A few notes before I state the surprisingly simple argument. For those of you who don't know "A Priori" is an argument style were simply understanding what is said allows one to determine it as valid or not. For example if I say that I'm friends with a married bachlor you know that my statement can't be true (at least in the literal sense). The "God" in this argument is philosophical and does not point to any specific religion so it is best to take more of an agnostic approach if you accept the result. Once you have an idea it has a way of fighting back. For example, once we say that a triangle is a three sided closed figure the statement "A triangle has three interior angles that add up to 180 degrees" is true despite not being in the definition of a triangle. Now let us define "God" as a supremely prefect being (that is to say perfect in every way you can be be perfect). If "God" is supremely prefect then "God" must be perfect in existance. If "God" is perfect in existance then "God" must exist. Thoughts KHV?
You're presupposing that "God" exists in the first place. In order to believe that God is supremely perfect, you have to believe that God exists, which takes your argument to a full circle.
God exists at least as an idea, we are thinking about something afterall. Similar to the existance of a triangle like I brought up. You can't can't hold or touch the concept of a triange (objects based on the concept yes, but not the concept itself), but very few people would ordinarily try to argue that triangles don't exist. The idea of multiple levels of existance dates all the way back to Plato. And in the case of Plato an idea was actually a higher existance than a physical one.
It's been a year since I studied Philosophy, so I may be wrong in the following: Anyway, just because you can't touch the idea doesn't mean it exists. I know that's not what you're arguing, but just putting it out there. The only way to change an idea is to change the definition. If the mathematicians of the world decided that triangles need something else and change its definition to say three sides, but the angles add up to 210 degrees (it's irrelevant if it's impossible, just for the sake of argument), but that's not too likely (depending on the idea). With most forms of Philosophy (that I've looked at), it's rare to actually come up with a solid solution to philosophical problems. The idea of multiple levels of existence have been around for a long time, but that doesn't make it true. Plato also came up with his theory of forms, but that didn't account for understandable change and actually formed a paradox. Aristotle came up with something else for it only for someone else to come along years later and disprove him with something else.
I don't quite get this argument. Can't we apply it to a teapot too? Now let us define "The Perfect Teapot" as a teapot perfect for pouring tea. (that is to say perfect in every way required for pouring tea). If "The Perfect Teapot" is prefect for pouring tea, then "The Perfect Teapot" must be perfect in existence, as a non-existent teapot wouldn't pour tea very well. If "The Perfect Teapot" is perfect in existence then "The Perfect Teapot" must exist. Is that the basis of the argument, or have I misunderstood something?
My thought on God is relatively simple. God cannot be proven because God shouldn't exist. Never mind whether or not He exists. The point is that God is an abomination to science and natural law. This is not a bad thing. To me, saying that God exists and trying to prove it is the highest form of blasphemy because to prove Her existence is to say that you understand It completely. In short: 1. God can't exist, even though He does. 2. Even if it does exist, it impossible to prove something that cannot exist. 3. Because God cannot exist, She cannot be proven by any means. You're wrong on one thing. Even if the Perfect Teapot does not exist, the idea of the Perfect Teapot exists. This does not necessarily mean that the thing of the Perfect Teapot exists. Let's take another noncoporal example. Happiness. It is an idea. It cannot be proven that happiness truly does exist. However, because people have thought it up, the idea of happiness exists. The same is with God. To quote from my favorite source on this sort of thing, "When man first achieved the upright position he took a look at the stars... thought they were something to eat. When he couldn't reach them, he thought they were groceries belonging to a bigger creature... that's how Jehovah was born." This describes God as what It is to most of the world including myself, an idea. Above all else, before the Supreme Ruler of all Things, before the Creator of Man, before the First Cause, God is an idea. He is an idea that has changed the hearts of men in ways both good and evil. That is why God exists. Because whether or not He actually does exist in the way most Christians believe, She has changed the course of history over of millions of years. If nobody had ever thought of God, half the things in our history books would never have happened. No Crusades, no Holocaust, no Scopes Monkey Trial. None of that would have happened if there had never been a belief in God.
Exactly, which is why I was trying to confirm whether I was correctly interpreting Mixt's argument. The next step, once confirmed, would have been to point out the same thing you did.
So you do agree that even if you don't believe in God as a divine being, you can still believe in God as something that exists if only for the fact that He/She/It causes change in the world?
I was simply trying to expand off of physical existence because, as you pointed out, if you take existence in only the physical sense then it is a circular argument. Well it is true that Philosophy never lands on concrete answers, but for that matter neither does science. Both are great at saying what is false but neither can tell you what is true (due to abductive reasoning). I am curious about the paradox of forms though. My knowledge is admittedly small but I'm not seeing it. And I don't mean to ignore you P, it is just that my primary counter point is based off of Plato so I want to see what Carter Hall is getting at first.
If you don't believe in God as a divine being, then you don't believe in God. To believe in a non-divine god would be like believing in a triangle without three sides.
Except you CAN believe in a divine God as a non-divine idea. Go on, tell me that the idea of God has never once crossed your mind. An idea can always exist, no matter how ridiculous it is. Maybe I came up with an invention that would make millions of monsters that would slowly eat away at the multiverse. Such a machine is quite obviously never going to exist. But the idea will continue to exist until I and everybody that I told about it completely forget about it.
So did ghosts, aliens, Chtuluh and the Great King of Chocobos. What doesn' t exist if you follow that kind of non-logic ? Saying that something actually exists means that it' s not abstract. I fail to see any logic in that sentence. Might as well say "If Chtuluh is horrible then Chtuluh must exist. If any "logical" statement could be made to prove that God exists I think philosophers would have done so centuries ago.
The ideas of all of those exist. Maybe they don't exist as things, but the idea has been put out there, and until everyone who has ever come in contact those ideas forgets about those ideas and the effect they have had on the world (which, to my understanding is none), those ideas will continue to exist. Happiness exists. Happiness is abstract. Go on. Say otherwise without sounding totally insane. Exactly what I believe. God should not exist (but does in my beliefs) and therefore cannot be proven.
