Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Tree of Life]

Like no man, that's actually the argument. If you want to discuss it we can. I think God is probable, but the transcendental argument is smoke and mirrors.

If you were quick enough you would've caught the Big Lebowski reference.

And to tag on Plantinga's version of the Ontological Argument, if God's existence is possible then God certainly exists.

 

[BL2KTN]

If you were quick enough you would've caught the Big Lebowski reference.

And to tag on Plantinga's version of the Ontological Argument, if God's existence is possible then God certainly exists.

Do you mean God or Yahweh?

 

[Tree of Life]

Do you mean God or Yahweh?

Plantinga's argument doesn't specify. It speaks of God in more impersonal terms as a "maximally great being". No name is given.

 

[BL2KTN]

I don't know what a "maximally great being" is. I would need a better definition.

 

[durangodawood]

Plantinga's argument doesn't specify. It speaks of God in more impersonal terms as a "maximally great being". No name is given.

Like the biggest possible?

 

[BL2KTN]

And what is a "being"? To me this is just nonsensical phraseology.

 

[Tree of Life]

"Maximally great being" is a typical definition for God. It supposes that God is a being (the most abstract term to refer to something that exists) who possesses all of the qualities that make for greatness and possesses them to the maximal amount. This would include things like power, love, wisdom, etc... But what's most relevant for the argument is that God is, by definition, a necessary being. And if it's possible for a necessary being to exist then a necessary being certainly exists.

 

[Freodin]

For: The fine-tuning argument. It at least has to make you think -- though at best, it can only prove that a god used to exist, and it doesn't have to be the Christian god.

Against: I dunno. I've always thought of most atheistic arguments as saying that theists haven't proven their case yet, not that there is no god.

In fact, I found the fine-tuning argument to be one of the best arguments against the existence of a transcendent deity.

 

[quatona]

"Maximally great being" is a typical definition for God. It supposes that God is a being (the most abstract term to refer to something that exists) who possesses all of the qualities that make for greatness and possesses them to the maximal amount. This would include things like power, love, wisdom, etc... But what's most relevant for the argument is that God is, by definition, a necessary being. And if it's possible for a necessary being to exist then a necessary being certainly exists.

The same argument can be used for the necessary existence of the "maximally great lake" - the biggest lake with the most fish in it, the sweetest water, with the nicest beaches, with the best weather, and the maximal conditions for sailing, surfing and swimming.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Private revelation. Like a beatific vision...

"Arguments" are more dry and logical, Spock theology not Spook theology.



Sunny Jim...

 

[KCfromNC]

If you were quick enough you would've caught the Big Lebowski reference.

And to tag on Plantinga's version of the Ontological Argument, if God's existence is possible then God certainly exists.

More accurately, it "proves" the God certainly exists in at least one possible imagined hypothetical universe out of an infinity of possible imagined universes. Next step is to show that universe is the one we're actually living in.

To me, the fact that people have to resort to such nonsense rather than just presenting plain evidence that god exists is the best evidence against them being right.

 

[KCfromNC]

I don't know what a "maximally great being" is. I would need a better definition.

One that is both maximally red and maximally blue. Maximally opaque and maximally transparent. Maximally hot and maximally cold. Maximally big and maximally small.

In other words, if looked at fairly the concept is logically incoherent. If you're trying really hard to rationalize the existence of a really powerful being you need to have faith in, on the other hand...

 

[KCfromNC]

The same argument can be used for the necessary existence of the "maximally great lake"

Or even a maximally convincing argument against the existence of god. If you accept that the biggest baddest thing you can imagine is real simply because you can imagine it, there's no limit to what you can conjure into existence. Too bad reality doesn't seem to care about these sorts of word games.

 

[Tree of Life]

The same argument can be used for the necessary existence of the "maximally great lake" - the biggest lake with the most fish in it, the sweetest water, with the nicest beaches, with the best weather, and the maximal conditions for sailing, surfing and swimming.

I don't think so. Such a lake is not a necessary being like God would be. Rather, this lake is a contingent being. Hence the same argument cannot apply.

 

[Tree of Life]

More accurately, it "proves" the God certainly exists in at least one possible imagined hypothetical universe out of an infinity of possible imagined universes. Next step is to show that universe is the one we're actually living in.

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.

 

[durangodawood]

....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.

Thats the weak link right there.

 

[Tree of Life]

Thats the weak link right there.

I don't know of anyone who would define God as a contingent being. This would make him, well, not God. So which is it for you? Is it possible that God exists or not?

 

[durangodawood]

I don't know of anyone who would define God as a contingent being. This would make him, well, not God. So which is it for you? Is it possible that God exists or not?

Yes. Some concepts of God have him as a necessary being.

But those concepts dont necessarily correspond to reality. I can imagine many non-real things.

Sounds like you are confusing ideas with real things.

 

[Tree of Life]

Yes. Some concepts of God have him as a necessary being.

What concept of God imagines him otherwise?

But those concepts dont necessarily correspond to reality. I can imagine many non-real things.

Sounds like you are confusing ideas with real things.

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.

 

[TillICollapse]

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.

How is this not a circular argument which relies upon an argument from ignorance for an unfalsifiable concept ? You basically posit a generic "necessary being" which isn't defined. Then claim, "therefore that being exists" and then say "the only way to defeat this argument is to claim that it's impossible for God to exist," which tries to shift the burden of proof for something that's unfalsifiable based on the context of how you've posited it. Do you agree with my assessment ? If not, why not, and please explain why not. Use the opportunity to educate me if you like.