Ontological Argument

Re: Ontological Argument

This isn't something we can say with certainty. If we knew everything about everything we could rule 'him' in or out. But we don't and thus we can't.

This version of the argument fails where most versions of the ontological argument have traditionally failed. Step (3) is an attempt to sneak "existence" into the predetermined definition of God through the intermediary step of "greatness" (and as several philosophers starting with Kant have contended, it is not obvious that existence can even coherently be called a property; but I digress); thus the argument begins by assuming what it sets out to prove.

God is a question....
God is a question of faith...do you have it? If you do not - you will not believe in him. If you do...you will....oversimplified to be sure...but from the simplest things come understanding...

Must have faith...

So, are we doing Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny???

Yawns.

You are so smart...those are really, really, big words...yawns. :wink:
I am a faith girl and I guess it is a good thing...where the hell is my dictionary?

Good for you.

Find your dictionary, as this is was a purported explanation of life at one point.

I was being a smart a$$ - please forgive me...just trying to be funny and it fell flat...I really have no clue what you are saying - even with my dictionary...

Though I am pretty sure you were being a smart a$$ as well.

Yes I was (waves, hi) and while my argument is real, I think it is not apropo.

Welcome to a2k.... (or did I say that already?)

We argue fairly sturdily here. People are better at it than I am. Even the worst insult doesn't mean you should crawl away. Meantime, we all learn, one way or another.

Thank you! I am having a blast....I just love reading and giving my 2 cents worth! I am learning a lot as well. This is a great forum. Thanks for the welcome...you are my first! I am still learning the ways of it all..I am sure I have overstepped and committed major faux pas of cyber etiquette to no end...so sorry if I have! Looking forward to seeing you around here!

You and I will always disagree on religion... well, maybe not, but mostly.

This is a world wide forum with a lot of sharp posters.

If nothing else, one can learn the nature of argument here. There are some very swift folks on various sides of issues.

There are mechanics to argument, re syllogistic reasoning, for example.




I stand as a principled sample of emotionality sans reason....


kidding.

Circular logic.

God is an assumption, and people who claim to believe in God do so not based on logic or evidence, but on emotion.

They want God to exist for their own emotional reasons...therefore He exists. They call this having faith.

People will go to great lengths to rationalize their own beliefs, but when they try to claim that scientific evidence supports their faith, then they have to prove it.

If religion wants to pretend to be a science, then it has to play by the rules of science. That means throwing faith out the window and looking at things objectively.

Apisa101: If you are going to guess that a god exists, at least have the integrity to acknowledge that you are guessing, and you don't really know.

According to some people there is a universe for every possibility.

and i just realised, if god is a possibility that means there might actually be a god.

But then again i am present only in this universe, i think, so IT might be a possibility but not a reality.

But if science can prove there is a universe for every possibility, would that mean there must be a god, if god is a possibility?

But if science can prove there is a universe for every possibility,

Not proven, theorised. Perhaps conjectured is a better word. As is the concept of god.

"God" may or may not be one or a series of complicated conjoined laws of physics that we do not yet understand or cannot. physics laws that when applied in a certain manner govern the movement and state of the universe.

well if science could prove what i asked, i bet we would actually be "gods"

hahaha! because we would literally know" every possibility if we could prove that.

OMG I BLASPHEME I R BURNZ IN HELL FOREVAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As one of you mentioned, one traditional response to the OA is to say that it illegitimately assumes existence - or in this case, actuality - is a property. Well, maybe existence (actuality) is not a property, but I suspect the argument fails even granting it is a property, and granting it's a property better to have. The premise I'm interested in is

(3) If God were possible but not actual, he would not be as great as he could be.

One could think of (3) as short for a longer argument as follows. Either God is both possible and actual, or only possible. If he's only possible, then he could be greater than he is. (The assumption, which I'm willing to grant for the sake of the argument, being that it's better to be actual than just possible.) But that's absurd - he is, as the definition says, the greatest possible being. Therefore, God must be both actual and possible.

But is it absurd to suppose God could be greater than he is? Maybe not: maybe the greatest possible being is greater in some worlds than in others.

Doesn't really matter. sometimes things just are what they are. I agree that religion cannot prove by scientific methods that there is a God. But my thinking is - if you could understand all this universe and the makings thereof, the amazing way we procreate and the miracle of complex emotions and how they drive us to love...a mind that - quite obviously is an amazing creation in and of itself - and there are so many things we just cannot fathom- and it is one thing to theorize how something was done...and another to actually make it happen...if humankind can absolutely understand and know all things ....then who needs a God? There are things even science cannot prove..and yet we know they exist. God does not need to be proven.

I am amazed at the deep thinkers and the conversation here...you all are absolutely out of my league...I certainly feel simplistic and ignorant when discussing anything here with some of you...but I am not trying to impress any of you nor do I really think I can change any of your thinking. I am just making a statement - it feels good sometimes just to verbalize what you believe. I will say that I think God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble. I am not saying any of you are prideful - I am saying that it is something to beware of - pride can blur your vision and faith can give you sight. Miracles don't just happen - one day you too will know there is a God. Or pray that there is one.

talk amongst yourselves. I know the posts will abound - but I have exceeded my depth here and know that soon I will flounder in mind boggling intelligence. :wink:

The major problem with step (3) is that it is masquerading as a logical proposition separate from the rest of the argument but (as the argument itself demonstrates) is in fact part of the premise. What most versions of the ontological argument boil down to is this:

(1) Let us define God as the greatest possible being.
(2) Greatness includes existence.
-----------------------------------------
(3) Let us define God as existent.


The conclusion of the ontological argument is usually rendered "God, by definition, exists"; but a more accurate rendering would be "If we define God as existent, then by definition God is existent." The ontological argument is an elaborate way of saying nothing more than that.

How can faith give you sight, if one can have faith in anything? Wouldn't that open the Pandora's box?
Does that mean that having faith in God is not the only option? If so, what is the truth value behind the concept of "God"?

Is faith just faith, and nothing more?



http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm

I don't think devine miracles happen... We chose to call certain things 'miracles', but they are simply pleasant coincidences. In certain situations - like the amputee article link above - no miracles, ever

These are really good very cynical questions. I am the kind of person that would drive most of you nuts if you knew me. I think Osso Bucco's quote about me (in jest - maybe) was: I stand as a principled sample of emotionality sans reason....

Well...there you go in a nutshell. I am emotional, I am enthusiastic, I am hopeful, and vigilant, and tireless...I am perseverent and logic means nothing to me. I am not logical or reasonable. I am an artist - and I see things that aren't there. But I like being this person...and I quit allowing the logical, intellectual types cow me a long time ago. I married the logical, intellectual type. He does all the thinking, I do all the feeling...it works well.

Now as far as miracles are concerned - I do believe in them...but I also believe there is a divine plan...The promise in John 16:33 is - I have told you these things that you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble...but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.

That means that we will deal with hard things. Some will die unfairly, some will have children with horrible deformities and many more horrible things that seem wrong and are wrong. That was not the initial plan. The world is imperfect because of sin. Sin will end when Christ returns and our hope lies in the perfection of that life.

Now about your question on faith....I just don't know. I have heard all the cynical, laughing, disbelieving comments when I say these things...but that doesn't really phase me. Hope is a wonderful thing. I cannot have hope in myself - I am full of fault and selfishness....but I can have hope that God sees me as perfect because of the blood of his son...and because of that, I can extend help, love and care to those who need it. If I did not have hope...I would not.

I know - I am probably the laughing stock of this intellectual gathering of common sensical, and logical folks...but that is okay too...If I wasn't willing to tell what I believe I wouldn't be here...and I am too okay with who I am to fake being smarter than I am...I like being a faith person....

I understand that I have not answered your question at all. Can't do it...faith is not for me to explain. It just is. And it wouldn't really matter if I could. We make up our own minds about what we believe.