[b]Wikipedia[/b]


Arguments for the existence of God•      

The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God. It starts with some claim about the world, like its containing entities that are caused to exist by other entities.
•      

The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator god. It starts with a rather more complicated claim about the world, id est that it exhibits order and design.
•      

The ontological argument is based on arguments about a "being greater than which can not be conceived". It starts simply with a concept of God. Alvin Plantinga formulates this argument to show that if it is logically possible for God (a necessary being) to exist, then God exists.[18]
•      

The mind-body problem argument suggests that the relation of consciousness to materiality is best understood in terms of the existence of God.
•      

Arguments that some non-physical quality observed in the universe is of fundamental importance and not an epiphenomenon, such as justice, beauty, love or religious experience are arguments for theism as against materialism.
•      

The anthropic argument suggests that basic facts, such as our existence, are best explained by the existence of God.
•      

The moral argument argues that the existence of objective morality depends on the existence of God.
•      

transcendental argument suggests that logic, science, ethics, and other things we take seriously do not make sense in the absence of God, and that atheistic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.
•      

The will to believe doctrine was pragmatist philosopher William James' attempt to prove God by showing that the adoption of theism as a hypothesis "works" in a believer's life. This doctrine depended heavily on James' pragmatic theory of truth where beliefs are proven by how they work when adopted rather than by proofs before they are believed (a form of the hypothetico-deductive method).
•      

Arguments based on claims of miracles wrought by God associated with specific historical events or personages

Arguments against belief in God

Each of the following arguments aims at showing either that a particular subset of gods do not exist (by showing them as inherently meaningless, contradictory, or at odds with known scientific or historical facts) or that there is insufficient reason to believe in them.

[edit] Empirical arguments
Empirical arguments depend on empirical data in order to prove their conclusions.
•      

The argument from inconsistent revelations contests the existence of the deity called God as described in scriptures -- such as the Jewish Tanakh, the Christian Bible, or the Muslim Qur'an -- by identifying apparent contradictions between different scriptures, within a single scripture, or between scripture and known facts. To be effective this argument requires the other side to hold that its scriptural record is inerrant, or to conflate the record itself with the God it describes.
•      

The problem of evil contests the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god should not permit the existence of evil or suffering. The theist responses are called theodicies.
•      

The argument from poor design contests the idea that God created life on the basis that lifeforms exist which seem to exhibit poor design. For example, many runners get a painful "stitch" in their side due to poor placement of the liver.
•      

The argument from nonbelief contests the existence of an omnipotent God who wants humans to believe in him by arguing that such a god would do a better job of gathering believers.
•      

The argument from parsimony contends that since natural (non-supernatural) theories adequately explain the development of religion and belief in gods,[25] the actual existence of such supernatural agents is superfluous and may be dismissed unless otherwise proven to be required to explain the phenomenon.
•      

It is impossible to prove, or disprove, the "pot of gold at the end of a rainbow's" existence, as it is impossible to actually get to the end of the rainbow and check, due to the (circular, and hence "endless") nature of a rainbow.

This "inability to check" is taken by most to be proof that the "pot of gold" does not in fact exist (there is no end of the rainbow for the pot to be at.) For God, this lack of proof, and the similar lack of ability to check it, is taken by some to be "proof of existence." A case of "absence of proof is not proof of absence."

Some see this to be proof that "God must exist, as he/she/it can't be disproved." The absence of proof is taken by others to be the same as the "pot of gold". If you can't get to a place that does not exist, then it's obvious that there is nothing there

Any Comments forum?

Following that logic, something must have made god.

by the way the first question in those you check at my blog is this one:

What is God?

"God is the Supreme Intelligence-First Cause of all things."

hi  life is a path you walk until you have reached the end,then theres a brilliant light of god's love there and when you walk through it,you are at peace for eternity

love and god bless   love juditha

Quote:

How can you argue that a god created everything before proving that this god exist? 

Quote:

Pi is also best understood as 3.14, but that in no way makes it true.

Quote:

So if we didn't exist then this god would also not exist? 

Quote:

Go look up the definition of logic, science, and ethics; not one of them has anything to do with "god".  I don't see how any of my arguments have refuted themselves thus far.