Faith and reason

[bahman]

Yes, we have to figure out why the second premise is right.

Certainly! Malcolm's modal version of the ontological argument for God's existence involves several premises, and the second premise you've mentioned is a crucial one. Let's break it down:

Malcolm's second premise states: "The existence of an unlimited being is either logically necessary or logically impossible."

Here's an explanation:

Unlimited Being: In the context of the ontological argument, an "unlimited being" refers to God, conceived as a being with maximal perfection, including attributes like omnipotence, omniscience, and moral perfection.

Logical Necessity or Impossibility: The premise proposes that the existence of such an unlimited being falls into one of two categories: either it is logically necessary or logically impossible.

Logical Necessity: If the existence of an unlimited being is logically necessary, it means that the very concept of such a being implies its existence. In other words, the idea of an unlimited being is self-contained and cannot coherently be thought of as not existing. It exists in all possible worlds by the nature of its definition.

Logical Impossibility: On the other hand, if the existence of an unlimited being is logically impossible, it means that the concept of such a being is inherently contradictory or inconsistent. The idea of an unlimited being cannot coherently be conceived, and therefore, its existence is ruled out in any possible world.

Implications for God's Existence: The second premise sets up a dichotomy – there are no other possibilities besides logical necessity and logical impossibility. If it can be established that the existence of an unlimited being (God) is not logically impossible, then, according to this premise, it must be logically necessary. In this case, God's existence would be necessary in all possible worlds.

It's worth noting that the ontological argument has been a topic of much philosophical debate, and not all philosophers accept its premises or find its logic convincing. Critics often challenge the idea that existence can be deduced from conceptual analysis alone, and they raise objections to the concept of necessity employed in the argument. Different versions of the ontological argument have been presented by various philosophers throughout history, and Malcolm's version is just one of them.

"If the existence of an unlimited being is logically necessary, it means that the very concept of such a being implies its existence."

That looks dumber than I thought. It's also logically necessary that I win the lottery next week, after all I already came up with the concept for it.

The second premise is a dichotomy and therefore is valid then. So what is left is to understand why the third premise is right. His argument is valid and sound if the third premise is right.

[Age]

No, there is no contradiction in what I said.

you said and wrote, ' God however said in Hebrews 11:6 ...:, and then claimed, ' This means that there is no reason for the existence of God'.

Now if you cannot recognize and see that this here is a straight out self-refuting contradiction, then okay.

But absolutely everyone else here can.

I am saying again that there is no contradiction here.

you can say absolutely anything you like "bahman", but everyone else can see your absolute contradiction and self-refutation here.

If the only way to know God is through faith then there cannot be any reason for the existence of God.

This here jas absolutely no relation to what I have been talking about and pointing out. Which is; you are saying that you are using God's own words as evidence or proof that God does not exist. Which is absurdity in the extreme.

And, even if we were to ignore this self-refutation of yours, what you are trying to say and claim can be countered, irrefutably, as well, also.

[Age]

True. Hindus don't believe in God. They believe in other sorts of things they have no proof of.

We all believe in things we don't have proof of.

The 'we' word here only applies to 'you' adult human beings, alone. No other thing would be stupid enough to believe in things that they do not have proof of.

What this one just said and claimed here is another prime example of when and how one believes that because it does something, then everyone else must also do that same thing, no matter how Wrong, foolish, or stupid doing that thing is exactly.

You're also incorrect: many Hindus believe in God. Yes, some have a more mystic view that is hard to compare to the other monotheisms, but many HIndus believe in God and/or Gods.
Further my point was you said that the quote from the Bible meant

This means that there is no reason for the existence of God.

I don't know why a quote from the Bible can demonstrate there is no reason for the existence of God, and it seems an odd appeal to authority from what seems to be an atheist.

What 'we' have here is another prime example of how when one is already believing something is true, (which they have no proof for), then they 'see' evidence, or claimed proof, for their 'currently' held onto belief in all sorts of things. And, what is happening and occurring here is the primest example of when two or more people with completely opposing beliefs, here being God exists/"theist", and, God does not exist/"atheist" and both "sides" seeing their own belief in the exact same wording, here being 'the bible'.

One, the "theist" will say and state, what is written in the bible means that God exists, while the other, the "atheist" will say and state, that there is no reason for the existence of God, (although and contradictory while also saying God wrote and spoke those words in the bible).

But this is just further proof of how while having, holding, and/or maintaining a belief in something is true, then that will just 'perceive' evidence for its 'currently' held onto belief when no proof actually exists.

It seems like no matter how many times these people are informed that they will not be able to discover, find, uncover, see, and/nor understand the actual and irrefutable Truth of things while they have their beliefs, some still want to maintain, and believe, that they must believe things, and that they must do this even though they have absolutely no actual proof at all for their belief/s.

And, of course, those theists who don't think the Bible or the Torah are the word of God has no reason to just accept an appeal to Biblical authority.

The strangest thing here is "bahman" very contradictory is trying to state and claim that the 'word of God' should be accepted as meaning that there is no reason for the existence of God, Itself.

How are you defining faith?

Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

So, only religious faith, then.

Don't we all assume things?

What do you mean?

Don't we all assume things like memory is to some degree correct, for example?
You can't really prove this since any proof will depend on memory.
There are other assumptions we all make.
Then there are individual assumptions.
We don't have time to go around proving everything, for example, even if we had the means.

Why do you think or believe that you do not have so-called 'time' to so-call 'go around' proving everything?

I will again suggest that if you do not yet have the actual proof that backs up and supports all of your views, then do not waste any one's so-called 'time' expressing those views.

If one cannot back up and support a view with actual proof, especially in a philosophy forum, then, really, is 'here' the right place to be sharing and spreading 'those views'.

However, is saying that, if one's view/s are just what they think might be correct, and they express it in this way, then this is perfectly well, and actually even good.

[Age]

True. Hindus don't believe in God. They believe in other sorts of things they have no proof of.

We all believe in things we don't have proof of. You're also incorrect: many Hindus believe in God. Yes, some have a more mystic view that is hard to compare to the other monotheisms, but many HIndus believe in God and/or Gods.

I read about Hinduism a long time ago. My memory must be rusty.

The memory inside every human head is what you call 'rusty'.

Although some of you obviously believe otherwise, at times.

Further my point was you said that the quote from the Bible meant

This means that there is no reason for the existence of God.

I don't know why a quote from the Bible can demonstrate there is no reason for the existence of God, and it seems an odd appeal to authority from what seems to be an atheist.

Well, God is omniscient

you really still cannot see the contradiction and self-refutation in saying and claiming, for example, God 'is' omniscient. Therefore, this means that there is no reason for the existence of God', correct "bahman"?

so He should know if there is proof for his existence or not.

Why would you begin to refer to God, Itself, as some male gendered Thing?

Oh, and by the way, It knows that there is proof for Its existence.

As I said, if there is proof of the existence of God, then faith becomes meaningless.

Could the word 'faith' and what it is in relation to, exactly, have been misheard, misread, misconstrued, misinterpreted, and then passed on misrepresented here?

In other words could your own personal perception of what the 'faith' word means, or is referring to here, exactly, be not exactly True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct here?

Just like the 'he' word obviously is.

On the other hand, God said that He accepts people just through faith. Therefore there should not be any reason for the existence of God.

And, of course, those theists who don't think the Bible or the Torah are the word of God has no reason to just accept an appeal to Biblical authority.

True.

Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

So, only religious faith, then.

Yes.

What do you mean?

Don't we all assume things like memory is to some degree correct, for example?
You can't really prove this since any proof will depend on memory.
There are other assumptions we all make.
Then there are individual assumptions.
We don't have time to go around proving everything, for example, even if we had the means.

I am currently studying several proofs of the existence of God.

How, exactly, does one 'study' any 'proof'.

Either something is a 'proof' or it is not. There is nothing to 'study'.

Some of the proofs are not based on assumptions. Some of them are very hard to counter.

Any and every actual 'proof' could never be countered. If 'they' could, then 'they' are not 'proofs'.

Also, no 'proof' is based on any 'assumption' at all. To do so would not just be illogical and ridiculous but absolutely would go against the very definition of 'proof', itself.

[Age]

Well, God is omniscient so He should know if there is proof for his existence or not.

So, you take the Bible as the word of God?

No. I am challenging Christian only.

you are, supposedly, 'challenging' them on 'what', exactly?

As I said, if there is proof of the existence of God, then faith becomes meaningless

Can we then assume you think believing in anything we don't have proof of is meaningless and foolish?

No. To me believing is a way to find the truth. We first believe on something and then try to see if it makes sense or not.

Just look at the "logic" here, these people who believed this or had this presumption could not have had things more 'backwards'.

This here is the very reason why it took these human beings, back then, when this was being written, so long to 'catch up'.

On the other hand, God said that He accepts people just through faith. Therefore there should not be any reason for the existence of God.

Possibly this makes sense if you are a Christian who interprets the quote the way you do, might feel cornered into agreeing. But that has nothing to do with demonstrating there is no reason for the existence of a deity. It doesn't demonstrate anything about ontology.

I agree. I am just challenging Christian God.

But with no actual 'reason', right?

Also, the very 'reason' why God does and has to exist is so blatantly obvious. Well when one is not blinded by pre-existing beliefs and/nor presumptions.

I am currently studying several proofs of the existence of God. Some of the proofs are not based on assumptions. Some of them are very hard to counter.

Unless your memory of those experiences and your thinking are faulty.

What do you mean with those experiences?

But it seems to make sense to assume that memory is at least to some degree reliable, so many of us, including you it seems, assume things we cannot prove.

I cannot follow you here. Could you please elaborate?

[Age]

I am currently studying several proofs of the existence of God. Some of the proofs are not based on assumptions. Some of them are very hard to counter.

Could you point me to one that's hard to counter? (not the Kalam nonsense)

For example Anselm’s Second Version of the Ontological Argument.

But 'that' is not a 'proof'.

'That' is just a badly written 'argument', which is not sound and valid.

If you have an actual 'proof' that God exists, then I suggest just presenting 'it' alone.

[Age]

For example Anselm’s Second Version of the Ontological Argument.

I don't think that one makes sense as an omni-god is beyond human imagination, so it's irrelevant what we can and can't imagine.

What do you mean by an omni-god is beyond human imagination?

Also, a God that necessarily exists is not greater than a God that doesn't necessarily exist.

So you are attacking the second premise! Could you please elaborate?

One could even argue that a not necessary God had to reach omni-everything status through effort, which is better than simply automatically having omni-everything status.

What if the omni-everything is boundless? This is discussed in Modal Versions of the Argument.

What do you mean by, 'What if ...'?

Of course so-called labeled 'omni-everything' is boundless. Just like the Universe, which is just Everything, is boundless. It, literally, could not be any other way.

And to think or believe otherwise is just based on faulty thinking/reasoning.

[Age]

What do you mean by an omni-god is beyond human imagination?

Well how should we correctly imagine things that are infinitely beyond us, so they are unimaginable to us?

But there is absolutely nothing that is so-called 'infinitely beyond you', human beings. So, there is absolutely nothing 'unimaginable', to you human beings.

This is because you have the Truly OPEN Mind, within you.

I don't understand this argument at all. As if humans could ever correctly evaluate an omni-god.

If you just come-together on agreement and acceptance of what the 'omni' word means, or is referring to, exactly, then Correctly evaluating a so-called 'omni-god' would be, and was, an extremely simple, easy, and quick thing to do.

So you are attacking the second premise! Could you please elaborate?

I see no real connection between necessary existence and greatness. Just because something can't be any other way, doesn't mean that it's the best that it can't be any other way.

This would all depend on what you are talking about and referring to, exactly.

Take the world for example. Let's say it can't be any other way, and therefore nor can our part of the world be any other way. But our part of the world is mediocre at best. So that's clearly not perfection.

Look, the Universe, Itself, cannot be any other way. It is pure perfect. This is irrefutable. 'the world', however, can be in many ways. Most notably by 'the way' you adult human beings behave, or misbehave.

But, then again, and obviously how you, individually, are defining, and meaning by, the words 'the world' obviously effects 'this' here completely, and absolutely.

Exactly like how you, individually, are defining all the words that you say, write, and use.

What if the omni-everything is boundless? This is discussed in Modal Versions of the Argument.

2. The existence of an unlimited being is either logically necessary or logically impossible.

Well considering the Fact that a so-labeled 'unlimited being' is not 'logically impossible', then, by 'your logic' here, this then means that the 'unlimited being' must be 'logically necessary'.

Either existence is limited or unlimited,

Existence, Itself, is unlimited.

But, the existence of most things is limited.

but that says nothing about whether or not existence is a being. And even if existence is an unlimited being, so it's omni-present, it doesn't mean that it's also omni-everything-else.

This might be true in one sense, but false in another sense.

Because although 'Existence', Itself, is omni-present, what is omni-scient and omni-potent may well be other things, which are also unlimited and existing always in 'Existence', Itself, also.

[Age]

What do you mean by an omni-god is beyond human imagination?

Well how should we correctly imagine things that are infinitely beyond us, so they are unimaginable to us? I don't understand this argument at all. As if humans could ever correctly evaluate an omni-god.

I think we can imagine infinite things. We are not able to accommodate infinite things such as knowledge though.

Why do you think or believe this "bahman"?

Or, are you just thinking from the individual self perspective only once again?

So you are attacking the second premise! Could you please elaborate?

I see no real connection between necessary existence and greatness.

I have the same problem with his argument as well. That is however a problem with the third premise of his first argument as well. Philosophers however accept that there is a relation between existence and greatness in both argument (that is something that I don't understand).

'Who', exactly, accepts what you say and claim here?

They however complain about other things, such as the existence is not a property as this apply to his first argument.

Why do any of you human beings look at what is already known to be not a sound and valid argument?

Why not just accept 'it' as just another unsound and/or invalid argument, and then just 'move on'?

Why ponder over arguments that are not sound and valid for centuries or even millennia?

Just because something can't be any other way, doesn't mean that it's the best that it can't be any other way.

I agree.

What if the omni-everything is boundless? This is discussed in Modal Versions of the Argument.

2. The existence of an unlimited being is either logically necessary or logically impossible.

Either existence is limited or unlimited, but that says nothing about whether or not existence is a being.

To understand this premise you need to study the whole section before the argument. Moreover, this premise does not talk about existence to be limited or not but it is talking about the existence of an unlimited being.

When you use the 'premise' word, do you use 'it' with the concept that 'it' is an already proved Fact, and so is also an irrefutable Truth? Or, do you use that word from and with some other concept?

And even if existence is an unlimited being, so it's omni-present, it doesn't mean that it's also omni-everything-else.

Again, this premise is not talking about whether existence is an unlimited being. I however agree with you that an omni-present being is not necessary omni-everything-else.

[Age]

I think we can imagine infinite things. We are not able to accommodate infinite things such as knowledge though.

We can sort of imagine the concept of infinity,

Why can you only 'sort of' do this?

What, exactly, is stopping or preventing you from 'actually' doing this?

The answer to this question should be very obvious by now, especially considering how many times that I have already informed you people here of 'it'.

but correctly imagining an omni-god would mean imagining an infinite thing. Can't fit into our little brains.

And, it is for 'this way' of looking, the very reason why these people, still, could not see the actual and irrefutable Truth of things.

Now, if absolutely anyone would like to delve deeper, look into, and discuss anything here further, then please let us do. I can then show and explain, exactly, how and why these people, back then, were stopping and preventing "themselves" from actually finding and seeing the actual Truth of things.

To understand this premise you need to study the whole section before the argument. Moreover, this premise does not talk about existence to be limited or not but it is talking about the existence of an unlimited being.

Again, this premise is not talking about whether existence is an unlimited being. I however agree with you that an omni-present being is not necessary omni-everything-else.

That's the problem, there's no good reason to think that existence is a being.

Why did absolutely any of you even begin to start 'thinking' that Existence, Itself, is a so-called 'being'?

So

2. The existence of an unlimited being is either logically necessary or logically impossible.

the existence of an unlimited being is neither logically necessary nor logically impossible.

[Age]

It is not obvious to me.

It's a false dichotomy. The opposite of "necessary" is "unnecessary", not "impossible". The opposite of "impossible" is "possible", not "necessary". Dunno, let's see this one:

I think by necessary he means that God exists in all possible worlds. I however don't understand how he confirms that the second premise is true. I am still reading the article to see if things make sense to me.

Further, on Malcolm’s view, the existence of an unlimited being is either logically necessary or logically impossible. Here is his argument for this important claim. Either an unlimited being exists at world W or it doesn’t exist at world W; there are no other possibilities. If an unlimited being does not exist in W, then its nonexistence cannot be explained by reference to any causally contingent feature of W; accordingly, there is no contingent feature of W that explains why that being doesn’t exist. Now suppose, per reductio, an unlimited being exists in some other world W’. If so, then it must be some contingent feature f of W’ that explains why that being exists in that world. But this entails that the nonexistence of an unlimited being in W can be explained by the absence of f in W; and this contradicts the claim that its nonexistence in W can’t be explained by reference to any causally contingent feature. Thus, if God doesn’t exist at W, then God doesn’t exist in any logically possible world.

Well this said nothing about "the existence of an unlimited being is either logically necessary or logically impossible". It just said that either an omni-present being exists and is omni-present, or it doesn't exist.
That whole "causally contingent" talk and "at" worlds talk is just obfuscation. An omni-present being IS all the worlds.

I agree with what you said about this paragraph but it seems that the article left the details of the argument for interested readers.

3. The existence of an unlimited being is not logically impossible.

Okay

Yes.

4. Therefore, the existence of God is logically necessary.

No it's not, as the 2nd premise didn't entail what it claimed to entail.

Yes, we have to figure out why the second premise is right.

Just because a sentence is called 'a premise', this in no way makes the sentence, right.

That argument, once again, is not sound and valid, and therefore means, well to me anyway, it is not worthy of being repeated, and discussed.

But, if you or anyone else want to carry on with centuries of inconclusive discussions, then please do 'carry on'.

I will, however, and again, suggest to just look at things for what they Truly are, instead of trying to 'presume' that they are something that they are not.

[Age]

Yes, we have to figure out why the second premise is right.

Certainly! Malcolm's modal version of the ontological argument for God's existence involves several premises, and the second premise you've mentioned is a crucial one. Let's break it down:

Malcolm's second premise states: "The existence of an unlimited being is either logically necessary or logically impossible."

Here's an explanation:

Unlimited Being: In the context of the ontological argument, an "unlimited being" refers to God, conceived as a being with maximal perfection, including attributes like omnipotence, omniscience, and moral perfection.

Logical Necessity or Impossibility: The premise proposes that the existence of such an unlimited being falls into one of two categories: either it is logically necessary or logically impossible.

Logical Necessity: If the existence of an unlimited being is logically necessary, it means that the very concept of such a being implies its existence. In other words, the idea of an unlimited being is self-contained and cannot coherently be thought of as not existing. It exists in all possible worlds by the nature of its definition.

Logical Impossibility: On the other hand, if the existence of an unlimited being is logically impossible, it means that the concept of such a being is inherently contradictory or inconsistent. The idea of an unlimited being cannot coherently be conceived, and therefore, its existence is ruled out in any possible world.

Implications for God's Existence: The second premise sets up a dichotomy – there are no other possibilities besides logical necessity and logical impossibility. If it can be established that the existence of an unlimited being (God) is not logically impossible, then, according to this premise, it must be logically necessary. In this case, God's existence would be necessary in all possible worlds.

It's worth noting that the ontological argument has been a topic of much philosophical debate, and not all philosophers accept its premises or find its logic convincing. Critics often challenge the idea that existence can be deduced from conceptual analysis alone, and they raise objections to the concept of necessity employed in the argument. Different versions of the ontological argument have been presented by various philosophers throughout history, and Malcolm's version is just one of them.

"If the existence of an unlimited being is logically necessary, it means that the very concept of such a being implies its existence."

That looks dumber than I thought. It's also logically necessary that I win the lottery next week, after all I already came up with the concept for it.

The second premise is a dichotomy and therefore is valid then. So what is left is to understand why the third premise is right. His argument is valid and sound if the third premise is right.

This here illustrates and shows another example of, and proves why, these people, back then, were discussing the exact same 'thing/s' for centuries and getting absolutely nowhere.

[attofishpi]

Faith and reason are mutually exclusive as faith becomes meaningless if there is a reason for God. God however said in Hebrews 11:6: "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." This means that there is no reason for the existence of God.

What a load of crap. Talk about non sequitur(s).

Faith and reason go hand in hand. God asks for faith for its existence to be revealed such that one no longer remains with faith only. I know God exists, and I know there must be a reason for its existence. Neither excludes the other.

No, faith and reason do not go hand in hand. They refer to two different things, one of them is faith, strong belief, and another reason, which has nothing to do with the faith. They are mutually exclusive. If the only way to know God is through faith, as God said, then there couldn't be a reason for the existence of God. If you have a strong reason for the existence of God then faith becomes meaningless.

No, everything a humans does has reasoning behind it, including faith. One must believe it reasonable, plausible that God exists to then allow that person to have faith. To state that faith and reasoning are mutually exclusive is bloody ridiculous.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Faith and reason are mutually exclusive as faith becomes meaningless if there is a reason for God. God however said in Hebrews 11:6: "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." This means that there is no reason for the existence of God.

Faith and reason are inversely proportional;

Faith...- 0.1%..to 100%
Reason.- 100% to O.1%

What is mutually exclusive is empiricism and theism.
Both has elements of faith and reason in different degrees.

God can be believed both by 100% faith or 100% reason, or in combination, but the resultant God cannot be empirically real to the extent of answering prayers, create the universe or whatever humans think God is.

You either have a reason for God or you don't. So it is binary. The same applies to faith. You either have faith in a specific God or you don't.

How can you be so ignorant of the reality in this case?

Scientific facts as the most credible and objective necessary entails reason [inductive] and faith [small degrees].
Induction is not of high quality reason as compared to say deduction.

Note Reasonable-faith
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/
but faith is this case is too high to be reasonably reasonable.

It is so prevalent within theology and philosophy where theologians had relied upon reason to prove the existence of God.
But ultimately is these cases, the faith [implicit] is too high to be reasonably reasonable.

[Atla]

Yes, we have to figure out why the second premise is right.

Certainly! Malcolm's modal version of the ontological argument for God's existence involves several premises, and the second premise you've mentioned is a crucial one. Let's break it down:

Malcolm's second premise states: "The existence of an unlimited being is either logically necessary or logically impossible."

Here's an explanation:

Unlimited Being: In the context of the ontological argument, an "unlimited being" refers to God, conceived as a being with maximal perfection, including attributes like omnipotence, omniscience, and moral perfection.

Logical Necessity or Impossibility: The premise proposes that the existence of such an unlimited being falls into one of two categories: either it is logically necessary or logically impossible.

Logical Necessity: If the existence of an unlimited being is logically necessary, it means that the very concept of such a being implies its existence. In other words, the idea of an unlimited being is self-contained and cannot coherently be thought of as not existing. It exists in all possible worlds by the nature of its definition.

Logical Impossibility: On the other hand, if the existence of an unlimited being is logically impossible, it means that the concept of such a being is inherently contradictory or inconsistent. The idea of an unlimited being cannot coherently be conceived, and therefore, its existence is ruled out in any possible world.

Implications for God's Existence: The second premise sets up a dichotomy – there are no other possibilities besides logical necessity and logical impossibility. If it can be established that the existence of an unlimited being (God) is not logically impossible, then, according to this premise, it must be logically necessary. In this case, God's existence would be necessary in all possible worlds.

It's worth noting that the ontological argument has been a topic of much philosophical debate, and not all philosophers accept its premises or find its logic convincing. Critics often challenge the idea that existence can be deduced from conceptual analysis alone, and they raise objections to the concept of necessity employed in the argument. Different versions of the ontological argument have been presented by various philosophers throughout history, and Malcolm's version is just one of them.

"If the existence of an unlimited being is logically necessary, it means that the very concept of such a being implies its existence."

That looks dumber than I thought. It's also logically necessary that I win the lottery next week, after all I already came up with the concept for it.

The second premise is a dichotomy and therefore is valid then. So what is left is to understand why the third premise is right. His argument is valid and sound if the third premise is right.

Okay then any dichotomy is valid. Either cats have 6 legs or it is raining diamonds. It's a dichotomy so it's valid. Or maybe I should use the word "sound" here.