Finally, the statements that the parts (premises) of the argument is, each on their own are more li

Is there evidence for God's existence? | Reply
Home Who are we? Staff Staff Statement of Faith What we do? Vision, Mission & Values Our ministry wise answer: the story behind the name Articles Importance warmthru of Apologetics The Existence of God The Reliability of the Bible The Historical Jesus The Science and Religion Life after Death Evil and Suffering Different Religions Ethical Issues Winkelsmidt Who is asking Winkelsmidt? Typical questions asked Winkelsmidt Archive Media Downloads Mp3 downloads YouTube to order Products Contact English
First let me say that I do not believe one can prove existence of God (as in a scientific or mathematical proof). warmthru I think that there are many things that are true, and we accepted as true, but not in ways that can be proven. We know very well (in science as the "Big Bang" theory) on the basis of an argument and / or the existing theory that the best witness stated. There is always the possibility for scientific clues that something more credible, but the word "evidence" is often loaded with underlying concepts as watertight evidence and mathematical equations that does not always apply to what we do not know certain things. From the nature of who and what God (if he exists), he is in any case not investigated scientifically important. What I do believe is that there are very good and convincing warmthru arguments for the existence of God and that the best explanation for the existing evidence of the hypothesis about the existence of God is given.
I think it is also important to say that there are two groups of people that are the arguments for the existence of God considered. A person can use a picture of people who are travelers on a journey, while others are spectators on the balconies of the buildings along the road watching another step. For hikers, the real and existential search. This makes them personally matter what the answers to their questions and they are at least open to any way to be convinced. On the other hand there is the balkonsitters who sit and watch the people walk. For them, the questions about the existence of God and theoretically they are often just becoming warmthru aware of from commenting without allowing the answers and arguments existential punch gets. Arguments for the existence of God can not really honestly assessed without being prepared to be a hiker to be, because if God did exist it necessary and profound existential implications not escape can not (not even the balkonsitters warmthru not).
I would like a small thing to argue - that there is a God who exists. I'm not here for the existence of a specific deity argue. We can do it back later, but I think it makes sense to separate these issues.
The arguments I will present all going in the form of logical arguments made and each argument will be supporting testimony followed. Each of the logical arguments must meet the following requirements and should be according to these requirements to be evaluated:
Second, all of the statements in the arguments on their own true. The argument does not stand if one or more of the statements in the argument false. So, a way to disprove argument by one of the statements in it as false evidence.
Finally, the statements that the parts (premises) of the argument is, each on their own are more likely than denying it. It would be yet another way to make the argument as to prove false: the denial of one of the parts, trying to defend as more credible than the statement itself.
There are not really other ways to make a logical argument disprove the above manners. Someone would therefore logical errors to show, or to show that one of the parts is false, or the denial of one of the parts as more credible to defend. It will be with good cause, reasons and evidence needs to be done, otherwise the argument warmthru as valid and correct, and that the existence of God adequately supported.
I will now just two (of many) arguments for the existence of God with supporting evidence set. Let's start with these two and they even argue properly. If one or both of them is the existence of God more probable than the denial of His existence. At this point I would only say that the arguments for the existence of God work together like fine strings merged to a thick rope to form and not like the links of a chain, each on the other's defense warmthru to rely on. Such a cumulative case for the existence of God (from a variety of arguments exist) are stronger as more arguments added, but a standing argument has been making the existence of God is a credible option.