My own moral + ontological argument.

[Mystic]

I have an argument for God but a lot of it is based on premises that are disputable. I don't think if you don't believe in God already that you would be convinced of this argument.

The first premise is:

Morality to be real, needs an eternal basis.

What I mean by being real, is that it's not some delusion and it has truth, and it has objective truths. I would argue even more that even subjective wrong views of morality are not based on nothing, but also derive it from a moral intuition that is derived from an eternal reality.

Now to show this, premise to be true. Let's give a thought experiment. Suppose a Creator didn't have knowledge of everything and wanted to create the world. Is it possible that morality doesn't exist and he creates it? I would say that makes it arbitrary if he can just decide what morality is going to be. It wouldn't really be morality as we know it, because morality as we know it is not something that can just be made up. This thought experiment shows we deem to have an eternal existence.

The next premise is.

Morality is real.

I feel like this is something we can argue about because there is differences on moral issues, but I think at the end, people always feel a strong view on moral issues, even when they differ. This is a feeling that morality is real, and is not just what we want and how we feel about things. I believe we all intuitively see that morality is a real, and is not a delusion.

The next premise follows from that, "therefore an eternal basis exists".


Now I would make another premises morality includes moral greatness which includes infinite level of moral possible greatness. So the next premise is:

Moral greatness includes infinite possible levels of moral greatness.

The next premise is:

Ultimate Moral Greatness also needs an Eternal Basis.

The next premise is:

Eternal Basis needs full knowledge of Ultimate Moral Greatness to be eternal basis of it.

I think this intuitively correct. To be eternal basis to ultimate greatness, it must have knowledge of that greatness, whatever it maybe.

Only Ultimate Moral Greatness can have full comprehensive knowledge of Ultimate Greatness.

I think this an obvious fact as well, because everything else would not be able to encompass infinite levels of moral greatness and the absolute level. It would rather have a limited view.

The next premise is:

Ultimate Moral Greatness is therefore the Eternal basis to morality.

I can also make this argument:

Greatness needs eternal basis to be real.
Greatness includes infinite level of greatness.
Eternal basis must have comprehensive knowledge of infinite levels of greatness and ultimate level of greatness to be eternal basis.
Only Ultimate Greatness can have that knowledge.
Greatness is real.
Therefore Ultimate Greatness is real.

The other argument is summarized:

Morality needs eternal basis to be real.
Morality includes moral greatness which includes infinite possible levels.
Eternal Basis must have comprehensive knowledge of infinite possible levels of moral greatness and ultimate level of moral greatness to be eternal basis.
Only Ultimate Moral Greatness can have that knowledge.
Morality is real.
Therefore Ultimate Moral Greatness is real.

Ultimate Greatness/Ultimate Moral Greatness is God of course.

[Epimethean]

Greatness does not need eternal basis to be real. There are many great moments which persist only as long as the memory of those who have experienced them and which will be inaccessible to any other being once they are over and those who lived them dead and gone. Morality has no need to stem from a hypothetical eternal mystical source, as it will operate within societal groups to stabilize said groups as a basic socio-biological process with no need of an external willofgod.

[fr0d0]

Greatness =/= Ultimate Greatness Epi

[Captain Scarlet]

"I have an argument for God but a lot of it is based on premises that are disputable"

MK, you didn't really need to go beyond that point really. These versions are less sound than the much maligned and disputed standard versions we are used to hearing.

Problems with your syllogisms include question begging as the second line seeks to assume something that you are trying to prove, bare assertion in that morality and 'ultimate greatness' are both real, non-sequitur in that the conclusions do not follow from the premises nor do they conclude the there is a god (ie the last line should read, therefore god exists), but to be fair I do not see how you can get to a god from these arguments anyway?

[aine60]

Firstly,I think this old saying applies here: "if you can't blind them with science, baffle them with bullshit." Secondly, overuse of capitals is Very Irritating.

[Epimethean]

Fr0ds, read the whole piece, from which comes this little gem:

"Greatness needs eternal basis to be real."

I just picked one small piece of the bullshit to play with, but it was there.

Cheers.

[The Grand Nudger]

Gaskings Proof (my favorite parody)

The creation of the universe is the greatest achievement imaginable.
The merit of an achievement consists of its intrinsic greatness and the ability of its creator.
The greater the handicap to the creator, the greater the achievement.
The biggest handicap to a creator would be non-existence.
Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the creation of an existing creator, we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
Therefore, God does not exist.

[Norfolk And Chance]

I have an argument for God but a lot of it is based on premises that are disputable.

You don't have an argument then.

[Mystic]

You don't have an argument then.

I disagree. For example, morality being real, can be disputed, but I think you still can know it's real. It needing an eternal basis can be disputed but a lot of people agree upon this premise. Everything else flows from that. So while these two premises can be disputed, it's still a good argument, because it's a plausible argument. The premises seem to be true for a lot of people. A lot of people feel there needs to God for morality to be real. William Lane Craig argues with the moral argument for example, and people take it seriously.

I think it's better then the standard moral argument, because God is just stated to be needed for morality with no argument to show why. What's really being said is there needs to be an eternal metaphysical basis to morality. But then I further argue morality encompasses infinite levels and an Ultimate level and there needs to be basis for that. The basis must have comprehensive knowledge of Ultimate morality and infinite levels of moral greatness, which only an Ultimate Existence can have.

Although you may not agree with the moral argument, I've seen atheists agree upon the premise, for it to objective as opposed to relative there needs to be God. They then say morality is subjective and argue for that.

A lot of people intuitively believe morality needs eternal basis, which is why they always wonder what morals atheists believe in and find authoritative, if they don't believe in God.

So while you may dispute these premises, it still makes for a good argument to many people, whom will agree with those premises.

At the end, I don't think naturalism can account for morality, and I find this personally to be strong argument for myself, because I find the premises intuitively true.

The other argument about greatness, I didn't go into discussion, but I thought about it myself, and while some greatness doesn't seem to need eternal basis, there is a lot of greatness that to me obviously needs eternal basis, or you can argue, as I've heard others say, there is no such thing as greatness, it's all relative subjective opinion, there is nothing great or non-great. When talking about what is Ultimately Great for example, there needs to be eternal basis to that knowledge.

I personally think this a good argument. The thought experiment I showed for morality needing eternal basis also seems to be a strong indication of the premise.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I have an argument for God but a lot of it is based on premises that are disputable.

You don't have an argument then.

Well yes,he DOES have an argument, but it's a weak poorly reasoned one which does not survive the most casual scrutiny. (It's not too bad if the OP is an adolescent or young adult still learning to think critically))

IF you are going to posit an eternal reality,you need to explain what you mean by the term. Further, because you have made a positive claim; you attract the burden of proof. IE you need to prove your claim.

In claiming morality has objective truths, you are also claiming there are universal moral truths.I'd be ever so grateful if you would jot down a list.

Bored now