NationStates Jolt Archive

In the interest of furthering the education of this bunch of loquacious, mostly incoherent, and highly opinionated louts we call the General Forum crowd, of which I am unabashedly a member...

I figure I'll share a little bit about the Ontological Argument (http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/ont-arg.htm) with y'all. I strongly suspect that many of you are unfamiliar with it.

I'm not really fond of Anselm's version (http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/ont-arg.htm#The Classic Version of the Ontological Argument) (the original), but I do like some of the later versions, especially Malcolm's (listed on the same page under "Modal Versions of the Argument"). The reason I'm fond of it is that Malcolm refers to God as "unlimited," and that property is what I use in my primary argument against logical arguments about God. I (and others, probably) see that in applying logic, a system of limitations, to a being we've premised as being unlimited (by virtue of omnipotence), our argument, and any logical argument about God, is inconsistent.

That's one of the fucked-up things about logic. We can't even use it on God.

It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (i.e., the greatest possible being that can be imagined).

God exists as an idea in the mind.

A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.

Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (i.e., a greatest possible being that does exist).

But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)

Therefore, God exists.

:D

I love this. It's clearly nonsense, but I've never been able to express why.

Ever hear of St. Thomas Aquinas's 5 proofs on the existance of God?

Anselm's argument makes no sense to me. Why is it presumed that a god in reality is greater than a god in concept?

What "traditional theism" ?
Is it still important if god (Yahweh that is, in this perspective) exists, when everyone who has read the Bible can clearly see that the god described there is not a moral authority and in no way a figure to be followed or worshipped? Even if this god exists as the being pictured by all religions rooting in the Hebrew/Israelite cult of Yahweh, he deserves not a single human thought.

I find it funny how the page's 'refutation' of Guanilo's criticism is so obviously faulty.

Anselm's argument makes no sense to me. Why is it presumed that a god in reality is greater than a god in concept?

That's one of the most obvious failures of his argument.

Originally Posted by Willamena
Anselm's argument makes no sense to me. Why is it presumed that a god in reality is greater than a god in concept?
That's one of the most obvious failures of his argument.
I can see it in the sense of fulfillment --an idea of an icecream cone is not as fulfilling as a real one. But how does that confer "greaterness" or "perfection"?

I'd hate to see someone like Steven King's or Clyde Barker's ideas attain that kind of "perfection."

Ever hear of St. Thomas Aquinas's 5 proofs on the existance of God?

The ones in Summa Theologica, right?

The nation of Lodreys would like to note that using dictionary.com and taking four hours does not always create a relevent post. I will be forwarding that opinion to the rather esoteric sites you have provided.

And maybe it's just me, but there is no such thing as an "unlimited being". If something has being, then it is necessarily limited by the property of "being".

God is unlimited.

The existance of a supreme being:

There is an idea formed through the philosophies of Rene Decarte
that we cannot imagine that which does not have some connection
to reality. He used the pegasus as an example; that while the animal
does not exist, a realistic semblance of it does - it is a horse and horse
exist, it has wings and wings exist. Decartes went on to explain more
about how we cannot create in our minds something without an eternal
fact in our reality. If someone imagines a higher being, then how can they
imagine something that does not exist nor have some token appearance to
something in reality. But that's just a philosophical idea.

I am agnostic. I don't believe in any written religion, but I cannot completely dispute the idea of a higher being. That indisputability comes from existing things that are true, but seem impossible.

For example. The universe has no end - if it does have an ending, then what is beyond that? The universe is continuous forever, but how is that possible?
I believe that the universe has no end because it is still growing, but then what was there before it began?

Imagine for a moment that our universe has always been there. How is that possible? How can something just have always existed? If you think that it didn't always exist; then what was there before it? Nothing? How is that possible?

You can view the belief in God basically in the same way. Like what I read
from Willamena, a higher being may just be there, but it doesn't mean that
it owns all things, created everything, or wants us to worship it.

and of course this is no more than intellectual masturbation.

You invalidate the existance of god by putting parameters on his/her/its existance...let alone taking the opposite view that would also invalidate the existance of god

The nation of Lodreys would like to note that using dictionary.com and taking four hours does not always create a relevent post. I will be forwarding that opinion to the rather esoteric sites you have provided.

1.) Who used dictionary.com?

2.) Perhaps you should used dictionary.com when using big words like "relevent". Clicky. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=relevent) I believe what you were looking for is "relevant".

Quote:
Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (i.e., a greatest possible being that does exist).

But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)

Therefore, God exists.

someone wrote: I love this. It's clearly nonsense, but I've never been able to express why.

Thats because if you are willing to express the conclusion then you are willing not only to deny God, you create an expression of Denial of your self @ the very least.

and of course this is no more than intellectual masturbation.

You invalidate the existance of god by putting parameters on his/her/its existance...let alone taking the opposite view that would also invalidate the existance of god

Exactly. You're a quick one, Vonners. Although I find "intellectual masturbation" a very odd descriptor.

"Decartes went on to explain more
about how we cannot create in our minds something without an eternal
fact in our reality. If someone imagines a higher being, then how can they
imagine something that does not exist nor have some token appearance to
something in reality."
The same way a pegasus is made from a horse and wings, God is made from man and the idea of a "greaterness".

I just don't see having to bring that greaterness into reality to make it "greater".

to me god (western religion) is a paradox,
for this statment 2 things must be true (lets not start about what is not true, there is a thread on that too if you want to disscuss that)
god is based entirerly on fath, and fath is beliving(sp?) in what cannot be proven.
you cannot prove god exists because this would disprove the idea of "god".
on that note you can prove that higher beings exist, but then it still would not be god because you have aready disproved him/her.
to a tapeworm we are a "god", if we meet a being that can bend realty as we know it, is it a god? go back 10,000 years and show a caveman a pullie and use it to move a tree, he will think you are a god but it is just a pullie anyone can do it if they know how, are we gods?

sometimes i like to think that we are but not really

Exactly. You're a quick one, Vonners. Although I find "intellectual masturbation" a very odd descriptor.

Because the model put forward is seemingly intellectual but in reality is nothing more than the philosophical equivilant of junk science.

to me god (western religion) is a paradox,
for this statment 2 things must be true (lets not start about what is not true, there is a thread on that too if you want to disscuss that)
god is based entirerly on fath, and fath is beliving(sp?) in what cannot be proven.
you cannot prove god exists because this would disprove the idea of "god".
on that note you can prove that higher beings exist, but then it still would not be god because you have aready disproved him/her.
to a tapeworm we are a "god", if we meet a being that can bend realty as we know it, is it a god? go back 10,000 years and show a caveman a pullie and use it to move a tree, he will think you are a god but it is just a pullie anyone can do it if they know how, are we gods?

sometimes i like to think that we are but not really
I don't believe that god is based entirely on fath (or faith, as some of us call it).

Faith is usually "faith that God exists" and that means in the real world.

I believe in a god that can be abstracted and symbolised in as many different ways as there are individuals, but only those know have experienced it know what those symbols mean. Faith is for those who don't know.

I don't believe that god is based entirely on fath (or faith, as some of us call it).

Faith is usually "faith that God exists" and that means in the real world.

I believe in a god that can be abstracted and symbolised in as many different ways as there are individuals, but only those know have experienced it know what those symbols mean. Faith is for those who don't know.

but how do you know that you have experienced it? how do you know that was god? i could have been gas. you need fath that what you experienced was god.
see how it can make someone go crazy, i thought i would never use western anilitical(sp?) thought but there i go

Because the model put forward is seemingly intellectual but in reality is nothing more than the philosophical equivilant of junk science.

as are the replies posted....

oh crap...I just invalidated myself!


*I'll get me coat*

The same way a pegasus is made from a horse and wings, God is made from man and the idea of a "greaterness".

I just don't see having to bring that greaterness into reality to make it "greater".

Too much of the debate has fallen on traditional beliefs that we must
be governed by a greater force. I don't believe that we must follow
the will of a god because that god is greater than ourselves. I still want
to focus the idea that impossible things such as the size & lifetime of
our universe is noteably undesputed, yet the facts are untestable.

Descartes Ontological argument DOES NOT WORK. It presuposes the conclusion in the first premise: "I have a perfect idea of a God, therefore God must exist since only God could create a perfect idea in my head."

By assuming that God is both perfect, and using the "proof" that God is perfect as the "proof" that God exists, Descartes breaks a rule of logic. The Ontological argument is circular logic. You might as well say: Red is not blue because red is red.

Descartes Ontological argument DOES NOT WORK. It presuposes the conclusion in the first premise: "I have a perfect idea of a God, therefore God must exist since only God could create a perfect idea in my head."

By assuming that God is both perfect, and using the "proof" that God is perfect as the "proof" that God exists, Descartes breaks a rule of logic. The Ontological argument is circular logic. You might as well say: Red is not blue because red is red.

Yes. I already pointed that out.

And maybe it's just me, but there is no such thing as an "unlimited being". If something has being, then it is necessarily limited by the property of "being".

God is unlimited.

*puts grammar nazi hat on*

"...has being..." is incorrect. A better way to say it would be "If something has the property of "being", then it is necessarily limited by the property of "being".

Essentially, what you seem to be saying is that existence is a limitation. And I suppose not existing would be a rather obvious limitation. One can't do much if one does not exist, after all. ;) So according to your definition, God can neither exist nor not exist, because to do either would limit God. So the proposition "God exists" would be false, and the proposition "God does not exist" would also be false. But if "God does not exist" is false, then "God exists" is true. And if "God exists" is false, then "God does not exist" is true. This would mean that God's existence is both true and false, and God's non-existence is both true and false. Fascinating, but rather contradictory.

Note: I checked my own reasoning by changing "God" to a random name "Ryan" and it still seemed to make sense. That doesn't mean I didn't miss something, though.

I would also point out that the nature of our ability to conceptualize is quite limited, and by even conceiving of God we are limiting God by applying our limited conceptual abilities to God.

That's one of the fucked-up things about logic. We can't even use it on God.

And by the exact same reasoning, it's not possible to use logic to prove he exists! Since he is above logic, we can't use it to prove either his existence or his non-existence... and that leaves us stranded in the middle of nowhere. ;) :confused: :D

Because the model put forward is seemingly intellectual but in reality is nothing more than the philosophical equivilant of junk science.

And yet I still manage to find it an odd descriptor...

And by the exact same reasoning, it's not possible to use logic to prove he exists!

Well, yes. That would be why I said in the original post...

...and any logical argument about God, is inconsistent.

Yes. I already pointed that out.

My apologies.

to me god (western religion) is a paradox,
for this statment 2 things must be true (lets not start about what is not true, there is a thread on that too if you want to disscuss that)
god is based entirerly on fath, and fath is beliving(sp?) in what cannot be proven.
you cannot prove god exists because this would disprove the idea of "god".
on that note you can prove that higher beings exist, but then it still would not be god because you have aready disproved him/her.
to a tapeworm we are a "god", if we meet a being that can bend realty as we know it, is it a god? go back 10,000 years and show a caveman a pullie and use it to move a tree, he will think you are a god but it is just a pullie anyone can do it if they know how, are we gods?

sometimes i like to think that we are but not really
I think Jack London wrote "to a dog man is god"

And yet I still manage to find it an odd descriptor...

There are many things you might find odd about me LOL

Here's my thoughts on it as a Christian.You either believe there's a God or you're going to hell.There's evidence God exist but that evidence could have been placed there by some person who a long time ago was very bored.So the Christian/Jewish/Catholic/ ect... believe there's a god.If you claim to be one then you without a doubt believe there's a God.If you don't then you're not only lying to your church but you're lying to yourself.To me Christianity is the most logical believe.No one gets discriminmated against.Woman don't have to wait for their husbands to divorce them.No weird sexual or just plain stupid rituals are performed.But as long as you believe in God and you proudly show it...oops.All this is off topic isnt it.Oh well.Opinions opinions opinions.Whatever would we do without them?

but how do you know that you have experienced it? how do you know that was god? i could have been gas. you need fath that what you experienced was god.
see how it can make someone go crazy, i thought i would never use western anilitical(sp?) thought but there i go
If it looks like god, and sounds like god, and smells like god... then maybe it's god.* ;-) I don't know it was god, but it fits all the descriptions and moved me.

Faith is for those who don't know. Maybe you're right. ;-)

*Mel Brooks moment.

Essentially, what you seem to be saying is that existence is a limitation.
Exactly! For that very reason the Hebrews forbade the making of idols, because it would bring God into the physical world and give him form and limitation. God is formless.

And I suppose not existing would be a rather obvious limitation. One can't do much if one does not exist, after all. ;)
Hehe! But non-existence isn't the opposite; existing as a concept of the mind is. The materialists would have you believe the concept is sparks going off in the brain. The idealists would have you believe that the idea has an immaterial existence. (I favour the latter.)

So according to your definition, God can neither exist nor not exist, because to do either would limit God.
The proposition "God exists as an unlimited being" would be false.

In my view, god exists only as a concept of mind; a symbol of an internal understanding of him. His "being" is symbolic of him. His actions and words, as depicted in religious texts, are symbolic of him. Our words are symbolic of him. And each man's relationship to him is symbolic of him.

I would also point out that the nature of our ability to conceptualize is quite limited, and by even conceiving of God we are limiting God by applying our limited conceptual abilities to God.
That's surprising news. I was under the impression that conceptualisation is one of those "what man does best" things. ;) Yes, by creating a conceptual image or a conceptual being we limit him as much as with a real being, but with the understanding that it's only a symbol of the formlessness, the unlimited, the inifinite, man then has something to work with.

Okay, let's try this.

I hereby create an entirely imaginary entity called Jon. Jon is hereby dubbed supreme lord of all, because he's so great. Really so great. Greater than the greatest thing that ever existed. In fact, he's infinately great.

Nothing is greater than Jon. But Jon is an entirely imaginary entity. So, if Jon is by definition infinately great, wouldn't a non-imaginary Jon be even greater? No, because you can't be greater than infinately great.

Now I'm stuck. I don't see how you can therefore deduce the non-imaginary existence of Jon from that. It affirms that Jon exists as the greatest imaginary entity ever known, but that's pretty much it...


Anyway, as useful an exercise as that was, it outlines two major flaws with my line of thinking here. 1) The objective nature of greatness. 2) The decision to personify a concept and the misconception of assigning that concept an identity.

All that the proof shows is that the greatest thing in either reality or fiction exists as the greatest thing in either reality or imagination. Saying God exists as God therefore is somewhat of a tautology. God, in the description, is nothing more or less than the greatest thing imaginable. We can say that the greatest thing imaginable exists. We cannot say that the greatest thing imaginable is necessarily a friendly watchful deity or an all-powerful smitor (whichever you normally identify God with). The Adjective "Great" is open to interpretation, which could possibly result in several "Gods", each defined as God according to each understanding of the word Great.

One better outcome would thus be "Whatever you understand to be the greatest thing in the universe exists", or "God Exists Through Faith". And when you get to that stage, the fun starts.

So, unless you want a great big collage on why God doesn't exist through Faith alone, that theory needs to be rethought.

Exactly! For that very reason the Hebrews forbade the making of idols, because it would bring God into the physical world and give him form and limitation. God is formless.

Tell me something I don't know. Seriously.

You seem to be confusing existence with physical existence. I find that odd.

Hehe! But non-existence isn't the opposite; existing as a concept of the mind is. The materialists would have you believe the concept is sparks going off in the brain. The idealists would have you believe that the idea has an immaterial existence. (I favour the latter.)

I'm sorry, but "exists" and "exists as a concept of the mind" are not opposites.

The proposition "God exists as an unlimited being" would be false.

It would have been helpful if you had said straight out that you were going to redefine God. Making arguments gets more difficult when the definitions change when you were not looking.

In my view, god exists only as a concept of mind; a symbol of an internal understanding of him. His "being" is symbolic of him. His actions and words, as depicted in religious texts, are symbolic of him. Our words are symbolic of him. And each man's relationship to him is symbolic of him.


That's surprising news. I was under the impression that conceptualisation is one of those "what man does best" things. ;) Yes, by creating a conceptual image or a conceptual being we limit him as much as with a real being, but with the understanding that it's only a symbol of the formlessness, the unlimited, the inifinite, man then has something to work with.

That's all quite lovely. I truly mean that. No sarcasm intended.

So according to your definition, God can neither exist nor not exist, because to do either would limit God. So the proposition "God exists" would be false, and the proposition "God does not exist" would also be false. But if "God does not exist" is false, then "God exists" is true. And if "God exists" is false, then "God does not exist" is true. This would mean that God's existence is both true and false, and God's non-existence is both true and false.
Obviously any contradiction inserted as a premise in an argument will result in a contradiction....that's a basic rule of logic.

You cannot prove or disprove his existence using human understanding. Our minds cannot conceive of it, unless we blindly follow.

Meh, I don't need to tell you what a stupid argument it is :D But, surely God didn't just come from nowhere, that'd be like saying the world suddenly came into existence via some big bang theory, but that can't be true because God created the universe, so who created God and surely that being is greater, therefore God does not exist, therefore God did not create the universe, therefore plausibly the Big Bang did happen, therefore something can come from nothing, therefore God could have just always existed and there is no being greater than him, therefore God exists, but he didn't create the universe. He came into existence with it. Hmmm...this is a weird ramble, I don't know if it has a point, so just ignore if you wish.

My apologies.

I left a smilie on the end of my post but it seems it did not come up...

just to indicate that I was ribbing you....believe it or not I am not a total arsehole! LOL

if you took offense...I apologise...

vonners

In the interest of furthering the education of this bunch of loquacious, mostly incoherent, and highly opinionated louts we call the General Forum crowd, of which I am unabashedly a member...

I figure I'll share a little bit about the Ontological Argument (http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/ont-arg.htm) with y'all. I strongly suspect that many of you are unfamiliar with it.

I'm not really fond of Anselm's version (http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/ont-arg.htm#The Classic Version of the Ontological Argument) (the original), but I do like some of the later versions, especially Malcolm's (listed on the same page under "Modal Versions of the Argument"). The reason I'm fond of it is that Malcolm refers to God as "unlimited," and that property is what I use in my primary argument against logical arguments about God. I (and others, probably) see that in applying logic, a system of limitations, to a being we've premised as being unlimited (by virtue of omnipotence), our argument, and any logical argument about God, is inconsistent.

That's one of the fucked-up things about logic. We can't even use it on God.


Oh no, A-Level RE is coming back into my mind ARGH!!!

Tell me something I don't know. Seriously.

You seem to be confusing existence with physical existence. I find that odd.
I'm not confusing them at all. I'm drawing a clear line between them.

I'm sorry, but "exists" and "exists as a concept of the mind" are not opposites.
Ah, but the common conception of existence is physical existence. So to most people they are.

It would have been helpful if you had said straight out that you were going to redefine God. Making arguments gets more difficult when the definitions change when you were not looking.
I'm sorry for your confusion. I'm not redefining God, though, simply presenting another view of God as represented in the symbolism of mythology.

And maybe it's just me, but there is no such thing as an "unlimited being". If something has being, then it is necessarily limited by the property of "being".

God is unlimited.

Originally Posted by Willamena
The proposition "God exists as an unlimited being" would be false.
The key word here is "being". God is unlimited formlessness. This is supported in the Bible (Galatians 2:20, John 4:24), in Hindu and Sihk, and in Bhakti religions (to name a few). http://www.christianmystics.com/contemporary/formless1.shtml

Physical existence is a limitation. It is Protestantism in Christianity that redefines God by insisting on a materialistic view of a God with a tangible presence in the universe.

I'm not confusing them at all. I'm drawing a clear line between them.

Ah. That's what you were trying to do. It certainly seemed like the underlying assumption of your argument was that "being" implies purely physical existence, and I find very odd for a person trying to make a clear distinction between 'existence' and 'physical existence' to equivocate the two.

Ah, but the common conception of existence is physical existence. So to most people they are.

It turns out that I'm not most people, oddly enough. ;) I'm an English Education major. My specialty is language. Partly because of that, I'm generally very picky about word choice, though I do slip up sometimes.

I'm sorry for your confusion. I'm not redefining God, though, simply presenting another view of God as represented in the symbolism of mythology.

I don't think it was I who was confused, but whatever.

The key word here is "being". God is unlimited formlessness. This is supported in the Bible (Galatians 2:20, John 4:24), in Hindu and Sihk, and in Bhakti religions (to name a few). http://www.christianmystics.com/contemporary/formless1.shtml

Thanks. I'm already familiar with that, but it could help others.

Physical existence is a limitation. It is Protestantism in Christianity that redefines God by insisting on a materialistic view of a God with a tangible presence in the universe.

Actually Catholic Christianity very much insists on God having a tangible presence in the universe. Though Catholic theoology certainly doesn't put forth a God that exists in the physical sense as we often understand it, the 'sacraments' are basically God sending his grace to people through matter, the material universe.

Physical existence is a limitation. It is Protestantism in Christianity that redefines God by insisting on a materialistic view of a God with a tangible presence in the universe.
Actually Catholic Christianity very much insists on God having a tangible presence in the universe. Though Catholic theoology certainly doesn't put forth a God that exists in the physical sense as we often understand it, the 'sacraments' are basically God sending his grace to people through matter, the material universe.
Ah, now there is something I need to learn more about, then. I've stuck my foot in my mouth quite enough that I no longer care for the taste of leather. ;-)

Ah, now there is something I need to learn more about, then. I've stuck my foot in my mouth quite enough that I no longer care for the taste of leather. ;-)

Don't worry about it. We all find our feet in our mouths at inopportune moments. I would encourage you (being that I'm Catholic, this is not surprising) to look into some of the less "mainstream" parts of the Catholic spiritual writings. And check out "centering prayer". It sort of reminds me of some of the mind-clearing or focusing meditational exercises I did as part of my martial arts training.

you know, i read these threads, day after day....and it seems like 90% of the people posting are in competition with each other to see who can sound the smartest. It gets OLD. Why are there so many redundant threads? "is God real?" "Why God isnt real", "thoughts of an Atheist", Thoughts of a Christian", "Is being gay a sin?" Is abortion a sin?" GOOD GRIEF! It seems Nation States is a place where people can come to argue with others online , when theyve run out of real life people to argue with. Everyone has their opinion. So why cant you all respect the differences that we have without pointing a finger and saying 'your wrong-i'm right." Its childish. I mean its really silly how some people in here will copy and paste things from a dictionary or encyclopedia in an effort to make themselves appear more intelligent than anyone else on the subject. Get over yourselves and realize that nobody knows everything. And if you need to argur that badly- go to law school and become an attorney.

And as far as proving God exists, there probably is no proof that would satisfy an Atheist or non believer or whoever else questions his works. Youre all missing the point. If you worship God and believe in him -then thats all that matters. I love God and believe he exists and I dont need a scientific formula or some test tube theory to tell me otherwise. People who love god and pray and live their lives hoping to gain their reward in heaven, dont need physical proof. Its faith.Our faith is what keeps us going. And faith isnt dependant on physical proof. So please-try to find some different topics.
And for Gods sakes stop being so arrogant in your reponses. It just makes you look like an ass.

you know, i read these threads, day after day....and it seems like 90% of the people posting are in competition with each other to see who can sound the smartest.

Yep.

It gets OLD.

Yep. And replies along these lines get old too, oddly enough. :D

Why are there so many redundant threads? "is God real?" "Why God isnt real", "thoughts of an Atheist", Thoughts of a Christian", "Is being gay a sin?" Is abortion a sin?" GOOD GRIEF! It seems Nation States is a place where people can come to argue with others online

I wouldn't say that about NationStates, just the General forum.

when theyve run out of real life people to argue with. Everyone has their opinion. So why cant you all respect the differences that we have without pointing a finger and saying 'your wrong-i'm right." Its childish.

Productive debate is accomplished while respecting differences. Who cares if I think most people are wrong? That doesn't mean I don't respect them.

I mean its really silly how some people in here will copy and paste things from a dictionary or encyclopedia in an effort to make themselves appear more intelligent than anyone else on the subject.

I hope to God you are not talking about me, kid.

Get over yourselves and realize that nobody knows everything. And if you need to argur that badly- go to law school and become an attorney.

Or we could use the General forum in the manner it was intended to be used, which is much cheaper.

And as far as proving God exists, there probably is no proof that would satisfy an Atheist or non believer or whoever else questions his works. Youre all missing the point. If you worship God and believe in him -then thats all that matters. I love God and believe he exists and I dont need a scientific formula or some test tube theory to tell me otherwise. People who love god and pray and live their lives hoping to gain their reward in heaven, dont need physical proof. Its faith.Our faith is what keeps us going. And faith isnt dependant on physical proof. So please-try to find some different topics.
And for Gods sakes stop being so arrogant in your reponses. It just makes you look like an ass.

Irony Alert!
Redundancy and Arrogance Detected

In case anyone is still concerned with the original argument, I'll offer a counterargument of the same form. Either both arguments are valid (a contradiction), or the argument form is invalid.

The original argument:
1. God is greater than everything
2. All other things being equal, a being existing in the mind and reality is greater than a being existing in the mind
3. God exists in the mind and reality

Counterargument:
1. God is greater than everything
2. All other things being equal, a being that could be improved is greater than a being that cannot be improved
3. God can be improved.
4. If something can be improved, there is something greater than it.
5. There is something greater than God.
6. Since God is defined as the greatest thing but no longer is, He does not exist.


Anyhow. I think it's worth knowing a little about the philosophical background of the original proposer of the ontological argument (Anselm of Canterbury). First, Plato's ideas of Forms and Universals was still the leading idea, so the argument may have only proved that "God" exists in the same sense that "Big" exists. Second, people in that age almost all believed in the Great Chain of Being, a hierarchical ranking of everything that exists in terms of Greatness - that chain necessarily had a top, which may as well be defined as God.

In case anyone is still concerned with the original argument, I'll offer a counterargument of the same form. Either both arguments are valid (a contradiction), or the argument form is invalid.

The original argument:
1. God is greater than everything
2. All other things being equal, a being existing in the mind and reality is greater than a being existing in the mind
3. God exists in the mind and reality

Counterargument:
1. God is greater than everything
2. All other things being equal, a being that could be improved is greater than a being that cannot be improved
3. God can be improved.
4. If something can be improved, there is something greater than it.
5. There is something greater than God.
6. Since God is defined as the greatest thing but no longer is, He does not exist.


Anyhow. I think it's worth knowing a little about the philosophical background of the original proposer of the ontological argument (Anselm of Canterbury). First, Plato's ideas of Forms and Universals was still the leading idea, so the argument may have only proved that "God" exists in the same sense that "Big" exists. Second, people in that age almost all believed in the Great Chain of Being, a hierarchical ranking of everything that exists in terms of Greatness - that chain necessarily had a top, which may as well be defined as God.

Very good! I give you an A+ for this post. Kudos for mentioning the "Great Chain of Being" and "Forms and Universals".