Is there anybody out there that can logically explain how God exists? I've heard them for Atheism.?

I am yet to really hear anything logical for Religious people.


The most common one I hear is: "You can't prove God doesn't exist, therefore he exists."


The worst one I've heard is the cosmological argument.


1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause. (There is no proof of that)


2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself. (Then where did God come from?)


3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length. (There is no proof of that)


4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.


That argument is sort of like a statement that bases its "truth" off of itself.|||there is no measurable or testable evidence of God's existance. I will admit that.


but I still believe in God.|||The Cosmological Argument made a little bit more sense before we understood that the First Cause was a singularity (although they still based their assumption that it was supernatural upon argumentum ad ignorantiam).





And that argument doesn't even work anymore at all, since they're essentially saying that the First Cause had a cause.|||I have a master's degree in physics and I have completely convinced myself by a proof I came up with. Unfortunately you have to know quite a bit about philosophy of mathematics.





Recently I was glad to find out the Kurt Godel, the greatest logician ever lived in human history, also had a proof of God's existence based on formal logic. But of course, I could not understand even the first line..... :(|||The Aquinian and Kalam variations of the cosmological argument both commit the special pleading fallacy. They're horrible arguments, yet many Christian and Islamic apologists depend on them. When one's position is based on nothing to begin with, I guess one has to invent crap and live with it.|||yeah. That's all from St. Augustine which is all kind of biased..


you can not prove that God exists. It's based on faith.


Yet you can't prove that God doesn't exist.|||if you believe absolute truth exist it must be based on a singular...if that singular is not God what defines absolute truth then...the "force"...lol...anyway this is the simplest way to answer your question...there are more details but...time constrains me...|||If you seek the truth from the opinions of random strangers, then you will never find it.





The cosmological argument goes deeper than what u state above. Consider the law of entropy, and chaos theory. Atheism cannot prove the creation of life... how the complexity of living things came from inorganic elements. How DNA could ever just happen without a 'higher power' In other words, life around you and your life is the EVIDENCE you need.





Your problem is that in the absence of spiritual knowledge, you are convinced by man's logic and clever words (unfortunately, this is also what false preachers do to).|||No.





Any argument still comes down to evidence, otherwise remains hypothetical.





So far there is absolutely no evidence of a god. There's not even a definition of a god, including properties or measurable values, so there's no prospect of even trying to detect such an entity.|||I guess if you proceed from what you know to be true it should produce a "logic" of sorts.





1. Man is different than other animals.


2. The thing that makes man different is not intellect or tool use, but that he posses a spirit or soul.


3. This spirit or soul makes man aware of other qualities: love, beauty, truth.


4. There is no 'adaptive' advantage to these qualities, so they must be there for a purpose.


5. If man was created for a purpose, there must be a Creator to give him that purpose.


6. A Creator who created man for a purpose would set it up so that the purpose could be discovered.





I can observe that man is different. The rest are questions that relate to "why" or "to what end". I've found that the whole thing leads me to believe that humans are exceptional, that there is a God, and that I have a purpose in being a spiritual creature. The purpose of man is to know God and to enjoy him forever.





If you accept that YOU exist, that your senses do in fact work, that you long to be loved...well, it just kind of gets you there, no?|||I'm personally a big fan of the ontological argument. On the surface of it, it seems ridiculous, but if you really try to dismantle it, it leads you into some fascinating areas.





It also the advantage of being the primary argument for the existence of God which is based entirely on metaphysics - it's not empirical at all, and doesn't even pretend to be. In this way, it actually addresses the issue, rather than trying to do a bit of one-up-manship with science. Descartes version is one of best, though also weirdest. Kant probably destroyed it permanently, but it still crops up occasionally. There's a quote from Bertrand Russell which I think sums up the essence of the argument, and indeed of philosophy generally sometimes:





"The argument does not, to a modern mind, seem very convincing, but it is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies"