I think one major problem for the Ontological argument is that it cannot convey knowledge of god's existence. It is a wholly conceptual argument, and without an empirical element, it can only become more specific as a concept. But no concept, however specific, can convey actual knowledge if it doesn't correlate to some empirical element. So the argument can only generate specific concepts of god, but it is empty as a source of actual knowledge.
A problem for the Ontological Argument
Posts
Total:
107
-->
@Dr.Franklin
What do you think of this assessment?
-->
@Sum1hugme
The point behind such philosophical arguments is not really to prove God exists rather to show that God must (most likely) exist through logical explanation and commonsense. Since we can't really prove it in an empirical sense we make it plausible by constructing rationale, which are more like thought experiments. They are never totally foolproof but they serve as guidelines to make succinct conclusions.
On the other hand I believe that spirituality is surely based upon observation and experience without any doubt, the problem though is that it's only relevant to an individual (as they become involved)...in other words it can't be demonstrated in a collective sense only in a personal way through application and then observation. But to show that accepting creation as a legit proposition is not just for brain dead morons who just believe in any ol baloney we present logical philosophical theories and arguments.
A common misconception is that Theism is absent of evidence but ironically that's not the issue, the issue is that most people don't know how evidence is defined and what evidence consists of believe it or not. The average atheist robot carries around this false assumption that there's just one form of evidence, and that it has to be demonstrated and peer reviewed by some scientists for it to qualify lol. So, if you don't provide them with some external link that is verified by some scientific research every time a logical premise or explanation is put forth for God it's simply rejected as some fanciful, deluded wishful thinking and then mocked and scoffed at regardless if that information is true. And because of that they would never even know if it were true, no matter how accurate and no matter how foolproof.
I'll be the first one to admit that some of the common arguments for God are not that stimulating or convincing, however the indicators (evidence) that God exists and the natural intuition that the universe is a product of intelligent work is near undeniable. And really the only thing materialists and atheists have going for them is the fact that God is not an immediately visible phenomenon right in front of their nose but that's barely a decent excuse. Because the indicators are so strong for a Creator existing that one has to be pretty deluded not to see it, or logically deduce it. I know that sounds like I'm being rude but it is so obvious it makes me wonder how they could be so sure of themselves and actually believe that creationism is nonsense and or for fools.
But to address the OP, lack of knowledge is not the problem either, neither the lack of intellect nor the lack of good reasoning. Actually we have more available knowledge for God than any other subject brought into question and it's been around for longer than any other proposition or philosophical inquiry. The problem becomes how do we (they) decipher what is legit and what can be discarded. The knowledge is there, however not all information is accurate and not all claims reflect reality. This is where practitioners and folks with above average intellect come into play, people with years of experience and keen observation. But I go as far as to say that even the average unbeliever has all the tools at their disposal and really they come right out of the heart of God anyways. There are many factors involved for the reason their understanding has been veiled, and why it's a seemingly impossible thing for them to grasp.
If God does exist though, and I only say "if" for those reading this, such arguments do reflect reality and do reflect knowledge of God's existence. There's levels here we are dealing with though, such arguments are only superficial and are meant to simply stimulate the intellect and derive logical conclusions for folks to consider as a bridge for finding reason to believe. Real knowledge, as gained through observation and experience comes through spirituality, which is the practical application of a transcendental reality beyond the reach of the immediate physical sense perception.
This is a relation that takes place within deeper conscious levels of experience as the physical world is nothing but the outer shell of a much deeper, much more refined and in depth field of individual witness. In other words you can't just walk down the block and find God hanging around somewhere, the individual must move their own obstacles that prevent them from resonating with the truth of reality and get involved outside the parameters of this outer shell that is nothing but a mask.
-->
@Sum1hugme
Yep, that sums up the ontological argument.
The ontological argument was aimed at an illiterate, uneducated, enslaved flock. Who once upon a time, were easily duped into believing that any bull**** that came out of the mouths of clergy, was divine.....Blah de blah de blah GOD....Oh and don't forget your tithe you scumbags.
Hopefully we've moved on since then.
-->
@zedvictor4
The ontological argument was aimed at an illiterate, uneducated, enslaved flock.
You are obviously poorly educated.
Who once upon a time, were easily duped into believing that any bull****
Obviously you don't understand what philosophy is and why theology is pursued.
that came out of the mouths of clergy, was divine.....Blah de blah de blah GOD....Oh and don't forget your tithe you scumbags.
You are obviously poorly educated. There were many contemporary criticisms put forward, however many current philosophers still entertain it. These types of arguments don't stimulate my intellect very much which is why I create my own but your assessments are even beneath the poorest of philosophically designed works. Your contributions are always laughable anyways.
Hopefully we've moved on since then.
Philosophers and theologians existed then as they do now. Some people still enjoy the game of the intellect to discover the limitations and potentials of our understandings, our thinking and the possibilities of what may be true. Others like you, rather just be a prick. Thankfully people like you are not all that exist.
Theistic philosophy and the possibility of God's existence is one of the most fascinating, intriguing and intellectually stimulating hypothesis there are, and creationism was and still is on the verge of being the most accurate propositions put forth for the origins of our existence and always will be. Get a life. If you're not interested get a new hobby, nobody needs your poorly educated opinions in a religion forum.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Did did you hear about the 17 month old little girl in Texas that swallowed a remote control battery and died?
Her mother said, “I started praying. She coded again. They did CPR, all of the things, for about 30 to 40 minutes,” Hamsmith said. “I had never prayed so hard in my life or begged God like that. We just didn’t get her back.” But EtrnlVW will say that God has a plan for everyone. It is intelligent man that has made life liveable in such a poorly designed world. It in now up to Intelligent Man to embrace Humanism.
-->
@EtrnlVw
...however the indicators (evidence) that God exists and the natural intuition that the universe is a product of intelligent work is near undeniable.
What is that evidence? Otherwise, the Ontological argument is an empty concept.
-->
@FLRW
It is intelligent man that has made life liveable in such a poorly designed world. It in now up to Intelligent Man to embrace Humanism.
10/10
-->
@EtrnlVw
The post is specifically about the failure of the Ontological Argument to include an empirical element. Without it, it will never bridge the gap between a specific concept and knowledge.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Philosophers and theologians are, as philosophers and theologians do.....Very little of any use, in fact.
-->
@zedvictor4
The ontological argument was aimed at an illiterate, uneducated, enslaved flock. Who once upon a time, were easily duped into believing that any bull**** that came out of the mouths of clergy, was divine.....Blah de blah de blah GOD....Oh and don't forget your tithe you scumbags.
guarantee 90% of Christians didnt know about this until very recently(relatively)
-->
@Sum1hugme
I think one major problem for the Ontological argument is that it cannot convey knowledge of god's existence. It is a wholly conceptual argument, and without an empirical element,
I suppose so, but why would that be a problem? It's pretty easy to draw up maximally great qualities out of a being.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Yeah, but that's only specifying the concept, without pointing to anything empirical. That renders it fundamentally empty.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Who, where, what, when?
You need to elaborate a bit Doc.
Nonetheless, back in the day 90% of the flock wouldn't have had a clue...They would just have nodded and drooled in wonderment at the clerical verbosity.....And then handed over their tithes.
In "relatively" more recent (educated) times, clerical verbosity is not generally held in such high regard.....Other than by those philosophers and theologians who have nothing better to do.
-->
@Sum1hugme
I think one major problem for the Ontological argument is that it cannot convey knowledge of god's existence. It is a wholly conceptual argument, and without an empirical element, it can only become more specific as a concept. But no concept, however specific, can convey actual knowledge if it doesn't correlate to some empirical element. So the argument can only generate specific concepts of god, but it is empty as a source of actual knowledge.
Well stated.
-->
@FLRW
. It is intelligent man that has made life liveable in such a poorly designed world
Well stated
-->
@Sum1hugme
The post is specifically about the failure of the Ontological Argument to include an empirical element. Without it, it will never bridge the gap between a specific concept and knowledge.
The point of philosophy is to bring awareness to the logical assessment of creationism, with or without an empirical element. Perhaps there's instances where an empirical element is warranted, perhaps other times not so much. In short, it doesn't need one, it basically draws attention to the logical error of its counterpart.....that to say God's existence is impossible is rationally and logically stupid. In other words there is nothing incoherent about God's existence in any possible world. So if it is possible that God exists in any possible world there's nothing incoherent or untrue that God exists in this world.
There's nothing about this assessment that could bridge a gap between pure logic as opposed to experience from observation it is true, but it is a moot point. All it really is.....is a logical game of types to create a logical platform.
-->
@FLRW
I am becoming more and more aware that my life is probably planned. Why do shitty things happen? I don't know. Maybe we can't learn anything living in Paradise.
-->
@janesix
Maybe we can't learn anything living in Paradise.
Nope I don't think we would. We barely learn things now.
-->
@EtrnlVw
that to say God's existence is impossible is rationally and logically stupid
You don't actually have to dismiss the existence of some undemonstrated proposition.
IF something is niether demonstrated adequatly nor a logical necessity THEN that thing is irrational to believe in until the situation changes.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Yes, agreed.
-->
@janesix
Maybe we can't learn anything living in Paradise.
Actually this article (and accompanying bibliography) would seem to surge that people learn better when not under emotional stress.
-->
@secularmerlin
I am not talking about memorizing facts. I am talking about REAL learning. Spiritual learning.
-->
@janesix
I am unaware of the difference between discovering facts (by whatever means) and real learning. As for spiritual anything I think you you know that I consider it impossible to learn anything about something which cannot be demonstrated, measured or observed.
-->
@secularmerlin
am unaware of the difference between discovering facts (by whatever means) and real learning.
The difference is "discovering" and actually coming to an understanding. I "know" a zillion "facts". It is when you put some of them together,and understand something new. It involves both intuition and thinking.
As for spiritual anything I think you you know that I consider it impossible to learn anything about something which cannot be demonstrated, measured or observed.
I observe spiritual things all the time.
-->
@janesix
The difference is "discovering" and actually coming to an understanding. I "know" a zillion "facts". It is when you put some of them together,and understand something new. It involves both intuition and thinking.
I have undergone this process while comfortably ensconced in an arm chair so I remain unconvinced that "real" learning can "never" happen in a "paradise".
I observe spiritual things all the time.
How do you determine the difference between something "spiritual" and just something?
-->
@secularmerlin
By my state of consciousness.
-->
@janesix
Your personal conscious is subject to biases and especially under altered states is not entirely trustworthy. That is why we must be able to demonstrate, observe and measure or we cannot really say that we know anything.
-->
@secularmerlin
What about the things you can't measure? How do you deal with those? Do you just ignore everything with any small amount of subjectivity?
Last night, I fished the last M&M out of the package. It was yellow. Then over a period of about two seconds, it slowly disappeared from my hand as I watched it. How do you "measure" something like that?
-->
@janesix
Before conducting a measurement, it is wise to specify what is supposed to be measured.