ATHEISTS BTFO

from my brief readings, the logic follows as:

>you can imagine a being which no other being can be greater than
>god is a being which no other being can be greater than
>by definition, god must exist since a being which is exists in the mind and in reality is greater than a being which exists only in the mind

Anslem also made a second version of his Ontological argument to avoid the criticism of his first one that goes as follows:

>God is the greatest being imaginable
>a being that is necessary is greater than a being that isnt
>if god isnt necessary, then we can imagine a greater being than god
>by definition there is no greater being than god
>therefore god exists

yes, in some universe. same as trump might be clever in another universe.

but its possible that god exists, so he logically does exist, then therefore it is not possible that he doesn't exist.

That's pretty close, but the actual argument is a bit stranger. Let me ask you though: does this sound convincing? Honestly I don't understand people who believe that modal arguments work precisely because they supposedly isolate something to study its nature. Reasoning about "all possible worlds" is ambitious at least. The start of Plantinga's argument goes
>There is a world X where a supremely great being exists.
>To be supremely great you must be all-powerful etcetc in ALL possible worlds
>Since X proves existence of all-powerful etcetc in one world, its non-existence is impossible
>What is impossible in one world is impossible in all worlds
>So God exists.

Does this sound convincing? These worlds are "variations" on some sort of truth that can vary propositions independently (because why not?) and moves into atmospheric abstraction to make sure that all 'worlds' are consistent. Well whatever I'm ranting, don't like plantinga. Read aquinas.

>>a being that is necessary is greater than a being that isnt
Why?

>>a being that is necessary is greater than a being that isnt

Says who? This seems to infer some link between objective reality and an arbitrary conception of "greatness". This isn't a good argument.

Wow, crap your grandmother would needle point and hang on the wall.

There's no reason to accept the first premise.

Saying something follows logically doesn't magically make it logically follow....

Being necessary is contrasted by being accidental; being accidental means it owes its existence to something else; being necessary means it just is, a constant unbound by anything.
Necessity trumps accidentality because it stands alone and needs nothing.

That's technically always the case with formal reasoning though, since the point is to show how something leads to something else. But Plantinga himself admits that a rational person could reject his argument. The point is a reasoning structure from the premise. You can also do this if you believe it:
>No-max-greatness exists in some world X
>If no-max-greatness exists, then max-greatness (in all worlds) is impossible
>God doesn't exist
Anyway I still agree that plantinga's argument is pretty weak.

>if it is possible for talking elephants to exist, then it follows logically that talking elephants do exist

Doesn't that just lead to endlessly stupid pontificating?

That's not true at all. There are facts we agree upon a priori that we build our first premise off of. Usually these are things that are directly observable (i.e. things that match consensus-reality). Of course we all start with presuppositions but these presuppositions are necessary to make ANY deduction.

Are you an atheist with interest in cosmological arguments or maybe more aligned with the philosophy-is-just-semantics crowd?

What are you doing in a thread about cosmological arguments?

This thread isn't about cosmological arguments, it's about the existence of "God." The existence of a deity proves nothing about how the universe came about. You're confusing the ontological argument with the Kalam cosmological argument.

Ive typed up three different comments to try and argue what makes necessity greater than the lack of it, but it falls apart when you try and say, "a great being with necessity is greater than a great being without". It is because it is is where you end up

Ah true I indeed meant the ontological argument of course. My question still stands though: what has an empiricist to do with a thread like this?

I never liked the whole "possible worlds" thing that some philosophers do

>If it is possible that my dick is not caught in this door, then it is necessarily not caught in this door.

So what exactly makes a god possible?

Interestingly, the propositions...

>"This is a universe in which the existence of a god is possible"

and

>"This is a universe in which the existence of a god is not possible"

...both comport PERFECTLY to our observed universe.

As Leibniz shows in Identity of Indiscernibles, if a theoretical object is EXACTLY the same as another, it is the other. In other words, the claim in OPs image is bullshit.

Attached: Julian.png (377x596, 194K)

if it is possible that op is a faggot, then it follows LOGICALLY that op is definitely a faggot

>It is possible that OP is faggot then it follows logically that OP is faggot
>It is possible jews are right then it follows logically that jews are right
>It is possible that trump is post op tranny then it follows logically that rump is post op tranny
If someone doesnt see problem with this argument you should go back to africa

logicmuseum.com/ontological/aristotleontological.htm

Here is some proper logic as to why god (Or some higher power) exists

>logicmuseum

Indeed.

Do you have an issue with the website? Sorry you need to say more than that to make sense

rational people are traditional catholics

We don't even know if its possible that God exists. Maybe the nature of laws of our universe excludes the possibility of God to exist and we just don't know it because our knowledge is not sufficient enough. The notion that its possible that God exists is no more true than statement that its possible that there is a giant primordial sentient octopus somewhere in space affecting our lives with it's special psychic powers.

/thread

Attached: BOJpQsU.png (459x631, 158K)

But that's wrong.

HAHAHA

Attached: file.png (749x1003, 408K)

To make a stupid argument fit, of course.

Attached: file.png (720x600, 251K)

grow old.. bear grown down to your balls.
balls down to knees.. pure white hair..
a life time of isolation.

"POSSIBLE IS POSSIBLE SO IT IS!"

a lifetime of thought.

> Fucking with the brain
> Whoa it changes the way people think
> actually surprised and use this to prove anything

thank you based magnet man

implying that the greatest being MUST be a god that is only true if we go on the premise that god exists and then basically you are saying he exists because he does
implying that what you imagine has ANY impact on reality, what you imagine and what is arent necessarily connected

not to mention the circular logic, if you skip all the middle steps its basically if i imagine there is a god there must be a god because its impossible for him not to be because he is imagined by me

btw im a theist(betters said an agnostic who accepts irrationally believing in a god) its just that he cant be proven in this world otherwise whats the point of faith then it wouldnt be faith it would just be stating a fact

>People only believe in god when he poses a threat in their mind

How will christfags ever recover?

Attached: 1510511233445.jpg (900x1200, 203K)

if you believe in the multiverse then its 100% certain that god exists

checkmate ahteists
sucks that we're in the universe that doesnt have one though

If the everything MUST have a creator, and that creator is God, then who created God?

Really tho, these threads are getting in the way of Jow Forums. Everyone here wants more conservative centric government so who cares if there is a God? If we all stop focusing on The whole God thing we could get most of what we want.

Attached: 20030421.jpg (576x898, 184K)

Wouldn't that make God not-all-powerful and therefore non-existant?

>literally have to disable brain functionality to believe that there's no God

lmaoing @ your life

If there was a God, it would likely exist outside the universe and the boundaries of spacetime so there wouldn't be a "beginning point"

Your brain is already disabled, then, as you failed to read the subtitle:
>By shutting down the threat-processing centre of the brain [...]

Also,
>>literally have to disable brain functionality to believe that there's no God
I have been to several neurologists to get a benign condition tested.
After extensive research and mental inquiries, they have all concluded that my brain activities were acting normal.

Attached: 1510435293483.jpg (1024x1559, 334K)

>I believe in god because he said he'd fuck me up

RETARD

>benign

I think he meant that he exists in the minds of those who believe in him