It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Ontological Argument for God.

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Trey smith is a babbling buffoon. His word salad and bad production should be your first clues of that. Next you'll be quoting spirit science.




posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver




You don't know the values of A and B, so you assume they are god. I guess since there is no real evidence for their beliefs, every other argument starts sounding better and better.


Actually I would say I can defend the first two premises using a form of argument known as a reductio ad absurdum., meaning that any attempt to deny these two premises will lead one to absurdity. So your saying the first two premises are false on what basis?




It also works with unicorns, magic, and underpants gnomes because it is being used incorrectly. In this instance, it is being used as an argument to circumvent an over poweringly obvious lack of evidence.



I don't even think you read the OP it seems clear you have no idea how I defined God. Unicorns, magic and underpants gnomes are all contingent beings. Meaning they could exist in some possible worlds, but it does not follow that they exist in all possible worlds and therefore it does not follow that the exist in the actual world. So this argument would not produce sufficient reasoning to believe in unicorns, underpants gnomes, or magic.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver




Sounds like a guilty conscience. I see the claim that everyone is born with a sinful nature, an excuse to lesson your burden of guilt for your percieved lack of self control. Effectively blaming god for your "sinful nature". It takes the blame right off of you.



I said it was our actions and our choices? Doesn't sound like I am blaming anyone other that people(including myself). Whats up with your hostile attitude?



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

Your entitled to your opinion but ad hominem attacks are not valuable responses so can you say something intellectually appeasing or just move on to another thread.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Shiloh7

I would say God is not bound by time so the question doesn't make sense. Its like asking what is the shape of purple.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




In the premise following God is defined as the greatest possible being.


In my personal reality, I am becoming the greatest possible being. I am the center of my world and my well being is the first and foremost priority to my existence.

If I exist then my existence is necessary
It is possible that I exist. I AM
If it is possible for ME to exist then I exist in some possible worlds.
If I exist in some possible worlds, then I exist in all possible worlds.
If I exist in some possible worlds, then I exist in all possible worlds.
If I exist in all possible worlds, then I exist in the actual world.
If I exist in the actual world, then I exist.



edit on 19-7-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

These were my thoughts as well. WE are the "greatest possible being" because we know we actually exist. What better proof of "God" than what we see right now? Not the religious kind of God but the life force within everything.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Reductio ad absurdem? It's just another way to circumvent the fact that there is no evidence. You can use imaginary arguments and mental gymnastics as evidence for any claim you want to make though. That is the point. These philosophical exercises, don't do anything to actually prove anything.




a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


I don't even think you read the OP it seems clear you have no idea how I defined God. Unicorns, magic and underpants gnomes are all contingent beings. Meaning they could exist in some possible worlds, but it does not follow that they exist in all possible worlds and therefore it does not follow that the exist in the actual world. So this argument would not produce sufficient reasoning to believe in unicorns, underpants gnomes, or magic.


Could exist in some possible worlds? If you are writing a comic book, i'll read it, but you can't pretend it is logic or science. This is philosophy, imagining scenarios doesn't make them possibilities.
edit on 19-7-2015 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Woodcarver

Your entitled to your opinion but ad hominem attacks are not valuable responses so can you say something intellectually appeasing or just move on to another thread.


All i have done is disagree with you. You seem to jump to this conclusion that i am being hostile every time we speak. This is why people say you have a persecution complex



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Shiloh7

I would say God is not bound by time so the question doesn't make sense. Its like asking what is the shape of purple.
That would be an unsubstantiated claim.

You are making a claim about something that you have never had any experience with.

You don't get to assume the properties of beings you've never seen.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




In the premise following God is defined as the greatest possible being.


In my personal reality, I am becoming the greatest possible being. I am the center of my world and my well being is the first and foremost priority to my existence.

If I exist then my existence is necessary
It is possible that I exist. I AM
If it is possible for ME to exist then I exist in some possible worlds.
If I exist in some possible worlds, then I exist in all possible worlds.
If I exist in some possible worlds, then I exist in all possible worlds.
If I exist in all possible worlds, then I exist in the actual world.
If I exist in the actual world, then I exist.


See. It works on anything. Now put oscar the grouch into this argument. It works the exact same way.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb



In the premise following God is defined as the greatest possible being.



So you have arbitrarily chosen a definition that you have a strong emotional attatchment too. But why have you decided that it should be defined as that? This is where your (and every) argument for the existance of any deity falls apart. Bring in a thing that we can see and test before you start defining it's properties. Or else you are just picking properties that you FEEL should represent your opinion of what god is.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
So you have arbitrarily chosen a definition that you have a strong emotional attatchment too.

Perhaps somebody should explain that this is a traditional philosophical line of argument going back to St. Anselm of Canterbury. Apparently there was a brief moment when even Bertrand Russell thought it worked. The OP is just reproducing it for us.
It's a kind of precursor of "I think, therefore I am", because it starts from an existing idea in the mind and tries to bridge the gap from there to reality.
Anselm used the definition "greatest possible", because that phrase is the engine which is supposed to make the argument work.
The jury is still out among professional philosophers.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Those are not "premises", those are presumptions. Learn the difference if you want to be taken seriously.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Since your nick is servant of the lamb, I can expect this is a christian thread.
Your logic needs some work though.
I would suggest a college level course in logic and philosophy.
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: starswift
Since your nick is servant of the lamb, I can expect this is a christian thread.
Your logic needs some work though.
I would suggest a college level course in logic and philosophy.
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb



There's a reason philosophy and math are given separate classes.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




In my personal reality, I am becoming the greatest possible being. I am the center of my world and my well being is the first and foremost priority to my existence.

If I exist then my existence is necessary
It is possible that I exist. I AM
If it is possible for ME to exist then I exist in some possible worlds.
If I exist in some possible worlds, then I exist in all possible worlds.
If I exist in some possible worlds, then I exist in all possible worlds.
If I exist in all possible worlds, then I exist in the actual world.
If I exist in the actual world, then I exist.


Your existence is not necessary but rather contingent upon many chance occurences. It just so happens that you happen to exist in some possible worlds and the actual world but you do not exist in all possible worlds. Therefore your premise one is incorrect your existence is contingent. If premise 1 is not accurate the rest of your argument falls apart



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

Actually a reductio ad absurdum is a logical form of argumentation. Not that it matters you obviously don't care to discuss something but rather just make a bunch of straw mans. I have presented an argument your job would be to explain were the argument fails yet you have not done so.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver




Could exist in some possible worlds? If you are writing a comic book, i'll read it, but you can't pretend it is logic or science. This is philosophy, imagining scenarios doesn't make them possibilities.


A possible world is not an imagined scenario. I defined it in the OP and again I am not sure you read it. A possible world is a logically coherent description of the way things could have played out. You have still yet to actually attack the argument that has been presented you just talk around it without saying anything of substance.




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join