does this prove God?

[wildflowers1996]

I've been wanting to ctb for ages but something holding me back is potentially a belief in God

I spoke to a philosophy professor the other day and he told me he thought the (modern) ontological argument proved God

I always thought the ontological argument was really unconvincing but I actually find it hard to refute - people say you can't define God into existence but why not?

Basically it seems to say God is defined as perfect and to be perfect God must exist, so God exists

A common counter to this is "existence is a quantifier, not a predicate"

But you could say whilst existence is not a predicate, "necessary existence" is?

You can also make various parodies of the argument but the philosophy professor explained to me why these didn't work
(Imagining the perfect island doesn't work because "
Plantinga argues that Gaunilo's argument only works if we use an idea that has a definite condition of perfection, and because Gaunilo's island can forever be improved, "the idea of a greatest possible island is an inconsistent idea; it is not possible that there be such a thing"

Also you couldn't define a perfectly EVIL being into existence because evil is a "lack" not a quality - in the same way "cold" is a lack of warmth

So how else do you counter the argument? I hope what I'm saying is making sense

 

[Deleted member 65988]

I find the Ontological argument demonstrably false and in no way indicative of being evidence for God. I'm imagining the greatest possible leprechaun riding the greatest possible unicorn on the world's greatest sea of liquid laughter. By the ontological argument, because these ideas can exist in my mind they must also exist in reality, because it's greater to exist in both reality and the mind than just in the mind. But despite all that, there are no leprechauns, unicorns or (to my utter dismay) liquid laughter, let alone any greatest ones.

Anyway, with an additional condition it's possible to use the ontological argument to disprove god. Here's the Extended Ontological Argument for the non-existence of God:

Define God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived"
This being can exist in the mind.

If the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. Otherwise a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality.

If the greatest possible being exists in reality, it must exist in reality in such a way that it is unquestionable. Otherwise a greater being exists -- one whose existence cannot be questioned.

There are questions as to whether or not such a being exists.

Therefore, God does not exist.

The ontological argument fails even if you allow your truth to be decided completely in the realm of human defined logic. We can both agree that a unicorn that exists is greater than a unicorn that does not exist, right? Even the simplest of men can imagine the greatest unicorn in his mind, and it is far greater to exist than to not exist. Therefore, the greatest unicorn in the world exists. (And, coincidentally, it's my unicorn and he's in my garage.)

 

[sanlcx]

There's no god... animals die all the time in nature, yeah? We're no different, humans aren't special, we're just another species of mammals.

When an animal dies, they stop getting oxygen and their body and brain rots and that's it. It's gonna happen regardless if you do it prematurely and by yourself or not. There's nothing wrong with death, its super common actually and part of life. Whether you want it to happen now or soon is up to you.

 

[thewalkingdread]

Also you couldn't define a perfectly EVIL being into existence because evil is a "lack" not a quality - in the same way "cold" is a lack of warmth

This is an arbitrary criterion... Why define "cold" as lack of warmth and not the contrary?! Couldn't "warmth" be defined as lack of cold as well?!

The ontological argument is weak and always sounds like "rethorical wordplay" or "conceptual twisting/malabarism"..

 

[wildflowers1996]

I find the Ontological argument demonstrably false and in no way indicative of being evidence for God. I'm imagining the greatest possible leprechaun riding the greatest possible unicorn on the world's greatest sea of liquid laughter. By the ontological argument, because these ideas can exist in my mind they must also exist in reality, because it's greater to exist in both reality and the mind than just in the mind. But despite all that, there are no leprechauns, unicorns or (to my utter dismay) liquid laughter, let alone any greatest ones.

Anyway, with an additional condition it's possible to use the ontological argument to disprove god. Here's the Extended Ontological Argument for the non-existence of God:

Define God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived"
This being can exist in the mind.

If the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. Otherwise a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality.

If the greatest possible being exists in reality, it must exist in reality in such a way that it is unquestionable. Otherwise a greater being exists -- one whose existence cannot be questioned.

There are questions as to whether or not such a being exists.

Therefore, God does not exist.

The ontological argument fails even if you allow your truth to be decided completely in the realm of human defined logic. We can both agree that a unicorn that exists is greater than a unicorn that does not exist, right? Even the simplest of men can imagine the greatest unicorn in his mind, and it is far greater to exist than to not exist. Therefore, the greatest unicorn in the world exists. (And, coincidentally, it's my unicorn and he's in my garage.)

I think the unicorn counter is like the island counter and can probably be refuted in the same way as the perfect island argument

But I think that's interesting about the perfect God being unquestionable
You would think if God were perfect we'd /know/ He existed
But not everyone would agree with that maybe

This is an arbitrary criterion... Why define "cold" as lack of warmth and not the contrary?! Couldn't "warmth" be defined as lack of cold as well?!

The ontological argument is weak and always sounds like "rethorical wordplay" or "conceptual twisting/malabarism"..

"Temperature is a measure of how much energy the particles of a particular object has. An object with a higher temperature has particles with more energy than an object with a lower temperature. There is no such thing as cold because cold is really just an absence of heat or energy."

 

[thewalkingdread]

There is no such thing as cold because cold is really just an absence of heat or energy.

Exactly! "Cold" is still the lack of "heat".

And If "heat" is the lack of lack of energy, "cold" is the lack of lack of lack of energy.

 

[LaVieEnRose]

You can really only base religious faith on subjective personal experience.

 

[wildflowers1996]

Exactly! "Cold" is still the lack of "heat".

And If "heat" is the lack of lack of energy, "cold" is the lack of lack of lack of energy.

but two "lack ofs" make a positive if that makes sense
two minuses make a plus

but a lack of lack of lack of something is a minus (I think)

i don't think my brain is capable of following this too well tbh but I hope you see what I'm saying I might just be being stupid

 

[thewalkingdread]

i don't think my brain is capable of following this too well tbh but I hope you see what I'm saying

I understand exactly... What you want to say is that

~~P = P
Therefore
~~~P = ~P

 

[wildflowers1996]

yes that's what I mean

so I think it follows then that cold IS a lack of warmth not the other way round

Sorry if I'm being stupid

 

[thewalkingdread]

Now, seriously:

'Temperature' is the actual "thing" we are taking about...

There is no "cold" nor "heat" because those words are expressing subjective perceptions of temperature.

 

[thewalkingdread]

Sorry if I'm being stupid

No worries! And you're not being stupid.

 

[wildflowers1996]

Ok well then maybe goodness can be compared to a positive temperature and evil a negative temperature
Evil is still a "lack" of goodness

 

[ezraeil]

I've been wanting to ctb for ages but something holding me back is potentially a belief in God

I spoke to a philosophy professor the other day and he told me he thought the (modern) ontological argument proved God

I always thought the ontological argument was really unconvincing but I actually find it hard to refute - people say you can't define God into existence but why not?

Basically it seems to say God is defined as perfect and to be perfect God must exist, so God exists

A common counter to this is "existence is a quantifier, not a predicate"

But you could say whilst existence is not a predicate, "necessary existence" is?

You can also make various parodies of the argument but the philosophy professor explained to me why these didn't work
(Imagining the perfect island doesn't work because "
Plantinga argues that Gaunilo's argument only works if we use an idea that has a definite condition of perfection, and because Gaunilo's island can forever be improved, "the idea of a greatest possible island is an inconsistent idea; it is not possible that there be such a thing"

Also you couldn't define a perfectly EVIL being into existence because evil is a "lack" not a quality - in the same way "cold" is a lack of warmth

So how else do you counter the argument? I hope what I'm saying is making sense

even if god is real, why would he make such a world? the common answer to that is "god gave us freedom" since he gave us freedom why would he give us evil aswell? common counter is also "thats how life/humans are" so ur telling me you have all the power in the world and you chose willingly to make a world in which humans and other beings suffer and some even worse than others and even still that has a counter "he didnt choose evil, humans did" that still is extremely dumb considering HE OR IT made humans and life, any argument made otherwise that he is a good being and actually "real" etc is actually extremely stupid in my opinion.

 

[jar-baby]

The ontological argument (like most arguments for the existence of a god) only attempt to prove the existence of a deistic God. I'm not sure what utility this has when it comes to deciding whether or not one should ctb. These arguments don't argue that life has meaning, or that God intervenes in the universe, or that he's the tri-omni god, or that he's put his word in some book or the other, or that hell exists... etc.

 

[thewalkingdread]

Ok well then maybe goodness can be compared to a positive temperature and evil a negative temperature
Evil is still a "lack" of goodness

And I could also still say that "Goodness" is lack of "Evil"...

 

[wildflowers1996]

I don't have an argument to explain the problem of evil / suffering
I wish I did

But if I know a perfect God exists, then that does influence if i ctb or not - because just *maybe* there's a point to my existence that I don't know yet

And I could also still say that "Goodness" is lack of "Evil"...

I think goodness is a positive and evil is a negative

so say goodness = 1
evil = - 1

Idk I'm probably making no sense
I don't see how evil can be + 1 and goodness is - 1 but maybe I'm wrong

 

[thewalkingdread]

But if I know a perfect God exists, then that does influence if i ctb or not - because just *maybe* there's a point to my existence that I don't know yet

Well...

Then maybe it's in God's plans that people off themselves... Who knows!

If people kill themselves all the time, maybe it's somehow a little part of God's plans!

 

[wildflowers1996]

Like I think darkness is the absence of light, not the other way round, but idk how to explain it I'm not a scientist

Well...

Then maybe it's in God's plans that people off themselves... Who knows!

If people kill themselves all the time, maybe it's somehow a little part of God's plans!

Yes it might be.
But if I know God exists, then perhaps it at least makes sense for me to research the major religions and see what happens before i ctb

 

[thewalkingdread]

so say goodness = 1
evil = - 1

Idk I'm probably making no sense
I don't see how evil can be + 1 and goodness is - 1 but maybe I'm wrong

Goodness/Badness is a dichotomy... like True/False. My point this whole time is just that you can define one term relative to the "lack" of the other. I.e. something is good/true when it lacks badness/falseness and vice-versa...

But if I know God exists, then perhaps it at least makes sense for me to research the major religions and see what happens before i ctb

Maybe God is playing a trick on most religious people that say suicide is a sin.

Maybe God is making some kind of "practical joke" or a "test/probation" like the one he did with Abraham, when he told him to sacrifice his first born son. Or when he made a "bet" with Satan, saying that Job wouldn't renounce his faith in him after being thrown in a life of pure misery. Who knows...

Or maybe the only people who will actually get to go to heaven are suicidal people who had the "cojones"/balls to off themselves, like a muslim jihadist. Maybe God is recruiting people with a suicidal vibe. Who knows...

 

[wildflowers1996]

I understand your point I'm just not sure I agree with it
I'm no scientist but I imagine a scientist would say darkness is the absence of light but light is NOT the absence of darkness

 

[Vi_Onpa_RealKing]

Goodness/Badness is a dichotomy... like True/False. My point this whole time is just that you can define one term relative to the "lack" of the other. I.e. something is good/true when it lacks badness/falseness and vice-versa...

I think the symmetry can be broken because there is the absolute cold or dark but no absolute warmth or light. There is a point there it cannot get any colder or darker because it is completely deprived (absent) of heat or light. But there is no point in which it cannot get hotter or brighter (theoretically). In that sense it would be more accurate to say that the cold is the absence of heat and not that the heat is the absence of cold.

 

[fxndi]

Exactly! "Cold" is still the lack of "heat".

And If "heat" is the lack of lack of energy, "cold" is the lack of lack of lack of energy.

That would be true IF there were points lower than 0 kelvin(its theoretically impossible to reach 0 kelvin anyways...). Also everything has energy so in this case cold is indeed a lack of heat or energy

 

[wildflowers1996]

so does the ontological argument hold any weight then in anyone's view - given the counters made to the counters?

 

[Specific_Milk]

I've been wanting to ctb for ages but something holding me back is potentially a belief in God

I spoke to a philosophy professor the other day and he told me he thought the (modern) ontological argument proved God

I always thought the ontological argument was really unconvincing but I actually find it hard to refute - people say you can't define God into existence but why not?

Basically it seems to say God is defined as perfect and to be perfect God must exist, so God exists

A common counter to this is "existence is a quantifier, not a predicate"

But you could say whilst existence is not a predicate, "necessary existence" is?

You can also make various parodies of the argument but the philosophy professor explained to me why these didn't work
(Imagining the perfect island doesn't work because "
Plantinga argues that Gaunilo's argument only works if we use an idea that has a definite condition of perfection, and because Gaunilo's island can forever be improved, "the idea of a greatest possible island is an inconsistent idea; it is not possible that there be such a thing"

Also you couldn't define a perfectly EVIL being into existence because evil is a "lack" not a quality - in the same way "cold" is a lack of warmth

So how else do you counter the argument? I hope what I'm saying is making sense

why would God play any role in your decision to ctb? whether or not there is a 'god' is irrelevant because clearly this 'god' (whether he exists or not) does not care about us. He does not intervene to stop child cancer or war. You are also assuming that this 'god' has some preference for suicide or not. You assume that there is an afterlife etc. The existence of a god is irrelevant. Deism does not condemn suicide, only the stupid theists do (and it's not even based in any of their own 'sacred' literature for example, the church condemns suicide not because it is condemned in the bible but rather as an assertion of the church's authority). Suicide is a personal decision, only you know whether it is the right course of action or not. Do not let some bullshit notion of a 'god' cloud your judgement to live or to die.

 

[Ε. Η. R.]

Also you couldn't define a perfectly EVIL being into existence because evil is a "lack" not a quality - in the same way "cold" is a lack of warmth

And it is precisely that being that people call god that is evil. In fact, it is a mistake to call this evil entity a god. There is no god in this world.

 

[Raindancer]

so does the ontological argument hold any weight then in anyone's view - given the counters made to the counters?

If you are interested in these kinds of thoughts and debates, Frank Turek is wonderful. You can Google him and on YouTube there are some great debates with well known atheists. Jordan Peterson who isn't any religion is also interesting to listen to. It's kind of funny, his argument proves God but he doesn't believe. Or, he may believe in something.

I wish my brain worked well logically to make those arguments. And I could think on my feet faster. For me my belief is from research.

 

[Tobacco]

I wasn't aware that Plantinga defended st. Anselm's ontological argument. I'm so surprised that someone so intelligent could get to the point of giving justification for such a superficially bad argument. There is no need for it.

Also something else is doumbfunding to me. They try to come up with unintuitive metaphysical theories of what it means to exist just to defend such argument.

I find much more convincing something you can find in the writings of Thomas Aquinas or even Aristotle (the unmoved mover). I'm agnostic so remember: Not any of these proofs show us the character of said god. We could just be the experiment of a being with a morality similar to that of the average human. It makes perfect sense when you see this world that is a mix of pleasant and horrible things.

 

[MatrixPrisoner]

I've been wanting to ctb for ages but something holding me back is potentially a belief in God

I spoke to a philosophy professor the other day and he told me he thought the (modern) ontological argument proved God

I always thought the ontological argument was really unconvincing but I actually find it hard to refute - people say you can't define God into existence but why not?

Basically it seems to say God is defined as perfect and to be perfect God must exist, so God exists

A common counter to this is "existence is a quantifier, not a predicate"

But you could say whilst existence is not a predicate, "necessary existence" is?

You can also make various parodies of the argument but the philosophy professor explained to me why these didn't work
(Imagining the perfect island doesn't work because "
Plantinga argues that Gaunilo's argument only works if we use an idea that has a definite condition of perfection, and because Gaunilo's island can forever be improved, "the idea of a greatest possible island is an inconsistent idea; it is not possible that there be such a thing"

Also you couldn't define a perfectly EVIL being into existence because evil is a "lack" not a quality - in the same way "cold" is a lack of warmth

So how else do you counter the argument? I hope what I'm saying is making sense

No offense, but If God is real, he/she/it is an incomopetent POS. This planet, and entire universe for that matter, is a toxic lab experiment gone bad. Far from perfect.

 

[Meditation guide]

I like this definition of God: In the beginning was the word. And the word was with God. And the word was God.

I'm not sure what it means exactly but it sounds about right. I wouldn't expect to understand what it means, it's not for me to understand. And that's as it should be. I feel like it's almost within my grasp but not quite.

Who are we to say that God should be a nice guy or a loving God or perfect?

A few times I've been miraculously thrown a life jacket by someone or something. Out of the blue I've been rescued a few times and I assume God had a lot to do with that. Something cares about me, at least sometimes.