Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
miles

Ontological Argument For God

Recommended Posts

I apparently don't understand what you mean by this sentence: So, in this sense I totally agree with Scottish philosopher, Skeptic, and empiricist David Hume, who argued that NOTHING can be proven to exist using only a priori reasoning.

 

A logical proof with true premises and valid logic is sufficient in and of itself to prove it's conclusion (You still haven't answered whether you agree that a logically valid argument with true premises guarantees correct conclusions).

 

Go back and re-read what I ACTUALLY SAID, then when you have a question, actually POST THE QUOTE, not your cherry picking of my quote; as I am NOT going to go through the trouble of doing all that work my-self to show where you purposefully misrepresented what I said.

 

 

You are now switching from whether Anselm is sound/valid to whether Godels is sound/valid. They are not the same argument.

Ron: St. Anselm of Canterbury first penned hisOntological Argument for the Existence of God” WAY BACK in the 11th century! That was some time ago! And yet it survives today, because “Logically” it is sound!

 

 

Godels argument was only used as an example of a TEMPLATE of a syllogism, NOT as a LOGICAL PROOF FOR GOD in my post. SO quit cherry picking my post, in order to side step the conversation. This is yet another example of your misrepresentation of what I said...

 

 

Now for your question, Godels argument is generally considered logically valid, however the truth of the various premises/theorems is not accepted as self-evident so the soundness of the argument is in question.

 

What was my actual question concerning Godels syllogism, Miles! WHAT was the ACTUAL question! Not HOW can you posit convoluted answer in order to not honestly answer my question. And the answer is NOT that the syllogism is "argument is generally considered logically valid"!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go back and re-read what I ACTUALLY SAID, then when you have a question, actually POST THE QUOTE, not your cherry picking of my quote; as I am NOT going to go through the trouble of doing all that work my-self to show where you purposefully misrepresented what I said.

 

Here's the full post where that quote came from:

 

St. Anselm of Canterbury first penned his “Ontological Argument for the Existence of God” WAY BACK in the 11th century! That was some time ago! And yet it survives today, because “Logically” it is sound!

 

The ontological argument IS evidence for God, Miles. It is "Logical" evidence for God. It is definitely sound logical evidence, and therefore a "Valid" argument! If you understand "Logic" at all, you will find that the argument is "Logically" unassailable!

 

Your problem here is that YOU are attempting to assail the syllogism “Materialistically”, which is impossible, if you understand how logic works. In fact, you can make a perfectly sound argument for your unicorn “Logically”, if you use “SOUND LOGIC” in your syllogism! But will this make your logic unassailable? No, because you have absolutely NO other evidences to back it up! And to verify evidence, you must use ADDITIONAL evidence. So, in this sense I totally agree with Scottish philosopher, Skeptic, and empiricist David Hume, who argued that NOTHING can be proven to exist using only a priori reasoning!

 

 

Having said all of that, one “Logical” argument is NEVER used to be the “End All” evidence for anything. And no theist ever said that the “Ontological Argument” proves God, once and for all. This further invalidates your attempted attack on the “Ontological Argument”, because it simply is “A” logical evidence for God; there are MANY others; along with Materialistic evidences for God as well, but I am not going to argue them here, because they would be ‘off topic’, from the OP (as we are talking about the “Ontological Argument for the Existence of God”!

 

Another point I must also bring up - Imagining a being DOESN'T exists in reality doesn't cause it to actually NOT exist either!

 

 

So now that the entire post is quoted, do you agree that a logically valid argument with true premises guarantees correct conclusions?

 

What part of a sound logical argument requires empirical verification? If the argument is logically sound then the conclusion is guaranteed true.

If the conclusion of a logical proof isn't guaranteed true what makes it useful as evidence?

 

 

Godels argument was only used as an example of a TEMPLATE of a syllogism, NOT as a LOGICAL PROOF FOR GOD in my post. SO quit cherry picking my post, in order to side step the conversation. This is yet another example of your misrepresentation of what I said...

 

 

 

What was my actual question concerning Godels syllogism, Miles! WHAT was the ACTUAL question! Not HOW can you posit convoluted answer in order to not honestly answer my question. And the answer is NOT that the syllogism is "argument is generally considered logically valid"!

 

For simplicity I'll say yes it's logically valid.

 

To avoid a potential switch in subject I'd like to reiterate that my question about the validity of the ontological argument was directed at anselms version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For simplicity I'll say yes it's logically valid.

Simplicity has absolutely nothing to do with it Miles; you really shouldn't parse words in an attempt to side step the issue. Either it "IS" logically valid, or it "ISN'T" logically valid (see: Law of Non-Contradiction). So

 

 

To avoid a potential switch in subject I'd like to reiterate that my question about the validity of the ontological argument was directed at anselms version.

 

There was absolutely NO "switch in subject" Miles; your initial question was about whether or not "the ontological argument is evidence for god". And I said "YES... the Ontological Argument is indeed "LOGICAL" evidence for God"! You then dithered on the rules of validity for a logical syllogism AND materialistic evidences (as if they were one in the same… Which they ARE NOT!). And after I thoroughly explained it to you SEVERAL TIMES, you still misrepresented what I said; I then used your Wikipedia link to show where you erred (see: Godels argument), and yet you STILL quibbled and equivocated on the issue. SO, misrepresentation is STILL rife, in your replies.

 

Now you want to say something so silly as “For simplicity I'll say yes its logically valid.”… Really, another misleading posting, from a misrepresentation you took of one of my posts?

 

So now that the entire post is quoted, do you agree that a logically valid argument with true premises guarantees correct conclusions?

 

As I said earlier, a logically valid argument with true premises guarantees a correct LOGICAL conclusion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Earlier I made a small post here, but I'm afraid it went unanswered, I'll post it again replying to the original argument.

 

(1) Suppose (with the fool) that God exists in the understanding alone.

(2) Given our definition, this means that a being than which none greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone.

(3) But this being can be conceived to exist in reality. That is, we can conceive of a circumstance in which theism is true, even if we do not believe that it actually obtains.

(4) But it is greater for a thing to exist in reality than for it to exist in the understanding alone.

(5) Hence we seem forced to conclude that a being than which none greater can be conceived can be conceived to be greater than it is.

(6) But that is absurd.

(7) So (1) must be false. God must exist in reality as well as in the understanding.

Being in existence must be a criteria for greatness, according to this argument. If it isn't, it cannot be claimed as being the significant differentiator between an imaginative god and a real god.

If it is already a criteria for greatness is step 2 of this argument, the imagination is limited to observed manifests. If you argue God is observed (other arguments) then this argument is circular.

 

The problem here is actually very similar to the definition from third parties in a different thread. A different definition is used for the word “great” in statement 2 and in statement 4. Thus any conclusions drawn from it should be inappropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Earlier I made a small post here, but I'm afraid it went unanswered, I'll post it again replying to the original argument.

 

Being in existence must be a criteria for greatness, according to this argument. If it isn't, it cannot be claimed as being the significant differentiator between an imaginative god and a real god.

If it is already a criteria for greatness is step 2 of this argument, the imagination is limited to observed manifests. If you argue God is observed (other arguments) then this argument is circular.

 

The problem here is actually very similar to the definition from third parties in a different thread. A different definition is used for the word great in statement 2 and in statement 4. Thus any conclusions drawn from it should be inappropriate.

It starts off with the premise that to the atheist belief in God is not within actual existence.

 

If this is true then the argument follows logically. If it isnt then the person already beliwves that God is within actual existence meaning the argument wouldn't be needed since the person admits that God exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have doubts about point 4 in the OP - "if God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being — that which exists in reality". Can a concept differentiate between the existing and the non-existing?

The nub of the question: is existence a property independent of other properties or is it implied by the occurrence of other properties which require something's existence in order for them to be meaningful?

A thought experiment: in your mind's eye conceive of a Campbell's tomato soup can; now conceive a Campbell's tomato soup can that actually exists. Is there a difference between the two? - when I try I cannot discern a difference. One assumes an existing can in the first thought in order to accommodate the other properties. If you changed any other property (brand, flavour etc.) then the difference between the concepts would be obvious.

Clever and thought-provoking as the ontological argument is, could a human really think a god (inherently unfathomable) into existence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A variant ontological argument I have encountered draws on the following:

1) There might be a god (if you've read this far you'll probably grant the possibility).
2) A god wouldn't be a god if it were contingent upon something else for its existence (so necessarily a god must necessarily exist if such an entity can exist).

One way to consider possibility is to consider a range of universes. If we're granting that a god might exist then in at least one such possible universe there would be a god. Given point 2, if a god exists in one possible universe this must be true of all other possibilities including the real universe we live in - ergo, there must be a god!

I feel I can see a flaw. I'll let the rest of you come to your own assessment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try as I may, I am no closer to understanding this argument. Does anyone really believe in God based on word magic of this thinking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try as I may, I am no closer to understanding this argument. Does anyone really believe in God based on word magic of this thinking?

What are you even talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The subject of this thread, I thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The subject of this thread, I thought.

 

I thought you were leaving?

 

The subject of this thread is the argument for God using modal logic. I would suggest perhaps reading up about it since it is more complicated than how you were describing it.

 

I do wonder how does a Creationist doubt God?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Try as I may, I am no closer to understanding this argument. Does anyone really believe in God based on word magic of this thinking?

What are you even talking about?

The subject of this thread, I thought.

Not based upon your snarky remark you aren't. You need to be more specific, AND drop the elitist pretence, if you want to have a real conversation! You also need to have a basic grasp of the English language AND the Laws of Logic; unless you enjoy having your lack of reason pointed out after every one of your posts.

 

Any other questions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The subject of this thread, I thought.

 

I thought you were leaving?

 

The subject of this thread is the argument for God using modal logic. I would suggest perhaps reading up about it since it is more complicated than how you were describing it.

 

I do wonder how does a Creationist doubt God?

As I said earlier Gilbo, based upon his tactics here, he’s most likely from that ill-named atheist’s site. Either that or he’s just an elitist snob, OR he’s simply not as intelligent as he’s been letting on.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy, you guys aren't really open to people that question their own beliefs if they are the same as yours it seems. :) I am only looking at the questions he asked here in this post and although very limited they do not warrant the off-topic rebuttal you guys are giving him.

 

He calls it "word magic" wish is what is applied here. As I've stated before,there is a change in the definition of the word great (which isn't given a proper definition at any point). That's "word magic".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy, you guys aren't really open to people that question their own beliefs if they are the same as yours it seems. smile.png I am only looking at the questions he asked here in this post and although very limited they do not warrant the off-topic rebuttal you guys are giving him.

 

He calls it "word magic" wish is what is applied here. As I've stated before,there is a change in the definition of the word great (which isn't given a proper definition at any point). That's "word magic".

 

We question as to whether that fellow was actually an 'old earther' to begin with. With some of my comrades & I think he is perhaps an atheist in disguise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy, you guys aren't really open to people that question their own beliefs if they are the same as yours it seems. smile.png I am only looking at the questions he asked here in this post and although very limited they do not warrant the off-topic rebuttal you guys are giving him.

 

He calls it "word magic" wish is what is applied here. As I've stated before,there is a change in the definition of the word great (which isn't given a proper definition at any point). That's "word magic".

Please provide how "Word Magic" is relevant to the laws of logic. Then provide how it is NOT "off Topic".

Or please provide how "Word Magic" is not a snide and condescending remark towards the use of the laws of logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy, you guys aren't really open to people that question their own beliefs if they are the same as yours it seems. smile.png

 

Fjuri, I think you need to be a member of this forum for a longer time than you have been in order for you to determine whether or not people sign up here with honest motives, or just come here to stir up trouble. I am not saying that graywolf is one of these, but there is absolutely nothing in his posts that indicates that he has the "same beliefs as we do". All you can point to is the information given in his profile - "old age creationist". Apart from that there is absolutely nothing that indicates that he even slightly shares our beliefs.

 

One thing that I think gives him away is the fact that he signs up here, submits a small number of posts and then almost immediately accuses us of not acting in love or winning souls for Christ.

 

Besides the fact that this is a little hypocritical, you can judge for youself whether or not you think that disagreements are ample support for his accusations. Not even the apostle he quoted concerning "love" was free from these. That same apostle has given us the encouragement to contend for the truth of the gospel, which I think is what we are doing here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For these responses I'll take into account you think he is actually an atheist in disguise. For this post I'll treat him as such.

 

Please provide how "Word Magic" is relevant to the laws of logic. Then provide how it is NOT "off Topic".
Or please provide how "Word Magic" is not a snide and condescending remark towards the use of the laws of logic.

Making use of multiple meanings of the same word is "word magic". As it implies a violation of the Law of Identity, it is relevant to the laws of logic, because it is a violation.

The original post questions those that think the argument is valid, he wonders if on its own it is enough.

About the words "Word Magic" being snide or not, I'll let you decide. As a not native speaker it isn't always possible to identify all levels of emotion put into a sentence in English. I wouldn't have figured that much condescenscion in it.

 

Fjuri, I think you need to be a member of this forum for a longer time than you have been in order for you to determine whether or not people sign up here with honest motives, or just come here to stir up trouble.

Perhaps, though I'm uncertain the posts he made here in this thread warranted such rebuttal. Maybe I missed some level of deragatory in his statements you guys seem to notice, but not from my perspective. What he did in those other posts is of no concern here. We are now going completely off topic not because of his two statements, but because of us starting to comment on his general behavior. Lets not do that.

 

Now, regardless whether he is an atheist or not: (in an attempt to go back to the topic)

Try as I may, I am no closer to understanding this argument. Does anyone really believe in God based on word magic of this thinking?

I'll try and answer this for you graywolf.

For the first part of you question, I would suggest reading Gilbo's explanation in post #2 carefully. While (as shown above) I think it is fundamentally flawed, he gives a very clear explanation of the argument (I think).

 

For the second part, I believe it should be combined with other arguments to answer to specific religions:

For example, on its own without accepting any of the other arguments, I believe it is an argument for Deism. If you combine it with the bible and some other you end up with a Christian religion.

On its own, it is insufficient to proof Jahwe, Allah, Zeus, ... (even if it didn't violate the laws of logic) I believe Ron already said something similar earlier in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps, though I'm uncertain the posts he made here in this thread warranted such rebuttal. Maybe I missed some level of deragatory in his statements you guys seem to notice, but not from my perspective. What he did in those other posts is of no concern here. We are now going completely off topic not because of his two statements, but because of us starting to comment on his general behavior. Lets not do that.

 

I was merely responding to YOUR comment concerning how open we are towards someone you seemed to claim had the same beliefs as us. As I said I could see nothing apart from the information in his profile that indicated any shared beliefs. That was why I wanted to bring your attention to the fact that some people sign up here under false pretenses.

 

As it turns out greywolf has now replaced "old age creationist" with "agnostic", so I'll leave it to you to figure out the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For these responses I'll take into account you think he is actually an atheist in disguise. For this post I'll treat him as such.

Please provide how "Word Magic" is relevant to the laws of logic. Then provide how it is NOT "off Topic".

Or please provide how "Word Magic" is not a snide and condescending remark towards the use of the laws of logic.

 

Making use of multiple meanings of the same word is "word magic". As it implies a violation of the Law of Identity, it is relevant to the laws of logic, because it is a violation.

 

Fjuri, the word “Magic” in the context of the post is a pejorative against “logic” and/or the “Laws of Logic”. It was a sarcastic attempt to belittle the usage of logic, by GW, simply because he didn’t like the usage. This is simply NOT how honest discussion and civil conversation works. If GW has a problem with the ontological argument, then JUSTIFY the comment with dialogue as to WHY he doesn’t like it. Painting it, the way he did, with the following quote is anathema to dialogue, conversation and debate:

 

Does anyone really believe in God based on word magic of this thinking?

Further, what he did, was NOT ‘relevant to the Laws of Logic’, it was simply a slanderous and spurious comment ABOUT the logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms