Are philosophical arguments proof of God's existance?

[OnceConvinced]

In another thread, which has now reached over 500 posts, we have one theist insisting that his philosophical argument (The Ontological argument) is proof of God's existence. However he refuses to acknowledge that it is unreasonable that we should have to take his initial presumptions about the properties of gods before we start. He does not seem to realise that he is using the logical fallacy of "Begging the question" even though it has been pointed out to him several times.

Let's see what other members of this site think. Are philosophical arguments eg, the Ontological argument proof of God's existence?

Are they begging the question?

Are they simply just mind games that require presumptions to begin with?

[Divine Insight]

I can give purely philosophical arguments for the existence of a "God". However there are to facts about those arguments.

1. They only make sense if I am permitted to define what I mean by "God".

And

2. Even if these purely philosophical arguments for the existence of this imagined "God" an be shown to be perfectly logical (i.e. containing no self-contradictions), that still doesn't prove that this purely philosophical God must necessarily exist anyway.

Having said the above, the Ontological Argument for "God" fails because that argument requires that its arbitrarily defined "God" must exist in our real world, but our real world clearly does not satisfy the conditions required for this arbitrarily defined God to exist.

In short, the Ontological Argument is not an argument of "pure philosophy" precisely because it makes demands about what our real world must be like. Demands that don't match up with what our real world is actually like. Therefore if fails as a practical matter.

As a "purely philosophical" argument within pure imagination (i.e. ignoring the existence of our actual world) one could claim that such an imaginary God exists. However that would then require that our real world does not exist which is kind of silly.

So no, these kind of philosophical arguments for the existence of a "God" fail miserably in any practical sense.

~~~~~

Just for the record, I can define a God that would even be compatible with our actual world and that still wouldn't prove that it exists. It would, however, suggest that such a God could "possibly" exist.

[Zzyzx]

.
OC, the 'philosophers' and wannabes may hesitate to participate -- since the OP basically destroys their 'arguments' (which FAIL unless all involved agree to accept their definitions and assumptions).

Many Theists do not seem to recognize 'Begging the question" -- also known as Circular Argument, Circulus in Probando, Petitio Principii, Vicious Circle

Any form of argument in which the conclusion occurs as one of the premisses. More generally, a chain of arguments in which the final conclusion is a premiss of one of the earlier arguments in the chain. Still more generally, an argument begs the question when it assumes any controversial point not conceded by the other side.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html

Their 'argument' is something along the line of ,'Believe (accept these definitions and presuppositions) and I can prove that God exists'.

I give readers more credit than to fall for that tactic. Debaters have clearly demonstrated that they do not.

[Bust Nak]

If they could deductively prove God then philosophers would use the term "proof" instead of "argument."

[Anomaly]

[Replying to post 1 by OnceConvinced]

Are philosophical arguments eg, the Ontological argument proof of God's existence?

Philosophical arguments are like any other kind of argument: they carry various degrees of weight for a given proposition. No single argument "proves" a complex proposition like "Does God exist?"