Another version of ontological argument.

[Link]

A necessary being is a possible coherent concept.
Necessary if conceived as possible, would mean it also exists (this comes with the definition).
Therefore a Necessary being exists.
If a Necessary being lacked any existence amount in any form of existence or any existence can exist without it, it would not be a Necessary being.
Absolute life by definition can only be one being since it is absolute comprehensive (and nothing can be beside or can it miss or exist without it).
Therefore there is only one Necessary being possible and it's absolute in terms of magnitude of life.
Therefore there is one and only one Necessary being in actuality and it's God (absolute life).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A necessary being is a possible coherent concept.
Necessary if conceived as possible, would mean it also exists (this comes with the definition).
Therefore a Necessary being exists.
If a Necessary being lacked any existence amount in any form of existence or any existence can exist without it, it would not be a Necessary being.
Absolute life by definition can only be one being since it is absolute comprehensive (and nothing can be beside or can it miss or exist without it).
Therefore there is only one Necessary being possible and it's absolute in terms of magnitude of life.
Therefore there is one and only one Necessary being in actuality and it's God (absolute life).

You are playing with words in your brain.

 

[Redemptionsong]

A necessary being is a possible coherent concept.
Necessary if conceived as possible, would mean it also exists (this comes with the definition).
Therefore a Necessary being exists.
If a Necessary being lacked any existence amount in any form of existence or any existence can exist without it, it would not be a Necessary being.
Absolute life by definition can only be one being since it is absolute comprehensive (and nothing can be beside or can it miss or exist without it).
Therefore there is only one Necessary being possible and it's absolute in terms of magnitude of life.
Therefore there is one and only one Necessary being in actuality and it's God (absolute life).

I agree that God must be One, and that God must be absolute in majesty.

If the physical universe, which we observe, exists within an infinite space, does this mean that the universe exists within the omnipresence of God? Is the observable universe a 'womb' within an invisible God?

The Bible begins with an acceptance of God's existence. Things finite and visible must, in origin, derive their existence from an infinite and invisible Creator.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I agree that God is must be One, and that God must be absolute in majesty.

If the physical universe, which we observe, exists within an infinite space, does this mean that the universe exists within the omnipresence of God? Is the observable universe a 'womb' within an invisible God?

The Bible begins with an acceptance of God's existence. Things finite and visible must, in origin, derive their existence from an infinite and invisible Creator.

Yeah, and you can do that differently, because it implies a subjective choice. That is the problem with all the axiomatic assumption. We assume it is true, therefore it is in fact true.

So here it is as example, which is absurd, but shows how it works. I assume that you are evil, therefore you are in fact evil. Get it now?

 

[Altfish]

A necessary being is a possible coherent concept.
Necessary if conceived as possible, would mean it also exists (this comes with the definition).
Therefore a Necessary being exists.
If a Necessary being lacked any existence amount in any form of existence or any existence can exist without it, it would not be a Necessary being.
Absolute life by definition can only be one being since it is absolute comprehensive (and nothing can be beside or can it miss or exist without it).
Therefore there is only one Necessary being possible and it's absolute in terms of magnitude of life.
Therefore there is one and only one Necessary being in actuality and it's God (absolute life).

This version of words fails just as badly as the previous one.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Yeah, and you can do that differently, because it implies a subjective choice. That is the problem with all the axiomatic assumption. We assume it is true, therefore it is in fact true.

So here it is as example, which is absurd, but shows how it works. I assume that you are evil, therefore you are in fact evil. Get it now?

The Bible is my evidence for God.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The Bible is my evidence for God.

The Berble is my evidence for Gerd. If you don't believe in Gerd, or The Berble, that's you choice - just know that in making that choice, you are doomed to suffer for all of eternity in Herll. Gerd says so. In The Berble.

 

[AlexanderG]

A necessary being is a possible coherent concept.
Necessary if conceived as possible, would mean it also exists (this comes with the definition).
Therefore a Necessary being exists.
If a Necessary being lacked any existence amount in any form of existence or any existence can exist without it, it would not be a Necessary being.
Absolute life by definition can only be one being since it is absolute comprehensive (and nothing can be beside or can it miss or exist without it).
Therefore there is only one Necessary being possible and it's absolute in terms of magnitude of life.
Therefore there is one and only one Necessary being in actuality and it's God (absolute life).

Interesting logic. Let's play with it:

1. I can conceive of a super-maximally great quindle stone, and it's possibly coherent that it exists, which means it exists.
2. Super-maximally great is defined as:

• mindless,
• having the power and nature to create our universe exactly as we see it,
• having the power and nature to immediately annihilate any gods that exist or attempt to exist,
• is absolutely comprehensive, and
• necessarily exists eternally.

3. There is only one necessary being in actuality, and it's the quindle stone.
4. Therefore no gods exist.

See? I can play with abstract definitions too. You can argue that super-maximal would be defined as having the traits of the god you were raised to believe in, but that's because you have a parody, pseudo-definition of that term which is incoherent. By definition, your god can't exist because the quindle stone would destroy your god by definition. See?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The Bible is my evidence for God.

Yeah, as long as you accept that as subjective, then okay.

 

[AlexanderG]

The Bible is my evidence for God.

The Bible is the document that claims your god exists. A claim cannot be used as evidence for itself being true, because that is circular reasoning and known to be a completely unreliable method to discover true facts about reality.

I might as well write on a piece of paper that "The Christian god does not exist," title it "The Schmible" at the top of the paper, and then tell you that the Schmible is my evidence that the Christian god does not exist. That is how ridiculous your reasoning sounds to everyone who doesn't already share your baseless presupposition.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The Berble is my evidence for Gerd. If you don't believe in Gerd, or The Berble, that's you choice - just know that in making that choice, you are doomed to suffer for all of eternity in Herll. Gerd says so. In The Berble.

The claim to being God's word comes initially from the prophets who reveal the words. If they happen to be correct, and the invisible Creator is speaking to mankind, then how can one confirm without first reading and studying the word carefully?

Have you done this? For to mock a book that makes the claim to being God's inerrant word, is sheer foolishness to me. But, then, God said the same thing of atheists before I even considered the matter [Psalm 14:1]!

 

[Redemptionsong]

Yeah, as long as you accept that as subjective, then okay.

I understand that my knowledge is gathered subjectively, and that I am ignorant of many things.

God, by definition, knows everything, and his omniscience makes his word objective. Of course, I cannot prove this subjectively, so I must live by faith. That way, I find that all that God promises comes true.

Now, for the atheist, the mocker of God, all that they have to do is prove that God's word is corrupt. In so doing, the atheist proves that the author of those words is corrupt.

There you go. Your challenge is to prove the Bible to be corrupt, and not of God. You can be helped by knowing that God does not lie, or make promises that do not come to fruition.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I understand that my knowledge is gathered subjectively, and that I am ignorant of many things.

God, by definition, knows everything, and his omniscience makes his word objective. Of course, I cannot prove this subjectively, so I must live by faith. That way, I find that all that God promises comes true.

Now, for the atheist, the mocker of God, all that they have to do is prove that God's word is corrupt. In so doing, the atheist proves that the author of those words is corrupt.

There you go. Your challenge is to prove the Bible to be corrupt, and not of God. You can be helped by knowing that God does not lie, or make promises that do not come to fruition.

Well, I don't do that as an atheist. I just believe differently and have faith in something else.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The Bible is the document that claims your god exists. A claim cannot be used as evidence for itself being true, because that is circular reasoning and known to be a completely unreliable method to discover true facts about reality.

I might as well write on a piece of paper that "The Christian god does not exist," title it "The Schmible" at the top of the paper, and then tell you that the Schmible is my evidence that the Christian god does not exist. That is how ridiculous your reasoning sounds to everyone who doesn't already share your baseless presupposition.

As I have just said in response to Mikkel, the words of the Bible speak for themselves. The Bible is not a book of philosophy, arguing that God exists. It starts with the words, 'In the beginning God created the heaven and earth'. It does not question the existence of God. God is.

The question that should occupy the atheist is whether or not the prophecies found in the Bible are coherent and consistent. Is there a God revealing a plan for mankind? Why would God wish to reveal such knowledge to men? What is God wishing to achieve by intervening in human affairs?

Simply dismissing the Bible, without considering the possible implications, is just an act of arrogance.

 

[Link]

Interesting logic. Let's play with it:

1. I can conceive of a super-maximally great quindle stone, and it's possibly coherent that it exists, which means it exists.
2. Super-maximally great is defined as:

• mindless,
• having the power and nature to create our universe exactly as we see it,
• having the power and nature to immediately annihilate any gods that exist or attempt to exist,
• is absolutely comprehensive, and
• necessarily exists eternally.

3. There is only one necessary being in actuality, and it's the quindle stone.
4. Therefore no gods exist.

See? I can play with abstract definitions too. You can argue that super-maximal would be defined as having the traits of the god you were raised to believe in, but that's because you have a parody, pseudo-definition of that term which is incoherent. By definition, your god can't exist because the quindle stone would destroy your god by definition. See?

Absolute life cannot be a stone though. A stone can't contain all life.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Well, I don't do that as an atheist. I just believe differently and have faith in something else.

So, you're an atheist without looking at the evidence? That's a bit like saying you hate playing football, even though you've never played it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So, you're an atheist without looking at the evidence? That's a bit like saying you hate playing football, even though you've never played it.

Could you please stop treating atheists as all the same?
I am a skeptic and I don't believe in evidence as some atheists do.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Could you please stop treating atheists as all the same?
I am a skeptic and I don't believe in evidence as some atheists do.

If you don't believe in evidence, how can you know anything?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you don't believe in evidence, how can you know anything?

´
I am a skeptic. I don't believe in knowledge.

 

[England my lionheart]

As I have just said in response to Mikkel, the words of the Bible speak for themselves. The Bible is not a book of philosophy, arguing that God exists. It starts with the words, 'In the beginning God created the heaven and earth'. It does not question the existence of God. God is.

The question that should occupy the atheist is whether or not the prophecies found in the Bible are coherent and consistent. Is there a God revealing a plan for mankind? Why would God wish to reveal such knowledge to men? What is God wishing to achieve by intervening in human affairs?

Simply dismissing the Bible, without considering the possible implications, is just an act of arrogance.

Ok,which prophesies from the bible are coherent and consistent?,are there any?.