Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
False.From Lines 1, 2, and 3 of the Ontological Argument1) God as we understand Him is a Being than which no Greater being can be conceived.2) A Being that exists in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.3) Therefore we cannot be imagining God.
@Wade8888 1) empty/unsubstantiated claim, no need for me to comment.2) has no connection to 1and is also wrong: an "ideal" can always be better than the reality, cause it's not bound to the restrictions of reality.3) does not logically follow from 2 or one , cause independend of the question whether god does exist or not, we can 100% still imagine god.this argument has no logical coherence between the points and also within the points there are glaring issues. 0/10. failed attempt at informal logic.
also to demonstrate that 1: is completely false i will now before your eyes conceive a greater being than god:in an alternative parralel timeline, god did not create anything, as there was no need to do so. therefore he spared all life the pain of existence and since he was perfect to begin with, he didn't need external entities to worship him in order to validate his greatness. see that easy.
False. False, And False.A fiction cannot be greater than reality. If you think so you're INSANE by definition.By the way, Line 1 is taught in a secular Philosophy course in every major university. The notion of a "Supreme Being" is taught in Philosophy, because every educated person knows that the Big Bang absolutely implies a Supreme Being Created reality. Educated Atheists just don't accept the idea that the First Cause is a Personal God. George Lamaitre Proposed the Big Bang Theory as a means of unifying Physics and Theology after Edwin Hubble proved the Universe was not self-eternal.Point 1 and 2 are not required to follow from one another in a Syllogism. They can eeach be stand-alone statements. Point 3 does follow from points 1 and 2 though, and you're just dead wrong.
Wrong. An imaginary being cannot be greater than the greatest being that actually exists. That's the point of point 2 and 3. Your reading comprehension is terrible. How'd you get past the 5th grade? I wasn't using big words, I was using 5th grade vocabulary and you missed the point.Trust me, I've had atheists and agnostics try the whole "Super-God" argument before too, and that doesn't work, because points 2 and 3 prove that an imaginary "god" is not greater than the greatest being that actually exists. By these three points taken together, the Greatest Being that actually eixsts is God, and it turns out this is one and the same as THE FIRST CAUSE.When you get this someday, you're going to realize how ignroant atheists and agnostics really are, and it's WILLFUL ignorance, because they've all been corrected countless times in their lifetimes.This is taught in Logic in SECULAR University in Philosophy course.
1) The point of the argument is to prove point 1 by logic alone, genius. Point 1 is not requried to be proven ahead of time when points 3 through 6 later prove point 1 to be true. Point 1 is stated as a hypothesis, and then points 3 through 6 prove Point 1 is a "Law" by pure logic.2) I mean, you sure you're okay? You seriously believe an ideal that is not real could be greater than rules or principle that is real? again, I think you're missing a few buttons, as only an insane person, or otherwise ignorant person would make that claim.For example, it's been proven since 2008 (Guthe et al) that Vector Spaces do not exist in reality, but only as abstractions. This means General Relativity is not true, by the way, because GR assumes Vector Spaces are "real". this also means about 1/3rd of everything taught from Calculus 1 through differentials and Calculus 3 is false. Again, if something is REAL it is automatically greater than something imaginary. This statement is so obviously true as to be beyond contestation. Only an idiot would oppose that statement.3) is more or less a restatement of 2. "God can't be imaginary, because an imaginary being cannot be the GCB"Anyway, the Ontological Argument perfectly agrees with the other major arguments, such as the Cosmological Argument, Moral Argument, and my own "Chaos Argument"...yeah, you think you've made brilliant objection, but one of my old atheists forum buddies on another forum tried the whole "Super-God is Greater than God" argument, which I easily dispatched, and explaind that could only mean we understimated the real God, but would by no means disprove the existence of a God... in fact if there was a "Super-God" then there is a God, proving God exists.
@Wade8888 1) yeah i know you religious folks like circular reaons. but things don't exist because you say so or cause you can "think of it". at that point "conceived" (as in conceptualized) is all they are. 2) an ideal can of course be better than reality. easy demonstration: "in an ideal world, violence doesn't exist." that ideal world is better than the real world. since i now demonstrated it, you can not possibly claim that i am wrong anymore, so do me a favor and stop that, cause you're making a fool of yourself. of course you also can have an ideal that's worse than the real world but neither of that is any proof for or against the existence of a god. 3: so the argument that something must exist because we can not be imagining it is so stupid, i genuinely don't know what to tell you, if you don't see the problem with that. people can imagine all sorts of shit that doesn't exist. that's how the mind works. that's never an argument "for" the existence of anything. ideas and fantasies of a thing does not mean that thing exists in the real world. and even a 70 iq mental case can come up with "an all powerful being". it really doesn't need much for that.
you know that's why there's not just one religions but many with different "all powerful" and not so powerful gods. reality again disproves what you said but keep closing your eyes to live your dream. i know you decided to do so, so no reason for me to discuss with you any further.
"See" is metaphorical as God is spirit and has no physical body, including eyes.
Easily proven wrong.For example, would you admit that murder and rape and human sacrifice are wrong?I hope the answer is "yes".If you said "yes" Then you admit that such a thing as "Sin" exists, which means you were LYING just now when you said it was an invention of humans, which makes you a SINNER..
@Wade8888 murder, rape, human sacrifice, etc is not only sin but it is lack of respect for other living beings. On the other hand people are brainwashed with other definitions of sin that get to be absurd these days. Who wants a heaven full of fake people? Nobody I would rather burn in hell anyday.
All ten of the Ten Commandments are derivable from Logic and Nature alone. Most of the other commandments are derivable from Logic and Nature alone.For example, "Thou shalt not steal."Why? Because it violates the Golden Rule, "thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."And so on.Thou shalt not commit adulteryWhy?Because it violates covenant, and the punishment is STDs.etc.
@Wade8888 sadly fanatics take this to the extreme and people get punished for "stealing" a loaf of bread while being very hungry. Most of the religion is taken to the extreme and only humans could be so foolish to pretend they "know" God a being so far from understanding of any human. Should I even mention hundreds if not thousand of women accused of witchcraft several hundreds years ago? and many other. Sure the guidelines are good but many people use sin for their own purpose of getting what they want.
The bible tells you that a person is not at fault for stealing food to eat. In fact, in early American history, when people were arrested for stealing food, the judge would pardon them and take up an offering from the courtroom and give to the thief.Separation of Church and state, as forced on us by the perverted Supreme Court, is the worst thing to happen in American history. To raise 3 consecutive generations of people to NOT acknowledge God except in name only is INSANE.
@Wade8888 Interesting information :)