A Lesson in Critical Thinking: The Ontological Argument for Disproving God

[ArmyOfWalrus]

If there was an intelligent creator, it couldn't be the Christian god.

[JustAMan400]

Then you would be a robot.

[myseterio]

GOD CONVINCE EVERYONE NOT ONLY THEIST BUT ALSO ATHEIST

[eddytam]

@thetraceur123: I critically thought about your comment and failed as to understand why anyone might take your argument seriously.

@maxman2324: I know I am getting off my speaking from some self-constructed pedestal as I say this... but I find it very hard to take someone who spells 'whole' without a 'w' seriously. Compound that with your use of 'your'... eek!

[eddytam]

@aozf05

You do not know how far your statement went to proving my point. Let me re-type my version of your argument with your conclusion replacing mine, while also replacing 'eat chocolate' with 'making believers'.

He knows how to make believers

He is powerful enough to make believers

He loves making believers.

Therefore: As long as He want to make believers, then He will be making believers.

WHY do you think that?? Maybe even you agree that love doesn't imply a necessary course of action?

[eddytam]

@aozf05

You do not know how far your statement went to proving my point. Let me re-type my argument with your conclusion replacing mine, while also replacing 'eat chocolate' with 'making believers'.

He -knows- how to make believers

He is -powerful- enough to make believers

He -loves- making believers.

Therefore: As long as He want to make believers, then He will be making believers.

WHY do you think that?? Maybe even you agree that love doesn't imply a necessary course of action?

[TheisticThinker]

Fail...

[thetraceur123]

And you call this 'Critical thinking'? Rofl, this is so fail... And that you seem to take this "argument" seriously is beyond me.

[maxman2324]

the hole point is that god gave you choice to believe in his sorry ass so this argument is worthless..

we are making a mistake by trying to disprove god like that.. you should take it to the source its a lot easier! compare the bible to the harry potter books and your good to go..

[eddytam]

Sooo overly simplified.

Lets put this argument into an example we understand.

I -know- how to find chocolate

I am -powerful- enough to purchase chocolate

I -love- eating chocolate.

Therefore: (The) Chocolate is currently being eaten by me.

However: I am not eating chocolate.

Therefore: One of the first three points must be incorrect.

Maybe, just maybe, there might be something more to this discussion!!!

[aozf05]

@eddytam Correction. It should read:

"Therefore: As long as I want to eat chocolate, then I will be eating chocolate."

Likewise, if you don't want any chocolate, then you won't currently be eating chocolate.

The point is, if God knows how to convince me, is able to convince me, and truly loves me (thus truly wants me to be convinced), then there is no reason why I shouldn't be convinced right this moment, unless God does not know, is not able, or does not love me. Or God just doesn't exist.

[esaunders07]

God isn't out to "convince" you of His existence. That would essentially be immoral. If God went about convincing us of His existence in bold ways, surely that would be counterproductive to drawing us into a loving relationship with Him. The key word there is "loving". God doesn't simply want us to be convinced of His existence, He wants to draw us into a loving relationship with Him. He has, however, given us an abundance of evidence to show He exists, albeit in somewhat a subtle fashion.

[DangerousTalk]

@esaunders07 Why? Why has God given us an "abundance of evidence" in a "subtle fashion?" How can we have a loving relationship with something if we don't know if it exists or not?

[esaunders07]

@DangerousTalk

Well, God does want and need for us to have some evidence for His existence so that we may have the possibility of knowing Him and having a loving relationship with us. There would need to be some evidence of God so that we don't simply have a blind faith, but an evidential faith. Why is it subtle? For the very reasons I gave. It seems to me that a heavy-handed God, who would give us evidence consisting of a loud booming voice or a message in the sky, would be counterproductiv

[esaunders07]

@esaunders07

...counterproductive. It would have the opposite of the desired effect, to draw us into a loving relationship with Him.

The evidence that exists, in my opinion, is still enormous. The evidence of morality's existence is, I feel, the greatest piece of evidence to support God's existence. To deny our moral experience is no better than denying our other sense experiences (what we see, smell, feel around us).

[DangerousTalk]

@esaunders07 Why would that be counterproductive? We can't choose to love someone unless we at least know that exist, right? Do you love my sister? How can you if you don't even know if I have a sister?

[lhnsixthhr2012]

@esaunders07 You seem to have thought of God. Therefore, He must exist.

[AudioTech50]

@esaunders07: This is called "the argument from hiddeness"— and it fails for one simple reason; EVERY religion that makes the same argument can't be right.  If God wants us to seek him out, couldn't he at LEAST give us a hint? Is he Yaweh? Allah? Krishna? Ishtar? How can we draw close to God without knowing what we are looking for in the first place?

[106141214]

speaking as a agnostic this is a terrible argument

[moonsalam]

..god do nont need to convince you for him to exist

[AlejoCostaRica]

God cant be defined, the ontological criticism to theism came from Ancient Greek, modern critical thinking understands that God is not an object to study, it cant be defined either by science nor philosophy. Ergo: you just cant demonstrate or indemonstrate God existence.

Let people believe, let happiness be.

Atheist.

[rounder421]

@AlejoCostaRica That's fine and all, but if you live in the US, those believers are constantly trying to force their dogma on us through legislation. The only way we can fight back is to point out the silliness of their belief.

[capricioussole]

Religion, Politics, and Sex.

Got it covered dude, Fuck Politics, Amen

[jgoldpac]

Although antisemitism is alive and well in the world, I never claimed to be a "Persecuted Jew." I am personally more fortunate than many. I used the Holocaust as a modern example of how God is not All Loving to correspond with the biblical ones.

[DangerousTalk]

@jgoldpac No, I think you used the Holocaust as a personal testimony of your credibility. As I said, I am not going to defend a belief system I don't agree with, but only to point out that many Jews who were in the Holocaust and have clearly been persecuted, still believe in an all-loving God. It doesn't make much sense to me, but that doesn't mean they don't believe it anyway.

[sshadowman]

@DangerousTalk If you had the power to make any woman love you, would you use that power?

[DangerousTalk]

@sshadowman Interesting story about that, in college I used the Jedi Mind trick on a girl for a few months and at the end of the semester she was totally in to me. But that made her less attractive to me so i passed. I do see where you are going with your question, but there is one thing you are forgetting. I can't change the laws of attraction or the laws of physics. But if a god is all powerful, then he can. So there you go.

[jgoldpac]

@DangerousTalk I have stated that I, too, am an Atheist, agreeing with the conclusion that there is no God. My original point was that the particular Argument as presented in this video, however, is not convincing. Others who have responded have had the same concern with the assumption that God is All Loving. The Argument presented may convince those that share that particular assumption, but is invalid if one does not agree with that assumption. I have no emotional investment here.

[DangerousTalk]

@jgoldpac If you don't agree with the definition, then of course the argument isn't for you. But if you do agree with that definition (as most God-believers do), then you have some explaining to do. I got a lot of comments on facebook, reddit, twitter, and e-mail and they run the gambit.

[jgoldpac]

@DangerousTalk Christians tend to believe that God is All Loving, but most other religions do not. The argument doesn't disprove most Gods. I'm an Atheist for other reasons, but that particular argument is US/Christian centric and not compelling.

[DangerousTalk]

@jgoldpac I think I covered this before. If you went around as asked any religious person from any of the abrahamic religions (and even many other theistic religions) if they believed that God was all-loving, Almost all would say, "YES!"

[jgoldpac]

@DangerousTalk I grew up Jewish and never was never taught nor had any sense that God is All Loving. Episodes like being kicked out of Eden, the trials of Job and in the desert, sacrifices and destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah are vengeful and destructive, not All Loving. God occasionally deigns to help his servants in the Old Testament, but could rarely be described as loving.

[DangerousTalk]

@jgoldpac I was raised Jewish too, and that was absolutely implied if not taught outright in Hebrew School.

[jgoldpac]

@DangerousTalk I guess you just went to a different school than the ones I did. From Hebrew Day School Academy for Kindergarten and First Grade through many years of after school Hebrew School when I was in Public School and Bat Mitzvah training, it was never taught nor implied that God is All Loving to me.

[DangerousTalk]

@jgoldpac Let's try a little experiment. God to as many Rabbis and you can find and ask them if they believe God is all-loving. I bet at least 9 out of 10 if not more will say "YES!" No Jew believes that God doens't have their back. Come on, Really?

[jgoldpac]

@DangerousTalk I think it would depend on which Rabbis you asked at what point in time. Most people describe God as Wrathful in the Old Testament compared to Loving in the New Testament. I wish that this answer cited it's sources, but it provides summary of how the Old Testament God is portrayed in different traditions as anthropomorphic, transcendent, remote and unmerciful, or merciful and forgiving. wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the­_Old_Testament_description_of_­God

[DangerousTalk]

@jgoldpac That is the Christian perspective, NOT the Jewish perspective. As I said, it is doubtful that you could find a practicing Jewish Rabbi who would say that God is not loving. They will say that at times he is wrathful, but that is he also all-loving. His wrathfulness is because of his love. Personally, I think that doesn't make much sense, but I am not here to defend Judaism. But go. Go ask any Rabbi if they believe that God is all-loving. That will settle this.

[jgoldpac]

@DangerousTalk I agree that God is generally described in the Old Testament as a Loving Father tending his children, but that is far from All Loving. ::snark::You were raised Jewish and you think that asking one Rabbi their opinion would ever be accepted as the answer to any argument? Really?::snark::

[DangerousTalk]

@jgoldpac Umm, I said ask as many Rabbis as you can find. That's a far cry from one Rabbi. Dude, I really don't even know why you are being so difficult about this. The fact is that the vast majority of people who believe in a God, believe that my definition is acceptable... until they hear the rest of the argument. Personally, I don't believe in a God at all. I don't really have a dog in the fight as Mel Gibson would say. But based on my very generic definition of God, God has been disproven.

[jgoldpac]

@DangerousTalk I have stated that I, too, am an Atheist, agreeing with the conclusion that there is no God. My original point was that the particular Argument as presented in this video, however, is not convincing. Others who have responded have had the same concern with the assumption that God is All Loving. The Argument presented may convince those that share that particular assumption, but is invalid if one does not agree with that assumption.

[DangerousTalk]

@jgoldpac If you already don't believe in a god, then of course the argument won;t be convincing to you. You are already convinced. This obviously isn't about you.

[jgoldpac]

@DangerousTalk I guess you just went to a different school than the ones I did. From Hebrew Day School Academy for Kindergarten and First Grade through many years of after school Hebrew School when I was in Public School and Bat Mitzvah training, never mind the Holocaust and having most of my family wiped out by the Nazis, it was never taught nor implied that God is All Loving to me.

[DangerousTalk]

@jgoldpac Please, the "Jew card" isn't going to work here. I went to Hebrew School just as much as you did and I had family in the Holocaust too. Despite the logical inconsistency of the Holocaust and an all loving God, Jews still believe their God is all loving has has their back.

[jgoldpac]

@DangerousTalk Now, you're devolving into personal arguments, rather than focusing on the issue. Also, your responses are in generalities, referring to possible responses from Rabbis, not actual sources and quotes, and, therefore, not convincing. You proposed the argument, so it is on your shoulders to prove that it is based on valid assumptions based on evidence, which has not been presented.

[DangerousTalk]

@jgoldpac The argument is Ontological. It is based on the definition of God provided in the argument. The argument IS the evidence for the argument. That's the point. All you can say is that you reject that definition, and then the argument doesn't apply to you.

As fir personal, you were the one who played the "Persecuted Jew Card." I just called you out on that. That won't fly with me.

[ilyLaura1]

THIS IS RETARDED.

two glaring problems:

a.) i'd agree with the others that have said that not all depictions of a god are all-loving; even if they were, that wouldnt exclude another possible that just doesnt happen to be widely accepted

but more important, b.)

are you like retarded dude? the majority of people indicate god's love for us in his allowance of free will. so, he wouldnt just try to convince you of his existence. true love is giving you freedom.

im agnostic and i know that. retard

[DangerousTalk]

@ilyLaura1 Those are actually pretty retarded points. a.) God as defined in this video is all-loving and if you asked almost anyone if they think God is all-loving they would say yes. Are there people who believe God is not? Sure, but there are also people who believe God is a tea pot. The vast majority of people would agree with that definition. b.) Free will has nothing to do with this argument. Besides, God being all-powerful could change the laws of non-contradiction.

[ilyLaura1]

@DangerousTalk

a.) Really? Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Puritans, Deists, Jainists, and even some sects of Christianity and Judaism believe that God has some attributes that may conflict with him being all-loving (e.g. he is retributive, and disregards love when punishing.)

sure he could be a teapot. but even if what i said is not the majority, it's

1. pretty damn close enough to be considered and

2. considering its the alternative to your proposal, alot more reasonable than a teapot.

[DangerousTalk]

@ilyLaura1 Love is a relationship. There even if it is a past relationship, there is a relationship established there. So yeah, if you love someone, you let them go. But the key is that you had a relationship at one point. The idea that God wants you to love him but doesn't show any love first is ridiculous. I don't think a single Christian holds to that idea.

[DangerousTalk]

@ilyLaura1 As for the religions: Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Puritans, Deists, Jainists

All but Buddhists, Deists, and maybe Jainists hold to an all-loving God.

Must Buddhists don't believe in a God at all, so that is irrelevant.

Deists are extremely rare these days because this isn't the 18th century.

I honestly don't know enough about Jainists to make any claims about their deity(s). I just know that they don't believe in killing anything even accidentally.

[ilyLaura1]

@DangerousTalk

1. he did show love first in creating us with free will (by the way, i dont believe in free will. just playin devil's advocate sort of)

2. you still havent given a reason as to why love necessarily entails doing all in one's power to convince another of his existence. god may just desire us to take a "leap of faith" and trust him.

muslims believe in a god whose prominent attribute is power, not caring and love. i gtg right now, but yea u still havent said why love = convincing.

[DangerousTalk]

@ilyLaura1 Free Will doesn't enter into it. 1. God could change the law of non-contradiction so that it is possible to love freely and to be forced to love. 2. One can't freely love without knowledge. 3. As you and I agree, Free Will doesn't exist.

Love necessitates a relationship. You cannot love someone you don't know or who doesn't know you. That would be unrequited or one-sided love, not true love.

[DangerousTalk]

@ilyLaura1 If God is ALL-LOVING then he would Desire a relationship. If he desires a relationship, then he would desire to make himself known.

Allah's prominent attribute is power and Muslims believe that power comes from Allah's perfect love for them. Go ask any Muslim if they believe Allah is all-loving and I will bet you they will say, "YES!" and they will also insist that Islam is a religion of peace. Their may be a Muslim who disagrees, but you would be hard pressed to find one.

[ilyLaura1]

@DangerousTalk

a.) also, (and this isnt my best point), sure maybe he COULD be a teapot. youre not actually disproving the existence of an all powerful supernatural entity, which might include that.

b.) Free will has everything to do with this. youre saying that him being all-loving implies that he would do everything to convince you of his existence, and im saying that thats not true. rather, his love is fulfilled through his allowance of free will. (i kno this is long, sorry).

[ilyLaura1]

@DangerousTalk

b.) And dude, considering the possibility that God's love is manifested through love rather than striving to convince me would DIRECTLY take out your argument, i'd say that my argument is pretty damn relevant. i used to be a catholic, and we strongly believed that in allowing us to search for him on our own, he wasnt forcing us into anything, and thus being loving.

to your 2nd point: WTF. you just gave 3 MINIMAL requirements of a god, now youre saying he could contradict those?

[ilyLaura1]

@DangerousTalk and by the way, a pre-empt to possible responses:

im not the most religiously knowledgeable person, bro, so if one of those religions i listed actually does believe hes all loving (which i dont think they do, but whatever), then thats my bad. but still, some of them i know for sure, and if at least one organized religion believes it, then that is considerable enough to serve as a viable alternative to your argument, allowing for god to still exist.

[DangerousTalk]

@ilyLaura1 First, the argument is structured in such a way that it only pertains to the definition stated. I think most religious people would agree with that definition. Sure, some fringe believers might not, but I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who would disagree with any part of that definition (especially within the Abrahamic religions).

[DangerousTalk]

@ilyLaura1 Second, an all loving God would need to seek a personal relationship with that which he loves otherwise, it wouldn't be love be definition. You can't love someone unless you have a relationship with them. To do otherwise would be an unrequited love and not true love. So the video stands. I don't see your objection to it.

[ilyLaura1]

@DangerousTalk you conveniently didnt address the fact that i gave several religions which hold a conception of god as something other than all-loving. that concession alone is enough to pretty much take care of that argument.

second, NO. ever heard that corny saying, "if you love her, youll want whats best for her?" yea. love isnt always a relationship dude. its looking out for the best interests of the person, regardless of your personal desires.

[ilyLaura1]

@DangerousTalk

God wants us to freely choose to love him, so he doesnt give any influence to us that might incline us to love him. he wants that to be done on our own.

also, (and please dont think im one of those strict bible-verse users, bro, im not. but im just saying)

corinthians defines love as being patient, kind, enduring, things like that. nowhere does it say "forceful" or "needing a relationship". insofar as thats the reglious def. of love, in this context, i think its relevant.

[GenoSkill]

Go watch Athene's Theory of Everything. He states that god is in the neurons. search that documental here in Youtube itself

[fegu]

Great video. Since God must have a different definition for "love," and justice and ethics, than we do, seeing as so many innocent die and suffer in ways that we ourselves consider unjust and immoral, sometimes even as they're born before they can even make a single choice with their "free will," then we really have a huge disconnect with God and we cannot have a clue as to what He is. But he's supposed to be the one who telepathically gives us the notions of right and wrong to begin with. WTF?

[fshfacegurl]

excellent video

[jgoldpac]

Interesting argument, but I don't believe that God being All Loving is a necessary condition for a God. Most depictions of Gods have them doing terrible things that are far from loving, much less All Loving. Therefore, this argument in itself would not prove that God does not exist because a God may be capricious and not desire you to believe in it. Also, this argument only addresses one God, not a Pantheon of Gods, which are prevalent in many religions.

[DangerousTalk]

@jgoldpac The Abrahamic God is said to have done some really terrible things and yet the believers in that god still insist that it is all loving and seeks a relationship with humans. This argument disproves that god. Sure we can define god to be a teapot and then prove that god exists. This argument addresses the most common definition of god used today by most god believers.

[knux003]

maybe god doesn't exist by that specific definition.

you can't disprove god's existance, and you shouldn't have to. let the theists try and prove it exists.

[DangerousTalk]

@knux003 I don't have to, but I did anyway.