What do you think of this? Logical argument that god exists?

as seen here:

link

The idea of god is an all knowing, all powerful, existing in every possible world.

Thats part of what it means to be maximally great. (i.e. god.)

1.It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

2.If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, it exists in every possible world.

4.If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

6. Therefore a maximally great being exists.

Premisses 2-6 are relatively UNCONTROVERSIAL. Most philosophers would agree, that if gods existence is even "possible" then its follows logically that god must exist.

The principle to be settled is premise ONE.

The atheist has GOT to say that its "IMPOSSIBLE" that god exists.

You have got to say that the concept of god is "incoherent" like the concept of a round square or a married bachelor.

Before you go spouting your arguments, skip to 12:02 in the video.

Updates:
Yes I will agree its an argument of IF god exists, then he does.


The point is, atheists (not scientists) have to admit that you have to say that god therefore is IMPOSSIBLE to exist.


Let me just point out what maximally great means.

Maximally great means, all powerful all knowing, all good and he would exist in every logical possible world. A being/ something (including burritos) that did not have those properties would not therefore be "maximally great" we could conceive of something "greater"


Im sorry but I can sure think of something greater than a burrito.

It is commonly understood that a god, or a "maximally great being" would have to be "omnipresent"

Or he would not be "maximally great"

Someone who WAS omnipresent would be greater.

Anyone that doesn't understand this, doesn't understand the widely understood concept of "god" in the first place.

I shouldn't have to explain it.

But I am.


0|0
27

Most Helpful Girl

  • No. I'll give you premise one (it is possible that a maximally great being exists), but it's downhill from there.

    In the second premise "some possible world" is just a hypothetical place. It's someplace imagined, so if you imagine God exists there or not- it means nothing. It's in your head, and you could imagine anything in your head, but that doesn't mean it actually exists in real life.

    Premise three, again, sure if a being is "maximally great" and existed in one world it would exist in all others in order to satisy the qualification of "maximally great", but the argument is still only talking about existence in fantasy worlds.

    Premise four, you'd have to show that these made up worlds are real, or else you can't equate them or group them with the actual world.

    Premise 5&6, sure, but since the other premises don't hold up they're redundant.

    1|0
    0|0
    • You were fine until you said this:

      "the argument is still only talking about existence in fantasy worlds"

      Maximally great means existing in every possible world. including real and fantasy.

      Or we could think of something greater.

    • Show All
    • Not everything that is possible exists.

      " If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." - Voltaire

    • Not everything that is possible exists. - that's true. Which simply reaffirms premise one.

      "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." - Voltaire"

      It would not be necessary to invent him.

      Just like its not necessary to invent Zeus. Or leprechauns.

      Many atheists are fine with non believing and live their lives moral without some god telling them what to do.

Have an opinion?

What Girls Said 1

  • I don't buy point #3 - I don't think it follows at all that something which is "possible" actually exists in all "possible worlds". I or someone else can dream up some super all-powerful being (the flying spaghetti monster, for example) which would fit your criteria for a maximally great something, and concede that it's possible it might exist in some fantastical universe. I don't think that necessarily means that this thing I just came up with actually exists in all possible worlds, though.

    I also don't know why the definition of something "maximally great" includes "does exist in every logical possible world." As someone who wasn't raised to be particularly religious and someone who has never personally encountered a maximally great anything (as you define), it seems more logical to me that there might not be a maximally great anything. (To be tongue-in-cheek, you would have figured that if someone/thing was omnipresent and omnipowerful that I'd have run into it by now!)

    0|1
    0|0
    • \". I don't think that necessarily means that this thing I just came up with actually exists in all possible worlds, though. "

      The idea of maximally great is therefore existing in EVERY possible world.

      Or it wouldn't be "maximally" great. Because we could think of a greater possible thing.

      "l that I'd have run into it by now!)"

      Absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Yeah... that doesn't work.

    • Show All
    • A baby for example only knows at a certain point in its life, its surroundings, it takes time and effort to go out and actively search for answers.

      No one instinctively understands how to solve a quadratic equation. Its something you have to learn and find out.

      You have to choose to go out and learn it. And you can only do that if you first accept the foundation of math and agree that its true.

      The problem with atheists is that they assume its so ridiculous to begin with, its stupid to persue.

    • Why entertain the idea of leprechauns and unicorns and trying to prove the existence of Santa clause?

      I would say, because perhaps 80% of the world is not delusional, and it doesn't take that much effort to find if god is real to save yourself from eternal hellfire.

      They will just keep SAYING that there is no evidence for his existence, when they haven't even bothered to look.

      Im not going to bother researching on Leprechauns.

      The difference?

      80% of the population don't believe in Leprechauns

What Guys Said 7

  • No. There's a flaw

    3. If a maxially great being exists in some possible world, it exists in every possible world.

    No that doesn't follow at all.

    It's like saying

    If burritos are for sale in one supermarket, they're for sale in every supermarket. WRONG.

    5 and 6 are redundant.

    1|2
    0|1
    • Since when are Burritos "maximally great?"

      5 and 6 are not redundant

      5 is a premise, 6 is the conclusion.

  • The argument holds no water, because several of your assumptions are false, including that premises 2-6 are uncontroversial.

    1|2
    0|2
    • 1. I said relatively uncontroversial.

      2. 1+1=2 is false. Because I said so and I have no reason or need to justify why I think so.

    • 1+1=2 can indeed be false, depending on what you mean by "1" and how you round :D

  • "The atheist has GOT to say that its "IMPOSSIBLE" that god exists."

    Actually, no. I am an atheist and I do not claim (nor must I make the claim) that a prime mover or supreme being is impossible. I only need to claim that we do not know whether such an entity exists. Atheism merely states that the various "theisms" (religions) that human beings have created do not give an accurate account of how the universe began and are in conflict with what we can observe about the natural world. The burden of proof is on people who want to make the positive assertion that God exists. You cannot ask someone to disprove the existence of something that is not falsifiable (in this case the hypothesis of a supreme entity).

    1|1
    0|0
    • HA

      link

      LOL

      The following letter A- is symmetrical.

      atheism" = "a" + "theism" = "without" + "belief in deity"

      Agnostic= A + Gnostic + without +knowledge"

      link

      "One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism."

      You cannot be both atheist and agnostic. anymore than you can be a married bachelor.

    • Show All
    • Right. Based on my own view of what atheism means, that is a logically consistent statement. I reject the definition that the religious like to use as a rhetorical tactic.

    • Yes circles are squares because I said so.

      Squares are what my own view of what they mean.

  • That is not an argument that God exists. That is an argument that some type of god COULD exist. A crazy person could use the same thinking to try and convince others that he is really Napoleon Bonaparte sent into the future through some type of naturally occurring hole in time. Or maybe God sent him forward in time.

    Science doesn't have time for "It might be possible", and "what if's".

    0|0
    0|0
    • @ update. There is no evidence that God exists so we don't believe. It is impossible to disprove some magic guy living in the sky, to someone who uses the excuse "well God can do anything that's why you can't find him." The burden of proof is not on the atheist. Christians have to evidence that God exists.

    • Show All
    • You have to say that god existence is impossible. I don't see anything wrong with that. if god is akin to leprechauns and the Easter bunny, what's the issue?

    • No I don't have to say that God's existence is impossible. Only that his possibility to exist, does not mean he does exist. You are entitled you your opinion although you have failed to convince anyone on here, so it isn't just me. That means you have not argued your case well. The fault is in your argument, not in every person that disagrees with you.

  • I don't know if the argument is flawed because philosophers like Kant and Hume disproved it a while ago, but there are apparently newer versions of it

    I just wanna take a look at 'maximally great'

    even if it is a god I don't know how you could contribute it to theism, I don't know why God sending Jesus(or whatever your religion) is the 'maximally greatest' thing he could ever do

    It seems like you say he's prefect and then add any attribute you want to it and assume it's perfect as well

    0|0
    0|0
    • "God sending Jesus(or whatever your religion) is the 'maximally greatest' thing he could ever do"

      The argument is not about Jesus its about a maximally great being. (a god)

      "It seems like you say he's prefect and then add any attribute you want to it and assume it's perfect as well"

      No, its been defined quite well as I pointed out.

    • Show All
    • . Also since our perception of the universe is limited by the technology we have at our disposal and we have only observed the universe from our solar system, as humans we do not have an objectively pure perspective.

      In my estimation humans understand a fraction of the observable universe. So to try and quantify a GODS infinite power by giving it boundaries of any-kind is rather amusing since we don't even know anything beyond what we can currently observe.

      Its comical.

    • Btw, since when does a talking snake "make sense" and since when does god existing everywhere "at the same time" "make sense".

      It doesn't.

      Until its explained.

  • 1. Why is maximally great only all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good? What about every other aspect? If a maximal being existed in every aspect would he not be maximally fat, maximally smelly, and maximally Chinese to boot? (As well as every other thing imaginable)

    2. True.

    3. False. Why?

    4. Unsure of what you mean by existing in the "actual world". Can something exist in a non-actual world?

    5. Refer to 4.

    6. False.

    0|0
    0|0
    • "Why is maximally great only all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good?" Because that's what that means.

      No he would have the ability to be all of those things. He could choose to be indecisive, but a being that is "all good" would choose to be non smelly.

      And yes as well as the ability to be every other thing imaginable.

      3. No its true, because if he doesn't exist in every possible world he is therefore not maximally great.

      4. Yes. In your mind.

      6. nope true. as I've just shown.

    • Show All
    • And by the way, only a moron thinks that omnipresence rids someone of their uniqueness.

      Hey idiot, so if I'm standing on the Mexican border between the united states and Canada, therefore I'm TWO PEOPLE?

      Please. you suck.

      Dont try and reply I'm blocking you.

    • Also, you are a LIAR as well as being STUPID.

      if it had been "debunked" as you claim, it would have been the first thing you claimed.

      And you know what, I'm going to claim that Atheism has been debunked a sh*tload of times.

      Whats that? Wheres my evidence?

      I don't need any because I'm you.

      Ass.

  • god of religions doesn't exist!

    you are an idiot!and stupid fanatic!

    i believe there is a god,but the three religions made of him a monster!

    0|0
    0|0
    • i 'm deist I believe in god but all religions are manmade!

    • Wow he just said this

      uioaehfadnfa;kjsf.akjsdfn;ajkdnf;asfn

Loading... ;