Argument for gods existence

22 posts / 0 new
Last post
Teller's picture
Argument for gods existence

This argument will be based on pure rationality. This is going to be a bit "wordy" so please try to genuinely understand the argument. Here it goes:

Lets define god as a being which no greater being can be conceived of. I will now assume god does not exist and see if there are any contradictions (proof by contradiction).

If I can conceive of a being that is greater than a being which no greater being can be conceived of, then I can conceive of a being that is greater than a being which no greater can be conceived of- namely I can conceive of a being than which no greater can be conceived of.
I can not conceive of a being greater than a being than which no greater being can be conceived. Hence, a being than which no greater can be conceived exists (because if it did not exist we would have a contradiction).

I would love hearing what you say to this and if you have problems comprehending the verbiage I'm happy to help.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

CyberLN's picture
You asked. I think the OP is

You asked. I think the OP is a word salad.

Teller's picture
I understand the inherent

I understand the inherent lack of trust you have in the rational of theists as most of them are borderline idiotic. This however is a actual ontological argument that has meaning. Basically the question is: can you imagine anything greater than; something that which no greater can be imagined. If your answer is that you can't imagine it, then this thing must be existent as it does meet its definition

CyberLN's picture
Ontological arguments are not

Ontological arguments are not, imo, substantial proof. They are conceptual only and do not demonstrate physical reality. Sometimes they are cute, though.

Jared Alesi's picture
Here's a flaw: This rationale

Here's a flaw: This rationale can be used to conjure up anything you wish. Imagine there is an island, and no island can be conceived of that is any better than this island. Let's say it doesn't exist. This island is the absolute best island, with the best sand, the best trees, the best swimming holes, the best wildlife, and the best night sky. It even has the best hammock in which to lay. It has the best activities, too. You can snowboard on a mountain in the center, then jet-ski on the shores without getting even slightly chilly. You can tan without burning because it literally only lets in as much UV as your skin can handle. On this island, you don't get hungry. You're always happy. You can't hurt yourself. It is the essence of a good island. The only thing that could make this island any better is for it to exist. And since you can imagine a better island that has all this and does exist, it must exist. See the flaw here? Because this island obviously does not exist.
This theological proposition isn't anything new. It's actually been approached this way once before, by theologians two, three centuries ago. They ditched the idea. This is probably why.

If you'd like to know more about religious debate to avoid making easily countered arguments, watch Crash Course Philosophy. They used this exact idea in an episode. It's on YouTube.

Teller's picture
I've watched all of crash

I've watched all of crash course philosophy and am genuinely in love with philosophy :) . Anyhow there is a another similar argument that does not fall under the same predicament as Thomas Aquinas' argument. It states that:

I exist. therefore something exists. Whenever a bunch of things exist their (mereological) sum also exists. Therefore the sum of all things exists. [Therefore God—the sum of all things—exists.]

Jared Alesi's picture
I challenge you to provide

I challenge you to provide evidence that God is the sum of all things. Last I checked, everything doesn't have any sum identity other than what I previously stated: everything. To say that God is the sum of all things is to equate God with not only noble and majestic, but also unconventional and absurd. God is pottery. God is a flesh-eating virus. God is a potato. God is all potatoes. God is the country of Germany. God is a dumpster behind Arby's. I don't think any of those things have supernatural abilities, do you? I sincerely hope that your entire argument rests on something other than the unfounded assertion that God is the sum of all things. If there is a god, it would probably be slightly offended by being equated with the foreskin of a dead mongoose as equally as the branch of astrophysics. Nay, he should not be it, but its creator, no? Unless you choose to view God as the universe. And in which case, why rename the universe? It's already been named.

Nyarlathotep's picture
vfd - God—the sum of all

vfd - God—the sum of all things

Why sum? Why not product or superset, etc etc?

Teller's picture
What is the product of a TV

What is the product of a TV and a Rabbit? objects aren't mathematical properties. The sum of all teapots exists. It makes rational sense. But you need to first define the "superset" of all teapots. Then you can criticize why god is the sum of all things

Nyarlathotep's picture
vfd - objects aren't

vfd - objects aren't mathematical properties.

Then perhaps you should stop referring to their sum.

Teller's picture
"the conglomeration of all

"the conglomeration of all things". Please do not avoid the actual argument. My goal is to argue with rational not rhetoric and exact word definitions.

Nyarlathotep's picture
My goal is to argue with

vfd - My goal is to argue with rational not rhetoric and exact word definitions.

Here is what you have done in both arguments:

  1. Picked something you know exists (A)
  2. Made an argument that A exists (which isn't hard because of step 1)
  3. Define god as A.
  4. Conclude that therefore god must exist!

Basically you are defining god into existence. And now; after all of that, you are going to tell us you don't want to argue exact word definitions? You've been doing all along!
----------------------------------------------------
Let me rephrase my question: Why did you define god as the sum of all things (or the conglomeration, or whatever else you want to call it). Why not the conglomeration of all things good? Or the conglomeration of all yellow things. Or the conglomeration of all things possible. Or conglomeration of all the chewing gum stuck under tables? Or as that 1/2 eaten hot dog I found in my front yard today (and yes I did find one, so gross!).

Teller's picture
"the conglomeration of all

(third copy)

Teller's picture
"the conglomeration of all

(copy)

chimp3's picture
vfd: The real question is

vfd: The real question is what role the human imagination plays in the existence or nonexistence of any thing. The fact that you can imagine a being that is greatest of all does not make that being real. There are things which exist that you have never imagined. Your lack of imagination does not cause their demise. This says more about the limits of your imagination than about the existence or nonexistence of anything.

xenoview's picture
@vfd

@vfd
You opening post keeps repeating itself and going in circles. Humans created the gods to explain the unknown.

hermitdoc's picture
I get so tired of arguments

I get so tired of arguments like this. Theists come up with word salad abstract mumbo jumbo arguments for their all powerful, all knowing sky daddy thinking they are going to convince doubters that it exists. Just because you can provide a sound philosophical argument in support of a claim (which I am not saying your claim is) doesn't mean you have provided a sound argument for the reality of that claim. Why don't you just provide real, empirical evidence? It shouldn't really be that hard to prove the existence of something that according to you is so important and ubiquitous.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Hey Sam; long time no see!

Hey Sam; long time no see!

hermitdoc's picture
Thanks....nice to know

Thanks....nice to know someone noticed that I was not contributing. I've been lurking mostly, learning from folks like you who are far smarter than me.

Nyarlathotep's picture
You're so modest Sam!

You're so modest Sam!

mykcob4's picture
Please refer to:http://www

Please refer to:
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/helping-those-need-it-...
Your argument has no validity. It doesn't meet the minimum standard of proof.

Jared Alesi's picture
By the scientific standard of

By the scientific standard of "proof", neither do witnesses in a court of law. Proof cannot be accepted by eye-witness accounts, as humans are errant and can lie. Repeatable evidence is proof. Repeatable experiments are proof. Numerously confirmed proofs are important in science, so why not everywhere? Nobody logics their way out of an indictment, so nobody should logic their way into a religion. While logic is important, it bows to empirical evidence when speaking of events and outcomes. Such an idea should be held in courts, in my opinion. Probably have far fewer innocents convicted that way. I must agree with you, Mykcob.

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.