several Ontological arguments for GOD's existance

[amuliusjuliusIII]

here:

1. God is the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived.
2. The concept of God exists in human understanding.
3. God does not exist in reality (assumed in order to refute).
4. The concept of God existing in reality exists in human understanding.
5. If an entity exists in reality and in human understanding, this entity is greater than it would have been if it existed only in human understanding (a statement of existence as a perfection).
6. from 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 An entity can be conceived which is greater than God, the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived (logical self-contradiction).
7. Assumption 3 is wrong, therefore God exists in reality (assuming 1, 2, 4, and 5 are accepted as true).

1. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.
2. It is greater to be necessary than not.
3. God must be necessary.
4. God exists

1. I exist
2. I have an idea of a supremely perfect being, i.e. a being having all perfections.
3. As an imperfect being I would be unable to create such a concept.
4. The concept must have come from God.
5. To be a perfect being God must exist.
6. God exists.

1. By definition a maximally great being is one that exists necessarily and necessarily is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good. (Premise)
2. Possibly a maximally great being exists. (Premise)
3. Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists (By 1 and 2)
4. Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. (By 3 and S5)
5. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. (By 4 and since necessarily true propositions are true.)

what do u athiests have to say to that?

[Shaun]

God does not exist in reality

This seems to be the most likely, god is most likely not to exist in reality at all, but in peoples minds as a made up entity.

Now, again, that is still in no way concrete evidence to point to the sxistence of god.

[Lusted]

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
I define God to be X.
Since I cannot conceive of X, X must not exist.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
I can’t conceive of a perfect God.
One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
God doesn’t exist.
God, if existing, is either necessary or unnecessary.
God is not necessary, therefore God must be unnecessary.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

Arguments against God.

[LegionnaireX]

Arguments against God.

I'd have to say these three arguements are incredibly weak. I've seen better arguements against the existence of God.

I've seen better arguements on both sides of the debate, period.

[Lusted]

Sorry they weren't meant to be good, he was posting quotes, so i decided to respond with quotes. Im in a rush, those 3 arguments are what i found with a quick google search.

[Tom Paine]

Of the first, I deny Premise 1. The fact he is conceived as the greatest conceivable does not mean it is so.
From the second, I again deny 1 on the same grounds.
Of the third I deny he has a concept of a perfect being; he believes one exists but cannot truly understand any such being.
Of the last it fails to realise that the possiblity of something existing does not allow it, pro facto, to exist.

[Arbaces]

What's all this foolishnes around here. They sound pretty sobre and mysterious I must say.

1. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

How do you know this? My ex-girlfriend who proved to be a *****. I still conceive her greater then God.

1. I exist

I guess he existed.

2. I have an idea of a supremely perfect being, i.e. a being having all perfections.

Foolishness to willingly let yourself subjugated by this idea. Only chaos belongs to perfection, otherwise everything else belongs to time. God is chaos. If you praise the chaos you will still be drifting through time and gain no benfit of it.

3. As an imperfect being I would be unable to create such a concept.

**** those who say of themselves they are imperfect. Even though they are they should never tell others about it. Otherwise they can be enslaved.

4. The concept must have come from God.

God? God from TWC? Well I did not know he creates such good concepts. If I get no autograph from him (The God the quote is talking about) I have no respect for him.

5. To be a perfect being God must exist.
6. God exists.

Of course. Why should I be concerned about this? It is I who said that by simply negating the existance of God we make him exist. I'm not an atheist. You should not doubt my acceptance that God existed, however not sure and do not care if he continues to exists. I have no respect for him neither if he exists or dead. If he exists he's a sadistic childish god, when he existed he was selfish. His powers were limited but he still has a lot of slaves.

Arbaces.

[PacSubCom]

If you can conceive god, then tell me what it is. If it exists in reality, it has physical properties. Please supply those and we can talk further.

[removeduser_487563287433]

This thread can be summarised as being;

Argument for God = imagination.

[Amorphos]

1. God is the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived

no; a universal non anthropomorphic entity is greater. An attributeless non-entity is greater still. Or an infinite entity is greater or omega + 1 – but lets not get into the mathematics of infinities eh.

1. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

No; that would be 'the whole' or the 'entirety', 'god' is not implied in this, if we add to the whole the notion of being or any kind of entity, then it is reduced by parts i.e. fractionalized, the whole can only be attributeless as an entirety.
This is why we cannot arrive at the whole while there are things/entities. I often ponder if this is how and why the whole somehow lies outside of existence, in a manner that existence does not exist or more probably that it cannot be 'held' by time and thus is beyond existence.

Descartes riddle is faulted in its reliance on the notion of perfection... [etc]

firstly; i exist, an assumption at best. Then 'all-perfections', what like; perfect ugliness and perfect beauty? [too many contradictions to count] Etc etc - its just an impossible concept, thus we 'imperfect beings cannot think of a all-perfect being because it cannot be arrived at except in some vague descartian manner.

[Arbaces]

Finally I have understood your format of quoting philosophy here . Here's my opinion if given in this format. However my main philosophy is on post #7 as you have read :wink:.

MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
God doesn’t exist.
God, if existing, is either necessary or unnecessary.
God is not necessary, therefore God must be unnecessary.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

God doesn't exist.
God cannot be concieved at all if non-existent.
God is concieved as non-existent.
God exists.

:tooth:

Argument for God = imagination.

Indeed .

Arbaces.

[I Have a Clever Name]

I have an idea of a tropical island. Does it exist? No. You can't picture things into existence - very, very weak argument. The arguments aren't even valid, yet alone sound.

Irregardless, I take issue with 'I can concieve God who is perfect'. This to me, is very linguistically based. Are you really picturing a perfect entity - or are you just sticking an abstract label on it in order to make it so? And is perfection based on opinion, being nothing more than a label? Is anything really truly 'perfect' devoid of all interpretation?

This thread can be summarised as being;

Argument for God = imagination.

As ever, succinct and remarkably accurate.

[Sidus Preclarum]

Originally Posted by Descartes

1. I exist
2. I have an idea of a supremely perfect being, i.e. a being having all perfections.
3. As an imperfect being I would be unable to create such a concept.
4. The concept must have come from God.
5. To be a perfect being God must exist.
6. God exists.

except that, as Kant noted, existence is not an attribute...

[I Have a Clever Name]

except that, as Kant noted, existence is not an attribute...

Well, if we refer to something it exists as Kant stated. But existence in this case refers to tangible existence, not the presence or existence of an idea - which is just a thought, arguably just the firing of some neurons in the brain. Its a necessary distinction to make.

[Sidus Preclarum]

Well, if we refer to something it exists as Kant stated. But existence in this case refers to tangible existence, not the presence or existence of an idea - which is just a thought, arguably just the firing of some neurons in the brain. Its a necessary distinction to make.

why, yes, unless of course you are just trying to demonstrate the existence of the concept of God, which is a no brainer. And I don't think that was what René was trying to achieve. :p

[I Have a Clever Name]

why, yes, unless of course you are just trying to demonstrate the existence of the concept of God, which is a no brainer. And I don't think that was what René was trying to achieve. :p

I know, I'm just justifying the statement 'God exists' in the face of Kant's evil dictum. The argument itself is the epitome of BS.

edit: misunderstood you, sorry dude.

[Søren]

I will adress Lusted's quotes :

MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
God doesn’t exist.
God, if existing, is either necessary or unnecessary.
God is not necessary, therefore God must be unnecessary.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

----

i (which is Lusted's) -

PREMISE: God is unecessary
PREMISE: God must be necessary to exist
CONCLUSUION: God does not exist

EVALUATION: If premises I & II could be substantiated, this arguement could be conclusive

----

ii (1st Demonstration arguement) -

PREMISE: God is unecessary
CONCLUSION: God may exist or he may not

EVALUATION: This arguement concludes or implies nothing

----

iii (2nd Demonstration arguement) -

PREMISE: God is necessary to the being of anything external
PREMISE: I exist
CONCLUSION: God exists

EVALUATION: This arguement is as valid as arguement 'i' (Lusted's). In both, the 'I' premise is of rather dubious truth. Indeed, in some ways Arguement 'i' is even more dubious, as it also requires premise 'II' (which is equally dubious).

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
I define God to be X.
Since I cannot conceive of X, X must not exist.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

I'll re-write this to make it more sensical :

I define God to be X.
Since I cannot conceive of X, X must not exist.
Therefore, 'X' God doesn’t exist.

And now I'll continue.

----

iv (Lusted's original arguement) -

(Added to make arguement sensica/inferred premise) PREMISE: God can only exist as 'X'
PREMISE: Only what I can conceive of can exist/My conception is absolute
PREMISE: I cannot concieve of 'X' [1]
CONCLUSION: God does not exist

[1] Think about this, and note that this is indeed a premise, not an infallible statement.

----

v (Lusted's arguement, reworked) -

PREMISE: Only what I can concieve of can exist/My conception is absolute
PREMISE: I cannot conceive of 'X'
CONCLUSION: 'X' God does not exist

EVALUATION: Eliminated the possibility of 'X' God by assuming some rather suspect premises. Overall, the arguement has little meaning. Also, one wonders how the person identified God as 'X', but then goes on to say that he cannot conceive of Him as it.

----

Quote:ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
I can’t conceive of a perfect God.
One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

I'll rework this one to :

I can’t conceive of a perfect God.
One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
Therefore, a perfect God doesn’t exist.

----

vi - (Lusted's original arguement)

(Added to make arguement sensical/ inferred premise) PREMISE: Only a perfect God can exist
PREMISE: Only what I can concieve of can exist/My conception is absolute
PREMISE: I cannot conceive of a perfect God
PREMISE: One of the qualities of perfection is existance
CONCLUSION: God does not exist

----

vii (Lusted's arguement reworked) -

PREMISE: Only what I can concieve of can exist/My conception is absolute
PREMISE: I cannot conceive of a perfect God
PREMISE: One of the qualities of perfection is existance
CONCLUSION: Perfect God does not exist

EVALUATION: While unlike the other one, it is not fallacious; it is still equally " " due to the nature of the premises.

[Tom Paine]

I can’t conceive of a perfect God.
One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
Therefore, a perfect God doesn’t exist.

One of the supposed attributes of God is perfection however... God, to exist, must be perfect. If perfection does not exist, God does not.

[Søren]

One of the supposed attributes of God is perfection however... God, to exist, must be perfect. If perfection does not exist, God does not.

The main error in that arguement is to do with conception though (see iv onwards).

[Tom Paine]

I agree. That which one can conceive does not neccessarily exist (fantasy books tell us that!) The problem however also applies to the first 3 of the original posters argument equally well; they rely on conceiving something meaning it exists.