A Philosophical Argument for the Existence of God

[TheChristianEgoist]

This argument is different from many others (including the Kalam argument on this forum) in that it does not require (or really tolerate) the minutia of various theories of the special Sciences (like physics). It thoroughly anticipates and dismisses most major objections in the structure of the argument, itself.
You can find a full post of my argument, along with many clarifying comments and objections answered here: http://thechristianegoist.wordpress.com ... ble-mover/

1) Things can only act according to their natures. This is the law of causality.

2) Regarding action, the nature of a thing is either purposeful or accidental – meaning that an action is either purposeful or un-purposeful, intentional or unintentional. This is the law of the excluded middle applied to the nature of action.

3) Accidental actions are necessarily the result of some sort of interaction – which means that every accidental action necessitates a prior action of some kind.

4) There cannot be an infinite regress of accidental actions. An infinite regress of a series cannot exist because a series must have a beginning in order to exist.

5) There must have been an action which triggered the beginning of accidental action (3 & 4), and this ‘trigger’ action could not, itself, have been accidental (3).

6) If the beginning to accidental action could not have been accidental, then it must have been purposeful (2).

7) A purposeful action is a volitional action and volition presupposes a mind and values.

8) An actor with mind, values, and volition is a person.

9) A personal actor began all accidental action in the universe.

[JohnA]

People incorrectly use the word possible and then build arguments off of their incorrect word use. I see it with theists positing God more often than I can count. They say, that because God's existence is possible, yada yada yada. Well guess what, I can stop them right on premise one and say, "Is it?" "Show me how it's possible." They say that ignorance of something means it is possible. Which is stupid and not logical argument at all. You are insisting it is valid.

Well, it is logically possible that God exists, unless God's existence contradicts one or more laws of logic.

Does God's existence contradict one or more laws of logic? You'd have to give an example of a God here, there are countless different versions and more being created every second of every day. Every time a believer learns something knew and evolves their opinion of God they are thinking of a different God than the one they were before.

To me, it's an unanswerable question because a lot of people that believe in God also believe that God is beyond comprehension, explanation and understanding. I doubt it's demonstrable that God's existence is possible and no one has succeeded in demonstrating the possibility to me.

Since we are here and now talking about logical possibilities, something is possible if it doesn't contradict the laws of logic. Since the laws of logic are not exhaustively listed anywhere, it is impossible to convey a survey that would conclusively show that a claim doesn't contradict any laws of logic. Thus, the reasonable presumption should be that if something doesn't seem to break the laws of logic, then it should be deemed logically possible. Otherwise it is pointless to talk about logical possibilities. Is it logically possible to build a tower that is five thousand feet tall? Certainly it is, but can you show me that every implication of that claim complies with every single law of logic? Obviously you cannot.

Additionally, we could discus about whether or not God is causally possible or physically possible. Here I think some demonstration is needed on part of the claimant.

Yes no one can even make a case that a good is logically possible.

It is not impossible, but that does not mean it is 'pre-fix any obtuse word' possible.

[instantc]

People incorrectly use the word possible and then build arguments off of their incorrect word use. I see it with theists positing God more often than I can count. They say, that because God's existence is possible, yada yada yada. Well guess what, I can stop them right on premise one and say, "Is it?" "Show me how it's possible." They say that ignorance of something means it is possible. Which is stupid and not logical argument at all. You are insisting it is valid.

Well, it is logically possible that God exists, unless God's existence contradicts one or more laws of logic.

Does God's existence contradict one or more laws of logic? You'd have to give an example of a God here, there are countless different versions and more being created every second of every day. Every time a believer learns something knew and evolves their opinion of God they are thinking of a different God than the one they were before.

To me, it's an unanswerable question because a lot of people that believe in God also believe that God is beyond comprehension, explanation and understanding. I doubt it's demonstrable that God's existence is possible and no one has succeeded in demonstrating the possibility to me.

Since we are here and now talking about logical possibilities, something is possible if it doesn't contradict the laws of logic. Since the laws of logic are not exhaustively listed anywhere, it is impossible to convey a survey that would conclusively show that a claim doesn't contradict any laws of logic. Thus, the reasonable presumption should be that if something doesn't seem to break the laws of logic, then it should be deemed logically possible. Otherwise it is pointless to talk about logical possibilities. Is it logically possible to build a tower that is five thousand feet tall? Certainly it is, but can you show me that every implication of that claim complies with every single law of logic? Obviously you cannot.

Additionally, we could discus about whether or not God is causally possible or physically possible. Here I think some demonstration is needed on part of the claimant.

It is not impossible, but that does not mean it is 'pre-fix any obtuse word' possible.

We are talking about logical possibilities in the post you quoted, defined as follows.

Logically possible means that something doesn't contradict the laws of logic
Logically impossible means that something does contradict the laws of logic

As per these commonly accepted definitions, 'not logically impossible' means that something doesn't contradict the laws of logic, which equals logically possible, doesn't it?

[JohnA]

People incorrectly use the word possible and then build arguments off of their incorrect word use. I see it with theists positing God more often than I can count. They say, that because God's existence is possible, yada yada yada. Well guess what, I can stop them right on premise one and say, "Is it?" "Show me how it's possible." They say that ignorance of something means it is possible. Which is stupid and not logical argument at all. You are insisting it is valid.

Well, it is logically possible that God exists, unless God's existence contradicts one or more laws of logic.

Does God's existence contradict one or more laws of logic? You'd have to give an example of a God here, there are countless different versions and more being created every second of every day. Every time a believer learns something knew and evolves their opinion of God they are thinking of a different God than the one they were before.

To me, it's an unanswerable question because a lot of people that believe in God also believe that God is beyond comprehension, explanation and understanding. I doubt it's demonstrable that God's existence is possible and no one has succeeded in demonstrating the possibility to me.

Since we are here and now talking about logical possibilities, something is possible if it doesn't contradict the laws of logic. Since the laws of logic are not exhaustively listed anywhere, it is impossible to convey a survey that would conclusively show that a claim doesn't contradict any laws of logic. Thus, the reasonable presumption should be that if something doesn't seem to break the laws of logic, then it should be deemed logically possible. Otherwise it is pointless to talk about logical possibilities. Is it logically possible to build a tower that is five thousand feet tall? Certainly it is, but can you show me that every implication of that claim complies with every single law of logic? Obviously you cannot.

Additionally, we could discus about whether or not God is causally possible or physically possible. Here I think some demonstration is needed on part of the claimant.

It is not impossible, but that does not mean it is 'pre-fix any obtuse word' possible.

We are talking about logical possibilities in the post you quoted, defined as follows.

Logically possible means that something doesn't contradict the laws of logic
Logically impossible means that something does contradict the laws of logic

As per these commonly accepted definitions, 'not logically impossible' means that something doesn't contradict the laws of logic, which equals logically possible, doesn't it?

Your last sentence is begging the question. I covered that many pages ago with another user. You can not define something as true what you teeing to argue is true. I expected nothing less from you.

My concern is what you wrote here:

Since the laws of logic are not exhaustively listed anywhere

Can you explain this?
What are laws of logic? How do you know what these are if they are not written down? How do you know they are not written down? Which ones are written down and which ones are not?
What makes these 'laws' laws, why not just principles or rules?


And here you go and try to say that 'logical' possible /impossible are commonly accepted definitions yet you claim the logic laws are not even known (not written down).

Circular self refuting arguments constraints progress.
Please post your mental gymnastics to get out of this delightful no boundary position you find yourself in.

[nayrbsnilloc]

Your last sentence is begging the question. I covered that many pages ago with another user. You can not define something as true what you teeing to argue is true. I expected nothing less from you.

My concern is what you wrote here:

Since the laws of logic are not exhaustively listed anywhere

Can you explain this?
What are laws of logic? How do you know what these are if they are not written down? How do you know they are not written down? Which ones are written down and which ones are not?
What makes these 'laws' laws, why not just principles or rules?


And here you go and try to say that 'logical' possible /impossible are commonly accepted definitions yet you claim the logic laws are not even known (not written down).

Circular self refuting arguments constraints progress.
Please post your mental gymnastics to get out of this delightful no boundary position you find yourself in.

Every argument you come across that uses a definition that supports a claim you disagree with you argue is begging the question. He is not making a random definition to suit his needs, his argument merely fits the definition that is in place!

What he means by not exhaustively listed is that not every single logical law that can be known to describe logic is currently known and listed. There are still many though that are written down and have been agreed upon by logicians and society as a whole to describe logic and its processes.

And yes, logically possible and logically impossible are commonly accepted definitions. They would be included within the laws that are listed and known.

[scourge99]

.

I have a bag containing an unknown number of 6 sided dice. Is it possible that you can roll an 18 with the dice in the bag? You claim "yes" because, for example, there could be 3 dice in the bag and could therefore roll 3 sixes.


I open the bag and reveal that there is only one die in the bag.

Is it possible to roll an 18 with one die in the bag? No.

Before you claimed it was possible and now its been shown as impossible. That is a contradiction. It can't have been possible before and impossible now. If its impossible now then it must have been impossible before. If its impossible then it can't be possible. But before we claimed it was possible. How do we resolve this paradox?

It is not a paradox at all, it is more like a fallacy of Equivocation.

I open the bag and reveal that there is only one die in the bag.
Is it possible to roll an 18 with one die in the bag? No.

I open the bag and reveal that there are three dice in the bag.
Is it possible to roll an 18 with three dice in the bag? No.
Is it certain that I can roll an 18 with three dice in the bag? Yes.

You've given 2 examples where you say its "not possible". And one where you say its "certain".

To actually make a complete argument you need to
1) provide examples using dice of when something is "possible" and another example of when something is "not certain".

2) give definitions for your terms "possible" "not possible/impossible", "certain", "not certain" (uncertain?)

Until then its unclear whether you are being consistent.

But before we claimed it was possible. And yet either way it is no longer possible. Because when you know how many dice are in the bag, it will be either impossible or certain that we will be able to roll an 18.

I don't know why you've decided to say "certain that we will be able to roll an 18". Isn't that equivalent to "its possible to roll an 18"?

Can you see how you are equivocating the word possible with "it might be" and "it is certain"?

No, i dont. And you aren't just using the word" certain" . You are using the phrase "certain that we will be ABLE to". You did not say:
1) i am certain i will roll an 18.
You said:
2) I'm certain i will be able to roll an 18.

Those two statements are not equivalent.

[scourge99]

To use your example :
1b) if i shuffle a deck of cards, is it possible that the Ace of Spades is on top? Yes.

2b) if i shuffle a deck of cards without an ace of Spades, is it possible that the Ace of Spades is on top? No.

3b) if i shuffle a deck of cards that may or may not have an ace of Spades, is it possible that the ace of Spades is on top?

If the answer to 1B is affirmative, then the answer to 3B is' yes' as well. In both cases the top card either is or is not the ace of spades, the word possible indicates that we don't know whether that's the case.

I agree that the word "possible" indicates that we don't know whether or not its true the Ace of Spades is on top of the deck. But that isn't the complete definition. That is an implication of the definition.

The word "possible" to me in this context means that there is some possible world in which the Ace of Spades is on the top of the deck. If there is no ace of Spades in the deck then its not true in any possible world. Thus it's not possible. Its impossible.

But don't you see how this also applies to 1B? If the top card in fact isn't the ace of spades, although we are only staring at the back side of it, then there is no possible world where that top card is the ace of spades, nor is there a possible world where shuffling the deck in the way you did would result in the ace of spades being in the top.

I disagree. Shuffling cards, or rolling a dice, or using a random number generator, etc, implies that any of the cards, sides of the die, or numbers AVAILABLE can occur. It presumes an aspect of randomness. That the 4 of clubs is on top in one possible world does not change the fact that in another possible world the ace of spades is on top.

But if there is no ace of spades in the deck then its not possible in any possible world.


If you do not assume shuffeling, or die rolling is random, but purely deterministic then all talk of possibility and probability is pointless from the beginning. In that case we aren't even talking about the same thing anymore.

[olavisjo]

.

It is not a paradox at all, it is more like a fallacy of Equivocation.

I open the bag and reveal that there is only one die in the bag.
Is it possible to roll an 18 with one die in the bag? No.

I open the bag and reveal that there are three dice in the bag.
Is it possible to roll an 18 with three dice in the bag? No.
Is it certain that I can roll an 18 with three dice in the bag? Yes.

You've given 2 examples where you say its "not possible". And one where you say its "certain".

To actually make a complete argument you need to
1) provide examples using dice of when something is "possible" and another example of when something is "not certain".

2) give definitions for your terms "possible" "not possible/impossible", "certain", "not certain" (uncertain?)

Is it possible to roll an 18 with an unknown number of dice in the bag? Yes.

Is it certain that I can roll an 18 with an unknown number of dice in the bag? No.

Not possible has 0.0% probability.
Certainty has 100.0% probability.
Possible has greater than 0.0% probability and less than 100.0% probability.

[scourge99]

.

It is not a paradox at all, it is more like a fallacy of Equivocation.

I open the bag and reveal that there is only one die in the bag.
Is it possible to roll an 18 with one die in the bag? No.

I open the bag and reveal that there are three dice in the bag.
Is it possible to roll an 18 with three dice in the bag? No.
Is it certain that I can roll an 18 with three dice in the bag? Yes.

You've given 2 examples where you say its "not possible". And one where you say its "certain".

To actually make a complete argument you need to
1) provide examples using dice of when something is "possible" and another example of when something is "not certain".

2) give definitions for your terms "possible" "not possible/impossible", "certain", "not certain" (uncertain?)

Is it possible to roll an 18 with an unknown number of dice in the bag? Yes.

Is it certain that I can roll an 18 with an unknown number of dice in the bag? No.

Not possible has 0.0% probability.
Certainty has 100.0% probability.
Possible has greater than 0.0% probability and less than 100.0% probability.

You say its possible (I.E., it has a greater than 0% probability) that you can roll an 18 with an unknown number of dice in a bag.

I open the bag and reveal 1 die. The probability is 0%. Its not possible to roll an 18. But before you said it was possible but now its not possible. That seems like a contradiction.

I would agree with your answers if i said "i put a random number of dice in a bag". But i didn't. There is an unknown number if dice in the bag. Not a random amount if dice in the bag. I think that makes a difference.

[Filthy Tugboat]

People incorrectly use the word possible and then build arguments off of their incorrect word use. I see it with theists positing God more often than I can count. They say, that because God's existence is possible, yada yada yada. Well guess what, I can stop them right on premise one and say, "Is it?" "Show me how it's possible." They say that ignorance of something means it is possible. Which is stupid and not logical argument at all. You are insisting it is valid.

Well, it is logically possible that God exists, unless God's existence contradicts one or more laws of logic.

Does God's existence contradict one or more laws of logic? You'd have to give an example of a God here, there are countless different versions and more being created every second of every day. Every time a believer learns something knew and evolves their opinion of God they are thinking of a different God than the one they were before.

To me, it's an unanswerable question because a lot of people that believe in God also believe that God is beyond comprehension, explanation and understanding. I doubt it's demonstrable that God's existence is possible and no one has succeeded in demonstrating the possibility to me.

Since we are here and now talking about logical possibilities, something is possible if it doesn't contradict the laws of logic.

Is it? We haven't even mentioned any qualities or anything about this God, I think making assumptions on the matter for no other reason than, "it's being discussed" isn't really logical.

Since the laws of logic are not exhaustively listed anywhere, it is impossible to convey a survey that would conclusively show that a claim doesn't contradict any laws of logic.

Putting in some research, you definitely could analyze a claim and it's logical validity.

Thus, the reasonable presumption should be that if something doesn't seem to break the laws of logic, then it should be deemed logically possible.

Why? If you haven't put in the effort to actual know if it is logically possible or not then why assume that it is or isn't?

Additionally, we could discus about whether or not God is causally possible or physically possible. Here I think some demonstration is needed on part of the claimant.

I agree, if someone is claiming something it is their burden to show that what they are claiming is true.

[instantc]

People incorrectly use the word possible and then build arguments off of their incorrect word use. I see it with theists positing God more often than I can count. They say, that because God's existence is possible, yada yada yada. Well guess what, I can stop them right on premise one and say, "Is it?" "Show me how it's possible." They say that ignorance of something means it is possible. Which is stupid and not logical argument at all. You are insisting it is valid.

Well, it is logically possible that God exists, unless God's existence contradicts one or more laws of logic.

Does God's existence contradict one or more laws of logic? You'd have to give an example of a God here, there are countless different versions and more being created every second of every day. Every time a believer learns something knew and evolves their opinion of God they are thinking of a different God than the one they were before.

To me, it's an unanswerable question because a lot of people that believe in God also believe that God is beyond comprehension, explanation and understanding. I doubt it's demonstrable that God's existence is possible and no one has succeeded in demonstrating the possibility to me.

Since we are here and now talking about logical possibilities, something is possible if it doesn't contradict the laws of logic.

Is it? We haven't even mentioned any qualities or anything about this God, I think making assumptions on the matter for no other reason than, "it's being discussed" isn't really logical.

I'm not endorsing the claim that God is logically possible, I'm merely explaining logical possibility and why it is an unreasonable demand to ask someone demonstrate the logical possibility of something. If you think a claim contradicts the laws of logic, it's up to you to show which one.