Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 5:32 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 5:30 am You personally can do what you like but it will not be effective in countering theism.

You can't counter theism because theism doesn't want to be countered.

It has nothing to do with arguments - this game doesn't work like you think it works.

Arguments don't magically change minds.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 5:30 am Your logic will not be acceptable by theists from the general logical basis.

From a general logical basis there is no such thing as "greatest" anything, so the fact that you are dealing with people who believe in "greatest" something tells you that you are not dealing with logical people.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 5:30 am To counter theists we need them to accept each premise before we can proceed to the next toward a conclusion, God is an impossibility to be real.

You can't counter theists when instead of making them accept your premise, you accept theirs...

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 6:58 am The magic word here is 'than which no greater' not greatest ['greatest' is vulnerable to infinite regression].

This is why all theists who are aware of the above will have no other choice but cling to the ontological God [as defined], so no one can condemn their God is inferior to another.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:13 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 6:58 am The magic word here is 'than which no greater' not greatest ['greatest' is vulnerable to infinite regression].

This is why all theists who are aware of the above will have no other choice but cling to the ontological God [as defined], so no one can condemn their God is inferior to another.

"no greater" means exactly the same thing as "greatest"

There is no greater number than 10.
The greatest number number is 10.
10 is the greatest number.

It's all saying the same thing.

I hear your definition, I understand it and all that but... here's 11.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:36 am Thus whatever god-X is claim, the ontological God is always X+1.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:37 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:36 am Thus whatever god-X is claim, the ontological God is always X+1.

My God is X+2

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:43 am If your God is 'X+2' the ontological by definition is [X+2]+1.
Point is the ontological god is always one-up on whatever god is proposed

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:44 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:43 am If your God is 'X+2' the ontological by definition is [X+2]+1.
Point is the ontological god is always one-up on whatever god is proposed

If your ontological is [X+2]+1 then my ontological is [X+2]+2

Point is my ontological is always one-up on your ontological.

By definition my definition is one up on your definition.

But if you really want to play this stupid game - my God is Omega (Ω). The Absolute Infinite.

My God is God Proper. The One True Real Philosophically Justified God.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:57 am You are the one who is playing the stupid game.

It is not "MY" God.
I am just making reference and explaining what the theologians has been defining and meant as the ontological-God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

If you have any beef with the definition you should take it up with present theologians who rely on this ontological definition.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 5:13 am The below was a post addressed to a theist which explained "Why GOD must be OMNI-Whatever [positively].

I have already argued extensively how your supposed God must be omni-whatever all over this 'Philosophy of Religion' section.

1. Generally the point is your supposed God must be an ontological God, i.e. a Being than which no greater can be believed/conceived.

2. If your God is not an ontological God then it will leave room for your God to be an inferior God to another superior God claimed by others, e.g. the Islamic God.

3. If your supposed-God is inferior to another God, then the most superior God will be more powerful and thus can kick the arse of your supposed God.

4. No theist would be want their God's arse to be kicked by another God which is more superior.

5. That is why all theists in the know [not blind and ignorant] will have to claim their supposed God is an ontological god so that there will be no God which is greater than their GOD, i.e. a Being than which no greater can be believed/conceived.

6. An ontological God, a Being than which no greater can be believed/conceived, will have positive qualities no other God can overcome or be greater. These qualities will thus have to be OMNI-, i.e. the maximum none can overtake.
OMNI = in all ways or places.

7. Therefore since your supposed God has the quality of benevolence, it has to have be omnibenevolent.

8. Whatever positive quality your supposed God possessed it must be prefixed with 'OMNI'.

9. Since your supposed God is omnipotent and has to be omnibenevolent, it will have the power to maintain its omnibenevolent qualities and not corrupt it with creating humans who are capable to committing evil.

10. But since in reality, humans supposed created by God are committing evil and violence, therefore your supposed omnipotent God with omni-benevolence cannot exists as real in the first place.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 12:53 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 5:13 am The below was a post addressed to a theist which explained "Why GOD must be OMNI-Whatever [positively].

I have already argued extensively how your supposed God must be omni-whatever all over this 'Philosophy of Religion' section.

1. Generally the point is your supposed God must be an ontological God, i.e. a Being than which no greater can be believed/conceived.

2. If your God is not an ontological God then it will leave room for your God to be an inferior God to another superior God claimed by others, e.g. the Islamic God.

3. If your supposed-God is inferior to another God, then the most superior God will be more powerful and thus can kick the arse of your supposed God.

4. No theist would be want their God's arse to be kicked by another God which is more superior.

5. That is why all theists in the know [not blind and ignorant] will have to claim their supposed God is an ontological god so that there will be no God which is greater than their GOD, i.e. a Being than which no greater can be believed/conceived.

6. An ontological God, a Being than which no greater can be believed/conceived, will have positive qualities no other God can overcome or be greater. These qualities will thus have to be OMNI-, i.e. the maximum none can overtake.
OMNI = in all ways or places.

7. Therefore since your supposed God has the quality of benevolence, it has to have be omnibenevolent.

8. Whatever positive quality your supposed God possessed it must be prefixed with 'OMNI'.

9. Since your supposed God is omnipotent and has to be omnibenevolent, it will have the power to maintain its omnibenevolent qualities and not corrupt it with creating humans who are capable to committing evil.

10. But since in reality, humans supposed created by God are committing evil and violence, therefore your supposed omnipotent God with omni-benevolence cannot exists as real in the first place.

Because according to Aquinas there is no potentiality in God. Why there should not be potentiality in God? Because otherwise, God is not the cause of creation. He is the main cause and nothing else caused Him which means that He is an uncaused cause. Something that is an uncaused cause cannot have any potentiality.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 4:08 am

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 12:53 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 5:13 am The below was a post addressed to a theist which explained "Why GOD must be OMNI-Whatever [positively].

I have already argued extensively how your supposed God must be omni-whatever all over this 'Philosophy of Religion' section.

1. Generally the point is your supposed God must be an ontological God, i.e. a Being than which no greater can be believed/conceived.

2. If your God is not an ontological God then it will leave room for your God to be an inferior God to another superior God claimed by others, e.g. the Islamic God.

3. If your supposed-God is inferior to another God, then the most superior God will be more powerful and thus can kick the arse of your supposed God.

4. No theist would be want their God's arse to be kicked by another God which is more superior.

5. That is why all theists in the know [not blind and ignorant] will have to claim their supposed God is an ontological god so that there will be no God which is greater than their GOD, i.e. a Being than which no greater can be believed/conceived.

6. An ontological God, a Being than which no greater can be believed/conceived, will have positive qualities no other God can overcome or be greater. These qualities will thus have to be OMNI-, i.e. the maximum none can overtake.
OMNI = in all ways or places.

7. Therefore since your supposed God has the quality of benevolence, it has to have be omnibenevolent.

8. Whatever positive quality your supposed God possessed it must be prefixed with 'OMNI'.

9. Since your supposed God is omnipotent and has to be omnibenevolent, it will have the power to maintain its omnibenevolent qualities and not corrupt it with creating humans who are capable to committing evil.

10. But since in reality, humans supposed created by God are committing evil and violence, therefore your supposed omnipotent God with omni-benevolence cannot exists as real in the first place.

Because according to Aquinas there is no potentiality in God. Why there should not be potentiality in God? Because otherwise, God is not the cause of creation. He is the main cause and nothing else caused Him which means that He is an uncaused cause. Something that is an uncaused cause cannot have any potentiality.

Where is the reference to Aquinas' point?

Regardless, the principle is,
logically a cause [caused or uncaused] must have the potentiality to generate its effects.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 8:14 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 4:08 am

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 12:53 am
Because according to Aquinas there is no potentiality in God. Why there should not be potentiality in God? Because otherwise, God is not the cause of creation. He is the main cause and nothing else caused Him which means that He is an uncaused cause. Something that is an uncaused cause cannot have any potentiality.

Where is the reference to Aquinas' point?

Regardless, the principle is,
logically a cause [caused or uncaused] must have the potentiality to generate its effects.

https://iep.utm.edu/aq-ph-th/

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 20, 2021 7:22 am

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 8:14 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 19, 2021 4:08 am
Where is the reference to Aquinas' point?

Regardless, the principle is,
logically a cause [caused or uncaused] must have the potentiality to generate its effects.

https://iep.utm.edu/aq-ph-th/

It was your rhetoric in bringing up potentiality.
I did not mention 'potentiality' at all.

Noted the theologians and Aquinas held that;
"God is pure act without any potentiality"; since to attribute potentiality to God would be contradictory to his nature.

As I had stated in my earlier post, whatever of God's acts they have to imply and culminate in having the intrinsic nature of omni-whatever, i.e. omnipotence and omnibenevolence in this discussion.

​