The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

[LadyForCamus]

Questions about being itself cannot be approached in the same way as questions about particular beings. Metaphysical questions are about what people can know about anything that is, regardless of what it is? For example, what do acorns, people, electrons, oil paintings, and numbers have in common with each other

You can't on one hand declare god and metaphysics outside the reaches of empirical science, but then on the other accuse me of not doing my due diligence in investigating the "true nature of being and reality… if the scientific method is an incorrect investigative tool for such metaphysical matters, how DO you propose we gather this knowledge? Just by thinking really, really hard about it? That is called day dreaming.

Q: By means of empirical science, prove that empirical science is the only valid means for gaining knowledge?

A1: You cannot.


A2: It’s called philosophy. Philosophical inquiries complement those of natural science and other areas knowledge. They do so, generally, by applying reason to observations, but not just any kind of observations - universal experiences and general principles that apply universally. Natural science focuses on particulars. Biology studies a particular type of beings, living things, and principles specific to living things. Linguistics also studies a particular kind of beings, verbal and written, sign systems and the principles specific to communication. Mathematics studies immaterial formal beings. Economics studies the exchange of goods and services and the principles specific to trade.

A3: Natural science deals with how things that exist change into other existing things from things that existed previous. Natural science cannot deal with why anything exists at all or how it is possible for existing things to change.


A4: Natural science talks about beings, but cannot explain what is common to all beings.

God is either knowable or unknowable. He is either in the same category as reality or outside of reality (which is utterly meaningless, in any case).

By means of empirical investigation define the meaning of reality and provide empirical evidence that your definition is true.

[quote='LadyForCamus' pid='1139972' dateline='1449936298']The only fallacy here is yours in thinking there is any substantial difference between your God and my leprechaun.

Do yourself a favor and learn the difference between mutability and immutability. You also do not seem to understand the distinction between universals and particulars.

Oh, and by the way, screw you. I am a human being; I experience the human condition as richly as you do. But thanks for your Christian spirit in dismissing the sum and total of my humanity. Shame on you; What Would Jesus Do???

Of course you experience the human condition, its joys and pains. My point was not personal. Simply this: materialism lacks the ability to meaningfully address the basic questions of human existence.

Chad, I think you forget that as aTheist the burden of proof is on you. When you insist something exists and that people should believe in it, it's up to you to demonstrate good reason why we should. You haven't even come close so far as I can tell. So let me ask YOU:

1. Using philosophy, Prove to ME this knowledge you have gained that lies outside of empirical science. It is your claim that such knowledge exists, so prove it to me beyond reasonable doubt so that I may be thoroughly convinced.

2. Prove to ME that natural science CAN'T and never can be able to explain why anything exists at all.

3. Please provide me with a definition of "meaning of reality," and prove it is the only correct and true definition.

(You certainly can't. How narcissistic of you if you were to even try)

4. I am an absurdist; I don't believe there is an absolute, objective "meaning" of reality.

Can you please use your tools of philosophy to prove that there is?

By the way, I did myself the favor of looking up mutability versus immutability, and guess what? I still don't believe in God.

---

Questions about being itself cannot be approached in the same way as questions about particular beings. Metaphysical questions are about what people can know about anything that is, regardless of what it is? For example, what do acorns, people, electrons, oil paintings, and numbers have in common with each other

You can't on one hand declare god and metaphysics outside the reaches of empirical science, but then on the other accuse me of not doing my due diligence in investigating the "true nature of being and reality… if the scientific method is an incorrect investigative tool for such metaphysical matters, how DO you propose we gather this knowledge? Just by thinking really, really hard about it? That is called day dreaming.

Q: By means of empirical science, prove that empirical science is the only valid means for gaining knowledge?

A1: You cannot.


A2: It’s called philosophy. Philosophical inquiries complement those of natural science and other areas knowledge. They do so, generally, by applying reason to observations, but not just any kind of observations - universal experiences and general principles that apply universally. Natural science focuses on particulars. Biology studies a particular type of beings, living things, and principles specific to living things. Linguistics also studies a particular kind of beings, verbal and written, sign systems and the principles specific to communication. Mathematics studies immaterial formal beings. Economics studies the exchange of goods and services and the principles specific to trade.

A3: Natural science deals with how things that exist change into other existing things from things that existed previous. Natural science cannot deal with why anything exists at all or how it is possible for existing things to change.


A4: Natural science talks about beings, but cannot explain what is common to all beings.

God is either knowable or unknowable. He is either in the same category as reality or outside of reality (which is utterly meaningless, in any case).

By means of empirical investigation define the meaning of reality and provide empirical evidence that your definition is true.

[quote='LadyForCamus' pid='1139972' dateline='1449936298']The only fallacy here is yours in thinking there is any substantial difference between your God and my leprechaun.

Do yourself a favor and learn the difference between mutability and immutability. You also do not seem to understand the distinction between universals and particulars.

Oh, and by the way, screw you. I am a human being; I experience the human condition as richly as you do. But thanks for your Christian spirit in dismissing the sum and total of my humanity. Shame on you; What Would Jesus Do???

Of course you experience the human condition, its joys and pains. My point was not personal. Simply this: materialism lacks the ability to meaningfully address the basic questions of human existence.

Chad, I think you forget that as aTheist the burden of proof is on you. When you insist something exists and that people should believe in it, it's up to you to demonstrate good reason why we should. You haven't even come close so far as I can tell. So let me ask YOU:

1. Using philosophy, Prove to ME this knowledge you have gained that lies outside of empirical science. It is your claim that such knowledge exists, so prove it to me beyond reasonable doubt so that I may be thoroughly convinced.

2. Prove to ME that natural science CAN'T and never can be able to explain why anything exists at all.

3. Please provide me with a definition of "meaning of reality," and prove it is the only correct and true definition.

(You certainly can't. How narcissistic of you if you were to even try)

4. I am an absurdist; I don't believe there is an absolute, objective "meaning" of reality.

Can you please use your tools of philosophy to prove that there is?

By the way, I did myself the favor of looking up mutability versus immutability, and guess what? I still don't believe in God.