The Ontological Argument for God.

Good definitions have to be based on falsifiable data. Something you seem to be deliberately avoiding.

A perfect being cannot beget imperfection. The Christian God, is not perfect. Though maybe it was his intention all along to create evil (Isaiah 45:7), and make us all sinners. He does after all, seem to enjoy having given Satan the reigns to this world. He plays his part too, by hardening hearts, sending lying spirits, etc. So either he is not perfect. Or he is the perfect psychopath.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
A perfect being cannot beget imperfection. The Christian God, is not perfect. Though maybe it was his intention all along to create evil (Isaiah 45:7), and make us all sinners. He does after all, seem to enjoy having given Satan the reigns to this world. He plays his part too, by hardening hearts, sending lying spirits, etc. So either is is not perfect. Or he is the perfect psychopath.

and therein lies the bitter irony, that we would choose a perfect psychopath as our model of manifest glory. speaks volumes for the mentality of our species.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The fact you haven't formally studied philosophy is glaringly apparent in this thread, and yes the fact does hold weight, because you are trying to present yourself as a skilled philosopher around ontological arguments, yet are missing some vital tools of basic philosophy... and replacing those tools with a fundamental belief in a god. A surgeon won't be an excellent welder on their first try because they can use instruments... they would need training and practice to reapply their knowledge.

Philosophy and programming are vastly different, programmers use functional logic within a very limited scope, philosophers extend the very nature of logic beyond the bounds of simple language constructs (they are mainly related in the "need" for logic). For instance, just because you know C++ doesn't mean you can code in HTML5... same with philosophy, just because you understand one logical construct for instance Socinianism, it doesn't necessarily mean you get Zen. The cross relationships between programming and philosophy are even more amorphous. Knowing one may help in understanding another, but it by no means makes you an expert in both.

You may be good at one type of logic, but when it comes to philosophical logic, you are like an infant. It's like a Chinese chef claiming to be a skilled pastry chef, a Chinese chef would likely spend years learning ratios and flavour profiles completely unfamiliar to them if they shifted to pastry. You are fumbling with one set of skills in a completely unpractised and unlearned environment.

Yes, you admitted a mistake but then are still holding resolutely that your original premise is sound... so you don't actually believe you were wrong... you just stated it as a concession to other posters. That is intellectual dishonesty.

Your starting point is that it is possible for there to possibly be a greatest being, by which you mean god (or whatever you want to call it)... so yes your starting point is basically there is a god. As I said... so many flaws in philosophical logic... you haven't even reduced the statement to a definable scope.

No, I don't know you personally, but I have communicated with you variously in many threads, so have a sense of your thought processes... I have yet to see you take a position of non-belief in God... even when you say you are. You just aren't making the arguments that a non-believer would make, and are constantly working with a starting point that there must be a god somewhere... it is not provable currently, only believable. A subtle but universal distinction.

So not being disrespectful, just pointing out how your persona comes across in prose... which is as a believer.

What you are doing in this thread is closer aligned with poetry than philosophy, because you haven't limited the interpretation of concepts.

Again, I suggest you go try to read some Paul Davies to see exactly where modern philosophy has reached as a body of knowledge. Then come back to this thread and evaluate your reasoning.

It makes your OP seem like 1+1 compared to quantum physics... both math, but worlds apart.

Try his book "In the Mind of God" as a starting point... it is one of his easier reads, yet often I could read no more than a page without reeling at the philosophical concepts packed into such a short space of writing... Some of his later work I have attempted to read, but know that I am light-years from understanding.

If you read it quickly and dismissively, you are not actually understanding the deeper concepts... and you will likely have to suspend your current interpretations of god to be able to engage with his work.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

why do you think its impossible for free will to exist with an omnipotent and omniscient being?

You don't know why it's impossible, and you're trying to carry on a philosophical debate?

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

Go and read some philosophy, lad.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

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?

I do indeed deny it, though that was not the reason why your 'correction' was wrong.

Are you saying that If a ball is close enough to earth, then gravity wont pull it toward the earth?

How close is close enough?

Use your brains. You're a philosopher, after all.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I am however a programmer and logic is something that we excel at.

A logician is not a philosopher. And a computer programmer is not a logician except in the narrowest possible sense.

Contemplate the ruins of your argument and tell yourself, yet again, that you have competence in logic. Nobody else is going to. Have you noticed the lack of support for your premises from other Christian members?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

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

Premise 1: If God exist then God existence is necessary.
Premise 2: It is possible that God exist.
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.

Now its important to realize that after premise 2 the rest of the premises follow modal logic meaning if the first 2 premises are true then 3-6 logically follow. Anyways enjoy.

Oh dear, you use logical terms but you seem to not be able to use them correctly. In logic a premise is something at is assumed to be true. Premises do not follow logically from anything, they are made up so that an argument can have a starting point. Conclusions follow from premises. What you have stated above does not resemble any sort of logic that is known to logicians. I have also tried to be open minded but even if I work at it really really hard and give you the benefit of the doubt, the only possible argument that might be somehow embedded in the hot mess above is "If god exist then god exist" and of course any argument of the form p => p is tautologically true for any statement p.