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.

[TRANSPONDER]

[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.

Which is irrelevant if good and evil are merely human preferences and conventions, not an objective universal Law (Aka a value imposed by a god, name your own). It's the old business of making a faith -claim which doesn't comport with what we are understanding about human behaviour, and even if 'objective god -given morality'was true, you'd still have to show which god it was. The theist argument (rather like the one you posted recently about explaining colour to a blind man) relies on claiming the existence of an entity for which there is no good evidence and even then that leaves the believer with the job of validating a particular belief - system.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #76]
William: Please give feedback on the following:

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...

OAI: The question presented is asking whether or not atheists can prove that God is impossible, and the following points offer different perspectives on this question.

P1 suggests that it is possible for atheists to prove that God is impossible, but only to those who are willing to reason. This implies that some people may not be open to evidence that contradicts their belief in God.

P2 is asking for evidence that would show that God cannot possibly exist. This implies that the person would like to see some kind of proof or argument that would convince them that God does not exist.

P3 states that God is a belief and that neither the speaker nor anyone else can prove that God exists outside of our imagination. This implies that the speaker sees God as something that people believe in, but that there is no actual evidence to support the existence of God.

P4 suggests that it is difficult to prove that the reality we are experiencing is outside of our imagination, and that it is possible that our reality is inside the imagination of a God. This implies that the speaker is open to the idea that our understanding of reality may be limited and that there is still more to explore about the nature of reality and God's existence.

Overall, the debate question and the points presented imply that proving the non-existence of God is not a simple task and requires more than an assumption, but they also suggest that there is no evidence or proof that God exists.

William: P4 appears to be saying that the evidence is the same, but is processed through theistic and atheistic filters and that it we exist within the imagination of a GOD, then the evidence of that could just as easily be regarded as evidence for GODs existence

OAI: Yes, that is a possible interpretation of P4. It suggests that the evidence for God's existence and the evidence against God's existence may be the same, but that it is being viewed through different filters or perspectives. The idea that we exist within the imagination of a God implies that our understanding of reality may be limited and that there may be other ways to interpret the evidence. It also suggests that it is possible to regard the evidence as pointing to the existence of God, depending on one's perspective. Overall, P4 is suggesting that the question of God's existence is complex and that different perspectives may lead to different conclusions about the evidence.

[Purple Knight]

[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?

I don't find a functional difference from what I'm saying, which is that if everything possible exists, so be it, God exists in some universe, but not necessarily ours.

I'm thinking physical tampering but I don't see a meaningful difference from mere observation. I'm thinking along the lines of what people say a god does, saving souls and whatnot. He can save every soul, but every time he reaches into a new universe and saves all the souls there, it turns out there was another identical universe behind that one, where he didn't reach. He can do the same again, and the same will happen again.

[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?

I don't find a functional difference from what I'm saying, which is that if everything possible exists, so be it, God exists in some universe, but not necessarily ours.

I'm thinking physical tampering but I don't see a meaningful difference from mere observation. I'm thinking along the lines of what people say a god does, saving souls and whatnot. He can save every soul, but every time he reaches into a new universe and saves all the souls there, it turns out there was another identical universe behind that one, where he didn't reach. He can do the same again, and the same will happen again.

Given the idea that GOD is eternal, why would this be significant to whatever it is you are arguing?

[Purple Knight]

Given the idea that GOD is eternal, why would this be significant to whatever it is you are arguing?

Because even if the argument that everything possible happens makes God a certainty, it only makes him a certainty somewhere, and not necessarily here. It always might be the case that God doesn't exist in, observe, or take part in our reality at all.

[William]

Given the idea that GOD is eternal, why would this be significant to whatever it is you are arguing?

Because even if the argument that everything possible happens makes God a certainty, it only makes him a certainty somewhere, and not necessarily here. It always might be the case that God doesn't exist in, observe, or take part in our reality at all.

If that were the case, it is unlikely any of us would be discussing God as a concept.
That we are doing so, can be considered as evidence that a God has been observing the existence of our universe and therefore does know about the existence of our universe, therefore has engaged/is engaging with our universe.

[Purple Knight]

Given the idea that GOD is eternal, why would this be significant to whatever it is you are arguing?

Because even if the argument that everything possible happens makes God a certainty, it only makes him a certainty somewhere, and not necessarily here. It always might be the case that God doesn't exist in, observe, or take part in our reality at all.

If that were the case, it is unlikely any of us would be discussing God as a concept.
That we are doing so, can be considered as evidence that a God has been observing the existence of our universe and therefore does know about the existence of our universe, therefore has engaged/is engaging with our universe.

It could be, but the argument that God must exist is founded on the idea that every possibility happens. So us all being hysterical and making it all up from nothing is still possible, because that, too, happens at least once. It might happen less, and therefore your statement of evidence for is absolutely valid, but it, like everything else, happens at least once.

[JoeyKnothead]

Given the idea that GOD is eternal, why would this be significant to whatever it is you are arguing?

Because even if the argument that everything possible happens makes God a certainty, it only makes him a certainty somewhere, and not necessarily here. It always might be the case that God doesn't exist in, observe, or take part in our reality at all.

If that were the case, it is unlikely any of us would be discussing God as a concept.
That we are doing so, can be considered as evidence that a God has been observing the existence of our universe and therefore does know about the existence of our universe, therefore has engaged/is engaging with our universe.

It could be, but the argument that God must exist is founded on the idea that every possibility happens. So us all being hysterical and making it all up from nothing is still possible, because that, too, happens at least once. It might happen less, and therefore your statement of evidence for is absolutely valid, but it, like everything else, happens at least once.

That's the problem with "possibility".

Just as the theist claims it's "possible" their favored god exists in all possible worlds, it immediately presents the claim it's possible he doesn't exist in any of em.

[Conversator]

Regardless of topic, be it a deity, a phantom goblin, some voodoo spirit in the woods, etc, if it can only be disputed in the abstract, a red flag must go up. Why must it be disputed in the abstract? Does it merit being disputed in the abstract? Is it confined to the abstract? Is it conscious that its being disputed in the abstract? Will disputations free it from the abstract, or does it remain there still?

[William]

Regardless of topic, be it a deity, a phantom goblin, some voodoo spirit in the woods, etc, if it can only be disputed in the abstract, a red flag must go up. Why must it be disputed in the abstract? Does it merit being disputed in the abstract? Is it confined to the abstract? Is it conscious that its being disputed in the abstract? Will disputations free it from the abstract, or does it remain there still?

We have to remember that what we call 'the abstract' can be experienced by the GOD as real.

One thought experiment which may help us with this idea, is that some Faery Folk in The Universe of Faery's et al may believe that a universe like ours actually exists, but our universe would be considered an abstract idea in that Universe, and the goblins might mock the folk who have such ideas and perhaps even think them as being deluded, especially those Faery who have alternate experiences where they actually see and interact with our universe, if but a glimpse, but for a moment...