Looking for arguments for the existence of God

[Fluffy]

Couldn't one argue that a being capable of acting without actually existing is greater than a being that needs to exist before it can act? We could then replace P2 with the proposition "a non-existent being is greater than an existent being" and the conclusion becomes "Therefore, God does not exist".

The argument you are citing is Douglas Gasking's who was explicitly parodying an ontological argument for the greatest creator. Therefore, it will be necessary to recast that argument to parody the greatest being. However, let us first consider it on the terms it was originally intended.

Wikipedia gives Gasking's argument as follows:

1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.

One possible retort to this is simply that the statement "The creator can do the logically impossible" is meaningless since it implies that the logically impossible is in fact possible (contradiction in terms). Therefore, the creator that can do the logically impossible is not greater than the creator who cannot by virtue of being unintelligible. Another way to look at this is to say that we are not actually conceiving of anything at all when we say "The being that created us whilst not existing". Since acting whilst not existing is an example of the logically impossible, the creator proposed by Gasking is meaningless and not greater than that proposed by Anselm.

If Gasking's argument fails then it is doubtful whether we can recast it to state that the greatest being is also non-existent since the retort I give above still seems applicable.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The creator can do the logically impossible" is meaningless since it implies that the logically impossible is in fact possible (contradiction in terms).

:biglaugh:

"Today, class, I will demonstrate how Aristotle's law of non-contradiction applies to God."

brahahahahaha

 

[Fluffy]

"Today, class, I will demonstrate how Aristotle's law of non-contradiction applies to God."

brahahahahaha

Not to God but our conception of him. Anselm's argument is rooted in our being able to conceive of God so our conception has to be meaningful.

We could (try to) talk about a God that is meaningless and existent but the ontological argument has nothing to do with that God.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Not to God but our conception of him.

I'm with you... your wording just struck me as delightful.

 

[Rorschach]

Fluffy: Thanks for the introduction to the ontological argument for the existence of God. I have not encountered it before and it was very interesting to look into . I don't know if you accept the ontological argument as valid or not, but all the same I see no fault with the objections of Kant and Russel relating to P2 i.e. that existence is not a property that can be assigned to something, hence the argumument is flawed (if I understood the objection correctly).


As to Super Universe's reply:

First you ask for an argument for the existence of God then you want to know how a religion is right. Which is it?

Religions are about giving power to priests, they do not truly represent God.

As for my argument for the existence of God, if you don't believe then you're not supposed to believe. Go on with your life and quit wondering and asking questions about something you're obviously not supposed to know about.

I am interested in arguments relating to the exsistense of god, the nature of God, and religious claims about the world around us. Embedded in this is the question of what kind of knowledge these arguments or assertions rely on. I realize clearly that the topic title and and the following questions are not at all optimally stated, and apoligies to those who felt I changed the question to "dodge" replys, my intent was only to specify and correct the question to make clear what the thread was ment to be about. Cheers

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I have not encountered it before and it was very interesting to look into .

Well, you've got to start somewhere.

It seemed to many of us (obviously, I think) that you had propounded to have at least some basic knowledge about anything related to your question(s).

Why I am looking for this? Because so far I haven't found any, and I want to seek out arguments that opposes my present intellectual conclusion.

 

[Fluffy]

Fluffy: Thanks for the introduction to the ontological argument for the existence of God. I have not encountered it before and it was very interesting to look into

. I don't know if you accept the ontological argument as valid or not, but all the same I see no fault with the objections of Kant and Russel relating to P2 i.e. that existence is not a property that can be assigned to something, hence the argumument is flawed (if I understood the objection correctly).

I reject the ontological argument I gave as invalid for the reasons you give. I think that the best counterpoint to it can be derived from Frege who asserts that "existence" is a property of sets and not things.

Now Plantinga gets around this objection with the following format (again from wikipedia):

1. It is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists
5. Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. (By S5)
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

In this version of the ontological argument, we don't need existence to be a predicate and so Frege (and Kant and Russell)'s objection fails.

 

[Rioku]

About the original question, you really need to pay more attention to semantics when talking about religion and god. Nine times out of 10 people will ask you to define God then say your definition is not their definition of god, then they will go on about their definition of god. It is better if you approach the question, as in do you believe the bible / original testament / Koran then you can see that most people have never really read the text of their own religion.
But all in all, be very carfull with semantics.

Or a combination of all three!

A person could take their experience of their self, do alot of thinking (intellect) and then have an experience with the divine.

(I've (EDIT: almost) fully completed the first two (EDIT: still constantly learning and changing), still working on the third )

I would like to point out that it is a scientific fact that the brain can make things up, even if they have never happened.

i.e. It is far more rational that your experience with the divine is something you convinced yourself that you experience.
​

 

[Storm]

I would like to point out that it is a scientific fact that the brain can make things up, even if they have never happened.

i.e. It is far more rational that your experience with the divine is something you convinced yourself that you experience.​

Your bias is showing. You're advocating that people disregard the evidence if it doesn't fit with your worldview. (The exact position taken by the Young Earth Creationists, btw.) That's the opposite of rationality.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Just to say, god in general isnt abrahamic god...

 

[Storm]

That, too.

 

[methylatedghosts]

About the original question, you really need to pay more attention to semantics when talking about religion and god. Nine times out of 10 people will ask you to define God then say your definition is not their definition of god, then they will go on about their definition of god. It is better if you approach the question, as in do you believe the bible / original testament / Koran then you can see that most people have never really read the text of their own religion.
But all in all, be very carfull with semantics.​

But there is a problem when I do not have a "religion" As you may be able to see, I've labeled my religion as "Pick-'n'-mixism???" so I take bits from all over the place and fit them into my world view.

I would like to point out that it is a scientific fact that the brain can make things up, even if they have never happened.

I never suggested otherwise. But I am of sound mind and have no reason to believe otherwise. (Ok, one or two people might call me crazy but that's only because I dance, sing and am "far too happy" at work )

i.e. It is far more rational that your experience with the divine is something you convinced yourself that you experience.

So says you! I trust that it did occur to you that I may be able to have an experience and then reason my self through it and come to my own conclusions? Trust me, I do not subscribe to another's thinking. I do not take another's words as my own. I do not join the same train as another. I am the poet of my body and of my soul. I am the creator of my self and if I come to the same conclusions as another, and then another and then yet another, without their influence, then it can only be assumed that I am doing something right.

I must say though, that in the small amount of posts of mine you have seen, you seem to think you know quite alot about me. I can assure you it is quite the contrary and I'm sure many people here can vouch for my rationality and my sanity (ok - maybe not the second, but definately the first!). To know Who I Really Am you need to drop all your preconceptions about what you think I am and what you think I believe. Only then, can you begin to understand.

EDIT: I did catch your post before a mod edited it. So these last two paragraphs may not make too much sense to most other people, but you know what I'm replying to.

 

[Rorschach]

About the original question, you really need to pay more attention to semantics when talking about religion and god. Nine times out of 10 people will ask you to define God then say your definition is not their definition of god, then they will go on about their definition of god. It is better if you approach the question, as in do you believe the bible / original testament / Koran then you can see that most people have never really read the text of their own religion.
But all in all, be very carfull with semantics.
​

I totally agree. I should probably create another topic with precise definitions and questionframing to prevent semantic confusion.

 

[Rioku]

But I am of sound mind and have no reason to believe otherwise.
​

I actually have to agree with the mod for taking out my last sentence which was more of an insult then I meant it to be. The point I am trying to make is that research has shown and continues to show that "normal" people are not rational. I did not intend to say you are crazy, I believe you are an average person in which case that makes you not completely rational, just like me and every other average individual.

For example, research shows that in court trials witnesses are wrong %57 of the time ( I am siting this from memory so I might be off on the percentage). These witnesses will swear that the what they witnessed was the truth when in reality is far from it.

So when you or anyone else claims to have an experience with the divine, statistics show that it is more logical that you are convincing yourself of the experience.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

For example, research shows that in court trials witnesses are wrong %57 of the time ( I am siting this from memory so I might be off on the percentage).

I recall it as closer to 90%.

 

[Storm]

I actually have to agree with the mod for taking out my last sentence which was more of an insult then I meant it to be. The point I am trying to make is that research has shown and continues to show that "normal" people are not rational. I did not intend to say you are crazy, I believe you are an average person in which case that makes you not completely rational, just like me and every other average individual.

For example, research shows that in court trials witnesses are wrong %57 of the time ( I am siting this from memory so I might be off on the percentage). These witnesses will swear that the what they witnessed was the truth when in reality is far from it.

So when you or anyone else claims to have an experience with the divine, statistics show that it is more logical that you are convincing yourself of the experience.

No, that's a non sequitur.

I'll say it again: It is not logical or rational to reject evidence just because it doesn't support a particular worldview. If it were, YEC would be valid science.

 

[Fluffy]

I'll say it again: It is not logical or rational to reject evidence just because it doesn't support a particular worldview. If it were, YEC would be valid science.

How about if that evidence is not intersubjectively verifiable?

 

[Storm]

How about if that evidence is not intersubjectively verifiable?

Why should that make a difference to the one having the experience?

 

[methylatedghosts]

I actually have to agree with the mod for taking out my last sentence which was more of an insult then I meant it to be. The point I am trying to make is that research has shown and continues to show that "normal" people are not rational. I did not intend to say you are crazy, I believe you are an average person in which case that makes you not completely rational, just like me and every other average individual.

Ok, all is forgiven! Kiss and make up?

For example, research shows that in court trials witnesses are wrong %57 of the time ( I am siting this from memory so I might be off on the percentage). These witnesses will swear that the what they witnessed was the truth when in reality is far from it.

So when you or anyone else claims to have an experience with the divine, statistics show that it is more logical that you are convincing yourself of the experience.

I'm going to disagree to a point. I don't think that it's necessarily logical that I'm convincing myself. I think maybe it seems so to an outside observer. But (as insane as this may actually sound) there is a reality that many people do not see and once you have experienced it, you simply know what is and what isn't. And there is no convincing of the self, there is simply knowledge.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Why should that make a difference to the one having the experience?

Depends on how hard you kick them in the pants.