Yes, this lake is posited as a necessary being. Or else it wouldn´t be the "maximally greatest lake".
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, this lake is posited as a necessary being. Or else it wouldn´t be the "maximally greatest lake".I don't think so. Such a lake is not a necessary being like God would be. Rather, this lake is a contingent being. Hence the same argument cannot apply.
I think I've identified your major problem, philosophically:Strictly speaking, probably not. "Nothing" is a problematic concept. Even a vacuum is something.
St. Anselm, Archbishop of Cantebury (1033-1109), is the originator of the ontological argument, which he describes in the Proslogium as follows:
[Even a] fool, when he hears of … a being than which nothing greater can be conceived … understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his understanding.… And assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater.… Therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the very being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one, than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence, there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality.
The argument in this difficult passage can accurately be summarized in standard form:
1.It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
2.God exists as an idea in the mind.
3.A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4.Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
5.But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
6.Therefore, God exists.
The ontological argument is just awful.
So TreeofLife believes the best argument for the existence of God is the ontological argument? Here are a few articles related to the subject:
Anselm: Ontological Argument for the Gods Existence | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ontological Arguments (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Misunderstanding the Ontological Argument | Reasonable Faith
Ontological Argument for the Existence of God | Reasonable Faith
That being said, what does everyone think the best argument against the existence of God is? Or, can anyone think of a better argument for God's existence than the ontological argument?
I want to see Maximally Great Being comic books.
Hello all,
In your opinion, what's the very best argument for the existence of God? Conversely, what's the top argument against the existence of God? Interested to hear your responses and subsequent reasoning. Thanks!
The facts that believers come up with such semantics wizardry and that such a desperate argument has been brought forth for 1000 years as a strong argument at least doensn´t suggest to me that there´s much substance to the claim that it is supposed to support.Anselm: Ontological Argument for the Gods Existence | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
The argument in this difficult passage can accurately be summarized in standard form:
1.It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
2.God exists as an idea in the mind.
3.A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4.Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
5.But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
6.Therefore, God exists.
That being said, what does everyone think the best argument against the existence of God is?
The other standard arguments aren´t much better.Or, can anyone think of a better argument for God's existence than the ontological argument?
I guess in the end is just a matter of faith on both sides...
Again, that goes along with the definition of God. If God weren't necessary then he wouldn't be God. So the question is whether God is impossible or necessary. There's really no middle ground.
Any god or the Christian God specifically?
Yeah, we just have to define something as necessary, and - zadong - it will exist. Amazing.
I'd say the best argument against a god is that there is no established need for one in the first place.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?