• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

I made ontological argument sound like scientific proof

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Me: the all-perfect being must exist.

Irina: Why?

Me: to exist is better than not to exist. Yes, it is better for bad things like satan to be non-existent, but a good thing is better to exist. For any human there is something, in which he finds pleasure: the terrorist likes murdering, the soldier likes to defend the homeland. Thus, for each human, there is his understanding of God, but God does objectively exist for any human, but only if he is human, not a fool. Humans are not fools, because God of the Bible has strongly forbidden to call a human "fool". That is why a human can spiritually die and lose the Spirit of Existence if he starts to meditate repeating satan's creed of disbelief "There is no God". If God loves, then He is so lovely that His name is Love. If God knows, then so completely, that His name is Knowledge. If God is angry, then so sincere that His name is Righteous Anger. If He creates, then so good, that His name is Creator. If God exists and lives, then so truly that His name is Existence and Life. If God speaks the truth, then so absolutely, that His name is Absolute Truth. If God is lucky, then so perfectly, that His name is Luck. God is Spirit. The Spirit of all that comes from God is the names of God (including the name "God"). That is why the God of the Bible does not forgive the blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. The names of God is the essence of God.

Irina: Then you must admit the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Harry Potter, and the great Wizard Gandalf, simply because "to exist is better than not to exist."

Me: I have not proved that God is "Flying Spaghetti Monster", but I have proved His presence. It is illogical absurd to say "the all-perfect being does not exist." This one sounds normal: "Harry Potter does not exist in reality", but it is not normal to say "There is no God."
 
Last edited:

The Hammer

Skald
Premium Member
Me: the all-perfect being must exist.

Irina: Why?

Me: to exist is better than not to exist.

Irina: Then you must admit the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Harry Potter, and the great Wizard Gandalf, simply because "to exist is better than not to exist."

Me: I have not proved that God is "Flying Spaghetti Monster", but I have proved His presence. It is illogical absurd to say "the all-perfect being does not exist." This one sounds normal: "Harry Potter does not exist in reality", but it is not normal to say "There is no God."

What makes one less real than the other?
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Me: the all-perfect being must exist.

Irina: Why?

Me: to exist is better than not to exist.

Irina: Then you must admit the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Harry Potter, and the great Wizard Gandalf, simply because "to exist is better than not to exist."

Me: I have not proved that God is "Flying Spaghetti Monster", but I have proved His presence. It is illogical absurd to say "the all-perfect being does not exist." This one sounds normal: "Harry Potter does not exist in reality", but it is not normal to say "There is no God."

But, but, but, i have visited and seen Alnwick castle so harry potter must exist.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
"All perfect" is a gigantic unknowable criteria, here. There is nowhere I can go with it, intellectually.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
I would say it is normal to say there is no (physical)evidence for a God.

For a materialist, that is kind of the end of the matter.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Well, you've got me convinced. Such incisive reasoning just can't be dismissed.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
What makes one less real than the other?
But, but, but, i have visited and seen Alnwick castle so harry potter must exist.

"All perfect" is a gigantic unknowable criteria, here. There is nowhere I can go with it, intellectually.

I would say it is normal to say there is no (physical)evidence for a God.

For a materialist, that is kind of the end of the matter.

Well, you've got me convinced. Such incisive reasoning just can't be dismissed.

Friends, I have added new information to the thread, please reread.
 
Top