Discovered a New Ontological Argument

  • Thread starter Thread starter MichaelLlenos
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You’re saying things that have no meaning to me. what does a "neutral property"mean?

The only way you can argue that God doesn’t exist, and conclude that he does, is by proving a contradiction in the argument. If the assertion “God doesn’t exist” leads to a contradiction in a sound, valid argument, then the assertion must be false - and consequently the negation true, eg. God does exist. This is just how logic works.

Regardless, as I said, restating your case doesn’t fix the problems with your arguments. If they convince you, great. But a theologian or philosopher will pull them apart. One who was both already did, it seems.
 
Rhubarb said:
You’re saying things that have no meaning to me. what does a "neutral property"mean?
Click to expand...
Answer: Wrap your hotdog in a bun, or take a slice of bread and fold it in half: same stuff. The INFINITE is the same from a positive existent deduction or from a negative one.
Rhubarb said:
The only way you can argue that God doesn’t exist, and conclude that he does, is by proving a contradiction in the argument. If the assertion “God doesn’t exist” leads to a contradiction in a sound, valid argument, then the assertion must be false - and consequently the negation true, eg. God does exist. This is just how logic works.
Click to expand...
That may be true. But God and his infinite property are special and rise above the premises of normal logic. Logic is only valid for a 4th dimensional universe but not so for a higher dimensional being. Unless you think logic is more powerful than God? Whatever…
Rhubarb said:
Regardless, as I said, restating your case doesn’t fix the problems with your arguments. If they convince you, great. But a theologian or philosopher will pull them apart. One who was both already did, it seems.
Click to expand...
Actually Dr. Oppy has not responded to my latest fixes and additions to my logical and beyond logical conclusions.
 
Last edited:
Rhubarb said:
Regardless, as I said, restating your case doesn’t fix the problems with your arguments. If they convince you, great. But a theologian or philosopher will pull them apart. One who was both already did, it seems.
Click to expand...
So perhaps my Ontological Argument is garbage. Many years ago I developed an Ontological Argument based on the Ontological Argument itself. I’m so happy over it that if anyone wishes they can tell me why it is wrong. And if even that Ontological Argument is faulty, then perhaps I will just give up. Everyone at this forum seems to be better at logic than me. My old argument is now at the top of my website…
 
You sound defensive. I can tell you care about this project. Did you want us to just pat you on the back or give you honest feedback? Arguments are laid out like this expressly so they can be looked over and have the logic scrutinized and the argument scrutinized. An argument is like looking at thoughts through a microscope to make sure they hold up. All I can say is that it is nobody’s intention to tear you down. But nobody does any service applauding a flawed argument.

Philosophy is about refining arguments, learning, and coming back to them. Ph.Ds in philosophy have written books, and then released books explaining why their first book was wrong. This is how the discipline progresses.

Several people have pointed out reasons why your argument doesn’t work. You can either throw your hands up and walk away, ignore the critique, or try to use the critique to craft a more perfect argument.
 
Last edited:
MichaelLlenos said:
Perhaps I should stick to it & try harder…
Click to expand...
There ya’ go. I would start with a primer of propositional logic. It isn’t a robust logic, but it is the basics for understanding how logic works. When dealing with questions of existence you need first-order (or predicate) logic. It usually is taught afterwards.

I know it’s daunting, and it’s not easy. But eventually, every argument proposed to a greater community will have its logic analyzed. Philosophers are trained to look for fallacies, as that is the easiest way to deal with an argument. If an argument is valid, then the real back-and-forth begins.
 
MichaelLlenos said:
But if God has an infinite mind (or if he is omniscient) shouldn’t all non-existent things or things that do not exist exist in his infinite mind like Plato’s Forms by analogy?
Click to expand...
What is your definition of a thing? One definition is that it is an object of some sort, which means that it is a being or an existing object. Under this definition, a non-existent thing is a contradiction. If you have a thing existing in the mind of God, it is not non-existent. Please state your definition of a thing.
 
Last edited:
MichaelLlenos said:
I’m a big fan of St. Anselm and his Ontological Argument
Click to expand...
Do you mind my asking you why you are such a big fan? They are the weakest arguments for God, IMO. The Church never cites them, yet cites man’s ability to know God from His creation in all of her teachings (eg. Chapter 2.1 of Decrees of First Vatican Council, CCC 31-32

Why focus on the ontological argument?
 
AlNg said:
40.png
MichaelLlenos:
But if God has an infinite mind (or if he is omniscient) shouldn’t all non-existent things or things that do not exist exist in his infinite mind like Plato’s Forms by analogy?
Click to expand...
What is your definition of a thing? One definition is that it is an object of some sort, which means that it is a being or an existing object. Under this definition, a non-existent thing is a contradiction. If you have a thing existing in the mind of God, it is not non-existent. Please state your definition of a thing.
Click to expand...
If it just exists in God’s infinite mind, but it is not real in the universe then it is non-existent. E.g. if I imagine a ten eye purple people eater in my mind, then it doesn’t exist in reality.

BTW I kind of want some feedback on my Ontological Argument #1 at the top of my website. I mean how is it logically invalid?
 
“tafan2 said:
MichaelLlenos said:
Do you mind my asking you why you are such a big fan? They are the weakest arguments for God, IMO. The Church never cites them, yet cites man’s ability to know God from His creation in all of her teachings (eg. Chapter 2.1 of Decrees of First Vatican Council, CCC 31-32

Why focus on the ontological argument?
Click to expand...
You could say that if an Ontological Argument exists in our reasoning faculty that God’s existence is part of our DNA. This would strengthen the overall case for God’s existence among believers and non-believers. And that we were created by God as well.
Click to expand...
 
MichaelLlenos said:
You could say that if an Ontological Argument exists in our reasoning faculty that God’s existence is part of our DNA. This would strengthen the overall case for God’s existence among believers and non-believers. And that we were created by God as well.
Click to expand...
Personally, I find that ontological arguments don’t lead me to question my skepticism about God, rather they lead me to question your ability to separate preconceptions and biases, from reason. And if I find that your reasoning is to be questioned in one area, then I’m quite likely to question it in other areas as well. So rather than bolster your position, ontological arguments undermine it…at least for me, and probably for others as well.

As such, these types of arguments serve only to reinforce your own delusions.
 
I am nit for sure I understand, does the statement 2+3=5 exists in or reasoning it does it exist as part of reality. I would argue the latter. Likewise, if a logically true ontological argument exists, is it just part of our reasoning, or part of reality? Again, I would say the latter. So how cannot be part of our DNA, just because we discover it?

I don’t think it would strengthen believers, as it us rather esoteric. As to non-believers, I can think of two very prominent mathematicians who both could argue ontological arguments worked, but never became believers.
 
AlNg said:
40.png
MichaelLlenos:
If it just exists in God’s infinite mind
Click to expand...
You are assuming that God exists. I thought you were trying to prove such.
Click to expand...
A problem inherrent in all ontological arguments.

Can you imagine a Hindu wanting to prove that Vishnu existed and making a set of a priori proposals that she said were undeniable and then logically following them through to an irrefutable conclusion and then saying: ‘You are not going to believe this. There does appear to be an intelligence behind creation but it’s not Vishnu. It appears to be the Christian God!’

If someone sets up an argument to prove that God exists then they are attempting to prove true something they already believe to be true. They are not looking for a proof from first principles (although that is how it is presented). They are looking for a justification of their existing beliefs.

It’s like the Intelligent Design crowd saying that they’re not trying to suggest that God is behind all life. Oh no. Heaven forbid. They are just proposing that it’s been intelligently designed! ‘C’mon guys. Just agree with the first point and then we can follow it through to see where it leads…’.
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
If someone sets up an argument to prove that God exists then they are attempting to prove true something they already believe to be true. They are not looking for a proof from first principles (although that is how it is presented). They are looking for a justification of their existing beliefs.
Click to expand...
Actually I am not trying to prove if a Christian God exists. I’m just trying to prove if a Creator of the universe exists. As a supporter of various world monotheisms, I believe God remains the same God no matter what new religion comes to the fore.

I totally agree with Benjamin Franklin’s take on God:

“That there is one God, who made all things. That he governs the world by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped…”
 
MichaelLlenos said:
40.png
Freddy:
If someone sets up an argument to prove that God exists then they are attempting to prove true something they already believe to be true. They are not looking for a proof from first principles (although that is how it is presented). They are looking for a justification of their existing beliefs.
Click to expand...
Actually I am not trying to prove if a Christian God exists.
Click to expand...
Then it might be a good idea to remove His name from the very start of your argument.
 
Freddy said:
Then it might be a good idea to remove His name from the very start of your argument.
Click to expand...
God, in the English language, does not necessarily mean the Christian God…

BTW since any new arguments of mine may be trashed as invalid, I might as well post them here. What better way can I learn from my errors?

Here is a new one I thought up by probability:

If an all powerful being has more potential to self-create, than a finite universe has potential to self-create, and the finite universe has already self-created: How much more likely is it that an all powerful being has self-created & therefore exists?

(Instead of hearing a list of constructive criticism on this argument, I expect to be the victim of a whole list of contradictories towards my argument’s quasi logic. Still I have posted it to try to learn from it’s mistakes.)
 
I am trying to prove God in the abstract sense but not the most abstract sense. BTW how about the following:
  1. All Ontological Arguments are found to be lacking in the perfect argument.
  2. But this ‘lacking’ can only be the result of a sense of the perfect argument.
  3. Therefore, God exists. Because a perfect Ontological Argument must exist if all imperfect Ontological Arguments are unknowingly compared with it and found lacking.
 
What does it mean to exist beyond our 4 dimensional reality?

Are we capable of defining existence in terms that lack place and time?

If we can define this existence can we apply a form of logic that does not ultimately assume place and time?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top