Soluminsanis

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause

2. The universe began to exist

3. Therefore the universe has a cause. 

Stage 2

1. The universe is the totality of all time space and matter.

2. Whatever caused time space and matter must be timeless,  space less,  and immaterial. 

3. Therefore something immaterial,  timeless,  and space less caused the universe,  and these properties are said of God. 

4. Therefore we conclude God exists. 

Obviously a lot to unpack and defend, 

I'm more of a pudding guy,  but I do like the occasional soft serve. 

Some of the qualities I have found admirable  in the atheists I have met is their knowledge of science.  It always seems no matter who I'm talking to,  if they're an atheist their knowledge of science is on point.  

I like their proclivity to debate as well.  In a good way though.  I'd rather spend my time discussing or debating with an atheist than someone in a cult or aberrant sect of some religion.  Due to the fact the atheist is usually a far better debater 

I cooked this little argument up at work the other day.  Most axiological arguments tend to use the idea of objective morality to point to God,  which is great.  However I wanted to go a slightly different route and explore the idea of moral authority. 

Please note this one is a little long so stay with me,  and this is still VERY much in the baby stages 👶 

P1. A command is only intelligible if received from a higher authority.  (i.e. a Private in the military commanding a General is unintelligible)

P2. Human societies, generally speaking,  dish out moral commands. 

P3. Human societies at times command morally egregious things as though they were moral (i.e the orders of Nazi Germany,  etc.)

P4. Therefore the innate "moralness" or "immoral-ness" of any particular moral command is not derived from strictly human authority. 

P5. Since this is the case all moral commands should be unintelligible 

P6. However there are intelligible moral commands

P7. Therefore they are derived from an authority higher than human beings. 

P8. Any issuer of moral commands must be capable of reasoning and using intellect. 

P9. A higher authority that issues moral commands to humans exists,  and has the capacity to reason and make moral judgments. In a word,  a mind. 

P10. This issuer of commands cannot be subject to a higher authority, if said issuer were,  for all we know,  that authority's commands could contradict our intelligent issuer's commands,  rendering them unintelligible,  leaving us back to p5.  But since there are intelligible commands,  the one issuing them must be the highest authority. 

P11. A rational mind that is not subject to a greater authority and issues moral commands exists.  All men call this Mind God. 

P12. Therefore God exists 

Thoughts?

P1. There is no possible world where the truthfulness of universals are falsified (i.e. no state of affairs where 2 plus 2 equals 9, or triangles have four sides)

P2. If universals are true across all possible worlds, they are not dependent on human cognition. 

P3. If they are not dependent  on human cognition,  they are dependent on another cognition.  Namely a universal cognition. 

P4. A universal cognition that apprehends the truth value of all necessary propositions (universals) can apprehend the truth value of all particular and contigent propositions. 

P5. Any mind that apprehends the truth value of all propositions is omniscient. 

P6. An omniscient mind exists. 

P7. Therefore God exists. 

If there are any Reformed folks on this forum, grace and peace.  I usually don't spend too much time with in house discussions right now as I'm currently pursuing natural theology,  however this topic is one I love pondering. 

I had a very brief flirtation with Calvinism this past year, I ultimately didn't go down that path as I believe Molinism offers a superior solution to the classic questions of divine sovereignty and human freedom.

Here's my thoughts: 

In Reformed theology God is absolutely and meticulously sovereign over His creation because nothing happens outside of His decree.  If it happened it is because God decreed it.  

In the Molinist paradigm however, God is still absolutely and meticulously sovereign over His creation,  but not because nothing happens outside of His decree, but because He uses His middle knowledge to achieve His will and purposes through the free undetermined actions of His creatures. 

Why is this important?

Well in the Reformed schematic,  I don't see how determinism can be affirmed without sourcing the origin of sinful acts in God.

 In the Molinist schematic,  God can perfectly enact and accomplish His will through completely free creatures. 

In other words, under Molinism God doesn't have to play the chess pieces on the board (i.e. decree everything they will do). He can let each piece move freely themselves on their own while still getting His will accomplished.  This seems like a superior understanding of God.

Any thoughts? 

The modal ontological argument as developed by philosopher Alvin Plantinga:

1. It is possible that a maximally great being* (mgb for short) exists. 

2. An mgb exists in some possible world.

3. If an mgb exists in one possible  world, then an mgb exists in all possible worlds.

4. An mgb exists in the actual world.

5. Therefore God exists. 

*for our purposes an mgb is defined as a being that possesses all great making properties,  and lacks no great making property.  

Out of all the classical theistic arguments,  this one is my personal favorite. Albeit, somewhat paradoxically,  although I  believe it to be a sound proof , it seems to be the less convincing for many people. 

I realize each premise needs expounding,  hence the reason I started the thread. This thread is open for discussion to anyone. Atheists are welcomed and encouraged to comment. 

Thank you