CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
This debate has ended. You can no longer add arguments or vote in this debate.
Ontological proof God is God
Video is less than five minutes, Please watch the video and keep the discussion focused constructively and civilly. The first word I read which is disruptive, distractive or profane will result in immediate banning of that person.
While I'm a Christian, I disagree with this proof. It relies on the validity of the concept of "other", dissimilar "realities", which are, given that the Universe is wholly regular (predictable), absurdities at best. To claim that "things could have gone X way instead of Y" is to deny the regularity of the Universe, which is to deny reason itself.
Furthermore, while I'm not well-versed in the mechanics of this proof, if "other" realities were to exist, who's to say a "Maximally powerful" being couldn't simply be "Maximally powerful" within its own realm? To assume that it must exist within all hypothetical realms is, in my opinion, an unfair extrapolation.
Note: if you're going to ban me from this debate, as I suspect you will, I'd appreciate it if you would at least have the courtesy to explain why. The simple fact that I disagree with you is, in of itself, neither rude nor disruptive.
Well I'm glad to hear you are a Christian, so you must be born again. That's good. When did it happen? Do you remember the exact date that you were born again?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe one of the points of the ontological proof is that IF their are dissimilar "realities", God must be morally the same in those realities. I did not see any assertion of any alternative or dissimilar realities other than the one we know; only the assertion that IF there are such other realities, God must be the same in those realities.
I agree with you that the idea of other realities is absurd, I think it is obvious in nature that there are realities we cannot see but the fact we cannot see them does not mean they do not exist and it does not mean they are separate from the reality that we know. I believe it is in that unknown reality that angels and demons operate, and at times we can see them or evidence of their operation....but that is a bit of a sidetrack still fit for this discussion.
Maybe you or I misunderstood something in the video. I thought alternative realities where unicorns may exist were presented as possible, not definite. The absurdities mentioned were things like "a married bachelor, or a square circle", logical absurdities which are unimaginable because they are absurd.
If God, being "maximally powerful", could not be maximally powerful in other realms, then those other realms would be beyond God's power and therefore God would not be maximally powerful, but rather limited in power, and that violates the definition of God being omnipotent, so it would be logically absurd to say God is omnipotent here but powerless there. If He is not omnipotent there, then He is not omnipotent here but is limited.
The mechanics of this proof are coherent logic. If God is not omnipotent in any realm you can imagine, then He cannot be God.
I will not ban you as long as you continue in this manner which is civil in disagreeing or in questioning. Please review the video to support that either you or I was misunderstanding the steps of logic presented.
I have always responded to you with great reasoning and logic and you ban me lol. First time you banned me it was because I asked you to site your sources XD I didnt even do so rudely
Well now I am banning you for acting stupid like you picture yourself in your icon. You could have watched the video and discussed the topic like most of the others here have done. It seems to be a great discussion, I'm sorry you feel you need to try to ruin it so you can't participate.
A little off track from what you said, but related......
I think the key point is given around 2:20---> that the atheist has to maintain not only that God does not exist, but that it is impossible for God to exist.
God must be the same in every possible reality, so He must be the same in this reality, so He must exist. Atheists must assert that it is not possible for God to exist, or they are not really atheists and would have to be agnostic which is really the same as atheist but that is probably better for a separate discussion. I think Ontological proof divides atheists from agnostics if they will not accept the logical conclusion that God is God.
This is the best explanation of the Ontological proof that I have seen....and I took college theology in a strong Baptist Bible college where the four (if I recall there are four) basic logic lines proving God is God was a large part of one of the classes and a large part needed for the final grade in that class. I have all my papers and most of the text books buried somewhere, I like to refresh my memory on things as I go along...the internet makes learning a lazy endeavor.
I have seen people here talk about the Ontological argument and it is natural for me to use it's lines in my reasoning trying to get people to see God is God...but this video really lays it out plainly and step by step proving that most people who talk about it don't know what they are talking about.
The idea is that God must exist in any imaginable realm, whether those realms exist or not. It those realms do not exist, then God is not there. If they do exist, as the being which cannot be surpassed in greatness by any other, He must be the same there as in any other reality including the one we pretty much agree is real, our own.
An atheist must assert that it is not possible for God to exist an any realm, known or unknown. If He can exist in another realm, He must exist in our actual realm.
The line I use in the Ontological proof is like this:
when people say things like "god is imaginary", I point out that the imaginary thing they are referring to cannot be God because in order to be God, He must be the giver of the power of imagination, there greater than your imagination. If you insist god is an imagined thing, the thing you are talking about is not God.
Everybody knows God is greater than our imaginations or anything we can imagine. Any atheists who tries to argue with me in this basically shakes their head, draws a blank look on their face, and insists the thing they are talking about which is imaginary is the same as God....which is absurd. It is absurd to say the Creator of all Things who created people with the ability to imagine things is an imagined thing. If you can imagine God, then God is created by your imagination and then the thing you imagined cannot be God...even if you call it God, it is nothing but your own consciously created straw man which is not God the Creator of all things.
The realm of thought (that is, the implications of imagination) the Ontological proof, and your justification of it, exists in is quite difficult for me to comprehend. I can sort of see how your points fit together, and I can't see anything wrong with them, so I'm just going to say that, despite our differences in opinion, I agree with you on this point, and retreat back to areas of discussion I'm more familiar with.
If you are a Christian, then you must know God is the Creator of all things and exists independently of all things. Am I correct in assuming you know this? This is the starting point, the definition of God. In the video that definition is presented as "a maximal being" and "morally perfect". I think "maximal being" pretty well covers and includes eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, and "morally perfect" means He is good. That is the definition of God, and because everybody with sufficient powers of reasons understands God is God, that proves He is there. This is the simplified version which I was taught in Christian/Bible college. The fact that everybody knows what the definition of God is proves God is there. Atheists try to present things which do not fit the definition of God and then argue those things cannot be God; making a willful decision to deny that God is God.
When they use one of their favorite lines, "an omnipotent God cannot exist because He cannot be good while allowing evil, pain and suffering" ignores the fact that God is eternal and has a plan to deal with evil, pain, and suffering. Every atheistic line of reasoning I am aware of starts with replacing God with a thing which cannot qualify as being God and then insisting the thing they are arguing against is not God...they argue against their own consciously created straw men.
Yes indeed and the original argument stated god is necessary for the reasons you state , it's a pretty weak argument
This argument fails because it contains the fallacy of Circular Reasoning because it simply assumes a god exists from its premise. This argument does not claim to be certain within the premise and the argument admits within itself that a god is only possible when the argument says “possibly necessarily” and therefore we can reject this version. Your mental faculties do not influence whether or not a being exists.
Sir, thank you for your constructive comments here. Some here were given a clean slate, invited to comment, and failed to appreciate the clean slate I always give whenever I open discussion for people.
From what I see in the video, the reasoning is linear and not circular. It starts with the possibility, "if" God is possible, He must be God". The idea is that if it is possible for God to exist in any unknown, speculated, or imagined realm, then He must exist in the actual realm due to the fact that as God He must be superior to all beings and exist independently of all beings and realms including our own being and our own realm.
So, for an atheist to say there is no God, he must assert that it is not possible for God to be there in any known or unknown realm. It seems to me that the only way a person can avoid this linear logic is to change the definition of God into a thing called god which can be imagined and therefore cannot be God. The question is not about a thing called a god which may exist in your imagination, a realm known only to you....the question is about God who must be the same regardless of your imagination, and your imaginations of God must be subject to His reality rather than trying to change God into a thing called god which would be subject to your reality.
I fully agree with you that your mental faculties do not influence whether or not a being exists. I have said exactly the same thing many times, in slightly different words, in response to those who say God is imaginary (and they usually are talking about a thing they call god which they can imagine, and they usually imagine it to be something bitter and mean instead of being good as God by definition must be good (or as stated in the video, "morally perfect"). God's existence is not subject to our mental faculties. If we lose our mental faculties, He is still there. Before we had mental faculties, He was there. That's God, eternal and independent of our mental faculties.
The line of thinking is not about a god which can be determined or destroyed by your imagination, it is about God who must be God in any realm imaginable, real or unreal, and that realm includes the one we know as reality.
Nonsense , your argument is circular Anselm himself realised this when presented with one of the many counters the first being the perfect Island scenario ... you obviously havnt given it much thought have you ?
I want to say first pardon me for talking to much..God knows my faults and I pray He can use me in spite of those faults.....
I'm sorry, but the reasoning is linear, starting with the definition of God being eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, and morally perfect....or as stated in the video, "maximally great". This concept is not a logical absurdity like a round circle, and it is not circular reasoning, it is simply defining the character of God who would be the person you are trying to argue against by saying there is no God to argue against.
So what you are saying is that there is no maximally superior being. Well then, how do you define maximally superior, and if you cannot define it then you do not know what you are talking about and the thing you are talking about cannot be God.
I am actually giving this more thought than when the Ontological proof was taught to me in Bible college as the fact that everybody knows God must be eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, and morally perfect proves that He is God. For the exam in that class, I only had to state this brief understanding of the argument.
I have carefully and thoughtfully used this argument many times in my discussions here as it flows naturally and logically....when you are trying to say there is no God, you must first define what you are talking about which you call God. I have seen no atheistic argument which does not start by using a thing which cannot qualify as God and then saying it is not God.
Now please, sir, I know you will dislike and disagree with the following at this time, but it is not meant to be anything other than sharing my personal experience and current reality. I appreciate you giving your time here to actually think about the subject and constructively frame your disagreements. Please do not insinuate that I have not given much thought to the things I speak of....I am introspective and analytical to a fault, a huge fault, and happy when I find truth which frees me from trying to figure it out any longer. Once you know the truth you can act on it, until you know it you have to think about it and try to figure it out. That is the fatal mistake of atheism...it assumes it knows something it cannot possibly know and stops thinking about it. My goal is to plant seeds which will grow into knowledge of truth. Maybe there is no room in you for such seeds, maybe you have forever concluded you know the truth when you insist God is not there, and that is your choice and you are entitled to make that choice. I am aware that you reached that conclusion largely due to your interactions with Catholicism...and they really don't care if you believe what they teach or not, as long as you do not believe what the Bible teaches. Catholic intent is world domination regardless of whether it's subjects agree or disagree with it's teaching, and those subjects cannot be controlled if they believe the Bible is God's holy word.
I am much more active in reality than in thinking trying to understand reality. When I was young and confused I spent most of my time thinking, trying to figure things out. I was very young when I figured out that evolution cannot be true and the people who were trying to push it on me by bringing it down to the level of a young child in cartoons and children's books were not to be trusted. Yes I have given this a lot of thought....but I don't have to think about things so much any more as I have found freedom for action is knowing the truth.
First, you would have to describe "the perfect Island", and then show how it cannot be improved upon. If your "perfect Island" can be improved upon, then it is not "maximally great". The circular reasoning you are talking about is when a person presents a thing, shows it is not qualified to be God, then argues that it cannot be God because it is not qualified to be God. A perfect island cannot be God, to say it is not God is circular reasoning arguing against your own consciously created straw man which is not God.
I don't get where you find Anselm saying his logic was circular. It seems he is consistently presenting it as linear.........and I do not uphold Anselm as having cornered this line of reasoning. I never heard of Anselm before I found this video, I simply think it is well presented in sound linear logic.
I do not call this an argument, I call it a proof. I don't know who Lane Craig is, and like I said did not know who the monk Mr. A. was until I found this video.
The first point in the idea is "IF".....IF it is possible that God exists. That is point 1.
1. It is possible that a Maximally Great Being exists.
2. A Maximally Great Being Exists in some possible world.
The progression of logic here is that it is possible God exists in some possible world, and cannot be God unless He exists in every possible world, and that includes the actual world.
The initial assertion is that it is possible God exists in a place you do not know of. Since it is possible that God exists, as God He must be the same in all possible worlds including the actual world and there He must exist.
The line of reasoning starts with it is possible that God exists. An atheist must assert that it is not possible that God exists, and therefore the idea of God must be shown logically absurd like a square circle, or like saying a thing such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster which is not God, is God. That would be logically absurd.
This is not my argument, nor is it owned by the Monk who is credited here. The simple fact that you know you want to deny God is the eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and morally perfect Maximally Great Being proves that He is there and you are trying to make Him stop being there by saying He is not there, and you know that He must exist outside of and independent of your imagination as God, or He is not God and is not there.
Truth never changes, it is ageless and was there before you were there. This Monk credited with the video is a guy who had a lot of time to sit around and try to figure out what is true. He logically concluded that God is God and cannot be anything less than God. My approach has been to simply point out that when an atheists says there is no God, the only God they want to get rid of is the same God who is the Maximally Great Being spoken of by the monk, and to be maximally great He must be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, morally perfect, and eternal, there before any thing was created, there before any thing existed, there now, and there forever.
My pastor puts it this way, and now I am beginning to appreciate and see how he uses the line....an atheist is asserting they know things in realms they do not know about, so you ask the atheist if he knows everything. An honest atheist will say no. Then you ask the atheist if he knows half of everything. Again, an honest atheist will say no. Then you ask the atheist if it is possible that God exists in the half of everything which they do not know. If they say no, then they are claiming to know everything. If they say "I don't know", that means it is possible that God exists as they cannot rule Him out. If they say no, it is not possible that God exists in the half of everything which I do not know, they are lying...perhaps actually fooling themselves into believing their own lie so they really are not liars, just deceived.
In an interview for The Atheism Tapes, from the BBC, philosopher Colin McGinn briefly discussed the ontological argument. He said, ‘It is a brilliant argument, right, but it is wholly unconvincing to everybody who hears it. They think there is something going wrong with that, you know. That is a very strange argument.’ Then Jonathan Miller, the interviewer, asked McGinn to explain what was wrong with the argument, and though he later gave a rough approximation of what he thought might be wrong with it, McGinn replied, ‘Well, that is the difficulty, is nobody has ever managed to pinpoint exactly what is wrong with it.’ This echoes comments from Bertrand Russell, who also famously said that it is much easier to be persuaded that ontological arguments are not any good than it is to say what exactly is wrong with them.
This introductory paragraph is taken from Stlouisschool or something like that, where the "philosopher" who wrote is is portraying himself to be wiser than Bertrand Russell....he continues in the article to follow your line of reasoning implying the Ontological proof is equating a thing which you can imagine with God the creator of all things who exists outside of your imagination. That is erroneous, the whole point of the Ontological proof is that God must exist independently of your imagination or He cannot be God, and if you argue against a thing that you can imagine not being God, the thing you are arguing against God is not God even if you call it God. By using the line of reasoning of the philosopher who uses your same line of reasoning, you are arguing against your own logical absurdity and failing to recognize that a Maximally Great Being must exist independently o four imagination and cannot be imagined by you. What you are doing is inserting logical fallacies and then arguing against your own logical fallacies...and surely Bertrand Russell considered that line but did not try to use it as he sees the flaw of it. While never conceding to the Ontological proof of God, Russel was honest enough to admit there is no valid way of showing flaw in the reasoning. He simply will not believe it. That, I guess, would be honest atheism.
No greater being than God can be imagined, therefore God exceeds your imagination. God is God only as the One who was there before you had the ability to imagine any thing.
You are trying to limit God to being something no greater than the greatest thing you can imagine, and that thing would be limited by you inability to be eternal in your imagination as you did not exist in eternity past as the Maximally Great Being must have existed to qualify as Maximally Great...so the thing you are referring to the greatest imaginable being is not the Maximally Great Being, God.
The first point of the argument is "It is possible that God exists".
Your assertion that the argument starts by assuming God exists is a red herring. The line of thinking starts with the possibility that God exists, and then shows how that possibility proves that He actually is there. The line of reasoning does not work to prove the existence of things less than God which can be imagined, the line of reasoning does not disprove the possibility that things you can imagine like your "perfect island" actually exist as your perfect island is subject to your definition of what a perfect island is and it may exist in some unknown realm while it does not exist here. As God, He must be perfect here the same as in any unknown realm, and He must be perfect even in the realm where your perfect island may exist and He must be independent of and and eternally God before your perfect Island was created.
If your perfect island can be improved upon, then it cannot be compared to God who cannot be improved upon but is maximally great. Does your perfect Island love you perfectly, know your thoughts, and want you to have the desires of your heart? Does it have the power to give you the desires of your heart? Did it create you and all things? Is it everywhere, conscious of all things and all thoughts everywhere?
If your perfect Island falls short of any of these ideas, it may be a perfect Island according to what you think a perfect Island is, but it cannot be uses as a comparison to God who must be God even if your perfect island exists.
Again I've proved your argument is nonsense , let's do it again by stating Anselms argument Here is the classic version of the Ontological Argument” as they call it, which can accurately be summarized thus:
1) It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (i.e., the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
2) God exists as an idea in the mind.
3) A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4) Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (i.e., a greatest possible being that does exist).
No. Correction - if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then all this means is that we can imagine something that is greater than the idea of God in the mind – not greater than a God who actually exists. Anselm’s argument relies entirely on equivocation - the misleading use of a term that has more than one meaning, while glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time. Specifically, Anselm relies on there being two meanings of the word “God,” and he slips between these definitions as it suits him. What are these two meanings of the word “God”? They are (1) a god who exists in reality and (2) a god who exists only in the mind. In point 4 above he uses the “god who exists only in the mind” version, but in point 5 he tries to make you think he was talking about the “god who exists in reality,” because point 5 is:
5) But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
Yes, but “the greatest possible being that can be imagined” is not God who exists only as an idea in the mind – so there is no contradiction. It only seems to be a contradiction because Anselm is equivocating between the different meanings of the word “God” and has glossed over which meaning he is using at different points in his argument.
6) Therefore, God exists.
No. Epic FAIL. Therefore nothing. All this shows is that we can imagine something greater than a God who exists only in the mind. But “God who exists only in the mind” is not “a being than which none greater can be imagined.” In fact, premise 3 specifically states there can be something greater than this – a God who exists in reality - and so the argument is contradicted by its own premises. “God who exists only in the mind” is not God, as defined in premise 1, and so it is possible to imagine something greater, without violating premise 1.
Anselm’s mistake will become clearer if we define his terms in a less ambiguous way. I will rename Anselm’s different versions of God, as God-1 and God-2:
God-1 = God who exists in reality (the thing whose existence we are trying to prove).
God-2 = a God who exists only as an idea in the mind.
Now we can rephrase the argument:
Nothing greater than God-1 can be imagined
God-2 exists.
God-1 is greater than God-2
If God-1 does not exist then we can imagine something greater than God-2 (i.e., God-1)
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God-1
Therefore God-1 exists
You can see quite clearly now that the argument is bogus. Point 4 is where it goes wrong. It only appears to work because Anselm equivocates about the definitions of God-1 and God-2. This is what he is doing. He is trying to make point 4 sound like, “If God-1 does not exist then we can imagine something greater than God-1” (which would be a contradiction to point 1). But point 4 only makes sense as “…we can imagine something greater than God-2 (i.e., God-1),” as in my version. (Otherwise he is actually saying “If God-1 does not exist then we can imagine something greater than God-1 (i.e., God-1),” which is gibberish.) He hopes you won’t notice he changed God-2 to God-1 in point 5, setting up the contradiction to point 1. But he wasn’t talking about God-1 in point 4, so there is no contradiction. Consequently, point 6 “Therefore God-1 exists,” just doesn’t follow.
Not only that, but now we’ve deconstructed it, we can see it doesn’t even make sense. Consider this. Point 5 is just a restatement of point 1. So if you leave out this repeated point (you don’t need it here since it’s already been stated), the last two points (4 and 6) are:
If God-1 does not exist then we can imagine something greater than God-2 (i.e., God-1)
Therefore God-1 exists
To simplify even further, we can cut out what this allows us to imagine, which leaves:
If God-1 does not exist then …
… God-1 exists
To go back to the phrasing of the original argument, he is saying, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then God exists in reality. Or, put it even more simply, if God doesn’t exist then he exists.
I don't know where you got this, but you are twisting things around in order to try to support your assertion that it is circular reasoning. Who said God exists only as an idea in the mind? Where did you get that? The idea of God is that He is independent of all things and exists outside of your imagination, was there before you had the power of imagination, and if you are talking about a thing which was not there before you imagined it, that thing does not qualify as God and arguing against that thing while calling it God is arguing against a thing which is not God but rather is your own consciously created straw man if you call it God or you call it the perfect island or you call it god or you call it the Flying Spaghetti monster or Zeus or whatever.
You are trying to change the entire line of reasoning..you are trying to start with "it is impossible for God to exist", and you are trying to prove that conclusion by presenting things which are not God, like your perfect Island, and then arguing that your things cannot be God...it is you who is using circular reasoning to argue against your own consciously created straw man, you are not presenting an argument against God.
It's Anselm argument more or less as originally stated , again when confronted with logic you crumble like a cheap deck chair on a windy day , you truly are a sore loser read it again and weep 😭😭😭
You have completely changed the entire line of reasoning, you are completely ignoring the line of reasoning and changing the wording about to create your own absurdity and then arguing that because the thing you have created is absurd, it cannot be God. Of course the thing you are creating is not God.
Your point, 5, illustrates how you are ignoring the ontological proof and creating your own absurdity which is not God and then insisting it cannot be God. God is always defined as "maximally perfect" which means eternal, omniscient, omnipresent omnipotent, and morally perfect.
You said it yourself. A think you call God which exists in your imagination cannot be God who is independent of your imagination. If you are arguing against a thing you imagine to be God, then it is not God who exists outside of your imagination. It is you who is trying to create differing meanings for the word God, and trying to declare they are all the same. It is you is is trying to say God is a square outside of your imagination, and a circle when you imagine Him.
Premise 3, in your own wording, states that God is greater than anything you can imagine, correct? There can be no greater being than God imagined because your imagination cannot exceed God's greatness, correct? Therefore God exists outside of your imagination, correct? Isn't that what is being stated, and isn't that exactly what you are saying while you try to deny you are saying it?
You have changed the assertions of the Ontological proof so you are arguing against a thing which exists only as an idea in the mind. That is not God, it's a straw man and arguing against it is a red herring. God is the One who gave people the ability to imagine things, He is not a thing which can be imagined, He is greater than anything we can imagine. Our minds cannot contain or comprehend that which is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and morally perfect. We can only begin to try to understand, to know God. We can...whether we will or not is a choice each individual makes.
skipping over how you changed the first three points, so the thing you are arguing against is a thing you can create in your imagination instead of arguing against God who exists independently of your imagination, I'll take you up again starting at your version of point 4.
4) Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (i.e., a greatest possible being that does exist).
No. Correction - if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then all this means is that we can imagine something that is greater than the idea of God in the mind – not greater than a God who actually exists. Anselm’s argument relies entirely on equivocation - the misleading use of a term that has more than one meaning, while glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time. Specifically, Anselm relies on there being two meanings of the word “God,” and he slips between these definitions as it suits him. What are these two meanings of the word “God”? They are (1) a god who exists in reality and (2) a god who exists only in the mind. In point 4 above he uses the “god who exists only in the mind” version, but in point 5 he tries to make you think he was talking about the “god who exists in reality,” because point 5 is:..........
In your version of the argument, you yourself show that the thing which can be imagined and is called "God" is not the same as God who is greater than the thing you can imagine which you call God. To be God, he must be Maximally Great, therefore He must exist before and independently of your imagination. So the thing you are calling God which exists only in your mind is not God who must be the same in every possible realm as the Maximally Great Being and there can be no being greater or equal to Him or He would not be Maximally Great and could not be God.
It is you who needs a new argument...the problem is that there is no rational argument against God, and you must create a thing in your mind which is not qualified as God and then argue that it cannot be God because it is not qualified to be God...so you are arguing only against your consciously created straw man, you are not arguing against God who by definition is eternal and independent of your imagination.
Moving on to your point 5, which again is a completely different line of reasoning than what is presented in the video as you maintain throughout your reasoning that God is an imagined thing, and therefore cannot be Maximally Great, and therefore the thing you are arguing against is not God even if you call it God......you are creating your own logical absurdity and using circular logic starting with the assertion that it is not possible that God exists outside of your imagination......so you are only arguing against a thing which you can imagine and which cannot be God....repeating myself, because I'm trying to follow your circular reasoning and get you to pause and move into linear reasoning.
Okay....your point 5...we cannot imagine something that is greater than God. Correct. By definition God is greater than anything we can imagine and exists outside of our imagination. If you argue against a thing which exists only in your imagination when you imagine it, then it is not the greatest being, in fact I am a greater being then the thing you imagine because when the thing you imagine fades from your consciousness, I am still here...yet I am not God. Even a mortal man is greater than the greatest being you can imagine which exists only in your imagination....and it would be absurd to say anything less than God is God, yet that is what you are trying to do with your imagined thing.
Your point 6 which declares epic fail again fails itself to acknowledge God is greater than anything which can be imagined as He is Maximally Great. You are trying to degrade Maximally Great to nothing greater than anything you can imagine. You cannot imagine something that is Maximally Great because you yourself are limited in time, power, knowledge, and mobility and on top of all that you are like me morally imperfect.
You are trying to change the whole line of reasoning into denying that God is Maximally Great. The thing you are arguing against which is not maximally great cannot be God even if you call it God or a god, or Zeus, or whatever.
You're rambling now and making no sense I've put your argument to bed and maybe you need to watch William Land attempt to argue using the newly improved version of the arguement ,which I also destroyed ...
That's two ways Ive done it , I may give you the latest version for yourself again stronger that Anselms and then destroy that .....
The way you are trying to replace the Ontological proof with your own version is more than circular reasoning, it's figure 8, curly Q, spinning windmill jumping jacks reasoning.
Throughout your fraudulent version of the Ontological proof that God is God, you practically randomly jump back and forth between arguing that God exists outside of your imagination and then you insist God exists only in your imagination. That is logically absurd. God cannot be God who exists independent of your imagination if He only exists when you imagine Him. That would be like saying a bachelor is married. You whole version is based on a consciously created straw man being equal to God which is a logical absurdity. You are arguing with circular reasoning against the possibility that your logical absurdity is God. Of course your logical absurdity is not God and is only a thing you imagine....We are not trying to prove the thing you imagine is God, we know that thing is not God and it is absurd to call it God. We do not have to prove God is God because He is God regardless of whether you or I or anybody else acknowledges He is there independently of our imagination.
If you want to discuss things not related to the brief video in the OP, make another debate of your own and as long as you are civil I will discuss it with you there.
I am not imagining anything, God must be Maximally Great as the video explains or He would not be God, and to be Maximally Great He must be eternal, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent, and Morally Perfect. The video mentions those attributes with different wording, but it is God who is being spoken of as I have described Him....the only being qualified to be God.
If you want to discuss the topic constructively you are welcome, if not, please cease posting here.
The "Omni" qualities are very broad. What you do is take from that what you personally imagine is an example of perfect morality, or perfect judgement, and attribute it to God. If other people don't agree with what you imagine is the behavior of a perfect God, you claim they are imagining.
I asked you to focus on the points made in the video. You are trying to pull me into a personal argument, you are insulting my intelligence and being disruptive, so you are banned. All you are doing is trying to insult me.
The point is that God must be Maximally Great or only a greater being could be God. You are trying to ignore the fact that God must be eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and eternal to be Maximally Great.
It is possible that such a being exists, that is the first point of the video.
The second point is that it does exist in some possible realm. Third....if such a being exists, it must be the same in all possible realms
Fourth...it must be the same in the actual world
Fifth....There must be a Maximally Great being in the actual world
Therefore, the Maximally Great Being, God, must be there.
Maximally Great is maximally great, it is not subject to varying opinions of what constitutes greatness. This being, God is the only One you are trying to deny. And because your tactic is to try to draw me into a personal argument in which your main point is to insult me, you are banned. I suggest you watch and pay attention to the video as you obviously have a problem paying attention to me and are only trying to be disruptive.
I have never seen you contribute constructively in any of my discussions, I do not read your posts, you are always unwelcome in my discussions and banned the moment I see your icon.
I know by the first three words of your post to avert my eyes and not read the rest, and whatever it is it got you banned.
I suggest you observe here some people who in the past have been nastier than I remember you to be, who are now discussing the topic civilly. I do not insist anybody agree with me, I only ask for civility which you, though you have always been milder than some of the people now discussing in this debate, have always failed to maintain.
You are banned here, and will always be ignored the first word I see you type which alludes to your incivility, immorality, and/or desire to disrupt constructive speech.
Learn from some of the people here who have been far nastier than I remember you to be, they are airing their disagreements constructively and will be welcome while you are shut out due to your desire to be disruptive which is obvious in the first three words you typed here.
Like I said, I have learned thanks to the vulgarity of many here, you included, to stop reading the moment I see incivility. You had a clean slate here and you ruined it for yourself in the first three words. You should be ashamed of yourself. I will not mention anything related to this in my next discussion if you can display civility then, and I hope you don't end up in Hell before I can hear from you again. God loves you.
Can I prove that God is the imaginary friend I worship? If God is imaginary, then He cannot be God, because He would not exist outside of my imagination. An imagined thing cannot be God even if you call it God. The Flying Spaghetti Monster may exist, but it does not compare to God. You are using a thing which you call imaginary and comparing it to God. It does not compare because God, in order to be God, must exist outside of and independent of your imagination. God who I worship infinitely exceeds the reaches of my imagination, and cannot be contained or changed by my imagination as your friend the Flying Spaghetti Monster can fit in, be changed by, and is subject to your imagination.
Your final comment calling me hopelessly mad qualifies you for banning, but since you threw it in expecting I was going to ban you before the comment was made I will say cease from those comments and enjoy disagreeing with the assertions I support as proof that God is there.
I will add this, and please don't get upset and fly off on me like your spaghetti friend....
It is impossible to prove anything to somebody who says "I won't believe it". You are free to believe or disbelieve anything and everything. Simply say "I don't believe it" and you won't believe it. God gives you that freedom of choice because He is good and loves you. He wants you to be you, He wants you to have the desires of your heart.
t is impossible to prove anything to somebody who says "I won't believe it". You are free to believe or disbelieve anything and everything. Simply say "I don't believe it" and you won't believe it. God gives you that freedom of choice because He is good and loves you. He wants you to be you, He wants you to have the desires of your heart.
It is also impossible to rationally take a leap of faith so big.
Here's a little question for you - What type of a world would an omnipotent and benevolent God make?
Add to it another qualifier - the God made man in his image and has favoured him a lot.
I know of only one world made by God, and I do not recognize omni-benevolent as one of His characteristics. The accurate description, the one used in the video which is the basis of discussion here, is that God must be morally perfect.
The point of the video, and simple common sense logic, is that God must be the same in any possible world. So you imagine whatever world you want to imagine, God must be the same in that world as He is in this one or He would not be Maximally Great and He is Maximally Great. That is God....Maximally Great which means He must be Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Morally Perfect and Eternal. As God He is the same in any possible world you can imagine, and must be the same in this world we are now in.
The leap of faith you are taking is to assume that in the large part of reality you do not know of, God is not there. How do you know God is not there when your knowledge is limited? Atheism must insist that it is impossible for God to exist, and therefore claims to know everything about everything it cannot know about...it's logically absurd.
I do not recognize omni-benevolent as one of His characteristics.
Strange, isn't it? Even I do not recognise having said that.
The leap of faith you are taking is to assume that in the large part of reality you do not know of, God is not there. How do you know God is not there when your knowledge is limited? Atheism must insist that it is impossible for God to exist, and therefore claims to know everything about everything it cannot know about...it's logically absurd.
Atheism insists that something does not exist if it can not be proved.
Agnostics, who aren't real Skeptics, seem to consider God as some special exception.
That is God....Maximally Great which means He must be Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Morally Perfect and Eternal.
That's no different than my calling God your imaginary friend. The fallacies are the same.
We have to ask first what is the definition of God? Is it not that He created all things and exists independently of all things? If He is not God who you are talking about, you are not refuting the line of Ontological proof, but rather creating a thing in your imagination which is not God the Creator of all things and then arguing that your created thing cannot be God....I don't know what they call that, would it be a straw man fallacy?
You are not being very civil, you are pushing the limits.....you need to focus on reasoning and back off from the personal insults, back off from trying to focus on insulting my intelligence and stick to discussing the topic logically. I almost banned you a minute ago, I'm giving you more chance to participate now than you deserve. The first comment you made here was enough to ban you for being disruptive by attacking me personally, you have continued doing it in every one of your posts and I will ban you if you continue that way. I do not need you here.
But, considering that I'm not trolling (and I rarely do that), your banning me will reflect poorly on your faith.
It would even ease my justifications. That 'what you do can be used against you' stuff.
So, though you can do that, I'd recommend you don't.
If you need motivation, then look at it this way - If you can convince me (and a few others), then you can convert anyone. Wouldn't your saviour love that? (Except those who hate the idea of God due to suffering in the world.)
I cannot prove that I worship God if you will not believe God is God. The whole point here is that God being God is logically sound, and for a person to say it is impossible for God to be God is logically absurd.
I do not have to prove that God is God, the proof is there. I do not have to prove that I worship God, I worship God and He is there. Atheists are trying to prove a logical absurdity. That is the point of the video and I suggest you watch it again and focus your comments on the video which is completely impersonal toward you or toward me, and avoid personal attacks in your comments or you will be banned for being disruptive.
The comment that I am replying to now borders on derailing the discussion by completely ignoring the points of the video which are the focus of discussion here.
If you want to participate, keep it focused on the points discussed in the video or please cease commenting so I don't have to ban you. I do not want to ban you. You are welcome as long as you keep your comments constructive and related to the video.
If you grant that God exists, then He exists completely independently of my imagination, He would still be God if I never existed, He would be God before I existed, and he will be God forever.
Your grammar is incorrect when you go from granting that God exists to saying it's the imaginary friend I worship. An imaginary friend cannot be God who created people and gave them power of imagination. It is an absurdity to say God who created all things is a created thing...that is a logical absurdity and invalid for making any point the same as a circular square is a logical absurdity.
This is the error of atheism when it tries to argue against God...it must create a thing which cannot qualify as God and then argue that it is not god. They do this in many ways, and I'm leaning toward thinking that every atheistic argument starts by denying God is God, and replaces God with a thing which does not qualify as God and then argues that the thing they are calling God cannot be God in reality. Of course the things they create which are less than God cannot be God. They are arguing against their own consciously created absurdity, arguing against circular squares or married bachelors.
Thanks, but I think the conversation here for the most part has been pretty good and I want to keep it focused on the points presented in the OP video.
I do not need any argument at all. I know the truth. And I am not supportive of your "Christ Project" site, it's too broad in upholding leaders who can be shown to promote heretical doctrines. To anybody reading here, I do not recommend "the Christ Project" in the link presented above. There is much better material available.
And I am not supportive of your "Christ Project" site, it's too broad in upholding leaders who can be shown to promote heretical doctrines. To anybody reading here, I do not recommend "the Christ Project" in the link presented above. There is much better material available.
another disclaimer due to this idiot joining in a conversation which was disruptive and had to be banned:
To whomever it may concern, do not get involved in this side-track discussion or I will have to ban you the same as those who rudely engaged in it against the clearly stated OP.
The basics upheld by the Christ Project, being that Jesus is God incarnate who died for the sins of mankind to save all who believe on Him from Hell, and is returning soon to this world which is obviously in it's last days with nations and events lining up exactly as the Bible foretold thousands of years ago is in agreement with my convictions, I simply cannot support the site due to sensationalist stories with inadequate doctrinal support and some teachers promoted who teach doctrines which are heretical.
The news stories and scripture references are often overemphasized, the site promotes heretical teachers...I cannot recommend the site...too much sensationalism and not enough sound doctrine. I withheld these comments when I followed your link in your debate. You should not have came here ignoring the discussion and distracting with your website. I am aware such sites may produce genuine conversions to Christ be getting people interested in how the world is falling in line exactly as foretold by the Bible thousands of years ago....however, I would have preferred not to have been forced to make these comments by you bringing your website promotion here. I have banned others for being disruptive and you were actually worse than them in how you completely ignored the discussion here.
