God Exists.

I have not debated someone on this issue in a long time, so this should be very fun. Rebuttals: "1) The Ontological Argument 1 God is the most perfect being. 2 It is more perfect to exist than to not exist. 3 If God lacked existence then God would not be God. 4 Thus to understand 'God' is to understand that God must exist. 5 To deny that God exists is a contradiction. 6 Therefore God exists by necessity. " I would ask my opponent to define perfection. Why is it more perfect to exist than not to exist? What you have done is assume that existence is a perfection (perfection is a subjective quality), and then said that since God is perfect he must exist. Not all things that we view as perfect exist. I can imagine in my mind a perfect mountain, yet it is still a product of my mind, and does not actually exist in the real world. That is because perfection is a product of the imagination. It is entirely subjective. Perfection exists only as a concept in the mind, what we view as personally appealing compared to other things. Just because we subjectively view or define existence as a perfection does not mean that these perfect things therefore objectively exist. "2) Argument from contingency 1 Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence other than itself (i. e. contingent beings) 2 The universe began to exist. (The universe is contingent) 3 Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence other than itself. 4 The cause of the universe must be a necessary being (i. e. , a being that is not caused, it is eternal, has always existed and will always exist) and not a contingent being because of that would lead to an infinite regress. 5 This being must be God because he is the necessary being. 6 Therefore, God exists. " In this argument, it is first assumed that the universe could not be an infinite regression. It asserts without good reason that everything in existence except god must have a cause. Why is this? Why must matter have a cause? Or energy? In the words of Bertrand Russell: "If God simply is, why cant the universe just be? " By universe he does not mean our collection of galaxies, which obviously has a cause (i. e the Big Bang). What he means by "universe" is all that is in existence. Matter, light, energy, motion, elements, atoms, and a quarks. The scientific building blocks of our collection of galaxies. Why must these have a cause? Why cant they exist in and of themselves? We may as well assume that the universe is uncaused, existing eternally and giving rise to all other cause and effect. This hypothesis has just as much explanatory power as the hypothesis that God created the universe, and it is much simpler, requiring fewer additional assumptions. Therefore, all other things being equal, it is to be preferred. (Occams razor). The argument also assumes that an infinite regress is impossible. This is drastic, especially since you are arguing for a being that itself has existed in an infinite regress. For instance, every thought God has ever had has been proceeded by another thought. This also leads to an infinite regress. Regardless, this is a flawed assumption, and it is entirely possible that the universe could have been proceeded by an infinite number of previous universes, each one unfolding with a rapid expansion and concluding with a rapid collapse. This should not be overlooked or discounted, or assumed to be incorrect. Finally, I cannot say this better than I have read it in an article long ago that I saved, "Say for the sake of argument that we ignore the above difficulty and grant this argument everything it asks then it still does nothing to establish the existence of God. Even if we accept this argument"s logic, all it proves is that there was a first cause. It does not prove that this first cause still exists today; it does not prove that this first cause has any interest in or awareness of human beings; it does not prove that this first cause is omnipotent or omniscient or benevolent. It does not even prove that the first cause is conscious or a person. An atheist could accept this entire chain of logic and then posit that the first cause was a purely natural phenomenon. " -- Anonymous I thought your final argument was the most interesting. I hope you dont mind that I didnt write a neat paragraph, its much easier to refute proofs going line by line. If you would prefer I only write paragraphs, I will in the future. 1 One cannot deny one's own existence. You can, I will allow it on the basis of common sense. 2 There is at least one thing that exists - you. Yes. Me, you. Everyone. 3 The act of being(existing) must itself exist. Remember, we defined existence as that with has objective being in reality. Many things have "being" in our imaginations but may not themselves exist in objective reality. 4 The nature of existence is actuality. ("actuality - really existing" v. "potentiality - could potentially exist") Not necessarily. Existence is not simply being, but becoming. It is both potentiality and actuality. We are, and we are becoming something else. A man cannot step in the same river twice. He is not the same man, and the river is not the same river. We are always becoming something else. So here, I will disagree, existence is being AND becoming. Actuality, and potentiality. 5 Esse (Existence) is nothing but pure actuality. See above. 6 Esse not only does exist but must exist. 7 Esse is distinct from everything else that exists. 8 Esse must be one. Wait, wait. Didnt you just define Esse as existence, and then say that esse (existence) is distinct from everything else in existence? So if there are many existences and they are all distinct, how can esse (existence) be one? 9 Esse must be immutable. No, since existence is also potentiality it can (and does) change. We call this time, which marks the change in what exists and what does not. 10 Esse must be eternal. Existence is not eternal. What exists now may not have existed long ago. Likewise what once existed may not exist in the future. 11 Esse must be infinite. Why? There are only a finite amount of existing things, and these things are not infinite. They do not last forever. 12 Esse must be omniscient. In order to know something, one must be personal. But how can you say existence is personal when there are many things that exist and are not personal? 13 Esse must be omnipotent. Again, why? 14 Esse is God. See above. I appreciated the time you took writing your arguments, I hope my responses made sense and my arguments do as well. Now, onto my own counter arguments. Argument 1: The concept of God is in and of itself logically contradictory. The Immutability vs. Creation Argument 1. If God exists, then he is immutable. 2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe. 3. An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at a later time not have that intention. 4. For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have had the intention to create it, but at a later time, after the creation, no longer have the intention to create it. 5. Thus, it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything (from 3 and 4). 6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5) Omnipotence vs. Omnipresence argument 1. If God exists, then he is omnipotent 2. If God exists, then he is omnipresent 3. An omnipotent being can do all things 4. An omniscient being knows all things 5. If something is known, it cannot be learned 6. Thus, since God knows everything, he cannot learn (4, 5) 7. God cannot do something (6) 8. God is a contradiction (3, 7) 9. It is logically impossible for God to exist. I could go on, but these two will suffice to prove that the very concept of God is contradictory. Of course this does not mean God does not exist (it is possible logic is an illusion or that God is beyond logic and experience), but since the very concept of God is illogical, we are justified in not believing in him in much the same way as we would disbelieve the existence of a married bachelor. The very concept is contradictory. I appreciate Pro taking the time to have a friendly debate with me. I wish him all the best. Max