The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

[dyresand]

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.


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.


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.

That's the thing though with theists they go and say their belief and evidence is outside of reality and use "magic"
to say that god{s)  exist. The thing is science deals with the natural  world so something like evidence chad is talking about
was merely created by man in the bronze age. Even if there was some sort of truth to it there would be evidence in the natural world
to support his position but there is none.