Your line of reasoning harbors several fundamental flaws that have been extensively identified and critiqued in philosophical discourse.
The initial assumption that "God is the greatest thing that can be conceived" and "greatest in every category" is inherently subjective and lacks a universally agreed-upon definition. The concept of "greatest" is not an objective measure; rather, it is contingent upon human perception, cultural context, and personal values. For instance, what precisely qualifies as "greatest" within categories such as power, knowledge, or morality? This premise effectively "begs the question" by defining God in a manner that presupposes His existence, thereby assuming the conclusion within the very definition.
To state that "God exists" does not describe a new quality or characteristic of God; instead, it asserts that the concept of God is instantiated in reality. This conflation of logical possibility with empirical reality renders the conclusion invalid. From a scientific perspective, claims of existence must be supported by empirical observation or testable evidence, not solely deduced from definitions.
You claim that "From this we know there is one God since nothing can be equal or greater than him." This assertion implicitly assumes a monotheistic framework without providing independent justification, effectively dismissing polytheistic or atheistic worldviews without logical warrant. Moreover, this deduction rests upon the flawed foundational argument, making it circular. In logical terms, this is an example of "special pleading," where rules are applied exclusively to God while exempting other concepts, thereby undermining the argument's universality and logical consistency.
The premise that "humanity is fallen" is a theological assertion that lacks empirical evidence; evolutionary biology and psychology, for instance, explain human behavior through natural processes rather than a concept of original sin. Furthermore, the conclusion that this "logical God" must necessarily be the Christian one is a non sequitur. It overlooks the vast diversity of religious or philosophical systems that could incorporate similar attributes but interpret them within entirely different frameworks. This argument engages in "special pleading" by assuming Christian-specific elements (e.g., the concept of sacrifice as atonement) without logically demonstrating their necessity or exclusivity.
Your entire argument does not adequately address counterarguments such as the pervasive existence of suffering or the significant moral diversity observed across cultures, which further undermine the coherence of an all-just and all-merciful deity as conceived within this framework.
The fundamental distinction between scientific inquiry and purely conceptual philosophical arguments lies in their methodologies and criteria for establishing truth. Science relies on observation, experimentation, and the falsifiability of hypotheses. Philosophical arguments, especially *a priori* ones like the ontological argument, rely solely on conceptual reasoning and definitions.
In summary, your argument, while an interesting intellectual exercise, does not withstand rigorous scrutiny from a logical, philosophical, or scientific perspective. The initial ontological argument fails primarily because it misconstrues "existence" as a predicate and attempts to derive empirical reality from mere conceptual possibility, a move universally rejected by critical philosophy. The extension of this argument to narrow down God's nature to specific Christian tenets further introduces unsubstantiated theological assertions, internal contradictions (like the tension between absolute justice and mercy without external resolution), and anthropomorphic projections. Such arguments are unconvincing, as they lack empirical support, rely on flawed logical premises, and ultimately presuppose the very conclusions they aim to prove. Rational inquiry, especially from a scientific standpoint, demands explanations grounded in observable evidence and coherent, non-circular reasoning.
Should I stop using Google too? My chatbot is Google on steroids. Get used to it. AI is the future.
I can tell that is ai generated. I would like to debate you and not ChatGPT please. If I wanted to debate ChatGPT I would have just done that
FSM is way more logical... Not to say God isn't logical, just not as logical.
We’ll debate me on it then
It’s people’s choice to choose what religion they want to be in, what ever religion they are in can make them think their religion is more logical just like you who believe that Christianity is more logical. I think it’s bias to think one religion is better or more logical than others.
I want to debate another theist of a different religion
I don't think Islam is logical
could one join and say that no religion has logical faith?
What is your opinion on Islam?