Argument for existence of God

[mac_mogul]

I'm reading the words, but it's like they're in another language!

But i'm going to take a stab at it... I had a big thing typed up, but then I took a second look at the list above. Number three is what got me. If something exists in physical reality, then it wouldn't exist in your mind because it doesn't need to. The mind is purely for thought and imagination correct? If something exists in real life, their is no need for thought or imagination of the thing.

For example: i read the Harry Potter books, then I went to see the movies. I had imagined ever character in the books different than they were depicted in the movie. However, once I saw the movies, my views of the characters completely changed(for the worse i might add)And now I don't need my imagination or thought processes when reading the books. I already know what the characters look like, so they no longer exist in my mind.

Who knows... I might just be going off the deep end without a life-preserver.:sigh:

 

[MusicMakesDaMan]

But you remember what you USED to think the characters looked like, it's just not necesarily what you think of now......I think the illogic starts with the first step (it should just say, god exists in the mind: we don't know that he doesn't exist in reality) The second logic snag comes at step 4 along with your definition of god (basicly no one or thing is greater) therefor the stipulation "greater than god" makes no sense, there is no such thing! This makes step 5 false as well, as definitively, god is "greatest"....if one was to accept the definition of god, then they could simply skip to #6 as this is part of the definition of god....so finally, while atheists may agree that god exists in the mind, this does not mean that he exists in reality, The ultimate thought that ruins this whole arguement is one of my true beliefs, that is that your definition of god may be true, but no one ever said that god could not DIE....therefor if god is dead, then even though naught will ever be created greater than god, that does not follow the logic that god MUST exist.....

 

[MusicMakesDaMan]

ha!

 

[Cherubimon_3.20]

I have a couple of questions for you Emily

1. Who/what did you learn God from?
2. If your parents taught you, then who taught them.
3. If you read it all from a book, then someone wrote it, and the writer learned it from someone else.

This goes on and on. But wouldn't you think that there would be some margin of error in the teachings, like a misunderstanding or an error in translating from older bibles. There are approx 1 billion atheists in the world, and the rest believe in some sort of God. Thats a pretty big difference. and I think recently there has been a conflict between science and religion. Through out the ages, has there been any traces or evidence leading to the existence of God?

 

[Emily]

Theres 2 things you never talk about, politics and religion.. nothing good can come of it..

Lol, true, true, but now that we've got a conversation going...

mac_mogul, have you ever read 1984? (George Orwell) I think the basic idea of that book applies here... nothing can exist in reality if it doesn't exist in people's minds. For something to exist in reality, it has to exist in at least one person's mind, or else it would exist solely in the mind.

I think the illogic starts with the first step (it should just say, god exists in the mind: we don't know that he doesn't exist in reality)

The illogic can't start with the first step - the first step is a premise that you have to accept. (for the purposes of this argument)

The second logic snag comes at step 4 along with your definition of god (basicly no one or thing is greater) therefor the stipulation "greater than god" makes no sense, there is no such thing!

I see your point, but I think the use of the term "God" in step 4 refers to the part of the definition that says that God exists in the mind but not necessarily in reality. Step 4 is trying to say that it's impossible for the greatest possible being to exist only in the mind, and that if the so-called greatest possible being existed only in the mind, then it wouldn't truly be the greatest possible being.

This makes step 5 false as well, as definitively, god is "greatest"....

Same thing as above.

if one was to accept the definition of god, then they could simply skip to #6 as this is part of the definition of god....

That's true I guess, but there are almost always multiple ways to prove any given fact.

so finally, while atheists may agree that god exists in the mind, this does not mean that he exists in reality, The ultimate thought that ruins this whole arguement is one of my true beliefs, that is that your definition of god may be true, but no one ever said that god could not DIE....therefor if god is dead, then even though naught will ever be created greater than god, that does not follow the logic that god MUST exist.....

Well, if you agree with the definition of God as a perfect being, that is possessing all the positive qualities, then God couldn't die, then one could argue that immortality is a positive quality.

 

[Emily]

I have a couple of questions for you Emily

1. Who/what did you learn God from?
2. If your parents taught you, then who taught them.
3. If you read it all from a book, then someone wrote it, and the writer learned it from someone else.

This goes on and on. But wouldn't you think that there would be some margin of error in the teachings, like a misunderstanding or an error in translating from older bibles. There are approx 1 billion atheists in the world, and the rest believe in some sort of God. Thats a pretty big difference. and I think recently there has been a conflict between science and religion. Through out the ages, has there been any traces or evidence leading to the existence of God?

Well, for centuries people considered this argument to be irrefutable proof for the existence of God. As for my own definition of God, I personally don't believe in a god, and no one taught that to me - my parents let me form my own concept of God. But any errors that might have been woven into the definition of God over the centuries aren't really relevant because the idea is to accept that definition just for the heck of finding the flaw in the logic.

(Just as a sidenote - Even if I did believe in God, I wouldn't agree with this definition at all. If God didn't have flaws, then he presumably wouldn't have created a world with flaws. But I'm still curious as to what the problem is with this proof.)

 

[MusicMakesDaMan]

"I see your point, but I think the use of the term "God" in step 4 refers to the part of the definition that says that God exists in the mind but not necessarily in reality. Step 4 is trying to say that it's impossible for the greatest possible being to exist only in the mind, and that if the so-called greatest possible being existed only in the mind, then it wouldn't truly be the greatest possible being."


- Ok the definition you gave of god did not include that part about "existing in the mind" And I do not agree that existing only in the mind prevents an entity from existance (here's an example, Wookies exist, if only in Star Wars stories, they exist even on a small insugnificant level....at some point they were just one person's thought....they still EXISTED on some level....see if this were not true then "existing in the mind" would be a pointless arguement anyways, right?)

SECOND, Have any of us ever read any stories on immortality?(See any vampire story ever written for example) The general consensus is that living forever would not be a good thing. Human beings have relatively SHORT life spans, and some of us tire of them so quickly that we end it ourselves. So why would we assume that the perfect being would live forever?

Finally, I hope all of you are paying attention here, This is not a discussion on GOD and religion, it's on logic and assumptions....so even an Atheist taking the stance that god (as "the greatest being") AND can follow your logic through the Steps, that still doesn't mean God exists here and now(outside the mind) Let's go back to my Wookie example and say that they were REAL but have since been extinct....they do not technicly really exist in the physical world, only in our minds.....

 

[MusicMakesDaMan]

Also, look at number 4....if our "assumptions" about God are to be taken as a Definition (as you put it) then Number 4 is simply false....if god MUST be (by definition) the "Greatest" AND we assume that existance can be in the human mind or the "real" world, then 4 and 5 both must be thrown out...just following the logic

 

[MusicMakesDaMan]

Also, (sorry this is comin in pieces) is that for us to assume that #1 must be true then I'm sorry, but #10 must be false, a proof can not contain two statements that negate eachother...#1 as an assumption for the arguement is simply unnesecary.....finally (I promise this time) for a proof of logic to work one must start from a definitive fact (in this case it's our definition of god as the "greatest" being)......too many steps in the logic do not follow our difinitive, therefor the arguement is unsound

 

[Inaris]

Well, simply put, 5 and 6 negate each other.
If "5.) A being greater than God can exist in the mind. (From 3 and 4)"

then "6.) It is false that a being greater than God can exist in the mind. (From definition of God)" is simply wrong, or then 5 is false. Problem with 5 is that the existance of God in our minds is defined as perfect, so there is no possibility for something greater in out minds to exist.
But if either is false, then the whole proof falls apart.
On Number 4, the logic proves true, cause if it exists in reality, the existance in the mind of god would be less then that of the true reality. (From 1 and 2)

Well I think that is right, but then I read this again, and see there is no Proof that states if something exists in the mind it must exist in Reality. There are a few circles that run around it, but nothing actually states it.
My 2 cents