The Ontological Argument

"Atheism is not a position that requires convincing, it is simply the rejection of theistic claims. Atheism is the default position. " It requires convincing for me. "And yet the only justification that you have given so far to support your assertion that God exists necessarily is that he is defined that way. " That is what you keep asserting. My argument mainly focuses on the possibility of the existence of a Supreme Being. How this being is defined and the truth value of whether this being actually exist are independent of each other. "As I have already said, possibility is a meaningless concept when we're discussing necessary truth. " No it isn't. Again, I can define my dog as having a necessary existence, but obviously, how I define my dog is completely independent of whether or not the proposition "my dog has a necessary existence" is true or false. I don't know what part of that you aren't understanding :) "All-powerful does not mean necessary existence. " Actually it does. If a being is all-powerful, "he" cannot gain this omnipotence from contingent circumstances, meaning his power cannot be dependent upon anything besides himself, which would make his power necessary, and if his power is necessary, his existence is necessary. "And there we have; you flat out just said that you can define God anyway you want, which means that there is NO justification behind your definition. It is true that a word can mean anything to anyone, but it is NOT true that this meaning necessarily corresponds to something that actually exists. " Do you not understand the fact that how something is defined is independent of the truth value of the concept? ? And since I have already established that "possibility" and "necessity" are mutually exclusive concepts (in the terms that you're using), the argument is actually more like the one I previously presented. Well, once you admitted that it is possible for God to exist, you are inadvertantly admitting that God actually exists. You are basically saying "there is a possible world at which God exists", well, if God exists in some possible world, God must exist in this world as well, because that is what it means to be "omnipresent", existing in all possible worlds. Unfortunately for you, this conclusion is inescapable once you admit the possibility. There is no way out. That is why the argument is so strong, because if the existence of God is even POSSIBLE, then it follows that God exists. "Your usage of the word possibly is becoming very confusing, could you please clarify whether "possibly" refers to "necessarily" or "true"? Because my answer will depend which term is "possible". If "necessity" is the thing that is possible, then your argument is coherent, but you are still lacking the demonstration that God IS IN FACT necessarily existent. If "truth" is the thing that is possible AND yet is also necessary, then your argument is simply an assertion that God exists, without any supporting evidence. "Ok, let me ask you a question in efforts to drive home this point; If God's existence is possibly necessarily true, but actually false. .. how can his existence move from a contingent existence, to a necessary existence? Do you understand the question? So for example, lets say I go to the gym and I am unable to lift 300 lbs. So how can I go from being unable to lift the weight, to being able to lift the weight? What will I have to do? Now, if you were my fitness trainer, you can recommend many things for me to do to life the targeted weight. So, if it is possible for me to lift, I can do certain things to make that possibility an actuality. So, if God's existence is POSSIBLY necessarily true, how can his existence go from possibly necessary, to actual necessary true. Based on what circumstances can this happen? This is a key point, because I maintain that if God's existence is not necessarily true, then it is necessarily false, because necessity is not something you can lack at one point, and possess at another point. If you don't have it, you will never have it, and if it possible for you to have, then you must actually have, which is why a person will never go to sleep with finite knowledge, and wake up with infinite knowledge. " I have actually fulfilled my burden in the JFK example; if God is omnipotent, then he can achieve whatever goal he has in mind WITHOUT causing suffering around the world, UNLESS the suffering IS his goal, in which case he would be immoral. " So if God knew that the only way 3 people in Dallas, TX would come to be saved IF and only IF JFK was killed in the manner that he was killed, then that is s morally sufficient reason for God to orchestrate a world at which this event would play out. Again, a proposition can not be both possible AND necessary. Um, if something is necessarily true, it is probably possible for it to be necessarily true. Just sayin'. Ah, I think I see what the problem is: you do not actually understand what "possible" means, or rather what it implies. To be able to say that X is possible, it must be the case that it can be both true and false (although not simultaneously). For example, it is POSSIBLE for a golfer to make a hole-in-one (the ball can either go in the hole, or it can go elsewhere), it is also POSSIBLE that I get struck by lightning in the next year. On the other hand, it is NOT possible that 2+2=5, nor is it possible for a square circle to exist. Furthermore, it is not "possible" that 2+2=4, since it is necessary. In the case of a being that necessary exists, it is NOT possible for that being to NOT exist, which is why you CAN NOT use the term "possible" when you are talking about that being's existence. First off, I don't understand how you continue to distingiush between what is actually necessarily true, and the possibility of it being actually necessarily true. If something is necessarily true, then it must be possible for it to be necessarily true, because if it weren't possible, it wouldn't be necessarily true. If I can pick up a chair with one hand, then it is possible for me to pick up a chair with one hand, because if it wasn't possible, then I would not be able to do it, but I can, so it is possible. This kind of logic works even when speaking of contingent truths, so it would also obviously apply to necessary truths. Yes, the law of non-contradiction (via the problem of evil). But the being was already defined as having the attribute of omnibenevolence, and you already admitted that such a being's existence is possible. So how is the being's existence possible on one hand, but violating logical laws on another? I do not believe that "existing outside of time" is a coherent concept, so no. But again, you already admitted that this being's existence is possible. Second, if you don't believe it was possible for a being to exist outside of time (before the universe), then by default, you have to believe in infinite regression within time, and I am puzzled as to how you think that is a coherent concept. Which is a premise that I DO NOT GRANT. To late, because for the third time :) you already admitted that the existence of God is possible. No turning back now lol. So you grant that you are simply starting with the assumption that God is (or "is defined as") necessary? Great, now HOW CAN YOU JUSTIFY THAT ASSUMPTION? Not at all. I am starting with the assumption that there is this concept of God that is defined as "necessary". This concept can either be true or false, just like any other concept or proposition. But, if it is even possible for the concept to be true (P2), then everything from P2 and on just follows logically. I am so glad that you ask this question because the answer is NO. I am absolutely not convinced that existence is a quality that is affected by greatness; I believe that existence is simply a state. Assuming that you disagree with me, what would be your justification to claim that existence is a part of greatness? Well, when you look at the mortal body of a human being, how it functions is dependent upon numerous things, and our existence can be taken away from us at the blink of an eye. But a Supreme Being whose existence is not dependent upon anything/anyone else but himself, that seems to be of greater quality than otherwise. That is my opinion. So lets suppose you walked in a store that sold "years" so if you purchased the "5" year plan, you would live for 5 more years. So the store has all of these different year plans. ..5 years/10 years/ 20/50/100/infinity. .. .can we both agree that most people would purchase the "infinity" year plan? That is because the infinity year plan is of greater quality than the 5 year plan. would get the most sales However, the necessity of God's being would just be a default attribute of God if the four omni's which are attributed to God are true. And not only that, but existence itself is necessary. It is a necessary condition. If you find the idea that the universe popped in to being uncaused out of nothing completely absurd, then you must admit that existence itself has to be a necessary condition. Something had to always be here. Two things: first, why is "explanatory power" a prerequisite to necessary existence? Well, we have a finite universe, we have life from nonlife, and consciousness from unconsciousness. I believe that the God hypothesis has more explanatory power than naturalistic worldview. So, for example, the ability to create from nothing. .. in order to create from nothing, one would have to be omnipotent, but your realicorn isn't omnipotent, so if it lacks to the power needed to explain what we know to be true, then it cannot be taken serious as an alternative to a Supreme Being, as defined in the argument. Second, God has absolutely NO explanatory power; it tells us absolutely nothing about anything, it makes NO predictions and it seems contradictory with what we observe. Then it appears a debate on the kalam argument is brewing.