God exists subjectively?

[bennyboy]

If you're asking me whether or not the arguments I've seen start with evident things, the answer would be no..more often than not.  Sometimes they manage that, though, and fail elsewhere.  Not sure why I;d want to deny "the laws of logic" (lol?)......but I guess that's the next step on your missionary flowchart, so, have at it. [1]

You mean to ask why I don't believe in god or accept arguments for god, here, yes?  Because they either -don't- refer to evident and true propositions, or they -don't- contain valid reasoning....and very often it's both.  If the religious did have an argument like the one you describe above, they'd have made everyone aware of it by now.  They don't, you don't....and in my case, it hardly matters anyway.  The fact that I don't believe and have never been presented with a compelling argument has nothing to do with why I'm not a christian, or a muslim, or any of the rest.   Wouldn't be if there were a god, if I did believe or I had been presented with a compelling argument.

Makes it all kind of pointless, doesn't it? [2]

1. How about the Five Ways of St. Thomas Aquinas. All 5 arguments there starts with evident things. Does it fail elsewhere if not in its starting point which are evident such change, efficient causality, generation and corruption, degrees in being and final causality? If so, can you please show to me, for I am to convince that there's no God, then one should simply prove that 5 ways are either having false premises or invalid logical form or both.

2. Well I believe you that there may have unsound or invalid arguments for God's existence. I don't subscribe to reasoning like if something is true, then everyone must be aware of the argument for it. It will follow that both atheism and theism will be false now, if that hypothetical proposition is true, since not everyone really knows all the arguments for both side. So, I suggest, try the 5 ways of St. Thomas Aquinas. For, it is already a compelling argument for God's existence. Hence, given that case, not to look it willfully will just be closing ones eye to the truth and that having to believe that no compelling argument can be seen shall not be the case anymore other than being either a lie or willful closing of eyes to the evidence and arguments, is that correct?

There is your exception and your contradiction.  In order to break the chain of infinite regress, you must either invalidate the premise or introduce an arbitrary factor that defies the premise for no other reason than to salvage it.  Claiming that it exists because it is required ignores the possibility that the premise is flawed.  Claiming that it is a specific entity with no explanation or evidence ignores other possibilities that are equally possible (or more possible, when you consider the nature of a God capable of creating our universe). [1]

I am saying that you cannot claim that God is an unmoved mover or an uncaused cause in order to support the premise that would prove that God exists.  The equation does not give us a result of "God" unless we define God so that he solves the equation.  That's convenient and self-serving.  It's like saying that 2 + 2 = 5 because 5 has the intrinsic quality of also being 4, without explaining how this is so.  At this point I can provide any number as the answer by assigning it the same quality.[2]

1. Please see if I understand your point here. Are you saying that c contradicts the conclusion? If yes, is the reason why it contradict the conclusion is because in c, it says if everything are moved? However, c is a hypothetical proposition and it so it doesn't affirm that everything are moved which will indeed contradict the conclusion of having an Unmoved Mover. Further, the hypothetical proposition and premise c try to suppose what is the consequence if everything are moved, and the consequence is absurd while considering the next premise d. So, I still don't understand why is there contradiction and special pleading in the first way. Kindly show it to me if there is something more to be shown to prove that allegation.

2. If there is an Unmoved Mover, First Caused, Uncaused Necessary Being, Perfect Being and Super Intelligent Being, and there really is per St. Thomas' 5 Ways, why it can't be called God? After all, the term God means which nothing greater can be thought of, while in reality, the Unmoved Mover, First Caused, Uncaused Necessary Being, Perfect Being and Super Intelligent Being can be nothing greater can be thought of. You may want to call God in other words, but that doesn't show that the Five Ways didn't proved that He exist. Further, it is impossible for us to know what is God directly, because He is Simple Being, not being composed of Act of Being and Manner of Being, but only Act of Being and all things we can define are composed of those two, hence the difficulty of knowing God directly. Hence, the proof for His existence is by way of His effects not by His qualities. Afterwards, using what we have known through 5 ways, we can prove what God is not, which can easily be shown that He isn't body etc. so we cannot substitute the universe, the particles, the matter or anything that has body for God's existence being the Unmoved Mover, First Caused, Uncaused Necessary Being, Perfect Being and Super Intelligent Being.

Logical arguments for god are no where near enough.  You go out and bag a god, bring at least it's pelt back here and you'll have made me a believer.  Otherwise everything you say just looks silly to a fair observer uninvested in supporting your belief.

That's why arguments for God's existence are not only logical, but also starts with real things, so if the arguments for God's existence are found to be logical and having real and true premise, then to deny God's existence afterwards is to deny either logic or reality or both.

If you need this many words to demonstrate the existence of an all-powerful, human-interested Creator God, you're doing it wrong.

Why is it that the greatest entity who ever lived must be subjected to rationale and subtle semantics in order to "prove" he exists?

A God this subtle is irrelevant to our living of life. A God that mattered would actually. . . ya know. . . DO stuff. His existence would be undeniable. Therefore, you can pick your poison-- either God is nonexistent, or he is laughably useless. Make your choice.