Another version of ontological argument.

[A Vestigial Mote]

The claim to being God's word comes initially from the prophets who reveal the words. If they happen to be correct, and the invisible Creator is speaking to mankind, then how can one confirm without first reading and studying the word carefully?

So then you've read and studied ALL texts that were claimed to be revelations or records of the works and deeds of gods then, I take it? Or you're working on it? I, honestly, don't have the time for this. I'm not going to make the time, not going to take the time - unless someone can literally demonstrate to me that what I am reading correlates to some reality that these texts will then give me valuable, ongoing UESABLE insight into. I'm holding out to read THAT bundle of texts, because my time is far too precious to me to waste on items that people cannot properly and immediately demonstrate the utility/usefulness of.

Also, for religions competing with your own for belief and adherents, can you describe to me how you are sure that the one you have chosen is correct or most accurately models or correlates with our reality? If you cannot, then I hope you understand that there is no way to choose between your chosen texts and revelations and another. Hence the reason I choose "none of the above." Again, that is, until someone actually has "the goods" to demonstrate the correctness or productive power of the texts. For example, if based on your knowledge gained from reading "The Bible" you could gain knowledge of how to control, manipulate or set in motion things in our shared reality that you could not do without having read it and gained such instruction, that would be something! Instead, I see nothing. Nothing is forthcoming from the religious community that isn't knowledge also gained via some other source. Other people are happy. Other people are healthy. Other people are experiencing spiritual contentment. So those items are out. And people are already hard at work maintaining "the best" accounts of knowledge on things like manipulating electricity (electricians and electronics), producing metal works, understanding the workings of DNA. What real world results have their "best" being recorded within your religion besides knowledge of the religion itself - which has no real outward utility? You could be a pastor, or a theologian, or a scholar - dedicated to study of the text... but the text doesn't give you anything in return except knowledge of the text, is my ultimate point. And in my opinion, that is for very, very obvious reasons.

Have you done this? For to mock a book that makes the claim to being God's inerrant word, is sheer foolishness to me. But, then, God said the same thing of atheists before I even considered the matter [Psalm 14:1]!

So you feel that the writer's of The Bible having the wherewithal to realize that the strange things they were writing (things that had very, very little correlation with our experienceable reality) wouldn't sit well with everyone, is "evidence" that the ENTIRE book is accurate and composed of truths? Please think about that seriously.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Ok,which prophesies from the bible are coherent and consistent?,are there any?.

All of them.

 

[England my lionheart]

All of them.

Pick your favourite one,afaik there aren’t any.

 

[Redemptionsong]

So then you've read and studied ALL texts that were claimed to be revelations or records of the works and deeds of gods then, I take it? Or you're working on it? I, honestly, don't have the time for this. I'm not going to make the time, not going to take the time - unless someone can literally demonstrate to me that what I am reading correlates to some reality that these texts will then give me valuable, ongoing UESABLE insight into. I'm holding out to read THAT bundle of texts, because my time is far too precious to me to waste on items that people cannot properly and immediately demonstrate the utility/usefulness of.

Also, for religions competing with your own for belief and adherents, can you describe to me how you are sure that the one you have chosen is correct or most accurately models or correlates with our reality? If you cannot, then I hope you understand that there is no way to choose between your chosen texts and revelations and another. Hence the reason I choose "none of the above." Again, that is, until someone actually has "the goods" to demonstrate the correctness or productive power of the texts. For example, if based on your knowledge gained from reading "The Bible" you could gain knowledge of how to control, manipulate or set in motion things in our shared reality that you could not do without having read it and gained such instruction, that would be something! Instead, I see nothing. Nothing is forthcoming from the religious community that isn't knowledge also gained via some other source. Other people are happy. Other people are healthy. Other people are experiencing spiritual contentment. So those items are out. And people are already hard at work maintaining "the best" accounts of knowledge on things like manipulating electricity (electricians and electronics), producing metal works, understanding the workings of DNA. What real world results have their "best" being recorded within your religion besides knowledge of the religion itself - which has no real outward utility? You could be a pastor, or a theologian, or a scholar - dedicated to study of the text... but the text doesn't give you anything in return except knowledge of the text, is my ultimate point. And in my opinion, that is for very, very obvious reasons.

So you feel that the writer's of The Bible having the wherewithal to realize that the strange things they were writing (things that had very, very little correlation with our experienceable reality) wouldn't sit well with everyone, is "evidence" that the ENTIRE book is accurate and composed of truths? Please think about that seriously.

There happen to be very few books that claim to be God's plan for mankind. Many holy writings are no more than collections of inspired poetry, human wisdom, and disparate tales of gods. The Bible, with a history of Israel embedded in its text, is quite different from all other holy books.

The nearest claim comes from the Qur'an. The problem that arises when the two books are compared is that the Qur'an relies on the Bible for it's authority. IMO, the claims made by Muhammad do not stand up to scrutiny.

The Bible points to one person as the hub around which history revolves, IMO. It points to Jesus Christ as the Saviour.

Does knowledge of Jesus result in change? Of course, because to place faith in Christ means a change of personal direction. The scriptures say that a believer is 'new creation'. The old man is dead, and the new man is living for Christ.

Another reason for accepting the Bible is the reality of the Holy Spirit. When the Gospel is preached with power, it brings the reality of God into the present. This happened to me when I was instantly healed following prayer in the name of Jesus.

IMO.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Pick your favourite one,afaik there aren’t any.

I like Micah 5:2 as evidence of the birthplace of the Messiah. I also like Psalm 22 as evidence of the crucifixion.

 

[England my lionheart]

I like Micah 5:2 as evidence of the birthplace of the Messiah. I also like Psalm 22 as evidence of the crucifixion.

Personally psalm 137 which was a big hit for Boney M back in the 70/80s.

Im struggling to find any coherence or consistency in either of your choices,imo it’s a book of faith not facts or allegorical like all holy books.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Personally psalm 137 which was a big hit for Boney M back in the 70/80s.

Im struggling to find any coherence or consistency in either of your choices,imo it’s a book of faith not facts or allegorical like all holy books.

You were asking for evidence that supports faith.

Can you see any reason why I should not accept these prophecies as being the word of God?

 

[Redemptionsong]

´
I am a skeptic. I don't believe in knowledge.

Does that mean that you don't know what you're writing?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

As I have just said in response to Mikkel, the words of the Bible speak for themselves. The Bible is not a book of philosophy, arguing that God exists. It starts with the words, 'In the beginning God created the heaven and earth'. It does not question the existence of God. God is.

The question that should occupy the atheist is whether or not the prophecies found in the Bible are coherent and consistent. Is there a God revealing a plan for mankind? Why would God wish to reveal such knowledge to men? What is God wishing to achieve by intervening in human affairs?

Simply dismissing the Bible, without considering the possible implications, is just an act of arrogance.

I disagree. It's a reasonable act to simply dismiss the Bible since it is clearly a human artifact from a variety of sources, all of which likely make a lot of sense in the political and cultural context they were written, edited, and compiled together in.

That you accept it as inspiration for your faith is perfectly fine. But it is only evidence that it inspires your faith, not that atheists should need to invalidate its contents in order to argue against the existence of god.

 

[England my lionheart]

You were asking for evidence that supports faith.

I like Micah 5:2 as evidence of the birthplace of the Messiah. I also like Psalm 22 as evidence of the crucifixion.

Can you see any reason why I should not accept these prophecies as being the word of God?

Faith is not fact my friend,I see zero evidence in either of your choices,I was asking for the coherent consistency that you said was there,personally I don’t care if you do accept those prophesies or not.

 

[AlexanderG]

Absolute life cannot be a stone though. A stone can't contain all life.

Correct, but your definition of necessary is wrong. By the actual definition, containing all mindlessness is the prerequisite for necessary existence.

Note that I am being sardonic here, to show that all of your definitional arguments are completely arbitrary, based only on your personal opinions and intuition.

You're functionally saying, "I feel like my god just has to exist because I rely on god for my hope, meaning, and purpose, and in my understanding of the world he exists by definition according to my personal presuppositions, therefore he actually exists in reality." Anyone who doesn't already share your foibles simply can't accept your framing of the ontological argument, because we see it as you defining your preferences into existence.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Yeah, and you can do that differently, because it implies a subjective choice. That is the problem with all the axiomatic assumption. We assume it is true, therefore it is in fact true.

So here it is as example, which is absurd, but shows how it works. I assume that you are evil, therefore you are in fact evil. Get it now?

I don’t get it, but you’re much smarter than me.

 

[AlexanderG]

As I have just said in response to Mikkel, the words of the Bible speak for themselves. The Bible is not a book of philosophy, arguing that God exists. It starts with the words, 'In the beginning God created the heaven and earth'. It does not question the existence of God. God is.

The question that should occupy the atheist is whether or not the prophecies found in the Bible are coherent and consistent. Is there a God revealing a plan for mankind? Why would God wish to reveal such knowledge to men? What is God wishing to achieve by intervening in human affairs?

Simply dismissing the Bible, without considering the possible implications, is just an act of arrogance.

Correct. The Bible doesn't question the existence of god, because it is the document making the claim that god exists. Ancient Norse religious doctrinal texts don't question the existence of the Norse Pantheon. And? So? This has no relation to whether or not these claims are actually true.

As to you questions:
1. I have studied Biblical prophesies. They do not appear coherent or consistent. The prophecies are too vague, the interpretations seem like ridiculous exercises in ad hoc reasoning/interpretation. The New Testament was written decades after the supposed death of Jesus, by anonymous scholars with a vested interest in promoting Christianity and who almost certainly had access to the prophecies of the Old Testament. Given that some early church fathers wrote that lying would be acceptable if it spread the Christian faith, I am presented with a far likelier explanation for the gospel narratives (intentional fabrication) than a miraculous suspension of the natural laws. We see humans fabricating tales and bending the truth for their own self-interest all the time (including to found many other religions - Mormonism, Scientology, Heaven's Gate, etc), but we've never reliably demonstrated one example of a suspension of natural laws. Simple induction is on my side, along with all modern standards of good evidence.

2. There does not appear to be a god revealing a plan to us. Do you have evidence that any god exists? Can you point to something in reality that supports this hypothesis in a way that isn't fallacious or merely post hoc rationalization?

3-4. I have no idea why a god would reveal knowledge to humans. If a god existed, it could tell us things to trick us for its own amusement, or to get us to cooperate so our civilization would breed more housecats which is its ultimate goal, or to lead us to ruin out of malice, or to guide us, or out of boredom, or for any other imaginable reason. This all appears to be imaginary, after all.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I disagree. It's a reasonable act to simply dismiss the Bible since it is clearly a human artifact from a variety of sources, all of which likely make a lot of sense in the political and cultural context they were written, edited, and compiled together in.

That you accept it as inspiration for your faith is perfectly fine. But it is only evidence that it inspires your faith, not that atheists should need to invalidate its contents in order to argue against the existence of god.

In an argument about the the existence of God, the words claimed to be of God become all important. How can an atheist claim the words are not God's if he has not read them?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Faith is not fact my friend,I see zero evidence in either of your choices,I was asking for the coherent consistency that you said was there,personally I don’t care if you do accept those prophesies or not.

I'm not asking you to dismiss them. I'm asking you to read them, and to read what happened in the life of Jesus.

How could prophets have known these things hundreds of years before they occurred?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Correct. The Bible doesn't question the existence of god, because it is the document making the claim that god exists. Ancient Norse religious doctrinal texts don't question the existence of the Norse Pantheon. And? So? This has no relation to whether or not these claims are actually true.

As to you questions:
1. I have studied Biblical prophesies. They do not appear coherent or consistent. The prophecies are too vague, the interpretations seem like ridiculous exercises in ad hoc reasoning/interpretation. The New Testament was written decades after the supposed death of Jesus, by anonymous scholars with a vested interest in promoting Christianity and who almost certainly had access to the prophecies of the Old Testament. Given that some early church fathers wrote that lying would be acceptable if it spread the Christian faith, I am presented with a far likelier explanation for the gospel narratives (intentional fabrication) than a miraculous suspension of the natural laws. We see humans fabricating tales and bending the truth for their own self-interest all the time (including to found many other religions - Mormonism, Scientology, Heaven's Gate, etc), but we've never reliably demonstrated one example of a suspension of natural laws. Simple induction is on my side, along with all modern standards of good evidence.

2. There does not appear to be a god revealing a plan to us. Do you have evidence that any god exists? Can you point to something in reality that supports this hypothesis in a way that isn't fallacious or merely post hoc rationalization?

3-4. I have no idea why a god would reveal knowledge to humans. If a god existed, it could tell us things to trick us for its own amusement, or to get us to cooperate so our civilization would breed more housecats which is its ultimate goal, or to lead us to ruin out of malice, or to guide us, or out of boredom, or for any other imaginable reason. This all appears to be imaginary, after all.

You say that you have studied the prophecies of the Bible, but in reality the whole of the Tanakh is prophecy of one sort or another. To prove a case one has to look at specific references, and to consider the picture created by all the pieces once added together.

So which prophecies did you consider?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

In an argument about the the existence of God, the words claimed to be of God become all important. How can an atheist claim the words are not God's if he has not read them?

Because we know that humans mythologize and write things in books. This is evidenced empirically by our senses. Not true of god. We understand god as a concept, and some people may have experiences that prove to them god exists, but this cannot be proven empirically.

In other words, books are human artifacts that have evidence of their creation. God does not.

 

[firedragon]

A necessary being is a possible coherent concept.
Necessary if conceived as possible, would mean it also exists (this comes with the definition).
Therefore a Necessary being exists.
If a Necessary being lacked any existence amount in any form of existence or any existence can exist without it, it would not be a Necessary being.
Absolute life by definition can only be one being since it is absolute comprehensive (and nothing can be beside or can it miss or exist without it).
Therefore there is only one Necessary being possible and it's absolute in terms of magnitude of life.
Therefore there is one and only one Necessary being in actuality and it's God (absolute life).

Thats actually not an ontological argument.

 

[firedragon]

1. I can conceive of a super-maximally great quindle stone

A stone is a contingent being mate. Your whole argument fails right there at the foundation.

 

[viole]

A necessary being is a possible coherent concept.

Well, define it then. Once you try you will see, once again, that you are begging the question.

Ciao

- viole