An Argument for the Existence of God?

Question

Some things will be explained before "the argument" is made.

Logical positivism, essentially a claim that "Only statements that can be empirically verified are meaningful" is rendered false by virtue of the fact that it self-refutes. The statement itself cannot be empirically verified, and thus puts itself down as having failed the test by which all statements are to be examined for meaning. It is therefore, by its own criteria, meaningless.

Logical positivism is similar to empiricism, which is essentially a claim that "We should only believe what has been empiricially verified." It cannot be empirically verified, and so, by its own standard, should not be believed.

Logical positivists claim that the word "God" cannot be defined because one of the things attributed to God is the absence of empirical verification, per some of God's attributes being auditory silence, invisibility, tastelessness, scentlessness, and intangibility. God is not directly or indirectly observed by the use of scientific instruments, or even with the naked senses.

It is reasonable for anyone to say "Define God" or to ask "What is God?" But when definitions of God are given, when the question "What is God?" is answered, logical positivists hypocritically resort to relying on the "circularity of language" to avoid recognizing any definition of "God" as meaningful. But if they were consistent, they would avoid recognizing any definition of any word as meaningful. The "circularity of language" is a phrase used to allude to a problem best understood by doing the following: Going to any dictionary, looking up the definition of any word, looking up the definition of every word in that definition, and continuing to do the same for every word and definition subsequently found. For example, if one looks up the definition of "truth," words like "reality" or "actual" will be found in the definition. If the definitions of those words are looked up, words like "true" and synonyms of it will be found.

Relying on this "flaw" (so-to-speak) in language, logical positivists respond to words in definitions given for "God" by asking things like "What does that mean?" and asking "What does THAT mean?" after the former (and indentical) question is answered. But the same could be done for virtually any words the logical positivists uses.

(i.e. Theist antagonist: "What does 'mean' mean?" LP: "It means..." Theist: "What does "it" mean?" ad nauseum)

Eventually, all of the dictionary will be exhausted, and questions will still be left begged. So relying on the "circularity of language" doesn't establish the meaninglessness of any definition given for "God" anymore than it establishes the meaninglessness of any definition given for any word.

If a definition given for God contains a contradiction, then it is rejectable on other grounds. But so long as it is internally consistent, the "circularity of language" cannot be legitimately invoked to condemn it as meaningless, for that would entail the meaninglessness of all words.

So before giving the "Argument for the Existence of God," here is a definition of "God": A conscious being who created and controls the cosmos, knows every proposition that can possibly be known, can actualize any logically possible state of affairs, and who by choice cannot be empirically detected.

The argument that I give for the existence of such an entity is more like a clarification.

A working definition of knowledge is: Information within a consciousness with a corresponding infallible conviction that said information is objectively true.

Given that definition of knowledge, if I see a tree, I do not "know" that the tree exists, but if I have an infallible conviction that the tree exists, I know that the tree exists. Can I have an infallible conviction about something that I cannot empirically detect? Why not? God (who can actualize any logically possible state of affairs) can cause me to have an infallible (not able to be mistaken) conviction that God exists. If one asks "How do you know God exists?" under my definition of knowledge, I may respond "God causes me to know." If one asks "How do you know God causes you to know?"

I may reiterate the infallibility of the conviction, and point out that much like the "circularity of language" problem mentioned earlier, the "How do you know?" tactic could be used over and over again for any proposition that the atheist antagonist claims to "know." It's addressed in epistemology as the "infinite regress problem." In the face of such a problem, any serious solution put forth to defend the existence of knowledge can be used to defend the existence of knowledge that God exists. Knowledge that I dare say, if I may be so bold, that I have.

Answer 1

Point made LOL.Why are you trying to sound like an english philosopher??Or maybe a intellectual wanna bee??? hehehehheh.Your statements had no conjecture or conclusive decisions just babbling.If you did what the bible said instead of babble you would see how God works.The bible is designed so a 3d grader can understand it.I did what it said and used it`s principles and it works.You did not.Hence for this makes you talk and not do;it`s called action.Where there`s an action there is always a reaction.It`s called a basic newton theory which I agree with in his writings.(by the way he was a God believer;as is einstein,stephen hawkins and many of the great minds;) always conjecture up the fact there is no way this complex universe can just be an accident.The DNA molecules is made up of an elaborate,intricate,machine which has ORDER and selective function.The chances of this being an accident is 1,000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.trillion to 1.You can`t take car parts throw in on the ground and it just magically comes together in order.It amazes me that the producers and inventors in our country have a beleif in God.

Answer 2

If you have to argue for the existence of God you are not exercising faith. The only sound basis to believe in the existence of God is to do so in pure faith, without requiring any evidence whatsoever. As soon as you start reasoning and looking for evidence to bolster your beliefs, you are no longer using faith.

Answer 3

The existence of the STATEMENT can be empirically verified. The existence of GOD cannot. Logical positivism isn't about verifying statements, it is about verifying the CONTENT of statements.

Answer 4

Not too long ago, yet it was before the invention of the iPod, a French philosopher named Rene Descartes addressed this very issue. Check it out and let me know what you think. His writings are still studied today.

Answer 5

Excellent!

Answer 6

That is a lot of words to try to hide that circular logic.

Answer 7

You should have quoted your source, unless you are claiming you wrote it.

Your arguement boils down to "I know because I know". How would your world - teh tree for example - be different if it were not "created", but had evolved?

Answer 8

sorry sweetie.. that's just way too much cut and paste for me.
Do we need to argue the existence? How about you believe what you believe, and let the rest of us do the same :)

Answer 9

well, thats logic of men. just garbage made to sound like something. No wonder G-d doesnt reveal himself through "human logic" much.

Blessings
David

Answer 10

Ontological arguments just don't work. You must assume the truth of many converses and contrapositives, and assumption does not help one bit.