Can God's existence be prevented?

[Dobraf]

Dear all,

I hope you are all well and keeping safe. I have been following apologetics for a few years now and have been fascinated by the philosophical and scientific reasonings for the existence of god. I have been especially fascinated by the "ontological argument" which shows if God's existence is even possible then it follows that he exists. This argument has taken my thoughts on an interesting journey. I have been asking myself that can a maximally great being's existence be prevented by anything? For example whatever the laws are that dictate what can exist or not, then could they prevent god's existence? My thinking is that if a maximally great being's existence can be prevented then it is not a maximally great being. In other words a maximally great being must be able to exist other wise could it be considered maximally great? I am aware Doctor Craig has stated the ontological argument only fails if one considered God to be logically impossible, i.e akin to a square circle, however like Dr Craig I do not see any reason for this to be the case. Thus my argument is, since we know reality exists then I cannot see how anything could prevent a maximally great being from existing.

If I had to put the argument in a syllogistic form I would say:

1- A maximally great being cannot be prevented from existing if reality exists
2- Reality exists
3- Therefore a maximally great being exists

Now please note I am not a philosopher by training and I am still somewhat new to these philosophical reasonings so forgive me if I have made any elementary errors. However do you feel like I have explained my thoughts clearly enough? I hope I managed to relay my thinking in a way that is clear enough. I hope to see people's opinions on this. Many thanks.

[jayceeii]

It is wrong to seek God as a maximally great being, as this can be conceived from the creaturely plane (where you and all clearly dwell). God is beyond human conceptions, but not beyond the ability of humans to generate absurd conceptions from a shallow consideration of what a God might or must be like, when all they know is themselves.

It would be a huge step forward for any religion, to accept God as a 90% successful Creator, but one who faces real and imponderable obstacles bringing matter and souls out of nothing. The religions dream of a Heaven without problems, without admitting God made this planet too, and that they, themselves, are some of the worst trouble He faces.

Both points 1 and 2, above, are faulty.

     1- A maximally great being cannot be prevented from existing if reality exists

The creation itself does not prove God’s existence, unless it is established randomness even over vast time results in nothing. This is the only way to unseat the atheists, who believe in vast time as in a Deity, waving their hands while their minds don’t see clearly. The atheists have a solid story of random chance, though their conviction undoes them.

     2- Reality exists

This may be so, but there is a material reality and a spiritual reality, and those with only material vision are blind to spiritual reality, including their own depths as created souls. There is no commonly accepted reality, for each soul paints its own image of what is real. If you want to assert boldly reality exists, we need to know which vision you can support.

The philosophers are not kings, but rational discourse requires a mind capable of logic. The logic exists to unseat atheists and theists alike, but none can attend, for all remain immersed in Maya, the illusion that the material realm alone is real. God could have guided man to salvation, but man will not be so guided, believing himself saved enough.

[Dobraf]

My apologies, I thought I had replied to this few days ago but it seems my comment did not come through for some reason.

[Dobraf]

Dear Jayceeii,

Thank you for your comment. It seems there are some misunderstanding so I will need to clarify some points to further aid the discussion. My use of the term Maximally Great Being is related to that which is used in the ontological argument. The term may not explain God entirely, but it provides enough qualities to be used. I would refer you to Dr Craig's talks on this topic for further details. When I use the term "reality", I mean it to involve everything that exists/can exist. Therefore when I make the comment if reality exists, that would include God. That syllogism is tentative and I am happy for its premises to change, I used it to simply get my idea cross. My question is what I raised in the title, which is, what could possibly prevent God's existence? To me, the existence of God is self evident. We already know reality exists and I cannot put forward a case which any "laws" could prevent the existence of this Maximally Great Being which we call God.

[jayceeii]

Dear Jayceeii,

Thank you for your comment. It seems there are some misunderstanding so I will need to clarify some points to further aid the discussion. My use of the term Maximally Great Being is related to that which is used in the ontological argument. The term may not explain God entirely, but it provides enough qualities to be used. I would refer you to Dr Craig's talks on this topic for further details. When I use the term "reality", I mean it to involve everything that exists/can exist. Therefore when I make the comment if reality exists, that would include God. That syllogism is tentative and I am happy for its premises to change, I used it to simply get my idea cross. My question is what I raised in the title, which is, what could possibly prevent God's existence? To me, the existence of God is self evident. We already know reality exists and I cannot put forward a case which any "laws" could prevent the existence of this Maximally Great Being which we call God.

I’ve examined the ontological arguments, and they don’t amount to much. Perhaps you could restate the specific argument which has swayed your mind, and I would try to “unsway” it. In general the fault is that it creates an imaginary God which is after the human fancy, completely ignoring the Real and Living God. To think about what God is like is much more than a word game, and if the words are constructed that “God exists,” the thoughts behind the words are still very suspect if they’re occurring in human minds.

Craig is not difficult to refute, but he seems impossible to save. My hypothesis has become that any grown man or woman believing the Christian story, has allowed their thought structures to become too childish and ridiculous, to be brought to the true story. The moderators have tolerated my presence here, for which I’m grateful, but they’re still staying in the shadows. I always write respectfully, but it seems it is incorrect to presume theology is the pursuit of God. If God comes too close they say, “We should look elsewhere.” You’re bowing to Craig as an authority, but his wisdom hasn’t impressed me. I believe he’s involved in a process of double-arguing, bending over backwards to help the Christians. He stands as a force on the human plane, but not because he has the truth.

You say that “reality” to you is “everything that exists/can exist,” but I’d repeat that the meaning of this statement to you depends on your level of perception. If you are limited to a material perception with no experience of spirit (your own soul), although your words point to “the all,” there is no meaningful ideation occurring in your mind with respect to “the all.” If the angels speak of “the all,” they mean the realm of the spiritual presence of the souls, and heaven itself, of which they have experience. But they are wise enough to know that if the Lord speaks of “the all,” there are many things beyond them. Are you wise enough to know the limits of your knowledge? Or have you seen heaven?

This is really important because if you are limited to a material perception, there are no pointers from “the all” to a “maximally great being.” The story of the atheists that all arose by random chance is a strong one, and Craig has not been able to throw it down although he dances around the question with a surface logic that has distracted many from the core truths, as seems to have occurred in your case. Are you following the words as mere sounds, or can you penetrate to the meanings of the words? This is a fault of humans, the sound itself is enough, and logic won’t reach them. They’re placated easily.

On the other hand, if you have a spiritual perception, there are pointers to the Creator. This is the real source of the doubling-back wisdom of Craig, as well as great figures in history such as Aquinas. When the soul itself is seen, the entity has direct proof of the Creator’s hand. He can see that the soul did not make itself, and contains many complex structures or organs that could have arisen in only one way, by a Designer. Then, this is how the disciples recognized Jesus. Knowing themselves as created souls, they could see that the Lord did not have a created soul. Knowing God made you, doesn’t give much insight into God’s qualities or intentions. But they know that only Jesus on the Earth could be God, and learn to trust Him to reveal the knowledge and intent of the “Father.”

[jayceeii]

My use of the term Maximally Great Being is related to that which is used in the ontological argument.

Perhaps you’re thinking of Anselm’s argument:

[Even a] fool, when he hears of … a being than which nothing greater can be conceived … understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his understanding.… And assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater.… Therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the very being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one, than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence, there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality.

The major fault is here, “For suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater.” The fault is multitudinous, drawn from the fact it amounts to a word game. It would allow ANY crank idea to be enshrined as truth. In practice the best way to throw it down may be to point to the mountain of evidence science has accumulated that God is not a finger-snapping God. Anselm and likely yourself would say, “I can conceive of a God that creates worlds instantly. I can also conceive that such a finger-snapping God exists in reality. It would be absurd to say I had thought of a greater property to God, so the finger-snapping God must exist.” The trouble is that the Real God does NOT have the power to create worlds in an instant. This Earth took five billion years to bring to its present state. Of course if you’re one of those who stands with the Biblical creation myth, then your mind appears lost in vain imagination.

Man cannot create God by his own mind, even if he finds logical contradictions therein. And when men really try to think about God, it is themselves they see, for all begin with the self-conception in order to think about others. This is why the world has seen God as something like a big selfish entity out in space, ordering things by a whim. This is how they are in their local situations, and their minds accept no information God is different. The Bible has a few key truths, and one is, “My ways are not your ways, says the Lord.”

A net result is that God is not that than which nothing greater can be conceived, but instead much greater than humans can conceive, though even an angel is already so far. What God is, is inconceivable by the entities, yet Anselm thought he could trap God in a scam. God is not necessarily available to any created mind. Even angels don’t know what He is. They too must begin from a self-conception to think about God or anyone else, but in their case they are divine, selfless people, and all such are far beyond the human mind.

To say it another way, if one is bound by a material perception then any property one could assign to God is material in nature, based in analogies drawn from the sensory plane which have no bearing whatsoever on spiritual realities. For instance thinking about the creation you may think about modeling with clay, which is unrelated to the awesome task of assembling atoms and planets, then initiating biospheres. When those in a material perception think about God they are seeing nothing real, nor can instruction help them because the inner motive remains obscure. Angels are much better at thinking about God because they’ve been made selfless in eternal processes, the “pure in heart” as Jesus said.

[Dobraf]

Jayceeii,

I am afraid it seems we are talking past each other. My question is quite a specific one and highlighted already. My mind is not swayed by anything that requires you to change that, at the end of the day you only have your own opinions so lets not try imposing that on others please.  I am happy to hear your own personal views, but not in this thread please. If you wish you can message me privately. Moreover, I have not claimed that I see Dr Craig as a sort of absolute authority that requires bowing to (intellectually), so lets keep the topic on the right track.

The ontological argument is a valid one philosophically speaking, if you believe otherwise then you are welcome to your opinion and can post your thesis regarding why it is wrong. However, like I have mentioned previously the concept of the Maximally Great Being is adequate to be used in my discussion. I am not under the impression it captures God in his entirety but that it provided enough of his qualities to be considered. Anslem's definition is one of the earliest and there are other, more useful versions than it, this is why I referred to you to see other literature on the matters. Moreover, your counterargument against the ontological argument is nothing new and has been addressed many times. You seem to be under the impression God could not create the world in an instant, this is true according to what? your own limited perception of God? You are essentially begging the question, i.e assuming that is something God cannot do and thus your assertion against the Maximally Great Being does not hold at all. All of these attempts against the ontological argument have been tried and they fail. In your case, you are resorting to a simple fallacy of circular reasoning. That is why it is important to acquaint yourself with the in-depth literature on this topic and go over the erroneous counter-arguments against it. The ontolotigcal argument has had many fallacious arguments against it over the years.

 As for my definition of reality, it really does not depend on perception. I have given a general definition of reality, i.e everything that exists/can exist and this is regardless of whether we are aware of them due to our limited perception or not. Anyway, let us go back to me question which was:

"what could possibly prevent God's existence? To me, the existence of God is self evident. We already know reality exists and I cannot put forward a case which any "laws" could prevent the existence of this Maximally Great Being which we call God."

[jayceeii]

Jayceeii,

I am afraid it seems we are talking past each other. My question is quite a specific one and highlighted already. My mind is not swayed by anything that requires you to change that, at the end of the day you only have your own opinions so lets not try imposing that on others please.  I am happy to hear your own personal views, but not in this thread please. If you wish you can message me privately. Moreover, I have not claimed that I see Dr Craig as a sort of absolute authority that requires bowing to (intellectually), so lets keep the topic on the right track.

The ontological argument is a valid one philosophically speaking, if you believe otherwise then you are welcome to your opinion and can post your thesis regarding why it is wrong. However, like I have mentioned previously the concept of the Maximally Great Being is adequate to be used in my discussion. I am not under the impression it captures God in his entirety but that it provided enough of his qualities to be considered. Anslem's definition is one of the earliest and there are other, more useful versions than it, this is why I referred to you to see other literature on the matters. Moreover, your counterargument against the ontological argument is nothing new and has been addressed many times. You seem to be under the impression God could not create the world in an instant, this is true according to what? your own limited perception of God? You are essentially begging the question, i.e assuming that is something God cannot do and thus your assertion against the Maximally Great Being does not hold at all. All of these attempts against the ontological argument have been tried and they fail. In your case, you are resorting to a simple fallacy of circular reasoning. That is why it is important to acquaint yourself with the in-depth literature on this topic and go over the erroneous counter-arguments against it. The ontolotigcal argument has had many fallacious arguments against it over the years.

 As for my definition of reality, it really does not depend on perception. I have given a general definition of reality, i.e everything that exists/can exist and this is regardless of whether we are aware of them due to our limited perception or not. Anyway, let us go back to me question which was:

"what could possibly prevent God's existence? To me, the existence of God is self evident. We already know reality exists and I cannot put forward a case which any "laws" could prevent the existence of this Maximally Great Being which we call God."

The weight of science is against you, for all of the research in astronomy, biology, and geology points to an extremely old Earth, and it is better we face this real Earth and ask how God made it, than saying we’d prefer a better God who could do what we expected.

 Please try to restate the arguments you find compelling in your own words. Answering your question requires accepting that God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, but this is not the correct idea about God. At least point me to a specific web reference, rather than merely saying “out there somewhere is the truth to support me.”

The perception matters, for if you could see your soul you would know firsthand that God exists. Then you wouldn’t ask if something could prevent it, only how you can find Him externally, a question that is only answered in the Lord, as Jesus said only through Him does anyone find the Father. If you don’t see your own soul, you might accept the testimony of those who do, as I have related the mechanism by which Jesus was known.

You have said my counterargument is nothing new and has been refuted many times, but I think it is new and has not been refuted. Surely you can point to where this has been done, if your words weren’t empty. I’d be very interested to see where this was refuted.

[Dobraf]

The weight of science is against you, for all of the research in astronomy, biology, and geology points to an extremely old Earth, and it is better we face this real Earth and ask how God made it, than saying we’d prefer a better God who could do what we expected.

 Please try to restate the arguments you find compelling in your own words. Answering your question requires accepting that God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, but this is not the correct idea about God. At least point me to a specific web reference, rather than merely saying “out there somewhere is the truth to support me.”

The perception matters, for if you could see your soul you would know firsthand that God exists. Then you wouldn’t ask if something could prevent it, only how you can find Him externally, a question that is only answered in the Lord, as Jesus said only through Him does anyone find the Father. If you don’t see your own soul, you might accept the testimony of those who do, as I have related the mechanism by which Jesus was known.

You have said my counterargument is nothing new and has been refuted many times, but I think it is new and has not been refuted. Surely you can point to where this has been done, if your words weren’t empty. I’d be very interested to see where this was refuted.

Once again, your thinking is fallacious. You are trying to claim what God can do or not do based on your perception of science. This is just begging the question in your favour. You are creating limitations on what God can do. There is nothing logically impossible about the notion that God can create worlds in an instantaneous manner. This is what I mean about your argument being refuted. You cannot assume your logical fallacies do not count!

This threads is not for discussing the basics of the ontological argument. It assumes those engaging here have the necessary understanding on this topic. If you wish to learn more on the ontological argument, there are literature available on this very website, see below:


https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/struggling-with-the-ontological-argument/
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/misunderstanding-the-ontological-argument/

You can also go on YouTube and listen Alvin Plantinga, Dr Craig etc talk on this matter. It is very important you pay close attention to the details otherwise you can get get confused and create fallacious counter-argument(s).

I feel like this thread has gotten a little derailed, so please unless you want to have a crack at my actual question, then lets keep the thread running on the intended track. I am happy to discuss other matters with you, but not in this particular thread. Feel free to open a thread on the ontological argument or directly message me if you wish. God bless.

[Harvey]

I have been asking myself that can a maximally great being's existence be prevented by anything? For example whatever the laws are that dictate what can exist or not, then could they prevent god's existence? My thinking is that if a maximally great being's existence can be prevented then it is not a maximally great being. In other words a maximally great being must be able to exist other wise could it be considered maximally great?

Hi Dobraf, nice meeting you and welcome to the RFF (Reasonable Faith Forum). We're all citing just opinions here, so let me give you my opinion...

There's really only two options as I see it. Either God's existence is contingent (having no cause or reason), or its necessary. And, for physicalists the universe is also contingent or necessary. Let's discuss both options.

If contingent we really can't ask if it could be prevented despite having no reason because there be nothing prior to this state, process, event, etc. that could have prevented it.

Similarly, if God or the universe were necessary then that just means that however things started off, they couldn't for some reason been otherwise. Thus, assuming God is metaphysically necessary, He couldn't have been prevented from existing (which also applies to a universe) because He could have not existed by definition.

So, both options fully entail that whatever was the case to how things began (or whatever process was always in play) there couldn't be anything that could have prevented it from being that way.

The million dollar question is Leibniz's question: Why is there something rather than nothing? And, assuming it's because God is necessary, then what does that really mean? Why a necessary God? I suggest you visit the Choose Your Own Topic subforum to discuss these and other issues.

[jayceeii]

"what could possibly prevent God's existence?

While I’d insist God is not the Greatest Conceivable Being by man or any other created soul, instead the Being Too Great to be Conceived by man or any other created soul, I could take your question in the abstract and ask how man or other created souls could be prevented from forming a false idea about the Deity. Unfortunately I see only one way, that the soul should have a living experience of itself, a vision of itself. In this way spirit is experienced, no longer a matter of speculation from a mind rooted totally in the senses.

Asking whether God Himself can be prevented and not just a false image of Him, where God created all matter, planets, and souls, is just ignorant, in a situation where even you have admitted you accept that God exists. You have accepted God’s existence, so why do you ask how He can be prevented? Or are you intending to prevent His access to your life? As Jesus said there are two aspects of God, visible and Invisible. The visible can be denied but never the Invisible. The Christians celebrate it too, the indwelling Holy Spirit.

[jayceeii]

1- A maximally great being cannot be prevented from existing if reality exists

I’ve been thinking about this some more, and the trouble of the ontological argument is that it makes man the measure of his Creator. God is called the Greatest Conceivable Being, but if the mind of man is great, he should be able to see the Creator might not fit into his conceptions, however great. This is a gaping hole in the argument through which trucks can be driven easily, and it shows up in that very few to no examples of God’s attributes, by which men are presuming they have successful conceived of the “greatest being,” are ever given. If you start to talk about what God must really be like, it becomes apparent quickly that no mortal mind could begin to comprehend what that is. If you say, “Great,” then you aren’t thinking about God’s specific attributes, but drawing ideas from physical or sensory analogies. If you say “Infinite,” again you are not thinking about God’s real power, but something like a numerical progression of 1, 2, 3 that you think does not end. This is the real refutation of Anselm, that the creature is not guaranteed to be thinking of anything real, as he thinks about God. And this means the totality of his thinking is completely irrelevant to God’s existence. Nothing can be proved or disproved from what a creature thinks about God. Everything depends on “seeing” or thinking accurately about the Living God, the danger that a shallow mind would think of God in one dimension and as a simplistic increase in his own properties. And if you can see more accurately about God than most, your opinions still have no bearing on His existence or power. He exists independently of you. Your mind cannot reach out and force Him your way. As a small example, on this world God is everywhere all at once. Anyone with one mind, has no chance to comprehend someone with what appears to be trillions or more of minds. This is so for the Lord, too, which is a reason Jesus said that “Only God is good.”

It takes both humility and knowledge, to recognize the limits of one’s own knowledge. Men seem to have been given neither. Those who can begin to think realistically about God immediately see their minds can go but an inch, when millions of miles were needed. Anselm amounts to a portion of human hubris, to believe the mind of man to be unlimited. But it isn’t just pride, also foolishness, since it amounts to lack of self-awareness and higher intelligence. There are many things the human mind cannot think, the properties of God being just one of these. For one they can’t think about how to authentically love the neighbor as themselves, otherwise poverty would’ve disappeared long ago. The Garden of Eden fable faults man for this, that he is going to make himself the measure of good and evil, refusing to accept the counsel of God or His messengers. But pride is not the deepest fault, instead lack of awareness or perception, so that man vaunts himself falsely, without an ability to see he is being foolish and ignoring realities.