Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Problem with the Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

2456723

Posts

  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Kagera wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    Perfection is the complete actualization of possibility. A "perfect" golf score would be 18: every hole would be a hole in one.

    I'm no expert but I don't think that's how golf scoring works.

    Because golf courses are designed so that every hole is not a hole in one. A perfect score, however, would be an 18. Some superhuman being who could drive a ball 500 yards could conceivably get an 18.

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Okay, so our existence is complete by virtue of its being. Hurrah.

    I still don't see why this has anything to do with "God" as the concept is applied in the vast majority of the world.

    Actually, it has nothing to do with theism. The problem is, rather, for the atheist to deal with the concept of existence as absolute presence. Existence is, in a sense, perfection. If existence is what sustains beings, then existence functions in the way that God has for human society. This is what Heidegger (an atheist) called the Onto-Theo-Logical Constitution of Metaphysics.

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • BloodySlothBloodySloth Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Podly wrote: »
    Okay, so our existence is complete by virtue of its being. Hurrah.

    I still don't see why this has anything to do with "God" as the concept is applied in the vast majority of the world.

    Actually, it has nothing to do with theism. The problem is, rather, for the atheist to deal with the concept of existence as absolute presence. Existence is, in a sense, perfection. If existence is what sustains beings, then existence functions in the way that God has for human society. This is what Heidegger (an atheist) called the Onto-Theo-Logical Constitution of Metaphysics.

    Existence doesn't sustain beings, it's just a slightly voodoo-ish noun to describe how the universe works as a single entity. It's not a thing in and of itself, it's just kind of an all-encompassing label.

    BloodySloth on
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Podly wrote: »
    Okay, so our existence is complete by virtue of its being. Hurrah.

    I still don't see why this has anything to do with "God" as the concept is applied in the vast majority of the world.

    Actually, it has nothing to do with theism. The problem is, rather, for the atheist to deal with the concept of existence as absolute presence. Existence is, in a sense, perfection. If existence is what sustains beings, then existence functions in the way that God has for human society. This is what Heidegger (an atheist) called the Onto-Theo-Logical Constitution of Metaphysics.

    Existence doesn't sustain beings, it's just a slightly voodoo-ish noun to describe how the universe works as a single entity. It's not a thing in and of itself, it's just kind of an all-encompassing label.

    Indeed, it's not a thing in itself because it is not a thing or a being at all. However, any attempt to talk about ontology always boils down to positing existence.

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • MatrijsMatrijs Registered User
    edited April 2009
    Podly wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    I will now post the ontological proof for God's necessary non-existence, courtesy of wikipedia.
    1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
    2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
    3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
    4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
    5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
    6. Therefore, God does not exist.

    1) Marvelous -- what does that mean?
    2) What do "Intrinsic" and "Quality" mean.
    3) Impressivenes has nothing to do with perfection per se, that is something we add to it.
    4) Non-existence is for impossible beings; all possible beings exist. If God is possible, it is impossible for him to not-exist.
    5) God is not necessarily a Being: if essentia dei est existentia and existence is not a being, then God is not a being. This does not mean that God does not exist.
    6) Faulty conclusion.


    Completely serious question here: with regards to your comments 1 & 2 - how is your jackassery with definitions (eg: "perfect") any less valid than Kakos' jackassery with definitions in 1 &2?

    That is how we use the word "perfect." It is how it has been defined in philosophy since antiquity. It is also how we use "perfect" in the linguistic sense -- think of the perfect and imperfect tenses.

    So give a rigorous definition for "perfect" as you are using it in this thread. Because this far all I see is a bunch of hand-waving.

    "Perfectionm here, is not a value judgement, but a quality judgement: what is perfect is completely actualized possibility; i.e., anything that can be, God is. "

    "Perfection is something akin to completion."

    Perfection is the complete actualization of possibility. A "perfect" golf score would be 18: every hole would be a hole in one. A "perfect game" for a baseball pitcher would be no hits, no walks, no runs. It doesn't matter if it is done through fly balls or 27 strike outs.

    "because there can not be more than one being which is perfect"

    etc...

    Perfection is the complete actualization of possibility. A "perfect" golf score would be 18: every hole would be a hole in one. A "perfect game" for a baseball pitcher would be no hits, no walks, no runs. It doesn't matter if it is done through fly balls or 27 strike outs.

    Wouldn't the "complete actualization of possibility" in golf be all scores between 18 and infinity? Every possible score would be actualized.

    Your definition of perfection, as explained by your examples, seems also to require a goal - in golf the goal is to minimize the score; in pitching in a baseball game the goal is to minimize hits, walks, and runs. What is the goal in being? Does it even make sense to speak of a "perfect being," using your definition of perfection, if there is no such goal?

    Matrijs on
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Matrijs wrote: »
    Your definition of perfection, as explained by your examples, seems also to require a goal - in golf the goal is to minimize the score; in pitching in a baseball game the goal is to minimize hits, walks, and runs. What is the goal in being? Does it even make sense to speak of a "perfect being," using your definition of perfection, if there is no such goal?

    It must be posited that existence is "univocal" -- that there is either being or not-being, and that there is an absolute difference between.

    I was using sports as an analogy, because they are easy. Aristotle talks about the possibility of a tree being contained in an acorn. But is the tree every perfectly actualized? Most likely not. Perhaps God is the only [strike]being[/strike] capable of perfection?

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Perhaps God is the only being capable of perfection
    Perfection of what?

    Couscous on
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    Perhaps God is the only being capable of perfection
    Perfection of what?

    I would imagine that God is complete actualization. Since he is atemporal, he would be something like actualization per se

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • BloodySlothBloodySloth Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Podly wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Perhaps God is the only being capable of perfection
    Perfection of what?

    I would imagine that God is complete actualization.

    I hate to sound like a parrot, but actualization of what? If God is just perfect existence in general, then it doesn't really say much. We've effectively boiled the ontological argument down to saying that existence exists.

    BloodySloth on
  • MatrijsMatrijs Registered User
    edited April 2009
    Podly wrote: »
    Matrijs wrote: »
    Your definition of perfection, as explained by your examples, seems also to require a goal - in golf the goal is to minimize the score; in pitching in a baseball game the goal is to minimize hits, walks, and runs. What is the goal in being? Does it even make sense to speak of a "perfect being," using your definition of perfection, if there is no such goal?

    It must be posited that existence is "univocal" -- that there is either being or not-being, and that there is an absolute difference between.

    I was using sports as an analogy, because they are easy. Aristotle talks about the possibility of a tree being contained in an acorn. But is the tree every perfectly actualized? Most likely not. Perhaps God is the only [strike]being[/strike] capable of perfection?

    Shouldn't the bolded be replaced with "completely actualized?" It doesn't make sense to use the word "perfect" in explaining the concept "perfection."

    As far as the tree example goes, no tree is completely actualized, because each tree only undergoes one of its multitude of possible lives. On the other hand, if we are to think about God in the same way, it strikes me that the "complete actualization of possibility" of being is "everything that could exist." I don't think it makes sense to call "everything that could exist" God.

    Matrijs on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Podly wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Perhaps God is the only being capable of perfection
    Perfection of what?

    I would imagine that God is complete actualization. Since he is atemporal, he would be something like actualization per se

    That makes no sense. Perfection or completeness only makes sense in relation to something else.

    Couscous on
  • ThisThis Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    The Ontological Argument fails on several points. The main one is that a concept can necesitate existance, which is ridiculious. For example, it is equivalent to saying that:

    Major Premise: The perfect sandwich, by it's concept, is the most perfect sandwich.
    Minor Premise: Existence and it being in my hand so that I can eat it belong to the concept of the most perfect sandwich.
    Conclusion: Therefore, I must be holding the perfect sandwich in my hand right now.

    Not surprisingly, I am not, because it doesn't work like that.

    Essentially, all the Ontological Argument proves is that the God as you define him includes his existance as part of the concept so if you believe that this concept of God is true, you also have to believe that God exists.

    Victory is yours.

    This on
  • FilFil Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    I feel like a billy goat gruff trying to cross a bridge here, if you know what I mean.

    Fil on
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Perhaps God is the only being capable of perfection
    Perfection of what?

    I would imagine that God is complete actualization. Since he is atemporal, he would be something like actualization per se

    That makes no sense. Perfection or completeness only makes sense in relation to something else.

    It's a bit hard to visualize. Imagine that a tree has the possibility of having a branch ten feet long. However, it only grew to have a branch nine feet long. The actualization of the branch is imperfect, because there is still the possibility for another "foot" of branch.

    For God, this is never the case. Every possibility of his existence would be actualized.

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Podly wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Perhaps God is the only being capable of perfection
    Perfection of what?

    I would imagine that God is complete actualization. Since he is atemporal, he would be something like actualization per se

    That makes no sense. Perfection or completeness only makes sense in relation to something else.

    It's a bit hard to visualize. Imagine that a tree has the possibility of having a branch ten feet long. However, it only grew to have a branch nine feet long. The actualization of the branch is imperfect, because there is still the possibility for another "foot" of branch.

    Exactly. Perfection of a branch only makes sense in relation to the tree. It would only make sense in the context of the argument if God is a huge animal-vegetable-mineral monster consisting of thousands of perfect things.

    Couscous on
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Perhaps God is the only being capable of perfection
    Perfection of what?

    I would imagine that God is complete actualization. Since he is atemporal, he would be something like actualization per se

    That makes no sense. Perfection or completeness only makes sense in relation to something else.

    It's a bit hard to visualize. Imagine that a tree has the possibility of having a branch ten feet long. However, it only grew to have a branch nine feet long. The actualization of the branch is imperfect, because there is still the possibility for another "foot" of branch.

    Exactly. Perfection of a branch only makes sense in relation to the tree. It would only make sense in the context of the argument if God is a huge animal-vegetable-mineral monster consisting of thousands of perfect things.

    God could be that. Spinoza held that god was everything. For instance, a mind is the mode of god under the attribute of thought.

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • BloodySlothBloodySloth Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Perhaps God is the only being capable of perfection
    Perfection of what?

    I would imagine that God is complete actualization. Since he is atemporal, he would be something like actualization per se

    That makes no sense. Perfection or completeness only makes sense in relation to something else.

    It's a bit hard to visualize. Imagine that a tree has the possibility of having a branch ten feet long. However, it only grew to have a branch nine feet long. The actualization of the branch is imperfect, because there is still the possibility for another "foot" of branch.

    Exactly. Perfection of a branch only makes sense in relation to the tree. It would only make sense in the context of the argument if God is a huge animal-vegetable-mineral monster consisting of thousands of perfect things.

    Not only that, but an infinite thing cannot be considered perfect because there are no bounds for its actualization to take place. If God is limitless, then it could not ever fulfill these limits, meaning God could not achieve perfection.

    BloodySloth on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    God could be that. Spinoza held that god was everything. For instance, a mind is the mode of god under the attribute of thought.
    If God was that, it would have to be of an infinite size as there are an infinite amount of complete possible things. Something of an infinite size would consist of everything as nothing can be outside of infinite. This must mean we are part of God. Because we are part of god, a infinite collection of perfection, the universe is perfect.

    This whole stupid argument would have been finished if philosophers didn't call certain shit they liked God just because it was kind of, sort of similar to a concept of god if you looked at it sideways with squinty eyes.

    Couscous on
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Not only that, but an infinite thing cannot be considered perfect because there are no bounds for its actualization to take place. If God is limitless, then it could not ever fulfill these limits, meaning God could not achieve perfection.

    If God's essence is existence, then the infinity is a sort of modal infinity. Wherever there is being, there is existence, and there can be no being without existence. It is absolutely present.

    So depending on whether you think that the universe is infinite or not, I suppose that you have to say that existence is both absolutely perfect and infinite.

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    God could be that. Spinoza held that god was everything. For instance, a mind is the mode of god under the attribute of thought.
    If God was that, it would have to be of an infinite size as there are an infinite amount of complete possible things. Something of an infinite size would consist of everything as nothing can be outside of infinite. This must mean we are part of God. Because we are part of god, a infinite collection of perfection, the universe is perfect.

    This whole stupid argument would have been finished if philosophers didn't call certain shit they liked God just because it was kind of, sort of similar to a concept of god if you looked at it sideways with squinty eyes.

    You are coming at it from the wrong angle. I don't care about the theological elements of the ontological argument -- as I said in the OP, I think it is a terrible theological proof. Rather, I am interested in the ontological problems that the argument presents.

    For instance, do you think that there is existence?

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Podly wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    Okay, so our existence is complete by virtue of its being. Hurrah.

    I still don't see why this has anything to do with "God" as the concept is applied in the vast majority of the world.

    Actually, it has nothing to do with theism. The problem is, rather, for the atheist to deal with the concept of existence as absolute presence. Existence is, in a sense, perfection. If existence is what sustains beings, then existence functions in the way that God has for human society. This is what Heidegger (an atheist) called the Onto-Theo-Logical Constitution of Metaphysics.

    Existence doesn't sustain beings, it's just a slightly voodoo-ish noun to describe how the universe works as a single entity. It's not a thing in and of itself, it's just kind of an all-encompassing label.

    Indeed, it's not a thing in itself because it is not a thing or a being at all. However, any attempt to talk about ontology always boils down to positing existence.

    This is cool and all, but I still don't get why I should really care. It seems like regardless of whether the ontological argument is true or not, it doesn't really effect me in any tangible way besides whether or not I can impress people by talking about it.

    Psycho Internet Hawk on
    ezek1t.jpg
  • Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Podly wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    God could be that. Spinoza held that god was everything. For instance, a mind is the mode of god under the attribute of thought.
    If God was that, it would have to be of an infinite size as there are an infinite amount of complete possible things. Something of an infinite size would consist of everything as nothing can be outside of infinite. This must mean we are part of God. Because we are part of god, a infinite collection of perfection, the universe is perfect.

    This whole stupid argument would have been finished if philosophers didn't call certain shit they liked God just because it was kind of, sort of similar to a concept of god if you looked at it sideways with squinty eyes.

    You are coming at it from the wrong angle. I don't care about the theological elements of the ontological argument -- as I said in the OP, I think it is a terrible theological proof. Rather, I am interested in the ontological problems that the argument presents.

    For instance, do you think that there is existence?

    This is like the silliest semantic question ever.

    The process of asking that question indicates the acting of something on something else. Regardless of how true our perception of the details of existence is, the fact of that perception indicates the existence of something.

    Psycho Internet Hawk on
    ezek1t.jpg
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    This is cool and all, but I still don't get why I should really care. It seems like regardless of whether the ontological argument is true or not, it doesn't really effect me in any tangible way besides whether or not I can impress people by talking about it.

    If you do not believe in God, it is hard to account for believing in "existence" which covers most of the definitions of God. Someone like Ricouer will argue that this was the origins of religion.

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    If you do not believe in God, it is hard to account for believing in "existence"
    This would just mean the ontological argument is just a shitty version of the first cause argument. The first cause argument is retarded for a bunch of reasons.

    Couscous on
  • BloodySlothBloodySloth Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Podly wrote: »
    This is cool and all, but I still don't get why I should really care. It seems like regardless of whether the ontological argument is true or not, it doesn't really effect me in any tangible way besides whether or not I can impress people by talking about it.

    If you do not believe in God, it is hard to account for believing in "existence" which covers most of the definitions of God. Someone like Ricouer will argue that this was the origins of religion.

    The problem is that it doesn't cover most of the definitions of God, and if it does, it does so only in an allegorical sense. "Existence" only provides for us because we consume things that exist.

    I repeat what I've said earlier; if this is what the ontological argument boils down to, then all it says is that existence exists. This is a ridiculous conclusion, because I know I exist already, which immediately proves the conclusion. I get the strong feeling that this isn't the nature meant by the formulation of the ontological argument.

    BloodySloth on
  • Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Podly wrote: »
    This is cool and all, but I still don't get why I should really care. It seems like regardless of whether the ontological argument is true or not, it doesn't really effect me in any tangible way besides whether or not I can impress people by talking about it.

    If you do not believe in God, it is hard to account for believing in "existence" which covers most of the definitions of God. Someone like Ricouer will argue that this was the origins of religion.

    I don't think most atheists have a huge issue with the idea of an unknowable, impersonal moving force in the universe. I don't, at least. Hell you could call gravity God if you wanted to. Or the first law of physics. Whatever.

    If you're going to be that broad what's the point? It seems like calling it "God" opens up an entire other can of worms given the common definition of the word, i.e. hates gays and abortions.

    Psycho Internet Hawk on
    ezek1t.jpg
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    If you do not believe in God, it is hard to account for believing in "existence"
    This would just mean the ontological argument is just a shitty version of the first cause argument. The first cause argument is retarded for a bunch of reasons.

    This is if you read "existence" as some sort of being -- which I would argue that it is not. If existence is not a predicate of something, than it is separate from beings, and yet present wherever there is being. It has nothing to do with causes.

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    The problem is that it doesn't cover most of the definitions of God

    Most scholastic philosophers, whom most modern theologians base their theology upon, disagree with you.
    "Existence" only provides for us because we consume things that exist.

    Is that a type?
    existence exists.

    Indeed, but it is not a being in itself.
    I know I exist already, which immediately proves the conclusion.

    To know that you exist, you have to do a Cartesian reduction. If being is not a predicate, how do you know that you specifically exist?

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • BloodySlothBloodySloth Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Most scholastic philosophers, whom most modern theologians base their theology upon, disagree with you.

    Then I guess I'm confused. Why does God relate so closely to the concept of being? the concept of existence does nothing to accomplish the things that all religions claim their God(s) have done. Existence isn't a force.
    If being is not a predicate, how do you know that you specifically exist?

    Again, I don't understand. I have a conscious experience, therefore I exist. I know I exist.

    BloodySloth on
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Most scholastic philosophers, whom most modern theologians base their theology upon, disagree with you.

    Then I guess I'm confused. Why does God relate so closely to the concept of being? the concept of existence does nothing to accomplish the things that all religions claim their God(s) have done.

    Being is absolutely present. Being sustains beings. Being is infinite. Being is eternal.

    Those are the essential traits of God.

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Most scholastic philosophers, whom most modern theologians base their theology upon
    Seriously? No wonder most modern theology is so retarded.

    Couscous on
  • BloodySlothBloodySloth Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Podly wrote: »
    Most scholastic philosophers, whom most modern theologians base their theology upon, disagree with you.

    Then I guess I'm confused. Why does God relate so closely to the concept of being? the concept of existence does nothing to accomplish the things that all religions claim their God(s) have done.

    Being is absolutely present. Being sustains beings. Being is infinite. Being is eternal.

    Those are the essential traits of God.

    No, dude. Being doesn't sustain anything. Being does not provide. "Be" is just a thing that things do. Being isn't necessarily eternal, either.

    BloodySloth on
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Most scholastic philosophers, whom most modern theologians base their theology upon, disagree with you.

    Then I guess I'm confused. Why does God relate so closely to the concept of being? the concept of existence does nothing to accomplish the things that all religions claim their God(s) have done. Existence isn't a force.
    If being is not a predicate, how do you know that you specifically exist?

    Again, I don't understand. I have a conscious experience, therefore I exist. I know I exist.

    How do you know that you "exist?" What does your consciousness prove as regards to existence? Existence has nothing to do with actual predications, though all actual predications exist necessarily.

    Read the link to Kant's "Table of Categories" I posted in the OP.

    Basically, Descartes Cogito is not a proof because it commits a category error. That I think does not prove that I am, because in saying "I" you are already positing your existence. You cannot really "prove" your existence in this way.

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Being doesn't sustain anything. Being does not provide. "Be" is just a thing that things do. Being isn't necessarily eternal, either.

    Can you have beings if there is no Being? If so, how?

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • BloodySlothBloodySloth Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Podly wrote: »
    Being doesn't sustain anything. Being does not provide. "Be" is just a thing that things do. Being isn't necessarily eternal, either.

    Can you have beings if there is no Being? If so, how?

    No, because that doesn't make sense. Being does not come before a thing that is. Things exist. What you have done is effectively ask "Can something run if there is no Running?" Running only exists when something runs. This is absolute nonsense.

    BloodySloth on
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Things exist.

    So you are just saying that "things exist?" How do you know that?

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • BloodySlothBloodySloth Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Podly wrote: »
    Things exist.

    So you are just saying that "things exist?" How do you know that?

    If things don't exist, there's no point in this discussion. I think that means it's a good time for me to just stop.

    BloodySloth on
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Podly wrote: »
    Things exist.

    So you are just saying that "things exist?" How do you know that?

    If things don't exist, there's no point in this discussion. I think that means it's a good time for me to just stop.

    Right. But what do you mean when you say "exist?"

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    How would this argument prove that we exist? It doesn't remove the problem of what caused God as there is no reason for the most complete being to not have any cause. At best, it is simply using God for "all that can exist." This would make the argument this:

    Major Premise: All that can exist, by its concept, is the most perfect being.
    Minor Premise: Existence belongs to the concept of the most perfect being.
    Conclusion: Therefore, all that can exist exists.

    This is obviously utter nonsense.

    Couscous on
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    How would this argument prove that we exist? It doesn't remove the problem of what caused God as there is no reason for the most complete being to not have any cause. At best, it is simply using God for "all that can exist." This would make the argument this:

    Major Premise: All that can exist, by its concept, is the most perfect being.
    Minor Premise: Existence belongs to the concept of the most perfect being.
    Conclusion: Therefore, all that can exist exists.

    This is obviously utter nonsense.

    You're side stepping the issue.

    I ask you, once again, is there such a thing as "existence?" If not, how can something exist?

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
Sign In or Register to comment.