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: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


What are the conditions under which God could not exist?

I am not trying to prove that God cannot exist. I am showing you that ontological proofs of His existence are invalid.

However, I will answer your question. The conditions under which a hypothetical entity can or cannot exist depend in the first place on how that entity is defined. Thus male lesbians cannot exist, because the terms 'male' and 'lesbian' are so defined that they exclude each other.

Whether or not God can exist depends, therefore, on how we define 'God'. Is your God omnipotent? No problem. Is your God omniscient? Can do. Is He both omnipotent and omniscient? Not a problem, except that it is no longer possible for free will to exist.

Bur can God be either or both of these things, and be, also, good? Oops. No can do. The insuperable problem of theodicy at once rears its head. And so the Christian concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God founders on the reefs of logic.

There is no room in philosophy for the Christians' God.


edit on 21/7/15 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 06:39 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I think you are misusing the term "greatest". Greatest doesn't mean perfect and your logical argument is trying to make those two synonymous.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 06:55 AM
link   
You've never actually formally studied philosophy have you?

As pointed out by many of the people in this thread, there are so many flaws in your argument that it is hard to know where to begin to discuss this with you. You flippantly admitted that it was wrong, and tried to cover your error by flipping sentences 1 and 2, and then stating that you're original premise is still valid... yet it is still a logically erroneous argument for many of the reason already stated to you in this thread, regardless of how you arrange the sentences.

Each poster has pointed out different major flaws in your argument, but rather than trying to understand and alter your original post to make an actual logical argument, admitting your original premise was erroneous, you resolutely forge ahead believing your original argument is sound (even after changing it around)... which it is not... for many reasons.

As with almost all discussions I have had with you, the most obvious flaw to me is your starting position that "there is a god", which has never been proven, so doesn't a logical argument for existence make. Your refusal to entertain any other starting point means that you are always starting with the conclusion, then trying to fit your arguments to that conclusion... a very narrow philosophical approach, that limits you philosophical understanding. ie. A god has never been proven to exist, so to all intents and purposes there is no god.

So back to your amateur philosophy hour... if this is the best you can do, then you would likely not ever pass a philosophy course...

Go read some Paul Davies.
edit on 22-7-2015 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Well you have already mentioned Anselm. You also have Alvin Plantinga which is the version I find most convincing, and then you also have William Lane Craig. Not that it matters any of this has to do with the validity of the argument.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax




Is He both omnipotent and omniscient? Not a problem, except that it is no longer possible for free will to exist.



I disagree with this assertion, and why do you think its impossible for free will to exist with an omnipotent and omniscient being?




Bur can God be either or both of these things, and be, also, good? Oops. No can do.


You make assertions without giving any reason to believe those assertions are true.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax




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?


So because I accepted that were was a flaw in something I just thru together quickly, and fixed it means absolutely nothing. Just because you show something has an error doesn't mean the original point was incorrect, and just because I said something doesn't mean I can't change my mind.




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


And how is my correction wrong? Are you denying that amount of gravity something has is based on a proportional to its mass and the distance between it and another object? Are you saying that If a ball is close enough to earth, then gravity wont pull it toward the earth?



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t





I think you are misusing the term "greatest". Greatest doesn't mean perfect and your logical argument is trying to make those two synonymous.


Greatest doesn't always refer to the quality of something, but can also refer to quantity.For example 2 is greater than 1. In the case of the argument it refers to the to the amount of and extent of a beings Great-Making properties. For example if we are talking about Power The Greatest possible being would have the greatest amount of power.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t





I think you are misusing the term "greatest". Greatest doesn't mean perfect and your logical argument is trying to make those two synonymous.


Greatest doesn't always refer to the quality of something, but can also refer to quantity.For example 2 is greater than 1.


YOU are the one who defined greatest to refer to something's quality. Not me. I HAVE been using it to refer to quantity. Referring greatest to quality is a subjective trait and can never be objectively true anyways. It is impossible define something that has the greatest possible quality. In fact, using greatest to refer to quantity is EXACTLY why your argument is invalid.


In the case of the argument it refers to the to the amount of and extent of a beings Great-Making properties. For example if we are talking about Power The Greatest possible being would have the greatest amount of power.


All the greatest amount of power means is that it is the maximum amount of power that an entity can have. Having the greatest power doesn't imply you can do anything. It just means nothing else has more power than that entity.
edit on 22-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: puzzlesphere




You've never actually formally studied philosophy have you?


No, but that fact holds no weight upon any statement that I make. I am however a programmer and logic is something that we excel at.




As pointed out by many of the people in this thread, there are so many flaws in your argument that it is hard to know where to begin to discuss this with you. You flippantly admitted that it was wrong, and tried to cover your error by flipping sentences 1 and 2, and then stating that you're original premise is still valid... yet it is still a logically erroneous argument for many of the reason already stated to you in this thread, regardless of how you arrange the sentences.


Again why is everyone acting like your knowledge has to remain static? The fact that I admit my mistakes should show you that when someone convincingly shows me an error I will go an look at it. The reason I swapped the sentences is because I realized that I had an unnecessary step in the logic, and honestly I could have just removed one of the sentences I didn't need to flip them. So really all I did was remove an extra step.

The rest of your post does absolutely nothing, but say that people have presented errors in my argument, and misrepresent my position.




As with almost all discussions I have had with you, the most obvious flaw to me is your starting position that "there is a god", which has never been proven, so doesn't a logical argument for existence make.


That is not the starting point of this argument. This argument is an ONTOLOGICAL 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 starting point is that is is possible for their to be a greatest possible being. It doesn't say God exist, so God exist.




Your refusal to entertain any other starting point means that you are always starting with the conclusion, then trying to fit your arguments to that conclusion... a very narrow philosophical approach, that limits you philosophical understanding.


How disrespectful. You don't know me or my thought process to sit there and pretend you do is ridiculous. I look at the world thru as many angles as I can possibly think of including one in which God does not exist.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




All the greatest amount of power means is that it is the maximum amount of power that an entity can have. Having the greatest power doesn't imply you can do anything. It just means nothing else has more power than that entity.


It means that in all possible worlds this being has the greatest amount of power. I completely agree that what constitutes as a Great-Making Property could be debated. If you remember Great-making properties are those metaphysical properties that it would be better to have than not to have. What everyone on here is forgetting is I used to be right on board with everyone of you when it comes to this argument. I used to think it was ridiculous and terrible and did nothing. As I said to windword, attacking the word great as you have done is by far the best way to go about trying to disprove this argument. I believe that from here I would have to prove that something either is or is not a great-making property.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

So in other words, you've in the past seen the logical flaws in this argument, but now that you are a believer, you are willing to look past those flaws to say that the argument is valid? I'm pretty sure that is an application of confirmation bias there.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




So in other words, you've in the past seen the logical flaws in this argument, but now that you are a believer, you are willing to look past those flaws to say that the argument is valid? I'm pretty sure that is an application of confirmation bias there.


Not at all. I was already a believer. I would say my mind changed about 3 1/2 weeks ago (and you have talked to me on here enough to know that I have been a believer for years) when I started an indepth study on this argument out of boredom. Before that I had never truly understood the argument. When arguing against it with other people I made the same rebuttals that everyone here is bringing up. I have no problem admitting that the reason I posted the argument was to see how it stood up to scrutiny, so far I am still very impressed with the argument.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Well then I don't think you are properly studied enough in the argument then. Your argument boils down to a simple question, is it possible for it to be possible for god to exist? Nothing new was learned from your logical analysis (because it is circular in nature) and we are still no closer to knowing if god exists. You've misused the meaning of great to imply that the greatest being somehow has all these properties that make up the Christian god, but that isn't what it means to be the greatest.

You should really sit down and re go through all the logic in your argument, it doesn't make sense. Especially when you start subbing out equivalent phrases like I was doing in prior posts (which proves the circular argument aspect).

Face it, fancy words and reasoning aren't going to prove the existence of something. You need actual evidence to do it. There is no other way around it.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
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.


Exactly. You defined the word. I don't accept your definition as "official" or even "workable". For obvious reasons.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Face it, fancy words and reasoning aren't going to prove the existence of something. You need actual evidence to do it. There is no other way around it.


Thats simply untrue. Evidence is not the only form of knowing, nor is it appropriate form of pursuing all questions.




Your argument boils down to a simple question, is it possible for it to be possible for god to exist?


Thats kinda the point of modal logic: en.wikipedia.org... It works similar to a mathematical proof in that if the first value is true the rest follow from that value. So yes your exactly right the whole argument boils down to this question.




Nothing new was learned from your logical analysis (because it is circular in nature) and we are still no closer to knowing if god exists


I disagree. You are calling something circular that is not circular reasoning and I am very very familiar with that logical fallacy, as well as begging the question. You think its circular because you don't understand the It is possible the greatest possible exist must be true because you run into a logical contradiction. I have said this to you a hundred times now and you just ignore it. Please explain how it is possible for the greatest possible being to be impossible.




You've misused the meaning of great to imply that the greatest being somehow has all these properties that make up the Christian god, but that isn't what it means to be the greatest.


Wrong. I used the word greatest to define the metaphysical and modal properties of the Greatest Possible being. I did not define God as the God of the Bible, but I do think once you go thru determining what qualities the Greatest possible being Christianity and maybe a few others are the only religions left. For example, I think one could use this for establishing a deistic perspective, and maybe even an Islamic perspective, but I don't know enough about Islam to say that with weight.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

It doesn't matter what word you use. I could just plug in the phrase "the greatest possible being" or a "Maximally Great Being" and not use the word God....you are making a semantic dispute about the word God. As I said I can just not use that word and just use the phrase...



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Thats simply untrue. Evidence is not the only form of knowing, nor is it appropriate form of pursuing all questions.


Uh... yea... It is.


Thats kinda the point of modal logic: en.wikipedia.org... It works similar to a mathematical proof in that if the first value is true the rest follow from that value. So yes your exactly right the whole argument boils down to this question.


Your link is dead.


I disagree. You are calling something circular that is not circular reasoning and I am very very familiar with that logical fallacy, as well as begging the question. You think its circular because you don't understand the It is possible the greatest possible exist must be true because you run into a logical contradiction. I have said this to you a hundred times now and you just ignore it. Please explain how it is possible for the greatest possible being to be impossible.


Explain how the greatest possible being MUST be god first. That is a step in logic that you failed to actually do. The greatest possible being could be a living world (like the Avatar movie) for all we know. That being is constricted to one planet and can't do much outside of its region of space. That doesn't make it god, nor does it mean that it exists everywhere.


Wrong. I used the word greatest to define the metaphysical and modal properties of the Greatest Possible being. I did not define God as the God of the Bible, but I do think once you go thru determining what qualities the Greatest possible being Christianity and maybe a few others are the only religions left. For example, I think one could use this for establishing a deistic perspective, and maybe even an Islamic perspective, but I don't know enough about Islam to say that with weight.


How do you determine the qualities of the greatest possible being if you don't know the limits to greatness?



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TzarChasm

It doesn't matter what word you use. I could just plug in the phrase "the greatest possible being" or a "Maximally Great Being" and not use the word God....you are making a semantic dispute about the word God. As I said I can just not use that word and just use the phrase...


It's not semantics. You literally made up a definition to suit your needs for this thread. That's not how it works. Do you need someone to copy and paste the process by which one submits a definition for review with the relevant boards and committees? I bet you skipped all that. And that's why it's...what's the word? Oh right, an "opinion".



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Uh... yea... It is.


Just to make sure we are on the same page you are saying that empirical evidence is the only form of determining what is true?




Explain how the greatest possible being MUST be god first. That is a step in logic that you failed to actually do.


I don't care what word you use. Your making a semantic dispute over the word God just as Tzar was earlier. The point of this argument is to show there is more rational to believe there is a omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and necessary being, rather than believing . The affirmative side is arguing that those four qualities are great-making properties. That is what needs to be attacked in order to disprove this argument.




How do you determine the qualities of the greatest possible being if you don't know the limits to greatness?


Can your power be greater than all power? Can your knowledge be greater than all knowledge? You are using greatness as a quality rather than it defining the extent to with which you have a certain property.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Just to make sure we are on the same page you are saying that empirical evidence is the only form of determining what is true?


I'm saying that is is the only way to prove existence, not to prove what is and isn't true. 1 + 1 = 2 is true and I don't need to produce evidence that 1 or 2 exist to show that.


I don't care what word you use. Your making a semantic dispute over the word God just as Tzar was earlier. The point of this argument is to show there is more rational to believe there is a omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and necessary being, rather than believing . The affirmative side is arguing that those four qualities are great-making properties. That is what needs to be attacked in order to disprove this argument.


Where do you get the idea that a "greatest entity" is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and necessary? Semantics is EVERYTHING in a logical argument. You can't just say one thing that randomly decide that you are talking about something else with the way you phrased your words. Each entity in a logical argument must be precisely defined so that everyone knows what the stakes of the argument.


Can your power be greater than all power? Can your knowledge be greater than all knowledge? You are using greatness as a quality rather than it defining the extent to with which you have a certain property.


Here you go again. You are trying to say that greatest equals all powerful (or perfect) again, and that ISN'T how you use a word with the suffix "est". You can't redefine words for the purpose of your argument then jump between the proper definition of the word and your definition of the word for the sake of what you are currently arguing about.

ALL greatest means is that NO other entity is more great than that particular entity. It DOESN'T mean that the entity has all the power possible, nor does it mean that another entity cannot surpass it in greatness. It doesn't even mean that the entity has reached the limits of greatness. It JUST means that the entity is the most great among all entities. THAT is it.

For instance, many argue that Ray Lewis is the greatest linebacker to ever play professional football. That doesn't mean that Ray has acquired ALL possible skills that a linebacker can possess. It just means that among all linebackers past and present, he is better than them. Another linebacker could theoretically come along though and make him look like a JV linebacker though. It's all relative. Stop using a relative word to define god.
edit on 22-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
4
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join