The Ontological Argument.

[JCC]

The ontological argument is a rather aged theory in ridiculous semantics. It postulates that since God is defined as the most perfect or the most powerful being conceivable, it becomes intrinsic that he must exist by property of his perfection, because to not exist is to not be perfect. Now, this is a problematic theory but is unfortunately one that is commonly used by theists who wish to consolidate their position as theists when under an anti-theistic argument. How do you define perfection? How CAN you define perfection when perfection is an absolute shaped by a person's moral construct rather than by something factual or tangible? Perfection would be flawlessness, I presume, but how can something be flawless or, indeed, flawed just because someone says that it is so? Some people may say that a certain birthmark is a flaw, but what if there are people out there that find the aforementioned birthmark to be attractive and irreplacably unique? If these people were to judge something they would come to the conclusion that without the birthmark, this person has lost some of their perfection, whereas others would say that they are closer to it. To define a moral being as perfect is to say that a certain person's ideals or perception of life is the way that it is, and an opinion can not be fact just by the property of it being an opinion.

But more than anything, how can the existence of a Christian god be derived from the definition of the word god? The definition of the word god would be applied to all gods, surely? Therefore what's to say that the ontological argument doesn't attempt to prove the existence of every God ever formulated? Vishnu is real. Allah is real. Jehovah is real. Odin is real. Zeus is real. These gods are, according to the ontological argument, all in existence, despite the fact that their existence in essence denies the existence of all other gods. It is the largest paradox in the history of paradoxes and it is meant to consolidate a theory?

Also, wouldn't existing be something that would indeed mar the idea of a god? A perfect being would live inside the imagination of individuals, because the second that said god becomes tangible is the moment where he becomes imperfect to everyone as he has to exist to a certain amount of rules. A god cannot be everything, no matter how many theists say that he is. The perfect god to feminists is a female, whereas the perfect god to misogynists would be male. His existence is imperfection. If, however, this god were to live inside the imagination, a being that is deemed perfect because of the person's intrinsic moral values and personality, the god is perfect in every way, because not only is he the embodiment of everything that the theorist represents, he is also innaccessible to the populus. He is a personal god, one that only responds to the needs and desires of a singular person. This is why so many Christians or Muslims or people of any other faith will cite God as an influence in their successes.

What makes God choose you over everyone else? Do you have something that others do not? Surely you cannot, because God is meant to love everyone equally. If God has a partiality towards the bourgeoisie, he is not perfect, he is immoral and easily swayed by different personality traits because he views the world as a personality contest where the fortunes of people rest on how much he likes them. Innocent people suffer and die, and celebrities grow richer and fatter. This is not the work of a moral god if it is the work of a god at all, it is the work of a pompous reductionist who rather than looking out for the needs of every person, which is in itself impossible as the needs of different people conflict with others, he picks and chooses the people that appeal to him the most. God is not unjudging, he is in fact the most judgmental and pompous being that could exist if he has any part in the success of a person.

Also, if God creates your successes, does that not nullify you as a person? Your achievements, your positive aspects, would suddenly be created by God. They would be artificial to you because you are merely the conduit for God's plan, and if God makes you a conduit rather than a person in control of your own destiny, he is not perfect, he is a totalitarian dictator who has given nobody free will.

God does NOT exist because of his perfection. Perfection is subjective. It can only be subjective and does not exist in an objective reality which is the only reality that an all-powerful God could live in. God does not exist, for God is perfect.

[Godslayer Jillian]

I don't think perfection is subjective. When you speak of concrete terms, there is such a thing as perfection, and it cannot be influenced by personal opinions.
But guess what? Just like you said at the end, if God is perfect, then he indeed is non-existent.
Every mention of perfection is something that is striven, but never accomplished.
Just think of a perfect pendulum: a perfect pendulum is one whose connector has absolutely no mass. But this is impossible in the real world; it is only a concept. The more a pendulum resembles the perfect pendulum, the better.
A cheetah evolves in such a way that it strives to catch its prey as fast as possible. The perfect cheetah would catch its prey in zero seconds, but this is not possible. The less time, the closer to a perfect cheetah it is, but it never becomes a perfect cheetah.
In fact, one property of perfection is that it is inexistent. A perfect being cannot really exist.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Just think of a perfect pendulum: a perfect pendulum is one whose connector has absolutely no mass. But this is impossible in the real world; it is only a concept. The more a pendulum resembles the perfect pendulum, the better.

But that's not necessarily the perfect pendulum because regardless of whether it's mechanism is as good as it can be due to this, some people like something to have flaws and believe that it makes it more tangible, more distinctive, more unique and personalised. With this in mind, the perfect pendulum is still a matter of opinion.

[Godslayer Jillian]

See, that's the thing I mean with personal opinion. The perfect pendulum is still scientifically and for all purposes the one whose connector has no mass.
But some people might say "yeah, I don't like that". That doesn't mean that's not the perfect pendulum, it just means that they don't like that. Perfection is not what someone considers to be the best. It is the property of being absolute in its properties.
Just because someone thinks the best temperature for coldness is 32 degrees fahrenheit doesn't deter from the fact that the perfect cold temperature is 375.15 Celsius.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

See, that's the thing I mean with personal opinion. The perfect pendulum is still scientifically and for all purposes the one whose connector has no mass.
But some people might say "yeah, I don't like that". That doesn't mean that's not the perfect pendulum, it just means that they don't like that. Perfection is not what someone considers to be the best. It is the property of being absolute in its properties.
Just because someone thinks the best temperature for coldness is 32 degrees fahrenheit doesn't deter from the fact that the perfect cold temperature is 375.15 Celsius.

Right, but in the case of a moral being like a God, there is no scientific perfection because it's not scientific, therefore the perfection has to be subjective because it's the qualities that a person prefers, like the qualities that someone prefers in a pendulum.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Exactly, so trying to prove God through its perfection fails either way, as there is none.

[KontanKarite]

That is one redundant circle of logic.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

That is one redundant circle of logic.

It's a theist favourite too. Sad, eh?

[KontanKarite]

LoL! I guess. I mean, IF the Christian God is actually real, what is there to really be afraid of? He hasn't done a damned thing it would seem since Christ and he, being perfect, had changed his mind about how to deal with people.

I thought perfection didn't change.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by JCC

How CAN you define perfection when perfection is an absolute shaped by a person's moral construct rather than by something factual or tangible?

And here you have the crux of where the arguments, the scientific logic and everything else goes off the tracks laid down by Christ. You hit the nail on the head without realizing it.

Since the relationship with God is a personal one, one between the individual and Christ, it SHOULD BE that person's construct of what He is like. It should not be what somebody else tells you. It should be what you feel in your heart.

The Bible, the Ten Commandments and for that matter, the Qu'ran and the Bhagavad Gita or whatever faith you subscribe to, is a guide to living, not a scientific whitepaper or blueprint to the Universe. There is a Muslim saying, "the Qu'ran tells how to go to heaven, not how the heaven's go" and that in my opinion is the best way to describe my perspective.

All of this debate and argument of whether or not an agreed upon construct that people everywhere can use is defined as this or that is completely missing the point.

I am not a follower of other people who tell me what or who God is, I am a follower of Jesus and try to obey what He said.

If we are all debating whether or not the surface of Mars is habitable with only an oxygen tank, that is a tangible challenge that can be explored, experimented on and proved to others.

But proving the existence of God? If He is a guide to living, then our individual lives MUST define the criteria, the context of the arena in which he operates, so that we may apply His teachings and subsequently effect change in our lives.

Applying what worked for someone else to our own problems is inefficient and probably a waste of time.

In simplest terms: It is like arguing that Jillian likes lemon meringue pie. I can argue all day that he eats other dishes containing the same ingredients as lemon meringue pie, but if Jillian doesn't like it, not me or anyone else is going to be able to make him eat the pie and like it. It is his choice to accept or reject it. Logic has no place in that decision process.

EDIT: thanks JCC for creating this thread, I love debating this topic. When I have time that is, these debates can go on for freakin' forEVER.

[Clockwork]

I think... Humane said virtually everything I wanted to say, if perhaps in a less harsh tone that I'd have.

If I may reiterate with my thoughts... I want to say there's quantitative perfection (such as the roundness of a circle), which cannot be disputed, and there's qualitative perfection, as might relate to a work of art. It may be that God is perfect in this quantitative sense - that is, he is omniscient and all-powerful, capable of carrying out his will instantaneously, without flaw.

I also see nothing wrong with viewing him as a personal god, being for each of us our particular joy and fulfillment.

Here's one take on perfection - versatility is an amiable trait, no? The ability to adapt to any situation and take on a form that most fulfills a task or ideal seems like the ultimate mode of utility to me. Imagine some otherworldly, ethereal painting then, that appears to each viewer differently, and fits their view as the ultimate masterpiece. Everyone could then agree that the painting is perfect. Would it matter that it's different to everyone? Would these different appearances conflict with each other, somehow make them nonexistent? Would that make it flawed, because it does not appeal to all in one fixed state? I think not. I say such versatility would be a testament to its perfection.
Supposing He exists, I think God is rather like that.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

I am not a follower of other people who tell me what or who God is, I am a follower of Jesus and try to obey what He said.

...

Dude. Go back and read what you just wrote.

Anyway, the whole business about religion being a guide to life and having nothing to do with logic or fact. It would be inoffensive if it were so, but I have never met a person who actually believes that when pressed to the mat. And the majority of religious people won't even claim it. They make assertions of fact based on their religion often and loudly. And they vote.

Sometimes they start unprovoked foreign wars and claim that they got their marching orders from a divine order.

Drake

[Mir]

That sounds suspiciously like your President.

[Jonathan]

Drake, the statement of HumanePain you quoted is internally consistent from a religious standpoint. Standard party line Christianity espouses the Trinity, three in one God. From that perspective, Jesus wouldn't fall into the category of "other people", but could be considered a primary source.

The only problem is so far I've only ever been able to find books written by fallible human beings describing some of the events of his life, that have been translated a few times by candlelight after getting voted in as canon by a bunch of argumentative men in Nicaea sometime in early 300 AD. Math isn't my strongest point, but that number seems to be somewhere between 250-300 years after the fact.

[KontanKarite]

How long has any story stayed pure and true after 300 years?

Anyone remember Little Red Riding Hood? How old is that story and how many versions have popped up claiming to be canon and indeed, the more vicious the version, the more true it is to the original? Malarki.

[ionic_angel]

The Council of Nicea basically "ratified" the books which were already accepted as correct in the Christian community. It wasn't an arbitrary selection of random authors.

As for the books (gospels) themselves, they are dated to about 30-60 years after the events occurred, with some being possibly closer to the events.

Whether you want to believe they are true is one thing, but I suggest you do a bit of research (wikipedia does NOT count) on them. I've devoted quite a bit of time to it myself.

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

Originally Posted by Clockwork

Imagine some otherworldly, ethereal painting then, that appears to each viewer differently, and fits their view as the ultimate masterpiece. Everyone could then agree that the painting is perfect. Would it matter that it's different to everyone? Would these different appearances conflict with each other, somehow make them nonexistent? Would that make it flawed, because it does not appeal to all in one fixed state? I think not. I say such versatility would be a testament to its perfection.
Supposing He exists, I think God is rather like that.

If such a painting could exist, it would be perfect. But the whole argument is that such a painting (or being) can't really exist.

I think paintings are different to each person, but only because the mental image of the painting goes through many layers of processing in the brain, filtered through knowledge, experience, opinions, surroundings (ranging from something as simple as wall colour and floor colour, or type of frame),etc. Not even the hard, physical painting, independent of anyone's processing of it, is perfectly the same for everyone. It will appear different when subjected to different lighting and different times of day and weather (if the painting is in a space even remotely lit by natural light), etc. Lighting even changes based on as little as how many people are in the room and what colours they are wearing. It's subtle and maybe not noticeable, but it's there.
Ah, sorry. Got started on the art and blathered.

Anyway, everyone brings something else to it, based on everything in their past, and that colours one's impression of the painting. Perhaps divine beings are more like that? Everyone interprets divinity in a different way, based on where they are, where they grew up, what they do, what they see, who they see/interact with, and such. This interpretation may, more or less, follow the set interpretations of religion, or it may follow something more ambiguous and unformed (I'm not saying that that's a bad thing).

[ThreeEyesOni]

Saying that "God is so perfect that he must exist because if not then he's not very perfect" is similar to saying "the Wonder Burger is a burger so delicious and perfect that it must exist because otherwise it isn't perfect; but it is." It is essentially the very argument of circular logic, and carries all the weight of a drunken bed-bug.

[Nytekiss~]

I don't think God cares about our definitions of perfect.. in fact nothing we say, do, think, feel, believe, or reason can change what God is.. i think thats the point. He is what science calls 'Absolute truth". He is, and cannot NOT be.
God himself calls himself "Holy".. and even one step above and beyond saying he is "The Holy of Holies" soo.. ya. whatever that means.. I'm guessing Gods word: Holy.. is his version of what youre calling "Perfect"
The good thing is.. he does not change based on our definition of what he is.. He's an infinite concept.. and here we are trying to grasp that with finite minds.. Good luck with that...
As for prooving the existence of God...
with or without proof.. some things are true.. whether you believe they are or not.
Ever taken a look into the scientific studies on 'Dark Matter'?
Funny how they are convinced it exists even though there is no definitive proof.. these are scientists, right???

[Godslayer Jillian]

Scientists don't apply any definition to dark matter.
They believe it might be another type of matter, or it might simply be an unknown constant in the universe. They work with it because they know the known universe works with it.
Equally, if you're going to talk about what God is, only speak about how this life is pretty because it is, without attributing arbitrary deifications into it until you can prove me you are the one that's right.
Astronomers work with what they have and what seems plausible. I don't see any god around nor I see it as a plausible form of understanding this universe, and so do most people that don't settle with the first concept that fulfills them.

[KontanKarite]

Finite minds trying to define the infinite. Yet we are all so convinced that our words define something so far removed from us.

I could subscribe to the idea of God as "If it is written by man, it is wrong." and I would be no more wrong than the next guy.

Even the fact that the stories were written from tales spread by word of mouth is an indication that our "holy" texts aren't entirely a perfect source of knowledge in the persuit of God.

Even a straight translation from Hebrew to English indicates a flawed message.

I'm not saying that a God or God or whatever isn't perfect. I'm simply saying that no one has it right. At all.

Thou shalt not steal for example. Sure, stealing in general is pretty jacked up, but stealing say... a loaf of bread because you're homeless and starving. Is that really so wrong?

Also, we can't forget that many of the Gnostic Christianity scriptures were destroyed for being a competitor against the church and its followers burned for being heretics.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Nytekiss~

Ever taken a look into the scientific studies on 'Dark Matter'?
Funny how they are convinced it exists even though there is no definitive proof.. these are scientists, right???

They aren't convinced that it necessarily exists. It's just a model. Apparently it is considered the presently best model available. I'm way out of my league here, but for my money, a more elegant answer will turn up. "Dark matter" stinks, from a reductionism standpoint. It reminds me of Einstein's "cosmological constant", or phlogiston or aether. It has the appearance of a theoretical bandaid.

In any case, the difference is that dark matter has a place explaining why things work the way they do in our universe, whereas YWHW doesn't.

[LiUsAiDh]

We did the ontological argument in RE class. It isn't flawless. I prefer the Cosomological argument.

[Toy Killer]

I seriously believe that the only way that religion goes awry, is when you try to organize it. When peope start decideing what others should believe it cuases nothing but issues and problems. Almost every genocide that has ever occured on this planet has Religious roots. Many wars also share this trait.

I believe in Jehovah, I study the Bible at my own comfort and believe that The Holy Book is intentionally ambiguos, as different people live different lives. Weather Jesus was the Messiah or not, I don't care, it doesn't directly affect me. I can live with minimal lying (anyone who says they don't is lyng themselve), without cheating on my girlfriend, without stealing, and I think I've done just fine.

[LiUsAiDh]

"Almost every genocide that has ever occured on this planet has Religious roots. Many wars also share this trait."

I don't really agree with you here, the ones I can think of have just used religion as an excuse and the real reason for the killing has been power and/or money.