PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
The ontological arguments don't work, and no amount of data can convince you to believe in a proposition with certainty.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Ontological Argument for God's existence
- Thread starter Call_of_the_Wild
- Start date
No argument there.The ontological arguments don't work, and no amount of data can convince you to believe in a proposition with certainty.
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
I said "sitting perfectly still for eternity". How did that statement corrolate with time?
Why would he cease to be maximally great? To be maximally great is not to be able to do things that are logically absurd. It is logically absurd to think that there could be change without time.
How does that follow???????????????
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
Actually we do. "Eternity" can either mean throughout time, or beyond time. Look it up.
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
I already do a good job of that myself, no help needed....unless you are...God
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
Because "if" it is possible for something to exist necessarily, it must exist.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Yes, if. So show that it is possible.
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
Um, Artie. I am quite aware of that; the only way I can "start" to count all preceding days is if there was a beginning point of reference to start from, which there was. If there was no beginning, this day couldn't even be reached, so there would be no point to start from in the first place.
Artie, if I told you to count BACKWARDS the equal number of days in the past that it took us to reach the present day, what number would you stop at??? Do you understand the question??
Right, there is nowhere to start counting from!!!! So if you can't go back to a "starting" day, how the heck can you "reach" a "present" day? If you can go foward to any present point, you should be able to go back to a past point if you you go back equal distance (thus, the question above). The reason why this is so absurd is because it CAN'T HAPPEN.
Artie, what are you talking about? If the past is infinite, that would mean that there was an INFINITE AMOUNT OF DAYS PRECEDING this present day. There is no way around that. For us to arrive at "today" would suggest that time has successfully traveled through an INFINITE amount of days in the past to reach today. But this is clearly illogical. To further prove how illogical this is....lets us an example;
Lets say I told you that an infinite amount of days from now, you will be a billionaire, and you proceed to wait. So answer this, if you will be a billionaire an infinite amount of days from now, will you ever become a billionaire? Yes or no? Let me answer the question for you, the answer is NO. That is because for every single day that past, there is still an infinite amount of days to go, so with ever passing day you are NOT GETTING ANY CLOSER TO REACHING INFINITY. It will never arrive. And that is exactly the kind of absurdity you will get with an infinite past.
I agree with you Artie. There is a finite distance away because time had a beginning. When you have a beginning point, it is easy to make reference to a second point because there is a finite distance between the two points. But if you have a point that never began, there ISN'T any beginning reference point. So if you don't have a beginning, then you can't have an end, because to have an end is to suggest that there was a BEGINNING POINT.
Guess what Artie, I agree again. You just said that something cant be a infinite distance away. So how on earth can you believe that the past is infinite?
So, time had a beginning. We agree, cool. Well, if time had a beginning, whatever created its beginning could not itself be in time. Find any dictionary and tell me what three letter word is only defined as something that is outside of time. I will wait.
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
God communicates with me through my mind.
It's built into the definitions of "still" and "eternity":
Still: not moving or making a sound
Definition of still in Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English)
See the term "moving"... i.e. change in location over time?
Eternity: infinite or unending time
Definition of eternity in Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English)
Because of what you said: that timeless existence is "greater" than temporal existence. A temporal God would be less great than a timeless God, and would therefore be less than maximally great.
You defined God as a "maximally great" being. By that definition, a being that is not maximally great is not God.
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
Falv, we are over 80 pages in to the thread. I am not saying it happened on page 2, I am saying that it happened over the course of getting in depth with the argument.
How is it circular? A being can only be maximally great if it exists necessarily. So yes, if God exist as a maximally great being, he is necessary.
By definition of what it would mean to be maximally great, yes. It doesn't have to be shown to be true, the point is, if it is even POSSIBLE for it to be true, it must be true. Big difference there, buddy.
Basically...yeah. I don't know where you get "logical twists" from there though.
Well, existence is something that one possesses. It is something that you have. But, whatever. That doesn't effect the argument. I exist, and you exist, and we exist regardless of whether or not we call our existence an "attribute" or whatever else name you want to call it. So if our existence is not effected by this, then why should God's?
Well, state your claim.
You already stated, for the record, that a necessary truth is a truth that cannot fail to be false. So if it is possible for something to be necessarily true, then it must be true, because for it to not be true would mean that it wasn't possible in the first place, because a necessary truth is a truth that cannot FAIL to be false. So if it is POSSIBLE for something to not fail to be false, then it must be true, because if it was false, it wouldn't be POSSIBLE for it to be truth. It cannot be both.
I already do a good job of that myself, no help needed....unless you are...God
You have mangled up this argument so badly only "God" could save it.
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
How do you know that it is not possible for God to exist right now in a cave in Japan?
Actually, in order to be logically consistent, you do. When you say "there is no god", that is making a claim of knowledge. How do you know there isn't a god in a cave in China, or Russia? Have you been to either. How do you know there isn't a God behind the sun, have you been there??? So how can you make such a claim and then pretend as if that is the end of it. No, that isn't the end of it. You have limited knowledge, and yet you claim that you are positive that God doesn't exist. That in itself is very illogical.
Right, I can't prove to you that the loch ness monster doesn't exist, so I will leave door open, maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. But I will not make the radical claim that he doesn't, especially since I know that I haven't explored any ocean, lake, river, pond, etc. Lets be real here. I can't prove to you that there isn't such a thing, but that gives me no reason to say that therefore there ISN'T such a thing, or there IS such a thing. I have to withhold judgment, which you are refusing to do.
Claims without evidence :beach: They just keep coming.
I raised the point with my first post in this thread:
Maybe you forgot because you still haven't really addressed the problem.
So... now that we've gotten the false claims about the character of your debate opponents out of the way, can we get down to the business of you actually explaining what "maximally great" entails and how you know that "maximal greatness" is possible?
As a bonus question, feel free to explain why we should consider necessary existence to be "greater" than contingent existence or non-existence.
As a bonus question, feel free to explain why we should consider necessary existence to be "greater" than contingent existence or non-existence.
crystalonyx
Well-Known Member
I did a quick search and I didn't see any previous threads on this argument, so this may be the first. This argument is used very little amongst Christians who defend the faith, and I see why, as it seems like very abstract reasoning lol. But despite this, I think it is a very convincing argument once you think about it. This argument makes a case that a God must exist based on there mere concept of what it means to be "God". The argument has a rich history and many versions, but I like the Alvin Plantaga's version of it, which I will use with my own little twist.
The argument is as follows;
1. God, by definition, is a maximally great being that exists necessarily. (By "great", it is meant that God has certain attributes as omnipotence, omniscience, ominpresence, and omnibenevolence).
2. It is possible for a maximally great being to exist in some possible world.
3. If it is possible for a maximally great being to exist in some world, it is possible for a maximally great being to exist in this world.
4. If it is possible for a maximally great being to exist in this world, then a maximally great being must exist in this world.
5. Therefore, God exists.
Explanation of #1: The word "great" here is used to define a "quality" of existence. Those attributes are "great making" qualities. So to have maximally great knowledge is to know EVERYTHING. To have a maximally great presence is to be EVERYWHERE at one time. To have maximally great power is to be able to do ANYTHING that is logically possible. And to be a maximally great benevolent person is to be the ultimate source for what it means to have a good moral character. In the first sentence of #1, God exists necessarily, meaning that if God exists, it is impossible for him NOT to have existed, and it is possible for him to FAIL to exist.
Explanation of #2: Simply means that we can imagine a world at which a maximally great being could exist. If such a being "could" exist, then its a least possible for it to exist.
Explanation of #3: If a maximally great being could exist in a world that we don't know about, then that same maximally great being would have to exist in THIS world. Because remember, to be a maximally great being is to be omnipresent, so if a maximally great being is present in another world, this same being would also have to be present in this world. If a maximally great being does not exist in this world, then this being was never maximally great, because if it was, there would be no limitations to where it could be present. So a maximally great being would have to exist in this world if it was possible that it could exist in another world.
Explanation of #4: We can all admit that it is at least possible for a maximally great being to exist in another possible world. So if it exists in another possible world, it would have to exist in this world. If it is possible for a maximally great being to exist in this world, then a maximally great being DOES exist in this world. Remember, the existence of a maximally great being would be a NECESSARY truth, meaning that it would be impossible for this being to NOT exist in ANY world. But it cant be impossible, because we already know that it IS possible for a maximally great being to exist in any possible world. As long as this is even POSSIBLE, it must be true, because all necessary truths MUST in fact be TRUE.
So therefore, God exists
It can be proven that an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent god cannot exist. All other gods are not worthy of worship, or consideration.
Alceste
Vagabond
Let me be more specific. I don't believe the word God means anything. I have never been able to get two people, even from the same religion, to agree on the exact nature of whatever it is they are trying to describe with the word God.
I also don't believe it is possible that, out of all the hundreds of thousands of deities human beings have believed in and trotted to describe with the word "God", your particular conception is the only one that actually exists. Even among Christians there is a huge diversity of opinion as to the nature of God. If one of them is correct, it's still highly unlikely that it happens to be yours.
If you want to know whether I think a specific God concept is possible, you must first describe it in great detail. Otherwise I am unable to tell you.
I've found only one attribute common to all the versions of "God" I've heard people say they believe in: God is an object of human worship.
This means that "God hiding in a cave in Japan", "God behind the sun" or any other version of God that nobody has ever seen is not the God that anybody's talking about when they say "God". If nobody's ever so much as thought about the possibility of a potential deity, then they sure has heck haven't worshipped it.
Last edited:
The ontological arguments don't work, and no amount of data can convince you to believe in a proposition with certainty.
What about the one making this proposition. And what about the proposition itself?