Do you believe in God?

It is logically impossible to derive a contingent, a posteriori, conclusion from necessary a priori premises. Kant's repudiation of the ontological argument was based on this truth.

Fido;99602 wrote:

That may be true of the primitive mind, but no one I know confuses the name with the thing. The word, "cat" is not a cat. Everyone knows that.

I did not say that evidence for something need be proof that the something exists. But it is evidence which is needed in order to prove. Without evidence, there is no proof. Just as running a race is not winning a race, but there is no winning a race without running a race.

It is a matter of identity which is the first principal of all reasoning... If some one asks you to let the cat out, and you are owned by a cat, you don't ask what cat... This cat is that cat...A cat means any and every cat...If each and every one does not fit the definition of cat, then those are not cats, and are wrongly classified, or the classification must be expanded to include them, which is to say that every example tests the concept...

Consider Schopenhaur, and his statement that the world is my idea...We do not see the world as it is, but through the medium of ideas...With recognition, we do not know the thing because the simplest thing is too complex to be known... Rather, we know our idea of the thing and recognize it in our reality...What we do is define, and classify our reality by its parts...That is philosophy... Philosophy is finding true definitions...How can we say that the defined word is not the thing defined... That is as close as it ever gets...


Evidence suggests a conclusion, but proof may be reproduced at will...Proof is the result of experiment proving a hypothesis correct... With God we have a hypothesis in need of a test...

Read the argument first, then decided whether or not your understanding of Kant is correct on this point.

There are a multitude of quotes I can search out in Kant's critical philosophy that will show that Kant is not altogether black and white on his thinking here. My understanding is not confined here to just what Kant had to say in one section ... he's complicated ... and he appears to (but he doesn't really) switch his thinking around in an apparent reverse directions.

When it comes to what he demands for a science of metaphysics, his demand requires that an a priori proof be objectively valid, and it would have a posteriori proof only if it could tell us why our universe is the way it is, and if by that, we are afforded a practical/beneficial way of looking at existence.

As I said, it is fallacious to derive necessary conclusions from contingent premises (or conversely). It is easy to show that on a truth-table. Now, since any existence proposition is contingent, the premises of an argument that has an existence conclusion (e.g. God exists) must also be contingent. But the ontological argument contains necessary truth as premises. Therefore, the ontological argument is fallacious.

Actually, I agree that the ontological argument is fallacious.

Actually, I agree that the ontological argument is fallacious.

My "causal argument" is not the same thing as the ontological argument, however. With my premise, I have ruled out the existence of God to begin with. It becomes a matter of defining the premise for all that it is, and all that it implies ... what comes out of defining the premise is the argument I have formulated, and it follows a necessary line of reasoning.with this argument that I've posted on a separate thread, and any other argument in the whole field of philosophy or theology ... the closest anyone comes to offering the same premise is Hegel in his 'Science of Logic,' and I've quoted Hegel in the argument where this is concerned.

The argument can be made for my argument, that I've taken God out of the picture with the premise. The question is: How does God come back into the argument with the conclusion?

If you mean Aquinas' supposed ontological argument, according to Catholic monk Father Merton, it is not an ontological argument, much less an argument at all; instead, it is a definition expressed in typical Scholastic fashion.

Where I stand is quite clear. But I'm not interesting really in defending my argument. I think it can stand on its own.

Why write and post an argument if you are not willing to stand to defend it? If there's any place to defend it, this is it; you're going to have critically thinking minds picking it apart, and if you choose to just concede, "I think it can stand on its own", you may miss out on fatal flaws realized by others within your reasoning.

so when are you going to post the next thread to continue your argument?
im dying of anticipation already...

Have you read the argument up to where I've written 'Further Points for Consideration?'

I will be typing out that part, but something happened when I logged onto the thread. I wasn't getting the 'edit' part so I didn't write it out. Don't know what happened.

There are certain predictions that follow from the argument. The predictions, if they do not materialize, will disqualify/disprove the theory/model. If the predictions are realized, then the empirical evidence for the argument is given. The predictions are far-reaching and they have obvious theological implications.

i read the first thread you posted as the introduction, and it gave me the impression you will be opening three more new threads for different parts of the argument. i am probably not too good on comprehension, since from what you are saying here you must have been planning to continue on in the same thread, which i subscribed to....but i didnt get any further notifications yet. i am pretty sure the part i read ended with 'further points for consideration'...

sorry, guess i forgot to subscribe...i see you added a lot to it. going back to read it now.

If you mean Anselms' supposed ontological argument, according to Catholic monk Father Merton, it is not an ontological argument, much less an argument at all; instead, it is a definition expressed in typical Scholastic fashion.

(Thanks, Ken, for the correction on my foggy memory)

First, you might take time to notice that I did not say a word about my belief about Anselm's work; instead, I made mention of a particular Catholic monk's thought on the matter.

Instead of arguing that God exists, Anselm is arguing that if a person properly understands the notion that God exists, said person must conclude that God does indeed exist - to understand the claim "God exists" and to simultaneously reject God's existence is inconsistent by definition. So, there is an argument involved (as is the case with any meaningful declarative statement), but the argument is not an a priori argument to establish God's existence.

It is not inconsistent to define God as a being no greater than whom can be conceived, and then to deny that God exists. After the definition as the first premise, we still require other premises to reach the conclusion that God exists. For example, that existence is a perfection (or property). So, from the definition alone, nothing follows about the existence of God.

But, even suppose it immediately did follow that God exists from the definition, as you say,

that is still an argument.

It is not inconsistent to define God as a being no greater than whom can be conceived, and then to deny that God exists. After the definition as the first premise, we still require other premises to reach the conclusion that God exists. For example, that existence is a perfection (or property). So, from the definition alone, nothing follows about the existence of God.

But, even suppose it immediately did follow that God exists from the definition, as you say, that is still an argument. And argument with only one premise, and the conclusion (God exists). That kind of argument is called an "immediate inference". It is true that if the ontological argument is valid, then the premise (the definition) and the negation of conclusion (that God exists) cannot be asserted simultaneously on pain of contradiction. But that is true of every valid argument: that the premises and the negation of the conclusion cannot be asserted together without contradiction. So that is nothing unique about the ontological argument.

What is the point of a definition chasing a phenomenon around when the phenomenon has such a head start???

Ahem... Included in Anselm's work is the very premise you ask for - namely, that it is greater to exist in reality than to only exist in the mind. Anselm gives the example of a painting existing as being greater than the painting only in the mind of the artist.

If God does not actually exist, then God cannot be that of which nothing greater can be conceived. Thus, to deny that God exists, and to understand the definition of God, is inconsistent.



No sir, I did not say anything. I'm repeating Anselm's argument and Merton's opinion of it. I'm not arguing anything at all.



As I clarified, any declarative statement of substance is an argument. Anselm's argument, however, is not necessarily an a priori argument for God's existence; instead, it is an argument that intends to establish that, if one understands the notion that God does exist, it is inconsistent to deny that existence.

What phenomenon are you talking about? And how do definitions chase anything? Sorry. No idea what you are talking about.

---------- Post added 10-26-2009 at 02:58 PM ----------

The phenomenon I am referring to is God...It is easy to define a fish, if you have a fish.. We have definitions of God, but no God to compare our definitions to... That is a definition chasing a phenomenon...It does not matter how a thing is defined without the thing... It is all meaningless... Yet, God is for this reason all meaning and no being.. We should never ask what God is, and always ask what God means...Our belief in God says everything about us and absolutly nothing about God..

The phenomenon I am referring to is God...It is easy to define a fish, if you have a fish.. We have definitions of God, but no God to compare our definitions to... That is a definition chasing a phenomenon...It does not matter how a thing is defined without the thing... It is all meaningless... Yet, God is for this reason all meaning and no being.. We should never ask what God is, and always ask what God means...Our belief in God says everything about us and absolutly nothing about God..