An Argument for the Existence of God

[Edric O]

Ah, now you've finally made your point clear! Thank you, I'm glad we had that sorted out.

Carry on your original discussion. :)

(by the way, I wonder where Emprworm is...)

[emprworm]

ok, I think I have it. Immediately I saw the fallacy of the ontological argument, but could not put my finger on it until now. It occured to me as I looked at your original post and looked at other sites of ontological proponents.

The fallacy is that the proponents of the ontological argument use the terms greatest conceivably possible being with the greatest possible being interchangeably when in fact, these two are completely different notions.

First I think we need to define what is "possible" and how this relates to reality. Given all the factors in this universe; time and the chain of events that has led us to this exact snapshot in time and the possibilities that this chain of events has created, it is logical to conclude that the greatest possible being exists. This would probably exist outside of our perception as we do not know all the factors of the universe that might have led to our current reality.

However, this "greatest possible being" does not necessarily indicate something god-like. It just indicates that given the factors of time and universal limitations, something or someone has reached the highest level of possibility in this reality. Conceiveably, in other universes, some being greater would exist, but does not necessarily mean that it exists as a necessity to all universes, only that in each reality, the greatest possible being, given whatever different circumstances of these realities, exists.

An example I will use is the greatest possible intellect. Given the developement of our universe and the apparent laws that govern it along with the chain of events that has lead us to where we are now, it is logical to conclude that the greatest possible intellect has been achieved for this exact time in our universe given the constraints within this universe. At another point on the timeline of existence of this universe it is conceivable that a greater intelligence will emerge. The greatest possible only refers to this exact point in time not to the greatest possible forever.

It is like saying that Maurice Green was the fastest possible human for that exact point in time, but at another point in time, being more recently, his record was broken in the 100 meter dash,(I can't remember his name), therefore, this new track athlete is now the fastest possible for this exact point in time. In the future, this record also will probably be broken, but that doesn't change the fact that he exists now as the fastest possible human.

The existence of the greatest possible being in each reality is logical as shown in the formula that you posted, but does not show that one specific being is a necessity to all realities nor for all time.

This would be how the greatest possible would be defined in reality.

The greatest conceivable being, however, exists within human imagination. This concept is not based on universal factors or chains of events that make things possible, rather it is a concept created out of our own imaginations, not constrained by reality. We cannot prove that it is possible in reality, because we probably do not know enough about reality to make that conclusion. This is the fallacy. We do not know if God is possible, therefore the ontological argument if flawed in asserting that God is possible. We simply don't know.

So, in conclusion, I attack statement 2 of the ontological argument. "It is as least possible for God to exist in reality, he at least exists in some possible circumstances." We do not know this for sure, we only know that we can conceive of a perfect being, but our conceptions are not limited by reality's constraints.

I hope that I wrote this out well enough. I'm sure I missed something, as the ideas were racing through my head. I think though, that this is pretty much it.

well since you seem to have an idea of the basic ontological argument, why don't you tackle the original post which refutes everything you just said.

[emprworm]

I am not contradicting myself, who knows how many people are really in heaven? Who knows how many christians find themselves burning in the eternal flame, where they expected luxury and peace? Who knows if you are going into hell.

Yourself is not a counter-example. You may not know it, but there might be the single reason deep below all the reasons you made up for youself, to get out of hell. But do I know for sure? No. Is it probable? Yes.

the beauty of the wager is this: if you deny God, your chances are empirically LESS than one who affirms God. The wager is solid and timeless.

[Acriku]

Burn baby burn burn burn :)

On a side note, if you can show the fallacy of the argument, the specifics need not apply - the foundations are faulty and constructed upon fallacies, which crumble before logic and reason.

[nemafakei]

Is it me, or are people using long words and very long posts to express rather simple and obvious ideas?

[Acriku]

If they posted just simple and basic ideas, people will start asking to explain, to fit it into the argument-at-hand, etc. Sometimes, though, simple ideas are often needed.

[TMA_1]

It is wrong. god would not accept believers who believe just to get out of hell. So, believing because of Pascal's Wager would be fruitless. It is wrong.

hey acriku, glad to see you know God's mind better than us who have studied longer than you. genius. ;) lol Peter said in the bible (which you never seem to study) that some preach the word of God out of contention, some out of mockery, and others out of fear. Any way to teach it though is good. Glad that you are doing God's will. It also says that no matter the reasons you believe in christ, if you believe he is the messiah and strength, then you will be saved. fear of going to hell is just fear of his power. Fear of his power is admitting your dependance upon him. its all the same.

Is it me, or are people using long words and very long posts to express rather simple and obvious ideas?

hehehe

[emprworm]

On a side note, if you can show the fallacy of the argument, the specifics need not apply - the foundations are faulty and constructed upon fallacies, which crumble before logic and reason.

there is no fallacy of the argument. Because it isn't an argument for anything. THe problem with atheists critiques of Pascal's statement is they think its an argument for the existence of God....lol, hardly.

it is simply a matter of fact.

whatever dismissal you apply to it, the fact remains that your chances are LESS as an atheist.

[Acriku]

I was referring to what you were referring to - that is, the first post (a series of 2 I believe).

[emprworm]

ahh...and what fallacy have you shown?

i haven't seen one yet.

[Acriku]

I haven't shown it, Miles has shown it(them). Ontological arguments can be used to prove magical pink bunnies on the moon, but do they add any evidence of their existence? No. Oh my god, magical pink bunnies on the moon might just exist!

[emprworm]

I haven't shown it, Miles has shown it(them). Ontological arguments can be used to prove magical pink bunnies on the moon, but do they add any evidence of their existence? No. Oh my god, magical pink bunnies on the moon might just exist!

and what fallacy is that. I read miles post. I didn't see a fallacy. I also have never read an ontological argument to prove a magic pink bunny on the moon. seriuosly, are you just making this stuff up? how about you do 2 things:

#1. Cite the fallacy (specifically- usually fallacies can be identified in 2 sentences or less)

#2. Demonstrate how an ontological argument can prove a magic pink bunny on the moon.

unless you do both of those, your rebuttals are to be concluded to be inept

[Miles]

Ok, first of all, I have now gone to that site and read through the posts and it is not quite as "fool proof" as you have claimed.

The fallacy that I posted DOES debunk the traditional ontological argument. That fallacy being in the assumption that God is possible and that greatest possible being and greatest conceiveable being are interchangeable.

however, with a little sematical slight of hand, Mchughes has attempted to get around these fallacies by proving the negative qualities of God to prove his existance. He cleverly covers this by saying that these negatives do not mean that they don't exist, but that they are beyond our comprehension. Nifty... ;)

One of many of the rebuttals that have been posted on that site is that you can then add any negative statement to this definition and it still be logically sound such as non-powerful, non-good, not able to interact with the known universe, and best of all non-existant. Using these arguments one can create an image of God that is unacceptable to theists. Mchugh tries but fails to cover this in his statement by saying that this still is within theists expectations, but that seems ridiculous.

The opening statement for Kreuger has been made, and in the true sense of a formal debate is not rebuttal, but a statement of his position. They will begin their rebuttals in the time to come.

[emprworm]

First of all, I vehemently deny your claim: "That fallacy being in the assumption that God is possible"

How is this a fallacy? Are you saying God is IMPOSSIBLE?

problem is that any logically defined being is fully possible, and you have no basis to claim it is IMPOSSIBLE. THis is no fallacy, but one in your reasoning.

Second "greatest possible being and greatest conceiveable being are not interchangeable" may be true, only if you KNOW EMPIRICALLY that God does not exist. So it COULD be true...but it could also be FALSE. Of course, you do not know this. And furthermore I fail to see how it has any impact on the argument whatsoever. Please illustrate the component in the argument that interchanges those, because I saw no such component. You are committing a strawman fallacy here. You see that other people use those terms interchangeably, then you "knock down" that error and thus say that the argument is refuted....

huh?

"One of many of the rebuttals that have been posted on that site is that you can then add any negative statement to this definition and it still be logically sound such as non-powerful, non-good, not able to interact with the known universe, and best of all non-existant."

And those arguments are faulty. McHugh already addressed the non-existant property in his opening statement.

Those negative properties are logically compatible, but are illogical when describing God. If God exists, obviously he IS POWERFUL. Would you call the creator of the universe "non-powerful?" Lol. It is astounding the absuridity of some of those rebuttals made by a bunch of embittered atheists.

Negative properties are compatible with themselves as McHugh successfully demonstrated. But obviously when reasoning the negative properties of a God-like being, they must ALSO be compatible with what we know to exist (such as the negative property of non-powerful is absurd).

It is an exceedingly weak rebuttal if you ask me. And the non-existant property was rebutted even in his opening post in his last 2 paragraphs, but I would expect him to mention it more in his response.

Kreuger's argument was flawed. He sets up an illogical definition of God....assumes that theists are in "agreement" with his made up definition of God...then knocks it down. A 5 page strawman. lol

you know i get a kick out of you and acriku. i have a feeling that 2 weeks ago, neither of you had a clue what the term "ontological" even meant. now you are experts in it! ha! I've known about the argument and its rebuttals for at least 6 years. I never really saw it as a fullproof argument, but McHugh's version of it is brilliant. The last paragraph of McHugh's opening statement is one that I found to be enlightening.

but no atheist will change their mind over anything. your's and acriku's minds are made up, which is obvious. no matter what, Kreuger will win the debate in your eyes, and vice versa for me.

so its all pretty futile

[Miles]

First of all, I vehemently deny your claim: "That fallacy being in the assumption that God is possible"

How is this a fallacy? Are you saying God is IMPOSSIBLE?

problem is that any logically defined being is fully possible, and you have no basis to claim it is IMPOSSIBLE. THis is no fallacy, but one in your reasoning.

You need to read through my earlier post where I described this because you have totally misunderstood my point.

What is "possible" from our perspective may not necessarily translate to what is possible given true universal constraints which are probably beyond our knowledge. possible and conceivably possible are two different things.

Second "greatest possible being and greatest conceiveable being are not interchangeable" may be true, only if you KNOW EMPIRICALLY that God does not exist.

No, the two would be interchangeable only if you KNOW EMPIRICALLY that God does exist. We cannot assume that they are interchangeable as it stands now.

So it COULD be true...but it could also be FALSE. Of course, you do not know this.

Actually my argument states that it could be possible or it could be impossible, this we don't know. From our limited perspective it is possible, but that does not translate to what is truly possible. This we simply don't know.

And furthermore I fail to see how it has any impact on the argument whatsoever. Please illustrate the component in the argument that interchanges those, because I saw no such component. You are committing a strawman fallacy here. You see that other people use those terms interchangeably, then you "knock down" that error and thus say that the argument is refuted....

huh?

It is implied in the definition of God, Do you disagree that the definition of God is the greatest conceiveable being?

The notion of a perfect being is even worse. That which has no deficiencies. This is a purely human concept since the terms perfection and deficiencies are relative terms.

And those arguments are faulty. McHugh already addressed the non-existant property in his opening statement.

Those negative properties are logically compatible, but are illogical when describing God. If God exists, obviously he IS POWERFUL. Would you call the creator of the universe "non-powerful?" Lol. It is astounding the absuridity of some of those rebuttals made by a bunch of embittered atheists.

Ahh, but you include "creator of the universe" to the definition, when it has no bearing on the logical construct. As far as I'm concerned we are talking about an abstract concept, so, powerful or non-powerful makes no difference to me except in the construct itself.

Negative properties are compatible with themselves as McHugh successfully demonstrated. But obviously when reasoning the negative properties of a God-like being, they must ALSO be compatible with what we know to exist (such as the negative property of non-powerful is absurd).

Then how about non-good, or non-influential? These certainly pose some problems for the argument. The point is that this boils down to nothing more than semantic rubbish. This whole construct is based on semantics, and therein lies the fallacy.

It is an exceedingly weak rebuttal if you ask me. And the non-existant property was rebutted even in his opening post in his last 2 paragraphs, but I would expect him to mention it more in his response.

and this argument, while logically intriguing, and entertaining, in my opinion is weak. It boils down to nothing more than semantic slight of hand with a logic based wrapping. Like any great magician, I enjoy trying to figure out how it was done, but unlike others, I realize the fact that the "trick" only plays with faulty human perception.

Logic is only as useful as the data pumped in, and the ambiguous definitions of God such as "perfect" "non-deficient", and "greatest conceivable being" only demonstrate this. No matter whose ontological argument you look at, it is all based on these concepts constructed and interpereted from the human mind. Logic is a tool, nothing more, and as such is succeptable to human error.

you know i get a kick out of you and acriku. i have a feeling that 2 weeks ago, neither of you had a clue what the term "ontological" even meant. now you are experts in it! ha! I've known about the argument and its rebuttals for at least 6 years. I never really saw it as a fullproof argument, but McHugh's version of it is brilliant. The last paragraph of McHugh's opening statement is one that I found to be enlightening.

Oh, I agree, it is a brilliant slight of hand by Mchugh, and as any magician I respect his talent. However, his argument is completely based on human perceptions which can never be trusted to provide truth.

His argument does what any philosophical discussion should do; make us think. It is very useful in this regard, but absolutely proves nothing.

[emprworm]

You need to read through my earlier post where I described this because you have totally misunderstood my point.

What is "possible" from our perspective may not necessarily translate to what is possible given true universal constraints which are probably beyond our knowledge. possible and conceivably possible are two different things.

false methodology. Schroedingers cat is a fundamental example in a demonstration of probability. You "assume" universal constraints and are putting faith in something that is unknown. Once the cat is in the box, either the lever has been tripped or it has not...yet to those that do not yet know, there is still the probability of 50/50, simply on the basis that the truth is not yet known.

Your methodology is false. God is possible. The universe may be all there is...in that case God would be impossible. But of course, you have not looked inside Shroedingers box, and your attempt to summarily claim "fallacy" is intself a fallacy.

The LAST thing that Miles- a finite, limited human being composed of nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen- the last thing that Miles KNOWS is that the possibility of God is a fallacy.

The possibility of God is indeed a possibility.

Actually my argument states that it could be possible or it could be impossible, this we don't know. From our limited perspective it is possible, but that does not translate to what is truly possible. This we simply don't know.

uhhh....a very simple, cursory study of probability theory will tell you quite simply that "It could be possible or it could be impossible" is equal to "it is possible". You have much to learn, my young padewon.

It is implied in the definition of God, Do you disagree that the definition of God is the greatest conceiveable being?

well people can define God in a bazillion different ways, including "god is the fork I used to eat my spaghetti"

But for me personally...yea, that is how I define God.

God is merely 3 ASCII characters you can assign to something. It is WHAT you are assigning those 3 ASCII characters to that makes all the difference.

If God exists (that is an IF), then He is the greatest possible being and the greatest conceivable being. Existence > non-existence. If you can conceive of something that cannot possibly exist, then it will always be < the greatest possible being that can exist. So in all honesty, the greatest possible being = the greatest conceivable being.

but so long as no one knows the TRUTH, schroedingers box is not opened, thus you have no basis to say that "God is a possibility" is a fallacy.

The notion of a perfect being is even worse. That which has no deficiencies. This is a purely human concept since the terms perfection and deficiencies are relative terms.

first of all, every concept, is a human concept. the concept of deficiency is not "worse", and it is by no means relative in the sense you are trying to say. To be deficient means to be improved upon. For example, moral perfection is, ironically, understood to mean the same thing by both atheists and Christians, I have found this out over the years, and it is fascinating. Any relativity of "perfection" that must be applied to God must be relative not to a bipedal anthropodic 90% bag of mostly water...but must be relative to himself!

Ahh, but you include "creator of the universe" to the definition, when it has no bearing on the logical construct. As far as I'm concerned we are talking about an abstract concept, so, powerful or non-powerful makes no difference to me except in the construct itself.

obviously the logical construct does not prove that Jesus rose from the dead. The problem with atheists when they argue against theism is that they seem to be universally incapable of holistic arguments. They like taking a tiny piece of the God-puzzle and showing how it doesn't prove Moses, therefore the whole thing is wrong.

If a godlike being exists, his negative properties must also be compatible with all the positivie properties that we observe around us. But that is not necessary for the argument. If a godlike being exists, atheism falls. McHugh does not need to show that the negative property "non powerful" applies to the godlike being for atheism to fall. Once atheism falls, we can then synchronize the negative properties with the positive properties of the universe.

then we see those irrational "non powerful" properties start falling from the picture.

Then how about non-good, or non-influential? These certainly pose some problems for the argument. The point is that this boils down to nothing more than semantic rubbish. This whole construct is based on semantics, and therein lies the fallacy.

irrelevant. atheism falls even if God is a horrendus monster.

the argument by Mr McHugh is simply to demonstrate the necessity of a non-contingent being. Once atheism has crumbled, then we can use more logic to reconcile the positive properties of the universe with the negative properties of God. Those questions about non-influential at this point begin to erode in the holistic argument of God's existence.

and this argument, while logically intriguing, and entertaining, in my opinion is weak. It boils down to nothing more than semantic slight of hand with a logic based wrapping. Like any great magician, I enjoy trying to figure out how it was done, but unlike others, I realize the fact that the "trick" only plays with faulty human perception.

like I said, your mind is already made up. No argument will convince you, and vice-versa. The only thing that will convince you is your death. Either you will die and become a thiest, or you will die and be vanquished. But one thing is for certain, you will not die and remain a naturalist.

Oh, I agree, it is a brilliant slight of hand by Mchugh, and as any magician I respect his talent. However, his argument is completely based on human perceptions which can never be trusted to provide truth.

then i'm sure you will enjoy reading his response as I will.

His argument does what any philosophical discussion should do; make us think. It is very useful in this regard, but absolutely proves nothing.

no one can prove anything in this universe...we conclude based upon reason and probability. I believe it is likely that God exists, and as such, I live my life as though I am certain He exists. And I am most truly happy as a theist.

[SpiceGuid]

(I am atheist)

Do you accept the following as a refutation of your simplified argument? :

> 1. God is the greatest thing that can be conceived.

So you categorize God as a thing.

Then "the thing that contains any thing" also contains God (because according to you God is a thing). So a greater thing than God can actually be conceived.

But the full version seems much harder to refute.

I am not really convinced by Kreuger's rebuttals.

I don't think adding a "non-existing" rule leads to something absurd. Adding a "non-existing" rule just lead to "something logically impossible" rather than "logically necessary".

Also most people would still believe in God even if science would eventually explain mysteries of creation, mysteries of life, and control unlimited energies. So I don't think all-mightyness is a necessary attribute.

However what I see as a necessary attribute is uniqueness.

God is unique otherwise the discourse has no object.

You can't speak about only non-properties.

Because existence is all about one positive property: cardinality > 0

I have only read one time (I will read more).

But I can immediatly say: the proof would be much more convincing if you prove "Godlike's cardinality = 1".

Unless you introduce uniqueness I doubt you will ever speak about Godness. Godlikeness is certainly a great grand concept, interesting on its own, but certainly not something as I can intuitively identify as Godness.

I simply can't imagine Godness without uniqueness.

Anyway, thanks for this really elegant construction.

I am not really efficient in logic when it involves meta-logic.

Unfortunately meta-logic levels are known to be really powerful in hiding non-consistent logic.

But I think such constructions should not be rejected the lazy way.

[Miles]

false methodology. Schroedingers cat is a fundamental example in a demonstration of probability. You "assume" universal constraints and are putting faith in something that is unknown. Once the cat is in the box, either the lever has been tripped or it has not...yet to those that do not yet know, there is still the probability of 50/50, simply on the basis that the truth is not yet known.

Your methodology is false. God is possible. The universe may be all there is...in that case God would be impossible. But of course, you have not looked inside Shroedingers box, and your attempt to summarily claim "fallacy" is intself a fallacy.

The LAST thing that Miles- a finite, limited human being composed of nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen- the last thing that Miles KNOWS is that the possibility of God is a fallacy.

The possibility of God is indeed a possibility.

uhhh....a very simple, cursory study of probability theory will tell you quite simply that "It could be possible or it could be impossible" is equal to "it is possible". You have much to learn, my young padewon.

And this is an example where logic falls short due to limited human perception.

This whole argument bases itself on ignorance -- not yours, but in the ignorance of humanity as a whole. Because we don't know, then it must be possible. From our perspective, this is true, and is why I don't rule out the possibility of God, BUT, to think that my ignorance or yours in ANY way translates to the true possibility of things or events in the universe is the fallacy.

If, in reality, outside of our human perception, God is impossible, no chain of events, no alternative universe etc... could ever lead to such a being, then our ignorance is irrelevant to the truth, and does not change this absolute fact of impossibility. It will remain possible from our perspective, but our perspective will not change the truth.

I guess this is what I am trying to say. To say that God is possible is, at the very least, implying that in some conceivable circumstances, we can show that the universe can come together or exist in such a way that God exists. At least this is how the ontological argument uses the word "possible". Then the ontological argument takes that another step saying that if we can show that this can happen, then by the definition of God he must exist in all universes i.e. necessity.

The problem is that our ignorance prevents us from being able to demonstrate those circumstances that would lead to the existance of God, so you assume that they exist, therefore assuming that you can claim that he is possible in some universe.

I think you need to try to understand how the ontological argument uses the term possible.(at least possible in some set of circumstances) This is an example of the semantic slight of hand that takes place, and how human limitations can corrupt a sound logical construct. And no, Mchugh may not state this, but it is in Anslem's principle.

well people can define God in a bazillion different ways, including "god is the fork I used to eat my spaghetti"

But for me personally...yea, that is how I define God.

God is merely 3 ASCII characters you can assign to something. It is WHAT you are assigning those 3 ASCII characters to that makes all the difference.

If God exists (that is an IF), then He is the greatest possible being and the greatest conceivable being. Existence > non-existence. If you can conceive of something that cannot possibly exist, then it will always be < the greatest possible being that can exist. So in all honesty, the greatest possible being = the greatest conceivable being.

but so long as no one knows the TRUTH, schroedingers box is not opened, thus you have no basis to say that "God is a possibility" is a fallacy.

A being or object's value is determined by it's attributes, not by it's definitions. This is another fallacy or your arguments.

Therefore if God exists,

then God = infinity(unlimited attributes)

- nothing can be conceived that is greater

If God does not exists, then God = 0(no attributes)

- Anything with at leat one positive

attribute is greater than God.

If God = 0, then a freaking cucumber is greater than God since it has positive attributes.

first of all, every concept, is a human concept. the concept of deficiency is not "worse", and it is by no means relative in the sense you are trying to say. To be deficient means to be improved upon. For example, moral perfection is, ironically, understood to mean the same thing by both atheists and Christians, I have found this out over the years, and it is fascinating.

Yet, not quite the same between Christians and Muslims. And I also beg to differ in your statement that Christians and atheists agree on "perfect" morality. I have had an awful lot of conversations with Christians who claim me to be immoral because I don't have faith in God. The notion of perfect morality is relative to each individual.

Any relativity of "perfection" that must be applied to God must be relative not to a bipedal anthropodic 90% bag of mostly water...but must be relative to himself!

Wrong, a perfect morality is one that everybody will agree with. Otherwise it is not perfect. If your perfect being cannot acheive this, then it is not perfect, and your whole "logical" construct falls apart.

[Miles]

obviously the logical construct does not prove that Jesus rose from the dead. The problem with atheists when they argue against theism is that they seem to be universally incapable of holistic arguments. They like taking a tiny piece of the God-puzzle and showing how it doesn't prove Moses, therefore the whole thing is wrong.

You're the one that said that non-powerful does not comply with the God that created the universe. You brought the Biblical God into this not me.

If a godlike being exists, his negative properties must also be compatible with all the positivie properties that we observe around us. But that is not necessary for the argument. If a godlike being exists, atheism falls. McHugh does not need to show that the negative property "non powerful" applies to the godlike being for atheism to fall. Once atheism falls, we can then synchronize the negative properties with the positive properties of the universe.

No, this God's negative properties must be compatible with all the positive properties that exist, inside and outside our perception, unless you think that we have perfect knowledge of all the properties of the universe. ;)

Atheism only falls if at the end of this the result is a god-like being. This is uncertain since other negative properties can be logically attributed that may contradict your definition of God.

then we see those irrational "non powerful" properties start falling from the picture.

Maybe, maybe not. We don't know enough now to say what is irrational. We may never know.

irrelevant. atheism falls even if God is a horrendus monster.

What if he is non-conscious?

Then I would venture to say that he is not god-like, therefore the definition used for God cannot be used for this newly discovered being.

the argument by Mr McHugh is simply to demonstrate the necessity of a non-contingent being.

Which it does so by assuming it is possible. This we don't know.

Once atheism has crumbled, then we can use more logic to reconcile the positive properties of the universe with the negative properties of God. Those questions about non-influential at this point begin to erode in the holistic argument of God's existence.

So you hope.

like I said, your mind is already made up. No argument will convince you, and vice-versa. The only thing that will convince you is your death. Either you will die and become a thiest, or you will die and be vanquished. But one thing is for certain, you will not die and remain a naturalist.

If those are the only two possibilities.

no one can prove anything in this universe...we conclude based upon reason and probability. I believe it is likely that God exists, and as such, I live my life as though I am certain He exists. And I am most truly happy as a theist.

Well, that's good that you are happy, and I am not trying to convert you, as I hope you are not trying to convert me.

From my standpoint, I recognized our limitations in understanding our universe, and therefore continue my quest for some hint of truth gaining satisfaction in the process of learning. I refuse to be "Pascal Wagered" or "semantically tricked" into jumping to conclusions. Logic may not be flawed, but human logic is.

[SpiceGuid]

It is implicit in my previous post that with polytheism Gods are far from perfect, so the Godlike concept only makes sense with uniqueness. Only uniqueness can relate Godlike to God. Otherwise the Godlike concept is just an ordinary abstraction.

[SpiceGuid]

Now i read it again.

Godlike is anonymous.

Godlike is multiple.

Godlike is a shape.

What is this shape: i want to identity it, i want to recognize it.

The practical mental way i use is to instanciate this shape.

I mentally instanciate it, what is the result?

The result is not God, how would i instanciate God?

God has no shape.

The result is Faith.

The proof is path to Faith.

Then i examine its properties.

At first it seems that Faith is dependant (dependant of me) but actually it is not: Faith is instanciation of "path of Faith", and "path of Faith" is instanciation of Faith. So Faith is self-sufficient and non-dependent. I can actually be a theist but only with conscious effort by circularily instanciating the "path of Faith".

Actually this shape is already known to me.

It is a shape of the form:

"I believe it"

Which can be mathematically rewritten in the following anonymous lambda abstraction (here written in Scheme programming language):

> ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))

Concretely when executed my Scheme interpreter infinitely loops. An interpreter for the Scheme programming language can be found here:

http://www.scheme.org

I suspect the "proof of existence of God" is a shape of this kind, cleverly adapted to religious context.

[SpiceGuid]

(Yet another parody)

Your girlfriend asks you: prove you love me (girlfriends ever have such romantic demand). Poor naive girlfriend! She has no idea how unromantic the answer is:

Let "q" = I have a promised girl

And "N" = It is logically necessary that

...

(1) non-contingency: It is either logically impossible or logically necessary that I encounter my promised girl

...

(7) non-finitude: I will love my promised girl forever

(8) non-deficiency: nothing will make me question the love for my promised girl

...

(1) q -> Nq (Anselm's principle)

(2) Nq v ~Nq (excluded middle)

(3) ~Nq -> N~Nq (Becker's postulate)

(4) Nq v N~Nq (from 2 and 3)

(5) N~Nq -> N~q (from 1)

(6) Nq v N~q (from 4 and 5)

(7) ~N~q (intuitive postulate)

(8) Nq (from 6 and 7)

(9) Nq -> q (modal axiom)

(10) q (from 8 and 9)

...

Then it is proven you have a promised girl.

But I doubt your girlfriend is satisfied: is she really your promised girl? May be she don't even bother: by the time you have finished the proof she already has another boyfriend. Stupid girlfriends: they use a flawed love logic!

[emprworm]

false methodology. Schroedingers cat is a fundamental example in a demonstration of probability. You "assume" universal constraints and are putting faith in something that is unknown. Once the cat is in the box, either the lever has been tripped or it has not...yet to those that do not yet know, there is still the probability of 50/50, simply on the basis that the truth is not yet known.

Your methodology is false. God is possible. The universe may be all there is...in that case God would be impossible. But of course, you have not looked inside Shroedingers box, and your attempt to summarily claim "fallacy" is intself a fallacy.

The LAST thing that Miles- a finite, limited human being composed of nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen- the last thing that Miles KNOWS is that the possibility of God is a fallacy.

The possibility of God is indeed a possibility.

uhhh....a very simple, cursory study of probability theory will tell you quite simply that "It could be possible or it could be impossible" is equal to "it is possible". You have much to learn, my young padewon.

And this is an example where logic falls short due to limited human perception."

utterly rediculous. It falls short only because you do not LIKE the laws of probability. The do not SUIT your world view, so you just discount them as "logic falling short?" Lol. What kind of response is that? The possibility of GOD is real. You think it is a logical flaw? There is something limited here...and that is YOUR GRASP OF REASONING and your KNOWLEDGE of the universe. For you to say that God is not possible REQUIRES that you know all there is to know about the universe.

Do you miles?

If not, then cut the crap. I will debate under rational dialogue but not under nonsense.

I do not appreciate a 2kg mass of gray matter contained in a volume of space the size of a mango trying to tell me that God is not possible. That is utter poppycock. I will not waste my time arguing such nonsense.

This whole argument bases itself on ignorance -- not yours, but in the ignorance of humanity as a whole. Because we don't know, then it must be possible. From our perspective, this is true, and is why I don't rule out the possibility of God, BUT, to think that my ignorance or yours in ANY way translates to the true possibility of things or events in the universe is the fallacy.

the ignorance stems from you telling me that "God is possible" is a fallacy. You cannot state this UNLESS you know everything there is to know about the universe. Obviously, a 2kg mass of gray material contained in a volume of space the size of a mango does not have such knowledge. Therefore such a claim is preposterous.

If, in reality, outside of our human perception, God is impossible, no chain of events, no alternative universe etc... could ever lead to such a being, then our ignorance is irrelevant to the truth, and does not change this absolute fact of impossibility. It will remain possible from our perspective, but our perspective will not change the truth.

what "absolute fact of impossibility?" Do you know this "absolute fact of impossibility?"

There IS a truth: Either God exists, or He does not. Plain and simple. If all this verbage of yours is just a fancy way of saying "If God does not exist, then claiming he does exist is wrong" then why are you wasting 1000's of words saying it?

Here, let me say it for you nice and simple:

If God does not exist, then the probability of God = 0.

Thats all you got to say Miles. You dont need a 10,000 word doctoral thesis telling me this.

But do you KNOW if God does not exist?

Using your same logic:

If God DOES exist then the probability of God = 100.

You are playing semantical word games with probability laws, taking the recursively enumerable proposition of the question of God's existence and actually trying to make it equal "NO."

Which is impossible as Turings Machine has so adequately verified. Study Complexity Theory a little bit. There is no case EVER where you can make a recursively enumerable proposition equal to NO. It may actually equal NO, but it can never be shown. But it may also actually equal YES. Don't muddy up this simple statement of fact with your semantical flim-flam:

God is possible. Under no case can you ever demonstrate that God is not possible. (recursively enumerable). You have no logical or mathematical basis to counter claim that God is not possible. Either God is possible or God is not possible. Ignorance of actual truth equates to possibility. The more you argue that ignorance does not grant possibility the more you argue with Einstein and all the other mathematicians and physicists. And you don't want to do that do you?

Here is a little test to prove this (and remember, if you argue with me here, you are not arguing with ME, but you are arguing against all known laws of math, complexity theory, chaos theory, quantum mechanics, and scientists worldwide):

Put a 6 sided die inside a small box. Seal the box so you cannot look inside. Shake the box.

What is the probability that the die inside the box is a 6?

The die inside the box is ACTUALLY a number...but since you dont know what number it ACTUALLY is, the odds of it being a 6 is 1/6. This means that it is POSSIBLE that the die in the box is a 6. This possibility is removed once you discover the die is a 3.

i sincerely hope that your rebuttal does not rest on your dismissal of the laws of math.

[Miles]

My point is that in this argument, you are trying to apply the possibility of God based on our ignorance as some kind of absolute factor in the universe. "because it is possible, then by definition it must be so" And again, possible as defined in the ontological construct is that it at least exists in some possible circumstances-- contingent. We don't know this.

I see it as saying something like: the definition of Bob is a existing green leprecaun who lives on the moon. Is it possible that a green leprecaun lives on the moon? Yes, we don't know absolutely that there isn't one, so it is possible. Then by the definition "existing" he must therefore exist.

Does this prove that Bob exists? No, just because he is possible due to our ignorance, doesn't mean that it has ANY bearing whatsoever on the truth.

You don't realize that inputing concepts like possible, and perfect and non-deficient, contaminate a logical construct with lingual interperetations and misinterperetations. It is certainly not solid ground for finding absolute truth.

Take for example "perfect morality" which you ignored apparently. If morality is perfect, then everyone should agree with and practice it since it is perfect. If it was perfect, then no one would disagree. Everyone should fully understand it because it is perfect. Everyone should have knowledge of it since it is perfect. We don't see this, so the perfect morality must not exist, and without perfect morality, the perfect being cannot exist.

[emprworm]

My point is that in this argument, you are trying to apply the possibility of God based on our ignorance as some kind of absolute factor in the universe. "because it is possible, then by definition it must be so"

no one said that. who said "because it is possible, then by definition, it must be so?"

all I am saying is that "because it is possible, it MAY be so", but you have said "God is possible" is a fallacy. This, of course, is preposterous.

I see it as saying something like: the definition of Bob is a existing green leprecaun who lives on the moon. Is it possible that a green leprecaun lives on the moon? Yes, we don't know absolutely that there isn't one, so it is possible. Then by the definition "existing" he must therefore exist.

if this is how you see it, then you have not understood it.

Does this prove that Bob exists? No, just because he is possible due to our ignorance, doesn't mean that it has ANY bearing whatsoever on the truth.

very little is proven in this universe. nearly all truth is obtained through probable explanations and interpretation of evidence, which is yet more probability.

evolution may indeed be FALSE. Just because it is possible doesn't mean that it has ANY bearing whatsoever on the truth.

You don't realize that inputing concepts like possible, and perfect and non-deficient, contaminate a logical construct with lingual interperetations and misinterperetations. It is certainly not solid ground for finding absolute truth.

your rebuttal was over the issue that the possible existence of God is a fallacy, which is absurd. are you giving me a new rebuttal now?

Take for example "perfect morality" which you ignored apparently. If morality is perfect, then everyone should agree with and practice it since it is perfect. If it was perfect, then no one would disagree. Everyone should fully understand it because it is perfect. Everyone should have knowledge of it since it is perfect. We don't see this, so the perfect morality must not exist, and without perfect morality, the perfect being cannot exist.

Everyone need not agree with something for it to be true. You just got done saying that using 10,000 words (which could have been said in one sentence). I am making a holistic argument which you failed to identify. I used my observations that nearly everyone agrees they are NOT perfect as holistic evidence that humans have some concept of perfect morality that they fall short of. Your failure is that you used this piece of holistic evidence as an isolated proof attempt, when it was merely a fascinating observation only. Perfect morality CAN exist, and if it does, your perceptions of it are irrelevant (use your same logic about perceptions and ACTUAL truth).