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: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

First I have had experience with God, but personal experience is not a form of argumentation when talking about the existence of God, nor is it an effective rebuttal. Second his question was specifically about the my God, the God of the Bible. If God is not the creator of Time then your not talking about my God. If God is the creator of time then it follows that he is not bound by time. Much like a programmer is transcendent to his programs, God is transcendent, or outside of, his creations.




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




Therefore your premise one is incorrect your existence is contingent.


No it's not. My existence is empirical. I am. That's a fact. There is no question that I exist, at least not in my mind and others who have to deal with me. However, there is still the question of whether gods exist.

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



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

Wrong. Just because you replace the word God with something else doesn't mean the argument works. Oscar the Grouch is a contingent being dependent upon the creator of sesame street. Humans are contingent beings so windwords argument doesn't work either.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: starswift

why don't you point out the flaws rather than just saying they are there.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Your existence is in empirical in the actual world, I would agree. That does not make your existence necessary as defined within the argument. Your empirical existence in the actual world is contingent upon certain factor. For instance if your parents had never met, then your empirical existence wouldn't have occurred and as such is contingent upon a possible world in which your parents had sexual intercourse. As such you cannot possibly exist in all possible worlds and as such you are not the greatest possible being because you lack necessary existence.
edit on 19-7-2015 by ServantOfTheLamb because: typo



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   
The structure is not logical.
I already told you the solution.
Did I miss anything?
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

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



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver




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.


I don't think you realize the limitations of language. I define the words so that everyone knows what I mean when I use them so that there is no misunderstanding, not because I believe they are the best possible definitions of the word. Also if you refute the argument without adhering to that definition then your attacking a completely separate argument, which would be a strawman fallacy.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: starswift




I already told you the solution.
I also told you the problem.


This is all you have said "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. "

That does nothing to tell me where my logic is invalid. What about the structure is illogical? You are making broad statements with absolutely nothing substantiating the claim other than your own opinion. This argument is not my argument. The Ontological Argument has been around for quite sometime I assumed that was general knowledge, and it has been presented by plenty of people in the scholarly world, such as Alvin Platinga. I think maybe its you who needs to educate themselves a little more.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   
I just combine em into metaphysics and make stuff up.
It's easier that way.
a reply to: TzarChasm




posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Doubtful.
But if you say it is Ontological, that would not be my understanding.
God either is or is not but debate will not clarify reality at that level.
Because God like water is not debatable, it simply is.
You could debate whether water exists but you would have to pause occasionally to take a drink of water so you can continue to argue.
AS far as logical fallacies, continuing the argument into parallel realities would seem to invalidate a logical argument. Cause who gets to degine what an alternate reality is and if they even exist?
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


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



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: starswift




Doubtful.
But if you say it is Ontological, that would not be my understanding.


Take two minutes and type the ontological argument for God into Google, you can see that people trained in philosophy present basically the say argument. I chose certain definitions because i think they work best for a simple understanding of the argument. Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations(wiki). The entire argument is simply about the existence of the greatest possible being. I do not think this argument would get a person to accept the Christian God, but when understood I believe it should show that a God logically exist.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: starswift

Its not about parallel realities. Its about logically coherent descriptions of the way things could have played out.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: windword

Your existence is in empirical in the actual world, I would agree. That does not make your existence necessary as defined within the argument. Your empirical existence in the actual world is contingent upon certain factor. For instance if your parents had never met, then your empirical existence wouldn't have occurred and as such is contingent upon a possible world in which your parents had sexual intercourse. As such you cannot possibly exist in all possible worlds and as such you are not the greatest possible being because you lack necessary existence.


Your argument is no different than saying that the universe itself is contingent on circumstance for it's existence, and I could say the universe would still exist no matter what. It would just be expressing itself differently, depending on the certain contingencies. You can't say something only exists because.......that's merely speculation on why existence is empirical.

Existence is empirical, in and of itself. The fact is that I do exist, empirically. The medium in which I choose to use to express who "I AM" are variables, depending on which parallel world I happen to be focusing my attention.


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



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
creeping death


Nice reference, if it was one to what I think it was.


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



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 09:39 PM
link   
I do not think the intellect, which is dualistic, is the best vehicle to approach the absolute.
For every thesis there is a counter thesis.
As a structure for philosophical argument or insight it does not have a structure I can see any merit in.
And on top of that you took certain liberties such as alternate realities.
Perhaps you are a budding philosopher who is attempting to advance his own variation, very well.
Is it an intellectual exercise, what is the result you were hoping for?
Self conversion?, or the conversion of an "other" your ego sees reflected in the blank mirror of reality?
Try answering each in sequence, without thinking how you are going to reply to me.
I may be an artificial intelligence after all.
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb



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



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You've got the argument wrong. Your first premise is a statement of faith, not admissible in a logical argument.

Here is St. Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God. All other ontological arguments are derived, ultimately, from it:
  1. Imagine the perfect being. This being, by definition, would be God.

  2. The most perfect imaginary being would be more perfect if it really existed.

  3. Therefore God exists.

That's it. It's as simple and as stupid as that. Only an a priori believer could take it seriously.


edit on 19/7/15 by Astyanax because: of ontological gremlins.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Lol it has nothing to do with the imagination, a possible world is defined as logically coherent description of the way things could have played out.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Number concepts and shape concepts exist but their existence is not empirical. You'll find that things that exist necessarily normally do not have empirical existence. For example I can prove the concept of two, but it requires logical proof not empirical evidence. The actual universe is contingent upon a ridiculous amount of minute factors. Such as the expansion rate of the big bang.

You do not understand the argument...you seem to think that just because you exist in the actual world that means you must exist in all possible worlds. That is simply untrue and has no logic behind it.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

If we are talking about infinite universes then it is impossible for an entity to be what you label as "necessary". Because infinite universes imply that there are universes where everything we know as true is false. I saw that your argument is flawed because it narrowly defines the multi-verse theory.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Your misunderstanding what I mean when I say a possible world. The list of possible worlds is large but it is not infinite. There are only so many ways things could have played out and remain logically coherent with reality.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join