Logic dictates that there is a God!

[Snorri1234]

Believing in God requires no "leap of Faith". His existance can be ontologically proved.

You can't seriously be about to try the ontological argument?? Honestly?

Ontologically, as in using a priori reason.

I think heavycola knows what it means, nappy.

[Napoleon Ier]

Believing in God requires no "leap of Faith". His existance can be ontologically proved.

You can't seriously be about to try the ontological argument?? Honestly?

Ontologically, as in using a priori reason.

I think heavycola knows what it means, nappy.

Apparently not, he confused ontological reasoning with the argument labelled as "ontological". Not that I'm faulting him for it.

[heavycola]

Believing in God requires no "leap of Faith". His existance can be ontologically proved.

You can't seriously be about to try the ontological argument?? Honestly?

Ontologically, as in using a priori reason.

I think heavycola knows what it means, nappy.

Apparently not, he confused ontological reasoning with the argument labelled as "ontological". Not that I'm faulting him for it.

Nappy, when you say you can prove god's existence ontologically, it isn't entirely unreasonable to suppose you mean to use the ontological argument for god's existence.

But no matter. Come on then, prove it exists.

[Snorri1234]

Believing in God requires no "leap of Faith". His existance can be ontologically proved.

You can't seriously be about to try the ontological argument?? Honestly?

Ontologically, as in using a priori reason.

I think heavycola knows what it means, nappy.

Apparently not, he confused ontological reasoning with the argument labelled as "ontological". Not that I'm faulting him for it.

What? No!
The ontological argument is the ontological reasoning! There are many versions of it, but they're all basically the same in that they use a priori reasoning to somehow prove God's existance.

But I'm curious, can you give this ontological proof?

[Napoleon Ier]

Believing in God requires no "leap of Faith". His existance can be ontologically proved.

You can't seriously be about to try the ontological argument?? Honestly?

Ontologically, as in using a priori reason.

I think heavycola knows what it means, nappy.

Apparently not, he confused ontological reasoning with the argument labelled as "ontological". Not that I'm faulting him for it.

What? No!
The ontological argument is the ontological reasoning! There are many versions of it, but they're all basically the same in that they use a priori reasoning to somehow prove God's existance.

But I'm curious, can you give this ontological proof?

There are plenty of variations of ontological proofs.

"The" ontological argument, I believe being reffered t by hc, is the argument first developed by Anselm.

However, an argument using ontological a priori proof could include variations on the cosmological one.

My favourite variation on Anselm's original is Descartes', Leibniz is another in the rationalist tradition who claimed that he could ontologically prove God. Others would argue, such as Duns Scotus, that you cannot prove God, but that his existence just is, and that the pre-disposition to belief felt spiritually deep within us counts as proof, and that whilst we can prove it is reasonable to believe in God, we however cannot prove him as existing.

[Guiscard]

There are plenty of variations of ontological proofs.

"The" ontological argument, I believe being reffered t by hc, is the argument first developed by Anselm.

However, an argument using ontological a priori proof could include variations on the cosmological one.

I'm also very curious... lets see this wonderful ontological reasoning which has so convinced you...

[Napoleon Ier]

There are plenty of variations of ontological proofs.

"The" ontological argument, I believe being reffered t by hc, is the argument first developed by Anselm.

However, an argument using ontological a priori proof could include variations on the cosmological one.

I'm also very curious... lets see this wonderful ontological reasoning which has so convinced you...

Aquinas' argument from contigency is very swaying. There's also the indestructable ontological argument of Anselm and the rationalists but it isn't persuasive, as such.

[Guiscard]

Aquinas' argument from contigency is very swaying. There's also the indestructable ontological argument of Anselm and the rationalists but it isn't persuasive, as such.

The indestructible part is the part which many have a problem with. A lot of scholars who have spent a lot more time considering the issue than you or I don't consider it such. Both theists and non-theists....

If we accept that the creation of the universe is the greatest achievement imaginable then the argument for necessary non-existence is just as strong.

[Napoleon Ier]

Aquinas' argument from contigency is very swaying. There's also the indestructable ontological argument of Anselm and the rationalists but it isn't persuasive, as such.

The indestructible part is the part which many have a problem with. A lot of scholars who have spent a lot more time considering the issue than you or I don't consider it such. Both theists and non-theists....

If we accept that the creation of the universe is the greatest achievement imaginable then the argument for necessary non-existence is just as strong.

1/I don't by any means.

2/he concept of a first cause that is non-existant falls in on itself, since it can only attack the argument using a logical fallacy.

[Frigidus]

Aquinas' argument from contigency is very swaying. There's also the indestructable ontological argument of Anselm and the rationalists but it isn't persuasive, as such.

The indestructible part is the part which many have a problem with. A lot of scholars who have spent a lot more time considering the issue than you or I don't consider it such. Both theists and non-theists....

If we accept that the creation of the universe is the greatest achievement imaginable then the argument for necessary non-existence is just as strong.

1/I don't by any means.

2/he concept of a first cause that is non-existant falls in on itself, since it can only attack the argument using a logical fallacy.

Ontological arguments don't cut it for me, the argument relies entirely on proof by definition.

[Snorri1234]

David Hume claimed that nothing could ever be proven to exist through an a priori, rational argument by arguing as follows:

1. The only way to prove anything a priori is through an opposite contradiction. For example, I am a married bachelor.
2. The resulting contradiction makes something inconceivable. Obviously it is impossible to have a married bachelor.
3. It is possible to comprehend anything not existing. Thus it is not inconceivable to imagine anything not existing.
4. Nothing can be proven to exist a priori, including God.

[Guiscard]

Aquinas' argument from contigency is very swaying. There's also the indestructable ontological argument of Anselm and the rationalists but it isn't persuasive, as such.

The indestructible part is the part which many have a problem with. A lot of scholars who have spent a lot more time considering the issue than you or I don't consider it such. Both theists and non-theists....

If we accept that the creation of the universe is the greatest achievement imaginable then the argument for necessary non-existence is just as strong.

1/I don't by any means.

2/he concept of a first cause that is non-existant falls in on itself, since it can only attack the argument using a logical fallacy.

1) Then would you care to name the greatest achievement imaginable?

2) The concept of the first cause isn't the problem. The problem is that it does not define what the creator must be. It could just as easily be a child-God, it could be Satan, Vishnu, a mouse wearing a Top Hat or the Big Bang. Each of those is just as likely, perhaps the Big Bang being the most likely due to current scientific research.

[Napoleon Ier]

David Hume claimed that nothing could ever be proven to exist through an a priori, rational argument by arguing as follows:

1. The only way to prove anything a priori is through an opposite contradiction. For example, I am a married bachelor.
2. The resulting contradiction makes something inconceivable. Obviously it is impossible to have a married bachelor.
3. It is possible to comprehend anything not existing. Thus it is not inconceivable to imagine anything not existing.
4. Nothing can be proven to exist a priori, including God.

Well, without quoting wikipedia, I believe I can make a stab at answering that.
God is the underlying force that has created the cosmos, and I believe actually that the flaws in the premises, in themselves and based on this, come thick and fast, namely in p1 and p3.

1/Why assume this?
3/No, it is inconceivale God should not exist, that would be like imagining something levitating without someone holding it up, the contingent cosmos we see must be caused by God.

[Napoleon Ier]

Aquinas' argument from contigency is very swaying. There's also the indestructable ontological argument of Anselm and the rationalists but it isn't persuasive, as such.

The indestructible part is the part which many have a problem with. A lot of scholars who have spent a lot more time considering the issue than you or I don't consider it such. Both theists and non-theists....

If we accept that the creation of the universe is the greatest achievement imaginable then the argument for necessary non-existence is just as strong.

1/I don't by any means.

2/he concept of a first cause that is non-existant falls in on itself, since it can only attack the argument using a logical fallacy.

1) Then would you care to name the greatest achievement imaginable?

2) The concept of the first cause isn't the problem. The problem is that it does not define what the creator must be. It could just as easily be a child-God, it could be Satan, Vishnu, a mouse wearing a Top Hat or the Big Bang. Each of those is just as likely, perhaps the Big Bang being the most likely due to current scientific research.

yeah......Aquinas saw you coming waaay back

[Guiscard]

yeah......Aquinas saw you coming waaay back

Well I think we can agree that Nappy's all-conquering response ha bamboozled us all into immediately converting to Christianity in light of such solid logical conclusions...

[Napoleon Ier]

yeah......Aquinas saw you coming waaay back

Well I think we can agree that Nappy's all-conquering response ha bamboozled us all into immediately converting to Christianity in light of such solid logical conclusions...

the Big Bang is contingent, therefore it must have a cause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#The_argument_from_contingency

[Frigidus]

yeah......Aquinas saw you coming waaay back

Well I think we can agree that Nappy's all-conquering response ha bamboozled us all into immediately converting to Christianity in light of such solid logical conclusions...

the Big Bang is contingent, therefore it must have a cause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#The_argument_from_contingency

But then what caused God's existence? If he's exempt from that rule then it was never an absolute rule in the first place, putting a hole in the argument.

[Guiscard]

yeah......Aquinas saw you coming waaay back

Well I think we can agree that Nappy's all-conquering response ha bamboozled us all into immediately converting to Christianity in light of such solid logical conclusions...

the Big Bang is contingent, therefore it must have a cause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#The_argument_from_contingency

Why is the Big Bang contingent?

The whole point of the Big Bang is that it is not contingent. The singularity is your God. It just starts.

[Snorri1234]

Well, without quoting wikipedia,

Yeah I just didn't have the time to type it down myself.
And since you're not bringing up the argument yourself I had to look at wiki for it.

1/Why assume this?

That's proof. Only when it can be contradicted can it be proven. It's Karl Popper's theory of science in a different way, but it still relies on the basis that nothing is provable but merely can be proven wrong.
A definition needs something that would contradict it. A triangle for example is not a triangle if it has four corners.

3/No, it is inconceivale God should not exist, that would be like imagining something levitating without someone holding it up, the contingent cosmos we see must be caused by God.

(Isn't levitating without someone holding it up a miracle and thus for you imaginable?)
It isn't inconceivable for me that God doesn't exist.

What is actually inconceivable are god's traits. Infinity and omnipotency are something we can't wrap our minds around.

[Frigidus]

What is actually inconceivable are god's traits. Infinity and omnipotency are something we can't wrap our minds around.

I think that's one of the theists mainstay arguments. "You just don't get it."

[OnlyAmbrose]

What is actually inconceivable are god's traits. Infinity and omnipotency are something we can't wrap our minds around.

I think that's one of the theists mainstay arguments. "You just don't get it."

it's a mainstay argument of both sides.

When asked where matter came from, atheists simply say, "We just don't get it."

Just as there are things we do not yet know about science, so too are there things we do not yet know about the supernatural.

[Backglass]

When asked where matter came from, atheists simply say, "We just don't get it."

Some of us say "It's always been here".

Just as there are things we do not yet know about science, so too are there things we do not yet know about the supernatural.

The "supernatural" is Science we do not yet understand. The weather, stars, conception, fire & fermentation were once all considered "supernatural". We no longer call those things that today. Why not?

[OnlyAmbrose]

When asked where matter came from, atheists simply say, "We just don't get it."

Some of us say "It's always been here".

Just as there are things we do not yet know about science, so too are there things we do not yet know about the supernatural.

The "supernatural" is Science we do not yet understand. The weather, stars, conception, fire & fermentation were once all considered "supernatural". We no longer call those things that today. Why not?

If matter has always existed, then how did it condense to the point of the Big Bang? Seems to defy the laws of physics that all the matter in the Universe would condense to a point that small, doesn't it?

We no longer call such things "supernatural" today because we now know them to be the result of perfectly natural phenomena. But, since I as a theist hold that the laws of nature come from God, a supernatural being, looking into the nature of science is essentially just looking into a creation of God. I see nothing wrong with challenging and testing things in an ethical manner to discover more about the world around us and the laws that govern it.

Basically what I'm saying is that the natural is an extension of the supernatural. Take the example of weather you posed.

Humanity once thought that the path of the sun was a chariot riding through the sky. A work of God.

Now we know that the path of the sun is a result of the earth's gravitational orbit around the sun. But, since gravity is a work of God, the earth's orbit around the sun is still a work of God.

Gravity is just another example of something which is a mystery to scientists. Why do bodies of mass attract each other? They just do.

Hope that helps.

[Guiscard]

If matter has always existed, then how did it condense to the point of the Big Bang? Seems to defy the laws of physics that all the matter in the Universe would condense to a point that small, doesn't it?

Not really, no. Thats sort of the idea of the singularity. Everything at a single point, including the four dimensions we can experience.

It 'always' existed as that singularity (although time isn't really applicable).

[OnlyAmbrose]

If matter has always existed, then how did it condense to the point of the Big Bang? Seems to defy the laws of physics that all the matter in the Universe would condense to a point that small, doesn't it?

Not really, no. Thats sort of the idea of the singularity. Everything at a single point, including the four dimensions we can experience.

It 'always' existed as that singularity (although time isn't really applicable).

That's beyond my understanding of physics, so I'll have to take your word for it, but that doesn't really affect the rest of my post.