# An argument for the existence of God
**URL:** https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217
**Category:** Metaphysics & Epistemology
**Created:** [June 3, 2026, 4:11pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217 "2026-06-03T16:11:00Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 18
### Author:  [@BestGuessYet](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/BestGuessYet)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2026, 1:47pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/342 "2026-08-18T13:47:49Z")
> [@Corvus](#):
>
> God is not some existence in the world or universe.
I can’t say that there is no entity or force out there, but my best guess says there is not.
Or that if we ever find it, then we will probably keep looking for something else or something greater.
Will we call it God? Who knows.
---
### Author:  [@Corvus](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Corvus)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2026, 2:31pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/343 "2026-08-18T14:31:40Z")
> [@BestGuessYet](#):
>
> I think we humans build concepts, elaborate metaphors, and I enjoy building a God metaphor or two from time to time
I cannot remember who said it offhand, but “God is an invention with language”, sounds reasonable.
For me, whenever, I type G o d, on the keyboard, God appears on the screen. And that is as far as it goes with my perception of God.
---
### Author:  [@Corvus](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Corvus)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2026, 2:34pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/344 "2026-08-18T14:34:09Z")
> [@BestGuessYet](#):
>
> Will we call it God? Who knows.
Some folks believe money and the political position is God. That is how low it got sadly.
---
### Author:  [@Corvus](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Corvus)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2026, 2:43pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/345 "2026-08-18T14:43:22Z")
> [@BestGuessYet](#):
>
> Maybe the trick—to keep us sane and unconfused—is to remember that it is a metaphor.
Yes, God can exist in metaphor. If it exists in metaphor, it might be able to be proved via logic. Because metaphor can be analysed for what it actually means, and then converted into ontological statements.
---
### Author:  [@180Proof](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/180Proof)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2026, 4:12pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/346 "2026-08-18T16:12:11Z")
I agree with Aristotle: _the infinite_ (i.e. that which nothing greater can be conceived) _is potential and not actual_, therefore only exists in thought, not in reality (_pace_ Anselm, _pace_ Descartes).
---
### Author:  [@BestGuessYet](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/BestGuessYet)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2026, 4:28pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/347 "2026-08-18T16:28:08Z")
> [@Corvus](#):
>
> For me, whenever, I type G o d, on the keyboard, God appears on the screen. And that is as far as it goes with my perception of God.
People ask me if I believe in God, and I say, “Of course I do. I see that word all the time.”
---
### Author:  [@180Proof](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/180Proof)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2026, 4:37pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/348 "2026-08-18T16:37:07Z")
As an atheist (i.e. naturalist) **I believe in “gods or the God”** that has always existed _only_ in the literal-minded minds of countless billions of “believers”, or magical-thinkers. 👁
---
### Author:  [@Scorpion](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Scorpion)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2026, 8:16pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/349 "2026-08-18T20:16:46Z")
Aristotle is correct. That’s why we have the axiom of infinity. This also means God exists.
---
### Author:  [@Scorpion](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Scorpion)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2026, 8:30pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/350 "2026-08-18T20:30:10Z")
> [@Michael](#):
>
> Again, what does “greater” mean?
>
> And still; that you can imagine a bottle of water in your hand does not entail that there is a bottle of water in your hand, and that you can imagine a God who exists in reality does not entail that there is a God who exists in reality.
A thing is great if it possesses positive qualities and a thing is greatest iff it possesses all positive properties. Necessary existence is a positive quality.
Imagining x doesn’t mean x is real, yes. Unicorns, for example, are imagined but not real. However, God is not a unicorn.
---
### Author:  [@Michael](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Michael)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2026, 8:48pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/351 "2026-08-18T20:48:00Z")
> [@Scorpion](#):
>
> Necessary existence is a positive quality.
So you’ve switched back to a modal ontological argument, which I addressed [here](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/308).
---
### Author:  [@Scorpion](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Scorpion)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2026, 8:50pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/352 "2026-08-18T20:50:46Z")
I had to make an effort after you generously posted Godel’s argument. Asked AI to break it down for me. I can appreciate Godel’s proof much better now. I haven’t worked it out completely though.
---
### Author:  [@Corvus](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Corvus)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2026, 8:53pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/353 "2026-08-18T20:53:50Z")
> [@BestGuessYet](#):
>
> People ask me if I believe in God, and I say, “Of course I do. I see that word all the time.”
According to William James, existence of God is only possible via purely personal religious experience.
---
### Author:  [@Scorpion](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Scorpion)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2026, 9:32pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/354 "2026-08-18T21:32:41Z")
I don’t quite follow your refutation.
To me it’s rather simple 😅 God has all positive qualities. Necessary existence is a positive property. Hence God exists
1. \forall P(G)
2. P(\square \exists)
3. \square \exists (G)
Help me clean up the notation?
---
### Author:  [@BestGuessYet](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/BestGuessYet)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2026, 9:44pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/355 "2026-08-18T21:44:15Z")
> [@Corvus](#):
>
> According to William James, existence of God is only possible via purely personal religious experience.
People have mystical experiences all the time. Some say what they experience is God while others say it is the cosmos or even their dead ancestors.
If a guy tells me he had a personal experience of God, all I can do is nod and smile.
---
### Author:  [@GregW](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/GregW)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2026, 10:47pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/356 "2026-08-18T22:47:47Z")
> [@MoK](#):
>
> God comes into the picture as a result of discarding all theories for the beginning of time that explain the beginning of the universe. We are basically left with no explanation of how the universe could exist. The universe, however, exists; therefore, there must be a God who created the universe at a finite point in the past.
>
> The story simulation is long and can be explained in 6 steps: 1) Time cannot exist at present only, and change, 2) This means that we need two points of time, now and immediate future, in which now is constantly annihilated and the immediate future is constantly created, 3) The physical substances are also subject to creation and annihilation, 4) A computation is needed for the act of creation, 5) there is an entity who does the computation and run the universe, read it create and annihilate physical substances, 6) Therefore we are living in a simulation. I would be happy to expand if you are interested. Just please pick the step you don’t understand and let me know.
I cannot agree with your premise or your conclusion.
> [@MoK](#):
>
> 1. Time cannot exist at present only, and change, 2) This means that we need two points of time, now and immediate future, in which now is constantly annihilated and the immediate future is constantly created,
Differential calculus posits that differential change (in motion) occurs in zero time. Differential change (in motion) with time is instantaneous, not constantly annihilated and created.
> [@MoK](#):
>
> 1. The physical substances are also subject to creation and annihilation,
Physical substances are subject to change, not created and annihilated.
> [@MoK](#):
>
> 1. A computation is needed for the act of creation, 5) there is an entity who does the computation and run the universe, read it create and annihilate physical substances, 6) Therefore we are living in a simulation.
Really?
Do you call this entity who does the computation and run the universe, God? Is this entity perfect, with perfect goodness, perfect power, and perfect desire?
---
### Author:  [@180Proof](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/180Proof)
#### Post date: [August 19, 2026, 12:40am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/357 "2026-08-19T00:40:30Z")
> [@Scorpion](#):
>
> This also means God exists.
I don’t understand. Explain what you mean.
---
### Author:  [@Scorpion](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Scorpion)
#### Post date: [August 19, 2026, 1:31am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/358 "2026-08-19T01:31:27Z")
We define God exists.
---
### Author:  [@180Proof](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/180Proof)
#### Post date: [August 19, 2026, 2:18am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/359 "2026-08-19T02:18:29Z")
> [@Scorpion](#):
>
> We define God exists.
We define magic exists. 🙄
---
### Author:  [@Scorpion](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Scorpion)
#### Post date: [August 19, 2026, 2:21am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/360 "2026-08-19T02:21:44Z")
Strawman? 🙃
I mentioned earlier that Anselm’s proof isn’t easily refuted. Isn’t God all-good? Isn’t real money better than imagined money?
---
### Author:  [@180Proof](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/180Proof)
#### Post date: [August 19, 2026, 5:55am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/361 "2026-08-19T05:55:08Z")
> [@Scorpion](#):
>
> Isn’t real money better than imagined money?
All money is “imagined”.
[Previous page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217.md?page=17)
[Next page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217.md?page=19)