Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

The Ontological Argument

PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 10:20:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've heard about the ontological argument several times, and I realize that it's probably somewhere in this forum; however, I really don't feel like digging through hundreds of threads just to find out what the ontological argument actually is. So instead, could anyone please explain it to me?
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 10:23:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Ontological Argument argues from the position of possible worlds. A possible world is a world which could have come about but didn't, and the actual world is the world that we live in now. For example, unicorns don't exist in the actual world but they do exist in some possible worlds because there is nothing logically inconsistent about a horse with a horn. However, 2+2=4 would be true in all possible worlds (which includes the actual world which, obviously, is a possible world).

So the Ontological Argument basically states:

1) God is a maximally great being (a maximally great being is one in which you could conceive of nothing greater, since if you could conceive of a greater being, that being would be God)
2) God exists in some possible worlds.
3) Since God is a maximally great being, if He exists in at least one possible world, He would exist in all possible worlds.
4) Since God exists in all possible worlds, God exists in the actual world.
5) Therefore, God exists.

That's, from what I understand, the basics behind the Ontological Argument. It's a very abstract argument and difficult for many people to wrap their minds around, so I'm not convinced it's a very useful argument.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 10:29:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 10:20:33 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
I've heard about the ontological argument several times, and I realize that it's probably somewhere in this forum; however, I really don't feel like digging through hundreds of threads just to find out what the ontological argument actually is. So instead, could anyone please explain it to me?

There is no single "ontological argument." Anselm, Descarte, Godel all came up with various "ontological arguments."

They basically revolve around defining god as being necessary and since necessary things exist, so does god.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 11:03:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 10:23:50 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
The Ontological Argument argues from the position of possible worlds. A possible world is a world which could have come about but didn't, and the actual world is the world that we live in now. For example, unicorns don't exist in the actual world but they do exist in some possible worlds because there is nothing logically inconsistent about a horse with a horn. However, 2+2=4 would be true in all possible worlds (which includes the actual world which, obviously, is a possible world).

So the Ontological Argument basically states:

1) God is a maximally great being (a maximally great being is one in which you could conceive of nothing greater, since if you could conceive of a greater being, that being would be God)
2) God exists in some possible worlds.
3) Since God is a maximally great being, if He exists in at least one possible world, He would exist in all possible worlds.
4) Since God exists in all possible worlds, God exists in the actual world.
5) Therefore, God exists.

That's, from what I understand, the basics behind the Ontological Argument. It's a very abstract argument and difficult for many people to wrap their minds around, so I'm not convinced it's a very useful argument.

Do you want to have a debate on this one? I would gladly accept..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 11:04:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 10:23:50 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
The Ontological Argument argues from the position of possible worlds. A possible world is a world which could have come about but didn't, and the actual world is the world that we live in now. For example, unicorns don't exist in the actual world but they do exist in some possible worlds because there is nothing logically inconsistent about a horse with a horn. However, 2+2=4 would be true in all possible worlds (which includes the actual world which, obviously, is a possible world).

So the Ontological Argument basically states:

1) God is a maximally great being (a maximally great being is one in which you could conceive of nothing greater, since if you could conceive of a greater being, that being would be God)
2) God exists in some possible worlds.
3) Since God is a maximally great being, if He exists in at least one possible world, He would exist in all possible worlds.
4) Since God exists in all possible worlds, God exists in the actual world.
5) Therefore, God exists.

That's, from what I understand, the basics behind the Ontological Argument. It's a very abstract argument and difficult for many people to wrap their minds around, so I'm not convinced it's a very useful argument.

This is the Leibnez modal logic arguement. its not the Ontological argument.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 11:07:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Ontological argument is simply one of God Properties it Perfection, non-existence would be and inperfection. Therefore God must exist.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 4:24:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 11:04:43 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/6/2012 10:23:50 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
The Ontological Argument argues from the position of possible worlds. A possible world is a world which could have come about but didn't, and the actual world is the world that we live in now. For example, unicorns don't exist in the actual world but they do exist in some possible worlds because there is nothing logically inconsistent about a horse with a horn. However, 2+2=4 would be true in all possible worlds (which includes the actual world which, obviously, is a possible world).

So the Ontological Argument basically states:

1) God is a maximally great being (a maximally great being is one in which you could conceive of nothing greater, since if you could conceive of a greater being, that being would be God)
2) God exists in some possible worlds.
3) Since God is a maximally great being, if He exists in at least one possible world, He would exist in all possible worlds.
4) Since God exists in all possible worlds, God exists in the actual world.
5) Therefore, God exists.

That's, from what I understand, the basics behind the Ontological Argument. It's a very abstract argument and difficult for many people to wrap their minds around, so I'm not convinced it's a very useful argument.

This is the Leibnez modal logic arguement. its not the Ontological argument.

Are you sure about that? It seems that whenever I've heard someone speak on the Ontological Argument, that was also the basics of it, that God exists in some possible worlds so, being a maximally great being, He exists in all possible worlds.

I would like to have a debate on it, so feel free to start one. I am actually also planning on debating the Teleological and Moral Arguments, as well, in addition to the Problem of Evil at some point.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 5:20:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 4:24:30 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/6/2012 11:04:43 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/6/2012 10:23:50 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
The Ontological Argument argues from the position of possible worlds. A possible world is a world which could have come about but didn't, and the actual world is the world that we live in now. For example, unicorns don't exist in the actual world but they do exist in some possible worlds because there is nothing logically inconsistent about a horse with a horn. However, 2+2=4 would be true in all possible worlds (which includes the actual world which, obviously, is a possible world).

So the Ontological Argument basically states:

1) God is a maximally great being (a maximally great being is one in which you could conceive of nothing greater, since if you could conceive of a greater being, that being would be God)
2) God exists in some possible worlds.
3) Since God is a maximally great being, if He exists in at least one possible world, He would exist in all possible worlds.
4) Since God exists in all possible worlds, God exists in the actual world.
5) Therefore, God exists.

That's, from what I understand, the basics behind the Ontological Argument. It's a very abstract argument and difficult for many people to wrap their minds around, so I'm not convinced it's a very useful argument.

This is the Leibnez modal logic arguement. its not the Ontological argument.

Are you sure about that? It seems that whenever I've heard someone speak on the Ontological Argument, that was also the basics of it, that God exists in some possible worlds so, being a maximally great being, He exists in all possible worlds.

I would like to have a debate on it, so feel free to start one. I am actually also planning on debating the Teleological and Moral Arguments, as well, in addition to the Problem of Evil at some point.

Well I know for sure it was Aquinas that made the first Ontological argument.

It is popular believe that many people think Descarts uses it also, but this is a Myth. Decartes is the same at all. Its from people who didnt read it well or learned half hazardly. Even many philosophers think this.

I know Berkly and Hegel have versions.

I think you may be right. I am thinking of (LCA). The liebnez cosmological, which is problemative to attribute it to Leibness him being the Arch rationalist. aka a determinst. It doesn't gell with possiblities. Modal logic was only made in the last century.

But the Modal logic can't work for God.
Reason 1, a possibity would distconnect the truth preservation of logic to God.
That is it would possible that its not God that created it.
Also all things in the past, have been determined already. And we can't go back in time. Therefore it is impossible for the past to have been any other way. Because pass is locked in. The error is that, when we say it could have been different it is implied that if some charactersic was differen then it could have been different. But it was what it was. Do its couldn't have been other wise.
Possibity can only be future or present tense.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 7:26:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The part i dont get is, wouldnt a being that could create the universe while not existing, be more powerful than a being that needs to exist in order to create the universe?
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 7:29:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 7:26:33 PM, tkubok wrote:
The part i dont get is, wouldnt a being that could create the universe while not existing, be more powerful than a being that needs to exist in order to create the universe?

That's one of the counterarguments, yes.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 7:43:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 7:26:33 PM, tkubok wrote:
The part i dont get is, wouldnt a being that could create the universe while not existing, be more powerful than a being that needs to exist in order to create the universe?

The Fool: its his Necessaryness is derived from his perfection. Property.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 7:48:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Its sentences very wierd because its attempting something weird. That is something to be very suspicious about. Modal logic is about possible world, but they phrase it in a way which voilates those principles.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
devout_skeptic
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 9:17:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't know if the argument from perfection is an ontological argument but I saw it mentioned in the thread and I thought these counter arguments were interesting from (http://www.infidels.org...) in this article by Ryan Stringer. Here are two examples. He elaborates in the article.

(P1) God is a perfect thing (a perfect being).
(P2) Perfect things are usually nonexistent idealizations of real things.
(P3) Perfect things are unlikely to exist. (from P2)
(C) Therefore, it is unlikely that God exists. (from P3 and P1)


(Q1) God is a perfect being that created the universe.
(Q2) If God exists, then the world is perfect before the creation of the universe.
(Q3) God would not make the world worse in virtue of his moral perfection.
(Q4) If God exists, then the world is perfect during and after the creation of the universe. (from Q2 and Q3)
(Q5) If God exists, then the world is perfect. (from Q2 and Q4)
(Q6) The world is imperfect.
(C) Therefore, God does not exist. (from Q5 and Q6)
Peace,
Doug
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 12:55:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 7:26:33 PM, tkubok wrote:
The part i dont get is, wouldnt a being that could create the universe while not existing, be more powerful than a being that needs to exist in order to create the universe?

This is a contradiction. If it is a counter to the Ontological Argument, it's not a very strong one. A being is not a being if it doesn't exist. One must exist to be a being in the first place.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 1:00:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 9:17:07 PM, devout_skeptic wrote:
I don't know if the argument from perfection is an ontological argument but I saw it mentioned in the thread and I thought these counter arguments were interesting from (http://www.infidels.org...) in this article by Ryan Stringer. Here are two examples. He elaborates in the article.

(P1) God is a perfect thing (a perfect being).
(P2) Perfect things are usually nonexistent idealizations of real things.
(P3) Perfect things are unlikely to exist. (from P2)
(C) Therefore, it is unlikely that God exists. (from P3 and P1)


(Q1) God is a perfect being that created the universe.
(Q2) If God exists, then the world is perfect before the creation of the universe.
(Q3) God would not make the world worse in virtue of his moral perfection.
(Q4) If God exists, then the world is perfect during and after the creation of the universe. (from Q2 and Q3)
(Q5) If God exists, then the world is perfect. (from Q2 and Q4)
(Q6) The world is imperfect.
(C) Therefore, God does not exist. (from Q5 and Q6)


Would you mind justifying P2 and P3 of your first argument?

Also, Q4 does not follow in your second argument. While it is true that God would not make the world imperfect after its creation, the Bible doesn't teach that God made the world imperfect. Genesis 1 says He created the world perfect and gave humans free will. Humans goofed up and sinned, thereby making the world imperfect. Humans are to blame for the world's imperfection, not God.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 1:56:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 4:24:30 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
I would like to have a debate on it, so feel free to start one. I am actually also planning on debating the Teleological and Moral Arguments, as well, in addition to the Problem of Evil at some point.

I know we're already in the Kalam Cosmological debate, but I'd love to debate you on the moral argument. Any version of TAG is all too easy to refute.
astrocometman
Posts: 86
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 8:48:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 11:03:14 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/6/2012 10:23:50 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
The Ontological Argument argues from the position of possible worlds. A possible world is a world which could have come about but didn't, and the actual world is the world that we live in now. For example, unicorns don't exist in the actual world but they do exist in some possible worlds because there is nothing logically inconsistent about a horse with a horn. However, 2+2=4 would be true in all possible worlds (which includes the actual world which, obviously, is a possible world).

So the Ontological Argument basically states:

1) God is a maximally great being (a maximally great being is one in which you could conceive of nothing greater, since if you could conceive of a greater being, that being would be God)
2) God exists in some possible worlds.
3) Since God is a maximally great being, if He exists in at least one possible world, He would exist in all possible worlds.
4) Since God exists in all possible worlds, God exists in the actual world.
5) Therefore, God exists.

That's, from what I understand, the basics behind the Ontological Argument. It's a very abstract argument and difficult for many people to wrap their minds around, so I'm not convinced it's a very useful argument.


Do you want to have a debate on this one? I would gladly accept..

My reply: I would take issue with the idea of the argument being "very abstract" and difficult to wrap one's mind around. My position is that it speaks for itself, the simplicity is its virtue. It is not a complex illogical take on reality. It is not erroneous in its proposition. To say that it is a concept so lofty as to not be subject to average reasoning is not true. It follows, from beginning to end sound reasoning. None of it is contradictory. It harmonizes with what is true of our validating our own existing. It is impeccable.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 8:57:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 1:00:57 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/6/2012 9:17:07 PM, devout_skeptic wrote:
I don't know if the argument from perfection is an ontological argument but I saw it mentioned in the thread and I thought these counter arguments were interesting from (http://www.infidels.org...) in this article by Ryan Stringer. Here are two examples. He elaborates in the article.

(P1) God is a perfect thing (a perfect being).
(P2) Perfect things are usually nonexistent idealizations of real things.
(P3) Perfect things are unlikely to exist. (from P2)
(C) Therefore, it is unlikely that God exists. (from P3 and P1)


(Q1) God is a perfect being that created the universe.
(Q2) If God exists, then the world is perfect before the creation of the universe.
(Q3) God would not make the world worse in virtue of his moral perfection.
(Q4) If God exists, then the world is perfect during and after the creation of the universe. (from Q2 and Q3)
(Q5) If God exists, then the world is perfect. (from Q2 and Q4)
(Q6) The world is imperfect.
(C) Therefore, God does not exist. (from Q5 and Q6)


Would you mind justifying P2 and P3 of your first argument?

Empirically, our ideas of things are exaggerated versions of the reality.

Also, Q4 does not follow in your second argument. While it is true that God would not make the world imperfect after its creation, the Bible doesn't teach that God made the world imperfect. Genesis 1 says He created the world perfect and gave humans free will. Humans goofed up and sinned, thereby making the world imperfect. Humans are to blame for the world's imperfection, not God.

Which, many would argue, contradicts premise 3.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
devout_skeptic
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 10:06:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 1:00:57 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/6/2012 9:17:07 PM, devout_skeptic wrote:
I don't know if the argument from perfection is an ontological argument but I saw it mentioned in the thread and I thought these counter arguments were interesting from (http://www.infidels.org...) in this article by Ryan Stringer. Here are two examples. He elaborates in the article.

(P1) God is a perfect thing (a perfect being).
(P2) Perfect things are usually nonexistent idealizations of real things.
(P3) Perfect things are unlikely to exist. (from P2)
(C) Therefore, it is unlikely that God exists. (from P3 and P1)


(Q1) God is a perfect being that created the universe.
(Q2) If God exists, then the world is perfect before the creation of the universe.
(Q3) God would not make the world worse in virtue of his moral perfection.
(Q4) If God exists, then the world is perfect during and after the creation of the universe. (from Q2 and Q3)
(Q5) If God exists, then the world is perfect. (from Q2 and Q4)
(Q6) The world is imperfect.
(C) Therefore, God does not exist. (from Q5 and Q6)


Would you mind justifying P2 and P3 of your first argument?

As I indicated in the original post it is not my argument but one that I found interesting. You can read Ryan Stringers article (which I linked to in the original post) for detailed explanation of his take on the argument.

The idea of a perfect anything (P2) is an idealization of that thing or so the argument goes. One can imagine the perfect friend or the perfect lover but actual friends and lovers fall short of our idea of perfection in many ways. You could say that you have a friend who you consider to be perfect but if I can think of a way that friend could be a better friend than they are not 100% perfect.

(P3) Can you name a perfect friend or lover? Gandhi was great man who was kind loving and compassionate and yet he was far from perfect. By his own admission in his autobiography he could of been a better lover, father and friend.

Also, Q4 does not follow in your second argument. While it is true that God would not make the world imperfect after its creation, the Bible doesn't teach that God made the world imperfect. Genesis 1 says He created the world perfect and gave humans free will. Humans goofed up and sinned, thereby making the world imperfect. Humans are to blame for the world's imperfection, not God.

There are many things imperfect about the world for which human free will is not the culprit.
Peace,
Doug
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 10:17:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 10:06:32 AM, devout_skeptic wrote:
There are many things imperfect about the world for which human free will is not the culprit.

I've actually been looking for a succinct argument explaining this point for quite some time, could you provide it? This issue comes up very frequently and all of mine are silly and convoluted.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
astrocometman
Posts: 86
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 11:21:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 7:26:33 PM, tkubok wrote:
The part i dont get is, wouldnt a being that could create the universe while not existing, be more powerful than a being that needs to exist in order to create the universe?

My reply: What you don't get is the fallacy in your argument. The phrase, "a being that could create the universe while not existing" is counter intuitive, a rebellion against logic, and not harmonizing with what's asserted in scripture.

Scripture is the frame of reference for this topic. Is it not? If scripture is not the frame of reference what is? From whence did you get the idea that there was no existing of the Creator before the universe came into being? You can't say you got it from scripture. On that basis there is no grounds to deal with youir question.

There are all kinds of twists and turns folks who are agenda bound can attempt to impose on a discussion. Atheists are full of faulty devices, deceptions, etc. Most of all atheists are highly motivated to attempt to muddle the waters. And, on that note, if being shown to be operating with wiggly intent in this discussion my vote would be to ban the writer from the discussion upon discovery. That won't be done, however it is the most powerful means to reveal what's working with atheists is catching one in corruptions in speech. Your thought can't be sustained under scrutiny, therefore it has no application to what's being discussed.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 12:33:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 10:20:33 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
I've heard about the ontological argument several times, and I realize that it's probably somewhere in this forum; however, I really don't feel like digging through hundreds of threads just to find out what the ontological argument actually is. So instead, could anyone please explain it to me?:

http://lmgtfy.com...
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
astrocometman
Posts: 86
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 2:23:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 7:29:19 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 4/6/2012 7:26:33 PM, tkubok wrote:
The part i dont get is, wouldnt a being that could create the universe while not existing, be more powerful than a being that needs to exist in order to create the universe?

That's one of the counterarguments, yes.

My reply: This is no argument. If your concept of Yahweh of the bible is concerned the premise has no foundation. So, first and foremost when you argue for or against the existence of God scripture designates I AM in identifying who God is. On that point how Yahweh identifies his being is not subject to the idea of "need." Yahweh has no need to exist, he is.

"The revelation of the ineffable name "I AM WHO AM" contains then the truth that God alone IS. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, and following it the Church's Tradition, understood the divine name in this sense: God is the fullness of Being and of every perfection, without origin and without end. All creatures receive all that they are and have from him; but he alone is his very being, and he is of himself everything that he is."

http://answers.yahoo.com...

On that point alone there is a necessity for your idea to, first establish itself. Where did you get the idea that Yahweh has a need to exist. I'd like you to post references that give substance to your idea. If you think that scripture portrays a needy Yahweh I'd like to see scripture you perceive gives the idea. I know of none.

The idea of a being not existing who creates a universe is utter nonsense. If groundless propositions come in patterns, with agreement or fascination then this topic string will be a web of confusion where its conclusions are concerned. A premise must be impeccable. I figure atheists can't put an impeccable premise together, because they must pervert what's written in order to gain traction in their arguments. It is because of this glaring flaw that I expect to be able to shoot holes in most of what's posed by atheists. The only option for atheists is to write of God in obscure terms, avoiding the name Yahweh. In Yahweh the ontological argument finds its greatest affirmation. There is a preponderance of evidence of Yahweh's existence. On that basis there's hardly an escape from the scope of his presentation. You cannot contain Yahweh's revelation in arguments that begin with serious flaws, they stand out like a sore thumb. And, if one sees a number of observations I make of flaws in folk's arguments it will become apparent there's something in people's thinking that's more significant than what's being discussed in this string.
devout_skeptic
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 3:01:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 10:17:24 AM, Kleptin wrote:
At 4/7/2012 10:06:32 AM, devout_skeptic wrote:
There are many things imperfect about the world for which human free will is not the culprit.

I've actually been looking for a succinct argument explaining this point for quite some time, could you provide it? This issue comes up very frequently and all of mine are silly and convoluted.

I don't know if I am able to provide it. Hardly anything that I can think of that exists is perfect. I have a hard time understanding why a perfect being would create a universe at all. What would motivate a perfect being to create a universe? A perfect being is already perfectly content and perfectly happy.

Anyways as concerns the non perfect world we live in I would think that God being able to do anything it wanted and being perfect could and would of made a universe (again why a perfect being makes a universe is baffling to me) that resulted in a world where resources were more plentiful that produced organisms that had only symbiotic relationships to one another with perfect DNA that didn't malfunction and produce tumors etc..
Peace,
Doug
astrocometman
Posts: 86
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 3:25:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 8:57:35 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 4/7/2012 1:00:57 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/6/2012 9:17:07 PM, devout_skeptic wrote:
I don't know if the argument from perfection is an ontological argument but I saw it mentioned in the thread and I thought these counter arguments were interesting from (http://www.infidels.org...) in this article by Ryan Stringer. Here are two examples. He elaborates in the article.

(P1) God is a perfect thing (a perfect being).
(P2) Perfect things are usually nonexistent idealizations of real things.
(P3) Perfect things are unlikely to exist. (from P2)
(C) Therefore, it is unlikely that God exists. (from P3 and P1)


(Q1) God is a perfect being that created the universe.
(Q2) If God exists, then the world is perfect before the creation of the universe.
(Q3) God would not make the world worse in virtue of his moral perfection.
(Q4) If God exists, then the world is perfect during and after the creation of the universe. (from Q2 and Q3)
(Q5) If God exists, then the world is perfect. (from Q2 and Q4)
(Q6) The world is imperfect.
(C) Therefore, God does not exist. (from Q5 and Q6)


Would you mind justifying P2 and P3 of your first argument?

Empirically, our ideas of things are exaggerated versions of the reality.

Also, Q4 does not follow in your second argument. While it is true that God would not make the world imperfect after its creation, the Bible doesn't teach that God made the world imperfect. Genesis 1 says He created the world perfect and gave humans free will. Humans goofed up and sinned, thereby making the world imperfect. Humans are to blame for the world's imperfection, not God.

Which, many would argue, contradicts premise 3.

(P2) Perfect things are usually nonexistent idealizations of real things.-

My reply: What is perfection, everything being in exact balance to sustain life on earth? What about that, the relationship between living beings and the elements, earth's proximity to the sun, etc.? Would those be standards to actualize the meaning of the word? Yet, we know the earth wobbles, there are violent storms on the surface of the sun, etc. Is perfection a stand alone concept while reality stipulates perfection is a balance?

How would an imperfect concept of perfection affect an argument? It would ruin the argument. So, first it seems apparent a need to get the word perfection under control is the thing to do. Perfection must be understood in context of the context it comes. Perfect comes in context of reality, not the other way around. What does reality say of our idea of perfection? It does not agree. Therefore, where Yahweh is concerned, if his creation is not perfectly understood perfection is its own ideal. Men cannot set or function by a standard they do not truly comprehend.

.I would look forward to meaningful counter arguments. Hopefully, some may come that are impeccable. Can an atheist present an impeccable argument? I don't think so.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 4:07:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 11:21:32 AM, astrocometman wrote:
At 4/6/2012 7:26:33 PM, tkubok wrote:
The part i dont get is, wouldnt a being that could create the universe while not existing, be more powerful than a being that needs to exist in order to create the universe?

My reply: What you don't get is the fallacy in your argument. The phrase, "a being that could create the universe while not existing" is counter intuitive, a rebellion against logic, and not harmonizing with what's asserted in scripture.

Its counter-intuitive because it breaks the laws of logic and destroys reason. Which is why a being that could not exist while breaking these laws and creating this universe, is superior.

Do you know what else is counter-intuitve? Omnipotence and omni-benevolence. What has been the standard response to this? That God can break the laws of logic and therefore the reason why this is counter-intuitive much like a square circle is counter-intuitive, no longer applies.

Scripture is the frame of reference for this topic. Is it not? If scripture is not the frame of reference what is? From whence did you get the idea that there was no existing of the Creator before the universe came into being? You can't say you got it from scripture. On that basis there is no grounds to deal with youir question.

No, its not. The ontological argument does not exist anywhere in the scripture.

The argument that is being presented, is separate of the scriptures. If the scripture is the frame of refference for this topic, why bother trying to prove the existance of God with an ontological argument in the first place? The ontological argument tries to prove that a God exists despite what it says in the scripture.

There are all kinds of twists and turns folks who are agenda bound can attempt to impose on a discussion. Atheists are full of faulty devices, deceptions, etc. Most of all atheists are highly motivated to attempt to muddle the waters. And, on that note, if being shown to be operating with wiggly intent in this discussion my vote would be to ban the writer from the discussion upon discovery. That won't be done, however it is the most powerful means to reveal what's working with atheists is catching one in corruptions in speech. Your thought can't be sustained under scrutiny, therefore it has no application to what's being discussed.

Really? name one faulty deception that Atheists here have done in this topic. One.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2012 5:51:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 1:56:24 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 4/6/2012 4:24:30 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
I would like to have a debate on it, so feel free to start one. I am actually also planning on debating the Teleological and Moral Arguments, as well, in addition to the Problem of Evil at some point.

I know we're already in the Kalam Cosmological debate, but I'd love to debate you on the moral argument. Any version of TAG is all too easy to refute.

Sure, we can do that. Would you like to initiate the debate?
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2012 12:14:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 10:23:50 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
The Ontological Argument argues from the position of possible worlds. A possible world is a world which could have come about but didn't, and the actual world is the world that we live in now. For example, unicorns don't exist in the actual world but they do exist in some possible worlds because there is nothing logically inconsistent about a horse with a horn. However, 2+2=4 would be true in all possible worlds (which includes the actual world which, obviously, is a possible world).

So the Ontological Argument basically states:

1) God is a maximally great being (a maximally great being is one in which you could conceive of nothing greater, since if you could conceive of a greater being, that being would be God)
2) God exists in some possible worlds.
3) Since God is a maximally great being, if He exists in at least one possible world, He would exist in all possible worlds.
4) Since God exists in all possible worlds, God exists in the actual world.
5) Therefore, God exists.

That's, from what I understand, the basics behind the Ontological Argument. It's a very abstract argument and difficult for many people to wrap their minds around, so I'm not convinced it's a very useful argument.

I think a major flaw in the Ontological Argument is that the definition of god is sneakily extended to include the fact that god must exist. So, essentially God is defined as something that has to exist. The ontogical argument then goes on to prove that he exists which doesn't really make sense.