(June 24, 2016 at 3:53 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(June 24, 2016 at 3:24 pm)robvalue Wrote: How many ontologists does it take to change a light bulb?

Depends. Is it a greatest conceivable light bulb or the everyday kind? If it's the greatest conceivable kind, you wouldn't have to change it because it would necessarily be lit all the time in all possible worlds!

Actually God is everything at it's ultimate. Whatever is negative, you would take the negative qualities, turn them to positive, and he would be in someway the ultimate that thing. That's because everything get's it's existence and reality from God. God is what defines things nature, his own light and what they are with respect to that. That is why everything is a sign of God.

(June 23, 2016 at 5:31 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(June 23, 2016 at 9:15 am)Veritas_Vincit Wrote: In the simplest terms, this is what William Lane Craig and exponents of the Ontological Argument are trying to do with God:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djV11Xbc914

You bastard! I used to like that song!

Ahas lead singer went out with that girl for a few years.

Quote:On my weaker days there are two things that trouble me about Perfect Being Theology, however.  The first is the problem of deciding just what it is that counts as a great-making property.  The second is the fear that we may at times be overly anthropomorphosizing God.  But the first is the more thorny one for me so I’ll speak breifly of it.  What property or attribute is fit for a perfect being?  I mentioned above Omnipotence, Perfect Goodness, and Omniscience.  These are relatively uncontroversial examples.  But if I were to ask this question to virtually any theologian in the high middle ages, he would also include Simplicity, Eternity, Immutability, and Aseity.  And each of these to the number is generally rejected by the majority of contemporary philosophical theologians (at least those in the analytic tradition).  What gives?  This illustrates my problem.  Frequently, philosophers of religion speak as if our intuitions are reliable guides to discerning which attributes make a being perfect.  Daniel Hill in his Divinity and Maximal Greatness makes this case.  He surmises for instance that our intuitions seem to tell us that it is greater to be a concrete particular than an abstract object.  Well I suppose that concrete particulars might very well be greater than abstract universals; but would an early Church Father reared in a Platonist tradition share that intuition?  I dare say that he might think that it’s the contrary that is true.  And this would be perfectly intuitive to him.  Our intuitions, it seems to me, depend a great deal on the cultural, theological, and philosophical influences we have.  So how reliable are our intuitions in discerning which properties are great-making?

https://summaphilosophiae.wordpress.com/...-theology/

Oh look, amazing theist logic: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

Quote:ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) I define God to be X.
(2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) I can conceive of a perfect God.
(2) One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) God is either necessary or unnecessary.
(2) God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM CHRISTIAN EXPERTS ARE IGNORED
(1) Dembski, Behe and Plantinga are ignored by mainstream intellectuals.
(2) Only a fear of the truth could explain this.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM CHRISTIAN EXPERTS ARE NOT IGNORED
(1) Mainstream intellectuals are paying some attention to Dembski, Behe and Plantinga.
(2) Only a growing recognition of the truth could explain this.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM MULTIPLICITY (II), a.k.a. TERCEL'S ARGUMENT (II)
(1) I have a large number of arguments for God.
(2) There is a small chance that at least one of them is true.
(3) Using voodoo probability calculations, this means that there is a much greater chance that all of them are true taken together!
(4) And this ISN'T just the mathematical version of the Ontological Proof; I'm a real mathematician and you obviously can't understand this proof because you don't know as much about math as I do.
(5) Oh, and don't confuse things by mentioning how many atheistic arguments there are, and the probability of each of them being correct...
(6) Or the fact that I basically pulled the probability of each of my arguments being correct out of my ass...
(7) And admit that I know more about math than you, and you'll see that...
(8) Therefore, God exists.

PETER KREEFT'S ARGUMENT FROM POSITIVE NUMBERS, a.k.a. FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT (V), a.k.a. ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (III)
(1) Positive numbers are not caused by negative numbers.
(2) There is a parallel in the number series for a first cause: the number one.
(3) If there were no number one, there could be no subsequent addition of units.
(4) Two is two ones, three is three ones, and so on.  If there were no first, there could be no second or third.
(5) God is like the number one.
(6) Therefore, God exists.

ST THOMAS AQUINAS' ARGUMENT FROM PERFECTION, GOODNESS OR VALUE, a.k.a. ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (IV)
(1) We rank things as more or less perfect, or good or valuable.
(2) If this ranking is false and meaningless, then souls don't really have any more perfection than slugs.
(3) Therefore, there must be an ultimate standard of perfection for this ranking or all our value judgments are meaningless.
(4) Our value judgments are not meaningless.
(5) God is the ultimate standard of perfection.
(6) Therefore, God exists.

ST ANSELM’S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) God exists in our understanding. This means that the concept of God resides as an idea in our minds.
(2) God is a possible being, and might exist in reality. He is possible because the concept of God does not bear internal contradictions.
(3) If something exists exclusively in our understanding and might have existed in reality then it might have been greater. This simply means that something that exists in reality is perfect (or great). Something that is only a concept in our minds could be greater by actually existing.
(4) Suppose (theoretically) that God only exists in our understanding and not in reality.
(5) If this were true, then it would be possible for God to be greater then he is (follows from premise #3).
(6) This would mean that God is a being in which a greater is possible.
(7) This is absurd because God, a being in which none greater is possible, is a being in which a greater is possible. Herein lies the contradiction.
(8) Thus it follows that it is false for God to only exist in our understanding.
(9) Hence God exists in reality as well as our understanding.
(10) Therefore, God exists.

11th CENTURY'S ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY'S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT (III)
(1) God is, by definition, a being greater than which nothing can be conceived or imagined.
(2) Existence in reality is better than existence in one's imagination.
(3) God must exist in reality; if God did not, then God would not be that than which nothing greater can be conceived or imagined.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

(June 24, 2016 at 6:00 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(June 24, 2016 at 3:53 pm)SteveII Wrote: Depends. Is it a greatest conceivable light bulb or the everyday kind? If it's the greatest conceivable kind, you wouldn't have to change it because it would necessarily be lit all the time in all possible worlds!

Actually God is everything at it's ultimate. Whatever is negative, you would take the negative qualities, turn them to positive, and he would be in someway the ultimate that thing. That's because everything get's it's existence and reality from God. God is what defines things nature, his own light and what they are with respect to that. That is why everything is a sign of God.

Why would you call that 'God' and not just 'the Universe'?

(June 26, 2016 at 4:27 am)Veritas_Vincit Wrote:

(June 24, 2016 at 6:00 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Actually God is everything at it's ultimate. Whatever is negative, you would take the negative qualities, turn them to positive, and he would be in someway the ultimate that thing. That's because everything get's it's existence and reality from God. God is what defines things nature, his own light and what they are with respect to that. That is why everything is a sign of God.

Why would you call that 'God' and not just 'the Universe'?

Because the universe is not each thing at it's utmost. It's rather limited and falls short of that.

Quote:ST THOMAS AQUINAS' ARGUMENT FROM PERFECTION, GOODNESS OR VALUE, a.k.a. ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (IV)
(1) We rank things as more or less perfect, or good or valuable.
(2) If this ranking is false and meaningless, then souls don't really have any more perfection than slugs.
(3) Therefore, there must be an ultimate standard of perfection for this ranking or all our value judgments are meaningless.
(4) Our value judgments are not meaningless.
(5) God is the ultimate standard of perfection.
(6) Therefore, God exists.

This is a perfect argument. What is wrong with it?

It can be modified a little bit. Basically, it can be modified to say:

Our value judgments are not what maintains our value and nothing but a perfect perception can see our true exact value since it needs perfect judgement according to a perfect standard.

I don't think Thomas Aquinas said "therefore...", but rather presented the case probably very well.

I have to read some Thomas Aquinas now.

Wow God has been proven for this long, yet people, are still asking for proof.

Aristotle and Aquinas both proved God long ago.

(June 26, 2016 at 11:59 am)MysticKnight Wrote:

Quote:ST THOMAS AQUINAS' ARGUMENT FROM PERFECTION, GOODNESS OR VALUE, a.k.a. ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (IV)
(1) We rank things as more or less perfect, or good or valuable.
(2) If this ranking is false and meaningless, then souls don't really have any more perfection than slugs.
(3) Therefore, there must be an ultimate standard of perfection for this ranking or all our value judgments are meaningless.
(4) Our value judgments are not meaningless.
(5) God is the ultimate standard of perfection.
(6) Therefore, God exists.

This is a perfect argument. What is wrong with it?

1) Irrelevant. What we do because of subjective criteria is not related to what is objectively true.
2) Irrelevant. I assume this is an ipse dixit statement that souls have more perfection therefore the rankings are not meaningless.
3) Possibly true, but it would require a) some fact that shows them not meaningless, and) a source independent of any being's subjective judgement.
4) Ipse dixit.
5) This doesn't follow from 1-4. It's possible that a god could be the ultimate standard, but it is not necessarily true that a god is the ultimate standard. (Think Plato's forms.)
6) Non sequitur.

(June 26, 2016 at 11:59 am)MysticKnight Wrote:

Quote:ST THOMAS AQUINAS' ARGUMENT FROM PERFECTION, GOODNESS OR VALUE, a.k.a. ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (IV)
(1) We rank things as more or less perfect, or good or valuable.
(2) If this ranking is false and meaningless, then souls don't really have any more perfection than slugs.
(3) Therefore, there must be an ultimate standard of perfection for this ranking or all our value judgments are meaningless.
(4) Our value judgments are not meaningless.
(5) God is the ultimate standard of perfection.
(6) Therefore, God exists.

This is a perfect argument. What is wrong with it?