Total Posts:92|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Questions from a Doubting Christian

Legendary_Houp
Posts: 56
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 1:59:26 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
I thought this would be a good place to express some of the doubts I've been having as a Christian to the arguments generally presented in favor of a God, and to see if anyone has an answer to them. I have never had these questions amply answered or even really discussed, unless I missed them online somewhere. Anyways, here is but one of them.

Questions on the Ontological Argument

This has never been quite convincing to me because it relies on craft and wit with words to prove its case and not really evidence. Here it is for those of you who may not know.

By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
God exists in the mind as an idea.
Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality

Forgive me and correct me for any faulty logic, but I believe I can use the same argument to prove the existence of unicorns. For instance, a unicorn can be defined as a breed of horse for which no greater breed of horse can be imagined. Following the same logic, unicorns necessarily exist in reality. But this seems absurd as we have seen no evidence that unicorns exist at all, let alone that they are necessary beings.

I anticipate that one could object to my argument, "But Chris, the error lies in your definition of a unicorn. It assumes that a unicorn is a breed of horse. We have never seen a unicorn ourselves and cannot determine if it is in fact a breed of horse. If the unicorn's existence has been disproven by other evidence, then it cannot be a breed of horse since it does not exist. Even if it did exist, there is no reliable evidence to assume it is a breed of horse."

To that I say, precisely. It seems as if the Ontological Argument is in itself not proof of the existence of unicorns, but once unicorns are proven to have existed, the conclusions presented by the argument are a logical necessity. The same goes for God, for if you define God as a "being" for which no greater being can be conceived, you must first prove that the given definition is correct, and God is in fact a being, i.e. existing. The argument only corroborates the existence of whatever is being described. If the first premise is true, and God is in fact a being, then all the other premises and conclusions are not only logically coherent and true, but they are a logical necessity. If the first premise fails, then obviously, the entire argument falters.

I would ask anyone to point out where my logic is wrong or to refine/recreate their own version of Anselm's Ontological Argument to resolve this conundrum. I thank anybody for their contributions on the subject.
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 2:24:53 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/17/2016 1:59:26 PM, Legendary_Houp wrote:
I thought this would be a good place to express some of the doubts I've been having as a Christian to the arguments generally presented in favor of a God, and to see if anyone has an answer to them. I have never had these questions amply answered or even really discussed, unless I missed them online somewhere. Anyways, here is but one of them.

Questions on the Ontological Argument

This has never been quite convincing to me because it relies on craft and wit with words to prove its case and not really evidence. Here it is for those of you who may not know.

By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
God exists in the mind as an idea.
Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality

Forgive me and correct me for any faulty logic, but I believe I can use the same argument to prove the existence of unicorns. For instance, a unicorn can be defined as a breed of horse for which no greater breed of horse can be imagined. Following the same logic, unicorns necessarily exist in reality. But this seems absurd as we have seen no evidence that unicorns exist at all, let alone that they are necessary beings.

Exactly. Furthermore, if we cut back on the unnecessary philisophical stuff, it basically just defines God as have the property of existing:

God > greatest being > exists in reality > exists

(">" means "has the property of")

Get rid of all that unnecessary stuff, and all you have is:

God > exists.

Thus, it is not a good argument. It also changes the type of God it's arguing for mid argument, but this change of definition is so slight you can hardly notice it.

I anticipate that one could object to my argument, "But Chris, the error lies in your definition of a unicorn. It assumes that a unicorn is a breed of horse. We have never seen a unicorn ourselves and cannot determine if it is in fact a breed of horse. If the unicorn's existence has been disproven by other evidence, then it cannot be a breed of horse since it does not exist. Even if it did exist, there is no reliable evidence to assume it is a breed of horse."

To that I say, precisely. It seems as if the Ontological Argument is in itself not proof of the existence of unicorns, but once unicorns are proven to have existed, the conclusions presented by the argument are a logical necessity. The same goes for God, for if you define God as a "being" for which no greater being can be conceived, you must first prove that the given definition is correct, and God is in fact a being, i.e. existing. The argument only corroborates the existence of whatever is being described. If the first premise is true, and God is in fact a being, then all the other premises and conclusions are not only logically coherent and true, but they are a logical necessity. If the first premise fails, then obviously, the entire argument falters.

Right. It is also redundant to have to prove unicorns exist to then make the ontological argument valid, which proves unicorns exist. Literally, you have to prove unicorns exist to prove unicorns exist. Like I said, it's redundant and a horrible argument.

I would ask anyone to point out where my logic is wrong or to refine/recreate their own version of Anselm's Ontological Argument to resolve this conundrum. I thank anybody for their contributions on the subject.

Well, like I said, it only defines God as existing if you cut away all the other stuff.
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
ssadi
Posts: 324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 3:04:30 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/17/2016 1:59:26 PM, Legendary_Houp wrote:
I thought this would be a good place to express some of the doubts I've been having as a Christian to the arguments generally presented in favor of a God, and to see if anyone has an answer to them. I have never had these questions amply answered or even really discussed, unless I missed them online somewhere. Anyways, here is but one of them.

Questions on the Ontological Argument

This has never been quite convincing to me because it relies on craft and wit with words to prove its case and not really evidence. Here it is for those of you who may not know.

1. By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
2. A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
3. Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
4. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
5. Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
6. God exists in the mind as an idea.
7. Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality

NOTE: I added the numbering in the quotation!

I, too, don't find Anselm's Ontological Argument convincing. I think the problem is in #2:

2. A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.

In what sense/respect? This comparison is fallacious. It is comparing an idea/opinion/definition to an existing being. It is like comparing taste with mass.. Saying that the taste of an apple is heavier than 1 kg of iron and saying that 1 kg of iron is more delicious in mass than an apple's taste are both logically fallacious.

Similarly, comparing an idea/opinion/definition in mind with an existing being is logically fallacious. Since #2 is logically fallacious, then it makes the argument logically fallacious.

Forgive me and correct me for any faulty logic, but I believe I can use the same argument to prove the existence of unicorns. For instance, a unicorn can be defined as a breed of horse for which no greater breed of horse can be imagined. Following the same logic, unicorns necessarily exist in reality. But this seems absurd as we have seen no evidence that unicorns exist at all, let alone that they are necessary beings.

I anticipate that one could object to my argument, "But Chris, the error lies in your definition of a unicorn. It assumes that a unicorn is a breed of horse. We have never seen a unicorn ourselves and cannot determine if it is in fact a breed of horse. If the unicorn's existence has been disproven by other evidence, then it cannot be a breed of horse since it does not exist. Even if it did exist, there is no reliable evidence to assume it is a breed of horse."

To that I say, precisely. It seems as if the Ontological Argument is in itself not proof of the existence of unicorns, but once unicorns are proven to have existed, the conclusions presented by the argument are a logical necessity. The same goes for God, for if you define God as a "being" for which no greater being can be conceived, you must first prove that the given definition is correct, and God is in fact a being, i.e. existing. The argument only corroborates the existence of whatever is being described. If the first premise is true, and God is in fact a being, then all the other premises and conclusions are not only logically coherent and true, but they are a logical necessity. If the first premise fails, then obviously, the entire argument falters.

I would ask anyone to point out where my logic is wrong or to refine/recreate their own version of Anselm's Ontological Argument to resolve this conundrum. I thank anybody for their contributions on the subject.
Or were they created without anything being before them (or out of something different than the basic material of all creation, so that they know things others do not), or are they the creators (of themselves, so that they can maintain themselves and are free in their acts)? Or did they create the heavens and the earth (so that their sovereignty belongs to them)? No indeed. Rather, they have no certain knowledge (about creation, humankind, and the basic facts concerning them).

Quran, 52:35-36
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 3:57:35 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/17/2016 1:59:26 PM, Legendary_Houp wrote:
I thought this would be a good place to express some of the doubts I've been having as a Christian to the arguments generally presented in favor of a God, and to see if anyone has an answer to them. I have never had these questions amply answered or even really discussed, unless I missed them online somewhere. Anyways, here is but one of them.

Questions on the Ontological Argument

This has never been quite convincing to me because it relies on craft and wit with words to prove its case and not really evidence. Here it is for those of you who may not know.

By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
God exists in the mind as an idea.
Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality

Forgive me and correct me for any faulty logic, but I believe I can use the same argument to prove the existence of unicorns. For instance, a unicorn can be defined as a breed of horse for which no greater breed of horse can be imagined. Following the same logic, unicorns necessarily exist in reality. But this seems absurd as we have seen no evidence that unicorns exist at all, let alone that they are necessary beings.

I anticipate that one could object to my argument, "But Chris, the error lies in your definition of a unicorn. It assumes that a unicorn is a breed of horse. We have never seen a unicorn ourselves and cannot determine if it is in fact a breed of horse. If the unicorn's existence has been disproven by other evidence, then it cannot be a breed of horse since it does not exist. Even if it did exist, there is no reliable evidence to assume it is a breed of horse."

To that I say, precisely. It seems as if the Ontological Argument is in itself not proof of the existence of unicorns, but once unicorns are proven to have existed, the conclusions presented by the argument are a logical necessity. The same goes for God, for if you define God as a "being" for which no greater being can be conceived, you must first prove that the given definition is correct, and God is in fact a being, i.e. existing. The argument only corroborates the existence of whatever is being described. If the first premise is true, and God is in fact a being, then all the other premises and conclusions are not only logically coherent and true, but they are a logical necessity. If the first premise fails, then obviously, the entire argument falters.

I would ask anyone to point out where my logic is wrong or to refine/recreate their own version of Anselm's Ontological Argument to resolve this conundrum. I thank anybody for their contributions on the subject.

Here you go Legendary. I'll provide you a link below.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 4:05:27 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/17/2016 1:59:26 PM, Legendary_Houp wrote:
I thought this would be a good place to express some of the doubts I've been having as a Christian to the arguments generally presented in favor of a God, and to see if anyone has an answer to them. I have never had these questions amply answered or even really discussed, unless I missed them online somewhere. Anyways, here is but one of them.

Questions on the Ontological Argument

This has never been quite convincing to me because it relies on craft and wit with words to prove its case and not really evidence. Here it is for those of you who may not know.

By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
God exists in the mind as an idea.
Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality

Forgive me and correct me for any faulty logic, but I believe I can use the same argument to prove the existence of unicorns. For instance, a unicorn can be defined as a breed of horse for which no greater breed of horse can be imagined. Following the same logic, unicorns necessarily exist in reality. But this seems absurd as we have seen no evidence that unicorns exist at all, let alone that they are necessary beings.

I anticipate that one could object to my argument, "But Chris, the error lies in your definition of a unicorn. It assumes that a unicorn is a breed of horse. We have never seen a unicorn ourselves and cannot determine if it is in fact a breed of horse. If the unicorn's existence has been disproven by other evidence, then it cannot be a breed of horse since it does not exist. Even if it did exist, there is no reliable evidence to assume it is a breed of horse."

To that I say, precisely. It seems as if the Ontological Argument is in itself not proof of the existence of unicorns, but once unicorns are proven to have existed, the conclusions presented by the argument are a logical necessity. The same goes for God, for if you define God as a "being" for which no greater being can be conceived, you must first prove that the given definition is correct, and God is in fact a being, i.e. existing. The argument only corroborates the existence of whatever is being described. If the first premise is true, and God is in fact a being, then all the other premises and conclusions are not only logically coherent and true, but they are a logical necessity. If the first premise fails, then obviously, the entire argument falters.

I would ask anyone to point out where my logic is wrong or to refine/recreate their own version of Anselm's Ontological Argument to resolve this conundrum. I thank anybody for their contributions on the subject.

Here's something that always gets Atheists stuck.

Is the universe infinite or finite?

If its finite they literally have to conced that something literally exists inside of nothing. So imagine a basketball hovering, but nothing is outside of it. If someone can accept this theory, I've got some ocean front property in Arizona that I'd like to sell them.

If the universe/reality and time are infinite everything exists. There are infinite you's, me's, infinite everything. That includes the highest of all possible beings. It means the highest possible being not only must exist, but has never not existed in infinite reality and time.

Some Atheists scramble around and toss out the idea that time did not exist before the big bang which is a fallacy of logic. Without time the bang would have never happened in the first place and even in such a model, with infinity before it, the laws of infinity do not magically disappear. They are simply temporarily stopped which only would give the highest possible being a "timeout" to create, ponder, or prepare.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 4:06:54 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/17/2016 1:59:26 PM, Legendary_Houp wrote:
I thought this would be a good place to express some of the doubts I've been having as a Christian to the arguments generally presented in favor of a God, and to see if anyone has an answer to them. I have never had these questions amply answered or even really discussed, unless I missed them online somewhere. Anyways, here is but one of them.

Questions on the Ontological Argument

This has never been quite convincing to me because it relies on craft and wit with words to prove its case and not really evidence. Here it is for those of you who may not know.

By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
God exists in the mind as an idea.
Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality

Forgive me and correct me for any faulty logic, but I believe I can use the same argument to prove the existence of unicorns. For instance, a unicorn can be defined as a breed of horse for which no greater breed of horse can be imagined. Following the same logic, unicorns necessarily exist in reality. But this seems absurd as we have seen no evidence that unicorns exist at all, let alone that they are necessary beings.

I anticipate that one could object to my argument, "But Chris, the error lies in your definition of a unicorn. It assumes that a unicorn is a breed of horse. We have never seen a unicorn ourselves and cannot determine if it is in fact a breed of horse. If the unicorn's existence has been disproven by other evidence, then it cannot be a breed of horse since it does not exist. Even if it did exist, there is no reliable evidence to assume it is a breed of horse."

To that I say, precisely. It seems as if the Ontological Argument is in itself not proof of the existence of unicorns, but once unicorns are proven to have existed, the conclusions presented by the argument are a logical necessity. The same goes for God, for if you define God as a "being" for which no greater being can be conceived, you must first prove that the given definition is correct, and God is in fact a being, i.e. existing. The argument only corroborates the existence of whatever is being described. If the first premise is true, and God is in fact a being, then all the other premises and conclusions are not only logically coherent and true, but they are a logical necessity. If the first premise fails, then obviously, the entire argument falters.

I would ask anyone to point out where my logic is wrong or to refine/recreate their own version of Anselm's Ontological Argument to resolve this conundrum. I thank anybody for their contributions on the subject.

Also look up James Gates. The equations that are used to describe the makeup of our universe are proven to be simply Hammin's binary self error correcting computer code. Fact.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 4:15:02 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/17/2016 1:59:26 PM, Legendary_Houp wrote:
I thought this would be a good place to express some of the doubts I've been having as a Christian to the arguments generally presented in favor of a God, and to see if anyone has an answer to them. I have never had these questions amply answered or even really discussed, unless I missed them online somewhere. Anyways, here is but one of them.

Questions on the Ontological Argument

This has never been quite convincing to me because it relies on craft and wit with words to prove its case and not really evidence. Here it is for those of you who may not know.

By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
God exists in the mind as an idea.
Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality

Forgive me and correct me for any faulty logic, but I believe I can use the same argument to prove the existence of unicorns. For instance, a unicorn can be defined as a breed of horse for which no greater breed of horse can be imagined. Following the same logic, unicorns necessarily exist in reality. But this seems absurd as we have seen no evidence that unicorns exist at all, let alone that they are necessary beings.

I anticipate that one could object to my argument, "But Chris, the error lies in your definition of a unicorn. It assumes that a unicorn is a breed of horse. We have never seen a unicorn ourselves and cannot determine if it is in fact a breed of horse. If the unicorn's existence has been disproven by other evidence, then it cannot be a breed of horse since it does not exist. Even if it did exist, there is no reliable evidence to assume it is a breed of horse."

To that I say, precisely. It seems as if the Ontological Argument is in itself not proof of the existence of unicorns, but once unicorns are proven to have existed, the conclusions presented by the argument are a logical necessity. The same goes for God, for if you define God as a "being" for which no greater being can be conceived, you must first prove that the given definition is correct, and God is in fact a being, i.e. existing. The argument only corroborates the existence of whatever is being described. If the first premise is true, and God is in fact a being, then all the other premises and conclusions are not only logically coherent and true, but they are a logical necessity. If the first premise fails, then obviously, the entire argument falters.

I would ask anyone to point out where my logic is wrong or to refine/recreate their own version of Anselm's Ontological Argument to resolve this conundrum. I thank anybody for their contributions on the subject.

And here is the kicker, Legendary.

In Revelation it tells us all kinds of interesting things to look for in Revelation as pertaining to the Antichrist. Here are the concepts.

Someone at the temple mount claiming to actually be God yet denying Christ as savior and as the Son of God. Check.

His followers are antichrist, meaning they specifically renounce Christ as the Son of God by Biblical definition of antichrist. Check.

These followers behead Christians. Check.

These followers bow to a graven image. Check.

These followers believe, expect, or hear the image speak. Check.

These followers hate Israel. Check.

And as an added bonus of confirmation, pre New Testament, the Old Testament, in Genesis, tells us exactly what groupwill NEVER inherit from God or be His descendants. And this is the same exact group who fits both descriptions from Genesis AND Revelation. The children of Ishmael...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Harikrish
Posts: 11,011
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 4:16:15 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/17/2016 1:59:26 PM, Legendary_Houp wrote:
I thought this would be a good place to express some of the doubts I've been having as a Christian to the arguments generally presented in favor of a God, and to see if anyone has an answer to them. I have never had these questions amply answered or even really discussed, unless I missed them online somewhere. Anyways, here is but one of them.

Questions on the Ontological Argument

This has never been quite convincing to me because it relies on craft and wit with words to prove its case and not really evidence. Here it is for those of you who may not know.

By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
God exists in the mind as an idea.
Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality

Forgive me and correct me for any faulty logic, but I believe I can use the same argument to prove the existence of unicorns. For instance, a unicorn can be defined as a breed of horse for which no greater breed of horse can be imagined. Following the same logic, unicorns necessarily exist in reality. But this seems absurd as we have seen no evidence that unicorns exist at all, let alone that they are necessary beings.

I anticipate that one could object to my argument, "But Chris, the error lies in your definition of a unicorn. It assumes that a unicorn is a breed of horse. We have never seen a unicorn ourselves and cannot determine if it is in fact a breed of horse. If the unicorn's existence has been disproven by other evidence, then it cannot be a breed of horse since it does not exist. Even if it did exist, there is no reliable evidence to assume it is a breed of horse."

To that I say, precisely. It seems as if the Ontological Argument is in itself not proof of the existence of unicorns, but once unicorns are proven to have existed, the conclusions presented by the argument are a logical necessity. The same goes for God, for if you define God as a "being" for which no greater being can be conceived, you must first prove that the given definition is correct, and God is in fact a being, i.e. existing. The argument only corroborates the existence of whatever is being described. If the first premise is true, and God is in fact a being, then all the other premises and conclusions are not only logically coherent and true, but they are a logical necessity. If the first premise fails, then obviously, the entire argument falters.

I would ask anyone to point out where my logic is wrong or to refine/recreate their own version of Anselm's Ontological Argument to resolve this conundrum. I thank anybody for their contributions on the subject.

I don't know if my response will help you resolve your doubts as a Christian. But at least it will help you understand why some believe in God and others in unicorns.

According to Michael Shermer the founder of Skeptic magazine: "We are hardwired to believe in God just as we are hardwired to believe in supernatural beings (unicorns). It is in our DNA."
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 4:16:52 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/17/2016 1:59:26 PM, Legendary_Houp wrote:
I thought this would be a good place to express some of the doubts I've been having as a Christian to the arguments generally presented in favor of a God, and to see if anyone has an answer to them. I have never had these questions amply answered or even really discussed, unless I missed them online somewhere. Anyways, here is but one of them.

Questions on the Ontological Argument

This has never been quite convincing to me because it relies on craft and wit with words to prove its case and not really evidence. Here it is for those of you who may not know.

By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
God exists in the mind as an idea.
Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality

Forgive me and correct me for any faulty logic, but I believe I can use the same argument to prove the existence of unicorns. For instance, a unicorn can be defined as a breed of horse for which no greater breed of horse can be imagined. Following the same logic, unicorns necessarily exist in reality. But this seems absurd as we have seen no evidence that unicorns exist at all, let alone that they are necessary beings.

I anticipate that one could object to my argument, "But Chris, the error lies in your definition of a unicorn. It assumes that a unicorn is a breed of horse. We have never seen a unicorn ourselves and cannot determine if it is in fact a breed of horse. If the unicorn's existence has been disproven by other evidence, then it cannot be a breed of horse since it does not exist. Even if it did exist, there is no reliable evidence to assume it is a breed of horse."

To that I say, precisely. It seems as if the Ontological Argument is in itself not proof of the existence of unicorns, but once unicorns are proven to have existed, the conclusions presented by the argument are a logical necessity. The same goes for God, for if you define God as a "being" for which no greater being can be conceived, you must first prove that the given definition is correct, and God is in fact a being, i.e. existing. The argument only corroborates the existence of whatever is being described. If the first premise is true, and God is in fact a being, then all the other premises and conclusions are not only logically coherent and true, but they are a logical necessity. If the first premise fails, then obviously, the entire argument falters.

I would ask anyone to point out where my logic is wrong or to refine/recreate their own version of Anselm's Ontological Argument to resolve this conundrum. I thank anybody for their contributions on the subject.

Can I get an "amen"? Tell me if I'm preaching good Legendary.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 4:23:19 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/17/2016 4:16:15 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 5/17/2016 1:59:26 PM, Legendary_Houp wrote:
I thought this would be a good place to express some of the doubts I've been having as a Christian to the arguments generally presented in favor of a God, and to see if anyone has an answer to them. I have never had these questions amply answered or even really discussed, unless I missed them online somewhere. Anyways, here is but one of them.

Questions on the Ontological Argument

This has never been quite convincing to me because it relies on craft and wit with words to prove its case and not really evidence. Here it is for those of you who may not know.

By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
God exists in the mind as an idea.
Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality

Forgive me and correct me for any faulty logic, but I believe I can use the same argument to prove the existence of unicorns. For instance, a unicorn can be defined as a breed of horse for which no greater breed of horse can be imagined. Following the same logic, unicorns necessarily exist in reality. But this seems absurd as we have seen no evidence that unicorns exist at all, let alone that they are necessary beings.

I anticipate that one could object to my argument, "But Chris, the error lies in your definition of a unicorn. It assumes that a unicorn is a breed of horse. We have never seen a unicorn ourselves and cannot determine if it is in fact a breed of horse. If the unicorn's existence has been disproven by other evidence, then it cannot be a breed of horse since it does not exist. Even if it did exist, there is no reliable evidence to assume it is a breed of horse."

To that I say, precisely. It seems as if the Ontological Argument is in itself not proof of the existence of unicorns, but once unicorns are proven to have existed, the conclusions presented by the argument are a logical necessity. The same goes for God, for if you define God as a "being" for which no greater being can be conceived, you must first prove that the given definition is correct, and God is in fact a being, i.e. existing. The argument only corroborates the existence of whatever is being described. If the first premise is true, and God is in fact a being, then all the other premises and conclusions are not only logically coherent and true, but they are a logical necessity. If the first premise fails, then obviously, the entire argument falters.

I would ask anyone to point out where my logic is wrong or to refine/recreate their own version of Anselm's Ontological Argument to resolve this conundrum. I thank anybody for their contributions on the subject.

I don't know if my response will help you resolve your doubts as a Christian. But at least it will help you understand why some believe in God and others in unicorns.

According to Michael Shermer the founder of Skeptic magazine: "We are hardwired to believe in God just as we are hardwired to believe in supernatural beings (unicorns). It is in our DNA."

I'd say Shermer has blindly tossed out a load of bs that he hopes sounds almost right. I don't know anyone that believes in unicorns, fairies, Medussa, the Kraken, etc. Must be a bit more to it than that. Like basic mathematics, infinity laws, and the physical, philosophical, and mathematical impossibility of Atheism even according to its own regulatory processes used to defend its illogical self.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 5:42:47 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/17/2016 4:05:27 PM, brontoraptor wrote:

Here's something that always gets Atheists stuck.

Is the universe infinite or finite?

If its finite they literally have to conced that something literally exists inside of nothing.

Bwahhhhh.
So finite is equal to nothing, hey?
Brilliant.
Just brilliant.

You don't even know what Einstein's space-time continuum entails.
Bravo.

So imagine a basketball hovering, but nothing is outside of it. If someone can accept this theory, I've got some ocean front property in Arizona that I'd like to sell them.

If the universe/reality and time are infinite everything exists. There are infinite you's, me's, infinite everything.

Crackpot assertions.

That includes the highest of all possible beings. It means the highest possible being not only must exist, but has never not existed in infinite reality and time.

Some Atheists scramble around and toss out the idea that time did not exist before the big bang which is a fallacy of logic.

So you don't know the first thing about Einstein's relativity, do you?
Or maybe you "studied" it for 30 years, like you """studied""" evolution for three decades, though nothing seems to have really adhered to your memory.

Without time the bang would have never happened in the first place and even in such a model, with infinity before it, the laws of infinity do not magically disappear. They are simply temporarily stopped which only would give the highest possible being a "timeout" to create, ponder, or prepare.

Stop embarrassing yourself.
Go read a book on relativity or cosmology.

What a joke.
bonsai
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 5:55:58 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/17/2016 1:59:26 PM, Legendary_Houp wrote:
I thought this would be a good place to express some of the doubts I've been having as a Christian to the arguments generally presented in favor of a God, and to see if anyone has an answer to them. I have never had these questions amply answered or even really discussed, unless I missed them online somewhere. Anyways, here is but one of them.

Questions on the Ontological Argument

This has never been quite convincing to me because it relies on craft and wit with words to prove its case and not really evidence. Here it is for those of you who may not know.

By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
God exists in the mind as an idea.
Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality

Forgive me and correct me for any faulty logic, but I believe I can use the same argument to prove the existence of unicorns. For instance, a unicorn can be defined as a breed of horse for which no greater breed of horse can be imagined. Following the same logic, unicorns necessarily exist in reality. But this seems absurd as we have seen no evidence that unicorns exist at all, let alone that they are necessary beings.

I anticipate that one could object to my argument, "But Chris, the error lies in your definition of a unicorn. It assumes that a unicorn is a breed of horse. We have never seen a unicorn ourselves and cannot determine if it is in fact a breed of horse. If the unicorn's existence has been disproven by other evidence, then it cannot be a breed of horse since it does not exist. Even if it did exist, there is no reliable evidence to assume it is a breed of horse."

To that I say, precisely. It seems as if the Ontological Argument is in itself not proof of the existence of unicorns, but once unicorns are proven to have existed, the conclusions presented by the argument are a logical necessity. The same goes for God, for if you define God as a "being" for which no greater being can be conceived, you must first prove that the given definition is correct, and God is in fact a being, i.e. existing. The argument only corroborates the existence of whatever is being described. If the first premise is true, and God is in fact a being, then all the other premises and conclusions are not only logically coherent and true, but they are a logical necessity. If the first premise fails, then obviously, the entire argument falters.

I would ask anyone to point out where my logic is wrong or to refine/recreate their own version of Anselm's Ontological Argument to resolve this conundrum. I thank anybody for their contributions on the subject. : :

God has finally convinced you that the Christian gods are not real. Thank God for that because it's true, the Christian god named Jesus is nothing but an imaginary god they get in their minds from reading words in a book. The true God was the one who revealed this to me.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 6:01:40 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Hi, LH. I realise you've been on the site a while, but since I haven't seen you posting here before: welcome

At 5/17/2016 1:59:26 PM, Legendary_Houp wrote:
I thought this would be a good place to express some of the doubts I've been having as a Christian to the arguments generally presented in favor of a God, and to see if anyone has an answer to them. I have never had these questions amply answered or even really discussed, unless I missed them online somewhere. Anyways, here is but one of them.

Questions on the Ontological Argument

This has never been quite convincing to me because it relies on craft and wit with words to prove its case and not really evidence.
That's wisely said,

The argument is philosophical, not scientific. As you probably know, it dates from the late 11th century -- a time when there wasn't much science, and where philosophy and tradition were the standards for truth and knowledge.

That has largely changed, simply because we know that while philosophy can sometimes yield insight, it doesn't reliable produce truth or knowledge. Nowadays, a scientist could point out that this argument uses non-constructive premises and an appeal to intuition, which are all elements scientists know cannot be trusted (and I'm happy to explain why if you're interested.)

But even when Anselm first published this argument, his contemporary, Gaunilo of Marmoutier, criticised it, and with much the same argument you did:

Now if some one should tell me that there is " an island [than which none greater can be conceived], I should easily understand his words, in which there is no difficulty. But suppose that he went on to say, as if by a logical inference: "You can no longer doubt that this island which is more excellent than all lands exists somewhere, since you have no doubt that it is in your understanding. And since it is more excellent not to be in the understanding alone, but to exist both in the understanding and in reality, for this reason it must exist. For if it does not exist, any land which really exists will be more excellent than it; and so the island understood by you to be more excellent will not be more excellent.

"In Behalf of the Fool", Gaunilio of Marmoutier, late 11th century CE [https://legacy.fordham.edu...]

In any case, it's an argument for Deism, rather than Abrahamic theism, and you'll find this true of many philosophical arguments for the existence of a supreme creator.

I realise you'll get many similar comments, but hope this helps.
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 6:14:31 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/17/2016 1:59:26 PM, Legendary_Houp wrote:
Forgive me and correct me for any faulty logic, but I believe I can use the same argument to prove the existence of unicorns. For instance, a unicorn can be defined as a breed of horse for which no greater breed of horse can be imagined.

No, a unicorn cannot be defined as a horse of which no greater breed of horse can be imagined. God, by definition, is greater than everything. A unicorn, by definition is just an animal, maybe a magical animal, but not greater than anything that can be imagined.

If you're going to meditate on doubt, you might as well save some time and say goodbye to God.
bonsai
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 6:21:58 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/17/2016 6:14:31 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/17/2016 1:59:26 PM, Legendary_Houp wrote:
Forgive me and correct me for any faulty logic, but I believe I can use the same argument to prove the existence of unicorns. For instance, a unicorn can be defined as a breed of horse for which no greater breed of horse can be imagined.

No, a unicorn cannot be defined as a horse of which no greater breed of horse can be imagined. God, by definition, is greater than everything. A unicorn, by definition is just an animal, maybe a magical animal, but not greater than anything that can be imagined.

If you're going to meditate on doubt, you might as well save some time and say goodbye to God. : :

It's impossible to say no to something you've never known. This person has never heard the voice of God so without that, everything is left up to his or her subjective experiences which can't be trusted for the truth.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,011
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 7:11:48 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/17/2016 4:23:19 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 5/17/2016 4:16:15 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 5/17/2016 1:59:26 PM, Legendary_Houp wrote:
I thought this would be a good place to express some of the doubts I've been having as a Christian to the arguments generally presented in favor of a God, and to see if anyone has an answer to them. I have never had these questions amply answered or even really discussed, unless I missed them online somewhere. Anyways, here is but one of them.

Questions on the Ontological Argument

This has never been quite convincing to me because it relies on craft and wit with words to prove its case and not really evidence. Here it is for those of you who may not know.

By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
God exists in the mind as an idea.
Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality

Forgive me and correct me for any faulty logic, but I believe I can use the same argument to prove the existence of unicorns. For instance, a unicorn can be defined as a breed of horse for which no greater breed of horse can be imagined. Following the same logic, unicorns necessarily exist in reality. But this seems absurd as we have seen no evidence that unicorns exist at all, let alone that they are necessary beings.

I anticipate that one could object to my argument, "But Chris, the error lies in your definition of a unicorn. It assumes that a unicorn is a breed of horse. We have never seen a unicorn ourselves and cannot determine if it is in fact a breed of horse. If the unicorn's existence has been disproven by other evidence, then it cannot be a breed of horse since it does not exist. Even if it did exist, there is no reliable evidence to assume it is a breed of horse."

To that I say, precisely. It seems as if the Ontological Argument is in itself not proof of the existence of unicorns, but once unicorns are proven to have existed, the conclusions presented by the argument are a logical necessity. The same goes for God, for if you define God as a "being" for which no greater being can be conceived, you must first prove that the given definition is correct, and God is in fact a being, i.e. existing. The argument only corroborates the existence of whatever is being described. If the first premise is true, and God is in fact a being, then all the other premises and conclusions are not only logically coherent and true, but they are a logical necessity. If the first premise fails, then obviously, the entire argument falters.

I would ask anyone to point out where my logic is wrong or to refine/recreate their own version of Anselm's Ontological Argument to resolve this conundrum. I thank anybody for their contributions on the subject.

I don't know if my response will help you resolve your doubts as a Christian. But at least it will help you understand why some believe in God and others in unicorns.

According to Michael Shermer the founder of Skeptic magazine: "We are hardwired to believe in God just as we are hardwired to believe in supernatural beings (unicorns). It is in our DNA."

I'd say Shermer has blindly tossed out a load of bs that he hopes sounds almost right. I don't know anyone that believes in unicorns, fairies, Medussa, the Kraken, etc. Must be a bit more to it than that. Like basic mathematics, infinity laws, and the physical, philosophical, and mathematical impossibility of Atheism even according to its own regulatory processes used to defend its illogical self.

Why belief in God is Innate
http://www.wsj.com...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 7:19:20 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/17/2016 7:11:48 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 5/17/2016 4:23:19 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 5/17/2016 4:16:15 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 5/17/2016 1:59:26 PM, Legendary_Houp wrote:
I thought this would be a good place to express some of the doubts I've been having as a Christian to the arguments generally presented in favor of a God, and to see if anyone has an answer to them. I have never had these questions amply answered or even really discussed, unless I missed them online somewhere. Anyways, here is but one of them.

Questions on the Ontological Argument

This has never been quite convincing to me because it relies on craft and wit with words to prove its case and not really evidence. Here it is for those of you who may not know.

By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
God exists in the mind as an idea.
Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality

Forgive me and correct me for any faulty logic, but I believe I can use the same argument to prove the existence of unicorns. For instance, a unicorn can be defined as a breed of horse for which no greater breed of horse can be imagined. Following the same logic, unicorns necessarily exist in reality. But this seems absurd as we have seen no evidence that unicorns exist at all, let alone that they are necessary beings.

I anticipate that one could object to my argument, "But Chris, the error lies in your definition of a unicorn. It assumes that a unicorn is a breed of horse. We have never seen a unicorn ourselves and cannot determine if it is in fact a breed of horse. If the unicorn's existence has been disproven by other evidence, then it cannot be a breed of horse since it does not exist. Even if it did exist, there is no reliable evidence to assume it is a breed of horse."

To that I say, precisely. It seems as if the Ontological Argument is in itself not proof of the existence of unicorns, but once unicorns are proven to have existed, the conclusions presented by the argument are a logical necessity. The same goes for God, for if you define God as a "being" for which no greater being can be conceived, you must first prove that the given definition is correct, and God is in fact a being, i.e. existing. The argument only corroborates the existence of whatever is being described. If the first premise is true, and God is in fact a being, then all the other premises and conclusions are not only logically coherent and true, but they are a logical necessity. If the first premise fails, then obviously, the entire argument falters.

I would ask anyone to point out where my logic is wrong or to refine/recreate their own version of Anselm's Ontological Argument to resolve this conundrum. I thank anybody for their contributions on the subject.

I don't know if my response will help you resolve your doubts as a Christian. But at least it will help you understand why some believe in God and others in unicorns.

According to Michael Shermer the founder of Skeptic magazine: "We are hardwired to believe in God just as we are hardwired to believe in supernatural beings (unicorns). It is in our DNA."

I'd say Shermer has blindly tossed out a load of bs that he hopes sounds almost right. I don't know anyone that believes in unicorns, fairies, Medussa, the Kraken, etc. Must be a bit more to it than that. Like basic mathematics, infinity laws, and the physical, philosophical, and mathematical impossibility of Atheism even according to its own regulatory processes used to defend its illogical self.

Why belief in God is Innate
http://www.wsj.com...

Nuttin did it...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Harikrish
Posts: 11,011
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 7:50:33 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/17/2016 7:19:20 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 5/17/2016 7:11:48 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 5/17/2016 4:23:19 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 5/17/2016 4:16:15 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 5/17/2016 1:59:26 PM, Legendary_Houp wrote:
I thought this would be a good place to express some of the doubts I've been having as a Christian to the arguments generally presented in favor of a God, and to see if anyone has an answer to them. I have never had these questions amply answered or even really discussed, unless I missed them online somewhere. Anyways, here is but one of them.

Questions on the Ontological Argument

This has never been quite convincing to me because it relies on craft and wit with words to prove its case and not really evidence. Here it is for those of you who may not know.

By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
God exists in the mind as an idea.
Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality

Forgive me and correct me for any faulty logic, but I believe I can use the same argument to prove the existence of unicorns. For instance, a unicorn can be defined as a breed of horse for which no greater breed of horse can be imagined. Following the same logic, unicorns necessarily exist in reality. But this seems absurd as we have seen no evidence that unicorns exist at all, let alone that they are necessary beings.

I anticipate that one could object to my argument, "But Chris, the error lies in your definition of a unicorn. It assumes that a unicorn is a breed of horse. We have never seen a unicorn ourselves and cannot determine if it is in fact a breed of horse. If the unicorn's existence has been disproven by other evidence, then it cannot be a breed of horse since it does not exist. Even if it did exist, there is no reliable evidence to assume it is a breed of horse."

To that I say, precisely. It seems as if the Ontological Argument is in itself not proof of the existence of unicorns, but once unicorns are proven to have existed, the conclusions presented by the argument are a logical necessity. The same goes for God, for if you define God as a "being" for which no greater being can be conceived, you must first prove that the given definition is correct, and God is in fact a being, i.e. existing. The argument only corroborates the existence of whatever is being described. If the first premise is true, and God is in fact a being, then all the other premises and conclusions are not only logically coherent and true, but they are a logical necessity. If the first premise fails, then obviously, the entire argument falters.

I would ask anyone to point out where my logic is wrong or to refine/recreate their own version of Anselm's Ontological Argument to resolve this conundrum. I thank anybody for their contributions on the subject.

I don't know if my response will help you resolve your doubts as a Christian. But at least it will help you understand why some believe in God and others in unicorns.

According to Michael Shermer the founder of Skeptic magazine: "We are hardwired to believe in God just as we are hardwired to believe in supernatural beings (unicorns). It is in our DNA."

I'd say Shermer has blindly tossed out a load of bs that he hopes sounds almost right. I don't know anyone that believes in unicorns, fairies, Medussa, the Kraken, etc. Must be a bit more to it than that. Like basic mathematics, infinity laws, and the physical, philosophical, and mathematical impossibility of Atheism even according to its own regulatory processes used to defend its illogical self.

Why belief in God is Innate
http://www.wsj.com...

Nuttin did it...
Michael Shermer was a born again Christian fundamentalist and even taught seminary theology before he became a Skeptic. He seems happier as a Skeptic. Maybe you have stayed stuck on stupid for too long and don't see the need to change.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 8:04:05 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/17/2016 7:50:33 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 5/17/2016 7:19:20 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 5/17/2016 7:11:48 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 5/17/2016 4:23:19 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 5/17/2016 4:16:15 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 5/17/2016 1:59:26 PM, Legendary_Houp wrote:
I thought this would be a good place to express some of the doubts I've been having as a Christian to the arguments generally presented in favor of a God, and to see if anyone has an answer to them. I have never had these questions amply answered or even really discussed, unless I missed them online somewhere. Anyways, here is but one of them.

Questions on the Ontological Argument

This has never been quite convincing to me because it relies on craft and wit with words to prove its case and not really evidence. Here it is for those of you who may not know.

By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
God exists in the mind as an idea.
Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality

Forgive me and correct me for any faulty logic, but I believe I can use the same argument to prove the existence of unicorns. For instance, a unicorn can be defined as a breed of horse for which no greater breed of horse can be imagined. Following the same logic, unicorns necessarily exist in reality. But this seems absurd as we have seen no evidence that unicorns exist at all, let alone that they are necessary beings.

I anticipate that one could object to my argument, "But Chris, the error lies in your definition of a unicorn. It assumes that a unicorn is a breed of horse. We have never seen a unicorn ourselves and cannot determine if it is in fact a breed of horse. If the unicorn's existence has been disproven by other evidence, then it cannot be a breed of horse since it does not exist. Even if it did exist, there is no reliable evidence to assume it is a breed of horse."

To that I say, precisely. It seems as if the Ontological Argument is in itself not proof of the existence of unicorns, but once unicorns are proven to have existed, the conclusions presented by the argument are a logical necessity. The same goes for God, for if you define God as a "being" for which no greater being can be conceived, you must first prove that the given definition is correct, and God is in fact a being, i.e. existing. The argument only corroborates the existence of whatever is being described. If the first premise is true, and God is in fact a being, then all the other premises and conclusions are not only logically coherent and true, but they are a logical necessity. If the first premise fails, then obviously, the entire argument falters.

I would ask anyone to point out where my logic is wrong or to refine/recreate their own version of Anselm's Ontological Argument to resolve this conundrum. I thank anybody for their contributions on the subject.

I don't know if my response will help you resolve your doubts as a Christian. But at least it will help you understand why some believe in God and others in unicorns.

According to Michael Shermer the founder of Skeptic magazine: "We are hardwired to believe in God just as we are hardwired to believe in supernatural beings (unicorns). It is in our DNA."

I'd say Shermer has blindly tossed out a load of bs that he hopes sounds almost right. I don't know anyone that believes in unicorns, fairies, Medussa, the Kraken, etc. Must be a bit more to it than that. Like basic mathematics, infinity laws, and the physical, philosophical, and mathematical impossibility of Atheism even according to its own regulatory processes used to defend its illogical self.

Why belief in God is Innate
http://www.wsj.com...

Nuttin did it...
Michael Shermer was a born again Christian fundamentalist and even taught seminary theology before he became a Skeptic. He seems happier as a Skeptic. Maybe you have stayed stuck on stupid for too long and don't see the need to change.

Actually, I'm familiar with many different concepts, genres, and have the comprehensive ability to understand more complex thoughts.

If you look at the equations used to describe the sequence and construct of our universe you find it is synonymous with binary code, bits of 1's and 0's in a particular and consistant order. Example? With super symmetry: Hammin's self error correcting binary code. This is a part of the logic used to construct string theory and is in agreement mathematically with Relativity and the space time continuim. Within this understanding we see an obvious pattern only able to be constructed by a conscious intelligence. It's not semantics. It's simply fact. Atheists are generally smart, but typically not extremely smart. This is why they aren't able to perceive reality. They simply cannot follow or do not understand how reality actually is at the subatomic and molecular level. They are leaning on their own understanding. If that understanding is not up to a certain level of comprehensive ability, all explanations zip right over their heads. They typically are not certain professions because the atheist brain does not work in a fashion compatable with understanding and participating in those fields. This is why the highest IQ's on Earth are theists. They have a higher ability to see patterns, think creatively, and understand deeper concepts.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 8:07:11 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/17/2016 6:21:58 PM, bonsai wrote:
At 5/17/2016 6:14:31 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/17/2016 1:59:26 PM, Legendary_Houp wrote:
Forgive me and correct me for any faulty logic, but I believe I can use the same argument to prove the existence of unicorns. For instance, a unicorn can be defined as a breed of horse for which no greater breed of horse can be imagined.

No, a unicorn cannot be defined as a horse of which no greater breed of horse can be imagined. God, by definition, is greater than everything. A unicorn, by definition is just an animal, maybe a magical animal, but not greater than anything that can be imagined.

If you're going to meditate on doubt, you might as well save some time and say goodbye to God. : :

It's impossible to say no to something you've never known. This person has never heard the voice of God so without that, everything is left up to his or her subjective experiences which can't be trusted for the truth.

Thanks for your insights, bulpoof.
bonsai
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 8:12:12 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/17/2016 8:07:11 PM, desmac wrote:
At 5/17/2016 6:21:58 PM, bonsai wrote:
At 5/17/2016 6:14:31 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/17/2016 1:59:26 PM, Legendary_Houp wrote:
Forgive me and correct me for any faulty logic, but I believe I can use the same argument to prove the existence of unicorns. For instance, a unicorn can be defined as a breed of horse for which no greater breed of horse can be imagined.

No, a unicorn cannot be defined as a horse of which no greater breed of horse can be imagined. God, by definition, is greater than everything. A unicorn, by definition is just an animal, maybe a magical animal, but not greater than anything that can be imagined.

If you're going to meditate on doubt, you might as well save some time and say goodbye to God. : :

It's impossible to say no to something you've never known. This person has never heard the voice of God so without that, everything is left up to his or her subjective experiences which can't be trusted for the truth.

Thanks for your insights, bulpoof.: :

My forum name is now bonsai but you're welcome for thanking me for that insight which comes from the voice of God.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 8:18:32 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/17/2016 8:12:12 PM, bonsai wrote:
At 5/17/2016 8:07:11 PM, desmac wrote:
At 5/17/2016 6:21:58 PM, bonsai wrote:
At 5/17/2016 6:14:31 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/17/2016 1:59:26 PM, Legendary_Houp wrote:
Forgive me and correct me for any faulty logic, but I believe I can use the same argument to prove the existence of unicorns. For instance, a unicorn can be defined as a breed of horse for which no greater breed of horse can be imagined.

No, a unicorn cannot be defined as a horse of which no greater breed of horse can be imagined. God, by definition, is greater than everything. A unicorn, by definition is just an animal, maybe a magical animal, but not greater than anything that can be imagined.

If you're going to meditate on doubt, you might as well save some time and say goodbye to God. : :

It's impossible to say no to something you've never known. This person has never heard the voice of God so without that, everything is left up to his or her subjective experiences which can't be trusted for the truth.

Thanks for your insights, bulpoof.: :

My forum name is now bonsai but you're welcome for thanking me for that insight which comes from the voice of God.

Whatever, Brad.
bonsai
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 8:25:31 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/17/2016 8:18:32 PM, desmac wrote:
At 5/17/2016 8:12:12 PM, bonsai wrote:
At 5/17/2016 8:07:11 PM, desmac wrote:
At 5/17/2016 6:21:58 PM, bonsai wrote:
At 5/17/2016 6:14:31 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/17/2016 1:59:26 PM, Legendary_Houp wrote:
Forgive me and correct me for any faulty logic, but I believe I can use the same argument to prove the existence of unicorns. For instance, a unicorn can be defined as a breed of horse for which no greater breed of horse can be imagined.

No, a unicorn cannot be defined as a horse of which no greater breed of horse can be imagined. God, by definition, is greater than everything. A unicorn, by definition is just an animal, maybe a magical animal, but not greater than anything that can be imagined.

If you're going to meditate on doubt, you might as well save some time and say goodbye to God. : :

It's impossible to say no to something you've never known. This person has never heard the voice of God so without that, everything is left up to his or her subjective experiences which can't be trusted for the truth.

Thanks for your insights, bulpoof.: :

My forum name is now bonsai but you're welcome for thanking me for that insight which comes from the voice of God.

Whatever, Brad. : :

Belief is a powerful thing that God's people get while experiencing the visible world that they believe is real.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 8:27:24 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/17/2016 8:25:31 PM, bonsai wrote:
At 5/17/2016 8:18:32 PM, desmac wrote:
At 5/17/2016 8:12:12 PM, bonsai wrote:
At 5/17/2016 8:07:11 PM, desmac wrote:
At 5/17/2016 6:21:58 PM, bonsai wrote:
At 5/17/2016 6:14:31 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/17/2016 1:59:26 PM, Legendary_Houp wrote:
Forgive me and correct me for any faulty logic, but I believe I can use the same argument to prove the existence of unicorns. For instance, a unicorn can be defined as a breed of horse for which no greater breed of horse can be imagined.

No, a unicorn cannot be defined as a horse of which no greater breed of horse can be imagined. God, by definition, is greater than everything. A unicorn, by definition is just an animal, maybe a magical animal, but not greater than anything that can be imagined.

If you're going to meditate on doubt, you might as well save some time and say goodbye to God. : :

It's impossible to say no to something you've never known. This person has never heard the voice of God so without that, everything is left up to his or her subjective experiences which can't be trusted for the truth.

Thanks for your insights, bulpoof.: :

My forum name is now bonsai but you're welcome for thanking me for that insight which comes from the voice of God.

Whatever, Brad. : :

Belief is a powerful thing that God's people get while experiencing the visible world that they believe is real.

If that is what the voices in your head tell you.
bonsai
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 8:29:26 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/17/2016 8:27:24 PM, desmac wrote:
At 5/17/2016 8:25:31 PM, bonsai wrote:
At 5/17/2016 8:18:32 PM, desmac wrote:
At 5/17/2016 8:12:12 PM, bonsai wrote:
At 5/17/2016 8:07:11 PM, desmac wrote:
At 5/17/2016 6:21:58 PM, bonsai wrote:
At 5/17/2016 6:14:31 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/17/2016 1:59:26 PM, Legendary_Houp wrote:
Forgive me and correct me for any faulty logic, but I believe I can use the same argument to prove the existence of unicorns. For instance, a unicorn can be defined as a breed of horse for which no greater breed of horse can be imagined.

No, a unicorn cannot be defined as a horse of which no greater breed of horse can be imagined. God, by definition, is greater than everything. A unicorn, by definition is just an animal, maybe a magical animal, but not greater than anything that can be imagined.

If you're going to meditate on doubt, you might as well save some time and say goodbye to God. : :

It's impossible to say no to something you've never known. This person has never heard the voice of God so without that, everything is left up to his or her subjective experiences which can't be trusted for the truth.

Thanks for your insights, bulpoof.: :

My forum name is now bonsai but you're welcome for thanking me for that insight which comes from the voice of God.

Whatever, Brad. : :

Belief is a powerful thing that God's people get while experiencing the visible world that they believe is real.

If that is what the voices in your head tell you. : :

The thoughts that you experience in your mind came from the same exact source that I get my thoughts. The program that we're in contains enough information to last forever.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 8:44:36 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/17/2016 8:29:26 PM, bonsai wrote:
At 5/17/2016 8:27:24 PM, desmac wrote:
At 5/17/2016 8:25:31 PM, bonsai wrote:
At 5/17/2016 8:18:32 PM, desmac wrote:
At 5/17/2016 8:12:12 PM, bonsai wrote:
At 5/17/2016 8:07:11 PM, desmac wrote:
At 5/17/2016 6:21:58 PM, bonsai wrote:
At 5/17/2016 6:14:31 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/17/2016 1:59:26 PM, Legendary_Houp wrote:
Forgive me and correct me for any faulty logic, but I believe I can use the same argument to prove the existence of unicorns. For instance, a unicorn can be defined as a breed of horse for which no greater breed of horse can be imagined.

No, a unicorn cannot be defined as a horse of which no greater breed of horse can be imagined. God, by definition, is greater than everything. A unicorn, by definition is just an animal, maybe a magical animal, but not greater than anything that can be imagined.

If you're going to meditate on doubt, you might as well save some time and say goodbye to God. : :

It's impossible to say no to something you've never known. This person has never heard the voice of God so without that, everything is left up to his or her subjective experiences which can't be trusted for the truth.

Thanks for your insights, bulpoof.: :

My forum name is now bonsai but you're welcome for thanking me for that insight which comes from the voice of God.

Whatever, Brad. : :

Belief is a powerful thing that God's people get while experiencing the visible world that they believe is real.

If that is what the voices in your head tell you. : :

The thoughts that you experience in your mind came from the same exact source that I get my thoughts. The program that we're in contains enough information to last forever.

If that's what the folks in your head tell you, then fine.
bonsai
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 8:47:24 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/17/2016 8:44:36 PM, desmac wrote:
At 5/17/2016 8:29:26 PM, bonsai wrote:
At 5/17/2016 8:27:24 PM, desmac wrote:
At 5/17/2016 8:25:31 PM, bonsai wrote:
At 5/17/2016 8:18:32 PM, desmac wrote:
At 5/17/2016 8:12:12 PM, bonsai wrote:
At 5/17/2016 8:07:11 PM, desmac wrote:
At 5/17/2016 6:21:58 PM, bonsai wrote:
At 5/17/2016 6:14:31 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/17/2016 1:59:26 PM, Legendary_Houp wrote:
Forgive me and correct me for any faulty logic, but I believe I can use the same argument to prove the existence of unicorns. For instance, a unicorn can be defined as a breed of horse for which no greater breed of horse can be imagined.

No, a unicorn cannot be defined as a horse of which no greater breed of horse can be imagined. God, by definition, is greater than everything. A unicorn, by definition is just an animal, maybe a magical animal, but not greater than anything that can be imagined.

If you're going to meditate on doubt, you might as well save some time and say goodbye to God. : :

It's impossible to say no to something you've never known. This person has never heard the voice of God so without that, everything is left up to his or her subjective experiences which can't be trusted for the truth.

Thanks for your insights, bulpoof.: :

My forum name is now bonsai but you're welcome for thanking me for that insight which comes from the voice of God.

Whatever, Brad. : :

Belief is a powerful thing that God's people get while experiencing the visible world that they believe is real.

If that is what the voices in your head tell you. : :

The thoughts that you experience in your mind came from the same exact source that I get my thoughts. The program that we're in contains enough information to last forever.

If that's what the folks in your head tell you, then fine. : :

You witness folks in your mind, too.
Legendary_Houp
Posts: 56
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 8:53:16 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Since I don't have the time to reply to each one of these responses individually, I would just like to thank everyone who has put in their input so far, each post gave me further insight into the argument, regardless of whether it resolves any of my doubts.

Doubts are such scary things, though. Exciting as they are, they always bring a trail of fear behind them.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 9:38:19 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/17/2016 1:59:26 PM, Legendary_Houp wrote:
I thought this would be a good place to express some of the doubts I've been having as a Christian to the arguments generally presented in favor of a God, and to see if anyone has an answer to them. I have never had these questions amply answered or even really discussed, unless I missed them online somewhere. Anyways, here is but one of them.

Questions on the Ontological Argument

This has never been quite convincing to me because it relies on craft and wit with words to prove its case and not really evidence. Here it is for those of you who may not know.

By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
God exists in the mind as an idea.
Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality

Forgive me and correct me for any faulty logic, but I believe I can use the same argument to prove the existence of unicorns. For instance, a unicorn can be defined as a breed of horse for which no greater breed of horse can be imagined. Following the same logic, unicorns necessarily exist in reality. But this seems absurd as we have seen no evidence that unicorns exist at all, let alone that they are necessary beings.

I anticipate that one could object to my argument, "But Chris, the error lies in your definition of a unicorn. It assumes that a unicorn is a breed of horse. We have never seen a unicorn ourselves and cannot determine if it is in fact a breed of horse. If the unicorn's existence has been disproven by other evidence, then it cannot be a breed of horse since it does not exist. Even if it did exist, there is no reliable evidence to assume it is a breed of horse."

To that I say, precisely. It seems as if the Ontological Argument is in itself not proof of the existence of unicorns, but once unicorns are proven to have existed, the conclusions presented by the argument are a logical necessity. The same goes for God, for if you define God as a "being" for which no greater being can be conceived, you must first prove that the given definition is correct, and God is in fact a being, i.e. existing. The argument only corroborates the existence of whatever is being described. If the first premise is true, and God is in fact a being, then all the other premises and conclusions are not only logically coherent and true, but they are a logical necessity. If the first premise fails, then obviously, the entire argument falters.

I would ask anyone to point out where my logic is wrong or to refine/recreate their own version of Anselm's Ontological Argument to resolve this conundrum. I thank anybody for their contributions on the subject.

I have never understood why anyone thinks the Ontological Argument makes sense. It completely defies common sense. Human imagination is not evidence for a universal reality, nor has it ever been.