An Argument for the Existence of God

[Acriku]

If all you're saying is that if it is possible, it may be so, then what are you bringing that is new to the discussion?

[nemafakei]

""God is possible" is a fallacy. This, of course, is preposterous"

Careful - a possible conclusion from our point of view and the data we have available is not quite the same as possible as an absolute.

[Miles]

takes a deep siiiiiiiigh.... ok I'll try this again. :-

The Ontological argument and specifically Anslem's principle states that if God is contingent-- meaning that in some set of circumstances in a possible alternative reality or universe that we don't know about God exists. This is the positive statement that they use to prove their construct. If God exists in one reality i.e. contingent, then he must, by definition, exist in all realities-- i.e. necessary.

However, possible in this sense is saying that indeed God exists in some circumstances. That is the positive and absolute conclusion that is the fallacy. They do not use possible in the way you have used it. Your use says that if we don't know then it could be so. I agree with this. But Anslem's principle says that God does exist in some possible circumstances.

Everyone need not agree with something for it to be true.

No, but everyone needs to agree for it to be perfect.

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).

As I said above, for a morality to be perfect, EVERYONE has to agree with it, otherwise it is not perfect. If a being cannot have perfect morality, then it can not be perfect. End of story. My perceptions are essential because of this.

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?

First of all, you have misunderstood. My rebuttal was on the way the word possible has been interpereted by Anslem's principle, then reinterpereted back to sound foolproof. This is the semantic slight of hand I have been talking about. The same can be said of perfect and especially non-deficient. These are too open to interperetation to be used for absolute proof.

I DO think that we have misunderstood each other though. I thought that you, like the ontological argument were trying to absolutely prove that God exists. All I'm trying to show is that this bogus logical construct cannot absolutely prove anything since terms that are easily manipulated are used. Too much human input is injected into logic to be trusted. I do not say that God is impossible. I say that we DO NOT KNOW IF CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES LEAD TO THE EXISTANCE OF GOD, as used in Anslem's principle, So we don't know if God is contingent.

[emprworm]

""God is possible" is a fallacy. This, of course, is preposterous"

Careful - a possible conclusion from our point of view and the data we have available is not quite the same as possible as an absolute.

lol! careful, toying around with the laws of math might not make your argument as sound as it seems.

If "God is possible" is a fallacy, so is "No God is possible"

If "Theism is possible" is a fallacy, so is "Atheism is possible"

besides that, you are arguing against math right now....no longer against me. high school level math at that.

I repeat.

"God is possible"

If you would like to do a basic experiment on Probability, do the following:

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. It is an absolute that the die is one of 6 numbers. 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 actually a 6. This possibility is removed once you discover the die is absolutely 3.

Why am I arguing basic math with you people? i just don't get it.

[emprworm]

However, possible in this sense is saying that indeed God exists in some circumstances. That is the positive and absolute conclusion that is the fallacy. They do not use possible in the way you have used it. Your use says that if we don't know then it could be so. I agree with this. But Anslem's principle says that God does exist in some possible circumstances.

I am glad to know that you are indeed not arguing against the fundamental laws of math. I was a bit worried there. Thank you for the clarification. Now, you believe that the conclusion that God exists is a fallacy....I would like you to tell me what fallacy that might be? All logical fallacies have been identified and are named. "Anslem's principle says that God does exist in some possible circumstances. " How is this a fallacy? The principle talks about possible worlds. Just like rolling a die inside a box....the die will ACTUALLY be a number, but until we know what number it ACTUALLY is, any of the 6 numbers are possible. When dealing with possible worlds, it is the same thing. Since we don't know which ACTUAL world we live in, there are more than one possible worlds....some of them necessitating the existence of God. I see no fallacy here

Everyone need not agree with something for it to be true.

No, but everyone needs to agree for it to be perfect.

hardly. what kind of logic is that? Suppose an imperfect thing gave a criteria for perfection. Upon what logic can you use to say that imperically the criteria from an imperfect thing is necessarily going to be perfect?

perfection is an objective notion, not a subjective one. therefore the opinions of temporal contingent bipedal anthropods, 90% water made of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen.....are irrelevant.

As I said above, for a morality to be perfect, EVERYONE has to agree with it, otherwise it is not perfect. If a being cannot have perfect morality, then it can not be perfect. End of story. My perceptions are essential because of this.

your perceptions are irrelevant. perfection is not contingent upon the subjective whims of 2kg masses of gray matter floating in the caranic shell of a temporal contingent bipedal anthropods, 90% water made of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen.

I DO think that we have misunderstood each other though. I thought that you, like the ontological argument were trying to absolutely prove that God exists.

i nevre said i agree that the ontological argument is PROOF for God. I only said it is a fascinating argument, and Chris Hughe's version of it is brilliant. I still do not say "GOD EXISTS IS 100% PROVEN"....despite the argument. I use the argument as another piece of holistic evidence in my conclusion that there is a God, though I would not say that the argument itself is PROOF. I just like and respect well formulated arguments- of which McHUgh's was.

All I'm trying to show is that this bogus logical construct cannot absolutely prove anything since terms that are easily manipulated are used. Too much human input is injected into logic to be trusted. I do not say that God is impossible. I say that we DO NOT KNOW IF CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES LEAD TO THE EXISTANCE OF GOD, as used in Anslem's principle, So we don't know if God is contingent.

it's hardly bogus. it is genious, though i do not agree it is proof. and there are certain circumstances that require God, the question is whether or not our universe- the one that ACTUALLY exists, is the universe that is one of them that require it, although the evidence would seem as such.

[Miles]

I am glad to know that you are indeed not arguing against the fundamental laws of math. I was a bit worried there. Thank you for the clarification. Now, you believe that the conclusion that God exists is a fallacy....I would like you to tell me what fallacy that might be? All logical fallacies have been identified and are named. "Anslem's principle says that God does exist in some possible circumstances. " How is this a fallacy? The principle talks about possible worlds.

But Anslem's principle depends on the positive confirmation that God does indeed exist in some reality. This is not proven, therefore the argument's foundation is based on imagination with no rational or emprical basis which it then asserts as an absolute. This is the fallacy. We do not even know if other realities exist, much less if God exists in one.

Just like rolling a die inside a box....the die will ACTUALLY be a number, but until we know what number it ACTUALLY is, any of the 6 numbers are possible. When dealing with possible worlds, it is the same thing. Since we don't know which ACTUAL world we live in, there are more than one possible worlds....some of them necessitating the existence of God. I see no fallacy here

But since we don't know if other realities even exist, it is more like shaking a box without knowing what is inside and saying it is necessary that a number from 1-6 is the outcome since dice have six sides.

hardly. what kind of logic is that? Suppose an imperfect thing gave a criteria for perfection. Upon what logic can you use to say that imperically the criteria from an imperfect thing is necessarily going to be perfect?

perfection is an objective notion, not a subjective one. therefore the opinions of temporal contingent bipedal anthropods, 90% water made of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen.....are irrelevant.

And I disagree, perfection is incredibly subjective and such an abstract notion that it is irrational to claim absolutely that it exists.

If a notion of perfect morality is not known to everyone, is not agreed on by everyone, and not consistant through everyone's interperetation, then how can it be perfect?

i nevre said i agree that the ontological argument is PROOF for God. I only said it is a fascinating argument, and Chris Hughe's version of it is brilliant. I still do not say "GOD EXISTS IS 100% PROVEN"....despite the argument. I use the argument as another piece of holistic evidence in my conclusion that there is a God, though I would not say that the argument itself is PROOF. I just like and respect well formulated arguments- of which McHUgh's was.

As I said before, I too respect the brilliant used of terminology and abstract notions to create this illusion, as I respect the brilliant slight of hand of magicians on the street. It is still totally dependant on inteperetations and manipulations of human language. Therefore highly suspect.

it's hardly bogus. it is genious, though i do not agree it is proof. and there are certain circumstances that require God, the question is whether or not our universe- the one that ACTUALLY exists, is the universe that is one of them that require it, although the evidence would seem as such.

It is genious, but that does not mean it is not bogus. The assertion that there are certain circumstances in some reality that require God though is unproven. Therefore, this part of the argument, which serves as the foundation is weak. It has been covered by some fancy semantics, but that doesn't change this fact.

I would go as far as saying that it is possible (defined as we don't know so it could be so) that these circumstances exist, but it is also possible that they do not. But your argument asserts that they are not only possible, but DO in fact exist in some reality - i.e. contingent. This is the positive statement of absolute truth that represents the fallacy.

[emprworm]

But Anslem's principle depends on the positive confirmation that God does indeed exist in some reality. This is not proven, therefore the argument's foundation is based on imagination with no rational or emprical basis which it then asserts as an absolute. This is the fallacy. We do not even know if other realities exist, much less if God exists in one.

it is fully proven. where does it fail? The question is whether or not actual reality is one of them. I would like you to clarify how his proof fails (specifically in the argument McHugh puts forth)

But since we don't know if other realities even exist, it is more like shaking a box without knowing what is inside and saying it is necessary that a number from 1-6 is the outcome since dice have six sides.

lol, well obviously no other realities exist. WHat is real is simply what is real. But we know empirically that we can imagine false worlds. True, the die has 6 sides...it was only an analogy to show that only ONE side can come up, while the rest of the sides are merely potential worlds, not actual ones. The number of "sides" is irrelevant. But for this debate, there are ultimately only 3 possible worlds....

The universe began to exist and was caused.

The universe began to exist and effected itself from nothing

The universe has always existed infinitely in the past, so that time(t) never equals or approaches 0.

Which one of those possible worlds represents the one you live in Miles? And why is one of them more "irrational" than the other?

And I disagree, perfection is incredibly subjective and such an abstract notion that it is irrational to claim absolutely that it exists.

hardly. A perfect diamond, for example, is a well known objective fact. "Free from impurities" or "lacking nothing" is a fully objetive concept. It is not abstract, but certain.

If a notion of perfect morality is not known to everyone, is not agreed on by everyone, and not consistant through everyone's interperetation, then how can it be perfect?

the same way the notion of a perfect diamond may not be known to everyone, yet it can still be perfect (though no perfect diamond exists, the concept and definition of it is crystal clear, and absolutely knowable).

On a curious note: it is odd, is it not, that all those people who cannot agree on "perfection" all appeal to it when they claim they are not perfect. They may not know perfection, but they DO know imperfection. I find that fascinating.

It is genious, but that does not mean it is not bogus. The assertion that there are certain circumstances in some reality that require God though is unproven. Therefore, this part of the argument, which serves as the foundation is weak. It has been covered by some fancy semantics, but that doesn't change this fact.

it is proven. You continually declare that there is no possible world with the essence of necessary existence. What is your basis for this contention? the question is whether or not the actual reality is one of those realities. And evidence to me seems that it is.

[sneezer3]

it is proven. You continually declare that there is no possible world with the essence of necessary existence. What is your basis for this contention? the question is whether or not the actual reality is one of those realities. And evidence to me seems that it is.

At some point you realise you'd have better luck telling little timmy he ain't batman...

[Acriku]

Keep it on subject, and refrain from insults in this serious, until you posted, debate.

[Miles]

Realize though, that in Anslem's principle, the term "possible" kind of muddies the point, which is the intention of the argument to use manipulation of language to conceil the actual assertion. At it's base, his principle is stating that, indeed God does exist in some alternate reality. Because of this, and becaue of the definition of God, then you can logically assume that he could not exist in only one reality but must therefore exist in all realities. However, this does not prove that this alternative reality, in truth, exists.

If it is only possible that God exists in some alternate reality, then there is no reason to expand it further into all realities until you know if he does exist in an existing alternate reality. The fact that we don't know, does not prove that any alternate reality actually exists, much less one with God in it.

Is it possible that some alternate reality exists in which God is a part? Yes. But until we know absolutely that this is absolutely true, we cannot say that he then must exist in all realities since we cannot prove that he exists in even one. We are no closer to proving this, then we are in proving that he exists in our reality. We are back to square one.

[emprworm]

Is it possible that some alternate reality exists in which God is a part? Yes. But until we know absolutely that this is absolutely true, we cannot say that he then must exist in all realities since we cannot prove that he exists in even one. We are no closer to proving this, then we are in proving that he exists in our reality. We are back to square one.

you keep saying, this, but you continually do not provide the logical rebuttal. McHugh defines God with negative properties only, and logic applys to all possible worlds. You keep saying "we cannot say...(blah blah)"...well WHY can't we say it? Something that is the result of a logical conclusion can be said and I still do not see where this logic fails. The only rebuttals I have actually seen from you are the ones that attempt to apply negative properties to God such as "non-powerful" which are obviously false since they do not coincide with the actual universe. Other than that, I have yet to really see a rebuttal from you. Your entire rebuttal is simply an argument from intuition. You intuitively do not believe in God (or doubt).....therefore somehow that is enough to refute. I will now quote McHugh...I am looking for you to state where this logic fails.

Another objection is that one can imagine a possible world in which a Godlike being does not exist, and therefore it must be the case that the existence of such an entity is not logically necessary. But even though it is prima facie imaginable that such a being does not exist, it is not really a coherent thought, for any possible world is subject to all conceptual laws and logical truths. As such, the concept of what it means to be Godlike would be a consistent concept (since it entails only negative properties), and would still imply the denial of contingency as a matter of definitional truth. From these facts, the existence of something Godlike can be deduced using nothing but truths of logic. When one makes the objection that they can conceive of a world without something Godlike, they are ignoring the implications of abstract reasoning, and are not recognizing that the conclusions derived as a matter of conceptual necessity are binding in all possible worlds.

[emprworm]

[c]i must also point out, that McHugh as responded to Kreuger's opening statement, of which I agree with this first paragraph wholeheartedly.

In my opening statement, I defended a mystical concept of God that is very different from the one that Krueger has chosen to attack in his opening arguments. Consequently, I can concede Krueger

[Miles]

My rebuttal does not attack the logically constructed formula of your argument at all, this is why I have given you no formula to rebut it, nor attempted to show how your formula is flawed mathematically. My rebuttal is towards your creation of reality based solely on the interperetation of our language, then trying to pass it off as some kind of truth. Terms like non-defficient, perfect, and possible are far too ambiguous to assert as any kind of base for truth. While philosophical logic is useful, our perceptions of reality are too limited to say absolutely that if a and b exist then c logically has to. This is where this argument is flawed, and this is why philosophy and it's use of logic should only be viewed as a means to question, not to answer.

I love debating creation vs evolution and discussing theism vs atheism, but this argument has gotten tiresome and repetative. Sufficed to say that we will not agree on the legitimacy of this argument because we do not agree on the validity of using human language as valid source of truth. I am willing to agree to disagree if you are, so I'll give you the last word.

[emprworm]

"My rebuttal is towards your creation of reality based solely on the interperetation of our language, then trying to pass it off as some kind of truth."

this has nothing to do with terminology. This is simply logic. Now, if you are going to argue against logic, that would seem to be a difficult proposition, since I would expect that you would need to use logic in order to argue against it.