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

[fr0d0]

frodo: I don't "debate".

OK. Whatever you doin juss keep doin it k

[Tiberius]

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.

Go back and read my post. The parody is included, and I made sure to mention it was a parody. Criticising my post as "not a serious response" is only valid if you thought I was using the parody as some kind of proof of the non-existence of God. I didn't.

The most obvious reason the parody fails is because it uses the same logic as the ontological argument. It seeks to define God out of existence in the same way the ontological argument seeks to define God into existence.

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?

I never said it was S5 that was the issue, S5 leads to the possibility premise, which is the problem as you said. As I already said, the "proof" doesn't do anything. It just concludes that "either God exists or he doesn't". I could have told you that without coming up with a 6 stage modal proof.

[BioLogos]

Go back and read my post. The parody is included, and I made sure to mention it was a parody. Criticising my post as "not a serious response" is only valid if you thought I was using the parody as some kind of proof of the non-existence of God. I didn't.

The most obvious reason the parody fails is because it uses the same logic as the ontological argument. It seeks to define God out of existence in the same way the ontological argument seeks to define God into existence.

Which ontological argument? It doesn't appear to use the same logic as Plantiga's modal argument.

I never said it was S5 that was the issue, S5 leads to the possibility premise, which is the problem as you said. As I already said, the "proof" doesn't do anything. It just concludes that "either God exists or he doesn't". I could have told you that without coming up with a 6 stage modal proof.

In bold 1: in an argument, nothing leads to a premise...premises are just stated. I presume you have just mistyped here?
In bold 2: the result is stronger, namely that the existence of a maximally excellent being is necessary (if the possibility premise holds) or impossible (if not).

[Tiberius]

Which ontological argument? It doesn't appear to use the same logic as Plantiga's modal argument.

*You* brought up Plantiga's ontological argument, after you called my response "not serious". How could I have been talking about Plantiga's model? I was talking about the general ontological argument, and the counter-argument is the parody to point out how you can "prove" anything using the same faulty logic. I'm not going over this again...

In bold 1: in an argument, nothing leads to a premise...premises are just stated. I presume you have just mistyped here?
In bold 2: the result is stronger, namely that the existence of a maximally excellent being is necessary (if the possibility premise holds) or impossible (if not).

Yes, I mistyped. S5 is used *from* the possibility premise, my bad. The problem is that if something possibly exists, it does not infer that it necessarily exists. You could define anything into existence this way, as long as what you are bringing into existence isn't logically impossible.

[BioLogos]

Which ontological argument? It doesn't appear to use the same logic as Plantiga's modal argument.

*You* brought up Plantiga's ontological argument, after you called my response "not serious". How could I have been talking about Plantiga's model? I was talking about the general ontological argument, and the counter-argument is the parody to point out how you can "prove" anything using the same faulty logic. I'm not going over this again...

I was giving Plantiga's argument as an an example of an ontological argument you didn't parody. There are many more. Parodies are only successful when they look at specific arguments and use the same logic. There is no "general" ontological argument. Plus your parody fails because it uses the concept of a "non-existent creator" which makes no logical sense.

Yes, I mistyped. S5 is used *from* the possibility premise, my bad. The problem is that if something possibly exists, it does not infer that it necessarily exists. You could define anything into existence this way, as long as what you are bringing into existence isn't logically impossible.

So we could replace "maximally excellent being" with anything we liked (that possibly existed) and the argument would still be valid? I presume that isn't what you meant.

[Tiberius]

I was giving Plantiga's argument as an an example of an ontological argument you didn't parody. There are many more. Parodies are only successful when they look at specific arguments and use the same logic. There is no "general" ontological argument. Plus your parody fails because it uses the concept of a "non-existent creator" which makes no logical sense.

How does a non-existent creator make no logical sense? Why isn't the most formidable handicap for a creator, non-existence?

So we could replace "maximally excellent being" with anything we liked (that possibly existed) and the argument would still be valid? I presume that isn't what you meant.

Anything that is "perfect" by definition can be substituted and the argument holds.

[tackattack]

could you give me a small samping of the things that are perfect by definition?

[Tiberius]

Sure...take any object, and prefix it with the word "perfect".

[Purple Rabbit]

perfect bullshit

works nice so far!

[tackattack]

then what is the purpose of the word perfect? Why use it to describe an object if it holds no meaning? What distinguishes a perfect table from a table? Do we have any observable accounts of a perfect table?