Evidence that God exists

[Cleanthes]

Hmm.

This is a rather weak argument to design. I don't agree with this one, although I do like other versions.

I've noticed that people on here are constantly calling for empirical evidence for God's existence - fair enough. I'd be interested to know, do you guys ever get anyone bringing up ontological arguments for the existence of God? The reason I ask is that by their nature they require no empirical evidence - they argue that God's existence is a logical necessity, like 2+2=4, or p=p. No observational evidence required!

In case you jump on me, I'll say now that I don't think they work. It might be interesting to discuss though - make a change?

Cleanthes

[leo-rcc]

Ontological, transcendental, Kalam, the lot. Indeed the do not work because they either beg the question or end up being circular.

[Cleanthes]

Not that much of a change then

How about modal ontological arguments? I don't think they're circular or beg the question (although they come close). Here's one:

1: God is by definition eternal - i.e. he could not come into existence or leave existence, since he is not a contingent being.

2: If God exists, his existence is necessary (from 1)

3: If God does not exist, his existence is impossible (from 1)

4: God's existence is either necessary or impossible (from 2,3)

5: If God's existence was impossible, then the idea of God would be logically contradictory.

6: The idea of God is not logically contradictory.

7: God's existence is not logically impossible (from 5,6)

8: God's existence is necessary (from 4,7)

9: God exists (from 8).

What do you think?

Cleanthes

[leo-rcc]

1: How can you assign a property (being eternal) to a god if you havent proven a god exists?

[Cleanthes]

In the same way I can assign a property to anything definitionally. For example, I may say 'Unicorns have a horn'. I'm not saying that unicorns exist and have a horn, but that if unicorns existed, they would have a horn. It's a quality they possess by definition, and they don't have to exist for that statement to be correct.

So what premise 1 is saying is that if God exists, he has the property of 'being eternal'. It is just part of the definition of God, in the same way omnipotence is. At this point in the argument, no claims are being made regarding God's existence.

Cleanthes

[leo-rcc]

No it isn't. You still have not demonstrated why a god should be eternal.

Lets replace eternal with blue eyes

1: God has by definition blue eyes

2: If God exists, his must have blue eyes (from 1)

3: If God does not exist, he doesn't have blue eyes (from 1)

4: God's blue eyes either exist or don't exist (from 2,3)

5: If blue eyes were impossible, then the idea of God would be logically contradictory.

6: The idea of God is not logically contradictory.

7: God's blue eyes is not logically impossible (from 5,6)

8: God's blue eyes is necessary (from 4,7)

9: God exists (from 8).

See the flaw here?

[Cleanthes]

I don't think this analogy works

4: God's blue eyes either exist or don't exist (from 2,3)

This is a weaker claim than the original, which claims that God's existence is either necessary or impossible. God's blue eyes are either necessary, impossible, or contingent. So when we get to steps 7 and 8:

7: God's blue eyes is not logically impossible (from 5,6)

8: God's blue eyes is necessary (from 4,7)

The inference here is invalid, since God's blue eyes (if not impossible) are still either contingent or necessary. So on this parody of the argument, the inference from 7 to 8 is invalid because the blue eyes could either be contingent or necessary, once impossibility has been eliminated.

On the original argument, the inference is valid, because the only options available regarding God's existence are impossibility or necessity.

Cleanthes

[leo-rcc]

No you keep claiming that a property of an entity is necessary, while that has not been demonstrated.

Why would a god need to be eternal? Why is a god not a contingent being and how do you know that?

[Cleanthes]

Oh, sorry. I think I see.

Obviously, you're right. There is no reason a God should be necessary, eternal, etc.. Plenty of gods in the polytheistic religions aren't. And of course I don't know that god isn't a contingent being.

This argument is about what is often called the 'God of the philosophers' - that is, a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect and eternal. So the argument only works for a God that fits this definition. It aims to show that a God corresponding to this definition has to exist.

So the reason I haven't demonstrated that 'eternalness' is a property of God is that this argument doesn't require it. I can make up any definition I like - for example, I say a 'grumlin' is a small grey creature with large ears and red eyes. This can't be disputed, because it's my definition. Obviously, I'm making no claims at this point regarding the existence of a 'grumlin', but this isn't necessary (see my example of a unicorn above).

The argument works in a similar way, 'making up' a definition for God at the beginning. What the rest of the argument claims to show it that unlike the 'grumlin', the very concept of the philosophical God is such that it has to exist.

So a God needn't be eternal or noncontingent, as you say. But it is possible for one to be. And the argument says that that kind of God has to exist.

[leo-rcc]

So a God needn't be eternal or noncontingent, as you say. But it is possible for one to be. And the argument says that that kind of God has to exist.

So what you are saying that a god doesn't need to have the prerequisites, but if the god does have those prerequisites than that god must exist? Brilliant. It still says nothing whether or not that god exists.