Simpler Ontological Argument. What do you think?

[Wade12345]

Since Atheists can't seem to grasp the argument.

1) 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 can't be imagining God.
4) It's inconceivable that there could be a being Greater than the Greatest Real Being.
5) Therefore, The Greatest Real Being is one and the same as the Greatest Conceivable Being.
6) Therefore, God exists.

And don't pretend you don't know what we mean by greatness, "Almighty" you jackasses.

The past finitude of the Universe is evidence that the First Cause exists.
The First Cause is UNCAUSED, Self-Motivated, and Self Eternal.
The only thing we know which can be self-motivated is a Free Moral Agent.
Therefore the First Cause is a Mind.
Therefore God is the First Cause.

The moral argument for God's existence stems from objective Truth and Morality, which are fundamental precepts of Science. You can't do science without an absolute definition of Truth and Goodness. For that matter, this computer does not run without an absolute definition of Truth and Goodness.

Because Objective Morality exists (Murder is wrong) that leads to the question "Where did morality come from?"
The answer is morality came from the First Cause, and therefore the First Cause is a Moral Agent, not just a Free Will. Therefore God is Good.

Updates

+1 y

Hey Atheists, since you can't grasp the concept, "Greatest Conceivable Being" means "Almighty".

Anything capable of Creating all of reality (the first cause) is necessarily Almighty.

Updates

+1 y

The Universe is not past infinite nor cyclical. (Guthe et al 2008) proved that no space-time continuum can ever be infinite nor self-eternal. The past finitude of the Universe was proven when Edwin Hubble discovered the Cosmic Red Shift and Einstein admitted the Cosmological Constant was wrong.

[HighlyVolatile]

It's been ages since I've been required to analyze the formal logic behind propositions but #2 is confusing to me and seems recursive/circular with #1.

I can conceive of a human much faster than Usain Bolt, and he/she would be conceptually greater than Usain Bolt in that context, but that doesn't make him/her real.

We're capable of conceptualizing idealized concepts via extrapolation. It's like I can conceive of something better than Playstation 5: Playstation 6, 7, 8, ... Playstation infinity. That doesn't mean these exist.

I really don't see what's wrong with faith alone without trying to logically prove the existence of God. There are a lot of things that require faith like love which cannot be justified so logically. They revolve around values and ideals and faith.

[Wade12345]

It's inconceivable that anything could be more powerful than the First Cause of Reality.
Therefore, you cannot infinitely regress First Causes.
Therefore, the Greatest Conceivable Being is one and the same as the Real First Cause.

[HighlyVolatile]

If you can't infinitely regress causes then the original ontological original argument is contradicted, isn't it? That's based on infinite recursion of greatness.

[HighlyVolatile]

If we treat infinite recursion as NaN because it's inconceivable, then by that same logic, an infinitely great God cannot exist.

[HighlyVolatile]

Typically gods in most religions are considered infinite, eternal. Infinity is a very difficult concept to conceive. Yet saying it's inconceivable for a concrete output to exist to an infinitely recursive function seems more an argument against God than for God. There may be no such thing as a first cause. It may recurse indefinitely, and that infinite nature of the recursive function might be what one can call "God".

[Wade12345]

No. Fundamental Reality is infinite otherwise nothing at all would exist.

The problem for you to recognize is we know the Universe is not Infinite, due to the Cosmic Red Shift discovered by Edwin Hubble.

So the Universe has a past-finite begining, but "Fundamental Reality" does not have a past-finite beginning. Therefore The Universe is not fundamental. In fact, only The First Cause is Fundamental.

The way Carl Sagan defined "Cosmos" is not necessarily the same as the way Cosmologists Define Cosmos today. When they say "Cosmos" they mean "The Universe", but when Sagan said Cosmos, he meant "Everything that is, was, and will be." So Sagan's term "Cosmos" would incorrectly include God (The First Cause) as the same class of "being" as the rest of existence. In Philosophy 101 you learn that The Supreme Being or The First Cause cannot be "being" but must be "Being". Capital B is unique and lower "b" is not unique. There is only one Supreme Being and One "The First Cause". So God cannot be part of the Cosmos. This also proves Jesus is not now, nor ever was, nor ever will be "God in the Flesh".

[Wade12345]

Infinite recursion =/= a single Being of Infinite Attributes.

Infinite Recursion is when you say something like this:

A -> A' -> A" -> A'" ... A^n... A^infinity

What I am saying is there are a finite number of causes before you reach an Infinite First Cause, because it is not possible to count to an infinite number of finite causes. Therefore no Universe can be self-eternal, you can't count to an infinite amount of time, and no Universe can have an infinite number of Causes.

[HighlyVolatile]

Where I'm coming from if I attempt to blend the propositions from the two arguments is something like this:
1. An infinite set is a set that is no larger than can be conceived.
2. A set that exists, in reality, is larger than a set that exists only in the mind.
3. Therefore, we cannot be imagining an infinite set of first causes.
4. Therefore, an infinite set of first causes exist.

[Guy13]

Someone has been reading John Gerstner or RC Sproul. I’m a philosophy (mostly secular philosophers) guy so I get that. That’s Gobbledegook to most people.

[Anonymous]

I’ve always found it laughable when Christian’s try to debate atheist, faith isn't something that’s really debatable you either choose to believe and have it or you don’t. Neither can win this debate because you are speaking purely from your belief system that doesn’t apply to an atheist, vice versa.

[Anonymous]

You're argument falls apart at step one. You can't conceive a perfect being or a being greater than any other being. Once you start rolling off the theatrical attributes anyone with half a brain could find weaknesses or contradictions in your list of said attributes, not to mention the fact that God would be inconsistent from person to person. If you'd had any meaningful schooling you'd realize these arguments had been shot down by multiple methods centuries ago.

[Wade12345]

The Cosmological arguments and ontological arguments are sound, and they are among the first historical arguments discussed in Philosophy 101 at any major University.

[jshm2]

I understand your sentiment, but don't waste your time.

Atheists are basically the spiritually disabled and God doesn't want them, hence lets the devil have them.

[Wade12345]

Do you know how wrong that is? Your Bible says that God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

[Dargil]

My views are uncomplicated.
If there is a created, there must be a Creator.
G0d is eternal and uncreated.

[Logan_V96]

Looks like an oversimplification of the Summa Theologica

[Wade12345]

God is in fact very simple.

He once appeared to me in a dream as a Singularity sitting on a throne in an infinitely volumous place.

[Redstang88]

Still a circular argument. If you want to believe, more power to ya. But there is ZERO solid proof

[Wade12345]

Bullcrap.

The perfect order of the Laws of physics themselves, which always obey logic, points to the logical necessity of a Creator doing the thinking. This is why the Greeks defined God as the LOGOS in the first place.