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.
One of the best arguments for God
Moderator: Moderators
- AquinasForGod
- Sage
- Posts: 972
- Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2022 7:29 am
- Location: USA
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 71 times
-
- Savant
- Posts: 7971
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 933 times
- Been thanked: 3488 times
Re: One of the best arguments for God
Post #101It's an interesting discussion and, while I'm no experts, I've read the arguments of those who appear to be expert and they seem to agree with what appeared practical common sense to me - just because man can imagine something better than what we have, doesn't mean that the better thing must exist. Like morality, while we can imagine a perfect morality it doesn't exist other than an ideal to push for, and may never be attainable.
Or as you say one can imagine a worse than the worst, but it doesn't have to exist and, if it does, why hasn't God got rid of it? Indeed the sneaking suspicion is that the character of satan is more of a dirty work assistant for God, but someone has to take the blame when it looks bad to put the blame on humans (they got hit by a meteorite because people are sinners).
I wonder if Anselm got the idea from Aristotelian ideals or 'principles', which of course don't actually need to exist. The principle of catness is one easy to grasp, harder to define, but that doesn't meanb that an ideal cat combining all the elements that are common to all felines exists as an extant feline principle, though it might start an ancient Egyptian religion revival.
Or as you say one can imagine a worse than the worst, but it doesn't have to exist and, if it does, why hasn't God got rid of it? Indeed the sneaking suspicion is that the character of satan is more of a dirty work assistant for God, but someone has to take the blame when it looks bad to put the blame on humans (they got hit by a meteorite because people are sinners).
I wonder if Anselm got the idea from Aristotelian ideals or 'principles', which of course don't actually need to exist. The principle of catness is one easy to grasp, harder to define, but that doesn't meanb that an ideal cat combining all the elements that are common to all felines exists as an extant feline principle, though it might start an ancient Egyptian religion revival.
- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Re: One of the best arguments for God
Post #102.
.
William Lane Craig’s Eight Reasons for God: Refuted: See HERE
Then we have
William Lane Craig’s eight Special-Pleading arguments for God’s existence See HERE
and
Rational Wiki and the Ontological argument See HERE
Then we have
William Lane Craig’s eight Special-Pleading arguments for God’s existence See HERE
and
Rational Wiki and the Ontological argument See HERE
.
Last edited by Miles on Sat Mar 11, 2023 12:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Aetixintro
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 918
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:18 am
- Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
- Has thanked: 431 times
- Been thanked: 27 times
- Contact:
Re: One of the best arguments for God
Post #103[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #1]
One should also take into account the current science that really confirms the existence of God by radio-astronomy and yet again, existence of God is confirmed by Computer-AI when you ask it.
Artificial Intelligence = Quantum Intelligence in this context.
Religion also supports the best of minds, the healthy ones. I'm not sure Atheism does that. They seem so unwilling to relate to morality and (Kantian) ethics with it.
So I say it's definite that God exists because science says so and I happen to believe that all else is psychiatric, i.e., all of that outside the religious. When science says so, I think this is the best argument for God's existence.
One should also take into account the current science that really confirms the existence of God by radio-astronomy and yet again, existence of God is confirmed by Computer-AI when you ask it.
Artificial Intelligence = Quantum Intelligence in this context.
Religion also supports the best of minds, the healthy ones. I'm not sure Atheism does that. They seem so unwilling to relate to morality and (Kantian) ethics with it.
So I say it's definite that God exists because science says so and I happen to believe that all else is psychiatric, i.e., all of that outside the religious. When science says so, I think this is the best argument for God's existence.
I'm cool! - Stronger Religion every day! Also by "mathematical Religion", the eternal forms, God closing the door on corrupt humanity, possibly!
- JoeyKnothead
- 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 #104How does radio astronomy support a god's existence?Aetixintro wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 12:47 am [Replying to AquinasForGod in post #1]
One should also take into account the current science that really confirms the existence of God by radio-astronomy and yet again, existence of God is confirmed by Computer-AI when you ask it.
Artificial Intelligence = Quantum Intelligence in this context.
How does AI do it?
Ah yes, the common theist tactic of denigrating anyone who doesn't accept religious claims.Religion also supports the best of minds, the healthy ones. I'm not sure Atheism does that. They seem so unwilling to relate to morality and (Kantian) ethics with it.
As if you've never even heard of a mirror.
If I called you an idiot, have I proven there are no gods?
Nothing in your assertions offer us any means by which we may confirm a god exists.So I say it's definite that God exists because science says so and I happen to believe that all else is psychiatric, i.e., all of that outside the religious. When science says so, I think this is the best argument for God's existence.
The liar lies and the preacher preaches.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- 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 #105[Replying to Aetixintro in post #103]
The confusion offers the nontheism supporters a means of conflating flat-earther for GOD lovers...and me even using the word "GOD" amounts to the same, so I should add that in using the term, I am not implying anything other than I think it clear enough that we exist within a creation and therefore "creators" are involved.
[Conscious Heart advice Beautiful]
I have had similar thoughts about this idea. I think that my randomly generated messages confirm that this is indeed the case.Artificial Intelligence = Quantum Intelligence in this context.
I tend to separate religion from the theist pack-age so's not to confuse the genuine loving of GOD with the showy emptiness.Religion also supports the best of minds, the healthy ones. I'm not sure Atheism does that.
The confusion offers the nontheism supporters a means of conflating flat-earther for GOD lovers...and me even using the word "GOD" amounts to the same, so I should add that in using the term, I am not implying anything other than I think it clear enough that we exist within a creation and therefore "creators" are involved.
[Conscious Heart advice Beautiful]
-
- Savant
- Posts: 7971
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 933 times
- Been thanked: 3488 times
Re: One of the best arguments for God
Post #106We know that well enough. And thanks for confirming what (I recall) you were cagey about admitting before - living in a creation implies not just that Something caused it but that 'creators' caused it. We are surely talking about Intelligent creators here, or aren't we? If that's not what you mean, you have only to post the following:William wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 8:24 am [Replying to Aetixintro in post #103]
I have had similar thoughts about this idea. I think that my randomly generated messages confirm that this is indeed the case.Artificial Intelligence = Quantum Intelligence in this context.
I tend to separate religion from the theist pack-age so's not to confuse the genuine loving of GOD with the showy emptiness.Religion also supports the best of minds, the healthy ones. I'm not sure Atheism does that.
The confusion offers the nontheism supporters a means of conflating flat-earther for GOD lovers...and me even using the word "GOD" amounts to the same, so I should add that in using the term, I am not implying anything other than I think it clear enough that we exist within a creation and therefore "creators" are involved.
[Conscious Heart advice Beautiful]
"No, I am not suggesting that the Creation we are in is/was caused by an intelligent creator or creators".