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.

[Purple Knight]

Oh dear god, that means there's a universe where I get married again!

Exactly. And there's one where you don't. One where you never did. One where you're a Mormon and have a dozen wives. Because. everything. happens.

This "everything happens that is possible" is all creationists need to get God in the door (through note, it is not specifically the Christian God).

Because once everything happens, God happens. Now here's where the argument fails: They say that this greatest conceivable being can cross universes; if he exists in one then he exists in all.

No, because everything happens. Just as there's a universe where you didn't marry Una Mae, there's a universe God didn't happen to cross into. He may have the ability and chose not to, or it may be that every time he interferes, there is simply another otherwise identical universe "behind" the one he interfered in. That seems like the nature of the universe in a multiverse that can generate omnipotent universe-hoppers. Because the universe that God didn't interfere in might be this one, as far as we're concerned God might not exist.

I'm actually giving the modal ontological argument 99% credit. It's great. And it proves Aslan exists. But only in Narnia. It also proves there is a version of our world where Aslan comes sometimes. But this might not be that version.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #67]

That's just what I'm calling it. If absolutely every possibility happens.

Any universe which is not observed, may as well not exist.

It may be observed but only by people inside of it.

Observed nonetheless....and as you wrote earlier;

It is the observer who gains new information he would not have had without the other universe. He is the tamperer, and he tampers with his own universe. His universe is now different.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #71]

Because the universe that God didn't interfere in might be this one, as far as we're concerned God might not exist.

I think what you are getting at is that if a God has not observed this - our universe - then the God wouldn't exist in our universe. Would that be a correct understanding of what you are attempting to convey PK?

[neverknewyou]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #1]

"Question for Debate: Can atheists prove God is impossible?"

Yes, but not to a believer that can't reason.

I would like to hear you evidence that shows God cannot possibly exist.

God is a mere belief. I can't prove that god exists outside of our imagination and neither can you.

[William]

Question for Debate: Can atheists prove God is impossible?

P1: Yes, but not to a believer that can't reason.


P2: I would like to hear your evidence that shows God cannot possibly exist.


P3: God is a mere belief. I can't prove that god exists outside of our imagination and neither can you.


P4: We can't even prove that the reality we are experiencing is 'outside our imagination'...as it may be 'inside the imagination of a God'.

Thus, there is still work to do re that...

[TRANSPONDER]

Question for Debate: Can atheists prove God is impossible?

P1: Yes, but not to a believer that can't reason.


P2: I would like to hear your evidence that shows God cannot possibly exist.


P3: God is a mere belief. I can't prove that god exists outside of our imagination and neither can you.


P4: We can't even prove that the reality we are experiencing is 'outside our imagination'...as it may be 'inside the imagination of a God'.

Thus, there is still work to do re that...

You have really got to stop this business of manipulating the debate to suit yourself and stuffing words into atheists' mouths, especially since even Theists by now know what we actually say:

We can't prove a god is impossible and we don't even require that theists prove it possible. All we require is some convincing evidence for a god. And,no,not even Fine tuning of various kinds really does that. Never mind a particular god.

The stuff about imagination at the most raises an unknown or hypothetical and proves nothing, but appears todo the same thing that these types of arguments do - ignore the material default,which is ther go -to argument until something outside of imagination (or reality) is demonstrated. Until then the demonstrated material workings of physics are the default theory.

I suggest that it won't do you any good in the long run to post show - trial transcript of the kind above.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #26]

YOu are not arguing for why evil is an existing thing in the world rather than the absence of something. I gave an argument as to why evil is not a thing in the world but the absence the good.

[brunumb]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #26]

YOu are not arguing for why evil is an existing thing in the world rather than the absence of something. I gave an argument as to why evil is not a thing in the world but the absence the good.

Then we just end up on a see-saw. Good is not a thing in the world but the absence the evil.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #26]

YOu are not arguing for why evil is an existing thing in the world rather than the absence of something. I gave an argument as to why evil is not a thing in the world but the absence the good.

Then we just end up on a see-saw. Good is not a thing in the world but the absence the evil.

Ye olde tomato / potato conundrum.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #26]

YOu are not arguing for why evil is an existing thing in the world rather than the absence of something. I gave an argument as to why evil is not a thing in the world but the absence the good.

Both evil and good are subjective opinions. Simply defining one as the absence of the other is just a convenient, sematic word game that can be played both ways.

Does doing harm on purpose exist in the world? Do you consider doing harm on purpose evil sometimes? My answers are yes and yes so QED as far as I'm concerned.

Both the concepts of good and evil exist. Trying to argue one doesn't really exist (because it's just the lack of the other one) to prop up a religious apologetic doesn't seem to stand the test of scrutiny.

If you think you are being convincing, then please continue. You're not fooling some of us though, that's for sure.