You are viewing our Forum Archives. To view or take place in current topics click here.
Existence of God? Ontogical Argument.
Posted:
Existence of God? Ontogical Argument.Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Dec 15, 201013Year Member
Posts: 1,138
Reputation Power: 45
Status: Offline
Joined: Dec 15, 201013Year Member
Posts: 1,138
Reputation Power: 45
I do not wish to start a flame war and start to read comments such as "God is not real. End of.".
"St Anselm of Canterbury:
Anselm defined God as 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived'. According to Anselm, even the Atheist's must have the a definition of God, if only to dismiss His existence.
Therefore, God (like fairies) exists in the mind.
But, God must exist in reality because He is 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived'.
Why is this so? Because that which exists in reality is greater than that which exists purely in the mind. Imagine being given 1000. It's a nice thought; but wouldn'tit be better to actually have the money?
SO far, Anselm has suggested a proof for God's existence. However, for God to be God there must bore to him than that He simply 'exists' (after all that would make god fundamentally similar to ourselves). In the next stage of ANselm's argument, therefore, he attempts to demonstrate that the existence of God is necessary. But what does he mean by 'necessary'? Is he using it in the same context as in it is necessary for me to catch the 8:!0 bus, in order to get to work?
To suggest that God is necessary is to suggest that there is no possibility of Him not existing. To do this, Anselm suggests that we need to know more than than He simply exists inside and outside our minds. Anselm believes that we do know this:
it can be conceived that something exists that cannot be thought not to exist
God must be such a thing if He is 'that than which nothing can be greater conceived'
this is because something that can be thought not to exist would be inferior to that which cannot
Thus, Anselm felt that he had demonstrated not only the existence of God, but also that His existence was necessary."
This is an extract from Philosophy of Religion for A level which I typed up; it is not my work.
Anselm puts forward a good argument which is quite hard to understand, but I don't believe that what he said proves the existence of God although I am a Christian, I believe Religion is just blind faith as there is mostly no significant evidence to support it. This was written around 1033-1109 and Anselm was already a Christian when he wrote it; he said 'I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but because I already believe I wish to understand'. This is a very famous and smart statement I believe although it does slightly contradict his argument as he would be trying to find some information to help him 'understand' and I don't believe that writing a statement would prove the existence of God.
What are your thoughts on this?
If you do understand and wish to shed some light on the true nature of it's meaning as I don't understand it fully myself, please feel free.
Last edited by SasukeUzamaki ; edited 1 time in total
"St Anselm of Canterbury:
Anselm defined God as 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived'. According to Anselm, even the Atheist's must have the a definition of God, if only to dismiss His existence.
Therefore, God (like fairies) exists in the mind.
But, God must exist in reality because He is 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived'.
Why is this so? Because that which exists in reality is greater than that which exists purely in the mind. Imagine being given 1000. It's a nice thought; but wouldn'tit be better to actually have the money?
SO far, Anselm has suggested a proof for God's existence. However, for God to be God there must bore to him than that He simply 'exists' (after all that would make god fundamentally similar to ourselves). In the next stage of ANselm's argument, therefore, he attempts to demonstrate that the existence of God is necessary. But what does he mean by 'necessary'? Is he using it in the same context as in it is necessary for me to catch the 8:!0 bus, in order to get to work?
To suggest that God is necessary is to suggest that there is no possibility of Him not existing. To do this, Anselm suggests that we need to know more than than He simply exists inside and outside our minds. Anselm believes that we do know this:
it can be conceived that something exists that cannot be thought not to exist
God must be such a thing if He is 'that than which nothing can be greater conceived'
this is because something that can be thought not to exist would be inferior to that which cannot
Thus, Anselm felt that he had demonstrated not only the existence of God, but also that His existence was necessary."
This is an extract from Philosophy of Religion for A level which I typed up; it is not my work.
Anselm puts forward a good argument which is quite hard to understand, but I don't believe that what he said proves the existence of God although I am a Christian, I believe Religion is just blind faith as there is mostly no significant evidence to support it. This was written around 1033-1109 and Anselm was already a Christian when he wrote it; he said 'I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but because I already believe I wish to understand'. This is a very famous and smart statement I believe although it does slightly contradict his argument as he would be trying to find some information to help him 'understand' and I don't believe that writing a statement would prove the existence of God.
What are your thoughts on this?
If you do understand and wish to shed some light on the true nature of it's meaning as I don't understand it fully myself, please feel free.
Last edited by SasukeUzamaki ; edited 1 time in total
#2. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 20, 201212Year Member
Posts: 305
Reputation Power: 6
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 20, 201212Year Member
Posts: 305
Reputation Power: 6
god is real. nothing can prove he isnt we know what we are allowed to know god is 100% real.
- 3useful
- 12not useful
#3. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Aug 06, 201212Year Member
Posts: 6,360
Reputation Power: 374
Status: Offline
Joined: Aug 06, 201212Year Member
Posts: 6,360
Reputation Power: 374
Well then, Zeus, Jupiter, Poseidon, Thor and The One Above All from Marvel exist too.
This is quite easily the most flawed argument for the existence of God ever.
And @Disorts, no God is not 100% real, no more than he is 100% fake.
'God' and the concept of a God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, you simply cannot prove or disprove the existence of a God because God doesn't want you to know that he exists for certain.
Not knowing is the whole reason for faith, belief and therefore free will and the choice of whether you go to Heaven or Hell in his mind.
If God was proven to exist, everything that God has ever done to do with humanity in the past would be absolutely pointless.
You can look at the Bible for instance, and argue that he can't be real because of the flaws in it, because of the contradiction, the only way anyone can have a logical debate about Gods existence is through Biblical and philosophical discussion.
We simply do not know enough about nature and the nature of existence to argue from that perspective, anyone who does is, in my mind, a fool.
This is quite easily the most flawed argument for the existence of God ever.
And @Disorts, no God is not 100% real, no more than he is 100% fake.
'God' and the concept of a God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, you simply cannot prove or disprove the existence of a God because God doesn't want you to know that he exists for certain.
Not knowing is the whole reason for faith, belief and therefore free will and the choice of whether you go to Heaven or Hell in his mind.
If God was proven to exist, everything that God has ever done to do with humanity in the past would be absolutely pointless.
You can look at the Bible for instance, and argue that he can't be real because of the flaws in it, because of the contradiction, the only way anyone can have a logical debate about Gods existence is through Biblical and philosophical discussion.
We simply do not know enough about nature and the nature of existence to argue from that perspective, anyone who does is, in my mind, a fool.
- 10useful
- 2not useful
#4. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Feb 17, 201212Year Member
Posts: 480
Reputation Power: 17
Status: Offline
Joined: Feb 17, 201212Year Member
Posts: 480
Reputation Power: 17
God is 100% real. Why else would we be here? The only way I can believe how the Earth was made is if it involves God.
- 1useful
- 19not useful
#5. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: May 05, 201311Year Member
Posts: 50
Reputation Power: 1
Status: Offline
Joined: May 05, 201311Year Member
Posts: 50
Reputation Power: 1
I honestly just can't see anything that proves there is a god. So until I actually see proof I just won't believe there is one.
- 2useful
- 1not useful
#6. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: May 31, 201212Year Member
Posts: 1,966
Reputation Power: 87
Status: Offline
Joined: May 31, 201212Year Member
Posts: 1,966
Reputation Power: 87
How can you say that God is 100% real just because there is no proof that he isn't? There is also no proof that he is real, so your argument is kind of invalid there.
- 0useful
- 0not useful
#7. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 20, 201212Year Member
Posts: 305
Reputation Power: 6
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 20, 201212Year Member
Posts: 305
Reputation Power: 6
god is real and you people cannot prove he is fake.
Last edited by byLeon ; edited 1 time in total
Last edited by byLeon ; edited 1 time in total
- 0useful
- 6not useful
#8. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Aug 06, 201212Year Member
Posts: 6,360
Reputation Power: 374
Status: Offline
Joined: Aug 06, 201212Year Member
Posts: 6,360
Reputation Power: 374
Disorts wrote god is real and you people cannot prove he is fake there is no proof god is real and you would be dumb not to believe so.
The irony in what you just said...
there is no proof god is real and you would be dumb not to believe so.
god is real and you people cannot prove he is fake
Just... wow...
- 2useful
- 0not useful
#9. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: May 31, 201212Year Member
Posts: 1,966
Reputation Power: 87
Status: Offline
Joined: May 31, 201212Year Member
Posts: 1,966
Reputation Power: 87
Disorts wrote god is real and you people cannot prove he is fake there is no proof god is real and you would be dumb not to believe so.
The ignorance is overwhelming.
Your argument can be turned around:
There is no proof God exists therefore it would be stupid to believe in him.
- 0useful
- 0not useful
#10. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Apr 30, 201212Year Member
Posts: 5,468
Reputation Power: 245
I have heard this argument quite a number of times. I got to say, I still don't really understand it fully. I do have to say though, I don't think God is the greatest thing that can be conceived though. I think a greater being would be to take all of the abilities he is said to have, but then he also shows up and corrects the evil in this world. THAT would be a greater being. I believe a god that was able to create the world in an instant, and not take six or seven days (I'm not sure how that story went), would be a greater being. I think a being that did not need angels would be a greater being. I may have blown this whole thing out of proportion since I didn't understand it fully, but this is my opinion on it. Just because it is a great being that someone thought about doesn't make it a real thing. If it did, we would be seeing some crazy, unexplainable things on this planet.
- 3useful
- 0not useful
You are viewing our Forum Archives. To view or take place in current topics click here.