Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[TillICollapse]

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

I think it depends on how God is defined.

Take it to an extreme:

Suppose you have a being that appears before millions of people, performs feats that defy any conventional explanation which become documented, unexplained scientifically, and for all intent and purposes are "miracles". This being doesn't look like anything we conceive of as being "alive" for that matter, yet it's existing nonetheless in some fashion we have yet to identify.

This being makes a lot of claims: "I created all things. This entire universe, I created it. I'm responsible for many of the miracles you experience, though you can't fully explain it yet. Some of the claims of others are false, but not all of them," and this being goes on to further demonstrate even more amazing things. It then claims, "I am whom you refer to as God ... I am the only one."

On what basis do you accept the claims ? The demonstration of power ? Because you can't explain it ? Because you are overwhelmed ? How do you know the being is not lying ? After all, can you prove the being was the "first cause" ? How would you ? Can you prove there aren't any other beings like this one ? How would you do such a thing, especially if you only currently had "one" such being as a reference point anyways ?

So long as such a being is making ANY sort of claim to something which we cannot prove (i.e. first cause, only god, etc) then arguably no amount of displays of power, verbosity, etc will "prove" what that being is claiming. You will either trust the being, or you won't, for whatever reason. Some claims such a being may make, arguably, are accepted on trust and at face value.

Not all claims. Obviously such a being could say, "I can do such and such," or "I was responsible for such and such," and perhaps certain things can be verified. But there are arguably some claims that even a being that defies our ability to explain may make, which we would not be able to verify one way or another. If such a being made no such claims, and was solely about objective, falsifiable evidence ONLY ... that may be another matter. But so long as such a being could either make the claim that cannot be verified, or has such a claim attributed to it ... it would boil down to a person either trusting it, or not.

Thus, one could argue there is no point in such a being claiming such things one way or another, or even clarifying them for that matter ... not if the point is to "prove".

 

[TillICollapse]

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.

The first time I saw "maximally great" I considered it as a new brand for condoms.

I see the argument as essentially a circular argument, based on an argument from ignorance with an unfalsifiable and essentially undefined concept which the rest hinges upon. Would you agree or disagree with this ?

 

[BL2KTN]

"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.

What is a "being" and what is "maximally great"? Why are things like "love", "power", "wisdom", etc being used in this "maximally great" qualifier?

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.

Read your bible:

Abraham saw God several times.
And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him. Genesis 12:7
And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him.... Genesis 17:1

And the Lord appeared unto him [Abrham] in the plains of Mamre. Genesis 18:1

And I [God] appeared unto Abraham. Exodus 6:3

And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran Acts 7:2

Isaac saw him twice.
And the LORD appeared unto him [Isaac], and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of. Genesis 26:2
And the LORD appeared unto him [Isaac] the same night, and said, I am the God of Abraham thy father: fear not. Genesis 26:24

And I appeared unto ... Isaac. Exodus 6:3

Jacob saw God face to face and beat him in a wrestling match.
Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed. And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. Genesis 32:30
And God appeared unto Jacob again, when he came out of Padanaram, and blessed him. Genesis 35:9

And Jacob said unto Joseph, God Almighty appeared unto me at Luz in the land of Canaan. Genesis 48:3

And I appeared unto ... Jacob. Exodus 6:3

Moses spoke to God face to face and even got a peek at God's backsides!
The LORD God ... appeared unto me [Moses], saying, I have surely visited you. Exodus 3:16
That they may believe that the LORD God ... hath appeared unto thee [Moses]. Exodus 4:5

And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend. Exodus 33:11

My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold. Numbers 12:7-1

And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face. Deuteronomy 34:10

And I [God]will take away my hand, and thou [Moses] shalt see my backparts. Exodus 33:23

Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy elders saw God.
Then went up Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel. And they saw the God of Israel ... They saw God, and did eat and drink. Exodus 24:9-11
God talked face to face to all the people of Israel, and plans to do so again someday.
For they have heard that thou Lord art among this people, that thou Lord art seen face to face. Numbers 14:14
The Lord talked with you [the people of Israel] face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire. Deuteronomy 5:4

Afterwards he was seen upon earth, and conversed with men. Baruch 3:38

And I [God] will bring you [the Israelites] into the wilderness of the people, and there will I plead with you face to face.Ezekiel 20:35

Manoah and his wife (Samson's parents) saw God. (Manoah thought God would kill them for it.)
And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God. But his wife said unto him, If the LORD were pleased to kill us, he would not have received a burnt offering and a meat offering at our hands, neither would he have shewed us all these things, nor would as at this time have told us such things as these. And the woman bare a son, and called his name Samson. Judges 13:22-24
Micaiah saw God sitting on his throne.
I [Micaiah] saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left. 1 Kings 22:19

-- Can God be seen?

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.

What about a necessary tea pot wearing a cape that fights crime and boring sex? Since I can imagine it, does that make it necessary in all worlds?

 

[Wryetui]

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

No, but regarding "I know He exists!" or "I know He doesn't" faith is required.

 

[TillICollapse]

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.

Okay dude, I don't normally ask this, but why have you not responded to any of my posts that comment on your own ? I don't expect a response to every post I make, but I noticed you didn't respond to a single one (that I can see) and I'm curious as to why. If you don't even bother to respond to this one, I'll drop it, no worries, but I am curious, if you're willing to answer.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The first time I saw "maximally great" I considered it as a new brand for condoms.

I see the argument as essentially a circular argument, based on an argument from ignorance with an unfalsifiable and essentially undefined concept which the rest hinges upon. Would you agree or disagree with this ?

I'm not entirely sure it's circular...

But if we want to define god as maximally great we have to...

1. Prove god exists.

2. Prove god is maximally great.

Since we aren't doing those things, the argument fails before it starts.

 

[TillICollapse]

No, but regarding "I know He exists!" or "I know He doesn't" faith is required.

Do you believe it's possible for someone to lack faith ?

 

[TillICollapse]

I'm not entirely sure it's circular...

But if we want to define god as maximally great we have to...

1. Prove god exists.

2. Prove god is maximally great.

Since we aren't doing those things, the argument fails before it starts.

Well I think it starts as a loosely defined assertion that is unfalsifiable from the start:

"God is a maximally great being," but then doesn't define any of those terms definitively. To claim, "The only way to refute it, is to show it's not possible," or some such is attempting to shift the burden of both proof and definition to the one claiming, "That doesn't exist". So in essence, unless I'm missing something, I see the foundation as an undefined, unfalsifiable point which hinges upon the need to attempt to shift the burden of proof and definition to the one considering what is even meant by the phrase to begin with. If a person doesn't do this ... take on that burden ... then it becomes circular because the one asserting it essentially comes back to, "Therefore this being exists because I claim it exists," and the circle stays closed.

Yes ? No ?

 

[TillICollapse]

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.

Before I wait to see if you respond to my last post or not, consider this:

There is a box in the middle of the street. It's closed on all sides so that you cannot see what is inside of it unless you open it. On the side of the box, there is a question mark painted. This is all you can observe about the box.

What HAS to be inside that box ?

 

[Tree of Life]

Before I wait to see if you respond to my last post or not, consider this:

There is a box in the middle of the street. It's closed on all sides so that you cannot see what is inside of it unless you open it. On the side of the box, there is a question mark painted. This is all you can observe about the box.

What HAS to be inside that box ?

Something logically possible.

 

[TillICollapse]

Something logically possible.

Can you deduce anything about attributes "that something" may have beyond that ? Why or why not ?

And can you make the leap, "I have an empty box I don't know the contents of, but it has something logically possible inside. Therefore a maximally great eternal being upon which all other beings rest has to be inside that box. It is one way or another. Either that being is in that box, or it's not."

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well I think it starts as a loosely defined assertion that is unfalsifiable from the start:

"God is a maximally great being," but then doesn't define any of those terms definitively. To claim, "The only way to refute it, is to show it's not possible," or some such is attempting to shift the burden of both proof and definition to the one claiming, "That doesn't exist". So in essence, unless I'm missing something, I see the foundation as an undefined, unfalsifiable point which hinges upon the need to attempt to shift the burden of proof and definition to the one considering what is even meant by the phrase to begin with. If a person doesn't do this ... take on that burden ... then it becomes circular because the one asserting it essentially comes back to, "Therefore this being exists because I claim it exists," and the circle stays closed.

Yes ? No ?

Sure, personally though I try to end bad arguments where they start. This one starts and stops for me with an imaginary definition for something unproven.

 

[TillICollapse]

Sure, personally though I try to end bad arguments where they start. This one starts and stops for me with an imaginary definition for something unproven.

Interestingly, if someone gets defensive of such an argument ... as in, they begin to show defensive responses and lash out, withdraw, project, etc ... I usually don't even try to engage. If I think I can easily see an emotional need, or something long those lines, and identify it ... I may not even bother.

It's when they seem to calmly take them seriously to where it makes sense to them ... esp if the person exhibits a fair amount of intellectual intelligence ... and I don't see where they are necessarily getting overtly defensive ... is when I sometimes probe deeper, to understand more about that person. It's rarely about the argument for me, rather, it's more about the person making it and their reasoning they are using. Sometimes

 

[durangodawood]

Something logically possible.

What about nothing? Could there be truly nothing in the box?

 

[keith99]

No, but regarding "I know He exists!" or "I know He doesn't" faith is required.

But to prove the God of the Christians as claimed by a significant percentage of Christians does not exist is easy to prove.

Once it is claimed that the Christian God will respond in a particular way to an action on my part all one needs to do is perform the desired action and see the non-response.

God will strike you down if you say ...is an oldie but goodie.

So as I see it saying God as claimed by xxxx does not exist does not requite any faith.

I also see that as only proving the claims are false, not the God per se. But still a good reason to not fear other claims from the same source.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

Humans don't have the power to define things into existence simply by imagining them to have certain attributes. If your "logic" says otherwise, guess which one is wrong.

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

Or to point out the obvious - that assuming god exists to prove it exists isn't all that convincing.

 

[Tree of Life]

What about nothing? Could there be truly nothing in the box?

Strictly speaking, probably not. "Nothing" is a problematic concept. Even a vacuum is something.

 

[KCfromNC]

What concept of God imagines him otherwise?

Lots of god concepts are contingent on other beings for their existence.

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.

But by this logic since I can conceive of a possible world without god(s) - e.g. one which looks suspiciously like the one we live in - they are not necessary and therefore are impossible. Problem solved.

 

[KCfromNC]

What is a "being" and what is "maximally great"? Why are things like "love", "power", "wisdom", etc being used in this "maximally great" qualifier?

Because "maximally insect-like" doesn't give people enough warm-fuzziness to rationalize away the problems with the concept.

A truly maximally great object is logically impossible - that's why I mentioned maximally hot and maximally cold as attributes a maximally great being must have if it really is maximally great in all areas. This is obviously impossible, so people proposing this maximally great being need to start cherry picking and leaving out some attributes for the being to be logically possible. If they don't, the premise about god possibly existing is wrong since logically impossible beings can't possibly exist.

But if they do, the being is no longer maximally greatest in all attributes so the question of it having the maximally great attribute of existing comes into question. That's because the being is left being maximally great in some arbitrary ways but not in others, so giving it any particular attribute is just a crap shoot. That's especially curious when one just happens to pick (purely at random, I'm sure) the attribute of existence when that's the very conclusion of the argument in question.

So basically, the whole thing is an exercise in being vague enough in the premises to sneak the conclusion in as a premise, making the whole thing a bunch of circular nonsense.

 

[KCfromNC]

No, but regarding "I know He exists!" or "I know He doesn't" faith is required.

I don't know. How much faith does is take to say a fantastic being like Santa doesn't exist?

This points to another good argument against god being real - you have to resort to special pleading to defend arguments for it that hold no water for subjects with less cultural baggage.