What is the best argument for belief in God?

What do you think is the best argument for belief in God?

I personally think that the best argument for the existence of God is the MOA, maybe also this, but there are response to this, which I haven’t yet watched:

However I am disntinguishing the existence of God from belief in God here. I think there are better arguments to be made for believing in God which do not rely on actual evidence. I personally find that a higher moral principle is needed in order to create a counterbalance to natural selection. The problem with using our own rationality to discern morality is that as I mentioned before, it may be most rational or pragmatic to let atrocities happen. As Jordan Peterson explains here:

Arguments I remain unconvinced by include the Moral Argument, for reasons explained in the article below (there ‘is’ altruism displayed by other species) and the fine tuning argument, because there apparently ‘is’ some evidence for a multiverse.


It may be that single arguments for the existence of God are all deficient in one way or another.
Arguments about original causality (Cosmological)
The existence of conciousness
The origin or morality
Arguments related to being and a most excellent being

and others…
Peter Kreefy gives 20 arguments

it is the accumulated arguments that may make the idea of God more probable.

I happened to watch a bunch of Peterson videos today (including that one). You might find this interesting; it seems to be a fairly complete yet succinct presentation of his views on God (the title is a bit off really in my opinion)

That being said (or pasted in fact lol) how do you think an atrocity might be rationally decided to be moral?

1 Like

I gave the example in another thread. In accordance with natural selection it may be most pragmatic to kill off the weak members of society.

It might be most pragmatic for me to kick you out of my way so I could grab something, etc. etc. Does pragmatic equal moral?

Maybe I shouldn’t use the word ‘moral’, but the point is that rationally and pragmatically speaking it may be the best option.

If we’re talking about morality, shouldn’t we use the word moral?

I clicked hoping it might only be a few minutes; it wasn’t, but I watched the whole thing anyway! Good thoughts, compellingly presented. Thanks for sharing!

1 Like

The best reason(s) to believe in God is derived from people who live a life modelled on Jesus Christ, seeking the good for ourselves and our neighbours. The Christian faith commences with the notion of goodwill towards all, and a peace from God that strengthens faith.

The reason(s) for disbelief in God are derived from those who claim to live by the faith and doctrines of the Church, but in fact do the opposite.



My dear sir, you keep digging where the light is … even though the evidence to be found in the light is of little value. Eastern religions are able to develop and defend moral principles without once having to “torch” natural selection.

Natural selection is really not the issue here.

If God is anything, he is concsiousness. Without consciousness you have nothing. And a universe which “accidentally creates consciousness” is still a universe without meaning or value.

So, as a betting man, I can only wager that consciousness is not a “one in a trillion accident” - - but the intentional and obvious manifestation of the basis of consciousness in the whole Cosmos.

The bible…

We don’t judge what is moral by what is natural.

Even for the people being killed?

Self-evidently not! But my guess is what Reggie is saying is that if others of the species determine that it is best for the overall continuation of the species, then “rationally and pragmatically speaking it may be the best option” for the species as a whole, and my understanding is that he is saying without God he does not see a compelling natural argument against that, via Harris or anything else he has seen.

The compelling argument against that is basic human empathy. I will say that if a person’s religious beliefs are the only reason they don’t think that the weakest people in society should be killed then I am glad they have those religious beliefs.

1 Like

There is ‘God’ and then there are particular, religious versions of various gods. I think the best argument for belief in God is whatever happens to do it for you. I don’t think the logical arguments are nearly as persuasive as some forms of emotional appeals. That is, if the emotional appeal isn’t there, the logical arguments aren’t going to carry much.

And then there remains the question of the many human-related attributes of the various proposed God(s). I’m far from convinced one can logically connect the God of philosophers to the God of the Old Testament, or any of the hundreds of other possibilities considered by humans over the millennia. Given that people tend* to believe in whatever religion is local to them (or historic to their culture), there seems a quite subjective and ‘accidental’ component to the versions/religious beliefs of God people will adopt.

‘* Not perfect correlation to be sure, but strongly related**.
’** It seems necessary for any religious belief system to also have beliefs or dogma about why other people don’t see things the same way and don’t choose the ‘correct’ religion. The assumption often being that there would be no correlation except with the One True Religion if not for things like bad reasoning, corruptive forces, ignorance, denial, & etc.

I’m a little rusty on my Harris… What if someone’s empathy for some subset of genetic relatives motivates him to (perhaps as empathetically and painlessly as possible) reduce the competition for resources from some subset of more distant relations?

You certainly are! And the religious people who think religion provides the only compelling basis for equally valuing all human life would say they are glad that non-religious moral people are irrationally holding onto the religiously-backed belief in universal human value!

1 Like

That would be a lack of empathy towards other humans.

It is a reason based argument for universal human value. One doesn’t need religion in order to conclude that other humans have worth and value.

This person is going to viewed in a larger set as an amoral and probably psychopathic murderer. His action will not have been informed by morality in any sense, and not even by greed or some other base motivation (as often happens), but by a hypothetical, unknown, and counter-intuitive evolutionary motivation.

What occurs to me here is, what happens under religious morality when this happens? That is impossible because … ?

:slight_smile: I hope we can coalesce around the belief in universal human value and not quibble, for my part!

Ask InspiringPhilosophy (the video’s author) or Johanan Raatz about objections.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.