'Well respected proofs for existence of God'

[Zzyzx]

.
In a current thread a Theist made the following claim:

There are a number of well-respected proofs for the existence of God, both traditional and contemporary.

I challenge that claim and ask for substantiation.

1) What are the proofs?

2) By what measure and by whom are they 'well-respected'?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

1) What are the proofs?

I think he mentioned the "cosmological argument" at one time.

2) By what measure and by whom are they 'well-respected'?

Apologists usually respect the fallacious argument of other apologists.
That's why they repeat the same arguments over and over again.

[marco]

.
In a current thread a Theist made the following claim:

There are a number of well-respected proofs for the existence of God, both traditional and contemporary.

I challenge that claim and ask for substantiation.

1) What are the proofs?

2) By what measure and by whom are they 'well-respected'?

They are not proofs but illustrations. Anselm made two versions of his ontological argument and as a piece of logic is praiseworthy but as others, like Aquinas and Kant, have shown, it has flaws. One is almost calling God into existence through defining him. I cannot imagine that anyone has been brought to believe in God through being convinced by one of the "proofs."

[DanieltheDragon]

.
In a current thread a Theist made the following claim:

There are a number of well-respected proofs for the existence of God, both traditional and contemporary.

I challenge that claim and ask for substantiation.

1) What are the proofs?

2) By what measure and by whom are they 'well-respected'?

They are not proofs but illustrations. Anselm made two versions of his ontological argument and as a piece of logic is praiseworthy but as others, like Aquinas and Kant, have shown, it has flaws. One is almost calling God into existence through defining him. I cannot imagine that anyone has been brought to believe in God through being convinced by one of the "proofs."

I think what Aquinas and Kant show is the limitations of such logic. Should it really be praiseworthy? If a system of logic can't produce a consistent result is it useful? Anselm ontological argument can produce an illustration for any number of imaginary things it doesn't necessarily result in a proof of the Christian deity. I guess it is consistent in providing illustrations for proof of whims but not much else. I see no reason to find it praiseworthy.

[marco]

I think what Aquinas and Kant show is the limitations of such logic. Should it really be praiseworthy? If a system of logic can't produce a consistent result is it useful? Anselm ontological argument can produce an illustration for any number of imaginary things it doesn't necessarily result in a proof of the Christian deity. I guess it is consistent in providing illustrations for proof of whims but not much else. I see no reason to find it praiseworthy.

Well the reason is simply that somebody produced a reasoned argument that seemed to be the basis for establishing God's existence. Through the centuries others built on this argument - Aquinas produced his own "proofs" which were in turn examined critically and found wanting. Kant himself took time to examine Anselm's arguments and propose corrections. An attempt that is eventually found to be flawed is still worthy of praise. In any event it is still disputed whether the flaws do indeed invalidate the argument - but importantly Anselm gave us something to bite into other than a declaration that God exists, full stop.

We must remember that Anselm worked under his own steam, without Google.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 3 by marco]

Why don't you bring up the flaws and let's examine them?
Also, when one talks about proofs, I don't think anyone means "proof" in an absolute sense of the word. Anselm himself said that faith was still necessary. Hartshorne pointed out that there aren't any arguments you can't wiggle out of if you try hard enough.
And let's be realistic. If you're looking for absolute proof based on absolute truth, I really don't think you are going to find that anywhere, in any field. Some have naively looked to science, but the best of scientists will tell you they aren't dealing with absolutes, just with a hypothesis that has a certain degree of probability of being true, some more so than others. Even in science, there is a need for a leap of faith.
You can't imagine anyone going on the proofs? Well, you have a limited imagination. I sure did and do. They considerably helped me in the development of my faith, kept me from losing faith.

[Zzyzx]

.

And let's be realistic. If you're looking for absolute proof based on absolute truth, I really don't think you are going to find that anywhere, in any field.

When a satellite is placed in orbit is that proof that the engineering involved works to achieve a desired result in the real world?

When modern emergency medicines and practices save the life of badly injured people, is that proof that they work in the real world?

Can religion offer anything comparable?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

I'm puzzled by your question. The classic proofs for god are standard fare at least touched upon in any Philosophy 101 class. And, of course, there are also key items to be addressed, at some level, in any solid theology debate or discussion. So, since you are a mod here, I naturally assumed you were well familiar with these. Learning now that you aren't, I will adjust my posts to accommodate for this and honor the fact you are laboring at a disadvantage here.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 4 by DanieltheDragon]

A common misconception is that Anselm would allow one to attribute existence to absolutely anything one cold think up. Not true. What Anselm did was to set up checklists of seemingly contrary adjectives, such as cause vs. effect, existence vs. non-existence, etc., and then go down the list, ascribing the side to God which represented a perfection. Since by definition God is the supreme being, the most perfect of all beings, all perfections in the checklist had to be checked off for God. Note: That procedure did not hold for lesser beings, s they do not have all the perfections. Now, since existence is greater than nonexistence, actuality greater than potentiality, and God must take the greater of any adjective, then God must exist. On the other hand, the perfect island or flying spaghetti monster cannot have all the perfections and therefore do not automatically require a checkmark before "existence" in the potential-actual contrast.
Kant tried to demolish Anselm by arguing that "existence" is not perfection. the ten golden coins in your imagination were said to be just as perfect as the real ones, except that they lacked existence. However, other thinkers, including myself, do not agree with Kant. We believe existence is a perfection. You can't eat the ten donuts you imagine.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 7 by Zzyzx]

No, it is anything but denoting absolute truth based on absolute proof. Satellites have been know not to work. Medicines have been discovered to have harmful side effects, etc. Science always goes on the probability that something will work, or that a hypothesis is true, can never achieve absolute certainty.