Another version of ontological argument.

[mikkel_the_dane]

Mikkel. A rationalist is a position. Thats part of your epistemology. Its not just you are being rational or irrational. Its the opposite of empiricism. ITs your theory of knowledge.

Ahh, yes. In that sense I am a rationalist. In some others I am not.

 

[ratiocinator]

Not understanding what?

Meta-misunderstanding is also fine.

 

[firedragon]

Meta-misunderstanding is also fine.

About what?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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).

In other words....

Arbitrarily define whatever it is you want to be real as "necessary".
Make the silly argument that "necessary" means "necessary".
Then conclude that the thing you want to be real and arbitrarily defined as "necessary" is therefor real.



Do you want some mayonaise with that word salad?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

 

[ratiocinator]

About what?

What do you think you've misunderstood?

 

[Link]

Thats actually not an ontological argument.

It uses the definition of Necessary being to prove what the Necessary being is and that it exists. Ontological argument means you use the definition of the thing to prove it exists.

 

[Link]

Well, define it then. Once you try you will see, once again, that you are begging the question.

Ciao

- viole

I know it looks that why because it's impossible by definition that a Necessary existence doesn't exist if it's coherent which it is.

 

[firedragon]

What do you think you've misunderstood?

I dont know. You never told me what it is.

 

[viole]

I know it looks that why because it's impossible by definition that a Necessary existence doesn't exist if it's coherent which it is.

Well, if I define a necessary being as existing in all possible worlds, then I could infer that it exists in our world too, since our would is possible by being actual. By definition.

Is that the core of your proof?

Ciao

- viole

 

[firedragon]

It uses the definition of Necessary being to prove what the Necessary being is and that it exists. Ontological argument means you use the definition of the thing to prove it exists.

I understand the ontological argument. But being a necessary being is relative, though it is the ontology. But I get what you are saying.

 

[Link]

Well, if I define a necessary being as existing in all possible worlds, then I could infer that it exists in our world too. By definition.

Is that the core of your proof?

Ciao

- viole

A Necessary being is defined as that, that's what it means. And there is in fact nothing incoherent about it.

 

[viole]

A Necessary being is defined as that, that's what it means. And there is in fact nothing incoherent about it.

OK, now I claim there are not necessary beings. That is coherent, too.

Now what?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Link]

OK, now I claim there are not necessary beings. That is coherent, too.

Now what?

Ciao

- viole

Claims are claims, by definition, a Necessary being exists if it's not impossible/incoherent.

 

[viole]

Claims are claims, by definition, a Necessary being exists if it's not impossible/incoherent.

Sure, but if claims are claims, and my claim that there is no necessary being is as coherent as your claim that there is, what is it exactly you are trying to prove here?

You said you are studying in college? Let me guess: nothing related to hard science and logic, right?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Link]

Sure, but if claims are claims, and my claim that there is no necessary being is as coherent as your claim that there is, what is it exactly you are trying to prove here?

Ciao

- viole

Claiming a necessary being won't bring it to existence, recognizing a Necessary being has to exist by definition of it being necessary, makes you know it does. There is in fact nothing incoherent about absolute existence, and in fact, imagining non-existence to any degree, is what is irrational.

There's a difference between claiming bringing into existence the claim and recognizing God exists by virtue of proof of himself (mainly, his greatness, or perfection or sheer size proves it exists when conceived).

A necessary being is possible.
What is possibly necessarily, is necessarily.
Therefore a necessary being exists.

 

[Link]

Think about it this way. You can claim you don't exist, but you can't actually believe you don't exist when you conceive of yourself. The ontological argument is saying same is true of God because of his necessary trait. It's simple and deep. Can write pages about it or keep it simple.

 

[Link]

You said you are studying in college? Let me guess: nothing related to hard science and logic, right?

Studying Comp Sci, and took some logic and philosophy classes.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

There happen to be very few books that claim to be God's plan for mankind. Many holy writings are no more than collections of inspired poetry, human wisdom, and disparate tales of gods. The Bible, with a history of Israel embedded in its text, is quite different from all other holy books.

The nearest claim comes from the Qur'an. The problem that arises when the two books are compared is that the Qur'an relies on the Bible for it's authority. IMO, the claims made by Muhammad do not stand up to scrutiny.

Many parts of The Bible do not stand up to scrutiny either. Easy examples are God realizing the Hebrews had it tough as slaves of the Egyptians, coming to their aid to free them from slavery, and then a few paragraphs later (literally) The Bible describes that the Hebrews themselves kept slaves. All hunky dory apparently. Or wait... no... that's a double standard if I have ever seen one. The 10 commandments are several parts junk. Jesus basically said nearly nothing of import in "The Beatitudes" at the Sermon on the Mount - just fluff and nonsense almost without directly calling on anything of substance. These things are directly put forth in The Bible as if they are profound and very serious matters. It is just plain strange.

The Bible points to one person as the hub around which history revolves, IMO. It points to Jesus Christ as the Saviour.

Let's remember you only a paragraph ago criticizing the Qur'an for "[relying] on The Bible for its authority". Christianty does the same thing... relying on Jewish texts. Jesus is YOUR add-on, exactly like Muhammad is the Islamic add-on. I see no difference in how these things played out. None.

Does knowledge of Jesus result in change? Of course, because to place faith in Christ means a change of personal direction. The scriptures say that a believer is 'new creation'. The old man is dead, and the new man is living for Christ.

The only thing I feel you have going for you here is that a person who markedly decides to turn their life in a different direction can do just that, and that it helps to have an "icon" to look to for inspiration. It also apparently helps to believe that someone is watching your every move. Otherwise, you can't literally tie any change that has happened in your life directly to the actual Jesus. You can't. The best you can do is tie the change to the ideas you have in your head about Jesus. That's all.

Another reason for accepting the Bible is the reality of the Holy Spirit.

Please demonstrate this reality. And believe me - it is gong to have to be something more than people speaking gibberish, people bowing their heads down on dirty carpet, people trying to push one another over during healing-prayer sessions, people falling on the ground and going into apoplectic fits, etc. That's just people being wacky. Demonstrate to me the actual "Holy Spirit." Not the supposed effects on people who can't be trusted to even understand even the basest sort of a standard of evidence.

When the Gospel is preached with power, it brings the reality of God into the present. This happened to me when I was instantly healed following prayer in the name of Jesus.

Can you tell me what upon you was healed? Was it a visible malady? Some wound that miraculously sealed up and disappeared? I've heard these types of things before, of course. You know, I was once in a congregation where whispers were going around that a person's missing finger grew back the night before at a prayer meeting they had held. This was basically all the rage (in whispers) among the parishioners present that morning. Then, when the pastor got up to talk to the crowd, do you know who he brought forward to demonstrate the results of the miraculous feats of healing that had gone on the night before? An older woman, bent in half sideways, physically unable to stand straight. And do you know what was supposedly "healed" the night before? Her back. How the people around me were just eating this crap up I have no idea. It was plain the woman still had terrible problems with her back. If anything, the pastor should have been embarrassed to even claim that anything had been done in service to this woman by his "almighty" buddy in the sky. But no... belief trumps embarrassment, I have found. People are willing to do all sorts of things they should be patently ashamed of "in the name of God."

 

[viole]

Think about it this way. You can claim you don't exist, but you can't actually believe you don't exist when you conceive of yourself. The ontological argument is saying same is true of God because of his necessary trait. It's simple and deep. Can write pages about it or keep it simple.

Are you telling me I am a necessary being? If not, how can your analogy hold?

Ciao

- viole