Arguments for God You're Unlikely to Hear

[DrZoidberg]

If God exists, then why have so many people failed to convince everybody that he does exist? One answer to this question is that the apologetics to prove his existence lacks substance: It's just a lot of talk that can't be proved one way or another. It's not hard to think of ways to demonstrate God's existence that would be much more convincing if true. Here's a list of some possibilities:

The Argument from the Unique Traits of Evidence for Christianity:
Evidence for Christianity is unlike the evidence for other religions in that we write lots of books to defend our faith, we testify to our experiences with God, we have eyewitnesses to verify our beliefs, and we share stories of miracles and answers to our prayers. Heck, some of us even die for our faith, and we couldn't die that way if our religion is untrue. What other religion can offer such evidence?

The Argument From the Character of Christians:
If you skeptics want to see why God is real, then just look at the character of us Christians. Only the indwelling of the Holy Ghost can explain our superhuman honesty, trustworthiness, and sensible behavior. We never run from a challenge to our faith and will answer all questions no matter how tough those questions might be.

The Argument From The Substantive Presentation of God (We will show you God.):
If a jumble of words does not convince you, and you want to actually see God, then just lookee here--here he is!

The Argument from Knowledge:
I can tell you anything you want to know because I'm talking to God, and he will tell me things that I could never make up.

The Argument From Testing Prayer:
God's power is granted through prayer, so go ahead and test prayer to see if what I'm saying is true. If the prayer works, then you know I'm right. If the prayer fails, then you know I'm wrong and prayer is mere superstition.

The Argument From Read the Bible and See:
We are so confident that the Holy Bible is the word of God, that we ask you to read it and come to your own conclusions regarding its divine authorship. We will accept any conclusion you come to and will treat you with respect even if you disagree with us.

The Argument from Miraculous Demonstration:
1 Corinthians 12 clearly promises us Christians the power to heal miraculously, and I will prove it to be true. Get those TV cameras ready, and assemble the skeptics here in the front row here to be eyewitnesses. Now, see this amputee over here? Just watch me go restore his legs in the name of Jesus!

The Argument From Financial Self-Sufficiency:
We don't need your money! We have an all-mighty God who provides everything we need when we pray and trust him. We tell you to pray and have faith in God, so why would we to do anything different from that? We practice what we preach, after all.

Funniest is why they think God needs any help to convince anybody of his existence. If God is omnipotent, don't you think he could handle this on his own? If anybody feels God needs any help in spreading the gospel, they've already revealed that they don't really believe in God.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Ok, the commandment against making up crap.

Proverbs 4:24 Put away from thee a froward mouth, and perverse lips put far from thee.

Proverbs 18:8 The words of a talebearer are as wounds, and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly.

Proverbs 18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

Leviticus 19:19 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour; I am the LORD.

Leviticus 19:11 Ye shall not steal; neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.

James 3:14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.

James 1:19 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:

Crap, gossip, lies, tales...

 

[steve_bank]

What I get from Proverbs is that human culture has not really changed much in 3000 years.

 

[Jarhyn]

Ok, the commandment against making up crap.

Proverbs 4:24 Put away from thee a froward mouth, and perverse lips put far from thee.

I rather like it when people are forward with their mouths, and close with their perverse lips...

Proverbs 18:8 The words of a talebearer are as wounds, and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly.depends on whether the tale can be validated... If it can, and it's a good tale, the words aren't the only thing that goes down to the innermost parts of my belly

Proverbs 18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

Last time I answered a matter before I even heard it, I got a letter of recommendation. This proverb shames foresight and experience that short circuits common mistakes and misunderstanding.

Leviticus 19:19 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour; I am the LORD.

Someone should have told "Saul/Paul" that.

...

Proverbs is batting a miserable average here, and Leviticus is straight up impugning a while "prophet" worth of books.

 

[Emily Lake]

"there must be a god, because evolution could not possibly have produced someone as ugly as you"

You didn't say it needed to be a serious argument

 

[Learner]

Ok, the commandment against making up crap.

Proverbs 4:24 Put away from thee a froward mouth, and perverse lips put far from thee.

Proverbs 18:8 The words of a talebearer are as wounds, and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly.

Proverbs 18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

Leviticus 19:19 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour; I am the LORD.

Leviticus 19:11 Ye shall not steal; neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.

James 3:14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.

James 1:19 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:

Preaxh it brother!

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Here's the funny thing. I also was almost caught in a similar situation as you describe, only in my case I was arguing against theists. Similarly but from the opposite end to your experience - as Jarhyn highlights: I was also parroting from some of the atheists who were more about being in the top debating leagues than having discussions, hence I know what you mean by 'trickery'.

Example: The questioner asks and insists the answer be either a 'yes or no' to certain questions, and when answered, this wouldn't really give a clear contextual representation, making his side/ position clear.

I'm not sure why that would be a problem for a theist in that situation. If he honestly can't answer with a yes or no to a question, then I'd think his answer could be that he doesn't know the answer or that he isn't sure what the answer is. Can you post an example of a question an atheist might ask a theist that can't be answered with a simple yes or no?

The questioner insisting for (technical) answers that really have no real explanatory context, like getting a criminal off the hook in court via technicality even if certain evidences or witnesses say otherwise. IOWs being dishonest or disengenous coz the winning... regardless of what's true, by any means, is the game!

Again, can you clarify with an example of a yes/no question a lawyer might ask a witness in court that would get his client off on a technicality? Attorneys, of course, want to defend their clients so they're not found guilty. In a debate over religious issues, on the other hand, I think it's best to determine the truth. What good is it to win a debate yet be wrong?

I think 'when God finally gets going,' people will have different ideas when that'll be.

I think most believers have the same answer to that question: Not yet. Believers who do specify a time for God's power to manifest itself have so far been wrong in every instance.

When God gets going, I suppose for many believers, that'll be the Revelation bit.

Many Christians look forward with glee to the death and destruction of Armageddon.

Ok so if there were actually miracles and someone wrote about them, it would still fit the above. Wouldn't necessarily say this is the needed proof. And being that miracles are one-off's, or one-night-only shows, in concept can't be repeated at will, just like that for scientific study, so therefore, technically, they "definitely" don't happen. Logically lovely.

Oh sure--maybe God has performed some miracles for some people. So far, though, it hasn't happened to anybody under circumstances in which everybody else can check to see if it really happened. It appears that if God does exist, then he only performs miracles for those eager to believe in them. Skeptics are not offered any such proof. It results in a snow-balling effect in which the skeptics become more skeptical when not only are they denied proof for the miracles but are called "an evil and adulterous generation."

And another:

The Argument From Testing Prayer:
Prayer has great power--assuming the right conditions are met. If you don't meet all those conditions, then don't blame God when your prayer doesn't pan out.

Maybe you can put that with the 'God knows best' argument (if there is one).

Many apologists get snarky when skeptics point out prayer's many failures. The apologists sometimes mock them as being spoiled children demanding candy from an indignant old man who responds: "I don't take orders from you, and to prove it, I won't give you any candy. So there!" I wonder where skeptics would possibly get the idea that God grants requests? (Mark 11:24)

 

[Keith&Co.]

Preaxh it brother!

It's from a website noting how often Xians are directed to shut their pieholes...
http://elephanticity.250x.com/shutup.html
Book, chapter, verse, scripture, and a Xian's efforts to phrase it more accessibly.

Gossip, lies, ignorance, opinion, all sorts of reasons to stifle.

 

[Learner]

I see they had an opiniated point to make, favourable to the similar in minded . .. otherwise you could have got the verses straight from the bible.

 

[Learner]

Many apologists get snarky when skeptics point out prayer's many failures. The apologists sometimes mock them as being spoiled children demanding candy from an indignant old man who responds: "I don't take orders from you, and to prove it, I won't give you any candy. So there!" I wonder where skeptics would possibly get the idea that God grants requests? (Mark 11:24)

I'll just answer this part for now Uknown Soldier, as I have a previous post I will respond to first. But sorry if it seemed offensive. On this forum, mockery and sarcasm is normal, preferrably in line with bantor...you'll get used to it. You'll notice the mockery on Christianity all about on some threads and in posts ... it's no problem. Basically as I see it: One should take and accept what they themselves give out. Your argument seemed a tad mocking imo, perhaps I'm wrong - it was just an automatic response of mine, no ill intention meant (or any reaction to "failures pointed out") .

 

[Keith&Co.]

I see they had an opiniated point to make, favourable to the similar in minded . .. otherwise you could have got the verses straight from the bible.

I think the problem is that not everyone easily recognizes, say, a 'reviler.' Most of my coworkers argue that a verse stating 'revilers don't get into Heaven' is not saying Trump's pissing off God.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Funniest is why they think God needs any help to convince anybody of his existence. If God is omnipotent, don't you think he could handle this on his own? If anybody feels God needs any help in spreading the gospel, they've already revealed that they don't really believe in God.

I've thought of that too. I suppose apologists believe that their evangelizing is a way of expressing love for God. But why would a perfect God need love? He doesn't seem to want love considering the way he treats people. Jesus commanded people to love him nevertheless. If God was lovable, then nobody would need to be told to love him.

 

[Wiploc]

Unknown Soldier, just letting you know that some are on your side. When I read the OP, the meaning and intent was clear to me.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Funniest is why they think God needs any help to convince anybody of his existence. If God is omnipotent, don't you think he could handle this on his own? If anybody feels God needs any help in spreading the gospel, they've already revealed that they don't really believe in God.

I've thought of that too. I suppose apologists believe that their evangelizing is a way of expressing love for God. But why would a perfect God need love? He doesn't seem to want love considering the way he treats people. Jesus commanded people to love him nevertheless. If God was lovable, then nobody would need to be told to love him.

At least the Christian God doesn't require us to fix his design mistake of the penis.

God 1
Yehova 0

 

[steve_bank]

Three engineers are debating who desired the human body.

One says t has to be an electrical engines given the nervous system.

One says it had to be a mechanical energizer given the skeleton and muscles.

The third says you are both wrong. Only a civil engineer would rout liquid waste disposal trough a pleasure center.

 

[steve_bank]

I think it is more like 'misery likes company'. Converting someone reinforces one's beliefs. It makes people feel good. Being on a sacred mission form a god spreading the word.

Or maybe like a pyramid scheme.

 

[atrib]

I see they had an opiniated point to make, favourable to the similar in minded . .. otherwise you could have got the verses straight from the bible.

The verses are from the Bible. That's the point.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Unknown Soldier, just letting you know that some are on your side. When I read the OP, the meaning and intent was clear to me.

That's good to hear. I'm not sure where the confusion lies. The "unheard" arguments in the OP offer very clear and convincing evidence for a real God, and that's why we don't hear them! If God is real, then we'd have that kind of evidence and hear apologists offering it to doubters. If God isn't real, by contrast, those who want to believe in him and get others to believe in him would offer weak and unprovable arguments like--the arguments we do hear.

And note that apologists don't normally even mention the kind of evidence I posted in the OP. If somebody does bring it up, they'll just ridicule the idea that we could have evidence that good. It's known as the "laughing jackass fallacy."

 

[Unknown Soldier]

At least the Christian God doesn't require us to fix his design mistake of the penis.

God grants men the penis with no guarantee that it will be free of defects or that men will find women allowing them to make good use of it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I see they had an opiniated point to make, favourable to the similar in minded . .. otherwise you could have got the verses straight from the bible.

The verses are from the Bible. That's the point.

They're from the bible and Largely say, 'think twice and then maybe don't say anything.'
More terse versions of St. Augustine's

Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, . . . and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn."
--"De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"