http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLQ0DnUTyX8&NR=1

Excellent explanation of the ontological argument and how it utterly fails to even remain self consistent, or logical at all.

One of my favorite youtube users really does a good job.

Did not Steven Jay Gould propose an ontological system for evolution?

Ontology is not a bad thing. At its simplest its the study of the nature of being, or existence.
The argument is attempting to prove gods existence and is thus called the ontological argument, but it fails to do so with logical consistency so its really a failed ontological argument for god.

Steven Jay Gould posed as an ontological system for evolution.

the undisputable confimation of the Ontological argument is the bible ...why?

because the bible acknowledge that God exist
so why should we believe what the bible says
because God acknowledge that the bible is true
but how do we know that God acknowledge the bible?
because the bible tells us so

Unfortunately I can't watch the video.

However, if this is an ontological argument for the existence of the biblical version of God I can easily imagine it failing dramatically.

Right off the bat we have the very premise of the Bible that mankind is responsible for bring imperfection and death into the world, but empirical evidence suggest that imperfection and death clearly existed long before mankind ever came onto the scene.

So the biblical version of God never gets airborn.

The rest of the stories are so full of self-contradictions and contradications against what the very character of God is supposed to be that I can't see where the Bible has a prayer of being true. (if you'll excuse the pun).

However, the Biblical stories are of an intervening egotistical God who has wants, desires, and even lusts to be worshipped and obeyed.

It's an extremly egotistical picture of an egotistical spiritual being. Not to mention that it also requires the existence of a Satantic opposite to God.

As far as I can see the Biblical accounts of a "God" are far more Zeus-like, than anything else. And most people reject Zeus as being nothing more than mythology.

Is the Biblical story truly a story of "spirituality"? Or is it just a plot to recruit soldiers to enlist in Holy Wars? And to get the masses to bow down and worship the authority of the Church?

I personally think it's just the latter.

In the last chapter of Mismeasure of Man, he showed that reborn chimps looked more human than as adults and that he where he began his reasoning, I however have not been able to follow the argument and then he died.

Of course, this is all about proving God's existence, rather than 'allowing for', 'considering possible', 'considering plausible', 'accepting', etc.

The Rejection of the Ontological Argument

On god’s insistence
Man proved god’s existence
But some other man’s resistence
To the notion of god’s existence
Created the theory of happenstance
That uprooted faith in the creator in an instance
And created an atheist renaissance.
The religious now fight in the defence
As the armies of atheist advance
While god, now a mere nuisance
Lost his ability to instill in us a sense
That we are still just a footnote, a reference
To his greatness, to his presence.
No longer looks man at god askance,
We no longer ask deities to teach us lessons.
We’ve come of age, we now originate from mense,
Not from a mystical power, however immense.
We’ve regained lordship over our own existence,
Over all man’s, women’s and children’s.

2009 12 08

All rights reserved.

Just as the ontological argument fails so does any argument to show god does not exist.

Right. So now I'll dedicate my life to creating arguments and proofs that God may or may not exist. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. He does, he doesn't. Daisy petal religion.

The ontological argument doesn't prove a God but does point to an initial cause.

1. what ever begins to exist has a cause.
2. the universe began to exist
3. the universe has a cause.

Another argument is that only nothing can come from nothing.

Without God, morals and ethics are an arbitrary development with no real significance.

The concept of God is that God transcends time and space. Some call this the god of the gaps as Richard Dawkins puts it. If there's no physical answer insert "god" is his assertion.

As we may know, the universe is not and can not be infinite. For there to be a literal infinity backwards in time it would literally be impossible to arrive in the present and yet here we are!

The bible is full of contradictions errors and inconsistencies but it was penned by various different authors which had varying beliefs. That explains the contradictions. There is still free will that God voluntarily gives which shows the will of the authors. The 10 commandments of the old testament is what God literally wrote. Jesus simplified these commandments in two commandments: Love God and Love your neighbor. Love fulfills the commandments.

This subject is a passion of mine and have read the works of Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and am currently reading Bertrand Russell and I greatly admire these men. I would like to recommend Dr. William Lane Craig's book Reasonable Faith which uses philosophy to explain the existence of God. Dr. Craig Has debated many atheist, agnostic and former Christians and is widely know as the best the faith has in defending Christianity. Many of these videos are on Youtube and Google and can be purchased from his site. Even if one strongly disagrees the the concept of God, the books and videos make for great reference for knowing the other side of this debate.

Trust me, I'm well read in the atheistic arguments and many do present some good arguments, but none of them successfully disprove the existence of God which I understand is NOT part of their argument. They believe that there is simply no good reason to believe that God exists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUWqXbdjvgU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6GuCUOyb30

Does Evolution Disprove God's Existence?
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=49792846

This also explains why it's not the word of any "god" but rather it's simply the personal beliefs of various men.



The fact that Christianity feels a need to be defended is what makes it such a sad religion.

Evolution does not disprove god's existence.
But Christians decry evolution.
Christians believe in a god.
Evution is happening, man.
Therefore what?


Nobody ever had a war with evolution but Christians. In my sphere of knowledge. Why are the X so worried about it? It's not threatening them. Evolution is not something that denies the existence of god or the possibility of a Xan god.

So why the stupidity? Why are Christians now changing their strategy and saying Xtianity is compatible with evolution? Nobody has denied it before, other than Xtians. So why is this such a big deal?

Xtians are acting as if by allowing the possibility that evolution occurs is one more proof for god on one hand and one more proof shattered that non-believers held against Xtians.

Nothing of the sort. Simply put, Xtians denied a fact for a long time, now they admit to that fact, and are drawing all kinds of conclusions from it, very carefully and watching their steps, as if feeling their way in the dark.

But evolution truly does deny the very basis of Christianity.

The doctrine of Christianity blames mankind's fall from grace as the reason for imperfections and death in this world. This is the whole theme of the religion. Mankind brought 'sin' and 'death' into the world and must repent via a blood sacrifice offered to the God. Utlimtely it is being claimed that Jesus is the only acceptable blood sacrifice, and thus the only way to achieve repentance and atonement is to accept that the crucifician of Christ was done on your behalf, to pay for your sins!

Evolution denies all of this because evolution reveals that death and imperfections existed always. Long before mankind ever came onto the scene. And therefore the very premise of the biblical doctrine falls flat on its face.

So evolution is not compatible with any of the Abrahamic Religions that demand that mankind is responsible for being sin and death into this world.

Evolution may be compatible with other types of spiritual beliefs. But it's in direct conflict with the biblical teachings.

Evolution and Christianity cannot co-exist because it violates the very premise that the entire doctrine of Christianity is founded on: "The Fall From Grace" and mankind being responsible for bringing imperfection and death into the world.

That's a VERY short sighted response. ALL beliefs have to be defended including humanism and atheism. Science is all about proof and repeatable patterns. Prove there is no god. It can't be done with solid evidence and attempted disproof is done only by conjecture.

Atheism is sad because it blindly asserts that there is no god and then leaves it up to the believer for proof. Cowardly. Atheism, in order to be true, needs to prove beyond doubt that there is no god. It's a belief not much different than Christianity.

Also, attacking religion DOES NOT disprove God. I wish atheists would get this through their heads. If there are inconsistencies and errors in religion it is the direct fault of man and NOT God. At best, atheism can only show that a Christian God, or an Islamic God, etc. does not exist. But, just like science and atheism, Christianity is also evolving and is not simply held to the writings of a book. But, many Christians (the laymen) DO believe that the bible in it's entirety is the literal word of God. Modern day science and philosophy shows that not to be true.

Evolution DOES NOT disprove God. Christopher Hitchens even concedes that there is no way to disprove, objectively, that if there is a god, that this same god may have used evolution as part of the overall design. The bible states that man was born from the dust of the ground which can be viewed as evolution. At some point man developed intellect and made conscious decisions and among them whether or not god exists despite the fact that God was revealed to mankind through the person of Jesus.

Unless science and atheism can definitively prove there is no god, it's nothing more than an evolved belief system not much different than any religion. In a humanistic view, morality is arbitrary so for atheists to feel some sort of moral or ethical superiority is just down right inconsistent, for morality has no set base and is constantly evolving.

Atheist LOVE throwing the baby out with the bath water. They love it. So much so, that a simple misspelling in bible would be used as 'proof' that their is no God, for certainly God is perfect and therefore must be a perfect speller! lol

Modern day Christianity concedes that man wrote the bible but inspired by God. The Bible IS NOT inerrant; it has contradictions and it's morality is questionable at various points. This AGAIN does NOT disprove God. In the same breath, there are good parts of the bible that the atheists blatantly over look such as do not steal, do not murder, love your brother. Why not focus on those teachings?

We need an absolute concrete proof that no God exists; other than that atheists should be content to be agnostic.

well said samgem