Ontological Argument

@Native Skeptic,

Native Skeptic;167980 wrote:

Ideas have properties too, though they don't necessarily exist. How can anything even be conceived without properties? Even obscure ideas must have some property that allows us conceive them.

I always thought the argument over God was, "is God simply an idea(like some fantasy creature) or is there some kind of object(or at least self sustained sentiency) that is God?" I don't think anyone will argue the nonexistence of God as an ideology, since we're sitting here talking about such an ideology now.

But I thought we were talking about God, not the idea of God. Was I mistaken? The idea of God has properties, since the idea of God exists, but if God does not exist, then God has no properties.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;168191 wrote:

But I thought we were talking about God, not the idea of God. Was I mistaken? The idea of God has properties, since the idea of God exists, but if God does not exist, then God has no properties.

Yes, but how can you define something with objective properties without any empirical data? What, necessarily, are the limitations of our understanding of god? Isn't it all nothing more than idea without some empirical data? We don't even have enough to confirm or deny the existence of an object behind the idea.

@Native Skeptic,

Native Skeptic;168207 wrote:

Yes, but how can you define something with objective properties without any empirical data? What, necessarily, are the limitations of our understanding of god? Isn't it all nothing more than idea without some empirical data? We don't even have enough to confirm or deny the existence of an object behind the idea.

Hi Native S

Indeed, The biblical God is depicted as "Having no form"

Have a great day.

Mark...

@Native Skeptic,

Native Skeptic;168207 wrote:

Yes, but how can you define something with objective properties without any empirical data? What, necessarily, are the limitations of our understanding of god? Isn't it all nothing more than idea without some empirical data? We don't even have enough to confirm or deny the existence of an object behind the idea.

What has that to do with it? All I said is that if God does not exist, then God has no properties. And the fact that the idea of God does have properties in no way shows that God has properties. No more than that the idea of The Flying Spaghetti Monster has properties means that The Flying Spaghetti Monster has properties. What has the idea to do with the reality (if there is any?)

---------- Post added 05-24-2010 at 05:38 PM ----------

mark noble;168222 wrote:

Hi Native S

Indeed, The biblical God is depicted as "Having no form"

Have a great day.

Mark...

Can you please cite that passage? That is not true. What God works on has no form. Nowhere does it say that God has no form.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;168224 wrote:

What has that to do with it? All I said is that if God does not exist, then God has no properties. And the fact that the idea of God does have properties in no way shows that God has properties. No more than that the idea of The Flying Spaghetti Monster has properties means that The Flying Spaghetti Monster has properties. What has the idea to do with the reality (if there is any?)

Precisely my point. Does the idea of god exist? Of course, no one can deny that, we're discussing it now. Does that mean god has objective existence and does that existence reflect the idea? No. Neither can this idea confirm or deny his existence, and due the subjectivity of the idea I would come to the conclusion that it is an unsound argument, especially as proof.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;168224 wrote:

Can you please cite that passage? That is not true. What God works on has no form. Nowhere does it say that God has no form.

Hi Ken,

Ok, I'll dig it out tomorrow, I'm off to bed now.
Have a brilliant evening, though, and be merry.

Mark...

@walkingaround,

Quote:

Let's take this one step at a time, if that's ok with you, of course? Can "something" arise from "Nothing"? And I'm Using absolutes here.

No, it cannot.
Balls in your court, smack it back.

@walkingaround,

What about thoughts? Don't they arise from nothing?

@walkingaround,

Krumple:

Quote:

What about thoughts? Don't they arise from nothing?

You would first have to define them as being part of the category of "something." Does this category only include that which is a physical thing? Besides, since our thoughts are so tied to our past experiences and past thoughts I am not sure they could be said to arise from nothing, even if they are in this category.

As an experiment, try to think of something unique that you have never thought or experienced before. Even if you manage this, can you be certain that it is so unique for you, or could it be built upon or spring from a memory, thought or experience that is deeply buried. Now lets suppose you manage this and you confirm your new thought is completely unique for you, you have still failed because the thought sprung from my recommendation that you come up with such a thought. This means the thought in your mind finds its source in the recommendation sourced in my mind. The thought in my mind found its source in wondering about your question posted here. Back and back into our respective histories.

In an unbroken line, thoughts seem to be so intertwined with past thought and experiences that they can never be said to arise from nothing. You may ask about the first thought of a human being and whether that arises out of nothing. This is unlikely. We know the first thoughts occur in the womb. These are likely triggered by environmental conditions inside the womb--sounds heard through mom's flesh, muscle pressure on the fetus, movements through the amniotic fluid, changes in position, etc. These themselves do not likely spring from nothing.

---------- Post added 05-25-2010 at 05:58 AM ----------

One more thing Krumple that just dawned on me. We would have to define thoughts. Are these simply the firings of brain synapses or do they spring from another non-physical source.

@Native Skeptic,

Native Skeptic;168231 wrote:

Precisely my point. Does the idea of god exist? Of course, no one can deny that, we're discussing it now. Does that mean god has objective existence and does that existence reflect the idea? No. Neither can this idea confirm or deny his existence, and due the subjectivity of the idea I would come to the conclusion that it is an unsound argument, especially as proof.

That was your point? Could have fooled me. Anyway, if you agree that the idea of God and God are different, and that the conclusion that God exists does not follow from the premise that the idea of God exists, we agree. However, the ontological argument is the argument that it follows from the premise that the idea of God exists, that God exists. If the argument is unsound especially as a proof, it is unsound indeed!

---------- Post added 05-25-2010 at 08:11 AM ----------

Krumple;168496 wrote:

What about thoughts? Don't they arise from nothing?

There are no causes for your thinking this or that? Why not? My thought that I should answer you was caused, by, among other things, your asking whether thoughts have causes..

@cluckk,

cluckk;168494 wrote:

No, it cannot.
Balls in your court, smack it back.

Hi Cluckk,
Good start! From this - can we agree that A) there has always been "Something"? and B) "Nothing" has never existed?

Thank you Cluckk, be fantastic, sir.

Mark...

---------- Post added 05-25-2010 at 04:01 PM ----------

kennethamy;168224 wrote:

Can you please cite that passage? That is not true. What God works on has no form. Nowhere does it say that God has no form.

Hi Ken,
Here's a quickie: John 4:24. Christ says "God is Spirit"

What form does a spirit have then Ken?

Thank you, and have a fantasmagorical day.

Mark...

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;168523 wrote:

There are no causes for your thinking this or that? Why not? My thought that I should answer you was caused, by, among other things, your asking whether thoughts have causes..

So you are saying the first cause for your first thought was some sense experience in utero?

@walkingaround,

Krumple:

Quote:

So you are saying the first cause for your first thought was some sense experience in utero?

I did not say that. I simply said even if we go back to the first thoughts in utero even they have a cause.

Mark,

Quote:

Good start! From this - can we agree that A) there has always been "Something"? and B) "Nothing" has never existed?

No we can not agree on that. I will say that nothing material exists without a cause. This means that either everything materially existent had an initial cause, or that it caused itself (a contradiction) or that it is eternal. To say that nothing starts without a cause is not agree that everything has always been. It is actually the opposite because if it always has been then there is no need of a cause and I said nothing comes into being without a cause. I would class God as the only self-existing being and therefore not a thing (material) so your attempt is a misfire.

Perhaps a reference to causality: Every effect has a cause. God is not an effect so he needs no cause. Everything else in the universe is an effect of God's created energy so God is the First Cause.

As for your question for kennethamy: just because myself or someone else can not describe the form for a spirit being does not mean the spirit being has no form. If so, then existence would be limited to my knowledge and ability to express said knowledge.

@cluckk,

cluckk;168630 wrote:

Perhaps a reference to causality: Every effect has a cause. God is not an effect so he needs no cause. Everything else in the universe is an effect of God's created energy so God is the First Cause.

I guess you never saw my post refuting this theory.

You can call god the first cause all you want but there is a problem that you refuse to acknowledge about it.

Before the universe, and after the universe comes into being.

p1. If god is the creator of the universe.

p2. The universe has not always existed.

q1. If god has always existed, but the universe has not always existed then, there must have been a moment when god "decided" to create the universe.

q2. If god comes to a point to "decide" create the universe wouldn't this incorporate your same logical fallacy?

q3. What was god's previous thought to creating the universe?

q4. Was god's only thought, to create the universe?

q5. If God had previous thoughts to creating the universe then what was the cause for god to decide to create the universe?

p3. If god had a purpose for creating the universe then that god would have had to have previous causes leading up to creating the universe.

p4. There would have been an endless succession of previous causes for god's motivation to create the universe.

p5. If god is infinite then there would have been an infinite succession of previous thoughts before having the motivation to create the universe.

p6. If there is an infinite amount of previous thoughts then by all means the thought to create the universe would never happen.

q6. Can god have all thoughts all at the same time? (Infinite amount of thoughts all at the exact same time)

p7. If god had all infinite thoughts at exact the same time then the universe would have been created an infinite amount of time ago.

Why? (to p7.)

Well when exactly would god have an infinite amount of thoughts? All at the same time within it's being. Which makes it an infinite amount of time because you are claiming god is infinite so these thoughts would also have to occur an infinite amount of time previously. You can't have one without the other.

s1. God never had the thought, "Create a universe."

q8a. If god never had the motivation to create the universe then why was the universe created?

q8b. Just a random thought?

q8c. An involuntary reaction?

C1. If god is infinite then god could never have arrived at the thought or motivation or decision to create the universe.

C2. If god never had the motivation to create the universe then god did not create the universe.

C3. God could not have created the universe.

P~ There are probably no gods.

@Krumple,

Krumple;168611 wrote:

So you are saying the first cause for your first thought was some sense experience in utero?

No. Only that there is no reason to believe that our thoughts have no causes.

---------- Post added 05-25-2010 at 03:42 PM ----------

mark noble;168567 wrote:

Hi Cluckk,
Good start! From this - can we agree that A) there has always been "Something"? and B) "Nothing" has never existed?

Thank you Cluckk, be fantastic, sir.

Mark...

---------- Post added 05-25-2010 at 04:01 PM ----------

Hi Ken,
Here's a quickie: John 4:24. Christ says "God is Spirit"

What form does a spirit have then Ken?

Thank you, and have a fantasmagorical day.

Mark...

And the passage that says that God has no form, please?

@walkingaround,

Krumple,

I'm failing to understand why an omnipotent, omniscient God could not choose to have an infinite amount of thoughts (or just one thought) at any given point in "time" (or, to phrase it differently, "his existence"). Would you elaborate on your reasoning here?

You're making lots of assumptions about what God can and cannot do. If you begin to disprove God's creation of the universe by allowing that he could *potentially* create the universe, then you are allowing that he is omnipotent and omniscient, meaning that he has no limits. For example, q5 pops out at me. You're assuming that God needs a cause to think anything. How can you make that assumption?

@walkingaround,

p3,4, and 5 are problematic at best. You have refuted nothing. You assume that any thought of God must have a cause to trigger the thought. You are limiting god with properties of matter and time. You are actually trying to force God into a determinist framework--ie. if God does something to decides to do something then something must have caused him to do or decide this thing. Your logic is flawed. Oh, by the way shouldn't P1 and P2 be incorporated into one if then statement:

P1a. God is the creator of the universe -> the universe has not always existed.

The way it is now only P2 makes a statement, P1 says nothing.

---------- Post added 05-25-2010 at 06:04 PM ----------

Sorry Krumple, I tried to reinterpret your argument to make heads or tails out of it, but it is too convoluted and without sensible flow or structure. To be honest, I got tired of trying to figure out how you went from your premises to your conclusions with all the flaws and fallacies it contains. Perhaps if I get time to look at it later on I'll put more effort into it.

Sorry, I really like to respond to posts and be constructive, but I find no way to do so with my current schedule and the current way your argument is put together.

@cluckk,

cluckk;168630 wrote:

Krumple:

I did not say that. I simply said even if we go back to the first thoughts in utero even they have a cause.

Mark,

No we can not agree on that. I will say that nothing material exists without a cause. This means that either everything materially existent had an initial cause, or that it caused itself (a contradiction) or that it is eternal. To say that nothing starts without a cause is not agree that everything has always been. It is actually the opposite because if it always has been then there is no need of a cause and I said nothing comes into being without a cause. I would class God as the only self-existing being and therefore not a thing (material) so your attempt is a misfire.

Perhaps a reference to causality: Every effect has a cause. God is not an effect so he needs no cause. Everything else in the universe is an effect of God's created energy so God is the First Cause.

As for your question for kennethamy: just because myself or someone else can not describe the form for a spirit being does not mean the spirit being has no form. If so, then existence would be limited to my knowledge and ability to express said knowledge.

Hi Cluckk,

Thank you for your reply. Why have you dragged God into the equasion? I haven't suggested any God is a part of this process. I am merely dealing with logical process by deduction.

Thank you, and have a great day.

Mark...

@walkingaround,

OK, make your point. However, I can assume what your purpose for a question is and I am not going to fall into a fallcy trap by saying something I do not mean. Why can't you make your argument whether I bring God into the equation or not?

Go on with the discussion if you will.

@cluckk,

cluckk;169087 wrote:

OK, make your point. However, I can assume what your purpose for a question is and I am not going to fall into a fallcy trap by saying something I do not mean. Why can't you make your argument whether I bring God into the equation or not?

Go on with the discussion if you will.

Hi Cluckk,

I'm not trying to trap you, I'm building a bridge to the point - If we can't lay the foundations we'll never get to the other side.
What God are you talking about, anyway?
Ok - Has "something" always existed, and Has "Nothing" never existed? If we can establish these points, we can progress.

I am limited to my "net" usage until next week, please excuse this.

Thank you, and good tidings, Sir.

Mark...

Philosophy Forum

Ontological Argument

Quick Links

My Account

able2know