Question About the Ontological Argument

[Wootloops]

I recently came across the ontological argument through this playlist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzhup2bMG8I...6DA&index=0

"...is convinced that something exists in the understanding, at least, than which nothing greater can be conceived. For when he hears of this he understands it. And whatever is understood exists in the 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 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. And it assuredly exists so truly that in cannot be conceived not to exist. For it is possible to conceive of a being which cannot be conceived not to exist. Hence, if that than which nothing greater can be conceived, can be conceived not to exist, it is not that than which nothing greater can be conceived. But this is an irreconcilable contradiction. There is, then, so truly a being than which nothing greater can be conceived to exist, that it cannot even be conceived not to exist; and this being thou art, O Lord our God."

-Anselm of Canterbury, Proslogium, in Anne Fremantle, The Age of Belief (New York: New American Library, 1954), p88-89.

This is the basic layout of the ontological argument for God's existence (Note that this is not arguing any particular God, just a God of absolutes and perfection.):

1. If God does not exist, his existence is logically impossible (because by definition God is eternal and independent so He cannot come into being or be caused to come into being).

2. If God does exist, his existence is logically necessary (because He cannot have come into existence [see above] or cease to exist, for if he did, he would be limited, and by definition God is unlimited).

3. Either God's existence is logically impossible or it is logically necessary.

4. If God's existence is logically impossible, then the concept of God is self-contradictory.

5. The concept of God is not self-contradictory. (It is impossible to conceptualize the self-contradictory)

6. Therefore, God's existence is logically necessary.

7. Therefore, God exists.

In this video, the person defines the attributes God would have to have in order for this argument to work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfGxuBKKPY8...6DA&index=5

At 2:30 he states that God would have to be all good and omnibenevolent.

This is where my question comes in. In order for God to be perfect he would require all absolutes, so if God is all good, then he must also be all evil. God cannot be all evil and all good, for that would make him self-contradictory, therefor God would be logically impossible, and therefor God does not exist. Would I be right in stating this?

[Lt_Ripley]

I recently came across the ontological argument through this playlist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzhup2bMG8I...6DA&index=0

"...is convinced that something exists in the understanding, at least, than which nothing greater can be conceived. For when he hears of this he understands it. And whatever is understood exists in the 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 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. And it assuredly exists so truly that in cannot be conceived not to exist. For it is possible to conceive of a being which cannot be conceived not to exist. Hence, if that than which nothing greater can be conceived, can be conceived not to exist, it is not that than which nothing greater can be conceived. But this is an irreconcilable contradiction. There is, then, so truly a being than which nothing greater can be conceived to exist, that it cannot even be conceived not to exist; and this being thou art, O Lord our God."

-Anselm of Canterbury, Proslogium, in Anne Fremantle, The Age of Belief (New York: New American Library, 1954), p88-89.

This is the basic layout of the ontological argument for God's existence (Note that this is not arguing any particular God, just a God of absolutes and perfection.):

1. If God does not exist, his existence is logically impossible (because by definition God is eternal and independent so He cannot come into being or be caused to come into being).

2. If God does exist, his existence is logically necessary (because He cannot have come into existence [see above] or cease to exist, for if he did, he would be limited, and by definition God is unlimited).

3. Either God's existence is logically impossible or it is logically necessary.

4. If God's existence is logically impossible, then the concept of God is self-contradictory.

5. The concept of God is not self-contradictory. (It is impossible to conceptualize the self-contradictory)

6. Therefore, God's existence is logically necessary.

7. Therefore, God exists.

In this video, the person defines the attributes God would have to have in order for this argument to work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfGxuBKKPY8...6DA&index=5

At 2:30 he states that God would have to be all good and omnibenevolent.

This is where my question comes in. In order for God to be perfect he would require all absolutes, so if God is all good, then he must also be all evil. God cannot be all evil and all good, for that would make him self-contradictory, therefor God would be logically impossible, and therefor God does not exist. Would I be right in stating this?

I thought it was all laughable as soon as it said 'define God' . when that happens everything goes out the window. Our logic and God doesn't mix. that's why religions don't make any sense either since it's man trying to define God.

God may be nothing more than our collective energy , good and evil , sour and sweet. both sides of 1 coin.

Edited August 6, 2008 by Lt_Ripley

[Leonardo]

I recently came across the ontological argument through this playlist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzhup2bMG8I...6DA&index=0

"...is convinced that something exists in the understanding, at least, than which nothing greater can be conceived. For when he hears of this he understands it. And whatever is understood exists in the 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 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. And it assuredly exists so truly that in cannot be conceived not to exist. For it is possible to conceive of a being which cannot be conceived not to exist. Hence, if that than which nothing greater can be conceived, can be conceived not to exist, it is not that than which nothing greater can be conceived. But this is an irreconcilable contradiction. There is, then, so truly a being than which nothing greater can be conceived to exist, that it cannot even be conceived not to exist; and this being thou art, O Lord our God."

-Anselm of Canterbury, Proslogium, in Anne Fremantle, The Age of Belief (New York: New American Library, 1954), p88-89.

This is the basic layout of the ontological argument for God's existence (Note that this is not arguing any particular God, just a God of absolutes and perfection.):

1. If God does not exist, his existence is logically impossible (because by definition God is eternal and independent so He cannot come into being or be caused to come into being).

2. If God does exist, his existence is logically necessary (because He cannot have come into existence [see above] or cease to exist, for if he did, he would be limited, and by definition God is unlimited).

3. Either God's existence is logically impossible or it is logically necessary.

4. If God's existence is logically impossible, then the concept of God is self-contradictory.

5. The concept of God is not self-contradictory. (It is impossible to conceptualize the self-contradictory)

6. Therefore, God's existence is logically necessary.

7. Therefore, God exists.

In this video, the person defines the attributes God would have to have in order for this argument to work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfGxuBKKPY8...6DA&index=5

At 2:30 he states that God would have to be all good and omnibenevolent.

This is where my question comes in. In order for God to be perfect he would require all absolutes, so if God is all good, then he must also be all evil. God cannot be all evil and all good, for that would make him self-contradictory, therefor God would be logically impossible, and therefor God does not exist. Would I be right in stating this?

Most, if not all, of the arguments for the existence of God (and most, if not all, the arguments against to be fair) rely on a weak assumption within them that might seem logically plausible, but can be easily deconstructed.

In the argument above, point 1, 2 and 3 are logically strong, but point 4 is weak.

For something to be self-contradictory, that thing must exist for it to contradict itself. Now we can say the concept of God exists (and is not self-contradictory), but conception is not existence (at least with regards to our imagination) - and the second part of point 4 regarding the concept of God is therefore unrelated to the first part of point 4 regarding the existence of God - thus points 5, 6 and 7 (declaring the existence of God as true) do not logically follow from such a concept/argument.

Edited August 6, 2008 by Leonardo

[eight bits]

Wootloops, your counterargument is among the more thoughtful refutations of Anselm's argument, but it is overkill. The issue is ontological status, and it was well establish long before Anselm ever showed up that people can conceive of things which do not exist.

However, what would refute Anselm's notion of God would not work against everyone else's god notion, in particular

that would make him self-contradictory

In some conceptions, godhood (or any existence in eternity in whatever capacity) entails transcendence or reconciliation of all pairs of opposites.

Example: once upon a time, somebody started a thread with the premise what if God showed himself and announced "I do not exist."

Predictably, this was interpreted as flamebait, flame did in fact ensue, and the thread was closed.

So, I never got the chance to post my own reaction. At the risk of sounding like Crocodile Dundee, "Now that's a god."

Finally, rofl at the very idea of studying theology by watching youtube .

[Leonardo]

Wootloops, your counterargument is among the more thoughtful refutations of Anselm's argument, but it is overkill. The issue is ontological status, and it was well establish long before Anselm ever showed up that people can conceive of things which do not exist.

However, what would refute Anselm's notion of God would not work against everyone else's god notion, in particular

In some conceptions, godhood (or any existence in eternity in whatever capacity) entails transcendence or reconciliation of all pairs of opposites.

Example: once upon a time, somebody started a thread with the premise what if God showed himself and announced "I do not exist."

Predictably, this was interpreted as flamebait, flame did in fact ensue, and the thread was closed.

So, I never got the chance to post my own reaction. At the risk of sounding like Crocodile Dundee, "Now that's a god."

Finally, rofl at the very idea of studying theology by watching youtube .

In this case, e.b., God would be Ourobouros and disappear very quickly (in an eternity of quickly's) into His own infinite gullet.

[Mr Walker]

1. If God does not exist, his existence is logically impossible (because by definition God is eternal and independent so He cannot come into being or be caused to come into being).

Thats only one (and probably incorrect) concept/definition of god

2. If God does exist, his existence is logically necessary (because He cannot have come into existence [see above] or cease to exist, for if he did, he would be limited, and by definition God is unlimited).

3. Either God's existence is logically impossible or it is logically necessary.

4. If God's existence is logically impossible, then the concept of God is self-contradictory.

5. The concept of God is not self-contradictory. (It is impossible to conceptualize the self-contradictory)

6. Therefore, God's existence is logically necessary.

7. Therefore, God exists.

The rest of these just make assumptions which are plain silly, or they construct self serving definitions which are not necessarily correct.

For example, who says it is impossible to conceptualise the self contradictory, or that if gods existence is logically impossible then the concept of god is self contradictory. For example, hobbits are logically impossible, but at least one person conceived of them. There actually isnt any connection between what may or may not exist, and what the human imagination can conceive of.

God exists, for me, because he offers the same evidence for his existence as my wife does for hers, for example. This makes the rest of this argument extraneous and ultimately pointless.

The whole problem withnthe above argument is that it begins with a god more suited to a philosophical human construct than a real physical living god such as that which interacts with humanity.

In other words it is a philosophical srgument over a philosophical construct, and thus as worthless as all such arguments and constructs in real/practical terms

[Wootloops]

Thats only one (and probably incorrect) concept/definition of god

The rest of these just make assumptions which are plain silly, or they construct self serving definitions which are not necessarily correct.

For example, who says it is impossible to conceptualise the self contradictory, or that if gods existence is logically impossible then the concept of god is self contradictory. For example, hobbits are logically impossible, but at least one person conceived of them. There actually isnt any connection between what may or may not exist, and what the human imagination can conceive of.

God exists, for me, because he offers the same evidence for his existence as my wife does for hers, for example. This makes the rest of this argument extraneous and ultimately pointless.

The whole problem withnthe above argument is that it begins with a god more suited to a philosophical human construct than a real physical living god such as that which interacts with humanity.

In other words it is a philosophical srgument over a philosophical construct, and thus as worthless as all such arguments and constructs in real/practical terms

An example would be to ask if you could conceive of a square circle. I imagine that you can't, and neither can I, so you cannot really conceptualize the self-contradictory.

[Leonardo]

An example would be to ask if you could conceive of a square circle. I imagine that you can't, and neither can I, so you cannot really conceptualize the self-contradictory.

A cylinder, having a diameter equal to it's depth, could be seen as a circle or a square depending on perspective (end vs side view) so could (with a little licence) be said to be both a square and a circle. Often, what we deem self-contradictory is only so within a limited perspective.

[Mr Walker]

Thanks leonardo. i was going to say i had no trouble visualising/ conceptualising a square circle (or a circular square )(but then i think in words not images) and it was only when you mentioned a cylinder that i realised that was one of the forms i was thinking of.

The great thing about not being able to visualise any form of mental image is that one can actually conceive of anything because one is not limited to the physical forms which restrict those who think/see things in their minds in visual forms.

Thus i have never had the slightest difficulty conceptualising/ imagining infinity or nothingness either, although people who see in visual imagery seem to think such conceptions are impossible.

Intellectually/in verbal thought, a square and a cricle are not necessarily contradictory. Tthey may be extensions of the same thing (as tangents are extensions of a circle and intellectually i can form a square out of the tangents from a circle) or adaptations of something similar. While they appear different this does not make them contradictory.

[+Sherapy]

wootloops, looove that name by the way...*giggles*

one of the reasons the ontological argument is said to fail is it infers existance of something from a word....or a priori argument which is the one that claims you can discover the truth of somethng by the analysis of the subject term.....

yet construed god is at best a title not a name ....

it is held the two most famous ontological arguments were by St. Anslem and Decartes which later the classical writers (Kant and Gaunlino) claimed to refute....

Edited August 6, 2008 by Tangerine Sheri

[eight bits]

In this case, e.b., God would be Ourobouros and disappear very quickly (in an eternity of quickly's) into His own infinite gullet.

And yet be unconsumed...

I don't offer any of this as my personal take on God, but only as I said, a conception of the godhead which is different from Anselm's, which would survive any refutation of Anselm's conception, and which is actually attested as believed by somebody.

[+Sherapy]

Wootloops, your counterargument is among the more thoughtful refutations of Anselm's argument, but it is overkill. The issue is ontological status, and it was well establish long before Anselm ever showed up that people can conceive of things which do not exist.

However, what would refute Anselm's notion of God would not work against everyone else's god notion, in particular

In some conceptions, godhood (or any existence in eternity in whatever capacity) entails transcendence or reconciliation of all pairs of opposites.

Example: once upon a time, somebody started a thread with the premise what if God showed himself and announced "I do not exist."

Predictably, this was interpreted as flamebait, flame did in fact ensue, and the thread was closed.

So, I never got the chance to post my own reaction. At the risk of sounding like Crocodile Dundee, "Now that's a god."

Finally, rofl at the very idea of studying theology by watching youtube .

EB i'd add that the advance or failure of an argument is that an argument has to be more than valid it has to be 'sound' the premise for the argument itself must be true.....

logicians say it this way validity is truth preserving, but what an Argument won't do is is turn a falsehood into a truth....

if you have corrupt premises to begin with you can argue as validly as you please but it won't get you anywhere ...

assumptions have to be true and lets just say it god is based on assumption .....

existance isn't a property.. 'Kant'

this is another reason OA is said to fail....

Edited August 6, 2008 by Tangerine Sheri

[An Urban Legend]

Leonardo-

A cylinder, having a diameter equal to it's depth, could be seen as a circle or a square depending on perspective (end vs side view) so could (with a little licence) be said to be both a square and a circle. Often, what we deem self-contradictory is only so within a limited perspective.

Your just trying to say a self contradictory thing can very well exist depending on the perception of the object; I disagree with that. Yes, depending upon the viewpoint one could say the described cylinder is a square from this position yet a circle from the next but objectively it's not both, it cannot be. The position from which you view an object can influence the perception of an object therefore changing an objects appearance, but it's a leap of faith to say an object's appearance really has changed when the only thing has changed is your perception of the object, not the object itself. From point A people can see the object as a square, from point B people can see the object as a circle, but if they both stand at point C they'll realize the object hasn't really changed appearance at all, it's neither of which they had perceived from the said angles. With that being said, the perception of something doesn't change the actual reality of it.

Mr.Walker-

Thanks leonardo. i was going to say i had no trouble visualising/ conceptualising a square circle (or a circular square )(but then i think in words not images) and it was only when you mentioned a cylinder that i realised that was one of the forms i was thinking of.

The great thing about not being able to visualise any form of mental image is that one can actually conceive of anything because one is not limited to the physical forms which restrict those who think/see things in their minds in visual forms.

Thus i have never had the slightest difficulty conceptualising/ imagining infinity or nothingness either, although people who see in visual imagery seem to think such conceptions are impossible.

Intellectually/in verbal thought, a square and a cricle are not necessarily contradictory. Tthey may be extensions of the same thing (as tangents are extensions of a circle and intellectually i can form a square out of the tangents from a circle) or adaptations of something similar. While they appear different this does not make them contradictory.

A person a "conceptualize" a squared circle but cannot visualize it, it's logically impossible. A square cannot be a circle, nor can a circle be a square; they're shapes would contradict the very nature of what they actually are. Its nonsense to say you can visualize it.

It's not impossible to conceptualize the self-contradictory, ....just look at the concept of God; totally conceptualized, yet still contradictory.

In this video, the person defines the attributes God would have to have in order for this argument to work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfGxuBKKPY8...6DA&index=5

At 2:30 he states that God would have to be all good and omnibenevolent.

This is where my question comes in. In order for God to be perfect he would require all absolutes, so if God is all good, then he must also be all evil. God cannot be all evil and all good, for that would make him self-contradictory, therefor God would be logically impossible, and therefor God does not exist. Would I be right in stating this?

Wootloops, I'd contest your totally correct. But if a person were to actually use a noncongnitivist argument(argument for the meaninglessness of god), this ontological argument wouldn't even get off the ground. For instance, Mr.Walker made a point that the definition of God in the presentation is the only definition of God given and is probably incorrect, the point is no one has yet to define God in coherent terms, furthermore people are not even "defining" God, they're defining God's nature. To say God would have to be perfect,omni benevolent, transcendent, and eternal or anything else really doesn't tell us anything about what God is, it only describes his secondary attributes and thus his nature. When theist can actually tell us "what" God is, coherently, they cannot even begin to argue for his existence. To illustrate this point,.....I can say "the boy is good" or "the ball is red", those are logically possible conceptions and can be valid, but if I said "djwdun is red" or "srkgfhjb is good" those cannot be logical or valid statements, because we have no identity or knowledge of what these said words actually are. It's the same with the concept of God, no theist has any workable, agreeable definition of God thats coherent, let alone are able to tell us what God is, they only describe God's nature and what he can do, and that's useless. "God is red. God is blue. God is sad. God is happy. God is omnibenevolent. God is perfect, essentially what is being said it that "blank is happy, blank is sad, blank is omnibenevolent".They tell us nothing about what actually IS happy or sad, just how they feel. That's the problem with God. Until humanity is actually able to identify what we're applying all of these secondary attributes and qualities towards, saying "God is (anything)" is meaningless to discuss.

The chair is red can be true, if it's actually red, but I know a chair can be made of wood or elements which can possess color, but if I were to say "the soul is red, or God is happy", I cannot make those statements valid because we don't know what either actually are. We don't know the composition of a soul and IF it actually can contain color. We don't know if God is a human or person which can actually possess an "emotion". Hopefully, you all catch the drift.

[+Sherapy]

Your just trying to say a self contradictory thing can very well exist depending on the perception of the object; I disagree with that. Yes, depending upon the viewpoint one could say the described cylinder is a square from this position yet a circle from the next but objectively it's not both, it cannot be. The position from which you view an object can influence the perception of an object therefore changing an objects appearance, but it's a leap of faith to say an object's appearance really has changed when the only thing has changed is your perception of the object, not the object itself. From point A people can see the object as a square, from point B people can see the object as a circle, but if they both stand at point C they'll realize the object hasn't really changed appearance at all, it's neither of which they had perceived from the said angles. With that being said, the perception of something doesn't change the actual reality of it.

A person a "conceptualize" a squared circle but cannot visualize it, it's logically impossible. A square cannot be a circle, nor can a circle be a square; they're shapes would contradict the very nature of what they actually are. Its nonsense to say you can visualize it.

It's not impossible to conceptualize the self-contradictory, ....just look at the concept of God; totally conceptualized, yet still contradictory.

Wootloops, I'd contest your totally correct. But if a person were to actually use a noncongnitivist argument(argument for the meaninglessness of god), this ontological argument wouldn't even get off the ground. For instance, Mr.Walker made a point that the definition of God in the presentation is the only definition of God given and is probably incorrect, the point is no one has yet to define God in coherent terms, furthermore people are not even "defining" God, they're defining God's nature. To say God would have to be perfect,omni benevolent, transcendent, and eternal or anything else really doesn't tell us anything about what God is, it only describes his secondary attributes and thus his nature. When theist can actually tell us "what" God is, coherently, they cannot even begin to argue for his existence. To illustrate this point,.....I can say "the boy is good" or "the ball is red", those are logically possible conceptions and can be valid, but if I said "djwdun is red" or "srkgfhjb is good" those cannot be logical or valid statements, because we have no identity or knowledge of what these said words actually are. It's the same with the concept of God, no theist has any workable, agreeable definition of God thats coherent, let alone are able to tell us what God is, they only describe God's nature and what he can do, and that's useless. "God is red. God is blue. God is sad. God is happy. God is omnibenevolent. God is perfect, essentially what is being said it that "blank is happy, blank is sad, blank is omnibenevolent".They tell us nothing about what actually IS happy or sad, just how they feel. That's the problem with God. Until humanity is actually able to identify what we're applying all of these secondary attributes and qualities towards, saying "God is (anything)" is meaningless to discuss.

The chair is red can be true, if it's actually red, but I know a chair can be made of wood or elements which can possess color, but if I were to say "the soul is red, or God is happy", I cannot make those statements valid because we don't know what either actually are. We don't know the composition of a soul and IF it actually can contain color. We don't know if God is a human or person which can actually possess an "emotion". Hopefully, you all catch the drift.

right on Ul.. that was my line also.... its more apparent they are anthropohmorphic characteristics easily substansiated is one path and before we can get anywhere we have to know what is meant by 'god'.. we have to parse out god talk in the various frames then we have to note the the signifigant lack of god in certain others...

god is a 'title' and as we can show it can be quite variously assigned.. so indeed this argument is not ready to go.....

not one i'd take on anyways would I ..lol

[Bee Eff]

I recently came across the ontological argument through this playlist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzhup2bMG8I...6DA&index=0

"...is convinced that something exists in the understanding, at least, than which nothing greater can be conceived. For when he hears of this he understands it. And whatever is understood exists in the 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 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. And it assuredly exists so truly that in cannot be conceived not to exist. For it is possible to conceive of a being which cannot be conceived not to exist. Hence, if that than which nothing greater can be conceived, can be conceived not to exist, it is not that than which nothing greater can be conceived. But this is an irreconcilable contradiction. There is, then, so truly a being than which nothing greater can be conceived to exist, that it cannot even be conceived not to exist; and this being thou art, O Lord our God."

-Anselm of Canterbury, Proslogium, in Anne Fremantle, The Age of Belief (New York: New American Library, 1954), p88-89.

This is the basic layout of the ontological argument for God's existence (Note that this is not arguing any particular God, just a God of absolutes and perfection.):

1. If God does not exist, his existence is logically impossible (because by definition God is eternal and independent so He cannot come into being or be caused to come into being).

2. If God does exist, his existence is logically necessary (because He cannot have come into existence [see above] or cease to exist, for if he did, he would be limited, and by definition God is unlimited).

3. Either God's existence is logically impossible or it is logically necessary.

4. If God's existence is logically impossible, then the concept of God is self-contradictory.

5. The concept of God is not self-contradictory. (It is impossible to conceptualize the self-contradictory)

6. Therefore, God's existence is logically necessary.

7. Therefore, God exists.

In this video, the person defines the attributes God would have to have in order for this argument to work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfGxuBKKPY8...6DA&index=5

At 2:30 he states that God would have to be all good and omnibenevolent.

This is where my question comes in. In order for God to be perfect he would require all absolutes, so if God is all good, then he must also be all evil. God cannot be all evil and all good, for that would make him self-contradictory, therefor God would be logically impossible, and therefor God does not exist. Would I be right in stating this?

I think the premise of God's existence being limited to being unlimited is faulty. There is no past and no future in existence at the current time. There is not true evidence of anything existing prior to now and no evidence that anything will exist prior to now. Epistemology in relation to current knowledge is more stable and solid than the argument to the existence of past or future.

Also, your definition of God is limited to one type of belief in what God, perfection and eternal is defined as.

[danielost]

to a bacteria. We would never have been created. We would live for ever. We would be outside of time. I am not saying that we are bacteria but if God lives that much longer than we do. Then to us he would exist outside of time.

[An Urban Legend]

right on Ul.. that was my line also.... its more apparent they are anthropohmorphic characteristics easily substansiated is one path and before we can get anywhere we have to know what is meant by 'god'.. we have to parse out god talk in the various frames then we have to note the the signifigant lack of god in certain others...

god is a 'title' and as we can show it can be quite variously assigned.. so indeed this argument is not ready to go.....

not one i'd take on anyways would I ..lol

Yes Sheri, perfectly said. Theist ascribe anthropomorphic characteristics and traits to something they clearly can't even identify; they just know it has to be "something" and lets call it "God", but it's also just like them. I just find it arrogant and otherwise ignorant, for humans to attribute different wonderful traits to something "transcendent" of they're own existence.....it's out there, your in here, how can you say anything about it? Whoops, you cant.

Edited August 7, 2008 by An Urban Legend