God's Existence (Christian)

Thanks for your argument Con. I look forward to your arguments and lets make this big. The Ontological argument For a little history, the ontological argument was created by Anselm of Canterbury, René Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz and other philosophers. The traditional definition of an ontological argument was given by Immanuel Kant. This argument is for the existence of God that uses ontology. Many arguments fall under the category of the ontological, and they tend to involve arguments about the state of being or existing. So, I will put forth my argument using the ontological argument to defend my stance for god. C.1 For ontological argument-Anselm’s logic In chapter two of the ontological argument, his logic can be summarized like so: 1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).2. God exists as an idea in the mind.3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)6. Therefore, God exists.Defense of 1-3: God is the highest power imaginable and it is conceptual truth that no higher power can be imagined. However, a being that exists as an idea and in reality is equal to a being that exists as any other idea. If this idea is in our mind, then it is in reality.Defense of 4-6: If god is equal to any other ideas, then we can imagine something greater than god because we can imagine higher ideas. However, imagining something higher than god is a contradiction to number 1. Since number 1 is a conceptual truth, we cannot imagine something greater than god since it is the highest being that can be imagined. Therefore, if we can conceive of a being than which nothing greater can be conceived, it must exist in reality. Thus, a being than which nothing greater could be conceived, which Anselm defined as God, must exist in realityFurthermore, Anselm further elaborates his logic (which to me) is in a more simpler way.1. By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.2.A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.3.Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, 4.then we can imagine something that is greater than God.5.But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.6.Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.7.God exists in the mind as an idea.8.Therefore, God necessarily exists in realityDefense of 1-4: God is something that nothing else can be imagined. So, a being that exists in reality is greater than one does not necessarily exist. God does not necessarily exist in reality, therefore we can imagine something greater than god. Defense of 5-8: However, imagining something greater than god is a contradiction to god itself, therefore we cannot imagine something greater than god.Then, if god exists as an idea in the mind, as an idea, then god exists in reality. C.2 of the Ontological argument-Mulla Sadra’s logic Sadra put forward a new argument, known as Argument of the Righteous. The argument attempts to prove the existence of God through the reality of existence, and to conclude with God's pre-eternal necessity. Her logic can be summarized like so:1.There is existence2.Existence is a perfection above which no perfection may be conceived3.God is perfection and perfection in existence4.Existence is a singular and simple reality; there is no metaphysical pluralism5.That singular reality is graded in intensity in a scale of perfection (that is, a denial of a pure monism).6.That scale must have a limit point, a point of greatest intensity and of greatest existence.7.Hence God exists.Defense of 1-3: If there is existence it is perfect and above which no perfection can be conceived. The existence that we have is perfect at that state. My personal interpretation is that there is nothing to compare tbe of state “x” of the universe because state “x” is perfect at being state “x” . There cannot be a more perfect state, because there is nothing to compare it to, and it is at its perfect state already. Defense of 4-7: The existence is singular and there is no metaphysical pluralism of that state of existence. If we were to measure the perfection of that state on a scale, there must be a limit or a point of greatest intensity of perfection and of greatest existence. Since there is no metaphysical pluralism (described in my previous defense) perfection exists, therefore god exists. C.3 of the Ontological argument-Alvin Planting and William Lane Craig’s view William Lane Craig’s view modifies Alvin Plantinga's alternative in a slightly different way. His logic follows: 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, then 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.Defense of 1-3: It is possible that god exists since he does not contradict any laws of physics. Therefore, if a possible god exists, then he exists in some possible world. If an all powerful being exists on some possible world, then he exists in every single possible world because he is eternal. Defense of 4-6: Since god exists on every possible world, then he exists in the actual world, because he exists in all possible world. Every single world in the universe is possible, therefore god exists in the real world. If god exists in the real world, then he exists on every single world. Therefore god exists. Rebuttals: R.1 Perfection One of my opponent’s main argument is that since perfection does not exist, god does not exist because his actions are not perfect. However, in defense 1-7 for Mulla Sadra, I have shown this is not the case. Since the state of “x” is singular, there is nothing to compare it to, therefore state of “x” is perfection. Even if we have a scale, the highest intensity of existence and perfection exists, therefore this is actually a favor for my argument. This simply brings down my opponent’s first point.R.2 Morality My opponent then argues how god is immoral because he knows the immoral things. To which I reply it is a fallacious claim. First of all, my opponent has not shown how lust and envy is immoral. We cannot use immorality defined by the Bible and even if we did, it would be irrelevant. I could go much deeper in regards to how morality does not exist, therefore it cannot be applied. However to give a brief description, nihilism is the default position. There is really nothing inherently right or wrong. R.3 Subjective views of religion and Christianity My opponent takes literal and objective views of the Bible to dictate the authority of this argument. This is unfair because religious views are subjective. We could take the main points of the Bible however Christianity is the following of Jesus Christ. As far as Christians are concerned even if you do not interpret the Bible literally, you can still be saved via Jesus. Using every definition of the Bible is unfair, because an individual can have different views of that Bible yet still follow Christ therefore being Christian. Also, since religious views are subjective my opponent cannot take one view that is biased towards his side and use it against me.R.4 Free will This is also part of R.3. My opponent claims that “According to Christians, personal beings have free will.” What? How is this in any way fair or relevant? You cannot take other people’s views that are not even stated in the Bible and use against me as I stated before. However, if the being knows everything it knows to avoid it’s choices. On top of that, it is up to the being to take the decision even if it right or wrong, which proves that god has free will. If right or wrong does not exist, then whatever god does that may harm humans is up to god, thus proving he has free will.Source(s):http://en.wikipedia.org...;