What do you think of this argument for the existence of God?

Great Debates
#1

I am very interested in philosophical arguments for various different important philosophical questions. Instead of relying on previously existing arguments, I as a loose-hobby make up my own. The following is a unique argument that I have reasoned myself. Please note that I am an amateur philosopher at best; therefore, please poke as many holes into this argument as possible. I never really had any of my ideas peer-reviewed. Thus, I truly want to learn how to be more reasonable in my philosophical arguments.

The argument is as follows:

  • Fundamental truth is any idea that cannot be broken into simpler components.
  • Fictitious things must always be ideas that can be broken into fundamental truths.
  • The idea of God cannot be broken down further into more fundamental truths.
  • Therefore, the idea of God must be true because the idea cannot be broken down into more of a fundamental truth.

Potential Counter Arguments:

Fundamental Truths Do Not Exist:

I define a fundamental truth as follows:

“A fundamental truth is any proposition that is the foundation of a chain of reasoning or system.”

Fundamental truth within the context of this argument therefore is applicable to any chain of reasoning that can be said to be founded on reason, regardless of the existence of objective truth.

Not All Fictitious Things Are Based In Fundamental Truths:

It is impossible to contemplate something that does not exist in reality, because, to contemplate it is to make it exist in reality. Thus, all things must at least have have some basis in reality.

For an example: Take a unicorn. The concept of a unicorn by itself is fictitious. However, each and every one of the elements that make up a unicorn are based on fundamental truths. Horse, for an example, is a fundamental truth that makes up the concept of a unicorn. As does horn, which is another fundamental truth that makes up the concept of a unicorn. Every element that makes up the Unicorn is based on fundamental truth.

Even abstract concepts like magic or being are things that rely upon fundamental truths well. For for the example of being, the concept is based on existence itself, which is a fundamental truth in regards to the idea of being. Or, in the case of magic, the the fundamental truths of fictitious magic could be assigned as existence or the effect fictional magic has on the world.

The Idea Of God Can be Broken Down Further, Thus, Making It Not A Fundamental Truth:

This might be true if one where to assign elements to God that religions do. However, for this argument specifically, the only attribute that is being assigned to God is omnipotence.

I’m really interested in what this community has to say about this argument. If there are any major flaws in this argument, or if something needs to be clarified, please ask me! I can’t wait to see how others react to my created arguments. :smiley:

#2

Omnipotence alone does not a god make. Add the complexity of a god and it can be broken down further. On top of that, even if you define ‘god’ to mean ‘omnipotence’ you fail to provide any proof at all that omnipotence exists. The existence of the concept of omnipotence does not mean that omnipotence exists. That is a common problem with philosophical logic.

#3

That would be true for a more complex idea of “God.” However, even though it is less common, my argument is referring to omnipotence alone. (Note: I said omnipotence alone, not a being with omnipotence. In my hypothetical, omnipotence is not a modifier of a pre-existing thing, but rather a thing in-of itself. Basically the old-school idea that God IS what he does. For example, God does not love, he is love, God does not act, he is action. Etc.)

That is the point of my argument: The concept of omnipotence cannot be broken down into a more fundamental truth. For something to be a fundamental truth, it must by definition exist. Therefore, omnipotence must exist.

#4

I would say that this is wrong. For example, omnipotence can’t be broken down further (by your own reasoning*), but it is not a truth, it is a fiction.

I’m extremely sceptical of these types of arguments because they seem to boil down to a set of axioms that are made up and then the argument follows from there, but no evidence is given that the axioms themselves are true.

*I think it can be further broken down into the concepts of “knowing” and “all”

#5

God exists because a verb is a noun, and vice versa?

#6

None of what you say is relevant unless you define what you mean by “god”

#7

If God is action, and God is love, does that mean that action is love?

#8

I mean, if you want to go that route, pretty much all of philosophy is based on axioms that are “made up.” If an argument require physical evidence, it’s science, not philosophy. :wink:

#9

That is not my argument for why God exists, it is the definition for God in this argent in question.

#10

Then I would ask you to define the word “God”.

#11

I have defined God earler in the thread. However, for further clarity, I will define God in more persice terms:

God is existence, “Not a thing in existence, but existence itself.” For this argument, we therefore will define God as solely the trait of omnipotence.

#12

You just defined existence as omnipotence.
Would you please give a definition of “God” that doesn’t fuzz things up so bad that everything means everything else?

#13

I apologize, it’s really late where I live and I might not be making sense. :grinning: If need be, I will rephrase my argument tomorrow.

Anyways, that is how I define God for the propose of the argument: existence. It is not a popular diffention for God and I therefore do concede that it is confusing, but the premises of the argument rely upon that assumption.

#14

Existence exists.
You win.

#15

Omnipotence is not a singular thing in a multidimensional universe and can be broken down into all that it includes. So omnipotence is not a fundamental truth unless you believe god and existence is a 0-dimensional point.

#16

The problem here is that, even if you do prove that God, as defined, exists, the definition is so far removed from what most people mean by “God” that the proof is meaningless.

The only thing that could possibly be omnipotent would be the universe itself. Does the universe exist? Yes. Is the universe God? Well, maybe yeah, that’s probably close to what some people mean by God. But then proving its existence is easy and it really just comes down to how you choose to define “God”.

#17

You have given us a definition of God that means the same this as the definition of existence. The same definition does not require two different words, therefore the word “God” is not needed.

#18

Sadly I struggle with your logic here.

  1. You state that ‘Unicorns don’t exist.’
    Then you say that ‘to contemplate it is to make it exist in reality.’
    So since we have contemplated the concept of a Unicorn, it now exists in reality?

  2. You say that ’ The idea of God cannot be broken down further into more fundamental truths.’ and go on to say that ‘the only attribute that is being assigned to God is omnipotence.’
    Does your God have any motivation (especially towards us)?
    If She does have motivation, then God can be ‘broken down’ further.
    If God has no motivation, then you can safely say that it doesn’t matter whether we believe in such a Being. Indeed (as others have remarked), let’s simply say that the Universe exists and is everything, so is effectively ‘omnipotent’. Therefore the Universe is God.

#19

I like the Douglas Adams’ version:

God: “I refuse to prove that I exist for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothning.”

#20

So, like, a mindless omnipotence?

Because, in much the same way that you say you can get a fictitious concept by adding ‘horse’ to ‘horn’, you could maybe add ‘mind’ to omnipotence — but you’re pointedly not doing that; you’re noting that only one attribute is being assigned?