And the answer is...? — javi2541997

They offer an answer to why the universe is there. The universe is there because they created the basics.

I think you are not getting the point properly. What I defend is that thanks to knowledge we can prove, at least, our existence. This is due to the act of reasoning. It is a Cartesian thought. I think, therefore I am. Knowledge is one of the most solid proofs of humankind's existence.

Leaving aside the inane suggestion regarding extraterrestrials, there is an interesting point about Anselm's ontological argument that I feel is often not noticed or made explicit.

Note the first article given in the SEP entry on the ontological argument:

God is a being which has every perfection. (This is true as a matter of definition.) Existence is a perfection. Hence God exists.

So, the question is, what could 'existence is a perfection mean'? Especially consider the manifestly imperfect nature of existence as we know it.

This refers back to the sense in which 'being' (or existence) is contrasted with absence or lack in ancient philosophy. I think that it depends on the intuition that being is an overall good (notwithstanding the problem of suffering); that it is better to be, than not to be. This is also linked to the intuition behind the 'pleroma', meaning 'the divine abundance', referring to the ever-fruitful nature of Creation which bears forth all nature's abundance (something more fully elaborated in gnostic mythology). In pagan iconography, this is depicted as the Goddess Fortuna bearing the 'horn of plenty' or Cornucopia signifying abundance or fertility.

That is the context in which 'being' is depicted as a good or a virtue, so that the absence of being or non-being constitutes a lack or deficiency.

I think it's important to call that out so as to make sense of the basic idea behind ontological arguments, although they don't make a lot of sense from a contemporary viewpoint.

The universe is there... — Hillary

You also said:

you would know it gives no explanation why the universe is there. — Hillary

What I defend is that thanks to knowledge we can prove, at least, our existence — javi2541997

Of course. And we don't even need knowledge for that. To live is to proof existence. But that offers no answer to the why question. Why does the universe and all life in exist in the first place? What is the reason?

The universe is there...
— Hillary

You also said:

you would know it gives no explanation why the universe is there.
— Hillary — javi2541997

Yes. And?

although they don't make a lot of sense from a contemporary viewpoint. — Wayfarer

I would say that having found a modern, coherent cosmology furthers the case for gods.

Why does the universe and all life in exist in the first place? What is the reason? — Hillary

The surprising fact here is that you are questioning both universe and human existence but you are blind towards God's one. That's the clue of our debate

Yes. And? — Hillary

That you sound so contradictory! :smirk:

The universe is there...
— Hillary

You also said:

you would know it gives no explanation why the universe is there.
— Hillary— javi2541997

So, the universe is there and physics gives no explanation for it's existence. What's contradictory about that?

The surprising fact here is that you are questioning both universe and human existence but you are blind towards God's one. That's the clue of our debate — javi2541997

I know why the gods created the universe. And eternal intelligences don't need no reason to exists.

And eternal intelligences don't need no reason to exists. — Hillary

... what?

So, the universe is there and physics gives no explanation for it's existence. What's contradictory about that? — Hillary

It is so contradictory from a realism argument. Physical objects and elements do exist. Simple. If the universe is there and it makes some effects, then it does exist.

Why, indeed, don't aliens try and get in touch with us?

Bollocks. It is not inherent in the definition of the greatest man to exist. It is on the definition of god. the reason being that the greatest man need not be perfect so does not need to embody existence, whereas God due to his perfection does need to exist. See the refutation to Gaunilo's objection. — Tobias

You maybe right, but I listened to a lecture in which a bona fide philosopher claimed that Anselm's notion of greatness is predicated on existence i.e. greatest $\to$ existence. I feel this is the keystone of his argument. Remove it and the ontological proof implodes.

Another wacky "ontological" argument to defend God's existence.
Why God has to be the "greatest" thing? — javi2541997

:snicker:

It is so contradictory from a realism argument. Physical objects and elements do exist. Simple. If the universe is there and it makes some effects, then it does exist. — javi2541997

Yes, physics describes and explains the stuff of the universe. But it doesn't explain how the stuff got there in the first place.

But it doesn't explain how the stuff got there in the first place. — Hillary

No? Are you aware of those theories of astrophysics which describes the beginning of out universe? What about Stephen Hawking's theories?

No? Are you aware of those theories of astrophysics which describes the beginning of out universe? What about Stephen Hawking's theories? — javi2541997

Like I said, I studied those theories and have a cosmological model incorporating the current universe in a wider framework which allows serial succession of big bangs. Question remains, where does that come from?

Question remains, where does that come from? — Hillary

(1) And our view may be corroborated by actual observation more effectively than by any sort of verbal argument.

(2) And this is to be proven, better than any demonstration through words [λόγοι], from the observable [ἐνάργεια] itself.

And our view may be corroborated by actual observation more effectively than by any sort of verbal argument. — javi2541997

Yes. And the observations show my model is right.

And this is to be proven, better than any demonstration through words [λόγοι], from the observable [ἐνάργεια] itself. — javi2541997

Yes.

This still is no answer or reason to where the basics as described by the model.

Leaving aside the inane suggestion regarding extraterrestrials — Wayfarer

:snicker: This is not the first time you've killed my vibe! Knock some sense into me whenever you feel like it. Gracias.

existence is a perfection mean — Wayfarer

A coupla points:

1. A real woman is orders of magnitude better/greater than the best blowup doll money can buy. A real lion will kill you but a picture of one can't. Existence/Real > Nonexistence/Fiction.

2. Antinatalism is the only philosophy that takes issue with the perfection of existence (for reasons you alluded to in your post).

'Tis better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all. — Alfred Lord Tennyson

If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. — Voltaire

If God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish Him. — Mikhail Bakunin

[God is a]...celestial dictator. — Christopher Hitchens

Actual existence (observed, measurable, inactive or changing)
Potential existence (perceived, valuable, improbable or attributed power)
Possible existence (absolute, imaginable, impossible or personally preferred)

Where does ‘God’ fit?

Possible existence: Entails no contradiction (not great)
Potential existence: In limbo between possible & actual (not great)
Actual existence: Existence proper (great-est)

God, as per Anselm, actually exists for the reason that existence contributes to greatness.

Where does ‘God’ fit? — Possibility

In none of them :wink:

I disagree. They fit in actual existent. The only in which they can exist! You can choose to ignore them, of course...

They fit in actual existent — Hillary

How can you measure "God"? :yikes: so you have said this morning that measuring universe is wacky but at the same time time yeah, we can measure a subterfuge

How can you measure "God"? :yikes: so you have said this morning that measuring universe is wacky but at the same time time yeah, we can measure a subterfuge — javi2541997

Why you want to measure gods? They speak in dreams or minds.

You said:

They fit in actual existent — Hillary

Actual existent: Actual existence (observed, measurable, inactive or changing)

And then you ask:

Why you want to measure gods? — Hillary

I don't know. This is what I should ask you: why do you want to measure gods?

Actual existent: Actual existence (observed, measurable, inactive or changing) — javi2541997

Actual existent is not the same as measurable. If you want proof that bad, you can open your hart to them. And let them in. At least, the knowledge that they exist. Or you can look in quantum mechanical experiments.