Alpha Posted October 29, 2007 Author Share Posted October 29, 2007 Can any of you disprove the ontological argument? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument 1. God is, by definition, a being greater than which nothing can be conceived (imagined). 2. Existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind. 3. God must exist in reality; if God did not, then God would not be that than which nothing greater can be conceived (imagined).No atheist has ever done it. P.S. Not to mention that the Ontological Argument only works with God, nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper man Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 (edited) Can any of you disprove the ontological argument? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument 1. God is, by definition, a being greater than which nothing can be conceived (imagined). 2. Existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind. 3. God must exist in reality; if God did not, then God would not be that than which nothing greater can be conceived (imagined).No atheist has ever done it. P.S. Not to mention that the Ontological Argument only works with God, nothing else. Really? it's not a matter of disproving it, it's a matter of it being flawed logically, therefore making it pointless. Edited October 29, 2007 by Reaper man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veristic Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Can any of you disprove the ontological argument? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument 1. God is, by definition, a being greater than which nothing can be conceived (imagined). 2. Existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind. 3. God must exist in reality; if God did not, then God would not be that than which nothing greater can be conceived (imagined).No atheist has ever done it. Ok so according to a judeo-christian god is greater than that which we can imagine, and must exist in reality because existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind? Therefore god must exist in reality? Reminds me of the teleological argument. But you know, asking someone to disprove the existence of a god based on a rigid argument that's preconditioned by a set order of laws isn't very convincing. So based on this argument, god is greater than our imagincations can concieve yet he must exist in reality. How does that work? If the reality is that he is greater than our imagination's can concieve? It's basically an argument to say that we can't imagine god in reality but he exists in it anyway. ¬¬ Geez maybe that's why no one (in modern history) has seen him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha Posted October 29, 2007 Author Share Posted October 29, 2007 Can any of you disprove the ontological argument? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument 1. God is, by definition, a being greater than which nothing can be conceived (imagined). 2. Existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind. 3. God must exist in reality; if God did not, then God would not be that than which nothing greater can be conceived (imagined).No atheist has ever done it. P.S. Not to mention that the Ontological Argument only works with God, nothing else. Really? it's not a matter of disproving it, it's a matter of it being flawed logically, therefore making it pointless.None of those actually disprove it. If you look at the response to "Gaunilo's island" ... you'll understand that God is the only thing that which greater can not be conceived. Therefore, a perfect island idea doesn't work. Anyway, the other three are good objections, but I still don't agree that they disprove it, maybe just work around it. I guess you can look at it in different ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veristic Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 Can any of you disprove the ontological argument? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument 1. God is, by definition, a being greater than which nothing can be conceived (imagined). 2. Existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind. 3. God must exist in reality; if God did not, then God would not be that than which nothing greater can be conceived (imagined).No atheist has ever done it. P.S. Not to mention that the Ontological Argument only works with God, nothing else. Really? it's not a matter of disproving it, it's a matter of it being flawed logically, therefore making it pointless.None of those actually disprove it. If you look at the response to "Gaunilo's island" ... you'll understand that God is the only thing that which greater can not be conceived. Therefore, a perfect island idea doesn't work. Anyway, the other three are good objections, but I still don't agree that they disprove it, maybe just work around it. I guess you can look at it in different ways. They don't disprove it but the theory itself doesn't provide proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha Posted October 29, 2007 Author Share Posted October 29, 2007 Can any of you disprove the ontological argument? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument 1. God is, by definition, a being greater than which nothing can be conceived (imagined). 2. Existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind. 3. God must exist in reality; if God did not, then God would not be that than which nothing greater can be conceived (imagined).No atheist has ever done it. P.S. Not to mention that the Ontological Argument only works with God, nothing else. Really? it's not a matter of disproving it, it's a matter of it being flawed logically, therefore making it pointless.None of those actually disprove it. If you look at the response to "Gaunilo's island" ... you'll understand that God is the only thing that which greater can not be conceived. Therefore, a perfect island idea doesn't work. Anyway, the other three are good objections, but I still don't agree that they disprove it, maybe just work around it. I guess you can look at it in different ways. They don't disprove it but the theory itself doesn't provide proof.The proof is the theory itself. Reality and existence are perfections ... and God is the greatest possible being, therefore God must exist. You don't get more than that partner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veristic Posted October 29, 2007 Share Posted October 29, 2007 (edited) Can any of you disprove the ontological argument? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument 1. God is, by definition, a being greater than which nothing can be conceived (imagined). 2. Existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind. 3. God must exist in reality; if God did not, then God would not be that than which nothing greater can be conceived (imagined).No atheist has ever done it. P.S. Not to mention that the Ontological Argument only works with God, nothing else. Really? it's not a matter of disproving it, it's a matter of it being flawed logically, therefore making it pointless.None of those actually disprove it. If you look at the response to "Gaunilo's island" ... you'll understand that God is the only thing that which greater can not be conceived. Therefore, a perfect island idea doesn't work. Anyway, the other three are good objections, but I still don't agree that they disprove it, maybe just work around it. I guess you can look at it in different ways. They don't disprove it but the theory itself doesn't provide proof.The proof is the theory itself. Reality and existence are perfections ... and God is the greatest possible being, therefore God must exist. You don't get more than that partner. *laughs* A theory is called a theory for a reason bro. Besides... imagination is something that can only be measured (sort of) in the human mind since we don't share an understanding of communication or intelligence with other sentient creatures that are capable of thought processes. It's not a very large pool of subjects to derive universal truths from if you ask me. Edited October 29, 2007 by veristic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salorskin Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 I'm an atheist agnostic and have lately been pretty indifferent towards religious beliefs. Why I'm an atheist - reading up on religion with an open mind (I still don't get why Christians believe in the literal interpretation of an unsubstantiated and archaic book written by men that were still discovering the world). One of my uncles played their part and showed me science videos that explained evolution and the big bang and stuff (really interesting)... and though neither disprove a deity, I still find it unlikely that there's a caring being/beings out there (well... it's as likely as aliens impregnating my male dogs). I'm mostly a non-believer in the Abrahamic God (obviously) since I don't think a benevolent being would be so superficial and judge others based on credulity and beliefs rather then their character - not my kind of savior. As for the ontological argument... it says in the wikipedia entry that it's an erroneous argument as it's cited as a bare assertion fallacy, and we all know that there's no real way to logically refute illogical arguments or cop-outs. Hopefully you all know I'm just expressing my personal views and don't intend to offend anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fumanchu Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 im an atheist too.why because you go as far back to the birth of civilisation and different cultures were worshiping different gods for every single aspect of their lives and in most cases today that hasnt changed!its the no1 reason for problems in the middle east.and today you still get some maniacal dictators murdering people in what they call ethnic cleansing.when you look at religion personally i think a lot of it is to do with the insecurity in people.looking for a better life after death,someone does something wrong and they ask for forgivness in god and then all of a sudden people in church think that the person will be changed and its all good i mean cmon!!!thats my opinion anyway! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krosigrim Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 Like I said, You can't prove anything. And that is the way it is supposed to work. Or at least that is what I believe. Ping Pong these theories all you like fellas, it makes for an interesting debate. But no one can disprove my beliefs, nor can I you. What I think, for religion mainly..... Is that everyone has their take on things, and twists things to their own liking or perception. It's hard not to. How can you know, EXACTLY what I mean when I say anything. You perceive it in your own terms. Thats how we get so many variations. I just wish there weren't extremists. What do they hope to accomplish. To an extent, everyone should be acceptant of each other. Just as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skythe Posted November 4, 2007 Share Posted November 4, 2007 I'm Agnostic but I've been told my ideals reflect more towards Pagansim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now