- This topic has 400 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 5 months, 3 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Ontology is a philosophical study on what it means for something to exist. An ontological argument is essentially any argument that God must necessarily exist using logical language. The cosmological argument is a different kind of argument, saying essentially that there must be a self sufficient element that created the universe, and we say that element must be God. Someone might argue that the cosmological argument is insufficient, because while a self sufficient element must be accepted, why must this element be an all powerful entity/God. Ontology makes a point of why a most powerful being, or greatest conceptual being must exist.
The first Ontological argument was posed by St. Anselm, who said:
- It is conceivably possible for a greatest conceivable being to exist.
- A being that exists outside of the mind is conceivably greater than one that exists in the mind.
- If a greatest conceivable being can exist in the mind, but not out of the mind, then it is not a greatest conceivable being.
- Thus, because there is a greatest conceivable being that exists in the mind, it must exist outside of the mind, otherwise it would not be a greatest conceivable being.
- Therefore God exists.
So the thing about all ontological arguments, which there are quite a few of interest that we could discuss, many both of faith and not find the arguments to be insufficient still, being logically vague or making too many assumptions. So I thought that would be a fun topic to discuss.
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
Okay…I think I get it…That would be fun to discus, I just dk how to start one.
"You need French Toast."
#AnduthForever (hopefully š)Fair enough. Do you see anything wrong with the argument, or do you think it may actually show undeniably that God must exist?
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
it proves thatĀ a godĀ exists. While you and I know that there is only ONE God, and the rest come from human imagination, to an unbeliever, that argument still only proves there is a god. There is some supreme power that is “greatest conceivable being” by that logical statement, but it doesn’t not logically prove that that being is God. It could be something else. We are missing the definitive evidence in that logical statement that ties everything directly to the Sovereign of the Universe.
If any of that makes sense…
"You need French Toast."
#AnduthForever (hopefully š)Great point. That’s one argument many have made to Aquinas’ cosmological arguments, saying it’s too disconnected from the God of Abraham.Ā In this case though, I would go further. One of Anselm’s students found this argument to be completely invalid. He said to imagine the most perfect island. This island is so great to live on that nothing else could be greater. The only better island than this one is one that actually exists, thus the most perfect island exists. He showed that the argument can just be used to say that anything you want to exist, must exist, which is silly.
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
Put that way…XD Anselm would probably never win a debate on Mars hill!
Okay, a logos argument for God…I’ve heard this one but I forget who exactly said…
The infinity of math is so great that no human mind can conceive it.
If no intelligent human mind can conceive it, then no unintelligent force could conceive it either
If neither a human, nor an unintelligent force can, then there must be something else that can conceive it, some greater being or force.
therefore, there is a god of some sort.
I don’t think I said it correctly, but that’s the jist.
"You need French Toast."
#AnduthForever (hopefully š)Put that wayā¦XD Anselm would probably never win a debate on Mars hill!
Lol, yeah, I don’t know much about Mars hill, but yes, his rhetoric seems to ultimately fall flat.
I’ve heard variations of this idea. Essentially the idea that mathematics is essentially assumed to be not self sufficient, because mathematics is something that only seems to exist in the mind, yet it applies quite well to reality. So there must be something infinite that can imagine mathematics, so that 1+1=2 in another galaxy, even if no one is there to conceive that.
Personally, I find that this too is making too many assumptions and falls flat. If God creates mathematics, then what is God? We say there is one God, but that hints at mathematical logic. I still think 1+1=2 would be true whether or not there is something intelligent to acknowledge that. At the same time, where does that fact come from? What is a number? There’s a lot going on with the philosophy of mathematics where no one can agree on, which is where this arguments strength comes from, the fact that we don’t fully understand mathematics as a concept independent from reality.
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
Mars hill, somewhere in Acts, where…hold on, let me get the reference…
Acts 17:22-31
22Ā Then Paul stood in the midst of theĀ [a]Areopagus and said, āMen of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious;Ā 23Ā for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription:
TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.
Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: 24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with menās hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, āFor we are also His offspring.ā 29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and manās devising. 30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.ā
Footnotes
Acts 17:22Ā Lit.Ā Hill of Ares,Ā orĀ Marsā HillMars hill was the place of philosephers.
Personally, I find that this too is making too many assumptions and falls flat. If God creates mathematics, then what is God? We say there is one God, but that hints at mathematical logic. I still think 1+1=2 would be true whether or not there is something intelligent to acknowledge that. At the same time, where does that fact come from? What is a number? Thereās a lot going on with the philosophy of mathematics where no one can agree on, which is where this arguments strength comes from, the fact that we donāt fully understand mathematics as a concept independent from reality.
Though, if there was nothing to teach us about one and two, then we wouldn’t know about it. Also, math would not exist if God didn’t. Someone has to create it right? math is not outside of God, He could break math when He wanted to, but He is so orderly, and never changes that I don’t think He will. Though, He does break the laws of physics sometimes.
God is bound by nothing. Not even our own will can bind him as some believe, for yes, God has given us free will, but that doesn’t mean he can’t take it away.
btw, in case you don’t know, I am Calvinistic. I believe in the complete Sovereignty of God.
Note to self: this is a very weak reply, polish up your arguments some, plz?
"You need French Toast."
#AnduthForever (hopefully š)Mars hill was the place of philosephers.
Ok, cool!
Though, if there was nothing to teach us about one and two, then we wouldnāt know about it. Also, math would not exist if God didnāt. Someone has to create it right? math is not outside of God, He could break math when He wanted to, but He is so orderly, and never changes that I donāt think He will. Though, He does break the laws of physics sometimes.
God is bound by nothing. Not even our own will can bind him as some believe, for yes, God has given us free will, but that doesnāt mean he canāt take it away.
btw, in case you donāt know, I am Calvinistic. I believe in the complete Sovereignty of God.
Fair enough. That’s a major theological difference between us. I’m very not Calvinist, lol! Regardless, I would argue that no, we would know about one and two, even if it wasn’t taught to us. Sure, we may not have language for it, may struggle to define it, but we would still have some conceptualization of it. We can have a concept of quantity, more of something, vs less of something. To be in a point where we don’t understand the concept of one vs two of something would mean that we have to be void of contrast as a whole, indeed, just void. You could have a true nothing, but the moment you introduce any element into that void, say God, then there is an explicit contrast, therefore meaning, therefore logic, therefore math. Saying math must come from somewhere begs the problem of the cosmological arguments. God must come from somewhere, and if He is a self sufficient entity, then why can’t something like mathematics and mater be self sufficient? Indeed, you have to accept self sufficiency or infinite regress somewhere, but why must it be God? We have the theological agreement that it is God, but to say that is the only logical thing requires a little more than saying what we see is not sufficient without enough evidence to show that it isn’t sufficient, if that makes sense.
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
Ā Iām very not Calvinist, lol!
I didn’t think you were. I’m used to that, my grandfather and my…technically step-grandmother are not Calvinists either. In fact, Grandpa openly opposes Calvinism to the point of saying that John Calvin was a heretic. It has caused some…divisions to say the least.
Regardless, I would argue that no, we would know about one and two, even if it wasnāt taught to us. Sure, we may not have language for it, may struggle to define it, but we would still have some conceptualization of it. We can have a concept of quantity, more of something, vs less of something. To be in a point where we donāt understand the concept of one vs two of something would mean that we have to be void of contrast as a whole, indeed, just void.
You are right.
You could have a true nothing, but the moment you introduce any element into that void, say God, then there is an explicit contrast, therefore meaning, therefore logic, therefore math. Saying math must come from somewhere begs the problem of the cosmological arguments. God must come from somewhere, and if He is a self sufficient entity, then why canāt something like mathematics and mater be self sufficient? Indeed, you have to accept self sufficiency or infinite regress somewhere, but why must it be God? We have the theological agreement that it is God, but to say that is the only logical thing requires a little more than saying what we see is not sufficient without enough evidence to show that it isnāt sufficient, if that makes sense.
You are wrong.
say God, then there is an explicit contrast, therefore meaning, therefore logic, therefore math.
Let me get you a Bible passage you probably know well…
John 1:1-5
1Ā In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2Ā The same was in the beginning with God.
3Ā All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4Ā In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5Ā And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
May I put in bold a piece?
1Ā In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2Ā The same was in the beginning with God.
3Ā All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4Ā In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5Ā And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
I believe this clearly says that nothingĀ Except GodĀ was not made by God.
Math, logic, emotion, that all comes from God.
While I’m laying my beliefs on the table, I’m also a Creationist, I believe strongly in the doctrine of hermeneutics, I believe in context, and I often take a literal viewpoint of the Bible’s text unless it is clearly poetic.
"You need French Toast."
#AnduthForever (hopefully š)I didnāt think you were. Iām used to that, my grandfather and myā¦technically step-grandmother are not Calvinists either. In fact, Grandpa openly opposes Calvinism to the point of saying that John Calvin was a heretic. It has caused someā¦divisions to say the least.
I’m sorry to hear that:( Differences in those sorts of things will create tension.
You are right.
š
You are wrong.
Perhaps.
John 1:1-5
I’m indeed familiar. I don’t bash, but here’s a few verses that come immediately to mind that explain what I believe:
Philippians 4:13
“I can do all things in Christ, which strengthens me.”
If all things means all things that can be conceptualized as you point out, can I do something like, perhaps, create a universe, kill God and replace Him, if I just do it in Christ? I think we can both agree that no, no I cannot. Rather, I would interpret this as all things that are possible, which would still include things that we would think impossible.
Isaiah 55:8
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.”
Higher thoughts, higher ways, but still thoughts, still ways.
In John 1:1-5, I see this in the same way. Yes, it says “all things” but what does that really mean? Why is God not in the set of “all things”? If He’s not, wouldn’t that mean that He’s not a thing, indeed, nothing at all? All things I don’t take to mean all things conceptually, but all things physically in the universe. I believe He has command over all elements, and He uses things like mathematics to govern His universe. This doesn’t weaken Him, it’s His strength. Just as a painter has paints and a canvas to start painting, God has mathematics and whatever else to paint the universe.
You don’t need to believe that. You can reconcile the verses I just gave in a very similar manner I just reconciled yours. All things in Christ means I’m dependent on God, and He can do all things, and therefore if He wants, I could do all things He allows. Higher ways and higher thoughts can be explained away in the same way many orthodox Christians (of which I’m not a part) talk about God’s anthropomorphic traits described in biblical writings. They are no more than simple descriptions to help our lesser minds simplify the ineffable characteristics of God. I don’t believe either of these to be the case, but they explain those verses, but as I just showed, I can do the same thing for my prospective, so I don’t find myself at all invalidated.
Thanks for the verse though. We can still have different views of scripture and theology, but we can still engage in meaningful conversation.
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
While Iām laying my beliefs on the table, Iām also a Creationist, I believe strongly in the doctrine of hermeneutics, I believe in context, and I often take a literal viewpoint of the Bibleās text unless it is clearly poetic.
I just realized I missed this. I’m not familiar of the doctrine of hermeneutics, do you just mean Sola Sciptura? When I looked it up, it just said that it’s the general study of interpretation of biblical text, which is kind of vague, though it is relevant to what we are discussing.
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
The doctrine of Hermeneutics means simply “Using scripture to interpret scripture.”
"You need French Toast."
#AnduthForever (hopefully š)Alright. Well, I think I just did that with the verses I showed, unless there’s still a fallacy somewhere.
He is perfect in Justice, yet He is perfect in Mercy, even when we fail Him. For this, He is good.
Okay, my hands are starting to sweat, which happens when I get excited.
Remember I said that I was a firm believer of context?
Phil. 4:10-15
10Ā But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at the last your care of me hath flourished again; wherein ye were also careful, but ye lacked opportunity.
11Ā Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.
12Ā I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.
13Ā I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.
14Ā Notwithstanding ye have well done, that ye did communicate with my affliction.
15Ā Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only.
In context, your verse actually means that Paul can bear, can do anything God wants him to do if God wills it and strengthens him.
Yes, it says āall thingsā but what does that really mean? Why is God not in the set of āall thingsā? If Heās not, wouldnāt that mean that Heās not a thing, indeed, nothing at all?
The Doctrine of Hermeneutics. The latter part of that verse (John 1:3) says simply that what this passage means by “things” is everything that was made.Ā
I believe He has command over all elements, and He uses things like mathematics to govern His universe. This doesnāt weaken Him, itās His strength. Just as a painter has paints and a canvas to start painting, God has mathematics and whatever else to paint the universe.
If that be true, then how is your God different from the false gods? False gods use elements, they use things to govern the universe. You have stripped God of His Sovereignty, and made him little different than the gods of imagination.
You donāt need to believe that. You can reconcile the verses I just gave in a very similar manner I just reconciled yours. All things in Christ means Iām dependent on God, and He can do all things, and therefore if He wants, I could do all things He allows. Higher ways and higher thoughts can be explained away in the same way many orthodox Christians (of which Iām not a part) talk about Godās anthropomorphic traits described in biblical writings. They are no more than simple descriptions to help our lesser minds simplify the ineffable characteristics of God. I donāt believe either of these to be the case, but they explain those verses, but as I just showed, I can do the same thing for my prospective, so I donāt find myself at all invalidated.
I don’t understand what you are saying in this paragraph. I especially want you to explain what you mean by “reconcile”.
idk what you were trying to prove with Isaiah but here’s that piece in context…
3Ā Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.
4Ā Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people.
5Ā Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knowest not, and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee because of theĀ LordĀ thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel; for he hath glorified thee.
6Ā Seek ye theĀ LordĀ while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:
7Ā Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto theĀ Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
8Ā For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith theĀ Lord.
9Ā For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
10Ā For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
11Ā So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
I’m known for not stopping and being stubborn, so I’m going to far with this, let me know.
"You need French Toast."
#AnduthForever (hopefully š)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.