Anselm's Second Ontological Argument

[doubtingmerle]

No two omnipotent beings can exist in the same reality.

How do you know that God is omnipotent? Because some people say that he says so?

How do you know that the people that tell you that God says he is omnipotent are correct?

And even if God said he was omnipotent, how would he know? He could know that he was powerful enough to control everything he knows about, but how would he know there is not something out there he does not know about?

Are the men in this picture in control? Its the unknown unknowns that get you.

 

[Paulomycin]

How did Abraham know that the voice he had a long term relationship was from God?

Omnipotence is perfectly capable of removing all doubt and establishing certainty.

What if Abraham was mistaken, and he was talking to an imposter?

Fulfilled prophesy demonstrates otherwise.

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

It's not about you at all, it's about omnipotence. Forced doubt and purely speculative "What Ifs" don't change anything.

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

Because you're ignoring exactly how the answer I gave is relevant.

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.

1. I already stated that Abraham was willing to take the sin upon himself.
2. Once again, you need the believer to agree with you, so you can leech off of his Judeo-Christian ethic. Why? Because atheists have no objective standard of right or wrong.

Learn to pay attention to my posts. Pretty sick and tired of repeating myself.

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.

You have no other Westernized cultural alternatives you can appeal to.

Can you objectively prove that the words in your Bible are objective truth?

(a.) General Revelation and (b.) the historical evidence of the Resurrection objectively prove that the words of the Bible are objective truth. (c.) Atheists have no proof or evidence of objective truth.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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!!!"

You need a better translator, I think.

 

[Paulomycin]

How do you know that God is omnipotent? Because some people say that he says so?

No. My only claim is an omnipotent being. Igtheists and Ignostics are correct about one thing: The word "god" is terribly vague and requires a clear and consistent definition. So vague, in fact, that no discussion can continue without a clear and consistent definition of God. So I chose an attribute instead of a name. I chose to define God as "an omnipotent being."

How do you know that the people that tell you that God says he is omnipotent are correct?

I don't adhere to the mere claim of "God says he is omnipotent." Omnipotence can be tested from all religious claims and mythical narratives.

And even if God said he was omnipotent, how would he know?

Again, it's not based on the mere claim, but you can't infer that from an earlier answer, so I'm redundantly answering here, lest you badger me about it.

He could know that he was powerful enough to control everything he knows about, but how would he know there is not something out there he does not know about?

Omnipotence implies the potential for omniscience.

Are the men in this picture in control?

No, the men in this picture are not in control.

 

[Paulomycin]

You need a better translator, I think.

No, you're simply compounding fictions from your POV.

 

[Paulomycin]

You need a better translator, I think.

Why do you reject a perceived "What If" speculation by adding even more wild substitute speculations? I really don't recall any atheist doing this. Is this some sort of new atheist fad, or recommended strategy? How does that even work from your POV, "I'll defeat this myth by adding a myth on top of the previous myth! Ha-ha!"

 

[doubtingmerle]

your morality is not a foundational prescriptive "ought" that is universal, but rather founded on an "if, then" preference. Here, you re-state it.

Uh ,everybody who choses to live needs morality. Those that are dead don't.

So my morality applies only to the living. You have a problem with that?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I chose to define God as "an omnipotent being."

Suppose for argument that an omnipotent being exists. How do you know that the Yahweh of the Bible is that omnipotent one?

I don't adhere to the mere claim of "God says he is omnipotent." Omnipotence can be tested from all religious claims and mythical narratives.

Fair enough. Has there ever been a test that shows that Yahweh is omnipotent? If so, please describe the test that shows that.

Your test must show that this being is more powerful than anything that could exist outside of our realm of knowledge.

Good luck with that one.

Omnipotence implies the potential for omniscience.

Suppose a being thinks he is both omnipotent and omniscient. How would he know for certain that there is not some being outside of his knowledge that is more powerful than him?

No, the men in this picture are not in control.

Correct. From their point of view, the men in the picture were safely fishing by themselves in the stream. They didn't know there was a bear behind them. Likewise, a being might think he is omnipotent, but not know there is a more powerful being out beyond what he currently is aware of.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Omnipotence is perfectly capable of removing all doubt and establishing certainty.

You say this in response to, "How did Abraham know that the voice he had a long term relationship was from God?"

Your response is irrelevant.

Saying that Yahweh would have been convincing does not negate that some other convincing being might have been the one Abraham was hearing all that time.

Fulfilled prophesy demonstrates otherwise.

You say this in response to, "What if Abraham was mistaken, and he was talking to an imposter?"

Huh? What fulfilled prophecy do you think proves that the voice that spoke to Abraham was not an imposter?

Because you're ignoring exactly how the answer I gave is relevant.

I did not ignore your answer.

But you refused to answer this question: "Setting out to kill your son as Abraham set out to do is wrong, yes?"

Do you have no answer?

1. I already stated that Abraham was willing to take the sin upon himself.

What does this even mean? And how does that address the question?

2. Once again, you need the believer to agree with you, so you can leech off of his Judeo-Christian ethic. Why? Because atheists have no objective standard of right or wrong.

I have explained multiple times why this is false.

But even if it is true it is a red herring. In no sense does this answer my simple question: "Setting out to kill your son as Abraham set out to do is wrong, yes?"

You have no other Westernized cultural alternatives you can appeal to.

Actually when you brought this up before, I mentioned alternatives I could appeal to like the Greeks, Egyptians, and American Indians. Why do you ignore what I write?

(a.) General Revelation and (b.) the historical evidence of the Resurrection objectively prove that the words of the Bible are objective truth. (c.) Atheists have no proof or evidence of objective truth.

No, none of these prove that the words in the Bible are objective truth.

You claim "General Revelation" but that is nothing more than a claim, not proof.

And there is no credible evidence for the resurrection. (See Are There Credible Witnesses to the Resurrection, Part II | Christian Forums).

And regardless of whether the atheists have proof, that in no way proves that the Bible is objective truth.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

@Clizby WampusCat

Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) states, "If Reason, therefore Reasoner." IOW, there is no sufficient doubt to warrant that, "If Reason, therefore Reasoner" is unreasonable. Therefore, PSR is necessarily true beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm going so far as to claim that PSR is an axiomatic deductive law in-itself.

I disagree as I have said many times. Just because something is reasonable to believe does not mean it is true. It was once reasonable to believe the earth is flat or that the earth is the center of the universe. You need to provide good evidence that a reasoner exists.

If PSR is subject to forced (i.e. "unreasonable") doubt, then it is no longer clear that whoever is making this objection is capable of reason themselves. In a literal sense.

I am not forcing doubt. I truly do not believe your premise has been substantiated.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Universal logic is both valid and true, therefore sound. If you reject universal logic, then you're either a misologist, an absurdist, or insane.

PSR is both valid and true, therefore sound. I'm just applying PSR universally.

But that is not your argument that I am objecting to is it.

It doesn't matter what you said. What matters is what flat-earthers' arguments are founded on. In this case, it's their presuppositon that the Earth is not round. Then all their arguments are based on that confirmation bias. Just admit that. Why are you fighting so hard for flat-earthers?

All I have said is that flat earthers are convinced by the evidence they evaluate. Just because you and I are not convinced does not make them all of a sudden disbelieve a flat earth.

I see you're not in much of a hurry to actually correct me on the purported "true" knowledge of the nature of belief. Therefore, I can only conclude that you're faking it.

Ok

YES I AM, because the negation of "evens" directly implies "odds." Where do you get this garbage? I would not be claiming a real unknown or "indeterminate" between evens and odds, because an indeterminate is not a determinate thing! If indeterminate, then only "evens or odds," but since I'm denying "evens" in the example, then I can only be claiming an odd number of marbles in the bucket.

You are confusing belief and actual truth. You are absolutely wrong here. If someone says I do not believe there are an even number of marbles in the bucket that are not saying there are an odd number. If you think about this I think you will get it.

"Lack" remains (deliberately) ambiguous due to the clear either/or in the definition. It's a coy little game that a lot of atheists play, like "maybe, maybe not." They can't commit to anything, because they need wiggle room to escape.

Most words have different meanings. I told you which definition I was using. You are playing games.

Reminder: You're an atheist. You have zero evidence of any objective standard of truth. You're just too afraid to jump into the bottomless pit of existential anomie. You want it both ways, but I'm afraid you can't have it both ways. If "100%," as you said, then you're completely settled and closed-minded about the subject. Simple.

Ho hum. Again you attempt to tell me what I believe.

"Convincing" means "something that will force itself through my subjective incredulity." Persuasion is subjective. Evidence is objective. Prove anything (anything!) beyond any doubt whatsoever, and I guarantee that someone can still slam their "nuh-uh" arbitrary doubt, mistrust, or suspicion against it. That's how it works. That's why I brought up flat-earthers to begin with, because that's what they're doing. The most hilarious bit is how you defend them.

Nope, I dealt with tis above, you are a one trick pony I am afraid.

There are so many deliberate gaps in this alleged backstory I could drive a truck through them. Do you realize how many times I've punched through this rotten drywall? Where did you "start to think" about your beliefs? Weren't you just really looking for a way out? If you had something to think about, then why are you hiding it and not giving me the exact same thing to think about that you did? Is what you "thought about" so sacred that you cannot share it to deconvert someone else? Why the mere threats? Admit it, you were just a CHRINO and you just wanted a way out.

You cannot possibly know that. I was a true believer for 18 years. I know that scares the hell out of you.

1.

If the initial argument assumes the God of the Bible, then I don't have to. Moving the goalposts just makes you look bad.

Then you need to give good evidence that your premise is true, that god exists, or your argument is not sound.

2. If you really used to be a Christian "for a long time," then you'd have known that General Revelation necessarily precedes Special Revelation.

That is, assuming they taught you anything at church. If "I used to be a Christian for a long time," means your parents dragged you to church as a kid and you spent every Sunday finger-painting Noah's Ark or playing youth basketball, then I blame your Children's Ministry; not you.

Why don't you ask instead of assuming all kinds of things about me? I became a Christian as an adult. I lost my belief because of studying for once to see if my beliefs were true. I became unconvinced during the process.

Can I ask why you are so hostile? Can you just have a conversation?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

See this thing you do? I keep hearing it from mockers. Abraham didn't 'kill children'. There weren't 'talking snakes' nor talking donkeys' in the Bible. Why do you do that?

Ahh, I was responding to the story of God telling Israelites to kill the Amalekites even the children. I never mentioned Abraham or talking snakes or donkeys.

 

[Paulomycin]

Uh ,everybody who choses to live needs morality. Those that are dead don't.

Uhh, then you don't need to phrase it as a subjective "if/then" option.

So my morality applies only to the living. You have a problem with that?

The problem is that your "morality" only applies to those living with subjectivism.

 

[Paulomycin]

Suppose for argument that an omnipotent being exists. How do you know that the Yahweh of the Bible is that omnipotent one?

1. Well, for one thing, by this supposition you've also supposed that atheism is falsified. That makes the entire discussion a purely theological one.

2. Once omnipotence is applied as a litmus test to all religious claims (which isn't the chore atheists make it out to be), then all you end up with are the "big three" of monotheism. We can go even further than that, but I don't want to leave you in the dust. I'm sure you have more than enough questions at this stage, so I'll just leave it here for now.

Fair enough. Has there ever been a test that shows that Yahweh is omnipotent? If so, please describe the test that shows that.

Simply apply omnipotence as a litmus test for all religious claims, including Yahweh.

For example, take Thor:

Thor is the son of Odin. <-- Whoops! That means there was a time when Thor was non-existent. That's not omnipotent. Thor is then quickly eliminated.

What about Odin? Well, Odin's the son of Bor, so same thing. Odin's not omnipotent.

What about Bor? Well, same as Odin, and on and on. . .until their lineage goes all the way back to a celestial cow.

"Cow," when consistently and honestly applied, is always limited to the form-designation of "cow." A cow can never be anything other than "cow." So, the cow is not omnipotent either.

It's a fun little game to play. You can take out all pantheons with it.

To be fair, even a few interpretations of "the big three" in monotheism.

Your test must show that this being is more powerful than anything that could exist outside of our realm of knowledge.

Or, that all other religious claims within our realm of knowledge fail to stack up.

Suppose a being thinks he is both omnipotent and omniscient. How would he know for certain that there is not some being outside of his knowledge that is more powerful than him?

a.) You're contradicting yourself. If omnipotent and omniscient (the latter is simply a necessary extension of the former), then certainty would exist that there is not some being outside of His knowledge (this is where the contradiction hits) that is more powerful than He is.

b.) No two omnipotent beings of distinct nature can rationally exist in the same reality. Only one can be truly omnipresent and omnipotent in-regards to the other.

Correct. From their point of view, the men in the picture were safely fishing by themselves in the stream. They didn't know there was a bear behind them. Likewise, a being might think he is omnipotent, but not know there is a more powerful being out beyond what he currently is aware of.

Then that being would not be truly omnipotent. If not omniscient, then not omnipotent. The argument, "What if He just thinks He's omniscient?," is essentially referring to a hypothetical non-omniscient being.

Oh, and you're compounding pure speculation again.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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?

Now I'm not sure how I can even begin to take you seriously. You propose some self-contradictory hypothetical, and run post after post on it, demanding a serious answer --THAT was a serious joke!

Any useful definition of God (who is not 'a god') is Omnipotence, which logically implies many things, including consistent and 'unchanging', i.e. 'does not contradict himself'. Yet you want to know what I would do if he did contradict himself. I think we've gone down this road far enough.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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!"

How is that NOT absurd? "What if God is not God?"

 

[Kylie]

How is that NOT absurd? "What if God is not God?"

Seems to me the question is, "What if this thing you thought was God was actually something else and you only just thought it was God?"

That doesn't seem absurd to me. It also seems like it would be quite important for you to have some way of determining if what you feel is actually from God or from something else that appears as god-like.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ahh, I was responding to the story of God telling Israelites to kill the Amalekites even the children. I never mentioned Abraham or talking snakes or donkeys.

My bad. My assuming....

 

[Mark Quayle]

Seems to me the question is, "What if this thing you thought was God was actually something else and you only just thought it was God?"

But that isn't what he said. I don't doubt he wanted to hint at the fact that some Christians are whacko, and I know they are, but he needs to be more specific if that's his point. He left it wide open for him to be able to do the gotcha! of "So if God told you to kill you would kill, regardless...".

That doesn't seem absurd to me. It also seems like it would be quite important for you to have some way of determining if what you feel is actually from God or from something else that appears as god-like.

There is a way. God does not contradict himself. That is one reason why we use the Bible for an 'anchor' to our minds. God will not contradict it. If I hear a voice telling me something God would not tell me, it is not God.

 

[Paulomycin]

Saying that Yahweh would have been convincing does not negate that some other convincing being might have been the one Abraham was hearing all that time.

But not in that isolated context alone. We're talking about One omnipotent being that kept the promise to Abraham throughout scripture. It's one consistent message. The apostle Paul notes the same consistency with fulfilled prophesy in Romans 4:3 and Galatians 3:6, as well as James in James 2:23. Also the author of Hebrews notes the same consistency in Hebrews 6:13, 11:8 , and 11:17. "Some other convincing being," would have contradicted it. Again, this is a single consistent and integrated message of redemption. Therefore, that consistency demonstrates one source.

You say this in response to, "What if Abraham was mistaken, and he was talking to an imposter?"

Answered above, but redundantly so in anticipation of lame "gotcha badgering."

Huh? What fulfilled prophecy do you think proves that the voice that spoke to Abraham was not an imposter?

Answered above, but redundantly so in anticipation of lame "gotcha badgering."

I did not ignore your answer.

You're not ignoring the answer, but you are ignoring "how" it was stated. So to drag out your intentional redundancy, I'll continue repeating myself further:

1. I already stated that Abraham was willing to take the sin upon himself. <-- This already acknowledges and agrees that it is a bad thing.
2. Once again, you need the believer to agree with you, so you can leech off of his Judeo-Christian ethic. Why? Because atheists have no objective standard of right or wrong. <-- This continues to be a very real problem for you that cannot be blithely dismissed.

But you refused to answer this question: "Setting out to kill your son as Abraham set out to do is wrong, yes?"

Do you have no answer?

Posting the same to appease your deliberate redundancy:

1. I already stated that Abraham was willing to take the sin upon himself. <-- This already acknowledges and agrees that it is a bad thing.
2. Once again, you need the believer to agree with you, so you can leech off of his Judeo-Christian ethic. Why? Because atheists have no objective standard of right or wrong. <-- This continues to be a very real problem for you that cannot be blithely dismissed.

What does this even mean? And how does that address the question?

"sin" = "objective wrong" Please pay attention.

I have explained multiple times why this is false.

Subjectively, but not objectively. Morality is an objective universal claim. You can't step around it with optional "if" preferences. Morality isn't a preference.

But even if it is true it is a red herring.

It's not a red herring, because it illustrates the atheist failure to account for right or wrong entirely on their own, while seek dependency on my Judeo-Christian ethic instead.

Actually when you brought this up before, I mentioned alternatives I could appeal to like the Greeks, Egyptians, and American Indians. Why do you ignore what I write?

Because Western Civilization was not primarily founded on the Egyptians, and American Indians. However, the Roman Catholic Church found consistent observations harmonious with Greek philosophy, but the church's conclusion was that even Greek pagans confirm Romans 1:18-20. I agree with this position.

No, none of these prove that the words in the Bible are objective truth.

And that's where your "nuh-uh" assertion begins and ends. You have nothing to really counter it apart from a blase "nuh-uh."

(a.) General Revelation would only match with one form of Special Revelation, and vice-versa. See the omnipotence litmus test I posted earlier.
(b.) Historical evidence of the Resurrection (see Gary Habermas) would determine, "If Jesus were truly resurrected, then it would confirm everything He said about Himself, as well as scripture. It would prove that Jesus Christ is God incarnate." Jesus was an orthodox Jew. Jesus fulfilled the Jewish prophesy. Jesus rose from the dead. Therefore, the Bible is objective truth.
(c.) The statement, "Atheists have no proof or evidence of objective truth," means you have no objective argument to the contrary. This isn't about your will. I'm not here to personally convince you. The facts remain regardless of your forced incredulity.

You claim "General Revelation" but that is nothing more than a claim, not proof.

As I've stated numerous times before, we've had over 700+ years of the proof of General Revelation. No atheist or general secularist has ever objectively refuted any of the Classical logical arguments for the existence of God. If deductive logic, therefore proof.

And there is no credible evidence for the resurrection. (See Are There Credible Witnesses to the Resurrection, Part II | Christian Forums).

No wild goose chases, please. I cited Habermas. Did anyone in that thread cite Habermas? If so, exactly and specifically how was he refuted? <-- Show your work.