Posts: 15452
Threads: 147
Joined: June 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
February 5, 2016 at 10:30 pm
You just can't take life too seriously sometimes. 
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
February 5, 2016 at 10:32 pm
Yeah I know. I have to joke about stuff otherwise I'd be even more inappropriate lol.
Posts: 9915
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
February 5, 2016 at 10:32 pm
(February 5, 2016 at 10:30 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: You just can't take life too seriously sometimes.
![[Image: c70d0e0492f66ad175f1545ec971eee2.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160206%2Fc70d0e0492f66ad175f1545ec971eee2.jpg)
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
February 5, 2016 at 10:33 pm
I need to do something I'm in an inappropriate mayo-making mood.
1-handed mode.
Posts: 66527
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
160
RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
February 5, 2016 at 11:07 pm
(February 5, 2016 at 10:24 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: (February 5, 2016 at 10:22 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Lol, I'm just messin around. Didn't expect anyone to take me seriously.
Lol, I feel like rhythm is off grumbling some where. See, AF would be no fun at all without you guys! [emoji7]
..only always.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 5466
Threads: 36
Joined: November 10, 2014
Reputation:
53
RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
February 6, 2016 at 1:04 pm
(February 5, 2016 at 10:08 pm)Rhythm Wrote: (February 5, 2016 at 7:51 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Can anyone explain, in layman's terms, what the modal logic/reasoning thing actually is?
I have a suspicion that my general feelings about philosophy largely being masturbatory gobbledygook will remain in place regardless. In context..... it's an axiomatic system which states that we can determine actuality by reference to possibility alone. That's it, that's all, there's nothing more to it.
Sounds like BS. I see, from the link, that they have quasi-mathematical proof for it, but it still doesn't make sense to me that something does exist just because it's possible.
"I was thirsty for everything, but blood wasn't my style" - Live, "Voodoo Lady"
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
February 6, 2016 at 1:21 pm
I've not heard of it before, although I've seen people trying to use this "method".
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
February 6, 2016 at 6:01 pm
(February 6, 2016 at 1:04 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Sounds like BS. I see, from the link, that they have quasi-mathematical proof for it, but it still doesn't make sense to me that something does exist just because it's possible.
The 'math' is not proof, but rather a 'definition of the proof' assuming one accepts the premise in the first place.
Even if one accepts 'modal logic', it still cannot prove god's existence as there is no information to suggest that a god is necessary or even possible.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
Posts: 6607
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
February 6, 2016 at 11:02 pm
(February 6, 2016 at 6:01 pm)IATIA Wrote: (February 6, 2016 at 1:04 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Sounds like BS. I see, from the link, that they have quasi-mathematical proof for it, but it still doesn't make sense to me that something does exist just because it's possible.
The 'math' is not proof, but rather a 'definition of the proof' assuming one accepts the premise in the first place.
Even if one accepts 'modal logic', it still cannot prove god's existence as there is no information to suggest that a god is necessary or even possible.
That's why part of the definition of maximally great is that the being is necessary. This was not stated in the OP argument, but that is something to keep in mind when it comes to Plantinga's argument. Either way, like you said, no information to suggest such a being is possible, partly because the definition of maximally great being still is not clear enough.
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: February 7, 2016
Reputation:
0
RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
February 7, 2016 at 2:08 am
A "cause" must PRECEDE its effect in time. There was no time before Big Bang. Thus, the Big Bang was not "caused". Right?
|
