The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

[LadyForCamus]

Lady, it won't let me do it from my phone, but as soon as I'm back on the PC, I'm up-Repping you. Sorry I didn't get to it before.

You've been posting solid contributions since you got here. Glad you're with us!

Edit to Add: I'm traveling to Florida to pack up parts of the old bike shop to move up to KCMO, in mid-January, and won't return to Missouri and my current shop until the 4th, so it'll be a while yet. Perhaps others can Rep you in my stead.

Rocket,

Thank you SO much! I woke up to this post and it made my day. I realize I may be painting myself as a loser with no life in admitting that, but I don't care. [emoji39]

I am so intimidated by how freaking SMART all of you are. I thought for sure I'd get responses like, "check out Lady here! She doesn't even know what an AXIOM is! *uproarious laughter and pointing*)

I have learned so much in the short amount of time I have spent here with you all. The intellectual challenges I am faced with in order to participate meaningfully in these discussions are invaluable to me. I love to learn, and even if I am only ever capable of a rudimentary understanding of the concepts and principles that fly around here, it is still so much more than I knew before. You don't get that kind of enlightenment about the world we live in by reading the Bible and going to mass every Sunday.

So in conclusion of my rambling: your compliment means the world to me, and I am so happy I stumbled upon you guys! [emoji7]

[LadyForCamus]

[quote='Jörmungandr' pid='1152384' dateline='1451158835']Chad seems convinced that God is modally necessary in  a way that a leprichaun could not be.  What that way is, specifically, seems to point toward the characteristics that a god must have in order for the modal ontological argument to apply.  He can't simply be modally necessary as an accidental property of his being or else the leprichaun objection holds.

The modal ontological argument, #7 -

"It is not the case that God necessarily doesn‘t exist."

Based on what reasoning?!

If my leprechaun possesses the three O's, is he then also as modally necessary as God?

Chad, you never answered any of my questions...[emoji19]

[LadyForCamus]

even though solipsism cannot logically be disproven, in order for the premise to be true, multiple other premises with their own complex explanations must be inserted to reconcile it.  How can we be separately both the artist and the audience of our own reality?  So, sure, you can never prove solipsism to be false, but it would be a leap to believe it is surely true!  

The arguments in favor of solipsism I've encountered were more along the lines of "we can't be sure we aren't brains in a vat, ergo we can't be sure of anything".

Fair enough, yeah. Hey, that's some useful worldview you have there., Mr. Brain-in-a-vat. /sarcasm

On the other hand, taking as axiomatic that solipsism is false is *useful*, and allows us to do useful things - like hanging up on solipsists.

Lol, yeah, at that point why waste energy trying to convince imaginary people of any imaginary concept, like the caller from the video. Or why even get up out of you imaginary bed in the morning?

[robvalue]

Camus: Wow, if you've not heard of the atheist experience, you're in for a treat! Click here for an archive of loads of their shows, going back several years. There's enough to keep you going for ages, and at the beginning of many of the shows (after the announcements) there are really good segments by the hosts covering various subjects. One of my favourites is Don Baker and his "Failures of Christianity" series. You can also find clips all over YouTube.

I have links here to loads of other atheist type materials you may not have heard of before.

As for solipsism, yeah I really need to do a video. Thanks for the link, I'll check it out! I just had a quick flick through it, and I don't know what point he is making. It appears unassailable, and he seems to admit that, but then goes on to try and assail it anyway. There's not too many people that actually claim to be solipsists; I would deem them as being as unfounded as those who deny solipsism is possible. If he's just aiming at those people, he has a point, although an extremely laboriously made one. I'll check it out properly later.

It's both one of the most fundamental questions we can ask, and also the most useless. I don't propose solipsism is true, nor do I assume it is false. I accept it's impossible to know. "Is this real?" is the question , and there is no answer. As far as I can see, there will never be an answer. Any criteria I come up with for testing what is "real" may just be part of a delusion. It goes for something as simple as dreaming, you don't even need a brain in a vat. Is this a dream? I say it's impossible to tell.

It's very interesting (to me at least) but the obvious pragmatic approach is to assume it is false. Even if it is true, here we are, and we still have to deal with this "reality". Most people I guess won't even think about it, and if they do, they instantly dismiss it as pointless to think about. And practically speaking, it is. It's just I have a fiercely analytical brain and I can't help pondering questions like this.

Trying to prove solipsism to be true is as pointless and impossible as trying to prove it false. I don't see how it could be done.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I’ll start with the most important line of your entire post:

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

Congratulations! You have demonstrated a rare level of intellectual honesty that I find rare on AtheistForums.org.  As expressed in another thread, I, like the continental existentialists recognize the role and responsibility of personal choice as the starting point for philosophical reflection.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-39998-po...pid1144612

To paraphrase:

If both axioms (the reliability of intellect & the intelligibility of reality) are in fact true then knowledge can be attain. However, if either of those axioms is not in fact true then knowledge cannot be attained. One of the following applies: 1) we live in a rationally ordered world while we ourselves are incapable of reason, or 2) our capacity for reason cannot be applied to an irrational world, or 3) we live in an irrational would and are incapable of reason….Now you face an existential choice, one that cannot be rationally determined, empirically tested, or otherwise confirmed. Do you think these axioms are true?

In that same post, I mentioned the question I pose to all those who advocate philosophical positions, positions that on their face appear logically consistent, yet present conclusions severely at odds how most people actually live: do you want to live a life consistent with your beliefs?

My question has broad application. Do determinists actually think their personal choices are constrained by mindless external forces? Do eliminative materialist actually think their own consciousness is an illusion? Do radical skeptics really think that no principle actually links causes to their effects? Do idealistic solipsists actually certain of only their own consciousness? The answers are clearly no, no, no, and no. You may want to keep my question in the back of your mind as you explore the depths of absurdist “reasoning.”

Chad, I think you forget that as a Theist 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.

Saint Peter teaches that believers do have, to some extent, a burden of proof when he tells his flock “be ready to give an account for the hope that is in your heart.” (paraphrase of 1Peter 3:15). In this particular instance the admonition does not apply. Radical empiricism, of the type you advocate, makes a tacit metaphysical claim. With the questions of my previous post, I challenged you to defend your metaphysical position. Again, stated in other ways, those questions being: 1) how do you (yes you specifically) empirically verify the claim that all knowledge is empirically verifiable?, 2) how do you justify the presumption that particular beings have natures while denying a principle that supports beings to study?, 3) In fields like linguistics, math, and economics, what principle(s) justifies the scientific inquiry objects as diverse as sentences, numbers, and trade value?

You declined to answer my questions and pose your own instead. May I suggest that you yourself are trying to avoid the positive claims implicit in your metaphysic of denying metaphysics? As for me, I have no fear of your questions/challenges.

Q1: “Using philosophy, Prove to ME this knowledge you have gained that lies outside of empirical science.”

A1: The knowledge in question is not yet “God exists;” but rather, that knowledge about reality can be gained apart from empirical verification that does not require empirical verification. Aristotle believed so and presented them in his Metaphysics. They are known collectively as the Principle of Non-Contradiction. YOU could introduce yourself to the PNC here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristo...tradiction. The point I have been making is that this knowledge is self-evident and necessary before any empirical investigation can begin AND is not subject of empirical verification.

Q2: Prove to ME that natural science CAN'T and never can be able to explain why anything exists at all.

A2: I already explained this but perhaps not with sufficient directness for YOU. Methodological naturalism, as an epistemology, cannot prove ontological naturalism (a metaphysical position), because it takes existence as given.

Q3. Please provide me with a definition of "meaning of reality," and prove it is the only correct and true definition.

A3: I made no claim with respect to the “meaning of reality.” Only that reality supports the ability to make meaningful statements. If that were not the case you could not pose the question.

Q4. …there is [not] an absolute, objective "meaning" of reality.  Can you please use your tools of philosophy to prove that there is?

A4: The question is self-refuting. If reality lacks the capacity to support meaning, the question itself has not, indeed could not, have any content or referent. Moreover, to say definitively that there is no absolute meaning is itself saying that there is at least one absolute, that there are no absolutes. As you can see, your questions are easily dispatched. What I fail to understand is how a self-professed absurdist can hold fast the contradictory beliefs of scientism.

On to your next post which was of a more personal nature.

Why are you here on this forum? Why does it bother you so much that there are people in this world who don't believe in god? What motivates you to spend so much time here trying to convince atheists that they are ignorant and wrong?

I ask myself this question all the time. I initially joined to learn, intentionally making myself a target to put my own philosophical position to the test.  My own intellectual “journey” has perhaps been unique. Many people rebel against the religion of their youth. I think that in most cases this is as it should be, particularly when someone is intellectually inclined and their faith is not well grounded. But having rejected shallow faith, do the obvious mutually exclusive alternatives, like physicalism (on the one hand) and absurdism (on the other), have any better grounding? I think not.

But why is any of this important? For some it is not. Most people go along to get along. And that works fine for the most part. And yet, ideas have consequences and eventually, when conscience collides with convictions, something must give. As for me, I consider it a matter of personal integrity to live in accordance with what I believe. When the tough choices come will I find my best intentions buttressed by sound reasoning? Philosophy is useless speculation when it is divorced from its original meaning ‘Love of Wisdom’. Wisdom is where the intellectual “rubber” hits the “road” of life.

I still consider myself an existentialist. You can see this above where I prioritize an ultimately irrational personal choice as a ‘first principle’ of philosophy. I react very strongly to the uncritical pretense of some atheists who consider their existential choice as objectively rational. It isn’t. I know that I will convince no one.

… never once did I feel compelled to register to a Christian message board in an attempt to tear everyone down.

Yours is a noble sentiment. In Nietzsche’s classic Zarathustra says to himself after meeting the faithful hermit, “Let me depart, that I may take nothing from him.” I think that despite his vociferous objections to Christianity and Judaism, Nietzsche didn’t see any reason to undermine the blissful ignorance of most believers. He did; however, seek to open a path for the emergence of a greater humanity free from the constraints of the intellectual foundations supporting belief. Again ideas have consequences. The materialistic justifications in ‘high’ culture filter down to popular acceptance. The corrosive effects of this process can be seen throughout Western culture from art to ethics. You’d have to blind not to see it and evil to praise it if you do.

It would feel unnatural (flowery words for an atheist, I know), to spend my time and energy trying to make a group of people with specific beliefs abandon those beliefs. What satisfaction would I get from that? I can't believe your motive is innocent; that you are genuinely worried for my immortal soul…So, I wonder how much of a humanist you really are if you would get more of an emotional payoff from proving atheists wrong (which you will never do), than by forming lasting relationships with people who share your values and world view.

Your state of your immortal soul is your own business. The Great Commission only asks Christians to make the world aware of the Gospel, not to compel belief. If they have not already heard the Gospel, Drich, Godschild, and others, have already adequately presented it. While I initially came on AF to learn, I now stand witness. In my own way, pompous and swarmy as it may be, I serve by revealing to all from where some ideas come and to where they lead. What they make of that knowledge is their own choice.

[Jackalope]

The arguments in favor of solipsism I've encountered were more along the lines of "we can't be sure we aren't brains in a vat, ergo we can't be sure of anything".  

Fair enough, yeah.  Hey, that's some useful worldview you have there., Mr. Brain-in-a-vat.  /sarcasm  

On the other hand, taking as axiomatic that solipsism is false is *useful*, and allows us to do useful things - like hanging up on solipsists.

Lol, yeah, at that point why waste energy trying to convince imaginary people of any imaginary concept, like the caller from the video.  Or why even get up out of you imaginary bed in the morning?

Well, yeah. It seems to me that arguing from a position of solipsism isn't going to be useful unless you're going to be arguing in favor of something along the lines of epistemological nihilism. One could certainly do so, but why? The exercise seems pointless. I generally tune out when Mr. Brain-in-a-vat shows up, TBH.

[The Grand Nudger]

Solipsism erases any certainty in logic, that reason itself would or could generate true conclusions.  If we arrive at solipsism through reason..........but reason offers no credible prospect of certainty.........we may not have understood what it was we arrived at, or how, lol. It's useless for the game, because it doesn't allow play.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Solipsism erases any certainty in logic, that reason itself would or could generate true conclusions.  If we arrive at solipsism through reason..........but reason offers no credible prospect of certainty.........we may not have understood what it was we arrived at, or how, lol.  It's useless for the game, because it doesn't allow play.

Solipsists wouldn't have trusted reason in choosing a shape without corners for the invention of the wheel. Maybe it isn't absolutely true that triangular wheels won't roll just as well

***sigh***

Maybe a world ruled by solipsists still wouldn't have any wheels in it!

[Jenny A]

Any true sophist would be run over by a bus, or starve shortly. Living sophists can be dismissed as posers.

[Edwardo Piet]

Sophist? Damn you autocorrect?