will have to do the
reading very carefully and think about it in detail.
1.Is it reasonable to believe in God if there are no perfect
arguments or evidence to prove a god exists? - please explain why or why not.
2.What do you understand the ontological argument to be
saying and do you think it has any merit or good to it, or do you think it is
too flawed to be any good at all?
Explain.
3. What do you
understand the cosmological argument to be saying and do you think it has any
merit or good to it, or do you think it is too flawed to be any good at
all? Explain.
The ontological argument states that there are two forms of existence. Existence in the understanding or mind and existence in the mind and reality. Things that exist in reality are greater than things that exist in only the understanding and God is a being which no greater can be conceived. God, the greatest being, therefore must exist in reality because if He did not then He would not be the greatest. While this argument may appear to have merit at first, when we dissect it I don't think it has any merit at all. The basis of the argument assumes the existence of God, which is then the conclusion of the argument. The fact that this same structure can also be used to prove the existence of things other than God also reduces its merit.
ReplyDeleteThe cosmological argument puts forth a slightly stronger argument than the ontological argument. The cosmological argument states that there exists two types of beings; dependent beings and self-existent beings. Not every being can be a dependent being and therefore a self-existent being must exist. Some of the problems with this argument, however, are that this "self-existent" being that must exist doesn't necessarily have to refer to the Judeo-Christian God. Supports of this argument usually rely on the Principal of Sufficient Reason to augment the argument. The PSR states that everything must have an explanation for existence and that the facts of existence must be also be explained. This however leads one to ask why must existence have an explanation? While this arguments merits are greater than the ontological argument, it still has its flaws.
I think you had great thoughts about both arguments. You went into good detail and I agree that the ontological statement definitely has more flaws in, especially when you take the time to pick it apart and evaluate each statement.
DeleteThe ontological argument as presented by St. Anselm is multiple arguments that all begin with the concept of God. It is a priori argument because it is based entirely off of ideas in one’s head.
ReplyDeleteTo sum the argument up, it is as follows: Since you have an idea of God in your mind, God, by definition is the GCB, and that if something is greater it means it exists, the conclusion is God Exists.
Personally the biggest objection in my mind to this argument is the one of it being a circular argument. It’s like saying that red is red, or to sing is to sing. In the argument you are already saying that God is the GCB, therefore saying he is great, and by definition saying he exists in the first premise. You cannot assume that something is true before proving it, which is exactly what Anselm is doing here.
I do not think that this argument is useful in finding your faith in a God, because it is a poor argument and flawed in many ways. However, because of Anselm’s ontological argument, other very meaningful philosophical arguments have been raised. I believe that because of Anselm’s initial thoughts, people were made to think, question, and use deductive reasoning to find out if an argument was valid.
The cosmological argument is an argument that first trys to prove the existence of a higher being. Then, it goes on to try to prove that the being whose existence has been proved, must have the features that make up God in our mind. The first part they prove with the argument, since every being that exists is either a self-existent being or a dependent being, and not every being can be dependent, there has to exist one self-existent being. This argument is called a “deductively valid” argument because if all we were to look at was if p1+p2=c, then it would be valid.
This argument’s premises rely so much on the PSR (Principle of Sufficient Reason), and we cannot state that the PSR is true. Because of this, the cosmological argument cannot be true. We cannot establish that there is a self-existent being.
I believe that there is always a good reason to learn. The first argument opened up people’s minds to new arguments, new beliefs, and new questions. In this way, the cosmological argument is not completely useless because of its ability to help us learn. However, I do feel that it doesn't merit any good. I feel that after reading about it, we are at the same place that we were after the first argument.
Couldn't agree more regarding the ontological argument. It definitely has a "because I said so" feel to it. I also think that it's a pretty sorry excuse for an argument to justify belief in god. As much as it pains me to say so, there has to be some good in an argument that can make a group of people analyze an important topic such as this. So even if it is based on how bad the argument is I have to give the guy some credit for making people think.
DeleteWhen it comes to perfect arguments or evidence to prove the existence of God, if there aren't any then I don't think that it's reasonable to believe in God. The way I see it, why believe in something that can't be proven real? I am not an atheist, and if they were to prove God was real I wouldn't be surprised and if God isn't real then I wouldn't be surprised either; it doesn't bother me either way. In recent years there has been scientific recreations and facts for the miracles in the Bible. For example, the parting of the Red Sea happened at the same time a volcano erupted and obliterated an entire island in the Agean Sea. The parting of the water was the result of the pull-back of the tidal wave. I think it would be more reasonable for people to analyze the solid facts and findings to explain for things.
ReplyDeleteTo my understanding, the Ontological argument says that God is the Greatest Conceivable Being and you can have an idea of that GCB in your mind. Since something great is better or greater if it exists rather than not, then God exists. I think that the only merit that came from this argument is the fact that it allowed for the dissection and examination of this argument which we learned to be a circular argument stating things were true right off the bat. That then lead to the questioning and examination, as well as formulation, of other, better arguments. It opened our minds up to new ideas. Aside from that I think that this argument is too flawed and isn't very useful for people to base their faith on God. This argument's structure can be used to prove that the Greatest Conceivable anything exists, like the GC ice cream we used as an example in class. Because we can think of something great in our mind, and because it is greater if it exists, then it exists. Also, everyone has their own concept of the GCB, so this argument wouldn't work because everyone would have their own idea of the GCB and the argument says that there is only one GCB.
I myself as well didn't find it reasonable as well to believe in God. It seem to me the wording of this question we are required is asking for something that's not possible. If perfect argument or evidence is not available then how can we dissect something to get at the truth. There are to many variables, which only leaves us to a he said/she said scenario.
DeleteIt isn't reasonable to believe in God. I feel if you were to ask people why they believe they would say things like, "that's how I was raised" or "because I want to go to heaven" which is all the "proof" they need. Some may say they have proof of God because of some miracle or believe that since we are all here on earth that proves God exists. How can we logically believe in something so big if there is absolutely no proof?
ReplyDeleteI think the ontological argument has flaws. It doesn't really get the argument of the existence of God anywhere. P1 says God has to be the GCB. How do we know there isn't something greater than God or multiple Gods? P2 says you can have an idea of what GCB in your mind. All of us are going to have similar ideas of what GCB means, but there's always going to be something slightly or dramatically different in each of our minds. P3 says something is greater if it actually exists. The example from class: ice cream. I can think of the greatest ice cream flavor in my mind and want it to exist. It would be better if it did but that doesn't mean its ever going to exist. If I want it to ever exist then I need to work to make it exist. The conclusion is that God exists. Just because something is great means it exists? Then where is this greatest ice cream?
I agree with you that a lot of people "believe" in God because "I want to go to heaven". It's very ironic to me because that statement is so selfish. If your God is real, then he would NOT want you to say something like that, and that might even make you not get into heaven. I'm only devoting my life to the greater good because I'm trying to save my butt. People don't even realize what they sound like sometimes.
DeleteI would like to have the greatest ice cream as well! But ironically I bet my kind of great ice cream is most likely different then your idea of great ice cream! :) .. The Ontological argument is very flawed. It is such a circular argument because every ones opinions are so different. Everyones' idea of the greatest conceivable being is different in every persons imagination. There is no perfect argument for this topic. I feel like the argument on whether god exists is never ending and technically may not have a conclusion.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI personally do not think it is reasonable to believe in a God when you do not have a perfect argument or no proof, but I can not say it is reasonable or unreasonable for someone else to believe. I am all about science and facts, while a lot of people are just about hope. If there was proof god did not exist, who am I to shame someone who still believes. If that is what gives them a sense or purpose or hope then who am I to tell them they are unreasonable? I have learned that you can not change someones mind when it comes to their religion or their beliefs, even with proof. Even on subjects like the evolution of humans which there is PLENTY of proof of, but there is still people who turn their head and refuse to believe it.
ReplyDeleteThe ontological argument states the God is by definition the greatest conceivable being (GCB), that you are able to have an idea of the GCB in your mind, and that the GCB is better if it exists rather than not existing, therefore it exists. My biggest problem with the ontological argument is the GCB. Not everyone has the same idea of God in their head and not everyone has the same religious background. Growing up, My mother was very into Greek Mythology and the belief of multiple gods/goddesses. The ontological argument states that there is one GCB. If you believe in multiple gods/goddesses then there is not a GCB because there are hundreds of gods and goddesses, none being necessarily greater than the other. The other big flaw to the argument is the fact that it is stating the GCB is better if it exists, therefore it exists. There is a slight point there, something IS better if it exists, but that does not mean it actually exists. It would be incredible if unicorns existed, and i'm sure everyone can agree with me on that, but that does not mean that they do exist just because it would be incredible. In my personal opinion the argument is completely useless. you could say anything exists using the ontological argument... so where's my pet unicorn?
In your belief system about God, I feel like I try to do the same things as you. Buddhism belief is kind of like that, you can believe whatever you want to believe, you can have open conversations, but don't push your beliefs on other people. Everyone has to do what they need to do to be happy.
DeleteI also agree with your belief system about God. I too am all about facts and science but just because I don't believe in something doesn't mean I should expect every one else to do the same. If you take the converse of that, I don't think that it is reasonable for someone to expect everyone else to believe in God based on arguments with "holes" and flaws in them. Not only do these arguments argue the existence of God, but it is one particular type of God which, to me, is also unreasonable.
DeleteDid the specimen that started the human race appear out of thin air? There is no concrete data to prove either evolution or creation. There are also no scientific facts that prove that God does not exist. Why is it not possible for God to exist even if we are the result of evolution? Where do you get the facts, that you have still not stated, proving God does not exist?
DeleteI, too, think it's unreasonable to believe in God if there aren't hard facts and arguments; I like facts and science when it comes to this. If someone has different views I am perfectly fine with it. They have every right to believe in whatever they want. I also have the problem with the ontological argument of having a singular GCB. It just doesn't work if you believe in multiply deities. This argument, I believe, is unreasonable, because everyone has different ideas of singular or multiple deities.
DeleteI do believe it is reasonable to believe in God even if there are no perfect arguments or evidence to prove a god exists. After all I’ve read in the readings so far, what exactly IS a perfect argument or evidence? There always has to be someone or something that contradicts what someone else says or thinks. As stated in the text, there are two arguments that are divided into: a posteriori, which means “based on experience” and a priori means “independently of experience”. I personally got raised in a Lutheran home and grew up in the faith, so that is what I will raise my family in and hope they continue to hold the same beliefs and values. I also went to a Lutheran school from Pre-school to 8th grade, and I will say a lot of my classmates seemed to “veer off” from the faith, because I think their parents pushed them into it too much and it was too overbearing for them. The kids that were supposed to be the good ones and never get into trouble often were worse off than the kids who didn’t go to the Lutheran school. It’s all a matter of personal beliefs and who YOU want to be. Even if there aren’t any perfect arguments or evidence to prove a god exists, then who cares? It was also mentioned in class that people choose to have their own personal beliefs because it provides an explanation for beginning of universe and existence, fear of consequences of not believing, it gives a meaning for life, knowing right from wrong, miracles are explained, and provides basis for the acceptance of suffering. I suppose you could consider me a fidest, which is a person whose belief is based on faith rather than argument.
ReplyDeleteAs we talked about in class, ultimately the ontological argument comes down to the God existing. A theist will believe this to be true, an atheist believes that there is no supernatural being, and an agnostic is someone who is unsure and prefers to stay in the middle of it all. I personally believe the ontological argument to be true, but as I stated in my response above, I grew up in the faith and would be considered a fidest. Atheists will try their hardest to try and disprove theists and lead them to believe there is no supernatural being. Agnostics won’t lean one way or the other. As I also stated above, I don’t think there is are any “perfect” arguments or evidence proving that god or gods exists. I have thought about this question before just like anyone else who is comfortable in their faith probably have – What if there is no god at all? What if I’m in the wrong faith? I guess we will all have to wait and find out the answer to these questions when our time comes.
I enjoyed the points you made about god existing and it being reasonable or unreasonable. I was raised quite differently than you and have always struggled with this topic. I don't identify myself with a religion, i identify myself as a spiritual individual, and i really liked that you considered yourself as a 'fidest'. I have never heard that term before and i can say that i identify with that as well.
DeleteGod is a difficult subject in my world. In my opinion it is not reasonable to believe in god because he is not a viable thing. I can’t see him/her nor can I feel a presence. When good things happen to me or bad things happen it’s usually based on choices I have made in the past or present time. Arguments can be made for both sides God has to be real because that can explain things in the universe. But again there are arguments that God doesn’t exist and everything is based on human choice. As for whether it’s reasonable to believe in god based on those things. I believe it is its human choice. Seeing as I believe in choices that is a personal choice as for rational I choose not to believe it’s rational. But all people have choices and this is one of them. Ontological arguments are a good thing, because it gives people something to believe in. It argues that God exists in some state of mind and is the Greatest Concivable being. Even though you cannot see or feel God in our world he can still be thought of and anything that can be thought can be real in definition. People need things to believe in because existence would be lackluster if there was nothing to look forward to after life is over. I believe it gives people a reason to be good to one another. If there were no standards for people to live their life by people would be lost and there may be more bad in the world than there already is today.
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with you that people need something to believe in. I can remember the day I found out that Santa wasn't real and i punched my neighbor in the mouth and when my mom asked me why I told her it didn't matter there was no naughty or nice list. I would like to have enough faith in myself to believe that I can "be a good person" without the fear of God, however I am also a hypocrite about it because I do not have enough faith in humanity to do the same, and I feel that you are in a similar position.
Deletei like the point you made about how if there were no standards for people to live their life by, it would possibly be chaos. i strongly agree. The world would be a lot different if there was no idea of god. Even if he isnt real, the idea of god keeps some order and control in life.
DeleteI really like the way you described belief in God as a personal choice. I think too many religions and religious people feel the need to push their personal choices/beliefs on others. If there is an all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing God would he really want us to criticize, judge, and ostracize others because they don't believe the same thing or think the same way we do? Or would he want us to accept everyone for the individual they are? I do agree that religion has played a major role in setting moral guidelines and creating order.
DeletePeople do need something to believe in. Some people turn to god when they need help, they look to god for guidance. Some people blame god for their problems. I can say that sometimes I do doubt that he is there, when my aunt passed five years ago I did not believe in god then. After I thought about the way it happened to her, I realized that she was the happiest when she was sick. I realized that there was no way anyone in that much pain could be that happy without having some sort of other, unworldly power helping her through it all.
Delete1.Is it reasonable to believe in God if there are no perfect arguments or evidence to prove a god exists? - please explain why or why not.
ReplyDeleteI think it is reasonable to believe in God even though there are no perfect arguments in his favor or evidence to prove he indeed exists.One reason in particular that I believe is to provide a reason that things happen in my life good or bad. I believe that no matter what happens, it happened for a reason because God has a plan for me. If something doesn't go my way I think that God didn't want that to happen because he has greater things for me. It gives me comfort to know that someone is with me guiding me in my life. Even though I don't know what the reason may be, that it is all apart of a greater plan, something bigger than myself. Some other reasons people believe in God without real proof are because He could provide an explanation for the beginning and the existence of the universe. Believing in God could provide a person with a sense of what is right and what is wrong. Another reason is when people are suffering, without an answer, believing in God can help them accept what is happening and give them the strength and power to get through it. God could also give these people who are suffering a sense of purpose or meaning in their lives. And finally one last reason is when miracles happen and people are looking for a reason why it happened, it can be comforting to know that God is watching and granted that miracle.
2.What do you understand the ontological argument to be saying and do you think it has any merit or good to it, or do you think it is too flawed to be any good at all? Explain.
What I understand from the ontological argument is that God is the greatest conceived being. No greater can be conceived, thought of, or understood. Also that a real God is greater than an imaginary God, and because God is the greatest, he must be real. I can see how the argument comes together and makes sense, but when we talked about it in class I thought that it was logical, yet silly at the same time. I thought it was silly because I thought about how it could be used not just for the greatest conceivable being but the greatest conceivable anything, which we later discussed in class. I think that because you could apply it to anything, it takes away from the legitimacy of the argument. Therefore, I think that the ontological argument, although it makes logical sense, is to flawed.
Is it reasonable to believe in God if there are no perfect arguments or evidence to prove a god exists? If you replace the word God with any other myth, deity or fictional character would this question have any weight? Is it reasonable to believe in unicorns if there are no perfect arguments or evidence to prove unicorns exists? Is it reasonable to believe in the Loch Ness Monster if there are no perfect arguments or evidence to prove the Loch Ness Monster exists? In case you're not following: The answer is no. It's not a bad thing to want to have something to invest your faith in but why would you put it so blindly into something you can't be certain of.
ReplyDeleteThe ontological argument is saying that since God is considered the greatest thing you can imagine, and things that exist in the real world are greater than things you can imagine, then God exists in the real world. This argument is basically saying God exists because God exists which is completely circular. I honestly don't have any problems with people who believe in God but when someone uses an argument like this to justify their beliefs I tend to think of it as a cop out because they've never put any thought into it.
I really like the thought process you have in thinking about believing in God. It's true that we don't believe in anything else if there is no proof, so what makes God an exception? For instance, I'd LIKE to believe in unicorns, but people would think I was crazy going around saying that you don't have to prove that unicorns are real, you just have to believe it. Again, what makes God an exception that this rule of not having any proof can still justify something?
DeleteYeah, I think cop-out is a pretty good word for it. I agree that people should be able to believe in whatever they like but this argument has no real validity when it comes to the actual issue. I really like the "sweet island" point that Gaunilo made. There is the most hedonistic awesome island out there somewhere (greatest). Obviously this island would be even greater if it actually existed, so it must be out there somewhere right?
DeleteI like what you saif about replacing god with other mythical creatures. A lot of people who wrote posts on here seem to either not understand the meaning of the word 'reasonable' or they completely ignore it altogether. Regardless of what you believe, you have to admit that believing in god is unreasonable as defined by the definition of the word 'reasonable'. Whether you still believe in something after its unreasonable to do so, that is faith. Faith isn't that reasonable, which is why the saying is a leap of faith not a leap of reason and deduction where you are clearly knowing where you will land.
DeleteI liked what you said about Unicorns replacing God. It was kind of funny. I don't think it is such a big deal to believe or to not believe in what it is that you want to believe.
DeleteI think it is reasonable to believe in God, even if there aren't hard facts. To some people there are hard facts that God exists. When I was 2 months old I had open heart surgery. The patent ductus closes when the baby is born. Mine didn't close. I only lived because the patent ductus stayed open due to other malfunctions with my heart. I believe my patent ductus stayed open because a higher power was watching over me. No doctor had a reason why my patent ductus stayed open. I don't believe in God because of the facts. There is a reason for everything. I don't need facts, I just believe. Life is about struggles and honestly it is much easier knowing that someone is always watching out for you.
ReplyDeleteThe Ontological Argument says that if God exists in your mind and he is the greatest conceivable being, then he must be real since he is the greatest. If you plugged something else into this argument, like the greatest conceivable boyfriend, then the argument would prove that the greatest boyfriend would have to be real. The flaws are too great to be an adequate argument on the existence of God. This argument has no backbone to fight with. Also, a problem with this argument is that one of the premises is exactly the same thing as the conclusion. The premises must prove the conclusion, not state it
I agree with you about the Ontological argument. It has no strengths against arguments like yours and many others.
DeleteI understand you believe in God and respect that but if you have no evidence or perfect arguments to prove something exists then why believe in it? I'm sure things come to mind when you make a mental inventory of things you don't believe in. Try replacing something from that list, like the Easter bunny for example, in your sentence and see what you think of it then. This would mean that you believe in the Easter bunny and feel safe knowing he is always watching. I understand that in reality you probably wouldn't feel safe in this scenario but the premise of your argument is exactly the same. You say you don't need facts but everything does happen for a reason and those reasons in result are known as facts.
I'm glad that you had an experience that brought you faith in God. I said in my intro post that the majority of us adopt faith because it is what our parents believe. In high school I had a friend who was forced to go to church with his family every Sunday but never chose to believe in God himself. When he turned 18 he decided he did not want to attend mass. A couple weeks after graduation he over dosed on heroin and clinically died for a couple minutes. Before being resuscitated he told me that he spoke with God for what he felt was hours, and now he attends church every Sunday on his own free will.
DeleteWhen it comes to my opinions of the existence of god I can't help but be hesitant. I can understand both sides of the argument. I'm starting to think I may be an Agnostic, which we learned to be, someone who in undecided on their beliefs of weather or not god exists. Some people believe that if you don't attend church that it is a sin or disrespectful towards god. As a child I was raised that you don't have to go to church in order to believe in god. One can believe in what ever they may choose. I respect not being overwhelmed by the pressure of choosing the faith my family wanted but yet I still till this day have not made up my mind. I believe that no matter weather its good or bad everything happens for a reason. It could be just based on the choices one has made or maybe it has to do with the upper hand of god. I believe there is a higher power of some kind. I've always assumed it was god, but how do I know for sure? Faith of course is never a bad thing but at the same time hard solid facts are quite reassuring. This topic is so controversial that I don't think there is a such thing as perfect evidence because someone is always going to object in some way or another. Perfect does not exist in this world, everything and everyone has their flaws and there is by no means anything wrong with that what so ever.
ReplyDeleteThe ontological argument itself argues that god exists because god is the greatest and one cannot begin to fathom its greatness, therefore god must exist. I agree that something that exists is better than something that doesn't. Something you can touch is of course better then something you cannot. But just because you can't touch is doesn't necessarily automatically mean its not real or doesn't exist does it? If that's the case then does heaven exist? Or do we just have faith that is does so we have somewhere to go after this life and this way we feel that are deceased loved ones are at peace and watching over us from above. Needless to say I believe it gives us a purpose in life. I also believe this argument to have some legitimacy but yet many flaws. For example its a circular argument, which makes it hard to follow and easily questioned on its credibility.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIs it reasonable to believe in God without any evidence or perfect arguments to prove he/she/it/them exists? Maybe reasonable is too strong, because reason would dictate no, it isn't. It may be understandable and comfortable to believe in God or a god, but the definition of reasonable is agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical, and without proof where is the logic and sound judgement that something exists? Hey, to each their own, I understand that people believe because of faith, but that isn't what's being asked. We were asked if it was 'reasonable', and no matter what you believe, you must concede that faith and logic do not go hand in hand very well.
ReplyDeleteThe ontological argument is very compelling at first glance, but as it was pointed out in class, the argument is circular. It begins with the presumption that God is the Greatest Conceivable Being, and runs with it. But seriously, can anyone even conceive the GCB in the first place, or is it more of a vague idea? Let's break this down a bit. This solar system is one of millions in one galaxy, upon millions of galaxies, each with their millions of stars and planets. I know I can barely conceive the entire universe in my mind and I have actual visual references for that. Can you really conceive a being who could create all of that, and a bag of chips? That is what hangs me up the most. You can say Greatest Conceivable Being in your mind but we literally haven't unveiled or conceived of the entirety of the universe yet. Can we conceive the being who made something we can't conceive?
I really like your comparison of the greatest conceivable being to the solar systems of the universe not to mention the millions of stars. Your argument is reasonably logical. If I'm understanding correctly you're saying, if ones mind cannot wrap their head around a the big picture of the universe then how can one fathom the concept of god creating everything we know to exist. That's where faith comes in, and its probably the easy way to go. But just in my opinion I think in this blog we should of left the faith argument in out of bounds. :)
DeleteI completely understand where you're coming from with the fact of the question being is there reasonable evidence. However, people may have different opinions of what reasonable evidence is. I also liked how you put together the comparison of the universe and the GCB. However, our minds are so powerful in how much we can actually conceive in our heads. I do agree that its odd that we can conceive something so large and powerful in our heads.
DeleteWhen considering whether it is reasonable to believe in God without perfect arguments or evidence the word reasonable is the biggest factor. Since the belief isn't reached through reason I would lean toward no. This is mostly because of the wording of the question. I don't think someone who believes in god is unreasonable. Anyone can have their own reasons for belief.
ReplyDeleteWording also plays a large part in the ontological argument. This argument states that because god is the greatest conceivable being and something that exists in reality is greater than something that exists only in understanding god must exist in order to be the greatest conceivable being. It seems to be logically sound but I feel it's nothing more than manipulation of language. The word greatest seems to play a huge role in the argument and the conclusion is based on the premise that god exists. There is some good to this argument because it really is a genius manipulation of language. It gives a good template for basing an argument solely on logic. I think the ontological argument is full of holes but useful none-the-less.
The cosmological argument states that every being is either dependent (defined by another) or self-existent (defined by themselves). And not all beings can be dependent because everyone comes from somewhere. So therefor, god must exist. I like to think of this as St. Thomas Aquinas's version of "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Everyone comes from the person before them so the first person had to come from a greater power. This also seems to be a bit of a shoddy argument. Why must there be a self-existent being? Perhaps humans are infinite. Once again I think the argument has some value because it makes a person think regarding their existence and I don't think this can be entirely a bad thing.
Your cosmological argument is well thought out, but saying that humans are infinite seems hard to believe. I mean we had to start from something. I personally don't think that science is right saying that we started from apes. Because then where did the apes come from. They had to be put here by a higher power of some sort. Which then we think of God as being a higher power. He put humans here on earth and the rest of the animals as well.
DeleteWhat you say about whether it is reasonable to believe in God without perfect arguments is very similar to my own. Your ontological argument is very good. Language is very important and can change the meaning of an entire sentence with one word. And your cosmological argument has made me think. It's very interesting to think of the different possibilities of how we came to be besides a greater being.
DeleteReasonable can be viewed in a couple different ways. Is it reasonable to believe in an idea that does not have sufficient evidence to be proved true? Or is it reasonable to make a choice to have faith in an idea that over-all improves one's life, and ultimately can bring salvation and save you from an eternity of suffering in the flames of Hell? To answer the first Question, there is nowhere near any amount of measurable, concrete evidence that says there is a higher being responsible for our creation and ultimate judgement, yet at the same no evidence to prove the opposition has ever been brought fourth. To think that life and existence was merely an extravagant coincidence does not appeal to me. Can it be reasonable though? when we look at nature and observe the naturally occurring wonders that take place on a daily basis I don't think we can label them as "reasonable". When we see a rainbow we do not stop and argue with it's beauty and say that it is not reasonable.
ReplyDeleteI personally have very little faith in humanity. Humans are stupid. Yes we are labeled as intelligent life, and yes there are plenty of intelligent people out there, but unfortunately on average we are pathetic. There is a reason why we require officials to make important decisions, and why people spend vast amounts money for counselors, therapist, astrologist, etc. to guide their decision making. The same applies when it comes to placing faith in a higher being. When it comes to taking responsibility for one's life, without fear of consequence the majority of people will fail and indulge in selfish pleasures and laziness rather than doing what they believe is "good" and "right". Without the idea of salvation or judgement the world would be out of control and possibly non-existent. In conclusion, I believe that having faith in a higher power is reasonable in the mind set that a world without faith would not work, even though there is no factual evidence to prove whether or not it is true or false.
As far as the ontological argument holding any merit, no it does not. If I were to devise an equation where X can be replaced with anything and still be proved true there would be no point. Yes it's wording is very clever and to the average uneducated, under thinking person could be pretty impressive, when we sit down and actually dissect it, it truly is worthless.
I totally agree with you. People are so quick to shut down someone who has a belief in God and don't look at the world around them. It's hard watching friends make the wrong mistakes and can't see that their life would be better God in it. I mean I'm not prefect all the time either, but at least I've got a direction and something I can always fall back on in life. Having faith is something that never leaves you. God is always there for you.
DeleteI definitely think this is one of the best points written this week. We all have different opinions on what reasonable actually is. True, there isn't a whole lot of concrete evidence to link to God. However, how do you explain miracles? You don't it is 100% part of your faith and belief that God helped you when you were struggling. Presently, I agree we should be making our own decisions and not rely on everyone else to make our decisions and in that case also our mistakes. We need to learn to think on our own and not just follow in other's footsteps.
Delete1. It all depends on your own faith. If I didn't have the evidence I have faith in, I would probably not believe in God. There are plenty of reasons scientists try to point out that God didn't do but the chances of the world being as perfect as a living condition as it is without a god, is like throwing legos up in the air and building a boat. If there were no arguments or evidence I don't think there would be many believers out there. Many people want to believe in god because of the consequences of not believing and I don't blame them. God is the one thing one should fear because he is the beginning and the end.
ReplyDelete2. I understand the ontological argument to be saying that since god is the greatest conceivable being he has to exist. However, I think that the ontological argument has a flaw that sticks out to me. Since the greatest conceivable being is the name that is given to god I think that this is false. I believe God is beyond our ability to conceive because what everyone's God does is so unfathomable. Since this is my opinion you don't have to believe it and I accept the agree to disagree. I still believe it is a good argument because it is proving that God is over everything by saying he's the greatest conceivable being and that he exists.
Darrell, I agree with you on a lot. Faith is relative and is different for everybody. God is perfect, but not for the rest of us even though we try to strive for perfection. Without God, the world would be stand still, there would be no idea of perfection and no idea of an ideal God-if we could only imagine Him to be...however we do know God exists, but we believe what we want to believe. That is a good point to bring up and I have never thought of it that way before, that one reason we do good things in life because of fear of the consequences...what are we afraid of then? Obviously, this leads ultimately to the existence of God then. And if we can imagine His presence, He must exist, in our minds and in our hearts. God is perfect, and it is this perfectionism that leads to becomming one with God. And yes, I too believe to that there is enough proof of God in this world to make me want to believe in Him.
DeleteI agree with you Darrell on the subject of faith. There is no perfect argument that God exists, but how does the earth go round without God? If people believe in God just for the sole reason that they are afraid of the consequences, then is that really believing? I think anyone can say they believe, but the Bible says that one must accept Jesus into their heart. If you are just believing to avoid eternal death then have you really excepted Jesus into your heart?
DeleteI really like and agree with what you talked about in your second paragraph referring to God as the greatest "conceivable" being. I too think that the reason people can't all come up with one God that everyone thinks is the greatest is because go is so great that he is in fact inconceivable. That is why I also had trouble with the ontological argument. I think it could be taken even farther and call God the greatest inconceivable being. Meaning that God is so great, he cannot be conceived.
Delete1.Is it reasonable to believe in God if there are no perfect arguments or evidence to prove a god exists? - please explain why or why not.
ReplyDeleteI'm one of those people who can argue both sides of the issue. A person can argue there isn't any "real" evidence of God or they can argue there is, such as explaining miracles. Personally I grew up believing in God. I've experienced miracles but I've also been let down when relying on God. However, if God doesn't exist how would you explain the impossible being possible? How would you explain the people who have died and come back to life with information about life after death with the only explanation being God? Or children dying and coming back to life with information about deceased siblings they never knew about? So my "real" evidence that God exists is everyone. Look around a lot of us are miracles and were put here for a reason.
The ontological argument states that there are two forms of existence. Existence in the mind or existence in the mind and reality. In other words if you compare something in the mind to something in reality, reality will always be better than something imaginary. Which brings it to God being the GCB. Since the greatest conceivable thing has to exist that means that God has to exist. This topic gets hard to argue since a lot of people don't believe in God and a lot people do. The ontological argument gets confusing to people who don't believe in God because it contradicts what the premises lead to.
Melissa, I agree with you on a lot. There is plenty of evidence that there is a real God. Some argue otherwise, yet there are still evidence everywhere. I have seen an episode of 20/20 that people have died and seen the light (God in heaven). Would there be a reason to do good in life without God? I certainly don't think so, but for others, it is out of personal gain, success, wealth, and material items. If we can imagine a God, then He must exist. Of course, imagining it brings us closer in our relationship with God, it is a mystery that brings us closer to the journey to heaven. I personally believe in God, I would love to talk to somebody who didn't and ask them what the meaning of life is, to them.
DeleteJenna, while I respect your belief in God, I must comment on your statement about there being a reason to do good in life without God. I think that people, whether they do or don't believe in God, can be naturally good without doing it out of personal gain. I am not an Atheist, more Agnostic, however I do not believe that the things that happen to me, whether good or bad, are because of God; I believe that it's just how the world works. Taking that into consideration, I am a naturally good person. I don't do it out of personal gain or for any type of gain except to make people happy or to try to brighten their day. I do good things because I want to, not for gain. I could care less about material items and all the things you listed above. I believe that there are people out there that don't believe in God that do good things because they want to, just as I believe, and have run into, there are people who believe in God who are selfish and mean. I also believe that any person who is genuinely good, whether Theist or Atheist, will go to heaven, if there is one. Wouldn't you think it wiser for a good-doing Atheist to go to heaven than a cruel-hearted Theist?
DeleteI agree Melissa and understand your point of view. Unlike you I wasn't brought up around the church, we worked everyday on the farm just trying to survive when I was a kid. I by no means do I have the answer on the existence of God and if he create us all. The Big Bang Theory or a small pool of water and amino acids meeting at the proper time. It's nice to hear other peoples opinions on the matter though. Thanks for sharing
DeleteIn philosophy, the Ontological Argument states that, if we believe in a higher power, then there must be a God. But what if we don't sense a God through priori? To me, there is plenty evidence that there is a real God. But what can we believe in something we can't sense or feel? The imagined God is great, but knowing that there is a real God puts meaning and purpose in our lives. This is the mystery of religion; it is a journey to a higher power. If God didn't exist, there would be no God in our vocabulary. If someone imagined God but it didn't exist, there would be no use in living life. Life is a gift from God and I can't imagine my world without Him. Would there be a reason to do good in life without God? The Utilitarianism theory would state that we have a reason to do good things to boost ones' own image, that doing good reaps some sort of reward or success. It seems that with or without God there must be these enduring characteristics of a society. Finding pleasure and success tends to take the place of religion and the benefits of the journey to the path of enlightenment with God.
ReplyDeleteI think the most important question I have for you is: What evidence do you have that God exists?
DeleteI want to point out that by the logic of your response, every single deity from every religion, no matter how old or new, would exist. Do you believe in Zeus, Epona, Krishna, Chac, Amaterasu, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, and all other deities? Probably not. Now lets move to your argument that there would be no use in living life if there was no God. Now obviously I don't know your whole stance on the existence of a greater power but I'm going to assume you are saying this because you would like to get into heaven. As pointed out by India in the comments above, people who only believe in God to get into heaven is an extremely selfish thing. If this self satisfaction is all you crave then couldn't you live your life as a good person anyway without believing in God? If heaven does exist you would get in anyway. Why would no God immediately mean that the civil progression of man would cease to exist. In reality most premodern wars and even some today were fought over religion which is ironic given that most religion promotes peace. The world would still turn and humanity would live on in a world without the concept of a god.
1. To believe in God it is not reasonable. We cannot use any scientific method or amount of reasoning to believe in God, as we would require to believe in the real existence of anything. However, God can exist. We must reason enough to understand the reason for a God and the implications of the existence of such. This reason is to guide precisely where to place our faith. For God to exist we must realize God. This realization is sought through reason, and obtained through correct placement of genuine faith, which in my mind exists as an opposite to reason.
ReplyDelete2. The only merit I find in the ontological argument is its intention. To help others to realize God can be the most meritorious act. However, to try to argue God's existence implies that God can be reached through reason, the mind and the intellect. This, to me, is not only misleading but also potentially harmful. Any argument about God requires that the reasoning be circular, with self-assuming premises. This is what I believe leaves intellectuals struggling to realize God, or even want to. The ontological argument naturally implies that God is to be realized through intellect, but simultaneously provides the intellectual audience with circular reasoning, known by these intellectuals to be invalid arguments. However, one should consider the symbol that exists in the necessity of circular reasoning for the argument of God's existence. It is preached that all that exists came from God, and will return to God in the end. This is nature; an eternal, oxymoronical circle produced with faith and experienced with reason.
I agree with what you have to say on the ontological argument in the fact that is only merit is in its intention. However i disagree with saying that is not reasonable because you stated that realization is sought through reason and obtained through correct placement of genuine faith. I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe in God or a God just off the fact that you where raised that way and have faith in that. Wouldn't it be unreasonable to be raised believing in a god and then not believe?
DeleteI believe that it is reasonable to believe in God because for us Christians wenhave the bible to believe the word. For the people who believe in the Big Bang Theory they hae only what scientists and science books say just as christians have the bible and whatnpreachers say to believe. The ontolofical arguement is saying that if you believe there is a freater being than that greater being must be sure. I think it is flawed in the aspect that some religions belive in one God while others believe in multiple Gods but there can only be one greater being, not multiple ones.
ReplyDeleteWithout any evidence, I find it illogical to believe in a God, however, logic and reason are not always the same. I feel that logic is dealing with more concrete facts, while reason deals with what humans think. So, it is reasonable to believe in a God in order to provide direction for the way humans act, but not logical because we have neither evidence nor a perfect argument.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the ontological argument is saying that there is nothing that can be thought of that is greater than God. By that fact, God is the greatest being and therefore must exist. However, I feel that due to the structure of the argument, anything can be supplemented in place of God; and because of this I feel that this argument loses merit.
As I have stated in my post, what exactly is a "perfect" argument? I don't think there is one, because we're all humans, we all make mistakes, and we all think differently in one way or another. I firmly believe in the saying "to each his own". By that, I mean that everyone has a right to make choices for themselves. I may like red cars, you may not. I may like chocolate chip pancakes, you may prefer blueberry. I may believe in God, you may not. Everyone is different and lives their lives differently. I personally don't think it's right to put titles on what people believe in such as "logical" or "reasonable", because there comes in my favorite saying again, "to each his own".
Delete1.Is it reasonable to believe in God if there are no perfect arguments or evidence to prove a god exists? - please explain why or why not.
ReplyDeleteI believe it is reasonable to believe in God. I come from a Catholic back ground and I go to church often. From what I have learned and been taught, our evidence of God is in us. It's in the things we see and in the things we do. It is in the things other people do for us. Science can't explain everything that happens in our lives. Someone is suddenly cured of a disease and the doctors don't know how it happened. We are told in the bible that we are made in God's image. That isn't to say we know exactly what God looks like, but he can't look much different than us. I'm not saying that your are wrong not to believe in God, but it's better to believe in God and believe we can live in a better place when we die then believe that God doesn't exist and our spirits stay here on earth forever.
3. What do you understand the cosmological argument to be saying and do you think it has any merit or good to it, or do you think it is too flawed to be any good at all? Explain.
From what I have read, the cosmological argument explains that every being is either a self-exisant being or a dependent being. Then its says not every being can be a dependent being so in conclusion there exsists a self-existant being. It seems to sounds like a plausible argument, but I don't think this is the best argument out there. If I believe God exists and I believe that everyone and everything came from God then I suppose I believe that this agrument could be true.
I like how you explained what you believe in and what you were taught growing up, that God is in the things we see and in the things we do. That's a good way to put it. Science can't explain miracles that happen everyday.
Delete1. It is very reasonable to believe in god. From what I've seen growing up is that most people use god as their purpose. They need god to justify why they should continue living. Also most are lost and dont know who they are on the inside and through god and church and the activities that come with all that they are able to express themselves. I grew up seeing this and decided it wasnt for me but who am i to decide whether or not it is reasonable to believe in god?
ReplyDelete2. The ontological argument is just saying to me that because god is great and great things have to exist that god then is the greatest being. Well if thats true then you can substitute god with anything. Like how Gaunilo replaces god with the greatest island. Its only flaw is the fact that you can replace god with anything else and that makes it exist. Other than that to me it would make sense.
I also think it is reasonable to believe in god. I am one of those people that use God as my purpose and justify my purpose for living. I haven't had the happiest of life, but praying and looking to Him for strength helped me look past the negative and start focusing on the positive, aka, my purpose. WHY I'm here and HOW I can do things to not only make myself happier, but also please my Lord and Savior. As I also stated in my post, what exactly is a perfect argument that has no flaws? We obviously haven't come across it yet, and don't believe we ever will. People have different beliefs just like you and I, and don't think everyone can agree on any one thing. I believe, you do not. I appreciate you not "looking down" on people like us that believe and you being open to other views. I definitely don't think any less of people that don't agree with my views. Individuality is what makes the world a beautiful place.
DeleteI think it is reasonable to believe in God, even though no one has proven with facts that god exist. I was not one who went to church each week with my parents, I went each week with my siblings by choice. I believe that you can see God in everything, whether it be nature or feeling his presents inside yourself, or any situations. Unexplainable things happen daily that science cant even explain and I believe can only be possible if a higher power allows. Even though this is not a perfect argument, and can be a touchy subject if bought up around a group of friends, its what I believe and what I'll continue to believe.
ReplyDeleteI think the ontological argument is a good argument. God means greatest conceivable being, since greatest implies that he did exist physically at one time. This may not be a good factual argument but I do think its a good philosophical argument and it makes sense to me. I get that not everyone has the same idea of God, but if you were bought up in church or did go for a couple years then you would have that same idea of God therefore it would make sense.
I agree with what you talked about in your first paragraph about why believe in God. Sometimes things happen, good or bad, that just can't be described in some science study. I too didn't go to church every Sunday, but I took confirmation class in my teens and was confirmed in my church and I think that for me, that experience really solidified who and what God was to me. I couldn't explain any facts to prove why I believe but I do.
DeleteI agree with you about why you think it's reasonable to believe in God. I never really went to church with my family either, but as I got older I started to go. I agree with the unexplainable things happening daily. I believe in miracles from God.
DeleteEveryone will also believe their own things. I think it's nice that you will always stick to your beliefs no matter what others around you think. I definitely agree with the statement about unexplainable things happening, I believe that it must come from a higher power.
DeleteHope this takes this time!!!!
ReplyDeleteI don’t believe that it is reasonable that God exists, that without any evidence what so ever or a perfect argument showing that he does. Without this we would be following blindly as sheep do. I look at things in a scientific way when picking things apart, and I tend to believe in things that are tangible and can be scientifically explained without a shadow a doubt. What a complicated topic.
The Ontological Argument claims to establish God's existence by identifying God with the referent of the definite description "the greatest possible being." Since, it is argued, there is an inherent contradiction in the proposition the greatest possible being does not exist, it follows that the greatest possible being does exist. Therefore, God exists. This argument is unlike the cosmological argument in that it does not argue from evidence in the natural world. If God were to exist, who’s to say that he is a perfect god.
This argument purports to show that there is a necessary being that explains the existence of all contingent beings. Why? Because the principle of sufficient reason, all positive facts require explanation. So forget the details of the argument and focus just on the conclusion, the idea of a necessary being that explains its own existence as well as the existence of all contingent beings. So therefore the universe could not just exist on its own, someone or something must have made it. This to me is flawed because who’s to say that even if it is true that some being caused our universe to exist, this does not prove the existence of the God but perhaps a powerful being.
I do think that it's reasonable to believe in God, even though there is no good evidence to prove a God exists. I truly believe that everything happens for a reason. When I was younger, my family never went to church. I knew of God but I didn't know much. The older I became, the more I wanted to learn more about God, so I did. I'm a happier person now and I believe that that is the reason why. It gives me hope and I believe that God has a plan for everyone.
ReplyDeleteThe ontological argument states that God is the greatest conceivable being and that you are able to have an idea of the greatest conceivable being in your mind, and that the greatest conceivable being is better if it exists rather than not existing, therefore it exists. Since God is the greatest, he must be real.
I agree that everything happens for a reason. When you have something, like God, to believe in, you don't question why things happen you just believe that it is the way he wants it to be. I also agree that having God to believe in can create hope for people.
DeleteI feel that it is reasonable to believe in God. True, there are no perfect arguments in his favor or evidence to prove he exists because we have not in fact seen him. But all that aside I still think it is reasonable to believe in him. I was raised with the belief that there is a God and whether there is a valid argument or not my opinions and beliefs will not change. I have to believe that things happen for a reason and that reason is the way God wants it to be. Having a God to believe in is what helps many people decide between right and wrong. If you believe in God you will most likely choose the right way because you know there is a higher power watching over you.
ReplyDeleteThe cosmological argument states that there are two types of beings in the world. Dependent being and self-existent beings. It basically states that there must be a God. I think that the argument has merit but if you take the time to pick it apart, depending on how you see things and your beliefs there will be some flaws.
ReplyDeleteI think it is reasonable to believe in God. Human beings are looking for answers to the hard questions that often torment our brains. If people want to believe there is a higher power at work than there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. There is evidence that God does exist, but I often ask myself is it strong enough evidence? Does it hurt to believe anyway? I don't think so, but I don't just want to jump on the bus to save myself. I want proof right in front of me. There are plenty of good people in the world who make the right choices without believing in God. The Cosmological Argument is a good argument if you believe in God. This argument wouldn't mean much to somebody who doesn't believe in my opinion. They would want solid evidence that states that God is the highest power. They would want proof that there is no being greater than God.
ReplyDelete