did it. Correlation is not necessarily causation
2:48 The problem is being ashamed of those modes of behavior. Not the behavior. Things like lust, using certain language and drinking (in moderation) are totally nothing to be ashamed of, yet Christians go crazy feeling bad about them.
3:00 It’s not a 50/50 argument. Stop using Pascal’s Wager
3:12 Atheism isn’t speculation. It’s a rational way of thinking due to the lack of convincing evidence for a god claim.
3:24 Logical fallacy. Just because a lot of people agree with something doesn’t make it true.

[theoskeptomai]

Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending acknowledgement of the existence of gods until sufficient evidence can be presented. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of gods._*

And here is the evidence as to why I currently  hold to such a position.

1. I personally have never observed a god.
2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god.
3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity.
4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument which also employed sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that a god(s) exists.
5. Of the 46 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain multiple fallacious or unsubstantiated premises.
6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon.
7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._
8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event.
9. Every phenomena that I have ever observed has *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity.
10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction, or do not present as falsifiable.

ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the existence of a god.

I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._*

I welcome any cordial response. Peace.

[politiconvict]

I agree, I think this debate should always be in good faith because there really is nobody who's right, it's about showing why we view things our way which really isn't right or wrong because it's someone's perspective, I find it fascinating to hear somebody present their arguments of why they do or don't believe or aren't sure don't know . This is the debate that ought to be good natured and respectful .Im rooting for you, all the best

[lunarwuffy]

I don't care what arguments you provide. Arguments are not evidence. What evidence can you provide to support your belief in a god?

[danielfortier]

Looking forward to this one!

I have never needed proof that God exists because I've always KNOWN that God exists. I am lucky that I have never doubted His existence or needed to prove to myself that He exists. For me, just looking at the little toe of my newborn babies (this is back in the 1980s) and how perfect those tiny toes were was a demonstration of the glory of God's creation. It moved me! How can anyone look at that tiny perfection and not believe in God is beyond my comprehension!

[helluvaguy]

"Consider that every human civilizations that we have record for..."

The key phrase here is "that we have record for". This points to survivorship bias. What if "morality" that you're referring to is simply a social contract necessary for the society and civilization to exist for a reasonable period of time to create said records? May be a society that doesn't value the right to life or property is too violent and dies out? Would a feral human have the same "moral" compass one from a civilized society?