Does 2 + 2 = 4 need a god to be true?

[Leonhard]

Is that making sense to you?

I have to be honest, the way you write makes it hard for me (and probably others) to make much sense of anything you write.

[37818]

That's still not an ontological argument. If something is an ontological argument, then you argue that merely from its definition, it follows that it must exist.

Here you argue from the premise that 'an uncaused existence' has being... by which I guess you mean 'something exists without a cause' or 'there is a thing who's essence is being' or 'something exists nescessarily'.

This premise is an observation: Something exists, and something must then exist nescessarily to account for why anything exists at all. From this premise you then conclude that God exists. That's moving from the things in the universe, and how it got to be, to the existence of God. That's a cosmological argument.

Ontological has to do with what must exist. An uncaused existence.
Teleological has to do with purpose or order of things.
Cosmological has to do with origin. caused things.

All the arguments purporting to show or prove the existence of God are making ontological proofs, for the existence of. Anything existing or not existing is an ontological matter, is it not?

How things work, design, are teleological. A matter of order.

Cause and effects. First cause or first causes, origins, cosmological. (What causes what effect is teleological.)

Again setting out to prove an existence, is ontological.

[Leonhard]

Ontological has to do with what must exist. An uncaused existence.

Ontology is the study of being, existence, etc... However if you're talking about an 'ontological argument', that's an argument that proceeds from what can be known a priori about the universe, to argue that God exists. You didn't. You start with 'An uncaused existence exists', which you use as a premise as you don't argue for it. In that case it can't be an ontological argument since you're not dealing with a priori knowledge.

All the arguments purporting to show or prove the existence of God are making ontological proofs, for the existence of. Anything existing or not existing is an ontological matter, is it not? ... Again setting out to prove an existence, is ontological.

Ouch this is bad. Yes, all arguments try to establish their conclusions, and all arguments for God seek to establish that He exists. However that does not make them ontological arguments.

I'm afraid the latter sentence in the quote fails to make sense.

It looks like you've developed your own understanding of what all these words mean. However when you then try to enter a debate, you come off either as a crank, or as a pretender. You might actually have an argument, but its pretty clear you don't know the terminology involved, yet you still like the use the pretty sounding words. My advice is to crack open a dictionary of philosophical terms, or start using mundane language instead.

[37818]

I have to be honest, the way you write makes it hard for me (and probably others) to make much sense of anything you write.

It is very simple. Existence exists. Can we argue there is no existence? Seriously. No.

An uncaused exsitence has no cause. Needs no Creator. Needs no God.

Any argument which sets out to prove the existence of God has already denied such an existence. As I stated there is an uncaused existence. It, this uncaused existence NEEDS NO GOD.

Furthermore, if we can premise that there is no God. That cannot then be show that is absurd. The concept of no God is not therefore absurd. The concept of no existence is absurd. Existence, uncaused existence needs no God, therefore there is no God.

[Adrift]

I concur with Leonhard. I have no idea what you're saying. None. I don't know what "uncaused existence" means, nor why one should assume that existence must be uncaused. And I have no idea why you would be using the tetragrammaton (YHWH) as part of a formal argument for God's existence.

[37818]

I concur with Leonhard. I have no idea what you're saying. None. I don't know what "uncaused existence" means, nor why one should assume that existence must be uncaused. And I have no idea why you would be using the tetragrammaton (YHWH) as part of a formal argument for God's existence.

Play dumb. Uncaused has a meaning of not being caused. Does it not?
Existence has a meaning of being. Does it not?

Uncaused existence. There is caused existence. Space-time and matter.

You do not know God. Prove you do. God is supposed to be an uncaused being. You said, "I don't know what "uncaused existence" means, nor why one should assume that existence must be uncaused." Well there is no uncaused existence there is NO UNCAUSED God either. Nor can there be.

[MaxVel]

You might outline those five steps as you understand them to be. It would be helpful to others.

For the longest time I would argue God is the originator of existence. (Yeah, space-time and matter, Genesis 1:1) But most classical arguments set out to demonstrate, prove the "existence" of God. Well, existence, uncaused existence needs no God. To argue for the "existence" of God is really self defeating. To understand that there is an uncaused existence. And that uncaused existence needs no God. Is key. So either that uncaused existence is the God or there is none. Now as a Christian I know God personally. So I cannot honestly come to the conclusion, there is no God because, there is an uncaused existence that needs no God. God's Hebrew name, transliterated as "Jehovah" and more closer to what may be the original pronunciation, as "Yahweh." The Name is from the Hebrew "I AM" (Exodus 3:14) in the first person. And the third person form is presented as God's Name. And it means "Who Is" or "Self Existent." The latter having the meaning of the "uncreated existence."

So my ontological argument is, there is an uncaused existence. And an uncaused existence needs no God. So therefore either that uncaused existence is the identity of God or there is none.

If I understand you, you're arguing that:

(1) There is an uncaused 'something' that exists.

(2) Either that something is God, or there is no God.

(3) You know God personally, as a Christian

Therefore: You conclude that the "uncaused existence" is God.


Is that correct?


If so, I think I agree (broadly), but I don't think it's an argument that is going to be very effective in convincing people who don't accept (3). (3) kind of makes the conclusion inevitable, anyway.


If you haven't read any modern versions of Aquinas' Five ways, I'd suggest you take a look. Ed Feser has a neat blog, and his book, "Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide" is excellent.

[37818]

Ontology is the study of being, existence, etc... However if you're talking about an 'ontological argument', that's an argument that proceeds from what can be known a priori about the universe, to argue that God exists. . . .

If you got to argue for the exitence of a non-exitent entity. Why?

You didn't.

Beause to argue for the exitence of something. That something can NEVER be God. NOT ever. Self evident truths are depend on there being reality. And reality is dependent upon itself. And so needs no God.

You start with 'An uncaused existence exists', which you use as a premise as you don't argue for it. In that case it can't be an ontological argument since you're not dealing with a priori knowledge.

Yes, that is presuppositional isn't it? Can you argue that there is no existence? There is caused existence. If there must be a first cause. Then things come from nothingness without any kind of God. Wait There has to be no first cause. Only first causes. What beings, has a cause. What does not have a beginning has no cause, uncaused. Wait. We cannot have that, can we? On the same basis there cannot be an uncaused God.

Ouch this is bad. Yes, all arguments try to establish their conclusions, and all arguments for God seek to establish that He exists. However that does not make them ontological arguments.

In order for something, anything to exist, there must be existence. An existence which needs no proof. Or no God for that matter.

I'm afraid the latter sentence in the quote fails to make sense.

That play dumb tactic again.

It looks like you've developed your own understanding of what all these words mean. However when you then try to enter a debate, you come off either as a crank, or as a pretender. You might actually have an argument, but its pretty clear you don't know the terminology involved, yet you still like the use the pretty sounding words. My advice is to crack open a dictionary of philosophical terms, or start using mundane language instead.

Ontological, comes from two Greek words, Ont meaning reality or being. ological or ology meaning the study of.

Ontology is the study of being, existence, etc...

So are you arguing that "uncaused existence" is not ontological?

[MaxVel]

Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world—e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists.

Leonhard is correct: Ontological arguments (as a philosophical technical term) are a class of arguments that don't use observations of the external world as their premises.
You appear to be misusing the term, since your argument does use observations such as "There is caused existence" in its premises. Or you are confusing "ontological arguments' with 'ontology' (the study of being). Either way, it's making it hard for people to follow what you mean.

BTW - Adrift and Leonhard are not your enemies, and are not playing dumb. I think they both want to understand you, and help you make strong arguments.

[37818]

If I understand you, you're arguing that:

(1) There is an uncaused 'something' that exists.

(2) Either that something is God, or there is no God.

(3) You know God personally, as a Christian

Therefore: You conclude that the "uncaused existence" is God.


Is that correct?

That and the gospel of grace, by which I know God.

If so, I think I agree (broadly), but I don't think it's an argument that is going to be very effective in convincing people who don't accept (3). (3) kind of makes the conclusion inevitable, anyway.

Two things here. First, I agree, my argument for me is not going to help the non-believer from where he/she is. Second, hopefully the non-believer will understand conceptually where I am coming from. That does not mean agreement with me. The goal is to get the not yet a believer to give a hearing of the good news of God's forgiveness. And that God makes Himself known to the individual.

If you haven't read any modern versions of Aquinas' Five ways, I'd suggest you take a look. Ed Feser has a neat blog, and his book, "Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide" is excellent.

I'll put this on my list. But I already reject proofs for God's "existence." Such proofs presume an existence without proof. And a temporal existence is never valid proof of an eternal God. May be an evidence of such a God. But what has to be proven to exist, is NEVER a God. Nor can be. A self evident truth, like 2 + 2 = 4. Why does that truth need a God? The common concept of God, this God is not needed.

[Adrift]

Play dumb.

Maybe you're way way smarter than I am, because, unfortunately, I'm not playing dumb. As a Christian, I look forward to new arguments I haven't heard for the existence of God. I want to understand your argument, but I can't.

Uncaused has a meaning of not being caused. Does it not?

I'm with you so far.

Existence has a meaning of being. Does it not?

Yeah, I guess that sounds about right.

Uncaused existence.

Okay...

There is caused existence. Space-time and matter.

Ok, I'm with you. Space time and matter were caused.

You do not know God.

I don't?

Prove you do.

I can prove that to myself, because the Holy Spirit has made him known to me. But the only way you can know that is maybe through my good fruit, and even then, I suppose there's no way for you to know 100% for sure.

God is supposed to be an uncaused being.

If I'm understanding your terminology correctly, it sounds like that would be the case.

You said, "I don't know what "uncaused existence" means, nor why one should assume that existence must be uncaused." Well there is no uncaused existence there is NO UNCAUSED God either. Nor can there be.

Well, even though I seemingly agree with you that Space time and matter were caused, there are some who do not think they were caused. Or if they were caused that whatever caused them had a cause. Somehow they're okay with an infinite regress, though I don't completely understand why. Also, since God is a spirit and not a material being that requires a cause, we're talking about two different things, aren't we? That's why I wondered aloud in another post if your issue with the concept "nothing" hinged on some sort of unfounded fear that that the "nothing" would also include God, but people don't usually have God in mind when they're talking about "nothing". They're talking about the material cosmos.

[37818]

Leonhard is correct: Ontological arguments (as a philosophical technical term) are a class of arguments that don't use observations of the external world as their premises.

And those classical ontological arguments are nonsense.

You appear to be misusing the term, since your argument does use observations such as "There is caused existence" in its premises. Or you are confusing "ontological arguments' with 'ontology' (the study of being). Either way, it's making it hard for people to follow what you mean.

Being, that is existence. We know of caused existence, we experience as space-time and matter. Now is there only an infinite series of caused existences? And even if there is, there would still need to be a back drop of an uncaused existence for their continuance. The only being that can be actually studed are caused. Uncaused being can only be presumed. And arguments based on such being. An uncaused being/existence needs no cause, no God. That is not ontological?

BTW - Adrift and Leonhard are not your enemies, and are not playing dumb. I think they both want to understand you, and help you make strong arguments.

I'm sure you are right. I do not count them as enemies. But it seems to me that I must make a definitive case for there being no God first. The whole purpose of this thread, was intended to show self evident truth such as 2 + 2 = 4 does not need any of the counterfeit versions for God. Only understanding who the real God is can one see that without Him, 2 + 2 = 4 would not even be. Atheism is built on false concepts and incomplete concepts of God. The real God is a self evident. He really is.

[MaxVel]

But I already reject proofs for God's "existence." Such proofs presume an existence without proof.

???

And a temporal existence is never valid proof of an eternal God. May be an evidence of such a God. But what has to be proven to exist, is NEVER a God. Nor can be. A self evident truth, like 2 + 2 = 4. Why does that truth need a God? The common concept of God, this God is not needed.

This is hard to follow. Do you mean that God is not dependent on our proving Him to exist? That's God's existence doesn't depend on our proving Him to exist?

If so, I agree - but that doesn't make apologetics arguments valueless.

[37818]

Maybe you're way way smarter than I am, because, unfortunately, I'm not playing dumb. As a Christian, I look forward to new arguments I haven't heard for the existence of God. I want to understand your argument, but I can't.

Please forgive me. We need to start at a starting point.

Existence exits. Can existence not exist? No. Now we experience temporal existence. The God we know and believe in an eternal existence without a beginning or end.

Now the premise is existence. Existence exists. Question: Is there an uncaused existence? Yes. Now we know this to be God. The atheist or agnostic does not yet.

The quesetion is there an uncaused existence?

The argument, there is an uncaused existence. The uncaused existence needs no God. Either this uncaused existence is the identity of God or there is none.

What in that argument does not make sense to you?

If ontological, does not fit. What should it be called?

I don't?

That was a jab. Please forgive me. I'm trying to keep it simple. I really am.

I can prove that to myself, because the Holy Spirit has made him known to me. But the only way you can know that is maybe through my good fruit, and even then, I suppose there's no way for you to know 100% for sure.

We should be able to give reasons to others. Present the gospel to them. That is all we need to do. Give the reasons for our own knowing. And give them the gospel. If they consider God's words as His words they can know too. (John 6:45, 1 John 5:9, etc.)

Well, even though I seemingly agree with you that Space time and matter were caused, there are some who do not think they were caused. Or if they were caused that whatever caused them had a cause. Somehow they're okay with an infinite regress, though I don't completely understand why. . . .

I have no problem with an infinite regress. Still requires an uncaused existence to be. And such an infinite regress would still required some kind of uncaused cause. Note that. To argue that an infinite regress needs no reason to be so is nonsense. The reason would be the uncaused cause of some sort. At some point something is uncaused.

. . . Also, since God is a spirit and not a material being that requires a cause, we're talking about two different things, aren't we?

The fact that God is or is not a material being has no bearing on God being eternal. Now we know God is a Spirit and not a material being. God's messengers are spirit too. Given at times what appears to be material form. Even God Himself appearing did so (His preincarnate Son).

That's why I wondered aloud in another post if your issue with the concept "nothing" hinged on some sort of unfounded fear that that the "nothing" would also include God, but people don't usually have God in mind when they're talking about "nothing". They're talking about the material cosmos.

Ex nihilo meaning out of nothing, being from not anything. Since there was never nothingness. What was made was unique. Not made from something else.

If there was really ever nothingness. There would still be nothingness. We would not be here either. Nothing comes from nothingness. There would be no uncaused existence. Nothingness is nonexistent. So because nothingness cannot be anything there was always something. Uncaused existence.

That argument of nothingness belabors the point.

[37818]

???

Question, do proofs for God's existence presume existence or no existence? If the only existence the skeptic accepts are temporal existences. It makes no sense to try to prove there is a temporal existent God. An eternal existence has to be presumed for a valid proof of God's existence. Existence is presumed. It has to be an uncaused existence. The argument being God is uncaused being is it not? To me presuming existence to prove an existence for God is nonsense. Start with the uncaused existence. Identify the uncaused existence to be none other than God Himself.

This is hard to follow. Do you mean that God is not dependent on our proving Him to exist? That's God's existence doesn't depend on our proving Him to exist?

You can draw both those conclusions. Since the identity of God is the fundamental self evident truth of all truth. Uncaused being. Immutable, eternal, existence who constitutes reality. (Acts 17:28)

If so, I agree - but that doesn't make apologetics arguments valueless.

In the classical arguments to prove God exists, existence itself is presumed. The believer is thinking uncaused eternal, the skeptic nonbeliever in temporal terms. One has to start with an uncaused existence which needs no God. (see Isaiah 44:6)