Evidence for God from Science

http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article837.html

Isn't this strange? Rather than try and disprove them, he just assumes that they have no worth, because they are based on only logic. I think though that in fact he is describing the beauty of ontological arguments: Most arguments need evidence to support their premises, but ontological arguments use as evidence the existence of the universe, logic and the fundamental nature of things, which are fairly undisputed.

Ontological arguments are valid imo, but because of their nature I've found that they won't be very convincing. Honestly, if an atheist utilized an ontological argument I don't think I'd be convinced either. I think it adds to the cumulative case for theism but it wouldn't convince me on its own.

I don't think ontological arguements are valid proofs of God's existence, or at least I've yet to see one that works. Anselm's "The Ontological Arguement" is flawed because it is completely circular because it boils down to "If God didn't exist, He wouldn't be consistent with the definition of God". That doesn't work because if God did not exist, then He doesn't have to be consistent with his own definition. It doesn't establish that a being greater than that which can be concieved actually does exist, it assumes that one does because if it didn't then it wouldn't be truely perfect. One could say "you're right, it doesn't exist so it doesn't have to be perfect. There is no perfect being."

I've always felt that observed evidence for God's existence is more the way to go.

What about cosmological arguments? Of course, technically, we do need evidence for them - that the universe exists/has a beginning - but they are still considered ontological arguments.

Valid in that any rational person must accept there is a God, no.

They just don't seem very substantial, Platinga's introduction of modal logic into the ontological argument strikes me as silly but perhaps it is just beyond me.

J.L Mackie's book The Miracle of Theism is worth a read if you are interested in criticisms of the main arguments for a God without indulging the lunatic fringe of Hitchens et al.

Depends on the nature of the cosmological arguement. Saying that "nothing can't come from nothing and so there has to be a first cause and that cause is God" isn't very good evidence that God exists, even though it's true. It shows that there is almost certainly an uncaused cause but it doesn't say that it is a sentient being with purpose, much less the God of the Bible. Saying that the first cause is God is an enormous leap in logic as it could be a number of other things. Nothingness and a universe created by God are not the only two concievable options. Right now, I think Anselm's Ontological Arguement is flawed altogether and the Cosmological Arguement falls short of proving God's existence, though it gives some support. I don't think that all ontological arguements are flawed by their very nature though like that website writer thinks.

I tend to lean toward the Telological Arguement. Right now I think that the best evidence for God's existence aside from personal experience and/or revelation is evidence for the design of the universe (that is fine tuning and such, not irreducible complexity of living things. Theistic evolutionist here) and how the intricate fragility of a habitable universe suggests purpose of a higher intellegence for it, pretty much what main G&S site writes countless articles about . Though like Francis Collins says, we shouldn't have a piece of evidence or a philosophical arguement be the crux of our faith or we'll be disillusioned once it's proven wrong as they often times have been throughout history.

I certainly agree with that Collins quote. I do think the teleological argument is a really good one, along with the cosmological argument and arguments from history (especially the historical basis for Christ's resurrection).

Ontological arguments... easy to scorn yes, but I find them interesting.