The most powerful arguments for the Existence of God!!

[Tractus]

I have been reading the arguments of people who deny the Existence of God and I recognize their counter-arguments do not hold water, in fact, they are mostly confusing and illogical . Now, the following are the arguments, but I don't claim to be mine cuz they are arguments offered by prominent philosophers in the history of human knowledge. All in All, I wanna defend these arguments against any criticism offered.
Ontological argument,

“There is, therefore, or there can be conceived, a subject of all perfections, or most perfect Being. Whence it follows also that He exists, for existence is among the number of his perfections.”

Second, Internal Truth argument which states that
The gist of the argument is that truths are part of the contents of minds, and that an eternal truth must be part of an eternal mind… There must be a reason for the whole contingent world, and this reason cannot itself be contingent, but must be sought among eternal truths.”

This leads to claim, “But a reason for what exists must itself exist; therefore eternal truths must in some sense, exist, and they can only exist as thoughts in the mind of God.”

 

[einstein newton]

Debunking Ontological argument

Ontological argument runs as follows
1.God is the most greatest possible being that can be conceived

2.Being that exists in reality is greater than being which exists merely as a concept

3.If God exists only as a concept,then it possible to conceive a being greater than God

4.But it's illogical to conceive a being greater than God,because God by definition is above all greater beings that can exist in nature

5.Therefore God must exists also in reality

This argument is somewhat problematic because it's possible to devise an argument which has tantamount logical form as ontological argument to prove anything which cannot indeed exists

Consider this,elementary particles are exceedingly infinitesimal particles which apparently do not have any deeper structure

If ontological argument is valid,then the most smallest elementary particle that can be conceived must have 0 volume

But owing to quantum perturbations,all elementary particles that can exist do not have 0 volume

 

[einstein newton]

There is must be reason for whole contingent world

But reason for what exists must itself be exist

This chain of reasoning whose validity you seem to support cannot withstand even facile logical analysis

Argument from contingency which acts as a base of your Eternal truth argument attests that

"If there is reason for existence of contingent cosmos then that reason must come from God

Therefore God exists"

But if everything that exists must have a reason for its existence then what is reason for God's existence?

If there is reason for God existence then that reason must come from something else other than God possibly a being greater than God

But if there is no reason for God's existence then why does the contingent universe need reason for its existence?

 

[Tractus]

Debunking Ontological argument

Ontological argument runs as follows
1.God is the most greatest possible being that can be conceived

2.Being that exists in reality is greater than being which exists merely as a concept

3.If God exists only as a concept,then it possible to conceive a being greater than God

4.But it's illogical to conceive a being greater than God,because God by definition is above all greater beings that can exist in nature

5.Therefore God must exists also in reality

This argument is somewhat problematic because it's possible to devise an argument which has tantamount logical form as ontological argument to prove anything which cannot indeed exists

Consider this,elementary particles are exceedingly infinitesimal particles which apparently do not have any deeper structure

If ontological argument is valid,then the most smallest elementary particle that can be conceived must have 0 volume

But owing to quantum perturbations,all elementary particles that can exist do not have 0 volume

Debunking Ontological argument

Ontological argument runs as follows
1.God is the most greatest possible being that can be conceived

2.Being that exists in reality is greater than being which exists merely as a concept

3.If God exists only as a concept,then it possible to conceive a being greater than God

4.But it's illogical to conceive a being greater than God,because God by definition is above all greater beings that can exist in nature

5.Therefore God must exists also in reality

This argument is somewhat problematic because it's possible to devise an argument which has tantamount logical form as ontological argument to prove anything which cannot indeed exists

Consider this,elementary particles are exceedingly infinitesimal particles which apparently do not have any deeper structure

If ontological argument is valid,then the most smallest elementary particle that can be conceived must have 0 volume

But owing to quantum perturbations,all elementary particles that can exist do not have 0 volume

The ontological argument is based on the claim that God is necessary Being. You seem to deny a different form of ontological argument which is derived from the idea of Aristotle of the uncaused cause!! the argument I develop is quite different from such idea.
Basically the argument, I advocate, asserts that every contingent have sufficient reason for its existence. By contingent Being, I mean it is possible for that being to exist or not, but if contingent being exists must have a reason for its existence and its reason must come outside itself. For example, if Peter exists, then it must because of his parent. If this true then, it possible to think of totality of contingent Beings like the universe which its reason cannot come from itself rather it should come from outside. Thus why the reason of the existence of the totality of contingent must be a necessary Being who is God. That is why I say the whole argument rest on the principle of sufficient reason and not the traditional ontological argument of St. Anslem.

Now, Let us scrutinize the objection you raised against the ontological argument. you said

"If ontological argument is valid,then the most smallest elementary particle that can be conceived must have 0 volume
But owing to quantum perturbations,all elementary particles that can exist do not have 0 volume"
The ontological argument is valid and strong one, the objection raised cannot suffice because smallest elementary particle is not a necessary Being rather a contingent one, its sufficient reason to exist must be outside itself. In fact, it is possible for such Being to exist or not but since it does, the reason for its existence must be from outside itself. Therefore, your argument is irrational and invalid as far as ontological argument based on the principle of sufficient reason is concerned.

 

[The Monk]

Mungu sio wa argument ni suala la Imani na iko wazi kabisa bila Imani hauwezi kumpendeza Mungu. Ndio maana wengine wanamshangaa na kumchukia Kiranga bure kisa anataka kuhakikishiwa uwepo wa Mungu kisayansi.

Kwa wale wanaosoma Biblia, hata Thomaso alikataa mambo ya mkumbo, licha ya kuambiwa na wanafunzi wa Yesu na kumuona alisema lazima niguse makovu ya misumari na Yesu hakumkaripia kwa nini anataka kujiridhisha.

 

[Tractus]

This chain of reasoning whose validity you seem to support cannot withstand even facile logical analysis

Argument from contingency which acts as a base of your Eternal truth argument attests that

"If there is reason for existence of contingent cosmos then that reason must come from God

Therefore God exists"

But if everything that exists must have a reason for its existence then what is reason for God's existence?

If there is reason for God existence then that reason must come from something else other than God possibly a being greater than God

But if there is no reason for God's existence then why does the contingent universe need reason for its existence?

I have explained very well the argument of sufficient reason from your previous objection, so, I find no reason whatsoever to dwell into it again on this post. However, I wanna develop the principle of internal truth you seem to misinterpret it which also makes your counter argument just a low class argument.
When I talk of truth, I mean analytic proposition only so to speak. Analytic proposition are sort of propositions which do not need explanation. In other words, they are true by themselves no need of any explanation. For example, A triangle has three angles, This is self evident because that what triangle mean. They are propositions which predicate is within the subject. Importantly, you need to different this kind of truth from other contingent truth. The Bottom-line premise is, truth is the content of the mind For instance, the sentence "It is raining outside", the truth validity claim of such proposition is solely based in the world. These are not a kind of propositions I mean when I talk about truth. On the contrary, I mean the analytic proposition which is definitely a content of the mind and nothing else, above all, the truth of analytic proposition is true to today, yesterday and even tomorrow. Such an internal truths must be existed in the internal mind who is God. In fact, to deny such truths, is to contradict oneself. X is always X, it cannot be non X.

you seem to raised a baseless skepticism by saying that
"But if everything that exists must have a reason for its existence then what is reason for God's existence?"
I said God exist necessary as far as the principle of sufficient reason is concerned. I encourage you to refer my first response to your objection for more elaboration on the principle of sufficient reason.

 

[Tractus]

Mungu sio wa argument ni suala la Imani na iko wazi kabisa bila Imani hauwezi kumpendeza Mungu. Ndio maana wengine wanamshangaa na kumchukia Kiranga bure kisa anataka kuhakikishiwa uwepo wa Mungu kisayansi.

Kwa wale wanaosoma Biblia, hata Thomaso alikataa mambo ya mkumbo, licha ya kuambiwa na wanafunzi wa Yesu na kumuona alisema lazima niguse makovu ya misumari na Yesu hakumkaripia kwa nini anataka kujiridhisha.

Sasa ndugu yangu Mungu anaweza kuelezewa philosophically and its existence is undeniable. We don't need to appeal to irrational feelings and scripture. We can use reason to arrive at the most convincing and well articulated argument for its existence. Faith alone cannot account for many things, reason must be a cue to unlock the objections raised by people.

 

[The Monk]

Sasa ndugu yangu Mungu anaweza kuelezewa philosophically and its existence is undeniable. We don't need to appeal to irrational feelings and scripture. We can use reason to arrive at the most convincing and well articulated argument for its existence. Faith alone cannot account for many things, reason must be a cue to unlock the objections raised by people.

Unayoyasema huenda yakawa kweli au la, lakini Mimi nimekupa Imani kama msingi wa uwepo wa Mungu. Kingine, habari za Mungu zinaeleweka zaidi au ni za wale walioamua kuamini kwamba yupo, asiyeamini uwepo wake huwezi kumlazimisha kuelewa argument zako.

Sasa kama argument ndio zinatumika kama kigezo, ukiweza kushindwa kwa hoja, utabadili uelekeo kwamba Mungu hayupo?
Kuna mtu unakuta ni mzima kabisa na hana ulemavu unaoonekana kwa nnje, anaamini kwamba anaweza kufanikiwa maishani kwa kuwa ombaomba bila kufanya Kazi, kumtoa kwenye huo mtizamo na kubadili maisha yake sio Kazi mdogo hapo inawezekana. Hapo na kuonyesha tu nguvu ya kuamini.

 

[Tractus]

Nakubaliana na wewe

Unayoyasema huenda yakawa kweli au la, lakini Mimi nimekupa Imani kama msingi wa uwepo wa Mungu. Kingine, habari za Mungu zinaeleweka zaidi au ni za wale walioamua kuamini kwamba yupo, asiyeamini uwepo wake huwezi kumlazimisha kuelewa argument zako.

Sasa kama argument ndio zinatumika kama kigezo, ukiweza kushindwa kwa hoja, utabadili uelekeo kwamba Mungu hayupo?
Kuna mtu unakuta ni mzima kabisa na hana ulemavu unaoonekana kwa nnje, anaamini kwamba anaweza kufanikiwa maishani kwa kuwa ombaomba bila kufanya Kazi, kumtoa kwenye huo mtizamo na kubadili maisha yake sio Kazi mdogo hapo inawezekana. Hapo na kuonyesha tu nguvu ya kuamini.

Nakubaliana na wewe kuwa kumtoa mtu kwa imani anayo amini ni kazi ila haimaanishi haiwezekani. God can be proved rationally by arguments. Atheists cannot deny the existence of God Rationally. In fact, kama ukifata reasoning yao they don't offer any argument against God rather their criticism of the arguments in favor of God are their prove. Now, the arguments i provided are indisputable no matter what claim you have. Atheists must infer that God exists necessary. There is no argument proves that God does not exist

 

[Baba Kiki]

Wapi kiranga na waumini wenzio wa "Hakuna Mungu"?