Philosophy Final- God Exists

[Zackismet]

The ontological argument has been widely accepted as the basic premise for the case in the existence of God. The first requirement of this argument is that God must be defined as the perfect being, since after all, it is God. The definition of perfect would be to include all beneficial traits in the being. And there is no doubt that existing is a beneficial trait to the perfect being. Therefore, God must exist. Another allowable definition of God is that it is the being which nothing greater then it can be conceived. It is quite simple to understand the notion of a being which is so great that there is literally nothing that can be greater than it. However, imagine this being to be real and not simply a understanding. Since reality is great than mere concept, existing must be trait of the greatest conceivable being. Hence, by stating an understanding of God, one is stating God’s existence.
However, for either of these definitions, God must initially exist and be incapable of ending that existence. For if God came into being by cause or just happening, it would be a limited being and defy its own definition. So if God does not exist, then God will never exist. Also, God could not be caused to or simply cease to exist, because again, it would make God a limited being. Therefore, God’s existence is either rationally unattainable or necessary.
By this reasoning it would seem there is an admittance of the possibility of the nonexistence of God. Yet one must observe the completeness of impossibility. For it to be impossible for God to exist, we would be sure of this and there would never have been any circumstance in which it existed (and therefore continues to exists and always did). But we are not sure, and it is not a definite impossibility that at no time God did not exist. Without the impossibility of existence, God’s only other option is to necessarily exist.
Some rationale for the nonexistence of God can be found in the flawed definition which the entire ontological argument depends on. Allowing that God is the perfect or greatest conceivable being, a trait it must possess is omnipotence; because omnipotence is surely a trait that is beneficial to the being and cannot be excluded from all things which are part of the greatest conceivable being. If god was not capable of doing all things, it would be limited and therefore not perfect nor the greatest conceived thing. Pairing this trait with God’s necessity to exist and never ceasing to do so, a paradox arises. If God wished to cause itself to cease to exist, however unlikely, it must be able to do so or else it is not omnipotent. Alas, if God succeeds in its goal of eliminating itself, it must have never been eternal. If God is not eternal, then it is not perfect and therefore no longer necessarily exists.
Some would argue this is much like the omnipotence paradox. The trial asks the supposed omnipotent being to create a rock that it cannot lift. If it can create the requested rock, it is not omnipotent- for it cannot even lift a measly rock! But if the being cannot create the stone in question, then it is not omnipotent because it cannot create anything. The trouble with this argument is that in order for such a stone to exist, God must be able to lift only X weight. If God is truly omnipotent, X weight will not exist, and even an omnipotent being cannot create something that is impossible, because it would defy the definition of impossible and so in no way reduces the being’s omnipotence.
By the same reasoning, God attempting to cease to exist is simply another attempt at doing the impossible. God’s continued existence is mandatory by definition of its perfection, and God cannot change these definitions. This is because definitions exist as reality; they are the true and exact essence of what they describe. No, I am not saying they exist in a state greater or different than reality, I say they are reality. And God, God just incorporates all of reality into its perfect being, thereby solidifying its permanence. Without this permanence there would be no definite impossibilities, and therefore all things would be possible instantaneously and simultaneously, thus no definite reality would exist. Since observing the definite reality around us is what we do best, there must be a God to keep it defined so. I observe, therefore God exists.



I completely ignored the arguement for the existence of evil proving there's no god... anyway- my counter to that would have just been it's because god cannot do everything for us- it cannot save us from every disaster or malignant tumor because then we are not being watched over- we are being kept and no longer living.

[Guiscard]

I completely ignored the arguement for the existence of evil proving there's no god... anyway- my counter to that would have just been it's because god cannot do everything for us- it cannot save us from every disaster or malignant tumor because then we are not being watched over- we are being kept and no longer living.

Thats the main criticism of the Onotalogical argument. You assign God every beneficial quality in his perfection, and one of these must be omnibenevolence. Did you study Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov?

[btownmeggy]

I offer the Cliff Notes for those who don't have time to read the whole essay:

"I took an Intro the Religious Studies class and here I talk about all the arguments I learned that confirmed what I already thought."

[Heimdall]

The ontological argument has been widely accepted as the basic premise for the case in the existence of God.

It has also been rebutted since. (Kant and Hume)

In the late-18th-century Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant provided the standard rebuttal to the classic ontological argument: the mere concept of what God is does not entail his existence. While we may conceive of God as having the property of being all-powerful (say), existing is not a property of a thing at all. (More specifically, existence is not a perfection.) So the second premise is false. God's existence concerns whether our concept of God corresponds to anything real, and pure reason cannot tell us that (unless the concept of God is self-contradictory, in which case God cannot exist). We can show that the classic ontological argument fails by keeping the erroneous second premise and replacing the first one with: "Utopia is the most perfect ('the greatest') society conceivable." The parallel conclusion that Utopia (or "the greatest car," or whatever) must exist is clearly false. Only observation could determine that such things exist.

Of the Impossibility of an Ontological Proof

[kclborat]

"and I am going to ignore the basic flaw to the argument and state that I am not going to talk about it"

[heavycola]

1. The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable

2. The merit of an achivement is the product of its intrinsic quality and the ability of its creator

3. The greater the disability of its creator, the more impressive the achivement

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence

5. Therefore if we suppose the universe is the product of a creator, we can imagine an even greater creator, i.e. one that does not exist

6. Ergo - god does not exist.

(Douglas Gasking)

Krazee semantics.

[Heimdall]

Nice find Heavycola, that's mind boggling.

[mandalorian2298]

Does anyone know that logical proof that God exists (I think it is called Curry's paradox or something like that)?

[MeDeFe]

And it IS a paradox.

[MR. Nate]

While I'm not a fan of natural theology (meaning I'm not convinced that we can "prove" Gods existence, I am curious why we cannot accept Alvin Platinga's assertion that the belief in God is properly basic - meaning that it is as believable and proveable as the existence of other minds.

As for the great pumpkin, he is not incorrigable.

And if you really want to hit with the heavyweights, 1st Corinthians 1:19-25 makes us all feel a little less smart.

[Genghis Khant]

Damn right God exists. I am Him.

[heavycola]

Alvin Platinga's assertion that the belief in God is properly basic - meaning that it is as believable and proveable as the existence of other minds.

What do you mean? The existence of other minds is unproveable, but so what? we interact with them every day and take belief in them for granted, but to assert that god is obviously as real as other people is a bit silly, when there is no evidence of His existence at all.

Havign said that I am only responding to one off-the-cuff summary of presumably a much larger idea. Please explain what I am missing there.

[MR. Nate]

Plantiga asserts that certain beliefs are basic enough within the human mind to be taken for granted without having to provide "proof." Most of us believe that other people exist, despite not having any proof. Most of us believe that our memories are at least mostly accurate, despite not having any proof. Most of us believe that God exists, despite not having any proofs. These beliefs continually reappear in human conciousness, regardless of culture, geography or intelligence. They are things that people either take for granted as true, or are forced to build up a defense against. And no matter how much others try to destroy this belief, proponents continually arise.

By the way, the point of this argument is not to prove the existence of God, but to demonstrate that His existence is on equal epistemic grounds to a number of other beliefs that the human race holds as a whole.

[Flinn]

Interesting arguments. Although all this argument is made moot by the fact that I met God at a Cubs game last summer. We both had a cold Pepsi and a Hot Dog. After the game he turned water to wine and we tore up the town, it was a good time.

[Bertros Bertros]

I promised myself I wouldn't do this but what the heck...

I can't really see how whether other people exist, or my memories are correct is comparable with the existence of God.

As heavycola said, I interact with other people every day, and crucially they interact back, not so with God.

My memories are corroborated by written, audio and visual evidence over and over, excluding the much debated bible, again this is not the case with God.

This kind of philosophical word mongering is hardly the basis for a sound argument and really doesn't place the existence of God on equal epistemic grounds as the existence of other people.

[heavycola]

Plantiga asserts that certain beliefs are basic enough within the human mind to be taken for granted without having to provide "proof." Most of us believe that other people exist, despite not having any proof. Most of us believe that our memories are at least mostly accurate, despite not having any proof. Most of us believe that God exists, despite not having any proofs.

So majority rules, basically? In the middle ages most people believed in witches and goblins, despite any proof. When did that belief stop being 'properly basic'? We still can't prove that witches and goblins don't exist. Just becuse Prof Plantinga decides that certain beliefs are a priori doesn't make it so. When does a belief become 'properly basic'? When two people hold it? A thousand? A million? It's a pretty weak argument for the existence of god - 'a lot of people believe this without proof, therefore it must be true'.

[MR. Nate]

Majority does not rule, as I said, the incorrigibility of the belief is important. It's broader than a specific majority at a specific time in history.

And your missing the point of the argument. It's not to prove that God exists. It is to demonstrate that belief in God is equally legitimate with the permenance of memory and the existence of other minds.

If were talking epistemology, foundationalism doesn't explain memory or minds. Coherence theories break down rather quickly under examination, because they are forced, at some level to deny logic, which is the means by which they establish their argument. Anyone care to defend your memory of what you had for dinner last night based on either of those epistemologies?

[heavycola]

And your missing the point of the argument. It's not to prove that God exists. It is to demonstrate that belief in God is equally legitimate with the permenance of memory and the existence of other minds.

Which is to suggest that an atheist is as bonkers as a solipsist, which is bonkers itself.

[Bertros Bertros]

Im sorry Nate but I still don't get it. What do you mean by those two epistemologies?

But yes I'll defend my memory of last nights dinner. I had fish pie. This morning, what was left of the pie we didn't eat last night was there on the side in the kitchen and thus my memory of that pie is validated.

As I said before this kind of evidence for my memory is repeated over and over again. To suggest that existence of other minds or memory is equivalent to the existence of God just doesn't make sense. The only way in which these two fundamentals of being could be untrue is if my whole existence is in some way manufactured. This just isn't the case with God.

[Backglass]

Anyone care to defend your memory of what you had for dinner last night based on either of those epistemologies?

Do you always fall back on your "matrix theories"? "Prove to me you exist and arent just a brain in a pod somewhere" stuff?

All of your ancient manuscripts and obviously deep study and analysis of same, does not mean that you havent dedicated your life to the study of a fairy tale. I am sure that if your were able to go back to ancient egypt, they had an answer, story or explanation for every question about their sun god...but that didnt make it real.

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

The ontological argument for the existence of a deity is rife with circular logic, suppressed premises, assertions of the consequent, and a tad appeal to emotion.

In short, it's pseudo-intellectual trash. There is no logical way to prove the existence of a deity, but on that note, admittedly there is no logical way to the prove the nonexistence of a deity. However, there is more rational evidence against the concept of a deity then for, leading me to believe that there is no deity.

[MR. Nate]

ok - epistemology 101, edited for a forum.

Foundationalism: Everything has to have a reason for it to be true. If you believe something, it must be supported. Ultimatly, at the bottom, is a properly basic belief, which must be supported by sense experiance.
The problem: There is a lot that sense experiances don't explain, and that you'll never get to through the senses, like morality.

Coherence: Beliefs are true if they are consistent with the rest of the viewpoint.
The problem: I can belive, say that I'm on mars, and create a system that is consistent with that. You're belief that I'm on earth is consistent with your system. So, by this theory, I am both on mars and earth at the same time in the same sense.

As for you backglass, you still haven't proved to me that you are not a unicorn, so I'm a little unsure how to take your opinions.

[Bertros Bertros]

Im on somewhat dodgy ground here as my understanding of philosophy is entirely homegrown, hence my reticence to get involved in the first place, but in for a penny in for pound (do you guys in the state say in for a cent in for a dollar or do you have no idea what i'm taling about?)

I thought both foundationalism and coherentism were convenient ways of circumventing the problem of regression, thus providing justification for a belief for which there is no empirical justification? In lay terms, philosophical cop-outs. But then I'm no philosopher...

In either respect aren't we dealing with concepts designed to prove the unproveable and hence they could be used to justify my memory of last nights dinner?

Regardless of the intersting philosophical aside neither theory is in itself a compelling reason to place the believability in God on a par with the believability of other minds or memory.

[MR. Nate]

Because regression is still at issue.

How do you know what you had last night for dinner? You remember. You can't empirically prove that you ate fish pie, you only have some circumstantial evidence, such as the leftovers, and your memory. But you don't doubt it.

What I'm trying to say is that there is equal amounts of empirical evidence for God's existence and His non-existence. None. So, I'm on just as firm of ground in saying He does exist, as Backglass is on saying he does not exist. Emprically, the only feasable position is agnosticism. But, we've already agreed that empirical evidence is not the only thing that you can base a belief system on, so we're not really tied to that. Thus, the eternal wrangling.

As a result of my saying that athiests and Christians , Backglass will now want to either a)respond with a fanciful and unrelated comment or b)bring up all the evil that has ever existed.

Oh, and Jesse? The real problem with the ontological argument is the word "is." Halfway through, it changes from the is of identity to the is of predication.

[heavycola]

What I'm trying to say is that there is equal amounts of empirical evidence for God's existence and His non-existence.

I do agree that empirically agnosticism is the only proper view, but like Richard Dawkins wrote: "I am agnostic, but only in the sense that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of my garden". Not 50/50 at all.