One of the best arguments for God

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
AquinasForGod
Sage
Posts: 972
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2022 7:29 am
Location: USA
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 71 times

One of the best arguments for God

Post #1

Post by 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.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: One of the best arguments for God

Post #91

Post by Purple Knight »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:17 pmJust 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.
The really strong argument doesn't say anything about anybody's favourite - it just says the greatest conceivable being. I think it's a really good argument.

It's just that you can't have him smashing all the barriers or you ruin the premise that absolutely everything happens. You can have this being with the ability to smash barriers, only the multiverse does not care. Every time he smashes a barrier, and gets his hands in universe 1,742,326, right behind it is universe 1,742,326-A where he didn't interfere, because that's the nature of such a multiverse. And he can interfere in that one, and the next, and the next, and there's always one just behind it left pristine.

This type of multiverse makes sense and proves God. It proves Aslan too. It proves every version of every being with every power.

It's just that we might be in one of the universes that never has any experience with any of these beings, which means it's a godless universe as far as we're concerned.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: One of the best arguments for God

Post #92

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Purple Knight wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 10:50 pm
JoeyKnothead wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:17 pmJust 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.
The really strong argument doesn't say anything about anybody's favourite - it just says the greatest conceivable being. I think it's a really good argument.

It's just that you can't have him smashing all the barriers or you ruin the premise that absolutely everything happens. You can have this being with the ability to smash barriers, only the multiverse does not care. Every time he smashes a barrier, and gets his hands in universe 1,742,326, right behind it is universe 1,742,326-A where he didn't interfere, because that's the nature of such a multiverse. And he can interfere in that one, and the next, and the next, and there's always one just behind it left pristine.

This type of multiverse makes sense and proves God. It proves Aslan too. It proves every version of every being with every power.

It's just that we might be in one of the universes that never has any experience with any of these beings, which means it's a godless universe as far as we're concerned.
Can the greatest conceivable being conceive of an even greater conceivable being?
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: One of the best arguments for God

Post #93

Post by William »

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #92]
Can the greatest conceivable being conceive of an even greater conceivable being?
Perhaps, and this may explain a little as to why it's universes all the way down in out and all about.

They get created to explore the question and possibly provide an answer.

Would such a being even think the question? As in "Can I - the greatest conceivable being, conceive of an even greater conceivable being?"

The answer could have to be "yes - based upon the knowledge of my self I could do this."

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: One of the best arguments for God

Post #94

Post by JoeyKnothead »

William wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 12:13 am [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #92]
Can the greatest conceivable being conceive of an even greater conceivable being?
Perhaps, and this may explain a little as to why it's universes all the way down in out and all about.

They get created to explore the question and possibly provide an answer.

Would such a being even think the question? As in "Can I - the greatest conceivable being, conceive of an even greater conceivable being?"

The answer could have to be "yes - based upon the knowledge of my self I could do this."
Then that greater conceivable being becomes the greatest, so we wonder if the extra greater conceivable being can conceive of an even extraer greater conceivable being.

Which implies the previous greater conceivable being/s weren't the greatest conceivable being to begin with, and the whole concept collapses under the weight of an infinite pile of turtle carcasses?
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: One of the best arguments for God

Post #95

Post by William »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 12:53 am
William wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 12:13 am [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #92]
Can the greatest conceivable being conceive of an even greater conceivable being?
Perhaps, and this may explain a little as to why it's universes all the way down in out and all about.

They get created to explore the question and possibly provide an answer.

Would such a being even think the question? As in "Can I - the greatest conceivable being, conceive of an even greater conceivable being?"



The answer could have to be "yes - based upon the knowledge of my self I could do this."
Then that greater conceivable being becomes the greatest, so we wonder if the extra greater conceivable being can conceive of an even extraer greater conceivable being.
Yes. That would seem to be the case, following that chain of logic re the premise
Which implies the previous greater conceivable being/s weren't the greatest conceivable being to begin with, and the whole concept collapses under the weight of an infinite pile of turtle carcasses?
No. The being is always the same being, just getting greater and greater, even that the previous greatest being has been upgraded by the subsequent greatest being, ad infinitum.

Image

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: One of the best arguments for God

Post #96

Post by JoeyKnothead »

William wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 2:22 am ...
JK wrote: Which implies the previous greater conceivable being/s weren't the greatest conceivable being to begin with, and the whole concept collapses under the weight of an infinite pile of turtle carcasses?
No. The being is always the same being, just getting greater and greater, even that the previous greatest being has been upgraded by the subsequent greatest being, ad infinitum.

Image
A very most excellent return.

I sit here a defeated, but enlightened man, and that's the best defeat of all.

=D> :bow: :cool:
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: One of the best arguments for God

Post #97

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Yes. But we are at the old question - why is this God? This whole post was about (even if the apologetic wasn't) Reality and thesupreme hugeness of the entity we call Reality,Existence or (though I wish they wouldn't) evem "God".

And what it comes down to is whether it is intelligent. We've seen and heard all the tricks - equivocate it as a Creation and it must have an Creator, and some who a thinking entity has been smuggled into credibility. No, don't you dare even try that. Some with arguing first cause where - given the problem of unexplained origin - Intelligence or a conscious will,at least just makes two problems where there was one, and quoting the opening of John's gospel explains nothing and is an unverified faithclaim that the Faithful may think is an atheist - stumper, but isn't.

And we have seen the consciousness - apologetic which has been dead a long while. The evidence is that animal awareness can be traced back to instinctive reactions and that to chemical reactions (and the cheap 'just chemistry' jibe which makes no more sense than sneering at wide body jets as 'just paper darts') and while the development of human ability is remarkable, it is on evidence an evolved ability and we don't need a cosmic intelligence to explain it and we haven't for several decades.

In fact the oft -repeated stock apologetics have been dead for decades by the Bible - apologists keep rattling the old bones and pretending they are alive and well. There is, in short, no valid or decent case for a cosmic intelligence, not even this or that 'Universal constant' because when (if ) we find out why it is, there is no reason to suppose it was 'God came up with a number'.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: One of the best arguments for God

Post #98

Post by JoeyKnothead »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:20 am Yes. But we are at the old question - why is this God? This whole post was about (even if the apologetic wasn't) Reality and thesupreme hugeness of the entity we call Reality,Existence or (though I wish they wouldn't) evem "God".

And what it comes down to is whether it is intelligent. We've seen and heard all the tricks - equivocate it as a Creation and it must have an Creator, and some who a thinking entity has been smuggled into credibility. No, don't you dare even try that. Some with arguing first cause where - given the problem of unexplained origin - Intelligence or a conscious will,at least just makes two problems where there was one, and quoting the opening of John's gospel explains nothing and is an unverified faithclaim that the Faithful may think is an atheist - stumper, but isn't.

And we have seen the consciousness - apologetic which has been dead a long while. The evidence is that animal awareness can be traced back to instinctive reactions and that to chemical reactions (and the cheap 'just chemistry' jibe which makes no more sense than sneering at wide body jets as 'just paper darts') and while the development of human ability is remarkable, it is on evidence an evolved ability and we don't need a cosmic intelligence to explain it and we haven't for several decades.

In fact the oft -repeated stock apologetics have been dead for decades by the Bible - apologists keep rattling the old bones and pretending they are alive and well. There is, in short, no valid or decent case for a cosmic intelligence, not even this or that 'Universal constant' because when (if ) we find out why it is, there is no reason to suppose it was 'God came up with a number'.
Yep.

To me the most compelling case for gods is that the concept is comfort food for the soul.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: One of the best arguments for God

Post #99

Post by TRANSPONDER »

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #98]


To me, it's more like a reason to think that god are created by man in their own image, or the images of their Most Pretty Things.

User avatar
boatsnguitars
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
Has thanked: 477 times
Been thanked: 580 times

Re: One of the best arguments for God

Post #100

Post by boatsnguitars »

AquinasForGod wrote: Sat Jan 14, 2023 9:27 pm
The Tanager wrote: Sat Jan 14, 2023 4:45 pm [Replying to AquinasForGod in post #1]

I've wanted to look at this more in depth recently. The problem I’m having involves the idea of necessary existence. Why is God’s existence necessary in this modal sense? Why can’t we imagine a unicorn that has necessary existence to where this necessary unicorn exists in a possible world?
Consider first what possible and necessary means in modal logic, since Plantinga is using a modal argument.

Possible - complete and consistent to the world being described. All the propositions about the possible world need to be consistent.
Necessary - The propositions are true in every possible world, i.e. consistent in every possible world.

You can try to do it. Come up with propositions about a unicorn and see if they can be consistent in every world. Can we imagine a world in which this unicorn doesn't exist or could have existed never obtained? If so, then it is not necessary.

The propositions about God is that God is maximally great. God is all powerful, for example. This is consistent with a possible world. Is there any possible world where it is inconsistent for there to exist a being that is all powerful? It doesn't seem so. No one is arguing for such an impossibility. What would a an all powerful being be in conflict with?

Because God is consistent with every possible world, then God is possibly necessary.
So, it is possible for some being to be the worst ever? It must exist, because it's worse for something bad to exist than not exist, therefore it must exist. Therefore, there is an Anti-God that exists in a complete and opposite way that God exists and counteracts God in every way....

Modal logic! Fun!

But this creates a contradiction: God can't be all-powerful.

Therefore, the most likely conclusion is God doesn't exist (or Anti-God, for that matter).
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm

Post Reply