The Ontological Argument (The existence of God)

[Nirvana-Eld]

For a little background information, the ontological argument is a claimed proof for the existence of God. It was originated by St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterburry in the 11th century and was developed and expanded upon by philosophers such as Rene Descartes. Now here is the argument to my understanding and so far I only find one potenital flaw.

1) God is the greatest possible being. (perdect, absolute, infinite)

2) A greatest possible being has the greatest form of existence - this could be equated with existence in all possible circumstances.

3) It is at least possible for God to exist in any given circumstance. (this is the one I find a potential flaw in and i will go into greater detail later)

4) A God, following the accpeted definitions, that exists in any circumstance, exists in all.

THUS

5)God exists under our circumstances.

Ok, so here is the flaw I see, since the others are pretty self explanitory. In step 3 it is stated that under any circumstance (fictional or not) it is at least possible for God to exist. This is obviously the linchpin that holds the argument up. If this logic is followed then all the others fall into place.

The problem is that who says God is possible? In what circumstance is God possible? If these questions are sufficiently answered, then the only way for God not to be possible is if there was a contradiction or paradox in his existing. In a perfect being, a contradiction or paradox obviously cannot exist. I would like sufficient steps in logic and reason taken in answering this question. I appreciate the time.[/list]

[juliod]

I would not say that Ms. Spears is better in any way than anybody, merely because she was in more music videos.

This is the fallacy known as Special Pleading. In order to sustain your argument you must grant special exceptions to your own view.

I give you a hard and fast way to see that in at least one area Britney Spears is "greater" than god. And it's based on actual evidence that anyone can verify for themselves.

You get around this by saying "music videos don't count" or "god could be in one if he wanted to". Bunk, I say. God is limited and inferior. He's never been in a music video and I say he never could be. He can't dance. He doesn't even have a booty to shake.

The hard facts of the exceptional artistry of Ms. Spears leaves your concept of god groveling in the dust.

DanZ

[Nirvana-Eld]

This is the fallacy known as Special Pleading. In order to sustain your argument you must grant special exceptions to your own view.

I would not say so, I am merely defining the nature of God as per the accepted definition as a perfect, insurapssible being. A perfect being would have the ability to do an infinite amount of things wouldn't he? It's part of his/her/its intrinsic nature.

He's never been in a music video and I say he never could be.

You don't know that do you? In some far away earth-like planet, where there are music videos, God may very well have been in them. But thats not the point. The point is that he has infinite ability.

He can't dance. He doesn't even have a booty to shake.

I would say that this does not necesarily constitute a music video... but that was an aside.

The hard facts of the exceptional artistry of Ms. Spears leaves your concept of god groveling in the dust.

First of all "exceptional artistry"? Honestly even you could see that she has none. (my opinion). And even if she did, there is no way that a God with infinite ability would be "groveling in the dust". I think such a being of infinite nature would trancend such an act. But none-the less. Ms. Spears does not surpass God because of what she has done, or more importantly what she can do. Also, since this God is Ms. Spears' creator, he ultimately surpasses her by the nature of the creator/createe.

[QED]

He can't dance. He doesn't even have a booty to shake.

Moses might want to disagree with that:

But He said, "You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live." And the LORD said, "Here is a place by Me, and you shall stand on the rock. So it shall be, while My glory passes by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock, and will cover you with My hand while I pass by. Then I will take away My hand, and you shall see My back; but My face shall not be seen."

But then John would seem to disagree with Moses

No man hath seen God at any time...

[juliod]

I would not say so, I am merely defining the nature of God as per the accepted definition as a perfect, insurapssible being. A perfect being would have the ability to do an infinite amount of things wouldn't he? It's part of his/her/its intrinsic nature.

Try this logical argument:

1) If god exists then he is insurpassable.

2) Britney Spears has been in more music videos than god.

3) Therefore god does not exist.

You get around this by the Special Plea of "Music videos don't count".

At the very least we have shown that your definition of god is false. If god exists then he is surpassable, at least in some ways.

The point is that he has infinite ability.

You claim he has infinite ability. I claim he can not possibly be in a music video. Which one of our claims about god has actual evidence behind it?

And even if she did, there is no way that a God with infinite ability would be "groveling in the dust".

It's not god in the dust, but your concept of god. God, of course, doesn't exist at all. If he were seen to be grovelling in the dust, that would be a major advance for the theists.

DanZ

[Nirvana-Eld]

You get around this by the Special Plea of "Music videos don't count".

At the very least we have shown that your definition of god is false. If god exists then he is surpassable, at least in some ways.

I'm sorry but I believe you put those words in my mouth. I never said music videos "don't count". EVERYTHING counts, and God in his infinite ability, has the ability to surpass any amount of music videos that any artist might produce, and even more so, he has the ability to make an infinite amount of things better than a music video. I never said that music videos don't count, I just said that God could defintately do it with in his nature and probably at the very least, a lot better than Brittany Spears.

You claim he has infinite ability. I claim he can not possibly be in a music video. Which one of our claims about god has actual evidence behind it?

Well logically speaking, mine. If the concept of God is to be perfect, then if his ability is not infinite, then he is less than perfect. Show me one instance where a God of infinite ability cannot do something. Logically it does not follow that God could not do something or be surpassed in something. Your statement is un-provable. you do not know of every musci video in existence in this or any universe or whether or not god has starred in it.

[juliod]

I never said that music videos don't count, I just said that God could defintately do it with in his nature and probably at the very least, a lot better than Brittany Spears.

OK, fine. But that's just another form of Special Pleading. God could do it if he wanted to. It's still invalid.

You posit god as unsurpassable. I've given one area where he has been surpassed. There's not ifs or butts about it. God's butt has never been in a music video. Therefore god either doesn't exist, or else exists but is surpassable.

If the concept of God is to be perfect, then if his ability is not infinite, then he is less than perfect. Show me one instance where a God of infinite ability cannot do something.

Try this reformulation "If god is to be perfect, he must be better at everything than everyone else." But Britney Spears is better than god at making music videos. At the very least we know that god is not perfect by this definition.

And music videos are not the only thing. God holds no records at all. Wayne Gretsky has scored more hockey goals. Joe Namath more passing touchdowns. God's time in the quarter-mile? As far as we know he can't drive.

In fact, for everything of which we have record, god is not the best.

Now, try this line of reasoning: If god does not exist, then all claims about his abilities will relate to what he could do if he wanted to.

DanZ

[Curious]

I never said that music videos don't count, I just said that God could defintately do it with in his nature and probably at the very least, a lot better than Brittany Spears.

OK, fine. But that's just another form of Special Pleading. God could do it if he wanted to. It's still invalid.

You posit god as unsurpassable. I've given one area where he has been surpassed. There's not ifs or butts about it. God's butt has never been in a music video. Therefore god either doesn't exist, or else exists but is surpassable.

I think you are just arguing semantics here. The fact that God may not have made a music video is irrelevant. If B.Spears had made 1000 videos this would still not mean that she had surpassed God unless such an achievement was greater than the achievements of God or unless she was more powerful or more perfect than God.

If the concept of God is to be perfect, then if his ability is not infinite, then he is less than perfect. Show me one instance where a God of infinite ability cannot do something.

Try this reformulation "If god is to be perfect, he must be better at everything than everyone else." But Britney Spears is better than god at making music videos. At the very least we know that god is not perfect by this definition.

And music videos are not the only thing. God holds no records at all. Wayne Gretsky has scored more hockey goals. Joe Namath more passing touchdowns. God's time in the quarter-mile? As far as we know he can't drive.

In fact, for everything of which we have record, god is not the best.

Now, try this line of reasoning: If god does not exist, then all claims about his abilities will relate to what he could do if he wanted to.

DanZ

I suppose I could sh*t in a bucket and claim that I am better than you at doing this. This does not mean though that I am better than you as you might have a previously undiscovered talent for sh*tting in buckets. After you win the world championship I could claim that since I was once better than you at bucket sh*itting I should get a crack at the title. The truth is that I was probably never better than you in the first place as is evident from my heavily stained foot and legwear.

[Cephus]

One thing that is vital to this argument is that God is insurpassible, Ms. Spears is imperfect. I think that with your idea that "Ms. Spears is the greatest of all possible beings, your simply renaming God. The use of the word God implies that there is nothing higher(at least for this debate's purpose). It is to say that God is perfect. Not to say that he isn't the "greatest of all", but to say that he is the greatest possible, which is equal to perfect, is slightly different.

There are several problems with this argument. First off, who gets to define "perfect"? If you cannot adequately define the word, then the argument fails. Further, I can certainly imagine something greater than the God described in he Bible, who comes off as a whiny, spoiled child with a control fetish. Certainly, if I was to describe "perfect", that wouldn't fit my definition at all, therefore the Christian God would not be the one to exist by this argument.

[juliod]

The fact that God may not have made a music video is irrelevant.

You've just picked up the claim that N-E has disclaimed, the Special Plea that music videos "don't count".

If a being is "unsurpassable" then it must be best at everything. If it is not best at everything then it is surpassable in at least one way.

And, as I said, in every field or endevor for which we have record, god is not the best. God seems to be surpassable in everything.

Try this argument: If god does not exist, all claims about what god is best at will be things for which we have no means to verify.

I suppose I could sh*t in a bucket and claim that I am better than you at doing this.

Right. If you've done it at least once, and I've never done it, then you are automatically better at it than me. It doesn't matter that shitting in a bucket is not a valuable or significant activity. You've surpassed me, and that can be seen objectively. And since goid has never been known to shit in a bucket, you are better than him as well. Something to put on your resume.

DanZ

[Curious]

The fact that God may not have made a music video is irrelevant.

You've just picked up the claim that N-E has disclaimed, the Special Plea that music videos "don't count".

If a being is "unsurpassable" then it must be best at everything. If it is not best at everything then it is surpassable in at least one way.

And, as I said, in every field or endevor for which we have record, god is not the best. God seems to be surpassable in everything.

As I said previously, this is just a semantic argument where you have taken one particular meaning of unsurpassable and stuck rigidly to that definition. This is not really the meaning that was meant but if you insist that it is then I forward the argument of a pantheistic God where all the universe is part of the divine body so all Ms. Spears videos count as God's videos, as do all other videos. So you see Ms. Spears does not surpass God in this respect at all.

Right. If you've done it at least once, and I've never done it, then you are automatically better at it than me. It doesn't matter that shitting in a bucket is not a valuable or significant activity. You've surpassed me, and that can be seen objectively. And since goid has never been known to shit in a bucket, you are better than him as well. Something to put on your resume.

DanZ

I really don't see how you come to this conclusion. To be better at something means that you are more able at that particular activity. It makes no difference whether or not you have ever attempted the activity. If it was necessary to actually attempt something to be better at something than somebody else, by the same reasoning, you would also need to attempt the activity to be WORSE than somebody else. If, as you say, God has never made a music video, it would be impossible to say that God was worse than Ms. Spears as you would have nothing to compare.