Christians, what is your VERY BEST arguments for the existence of God?

[theist]

Ontological Argument, Teleological Arguments, Cosmological Argument and Moral Argument.

I would love to get a response to the ontological argument by an atheist.

[Tiberius]

The Ontological argument seeks to define God into existence. It's pathetic. Moreover, it requires a priori knowledge which itself is unprovable.

[tackattack]

it's all in the evidence you use. Many athests only accept evidence as a posteriori knowledge, completely ignoring experience like it was a priori knowledge. So which is intution a priori or a posteriori?

[Tiberius]

Intuition is a priori. The Ontological argument has other holes, and I'm not aware of any prominent religious philosophers who still consider it a valid argument; certainly not a proof.

It essentially says "if we can conceive of a being such as God, he must exist" by reasoning that to exist in reality is greater than to just exist in the mind, and God is a perfect being, so he must exist in reality. It's a circular argument brought about by the fact that you are using the definition of an idea to conclude that the idea is existent in reality, which doesn't work. Ideas only have a basis in the mind; they do not have to be true manifestations in physical reality.

I should probably point out the famous parody of this argument, the ontological argument for the non-existence of God.

1. The creation of everything in existence is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that everything is the product of an existent creator, we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.

It doesn't work of course, since it relies on the same faulty logic as the original, but that is the point of a parody. You can reason anything into existence (or non-existence) this way...you just have to rely on bad logic.

[tavarish]

The Ontological Argument sure sounds like Matt Slick's version of the TAG argument.


Heavily condensed:

Logical absolutes exist as a concept.
A concept cannot exist without a mind.
That mind is God.

I think the most convincing argument yet would have to be that religion and theology shouldn't be regarded as scientific statements, therefore eliminating the need for scientific scrutiny and skepticism.

Obviously there are lots of holes in this, but on the face of it, it seems pretty viable.

[BioLogos]

Intuition is a priori. The Ontological argument has other holes, and I'm not aware of any prominent religious philosophers who still consider it a valid argument; certainly not a proof.

It essentially says "if we can conceive of a being such as God, he must exist" by reasoning that to exist in reality is greater than to just exist in the mind, and God is a perfect being, so he must exist in reality. It's a circular argument brought about by the fact that you are using the definition of an idea to conclude that the idea is existent in reality, which doesn't work. Ideas only have a basis in the mind; they do not have to be true manifestations in physical reality.

I should probably point out the famous parody of this argument, the ontological argument for the non-existence of God.

1. The creation of everything in existence is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that everything is the product of an existent creator, we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.

It doesn't work of course, since it relies on the same faulty logic as the original, but that is the point of a parody. You can reason anything into existence (or non-existence) this way...you just have to rely on bad logic.

You think this is a serious response to the Ontological Argument? The argument is logically incoherent.

You need to read some more philosophers of religion if you think no prominent philosophers consider it a valid argument - eg, Plantinga with his modal argument comes to mind. The problem with the argument is that the possibility premise is very difficult to get a handle on. However the argument is useful in showing that a maximally great being's existence is either necessary or impossible.

[Tiberius]

You think this is a serious response to the Ontological Argument? The argument is logically incoherent.

No...I said (repeatedly) that the counter-argument is a parody *only*. It shows how the argument can be turned around easily to prove that God doesn't exist, by relying on the same faulty logic as the original.

You need to read some more philosophers of religion if you think no prominent philosophers consider it a valid argument - eg, Plantinga with his modal argument comes to mind.

Even Plantinga doesn't hold it as a good proof, he admits that due to his use of S5, it doesn't prove anything other than the being (God) is either logically necessary or logically impossible, leaving us no closer to the ultimate truth he set out to prove. His argument has other holes, which I already covered.

[fr0d0]

Oh wow! Two excellent debaters seemed to have joined... where's my popcorn...



K... take it away guys

[Rev. Rye]

Ontological Argument, Teleological Arguments, Cosmological Argument and Moral Argument.

I would love to get a response to the ontological argument by an atheist.

Well, here's a response (or a summary thereof) to the Ontological argument by a Theist: Immanuel Kant. His response to the argument has actually effectively destroyed the credibility of the Ontological argument for three hundred years.

The most influential criticism of the ontological argument is that of Immanuel Kant. Kant thought that because the ontological argument rests on the judgement that a God that exists is greater than a God that does not, it rests on a confusion.

According to Kant, existence is not a predicate, a property that a thing can either possess or lack. When people assert that God exists they are not saying that there is a God and he possesses the property of existence. If that were the case, then when people assert that God does not exist they would be saying that there is a God and he lacks the property of existence, i.e., they would be both affirming and denying God’s existence in the same breath. Rather, suggests Kant, to say that something exists is to say that the concept of that thing is exemplified in the world. Existence, then, is not a matter of a thing possessing a property, existence, but of a concept corresponding to something in the world.

To see this more clearly, suppose that we give a complete description of an object, of its size, its weight, its colour, etc. If we then add thatthe same whether it exists or not; it is the same size, the same weight, the same colour, etc. The fact that the object exists, that the concept is exemplified in the world, does not chan the object exists, then in asserting that it exists we add nothing to the concept of the object. The object is ge anything about the concept. To assert that the object exists is to say something about the world, that it contains something that matches that concept; it is not to say anything about the object itself.

If Kant is correct in his view that existence is not a property of objects, then it is impossible to compare a God that exists to a God that does not. On Kant’s view a God that exists and a God that does not are qualitatively identical. A God that exists is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. A God that does not exist is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. Both are the same. If this is right, then Anselm’s claim that an existent God is greater than a non-existent God is false—neither is greater than the other—in which case the ontological argument fails.

This is it.

[BioLogos]

No...I said (repeatedly) that the counter-argument is a parody *only*. It shows how the argument can be turned around easily to prove that God doesn't exist, by relying on the same faulty logic as the original.

What is the original you were parodying? Since the modern forms of the argument involve modal logic, I would expect the parody to do the same... Plus the most obvious reason that your parody fails is because it involves a "non-existent creator" which is a logically incoherent notion.

Even Plantinga doesn't hold it as a good proof, he admits that due to his use of S5, it doesn't prove anything other than the being (God) is either logically necessary or logically impossible, leaving us no closer to the ultimate truth he set out to prove. His argument has other holes, which I already covered.

It is not S5 that is the issue, but the possibility premise (P). Plantinga thinks the argument is good against those who think P is plausible. I couldn't see how your other points were relevant to the modal argument - could you be more specific?

Rev. Rye: does Kant's objection apply to Plantinga's argument?

frodo: I don't "debate".