Do you believe in 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..

What is a declarative statement of substance?

Suppose I say that the summer leaves are green. How in the world is that an argument?

Since the ontological argument's conclusion is that God exists,

how is it possible that it establishes that, if one understands the notion that God does exist, it is inconsistent to deny that existence. ?.

For, an argument can establish only its conclusion, and that, "if one understands the notion that God does exist, it is inconsistent to deny that existence", is not the conclusion of the ontological argument.

One that is meaningful.



Logically, it is a poor argument because it is not valid. However, that declarative sentence does reach a conclusion, that the leaves are green.



According to most readers of Anselm (because we are talking about his supposedly ontological argument, and not ontological arguments in general), that is the conclusion; however, it is possible to disagree on this point. Some people read the argument as I explained: not as a straightforward a priori proof of God's existence, but as an argument that establishes the inconsistency of understand the first premise and denying that God exists.



It establishes this simply by pointing out that it is greater to exist in reality than only in understanding. Again, Anselm gives the example of a painting to illustrate his point.



So you assert, but I've given examples of disagreement and explained them.

If the conclusion is that the leaves are green, then what is the premise of the argument? An argument must have at least one premise and a conclusion?

Since the conclusion of the ontological argument for God is that God exists (what else could it be), then it seems to me wise to read the conclusion as, that God exists. The argument might, of course, illustrate other things. But what the argument illustrates is one thing. What the conclusion of the argument is, is a different thing.

I expect that there are some Christians in this forum who would argue, as I would, that scripture informs us who God is, and what God means ... and while belief in God does say something about us, I wouldn't say it says everything about us. If I accept Jesus as the Messiah, my Saviour, and the Way the Truth and the Life, but look upon myself as a poor slob who isn't worthy to tell others that he tries (at least) to follow the example of Jesus, by practicing his teachings, then I think that does say something substantial about what I believe God is and means. But then, there is the risk here, in my opinion, of falling into folly ... throwing oneself at the mercy of organized religion ... and forgetting that you have your own mind, with which to think. So I end up being an independent, like one of those poor politicians who never gets enough votes, and who is decried by their supposed peers, as a lone heretic.




In the field of philosophy I haven't run across a single philosopher who could provide for me, a substantial meaning of God. If I read a single page of scripture, it's there staring me in the face, and I can't get rid of the idea that there's a transcendent mind out there that has put into words those thoughts and events recorded there.

Before the planet, Neptune was discovered, there were perturbations in the orbit of Uranus, which no one could explain, until it was hypothesized that these perturbations could be caused by another planet. As a result, astronomers kept looking for that planet, and finally discovered Neptune Was that a definition in search of a phenomenon too? The definition was, "what is causing the perturbations in the orbit of Uranus". And the definition of God is, "what causes the universe". Neptune was also defined without the thing. And there was that thing, Neptune.

Any good argument, sure. Premise and conclusion. But this is all beside the point, which had to do with God.



Only if we take just the bare bones out of context. You might recall that Aquinas was talking about the fool from Psalms who understands the claim that God exists, yet rejects the existence of God. That's the whole point of making the argument. It is always wise to go back to the text.

The point of making the argument is one thing. But the argument is a different thing. It might be that at least one of the points of making the ontological argument is to show that it is inconsistent to assert that God is a supreme being, and deny that God exists. But that is not the ontological argument.

Again, I am not talking about ontological arguments in general, I am specifically referring to an argument set forth by Anselm of Canterbury that is often called an ontological argument.

Ontological arguments typically establish God's existence. Anselm's argument does something a bit different, and, according to Father Thomas Merton, is not an ontological argument at all.

I'm not talking about Avicenna's ontological argument or Descarte's ontological argument. I'm talking about Anselm - and have been this entire time, a point I have made again and again.

Once again: you can go back to the text for context - Anselm is specifically refuting the fool from Psalms who understands what it means to say "God exists" yet rejects God's existence. He is showing this position to be inconsistent.

You are going to criticize Merton without having even read the work? Talk about hubris.

Again, if you want to take Anselm completely out of context, you may have a point. However, if we take the time to read the selection, to consider the context, we have to admit that Anselm was not making an ontological argument like Descartes. I've explained this several times - why you keep posting the same response is beyond me.

Father Merton was not a Thomist (and I never said he was), he was a Trappist monk - a Catholic monk.