The ontological argument (not debating just showing a understanding of it)

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The premise has an explanation, long and short ones, but the shortest version is conceptually you can't divorce necessity and hence existence from the concept.

Of course you can. The fact that we can talk about what the implications would be if God didn't exist shows that we can divorce the concept of God from necessary existence.

It's not about sneaking, if God is the Necessary being which he is and only he is, then that attribute/description proves he exists.

Of course it's sneaking. "Necessary" in this context just means "must exist." Arguing that God exists because he's "necessary" is effectively saying "God must exist, therefore God must exist." You're begging the question; you've just got a lot of extra hand-waving going on to distract from it.

What makes us know God is the Necessary being, this has been already shown, the ontological arguments of the past due it by greatest and perfection, and I do it, by sheer size.

Which is nonsense, of course.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

God is labeled the "Necessary Being" for a reason, and that is to avoid having to demonstrate it exists by declaring "it's necessary". It becomes a premise without being factual, and also proves itself true by the conclusion (which doesn't actually happen).

I always love watching people "define things into existence."

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The premise has an explanation, long and short ones, but the shortest version is conceptually you can't divorce necessity and hence existence from the concept. It's not about sneaking, if God is the Necessary being which he is and only he is, then that attribute/description proves he exists.

What makes us know God is the Necessary being, this has been already shown, the ontological arguments of the past due it by greatest and perfection, and I do it, by sheer size.

Look at what you are doing!

"If God is the Necessary being." Who said any being is necessary, let alone whether there should be only one? You are just assuming that there must be such a thing, and then presuming to make that an axiom. But it is not.

"Which he and only he is." And having made it an axiom, you just conferred -- with zero justification -- your axiom on the god you believe in.

All of this is simply invention. You, yourself, (following the examples of Anselm and Descartes), are simply attempting to reify what you imagine.

 

[Joshua Pryce]

And this goes well with Theism, because, we believe we are looking at the real being and connected to it, and that God is not a mere concept.

Connection to the one being is more than just a saying and a belief system. Its self denial. Self denial isnt just living morally right, but sacrificial lifestyle and generalised love and good intentions for others. Do you believe that?

 

[Link]

Connection to the one being is more than just a saying and a belief system. Its self denial. Self denial isnt just living morally right, but sacrificial lifestyle and generalised love and good intentions for others. Do you believe that?

I agree with you.