the ontological argument for the existence of god

P1) god is the greatest possible being (by definition)
P2) one can't think of anything greater than god (because of 1)
P3) if god existed only as an idea and not in reality then this idea couldn't be god because one could think of an idea still greater: god that exists in reality
_________________________________________________________________
C) god exists in reality

there are different versions... but i'll attribute the general idea to Anselm and Descartes.

Um I will post this, and then not further debate, as this is what the forum is NOT for, ok? No offense. TC!

Some say: </font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
ontological arguments are not terribly popular in most Christian circles these days. First, they seem to beg the question as to what God is like. Second, subjective appeal is low for non-believers as these arguments tend to lack hard objective support. Third, it is difficult to simply state that something must exist by definition. Without good philosophical support for why a thing must exist, simply defining something into existence is not good philosophy (like stating that unicorns are magical single horned horses that exist).

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I'm all for the arguments of the exisitence of God, whether you wish to discuss ontological, teleological, moral or even the cosmological arguments. I think every Christian should engage in apologetics. However, this is not the time, nor the place, imo to begin a thread on arguments

If you wish to give someone direct support with such a scientific or philosophical argument, then that might be ok, idk for sure...I think I would try it there.

I do support you in your good efforts to comfort though. (((hugs)))

Believe in Him or not --- GOD LOVES YOU!

Want to share your Christian faith? Click HERE

If the arguments that are supposed to prove the existence of god fail then that doesn't show god doesn't exist. this is because there could be better arguments out there waiting to be discovered...

Likewise if the arguments that are supposed to prove that god can't exist fail then that doesn't show god does exist. this is because there could be better arguments out there waiting to be discovered...

Argument from Possibility

P1) If god exists then god is a necessary being (by definition)
P2) If god exists then god exists on all possible worlds (reformulation of 1)
P3) It is possible that god exists
P4) There is a possible world in which god exists (reformulation of P3)
P5) Since there is a possible world in which god exists (P4) god exists on all possible worlds (P2)
P6) The actual world is one possible world
______________________________________________
C) God exists in the actual world

Hey. I guess... It might depend... On what is meant by debate?

It is interesting to me because when surveys of philosophers were conducted they found that roughly half believed in god and roughly half didn't. What to conclude from this?

- If god made logic and reason then surely using gods gifts to contemplate his nature is appropriate. surely composing an argument for his existence is every bit as much a tribute to him as composing a poem or song! Most of the arguments that were made for his existence were made by believers.
- Learning about the arguments can help one grasp the limits of reason and argument and hence
- The nature and role of faith

I'm not really interested in debate in the traditional sense... This is the way in which I contemplate the nature of the 'greatest possible being' where learning about the limits of possibility is instructive as to what kind of a nature god might have...

> ontological arguments are not terribly popular in most Christian circles these days.

Interesting... Ontological arguments (a-priori arguments) start with god as omnigod (I'll say more about this in a minute). The other option is a-posteriori arguments (arguments from experience) from which it is hard to recover omni-god even if one does accept the conclusion (to the effect that there is something super-natural)

> First, they seem to beg the question as to what God is like.

They start with a definition of God and proceed to say that his existence is logically entailed by (is logically necessary because of) the definition of god.
I haven't done terribly much philosophy of religion... Everything I have done has been about the conception of omni-god. Omni-god (or god for short) is supposed to capture the attributes of god that are common to the god of judaism, christianity, and islam. the attributes are things like:

1) omniscient (knows everything)
2) omnibenevolent (completely loving / kind)
3) omnipresent (can do anything)

then there are other properties that crop up like the property of being eternal (existing forever) and stuff like that... There are loads of other properties that are more controversial too...

If you believe in omni-god then that is what i'm abbreviating to 'god' in the arguments. if you believe god is love then i believe god exists because i believe love exists. you could define god as 'the computer in front of me' and conclude god exists! if you like. that is fairly uninteresting though... the ontological arguments *start* with the conception of omnigod and attempt to show that god exists in virtue of our having the concept of him.

Here is Descarted version:

P1) There must be more reality / power / potency in the cause than the effect
P2) I have the idea of god
_________________________________
God must be even greater than my idea of him!

(Problem here is premise 1 which appeals to Aristotles physics. Isn't so compelling to a bunch of people who have seen such things as the 'Butterfly effect')

Bertrand Russell (a very brilliant philosopher) wrote something about how he was walking down the street one day and then.... It suddenly occurred to him... "The ontological argument is valid!!!" He said he was amazed... he finally got it!!! I have moments like that too... Then... You lose it and go back to atheism ;-)

But these arguments are still with us because they are (if you are into the aesthetics of argument) BEAUTIFUL arguments. A tribute to him (if he exists) indeed!

Ideas exist by definition.
Abstract objects too.

Watch me as I bring a new abstract object into existence:

I call it:

Alex's lost sock centre.

I define it thus:

The centre point of the smallest circumfrence that can be drawn around all the socks that I have lost in my life.

(Thanks to Dan Dennett for the e.g.)

The problem is...
Existence as an idea is one thing...
Existence as an abstract object is one thing...

Existence as a concrete / material object is quite another...

But then...

Who thought god was a physical / concrete / material being within the natural world at any rate?

Whats wrong with god as an abstract eternal object

(Rather like... The number 7)

;-)

I'd like to talk some more...

I guess the way things are going to go here depends on people here. If people say 'wah! you breaking the rules!' then peoples voices will be curbed... if people avoid the threads that don't interest them and continue to respond to and post to threads that do then over time things will sort themselves out...

So long as people are being respectful...

Whats the problem?

Dr John Grohol said: "This Sanctuary is a place for people of all spiritual beliefs and faiths to offer support and compassion to each other in the form of prayers, meditation, and expressions of spirituality. This forum is for support, not religious debate. "

Maybe in chat sometime?

TC!

Believe in Him or not --- GOD LOVES YOU!

Want to share your Christian faith? Click HERE

and offering arguments for the existence of god with the purpose to 1) meditate on the beautiful arguments that have been offered as a tribute to him and
2) contemplate the nature of god
is against the rules somehow?

to repeat:

if people say 'wah! you are breaking the rules' then discussion will be curbed.

if people say 'well i'll just read the threads i get something out of and avoid the threads i don't get something out of / i don't understand the purpose of' then the boards will be quite different...

more accepting and tolerant of differences in fact...

for some of us our faith in God is all we have, support is wanted here not confusion (sp)

If you find a thread confusing then maybe it is better to avoid it.

I can assure you I'm not *trying* to be confusing.
I can assure you I'm not poking fun.
I can assure you I'm not trying to argue that god doesn't exist.

I can assure you that I'm looking at the arguments for (not against) the existence of God because:

*I* find them to be a beautiful tribute to god (assuming for the moment god exists)
*I* find them helpful with respect to contemplating gods nature (assuming for the moment a supernatural being exists)
*I* find them helpful with respect to concluding that (at least one) supernatural being does exist
*I* find them helpful for clarifying the role / nature of both reason and faith.

If other people find them helpful / beautiful too then hopefully the thread can continue.

If nobody does find them helpful / beautiful then you are more than welcome to post to all the other threads in this forum where the threads are more to your tastes.

Please don't ruin this for me because you do not understand.
(That is directed to EVERYONE reading this thread)

If it isn't to your taste please ignore it (I assure you I'm not hurting, accusing, attacking, judging, jumping to conclusions, attempting to undermine, poking fun etc)

Please leave my views to rest in peace if they are not to your taste.

Please feel free to respond if you get something from them.

Peace.

The attempt isn't to undermine peoples faith...
It is to help strengthen it...

((((nothemama8))))

the littles saw your thread and couldn't understand but your good people dearheart
Angie

Yeah. It gets confusing when posts get long. I confuse myself sometimes lol. Probably better to post little bits so they are more easily digested. Thats okay, hopefully I'll learn and get better with that at some point ;-)

Yeah, you are a good person. You and all your parts. Hugs.