Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[durangodawood]

What concept of God imagines him otherwise?



You can't imagine things that are logically impossible. Like a square circle, for instance. You can imagine things that are contingent. You can't imagine things that are necessary. Things that are necessary are simply necessary. In fact, you can't conceive of a world without them. For example, try to imagine a world without logic.

So the question is whether or not God is impossible or necessary. He cannot be contingent, for then he would not be God.

Can you imagine God?

 

[Tree of Life]

Can you imagine God?

This is a complicated question. It depends on what you mean.

Can I give God an image? The answer to this would be yes and no. No one can imagine God because God is pure Spirit and has no physical representation. He cannot be seen. So any image that we conjure up will fall helplessly short of who God really is. It's also condemned in the second commandment as idolatry. But there is another sense in which we can call images to mind. In Scripture God gives us many metaphors and images that are analogous to him. For instance, God calls himself Father. We can know what God is like by knowing our fathers and by being fathers and knowing what it's like to be a father. More importantly, God has given us a sufficient image of himself in the man Jesus Christ. So to imagine Jesus Christ is to imagine God. Of course, our imagination must conform to the reality of Jesus Christ. We cannot imagine him to be any way that we want him to be. We must imagine him as he has revealed himself in Scripture.

So there is some sense in which we can imagine God. Our imaginations of him can also be false and even sinful.

But because God is a necessary being it's actually impossible to conceive of a world in which he does not exist. In the same way that it's impossible to conceive of a world in which logic does not exist, it's impossible to conceive of a world in which God does not exist. So because it's not possible to imagine a world without him, there's a sense in which it's not possible to imagine his existence. His existence is necessary and we take it for granted in all of our thinking about the world and ourselves.

 

[Ana the Ist]

This is a misunderstanding of the logic of possibility (or modal logic). In modal logic there are three sorts of beings:

There are impossible beings - those that exist in no possible world. They logically cannot exist.

There are contingent beings - those that exist in some possible worlds but their existence is contingent upon other factors.

There are necessary beings - those that exist in all possible worlds because they are logically necessary. They must exist.

God is posited to be a necessary being. If it's possible that God exists this means that he exists in some possible worlds. But if a necessary being exists in some possible world then it exists in every possible world. And if God exists in every possible world then he exists in the actual world.

The only way to defeat this argument is to claim that it's impossible for God to exist.

Or to simply ask you to show that god is a "necessary" being...

 

[Tree of Life]

Or to simply ask you to show that god is a "necessary" being...

Again, that goes along with the definition of God. If God weren't necessary then he wouldn't be God. So the question is whether God is impossible or necessary. There's really no middle ground.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Again, that goes along with the definition of God. If God weren't necessary then he wouldn't be God. So the question is whether God is impossible or necessary. There's really no middle ground.

Then all you've really done is try to "define" god into being. I'm afraid that's not how reality works.

 

[Tree of Life]

Then all you've really done is try to "define" god into being. I'm afraid that's not how reality works.

Not quite. I'm saying that if you think it's possible that God exists then you are logically obliged to affirm his existence. I'm pointing out the logical flaw in those who think that God's existence is possible.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not quite. I'm saying that if you think it's possible that God exists then you are logically obliged to affirm his existence. I'm pointing out the logical flaw in those who think that God's existence is possible.

Why would I be obligated to affirm his existence just because I accept it's possible?

Why would his existence include being necessary?

Can't I just define anything as necessary? Leprechauns create rainbows, rainbows exist, therefore leprechauns necessarily exist. This is essentially a child's version of "providing an argument for existence".

 

[Tree of Life]

Why would I be obligated to affirm his existence just because I accept it's possible?

Why would his existence include being necessary?

God is defined as a "maximally great being" whose existence is necessary. A being who necessarily exists is a being on whom everything else is contingent. God would be such a being. God is the creator of everything who alone eternally exists. Therefore he is a necessary being.

If you claim that it's possible that a necessary being like God exists then you are claiming that God exists in some possible world. But, being a necessary being, if he exists in some possible world he exists in all possible worlds. Hence, he exists in the actual world.

Can't I just define anything as necessary? Leprechauns create rainbows, rainbows exist, therefore leprechauns necessarily exist. This is essentially a child's version of "providing an argument for existence".

Any person whom you define as necessary would essentially be God. You're more than welcome to claim that God is a leprechaun. Plantinga's Ontological Argument makes no such claim.

 

[durangodawood]

Again, that goes along with the definition of God. If God weren't necessary then he wouldn't be God. So the question is whether God is impossible or necessary. There's really no middle ground.

The middle ground, functionally speaking, is: I dont know.

 

[Ana the Ist]

God is defined as a "maximally great being" whose existence is necessary. A being who necessarily exists is a being on whom everything else is contingent. God would be such a being. God is the creator of everything who alone eternally exists. Therefore he is a necessary being.

This is you "defining" god into existence. Note that you haven't actually provided any evidence for him...you've just basically said "by definition god has to exist".

That's not an argument for existence. It's wordplay.

 

[TillICollapse]

God is defined as a "maximally great being" whose existence is necessary. A being who necessarily exists is a being on whom everything else is contingent. God would be such a being. God is the creator of everything who alone eternally exists. Therefore he is a necessary being.

If you claim that it's possible that a necessary being like God exists then you are claiming that God exists in some possible world. But, being a necessary being, if he exists in some possible world he exists in all possible worlds. Hence, he exists in the actual world.



Any person whom you define as necessary would essentially be God. You're more than welcome to claim that God is a leprechaun. Plantinga's Ontological Argument makes no such claim.

In what way does this show such a being would STILL be in existence ? Where does it posit that such a being must still exist, as opposed to some point in the past only ? IOW ... what does it say about the being dying, for example ?

 

[Tree of Life]

The middle ground, functionally speaking, is: I dont know.

This is fine. You don't know whether or not God's existence is possible.

 

[durangodawood]

....But because God is a necessary being it's actually impossible to conceive of a world in which he does not exist..

But I've done this. So its not impossible.

I can imagine the world with or without God. (Not even saying which one is correct.)

 

[Ana the Ist]

In what way does this show such a being would STILL be in existence ? Where does it posit that such a being must still exist, as opposed to some point in the past only ? IOW ... what does it say about the being dying, for example ?

Forget that nonsense...he's just imagining a definition for god, he hasn't demonstrated any of it. He hasn't shown that god is "maximally great" or necessary... he just claims it. I'm only mentioning this because I've always considered it the worst argument for god bar none...it's all the way at the bottom of the list.

If I said magical unicorns are maximally great and necessarily exist I've basically done the same thing. It doesn't prove existence. When we define things according to properties they have, we do it according to properties we can demonstrate...not ones we imagine they have. That's all his argument is... it's imagining god has properties that require his existence, claiming he has them, and starting from there. It's wordplay...nothing more.

 

[TillICollapse]

Forget that nonsense...he's just imagining a definition for god, he hasn't demonstrated any of it. He hasn't shown that god is "maximally great" or necessary... he just claims it. I'm only mentioning this because I've always considered it the worst argument for god bar none...it's all the way at the bottom of the list.

Would you agree with this assessment of his reasoning ?

If I said magical unicorns are maximally great and necessarily exist I've basically done the same thing. It doesn't prove existence. When we define things according to properties they have, we do it according to properties we can demonstrate...not ones we imagine they have. That's all his argument is... it's imagining god has properties that require his existence, claiming he has them, and starting from there. It's wordplay...nothing more.

Yes I know, but what I don't understand is how, in his train of thought, his reasoning also concludes the god as still necessarily in existence (if it concludes as much), and not just existed at some point in the past.

ETA: I'm asking in the context of someone (him) who would think it's valid reasoning, to explain their own reasoning. I don't find it to be valid reasoning. But it helps me to understand how/why they come to such conclusions, regardless of what I think about them.

 

[durangodawood]

This is fine. You don't know whether or not God's existence is possible.

YES! Perhaps the conditions of reality permit the God you describe. Perhaps they do not.

Do you know different? Or is it strictly a matter of faith?

 

[TillICollapse]

The middle ground, functionally speaking, is: I dont know.

... because the ground on either side in that context is a false dilemma, at least.

 

[Wryetui]

I guess in the end is just a matter of faith on both sides...

 

[Ana the Ist]

Would you agree with this assessment of his reasoning ?

Yes I know, but what I don't understand is how, in his train of thought, his reasoning also concludes the god as still necessarily in existence (if it concludes as much), and not just existed at some point in the past.

ETA: I'm asking in the context of someone (him) who would think it's valid reasoning, to explain their own reasoning. I don't find it to be valid reasoning. But it helps me to understand how/why they come to such conclusions, regardless of what I think about them.

I imagine he would say that something that exists is greater than something that doesn't...therefore since god is maximally great, he always exists.

The problem is "why is god maximally great?". How do we know this? We don't, and it can't be proven...the entire argument rests on a couple of unfounded claims.

 

[durangodawood]

I guess in the end is just a matter of faith on both sides...

There's not much faith in admitting "I dont know".