One of the best arguments for God

[AquinasForGod]

One of the best arguments for God is the response to the modal ontological argument.

To read my full argument, go here - https://www.freelymeditate.com/single-p ... ts-for-god

And to read about ontological arguments and the modal ontological argument go to the Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/onto ... n%20alone.

Question for Debate: Can atheists prove God is impossible?

The reason that is the question for debate is because that is the counter to Plantinga's ontological argument. If you read the link to the SFP, provided above, you will notice that his ontological argument is valid. This means that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. Thus to show the argument is not sound, you must show one of the premises are untrue. The only premise that you can really do that with is the first premise, which is that God is possible.

You could reject modal logic, I suppose, but that doesn't seem reasonable.

Also, the so-called defeater to this argument is why this argument is so good. It runs the argument in reverse, called a symmetry breaker. However, to run this argument in reverse is simply to state that God is impossible. Who argues that? Thus my question for debate. Can you argue that God is impossible?

If you wish to use the so-caleld symmetry breaker to the modal ontological argument to claim you defeated the argument, then you must defend the first premise, which is that God cannot exist in any possible world, yet that seems wrong. Why would God be impossible?

If you cannot defend the first premise, then you haven't defeated the argument. In other words, if you agree that God is possible, then Plantinga's argument goes through. It is sound and thus God is true.

In other words, you have to claim Plantinga's first premise is not true, which states that God is possible. If that premise is false, then you are saying God is impossible.

His argument is so powerful because it only leaves you with a few options.

1. God exists.
2. God is impossible, and cannot possibly exist. (Good luck trying to argue that. )
3. Reject modal logic.

[historia]

Whenever I see arguments for God presented, I am always puzzled.

Perhaps I can assist with your confusion on this point, then.

If God actually existed, why would we need arguments to prove its existence?

Because we always need arguments to establish the existence of something we cannot directly observe.

In the course of human inquiry, we often make inferences about things we can't directly observe based on evidence we can observe.

Consider, for example, your same dismissive argument, but now substitute Dark Matter instead:

If Dark Matter actually existed, why would we need arguments to prove its existence? It'd be like needing arguments to prove the sun exists. Of course, I suppose cosmologists need something to do with their time.

Or about a person or event of the past:

If Narmer (the first Egyptian pharaoh) actually existed, why would we need arguments to prove his existence? It'd be like needing arguments to prove the sun exists. Of course, I suppose egyptologists need something to do with their time.

Suggesting something doesn't (or didn't) exist solely because you can't directly observe it would be silly.

[brunumb]

[Replying to historia in post #31]

Dark Matter will not be argued into existence. It has been hypothesised and there are arguments about what it could be and how it could behave, but it will only be accepted as existing when some confirming evidence is found.

[TRANSPONDER]

Don't want to believe? I think you mean just don't believe. Why is this always framed as something people can just want and then it happens? We only believe things we are convinced of.

This is such an important truth to point out. I became an atheist because I wanted to believe or rather keep believing. As a Christian I was struggling with things in the Bible that didn't make any sense and with the realization that certain beliefs some Christians hold don't match reality. I turned to the Bible and trusted Christian leaders to find resolution to these problems. After a few years effort I realized there weren't any and no matter how much I wanted to keep believing I simply couldn't. I couldn't believe that which I wasn't convinced was true.

At the end of the day, I'm not sure why theists bring these logical arguments up rather than just producing some verifiable evidence. Oh wait, I do know...

Yep, if there were a maximally most everything God, there'd be plenty of verifiable evidence sufficient to establish its existence. Unless perhaps it also possesses maximal stage fright. That'd be a tough one to overcome.


Tcg

Very good. It doesn't look good when the Believers start accusing the unbelievers of not Wanting to believe. (playing the bias card). We could say they Want to believe, and in fact can prove it by pointing to the illogical argument that God has to be disproved or a more unlikely hypothesis or possibility is somehow validation of God; it isn't. We would credit the more likely alternative to God and logically should not consider the God -claim validated. We know why, a priori godfaith which means they take God as a given unless totally disproved which is why they consider undisprovables, remote possible excuses and just faithbased denial of validated evidence are arguments for Godfaith. And it's why the Ontological arguments are even presented; they need Godfaith to work.

Accusations of bias are mere smearing; they are not arguments. Bias either way doesn't matter; the validity of the argument does. Clearly some of our opponents in the debate are smart; Plantinga is smart; Anselm was smart; Lane -Craig is a smart fellow; so are they all, all smart fellows. But they make bad or at least unsound arguments because Godfaith makes them choose the less good or indeed unsound argument over the better or more sound arguments because they want to believe, and that's not a disproof but what leads to a disprovable apologetic.

Your experience is not uncommon, in the past when I read a lot of deconversion - stories, I saw that trying to validate the Bible (to themselves or to unbelievers) was what caused the eventual loss of Faith, in Bible, Biblkegod and Christianity if not in God. We have seen one or two irreligious theists here who don't believe the Bible or religion but who fight like mad for First cause. Which isn't even important as it has no effect on our lives. I can only think it matters to them as it is the last bit of their Godfaith.

[TRANSPONDER]

Question for Debate: Can atheists prove God is impossible?

No one can prove a creator or creators of this universe, is impossible.

That answered, the premise should start with "We exist within a creation" because no one can prove that we do not.

This then implies a creator or creators are involved.

What it does not imply, is the nature of said creator or creators, so even that it is currently impossible to prove a creator or creators is/are impossible, this does not mean any particular religious views re the nature of said creator or creators are therefore that which should fill the gap.

Much more investigation is required.

Much more. The problem is with the term'creation' and 'creator'. They are very loaded terms that imply an existant Something that caused the universe or what they call 'sigularity' before the universe to 'create' it. Never mind an intelligent being that dunnit.

You don't need to tell me the problem; I'm at this time bit-watching as video 'what was before the universe?' and the problem keeps getting kicked down the road; this was before the Universe'. Ok, so where did that come from. I am as aware of the argument as any Theist and if I rather favor (or even favour - you can't put anything beyond ol' Sponder) something from nothing, it is because it's the only suggestion that doesn't kick the can down the road. It solves all the problems other than one - How?

[TRANSPONDER]

One of the best arguments for God is the response to the modal ontological argument.

Is this argument then why most people become God believers? Probably not.

Heck, do (many/most/all) believers know what this argument even is and proposes? Probably not.

Does this then mean people are coming to their beliefs in god for inferior/lesser reasons?

So if it's the best argument, why is it not a "house hold" one? Too difficult to understand, other?

Does the title say it is the best or one of the best?

Allow me to slightly tweak my questions. You will notice the questions are still relevant.

Is this argument one the arguments which brings most people to becoming God believers? Probably not.

Heck, do (many/most/all) believers know what this argument even is and proposes? Probably not.

Does this then mean people are coming to their beliefs in god for inferior/lesser reasons?

So if this is one of the best arguments, why is it not a "house hold" one? Too difficult to understand, other?

Because it looks good. As an atheist - stumper it looks great. It looks like a sound or valid logical proposition or construct that leads to a logical outcome - a god must exist. Name your own, but that'll do for the leap of Faith to the Bible. Once a god of any kind is validated, then a lot of the Biblical arguments based on acceptance of a Creator will stand up that never did before. Genesis - creation will be as good as validated because the Creator is proven by a logical construct. Ok, some excuses and fiddles have to be proposed, but the skeptics are on the back foot; they now have to disprove a creation that has been validated. Before, we didn't. Burden of proof was on the theist (though they would never admit it). This is why, though a creator of some sort doesn't bother atheists in itself, it has to be resisted as it reverses the burden of proof;it gives the Creationist a springboard for the leap of Faith to the Bible.

So - if it was valid, it would be one of the best. Others are easy to understand and even doorstoop evangelists can use them: "Who made everything, then?", "The disciples would not die for a lie" and 'The empty tomb proves the resurrection".

Unfortunately, they are easy for the doubters to understand as well and (apart from the empty tomb ) are easy to oppose. The ontological argument is a bit tougher - Even if the atheist can understand it, it looks like a valid proposition.

"Wrong...but I don't know where" (Charlie Brown).

I'm no philosopher, but even I could see the absurdity of 'if we can imagine it, it must exist' and Anselm of Canterbury saw it, too and tried to address it by kicking the can down thew road...much as Materialists kick the first cause can down the road with the Big bang. Problem still exists.

That vid I posted does far better. It pointed up some special pleading. I thought of the 'Santa' argument; Goes like this:

'Believing in God is no more valid than believing in Santa.'

'You can't compare God and Santa; Santa only delivers toys; God made everything.'

'But that is a mundane view of Santa - a limited view by man, like a god who pushed through the undergrowth, shouting to Adam to come out from wherever he was. Believers now make god Cosmic sized, invisible and a creator; well so is Santa, if we only knew it'.

That was effectively the 'Greater Pizza' where you ascribe qualities of greatness to a god but not to a pizza. 'But it's ridiculous; a Pizza is not a creator.'

'We don't know that God is a creator either, that is only a faithclaim'.

Which is where we came in; the ontological argument fails because it is founded on an unsound parameter: Godfaith.

[William]

Question for Debate: Can atheists prove God is impossible?

No one can prove a creator or creators of this universe, is impossible.

That answered, the premise should start with "We exist within a creation" because no one can prove that we do not.

This then implies a creator or creators are involved.

What it does not imply, is the nature of said creator or creators, so even that it is currently impossible to prove a creator or creators is/are impossible, this does not mean any particular religious views re the nature of said creator or creators are therefore that which should fill the gap.

Much more investigation is required.

Much more. The problem is with the term'creation' and 'creator'. They are very loaded terms that imply an existant Something that caused the universe or what they call 'sigularity' before the universe to 'create' it. Never mind an intelligent being that dunnit.

You don't need to tell me the problem; I'm at this time bit-watching as video 'what was before the universe?' and the problem keeps getting kicked down the road; this was before the Universe'. Ok, so where did that come from. I am as aware of the argument as any Theist and if I rather favor (or even favour - you can't put anything beyond ol' Sponder) something from nothing, it is because it's the only suggestion that doesn't kick the can down the road. It solves all the problems other than one - How?

Infinite regress/progress is not off the table re that. Whether the term is creator/creators/God, it all means the same, re the question "do we exist within a creation" and something from nothing is more of a problem.

[TRANSPONDER]

Question for Debate: Can atheists prove God is impossible?

No one can prove a creator or creators of this universe, is impossible.

That answered, the premise should start with "We exist within a creation" because no one can prove that we do not.

This then implies a creator or creators are involved.

What it does not imply, is the nature of said creator or creators, so even that it is currently impossible to prove a creator or creators is/are impossible, this does not mean any particular religious views re the nature of said creator or creators are therefore that which should fill the gap.

Much more investigation is required.

Much more. The problem is with the term'creation' and 'creator'. They are very loaded terms that imply an existant Something that caused the universe or what they call 'sigularity' before the universe to 'create' it. Never mind an intelligent being that dunnit.

You don't need to tell me the problem; I'm at this time bit-watching as video 'what was before the universe?' and the problem keeps getting kicked down the road; this was before the Universe'. Ok, so where did that come from. I am as aware of the argument as any Theist and if I rather favor (or even favour - you can't put anything beyond ol' Sponder) something from nothing, it is because it's the only suggestion that doesn't kick the can down the road. It solves all the problems other than one - How?

Infinite regress/progress is not off the table re that. Whether the term is creator/creators/God, it all means the same, re the question "do we exist within a creation" and something from nothing is more of a problem.

In these times of the holographic universe and time that runs backwards, I don't know what is impossible. I can even suggest a circle of time that joins up to make an infinity of turtles all the way round like a gay convention, and not even an eternal universe (cosmos) can be ruled out,counter - intuitive though it appears. Not even an intelligent creator. Whichever one it is, if any. And something from nothing is Not off the table, in fact logically it has a lot going for it, other than one of the rules of Physics - the kind we have often seen broken before. And while I don't disagree that it means the same I won't use the term 'Creation'; but prefer the 'cosmos', 'Reality' or even 'Existence'', because, while you would not be guilty of doing this, 'Creation' (never mind 'Creator' ) just begs to be equivocated to look like it proved Biblegod. So, you may use it as much as you like, but I won't be biting.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #37]

Agnostic: Infinite regress/progress is not off the table re that. Whether the term is creator/creators/God, it all means the same, re the question "do we exist within a creation" and something from nothing is more of a problem.

Atheist: In these times of the holographic universe and time that runs backwards, I don't know what is impossible. I can even suggest a circle of time that joins up to make an infinity of turtles all the way round like a gay convention, and not even an eternal universe (cosmos) can be ruled out,counter -intuitive though it is.Not even an intelligent creator. Whichever one it is, if any.

Agnostic: This is where I find the GM system helpful. Todays message is on point in that regard.
Re: Generating Messages - Supernatural

Atheist: And something from nothing is Not off the table, in fact logically it has a lot going for it, other than one of the rules of Physics - the kind we have often seen broken before.

Agnostic: You would have to support this. Presently there is no reason I have seen to include the idea of "something from nothing" even that - as an idea - it supports the bias of they who prefer to be atheists.
One can argue the same re they who prefer to be theists - that as an idea, only something from something is logical, thus - as counter -intuitive as it may be, it is accepted.

Atheist: And while I don't disagree that it means the same I won't use the term 'Creation'; but prefer the 'cosmos', 'Reality' or even 'Existence'', because, while you would not be guilty of doing this, 'Creation' (never mind 'Creator' ) just begs to be equivocated to look like it proved Biblegod,so, you may use it as much as you like, but I won't be biting.

Agnostic: Biblegod has as much right to remain as any other type God, so we bite when we feel to, even if it is just to critique the notion.
'Cosmos', 'Reality' or even 'Existence' - as terms - do not somehow magically make the word 'creation' disappear from the table. We are discussing the same thing, regardless of how it is labelled, and I use the term 'creation' with in mind that the fundamental question we are all asking, isn't "is there a Creator-God [and then busy ourselves with arguing which image, if any, of this Creator- God best fits the situation we are all experiencing...

...but rather - the fundamental question we are asking is "Do we exist within a creation".

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #37]

Agnostic: Infinite regress/progress is not off the table re that. Whether the term is creator/creators/God, it all means the same, re the question "do we exist within a creation" and something from nothing is more of a problem.

Atheist: In these times of the holographic universe and time that runs backwards, I don't know what is impossible. I can even suggest a circle of time that joins up to make an infinity of turtles all the way round like a gay convention, and not even an eternal universe (cosmos) can be ruled out,counter -intuitive though it is.Not even an intelligent creator. Whichever one it is, if any.

Agnostic: This is where I find the GM system helpful. Todays message is on point in that regard.
Re: Generating Messages - Supernatural

Atheist: And something from nothing is Not off the table, in fact logically it has a lot going for it, other than one of the rules of Physics - the kind we have often seen broken before.

Agnostic: You would have to support this. Presently there is no reason I have seen to include the idea of "something from nothing" even that - as an idea - it supports the bias of they who prefer to be atheists.
One can argue the same re they who prefer to be theists - that as an idea, only something from something is logical, thus - as counter -intuitive as it may be, it is accepted.

Atheist: And while I don't disagree that it means the same I won't use the term 'Creation'; but prefer the 'cosmos', 'Reality' or even 'Existence'', because, while you would not be guilty of doing this, 'Creation' (never mind 'Creator' ) just begs to be equivocated to look like it proved Biblegod,so, you may use it as much as you like, but I won't be biting.

Agnostic: Biblegod has as much right to remain as any other type God, so we bite when we feel to, even if it is just to critique the notion.
'Cosmos', 'Reality' or even 'Existence' - as terms - do not somehow magically make the word 'creation' disappear from the table. We are discussing the same thing, regardless of how it is labelled, and I use the term 'creation' with in mind that the fundamental question we are all asking, isn't "is there a Creator-God [and then busy ourselves with arguing which image, if any, of this Creator- God best fits the situation we are all experiencing...

...but rather - the fundamental question we are asking is "Do we exist within a creation".

I am an agnostic and an atheist too - the distinction you make is no difference. Like making a distinction between a palaeontologist and a scientist. And if you put a gun to my head and forced me to choose I'd say: 'No, I will not say that we exist within a creation, because I don't know whether it was created or had some other origin'. I would rather say that 'we exist within an existing (and real) Cosmos.' as that appears to avoid the main logical pitfalls. And that I'd say out of sheer preference for logical clarity, even if I wan not suspicious of your ongoing effort to get me to say something so eminently quotemineable as 'we exist within a creation'.

[historia]

Dark Matter will not be argued into existence.

Indeed, nothing can be "argued into existence," that's a nonsensical assertion.

Arguments marshal logic and evidence toward a particular conclusion so that we have justification for believing something about the world.

There are lots of things you and I believe about the world -- the Cambrian explosion, cosmic inflation, black holes, etc. -- that require arguments. We can't directly observe these things, we can only infer their existence from evidence we can observe.

So the suggestion made earlier that if something exists or is true it shouldn't require arguments and should be as evident as the sun in the sky is also a nonsensical assertion.