What do you think of this argument for God?

[Nonpareil]

I'm afraid, that if you do not understand what "all knowing" or "all powerful" is, then I don't believe I can simplify those any more for you.

You misunderstand.

It is not that there is no understandable concept. It is that there is no working definition. In the same way, while the concept of "soul" is understandable, no actual working definition can be supplied. No mechanism or definitive limits and parameters can be given.

And they desperately need that, because without it, it can easily be argued that such properties are not possible, even speaking metaphysically - or, if you wish to be more generous, you could posit that they are possible, but incompatible due to omniscience and its interaction with the idea of free will or choice, or omnipotence and its interaction with concepts of logical possibility and coherence. And so on.

That's the problem with concepts like these. They've been around so long, and appear so simple, that people just sort of take it as written that they are coherently defined.

But if you are saying that nothing is objectively greater than anything else, then I disagree and find it absurd.  You are saying that knowledge is not greater than ignorance, and wisdom is not greater than foolishness.   That these are incoherent statements correct?  That these are just value judgements?

Incoherent, no. Value judgments, and therefore subjective, yes.

Systems of measuring value can be defined, and certain properties can be compared to those systems to find that they are more valuable, by that standard, than another property. But the key phrase is that this can be done by that standard. There is no objective measurement of value possible, and the concept of a "maximum value" is nonsensical.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be saying here, that under the axioms of S5, that it must be shown epistemically possible in the actual world.  Now I'm just learning this stuff myself, but nothing I see, in the descriptions of S5 state this. Why have the semantics of other possible worlds at all, if this where true.

Again, I'm not a particular expert on modal logic myself. I could be entirely wrong, which is why I continue to point this out. I am continuing to read up on this, and, as I have said, this is not a particularly concrete conclusion on my part. I am currently working my way through - in my free time, which is why I don't have a more definitive answer - the various publications of Robert Stalnaker, who talks about exactly this issue. Specifically, I'm looking at "Propositions" and "Possible Worlds", which you can find on Google.

As a reminder, though, even if my admitted speculation was entirely wrong, it still doesn't actually help the ontological argument -

Now as discussed the argument does leave open the possibility that God is not logically possible.

For exactly that reason.

In addition to the above issues with needing a coherent definition for the various characteristics of God, the ontological argument fails to show that it is possible for an entity that is "maximally excellent" to have necessary existence in every possible world. As it is logically coherent to posit that there is a possible world where no entity possesses maximal excellence, this would not appear to be the case.
 

However as I stated; I tend to default to possible rather than impossible, if I do not find a reason to do so.

You are free to do so, but if you want to be rational about it, that is exactly the opposite of what should be done.

Possibility must be established, not merely assumed. As such, a coherent definition must be supplied, and a demonstration of how this definition is compatible with the universe must be made.

[Mystic]

To put a -1 * -1 = 1 make look like cheating but if you understand it, you know why it is true.

The same is true of this argument. It may look like cheating but in fact, it's because we deal with negative, we assume God is a possible being, but when you combine that with the definition he is the necessary being, then you know it doesn't matter where you start the assumption...you can start with assumption that non-existence brought existence to existence, and you would prove that wrong, and come to notion that existence is necessary and one and absolute.

All things pertain to existence and necessity with whatever assumption you start, you will get to God.

That is because God is the truth by which all truth is derived from, he is the foundation of reason, life, existence, morals, and insight, love, humor, tears, etc... The concept of possibility itself proves necessity.

[masterofpuppets]

To put a -1 * -1 = 1 make look like cheating but if you understand it, you know why it is true.

The same is true of this argument. It may look like cheating but in fact, it's because we deal with negative, we assume God is a possible being, but when you combine that with the definition he is the necessary being, then you know it doesn't matter where you start the assumption...you can start with assumption that non-existence brought existence to existence, and you would prove that wrong, and come to notion that existence is necessary and one and absolute.

All things pertain to existence and necessity with whatever assumption you start, you will get to God.

That is because God is the truth by which all truth is derived from, he is the foundation of reason, life, existence, morals, and insight, love, humor, tears, etc... The concept of possibility itself proves necessity.

You have merely presupposed God as the foundation for all truth, and then claim that because truth exists, God exists. However, we don't need a foundation for truth. Truth is that which corresponds to reality, nothing more, nothing less, no God needed. I am also curious as to why you claim that we should assume God is not only possible but also necessary. This is flawed because you have yet to demonstrate the veracity of all these claims, and hence they hold as much water as a spaghetti strainer.

[Mystic]

To put a -1 * -1 = 1 make look like cheating but if you understand it, you know why it is true.

The same is true of this argument. It may look like cheating but in fact, it's because we deal with negative, we assume God is a possible being, but when you combine that with the definition he is the necessary being, then you know it doesn't matter where you start the assumption...you can start with assumption that non-existence brought existence to existence, and you would prove that wrong, and come to notion that existence is necessary and one and absolute.

All things pertain to existence and necessity with whatever assumption you start, you will get to God.

That is because God is the truth by which all truth is derived from, he is the foundation of reason, life, existence, morals, and insight, love, humor, tears, etc... The concept of possibility itself proves necessity.

You have merely presupposed God as the foundation for all truth, and then claim that because truth exists, God exists. However, we don't need a foundation for truth. Truth is that which corresponds to reality, nothing more, nothing less, no God needed. I am also curious as to why you claim that we should assume God is not only possible but also necessary. This is flawed because you have yet to demonstrate the veracity of all these claims, and hence they hold as much water as a spaghetti strainer.

There has to be a foundation of all truth, and it is the reality, not the combination of realities which all need their truth to have a foundation, and only God can be the foundation of all truth (this is not argument, I am simply stating this as they are), and so God is the reality.

[masterofpuppets]

You have merely presupposed God as the foundation for all truth, and then claim that because truth exists, God exists. However, we don't need a foundation for truth. Truth is that which corresponds to reality, nothing more, nothing less, no God needed. I am also curious as to why you claim that we should assume God is not only possible but also necessary. This is flawed because you have yet to demonstrate the veracity of all these claims, and hence they hold as much water as a spaghetti strainer.

There has to be a foundation of all truth, and it is the reality, not the combination of realities which all need their truth to have a foundation, and only God can be the foundation of all truth (this is not argument, I am simply stating this as they are), and so God is the reality.

I think I just explained to you that your presupposition is utterly unsupported. A hundred restatements of the same argument doesn't make it any more valid.

Please demonstrate that (a) there has to be a foundation of all truth, other than reality itself, (b) upon demonstrating (a), that this foundation can only be God.

[Mystic]

There has to be a foundation of all truth, and it is the reality, not the combination of realities which all need their truth to have a foundation, and only God can be the foundation of all truth (this is not argument, I am simply stating this as they are), and so God is the reality.

I think I just explained to you that your presupposition is utterly unsupported. A hundred restatements of the same argument doesn't make it any more valid.

Please demonstrate that (a) there has to be a foundation of all truth, other than reality itself, (b) upon demonstrating (a), that this foundation can only be God.

When I make an argument I am clear I am. When I am explaining things from the viewpoint of God existing and what he is, then it's clear too.

Don't mix the two.

[masterofpuppets]

I think I just explained to you that your presupposition is utterly unsupported. A hundred restatements of the same argument doesn't make it any more valid.

Please demonstrate that (a) there has to be a foundation of all truth, other than reality itself, (b) upon demonstrating (a), that this foundation can only be God.

When I make an argument I am clear I am. When I am explaining things from the viewpoint of God existing and what he is, then it's clear too.

Don't mix the two.

I haven't mixed up anything. I am merely wanting you to substantiate your presupposition that God exists. I can clearly see that you are explaining things from the viewpoint of God existing, and I am challenging the validity of this viewpoint on the basis that it is unsupported. Either support it or don't expect atheists to take you seriously. I am not attacking your beliefs, but rather your ludicrous argument.

[Mystic]

I am merely wanting you to substantiate your presupposition that God exists. 

You are kidding right?

Have you read any of my threads? Posts?

[masterofpuppets]

I am merely wanting you to substantiate your presupposition that God exists. 

You are kidding right?

Have you read any of my threads? Posts?

Yes I have, and they have all failed to do just that.

[downbeatplumb]

There has to be a foundation of all truth, and it is the reality, not the combination of realities which all need their truth to have a foundation, and only God can be the foundation of all truth (this is not argument, I am simply stating this as they are), and so God is the reality.

Is it true that I played airsoft earlier today?

Either I did or I didn't.

How would the existence of a god affect the truth of my statement?

And you can say this for anything, the god concept adds nothing to truth statements, they either are or they aren't, there is no need for a supernatural referee.

---

I am merely wanting you to substantiate your presupposition that God exists. 

You are kidding right?

Have you read any of my threads? Posts?

And yet you have failed every time and not in a "I can see where your coming from" kind of fail, you have not come in the vicinity of beginning to come close to making a coherent case.

These statements you make may make sense to you but no one else thinks you have a point and we have looked.