ok,so ive found THE arguments for the existance of god in my philosophy course.

the first:

the ontological argument says; that there must be a perfect beign ,who (ONE) can imagine, must possess ALL perfections, including the perfection of experience...

2nd:

cosmological arg. says that there must be;

-an unmoved mover (a beign outside the world we live in)

-an uncaused cause

-a necessary beign

-standard of perfection

-a source of order and purpose

and the 3rd;

teleological arg. says that the universe is so skillfully and inticately made that there must be a univermaker...or....just as the existance of a watch argues for a watchmaker.

of course there are very good arguments attacking these arguments not to bring them down but for pholosophical sakes...



now,where i want to get to i would like to know what you think about my attacking (but not offending) argument existance:

God, beign a perfect being can then not be wrong and must be all strong and powerfull. if he is this then he has the ability to create anything no harder than he created man (and woman) to create a stone soo heavy that he cannot carry-so big and heavy,but he's god so h has the ability to do this-create this stone,ok so if he is all powerfull and perfect why cann henot carry this stone which is uncarryable for him?

he has created it and it must then stay uncarryable even if he does exist out side of time. so he cannot exist if he has any flaw ,whats so ever.

what you think?

http://christiananswers.net/q-aiia/trickyquestions.html

im lazy...

The objection you raise hints at the contradictory nature of an actual infinite. Here is how you do it for real:

If you want to know if there is a God or if there is a chair, you must use concept formation. I am not going to go into too much detail about it, but let’s cover a few things. Everything you know is based on something. You have seen chairs before so you use that knowledge to identify a new one when you see one. You know what stoves are from past experience and you know what heat is so you don’t put your hand on a new stove. These are “facts” that you are aware of. These types of facts are differentiated from all other facts. There are chairs and non-chairs (everything that is not a chair). Before that there is furniture and non-furniture. That would include chairs but still exclude bears. Furniture is still a concept formed from differentiation.

The fundamental concept is existence. There is no differentiation in the concept of existence because there is no non-existence to distinguish it from.

All our knowledge is based on something. We know something is red because we saw it or because someone told us and they saw it. We know what red is because we have seen it before. Every fact we have breaks down into another more basic fact.

But we do not have unlimited facts. Where does the chain end? Or is it all circular?

Saying that an apple is red presupposes the previous fact of identifying what red was when we saw it before. One fact is dependent on the other. However, saying that a chair is furniture does not presuppose what red is. However, all of these facts presuppose that existence exits. That is the end of the chain.

There are three axioms:

Existence exists

Consciousnes exists

Identity: A is A

The key to grasping the axioms is not agreeing with the statements. Most people would say that things exists, there is consciousness, and A is A. What needs to be grasped is the axiomatic status of these concepts. They cannot be broken down. Existence does not say what exists precisely, it just includes all existence whatever that may be and says it is. Consciousness does not say what you are conscious of, it just includes all thought and says it is. Identity is a corollary of existence and we can cover that later.

These axiomatic concepts are not differentiated from anything else. We “prove” differentiated concepts by means of other differentiated concepts, and those by other differentiated concepts, and on and on until we get to the axioms. That is where it ends. That is the final standard of proof for differentiated concepts. There is no where left to go. You cannot get outside existence to evaluate or question existence. You cannot get outside your consciousness to evaluate or question your consciousness.

There are two ways you can know about the axioms: Implicitly and Explicitly. You are learning about them explicitly right now; that is as a formal concept. However, you have learned them implicitly since you first became aware. You saw something and assumed that it existed. You thought something and assumed you could think.

You can chose to reject the axioms as axioms explicitly if you want to, but you cannot avoid the implicit assumption. No matter what you say or think, you will always implicitly assume that existence exists and that you have consciousness. While the axioms are not provable since proof needs an independent and more basic fact for the proof, they are inescapable. In addition, any denial of them is a contradiction since you implicitly assumed them to explicitly deny them.

Now let’s discuss the third and final axiom: Identity. Identity is really a corollary of existence, but is so fundamental epistemologically that it is important to address it as its own axiom.

To be is to be something.

If something exists, then something exists.

Something is what it is and is not something else.

Everything is limited and defined by its nature.

Those are just different ways of expressing the concept of identity. It is important to grasp that existence does not have identity; existence is identity. To be is to be something. To exist is to exist as something.

Identity is where order lies. Things are not chaotic because they are what they are. They behave how they behave. They exist.

The concept of “God” tries to divorce existence from identity. Something exists that is not something as opposed to something else…it is infinite. It is not something…it is undefined. It is but it isn’t. It is not bound by the concepts of identity or existence…yet it still exists. In short, it is a contradiction.

Remember that you cannot avoid implicitly accepting the axioms. Everything you say or think assumes existence, consciousness, and identity. Even when you explicitly deny the intrinsic nature of identity in existence by asserting there is an undefined existence, you still implicitly assume the opposite.

God is infinite. Translated: God is defined as undefined…a contradiction.

God is outside the universe (read existence). Translated: God exists outside of existence…a contradiction.

God is not subject to the laws of the universe (read existence/identity). Translated: God exists but has no identity…a contradiction.

Since you cannot avoid the assumption that contradicts the infinite nature of God, you are an implicit atheist before and after you become an explicit theist. The only way to stop being an implicit atheist is to stop thinking. Any time you assert there is a God, you are contradicting yourself.

Is that proof there is no God? No. A proof is a chain of differentiated facts that lead back to the axioms. God is not a differentiated fact. God is not consistent with the axioms, so it is an invalid concept; therefore you cannot apply the concept of “proof” to God. God is nothing, so it cannot be proved or disproved because there is no “it”.

If you want to accept contradictions, then you can go ahead and believe in God. If there are contradictions though, think of what that means: There being a God does not mean he exists. That is what you implicitly accept already if you believe in God, but it is much different when you grasp what is really going on and have to accept it explicitly.

I can post decent answers to the arguments you posted for the existence of God later.