The Ontological Argument for the existence of God

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Thomas Cranmer, Oct 31, 2017.

  1. Thomas Cranmer Registered Member

    Messages:
    61
    The Ontological Argument for the existence of God goes something like this...

    God is that being than which no greater can be conceived.
    It is greater to exist in reality than merely as an idea.
    If God does not exist, we can conceive of an even greater being, that is one that does exist.
    Therefore, God must indeed exist in reality.

    This is not a very convincing argument.
    Like all the other arguments, it is trying to prove what is already believed, so is pointless.
    Nobody believed in God because they read one of these arguments.

    In addition, the argument can be used to prove things exist that we know do not exist.
    I've made one up, just to demonstrate that it's easy...

    The best of all possible worlds is that world which no better can be conceived.
    It is better to exist in reality than merely as an idea.
    If the best of all possible worlds does not exist, we can conceive of a better world, namely one that does exist.
    Therefore, the best of all possible worlds must indeed exist in reality.

    Is the world the best of all possible worlds ?
    Could the internet be faster ?
    Is chocolate free ?
    Can you get a plumber on Sunday ?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,494
    Since nobody knows what we don't know your question is unanswerable

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,885
    the only thing about the concept of god/s or larger entity that is worthy of curiosity, besides learning of it's existence, is finding out it's true nature or motives. the answers may not even be all or even positive.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. pluto2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    768
    People are delusional and will believe anything that suits them because the evidence really shows that there is no God and never has been.

    Also the evidence shows that humanity is really small and insignificant in this very vast multiverse.

    Also another thing that the science shows is that there is no life after death either.

    When we die it's all over for us because there is nothing more and our descendants will continue the eternal struggle for survival.

    http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Are all religions false.htm
    http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Is there life after death.htm
    https://www.wikihow.com/Argue-That-God-Does-Not-Exist
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2017
  8. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,724
    Never taken any formal philosophy classes, but must say this seems rather circular to me - if not downright contradictory.
     
  9. Ted Grant II Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    188
    No matter how great God happens to be, it is always possible to think of a greater god.

    Example: a god that created us all with eagle eyes, regenerating teeth and pain-free lives would be greater than God.
     
  10. Gawdzilla Sama Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    568
    Start off with an assumption that a god or gods exist. Silly.
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,978
    Sorry, how does the latter follow from the former?
     
  12. Gawdzilla Sama Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    568
    You missed Jesuit summer camp, I see.
     
  13. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,454
    A typical Ontological Argument usually starts with a notion of God as "that which nothing greater can be conceived" or some such notion. Since, so the argument goes, an existent God is greater than a non-existent God, God must exist, else something greater than the non-existent God can be conceived, namely an existent God.

    One failure in this argument, according to Kant, seems to be that it deems existence a property rather than a relationship between a concept and objective reality.
    So when in the Ontological Argument there is the comparison between an existent and non-existent God, the comparison is not actually valid as the comparison is actually between two identical concepts. One is merely exemplified and the other not. But by comparing the identical concepts there is nothing to be learnt about its existence.
     
  14. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,494
    I can conceive of a Starship greater than any of those in Startrek

    So when will I see those flying around?

    Or is just a case of my god can pee higher up the wall than your god?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,103
    Thats actually a different argument against the ontological argument, originally raised by one of Anselm's students against the "conceive of nothing greater than God" Ontological Argument.
    But rather than starships (which would have been impressive) it was about a desert island.
    The criticism was that he could conceive of a desert island greater than any other, and because Anselm's argument deemed one that existed greater than one that didn't, this perfect island must exist.

    Anselm, though, was quick to explain that his argument could only be applied to God, since God is defined as being that which greater than can not be conceived.
    An island, however, is still an island even if it is not the greatest.

    If you define God as the one who can pee highest, then by definition no one can pee higher than God.
    You then at least have a concept for God (being the one who can pee highest).
    But Kant's argument is that Anselm's comparison between an existent and non-existent God, and deeming the existent one greater, is illicit.
    The comparison is between two identical concepts, as Sarkus mentioned, with one exemplified (I do like that word) and the other not.
    Being exemplified or not does not make one concept greater than the other.
     
  16. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,494
    Got it

    Both non existent gods can't pee

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,103
    I can't say I've ever witnessed either of them doing so.
    Although we have had some torrential rain in some parts of the world recently...
    Coincidence?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I'll leave you to decide.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,885
    http://www.lifedeathprizes.com/real-life-crime/youre-judge-strict-parents-killers-10026

    i think these people were godly, most likely.

    what i mean is, i used to be confused about the contradiction of the cruel, debase/primitive, unethical and perverted nature of some who sincerely believe in god.

    and i eventually realized that it's because god is most likely not who people ideally paint it as.

    so when people would say that my mother was a godly woman and her husband a godly authority, i used to think no way, praising her as holier than thou (this part is inaccurate) than everyone on this forum as well as most people in the world, regardless of intelligence or character.

    this is the key part. i remember how they saw everyone around them as more naive than them or patsies because they were more manipulative and less innocent than everyone around them, so they believed themselves superior. if you were not cunning or had some obnoxious or some immoral or nasty quality, not necessarily in public, but that they knew they were similar, they did not respect you or have consideration.

    being around such people is like being locked in a room with the stench of decaying flesh. you know how hideously revolting the stench is that you want to hurl, right? but surprisingly, there are plenty of people who like people like this as i've been witnessed to it all my life. since there is so much scum or subpar character-wise, they are okay with it or even like it as it reinforces their own asswipe qualities. there really is no accounting for taste in this world.

    any decent person would be able to tell that these were cruel-natured people but that did not stop them from making plenty of friends. because people don't care about that as much as confidence, ego and other superficial qualities that mirror their own back and forth ego strokes. what does this say about society and the world? most people are not good or ethical or it's secondary.

    i couldn't understand it until i had an epiphany it is probably true in the sense that her/their nature was probably a more closer representation to what god is. god would be the most manipulative, no? most deceitful, no? most egotistical, no? amoral, no? it's own authority, no?

    kind of makes sense.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2017
  19. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,477
    To your last statement , makes sense . And that is what the abrahamic is .
     
  20. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,885
    i think this is all most likely true, unfortunately. you don't always need definitive proof in order to see the 'signs' or clues. i've been witnessed to the same pattern in life and others in the past too. i think the gnostics were definitely onto something. you can see that nature is extremely nasty and cruel, no doubt about that.
     
  21. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,477
    Gnostics , knew nature better than anyone , hence why the christians tried to destroy their knowledge , until the the red sea schrolls were found . And many miss the illuminati being a sect in the time of Gnostic teachings. Who were kicked out of Gnostic teachings .

    Nature is nasty and cruel , no doubt , but thinking beings rise above this by their Humanity to others , because we are thinking being , therefore not holden to the Natural instinct of survival alone in our perspective of ourselves and attitude towards ourselves and the planet .
     
  22. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,885
    it's not completely all doom and gloom in the truth though because the analogy does not stop there, at least to me.

    i think that it' similar to different types of lifeforms, just as there are good and bad people, they operate with different value systems. i think we exist currently within a greater/larger being that is probably one that has sociopathic/psychopathic traits or system (that is obvious), but that doesn't mean this is all there is. i don't think it is and i think that spark and light of hope is also not imagination, i think we are aware on some level of something else beyond this, and vast distance does not matter.

    it may be a finite fate for us because this is where we ended up but i don't think it is in the forlorn and horrible sense that this must be all there is. and even if we can't benefit from a better place, it makes me feel better to know that.

    now as far as the concept of god, a greater being doesn't necessarily mean a better one. when i heard about someone's near death experience where they met the true god vs the one that rules this universe, it coincides with what i speculated too. he said the demiurge or the god of this plane was trying to convince that it was the ultimate god and this was all there is but it wasn't because he met others and they were better than him and so was their system.

    he described the god of this plane's personality as very "brassy"(exact words), egotistical and cruel. interestingly, he also described the difference in nuance and texture of the true god's nature versus the demiurge. he said that though it was genderless, it was more softer and not patriarchal whereas the demiurge was patriarchal, power-monger and aggressive.

    i mean consider those who took power trying to convince people they were gods, even though they weren't.

    i don't even think the near death experience and it's info has to be literal for wisdom or truth to be gleaned. it could be a way to source information, meaning whether technically afterlife exists or if he really died or went somewhere etc is not really the point.

    also, the question of aeons of why does evil or evil people prosper makes sense as this system would reward that. most people on a consciously superficial level don't recognize this when you have society give lip service to whatever is the concept of 'right' publicly besides what can be caught occasionally by the structure of a judicial system. by the time it is, the damage is already done, the benefits and loss are underway, either way, to whatever consituents directly or indirectly. most of the time the perpetrator will be unnoticed, part of the mainstream and business will go on as usual. evil does prosper because it's the root of the design.

    it's like people who go watch a movie and root for the protaganist or good guy, without realizing half the audience isn't even sincere, considering they are the problem. it's just superficial. where do they think evil or evil people comes from? they are all around you.

    this is the lurid part about society and their layers of masks. most of the time, people either do not know who they are or don't admit what they are, even to themselves.

    like one of the stepfather's favorite films was star wars and typically he would root for the rebel alliance just like anyone else when he would be a perfect fit lock, stock and barrel for the opposite side, which was the empire.

    and like his wife, she would show some christian movie or preach next to him when she is representative of the devil in the story, not the angels. it's like you are the devil bitch, you and your husband are the fuking evil problem, hello??

    i should have introduced that bitch to her true face, how about the urak-hai, orcs and eye of sauron in the lord of the rings. perfect analogy. actually the head one looked just like her, but he was better looking. damn evil monster!

    it's just hilariously dishonest how society is full of shit. lmao.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2017
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,978
    Sometimes I wonder if, you having such a drastically cynical view of people, you, birch, come to embrace it, and feel the compulsion to actively contribute to its darkness.
     

Share This Page