(September 23, 2012 at 3:01 pm)Dranu Wrote: You ask for the impossible OP, for God is necessarily possible.

To prove something's non-existence can be rather simple (despite this wild claim that says proving the negative is impossible). You prove its impossibility. For instance, I can prove, with near certainty, there is no elephant in my house because it is impossible given the space available and what otherwise exists therein.

Unfortunately, God cannot be shown impossible. Something is only impossible if its existence is contradictory with something. Contradictions exist because of the conflict of limits (e.g. an elephant's physical existence entails it is limited spaciotemporally and can be contradicted by the existence of some other physical thing in its place). God (of the philosophers), by definition is the I AM or the infinite being. Infinite means to lack limits, therefore God cannot admit of contradiction, and therefore is necessarily possible.

Welcome Dranu.

I agree with what you say about being able to prove something doesn't exist at times. It's the same for the creation account, which in a lot of ways is like your elephant example. A literal Genesis interpretation doesn't fit into the different areas of science that all point to an old universe.

Anyways, I read your other posts and I saw that you have proof for God. I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say! I was just thinking about a Deist-type god on the way home today and maybe you've got something worth looking at.

(September 24, 2012 at 3:15 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Particularly with regards to issues related to your claim that non-contradiction implies neccessarily possibility. I do not displute that claim.My problem with it is that "god" is so ill-defined in your argument to render the possiblility of finding contradiction meaningless. However, as the claim of necessary possibility is not currently under dispute, I see no need to belabor the point until the claimed properties of the entitiy are established.

So you do admit that the thing designated by my definition is necessarily possible, just that you don't think I have connected to 'God' in the more colloquial sense, correct? Just trying to understand before proceeding.

Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:What I was asking for was your "proof" of your assertion that you have proof of actual existence.

As the OP says "Debating the existence of god is really for a different thread and not what [we are] looking for here". I agree, and like him would gladly debate it in another thread. Surely its an argument you have heard before, I just think its too easily dismissed without earnest, deep, consistent and logical consideration despite it withstanding every philosopher in the history of mankind... and I think it proves God with more certainty than anything else we can know.

---

(September 25, 2012 at 12:37 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Welcome Dranu.

I agree with what you say about being able to prove something doesn't exist at times. It's the same for the creation account, which in a lot of ways is like your elephant example. A literal Genesis interpretation doesn't fit into the different areas of science that all point to an old universe. [/quote] Hey Fallen, ya pretty much, and fortunately in my tradition much of Genesis has not been interpreted literal (at least in the sense of the modern Protestants; but a small blip on the radar of the history of Christendom).

FallentoReason Wrote:I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say! I was just thinking about a Deist-type god on the way home today and maybe you've got something worth looking at.

I do not think many will be suprised or interested in the argument (the Ontological, without its many erroneous renditions). Most of the greatest gems in the world go unappretiated. So goes the fate of this one despite it never being disproven and providing (as far as I can tell after many hours of advocati diaboli) certain proof for God's existence. I will gladly argue for it though.

---

Darkstar Wrote:

Dranu Wrote:The OP's question is asking for something impossible right?

How did you come to this conclusion? How can something infinitely greater than the universe need to exist to create the universe, and yet have no creator itself? God is said to be an infinity, he can explain anything because he is everything. And yet despite him being everything, of him we have found nothing... Saying that we 'know' a god would have to be present to create the universe is just god-of-the-gaps.

I'll take that as a 'no' to my question correct? Could you by chance address my argument (you must either challenge the truth of one of its premises or the validity of the logic; these are the ways to argue logically).

Friend, we can definitely get to these points of yours in the process if you use them to refute a premise etc, but first thing first, logical dialogue.

(September 25, 2012 at 7:23 pm)Dranu Wrote: ... and I think it proves God with more certainty than anything else we can know.

Have you started the thread yet? We are waiting with bated breath.

(September 25, 2012 at 7:23 pm)Dranu Wrote:

(September 24, 2012 at 3:15 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Particularly with regards to issues related to your claim that non-contradiction implies neccessarily possibility. I do not displute that claim.My problem with it is that "god" is so ill-defined in your argument to render the possiblility of finding contradiction meaningless. However, as the claim of necessary possibility is not currently under dispute, I see no need to belabor the point until the claimed properties of the entitiy are established.

So you do admit that the thing designated by my definition is necessarily possible, just that you don't think I have connected to 'God' in the more colloquial sense, correct? Just trying to understand before proceeding.

I think he is basically saying that you can arbitrarily define god as anything, so you can't disprove it. If you arbitrarily declare "my god is necessarily possible" we can't dispute that god has just been redefined as necessarily possible, but, we have no reason to trust that definition.

(September 25, 2012 at 7:33 pm)IATIA Wrote: Have you started the thread yet? We are waiting with bated breath.

Nah, I'm not that interested to, but would gladly join in it if anyone else really wants to (just let me know).

Title it something like 'Why the Oh-so-amazing-wonderful Ontological Argument is Valid and Sound'

Lucky 100!!

(September 25, 2012 at 7:37 pm)Dranu Wrote:

(September 25, 2012 at 7:33 pm)IATIA Wrote: Have you started the thread yet? We are waiting with bated breath.

Nah, I'm not that interested to, but would gladly join in it if anyone else really wants to (just let me know).

Title it something like 'Why the Oh-so-amazing-wonderful Ontological Argument is Valid and Sound'

Possible is not the same as probable laddie.

And whilst it is probable that we can never conclusively disprove the existence of "god" in the form of an intelligent first cause, it is simplicity itself to disprove the existence of the murderous, hateful and idiotic yahweh that you bend your knee to.

(September 25, 2012 at 7:08 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(September 25, 2012 at 8:25 am)Ben Davis Wrote: To the definition you've provided, omnipotence, omnipresence, & omniscience are internally contradictory propositions therefore any god claiming any of the 3 cannot exist.

I do not disagree. In fact, a god claiming any one of those is contradictory to existence, yet cannot be a god without it.

So if you're just saying that god can't exist, i think I've missed your point.

Also there are many gods with limited powers: think of the Roman, Greek, Norse or Japanese pantheons.