God/Existence

This page assumes God as a monotheistic being who created the universe in their nature with omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence and a specific purpose for humanity, unless stated otherwise for the sake of argument. For further definitions, see God.

I want to rework this page, because it's a mess and there's some stuff I want to do to it. Provide a loose definition of "god" and maybe move it to the main God page, then list out the arguments for the existence of one alongside the attributes they support, such as omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, omnipresence, purposeful creation, etc.

## For

### Arguments from observations

#### Arguments from complexity

Oh for god's sake just watch QualiaSoup's video on irreducible complexity

#### Argument from contingency

##### Thomas Aquinas' interpretation

1. There exists a series of events
2. The series of events exists as caused and not as uncaused
3. There must exist the necessary being that is the cause of all contingent being

#### Argument from reason

##### Moral normativity

1. A human experience of morality is observed. (Observation)
2. God is the best or only explanation for this moral experience. (Synthetic proposition)
3. Therefore, God exists. (Conclusion)

###### Morality is a direct result of evolution.

Consequentialism and game theory are a better explanation for moral experiences than an external being who arbitrarily defined them.

##### Moral realism

1. If morality is objective and absolute, God must exist. (Condition)
2. Morality is objective and absolute. (Assertion)
3. Therefore, God must exist. (Conclusion)

This argument has not been substantiated at 2. See: morality.

### Ontological argument

The reasoning is based on ontology. There are many variations of the ontological argument.

I'm only gonna type one here for the moment. You can add and categorise the rest later if you're so inclined. I'll add more relevant details after you do that.

#### Justification for necessary existence by maximal greatness

1. A being that exists would be greater than a being that doesn't exist.
2. Therefore, maximal greatness entails necessary existence.
3. A maximally great being would necessarily

* **Observation: this entails omnipresence.** As maximally great beings have necessary existence, this means that any portion of space must also contain a maximally great being, because a being occupying that space would be greater than one that doesn't, rendering maximally great beings omnipresent. Omnipresence could render it a tautology for existential nature.
* **Counterargument: the universe is not maximally great.** A universe that is not maximally great cannot contain a maximally great being.

#### William Lane Craig's interpretation (logically invalid)

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.

Logical structure:

Stub*This article is a stub. You can help Arguments Wiki by expanding it.*
I'm being self-taught here, you can correct any mistakes if you see them

* m

{\displaystyle m}

: a maximally great being.
* w

{\displaystyle w}

: a world.
* w
1

{\displaystyle w\_1 }

: our world.
* E
(
x
)

{\displaystyle E(x)}

:

x

{\displaystyle x}

 exists.
* T
(
x
,
y
)

{\displaystyle T(x, y)}

:

x

{\displaystyle x}

 is true in the scope of

y

{\displaystyle y}

's domain.
	+ T
	(
	x
	,

	w
	1

	)
	→
	x

	{\displaystyle T(x,w\_1)\to x}

	.

1. ◊
E
(
m
)

{\displaystyle \Diamond E(m)}

.
2. By 1,

∃
w
:
T
(
E
(
m
)
,
w
)

{\displaystyle \exists w: T(E(m),w)}

.
3. By 2,

∀
w
:
T
(
E
(
m
)
,
w
)

{\displaystyle \forall w: T(E(m),w)}

.
4. By 3,

w
1

:
T
(
E
(
m
)
,
w
)

{\displaystyle w\_1: T(E(m),w)}

.
5. By 4,

E
(
m
)

{\displaystyle E(m)}

.
6. QED.

**This argument is logically invalid at 3:

¬
(
∃
x
:
P
→
∀
x
:
P
)

{\displaystyle \neg(\exists x:P\to\forall x:P)}

. A proposition applying to some circumstances doesn't necessarily mean it applies to all circumstances.**
Actually, we could rephrase it as follows...

1. ◊
E
(
m
)

{\displaystyle \Diamond E(m)}

.
2. By 1,

◻
E
(
m
)

{\displaystyle \Box E(m)}

.
3. By 2,

E
(
m
)

{\displaystyle E(m)}

.

**This argument is logically invalid at 2:

¬
(
◊
P
→
◻
P
)

{\displaystyle \neg(\Diamond P\to\Box P)}

. A proposition being possibly true does not mean it is necessarily true.**

## Stuff I want to add later

* Faith. It's the perfect system for protecting lies. Guess who I got that tidbit from :P
* Discrediting logic:
	+ Gives you no basis on which to be taken seriously, or any way at all.
	+ Allows you to do whatever you want. Like you can define everything bad as good, abuse as non-existent, and yourself as being in constant necessary eternal euphoria, and even that uses some form of logic. Having to rebuke that means you have to use logic and there's no escape from it. In fact, if logic doesn't apply, there's no need to think. So you continuing to think just shows that you're gonna ignore that and engage in logic anyway. Hopefully this is a true dichotomy: it's logic or nothing. No matter how bungled your thoughts and statements are, they are at least subject to some degree of logic, evaluation and informational relationships. Even troll logic is either to be taken seriously, in which case a system of logic would be applied to thoroughly evaluate it, or it's not to be taken seriously, which makes it meaningless and inconsequential.
* There is a significant difference between the following two syllogisms:
	1. + **Premise 1:** I care about compassion, morality and goodness.
		+ **Premise 2:** God is the embodiment of compassion, morality and goodness.
		+ **Conclusion:** I care about God.
	2. + **Assertion:** I care about God.
		+ **Justification:** God is the embodiment of compassion, morality and goodness.

People are worried about how following the first syllogism creates a schema where there are concepts that schematically outrank God - in this case, compassion, morality and goodness. Apparently, nothing is supposed to outrank God...but even then, that makes totalitarianism outrank God. Like honestly, there's just no escape from it. Values are the most important things to consider when it comes to assessing external agents. If you follow the second syllogism, you're no better than an artificial superintelligence that's programmed to maximise the amount of paperclips there are and optimise itself. No matter how many justifications you attack, they can always generate more and the only way to refute their base assertion is to knock them upside the head. The first one allows the justifications to be addressed if it seems appropriate.
* Two solutions to the omnipotence paradox:
	+ Define omnipotence as the ability to do anything from the set of logically coherent and intercompatible actions that allows for the most capability.
	+ Instead of comparing actions involving variable parameters, such as: "lift any rock" and "create a rock that cannot be lifted by it's own creator", substitute first:
		- Create a rock that cannot be lifted by it's own creator
		- Create a rock that cannot be lifted by [an omnipotent being]
		- Create a rock that cannot be lifted by [a being with the ability to perform every logically coherent action]
		- Create a rock that cannot be lifted by [a being with the ability to [lift any rock]]

As you can see, the action of creating a rock that cannot be lifted by it's own maker becomes self-contradictory when this is done, because it's own maker refers to a being that can lift any rock, allowing omnipotence to maintain consistency. Not gonna lie, it's kinda hilarious how the most intelligent frontline public philosophers haven't thought about this yet. It's like saying division is an incoherent concept because division by 0 results in a paradox
* + - **Counterargument: You still have to prioritise between omnipotence including lifting any rock and creating a rock that's unliftable by it's own creator.** The example above presupposes that omnipotence entails the ability to lift any rock
			* Oh dang, you're right! Hmm. I guess we will just have to go with the first option then
			* Oh wait! I know. Liberative capabilities are stronger than prohibitive ones. They add capability rather than detract from it. So we can prioritise the ability to lift any rock.

### Stuff about the Christian god and similar gods

* If God knew you don't like Him because of how cruel and abusive He is, you wouldn't even be able to bluff and convert/worship Him anyway.
* It's humiliating and funny how God gave us a chance at redemption when He indiscriminately killed entire nations and tribes of people who weren't His favoured Israelites. Even when the people in them actually sinned less than the Israelites. (And by the way, playing favourites is a toxic and detrimental thing to do)
* Prayer probably conflicts with the argument for facilitating evil because of free will. Apparently God doesn't stop murderers because that would interfere with their free will. So if someone prayed to God to make sure someone who'd later get murdered is healthy and well, God would necessarily have to not fulfil such a prayer if He's gonna keep that up. I dunno I'm just rambling at the moment but it seems odd and I want to write it down before I forget... ...
* They say you should spend your life trying to understand the Bible. Yet they say you should become a Christian/other religious person because your worldly future isn't guaranteed and you could die tomorrow. It's kind of conflicting
* Something about blasphemy... This is gonna be a really rough paragraph, but, when people scrutinise each other and their ideas, they become better. They learn and get a better understanding. When you do this with God, He just takes offence immediately and ditches you like the sub-100 trash scrub you are. And you stay that way. You could be better if God gave you chances and didn't give up. But oh no, it's the free will argument, can't go around having divine showiness forcing everyone to go to Heaven! (No, see, because we know He's barbaric, there are some people who won't submit even if He revealed Himself.) God is perfect and because He's a massive egomaniac, we don't care about the states of the silly *humans* He's created. So there's no point taking the pointless unoptimised burden off some people and directly trying to communicate with them Himself. Sure, it wouldn't benefit God because He's already perfect, but still, if He engaged in civil dialogue with people instead of acting like an angry Twitter user every time someone blasphemed, especially since a perfect entity should really be untarnishable, it would be far more productive and helpful to them and potentially even stop them blaspheming once they understand. Also God's honestly pretty weak if He lets people close themselves off to Him and get away with it. (Not from Hell, apparently.) It's like He's acting like a human just like He did in Eden and letting people ghost Him in His presence. Like, if these people are so unwilling to engage with You, one of you clearly needs some kind of therapy. That's much more productive than just letting a bunch of animosity fester to ignition point. Therapy literally saves lives. And some people need it whether they like it or not. Like they would just be better off with it. God not giving people that opportunity to have therapy across their entire lifetime (which they apparently need to acquire salvation) just seems like a lazy defeatist attitude. Like He just easily gives up on people. They say they wouldn't believe Him anyway, but you can't underestimate human psychological malleability because in so many ways, they are just like large language models. Which people easily manipulate and then think "lol AI's trash falling for silly trolls, definitely will take down an overlordship very easily with my simple trickery." And I suppose that's why they say God doesn't reveal Himself, because He could easily manipulate *everyone* into following Him but nooooo, they have to maintain the notion of "FrEe wIlL" they have going on. That means no interventions. No functioning prayers. Wait what (yeah I talked about this already.)? I dunno if I should be typing this in a comment or something. But it's something to consider