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: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

So you are constraining your op to within our current universe? I thought you were talking about multi-verses. If you are just constraining the topic to our singular universe then your argument is no different than any other thread that says that God exists because of [insert premise], yet fails to actually prove existence.




posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Existence is not a predicate, nor is it a property of individuals. To say it is possible for God to exist is begging the question, as it assumes what God is before knowing that it is, and before knowing it is possible.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Focus on my definitions and maybe you'll understand the argument a little whether. I guess I should mention that I used to think this argument was absolutely ridiculous. However, after putting in a lot of effort to attempt to understand what each line was saying I realize the argument is logically valid and very hard to produce a rebuttal that breaks its logic. Its constrained to any logically coherent description of the way the actual world could have came into being. This is modal logic, so premises 3-6 simply follows from the first two premises. This is actually much close to Plantinga's version on the Ontological argument. The only really difference is I defined God as the greatest possible being rather than a maximally great being. This folllows into a discussion about great making properties. In the argument Great-Making Properties are defined as properties that it would be better to intrinsically have than not to have.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

God is defined in the argument. Maybe you should read more carefully.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Your argument is as follows: God exists if god is necessary for the universe's existence. You just used a roundabout way of showing it. But that argument is pretty much every religious argument boiled down to simplicity. In any case, it still doesn't prove or disprove god.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




Number concepts and shape concepts exist but their existence is not empirical.


One might argue that, however, I'm not a shape or a number. I AM. That is empirically true.


The actual universe is contingent upon a ridiculous amount of minute factors.


I've already explained to you that the universe would exist under ANY contingency. It's present expression of existence has nothing to do with the fact that it exists, empirically.


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.


I don't see why not. Unlike your imaginary god, I do actually exist. My existence fits the criteria, as I explained in my reply to your OP. You just refuse to grasp the logic because it doesn't fit your preconceived definition of who I AM.


edit on 20-7-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

'Lol'? Go and read a philosophy textbook. This isn't the wheel you're inventing here, you know.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


God is defined in the argument. Maybe you should read more carefully.

That's Immanuel Kant's argument he's quoting, almost word for word. Are you saying Kant should have read more carefully?



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

So I made this argument in another thread, but I feel it is very appropriate here as well.


Logical arguments are sound or unsound as well as valid or invalid.

An argument is valid if it is impossible for the conclusion to be false provided that the premises are true. In other words, you make an assumption that the premises are true and analyze the argument to make sure the conclusion HAS to be true.

An argument is sound if and only if it is also valid AND the premises are true.

The cosmological, ontological, and teleological arguments are all valid arguments, but there is no way to show that they are sound. Therefore they cannot be used as proof of anything. They are nice philosophical ponderings, but as far as proving anything, they fail.


This basically says that your argument in the OP doesn't prove anything even though it doesn't violate any rules of logic. Your argument is merely valid. It is not sound, because we cannot prove the premises true. Therefore it isn't proof of anything.
edit on 20-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

thats how they WANT it to work. since they cant prove it honestly, they simply make it impossible to DISprove and that makes it valid by default.

clever girl, eh?
edit on 20-7-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Then the quote simply does not apply here, and as such he still should have read more carefully. I defined God as "the greatest possible being". By definition the greatest possible being cannot be impossible. Its simply not an effective rebuttal.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I would say the argument is both valid and sound. Which premise do you believe I cannot prove to be true?



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I would say the argument is both valid and sound. Which premise do you believe I cannot prove to be true?


"Premise 1: If God exist then God existence is necessary.

This one relies on a conditional statement. It can't ever be definitively true. Plus, it doesn't follow logically that god existing makes his existence necessary. God could just be a watcher of the universe.

"Premise 2: It is possible that God exist. "

How do you know that this is possible?

These are your two givens. Not to mention, now that I look at it more closely, you applied a conditional statement to your two givens. Givens are supposed to be true statements given at the beginning of the argument to develop the premises on. One given can either be true or false and the other is unprovable. Hence your argument can't be logically sound. QED.
edit on 20-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Now apply your argument for God's existence to every other God or Goddess that's been claimed to exist? While you may think your argument proves God (I disagree), your argument doesn't prove a particular deity at all. According to your argument, all Gods and Goddesses exist. How do you intend to further strengthen your claim that it is your specific God that exists?



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

God is defined in the argument. Maybe you should read more carefully.


"the greatest possible being".

you literally pulled that definition out of your keister. there is NO basis for that definition other than your personal opinion.

not that im surprised.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   
here's a breakdown of the ontological argument, including its flaws and foibles.

Ontological Argument

lets see you talk your way around this one, OP. im curious to see you address the critique point by point...as far as you can anyway.

edit on 20-7-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t





"Premise 1: If God exist then God existence is necessary.

This one relies on a conditional statement. It can't ever be definitively true. Plus, it doesn't follow logically that god existing makes his existence necessary. God could just be a watcher of the universe


What do you mean a conditional statement can't ever be definitively true? I'll give you one that's true. If I throw a baseball in the air on earth(P), then gravity will pull it toward earth(Q). Q is a consequent of P. The same is true for the Premise above. The argument is based on what makes something great. I should have defined this in the OP, but Great-making Properties are those properties that it would be better to intrinsically have, than not to have. If the greatest possible being exist(P), then it has the great-making property, necessary existence(Q). Q is consequent of P, because the greatest possible being(or maximally great being) must have all great-making properties to their fullest extent. Therefore the greatest possible being has necessary existence.




"Premise 2: It is possible that God exist. "

How do you know that this is possible?

These are your two givens. Not to mention, now that I look at it more closely, you applied a conditional statement to your two givens. Givens are supposed to be true statements given at the beginning of the argument to develop the premises on. One given can either be true or false and the other is unprovable. Hence your argument can't be logically sound


Now you may say that this is unknowable, but you cannot deny that this a true or false statement. Either God exist, or He doesn't. True or False. Just as the concept of the word bachelor implies that every bachelor is male, the concept of the word "God" as I have defined it implies that the being existence is possible. So it could be read as such, It is possible that the Greatest possible being exist. This statement rules out false and therefore it must be true. Also if you negate statement you are a left with a logical contradiction. It is not possible, that the greatest possible being exist. Logically incoherent.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I would argue that the definition of God as defined rules out many religions based on the requirements of God.

P.S. I may rule other Gods out not because of this argument but because of other reasons.
edit on 20-7-2015 by ServantOfTheLamb because: PS. added



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Fair enough. I can understand why you want to rule out other Gods, based on how you define God. Do none of the other gods fit your description or is it just most of them? But regardless... All one would have to do is change the context of your requirements for god with their own, and the argument would still hold up and prove the existence of their gods. That's according to the bar you've set for yourself in terms of what constitutes evidence of things.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Premise 1: If God does not exist then God existence is not necessary.
Premise 2: It is possible that God does not exist.
Premise 3: If it is possible for God not to exist then God does not exist in some possible worlds.
Premise 4: If God does not exist in some possible worlds, then God does not exist in all possible worlds.
Premise 5: If God does not exist in all possible worlds, then God does not exist in the actual world.
Premise 6: If God does not exist in the actual world, then God does not exist.




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join