Catholic's way of proving that their god exists.

[highway17]

Here's what a priest told us today, to "prove" their god's existence.

St. Anselm, the Catholic archbishop of Canterbury and a Doctor of the Church, first formulated the Ontological Argument. This philosophical argument is perhaps the strangest and most hotly debated of the proofs. The argument has attracted the attentions of such notable philosophers as Immanuel Kant (who attacked St. Anselm's proof) and G.W.F Hegel (who defended Anselm's proof).

The proof is most notable because it alone claims to prove the existence of God by relying independently on human reason without the need for perception or evidence. The proof itself relies on the defined concept of God as a perfect being. St. Anselm's proof is summarized here:

1. God exists in our understanding. This means that the concept of God resides as an idea in our minds.

2. God is a possible being, and might exist in reality. He is possible because the concept of God does not bear internal contradictions.

3. If something exists exclusively in our understanding and might have existed in reality then it might have been greater. This simply means that something that exists in reality is perfect (or great). Something that is only a concept in our minds could be greater by actually existing.

4. Suppose (theoretically) that God only exists in our understanding and not in reality.

5. If this were true, then it would be possible for God to be greater then he is (follows from premise #3).
6. This would mean that God is a being in which a greater is possible.
7. This is absurd because God, a being in which none greater is possible, is a being in which a greater is possible. Herein lies the contradiction.
8. Thus it follows that it is false for God to only exist in our understanding.
9. Hence God exists in reality as well as our understanding.


Study the above proof carefully. It is an intriguing proof because it states that God, a perfect being, must exist in all possible circumstances in order to satisfy the definition of his perfection. A God that can exist in only some circumstances, but fails to exist in others is a less than perfect being.



I'm not a Christian by the way, I just took notes on what the priest said. Doing some research, I found out he basically word for word stole it from here: http://www.saintaquinas.com/philosophy.html

Well, well, well...

[Whitney]

This one always cracks me up and makes me wonder how anyone could keep a straight face presenting it as serious.

God is real because we imagined him to be real and our imagined god couldn't actually be this imagined all powerful being unless it is real therefore it is real.

I think someone was smoking something when they came up with it and others were like...wow, Man...that's deep.  And the rest don't think it makes sense but assume they aren't smart enough to understand it.

[highway17]

I love #2 because it's basically saying "God is possible, because we say so, and doesn't contradict itself, because we say so."

The rest are also "because we say so"'s.

[Crow]

This is the most flawed argument I have heard for a long time. It implies that anything that can be thought could exist, it also states "the concept of God does not bear internal contradictions" which is blatantly rubbish with atheists that have come from a theistic belief being proof that the thought did cause contradictions, not to mention those that do believe but doubt their belief in a god at some point. This doesn't even belong in an A-level philosophy class it is that silly.

[Gawen]

The Ontological Argument fails for one simple reason, it's a presuppositional argument. One must presuppose that a god exists, as what Anselm does. Then Anselm formulates the "God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived" proof, which is not proof at all. In all its forms, from Anselm, Descarte, Plantinga and others, the ontological argument has been debunked.

Anselm thought some things are good and some things are better than others. Something then must be the supreme good which nothing can be better, and this is God. Incredibly flawed argument. Anselm thought God is the supreme sum of all good qualities and argued for a very expansive view of god as perfect in all good qualities...and that includes logic and Anselm's inference that god is above logic.  The problem is if God was above logic, he could make 2 + 2 = 5 if and when he desires. In Anselm's view, if god is omnipotent, then he must be truly omnipotent in the most expansive manner. Anselm simply never thought of God and logic in this way.

Postulating the existence of something (the ontological argument) does not necessarily mean that that something exists. Continuing this further, existence is not a predicate of something. It is not an attribute to be added to something. Existence is not a characteristic that something may have or lack. Anselm cannot say, "Put all the gods that exist in one cage and all the gods that do not exist in the other", which is what I asked Isok some time back. I didn't get an answer from him either. Nor could Anselm say "Put the God that is that than which nothing greater can be conceived in one cage and all the other lesser gods in another cage." There is a logical difference between saying "God is" and "God is X". Anselm tried to do both - mixing both and it didn't work, except for the gullible.

[highway17]

Funny thing is, the priest said "This is proof that God exists, and even a godless atheist can't argue against it." (He likes to stab atheists almost every day.)

I think it's interesting how he tried to explain what philosophy was, and he started by making this statement: "Everything in your mind comes from one of two processes, 1. Seeing and 2. Being told.

Ways>          Seeing      Being Told
What We Do>  Learning           Trusting
Sources>       Reason              Revalation
Knowledge>    Philosophy         Faith

He then went on to say that we use philosophy every day, and he gave the example of when somebody says "That's stupid" we're using philosophy to say "that's illogical." This makes absolutely no sense...

Then we went on to Relativism, which was defined as "depends on the situation and the person" while Absoluteism (sounded like a made-up word at first) meant in ALL cases, something is right or wrong.

[Sweetdeath]

If god is what I make him/she out to be, can he/she be Aslan from Narnia?  He's a badass lion god.

[Too Few Lions]

I can't believe someone put that forward as 'proof' for the existence of god, without at some point thinking to themselves 'this argument is incredibly stupid and makes no sense and prooves nothing whatsoever...I'd better just keep this to myself'

it makes no logical sense to me, maybe the priest was just hoping to bamboozle you with his nonsensical argument

[Tank]

I can't believe someone put that forward as 'proof' for the existence of god, without at some point sthinking to themselves 'this argument is incredibly stupid and makes no sense and prooves nothing whatsoever...I'd better just keep this to myself'

it makes no logical sense to me, maybe the priest was just hoping to bamboozle you with his nonsensical argument

This is a classic example of exploiting the 'argument from authority' where one relies on the innate gullibility of the young in a teaching environment, where the pupil is not expecting the teacher to lie or mis-lead them. Classic indoctrination.

[Too Few Lions]

you could hear my bullshit alarm ringing from down the street as I was reading this 'proof'

[Tank]

you could hear my bullshit alarm ringing from down the street as I was reading this 'proof'

I agree. It almost hurts to read such rubbish!

[DeterminedJuliet]

This would almost be funny if it wasn't so disturbing that he meant it seriously.

Did he say this during a sermon?

[The Magic Pudding]

I wish you guys would take it a bit easier on the Catholics.
Since use of the rack has gone out of favour they've had a hard time proving stuff.
Have some sympathy.

[Too Few Lions]

I wish you guys would take it a bit easier on the Catholics.
Since use of the rack has gone out of favour they've had a hard time proving stuff.
Have some sympathy.

too true. Sure we'd all have been tortured then burnt alive 500 years ago for laughing at such a 'proof' of god's existence

[xSilverPhinx]

I wish you guys would take it a bit easier on the Catholics.
Since use of the rack has gone out of favour they've had a hard time proving stuff.
Have some sympathy.

too true. Sure we'd all have been tortured then burnt alive 500 years ago for laughing at such a 'proof' of god's existence

LOL

Why do you think they needed the Inquisition? They haven't got many other ways to convince the non gullible.