https://youtu.be/AcVJobux8Xc
I am responding to this video.
Now I did make some remarks about Anselm as I have been studying his proslogion.
So then I debunk dillahunty's attack.
Now here is my ontological argument.
https://youtu.be/PHVxURns5WU
I am sorry but I really don't take you seriously here.
"the supplied definition"
You yourself are evading defining God, they are evading defining God because God by definition has to exist.
God is all powerful, a myth is not all powerful.
God is eternal, a myth is not eternal
God is all knowing, a myth is not all-knowing
God is omnipresent, a myth is not omni present.
Since I know what God is, then God is not impossible.
Since a myth is opposed to every attribute of God then God is not a myth.
Now if you want me to work it out further then simply look at the video.
https://youtu.be/PHVxURns5WU
Atheist: Matt Singleton I am not evading defining God. I just don't see why you would want me to. Your whole approach to the MOA requires you to control the definition of God. If you are willing to relinquish that control, I will happily define God right now: God is a singular, intelligent super-being with the ability to manifest ideas into physical reality, who may or may not exist.So, I have done what you want, I defined God, you accept my definition, and case closed, right?
Because there are many "gods".
Ex. 20 And God spake all these words, saying, 2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
NOW IF YOU HAD WATCHED MY VIDEO I EXPLAINED EXPLICITLY HOW ANSELM PREFACED HIS ARGUMENT WITH GOD'S CREATION OF ADAM AND EVE.
This was not grounded as a blank slate theory. God is a historical fact. Historically observed and his essential properties are essential properties observed.
your definition "God is a singular, intelligent super-being with the ability to manifest ideas into physical reality, who may or may not exist."
Can be said of Satan and the fallen angels.
jude :6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. "
(also see job 1)
Satan is not God and God is not Satan.
Your definition is a straw man.
The essence of logic is "a" can not equal "not a" and your rebuttal is utterly illogical.
If you don't like my definition of God, for the reasons you stated, that's fine, I can fix it right now by adding that he must be benevolent, and that his existence must preclude that of all other beings. I'm very flexible on the definition of God. I just have one sticking point, which is that the definition cannot include that he exists. If definitions could mandate a being's existence, we could define into existence any fantastical creature.
He is "necessarily existent".
You have a god who is pagan.
The pagan concept of a god is imminent inside space and time.
The true God of scripture is transcendent. He is beyond space and time.
You are asking for a godless accidental universe with a space alien named "god".
Jehovah is the Great I am. In fact, I am that I am.
He is the ultimate source of himself and the ultimate source of everything.
Everything that exist is contingent and has an explanation.
But what is the explanation of that? Answer :that which is necessary. Otherwise we have no proof of cause and effect and science no longer "works".
You will be stuck asking how the big bang made laws of science, or asking how time evolved.
There is by implication the necessity of the 1st cause fulfilled by GOD who exists necessarily. And nothing else exists necessarily it is either contingent or fictitious.
Atheist: Matt Singleton I don't actually have any god at all, since I'm an atheist. I don't believe in any pagan gods, and I don't believe in a space alien god. What I do believe is that beliefs should be justified, and I’m not seeing any justifications for your claims. The ontological argument is an utter failure.
I don’t deny that there are some deep mysteries in the universe. But the fact is, there are some things we don’t know and might never know. But our lack of knowledge should not be grounds for making assumptions about reality. I’m sure you are familiar with the argument from ignorance fallacy.
"I don't actually have any god at all, since I'm an atheist. I don't believe in any pagan gods,"
The problem is that you are conceiving of pagan god's and then straw manning the God of Scripture as one.
You don't debunk sound logic with a fallacy.
Providing a false definition of God is erecting the strawman of another God.
God must be transcendent as an implication of that which is infinite. God in his necessary attributes is infinite.
"What I do believe is that beliefs should be justified"
Then the burden of proof is on you to justify why beliefs should be justified, because at this point you are operating from circular logic.
"I’m not seeing any justifications for your claims"
A; Because you are blind. over and over you have
as an act of will refuse to observe God by his given definition. once again.
"God is all powerful, a myth is not all powerful.
God is eternal, a myth is not eternal
God is all knowing, a myth is not all-knowing
God is omnipresent, a myth is not omni present."
you claim you were no evading this but then..
"God is a singular, intelligent super-being with the ability to manifest ideas into physical reality, "
You erected a strawman regardless.
B. You are the evidence for God that you are looking for!
You fail to deal with the ontological argument rationally. You are incapable of dealing with that definition because you know that y that definition God exists. The logic is there in your bran!
why is it there? let's say it is the product of evolution. Then your brain conceived of God ad existing and that is a product of naure. That the best way to adapt to our world is to believe in God or at minimum to understand that as logical.
Your will is opposed to this and yet you have failed to find a way out, aside from making a straw man.
"But our lack of knowledge should not be grounds for making assumptions about reality. I’m sure you are familiar with the argument from ignorance fallacy."
therefore since you have no evidence that there is no God and you are ignorant of faith in God you should not conclude that there is no God.
Now I debunked this in the video. Anselm did not make his ontological argument void of context. people wrongly isolate it from the prayer.
The prayer starts with observations of God in history.
Thus God is observed by several persons in creation. They had audible conversations with him. First in the garden of Eden, Then Cain and Abel, and later Enoch and Noah and Abraham and so on and so forth.
He is a spirit unique to the other spirits (angels and demons) and his definition is unique to other nations "gods".
This goes on with hundreds of witnesses for thousands of years.
Thus the ontological argument begins from historic experience and then is rationalized by definition.
The fact that this is put into a prayer debunks a burden of proof.
Your subjective rejection of God has no compulsion for me to defend God as much as you are not forced by my me to believe.
The truth of God's existence is not effected by your rejection. You are at liberty to reject God however, you are responsible to seek God. The burden is not upon me to prove to you that God exists. The burden is upon you to seek God because if God is real you are subject to His government and this time you have not been subject your life to his authority and thus are subject to eternal consequences.
When you reject God and hold that himself not existing is true or that his existing is invalid. You are assuming that a knowledge which is greater than the knowledge you possess has inabled you to make such a decision.
That knowledge is internal since externally the world around you does not have the complexity of the brain. Thus you are seeking spiritual knowledge as opposed to materialist science. If you are correct then your worldview is wrong. Because you have stumbled upon intelligent design.
God in our minds and logical minds at that, makes God possible, then by definition is not impossible and God by definition is not a myth. Therefore God exists.
JUST CRUNCH THE NUMBERS!
Admn
Matt Singleton QUOTE: "since you have no evidence that there is no God and you are ignorant of faith in God you should not conclude that there is no God."We do not use the word "ignorant." We say that someone is lacking knowledge or something similar.
Atheist: Admin Thanks for the defense, though I don't take offense from being called ignorant. We are all ignorant of many things. It's just part of the human condition.
Atheist: Matt Singleton Whenever I challenge someone on the ontological argument, I get hit with every other argument instead. This tells me that, at the least, the OA is exceedingly popular among those who don't really understand it. If you can't debate the OA, and you want to debate one of the numerous other points you brought up, I would be happy to.
You are not being honest.
You have never accepted the basic definition of monotheism.
You want to argue against deism or Panentheism then maybe you should not argue with theist or assert atheism.
There is no way a myth can be all powerful, or omniscient, or eternal or immutable or omnipresent or omnibenevolent.
Sense I and anybody who takes a course in theology available in most universities understands this and are even grade upon understanding this. it is not impossible and it is not a myth so, yes God is real.
Admin: Atheist, I am an administrator of the group and is my goal do you have more effective communication that is Christlike. Ignorant is a synonym of stupid and comes across as discourteous and rude. Yes, it also means one lacks knowledge but it has the other connotations too and so I would ask that people use the extra words to say one lacks knowledge.
1 Peter 5:3 neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock."Atheist: Admin, I definitely appreciate your efforts in this group. You have made yourself noticeably present in a group that deserves and can benefit from even-handed moderation.
Atheist: Matt Singleton I am not being dishonest, and I am never dishonest when debating, so I don't appreciate that accusation. As I've said over and over, when debating a theist, I accept the theist's definition of God, and work from there. But you seem to refuse to allow that, and insist that I use a different definition, then accuse me of being dishonest for not using the theist definition!
God is eternal.
God is all powerful
God is all knowing
God is omnipresent
"How could I possibly be committing a straw man if I'm agreeing to work with the definition of God, that is provided by you?"
A myth is not eternal because at some point it is conceived.
A myth is not all-powerful because it is subject to the author.
A myth is not all knowing because it is not self aware.
A myth is not omnipresent because it does not reside in material reality.
there are 3 respnses to the question "does God exist?"
A. No, God is incomprehensible.
B. No. God is a myth
C. Yes
By agreeing to the definition provided you by implication understood the definition. thus disqualifying A
Because a myth is in contradiction with all of God's necessary properties then God is not a myth.
(Godel proved this mathematically)
Therefore God exists.
These are by implication and avoid circular logic.
If God did not exist he could never come into existence. Since God is eternal he can never come out of existence.
Therefore it is necessary that God exist. God is then by implication necessarily existent.
Therefore God exists in all possible worlds.
Atheist: Matt Singleton You seem to be operating on the principle that if a definition is applied to something, then those definition points, and therefore the thing itself, must be real. That is simply not the case. Since you have avoided my unicorn example, let me introduce you to the Beholder.
A beholder is a large intelligent scaly floating spherical head with a big mouth, one big eye, and several eye stalks on top of its head that cast evil spells. The beholder was invented as part of the popular role-playing game, Dungeons & Dragons. It has no real-world analog; no cases of mistaken identity. It clearly does not exist, and yet it is defined in detail. So, I will use your method of reasoning to illustrate the problems with your approach.
A beholder can cast spells, but a myth cannot
A beholder has eye stalks, but a myth does not
A beholder is intelligent, but a myth is not
Therefore a beholder is not a myth, and so it must exist.
Do you see the problem? A definition cannot imply that the thing defined is real, or else you could imply that anything anyone could conceive and define must be real.
False: I proved the existence of the unicorn and if you contend against me giving the alternative definition, then you can not give a redefinition of God.
"The beholder was invented as part of the popular role-playing game,"
Therefore the beholder is by definition a myth
"A beholder can cast spells, but a myth cannot
A beholder has eye stalks, but a myth does not
A beholder is intelligent, but a myth is not
Therefore a beholder is not a myth, and so it must exist."
FALSE: The behold is not real, so can not really cast spells. it's eyestalks are not real eye stalks.and it is not really intelligent.
God is eternal.
God is all powerful
God is all knowing
God is omnipresent
Nottice how you do not define the beholder with ANY of these attributes!! NONE!!! You have committed a blatant strawman.
"A definition cannot imply that the thing defined is real, or else you could imply that anything anyone could conceive and define must be real."
SPACE: Are you implying that space might not be real?
TIME: Are you implying that time might not be real?
TRUTH: Are you implying that Truth might not be real?
EXISTENCE: Are you implying that existence might not be real?
REALITY: Are you implying that reality might not be real?
Some things, not all things, but somethings are real by definition.
Atheist: Matt Singleton “Some things, not all things, but somethings are real by definition.”
Finally we are getting somewhere. Please, then, tell me how you determine what can or cannot be real by definition, and why?
Things that exist are real upon the condition that they have an explanation.
Things that are not real do not exist, because they are not necessary to exist and do not have an explanation.
Things that are necessary exist because they make reality possible.
examples that are necessarily existent are
space, time, truth, reality, God.
God is the most necessary because the preconditions of reality are based upon his infinite nature.
If God did not exist, he could not come into existence.
If God is eternal, then that which is eternal can not cease.
Therefore God's existence is necessary.
Our causal universe needs a necessary being to be the first cause of it.
God is the necessary being.
Atheist: Matt Singleton Much of what you are saying seems to be predicated on the idea that necessary things must exist prior to and/or bringing about reality. But aren't the necessary also a part of reality? Isn't the fact that they are necessary a fact about reality? There's no middle ground as to what is real. If they're real, they are within reality. If they are not withing reality, they are not real.
Now, look at your last paragraph, "Our causal universe needs a necessary being to be the first cause of it. God is the necessary being."
You're doing what everyone does, in my experience, when they try to defend the OA. They jump over into other arguments, in this case, the first-cause argument. And that reveals the weakness of the OA, and arguments by definition in general.
Matt Singleton
"Much of what you are saying seems to be predicated on the idea that necessary things must exist prior to and/or bringing about reality. But aren't the necessary also a part of reality? "
At this point you are saying that reality is a faculty of reality which is by nature circular.
"But aren't the necessary also a part of reality?"
No reality is a part of the necessary. The necessary is real by classification. The necessary transcends reality. The necessary being is not simply within but without.
God transcends space and time, He is infinite.
You are unable to conceive the infinite.
"You're doing what everyone does, in my experience, when they try to defend the OA. They jump over into other arguments,"
Are you sure?
" Please, then, tell me how you determine what can or cannot be real by definition, and why?"
See? You switched the topic, you wanted to discuss reality instead of God. When we discuss reality's nature we are thinking differently because the thing we are thinking of is different.
Now let me ask you about reality. In your understanding if reality is inescapable then isn't that which is not real a part of reality? if tey are not real then how can the be conceived?
No comments:
Post a Comment