What's the best argument for the existence of God?

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof

Not for a God in particular, mind you, but a metaphysical reality or nous above our own

Yeah, more of a Deist conception, a generic sort of higher intelligence

That's pretty true with any argument for the existence of god.

>existence of God

Attached: 6zfTNj2-9hPim62mFQLJe2h8nuyk9AdcU6rgWA0D3WE.jpg (524x400, 34K)

Paul Tillich suggested (in 1954) even Spinoza "elevates love out of the emotional into the ontological realm. And it is well known that from Empedocles and Plato to Augustine and Pico, to Hegel and Schelling, to Existentialism and depth psychology, love has played a central ontological role."[4] and that "love is being in actuality and love is the moving power of life"[5] and that an understanding of this should lead us to "turn from the naive nominalism in which the modern world lives".[6]

Descartes approves.

iep.utm.edu/descarte/#SH5b
>The ontological argument is found in the Fifth Meditation and follows a more straightforwardly geometrical line of reasoning. Here Descartes argues that God’s existence is deducible from the idea of his nature just as the fact that the sum of the interior angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles is deducible from the idea of the nature of a triangle. The point is that this property is contained in the nature of a triangle, and so it is inseparable from that nature. Accordingly, the nature of a triangle without this property is unintelligible. Similarly, it is apparent that the idea of God is that of a supremely perfect being, that is, a being with all perfections to the highest degree. Moreover, actual existence is a perfection, at least insofar as most would agree that it is better to actually exist than not. Now, if the idea of God did not contain actual existence, then it would lack a perfection. Accordingly, it would no longer be the idea of a supremely perfect being but the idea of something with an imperfection, namely non-existence, and, therefore, it would no longer be the idea of God. Hence, the idea of a supremely perfect being or God without existence is unintelligible. This means that existence is contained in the essence of an infinite substance, and therefore God must exist by his very nature. Indeed, any attempt to conceive of God as not existing would be like trying to conceive of a mountain without a valley – it just cannot be done.

Attached: René Descartes.jpg (1548x1939, 268K)

The ontological argument makes me dizzy. If it's an act of intellectual charlatanry it is the most ingenuous one ever devised. I can never make my mind up about it.

Thanks for the input, Jaxton, but really, shouldn't you be getting some sleep on this school night?

>the universe
>orderly
Refuted

stfu idiot

When the Vatican, the Trump/Clinton global pedo network, and all those involved in bailing out Epstein are turned into a pillar of salt.

youtube.com/watch?v=jGcu4TZmBhM (skip to 1:15 if you're impatient)

plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/
Descartes' ontological (or a priori) argument is both one of the most fascinating and poorly understood aspects of his philosophy. Fascination with the argument stems from the effort to prove God's existence from simple but powerful premises. Existence is derived immediately from the clear and distinct idea of a supremely perfect being. Ironically, the simplicity of the argument has also produced several misreadings, exacerbated in part by Descartes' tendency to formulate it in different ways.

The main statement of the argument appears in the Fifth Meditation. This comes on the heels of an earlier causal argument for God's existence in the Third Meditation, raising questions about the order and relation between these two distinct proofs. Descartes repeats the ontological argument in a few other central texts including the Principles of Philosophy. He also defends it in the First, Second, and Fifth Replies against scathing objections by some of the leading intellectuals of his day.

Descartes was not the first philosopher to formulate an ontological argument. An earlier version of the argument had been vigorously defended by St. Anselm in the eleventh century, and then criticized by a monk named Gaunilo (Anselm's contemporary) and later by St. Thomas Aquinas (though his remarks were directed against yet another version of the argument). Aquinas' critique was regarded as so devastating that the ontological argument died out for several centuries. It thus came as a surprise to Descartes' contemporaries that he should attempt to resurrect it. Although he claims not to be familiar with Anselm's version of the proof, Descartes appears to craft his own argument so as to block traditional objections.

Despite similarities, Descartes' version of the argument differs from Anselm's in important ways. The latter's version is thought to proceed from the meaning of the word “God,” by definition, God is a being a greater than which cannot be conceived. Descartes' argument, in contrast, is grounded in two central tenets of his philosophy — the theory of innate ideas and the doctrine of clear and distinct perception. He purports not to rely on an arbitrary definition of God but rather on an innate idea whose content is “given.” Descartes' version is also extremely simple. God's existence is inferred directly from the fact that necessary existence is contained in the clear and distinct idea of a supremely perfect being. Indeed, on some occasions he suggests that the so-called ontological “argument” is not a formal proof at all but a self-evident axiom grasped intuitively by a mind free of philosophical prejudice.

Descartes often compares the ontological argument to a geometric demonstration, arguing that necessary existence cannot be excluded from idea of God anymore than the fact that its angles equal two right angles, for example, can be excluded from the idea of a triangle. The analogy underscores once again the argument's supreme simplicity. God's existence is purported to be as obvious and self-evident as the most basic mathematical truth. It also attempts to show how the “logic” of the demonstration is rooted in our ordinary reasoning practices.

In the same context, Descartes also characterizes the ontological argument as a proof from the “essence” or “nature” of God, arguing that necessary existence cannot be separated from the essence of a supremely perfect being without contradiction. In casting the argument in these terms, he is implicitly relying on a traditional medieval distinction between a thing's essence and its existence. According to this tradition, one can determine what something is (i.e. its essence), independently of knowing whether it exists. This distinction appears useful to Descartes' aims, some have thought, because it allows him to specify God's essence without begging the question of his existence.

WTF?
So this means some innate, especially clear and distinct idea is given by God, so God's existence is inferred directly from the clear and distinct idea?

Guenon absolutely rapes Descartes notion of the "clear and distinct idea" in one of his books, forget which one though

Uhh... nearly every philosopher after Descartes except spinoza criticized the notion of the "clear and distinct idea", I think it's overlooked

Life.

>Whether god exists or not is a question asked by heretics.
false. many priests and even saints have documented their own doubts and questions of the faith. Peter even goes so far as to deny Christ three times

>Peter even goes so far as to deny Christ three times
kek he was denying that he knew him not denying that he existed you illiterate moron

Time wouldn't exist without a first, unmoved mover. Imagine a row of dominoes, there had to have been the first to fall and make cause and effect. There is no infinite regress because then nothing would ever happen.

>he thinks the first mover argument is temporal
that’s the babby version, read feser

If we accept one of the rational proofs for God and that it makes sense metaphysically/theologically for God to become a man, what's the best argument for the existence and divinity of Jesus? (Moreso the latter, I know Christ mythicism is pretty dead in the water)

Time didn't exist before the Big Bang.

>it makes sense metaphysically/theologically for God to become a man
it literally makes zero sense, that’s why you need faith

(you)

pontius pilate

>Time didn't exist before
>Time didn't exist
>before
Congratulations, you're a brainlet.

the taste of urine

> it literally makes zero sense, that’s why you need faith
It makes all kinds of sense if you realize that it is Man that is Deimorphic, not God that is Anthropomorphic.

(I mean, it says as much in the very first lines of the Bible, not exactly a fringe idea.)

Romans 10:17 King James Version (KJV)
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Cant beat this