Ontological Argument?

[seer]

“For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can't readily accept the God formula, the big answers don't remain stone-written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command nor faith a dictum. I am my own god. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us.” – Charles Bukowski

Charles was an idiot and a poor excuse for a god, and a drunk....

[seer]

"in this moment, i am euphoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, i am enlightened by my intelligence." - some guy on the internet

lol...

[37818]

The traditional ontological arguments set out to show by reason a proof for the existence of God. The argument presupposes existence. Now existence exists, and cannot be said not to exist. Such an existence is self existent and is not in need of any God whatsoever.

That existence exists is the fundamental self evident truth of all self evident truths.
The law of identity.
The law of non-contradiction.
The law of the excluded middle.

All of these laws are contingent on existence existing and are self evident truths, self existent along with existence existing.

2 + 2 = 4 is a self evident truth. Why does 2 + 2 = 4 for example need a God?

[shunyadragon]

I don't know much about Nominalism. Would you deny that the laws of logic are universal and immutable?

In my view, not all laws of Logic are universal, because from the human perspective the Laws of Logic are often frequently manipulated to suit ones own agenda, and not immutable. The foundation of scientific methodology is based on the Law of non-contradiction holding universally without exception nor qualification.

[shunyadragon]

The traditional ontological arguments set out to show by reason a proof for the existence of God. The argument presupposes existence. Now existence exists, and cannot be said not to exist. Such an existence is self existent and is not in need of any God whatsoever.

That existence exists is the fundamental self evident truth of all self evident truths.
The law of identity.
The law of non-contradiction.
The law of the excluded middle.

All of these laws are contingent on existence existing and are self evident truths, self existent along with existence existing.

2 + 2 = 4 is a self evident truth. Why does 2 + 2 = 4 for example need a God?

I will agree, sort of, if human bias, qualifications, and conditions do not interfer, and the problem results that the Laws of Logic are misused from the human perspective to justify a personal or metaphysical agenda.

Would you accept that the nature of our physical existence is uniform and consistent in time and space and conforms to the Law of non-contradiction?

[seer]

In my view, not all laws of Logic are universal, because from the human perspective the Laws of Logic are often frequently manipulated to suit ones own agenda, and not immutable. The foundation of scientific methodology is based on the Law of non-contradiction holding universally without exception nor qualification.

Either the laws of of logic are universal and immutable or they are not. You can not claim that the Law of non-contradiction is universal while bringing the other laws into question.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Either the laws of of logic are universal and immutable or they are not. You can not claim that the Law of non-contradiction is universal while bringing the other laws into question.

I'll actually agree with Seer, on this one, at least insofar as the Big Three and any direct deductions from them are concerned. Non-Contradiction doesn't actually have any utility in the absence of Identity and Excluded Middle.

[seer]

I'll actually agree with Seer, on this one...

Be still my heart...

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Be still my heart...

I know, right? Maybe we should bookmark this one, just to prove that it's happened. :)

[seer]

I know, right? Maybe we should bookmark this one, just to prove that it's happened. :)

You're right - no one will believe it!

[shunyadragon]

Either the laws of of logic are universal and immutable or they are not. You can not claim that the Law of non-contradiction is universal while bringing the other laws into question.

Well. ah . . . it is more the application of the Laws of Logic that I seriously bring into question from the human perspective, as with Mr. Black's presupositional Christian worldview concerning the use of the Laws of logic. There are likely Laws of Logic that apply universally whether Naturalism or Theism is true, but humans tend to muck things up when they try to hard to justify their own worldview misusing Logic. It tends to be kind of circular in reasoning.

[37818]

I will agree, sort of, if human bias, qualifications, and conditions do not interfere, and the problem results that the Laws of Logic are misused from the human perspective to justify a personal or metaphysical agenda.

Would you accept that the nature of our physical existence is uniform and consistent in time and space and conforms to the Law of non-contradiction?

If I understand you correctly. Yes.

[shunyadragon]

If I understand you correctly. Yes.

This would confirm the knowledge and methods of science concerning the nature and the history of our universe, solar system earth and life on earth, is in conformity to the Law of non-contradiction.

[seer]

This would confirm the knowledge and methods of science concerning the nature and the history of our universe, solar system earth and life on earth, is in conformity to the Law of non-contradiction.

Yes Shuny, and we know that, because as both our religions teach, God created it that way.

As you so rightly said:

Yes, God Created humanity as an intelligent rational and logical spiritual being, and Created our physical existence as uniform, consistent, non-contradictory, and intelligible to human intelligence and abilities to understand its physical nature.

[JimL]

Jumping off another thread - I'm not sure where the fault in the Ontological Argument is:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

The problem, and the part that you conveniently omitted, is that Anslem was defining the eternal existence as a "being" based on his assumption that because such a "being" exists in his imagination it must needs exist also in reality.