Therefore God Exists

Russell E. Rierson

There exist two choices:

[1.] Everything happens accidentally and randomly, without a purpose.

[2.] Everything happens for a reason and with a purpose.



[1.] Can be shown to be true IF we live in an infinite probability space with an infinite number of possibilities.

If [1.] is true THEN it becomes possible for the existence of ANYTHING.

So, then there becomes a strong possibility that an ultimate creative God exists that would be more powerful than the other possibilities.

So [1.] becomes invalidated due to the possibility for anything to exist, allowing for a non random creation to exist because an ultimate creative God can exist.

[2.] is the only logical choice and creation is then finite.

Since everything happens for a reason, there must be a reason for the existence of everything in a finite creation.

A "reason" of reasons. An ultimate purpose.

Therefore God must exist.

Iacchus32

If only [1.], nothing will ever remain consistent and coherent. The possibility maybe there, but what's to hold that possibility together?

Tom Mattson

This is a false dichotomy. [2.] is not the negation of [1.]

It should read: There exist two choices:

[1.] Everything happens accidentally and randomly, without a purpose.

[2.] At least one thing happens for a reason and with a purpose.

Since your reductio argument is based on this fallacy, I'll skip it.

*yawn*

Textbook example of a non-sequitir.

Really Russell, I thought you at least had enough familiarity with basic logic to know that an argument cannot possibly be valid if its conclusion contains a term ("God" in this case) that is nowhere to be found in the premises.

Sorry, but this is exactly the type of poorly formulated argument that our Philosophy Forums Guidelines were enacted to prevent. We will host ontological arguments here, but they at least have to be valid.