Another version of ontological argument.

[ratiocinator]

It's due to the fact God is defined (when imagining per Atheists) to be the Greatest being. In terms of greatness, Anselm rightly pointed out, it's greater to be necessary then not to be and hence if you have non-existing God it's less great then the existing one (which is proven to exist by being necessary). Hence you know it exists.

Except 'greatness' is entirely subjective. Who says that a god that exists is greater than an imagined one? You could also apply the same so called 'logic' to the greatest evil god. Clearly one that existed would be the greater evil, so now we've magicked two contradictory gods into existence just by thinking about them.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don’t get it.

If the world is not natural, is it unnatural?

• The world is natural.
• The world is unnatural.
• What the world really is, is unknown.

I am a skeptic and I accept the unknown in regards to what we can know.

 

[viole]

So here is the thing:

"how do you know you aren't a figment of your imagination?", you can reply all sorts of reasons, as to why this is impossible.

Now, Atheists say "people imagine God", cool.

The ontological argument is saying, we know we aren't imagining him, because he is the necessary being.

How do we attach "necessary" to God though and why can't I just attach to a pink unicorn and then pink unicorn exists?

It's due to the fact God is defined (when imagining per Atheists) to be the Greatest being. In terms of greatness, Anselm rightly pointed out, it's greater to be necessary then not to be and hence if you have non-existing God it's less great then the existing one (which is proven to exist by being necessary). Hence you know it exists.

Another way is to see it as a type of perfection as Descartes explained.

Or if you can think of possible worlds and existences, and know God's amount mathematically is big to the extent nothing is absent from it in terms of possible or existing, then it's proven by pigeon hole principle it exists and that's it the necessary being.

Another way to go about it, is to start with the premise existence is the default state. Either existence is necessary or just possible but not necessary. How do we know which one? To me, existence in it's purest form and self-existing form has none of nonexistence. This itself shows the Necessary being exists.

Then we can say how do we know this not energy, etc, well it's eternal by definition in this sense. It same form in all possible worlds. It includes all possible life and forms in it somehow, it is everything and yet nothing in particular.

And being necessary, would mean, there is no possible life that can existence independent of it, making it absolute in amount. This is God for sure.

Well, this atheist does not imagine for a second that some instances of God, for example the Abrahamic God, and Its variants, to be a great being. Not to speak of being the greatest being. He looks to me pretty weak, flawed, and more prone to hissy fits than an aging beauty queen. That is my perception and the way I imagine that, which is important to bootstrap that being into necessary existence, according to your argument.

so, can we exclude, at least, that Allah, Jehovah, and and all those variants are NOT necessary, at least according to my way of imagining the Greatest Being?

ciao

- viole

 

[Link]

Well, this atheist does not imagine for a second that some instances of God, for example the Abrahamic God, and Its variants, to be a great being. Not to speak of being the greatest being. He looks to me pretty weak, flawed, and more prone to hissy fits than an aging beauty queen. That is my perception and the way I imagine that, which is important to bootstrap that being into necessary existence, according to your argument.

so, can we exclude, at least, that Allah, Jehovah, and and all those variants are NOT necessary, at least according to my way of imagining the Greatest Being?

ciao

- viole

The way you would know God's personhood is through his light. This is just a logical proof that God exists.

 

[viole]

The way you would know God's personhood is through his light. This is just a logical proof that God exists.

See, God cannot be the greatest being if it is a he. It should be a she. Ergo, he-gods are not necessary.

ciao

- viole

 

[Link]

See, God cannot be the greatest being if it is a he. It should be a she. Ergo, he-gods are not necessary.

ciao

- viole

You made me laugh.

 

[viole]

You made me laugh.

Why? I am dead serious.

ciao

- viole

 

[Link]

Why? I am dead serious.

ciao

- viole

God does not have a gender.

 

[viole]

God does not have a gender.

Why not? Are you setting limits to what I can imagine as the greatest being?
and if it doesn’t, why you never say “she”, but only “he”?

ciao

- viole

 

[Link]

Why not? Are you setting limits to what I can imagine as the greatest being?
and if it doesn’t, why you never say “she”, but only “he”?

ciao

- viole

Males lack somethings in females, females lack somethings in males, both have strengths and weakness, and overall, the overlap and common unity of traits is more then differences.

God lacks nothing by definition. But if we are talking about creation then it's more like a female mother since everything came from it's light. From viewpoint of Authority because this tends to be labelled as masculine role, then male. From viewpoint of compassion, more like a female. From viewpoint of retribution, more like a male.

God doesn't have a gender, he doesn't have sex, come on.

I actually have used She for God before, but, the general convention is He.

This is due to languages being like that, in Farsi, there isn't even he or she.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Isn't truth also circular?

That question doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Redemptionsong]

That question doesn't make sense to me.

Truth cannot be broken. Why? Because truth is by definition both universal and objective.

What people call 'truths', are not the same as 'Truth'. Truth cannot be discovered, it has to be revealed by God.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Truth cannot be broken. Why? Because truth is by definition both universal and objective.

What does that have to do with circular reasoning?

What people call 'truths', are not the same as 'Truth'. Truth cannot be discovered, it has to be revealed by God.

Ow, it becomes circular once you turned it into some silly religious statement?

 

[Redemptionsong]

What does that have to do with circular reasoning?



Ow, it becomes circular once you turned it into some silly religious statement?

In philosophy the only way to prove something conclusively is by deduction. Inductive methods only produce approximations to truth. Do you agree?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In philosophy the only way to prove something conclusively is by deduction. Inductive methods only produce approximations to truth. Do you agree?

No, because there is a difference between valid and sound. The problem arries with the word "sound".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In philosophy the only way to prove something conclusively is by deduction. Inductive methods only produce approximations to truth. Do you agree?

I'm still waiting for you to explain how "truth is circular" is a statement that makes any kind of sense.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm still waiting for you to explain how "truth is circular" is a statement that makes any kind of sense.

Well, it is a variation of how to interpret the coherence theory of truth.
Also for truth and prove it is connected to Agrippa's Trilemma.

Note it is not about evidence as per science and why we differentiate between evidence versus truth and proof. The former is science, the latter is not.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I'm still waiting for you to explain how "truth is circular" is a statement that makes any kind of sense.

It's not a statement that is going to make any sense if you reject 'absolute' truth.

If absolute truth is universal and objective, then man is ignorant of Truth. Truth can only be known by faith, and then only as a present reality.

If l say, Truth is love, what does that mean to you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's not a statement that is going to make any sense if you reject 'absolute' truth.

If absolute truth is universal and objective, then man is ignorant of Truth. Truth can only be known by faith, and then only as a present reality.

1. this still doesn't explain how "truth is circular" makes any kind of sense

2. this is ridiculous as on "faith", one can believe literally anything one can imagine. There is NOTHING that can't be believed on "faith". Including false things.

If l say, Truth is love, what does that mean to you?

Nothing at all. I also don't get the need to capitalize it.

 

[Redemptionsong]

1. this still doesn't explain how "truth is circular" makes any kind of sense

2. this is ridiculous as on "faith", one can believe literally anything one can imagine. There is NOTHING that can't be believed on "faith". Including false things.



Nothing at all. I also don't get the need to capitalize it.

Truth (as the composite of all 'truths') is circular because only absolute truth describes absolute truth, and there is no way of defining this kind of truth in a way that encapsulates all that it means.

It's a bit like 'Love is ..' There's an infinite number of ways to define love.