Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
Not for the existence of God, no. Here's a quick recap- all deductive arguments for the existence of God, such as the ontological argument, the modal ontological argument, or the causal/cosmological argument, are either invalid or question-begging.
Worse, the theological conception of God presented by Christian writers is contradictory and incoherent. It includes pairs of properties which exclude one another, such as eternality and omnipotence, necessity and omnipotence, transcendence and existence, and others.
And the final nail in the coffin is that, since we don't arbitrarily add entities to our ontology, or start with an ontology pre-populated with an infinite number of entities which we must rule out, to posit the existence of God requires presenting some data, some evidence, which is uniquely accounted for by God. Since God is described, by the Bible as well as the entire Christian tradition, as having done this or that (i.e. in the world), there is certain necessary evidence, evidence which could not fail to obtain if Christianity is true, the absence of which necessarily constitutes evidence of absence.
Worse, the theological conception of God presented by Christian writers is contradictory and incoherent. It includes pairs of properties which exclude one another, such as eternality and omnipotence, necessity and omnipotence, transcendence and existence, and others.
And the final nail in the coffin is that, since we don't arbitrarily add entities to our ontology, or start with an ontology pre-populated with an infinite number of entities which we must rule out, to posit the existence of God requires presenting some data, some evidence, which is uniquely accounted for by God. Since God is described, by the Bible as well as the entire Christian tradition, as having done this or that (i.e. in the world), there is certain necessary evidence, evidence which could not fail to obtain if Christianity is true, the absence of which necessarily constitutes evidence of absence.