Another Argument for a Creator

Here is another argument-for-a-creator that I came across the other day.

(The argument, of course, was presented as a discourse rather than the analysis presented below. I present the argument as an analysis to enable us see the progression from premises to final conclusion more easily).

Note that I use the words "reason" and "premise" interchangeably. For a definition of terms, see the Logic Primer.

The Argument

Universal Premise

An object in the mind has less existential value than its real corollary.

Specific Premises

1. God is/has the superlative of everything good.
2. God is an idealized object (or being).
3. A real object is better than an idealized object.

Intermediate Conclusion

God as a real object (or being) is better than God as an idealized object (or being).

Final Conclusion

God is real. (That is, God exists.)

(Since a real God is better than an idealized God, and God, being/having the superlative of everything good, would be the realest object (being) there could be).

My Rejoinder

We will recall from the Logic Primer that for an argument to be sound, it must fulfill two conditions:

1. its premises must be true, and
2. its inference must be valid.

Validity of Inference

Basically, the inference in an argument refers to the relationship between the premises and the conclusion, and addresses the question of whether or not the conclusion follows from the premises.

In this particular instance, we ask: do the premises lead to the conclusion (intermediate and final)? The answer is yes. The premises are related to the conclusion with deductive validity, which is to say that there is no conceivable way in which the reasons will be true and the conclusions false. Put another way, the premises support the conclusion 100%.

Truth of Reasons

The second condition an argument must fulfill in order to be considered sound is that ALL its premises MUST be true. So, we ask: are all the premises in the argument true? Let's see:

Reason 1: God is/has the superlative of everything good.

This argument already assumes that God does in fact exist--the very conclusion it is trying to reach. In order words, to convince us of the existence of God, the argument asks us to take it for granted that God does exist. This kind of circular argument betrays the weakness of this premise -- we cannot say that the premise is true.

Reason 2: God is an idealized object (or being).

We can agree that God is indeed idealized, insofar as many people believe that he/she does indeed exist.

Reason 3: A real object is better than an idealized object.

The truth of this assertion is questionable. Are all real objects better than their idealized corollary? Even if it is true that an object in the mind has less existential value than its real corollary, is it necessarily true that it is always better to have more existential value than less?

We cannot claim to agree that Reason 3 is true.

Summary

While the argument's inference in deductively valid (the strongest level of validity an inference can attain), the underlying premises of the argument are questionable at best.

In summary, the argument cannot be said to be sound.