The Modal Ontological Argument (Part 1 of 8)
Uploader Comments (Rayndeon)
All Comments (57)
-
Any "God" that is less than existence is not the true "God," for such a finite being IS finite and is therefore much smaller than a larger being--and infinitely smaller than existence!--and is therefore not omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent (clearly designated attributes of "God").
-
It's not that everything is "a" God; it's that everything IS God. If you've only thought about this issue from western philosophy's logically positivist POV, you really should read some Zen Buddhism and find that "God" need not be a separate person and is, in fact, more easily recognized as all-inclusive, unqualified ("vacuous" from your POV) existence itself, for only existence and "God" are both arguably "infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient" concepts.
-
I don't want to argue semantics with you, but whether or not existence is paradoxical is a philosophical matter, all-encompassing, semantic point, not a scientific one.
We are indeed ignorant. Massively, even infinitely so. Our ignorance about the infinite totality of existence is literally insurmountable. Every bit of actual knowledge we carve out of our particular universe only increases our finite bubble of knowledge but leaves an infinite more to learn.
-
Existance is not paradoxical. That right there is a bold assertment with the aid of the argue of ingorance. If life was pardoxial, then reality would not be predictable nor reliable. We would live in a world of miracles.
-
I find this very interesting. Do you have any further writing or sources on this?
-
I saw a video by QualiaSoup that had a big scrolling list of apologetic arguments. (I think it's called 'Putting Faith in it's Place')
I wan't a video series that goes through them all in order.
-
I thought this might be interesting but I was wrong ....it is boring, ....really boring.
No offence meant to guy himself........just the content......yawn.....you know what? you should get out more if you are watching this,it s more fun than talking about what if? mind numbing not expanding. I can feel my synapes shutting down now..............
-
I always find it hilarious looking at the numbers for how many times a video in a series has been seen because they change so dramatically from video to video.
Yes, existence is paradoxical, and thus transcends perfectly logical formulation. I'm glad we agree.
Whether or not we call this ultimate mystery "God" is merely a semantic choice ... unless, of course, one insists on a fairy tale definition of "God."
If you want perfectly logical, positivist formulations, stick to science. If you prefer philosophy, learn to live with paradox re the biggest questions.
normbreyfogle 4 years ago
I don't think existence is paradoxical. I simply think that you're being vacuous. I simply pointed out that existence is an abstract object. God isn't.
And terms have referents. If you're going to assign a referent that *totally differs* from the conventional referent, it's not a distinction but a *change in subject*.
No non-personal being is a God, by definition, since conventionally, only personal beings can be a God. That is the whole point of language.
Rayndeon 4 years ago
With "God" being identical to "Existence," that is.
normbreyfogle 4 years ago
"Existence" is nothing more than the abstract object of exemplification, which every object exemplifies. That sort of ontological argument is even more vacuous, as it leads to the consequence that everything is a God. Of course, God is not an abstract object and hence not "existence." Try to rigorously formulate your argument. You'll quickly find it impossible to find a successful one.
Rayndeon 4 years ago