Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Proof God is not omnibenevolent

Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 9:25:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My proof will assume that the ontological argument is correct, so if you don't believe the ontological argument is correct, then point it out and I will be defenseless. If you are into the ontological argument, then we will have more to discuss.

Lets first prove the existence of a God who can break the laws of logic:
1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
The idea of God exists in the mind.
2. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
3. A being that can do all imaginable and unimaginable things, including breaking the laws of logical is greater than one that can't.
3. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being"that which exists in reality.
4. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
5. Therefore, God who can do absolutely all things imaginable, and unimaginable, including breaking the laws of logic exists.

Now lets head over the the problem of evil.

We see many evil things happen in the world everyday, children starving, babies dying of disease, innocent people being raped, etc. Here is my argument.

An omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent God would never create a world with evil if he could just as easily create one without evil if this can be done without any drawbacks, moral or otherwise.

Some Christians might say that evil is here to test us humans, or has to be allowed because of free will. However if God can break the laws of logic, then he can just make a good world without breaking free will, and he can test us without the need for evil.

Therefore God not omni-benevolent. From the ontological argument we know God exists.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 9:40:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 9:25:08 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
My proof will assume that the ontological argument is correct, so if you don't believe the ontological argument is correct, then point it out and I will be defenseless. If you are into the ontological argument, then we will have more to discuss.

Lets first prove the existence of a God who can break the laws of logic:
1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
The idea of God exists in the mind.
2. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
3. A being that can do all imaginable and unimaginable things, including breaking the laws of logical is greater than one that can't.
3. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being"that which exists in reality.
4. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
5. Therefore, God who can do absolutely all things imaginable, and unimaginable, including breaking the laws of logic exists.

Now lets head over the the problem of evil.

We see many evil things happen in the world everyday, children starving, babies dying of disease, innocent people being raped, etc. Here is my argument.

An omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent God would never create a world with evil if he could just as easily create one without evil if this can be done without any drawbacks, moral or otherwise.

Some Christians might say that evil is here to test us humans, or has to be allowed because of free will. However if God can break the laws of logic, then he can just make a good world without breaking free will, and he can test us without the need for evil.

Therefore God not omni-benevolent. From the ontological argument we know God exists.

If God could "break" the laws of logic he could make himself omnibenevolent even if he wasn't. So....yeah.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 9:41:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
He's not omniscient either. After he floods the world, he apologizes. An apology implies a mistake was made. An omniscient, omnipotent being is incapable of making a mistake. (Speaking, of course, of the Judea-Christian-Muslim God, and not of any of the 2700+ other gods which have come in and out of favor throughout human history.)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 9:55:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A maximally great being can only have attributes that are possible. It's clearly not possible to break logic. So he can't have that attribute.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 10:01:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 9:55:44 PM, phantom wrote:
A maximally great being can only have attributes that are possible. It's clearly not possible to break logic. So he can't have that attribute.

A maximally great being is not the greatest being imaginable, an absolutely great being is.

The ontological argument below proves the existence of a being more than just maximally great:
1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
The idea of God exists in the mind.
2. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
3. A being that can do all imaginable and unimaginable things, including breaking the laws of logical is greater than one that can't.
3. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being"that which exists in reality.
4. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
5. Therefore, God who can do absolutely all things imaginable, and unimaginable, including breaking the laws of logic exists.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 10:03:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 10:01:21 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 12/22/2012 9:55:44 PM, phantom wrote:
A maximally great being can only have attributes that are possible. It's clearly not possible to break logic. So he can't have that attribute.

A maximally great being is not the greatest being imaginable, an absolutely great being is.

The ontological argument below proves the existence of a being more than just maximally great:
1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
The idea of God exists in the mind.
2. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
3. A being that can do all imaginable and unimaginable things, including breaking the laws of logical is greater than one that can't.
3. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being"that which exists in reality.
4. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
5. Therefore, God who can do absolutely all things imaginable, and unimaginable, including breaking the laws of logic exists.

The two parts bolded are at odds.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 10:08:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 10:03:59 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:01:21 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 12/22/2012 9:55:44 PM, phantom wrote:
A maximally great being can only have attributes that are possible. It's clearly not possible to break logic. So he can't have that attribute.

A maximally great being is not the greatest being imaginable, an absolutely great being is.

The ontological argument below proves the existence of a being more than just maximally great:
1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
The idea of God exists in the mind.
2. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
3. A being that can do all imaginable and unimaginable things, including breaking the laws of logical is greater than one that can't.
3. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being"that which exists in reality.
4. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
5. Therefore, God who can do absolutely all things imaginable, and unimaginable, including breaking the laws of logic exists.

The two parts bolded are at odds.

How are they at odds?
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 10:11:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 10:08:25 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:03:59 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:01:21 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 12/22/2012 9:55:44 PM, phantom wrote:
A maximally great being can only have attributes that are possible. It's clearly not possible to break logic. So he can't have that attribute.

A maximally great being is not the greatest being imaginable, an absolutely great being is.

The ontological argument below proves the existence of a being more than just maximally great:
1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
The idea of God exists in the mind.
2. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
3. A being that can do all imaginable and unimaginable things, including breaking the laws of logical is greater than one that can't.
3. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being"that which exists in reality.
4. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
5. Therefore, God who can do absolutely all things imaginable, and unimaginable, including breaking the laws of logic exists.

The two parts bolded are at odds.

How are they at odds?

Can you conceive of square circles? Can you conceive of what you can't imagine? (You included all things unimaginable. Seems contradictory)
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 10:15:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 10:11:30 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:08:25 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:03:59 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:01:21 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 12/22/2012 9:55:44 PM, phantom wrote:
A maximally great being can only have attributes that are possible. It's clearly not possible to break logic. So he can't have that attribute.

A maximally great being is not the greatest being imaginable, an absolutely great being is.

The ontological argument below proves the existence of a being more than just maximally great:
1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
The idea of God exists in the mind.
2. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
3. A being that can do all imaginable and unimaginable things, including breaking the laws of logical is greater than one that can't.
3. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being"that which exists in reality.
4. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
5. Therefore, God who can do absolutely all things imaginable, and unimaginable, including breaking the laws of logic exists.

The two parts bolded are at odds.

How are they at odds?

Can you conceive of square circles? Can you conceive of what you can't imagine? (You included all things unimaginable. Seems contradictory)

Notice that the argument says that God is the greatest being conceivable. When he is referred to as conceivable, this argument is referring to him, not every one of his abilities.

I mean, creating a universe out of nothing is inconceivable, but that does not mean it is impossible, or that the being who can do this is inconceivable.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 10:30:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 10:15:27 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:11:30 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:08:25 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:03:59 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:01:21 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 12/22/2012 9:55:44 PM, phantom wrote:
A maximally great being can only have attributes that are possible. It's clearly not possible to break logic. So he can't have that attribute.

A maximally great being is not the greatest being imaginable, an absolutely great being is.

The ontological argument below proves the existence of a being more than just maximally great:
1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
The idea of God exists in the mind.
2. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
3. A being that can do all imaginable and unimaginable things, including breaking the laws of logical is greater than one that can't.
3. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being"that which exists in reality.
4. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
5. Therefore, God who can do absolutely all things imaginable, and unimaginable, including breaking the laws of logic exists.

The two parts bolded are at odds.

How are they at odds?

Can you conceive of square circles? Can you conceive of what you can't imagine? (You included all things unimaginable. Seems contradictory)

Notice that the argument says that God is the greatest being conceivable. When he is referred to as conceivable, this argument is referring to him, not every one of his abilities.

His attributes make up who he is, so all his attributes have to be conceivable. Otherwise he is not conceivable.

I mean, creating a universe out of nothing is inconceivable, but that does not mean it is impossible, or that the being who can do this is inconceivable.

If it's inconceivable how can it be possible? What about square circles? How is that conceivable or possible? According to you, God would be able to do so. Something that is impossible cannot exist. Your idea of God is impossible, so he can't exist.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 10:35:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 9:25:08 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
My proof will assume that the ontological argument is correct, so if you don't believe the ontological argument is correct, then point it out and I will be defenseless. If you are into the ontological argument, then we will have more to discuss.

Lets first prove the existence of a God who can break the laws of logic:
1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
The idea of God exists in the mind.
2. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
3. A being that can do all imaginable and unimaginable things, including breaking the laws of logical is greater than one that can't.
3. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being"that which exists in reality.
4. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
5. Therefore, God who can do absolutely all things imaginable, and unimaginable, including breaking the laws of logic exists.

Now lets head over the the problem of evil.

We see many evil things happen in the world everyday, children starving, babies dying of disease, innocent people being raped, etc. Here is my argument.

An omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent God would never create a world with evil if he could just as easily create one without evil if this can be done without any drawbacks, moral or otherwise.

Some Christians might say that evil is here to test us humans, or has to be allowed because of free will. However if God can break the laws of logic, then he can just make a good world without breaking free will, and he can test us without the need for evil.

Therefore God not omni-benevolent. From the ontological argument we know God exists.

God is above logic, but humans can't be. We must be bound by logic, or else we are equal to God, and He is no longer a maximally great being to us. Being bound by logic, we can't have free will, while also being unable to do evil.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 10:41:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 10:30:53 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:15:27 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:11:30 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:08:25 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:03:59 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:01:21 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 12/22/2012 9:55:44 PM, phantom wrote:
A maximally great being can only have attributes that are possible. It's clearly not possible to break logic. So he can't have that attribute.

A maximally great being is not the greatest being imaginable, an absolutely great being is.

The ontological argument below proves the existence of a being more than just maximally great:
1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
The idea of God exists in the mind.
2. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
3. A being that can do all imaginable and unimaginable things, including breaking the laws of logical is greater than one that can't.
3. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being"that which exists in reality.
4. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
5. Therefore, God who can do absolutely all things imaginable, and unimaginable, including breaking the laws of logic exists.

The two parts bolded are at odds.

How are they at odds?

Can you conceive of square circles? Can you conceive of what you can't imagine? (You included all things unimaginable. Seems contradictory)

Notice that the argument says that God is the greatest being conceivable. When he is referred to as conceivable, this argument is referring to him, not every one of his abilities.

His attributes make up who he is, so all his attributes have to be conceivable. Otherwise he is not conceivable.

Your abilities are not your attributes. For example, I can create computer programs, but that is not a physical part of me. Maybe the brain that allows me to do this, is an attribute, but not the ability per se. My person, and my abilities are two independent things.

I mean, creating a universe out of nothing is inconceivable, but that does not mean it is impossible, or that the being who can do this is inconceivable.

If it's inconceivable how can it be possible? What about square circles? How is that conceivable or possible? According to you, God would be able to do so. Something that is impossible cannot exist. Your idea of God is impossible, so he can't exist.

First, just because something cannot be conceived by you does not make it inconceivable.

Second, just because something is logically impossible, does not make it impossible. The logically impossible is only impossible to do if one is following the rules of logic.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 10:48:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 10:41:37 PM, Dan4reason wrote:


Your abilities are not your attributes. For example, I can create computer programs, but that is not a physical part of me. Maybe the brain that allows me to do this, is an attribute, but not the ability per se. My person, and my abilities are two independent things.

your abilities are a subset of your attributes, and a computer program is a representation of your knowledge of a programing language and your logical ability. It is not within you, but it is a part of you, or it is parts of you, I should say.

Second, just because something is logically impossible, does not make it impossible. The logically impossible is only impossible to do if one is following the rules of logic.

Logic is formed from reality. If something is impossible in reality, it is impossible. This is by definition.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 10:55:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 10:41:37 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:30:53 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:15:27 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:11:30 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:08:25 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:03:59 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:01:21 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 12/22/2012 9:55:44 PM, phantom wrote:
A maximally great being can only have attributes that are possible. It's clearly not possible to break logic. So he can't have that attribute.

A maximally great being is not the greatest being imaginable, an absolutely great being is.

The ontological argument below proves the existence of a being more than just maximally great:
1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
The idea of God exists in the mind.
2. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
3. A being that can do all imaginable and unimaginable things, including breaking the laws of logical is greater than one that can't.
3. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being"that which exists in reality.
4. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
5. Therefore, God who can do absolutely all things imaginable, and unimaginable, including breaking the laws of logic exists.

The two parts bolded are at odds.

How are they at odds?

Can you conceive of square circles? Can you conceive of what you can't imagine? (You included all things unimaginable. Seems contradictory)

Notice that the argument says that God is the greatest being conceivable. When he is referred to as conceivable, this argument is referring to him, not every one of his abilities.

His attributes make up who he is, so all his attributes have to be conceivable. Otherwise he is not conceivable.

Your abilities are not your attributes. For example, I can create computer programs, but that is not a physical part of me. Maybe the brain that allows me to do this, is an attribute, but not the ability per se. My person, and my abilities are two independent things.

Ok, I'll go along. Your attributes decide your abilities. I can only type this right now because I have a large number of attributes enabling me to do so, such as having hands fingers and a functioning brain. There is no conceivable attribute God could have that could allow him to break logic because the ability is inconceivable.

I mean, creating a universe out of nothing is inconceivable, but that does not mean it is impossible, or that the being who can do this is inconceivable.

If it's inconceivable how can it be possible? What about square circles? How is that conceivable or possible? According to you, God would be able to do so. Something that is impossible cannot exist. Your idea of God is impossible, so he can't exist.

First, just because something cannot be conceived by you does not make it inconceivable.

You said inconceivable yourself.

Second, just because something is logically impossible, does not make it impossible. The logically impossible is only impossible to do if one is following the rules of logic.

If we're assuming the ontological argument, then God exists solely due to logic. He's ontologically necessary because of logic. Logic can only cause something that conforms to logic. God couldn't exist if he was logically impossible because, assuming he's ontologically necessary, he exists because logic necessitates it. Logic cannot necessitate anything illogical.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 10:55:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 10:48:26 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:41:37 PM, Dan4reason wrote:


Your abilities are not your attributes. For example, I can create computer programs, but that is not a physical part of me. Maybe the brain that allows me to do this, is an attribute, but not the ability per se. My person, and my abilities are two independent things.

your abilities are a subset of your attributes, and a computer program is a representation of your knowledge of a programing language and your logical ability. It is not within you, but it is a part of you, or it is parts of you, I should say.

I guess you are right. But even the ability to make the logically impossible happen is
not the same as the logically impossible itself. For example, the mental and/or physical traits I have to create a computer program including hands, brain, memories, reasoning abilities, and my mind, are not the same things as the programs themselves.

Second, just because something is logically impossible, does not make it impossible. The logically impossible is only impossible to do if one is following the rules of logic.

Logic is formed from reality. If something is impossible in reality, it is impossible. This is by definition.

Logic is formed from known reality. We cannot assume known reality is all reality.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 11:10:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 10:55:04 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:41:37 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:30:53 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:15:27 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:11:30 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:08:25 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:03:59 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:01:21 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 12/22/2012 9:55:44 PM, phantom wrote:
A maximally great being can only have attributes that are possible. It's clearly not possible to break logic. So he can't have that attribute.

A maximally great being is not the greatest being imaginable, an absolutely great being is.

The ontological argument below proves the existence of a being more than just maximally great:
1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
The idea of God exists in the mind.
2. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
3. A being that can do all imaginable and unimaginable things, including breaking the laws of logical is greater than one that can't.
3. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being"that which exists in reality.
4. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
5. Therefore, God who can do absolutely all things imaginable, and unimaginable, including breaking the laws of logic exists.

The two parts bolded are at odds.

How are they at odds?

Can you conceive of square circles? Can you conceive of what you can't imagine? (You included all things unimaginable. Seems contradictory)

Notice that the argument says that God is the greatest being conceivable. When he is referred to as conceivable, this argument is referring to him, not every one of his abilities.

His attributes make up who he is, so all his attributes have to be conceivable. Otherwise he is not conceivable.

Your abilities are not your attributes. For example, I can create computer programs, but that is not a physical part of me. Maybe the brain that allows me to do this, is an attribute, but not the ability per se. My person, and my abilities are two independent things.

Ok, I'll go along. Your attributes decide your abilities. I can only type this right now because I have a large number of attributes enabling me to do so, such as having hands fingers and a functioning brain. There is no conceivable attribute God could have that could allow him to break logic because the ability is inconceivable.

I think you are taking the definition of conceivable being in the ontological argument a little too literally. What it really means is vaguely imagining him with your mind, you don't have to be able to picture him and all his powers and mechanisms for doing them.

If we need to be able to conceive of the attributes God needs, to do the logically impossible, we also need to conceive all the attributes God needs to create the universe out of nothing, or the attributes God needs to be omnipotent. We can't conceive of any of these attributes.

If the ontological argument cannot even cover an omnimax being, then we run into trouble because people can now use the ontological argument to prove a whole host of non-omnimax beings.

I mean, creating a universe out of nothing is inconceivable, but that does not mean it is impossible, or that the being who can do this is inconceivable.

If it's inconceivable how can it be possible? What about square circles? How is that conceivable or possible? According to you, God would be able to do so. Something that is impossible cannot exist. Your idea of God is impossible, so he can't exist.

First, just because something cannot be conceived by you does not make it inconceivable.

You said inconceivable yourself.

More like I was assuming for your sake doing the logically impossible is inconceivable. However that in itself is an assumption.

Second, just because something is logically impossible, does not make it impossible. The logically impossible is only impossible to do if one is following the rules of logic.

If we're assuming the ontological argument, then God exists solely due to logic. He's ontologically necessary because of logic. Logic can only cause something that conforms to logic. God couldn't exist if he was logically impossible because, assuming he's ontologically necessary, he exists because logic necessitates it. Logic cannot necessitate anything illogical.

There is nothing that caused God to exist. God exists without cause which is why he is a necessary being. We can only show that he exists with logic because of the ontological argument. However that does not mean logic made him exist.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 11:55:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 9:41:37 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
He's not omniscient either. After he floods the world, he apologizes. An apology implies a mistake was made. An omniscient, omnipotent being is incapable of making a mistake. (Speaking, of course, of the Judea-Christian-Muslim God, and not of any of the 2700+ other gods which have come in and out of favor throughout human history.)

I'm sorry, I missed the apology.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 1:33:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 9:25:08 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
My proof will assume that the ontological argument is correct, so if you don't believe the ontological argument is correct, then point it out and I will be defenseless. If you are into the ontological argument, then we will have more to discuss.

Lets first prove the existence of a God who can break the laws of logic:
1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
The idea of God exists in the mind.
2. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
3. A being that can do all imaginable and unimaginable things, including breaking the laws of logical is greater than one that can't.
3. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being"that which exists in reality.
4. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
5. Therefore, God who can do absolutely all things imaginable, and unimaginable, including breaking the laws of logic exists.

Now lets head over the the problem of evil.

We see many evil things happen in the world everyday, children starving, babies dying of disease, innocent people being raped, etc. Here is my argument.

An omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent God would never create a world with evil if he could just as easily create one without evil if this can be done without any drawbacks, moral or otherwise.

Some Christians might say that evil is here to test us humans, or has to be allowed because of free will. However if God can break the laws of logic, then he can just make a good world without breaking free will, and he can test us without the need for evil.

Therefore God not omni-benevolent. From the ontological argument we know God exists.

I agree with phantom's critique, but I also think there's another problem with your argument. If we suppose that there is a God who can violate the laws of logic, then God could be omni-benevolent even if he unnecessarily creates a world with evil. In fact, if we suppose there is a God who can violate the laws of logic, then no argument against God's existence could possibly succeed since they all rely on a contradiction of some sort that God would be able to violate.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 1:48:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 10:55:25 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:48:26 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:41:37 PM, Dan4reason wrote:


Your abilities are not your attributes. For example, I can create computer programs, but that is not a physical part of me. Maybe the brain that allows me to do this, is an attribute, but not the ability per se. My person, and my abilities are two independent things.

your abilities are a subset of your attributes, and a computer program is a representation of your knowledge of a programing language and your logical ability. It is not within you, but it is a part of you, or it is parts of you, I should say.

I guess you are right. But even the ability to make the logically impossible happen is
not the same as the logically impossible itself.

This is just the difference between potential energy and kinetic energy. As it turns out, they actually are equal, they just take on different forms.

For example, the mental and/or physical traits I have to create a computer program including hands, brain, memories, reasoning abilities, and my mind, are not the same things as the programs themselves.

Thus my earlier response that ability is a subset of attribute, but now you're getting all metaphysical and sh!t, and one cannot have the metaphysical without the physical. In the end, your mind/soul (which is what you're referencing here, intentionally or not) is just an illusion created by a series of electrical pulses in the physical brain.

Your ability to create, and your creation, aren't, I suppose, the same thing, but that's the case when you whiddle a stick or sing a song as well. I don't understand what that has to do with the point you are making. Your creations still conform to the tenets of logic and reason.


Second, just because something is logically impossible, does not make it impossible. The logically impossible is only impossible to do if one is following the rules of logic.

Logic is formed from reality. If something is impossible in reality, it is impossible. This is by definition.

Logic is formed from known reality. We cannot assume known reality is all reality.

Then, that is not a failure of logic, nor a representation of the logically impossible. That is simply a lack of understanding of how the logic, in that case, works. Once explained, the tenets of logic would still apply. Thus, the logically impossible is still, by definition, impossible.

(though, from an evolutionary standpoint, logic really isn't designed to uncover truth. It is designed to win arguments, so perhaps the laws of nature would be a better terminology to use here)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 2:37:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 1:33:08 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/22/2012 9:25:08 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
My proof will assume that the ontological argument is correct, so if you don't believe the ontological argument is correct, then point it out and I will be defenseless. If you are into the ontological argument, then we will have more to discuss.

Lets first prove the existence of a God who can break the laws of logic:
1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
The idea of God exists in the mind.
2. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
3. A being that can do all imaginable and unimaginable things, including breaking the laws of logical is greater than one that can't.
3. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being"that which exists in reality.
4. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
5. Therefore, God who can do absolutely all things imaginable, and unimaginable, including breaking the laws of logic exists.

Now lets head over the the problem of evil.

We see many evil things happen in the world everyday, children starving, babies dying of disease, innocent people being raped, etc. Here is my argument.

An omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent God would never create a world with evil if he could just as easily create one without evil if this can be done without any drawbacks, moral or otherwise.

Some Christians might say that evil is here to test us humans, or has to be allowed because of free will. However if God can break the laws of logic, then he can just make a good world without breaking free will, and he can test us without the need for evil.

Therefore God not omni-benevolent. From the ontological argument we know God exists.

I agree with phantom's critique, but I also think there's another problem with your argument. If we suppose that there is a God who can violate the laws of logic, then God could be omni-benevolent even if he unnecessarily creates a world with evil. In fact, if we suppose there is a God who can violate the laws of logic, then no argument against God's existence could possibly succeed since they all rely on a contradiction of some sort that God would be able to violate.

That does not work out very well. Lets picture an omnipotent omnibenevolent God who can defy logic. Such a being can defy logic and so is able to eradicate evil with no negative consequences. Such a being could also choose not to eradicate evil but then still be able to be omnibenevolent. Now what could an omnibenevolent being choose?

What would you choose if you were omnibenevolent and could defy logic? If you had that chance to eradicate evil, why would you choose not to, but then defy logic and maintain your omnibenevolence? Sure, you are able to be lazy, but that it not the choice you are going to make.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 2:50:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 2:37:37 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 12/23/2012 1:33:08 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/22/2012 9:25:08 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
My proof will assume that the ontological argument is correct, so if you don't believe the ontological argument is correct, then point it out and I will be defenseless. If you are into the ontological argument, then we will have more to discuss.

Lets first prove the existence of a God who can break the laws of logic:
1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
The idea of God exists in the mind.
2. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
3. A being that can do all imaginable and unimaginable things, including breaking the laws of logical is greater than one that can't.
3. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being"that which exists in reality.
4. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
5. Therefore, God who can do absolutely all things imaginable, and unimaginable, including breaking the laws of logic exists.

Now lets head over the the problem of evil.

We see many evil things happen in the world everyday, children starving, babies dying of disease, innocent people being raped, etc. Here is my argument.

An omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent God would never create a world with evil if he could just as easily create one without evil if this can be done without any drawbacks, moral or otherwise.

Some Christians might say that evil is here to test us humans, or has to be allowed because of free will. However if God can break the laws of logic, then he can just make a good world without breaking free will, and he can test us without the need for evil.

Therefore God not omni-benevolent. From the ontological argument we know God exists.

I agree with phantom's critique, but I also think there's another problem with your argument. If we suppose that there is a God who can violate the laws of logic, then God could be omni-benevolent even if he unnecessarily creates a world with evil. In fact, if we suppose there is a God who can violate the laws of logic, then no argument against God's existence could possibly succeed since they all rely on a contradiction of some sort that God would be able to violate.

That does not work out very well. Lets picture an omnipotent omnibenevolent God who can defy logic. Such a being can defy logic and so is able to eradicate evil with no negative consequences. Such a being could also choose not to eradicate evil but then still be able to be omnibenevolent. Now what could an omnibenevolent being choose?

What would you choose if you were omnibenevolent and could defy logic? If you had that chance to eradicate evil, why would you choose not to, but then defy logic and maintain your omnibenevolence? Sure, you are able to be lazy, but that it not the choice you are going to make.

Or free will matters more to you.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 3:02:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 2:37:37 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
That does not work out very well. Lets picture an omnipotent omnibenevolent God who can defy logic. Such a being can defy logic and so is able to eradicate evil with no negative consequences. Such a being could also choose not to eradicate evil but then still be able to be omnibenevolent. Now what could an omnibenevolent being choose?

What would you choose if you were omnibenevolent and could defy logic? If you had that chance to eradicate evil, why would you choose not to, but then defy logic and maintain your omnibenevolence? Sure, you are able to be lazy, but that it not the choice you are going to make.

If I could defy logic, I could make any choice I wanted to while not making any of those choices. I could create a world with evil without creating a world with evil. I could be omnibenevolent even if I'm not omnibenevolent. Just because the world has evil in it doesn't mean the world has evil in it, because perhaps God, who can defy logic, made it that way. Why does he need a reason?
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 3:17:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 2:50:27 AM, OberHerr wrote:

Or free will matters more to you.

free will is an illusion that we're forced to accept, lest we would either devolve into a sort of lazy, apathetic anarchy or go completely bonkers.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 7:39:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 11:10:06 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:55:04 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:41:37 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:30:53 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:15:27 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:11:30 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:08:25 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:03:59 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:01:21 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 12/22/2012 9:55:44 PM, phantom wrote:
A maximally great being can only have attributes that are possible. It's clearly not possible to break logic. So he can't have that attribute.

A maximally great being is not the greatest being imaginable, an absolutely great being is.

The ontological argument below proves the existence of a being more than just maximally great:
1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
The idea of God exists in the mind.
2. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
3. A being that can do all imaginable and unimaginable things, including breaking the laws of logical is greater than one that can't.
3. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being"that which exists in reality.
4. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
5. Therefore, God who can do absolutely all things imaginable, and unimaginable, including breaking the laws of logic exists.

The two parts bolded are at odds.

How are they at odds?

Can you conceive of square circles? Can you conceive of what you can't imagine? (You included all things unimaginable. Seems contradictory)

Notice that the argument says that God is the greatest being conceivable. When he is referred to as conceivable, this argument is referring to him, not every one of his abilities.

His attributes make up who he is, so all his attributes have to be conceivable. Otherwise he is not conceivable.

Your abilities are not your attributes. For example, I can create computer programs, but that is not a physical part of me. Maybe the brain that allows me to do this, is an attribute, but not the ability per se. My person, and my abilities are two independent things.

Ok, I'll go along. Your attributes decide your abilities. I can only type this right now because I have a large number of attributes enabling me to do so, such as having hands fingers and a functioning brain. There is no conceivable attribute God could have that could allow him to break logic because the ability is inconceivable.

I think you are taking the definition of conceivable being in the ontological argument a little too literally. What it really means is vaguely imagining him with your mind, you don't have to be able to picture him and all his powers and mechanisms for doing them.

It has to be within the limits of logical possibility in order to be conceivable. Many versions of the ontological argument even say as much. Descartes said he must have all the greatest properties to the highest degree and Plantinga added the premise that it was possible God exists and that he exists in all possible worlds. Possibility must be a prerequisite to existence. A being cannot be necessary if he is logically impossible.

Even if we take your definition of conceivability, you still cannot even vaguely imagine geometrical absurdities like a triangle with four different points. That's because it's illogical but according to you, God can be illogical, yet we can't conceive of that.

If we need to be able to conceive of the attributes God needs, to do the logically impossible, we also need to conceive all the attributes God needs to create the universe out of nothing, or the attributes God needs to be omnipotent. We can't conceive of any of these attributes.

Are you saying creatio ex nihilo is logically impossible?

Omnipotence is the ability to do anything within the realm of logic. Why is it not conceivable?

If the ontological argument cannot even cover an omnimax being, then we run into trouble because people can now use the ontological argument to prove a whole host of non-omnimax beings.

Not sure what you mean.

I mean, creating a universe out of nothing is inconceivable, but that does not mean it is impossible, or that the being who can do this is inconceivable.

If it's inconceivable how can it be possible? What about square circles? How is that conceivable or possible? According to you, God would be able to do so. Something that is impossible cannot exist. Your idea of God is impossible, so he can't exist.

First, just because something cannot be conceived by you does not make it inconceivable.

You said inconceivable yourself.

More like I was assuming for your sake doing the logically impossible is inconceivable. However that in itself is an assumption.

Second, just because something is logically impossible, does not make it impossible. The logically impossible is only impossible to do if one is following the rules of logic.

If we're assuming the ontological argument, then God exists solely due to logic. He's ontologically necessary because of logic. Logic can only cause something that conforms to logic. God couldn't exist if he was logically impossible because, assuming he's ontologically necessary, he exists because logic necessitates it. Logic cannot necessitate anything illogical.

There is nothing that caused God to exist. God exists without cause which is why he is a necessary being. We can only show that he exists with logic because of the ontological argument. However that does not mean logic made him exist.

God has a reason as to why he exists does he not? The cause of Gods existence would be that it is necessary he exists. But it would only be necessary he exists solely because it would be logically impossible that he did not. He would exist because of logic and, like everything else, would have to conform to logic.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 8:51:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 10:35:06 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/22/2012 9:25:08 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
My proof will assume that the ontological argument is correct, so if you don't believe the ontological argument is correct, then point it out and I will be defenseless. If you are into the ontological argument, then we will have more to discuss.

Lets first prove the existence of a God who can break the laws of logic:
1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
The idea of God exists in the mind.
2. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
3. A being that can do all imaginable and unimaginable things, including breaking the laws of logical is greater than one that can't.
3. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being"that which exists in reality.
4. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
5. Therefore, God who can do absolutely all things imaginable, and unimaginable, including breaking the laws of logic exists.

Now lets head over the the problem of evil.

We see many evil things happen in the world everyday, children starving, babies dying of disease, innocent people being raped, etc. Here is my argument.

An omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent God would never create a world with evil if he could just as easily create one without evil if this can be done without any drawbacks, moral or otherwise.

Some Christians might say that evil is here to test us humans, or has to be allowed because of free will. However if God can break the laws of logic, then he can just make a good world without breaking free will, and he can test us without the need for evil.

Therefore God not omni-benevolent. From the ontological argument we know God exists.

God is above logic, but humans can't be. We must be bound by logic, or else we are equal to God, and He is no longer a maximally great being to us. Being bound by logic, we can't have free will, while also being unable to do evil.

If God was above logic, he could make humans have free will, yet unable to do evil, and still follow logic.

This is why everything breaks down when you get to an illogical God.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 10:23:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 2:37:37 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 12/23/2012 1:33:08 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/22/2012 9:25:08 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
My proof will assume that the ontological argument is correct, so if you don't believe the ontological argument is correct, then point it out and I will be defenseless. If you are into the ontological argument, then we will have more to discuss.

Lets first prove the existence of a God who can break the laws of logic:
1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
The idea of God exists in the mind.
2. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
3. A being that can do all imaginable and unimaginable things, including breaking the laws of logical is greater than one that can't.
3. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being"that which exists in reality.
4. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
5. Therefore, God who can do absolutely all things imaginable, and unimaginable, including breaking the laws of logic exists.

Now lets head over the the problem of evil.

We see many evil things happen in the world everyday, children starving, babies dying of disease, innocent people being raped, etc. Here is my argument.

An omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent God would never create a world with evil if he could just as easily create one without evil if this can be done without any drawbacks, moral or otherwise.

Some Christians might say that evil is here to test us humans, or has to be allowed because of free will. However if God can break the laws of logic, then he can just make a good world without breaking free will, and he can test us without the need for evil.

Therefore God not omni-benevolent. From the ontological argument we know God exists.

I agree with phantom's critique, but I also think there's another problem with your argument. If we suppose that there is a God who can violate the laws of logic, then God could be omni-benevolent even if he unnecessarily creates a world with evil. In fact, if we suppose there is a God who can violate the laws of logic, then no argument against God's existence could possibly succeed since they all rely on a contradiction of some sort that God would be able to violate.

That does not work out very well. Lets picture an omnipotent omnibenevolent God who can defy logic. Such a being can defy logic and so is able to eradicate evil with no negative consequences.

He could also NOT eradicate evil and make it GOOD with NO negative consequences.

Such a being could also choose not to eradicate evil but then still be able to be omnibenevolent.

Yes. Now what could an omnibenevolent being choose?

Who knows since he can do mutually exclusive things.

What would you choose if you were omnibenevolent and could defy logic? If you :had that chance to eradicate evil, why would you choose not to, but then defy logic :and maintain your omnibenevolence?

You're hidden assumption is that being omnibenevolence is incompatible with not eradicating evil, but if God could "defy logic" he could maintain his omnibenevolence and STILL BE as omnibenevolent as if he would be if he eradicated evil.

Sure, you are able to be lazy, but that it not the choice you are going to make.

Except that God could be maximally productive and and maximally lazy at the same time in the same sense if he could "defy logic. Oh, and he could also make that choice and not make it the same time in the same sense as well.

I'm not sure you're correctly understanding the implications of what a being that could "defy logic" could do.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 11:45:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 10:23:37 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'm not sure you're correctly understanding the implications of what a being that could "defy logic" could do.

popculturepooka gets it.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 12:25:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 9:40:29 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/22/2012 9:25:08 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
My proof will assume that the ontological argument is correct, so if you don't believe the ontological argument is correct, then point it out and I will be defenseless. If you are into the ontological argument, then we will have more to discuss.

Lets first prove the existence of a God who can break the laws of logic:
1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
The idea of God exists in the mind.
2. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
3. A being that can do all imaginable and unimaginable things, including breaking the laws of logical is greater than one that can't.
3. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being"that which exists in reality.
4. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
5. Therefore, God who can do absolutely all things imaginable, and unimaginable, including breaking the laws of logic exists.

Now lets head over the the problem of evil.

We see many evil things happen in the world everyday, children starving, babies dying of disease, innocent people being raped, etc. Here is my argument.

An omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent God would never create a world with evil if he could just as easily create one without evil if this can be done without any drawbacks, moral or otherwise.

Some Christians might say that evil is here to test us humans, or has to be allowed because of free will. However if God can break the laws of logic, then he can just make a good world without breaking free will, and he can test us without the need for evil.

Therefore God not omni-benevolent. From the ontological argument we know God exists.

If God could "break" the laws of logic he could make himself omnibenevolent even if he wasn't. So....yeah.

+1

If god is beyond logic, than logic is just the way we think, not the way real reality works. If so, you can't reject god on the basis of a logical argument.
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 1:39:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/23/2012 8:51:47 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 12/22/2012 10:35:06 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/22/2012 9:25:08 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
My proof will assume that the ontological argument is correct, so if you don't believe the ontological argument is correct, then point it out and I will be defenseless. If you are into the ontological argument, then we will have more to discuss.

Lets first prove the existence of a God who can break the laws of logic:
1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
The idea of God exists in the mind.
2. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
3. A being that can do all imaginable and unimaginable things, including breaking the laws of logical is greater than one that can't.
3. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being"that which exists in reality.
4. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
5. Therefore, God who can do absolutely all things imaginable, and unimaginable, including breaking the laws of logic exists.

Now lets head over the the problem of evil.

We see many evil things happen in the world everyday, children starving, babies dying of disease, innocent people being raped, etc. Here is my argument.

An omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent God would never create a world with evil if he could just as easily create one without evil if this can be done without any drawbacks, moral or otherwise.

Some Christians might say that evil is here to test us humans, or has to be allowed because of free will. However if God can break the laws of logic, then he can just make a good world without breaking free will, and he can test us without the need for evil.

Therefore God not omni-benevolent. From the ontological argument we know God exists.

God is above logic, but humans can't be. We must be bound by logic, or else we are equal to God, and He is no longer a maximally great being to us. Being bound by logic, we can't have free will, while also being unable to do evil.

If God was above logic, he could make humans have free will, yet unable to do evil, and still follow logic.

This is why everything breaks down when you get to an illogical God.

You're missing the big point though, if He did that, then humans would also defy logic. They would have free will, yet be unable to choose to do evil which means that humans would also have to be able to defy logic. If humans can defy logic just like God, then we wouldn't see God as God, we'd see Him as an equal.

I don't see any way that this disproves omnibenevolence.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 2:07:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 9:25:08 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
My proof will assume that the ontological argument is correct, so if you don't believe the ontological argument is correct, then point it out and I will be defenseless. If you are into the ontological argument, then we will have more to discuss.

Lets first prove the existence of a God who can break the laws of logic:
1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.

Then god would limited by our perceptions. By this, God would not be omnipotent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent because we could not fully understand what it means to do be infinite in every way.

2. The idea of God exists in the mind.

Okay. Why do you assume we can conceive of god?

2. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
3. A being that can do all imaginable and unimaginable things, including breaking the laws of logical is greater than one that can't.

Nope. The entire conception of lesser, less, great, and greater would fall apart if god did not follow the rules of logic. How would god be great if there were no lesser beings? How can you say that x is greater then y without a logical framework?

In a logical world, if something is the greatest we are, by definition, saying that there is something lesser. Show exactly how ascribing the trait "greatest" to something has meaning in a world where the laws of logic can be broken. It is fallacious to assume a "chain of greatness" in a world where logical chains are devoid of value.

3. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being"that which exists in reality.

God, by this argument, once again is limited by our perceptions. Why do we assume we can conceive of god?

4. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.

No, but we are not imagining god either.

5. Therefore, God who can do absolutely all things imaginable, and unimaginable, including breaking the laws of logic exists.

Definitions are logical statements....

For example, red is defined as being some wavelength of light. If god can break the laws of logic then logic essentially becomes meaningless and thus, definitions become meaningless. By saying God can break the laws of logic, you essentially say that defining god is meaningless. Now, remember, god is dependent upon our perception of god. Since god is dependent upon our perception of it, and if we combine with the fact that definitions are logical statements, and god is above logic, then what exactly are we perceiving? If man is bound to logic, then all perceptions of god are bound to logic.

If nothing can be defined, then how exactly can you make an argument since non of your terms have definitions? By arguing god cannot be defined, you are defeating the entire purpose of your argument because the conclusion you derive from this syllogism requires definitions.

You assume a logical framework, yet your conclusion is entirely illogical.


Now lets head over the the problem of evil.

We see many evil things happen in the world everyday, children starving, babies dying of disease, innocent people being raped, etc. Here is my argument.

Why is this evil? Please show an objective scale of evil and good without utilizing any logical statements.


An omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent God would never create a world with evil if he could just as easily create one without evil if this can be done without any drawbacks, moral or otherwise.

Easy == hard remember that. But, hard == yes and yes == hello and hello == a giant green panda bear. What heck are you trying to show? If nothing can be defined, then you can't fricken have a world in existence...


Some Christians might say that evil is here to test us humans, or has to be allowed because of free will. However if God can break the laws of logic, then he can just make a good world without breaking free will, and he can test us without the need for evil.

Define evil without using logic. Define god without using logic. If you assume a logical framework, you cannot go on to say the conclusion is above logic. Saying that god == god is a logical proposition. In your world, it is possible that god =/= god? It is also possible that man == god and also that man =/= god. It is further possible that evil == good and that evil =/= good.


Therefore God not omni-benevolent. From the ontological argument we know God exists.

No, god == omnibenevolent, god == not omnibenevolent. God exists, god does not exist. God is there and not there all at the same time :)