The Ontological Argument

[Jenos Ridan]

I assume that was an April fool post

Bursting your bubble: It isn't April Fools until April 1, so, no.

[Jenos Ridan]

You are not destined to become Protestant. Your Protestantism is the result of a long chain of events. Take any of them out and you become non-Protestant. Therefore, all your examples where you become Protestant no-matter-what fail.[/size]

He probably feels that he was destined to become protestant after becoming an athiest or something, which brings up the question of just how much "free will" is supposedly prescribed to us. After all, there are only two ways to look at it:

A: Your religion was chosen by a decision at some point in your life largely due to various social conditions you were raised into, or

B: Your religion was predestined, whether scientifically or divinely.

Assuming choice A is true, the heavy majority of non-Christians are condemned to burn for reasons beyond their control. Assuming choice B is true, all non-Christians are for reasons beyond their control. Tough call there.

Destined? Not entirely. Called, now that's a different concept.

I was looking back over my life and I honestly do not feel that location would have changed much for me, I'd either had been more miserable and remained so or I'd have sought a new life. Since we will never be able to test this scientifically (if one could test feelings that way, if at all), I concede that this is a pointless line of discussion and will not bring it up again.

As for the two choices, a person who does not know Jesus is NOT necessarily damned to hell, but is judged by their actions; a moral person could very well get into heaven. But we will not know for certain, since the decision lays solely with God. But evil people; the Hitlers, Milosovichs, Saddams, Dahlmers and the like will all pay the price. So there you have it, non-Christians are not automatically condemed, but they do not have a certainty of avoiding it either.

[comic boy]

I assume that was an April fool post

Bursting your bubble: It isn't April Fools until April 1, so, no.

Ah yes but as usual things are less clear cut than you pretend
I dont know if you have heard of time zones but when you posted it was April 1st in the land of the Comic, and as the post was addressed to me.....

[AlgyTaylor]

We have a concept of unicorns, so therefore unicorns exist/have existed.


Oh wait a second. That's a shite argument.


Point disproven.

[Napoleon Ier]

We have a concept of unicorns, so therefore unicorns exist/have existed.


Oh wait a second. That's a shite argument.


Point disproven.

Read the fucking thread.

[AlgyTaylor]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ontological argument IS pretty much that statement. Descartes (roughly) put it as

1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
2. I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God.
3. Therefore, God exists.

This is exactly the same as saying

1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
2. I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of unicorns.
3. Therefore, unicorns exists.

Or in other words, I think unicorns exist so therefore they do.

[Napoleon Ier]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ontological argument IS pretty much that statement. Descartes (roughly) put it as

1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
2. I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God.
3. Therefore, God exists.

This is exactly the same as saying

1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
2. I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of unicorns.
3. Therefore, unicorns exists.

Or in other words, I think unicorns exist so therefore they do.

[Napoleon Ier]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ontological argument IS pretty much that statement. Descartes (roughly) put it as

1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
2. I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God.
3. Therefore, God exists.

This is exactly the same as saying

1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
2. I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of unicorns.
3. Therefore, unicorns exists.

Or in other words, I think unicorns exist so therefore they do.

That's a misconception, in that the problem of Gaunilo's island (i.e I can prove anything exists) suggests that perfection is contained within the concept you have (whether it be a unicorn, a perfect island,etc...), whereas by definition, only God is the sum total of all perfections in our minds, of which existance is naturally one.

[Neoteny]

Is perfection not merely a concept made up by our thought processes? Wouldn't one need to prove the existence of perfection in order for this argument to be sound?

[AlgyTaylor]

Oh, so you mean St. Anselm's argument?

1. The Perfect Being (God) is defined as the greatest conceivable being
2. It is greater to exist in reality instead of merely as an idea
3. If the Perfect Being did not exist, then you could have an idea of an even greater being
4. So the Perfect Being must exist in reality (God exists).

Well, ignoring the argument that if word games are the only possible way of proving god's "existence" ...

The most glaringly obvious thing to me is assertion 2: "It is greater to exist in reality instead of merely as an idea"

This does leave some ambiguity. The set of all possible things is not necessarily the same as the set of all existing things. It could be possible for a thing to be "possible" yet not in existence. eg you could havea a genetically 'possible' human that has never existed/never will exist.

On the same basis it could be possible for god to exist without god actually existing - so you cannot draw the conclusion (4)

Honestly, come back when you have a decent logical argument to test me with

[Napoleon Ier]

Oh, so you mean St. Anselm's argument?

1. The Perfect Being (God) is defined as the greatest conceivable being
2. It is greater to exist in reality instead of merely as an idea
3. If the Perfect Being did not exist, then you could have an idea of an even greater being
4. So the Perfect Being must exist in reality (God exists).

Well, ignoring the argument that if word games are the only possible way of proving god's "existence" ...

The most glaringly obvious thing to me is assertion 2: "It is greater to exist in reality instead of merely as an idea"

This does leave some ambiguity. The set of all possible things is not necessarily the same as the set of all existing things. It could be possible for a thing to be "possible" yet not in existence. eg you could havea a genetically 'possible' human that has never existed/never will exist.

On the same basis it could be possible for god to exist without god actually existing - so you cannot draw the conclusion (4)

Honestly, come back when you have a decent logical argument to test me with

No, God is necessarily possibly existant, which, according to axiom S5 of modal logic, makes him existant.
(S5 demonstrates that if something is possibly necessary in a certain world is true or necessarily exists in all possible worlds/universes). Now you can choose to reject axiom S5, which is unusual, but then that leaves a lot of room for Theists to breathe in when people arrogantly proclaim that no evidence exists for God.

[AlgyTaylor]

No, God is necessarily possibly existant, which, according to axiom S5 of modal logic, makes him existant.
(S5 demonstrates that if something is possibly necessary in a certain world is true or necessarily exists in all possible worlds/universes). Now you can choose to reject axiom S5, which is unusual, but then that leaves a lot of room for Theists to breathe in when people arrogantly proclaim that no evidence exists for God.

Hmmm. By what means is God necessarily possibly existent, as opposed to just possibly existent?

Sorry, just having trouble understanding why you don't agree that God could be in a set of things that are possible but don't exist.

(dont have appropriate Venn diagram but can draw it if needs be)

[joecoolfrog]

It is far more arrogant to insist that there is firm evidence of God , when one could make plausible cases for almost anything using your methodology.

[MeDeFe]

Oh, so you mean St. Anselm's argument?

1. The Perfect Being (God) is defined as the greatest conceivable being
2. It is greater to exist in reality instead of merely as an idea
3. If the Perfect Being did not exist, then you could have an idea of an even greater being
4. So the Perfect Being must exist in reality (God exists).

Well, ignoring the argument that if word games are the only possible way of proving god's "existence" ...

The most glaringly obvious thing to me is assertion 2: "It is greater to exist in reality instead of merely as an idea"

This does leave some ambiguity. The set of all possible things is not necessarily the same as the set of all existing things. It could be possible for a thing to be "possible" yet not in existence. eg you could havea a genetically 'possible' human that has never existed/never will exist.

On the same basis it could be possible for god to exist without god actually existing - so you cannot draw the conclusion (4)

Honestly, come back when you have a decent logical argument to test me with

No, God is necessarily possibly existant, which, according to axiom S5 of modal logic, makes him existant.
(S5 demonstrates that if something is possibly necessary in a certain world is true or necessarily exists in all possible worlds/universes). Now you can choose to reject axiom S5, which is unusual, but then that leaves a lot of room for Theists to breathe in when people arrogantly proclaim that no evidence exists for God.

Axiom S5 is far from uncontested, you know.

[Napoleon Ier]

Oh, so you mean St. Anselm's argument?

1. The Perfect Being (God) is defined as the greatest conceivable being
2. It is greater to exist in reality instead of merely as an idea
3. If the Perfect Being did not exist, then you could have an idea of an even greater being
4. So the Perfect Being must exist in reality (God exists).

Well, ignoring the argument that if word games are the only possible way of proving god's "existence" ...

The most glaringly obvious thing to me is assertion 2: "It is greater to exist in reality instead of merely as an idea"

This does leave some ambiguity. The set of all possible things is not necessarily the same as the set of all existing things. It could be possible for a thing to be "possible" yet not in existence. eg you could havea a genetically 'possible' human that has never existed/never will exist.

On the same basis it could be possible for god to exist without god actually existing - so you cannot draw the conclusion (4)

Honestly, come back when you have a decent logical argument to test me with

No, God is necessarily possibly existant, which, according to axiom S5 of modal logic, makes him existant.
(S5 demonstrates that if something is possibly necessary in a certain world is true or necessarily exists in all possible worlds/universes). Now you can choose to reject axiom S5, which is unusual, but then that leaves a lot of room for Theists to breathe in when people arrogantly proclaim that no evidence exists for God.

Axiom S5 is far from uncontested, you know.

Look, if wikipedia says its "widely" accepted, that basically means that apart a few fundamentalist atheist nuts like comic_rentboy, snorrarse and Dicky Dorkins, its universally accepted. Now, I'm not an expert on modal logic,but I know a few basics, so if you want to throw your rejections of it at my I'd be interested.

There are other perfectly good grounds than denial of axiom S5, of course, which can be used to reject the ontological argument.

[Snorri1234]

Look, if wikipedia says its "widely" accepted, that basically means that apart a few fundamentalist atheist nuts like comic_rentboy, snorrarse and Dicky Dorkins, its universally accepted.

Wikipedia once claimed that Vin Diesel has a 10 inch black cock.

[Jenos Ridan]

I assume that was an April fool post

Bursting your bubble: It isn't April Fools until April 1, so, no.

Ah yes but as usual things are less clear cut than you pretend
I dont know if you have heard of time zones but when you posted it was April 1st in the land of the Comic, and as the post was addressed to me.....

I've heard of time zones, but I had no intention of doing an April Fools post. Again, sorry.

I've heard the "no black or white, all grey" argument before and it is sickening. I ask people who think that why one question, "What shade of grey is murder?"

I never get an answer.

[Neutrino]

I've heard of time zones, but I had no intention of doing an April Fools post. Again, sorry.

I've heard the "no black or white, all grey" argument before and it is sickening. I ask people who think that why one question, "What shade of grey is murder?"

I never get an answer.

One of the darker ones.

That is, however, excluding all other variables. What if the person you murdered was an active pedophile or murderer in turn? With your "evil" action, you have prevented much "evil" from occuring. Therefore you action is both good and bad, simultaneously. Therefore grey.

[Jenos Ridan]

I've heard of time zones, but I had no intention of doing an April Fools post. Again, sorry.

I've heard the "no black or white, all grey" argument before and it is sickening. I ask people who think that why one question, "What shade of grey is murder?"

I never get an answer.

One of the darker ones.

That is, however, excluding all other variables. What if the person you murdered was an active pedophile or murderer in turn? With your "evil" action, you have prevented much "evil" from occuring. Therefore you action is both good and bad, simultaneously. Therefore grey.

My point is, most of the "all's grey" types that I've met are flakes who don't like dealing with any sort of absolute. For me, murder is always wrong, putting such people to death is justice. Life may have areas wher navigation is difficult, but there are some things that are never acceptable.

[Neutrino]

My point is, most of the "all's grey" types that I've met are flakes who don't like dealing with any sort of absolute. For me, murder is always wrong, putting such people to death is justice. Life may have areas wher navigation is difficult, but there are some things that are never acceptable.

The only difference between "putting someone to death" and murder is a piece of paper with a Judge's name on it. Why does murder + paper = perfectly acceptable action? Yes, I know I'm getting offtopic (not that this topic was on topic. Where did it come from, anyways) but saying war/execution = acceptable, murder =/= acceptable, when both war and execution are merely a legalized form of murder, has always confused me.

[Neutrino]

Yes...and as I said, you'd therefore recognised that the Ontological argument is sound but that of course, it can't persuade you because of its genrally tenuous appearance. Meaning that your atheism is based on a gut feeling....could we go so far as to say...Faith? The idea that humanity needs to imagine infinity, is just wrong, which I tried to explain a little more tactfullu earlier on.

I say: "Ontological arguments are not valid."

You say: "Your athiesm is based on gut feeling"

One hell of a non sequitur.

Hell, I already explained whre my athiesm comes from (God = sadistic bastard). What relivance does this have to the argument here, which is the validity of ontological aguments? I acknowledge ontological arguments are fine for minor things, well inside human experience. When it comes to God, they fall appart completely.

Rebutt... now.

[Napoleon Ier]

Yes...and as I said, you'd therefore recognised that the Ontological argument is sound but that of course, it can't persuade you because of its genrally tenuous appearance. Meaning that your atheism is based on a gut feeling....could we go so far as to say...Faith? The idea that humanity needs to imagine infinity, is just wrong, which I tried to explain a little more tactfullu earlier on.

I say: "Ontological arguments are not valid."

You say: "Your athiesm is based on gut feeling"

One hell of a non sequitur.

Hell, I already explained whre my athiesm comes from (God = sadistic bastard). What relivance does this have to the argument here, which is the validity of ontological aguments? I acknowledge ontological arguments are fine for minor things, well inside human experience. When it comes to God, they fall appart completely.

Rebutt... now.

1/You proudly proclaim that "Ontological arguments aren't valid" without offering the slightest in terms of intelligent analysis of their content.
2/This proof, if you don't believe in a Christian God, is entirely compatible with Deism, or another religion of your choice.

[Neutrino]

1/You proudly proclaim that "Ontological arguments aren't valid" without offering the slightest in terms of intelligent analysis of their content.

Ontological arguments aren't valid, as I have said many times, because they rely on humanity's rather pathetic understanding of the universe, alone, (and it isn't even cutting-edge understanding either. Most of the arguments are hundreds of years old and are even more flawed as a result) to deduce the existence of something that clearly doesn't fit into that experience.

It's like relying on a ten year old kid, who has never even left their room to deduce even broad features of the outside world. They've never experienced the world outside their walls and so have precisely no idea what form it'll take. You'd almost be better off pulling possibilities out of a hat.

2/This proof, if you don't believe in a Christian God, is entirely compatible with Deism, or another religion of your choice.

Most other religions suffer the same general failings. Plus, I figure any god worth worshiping doesn't actually want any grovelling. Probably comes closer to agnosticism, but the athiest viewpoint is so much more fun to argue.

[Dancing Mustard]

Look, if wikipedia says its "widely" accepted, that basically means that apart a few fundamentalist atheist nuts like comic_rentboy, snorrarse and Dicky Dorkins, its universally accepted.

Wikipedia once claimed that Vin Diesel has a 10 inch black cock.

My finest hour...

[Frigidus]

OK, kind of jumping in here, but I was just wondering...of all the possible arguments Nappy why choose ontological? I'd say it's the most paper-thin argument you could have pulled out. It's essentially

1. OK, imagine something awesome. Like, so freaking sweet that it is the epitome of sweetness. Man.

2. Well, if it's perfect pwnage, then it has to exist. Non-existant stuff certainly isn't teh pwn.

3. God is totally cool, perfectly cool, ya know. God exists.

I know that's simplistic, but really, I nearly sputtered when I first heard that. There are several interesting philosophical arguments for a god (though I don't agree with them), but this just isn't one of them.