An argument for the existence of God

[BestGuessYet]

@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.

[Corvus]

@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.

[Corvus]

@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.

[Corvus]

@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.

[180Proof]

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).

[BestGuessYet]

@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.”

[180Proof]

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.

[Scorpion]

Aristotle is correct. That’s why we have the axiom of infinity. This also means God exists.

[Scorpion]

@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.

[Michael]

@Scorpion

Necessary existence is a positive quality.

So you’ve switched back to a modal ontological argument, which I addressed here.

[Scorpion]

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.

[Corvus]

@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.

[Scorpion]

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?

[BestGuessYet]

@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.

[GregW]

@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

3. The physical substances are also subject to creation and annihilation,

Physical substances are subject to change, not created and annihilated.

@MoK

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.

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?

[180Proof]

@Scorpion

This also means God exists.

I don’t understand. Explain what you mean.

[Scorpion]

We define God exists.

[180Proof]

@Scorpion

We define God exists.

We define magic exists.

[Scorpion]

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?

[180Proof]

@Scorpion

Isn’t real money better than imagined money?

All money is “imagined”.