What do you think of this argument for God?

[Nonpareil]

Thanks for post number 58 (along with many of your other posts).  I'm learning a lot from you.

Thank you.

Most of my posts are extremely short and to the point because that is all that is required to rebut the arguments being put forth, but if you ever have a question or want something expanded on, feel free to ask.

Out of curiosity, suppose we have a turncoat debate here, and you were arguing for the existence of god. How would you go about making a persuasive and convincing argument?

Rhetoric.

There are basically three parts to any philosophical argument: semantics (what all the various terms mean), logic (the structure of the argument and the evidence presented to support it), and rhetoric (the language and writing style used to convey the information). Theistic arguments tend to be very weak on the first two, so, in order to make up for this, they have to lean very, very heavily on the third.

Which is actually kind of fortunate for them, because, for most people, semantics and logic aren't particularly convincing on their own. You can show someone a perfectly reasonable and rational refutation of something, but unless you convey it in the right way, they'll still say "eh, I dunno, I'm still not convinced". Likewise, you can show them an argument that's a complete pile of dog shit logically, but because you've dressed it up and made it sound convincing, they'll accept it.

This is part of why there are so many variations of the ontological argument, and why none of them really do anything other than change up the language in it. Theistic arguments rely heavily on rhetoric, rather than logic and reason, for their persuasive power, so when one version of the ontological argument gets knocked down, they just give it a new coat of paint and roll it out all over again. It's the philosophical equivalent of the used car salesman who puts a new coat of paint over the rust, rolls it out on the lot, and sells it off for a huge chunk of change because it's just so shiny and perfect-looking.

If all you want is to be convincing, then you just have to sound like you know what you're talking about.

Do you think that it is possible to do so without making use of Ipse dixits or other forms of assertions?

Not really, no. Bare assertion tends to be the best-case scenario, anyway, when it comes to theist arguments.

Does god need to be properly defined and does evidence for his existence need to be established in order to avoid usage of Ipse dixits?

Yes. If you can't actually establish that a premise is true, than you are committing the bare assertion fallacy.

I do think that I should note that ipse dixit isn't really a technical term, though. I know of a few people who use it - one of my professors, when I was still in school, for example - but it's really just the bare assertion fallacy. It's got some icing on it, with the whole attitude of "yeah but you should accept it anyway", but that's what it boils down to, and you might get some strange looks from people if you use the term without explaining yourself.

P.S. In your opinion, is it currently possible to make a sound argument for the existence of god?

Sound, yes. The "God is defined as necessary -> therefore, God necessarily exists" thing from my previous post is sound. It's trivially easy to make a sound argument for anything you like.

That's why soundness on its own doesn't count for much.