Arguments for God from a purely philosophical perspective

[Aegon]

Ignoring holy books and images of Jesus on toast, what are some of the purely philosophical arguments for God? 

I'm not well-versed in philosophy but it seems that a number of users here are. I was recently reading up on Aquinas and his arguments for God, specifically the "First Cause" argument. Aquinas is (basically) saying that life is a series of movements caused by other movers, correct? But there could not have been infinite number of movers. There must have been an unmoved mover that started it all. Sort of like a chain has to have that first starting link, otherwise the chain isn't a chain, as it's based on nothing and would fall. However it seems to me that Aquinas never really explains why God is used to fill that gap and why God is considered the unmoved mover. Is it because of the qualities God possesses? Perhaps He has the ability to transcend time because...well, He's God?

I'm interested in trying to understand more of Aquinas, but any other philosophical arguments in favor of God (and the ones against them too) would be welcomed. I find it all pretty interesting.

[robvalue]

The biggest problem is that of definition. "God" is such a lazy, vague term that it can mean almost anything. Even a purely philosophical argument has to give some meaning to its terms if it's to be of any use.

Aquinas (Aquaman) provides several totally flawed arguments, I dissected it before, let me go paste it in. My ramblings are in bold.

I've just highlighted some of the logical fallacies, enough to show these simply don't work. There's plenty more inherently wrong with the arguments as well that I needn't bother highlighting. I think this should put it to bed, anyone else is welcome to discuss.

My analysis of Aquinas 5 ways (5 ways taken from here)

General objection: Completely dishonest use of the label "god" in not just one but all five ways. This is clearly to try and sneak in an intelligence in the cases where none has been demonstrated; and also to assume all these five things are the same thing. Completely unjustified.

The First Way: Argument from Motion

---

Our senses prove that some things are in motion.

Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.

Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.

Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).

Therefore nothing can move itself.

Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else. Criteria.

The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.

Argument from incredulity. There's nothing inconsistent about an infinite sequence.

Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Special pleading. This violates the above criteria.

---

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

---

We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.

Nothing exists prior to itself.

Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.

If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.

Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.

The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.

Argument from incredulity. There's nothing inconsistent about an infinite chain of causes going into the past.

Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

---

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

---

We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.

Assume that every being is a contingent being.

For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.

Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.

Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.

Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.

Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.

We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.

Therefore not every being is a contingent being.

Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

If I pretend the above argument makes sense, all that has been shown is that some "beings", whatever that means, have always existed. It's not been narrowed down to just one being, nor has it been shown there are any contingent beings to be "brought into existence", whatever that means. If bringing into existence simply means some things forming into other things, rather than appearing out of nowhere, then I'd hardly call this being contingent or coming into existence.

---

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

---

There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.

This is meaningless. Better or worse in what way? Who gets to decide?

Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).

The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.

Non sequitur. Even pretending the initial premise makes sense, this is just announcing a conclusion.

Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

No. Even if both of the above made sense, it's not been shown that one thing happens to be the maximum in every category.

---

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

---

We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.

A "goal" is entirely arbitrary and subjective. Stating it's not happening "by chance" is an argument from incredulity, if not just a flat out unsupported assertion. There's a difference between chance and natural processes, too.

Most natural things lack knowledge.  

But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.

Things without intelligence don't have their own goals, they are arbitrarily and subjectively assigned goals by intelligences.

Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Doesn't follow or even make sense. This is just fantasy, and labeling whatever happens as part of some "end".

---

[Mudhammam]

As I've said elsewhere, I would not include this as "evidence for God" - though slick experts in the arts of theology and sophistry attempt using them like clowns launching off a circus trampoline - there are some pretty reasonable observations that might suggest some middle ground between the reductionist materialism quite popular among atheists and a mode of existence bearing a semblance, in its finer details, to the mysterious architect which (whom?) emerges from natural theology; curiously, within the cruder frameworks devised for theological imaginings, the principles underlying the fictions always dissolve into the latter when their higher-minded, or more pious brothers and sisters, reduce their purpose to allegories concealing transcendent truths.

And the very idea of transcendent truth seems, well, both trascendent and true. Such is the case with necessary being. First principles. Statements that represent nothing but immutable, eternal facts about reality, yet are known only as mere concepts, in a sense that is fundamental to intellectual activity and the operations that make thought possible, and these appear to subject the entire universe to the tools of the natural vivisectionists we once called astrologers, magicians, and priests, and now call mathematicians, scientists, and philosophers. God, if correctly understood, is a trascendent explanation that serves as the starting point for all other knowledge, the sustaining cause of being, the objective idealization of meaning and morality, and the very reason for reason itself by which theists and atheists may engage one another on these important topics. That even an infinite number of configurations for existence are possible, and yet here we are, may never amount to a brute fact that is much more satisfying than a dull, vague Creator.

[Mudhammam]

And, if it boils down to a simple matter of taste, I'll take Timaeus over Genesis every time.

[robvalue]

I never understand the connection between morality and God.

"God" created our reality, big deal. He's probably a burglar alarm salesman in his reality. This whole thing is an incidental manifestation of some aspect of technology he uses. So will hundreds of others be. He doesn't even know it's "there" at all, much less that we are there and are somehow self-aware within the manifestation.

What's good old Jim Brookes got to do with morality?

[Mudhammam]

I never understand the connection between morality and God.

God is more or less a redundant attachment to the ideal of a Supreme Good, but has the one advantage of being taken more universally so as to combine all metaphysical terms (being, true, good, etc.) into one simple essence.

[robvalue]

So it's a nonsensical abstract concept with no relevance to reality as we live in it?

But since it's always one step further than the reach of science, people can still pretend it's there, somewhere.

[pocaracas]

The other day,I got a Catholic to define God as "That which nothing better can be imagined".
Which I guess they take to mean the most intelligent, most conscious, most logical, most kind, most loving...etc...

But that last word in there... They just can't grasp the irony.

[robvalue]

They're going to in for a disappointment when science finally discovers Jim.

Which scenario requires the least number of assumptions, Jim or an omni being of supreme perfect power that got bored/lonely, and so created some pals, but not ones that could see him, ones that can't, and not next to him, but in a whole different reality, so he could watch them while they couldn't see him, and eventually he takes some out to be with him, and they can then presumably see him, and puts some others in a massive oven forever.

[Excited Penguin]

There is a very simple argument as for why God doesn't exist, and it's simply that we cannot locate Him in reality in any way, shape or form. It remains to be a mere idea, one that doesn't particularly make very much sense. If you ask me, it's impossible and therefore it definitely doesn't and couldn't exist in any one universe, for it fails by definition. The only logical thing "God" could ever describe that actually exists is the cosmos, which invalidates its every supernatural pretension.

The philosophical attempts to argue God into existence, so to speak, are a mere exercise of the imagination. You can mentally fap to it all you want, at the end of the day we live in an evidence-based world, in a scientific world, which does away with the apparent need for that kind of baseless thinking.