Why Agnostics Suck

[Meganerdbomb]

In fact, as per the ontological argument for the existence of God, these are necessary properties of God. It is a conceptual truth that God is, the   greatest possible being that can be imagined. Thus, he must be imagined as Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient, AND he must also exist as stated thus.

• By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
• A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
• Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does   not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is   greater than God.
• But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
• Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
• God exists in the mind as an idea.
• Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

This is basically the greatest troll argument ever devised.

Might as well go with this.

1.  I am God.
2.  Anyone who thinks otherwise must be wrong.

Conclusion, logic without observation is stupid.

Your argument is completely illogical. Your first statement, that you are God, is immediately questionable, which makes your second statement meaningless.
The beauty of the ontological argument is that the first statement is true by definition; the second statement is a self evident truth; the third is a logical conclusion drawn from the first two statements; the fourth is a restatement of the first; the fifth statement is a logical conclusion of the previous statements; 6 is, once again, self-evidently true; while 7 is the conclusion drawn from a proof by contradiction.
If every statement is true, and the argument follows a logical conclusion, then the argument must be true.

[123savethewhales]

In fact, as per the ontological argument for the existence of God, these are necessary properties of God. It is a conceptual truth that God is, the   greatest possible being that can be imagined. Thus, he must be imagined as Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient, AND he must also exist as stated thus.

• By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
• A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
• Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does   not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is   greater than God.
• But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
• Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
• God exists in the mind as an idea.
• Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

This is basically the greatest troll argument ever devised.

Might as well go with this.

1.  I am God.
2.  Anyone who thinks otherwise must be wrong.

Conclusion, logic without observation is stupid.

Your argument is completely illogical. Your first statement, that you are God, is immediately questionable, which makes your second statement meaningless.
The beauty of the ontological argument is that the first statement is true by definition; the second statement is a self evident truth; the third is a logical conclusion drawn from the first two statements; the fourth is a restatement of the first; the fifth statement is a logical conclusion of the previous statements; 6 is, once again, self-evidently true; while 7 is the conclusion drawn from a proof by contradiction.
If every statement is true, and the argument follows a logical conclusion, then the argument must be true.

The first argument is only true "by definition"

And by definition, "I am God", therefore it is self evident that anyone who thinks otherwise must be wrong.

That's the problem with any "by definition" argument.

There are absolutely no reason why "By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined."  This is a "given" and has absolutely nothing to do with the logical process.  I can even use "by definition, a dog is a cat" and it will be the same thing.  If you think this definition, or any definition, is somehow more logical, that is simply an illusion.

[Urjak]

he beauty of the ontological argument is that the first statement is true by definition;

I disagree. The definition of the word "greater" throws away the objectivity of the argument (what is greater to one person might not be greater to others.) And I would love for them to show where God is defined as the greatest thing imaginable.

[Meganerdbomb]

In fact, as per the ontological argument for the existence of God, these are necessary properties of God. It is a conceptual truth that God is, the   greatest possible being that can be imagined. Thus, he must be imagined as Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient, AND he must also exist as stated thus.

• By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
• A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
• Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does   not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is   greater than God.
• But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
• Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
• God exists in the mind as an idea.
• Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

This is basically the greatest troll argument ever devised.

Might as well go with this.

1.  I am God.
2.  Anyone who thinks otherwise must be wrong.

Conclusion, logic without observation is stupid.

Your argument is completely illogical. Your first statement, that you are God, is immediately questionable, which makes your second statement meaningless.
The beauty of the ontological argument is that the first statement is true by definition; the second statement is a self evident truth; the third is a logical conclusion drawn from the first two statements; the fourth is a restatement of the first; the fifth statement is a logical conclusion of the previous statements; 6 is, once again, self-evidently true; while 7 is the conclusion drawn from a proof by contradiction.
If every statement is true, and the argument follows a logical conclusion, then the argument must be true.

The first argument is only true "by definition"

And by definition, "I am God", therefore it is self evident that anyone who thinks otherwise must be wrong.

That's the problem with any "by definition" argument.

There are absolutely no reason why "By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined."  This is a "given" and has absolutely nothing to do with the logical process.

That is true, however,  I could just say "there exists a concept of being that which no greater being can be conceived". The fact that I can say that the concept exists means that the concept must indeed exist, so the argument is still valid.

In   fact, as per the ontological argument for the existence of God, these   are necessary properties of God. It is a conceptual truth that God is,   the   greatest possible being that can be imagined. Thus, he must be   imagined as Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient, AND he must also   exist as stated thus.

• By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
• A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
• Thus,   by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does   not   necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is     greater than God.
• But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
• Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
• God exists in the mind as an idea.
• Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

This is basically the greatest troll argument ever devised.

Might as well go with this.

1.  I am God.
2.  Anyone who thinks otherwise must be wrong.

Conclusion, logic without observation is stupid.

Your   argument is completely illogical. Your first statement, that you are   God, is immediately questionable, which makes your second statement   meaningless.
The beauty of the ontological argument is that the   first statement is true by definition; the second statement is a self   evident truth; the third is a logical conclusion drawn from the first   two statements; the fourth is a restatement of the first; the fifth   statement is a logical conclusion of the previous statements; 6 is, once   again, self-evidently true; while 7 is the conclusion drawn from a   proof by contradiction.
If every statement is true, and the argument follows a logical conclusion, then the argument must be true.

The first argument is only true "by definition"

And by definition, "I am God", therefore it is self evident that anyone who thinks otherwise must be wrong.

That's the problem with any "by definition" argument.

There   are absolutely no reason why "By definition, God is a being than which   none greater can be imagined."  This is a "given" and has absolutely   nothing to do with the logical process.

That is true,   however,  I could just say "there exists a concept of being that which   no greater being can be conceived". The fact that I can say that the   concept exists means that the concept must indeed exist, so the argument   is still valid.
 
 

 

 
  he beauty of the ontological argument is that the first statement is true by definition;
 

 
 
  I   disagree. The definition of the word "greater" throws away the   objectivity of the argument (what is greater to one person might not be   greater to others.) And I would love for them to show where God is   defined as the greatest thing imaginable.
 

  Interestingly enough, this is the reason one of the counter arguments to   this fails. The statement holds true for the greatest conceivable being   because you cannot imaging a being that is greater than Omnipotent,   Omniscient and Omnipresent, since you cannot be more than all-powerful,   or have more knowledge than all knowledge. Thus, a being that is   Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, AND that exists. Is the greatest   being that can be imagined. If you can imagine one greater let me know.

[Sage]

Siding with MNB here a bit, it is accepted to used the word "infinity" as a legitimate concept, even though is does not necessarily exist.

[123savethewhales]

That is true, however,  I could just say "there exists a concept of being that which no greater being can be conceived". The fact that I can say that the concept exists means that the concept must indeed exist, so the argument is still valid.

Not true.  I can copy and paste a bunch of stuff off Wikipedia, it does not mean I can comprehend it.

So here, you being able to copy the text, which I assure you did, does not imply your imagine did invoke something "greater then all".

No brain can possibly invoke a greater which is infinite, because we are finite.  It can put a symbol on it, we can even do math with it, but we cannot comprehend it.  Since it is impossible for our imagination to completely conceive of such God.  Point 6, another given, is therefore invalid.

I have yet to see a single person who can, through imagination, invoke omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient at the same time.  Being able to throw those terms around does not mean we can understand their implication, especially when one contradicts another.  And those that think they could can try answering a these 5 simply questions.

1.  Can God kill himself?
2.  Can God imagine?
3.  Can God forget?
4.  Can God create being with free will?
5.  Can God think?

[Meganerdbomb]

That is true, however,  I could just say "there exists a concept of being that which no greater being can be conceived". The fact that I can say that the concept exists means that the concept must indeed exist, so the argument is still valid.

Not true.  I can copy and paste a bunch of stuff off Wikipedia, it does not mean I can comprehend it.

So here, you being able to copy the text, which I assure you did, does not imply your imagine did invoke something "greater then all".

No brain can possibly invoke a greater which is infinite, because we are finite.  It can put a symbol on it, we can even do math with it, but we cannot comprehend it.  Since it is impossible for our imagination to completely conceive of such God.  Point 6, another given, is therefore invalid.

I have yet to see a single person who can, through imagination, invoke omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient at the same time.  Being able to throw those terms around does not mean we can understand their implication, especially when one contradicts another.

I'm actually somewhat offended that you would think so little of me as to assume I'm just copy-pasting Wikipedia. The only thing I've copied and pasted so far was the original form of the ontological argument. The rest is my own brilliance (and stuff I learned in Philosophy 101). You underestimate me considerably.
Also, just because you can't comprehend infinity does not mean the concept does not exist. As you said, we do math with it. You cannot completely conceive of such a being, but you can still grasp the concept of such a being.


The answer to your questions are:
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes (in fact, ONLY an omnipotent god COULD create a being with free will)
Yes
Otherwise, it wouldn't be God.
There is no contradiction because this being's infinite power transcends your finite logic.
I told you this was the ultimate troll argument.
 

[123savethewhales]

That is true, however,  I could just say "there exists a concept of being that which no greater being can be conceived". The fact that I can say that the concept exists means that the concept must indeed exist, so the argument is still valid.

Not true.  I can copy and paste a bunch of stuff off Wikipedia, it does not mean I can comprehend it.

So here, you being able to copy the text, which I assure you did, does not imply your imagine did invoke something "greater then all".

No brain can possibly invoke a greater which is infinite, because we are finite.  It can put a symbol on it, we can even do math with it, but we cannot comprehend it.  Since it is impossible for our imagination to completely conceive of such God.  Point 6, another given, is therefore invalid.

I have yet to see a single person who can, through imagination, invoke omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient at the same time.  Being able to throw those terms around does not mean we can understand their implication, especially when one contradicts another.

You underestimate me considerably. The only thing I've copied and pasted so far was the original form of the ontological argument. The rest is my own brilliance (and stuff I learned in Philosophy 101).

I only intend to suggest you copy that 1 sentence I quoted
 
  "there exists a concept of being that which no greater being can be conceived"

Which means it doesn't prove you can conceive it.

Also, just because you can't comprehend infinity does not mean the concept does not exist. As you said, we do math with it. You cannot completely conceive of such a being, but you can still grasp the concept of such a being.

And now we are running in circle with 1.  If you cannot completely conceive, then any person who can conceive a more complete being will have a "greater" being then your.  Your being is therefore cannot be all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere.  And due to the gaps in comprehension, all being we can conceive will end up with limited powers.

And the 5 questions I give are clearly loaded.

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes (in fact, ONLY an omnipotent god COULD create a being with free will)
Yes
Otherwise, it wouldn't be God.
There is no contradiction because this being's infinite power transcends your finite logic. (Image removed from quote.)

And here I will prove someone else imagined being is more epic then yours.

If God at least have the power of the Schrodinger's cat, then he can be BOTH yes and no at the same time so he can meet the requirement of omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient all at once.  Which is greater then yours version.

Because of this, God is God and a worm at the same time.  God is and is not the universe.

Schrodinger is the ultimate troll, that probably makes him is and isn't God at the same time.
 

[Meganerdbomb]

Yet, I answered all of them. It's easy when you use troll logic.

[123savethewhales]

Lol I responded, someone else out troll you though.  Proving you cannot imagine the greatest being.

Now you just have to top Shrodinger's cat with something even more epic.

[Meganerdbomb]

Well, that's my fault for not saying both yes and no in the first place, but yeah I think this has gone about as far as it's gonna go. The ontological argument isn't the type of thing that will actually convince anyone, but I like it because it's rather difficult to disprove, even though it feels like a total cop-out. Attacking the first premise is really the only way to dispute it, as you figured, but even then, all your saying is that it's wrong because you aren't smart enough to get it.

Also Pinkie Pie is not both at once, she's all at once, but only if she wants to be, which makes her both god and not god AND cupcakes.

[123savethewhales]

Well, that's my fault for not saying both yes and no in the first place, but yeah I think this has gone about as far as it's gonna go. The ontological argument isn't the type of thing that will actually convince anyone, but I like it because it's rather difficult to disprove, even though it feels like a total cop-out. Attacking the first premise is really the only way to dispute it, as you figured, but even then, all your saying is that it's wrong because you aren't smart enough to get it.

Also Pinkie Pie is not both at once, she's all at once, but only if she wants to be, which makes her both god and not god AND cupcakes.

#6 can also be attack, because that's a second given.

You can disprove it as not comprehensible through incompleteness.  Therefore God under those definitions does not exist as a concept in people's mind, what is imagined is but a weak, lame, incomplete being.  This can be done either with logic (your version of omnipotent is limited by your imagination, so your version isn't God) or examples of even greater beings (Schrodinger's Cat or Pinkie Pie).

I find #6 a lot easier to attack then #1, because then I get to be on the offensive in telling them how lame their imagined God is.

[Naryar]

Proud agnostic atheist here.

1-By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
2-A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does   not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is   greater than God.
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
God exists in the mind as an idea.
Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

Alright, so answer me this, you filthy sophist.

1-If God is "a thing that which none greater can be imagined", then how can he fit in the universe, being greater than anything else existing ? As we can imagine the universe ?
2-How is the probability of a thing existing directly linked to it's greatness or not ?
3-Your last two statements make no common sense at all and can be proved wrong with just one example...

"Nothing exists in the mind as an idea, therefore, nothing exists in reality".

Obviously this is false. Therefore, I have enough of one counter-example to trash your theory.

[Meganerdbomb]

Proud agnostic atheist here.

1-By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
2-A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does   not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is   greater than God.
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
God exists in the mind as an idea.
Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

Alright, so answer me this, you filthy sophist.

1-If God is "a thing that which none greater can be imagined", then how can he fit in the universe, being greater than anything else
  existing ? As we can imagine the universe ?

>Implying God has to exist within the confines of this universe.
It would be utterly illogical to even think such a thing.

2-How is the probability of a thing existing directly linked to it's greatness or not ?
3-Your last two statements make no common sense at all and can be proved wrong with just one example...

"Nothing exists in the mind as an idea, therefore, nothing exists in reality".

Obviously this is false. Therefore, I have enough of one counter-example to trash your theory.

You aren't following the logic. Something that exists is intrinsically greater than that which does not because it possesses an important property that the other lacks, namely existence.   Thus, if there is a being that which nothing greater can be conceived it exists necessarily. Your counter argument does not hold because  existence is not a necessary property of everything, only that which is greatest.

[123savethewhales]

3-Your last two statements make no common sense at all and can be proved wrong with just one example...

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." - Einstein

[Naryar]

>Implying God has to exist within the confines of this universe.
It would be utterly illogical to even think such a thing.

Not if you think that there is only one universe, and not a multiverse.

3-Your last two statements make no common sense at all and can be proved wrong with just one example...

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." - Einstein

Fine, fine, common sense wasn't the best word choice, therefore I will correct myself: LOGICAL sense. He shortens a theory to a statement and it's "logical" conclusion when it can be proven wrong.

[Serge]

Not if you think that there is only one universe, and not a multiverse.

If there is a multiverse, there must be at least one universe where Twilight, Fluttershy, Applejack, Rarity, Pinkie Pie and Rainbow Dash exist!

[Velocity EVO]

Does god have parents?

[madman3]

Enough.
Eric Clapton is God and Kerry King is Satan. Makes far more sense.

[Sage]

the universe is an experiment in the basement of some mad scientist
-quantum physics