Is the ontological argument for the existence of God an effective and useful method for proving the existence of God?In case anyone's not aware of what the ontological argument is, I'll briefly sum it up:St Anselm argued that God has a necessary existence, because he is the most powerful thing we can conceive of. God must be eternal and infinite, because if God were created by something else then God's existence would be contingent, not necessary, and the being which created him would be considered God.Everyone in the world has a concept of a higher power/God, even the atheist, and everyone has the concept that God is omnipotent. Therefore, his existence is necessary, because an all powerful being would, quite simply, make itself exist.If we can conceive of a being, which we cannot in turn imagine anything greater than it, then it must exist in reality.I sound pretentious as fuck writing this, but I'd love to hear other's thoughts.
"You know what uranium is, right? It’s this thing called nuclear weapons. And other things. Like lots of things are done with uranium. Including some bad things." - The President of the United States of America
Recently, President Trump tweeted that "Any negative polls are fake news... Sorry, people want border security and extreme vetting"Essentially, Trump believes that if you disagree with him, you are fake news. In his opinion everyone in America agrees with him and anyone who doesn't is fake news.Fake news.Is this a realistic approach? Or is it fake news?
The concept of Hell cannot co-exist with the concept of an omnibenevolent God. A being with infinite love and infinite forgiveness would not create a place in which his creations are tortured for an eternity. It is a logical fallacy.Either Hell exists and God is not omnibenevolent, or God is omnibenevolent and Hell does not exist.