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: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


Then the quote simply does not apply here.

On the contrary, it is precisely Kant's disproof of the ontological argument. It is directly relevant to the discussion.

Please understand. There is a field of study known as philosophy. It is at least six hundred years older than Christianity and is still going strong. The ontological argument is a kindergarten problem in philosophy -- philosophy students are given the argument and asked to analyse it. It is used in this way because it is quite easy to disprove -- as others have noticed in this thread.

Well done for bringing up an interesting topic, but the discussion is over now. Time to reflect on lessons learned, my friend.


edit on 20/7/15 by Astyanax because: of phone dumbness.




posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


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).

That isn't a conditional statement. A conditional statement has the form, 'if A then B' where B is dependent on A. B in your statement does not depend on A. The ball will fall to earth no matter whether you throw it, I throw it or the Pope throws it. It will fall to earth whether you throw it, kick it, launch it from a mortar or fire it from a cannon. It may fall to earth in one piece or ten thousand, but fall to earth it unconditionally must, unless you find a way to propel that ball at seven miles a second, or repeal the law of gravity.

Get it? I hope so, because I don't think I can explain it any more simply.


edit on 21/7/15 by Astyanax because: of unpleasant facts.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer


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.

Even that is unnecessary, because it's already implied. If a belief system postulates a deity, then that deity is a priori a necessary condition of that belief system. It doesn't even need to be a creator, this god; all it needs is a sufficient degree of supernatural potency to temporarily suspend the laws of nature and causality from time to time when pleaded to.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


Now you may say that (it) is unknowable (whether or not God can exist) but you cannot deny that this a true or false statement.

If it is neither absolutely true or false, then it is either conditional (see above) or it is meaningless.

What, then, are the conditions under which God can exist? Prove that these conditions are natural, unbreakable laws, and you will have proved the existence of God.

Come on, now; that should be child's play for a veteran philosopher like you!



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You are using circular reasoning to prove your logic. You can't use the definition of something to prove its existence.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

I am well aware of that, but just because Immanuel Kant was a good philosopher doesn't mean his rebuttal was a good one. God has been defined. It doesn't matter if you don't like the definition, but with that definition the argument is valid and sound. Also plenty of philosophers respect this argument so playing as though its something people can just easily dismiss is you being dishonest in order to be persuasive.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax




That isn't a conditional statement. A conditional statement has the form, 'if A then B' where B is dependent on A. B in your statement does not depend on A. The ball will fall to earth no matter whether you throw it, I throw it or the Pope throws it. It will fall to earth whether you throw it, kick it, launch it from a mortar or fire it from a cannon. It may fall to earth in one piece or ten thousand, but fall to earth it unconditionally must, unless you find a way to propel that ball at seven miles a second, or repeal the law of gravity.

Get it? I hope so, because I don't think I can explain it any more simply.



Simply modify the statement then. To say If a baseball is close enough to earth, then gravity will pull the ball toward earth. I mean you are just being ridiculous. That statement portrays a very simple idea that conditional statements can be true.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Just because a person places a deity in their doesn't mean that deity automatically has necessary existence. It would depend upon the attributes known about that deity.




It doesn't even need to be a creator, this god; all it needs is a sufficient degree of supernatural potency to temporarily suspend the laws of nature and causality from time to time when pleaded to.



If it is not a creator God then the argument falls apart. A God that is not a creator God doesn't have necessary existence but rather has contingent existence.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Something cannot be partially exist. That would be the law of the excluded middle. Either God exist is true or its negation, God does not exist is true.




What, then, are the conditions under which God can exist?


What are the conditions under which God could not exist?



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




You are using circular reasoning to prove your logic. You can't use the definition of something to prove its existence.


I didn't. I used the definition to eliminate the false value on the basis of logic. For example, if the question was, "What gender is a Bachelor?" There are only two options, Male or Female. I answer with All Bachelors are male. That would not be circular reasoning. Rather the statement proves itself, because being a male is a necessary condition for being a bachelor. In the same way being possible is a necessary condition for being the greatest possible being. I have not assumed that which I am trying to prove. I have not assumed that God exist, merely that his existence is possible and I assume that because its a necessary condition of the greatest possible being and because when you negative statement leaves you with a logical contradiction as its implications.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t




You are using circular reasoning to prove your logic. You can't use the definition of something to prove its existence.


I didn't. I used the definition to eliminate the false value on the basis of logic. For example, if the question was, "What gender is a Bachelor?" There are only two options, Male or Female. I answer with All Bachelors are male. That would not be circular reasoning. Rather the statement proves itself, because being a male is a necessary condition for being a bachelor. In the same way being possible is a necessary condition for being the greatest possible being. I have not assumed that which I am trying to prove. I have not assumed that God exist, merely that his existence is possible and I assume that because its a necessary condition of the greatest possible being and because when you negative statement leaves you with a logical contradiction as its implications.


No sorry, you argued that the mere possibility of existence of god requires that god exists. That is either circular reasoning or tells us nothing. We still don't know if it is possible for god to exist. So if your argument is true, then we change the structure of the question to "Is it possible for it to be possible for god to exist?" Since the phrase "is it possible for god to exist" = "god exists" (according to your logic). We've thus created an infinite loop of assertions and possibilities. Because now we can take our new statement and plug "god exists" in for "is it possible for god to exist" and get back our original statement. Your reasoning is so flawed... It's hard to pinpoint just ONE error to focus on...
edit on 21-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thats not the argument, nor was that what I responded too. You asked me which premise I couldn't prove to be true and gave both the first and the second. I realized after responding to you that premise 2 should be premise 1, and premise 1 should be premise 2, so the argument would take on :

Premise 1: It is possible that God exist.
Premise 2: If God exist then God existence is necessary.
Premise 3: If it is possible for God to exist then God exist in some possible worlds.
Premise 4: If God exist in some possible worlds, then God exist in all possible worlds.
Premise 5: If God exist in all possible worlds, then God exist in the actual world.
Premise 6: If God exist in the actual world, then God exist.

I would then argue that premise 2-6 follows modal logic. Meaning if the first premise is true 2-6 would also be true.

Anyways the first argument is self proving just like my example with bachelor.

So create a similar premise using bachelor and maybe it will show you why it must be true.

Premise 1: It is possible that all bachelors are male.

Obviously this premise is possible but negating this statement leaves you with an internal contradiction:

Premise 1: It is possible that all bachelors are not male.

This premise is obviously false because a bachelor is a male who had never been married.

The first premise works the same way:

Premise 1: It is possible that God exist.

God is defined as the greatest possible being. If the being is not possible then it is not God, and the rebuttal would be a strawman fallacy.

Negation:

Premise 1: It is possible that God does not exist.

This sentence says that it is possible that the greatest possible being is not possible. In the same way the concept of the word bachelor necessitates that the person being spoken of is a male, the concept of God(as defined) necessitates that his existence is possible as God is the greatest possible being.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Then following that logic, it is not possible for god to exist should be the conclusion. Because if possibility of existence shows that god must exist, then it must be impossible for god to exist because we can't show that it is possible for god to exist. Because possible for god to exist is interchangeable with god exists thanks to your logic. Like I said, your logic doesn't answer anything and is just circular in nature.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


God has been defined.


please share the source for this "official" definition as well as a full explanation of how it fits into your premises - im sorry, presumptions.
edit on 21-7-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Alright, you still are ignoring all the other creator gods. And you are still only using your defined attributes of a god. So why are your definitions the right ones?



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

That definition cannot be changed or the argument does not work. So you could put in another definition, but the revised argument wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. In order for a God to work it must have the properties of the Greatest Possible being. The question then becomes what makes something great? So philosophers coined the term Great-making properties, which are the metaphysical properties that are better to intrinsically have than not have. This give you the ability to discuss with one another about what makes something great and honestly is the best area to attack the argument from because the revised ordered I posted to Krazyshot all depends on premise 1 being true and from there it is modal logic and honestly I could just remove premise 2. Premise 1 seeks to prove itself thru definition, and that relies on what makes something great, and is also what defines God's existence as necessary. The argument is that its better to have necessary existence, than not to have necessary existence.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Because if possibility of existence shows that god must exist, then it must be impossible for god to exist because we can't show that it is possible for god to exist.


Again we are not on the same page with the word God and therefore your making a strawman. If your going to disprove my argument we would need to be talking about the same thing. How can it be true that the greatest possible being is not possible?
If the being you speak of is not possible, the how can it be the greatest possible being?



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

...I defined the word God so that you would understand it in the confines of the argument. I could have said the word Blue is defined as the greatest possible being and ran thru the argument but you can change the word if you like but then it becomes an argument from semantics as we would be talking about the same thing with different terms.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


Plenty of philosophers respect this argument

And their names are..?

When did the last one die?



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


Simply modify the statement then. To say If a baseball is close enough to earth, then gravity will pull the ball toward earth.

Modify the statement? You reply to KrazySh0t giving a wrong example of conditionality and now that you have been shown your error you want to modify it, yet still insist your original point is correct?

Am I arguing with a small child?

Anyway, your suggested correction is wrong. Evidently you don't understand how gravity work, either.




top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join