Help coming up with original argument for or existence of god

Claim that dark energy is god

just deconstruct and refute the idea of preconceived (as presented in religions) "God(s)", then deconstruct and refute scientism, validating arguments regarding the metaphysical.
The problem is your idea of God. Notice how all the redditors here are browsing the shelves for preexisting deities whom they view as dead in the water without having actually read a page of religious text. Don't do that. Make an argument towards supernatural intention behind the creation of the natural. Not even necessarily intelligence, which is anthropamorphic, but intention, which is less so. Cite Kant to pull the rug out from under scientism, then draw connections between the writings of the primary religions, then connect them to the argument for supernatural intention behind the cosmos, and that should do it. If your in-text citations count in the 10 pages it shouldn't be too hard.

The simulation argument

we're likely in a simulation. That means the reality "running" ours doesn't follow our rules (therefore transcendence and omnipotence)

Our thoughts would also by observable information by the simulation-runner, meaning that they could hear our prayers

Maybe throw in God as the fabric of it all.
The self awareness and completeness of the simulation and everything within it. The driving force behind it that explains the paradox of consciousness.
Connect this to it not being able to be proven, having to be experienced because it's outside our realm. Believing is key. Can't refute that.

Obfuscate and bullshit away!

>give me some direction pol

>reasoning
I WANT THIS SHIT TO LEAVE PHILOSOPHY
NOW
GET OUT

THIS ISNT PHILOSOPHY OF THE CURRENT YEAR, THIS IS PHILOSOPHY OF THE FUCKING 18TH CENTURY
Because even this half-baked nonsense philosophy is more difficult than STEMshit, despite it trying to hard to imitate STEMshit.
>technology
GET OUT

Causality is god

should be obvious:
Cite all the many examples of modern groups which deny the existence of God: the countless cults of materialism, the Saturn/moloch worshippers, (((those))) who rejected Christ and never got over it, those whose savior has many similarities to the described anti-Christ, those who control children's media, elements of the One True Church, etc. all of which go out of their way to attack the faith. And all of which seem to gain power and fame on this Earth whenever they do

are u mad bro?

Reword Deepak Chopra nonsense

Talk about Eastern Philosophy and meditation, that consciousness and existence can be experienced as one and the same thing suggesting that consciousness is fundamental, therefore a something conscious must have come before humans and have preceded the big bang as for anything to exist, it's existence is predicated on it being consciously perceived.

Idk I'm not religious

The Bible is a series of books written, edited and assembled over thousands of years. It contains the most influential stories of mankind. Knowledge of those stories is essential to a deep understanding of Western culture, which is in turn vital to proper psychological health (as human beings are cultural animals) and societal stability. These stories are neither history, as we commonly conceive it, nor empirical science. Instead, they are investigations into the structure of Being itself and calls to action within that Being. They have deep psychological significance.

watch jordan memerson, his videos on christianity are cool.

He exists because I refuse to believe dat booty was a random act of nature/causality.

Do you mean the Judeo-Christian god? What about all the countless other sorts of deities and mythologies concocted by past civilisations? Why not just discuss witches and fairies?

I think this is the kind of reason philosophy courses face closure everywhere; they spend all this time ("final paper") on useless crap that wouldn't logically hold up in a scientific environment. The notion of gods is a superstition, but even if I'm an atheist I wouldn't want to spend formal academic space on such a trivial thing.

Irishfag here: people used to believe some funny stuff only some decades back. There's one where evil fairies would abduct male children, so the parents would dress them as girls until a certain age!

*BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT*

Incoming meta-analysis...
The (hidden) point of the assignment is twofold:
1) there is no such thing as an original argument at this point (cf.
>There is nothing new under the sun);
and
2) by implication there is no valid argument for the existence of God, since any arguments to this point are to be taken as invalid

This is where the instructor wants the assignment to end up, i.e., the conclusion that the assignment is impossible and therefore God doesn't real

A really insightful paper would go beyond this to examine these underlying expectations and to expose its fallacious conclusion

>give me some direction pol
>pol
dude...

>How the fuck do I come up with an argument that hasnt already been made?
You can't. Just go for either Leibnitz or Aquinas and reformulate those in contemporary laguage.

Make a teleological argument for the manifestation of God through transhumanism. Go along the lines of God having been the singularity that fractured for our universe to come into existence and now reassembling him/her/it-self through humanity (or possibly multiple sentient races throughout the universe). Argue with the increasing interconnectedness between all individuals which comes close to us all acting like a single organism that shares knowledge, motivations and goals. Just have some fun with that bs.

You'll have to propose an uncommon idea of God. How about a non-preexistant God who appeared at same time the universe was created? The universe appears purely naturalistically but God then appears as the ultimate essence of reality as a kind of divine caretaker who manages reality and is totally omnipotent and omniscient but wasn't there before the beginning. Say that information about the universe pre-big bang is unknowable and thus you can't conclude God existed before it, but emerged Himself from the big bang. God is what allows human morality, consciousness, etc. but did not iis not the prime mover. Reverse-deism if you will.

This tbqh

Epicurus Riddle demands God be able to produce a=/=a. Subjectiveness and quantum world prove a=/=a happens. God exists.

You are god and because you exist, god exists.

OP, make a point of following up on all of this. People have invested themselves in your question here

>It must be an original argument we've come up with.

Do you really think you can construct a completely new, convincing and valid/not flawed argument for the existence of God after 2000 years? Do you realize how many thousands have tried and failed at this?

I recently made an abductive argument for the existence of God using four signs or types of evidence.
1. Fine-Tuning
2. Soul Hypothesis.
3. Abiogenesis
4. Human Evolution in comparison to other animals.

All of the arguments support one another and define the brilliance behind God's creation. Atheists usually like to argue that the design isn't intelligent enough, but they entirely ignore idealism such as self-reliance, sufficiency, efficiency, effectiveness, purposefulness, optimality and rationality.

With such a clear conception of God's design, the inductive argument here (pattern recognition) should be considered stronger than the alternative random chance and chaos.

None of these is exactly original tho.

Using them altogether to form a concept of God's idealism to form a new inductive argument is....

take alvin platinga's multiple universe theory but make it actually work

Inductive:

when i play with my pee-pee it feels nice
=> i can experience nice things
=> other people like to touch their pee-pees too
=> there are nice things in the world that are common to all and exist even when no one is touching their pee-pee (although probably someone is always touching a pee-pee somewhere)
=> nice has a separate existence that is part of the fabric of reality
=> give my paper an A or your mother will die in her sleep
=> niceness is god
=> pantheism is true

All of the above is bullshit. Make a case for faith. 'Arguments for the existence of god' are fedora-Christian/nu-Christian tier. Don't embarrass yourself and be honest. You can make a case for faith and still retain some intellectual integrity.

Doesn't exist

You will write a paper on the absurdity that poses the discussion of the existence of a god.

Is this bait?

And that's why fedorafags love fideism.

>I'm an atheist because mommy made me dress as a girl
lol what a cuck

1. Define God to be the universe
2. Prove that the universe exists
3. ???
4. Profit

Are you serious and not trolling? Whoever is running that class is absolutely retarded if he asks his students to re-invent the wheel on one of the oldest philosophical questions in 10 pages. Hell, if you said yeah i'm coming up with this totally novel proof of god for my dissertation, your prof would laugh at you.

I just wrote 15 pages on Kants proof of god and his critique of the ontological and cosmological argument and I probably could have written twice as much if I went really indepth. There are books that are hundreds of pages just on the history of the ontological argument.

prove the universe exists then

this is why the eastern meme is unironically true and BTFO of Christianity

Impossible.

this is wonderful bait which is also unironically true

I think therefore I am. Quantum theory. The Universe, in its current state, would not exist if creatures who could observe it did not exist.
It can therefore be said that we are responsible for the current state of the Universe, or even that the universe exists for us to observe it.
Humanity is God.

Just give an old idea and pretend you came up with it

wew, Veeky Forums must be on American time zones now

>Could God have created a universe with free-will but without evil
>no
>Then God is not all powerful

This to me is nonsensical, Evil is by definition a potential consequence of free will, asking for Him to create a Universe with one and not to other is asking for a Universe with square triangles

Free will is a meme. If a God like the one that diagram is trying to refute exists then free will is non-existant, and as a result evil is God's very own creation, not a byproduct of free will, because free will cannot exist.
Its right there in the diagram. If God is all knowing there is no free will, nor any need for it. In a universe created and controlled by an all powerful all knowing being, free will is non-existant.
Besides, its as simple as God creating a universe where no one wants to commit evil, or cannot do so. Its certainly possible. If that is his desire, why not do so in the first place?
It would also be possible for such a God to create a universe with square triangles.

>It would also be possible for such a God to create a universe with square triangles.

I disagree and see no reason to justification to assert so. A thing can not belong to a set and a set to which is exclusive to the first. There is nothing illegitimate in speaking of God as all powerful as being able to construct any possible state of affairs. A state of affairs that is nonsensical is not possible regardless of capabilities.

Returning to the point of free will, a subject is still willing freely even if his will was foreseen and constructed.
Its the same way if I make a watch I constructed it and will know what time it will show a month from now but it will continue to tick regardless of whether I will it to or not, its progress of independent of me as soon as it is set in motion.
From there it is likewise impossible to create a free willing being that is not capable of evil as far as they are not God themselves, as we are limited in mind and not grasp the meaning of our actions fully we can and do become mistaken. I would argue as well no one actually desires to commit evil truly, it is from our disconnect from reason that evil occurs.

In short the only question missing is why creating the universe and mortal beings was necessary and for that I don't have an answer.

Is the assignment to argue for the existence of god or just to make some argument about god? If it's the former, that's pretty dumb and not how a philosophy class should be run.

I don't think it is even possible for this type of subject to make either rational or empirical progress. It always ends up being either a circle-jerk or a game of mental gymnastics from both sides.

I've never seen anyone say Qualia is proof of the existence of God. It isn't, but just throw some bullshit in it and say it is.

Psychology is irrelevant. Peterson is a heretic.

Science doesn't hold up in any environment. It is childish nonsense.
The existence of evil is irrelevant. The Bible even answers the so-called 'problem'. The problem is a nonproblem.

>free will doesn't exist because it triggers my dualistic ideology

OUJI BOARD

Quotes from Wittgenstein:
>The sense of the world must lie outside the world. In it there is no value, it must lie outside all happening and being-so. It must lie outside the world.
>The solution of the riddle of life in space and time lies outside space and time.

>evil exists
>yes

but what if it doesnt

>Its right there in the diagram. If God is all knowing there is no free will, nor any need for it
This was refuted several hundred years ago. Get with the times you reddit rhetorician.

This only applies to some God. A creator God may have not made the universe and all reality for OUR benefit and only made it just because he wills it so. Then why didn't he? Maye he just didn't care to? Evil exists is a terrible refutation of the concept of an all powerful creator God.

But it does, unless you mean to say that there is no evil only happenstance, in which case there is either no God or an uncaring god.
It has yet to be refuted because it is irrefutable. If you had such an answer wouldn't you tell it to me?
>A creator God may have not made the universe and all reality for OUR benefit and only made it just because he wills it so.
Then he is not benevolent.
>Evil exists is a terrible refutation of the concept of an all powerful creator God.
Certainly if you're talking in non-specific terms or about certain gods. The Greek gods didn't give a damn about evil or humanity despite having the power to change things.
The Christian God however is a different story, and that's the target of the diagram. And for the Christian God, the existence of evil is an excellent refutation.

>original argument
No such thing.

Read Job.

...

Dumb graph, I think Humanity is a descending beast.

this is stupid and completely biased

>It has yet to be refuted because it is irrefutable. If you had such an answer wouldn't you tell it to me?
False, read the Bible you absolute dopehead.
False dichotomies ahoy!

I have. I know vaguely what you're alluding to, but can't entirely remember the argument. I do remember that I didn't put much stock in it when I first heard it, although came to understand it better after another look, but still felt there were some serious flaws in the reasoning.
I've read the Bible several times. I was raised in a Christian home and have no real animosity towards Christianity, but neither do I put any stock in most of its claims, generally speaking.

>going to communism from rousseau and "society is bad"
Which mongoloid made this image?

The character of God is love. Jesus has the character of God. He even gave us the spirit that we may know him. Everyone knows the spirit is directed towards love and joy. Your soul is you, so don't ever feel alone, just walk in love and you are in the path.

Formulate a solipsist idealism. From this position, self-as-god follows.

>(1) The world is constructed in the minds of conscious agents
>(2) I know I am a conscious agent (footnote acknowledging Descartes goes here)
>(3) Therefore the world is, at least partially, constructed in my mind
>(4) I cannot know that any other agents are conscious, nor can it be proven to me; I deny the existence of conscious agents other than myself
>(5) Therefore the world is not constructed anywhere that is not my mind
>(6) My mind is the only thing which determines the structure of the universe
>(7) I will now define "God" as "the singular being which determines the structure of the universe"
>(8) My mind is God

This argument can easily be stretched to 10 pages, because you can give several pages of reasoning and evidence to support points (1), (4), and (7), then dwell on the implications of (8) for a paragraph or two.

If you're really at a loss for things to say, throw in radical free will, then show how that leads to a powerful, intentional God.

>(9) Conscious agents have free will
>(10) Therefore I, God, have free will
>(11) This means that I can make meaningful and purpose-driven decisions regarding the structure of the universe

More pondering the implications of this go here.

Whatever route you take, make sure your conclusion universalizes this insight. Philosophy professors like broad applicability.

just wait for all the christcucks with their only 'argument' :
I want god to exist therefore he exists

I came up with one of these a couple of weeks ago.

Take God in the classical sense, the metaphysical being that created existence. He either exists or does not..

My argument is that, if God does not exist in this form (sort of the popular atheist worldview), then I am God.

The idea is that if God does not exist externally, than I, as the ultimate will I can prove to exist, take on the role of God because I cannot prove that other minds exist.

So in this case, I can know for certain that God does exist. Because in the event that an external God does not exist, I do know that I exist, and being the supreme will in my world I claim the title of God for myself.

The bad news is that I am not omnipotent and am mortal. But I am God and my purpose is to perform my will on existence.

Needs some fleshing out obviously. Also I'm sure something like this has been said before.

I don't read a lot of philosophy, I'm curious if Veeky Forums knows of any philosophers that have come up with this theory?