How can there be a set of ontological arguments for the existance of god which a priori motives exist wishing there to be a god, and there not to be ontological arguments AGAINST the existance of god, presumably also motivated by logicians who have an ax to grind to try to prove the impossiblilty of god. It seems to me the underpinnings of these Godelian arguments talk about a being so great no greater being can be conceived. But if there is such a being, it would seem obvious to me THAT being could conceive of beings infinitely more perfect than itself and therefore set up an infinite series of such beings since if that being exists, it could think of an even more powerful being. It would seem that argument would have to be self limiting to be used in any definition of god but how can you get around this problem exept to simply state beforehand such a thing cannot exist. The problem with that is, we are imperfect beings and as such cannot ever know if such a being can concieve of even greater beings but such a being must be able to have such concepts so it seems to generate an infinite loop. Seems to me a hole in the entire ontological process.
It also seems to me a weakness in the Godelian argument that we can conceive of a perfect being but we could not make a complete definition of "Perfect Being" since we are not even close to perfection so only such a perfect being could define itself so this premise cannot be fully formulated by ANY human. Surely this is a deadly weakness of the argument. It seems to me further that extending this to the opposing view of an ontological argument AGAINST the existance of god would also be doomed to the same failure, our inability to give a real definition of 'perfect being'. If you only partially define a property the logic proceeding from such a premise is doomed to failure.
Originally posted by sonhouseWhile the ontological argument is a bad one, I'm not sure these are good reasons to reject it.
How can there be a set of ontological arguments for the existance of god which a priori motives exist wishing there to be a god, and there not to be ontological arguments AGAINST the existance of god, presumably also motivated by logicians who have an ax to grind to try to prove the impossiblilty of god. It seems to me the underpinnings of these Godelian ar y partially define a property the logic proceeding from such a premise is doomed to failure.
A perfect being would, by definition, be unable to conceive of a being more perfect than itself. This is not a flaw in its perfection, but a logical truth. In the same way, to say an omnipotent being could not create a rock that it could not lift is simply acknowledging that some things are LOGICALLY impossible.
We do not need a complete understanding of what a perfect being would be in order to run the argument. We need only be able to understand the premises.
Originally posted by sonhouseHi new to the forum, however not new to the ontological arguments for or againts the existence of God. Here is an interesting premise; Man is God or the representation of the Elohim or God collective. Important to the argument is the Idea that the power of God can only be experinced when there is a collective. Sort of like the Sci-Fi Borg of the famous Star Trek. That being the case, in the study of origin and cause. Not enough collective knowledge to start the argument! It continues only to be perspective!
How can there be a set of ontological arguments for the existance of god which a priori motives exist wishing there to be a god, and there not to be ontological arguments AGAINST the existance of god, presumably also motivated by logicians who have an ax to grind to try to prove the impossiblilty of god. It seems to me the underpinnings of these Godelian ar ...[text shortened]... y partially define a property the logic proceeding from such a premise is doomed to failure.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by sonhouseSo what you're saying is that if God exists he would have an inferiority complex.
But if there is such a being, it would seem obvious to me THAT being could conceive of beings infinitely more perfect than itself and therefore set up an infinite series of such beings since if that being exists, it could think of an even more powerful being.
The problem with that is, we are imperfect beings and as such cannot ever know if such a being can concieve of even greater beings but such a being must be able to have such concepts so it seems to generate an infinite loop. Seems to me a hole in the entire ontological process
Here is the flaw in your entire argument. This presupposes on your part that man somehow is imperfect. So is the statement that you make, based on the subjectivity of morality? Are you saying that a property of man is the definition of man, and therefore based upon your judgement of his moral compass he cannot even make the argument? I do not believe this is a part of the ontological process, the ontological argument in this case would be, what is missing from man's perspective which disallows him from making an argument for or against the existence of a "God" when he himself exists. The ontological process is the study and science of cause.
Originally posted by ChurlantMultiple and Mono are contradictory precepts, only with respect to how closely you can observe something. Multiple monotheistic view points have at it's core one God, which unifies the argument for existence. The path to what sit's at the center of this argument obviously is not linear like thought. Because thought tends to be linear in making any point for the uninitiated.
It seems to me you could make an argument that God does not exist based on the belief in (thus existence of) multiple monotheistic faiths.
-JC