I can prove that God exists

[Anonymous No.17539475]

1. Let us define God as “an all-powerful being”.
2. If God does not exist, then, as all non-existing things, he has no ability to affect the material world.
3. But if he has no ability to affect the material world, he is not an all powerful being. Even a worm, if it exists, can affect the material world, thus making a measly worm more powerful than God!
C. Therefore it follows that God must exist, as a non-existing God is a self-contradiction.

[Anonymous No.17539484]

Nice bait

[Anonymous No.17539491]

>>17539484
>Can’t refute it
>Call it bait

[Anonymous No.17539493]

First of all if you want to use that sort of logic you could simply say God is the purest form of existence, therefore for God to not exist makes no sense because existence is God.

That is not a good argument though. Just go read Edward Feser's 5 proofs and Aquinas... lol

[Anonymous No.17539511]

>>17539493
“Purest form of existence” is vague. An “all-powerful being” is very clear however. It just means a being which is capable of performing any logically possible act. Everyone can understand this, it’s not vague, and contains no logical contradiction.

[Anonymous No.17539571]

>>17539511
1. Let us define God as “something that exists”.
C. Therefore it follows that God must exist, as a non-existing God is a self-contradiction.

There you go bro that should clear it up. I am using the same logic as you still.

Seriously, just read.

https://www.amazon.com/Five-Proofs-Existence-Edward-Feser/dp/1621641333/ref=sr_1_1?crid=P77LOJBUGOOQ&dchild=1&keywords=feser+5+proofs&qid=1613266743&sprefix=feser%2Caps%2C172&sr=8-1

[Anonymous No.17539589]

>>17539571
That’s clearly begging the question, lmfao. Nothing about my argument begs the question.

[Anonymous No.17539602]

>>17539475
This is a nice try, but your mistake is that when using a proof by contradiction, you assume that God does not exist, so the definition of God as an all powerful being cannot be used as proposition.

Properties can only be applied to things that exist, therefore there is no contradiction when you say a non-existant God is not an all powerful being because non-existant things have no properties.

[Anonymous No.17539620]

>>17539602
>properties can only be applied to things that exist
Huh? So what is a fiction author doing when he says “the unicorn was white”? He’s assigning the property of whiteness to the unicorn, which does not exist. Dumbest objection I’ve heard in a long time.

[Anonymous No.17539664]

>>17539589
1. God is an all powerful being.
2. Something can not be all powerful if it does not exist.
3. Therefore God has to exist otherwise he would not be all powerful.

It is the same logic.

>>17539620
If God does not exist then he is not all powerful. Therefore there would be no contradiction. Your Hume tier example is meaningless and irrelevant because the unicorn does not exist therefore the non existent unicorn has no properties whether you imagine it or not. How are you this stupid, is this bait? It actually makes me sick that people on my side behave like this.

J U S T R E A D

[Anonymous No.17539687]

>>17539475
>C. Therefore it follows that God must exist, as a non-existing God is a self-contradiction.
how does this even follow from the third premise? wtf

[Anonymous No.17539733]

>>17539475
Typical wannabe christian intellectual behavior, read a book fag.
And this is coming from a believer.

[Anonymous No.17539746]

>>17539664
>That first argument
That’s sound but it’s also quite simplistic. My argument in the OP elaborates on why an all powerful non existing thing is a self-contradiction, whereas yours just states it. Don’t know why you think this is so absurd.
>If God does not exist then he is not all powerful.
Exactly
>Therefore there would be no contradiction.
The fuck are you talking about? It is a contradiction because God is defined as an all-powerful thing, and yet if he did not exist he would not be all powerful. It’s like you’re saying “if a bachelor was married then he would not be an unmarried man; ergo there is no contradiction if I say a bachelor is a married man!”
>non existent unicorn has no properties whether you imagine it or not.
This is really stupid. So when a maths teacher asks his students to picture a circle with centre (5,-3) that circle “has no properties” because it doesn’t exist? Lmfao, then how are the students supposed to solve the problems based on their knowledge of the circle’s properties? I should’ve used this as an excuse for doing bad on my geometry tests at school!
>JUST READ DUMBASS!!!
Yes you’re so superior to me mate.

[Anonymous No.17539772]

>>17539687
Statement 1: God is all powerful, meaning he can do anything that’s logically possible.
Statement 2: God does not exist and therefore cannot effect the material world.
This is a contradiction, so a non-existing God is a logical absurdity. Quite simple logic.

[Anonymous No.17539773]

>>17539475
This is like Descartes's ontological argument.

[Anonymous No.17539777]

>>17539475
Spinoza's God is the God that makes most sense

[Anonymous No.17539945]

>>17539746
>That’s sound but it’s also quite simplistic. My argument in the OP elaborates on why an all powerful non existing thing is a self-contradiction, whereas yours just states it. Don’t know why you think this is so absurd.
Just because my iteration is simpler and contains less elaboration does not mean I am missing the essential elements.
>Exactly
Okay so how do you know he exists?
>The fuck are you talking about? It is a contradiction because God is defined as an all-powerful thing, and yet if he did not exist he would not be all powerful.
Now you're getting it. Except you cant define God into existence, reality if YOUR definition of God is contradictory.
>This is really stupid. So when a maths teacher asks his students to picture a circle with centre (5,-3) that circle “has no properties” because it doesn’t exist? Lmfao, then how are the students supposed to solve the problems based on their knowledge of the circle’s properties? I should’ve used this as an excuse for doing bad on my geometry tests at school!
You just said non existent things contain existent properties. Stupid.
>Yes you’re so superior to me mate.
Mate your argumentation is SHIT and your attitude is SHIT. You're worse than atheists because you are inner corruption destroying us from the inside.

[Anonymous No.17539951]

>>17539945
Fixing error
>reality does not care if YOUR definition of God is contradictory.

[Anonymous No.17539966]

>>17539475
Two points of disagreement:

Your arbitrary definitions have no bearing on reality.

Your whole argument begs the question, in that it assumes the truth of your conclusion in the arbitrarily defined premise since one of the proper accidents of an all powerful being is the ability to affect the material world which itself implies existence.

If I am wrong, why?

[Anonymous No.17540033]

>>17539475
>>17539966
Also, for fun, explain how this argument is wrong. If you can I'll take you more seriously.

1. If God is omnipotent, God could create a boulder which he could not move
2. But if God cannot do something, God is not omnipotent.
3. Therefore the idea of an omnipotent God is self-contradictory.

[Anonymous No.17540248]

Proving or disproving that God exists is the ultimate sign of a pseud. It’s literally that obvious

[Anonymous No.17540257]

>>17540248

>Aristotle, among so many others, was a Pseud

It was a mistake going on this board.

[Anonymous No.17540293]

>>17540257
It’s pseudery regardless. Spending your time meditating naked in a cave would be a better wave to prove God that a bunch of pilpul

[Anonymous No.17540302]

OP should just read that book the other anon linked if he isn't baiting.

[Anonymous No.17540461]

The Mormons know what's up

[Anonymous No.17540621]

>>17539475
A god who can affect the material world without existing is more powerful than a god who needs to exist to affect the material world. Ergo, god doesn't exist.
t. better ontological baiter

[Anonymous No.17540931]

>>17539491
>Thread meant for causing flame wars
>attack people calling out the thread for what it is

[Anonymous No.17540972]

Non-existence/existence is not a property of God though.

[Anonymous No.17541023]

>1. Let us define God as “an all-powerful being”.
Okay.
>2. If God does not exist, then
You've already changed your definition of God. First you define him as an all-powerful being, and now you're defining him as non-existent. These are exclusive definitions (as you're so good to point out yourself) so you can't pre-suppose both of them.

9/10 I replied.

[Anonymous No.17541089]

>Let us define God

[Anonymous No.17541343]

>>17541089
/thread

[Anonymous No.17541868]

This thread was moved to >>>/his/10454964