What is the strongest *original* argument you can think of regarding God’s existence?

What is the strongest *original* argument you can think of regarding God’s existence? This argument should either have the conclusion that God exists or it should have the conclusion that God does not exist. This must be an argument that you come up with, not an argument from our book or that you find on the internet.Your argument must be either deductive, inductive, or abductive. If your argument is deductive, then 30% of your grade will depend entirely on whether the argument that you have given is *valid*–that is, whether its premises logically entail its conclusion. If your argument is abductive or inductive, then 30% of your grade will depend entirely on whether the argument that you have given is *cogent*–that is, on whether its conclusion really is the best explanation of its premises (if it is an abductive argument) or whether its conclusion really is likely given the premises (if it is an inductive argument).Start your paper by simply enumerating your argument in premise-conclusion form, as I have done in the examples below.Your first paragraph should then articulate this argument in written form, explaining whether the argument is deductive, abductive, or inductive; explaining the claims made in any premises; and explaining by what logical rules (e.g. modus ponens, modus tollens, conjunction elimination, etc) any conclusions or sub-conclusions follow (if the argument is deductive). If the argument is abductive then you need to make the case that the conclusion really is the best explanation of the premises–for example, you might consider alternative explanations and then argue that your proposed conclusion is superior to any of the alternatives. If the argument is inductive then explain why the conclusion is likely, given the premises. Regardless of what kind of argument you create, for each premise, state whether it is a priori or a posteriori, and then state whether your argument as a whole is a priori or a posteriori. In this paragraph you shouldn’t refer to any of the claims in your argument using their premise number, but rather just incorporate their content into what you write. (Someone should be able to reproduce your argument in premise-conclusion form just by reading this paragraph.)Your second paragraph should anticipate the strongest possible objection to the argument you’ve created. Explain precisely how the objection works. If your argument is supposed to be deductive, then the objection must either involve denying one or more premises of your argument, or denying that your argument is valid. If your argument is supposed to be either inductive or abductive, then the objection must involve either denying one or more premises of your argument, or denying that the conclusion follows, inductively or abductively, from the premises. (For example, if your original argument is abductive then the objection may deny that the conclusion of your argument really is the best explanation of the premises, and it should propose an alternative explanation of them and argue that this alternative explanation is superior.) Either way, you must explain precisely what this hypothetical objector will claim, and why the conclusion wouldn’t follow if the objection is correct.

Your third paragraph should then respond to that objection in defense of your original argument. Explain carefully why, even though the objection looks plausible, it is not in fact correct.
In sum, this is what your rough draft should look like: an argument in premise-conclusion form, followed by 3 paragraphs of analysis!
By this point in the course you should all be able to discriminate valid arguments from invalid arguments, but just to reiterate here are a few examples:
(1) Vic likes ice cream.
(2) Therefore Vic likes a food item.
*INVALID–from the fact that Vic likes ice cream it does not LOGICALLY follow that Vic likes a food item*

(1) Vic likes ice cream.
(2) Ice cream is a food item.
(3) Therefore Vic likes a food item.
*VALID–from the fact that Vic likes ice cream AND the fact that ice cream is a food item it DOES logically follow that Vic likes a food item*

(1) If the cheese has been nibbled on then there’s a mouse in the apartment.
(2) The cheese is missing.
(3) Therefore there is a mouse in the apartment.
*INVALID–The first premise says that there is a mouse in the apartment if the cheese has been nibbled on, but the second premise just says that the cheese is missing–it doesn’t tell us that the cheese has been nibbled on, so the conclusion does not logically follow*

(1) If the cheese has been nibbled on then there’s a mouse in the apartment.
(2) The cheese has been nibbled on.
(3) Therefore there is a mouse in the apartment.
*VALID–premises (1) and (2) logically entail premise (3) by modus ponens*

What is the strongest *original* argument you can think of regarding God’s existence? This argument should either have the conclusion that God exists

APA

3002 words