Anselm's Second Ontological Argument

[Mark Quayle]

It never happened. It was never going to happen.

Ha! Yes. This is the thing that those who rail against predestination just don't get! Nobody is saying that the elect need not do anything, or that the promise is automatically going to come to pass. It is only that the election is sure. It will indeed happen, and we know, therefore, that it was always going to happen. That makes no statement as to HOW it happened. It is just simple fact.

I like to play the mind game: "Nothing can ever happen except one thing, as history has shown us. Only one thing ever happens: whatever happens. We can extrapolate a long history of the fact that only what happened is the only thing that ever happened to show that in the future, nothing else will ever happen except whatever will happen, since nothing can happen except whatever happens.

'The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD."

 

[Lion IRC]

The paradoxical beauty of predestination doctrine. The elect are destined to be saved/damned.
...but none of us knows who the 'elect' are.

 

[Paulomycin]

What if Abraham was mistaken? What if he rammed his knife down through Isaac's chest, only to hear the voice say, "Ha! The jokes on you. I told you to kill Isaac, but I'm not actually Yahweh. I'm an imposter. April fools. Gotcha!"

Like the others already said (but in different words), God's omnipotent sovereignty doesn't allow for other possible "what if" scenarios. There's only one Divine agenda. No "whoops," and no Plan B.

 

[Paulomycin]

So what then did God create the world for?

For the same reason that He created the universe: For His glory alone.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Like the others already said (but in different words), God's omnipotent sovereignty doesn't allow for other possible "what if" scenarios. There's only one Divine agenda. No "whoops," and no Plan B.

But how did Abraham know it was Elohim speaking? How did he know it was not an imposter claiming to be Elhoim? And if it was an imposter who told him to kill his son, and nobody stopped Abraham, then the knife went down.

"Whoops. My bad."

 

[doubtingmerle]

Also amazing to me is why bible critics/skeptics act as if God actually DID want Abraham or make Abraham sacrifice his son. He didn't. It never happened. It was never going to happen.

Per Genesis 22:

Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.

And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. (Genesis 2:9-10)​

I don't think the story is true, but if it happened, I fault Abraham for setting out to kill his son. Nowhere do I say the story says he killed him.

Setting out to kill your son in this way is wrong, yes?

Someone did sacrifice their Son though. The God who promised that He would provide the sacrifice actually did provide one. His Son.

See John 3:16

Your God has a Son? And the Son is also God? How many Gods do you have?

Do you or do you not think it is a good idea to offer a son as a sacrifice to please God?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I was trying to be funny. You don't take me seriously until you shouldn't, lol.

Ah, I see, you wrote something stupid figuring everybody would take it as a joke.

Guess what. There is an enormous amount of stupidity here.

Just the other day someone here claimed that, if a claim has the word no in it, he does not need to have evidence for the claim.

That is the kind of bad arguments I read here all the time.

If somebody posts something stupid, how are we supposed to tell if he is serious?

 

[doubtingmerle]

God's omnipotent sovereignty doesn't allow for other possible "what if" scenarios. There's only one Divine agenda. No "whoops," and no Plan B.

How do you know there is not some other universe out there controlled by a totally different God?

If you lived in a different universe with a different God, would you need to follow whatever that God says, or could you use your intelligence and decline if he asked you to do something immoral?

 

[doubtingmerle]

That is still a joke internal to my large family, in arguments --"But what if you are wrong, HUH??? Gotcha on that one, didn't I?!!!"

Suppose somebody demanded that you either give him everything you have or he will overrule God and send you to hell forever. You, of course, would tell him he has no power to overrule God.

But what if you are wrong? HUH??? Gotcha on that one, didn't I?!!!

 

[doubtingmerle]

Hahaha Paulo, your turn to explain the relationship between an absurd hypothetical (or even an obviously fallaciou presupposition) and the obligation to answer it seriously.

This is what you responded to. Why is this an absurd hypothetical?

What if Abraham was mistaken? What if he rammed his knife down through Isaac's chest, only to hear the voice say, "Ha! The jokes on you. I told you to kill Isaac, but I'm not actually Yahweh. I'm an imposter. April fools. Gotcha!"
​

If you believe voices come from heaven and tell people to do things, how do you know that a voice coming from heaven and claiming to be God really is God?

So you are going to assume that any voice you hear really comes from God, and never deal with the "absurd hypothetical" that it might not be God?

 

[doubtingmerle]

That's not morality. That pragmatism.

Huh? You asked for my basis for morality. I responded with my basis for morality. You then complain that I just gave my basis for morality instead of answering a different question.

A better response would have been to thank me for answering your question.

​

I admire him too. You good? I wish I had as much faith.

You are referring to Abraham. You wish you had enough faith to set out to kill your son if a voice tells you to do that? If I hear a voice telling me to do that, I hope I have enough sense to get medical help.

Btw, Atheists have no objective standard for morality.

Do you have an objective basis for morality? All you have is a subjective opinion that the Bible accurately portrays an absolute morality, but your opinion on the Bible is subjective, yes?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Notwithstanding that we should all peacefully share the abundance provided by God, I'm pretty sure Canaan belonged to Abraham and his descendants long before the later centuries to which you're referring.

Is it really invasion when you're just returning home?

I'm pretty sure North America belonged to the American Indians and their descendants long ago.

If they were to attack and take the land back, does your question apply? Is it really an invasion when they are just returning home?

My answer: Centuries later, it is hardly equitable to say everybody gets the land their ancestors lost centuries ago.

According to the Bible, seventy people in Jacob's extended family left Canaan to go to Egypt. Are you going to tell me those 70 people owned all of Canaan?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I don't care about the spin of the song. To me it is a stupid song, and not worth my time. It doesn't represent how I think.

Well, it is a Christian song that was once popular on Christian radio.

And it reflects the attitude you stated here, that no matter how tough the laws were in that ancient theocracy, the people were not being forced to do it. They just did it willingly.

When a person is made "willing" by threats of death for wrong religion; for picking up sticks on the wrong day; for have sexual relations with people of the wrong gender; or for disobeying parents, is this really a case of "being willing"? Sounds more like force to me.

Anyway, that reminded me of the song I heard on Christian radio in my youth, that tells how God terrified people with punishments. The song said this was not force, but just a means of making people willing to go.

Speaking of songs from my youth, we also learned the song:

You shouldn't work on Sunday, Sunday, Sunday.
You shouldn't work on Sunday, because it is a sin.​

and:

Washing, ironing, dishes too,
These are things that girls can do.
I'll do it all for Jesus.
I'll do it all for Jesus.
I'll do it all for Jesus.
He did so much for me.
Boys can be as handy to,
with a hammer, wrench, or screw.
​

Sound fair to you?

 

[Paulomycin]

But how did Abraham know it was Elohim speaking? How did he know it was not an imposter claiming to be Elhoim? And if it was an imposter who told him to kill his son, and nobody stopped Abraham, then the knife went down.

Because the narrative already established a longstanding relationship between Abraham and God ever since Abraham left Ur in Chapter 12.

"Whoops. My bad."

You hate omnipotence, where there's no "whoops" and no "Plan B." We get it.

 

[Paulomycin]

Setting out to kill your son in this way is wrong, yes?

^ Once again, you need the believer to agree with you, so you can leech off of his Judeo-Christian ethic.

Because you have no objective standard of right or wrong.

 

[Paulomycin]

How do you know there is not some other universe out there controlled by a totally different God?

Wow. You un-intentonally brought us back on-topic!

"Some other universe" = a "possible worlds" argument. If you're going to bring up "possible worlds," then William Lane Craig's arguments start to kick-in.

But this implies that if God’s existence is even possible, then God must exist. For if a maximally great being exists in any possible world, He exists in all of them. That’s part of what it means to be maximally great – to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good in every logically possible world. So if God’s existence is even possible, then He exists in every logically possible world – and therefore in the actual world.

We can summarize this argument as follows:

1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

7. Therefore, God exists.

It might surprise you to learn that steps 2-7 of this argument are relatively uncontroversial. Most philosophers would agree that if God’s existence is even possible, then He must exist.

No two omnipotent beings can exist in the same reality. <-- Can you figure this one out on your own, or do you need help?

I also notice you have a lot of faith in pure speculation as-if they were real arguments.

 

[Paulomycin]

This is what you responded to. Why is this an absurd hypothetical?

For one thing, because you're doubling-down on what you atheists interpreat as pure fiction. You're arguing to a perceived fiction via an additional fictional speculation on-top of the previous one (one that is based on the initial perceived fiction).

What if Abraham was mistaken?

Translation: "What if this fictional account were even more fictional in an additional and more arbitrary direction; where not only I don't believe the scenario twice-over, but neither do you? Ha-ha!!!"

We might as well be debating "What If?" comics.

 

[Paulomycin]

Huh? You asked for my basis for morality. I responded with my basis for morality. You then complain that I just gave my basis for morality instead of answering a different question.

Pragmatism is preferential to trying out "what works," therefore subjective. I was hoping you'd have figured that out by now. Thus, you have no objective basis for the objective claim of morality. Morality is always an objectively universal claim. You can't be dodgy with it. And if you're not referring to anything universal, then you're not really referring to morality.

Do you have an objective basis for morality? All you have is a subjective opinion that the Bible accurately portrays an absolute morality, but your opinion on the Bible is subjective, yes?

General Revelation precedes Special Revelation.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Because the narrative already established a longstanding relationship between Abraham and God ever since Abraham left Ur in Chapter 12.

How did Abraham know that the voice he had a long term relationship was from God? What if Abraham was mistaken, and he was talking to an imposter?

Down comes the knife. "Whoops."

You hate omnipotence.

No I do not. Can you please deal with what I write, rather than make up things about me?

 

[doubtingmerle]

^ Once again, you need the believer to agree with you, so you can leech off of his Judeo-Christian ethic.

Because you have no objective standard of right or wrong.

I see you ignored the question you responded to. Why?

Again, the question you avoided is, "Setting out to kill your son in this way is wrong, yes?" That seems like an easy question to answer.

This is the Christian Apologetics section, dedicated to questions about Christianity. Are you interested in answering questions about your faith or not?

Regarding my basis of morality, I have explained it to you on this thread. You just ignore it, and declare (falsely) that my basis for morality is leeching off your religion. It is not.

Can you objectively prove that the words in your Bible are objective truth? If you cannot objectively show that the words in your Bible are objective truth, then it is just your subjective opinion that they are.