An Argument for the Existence of God

[emprworm]

ok Acriku. if you are going to stake your rebuttal on the absurd "something <= nothing" then so be it. I know you're a smart guy, and i believe that if you think about it a while you will agree with it. no logical person can truly refuse it. maybe you wont agree with it now, but someday. and i say that as a compliment because i think you're a smart guy

not being a math major, I don't have the mathematical proof, but I assure you it exists. just read the opening statement.

for anything that exists, it contains at least ONE positive attribute

that positive attribute is LACKING in something that does not exist.

(for every attribute that SOMETHING has, it will be lacking in NOTHING)

something that exists HAS ATTRIBUTES

something that does not exist LACKS THOSE SAME ATTRIBUTES

Therefore LACK OF < MORE OF = nonexistence < existence.

period. end of sentence. i'm sorry this bothers you but it is fullproof.

something > nothing. both now and forever more, Amen.

[Miles]

for anything that exists, it contains at least ONE positive attribute

that positive attribute is LACKING in something that does not exist.

(for every attribute that SOMETHING has, it will be lacking in NOTHING)

something that exists HAS ATTRIBUTES

something that does not exist LACKS THOSE SAME ATTRIBUTES

Therefore LACK OF < MORE OF = nonexistence < existence.

period. end of sentence. i'm sorry this bothers you but it is fullproof.

something > nothing. both now and forever more, Amen.

You could plug anything into this. Because LACK OF > MORE OF then puff the magic dragon must exist since existance > nonexistance.

Logic is a useful tool in understanding the universe, but people have to understand that human fallability can corrupt the input of this logic. That is one reason that I do not respect philosphy as the ultimate path to truth, and why I say that truth is probably unnatainable for us. It is also why we must be skeptical of any proclimation of absolute truth. You fail to take into consideration the human element.

[emprworm]

philosophy is not a path to truth, its simply a tool to rule out what must be false and to assist in more probable explanations.

for example: lack of < more of is an indisputable logical premise.

and if you do not use logic to arrive at conclusions...then what?

your gut feelings?

thats how people follow David Koresh and the Hale Bopp comet.

[Miles]

philosophy is not a path to truth, its simply a tool to rule out what must be false and to assist in more probable explanations.

for example: lack of < more of is an indisputable logical premise.

and if you do not use logic to arrive at conclusions...then what?

your gut feelings?

thats how people follow David Koresh and the Hale Bopp comet.

Your premise lack of < more of is like saying

0 < 3. I agree with that, but that does not mean that 0 is impossible.

I would like to comment on another notion that is tied to this. You posted that through this logic, the existance of God is a logical conclusion because if God does not exist, then something greater than god must exist, therefore God has to exist.

If we say that God = 0, and we conclude that something greater than God has to exist, then anything in existance is greater than zero. A hydrogen molecule is greater than god, since

God = 0. This does not prove that an all-powerful being has to logically exist.

[Caid Ivik]

Oh my God, I've just had too much tea and you take it all so seriously ;D

[emprworm]

well obviously if God=0, then God cannot exist, because nothing is nothing.

God is defined as the greatest conceivable thing. And if the greatest conceivable being does not exist, then there exists something greater than God. But since God is the greatest conceivabe thing, that is impossible.

[Miles]

well obviously if God=0, then God cannot exist, because nothing is nothing.

God is defined as the greatest conceivable thing. And if the greatest conceivable being does not exist, then there exists something greater than God. But since God is the greatest conceivabe thing, that is impossible.

I agree that God is the greatest human concept possible. If God = 0 then there can be no greater concept, therefore the concept of God has to be the greatest conceivable being. I see the logic in that.

Your mistake though is that you confuse a concept with truth. Concepts are formed by our human imagination and perception. This is where human fallability has to come into play. Just because a great concept exists, does not mean that whatever is conceived exists.

This is a prime example where a valid logical conclusion is corrupted by faulty human input.

[emprworm]

well this argument (in its simplified form) has been around since 1100 AD and has been debated by philosophers for centuries. it is a brilliant argument, althought there may be a flaw in it- i don't know. suffice it to say that to this day, almost 1000 years later, it remains as one of the most hotly disputed philosophical argument for God that ever existed. Every college level philosophy class will probably go over this argument. Regardless of whether or not it is flawed...it is an ingenious logical construct.

my original long post is a variation on this argument that refutes the common refutations of it.

[stefanhendriks]

about existance/non-existance:

Its even codable, i would say:

void non_existance = NULL; // its nothing
void existance = *something;// its something

You cannot say non_existance = 0 , it does not equal 0. 0 means nothing, nothing means 'it does not exist' but since that exists, it exists. Non existance has never been there at all. Its like 'dead' and 'never been alive'. Both don't live, but being dead means you lived before, but never lived is also something different.

[emprworm]

non-existence is nothing. you speak of "nothing" as if it is something that exists. but that is just false. "nothing" by definitions means lack of existence..

either something exists, or it does not.

if it does not exist, there is no something, there is only nothing. Nothing is not a something. and anything that exists will be a something.

[Miles]

well this argument (in its simplified form) has been around since 1100 AD and has been debated by philosophers for centuries. it is a brilliant argument, althought there may be a flaw in it- i don't know. suffice it to say that to this day, almost 1000 years later, it remains as one of the most hotly disputed philosophical argument for God that ever existed. Every college level philosophy class will probably go over this argument. Regardless of whether or not it is flawed...it is an ingenious logical construct.

my original long post is a variation on this argument that refutes the common refutations of it.

Are you honestly trying to rebut my statement by saying that the argument has been around since 1100 A.D. and is argued in philosophy class? You continue to say that this argument is fool proof, but refuse to rebut my point.

All this construct does is prove the existance of the concept of God. Concepts do not necessarily equal reality. You put too much faith in human perception and imagination as the data inputted into this logical construct.

[emprworm]

huh? you posted a rebuttal?

"Your mistake though is that you confuse a concept with truth. Concepts are formed by our human imagination and perception. This is where human fallability has to come into play. Just because a great concept exists, does not mean that whatever is conceived exists.

This is a prime example where a valid logical conclusion is corrupted by faulty human input. "

sorry, I didn't realize this was a rebuttal. Saw it more as commentary.

no where in that logic is a concept being confused with truth.

the formula says that "concept + actual existence > concept alone"

Nowhere does it say "concept = existence"

i really don't have a clue what you are trying to say in your "rebuttal"

[Miles]

huh? you posted a rebuttal?

"Your mistake though is that you confuse a concept with truth. Concepts are formed by our human imagination and perception. This is where human fallability has to come into play. Just because a great concept exists, does not mean that whatever is conceived exists.

This is a prime example where a valid logical conclusion is corrupted by faulty human input. "

sorry, I didn't realize this was a rebuttal. Saw it more as commentary.

no where in that logic is a concept being confused with truth.

the formula says that "concept + actual existence > concept alone"

Nowhere does it say "concept = existence"

i really don't have a clue what you are trying to say in your "rebuttal"

Concept + actual existence > concept alone.

So I guess I misunderstand. where do you come up with the variable "actual existence" for that formula? God is merely a concept, and as such, not proven to be in existence.

My rebuttal is in the fact that your formula only deals with concepts and attempts to prove them on that basis alone. This is the flaw in using the definition of God as proof. The definition itself is merely a concept.

[Acriku]

Does this seem like a huge ontological argument to anyone else?

[emprworm]

where do you come up with the variable "actual existence" for that formula? God is merely a concept, and as such, not proven to be in existence.

My rebuttal is in the fact that your formula only deals with concepts and attempts to prove them on that basis alone. This is the flaw in using the definition of God as proof. The definition itself is merely a concept.

it is the concept of necessary existence. the argument uses logic to show a case where a conceptual necessarily existing being necessarily exists.

Posted by: Acriku-

Does this seem like a huge ontological argument to anyone else?

lol, you finally catching on! :D

[Acriku]

Hey, I do my homework, too :P

[Muad dib]

I have to tell y'all this. I say a bumper sticker that said," If you dont beleve in God, you better be right." Thats just saying that what the Revolations part of the Bible it says everything of what will happen at the end of the world. So to all of you athests out there, you better be right.(And notice how there are no stickys in this board.)

[Acriku]

Pascal's Wager. It's better to gamble and believe, in case god is real, than to gamble and not believe. It's just a scare tactic to get non-believers to believe, and god wouldn't accept believers who believe just to get out of hell.

[emprworm]

Pascal's Wager. It's better to gamble and believe, in case god is real, than to gamble and not believe. It's just a scare tactic to get non-believers to believe, and god wouldn't accept believers who believe just to get out of hell.

doesn't mean it is wrong. "pascal's wager" is just a term given by a bunch of atheists to minimize the sound philosophy given by pascal.

[Acriku]

It is wrong. god would not accept believers who believe just to get out of hell. So, believing because of Pascal's Wager would be fruitless. It is wrong.

[Miles]

ok, I think I have it. Immediately I saw the fallacy of the ontological argument, but could not put my finger on it until now. It occured to me as I looked at your original post and looked at other sites of ontological proponents.

The fallacy is that the proponents of the ontological argument use the terms greatest conceivably possible being with the greatest possible being interchangeably when in fact, these two are completely different notions.

First I think we need to define what is "possible" and how this relates to reality. Given all the factors in this universe; time and the chain of events that has led us to this exact snapshot in time and the possibilities that this chain of events has created, it is logical to conclude that the greatest possible being exists. This would probably exist outside of our perception as we do not know all the factors of the universe that might have led to our current reality.

However, this "greatest possible being" does not necessarily indicate something god-like. It just indicates that given the factors of time and universal limitations, something or someone has reached the highest level of possibility in this reality. Conceiveably, in other universes, some being greater would exist, but does not necessarily mean that it exists as a necessity to all universes, only that in each reality, the greatest possible being, given whatever different circumstances of these realities, exists.

An example I will use is the greatest possible intellect. Given the developement of our universe and the apparent laws that govern it along with the chain of events that has lead us to where we are now, it is logical to conclude that the greatest possible intellect has been achieved for this exact time in our universe given the constraints within this universe. At another point on the timeline of existence of this universe it is conceivable that a greater intelligence will emerge. The greatest possible only refers to this exact point in time not to the greatest possible forever.

It is like saying that Maurice Green was the fastest possible human for that exact point in time, but at another point in time, being more recently, his record was broken in the 100 meter dash,(I can't remember his name), therefore, this new track athlete is now the fastest possible for this exact point in time. In the future, this record also will probably be broken, but that doesn't change the fact that he exists now as the fastest possible human.

The existence of the greatest possible being in each reality is logical as shown in the formula that you posted, but does not show that one specific being is a necessity to all realities nor for all time.

This would be how the greatest possible would be defined in reality.

The greatest conceivable being, however, exists within human imagination. This concept is not based on universal factors or chains of events that make things possible, rather it is a concept created out of our own imaginations, not constrained by reality. We cannot prove that it is possible in reality, because we probably do not know enough about reality to make that conclusion. This is the fallacy. We do not know if God is possible, therefore the ontological argument if flawed in asserting that God is possible. We simply don't know.

So, in conclusion, I attack statement 2 of the ontological argument. "It is as least possible for God to exist in reality, he at least exists in some possible circumstances." We do not know this for sure, we only know that we can conceive of a perfect being, but our conceptions are not limited by reality's constraints.

I hope that I wrote this out well enough. I'm sure I missed something, as the ideas were racing through my head. I think though, that this is pretty much it.

[Edric O]

It is wrong. god would not accept believers who believe just to get out of hell. So, believing because of Pascal's Wager would be fruitless. It is wrong.

A few days ago, in another topic, you said that everyone believes in God just to get out of hell. Make up your mind.

Of course, the argument that everyone just wants to stay out of hell is ridiculous, and I gave you myself and many other Christians as counter-examples. But the point here is not to discuss that - it is to warn you that you are contradicting yourself.

[Acriku]

I am not contradicting myself, who knows how many people are really in heaven? Who knows how many christians find themselves burning in the eternal flame, where they expected luxury and peace? Who knows if you are going into hell.

Yourself is not a counter-example. You may not know it, but there might be the single reason deep below all the reasons you made up for youself, to get out of hell. But do I know for sure? No. Is it probable? Yes.

[Edric O]

I am not contradicting myself, who knows how many people are really in heaven? Who knows how many christians find themselves burning in the eternal flame, where they expected luxury and peace? Who knows if you are going into hell.

Yes, I might be going to hell. What's your point?

Oh, and by the way, you still haven't explained how exactly is it that you're not contradicting yourself. It sure looks that way to me. Either people who believe in God just to stay out of hell go to heaven or not. Have you made up your mind yet?

Yourself is not a counter-example. You may not know it, but there might be the single reason deep below all the reasons you made up for youself, to get out of hell. But do I know for sure? No. Is it probable? Yes.

Oh, so now you know me better than I know myself?

This forum is full of mind-readers. ::)

[Acriku]

Yes, I might be going to hell. What's your point?

Oh, and by the way, you still haven't explained how exactly is it that you're not contradicting yourself. It sure looks that way to me. Either people who believe in God just to stay out of hell go to heaven or not. Have you made up your mind yet?

I said all believers are believing just to get out of hell. And then I said in this thread that god would not accept those who believed just to get out of hell. You said I contradicted myself, I questioned whether how many people we know actually to be in heaven - that is, my statements can very well be mutual if I establish that we don't know for sure who god lets into heaven, so there can be no one in heaven because they all believe just to get out of hell.

I must make note however, that obviously my first statement was a playful theory. I don't believe it to be absolute truth, but it is something to consider and ponder about.

Oh, so now you know me better than I know myself?

If I said it is the truth, then I would be claiming to know you better than yourself. But I just set it as probable.