Ontological Argument

[Empire]

[COLOR="Black"]

[FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="2"][B][B]So I

1. It is possible that god exist
2. If it is Possible that god exist, then he exist in some Possible worlds.
3. If god exist in some possible world then god exists in all possible worlds
4. If god exist in all possible worlds then he exist in the actual world
5. If god exist in the the actual world then there is god

There are many counters to this argument, each are valid. Here are some I remember from previous debates(this argument is for idiots tbh).

1. Basic modal logic dictates that:
[*]It is possible that god does not exist

2. Severe lack of understanding what possibility implies:
[*]If it is Possible that god exist, then he exist in some Possible worlds.[*]If god exist in some possible world then god exists in all possible worlds
A) Possibility just means "non contradictory" or "it doesn't break the laws of logic" in philosophy. It's not like a % of chance in scientific terms.
A+) God is contradictory in basic concept. All powerful/knowing/good is a contradictory statement.
B) "Some possible worlds"(already defining multiple for some reason).
C) "all possible worlds"(God apparently makes copies of himself or something to bypass some to absolutely all)
D) If god was in all worlds, you should be able to have evidence and therefore making this argument pointless/invalid.


3. More basic misunderstanding of what "possibility" means:
[*]If god exist in all possible worlds then he exist in the actual world
-Again, possibility means that it does not defy the laws of logic. Philosophy deals in mainly concepts, actuality of an existence needs evidence to support it.

4. Redundancy:
[*]If god exist in the the actual world then there is god
-It's like saying "if god exist, then god exist". Also, possibility can never determine actuality in this sense.

So I I thought this reason, if god is a perfect being and he can't have shit wrong with him, why the fuck did he invent us? Why did he want to make things that are Imperfect? Doesn't that make him Imperfect? Wanting something that is less perfect then him?

"Reason for creation" is irrelevant as it already presupposes that a god exist, that he needs a reason, that we are intentionally created and yada yada.

It would be a better argument to argue that "perfection" is subjective and that god could never reach perfection. But w/e, you can destroy a theistic argument 666 different ways at any time of day.

[robinvanpersie]

[Empire]

Yeah, if you read the comments of Inspiring Philosophy, you'll have almost a thousand flaws of the argument pointed out.



Also: @robinvanpersie if you don't know the argument and can't use it, don't post videos. Thanks.

[robinvanpersie]

Yeah, if you read the comments of Inspiring Philosophy, you'll have almost a thousand flaws of the argument pointed out.



Also: @robinvanpersie if you don't know the argument and can't use it, don't post videos. Thanks.

Hey atheist keyboard warrior control your arrogance. OP wanted to understand the argument, I showed him a good video to explain it. Why are you getting involved?

[Empire]

Hey atheist keyboard warrior control your arrogance. OP wanted to understand the argument, I showed him a good video to explain it. Why are you getting involved?

Getting involved? I just pointed out the flaws in the argument.

I think understanding the argument is knowing both it's wrongs and rights, don't you?

[Hunter Jr.]

So I want to get this right, so explain this shitty theory to me.

I think it goes something like

1. It is possible that god exist
2. If it is Possible that god exist, then he exist in some Possible worlds.
3. If god exist in some possible world then god exists in all possible worlds
4. If god exist in all possible worlds then he exist in the actual world
5. If god exist in the the actual world then there is god

Prove this shitty story wrong, or gimme me a legit way to prove it wrong, to someone.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought this reason, if god is a perfect being and he can't have shit wrong with him, why the fuck did he invent us? Why did he want to make things that are Imperfect? Doesn't that make him Imperfect? Wanting something that is less perfect then him?

God is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, spaceless, timeless, benevolent, holy being that apparently keeps watch over billions of galaxies all at one time, simultaneously, while not interacting with them at all.

Paradox time!

Omnipresent and spaceless/timeless Not possible. Parardox. How can you be everywhere but nowhere to be found?

Then comes the holy part. God kills 75,000 people as a census requested by David and Satan (when he was an angel) and God does it just for the fucking shit of it, yeah? Real holy of you, god. Real holy.

Freedom is a state of mind. Religion is the dark corner that keeps it from you.

[Eternity]

Getting involved? I just pointed out the flaws in the argument.

I think understanding the argument is knowing both it's wrongs and rights, don't you?

So yeah I see your point, I already gave SEVERAL other ways to prove this shitty theory wrong. The person I want to prove wrong doesn't want to believe it.
His theory is that god cannot sin or what ever the fuck he is trying to get at.
So I told him by creating "Humans" he(god) has sinned. H asked how? So I said that since humans sin everyday, and god created a being less perfect then himself he sinned, and he said god gave humans the right of choice. Then he went on to comparing a HUMAN MOTHER giving birth to a child and if the child makes mistakes for example killing some one the mother is not resposbible, which is all correct, BUT. It is how i said. Comparing a HUMAN MOTHER to "GOD" is not even funny. What do you have to say to this christan feg. Also in his religion, god CANNOT do everything. wtf then what is the meaning of god.Like in his version of god, he cannot do the paradox of god. Do you have anything to say to this feg.

[Empire]

So yeah I see your point, I already gave SEVERAL other ways to prove this shitty theory wrong. The person I want to prove wrong doesn't want to believe it.
His theory is that god cannot sin or what ever the fuck he is trying to get at.
So I told him by creating "Humans" he(god) has sinned. H asked how? So I said that since humans sin everyday, and god created a being less perfect then himself he sinned, and he said god gave humans the right of choice. Then he went on to comparing a HUMAN MOTHER giving birth to a child and if the child makes mistakes for example killing some one the mother is not resposbible, which is all correct, BUT. It is how i said. Comparing a HUMAN MOTHER to "GOD" is not even funny. What do you have to say to this christan feg. Also in his religion, god CANNOT do everything. wtf then what is the meaning of god.Like in his version of god, he cannot do the paradox of god. Do you have anything to say to this feg.

Well, God technically can't sin if you define sin as "disobeying god's commands"....

Which I'd argue is the best definition for it given the events of the bible and the definition therein.
-------------------------

Now is god "all good", "all powerful" or "perfect" then no. But that's not sin.

Perfection itself is subjective. The mere fact that someone claims god is perfect with extremely limited knowledge is just silly and subjective.

All-good is also subjective, but more so that it interferes with all-power. If a god cannot commit an evil action, then he lacks an ability that I have.
--------------------------------

When people claim things like "God is THIS" then ask them to show them how you actually know god is that.

If they reference the bible, press that.
If they reference a philosophical argument, ask them what evidence supports it.

In the end it's just a book and just like any other book it's merely text. What is written is not inherently true and we should never blindly believe in any text.

If he references "you just have to have faith" then proceed to ask him why.


Faith is not knowing if something is true but acting like it is. Ask him why doesn't he just have faith for other religions(cite something like Hinduism or Zeus).


Then he will use reason. Tell him he is contradicting himself when he uses reason for one religion but faith for the other.

[Hunter Jr.]

@Empire I can already feel the religious people reading your post cringing as they know they're fucked when they read this and then try to argue.

[Empire]

@Empire I can already feel the religious people reading your post cringing as they know they're fucked when they read this and then try to argue.

'
There are a few flaws, such as most people won't go straight to "you just have to have faith" because they think the bible is historical, or they have some sort of argument that they think supports it, or just automatically believe it for whatever reason. Most people, will not admit that faith is the reason because they know that faith isn't a justified reason to believe anything anymore.

In the end, it is going to be faith though. It's always faith. I've lost track of how many times I've run through an argument for it to turn out to be the "blind faith" by the end.
-------------------------


Then you have to have the conversation of why faith isn't needed(for anything) which is always fun.