Philosophy and the proof of God's existence

[Scott & Lai 12]

This is interesting...haven't spent a whole lot of time thinking it over, but worth looking at...

(Disclaimer: proof by reason is different from proof by material evidence)

St. Anselm, the Catholic archbishop of Canterbury and a Doctor of the Church, first formulated the Ontological Argument. This philosophical argument is perhaps the strangest and most hotly debated of the proofs. The argument has attracted the attentions of such notable philosophers as Immanuel Kant (who attacked St. Anselm's proof) and G.W.F Hegel (who defended Anselm's proof).

The proof is most notable because it alone claims to prove the existence of God by relying independently on human reason without the need for perception or evidence. The proof itself relies on the defined concept of God as a perfect being. St. Anselm's proof is summarized here:

1. 1. God exists in our understanding. This means that the concept of God resides as an idea in our minds.
   2. God is a possible being, and might exist in reality. He is possible because the concept of God does not bear internal contradictions.
   3. If something exists exclusively in our understanding and might have existed in reality then it might have been greater. This simply means that something that exists in reality is perfect (or great). Something that is only a concept in our minds could be greater by actually existing.
   4. Suppose (theoretically) that God only exists in our understanding and not in reality.
   5. If this were true, then it would be possible for God to be greater then he is (follows from premise #3).
   6. This would mean that God is a being in which a greater is possible.
   7. This is absurd because God, a being in which none greater is possible, is a being in which a greater is possible. Herein lies the contradiction.
   8. Thus it follows that it is false for God to only exist in our understanding.
   9. Hence God exists in reality as well as our understanding.

Study the above proof carefully. It is an intriguing proof because it states that God, a perfect being, must exist in all possible circumstances in order to satisfy the definition of his perfection. A God that can exist in only some circumstances, but fails to exist in others is a less than perfect being.

http://www.saintaquinas.com/philosophy.html

On alternating Tuesdays I think the Ontological Argument makes a lot of sense

[Rocky_nBullwinkle 6]

This is interesting...haven't spent a whole lot of time thinking it over, but worth looking at...

(Disclaimer: proof by reason is different from proof by material evidence)

St. Anselm, the Catholic archbishop of Canterbury and a Doctor of the Church, first formulated the Ontological Argument. This philosophical argument is perhaps the strangest and most hotly debated of the proofs. The argument has attracted the attentions of such notable philosophers as Immanuel Kant (who attacked St. Anselm's proof) and G.W.F Hegel (who defended Anselm's proof).

The proof is most notable because it alone claims to prove the existence of God by relying independently on human reason without the need for perception or evidence. The proof itself relies on the defined concept of God as a perfect being. St. Anselm's proof is summarized here:

1. 1. God exists in our understanding. This means that the concept of God resides as an idea in our minds.
   2. God is a possible being, and might exist in reality. He is possible because the concept of God does not bear internal contradictions.
   3. If something exists exclusively in our understanding and might have existed in reality then it might have been greater. This simply means that something that exists in reality is perfect (or great). Something that is only a concept in our minds could be greater by actually existing.
   4. Suppose (theoretically) that God only exists in our understanding and not in reality.
   5. If this were true, then it would be possible for God to be greater then he is (follows from premise #3).
   6. This would mean that God is a being in which a greater is possible.
   7. This is absurd because God, a being in which none greater is possible, is a being in which a greater is possible. Herein lies the contradiction.
   8. Thus it follows that it is false for God to only exist in our understanding.
   9. Hence God exists in reality as well as our understanding.

Study the above proof carefully. It is an intriguing proof because it states that God, a perfect being, must exist in all possible circumstances in order to satisfy the definition of his perfection. A God that can exist in only some circumstances, but fails to exist in others is a less than perfect being.

http://www.saintaquinas.com/philosophy.html

I am not trying to prove, or disprove the postulate here. I personally believe that if you can find God in a parking barrier, then who am I to disagree. But I do have a math degree, and this demonstrates why an arguement that is valid in Mathematics, is not necessarily valid in Classical Logic.

The spoken language here is "context sensitive", which means the way a word is used can change its meaning, as opposed to a pure symbolic language, that could be context free. A symbol can have a meaning of its own, independent of its position.

The form of the inductive arguement here, proof by contradiction, used in Mathematics would still leave its share of skeptics, hence is referred to as "weak". As used by St. Anselm in this form, however, it becomes a complicated play on words. Thus, if this arguement satisfies you that God exists, you can find God. If it doesn't, you won't. In math terms, "indefinite."

-- Bullwinkle

P.S. I knew Noam Chomsky would come in handy some day!

[Addie_Goodvibes 0]

This is interesting...haven't spent a whole lot of time thinking it over, but worth looking at...

(Disclaimer: proof by reason is different from proof by material evidence)

St. Anselm, the Catholic archbishop of Canterbury and a Doctor of the Church, first formulated the Ontological Argument. This philosophical argument is perhaps the strangest and most hotly debated of the proofs. The argument has attracted the attentions of such notable philosophers as Immanuel Kant (who attacked St. Anselm's proof) and G.W.F Hegel (who defended Anselm's proof).

The proof is most notable because it alone claims to prove the existence of God by relying independently on human reason without the need for perception or evidence. The proof itself relies on the defined concept of God as a perfect being. St. Anselm's proof is summarized here:

1. 1. God exists in our understanding. This means that the concept of God resides as an idea in our minds.
   2. God is a possible being, and might exist in reality. He is possible because the concept of God does not bear internal contradictions.
   3. If something exists exclusively in our understanding and might have existed in reality then it might have been greater. This simply means that something that exists in reality is perfect (or great). Something that is only a concept in our minds could be greater by actually existing.
   4. Suppose (theoretically) that God only exists in our understanding and not in reality.
   5. If this were true, then it would be possible for God to be greater then he is (follows from premise #3).
   6. This would mean that God is a being in which a greater is possible.
   7. This is absurd because God, a being in which none greater is possible, is a being in which a greater is possible. Herein lies the contradiction.
   8. Thus it follows that it is false for God to only exist in our understanding.
   9. Hence God exists in reality as well as our understanding.

Study the above proof carefully. It is an intriguing proof because it states that God, a perfect being, must exist in all possible circumstances in order to satisfy the definition of his perfection. A God that can exist in only some circumstances, but fails to exist in others is a less than perfect being.

http://www.saintaquinas.com/philosophy.html

I am not trying to prove, or disprove the postulate here. I personally believe that if you can find God in a parking barrier, then who am I to disagree. But I do have a math degree, and this demonstrates why an arguement that is valid in Mathematics, is not necessarily valid in Classical Logic.

The spoken language here is "context sensitive", which means the way a word is used can change its meaning, as opposed to a pure symbolic language, that could be context free. A symbol can have a meaning of its own, independent of its position.

The form of the inductive arguement here, proof by contradiction, used in Mathematics would still leave its share of skeptics, hence is referred to as "weak". As used by St. Anselm in this form, however, it becomes a complicated play on words. Thus, if this arguement satisfies you that God exists, you can find God. If it doesn't, you won't. In math terms, "indefinite."

-- Bullwinkle

P.S. I knew Noam Chomsky would come in handy some day!

Well Spoken!

[mawilson 2,133]

Even fairy tales convey truth. It's when people confuse truth with fact that it can become ridiculous. It depends on what people want from a religion. If they are looking for someone else to think for them or give them answers to everything, then I would agree, that is ridiculous. If someone finds religion gives them focus and direction but requires the person to think for himself....grapple with life's questions, then more power to them. There is a big difference between those two approaches when it comes to religion.

Ok, I can live with that.

Send your check payable to:

Sisters of Mercy

PO Box 1827

Boulder, CO 90621

I'll let God send you a check.

[Amby 490]

Even fairy tales convey truth. It's when people confuse truth with fact that it can become ridiculous. It depends on what people want from a religion. If they are looking for someone else to think for them or give them answers to everything, then I would agree, that is ridiculous. If someone finds religion gives them focus and direction but requires the person to think for himself....grapple with life's questions, then more power to them. There is a big difference between those two approaches when it comes to religion.

Ok, I can live with that.

Send your check payable to:

Sisters of Mercy

PO Box 1827

Boulder, CO 90621

I'll let God send you a check.

Steve let us know if you get that check. Then you can show us some proof. Just make sure you don't take it to Goose this time to cash it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Even fairy tales convey truth. It's when people confuse truth with fact that it can become ridiculous. It depends on what people want from a religion. If they are looking for someone else to think for them or give them answers to everything, then I would agree, that is ridiculous. If someone finds religion gives them focus and direction but requires the person to think for himself....grapple with life's questions, then more power to them. There is a big difference between those two approaches when it comes to religion.

Ok, I can live with that.

Send your check payable to:

Sisters of Mercy

PO Box 1827

Boulder, CO 90621

I'll let God send you a check.

Steve let us know if you get that check. Then you can show us some proof. Just make sure you don't take it to Goose this time to cash it.

If Goose saw that God endorsed the check, for sure he's gonna call the cops.

[Ban Hammer 13,135]

Even fairy tales convey truth. It's when people confuse truth with fact that it can become ridiculous. It depends on what people want from a religion. If they are looking for someone else to think for them or give them answers to everything, then I would agree, that is ridiculous. If someone finds religion gives them focus and direction but requires the person to think for himself....grapple with life's questions, then more power to them. There is a big difference between those two approaches when it comes to religion.

Ok, I can live with that.

Send your check payable to:

Sisters of Mercy

PO Box 1827

Boulder, CO 90621

I'll let God send you a check.

Steve let us know if you get that check. Then you can show us some proof. Just make sure you don't take it to Goose this time to cash it.

If Goose saw that God endorsed the check, for sure he's gonna call the cops.

[Amby 490]

[merijan 0]

It's a belief, not a belief system. It's a belief that stands by itself, unsupported by any other beliefs and not requiring other beliefs/practices to be associated with it.

Personally, I believe agnosticism is much more intellectually honest than either theism or atheism.

so are u agnostic AJ?

[Ban Hammer 13,135]

It's a belief, not a belief system. It's a belief that stands by itself, unsupported by any other beliefs and not requiring other beliefs/practices to be associated with it.

Personally, I believe agnosticism is much more intellectually honest than either theism or atheism.

so are u agnostic AJ?

aj is a hindu.