A Philosophical Argument for the Existence of God

[TheChristianEgoist]

This argument is different from many others (including the Kalam argument on this forum) in that it does not require (or really tolerate) the minutia of various theories of the special Sciences (like physics). It thoroughly anticipates and dismisses most major objections in the structure of the argument, itself.
You can find a full post of my argument, along with many clarifying comments and objections answered here: http://thechristianegoist.wordpress.com ... ble-mover/

1) Things can only act according to their natures. This is the law of causality.

2) Regarding action, the nature of a thing is either purposeful or accidental – meaning that an action is either purposeful or un-purposeful, intentional or unintentional. This is the law of the excluded middle applied to the nature of action.

3) Accidental actions are necessarily the result of some sort of interaction – which means that every accidental action necessitates a prior action of some kind.

4) There cannot be an infinite regress of accidental actions. An infinite regress of a series cannot exist because a series must have a beginning in order to exist.

5) There must have been an action which triggered the beginning of accidental action (3 & 4), and this ‘trigger’ action could not, itself, have been accidental (3).

6) If the beginning to accidental action could not have been accidental, then it must have been purposeful (2).

7) A purposeful action is a volitional action and volition presupposes a mind and values.

8) An actor with mind, values, and volition is a person.

9) A personal actor began all accidental action in the universe.

[Filthy Tugboat]

And I used your method to demonstrate that Christian God is logically possible as well. I just don't find the above demonstration anymore useful than simply asserting that it doesn't seem to contradict the laws of logic.

The difference is, that one word you use "Christian" has many other attributes to be considered, I personally know many people who argue that the "Christian" God does violate the laws of non-contradiction. I also have seen several different interpretations of this God violate the law of non-contradiction. So it all depends on what you mean when you add that adjective "Christian". The God that I put forth is not something I claim more knowledge of than just what I've written, I don't claim it's eternal, I don't claim to know it's origins, it's intentions or what it has done or witnessed of the universe apart from it playing a role in constructing the thing. All I have asserted is that this God exists (meaning it doesn't; exist(A) and not exist(~A) at the same time) and this God has being and form, it is identifiable.

My contention was that logical possibility of a thing cannot be demonstrated, insofar as logical possibility means that something doesn't contradict any laws of logic. Now you are suggesting that it could be demonstrated to a reasonable extent, and you did that by typing down the three fundamental laws of thought and asserted that your concept doesn't seem to contradict them (e.g. "without any other attributes to go on, this being does not violate the law of non-contradiction").

It doesn't* contradict them, all of my knowledge of this being and what I think it is, is logically consistent and coherent. Your only rebuttal was not accurate as you introduced far more of the concept without justifying the excess. Unless you use "Christian God" to mean, "pantheistic/deistic" God then just filling in the "Christian" into my simply assertion doesn't work as what most people associate with "Christian God" is far more complex and often, contradictory and logically inconsistent. You have basically done exactly what I'm arguing is illogical.

By people claim that this christian god created ex nilhilo. In fact, other religion and people claim similar; it's not exclusive to the maniac christian god.
That implies "Something (a god) can exist inside/outside nothing before it created everything (the universe we know of)? "
That is indeed saying it exist(A) and not exist(~A) at the same time. But it also says meaning it doesn't; exist(A) and not exist(~A) at the same time, because there was no time before he created everything from nothing.

I'm not claiming the Christian God exists.

I don't claim it's eternal, I don't claim to know it's origins, it's intentions or what it has done or witnessed of the universe apart from it playing a role in constructing the thing.

Why call it god then?

Because it concerns the nature of the universe.

or are you admitting this your god is just fictional, therefore it's actions (that you claim no no knowledge of) can be illogical, just not the god itself.
This is a wonderful example how people create gods to try and make them rational, and logical.

Perhaps you missed most of the posts between me and instantc, I am providing an example of a logically consistent God concept. That's all, it is hypothetical.

How can it be a god of it can not create anything, especially if you know nothing about it?

I never said it couldn't create anything, I also never said it created anything ex nihlo. You assuming that divinity = creation ex nihlo is silly. There is much and more I don't know, why would you think I know much about the formation of the universe?

Am not even sure you know yourself what you are assuming to argue here. Can you state your valid and sound argument clearly?

I made a proposition, not a fully fledged argument, I am merely putting forth a logically consistent deity.

A being exists that influenced or otherwise caused the formation of the universe, this being is a singular identifiable being that does exist.

[higgy1911]

I think your use of logic is pretty solid in demonstrating some of the reasons that we can never really disprove god. But I don't believe it succeeds in proving the existence of such an entity.
I fail to see how the logical distinction between purposeful and accidental actions proves anything. Either action is enabled by the prior existence of something or not. My purposeful actions are only enabled by my accidental existence. The difference does not resolve infinite regression.