12 votes

I would like to hear your best evidence for a Creator

I'm putting together another list, and I could use your help. Opposing evidence is welcome as well.

*EDIT* Here are the answers I have gleaned from this thread.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Well then we agree. Both

Well then we agree. Both sides claim to have the answers and both are pretty silly. But one admits honestly its faith, the other pretends to have science or facts.

"I am the Alpha and the

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,: says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

Revelation 1:8

That doesn't sound particularly extra-theistic to me.

""These are not questions accessible by science because they deal with a reality beyond physical and material reality, they are metaphysical questions and therefore the domain of philosophical argument. Science by definition cannot explain an unobservable, non physical reality before or outside space and time.""

There is no reason to believe any of that is true. What reality is this you speak of? How do you know? Even if it is real, why do you suppose it is unobservable? What is unobservable today may well be observable tomorrow. We can see, hear and detect things today that 10 years ago would have been called unobservable. It is an utter guess and leap of faith to place arbitrary limits on human reason when we haven't even scratched the surface of what our minds may be able to grasp and discover in the future.

The side which is "silly" is the one that takes guesses as facts and unquestionable truths. Nothing is unquestionable save for that we as a species do not have all the answers. To throw our greatest virtue, reason, away in exchange for fantasy and faith is silly.

Since neither of us are

Since neither of us are scholars of Biblical exegesis or philologists, you should consult a theological resource to get an idea of what that statement even means. I hardly think it means Jesus was claiming God sprung into existence at a point in time. If that's what the phrase implied, then that would be a theological doctrine at least somewhere in Christianity, but I have never heard it.


It hardly matters what

It hardly matters what biblical scholars believe on the subject. What matters is what the vast majority of the "faithful" believe and put into action. Does it really matter if a few of the elite scholars of Christianity know there is no hell and don't claim God is eternal if the millions of mindless faithful put into action a religion that claims there is a hell and that it is ruled over by a timeless being who has always existed? Is the religion what the scholars know, or is it the erroneous visions of hell that the pastor is screaming about from his lectern on Sunday to a mesmerized and haunted room full of church-goers who believe his every word?

It isn't the scholars (that no one listens too) who will mount crusades and witch burnings, or shape what Christianity "is." Its the mindless rabble who don't know the first thing about what they "believe" in, but do what they are told by those with influence in their faith. This is the reason I constantly attack Christianity and the "commonly held" belief's of the faithful. You always counter with insightful knowledge of scripture, which no one save for a few scholars knew anyway. What difference does it matter if you point out that "commandments" is a mistranslation when 99.9999% of Christians base their system of belief's on a movie about the 10 commandments which completely butchers the entire concept and doesn't even provide the correct list?

I originally pointed out what was actually written on Moses' stone tablets, which was counter to what every other christian "thinks" they know about the 10 commandments. You educated me to the fact that "commandment" was mistranslated, and so now we both know that there are, in fact, no 10 commandments. We know this now. No other Christians do, especially not the primates screaming about how they demand their 10 commandments stay in a courthouse.

My purpose is to wake a few people up to the fact that they need to look a bit deeper into what they "believe," because these are the people who SHAPE Christianity and ingrain it into the minds of their children. They are also the ones trying to pass laws to restrict my freedom based on their incorrect assumptions of what they "think" Christianity is, and telling me I can't have freedom or morality without a thing they don't even understand. Do you see the problem?


America is a Republic based on the non-aggression principal where we respect sound currency, have inalienable rights and don't chase monsters around the world with our military. We scholars on Americanism, who are versed in the founding principals and the opinions of our founders know this. Funny how our knowledge and understanding doesn't change what the uneducated rabble, lead by their collective noses by the banking masters have put into action. America as it has been put into action is a tyrannical empire which crushes rights, spies on everyone, commits mass murder and steals the wealth of the world. That is what America "is."

Thomas Jefferson: "You want to know who you are? Act, do not ask; actions will delineate and define you."

Christianity "is" a cult based on popular misconceptions of a book no one reads which has and will be used to commit great evil, and control peasants, making them docile recipients of arbitrary authority and collectivism. Whatever it was "meant" to be is irrelevant. It is only what has been put into action. That's why faith is stupid.

I am unaware of any millions

I am unaware of any millions of mindless faithful out doing harm and pillaging in the name of hell. So yes, the topic is the truth of the propositions, not your unfounded fears of mayhem from the people of walmart burning witches.

The promotion of fundamentalism and militant Christian zionism is a socio-political trend rooted not in religion but in the agenda of political forces exploiting religion for worldly goals.

This may be dangerous, but it has absolutely no bearing on the truth or nontruth of the metaphysical claims of religion in general, and so should not have any role in an argument about the truth about metaphysical propositions.

You keep jumping, confusedly, from one argument to another. One minute we're discussing the truth-content of propositions, and the next minute you're appealing to the social consequences of a belief, or the genealogy of a belief, as if to refute it. These are elementary fallacies of argument.

Phxarcher87's picture

Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Tom

Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Tom Woods, Lew Rockwell, Benn Swann, The Judge, all have faith.

I would like for you to tell us how exactly they are enemy's of reason?

If you cannot, maybe you should ask yourself if you are the enemy of reason.

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" - Mark Twain

perfect example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater

I know you post this tongue in cheek. but I wonder if you figure that since the bible is not accurate, then that means intelligent design aught to be rejected?

The existence of human reason

The existence of human reason itself is an excellent argument for a creator, or at least a supernatural being. The argument takes a couple reads to wrap your mind around (at least it did for me), but it is worth the time to understand. It's too much for me to type here, but C.S. Lewis' book "Miracles" outlines the argument in detail. Wikipedia also describes it sufficiently.


Agreed. :)


Fantastic article. I did not

Fantastic article. I did not know Lewis and Chesterton had developed these arguments. I am familiar with Plantinga's argument.

While an atheist I developed a kind of mirror argument. Rather than arguing for God from the existence of reason, I appealed to the evident faultiness of reason in the inability of reason to comprehend the concepts and ideas around ultimate creation. The conclusion being, the ultimate explanation of existence, even if absurd as Something from nothing, may not make sense to evolved human minds, yet might be entirely true and possible in the reality.

But to pursue such an argument ultimately undercuts logic and the argument itself, unless one arbitrarily demarcates a point where logic is good "up to" and beyond which it breaks down. I think this latter modest argument for logical incoherence at extreme points is the best option on offer (you're welcome) for a committed naturalist.


I don't think this Argument Against Reason, as it were, is tenable anymore, since there is no justification for arbitrarily avoiding total a cognitive skepticism. It might in fact be true, but can't be logically affirmed without faith, at least in the validity of the argument itself as an island of cognitive reliability.

The Top Atheist of the prior generation, back when

they were gentlemen open to evidence (unlike Dawkins and the new breed of celebrity atheist) was Dr. Anthony Flew. He converted at the end of his life to deism based on the scientific evidence from biology. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHUtMEru4pQ

Personally I like the evidence from astronomy, just because the evidence from biology is even harder to grasp. It turns out that the universe has fundamental values which must be very finely tuned to result in a universe which is able to support life. It is a little complicated but the bottom line for the universe is that the evidence very very strongly suggests (maybe even demands) that either the universe was DESIGNED by a Higher Power or that there are an infinite number of universes which we don't have access to and we just happen to live in the one which turned out to be able to support life. One of those two represent the only realistic explanation for how our universe "beat the odds" and was orderly.

The resurrection of Christ is also good evidence, but it draws from historical-legal evidence and not scientific evidence, and the post-modern mind has been trained out of accepting evidence from that realm (unjustly in my view).

Once one is ready for God, then what is left is His ID. The sermon on the mount and the Gospels convinced me that the God that exists did manifest in Human history, in the person of Christ.

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

Great comment. While I

Great comment. While I haven't committed myself to any conclusion yet, I think your reasoning is sound.

One of the problems with scentism is that science only offers provisional answers, so that basing your worldview only on today's provisional scientific claims risks being absolutely and utterly wrong about the nature of reality. It may be centuries, if ever, before science discovers something that calls its commitment to materialism into question. Or science may just hit a wall beyond which further discoveries are impossible. At that point people would still have to decide whether or not to believe in philosophical materialism or what's called metaphysical naturalism.

It's wrong to try to accuse the person who embraces a Spiritualism worldview or chooses to believe in a world beyond material nature, of being 'unscientific.' Science is not the only proper grounding for a worldview, since none of us will in our lifetimes know the outcome of the entire scientific enterprise and pursuit.

They are just entirely different domains. Science is about tinkering and experiments and understanding accurate descriptions of things. Ultimate questions may always baffle science. I don't see how a physical explanation for physical reality could ever end in anything other than postulating infinite regress, or stopping dead at the door of 'Nothing' and going no further.

If the door to truth eventually closes on Science, will people then be unreasonable to consider more may exist beyond it just because it's not accessible? Of course not.

Science isn't a religion,

Science isn't a religion, though it is often treated as one by many in the field. Much of what we consider "science" today is dogma based on belief which is treated as fact. Once again, faith and dogma are where the failure of reason occur, not science.

When science becomes junk because guesses are treated as facts, and wrong-headed thinking is placed on a pedestal to protect the degrees and paychecks of "scientists" you have left the realm of science and entered religion.

There is no point in making wild guesses about how human reason may hit a brick wall, or venturing that some things are unknowable, or taking wild stabs in the dark about supreme cosmic overlords unless you mean to test these theories by attempting to disprove them to the fullest of your mental capacity. And this, you should do in the knowing that the answers may take much longer than your lifetime to discover. It is the surrender of reason to have faith in anything. You may trust that some things are likely or nearly certain, but without leaving a door open to new evidence or circumstances, you may as well be religious.

The only thing we can truly say we know, as reasoning beings, is that we don't have all the answers. At best, we can be pretty certain on very few things. We are still in the dawn of human reason, with no way to base any expectations on our potential other than a track record which shows a mind capable of amazing discovery, but highly vulnerable to the pitfalls of faith, dogma & hostile ignorance. Faith is the enemy of reason, and the faithful greatly outnumber the reasoning in both number and hostility. The down votes I get, alongside of the collectivist state of the world always remind me of this. The only upside is that the excuse of ignorance is getting harder and harder to cling to in this age of information. By Joe Pesci, I love the internet.

Phxarcher87's picture

Ron Paul Rand Paul Tom Woods Lew Rockwell Benn Swann The Judge

Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Tom Woods, Lew Rockwell, Benn Swann, The Judge, all have faith.

I would like for you to tell us how exactly they are enemy's of reason?

If you cannot, maybe you should ask yourself if you are the enemy of reason.

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" - Mark Twain

While I respect and admire

While I respect and admire these men, the faith-based side of their minds is a limitation to the reasoning side of their minds. They would be more than they are without it. Take Jefferson for example.

Just because you're religious doesn't mean you aren't capable of grasping the concepts of liberty, or certainly not of being a good person. Heck for some, they are only good "because" they are religious and fear the consequences of following their sadistic impulses (or whatever). Like a tourniquet, religion can, at times save your life, but it will leave you crippled.

Some of my best friends are christian, and my personal hero, Ron Paul, of course is a christian. But then, none of these men pretend to be scientists. Further, I have never heard any of these men mention "hell" at all, and I have a difficult time believing that Ron Paul believes in such a coercive concept.

Hell is...

...not coercion but simply the effects of withdrawal from the central reality of Love, in favor of the Self defining 'truth' for itself instead. When we withdraw far enough from the central Light, we will find ourselves in outer darkness, free to continue to spin a web of lies in our mind, but without the joy of relation to anything or anyone else, which can only come from embracing that reality.

Then comes the question: when will the wanderer, the prodigal reach the breaking point, cry out in hatred of the lies they have become, and seek to return to Love, to the Father, through the Way of Love personified by the Son: dethroning of Self, becoming the Servant, our old vessel of wrath fitted for destruction gladly cast aside by ourselves, becoming the executioners of our own faults, and becoming new vessels of mercy, of Love?

It would not be possible to both withdraw from Love and embrace it at the same time -- but however far afield we go in our liberty as persons, the hand of the Father still holds us as the very ground of our being, even if His face has turned away.

It's not fear of hell that should primarily drive anyone towards Love, but a love for Love and all its goodness. Better to seek it now than voluntarily wander in the wilderness of lies and darkness, whether for a day or for aions.

I love the way you guys

I love the way you guys invent your own comfortable definitions of the afterlife as though you had any way of knowing, and present it as fact.

How do you know what hell is? Millions of people would disagree and defer to the lake of fire and nightmarish depictions of Hell in Revelations.

How insane do you have to be to just... say crap, and convince yourself its true?

It depends...

...on what your hermeneutic is -- if you take it at face value that 'God is Love' (and that is the only kind of God I would worship) and that, as Christ said, everything is summed up in the commands to Love, then everything unfolds from there, including the nature of heaven and hell, in relation to Love. I reject the notion that God is sometimes Love and sometimes not. And that is the framework through which I interpret all information, whether in Scripture, in the physical world, in the conscience within.

If you reject the notion that God is Love, or instead go with the naturalist point of view of non-person being the central reality, you will have a much different framework of interpretation for everything. I'm merely describing how I see it based on that starting point of 'God is Love', and from Scriptural support, which I didn't include here. (Eg. Christ used the 'outer darkness' description as well.) Yes, there is fire imagery, of course -- our God is a 'consuming fire'; but to reduce the idea of hell to just some arbitrary retributive punishment in a physical flame flies in the face of the overall context of 'God is Love'. If you don't start with that highest reality, the rest cannot be seen in its proper light. Those who do not agree with 'God is Love' will argue differently. So be it; but I will not worship a God who is not Love.

Why is not believing in

Why is not believing in supernatural deities also a rejection of love? I believe society and morality are both based on love, however I do not believe in gods/wizards/ghosts/faeries or any other super natural entity. They "may" exist, but I'm waiting on some evidence before I can believe in them. To me, the fight for liberty is the fight for love. We are fighting for the child of love, free society.

It is only because we can form bonds of love with other humans that we even have a notion of right or wrong. Those things which affect our loved ones negatively we consider bad, those that help them, we consider good. Add to this the application of human reason and we come up with a code of laws and rights that form society. Usually as a species we get it grossly wrong and choose collectivism to reach this goal, however a new age is dawning where we understand that we have a better chance at prosperity when everyone's rights and freedoms are protected, and not just our own loved ones.. because safe, prosperous people who are free won't be trying to harm my family to get what I have.

Still, though I do not believe in gods, I do respect your belief and find it a noble one. I feel though you may never add much to our understanding of the natural world if you limit yourself to a conclusion that a god did it all, I highly doubt you can go wrong with your way of thinking. I never have any problem with those who want to believe in a creator based on love who doesn't engage in torture. I have no doubt you're a great person despite our differences.

Like this...

...quote I just read:

"We can . . . be almost certain that those whose love of God has caused the disappearance of the pure loves belonging to our life here below are no true friends of God. Our neighbor, our friends, religious ceremonies, and the beauty of the world do not fall to the level of unrealities after the soul has had direct contact with God. On the contrary, it is only then that these things become real. Previously they were half dreams."

Simone Weil, Waiting for God, p. 142

First of all...

...I want to apologize for blurring the lines between my convictions and my speculations. I don't mean to be presumptuous or arrogant enough to think I am somehow clairvoyant about exactly how the experience of hell or heaven will take shape. (I'd guess It will probably be a variety of experiences from person to person, just as life on earth is.) I think there are underlying principles of Love that I am confident frame this or any other topic in a clear way, but when we try to put these things into words, we can only stumble around with imperfect imaginings and analogies and parables and use them to try to point to a deeper truth beyond and behind the analogies. And for those of us who put stock in Scripture, we look to that as a guide to help correct and channel our musings. But Christ Himself spoke in parables and analogies -- using things the human mind and ear can receive to awaken the heart to the beginnings of something beyond that. I don't mean to suggest that my theological theories should be treated as the 'red letter' words of the Master, and if they need to be corrected, then I am open to that.

I guess to answer your question, I'd say that a love which is just a temporary illusion within a non-personal universe is not really Love, just as I don't see how mere rearrangements of non-personal stuff could generate true Persons that could engage in such Love. I think that the very presence of person and love in our lives that we all experience is evidence that Person and Love have always been in existence; and it also seems to be generally agreed by us humans, in our better moments, that true Love is the highest, greatest aim of our existence, of our relationships, which provides meaning and context to our journeys. If love is just a passing cloud that is swallowed up in the end by death and darkness, then it is really just an absurdity. So the 'love' that is not eternal and transcendent is a different creature altogether from the Love which is eternal and transcendent -- and this Love is necessarily tied to eternal Person(s). At least that's how I see it. :)

Oh -- as for the idea that 'God did it all', I'd rather say that God is the reality which is the very ground of being for all else. The 'something else' can then go on to have secondary effects which aren't directly driven or determined by God. Such a view doesn't preclude me from learning more about nature as some of these secondary causes and effects -- it just gives ultimate meaning and purpose to it all.

Interesting that despite our differences we both have an appreciation for love, liberty and Electric Universe theory. ;)

Well the one saving grace

Well the one saving grace between atheistic and christian libertarianism is that natural rights, morality and love can be appreciated by both, and their origins don't matter one ounce. Weather you understand that these things come from human reason and our ability to form bonds of love with one another, or you believe they are magical gifts of the gods doesn't change that they are intrinsic to freedom. We both know we need them, and we can debate all day on how they come among us, but so long as we both embrace them and strive to put them into action, we're on the same team.

While our lists of what we consider "immoral" will differ, I like to think that most libertarians, religious or not, understand that thou shalt not try to enforce morality unless the act violates someone's natural rights.

The electronic universe rules. I'm a huge space geek, and for the first time in my life I can study cosmology without having a nagging feeling that I'm being fed bullshit. In my mind, it literally changes everything. When the EU hits mainstream it will be a paradigm changer.

Tesla was right.

Faith does not limit their minds.

Would you say that Sir Isaac Newton was limited?

Faith and Reason (Logic) work hand in hand, they are not opponents.

If what the Bible says is true, then it should match up with nature, and quite frankly does.


Ha. okay.

Ha. okay.

Your retreat to ignorance is

Your retreat to ignorance is commendable. You don't know, I don't know, any conclusions based on 'evidence' are premature. That's why people have to decide, for themselves, during their lifetime, from their experience, whether to believe reality is purely material and inexplicable, or whether mind and God are the ultimate anchor of reality and individual mind. Popular science, fad worldviews, internet atheists aren't going to be of any help in wrestling with these deeply personal questions.

Neither Kant nor Aquinas were rational beings.

There has never been proof offered to support your hypothesis, EVER. Kant admitted the superiority of reason over faith when he admitted he couldn't prove the existence of a "god" by logical examination and invented "faith" as a new tool of investigation. Faith is belief without knowledge, without evidence. Faith is believing simply because the "thinker" wants the hypothesis to be true.

You're going to be waiting a lifetime for the evidence. There can be no evidence of the existence of any invisible, ethereal, cloud sitter that is omniscient and omnipresent and who knows where every sparrow falls on each of the estimated 2-3 trillion planets in our galaxy and then multiply that by 700 billion galaxies and you'll get an idea of the absolute absurdity of a creator.

Reality just is. It doesn't require a creator.

Before you start "whying" and "howing" consider that this so called "creator" had to have been created by a superior entity and his creator created and on and on ad in finitum.

It only takes one to KEEP AMERICANS FREE. Know your duties & rights as a juror. Stop the unconstitutional conviction of innocents in federal custody. The Fully Informed Jury CALL 1-800-TEL-JURY www.fija.org IMMEDIATELY if not sooner. It's that important.

There can be no evidence of

There can be no evidence of the existence of any invisible, ethereal, cloud sitter that is omniscient and omnipresent.

Sure, but the same applies to any metaphysical reality about what lies beyond before or outside of observable physical space. This objection does not advance either the argument for mind or matter as the fundamental source of the other.

A creator does not need to be

A creator does not need to be created if you can wrap your head around the concept of infinity, which is difficult for us humans that created "time" to measure. Clocks only matter if time is linear, which is yet another thing still to be fully explained by science.

Also there may not have been a creation of the universe, it many have always been here to begin with. Humans may have been an addition to that pre-existing universe.

A good guess. However before

A good guess. However before I commit my life to a doctrine of belief, id like a little more evidence. Do I deserve to be tortured, burned and raped until the end of time for that?

Phxarcher87's picture

It seems you dislike the fact

It seems you dislike the fact that God gives people the ability to live with or without him forever.

What if he forced his love onto you?
What if you forced your love onto your wife kinda wierd?
You should thank him before you ridicule him because he is the ultimate libertarian.

II Thessalonians 1:9 “And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.”

There you go away from his glory. When you cash the chips in you wont have to hate him anymore, eternally separated.

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" - Mark Twain