Best Argument for God #apologetics #christian #god #jesus #philosophy #truth #theism #atheist

[Matthew-ccxt]

But what if it's only maximally great in it's local cluster?

[Jelgraf]

So, if we just assume a lot of things with no basis for their possibility being shown, then God? Idk about that chief

[comeasyouare]

This is not even an argument it is a statement based on a foregone conclusion. Worst argument ever. It is based solely on circular reason. Actually, a very good example of circular reasoning.

[playerwil]

While im not religious, i love hearing these kinds of things. Its always good to hear things from another side, qnd it's definitely thought provoling content.

[thinkforyourself]

I like the Argument from Morality. Before I knew it existed as a formal argument, I thought it often. Either there is no justice at all or there is such a thing as divine justice -- because man's justice is inadequate (e.g., tyrants prosper and the poor suffer). The Ontological Argument is also good.

[Theo_Skeptomai]

Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgement as to the existence of a god until sufficient evidence is introduced. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of gods._*

And here is the evidence as to why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 10 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by theists that a god exists. To be clear, these are not premises for an argument concluding there to be no gods. These are simply facts I take into account when evaluating the claim.

1. I personally have never observed a god.
2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god.
3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity.
4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument which also employed sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that a god(s) exists.
5. Of the 46 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain either fallacies or false or unsubstantiated premises.
6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon.
7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._
8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event.
9. Every phenomena that I have ever observed has *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity.
10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction, or do not present as falsifiable.

ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the existence of a god.

I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._*

I welcome any cordial response. Peace.

[ianosburn]

I had two watches this a few times to truly understand

[AnotherViewer]

Ontological Argument - The argument is in essence merely a linguistic trick. In philosophical terms, it commits a “bare assertion fallacy” i.e. the argument is assumed to be true merely because it says it is true, and it offers no supportive premise other than qualities inherent in the original statement it purports to prove. After all, the same ontological argument could be used to prove the existence of any "maximally great" thing at all. Another difficulty with the argument is that it assumes that “maximally great” is an objective property on which we can all agree. However, in reality the concept of "maximally great" is a subjective one. Also, certain attributes of the Christian God's "maximally great" qualities are inconsistent and potentially conflicting. For example, God is said to be both perfectly just and perfectly merciful, but a perfectly merciful god would forgive us our sins, while a perfectly just god would punish us for our sins.

edit: Forgot to give a link

[ianosburn]

This is so beautiful. Thank you, and God bless and have a great day or night😁

[Theo_Skeptomai]

This argument is not valid as one can argue the same exact argument (expressing the negation) and arrive at an equally "sound" argument concluding that a maximum great being does not exist. When both an proposed argument and its counter both reach a single inevitable conclusion using the same logical syllogism, then both arguments lack external validity. Arguments lacking external validity can not be sound arguments.

Here is the argument exposing the original proposition argument lacks external validity.

1. It is possible that God (a maximally great being) does not exist.

2. If it is possible that God does not exist, then God does not exist in some possible worlds.

3. If God does not exist in some possible worlds, then God does not exist in all possible worlds.

4. If God does not exist in all possible worlds, then God does not exist in the actual world.

5. If God does not exist in all possible worlds, then God does not exist.

6. Therefore, God does not exist.


1. It is possible that God (a maximally great being) does not exist.

2. If it is possible that God does not exist, then God does not exist in some possible worlds.

3. If God does not exist in some possible worlds, then God does not exist in all possible worlds.

4. If God does not exist in all possible worlds, then God does not exist in the actual world.

5. If God does not exist in all possible worlds, then God does not exist.

6. Therefore, God does not exist.

[djpeacannon]

This argument amounts to "God exists, therefore God exists." You can't have existence in a concept since to exist means that the concept has a referent. It means it's more than just a concept. How can something conceptually be not just a concept? You really see how this argument falls apart when you realise you can use it to argue literally anything exists.

"Realocorn Definition: A unicorn that exists." Notice how they still don't actually exist?

[GrFullyDead]

That argument is only true if you assume the first step is correct, however, that isn’t something that we agree on and would require actual evidence before anyone should take it seriously. We’d first need to define what maximally great actually means, then prove that a maximally great being could even possibly exist and doesn’t inherently contradict itself, then prove that a maximally great being actually does exist, then prove that the maximally great being is the Christian god, then prove that it’s your specific god from your specific sect of Christianity. There’s a lot of steps in between that were skipped for the sake of assuming the first point being true.

[MolettiDiSardo]

This is possibly the worst argument I've ever heard.

[TM]

The problem with this argument for Christianity is it seems to disprove the God of the bible. If I believe I can think of a Greater possible being than the one in the bible then the being I can think of is the maximally great being. I.e. The being I can think of would no assign eternal torment as a punishment for sin. There would be consequences for wrong doing but within proportion to the crime. Since God is Omni-benevolent eternal torment would seem to be antithetical to this omni-benevolent being or God.

[highatheist]

Well you need to show that such a being is even possible and not just assert it. The very first premis fails as you never gave any justification for it.