Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter Samuel_Maynes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This thread is truly mistitled! :mad:
What lead you to say this?! Was it this:
True. Reality is a fact. We believe for it is real. There is nothing more real than what God says. God spoke reality into existence. So if his in charge, he must know what is real and what is not. I adhere to the Word of God. The word Logos, which you can find it in the Prologue of John, can also be translated as reality. Through the Logos of God, through the Reality of God, all things came to be. So, what God says is more real than any puny human mind can conceive.
Reality can be applied, first and foremost, to God. And in a way he is the only reality. All other things get their reality from him. His essence is to be. He cannot not be. He is.
As Thomas Aquinas put it: He is ipsum esse, the very existence, the very substance of to be.
God designates himself as YHWH: I am who I am. Jesus refers to himself many times with I am. God is the very foundation of reality and existence, without him nothing can be.
Is this not ontological enough. I admit is far from an exhaustive exhortation on the matter, but still, it does touch a few points. And the discussion, in this thread, went quite well. Can you illumine me, and probably some others, what do you actually mean by this statement? :confused: I say this in all charitable effort, in order to clarify this misunderstanding.
 
This thread’s first post was certainly not about the ontological argument. It is a serious misnomer.

The original ontological argument goes like this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Anselm
  1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived…
  2. The idea of God exists in the mind.
  3. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
  4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
  5. We cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
  6. Therefore, God exists.
The problem is it doesn’t prove God exists.

There are other versions of the ontological but they use unproved assumptions.

The original post said:
Apparently, about 14 billion years ago the divine potential of this Trinity became so supercharged with energy that it exploded into actuality , and began to expand into the universe of universes as we know it.”
This has nothing to do with the ontological argument and is a curve ball for drawing in thread viewers. :mad:
 
This thread’s first post was certainly not about the ontological argument. It is a serious misnomer.

The original ontological argument goes like this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Anselm
  1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived…
  2. The idea of God exists in the mind.
  3. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
  4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
  5. We cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
  6. Therefore, God exists.
The problem is it doesn’t prove God exists.

There are other versions of the ontological but they use unproved assumptions.

The original post said:

This has nothing to do with the ontological argument and is a curve ball for drawing in thread viewers. :mad:
Well, some of us were waiting for st Anselm to come into discussion, but never happened. And the premise of this thread is based on non-christian philosophy. The exploding God…that’s a cracker. :rotfl:
 
Originally Posted by oldcelt
~Truth involves belief…fact is reality regardless of belief.
The truth consists of facts! It is the correspondence of beliefs to reality.

We believe what we know.

We know the universe could not have created itself.
We know it must have been created by God.
We believe in God.

1
In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth—
2
  • and the earth was without form or shape, with darkness over the abyss and a mighty wind sweeping over the waters—
    3
    Then God said: Let there be light, and there was light.
 
The logic that something/someone/somehow the Universe (reality) came to be, does not default to there God (with a capital G, I assume you mean the God of the Church) exists.

Nor does this argument take into account the likelyhood that both the imagination and perception of humans is limited, as well as the ability to understand even that which we can imagine or perceive.

The way this proposed theory/argument comes across is “The idea that the Trinity exploded into the Universe satisfies my ego’s need to appear logical concerning my religious beliefs and come across as intelligent and thoughtful to others”
 
So, we use philosophy to better express theology to better interpret revelation.
Based on the principle that great antinomies or explanations such as theology and science – God and not-God – may both be true in different respects, and from the conception that contradictions may be reconciled in their dialectical synthesis; it may be argued that the nature of reality is a self-sustaining symmetrical construct of three absolute dimensions. These metaphysical cosmic coordinates may be called the Three Absolutes of Unity or Creation, i.e.:

(1) The transcendent existential thesis eternalized in the Deity Absolute – usually epitomized as the Primogenitor Creator, or Prime Being; (2) The immanent experiential antithesis materialized in the Universe Absolute – especially personalized in the gestalt of the Almighty Universe Allsoul, or Supreme Being; and (3) Their ultimate associative synthesis sublimated in the Unconditioned Absolute – sometimes expressed as the Absonite Spirit of All That Is, or what Immanuel Kant called the “Being of All Beings.”

From the assumption that there must exist some perfect systematic unity of reality, or there would be nothing; it may be argued that the abstract concept of the three basic manifestations of the Trinity Absolute completes a circle or cycle of creation out of nothing but each other, and the ‘force’ of reason itself. Trinity would seem to be the one and only adequate metaphysical vehicle of creation.

In more specific terms, the circle of creation may be conceived as complete unto itself, in three absolute and systematic coordinates, phases, or dimensions of separate but united co-creative expression, i.e.: the existential idea, its experiential reflection, and their synthesis in unconditioned consciousness. That synthesis is the ultimate combination reflected in the Middle Path of Buddha, the Great Way of Lao Tzu, and the Moral Spirit of World Religions in general. That consummate Spirit is the Unconditioned Absolute ultimate destiny and primeval counterpart of the ideal Deity Absolute conjoined with the real Universe Absolute. And these Three Absolutes of Creation provide a systematic unity of One God first, foremost, and forever in Trinity manifestation.

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca
 
Based on the principle that great antinomies or explanations such as theology and science – God and not-God – may both be true in different respects, and from the conception that contradictions may be reconciled in their dialectical synthesis; it may be argued that the nature of reality is a self-sustaining symmetrical construct of three absolute dimensions. These metaphysical cosmic coordinates may be called the Three Absolutes of Unity or Creation, i.e.:

(1) The transcendent existential thesis eternalized in the Deity Absolute – usually epitomized as the Primogenitor Creator, or Prime Being; (2) The immanent experiential antithesis materialized in the Universe Absolute – especially personalized in the gestalt of the Almighty Universe Allsoul, or Supreme Being; and (3) Their ultimate associative synthesis sublimated in the Unconditioned Absolute – sometimes expressed as the Absonite Spirit of All That Is, or what Immanuel Kant called the “Being of All Beings.”

From the assumption that there must exist some perfect systematic unity of reality, or there would be nothing; it may be argued that the abstract concept of the three basic manifestations of the Trinity Absolute completes a circle or cycle of creation out of nothing but each other, and the ‘force’ of reason itself. Trinity would seem to be the one and only adequate metaphysical vehicle of creation.

In more specific terms, the circle of creation may be conceived as complete unto itself, in three absolute and systematic coordinates, phases, or dimensions of separate but united co-creative expression, i.e.: the existential idea, its experiential reflection, and their synthesis in unconditioned consciousness. That synthesis is the ultimate combination reflected in the Middle Path of Buddha, the Great Way of Lao Tzu, and the Moral Spirit of World Religions in general. That consummate Spirit is the Unconditioned Absolute ultimate destiny and primeval counterpart of the ideal Deity Absolute conjoined with the real Universe Absolute. And these Three Absolutes of Creation provide a systematic unity of One God first, foremost, and forever in Trinity manifestation.

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca
You cannot put theology and science on the same level. Theology deals with the supernatural, science with the natural. So there is a hierarchy there. The supernatural always supersedes the natural. Wouldn’t you agree to this alone!?
According to the principle that God to be God, he must exist. If he doesn’t exist, than he/it is not God. God must exist, in a way that no reality in creation can. No other reality must exist, except God’s. And you are implying that creation is God. There are no self-sustaining symmetrical construct of three absolute dimensions in God. You misunderstand the Trinity. Though it sounds fancy, it is far from the truth, or at least touches on only one aspect. God is higher then creation, but he is also completely different from it. As a woodworker is different from a wooden chair that he made.
And you do understand what revelation is, don’t you?
And the expression some perfect systematic unity of reality doesn’t sound quite right. For all the fancy (I know I’m using it again :)) words you know, you do make a perfect non-sense. The words some and perfect don’t really go together. Is it either some or is it perfect?
As for the Middle Path of Buddha, the Great Way of Lao Tzu, and the Moral Spirit of World Religions in general, none of those became man. They all are an impersonal force, which, in the end, have no power and can do nothing.
In order to properly express themselves in their field of expertise: philosophy must be subjected to theology, and theology to revelation. When one of these works against the other, order is lost, and they start blundering untrue things.
 
Anselm’s ontological argument is not persuasive. It appears to be but it is not.

There is simply too much of the cat chasing its tail.
 
Anselm’s ontological argument is not persuasive. It appears to be but it is not.

There is simply too much of the cat chasing its tail.
Well, the more you think about it you’ll find that it is completely right, after more thinking, it’s completely wrong, again right, again wrong…and so forth, it’s fascinating. 😛 We are not designed to think apriori, but aposteriori, about God. You will find better reasons for his existence from creation.
But, in the end, one needs faith to believe in God. Reason is just a mean to get there.

Saint Bonaventure picked up the ontological argument. The culmination of his argument is: Sit Deus Deus est, Deus est. If God is God, then God is.
Ain’t this nice!? 😃
I’ll let you wrap your heads around this. 😛
 
As Bertrand Russell put it:

“The argument does not, to a modern mind, seem very convincing, but it is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies.”
 
The logic that something/someone/somehow the Universe (reality) came to be, does not default to there God (with a capital G, I assume you mean the God of the Church) exists.
That is true but the Ontological Argument is not concerned with the origin of the universe.
Nor does this argument take into account the likelyhood that both the imagination and perception of humans is limited, as well as the ability to understand even that which we can imagine or perceive.
Our limitations have no bearing on the Ontological Argument.
The way this proposed theory/argument comes across is “The idea that the Trinity exploded into the Universe satisfies my ego’s need to appear logical concerning my religious beliefs and come across as intelligent and thoughtful to others”
A good example of the genetic fallacy!

A warm welcome to the forum. 🙂
 
Well, the more you think about it you’ll find that it is completely right, after more thinking, it’s completely wrong, again right, again wrong…and so forth, it’s fascinating. 😛 We are not designed to think apriori, but aposteriori, about God. You will find better reasons for his existence from creation.
But, in the end, one needs faith to believe in God. Reason is just a mean to get there.

Saint Bonaventure picked up the ontological argument. The culmination of his argument is: Sit Deus Deus est, Deus est. If God is God, then God is.
Ain’t this nice!? 😃
I’ll let you wrap your heads around this. 😛
That version of the argument is clearly false! Once could equally well say:
Sit Deus Deus non est, Deus non est! 🙂
 
That version of the argument is clearly false! Once could equally well say:
Sit Deus Deus non est, Deus non est! 🙂
Ah! But* Deus non possit non essere. Ergo, sit Deus Deus est, Deus est.*

And God equals God, and if God equals God, then God is God, and therefor God exists. 😃
Think about it for a second, or more. 😉

It’s like 1 equals 1, and if 1 is 1, then 1 is.
 
Ah! But* Deus non possit non essere. Ergo, sit Deus Deus est, Deus est.*

And God equals God, and if God equals God, then God is God, and therefor God exists. 😃
Think about it for a second, or more. 😉

It’s like 1 equals 1, and if 1 is 1, then 1 is.
*Deus non possit non essere *begs the question! It presupposes the existence of God…
 
*Deus non possit non essere *begs the question! It presupposes the existence of God…
You cannot presume anything with God. He is completely different then all creation. Yet, he is, for he could not not be.
If God wouldn’t exist, let’s absurdly assume, then from where do we have revelation!?

Sit Deus possit non essere, non esset Deus. If God doesn’t exist, he is not God.
If someone claims God does not exist, than that person speaks of something else, and not of God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top