Ontological Argument for the Existance of God

1. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.
2. It is greater to be necessary than not.
3. God must be necessary.
4. God exists

Logically speaking, God MUST exist. But what God actually IS, no one really knows. He can be energy, mass, or some sort of spiritual being. All of these three fulfill the description: cannot be created nor destroyed.

>>40
While both philosophy and science are closely related in a sense that both relies on intelligent reasoning and research in hope of coming closer to the truth, they're different in every other way.

Science deals with the physical realm, the work's done in a lab and experiments yield objective or empirically verifiable results.

Philosophy however deals with matters within the domains of the mind, the work's done within the philosopher's mind instead of a lab. Therefore, philosophical subjects like ethics and metaphysics cannot yield scientific results and thus cannot be explained scientifically.

A philosophical argument is always up for debate, a scientific discovery on the other hand isn't. And what makes humans different from other animals is because we are capable of reason and self control while animals stictly relies on instinct.

1. ZEUS is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.
2. It is greater to be necessary than not.
3. ZEUS must be necessary.
4. ZEUS exists

Logically speaking, ZEUS MUST exist. But what ZEUS actually IS, no one really knows. He can be energy, mass, or some sort of spiritual being. All of these three fulfill the description: cannot be created nor destroyed.


FIXED

>>42
failed fix gtfo

>>42
I vote Zeus for coolest and most awesome god ever.

>>1
START THIS POST AGAIN BUT THIS TIME USE PROPER GRAMMAR

>>41
the main points here seem to be whether or not there exists non-physical things (in the loosest definition of 'exist' so as not to imply physical).  and whether or not the mind is physical.

i'm not going to argue that the mind can't conceive of things which are not physical, or which do not follow physical laws, but i hope you admit this is not the same as saying non-physical things exist, or that the mind is non-physical.

my argument to your point, "Therefore, philosophical subjects like ethics and metaphysics cannot yield scientific results "
is that this is merely because the process used to come to these conclusions is not scientific.  similarly, if a 'scientific experiment' were constructed and carried out mentally, the results would not be scientific.

scientific discoveries are up for debate.  the method can be debated, and whether or not a correlation actually exists can be debated.  incorrect interpretation of data can lead to errors.  its just that many things in science have been tested and challenged again and again.

i feel like im just jumping around here, so if you have any points you'd like me to specifically address that would be a lot easier.

>>46
Sorry if I did not state it clearly, by non-physical things I only meant what is conceived of the mind (ideas and thoughts). Whether the mind itself is physical or not is altogether a different subject.

By your argument "merely because the process used to come to these conclusions is not scientific," do you mean philosophical (thus mental and not physical) "experiments" can be conducted scientifically? If so, how would one conduct scientific research on philosophical subjects? So far this is the first time I had encountered an argument stating that it is possible.

"scientific discoveries are up for debate."
Yes, I never said it wasn't possible for them to be up for debate, I meant a scientific argument isn't as "readily" up for debate unlike a philosophical argument. Again, my apologies if I did not make my point clear, but unlike philosophy, in science a complete truth can be found, there is an answer and facts can be made from the results of scientific reasoning. In philosophy however, a complete truth or fact resulting from an argument cannot exist, therefore an argument is always up for further debate.

>>47
my argument about scientifically examining philosophical subjects rests on my belief that many things philosophers debate are in fact physical in nature, but due to current limitations of science, unable to be clearly demonstrated as such, and are taken to be non-physical.  i'm a materialist so that will affect (or bias) my view.  obviously, there are some things that can't be scientifically examined because of their construction.  most notably, many definitions of god.

my view on these things is: if you propose the existence of something, then either
a)
that thing doesnt interact with anything in physical existence, and as such, nothing could be abstractly (if thats the right word) concluded regarding it, since you cant evaluate its premises.  i.e., the best you'll get is a valid argument, rather than a sound one.

or b)
it interacts with things in physical existence, and can be scientifically evaluated through those connections.

in my opinion, theres a difference between 'not physical' and 'not tangible', and i would put ideas and ethics into category b above.

>>47
my argument about scientifically examining philosophical subjects rests on my belief that many things philosophers debate are in fact physical in nature, but due to current limitations of science, unable to be clearly demonstrated as such, and are taken to be non-physical.  i'm a materialist so that will affect (or bias) my view.  obviously, there are some things that can't be scientifically examined because of their construction.  most notably, many definitions of god.

my view on these things is: if you propose the existence of something, then either
a)
that thing doesnt interact with anything in physical existence, and as such, nothing could be abstractly (if thats the right word) concluded regarding it, since you cant evaluate its premises.  i.e., the best you'll get is a valid argument, rather than a sound one.

or b)
it interacts with things in physical existence, and can be scientifically evaluated through those connections.

in my opinion, theres a difference between 'not physical' and 'not tangible', and i would put ideas and ethics into category b above.

lol double post.

If God exists and is everything and is the infinite, then God is not just a "he". God is also a "she" and an "it".

>>51

most intellegent people view god more as an it

>>52

Most intelligent people view god more as bullshit

>>53
Most most-ingelligent people view god as null.

Most intelligent people view god as the mascot of the single most successful self-perpetuating business that's ever existed in the history of mankind.

1. QUETZATCOATL is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.
2. It is greater to be necessary than not.
3. QUETZATCOATL must be necessary.
4. QUETZATCOATL exists

Logically speaking, QUETZATCOATL MUST exist. But what QUETZATCOATL actually IS, no one really knows. He can be energy, mass, or some sort of spiritual being. All of these three fulfill the description: cannot be created nor destroyed.

Most intelligent people view god as shit made up to explain things for simple, self-indulging minds, and religion as evil, yet highly successful shit to control retards.

>>57
>>I view god as shit made up to explain things for simple, self-indulging minds, and religion as evil, yet highly successful shit to control retards, and if you don't agree with me, you are a retard
Fixed

>>57
Most intelligent people view RA as shit made up to explain things for simple, self-indulging minds, and religion as evil, yet highly successful shit to control retards.
FIXED

I'd take Ra over God anyday.

Amon Ra > Jesus!

... I can just feel the anger already :D

>>1
GRAMMAR NEEDS FIXING


TRY AGAIN FAGGOT

>>1
How do I failed grammar?

>>60
Zeus vs. Ra, who wins?

>>64

Zeus merely controlls thunder...

Ra's the god of the sun... which is a big fucking ball of highly charged plasma.

Ra > Zeus any day of the week.

Interplanetary Invasion System Deus wins all

Saint Seiya > Ra > Zeus

>>67
Geminis Canon>saint seiya>Ra>zeus

>>65
So would Apollo win Zeus too since he's a sun god as well?

USE PROPER GRAMMAR
RETARD
ETC

Psychology used to be a subject under the field of Philosophy, now through scientific advances, Psychology now falls under the field of Science.

Some of you people have little to no understanding of Philosophy. I'm not going to go about and call you all retards, but instead I invite you all who haven't already, take an introductory course on Philosophy at the very least at some community college.

But let me give you a brief intro to what >>1 was trying to get across. Saint Anselm presented with us his Ontological argument for the existance of God. The English is archaic but given long thought, it follows through. (It's not retarded English...)

Let me try to put it in more understandable terms.

1. God is that something which no greater can be conceived [or created]. Here we establish the definition of God: something or someone so great and omnipotent, that it cannot be created, or else its creator would be greater.

God is just a word. You can replace God with Zeus or with Bill Clinton for all I care, the only important part is the DEFINITION. We are inspecting the definition, the CONCEPT of God.

2. It's greater to exist in reality than to exist just in the imagination.

Self-explanatory, my real life friend is greater than my imaginary friend, right? I think we all agree. ;)

3. The definition of God is, that which no greater can be conceived (IN OTHER WORDS: by DEFINITION, God is greatest, nothing greater that God).

If God exists ONLY in my imagination, then everything that exist in reality is automatically greater than God! But wait a minute! That contradicts with the definition of God! How can God be the greatest thing but only exist in my imagination, then that means he isn't the greatest!

That means that if God = Greatest, then God must exist in reality, because reality (greater) > imagination (lesser).

4. Conclusion: God exists in reality.

Let me put it a bit more "visual"

Statement 1: Reality=Greater > Imagination=Lesser <- (God=Greater)
Imagination is lesser, God(greatest) cannot exist in a lesser world. Greatest != Lesser.

Statement 2: (God=greatest) -> Reality=Greater > Imagination=Lesser. God exists within the reality, because they are both greater than the imagination!

Okay, you guys probably won't get it anyways. Nothing beats the good ol' classroom.

Remember folks! This is a logical proof to the existance of God, but there are also other logical proofs that say God does not exist! Philosophy goes both ways. Learn about it, educate yourselves.

>>71

I've no interest in most of your post.

But the part about how Psychology now falls under Science is false.

A 4 yr degree in Psychology is a B.A., not a B.S. (Bach. of Arts vs Bach. of Science) hence Psychology is not one of the sciences as far as academia is concerned.

That's as current as of 2004, as stated on my diploma :p

>>72
UCLA, for example, offers a BA in Psychology and a BS in Psychology. And that's just to name one. Various others give BS for Cognitive Psychology, etc.

Degrees vary all over the world, you honestly believed that all the degrees were the same everywhere? How dare you have a BA in Psychology and not know about the varying fields of Psychology. What university did you attend?

I'm not surprise you had no interest in most of the post.

>>71
1) it's when people assign traits to the definition that it becomes a problem.

2) proof seems to assume that the set of all things is well ordered, among other things that have not been proven or explored.  these need to be shown.

3) if there is a proof for and a proof against something, one of these proofs is not a proof.

>>71
fails so so so hard


I hate philosophy fags who stay in the classes and think they can actually reason well. In the philosophy classes I took, they were full of retards. I was able to in seconds solve any philosophy problem the teacher posed, even the "ancient ones that took centuries to solve". I constantly stumped my stupid classmates and often the teachers with dozens of years of experience with my arguments (two were even fairly well known published authors). No, I'm not delusional, I got a 109.5% grade in my logic course out of 110%. The average was 61%. I missed one problem, which was logically correct (I didn't want to look like an ass and argue it though). Also, I never, ever studied for this course and laughed when the classmates in the philosophy major cried to the instructor "please help me, I don't understand ANY of this, I don't want to fail!!!" Philosophy retards SUCK


Ok, now that you've listened to by bragging, I'll tell you the point:

TAKING PHILOSOPHY CLASSES MEANS NOTHING. THE PHILOSOPHY MAJOR MEANS NOTHING. IT'S WHAT YOU DO WHEN YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ELSE WELL. IF ANYTHING, MAYBE IT TURNED YOU INTO SLIGHTLY LESS OF A RETARD, BUT PROBABLY NOT.

Next time instead of standing on your high horse against people you are arguing against, telling them to "take some philosophy courses before you argue with someone of MY calibre", you should look at your own arguments first. You are a disgrace to the great philosophers throughout the ages, a modern day monkey who learned to stupidly mimik those who are greater than you.


The Ontilogical argument for God fails for the following reasons

First, at BEST it only argues that something exists which is greater than everything else.
Second, since "greatness" is ENTIRELY a man-made construction, it means nothing as far as the unvierse is concerned. You can't make ANY claim about ANY property of the universe if you use abstract, objective ideas. Your claim that "we all agree that real things are greater than imaginary things" is not only baseless, but wrong. Many people would NOT agree, and since it's objective, you can't say they're wrong. Proof void.
THIRD, the proof of 'imaginary->reality' become circular and worthless the moment you can concieve of something greater than anything that exists. It's like saying "this sentence is a lie", it doesn't make any sense to say "X is the greatest thing that exists. But I can concieve of X + 1, which is greater. But since it doesn't exist, it isn't greater." It's an endless loop of logic, and can't be used to prove anything.

Hahaha, I'm just kidding, I know you're a troll :)
Or I seriously hope so :/

if there is a proof for and a proof against something, one of these proofs is not a proof.
Or your assumptions fail.

>>75
I had a similiar experience in A-level philosophy in college.

>>75
The assumption is that this god is end of the endless loop you talk about.

>>Your claim that "we all agree that real things are greater than imaginary things" is not only baseless, but wrong. Many people would NOT agree, and since it's objective, you can't say they're wrong.
All objects in reality exist independently, all objects in the understanding are dependent on the person who makes thought of them.

I have a computer in reality, because when I'm no longer home, when I no longer think about the existance of my computer, it will continue to exist regardless. Now if I had a computer in my dreams, it will feel real and at the moment I might think it real, but when I wake up, that computer will not exist anymore because it only existed in my understanding, and well... I stopped dreaming about it. That's more or less the argument when it comes to reality > understanding.

If anything you sound like a pretentious bastard. "Oh look at me, every Philosophy major was a little crybaby except me! I aced that class without even studying or trying hard, I'm so much better than those assholes. The only reason why I didn't get 110% is because I CHOSE not to answer one dumb question, that's how bad ass I am." <- That's exactly how you sound. You don't make yourself look any better than >>71.

Honestly, I don't you think you are what you claim to be, but I'll leave it at that, as this whole thread actually doesn't interest me, just wanted to point those things out.

>>75
 OH GOD, REALITY > IMAGINATION IS OBJECTIVE? WHERE DID YOU TAKE YOUR PHILOS CLASS? UNDER A BRIDGE WITH NIGGERS? What's next, an argument for cultural relativism to follow suit?


dude ur not even funny. 50% of your thread was all talk about ME ME ME, IM THE BEST, hahaha. what a fuckig loser. you must be lying out of your ass. Either that or you go to some middle-of-nowhere community college.

if anything being anonymous is your saving grace, no one will ever get to know the retard behind anonymous. in before grammar nazis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_ontological_proof