Arguments aiming to prove God's existence/non-existence

[Gustaf]

To answer your question, no, that's not what I effectively believe.

I never said I took everything in the Bible at face value, so I'm not really related to the strawman you just struck down.

I wasn't intentionally building a straw-man. You have said vry little about what you believe. What struck me is that you considered Christianity the closest to a 'divine truth'.

What I was most curious to know about (and I too have studied Godel) is why you believe that to be so, given that some of the opposition to Godels argument have came from Christians (Catholics in aprticular) who would consider that if taken to a logical conclustion, Godels argument is contrary to the concept of the Christian god.

I certainly don't think anyone is trying to deny that Godel's argument has no relevance. Of course it does; but there are also equally robust and valid arguments against it, which (and to keep it brief) simply charge Godel with comparing 'apples and oranges' or relying somewhat on intuition rather than evidence collection and study (I defer to Galen Strawson on this)

It is ultimately, for all it's complexities still an argument a priori on the necessity of god. It leads to circular reasoning, which itself stems from a constructed assertation (i.e god is possible). Saying that 'god is possible' introduces into the realms of possibility a human notion (god) and that 'it is possible.' Godels argument can still fail on this basis.

As a follower of Hume I'm not going to be easily persuaded by Godel's argument

Yes, from what I recall Gödel basically leads us to a point where you have to accept either atheism or theism, but rejects agnosticism. That is, either it is possible for God to exist and in that case he does, or it isn't possible. Which is interesting and sort of makes sense. Anyway, I'm not telling anyone to accept Gödel's proof of God's existence. That's not what I base my beliefs on either. I just thought it a bit bizarre to dismiss it without having any idea what it was (which I think is the case for most people here).

I think Christianity is closer than say Islam who seems to be a lot more tainted by Muhammed personally or the Eastern religions that seem much too pessimistic about life. But I'm not denying that my social context plays a great part in this decision. Nor am I denying that there is a lot of stuff I don't believe in at all, both in the Bible and in established churches. I do think Christianity is a decent framework though.

[Insula Dei]

Please give credit where credit's due: the ontological proof for God's existence is mainly St. Anselm's realization. And it's indeed quite a difficult one to disprove. The issue I take with it, however, lies in the line of Ockham: proving the existence of some higher, necessary entity and then call it God is not quite the same as proving the existence of the personal, contingent God of the Christian faith. I'm tempted to say the existence of God as he is can in fact not be proven, but I'm hardly a theologist.

[Gustaf]

Please give credit where credit's due: the ontological proof for God's existence is mainly St. Anselm's realization. And it's indeed quite a difficult one to disprove. The issue I take with it, however, lies in the line of Ockham: proving the existence of some higher, necessary entity and then call it God is not quite the same as proving the existence of the personal, contingent God of the Christian faith. I'm tempted to say the existence of God as he is can in fact not be proven, but I'm hardly a theologist.

That's why I said the more sophisticated variants of the ontological argument, such as Gödel's. I'm well aware that he didn't invent it.

[afleitch]

Please give credit where credit's due: the ontological proof for God's existence is mainly St. Anselm's realization. And it's indeed quite a difficult one to disprove. The issue I take with it, however, lies in the line of Ockham: proving the existence of some higher, necessary entity and then call it God is not quite the same as proving the existence of the personal, contingent God of the Christian faith. I'm tempted to say the existence of God as he is can in fact not be proven, but I'm hardly a theologist.

That's why I said the more sophisticated variants of the ontological argument, such as Gödel's. I'm well aware that he didn't invent it.

It still wouldn't prove the existance of the Christian god, which is what he was saying.

As sophisticated as Godel's arguments are, they can still be challenged on the same basic premise as Anselm's have been.

Besides - what can be greater than god? Two gods

Worth reading Graham Oppy on this actually.

[Gustaf]

Please give credit where credit's due: the ontological proof for God's existence is mainly St. Anselm's realization. And it's indeed quite a difficult one to disprove. The issue I take with it, however, lies in the line of Ockham: proving the existence of some higher, necessary entity and then call it God is not quite the same as proving the existence of the personal, contingent God of the Christian faith. I'm tempted to say the existence of God as he is can in fact not be proven, but I'm hardly a theologist.

That's why I said the more sophisticated variants of the ontological argument, such as Gödel's. I'm well aware that he didn't invent it.

It still wouldn't prove the existance of the Christian god, which is what he was saying.

As sophisticated as Godel's arguments are, they can still be challenged on the same basic premise as Anselm's have been.

Besides - what can be greater than god? Two gods

Worth reading Graham Oppy on this actually.

My reply wasn't directed at that part of his post, because I found it pretty obvious. So, yeah, I agree that it doesn't prove the existence of the Christian God in particular.

[afleitch]

Please give credit where credit's due: the ontological proof for God's existence is mainly St. Anselm's realization. And it's indeed quite a difficult one to disprove. The issue I take with it, however, lies in the line of Ockham: proving the existence of some higher, necessary entity and then call it God is not quite the same as proving the existence of the personal, contingent God of the Christian faith. I'm tempted to say the existence of God as he is can in fact not be proven, but I'm hardly a theologist.

That's why I said the more sophisticated variants of the ontological argument, such as Gödel's. I'm well aware that he didn't invent it.

It still wouldn't prove the existance of the Christian god, which is what he was saying.

As sophisticated as Godel's arguments are, they can still be challenged on the same basic premise as Anselm's have been.

Besides - what can be greater than god? Two gods

Worth reading Graham Oppy on this actually.

My reply wasn't directed at that part of his post, because I found it pretty obvious. So, yeah, I agree that it doesn't prove the existence of the Christian God in particular.

It doesn't even prove the existance of a god; it is still just an ontological argument.

[milhouse24]

Can you just say God is what pumps blood through our veins, makes the heart beat, and gives life to living things, out of nothing.  Its not judgemental, punishing, or nurturing.  It just is.  It is unexplanable.  It gives miracles when there is no hope. 

[afleitch]

Can you just say God is what pumps blood through our veins, makes the heart beat, and gives life to living things, out of nothing.  Its not judgemental, punishing, or nurturing.  It just is.  It is unexplanable.  It gives miracles when there is no hope. 

Whu?

[Gustaf]

Please give credit where credit's due: the ontological proof for God's existence is mainly St. Anselm's realization. And it's indeed quite a difficult one to disprove. The issue I take with it, however, lies in the line of Ockham: proving the existence of some higher, necessary entity and then call it God is not quite the same as proving the existence of the personal, contingent God of the Christian faith. I'm tempted to say the existence of God as he is can in fact not be proven, but I'm hardly a theologist.

That's why I said the more sophisticated variants of the ontological argument, such as Gödel's. I'm well aware that he didn't invent it.

It still wouldn't prove the existance of the Christian god, which is what he was saying.

As sophisticated as Godel's arguments are, they can still be challenged on the same basic premise as Anselm's have been.

Besides - what can be greater than god? Two gods

Worth reading Graham Oppy on this actually.

My reply wasn't directed at that part of his post, because I found it pretty obvious. So, yeah, I agree that it doesn't prove the existence of the Christian God in particular.

It doesn't even prove the existance of a god; it is still just an ontological argument.

Well...if you buy the argument it proves the existence of a god. If you don't buy it, no argument can prove anything of course.

[afleitch]

Please give credit where credit's due: the ontological proof for God's existence is mainly St. Anselm's realization. And it's indeed quite a difficult one to disprove. The issue I take with it, however, lies in the line of Ockham: proving the existence of some higher, necessary entity and then call it God is not quite the same as proving the existence of the personal, contingent God of the Christian faith. I'm tempted to say the existence of God as he is can in fact not be proven, but I'm hardly a theologist.

That's why I said the more sophisticated variants of the ontological argument, such as Gödel's. I'm well aware that he didn't invent it.

It still wouldn't prove the existance of the Christian god, which is what he was saying.

As sophisticated as Godel's arguments are, they can still be challenged on the same basic premise as Anselm's have been.

Besides - what can be greater than god? Two gods

Worth reading Graham Oppy on this actually.

My reply wasn't directed at that part of his post, because I found it pretty obvious. So, yeah, I agree that it doesn't prove the existence of the Christian God in particular.

It doesn't even prove the existance of a god; it is still just an ontological argument.

Well...if you buy the argument it proves the existence of a god. If you don't buy it, no argument can prove anything of course.

Well you were the one who introduced Godel into the argument He may be good, but if you do not believe that an ontological argument has any relevancy, his argument falls (bearing in mind that both non believers and believers have issues with ontological arguments).

For the record, Godels argument is increasingly popular amongst $cientologists, which is unfortunate. But desperation to be taken seriously often leads to the cannibalisation of other philosophies.

[milhouse24]

Can you just say God is what pumps blood through our veins, makes the heart beat, and gives life to living things, out of nothing.  Its not judgemental, punishing, or nurturing.  It just is.  It is unexplanable.  It gives miracles when there is no hope. 

Whu?

I don't think you can say God is a who.  God is not a person or an intelligent being.  
God is an ultra-intelligent being that gives life to living things, at conception.  
God is a thing that is meta-physical.  It might be too difficult for human beings to fathom, what is God.

[milhouse24]

But I think God is whatever You want to believe or choose to believe. 

I think to truly understand or think about God, you have to leave the safety of your house and spend days by yourself with no shelter in the woods to think about life, the Earth, Nature, and human survival.  Religion is politics by humans.

God's beauty is in Nature and the Earth.

[anvi]

The arguments that have been devised in the history of philosophy attempting to demonstrate God's existence have largely been rather poor.  Some are invalid, others are formally valid but unsound.  I take forms of the ontological argument, but classical ones like those Anselm and Leibniz and modern modal ones like Godel's and Plantinga's, to belong to the latter category.  I'm still pretty compelled by Kant's refutation of the ontological argument, namely that existence is not a predicate (or property) and therefore can't be relied on to demonstrate the reality of a thing.

[milhouse24]

There is politicized religion and a politicized God that pastors and organized religions use to control human behavior. 

But I think "God" as a definition is whatever you want to believe or define.  If you want to believe there is no God, then there is no God.  If someone wants to believe in Divine intervention then he can believe in God's power. 

It is your individual mind and whatever makes you happy or lets you make it through the day.

I think that "God can be everything in this world, and/or God can be nothing in this world"

I can say God is the air we breathe that gives us life, or God is the earth/soil, or God is nothing and its just humans and the trees, and we live our days of survival of the fittest.

But the manifestation of religion and God is to soothe the Human mind of curiosity and philosophy.  Its a conversation starter for the bored and asking "is there a purpose to his physical life" or how can I make my life better or cope through difficult times or pray for rain to water the farm during droughts. 

I may not believe in organized religion, but I believe that their is God (but its not defined in any way) and there is Heaven in the form of a coping mechanism for death and a survival of the individual soul and spirit after death.

[John Dibble]

But I think "God" as a definition is whatever you want to believe or define.

If that's the case then the word is useless. Fortunately that's not the case - while there may not be any singular definition for the word, there are certain things it implies that are pretty much universally agreed upon.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. Just no. What you believe or disbelieve about the existence of a thing has no bearing on whether or not it exists.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you high, or just pretentious? Maybe both?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That makes no sense. You can't believe in something you can't define in any way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Heaven exists or it doesn't. Which is it?

[ag]

I have a published paper proving the existence of God. Unfortunately, not only was I not able to prove uniqueness, but I got infinitely many of them!

[Gustaf]

Please give credit where credit's due: the ontological proof for God's existence is mainly St. Anselm's realization. And it's indeed quite a difficult one to disprove. The issue I take with it, however, lies in the line of Ockham: proving the existence of some higher, necessary entity and then call it God is not quite the same as proving the existence of the personal, contingent God of the Christian faith. I'm tempted to say the existence of God as he is can in fact not be proven, but I'm hardly a theologist.

That's why I said the more sophisticated variants of the ontological argument, such as Gödel's. I'm well aware that he didn't invent it.

It still wouldn't prove the existance of the Christian god, which is what he was saying.

As sophisticated as Godel's arguments are, they can still be challenged on the same basic premise as Anselm's have been.

Besides - what can be greater than god? Two gods

Worth reading Graham Oppy on this actually.

My reply wasn't directed at that part of his post, because I found it pretty obvious. So, yeah, I agree that it doesn't prove the existence of the Christian God in particular.

It doesn't even prove the existance of a god; it is still just an ontological argument.

Well...if you buy the argument it proves the existence of a god. If you don't buy it, no argument can prove anything of course.

Well you were the one who introduced Godel into the argument He may be good, but if you do not believe that an ontological argument has any relevancy, his argument falls (bearing in mind that both non believers and believers have issues with ontological arguments).

For the record, Godels argument is increasingly popular amongst $cientologists, which is unfortunate. But desperation to be taken seriously often leads to the cannibalisation of other philosophies.

I'm not the greatest fan of the ontological argument myself. I simply meant that calling it "just an argument" strikes me as odd - that sort of goes for all arguments regardless of how good they are. If you're convinced by it you are, otherwise you're not. If you are then apparently it was a good argument for you.

[afleitch]

I'm not the greatest fan of the ontological argument myself. I simply meant that calling it "just an argument" strikes me as odd - that sort of goes for all arguments regardless of how good they are. If you're convinced by it you are, otherwise you're not. If you are then apparently it was a good argument for you.

I can truthfully say, no argument I have heard, or read or engaged in recently has swayed my opinion. Even if it did, to then make the leap from deism to theism, if one be needed (and latch myself onto a belief system) is highly unlikely.

[milhouse24]

I believe that whatever one individual decides that makes him happy and satisfy the mind. 
We are all individuals with individual free choice, we are not required to join an organized religion or pressured into the beliefs of a community.  We one person dies, he does not die with a group, he dies by himself.  Its just him and the afterlife and the souls in the afterlife.  Different cultures describe "God" in different ways.  For instance, I believe that Native Americans associate God more with Mother Earth and the soil. 

I think that meta-physically speaking there is a God, but if someone chooses not to think about God in his daily life, then it doesn't matter to me whether he believes in God or not.

Western culture and religion has a definition of God, but this is not the same for other cultures.  The Bible and other religions are human interpretation of God.  Even present day, the religious and non-religious ponder what is God.  Its a never-ending pre-occupation of the human mind to define God and figure out God's plan for each one of us, if there is any plan for each person.  I can believe in God, but have not defined It in a rational way.

I would say an after-life exists, although I admit it is depressing to think that it doesn't.  I think humans have certainly idealized Heaven.  I don't know if the idealized version of Heaven exists as humans have written about. 

I think that when death occurs, it is such a trauma to the mind there is an out of body experience.  I believe that a God manifests itself in your own mind.  This manifestation is whatever religion you strongly believe in and it guides you into a spirit world or dream-like state, that is eternal.

But I think "God" as a definition is whatever you want to believe or define.

If that's the case then the word is useless. Fortunately that's not the case - while there may not be any singular definition for the word, there are certain things it implies that are pretty much universally agreed upon.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. Just no. What you believe or disbelieve about the existence of a thing has no bearing on whether or not it exists.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you high, or just pretentious? Maybe both?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That makes no sense. You can't believe in something you can't define in any way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Heaven exists or it doesn't. Which is it?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I find them silly as you cannot prove something which is fundamentally un-knowable.

[milhouse24]

I find them silly as you cannot prove something which is fundamentally un-knowable.

Exactly, unless you can someone prove a physical manifestation of God, the definition of God is up to an individual's own perceptions and is completely subjective to each individual. 

Is it a puppet-master?  Does it have human motives?  Does it even care about Human-kind?