Armchair Proof For Existence Of God

Socrates Death IDoes a being that is God1 exist? Before we can disagree on whether or not a being that is God exists, we need to agree on what a being that is God is. There cannot be any disagreement unless there is an agreement on what is that is disputed.

What is a being that is God? A being that is God is a being that there could not be other than that which nothing greater nor equal could be conceived2. Such a being, if exists, must exhibit maximal perfection. Therefore, a being that is God, borrowing Alvin Plantinga’s insightful words, is a being “having an unsurpassable degree of greatness—that is, having a degree of greatness such that it’s not possible that there exist a being having more.” (Plantinga 2002: 102 emp. removed).

My first premise in my attempt to answer the dispute of whether or not a being that is God exists, is thus:

(1) If a being-that-is-God exists then that being-that-is-God could not be other than that which nothing greater (or equal) could be conceived.

Anselm of Canterbury (1033—1109) argued that, if there was such a being then it is absurd to hold that such a being exists in our thoughts alone but not also in reality. According to Anselm, both atheists and theists can agree with (1) (Anselm 2009). Atheists would argue that such a being exists in our minds alone. Theists, however, would argue that such a being exists both in our minds and in reality. [Read more...]

EQUIPPED Vol. 1 No. 1: In The Beginning – Evidence for the Existence of God

Screen Shot 2014-10-18 at 3.13.05 PMEQUIPPED – A CAA Quarterly

Vol. 1 No. 1: EQUIPPED 1.1 2014-10

The Christian Apologetics Alliance Statement of Faith is the foundation for the overarching topics on which issues of EQUIPPED are themed. Appropriately, EQUIPPED begins:

In The Beginning – Evidence for the Existence of God

With much prayer, we invite you to find a comfortable place to fill your mind with the truth of Jesus Christ, so that you, too, may be EQUIPPED.

—Glen Richmond, Acting Editor EQUIPPED

Does The Moral Argument Reify Subjective Morality?

http://filmandphilosophy.com/2013/03/07/platos-cave-and-the-cinema/

The prisoners in Plato’s parable of the cave reified the shadows. Does the moral argument do the same to subjective morality? Image source: http://filmandphilosophy.com/2013/03/07/platos-cave-and-the-cinema/

Matthew Lawrence wrote in this question and gave permission to blog it and my answer below:

Hello Christian Apologetics Alliance. I would like to first off say thank you for the resources that you’ve given to me. This has helped me boost my faith up greatly.

Also I was wondering if you can please help me with an objection to the moral argument. I was talking to a skeptic online about certain arguments that can help prove God’s existence. Another skeptic came in and accused the moral argument of being fallacious. The skeptic says that it “asserts necessarily subjective concepts (all concepts are subjective and relative by definition) are in fact real things, which is the reification fallacy.” 

Now I know something is fishy about his objection to the moral argument, but I can’t spot out where. Can you please help me?

Thank You Very Much!

~Matthew Lawrence.

________________

Here’s my answer:

1. If all concepts are merely subjective and none of them correspond to reality, and if all assertion relies on our ability to conceptualize, then all assertion is reification and nothing is actually (known to be) real. That is an extreme skepticism that fails to explain scientific progress. Ask him if he thinks there are any “real” conclusions that are reached without employing conceptualization, and without reifying in the process.

2. The divine command theory, if the commands are not grounded in God’s essential nature, does in fact commit the fallacy of reification. The commanding is the reifying.
[Read more...]

Is Intelligent Design A Circular Argument? A Response to Matt Dillahunty

On Sunday night, I called into the Atheist Experience, an atheist TV show based out of Austin, Texas.  It is a weekly call in program, airing every Sunday at 4:30 till 5:30pm Central and can be viewed on ustream. The recording of my discussion with Matt Dillahunty from Sunday night (I am the first and longest caller) can still be found online (mp3; video).

It is unfortunate that the vast majority of callers into the program are not well informed about their own faith, let alone how to defend it rationally. Informed and intelligent Christians rarely call into the program. I am not quite sure why this is, but I would speculate that most educated Christians feel that the Atheist Experience does not offer a fair contest. As I learned on Sunday, it is not easy to have a fair debate when your opponent has control of the mikes, when there is no impartial moderator, and when your opponent is repeatedly interrupting you mid flow, bringing up multiple objections and then perhaps giving you about 3 to 5 seconds at a time to make your case. I understand that they cannot have someone rambling on and on endlessly, but the limitation ought to be reasonable. At the end of our conversation, Matt accused me of employing circular reasoning. When I started to explain why I was not guilty of circular reasoning, he cut me off saying “We’re done.” For sure, I understand that they cannot have one caller take up the whole program. But this was a key point in the conversation. To make a point like that and not allow me to respond suggests to me that Dillahunty is more interested in making himself look good in the eyes of his fans rather than in the objective pursuit of truth. [Read more...]

Is The Ontological Argument Valid? – Conclusion

http://www.123rf.com/photo_17319720_abstract-word-cloud-for-ontological-argument-with-related-tags-and-terms.html

[I continue (Part 1 and Part 2) my assessment of the ontological argument by looking at modal versions of it and finally a conclusion.]

These modes of being (necessity and contingency) have led to a resurgence of the ontological argument by modern philosophers. Norman Malcolm (1911- ) has attempted to make the persuasive force for the ontological argument more transparent by recasting the argument in contemporary modal logic. Malcolm summarizes his proof as follows:

If God, a being greater than which cannot be conceived, does not exist then He cannot come into existence. For if He did He would either have been caused to come into existence or have happened to come into existence, and in either case He would be a limited being, which by our conception of Him He is not. Since He cannot come into existence, if He does not exist His existence is impossible. If He does exist He cannot have come into existence (for the reasons given), nor can He cease to exist, for nothing could cause Him to cease to exist nor could it just happen that He ceased to exist. So if God exists His existence is necessary. Thus God’s existence is either impossible or necessary. It can be the former only if the concept of such a being is self-contradictory or in some way logically absurd. Assuming that this is not so, it follows that He necessarily exists.[1] [Read more...]