There’s a few out there…
The freewill argument states that god cannot exist if he has freewill as he is all-knowing. Since there can never be a state of uncertainty for god, then he cannot exist and have free will. This makes god a slave to himself.
But, one would also claim that if he knows all, he also knows what choice he would have made if he had free will, thus he would then know what the outcome of that choice would be. And since he has already known what choice his free will made, he isn’t restricting himself from anything. I do not agree with this, but it is a logical argument for God, do you have any comments?
Counter-Counter Argument- Yeah, I’ll comment. He still never lives in a state of uncertainty. In other words, God still does not have free will. His omniscience is the chains that hold him down. He is still a slave to himself. Even if he’s always garunteed to make the right choice, he’s still a slave to the right choice. It’s not really an argument FOR god, as it still limits him severly.
Then there’s the transcendental argument for god’s non-existence. Essentially it states that if everything god created is contingent on god, and god created logic, then god is also a slave to his own creation. Since it would be gibberish to state that god can contradict laws of consistency and retain any value to anything, he cannot exist.
This is a good argument. But a man may make a street and not follow it; a man may make a theory and play Devil’s Advocate, but he doesn’t agree with it; in the end, one may break a law or action made by one’s self.
Counter-Counter Argument- Is it good to break the law? Why don’t they call it Heaven’s Advocate? If you build a road, you must follow that road at least once. The point is, logic is a trap that God could not escape.
Then there’s the teleological argument against god. If god wants us to believe in him, then why would he give us the capacity to doubt him. Since god is defined as a benevolent force that requires our worship (in order for him to have any personal purpose and in order to justify organized religion), then this god cannot exist.
But, God may have wanted man to have free will, who knows? Maybe, he wants to let people have the capacity to doubt him, but they all also have the urge to try and prove or find him. Which, would, in the end, get him all of the worship that he needs to exist.
Counter-Counter Argument- Soo… since god knows all, and sees all, he knows what I will do before I’m even born. God damned me from birth to be an unbeliever. Why? Is this the act of a good god?
The most common one is probably the argument from evil. If god is all good, all knowing, all benevolent, and all fantastical, then why is there evil in the world? Since there is evil in the world, and god is the creator of the world, then god must have been creator of evil. Since this contradicts the definition of god’s nature, god cannot exist.
God’s nature is to be good, not to force others to do so, especially man with ability of having free will. He creates everything to be good, but he gives them all the right to choose, this would then make some people choose the evil route and end up in Hell, along with the Devil.
Counter-Counter Argument- God made hell and the devil. God made free will. So, in turn, god made evil. Either way, the first act of evil MUST be God’s sin, not man’s. Original sin is the sin of the father. Who is father of all? God.
One that I just thought of a couple days ago that I’m not certain if it’s been stated before is a form of an ontological argument against his existence. Existence is really only a subset of potential. Since god is considered unlimited, he would have to both exist and not exist at the same time. Since something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time, god must only exist if he is to be real. Since existence is limited, then god’s power is limited by present existence, and therefore, by definition of god (that of which none greater can be concieved), god does not exist as I can concieve of a being not restricted by the properties of existence.
This is the only argument that I think is flawed, without having to play Devil’s Advocate. I think it has a good base, but the details are weak. You claim that existence is limited, which it does not have to be. Say there is a man that can not die. He is immortal, never, ever, will his life end in any way, he may be destroyed, gone from sight, et cetera; but, he will never, ever be gone for good. He is existing, but he never shall see non-existence, is he never, not not there? Think about this.
Counter-Counter Argument- Yeah, but he cannot exist and not exist at the same time. You are claiming that, by definition, existence is better than non-existence. I agree. HOWEVER, by definition, non-existence isn’t bad, either. It’s just “less good”. Wouldn’t god be more powerful if he BOTH existed AND not existed? He’s then no longer restricted to the small section of rationality that actually exists (reality) and would also be the ultimate rational imagination (that which does not exist). However, this cannot be without contradicting the laws of rationality as something can never exist and not exist at the same moment in time. Yes no?