God Exists B/C He's God

Neo Bahamut

Blue Mage
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
157
Age
32
Gil
0
God is an omnipotent being. An omnipotent being has all characteristics. A being that exists naturally has more characteristics than one that doesn't. Therefore, God must exist, by definition.

Allow me to clarify something: I am not a Christian. In fact, this is an argument I've heard that I vehemently disagree with. It is, in my words, "The most retarded argument ever." I just wanted to open it up to criticism, in order to see what people here would say about it.

More on where it came from & why it's significant later.
 
I'm sorry to all religious people out there I do respect other peoples beliefs but the idea of God is outdated and well, just plain silly.

It was a good story to help explain the unexplainable in the days of old when we had no Science but now religeon is just a form of social control.

Watch this film, it'll help you come to terms with it:

www.zeitgeistmovie.com
 
First of all, that's completely off-topic. Second of all, I can tell you first hand that Zeitgeist is pure weapons grade bullshit.

What I would suggest is watching the list of figures they compare to Jesus. Pick a couple that you know, then ask yourself how similar they really are.

Hint: For the most part, they aren't.
 
If "God" has all characteristics of all... stuff, whatever... Then clearly, one cannot even begin to define this "god."

"B-b-b-b-b-but, I just did define "god." "God" is everything I said he/she/it is/was."

Freaky.
 
God exists because he is god? What does that even mean? You can't just say something exists because it does. That's like saying "The Yeti exists because he's the Yeti". There isn't any proof. It doesn't make sense. It's circle logic.

But, I fail to see how God is outdated because of science. There are still things that Science can't explain!
 
But, I fail to see how God is outdated because of science. There are still things that Science can't explain!

Like how the universe is created. Sure, to Christians it's simple because all they find is that God created the universe. Just like that. While scientists can only rely on theories of how our universe was created. After all, did we have any scientists way back when?

But like I've stated before, I respect everyone's beliefs. I truly believe God exists, and there are reasons there's no proof. The silliest reason (to Atheists, anyway) is faith. Believing while not seeing is enough for some people, but most just want proof, and they can be as stubborn as mules when it comes to that.

Which brings me to my next point. If everyone in the world just saw God on a regular basis, as if He lived in a great palace ruling over us, everyone would believe out of fear of going to Hell. Having seen God, crooks will THEN change their lives and pretend to become better people.

The way I see it? If God lived in the flesh among us, everyone would believe for the wrong reasons instead of the right ones. We'd have lots of hypocrisy. I mean, how are we gonna know if that person was good in the first place?

But let me say this: you don't need a reason to be a good person. And what better way to start by taking Jesus' example of selflessness and love. Those things are what He mostly taught, not saying things like "believe or die." Even if He wasn't the son of God, He was still a nice guy who did nothing wrong.

If people can behave without seeing God, then they believe in Him for the right reasons. But if evil people need to see Him to fear Him...well, what can I say? This is difficult for me to explain in a forum.

In conclusion, I guess being good not only applies to Christianity, but lots of things as well. Like your parents raising you to be good. Do we really need to ask "What's in it for me?" Because if you really had to ask, this is what I would say if I was the parent: "How about, for starters, you won't have problems with the law."

Sorry for the lengthy post, and I bet most of you won't even understand most of my message. x.x
 
God exists because he is god? What does that even mean? You can't just say something exists because it does. That's like saying "The Yeti exists because he's the Yeti". There isn't any proof. It doesn't make sense. It's circle logic.

But, I fail to see how God is outdated because of science. There are still things that Science can't explain!

Here's the twist: It isn't. The argument is actually perfectly valid. If existence is a quality & God has all qualities, then God must exist, by definition. So, imagine that you have a dictionary that says:

God: Noun. One who is omnipotent.

Omnipotent: Adj. Having all characteristics.

This, then, argues that existence is a characteristic, & therefore God exists.

This philosophy basically holds that things exist in idea & form. Since a being that exists in form would be more potent than one which doesn't...well, you see where I'm going with this.

To ammend your analogy, it would be more like, "If the Yeti is a large, hairy hominid, then by definition, any large, hairy hominid would be proof of the Yeti's existence."

Understand, "valid" does not mean "true." Have you ever heard of Zeno's Paradox? Basically, because you can divide distance infinitely, you must cover an infinite amount of distance in order to move. Therefore, movement is impossible. The logic works, & yet it's completely contradictory to what we see in reality.
 
God: Noun. One who is omnipotent.

Omnipotent: Adj. Having all characteristics.

This, then, argues that existence is a characteristic, & therefore God exists.

By that same token, wouldn't that mean that non-existence is also a characteristic, and therefore God can not exist?
 
Actually, I don't think it's often argued that God has every characteristic. Otherwise God would be evil. I'm pretty sure it's just accepted that God is supposed to be omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and benevolent (all-good).

Also, just because the argument "X is X because it is X" is logically valid, doesn't mean that it isn't a circular argument. Because to believe that God exists because he exists, you already have to believe that God exists to begin with. It's an absolutely terrible argument.
 
It is no more circular than saying a circle is round because a circle is round by definition. And I believe that St. Anselm would argue one of 2 things: Either God DOES have evil & non-existence, or they are both just deficiencies in good & existence, respectfully, & therefore God does not have them, because he has every quality to its maximum.

Regardless, I would agree that it's absolutely terrible. I just think it's important to acknowledge the fact that it is not circular. It is taking various definitions & using them to deduce the nature of God. Why, if it were circular, it would not be a valid argument.

The reason that the argument sounds so alien to our ears is likely because western philosophy was influenced much more by the man who refuted it, Immanuel Kant. How did he do it?

He simply denied the premise. He said, "Whether or not something exists does not add or subtract from the meaning of the word. Therefore, God does not, by definition, have to exist." Paraphrased. Therefore, whether or not you believe Anselm is right is basically dependent on whether or not you think his definitions are correct.

Do I have a point? That is a damn good question. I'm still kind of winging this topic.
 
Ask any philosopher, and they'll tell you that "God exists because he's God" is a circular argument. I'd bet everything to my name on that.

It's really the only flaw with the argument, and if it wasn't flawed in that way, then everyone would have to believe in God. And since many people don't, there's obviously something wrong with the argument. It's circular.

Saying that God exists because he's God assumes that you already believe in God. Because if you don't believe in God, then the argument is 100% moot. And seeing as how the point of the argument is to prove God's existence--even to those who don't believe in him--the argument proceeds to become pointless itself. The only people who will agree that the argument is true are people who already believe in God.

The argument is one-hundred percent circular.

Also, God (and when I refer to God I am referring to the Christian God) can't be evil. Then he wouldn't be God. Everything he does is right--it's one of the things that make him who he is.
 
You'd lose that bet. That's why I made the name drop: So that people could look into him.

EDIT: Well, you would win that bet, but only because you misphrased Anselm's argument. He says that God exists because God is omnipotent.

Again: It is only as circular as the argument that circle a must be round because circles are round.

It's an argument from definition. And it is not a moot point if you don't believe in God. Ineffective, perhaps, but not a moot point.

As for the Christian God, you would lose that bet as well. The Bible itself says that God creates both good & evil. It is also a mistake to assume that Anselm was referring to the Christian God. Although he totally was, this argument can be used to refer to any omnipotent deity.
 
After very brief research of Anselm and his argument, it looks like he never strictly makes mention of God. And also "God exists because God is omnipotent" is a gross summation and misrepresentation of his argument. From what I've seen, what he actually argues is that "If [he] is [thinking] of the Greatest Being Thinkable, then [he] is [thinking] of a being that exists". That is something that I can agree with and is true. Because perhaps the Greatest Being Thinkable is an actual, tangible being that can be observed, unlike any deity.

It's one thing to drop a random name. It's another to consult a philosopher. I have three doctors of philosophy that I have studied under, as well as a friend who will soon be graduating college with a degree in philosophy, and I feel confident that all of them would agree that even "God exists because God is omnipotent" is a circular argument.

In fact, it's really no different than the previous one you posted, because the argument requires that you have a belief in God's existence to begin with. Actually, it's even easier to point out the circularity in this one: If you don't believe in God, then either it doesn't matter if he's omnipotent, or you don't believe he is omnipotent. If it doesn't matter if he is omnipotent OR you don't believe he's omnipotent, the entire argument crumbles to dust.

Both arguments are--I will state again--circular by definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_argument
 
While your internet credentials certainly are impressive, you are misunderstanding Anselm's definition. He is saying that a being which exists is greater than one that does not, this is true. He is ALSO saying that God is--again, by definition--the "greatest conceivable being." As no being can be conceived as being greater than God, God must exist.

Follow him, now:

You agree that a being is greater if it exists in reality. Therefore, you would agree that a being which is the greatest conceivable being must also exist in reality. That greatest conceivable being is what is referred to as "God," Anselm would argue. Are you, then, perhaps disagreeing with the definition of God? If so, you've basically just pulled a Kant. I can't blame you, though. I've tried knocking it down without resorting to Kant. So far, I've got nothin'.

Your second point just kinda flies in the face of all logic. That's rather like saying that gravity can be rendered false just by not believing in it.
 
I guess my problem with Anselm's argument is that his definition of God is so vague and can vary from person to person. I'll give an example.

Anselm argues that he is thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable (GBT). If there is a greater being than the GBT, then it is false that he is thinking of the GBT. He states that being is greater than not being. If the being he is thinking of does not exist, then he isn't thinking of the GBT.

For argument's sake let's say that he is referring to the Christian God. Purely hypothetical, but it gives us something to play with. Now I come along and say "God is pretty good, but I can imagine someone even higher up. Someone more righteous and powerful, who God answers to." Now God isn't the GBT. Instead it's Super-God. In short, God is whatever I want or believe it to be. God could even be man, if I believed that we were the most superior creatures to exist, as we have yet to observe or show the existence of anything more advanced than ourselves--including spirits or intangible deities. After all, Anselm states himself that if the being doesn't exist, then it can't be the GBT.

And how is what I said like saying gravity doesn't exist if you don't believe in it? Things like gravity are observable and there are methods of proving it to be true. No one is arguing that "gravity only exists because there is gravity", and if someone did make that argument, they'd be just at fault of creating a circular argument as "God exists because he is God". Arguing that "gravity exists because there is gravity" in and of itself with no further input would not prove gravity's existence, just like the argument "God exists because he is God" in and of itself doesn't prove God's existence. There's no legitimate justification otherwise.

Circular arguments are a basic and fundamental fallacy to philosophy.
 
Simply put, Anselm's argument would stand whether someone believed in God or not, so long as his definition was right.

As to that, I'm unsure of what Anselm would say. There are any number of responses. The phenomenon is due to the limitations of human imagination, that's just being arrogant & presuming to know the mind of God, you're a fool (he was sort of an ass like that), etc.

In any case, you seem as though you would argue against a universal ideal, so you & Anselm are somewhat at odds at basically every conceivable level. So am I, really. But still, I don't think this can be called a circular argument. His premise isn't that God exists, it's that God is the greatest conceivable being. He then works from that. So...it works.

As noted, though, it doesn't work if the premise is wrong. And, as you alluded to, the definition of "God" is somewhat hard to pin down.
 
Then I misinterpreted the argument and was attacking it under faulty guise. I don't like Anselm's broad definition of the word God, because it takes a label with a relatively well-established definition and makes it ambiguous, which leads the argument to become trivial.

It'd be like if I said that really cold places are freezers, and someone said "Well, Antarctica is a cold place, and that certainly isn't a freezer", and I said "Yes it is, because it's really cold. That makes it a freezer." I am technically correct, by way of how I'm choosing to define a freezer.

I hope Anselm gets shot. I hate him and he has a dumb haircut.

Also due to my mistinterpretation, I see that Anselm's argument is not circular. (But the argument "God exists because God is omnipotent" is--however, I understand that this isn't Anselm's claim.)

Good game, friend.
 
God is an omnipotent being. An omnipotent being has all characteristics. A being that exists naturally has more characteristics than one that doesn't. Therefore, God must exist, by definition.

Allow me to clarify something: I am not a Christian. In fact, this is an argument I've heard that I vehemently disagree with. It is, in my words, "The most retarded argument ever." I just wanted to open it up to criticism, in order to see what people here would say about it.

More on where it came from & why it's significant later.

This has got to be the dumbest argument I've heard in support of God's existence in a while. It's circular sonny. You assume there exists an omnipotent being, more specifically God, which is exactly what you are trying to prove. Your premise uses your conclusion which again uses an unsubsantiaed premise.

Simply put, your premise that "god is omnipotent" is wrong because he doesn't exist when you begin your proof.

Plus, a circle isn't round because it is round by definition. There are mathetmatical proofs that demonstrate that a circle is a limit of a polygon* with infinite sides (or something like that). The world is a bit more complicated than it seems.

Edit: *
 
Last edited:
No, the definition of a circle is "a sequence of points equidistant from a center." It is not a polygon, because it has NO sides. A shape that fits the definition described will always be round.

This can be related to Anselm's argument. Since his premise is that God is "the greatest conceivable being," & an existing being is naturally greater than a non-existant being, then therefore, God exists. The premise doesn't say that he exists, it's just the inescapable conclusion from the definition, like that a circle has to be round.

It takes a definition of God, then works towards the conclusion that God exists.

1. God is the greatest conceivable being.
2. An existing being is greater than a non-existing being.
3. God must exist.

The premise does not assume that God exists, or use any synonym for the phrase "God is real." Ergo, the argument is not circular. It is dumb as Hell, though.
 
^^
Go to college and take some upper division mathematics courses before you dismiss what I said about a circle being the limit of an infinite sided polygon. You probably don't even know what a limit is. Learn some fundamental calculus and don't define a circle as it is done in some highschool geometry book; that's far from the real mathematical definition.

Again, it's circular because you are assuming the definition to be true. How hard is that to see?
 
Back
Top