# The Ontological Argument: updated



## JohnV (Nov 29, 2005)

A year or so ago I tried to throw new light on the Ontological Argument, trying to approach it from the angle of what it doesn't attempt to prove. In short, I was countering what I perceived to be nothing more than many equivocations on the argument to try to refute it. 

I came across some things that helped me to see some things more clearly, and I left off posting on that topic until I could work things out a bit more. 

What I have is what I think to be clear syllogism from which to begin to understand it. It consists of three propositions, the third of which must follow from the first two:

Perfection is a necessary attribute of God;
Existence is a necessary attribute of Perfection;
Therefore, Existence is a necessary attribute of God. 

This works on the principle: all M is P ; all P is S; therefore all M is S. 

Notice:

- that in this arrangement the verb "is" is used in precisely the same way in each proposition, so as not to be mistaken for predicating what is not predicated

- that what is under consideration is only one concept of God, and no other; and that this concept is necessitated upon all who consider God. 

- that this is not a reformulation of the Ontological Argument as Anselm gave it, for he said much more than this in a few words; this is merely a beginning of positing the OA. This rendering only applies to the argument that says that it is impossible to think of God as not existing. In other words, arguments that are put forward in opposition to God's existence are nothing more than standing on the platform to refute the platform, and equivocating on the terms to do so. 


Anyways, I just thought I'd throw this out there for consideration and discussion. You know, to keep me off the streets at night.

[Edited on 11-29-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## Saiph (Nov 29, 2005)

The ontological argument does work because no one has yet been able to describe or limn the non-existence of a perfect being.


----------



## BrianLanier (Nov 29, 2005)

Some quick thoughts:

P1. Prove it (why must God be perfect?). Also, what do you mean by perfect?
P2. How can you predicate a predicate? In other words,, you're saying that the predicate of P1 (not the subject) is now the subject in P2 (not the predicate). Is this what you're saying?

[Edited on 11-30-2005 by BrianLanier]


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 29, 2005)

Good questions Brian.

I would also like to add that even IF the ontological argument was sound (which it is not) it would not prove a moral god (hence not the God of the Bible) and it would not prove that there is ONE God (hence not the trinity as in the Bible). So what kind of god have you proved even if you get this to work? You have proved an idol.

Secondly, this syllogism makes the fallacy of equivication with the term "exist." To exist in the mind or in theory is not the same to exist in reality.

Thirdly, it is sinful to try to prove the existence of God by rational or empirical means. God himelf tells us not to swear by heaven or earth or any created thing, but we ARE swearing by reason, or empirical evidence when appealing to such forms of "proof." 

Heb 6:13 For when God made a promise to Abraham, *because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself, *

Fourthly, why prove the existence of God? The scriptures are clear that every man knows that God exists. Should we believe the athiest when he says otherwise? That's exactly what we do when we try to prove God to them, we say "you're right, you DON'T believe that God exists, let me PROVE it to you." We must not reject scripture to grant this premise.

Lastly, everything exists, the question is "What is it?" Is God a figmant of your imagination? Or is he the God of the Bible? This is why the Westminster Shorter Catechism does not begin with "Does God exist?" But it begins with :

Q4: What is God? 
A4: God is a Spirit,[1] infinite,[2] eternal,[3] and unchangeable,[4] in his being,[5] wisdom,[6] power,[7] holiness,[8] justice, goodness, and truth.[9] 

1. John 4:24
2. Job 11:7
3. Psa. 90:2
4. James 1:17
5. Exod. 3:14
6. Psa. 147:5
7. Rev. 4:8
8. Rev. 15:4
9. Exod. 34:6

The same goes for scripture itself. It assumes God from the very beginning. "In the beginning GOD!"


----------



## mgeoffriau (Nov 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Thirdly, it is sinful to try to prove the existence of God by rational or empirical means. God himelf tells us not to swear by heaven or earth or any created thing, but we ARE swearing by reason, or empirical evidence when appealing to such forms of "proof."



Come on. You're telling me that I'm in sin when I recognize rational proof for the existence of God?

Are you then ready to say that your belief in the existence of God is irrational?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 29, 2005)

I probably won't get very far into this one, but as just an initial thought, one of my main problems is with the "Existence is a necessary attribute of Perfection" statement. Epistemologically, one must ask how you even know what "perfection" is, or in other words by what standard you are defining it, or how you even have a concept of what that means.

Upon answering that question, it will naturally be asked how you got the standard you answer with, and eventually you'll need to get back to the beginning and end up with a self-validating source.

If at that point it's the biblical God that defines your standard of "perfection," then you're already presupposing God and hence the ontological argument won't be any use unless you justify your presupposition of God by demonstrating that God must be presupposed for _anything_ to make sense - but if you've done that, you don't even need the ontological argument anymore.

On the other hand, if it's something other than the biblical God that ultimately and initially defines your standard of "perfection," then there's obviously an even bigger problem.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> Come on. You're telling me that I'm in sin when I recognize rational proof for the existence of God?



I am saying one can not prove God by rationalism. All attempts have been shown to be futile. 

1Co 1:19 For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." 
1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? *Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? * 1Co 1:21 *For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God,* it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 
1Co 1:22 *For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; * 
1Co 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 
1Co 1:24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 
1Co 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 
Co 1:26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 
1Co 1:27 But *God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise*, and God has chosen the *weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; * 
1Co 1:28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 
1Co 1:29 that no flesh should glory in His presence. 
1Co 1:30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God; and righteousness and sanctification and redemption; 
1Co 1:31 that, as it is written, *"He who glories, let him glory in the LORD." * 


1Co 2:4 And my speech and my preaching were *not with persuasive words of human wisdom,* but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 
1Co 2:5  *that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men *  but in the power of God. 
1Co 2:6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, *yet not the wisdom of this age*, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 
1Co 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, 
1Co 2:8 *which none of the rulers of this age knew*; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 

1Co 3:18 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. 
1Co 3:19 *For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God*. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their own craftiness"; 
1Co 3:20 and again, *"The LORD knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile." *  




> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> Are you then ready to say that your belief in the existence of God is irrational?



Of course not. I am not against using logic. Logic comes from the Scriptures. That does not mean that proving God by rational or empircal means is a good thing. God needs no proof, and furthermore, cannot be proved. He must be presupposed.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> I probably won't get very far into this one, but as just an initial thought, one of my main problems is with the "Existence is a necessary attribute of Perfection" statement. Epistemologically, one must ask how you even know what "perfection" is, or in other words by what standard you are defining it, or how you even have a concept of what that means.
> ...


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Of course not. I am not against using logic. Logic comes from the Scriptures. That does not mean that proving God by rational or empircal means is a good thing. God needs no proof, and furthermore, cannot be proved. He must be presupposed.



Jesus seemed to think proof was important: 


> 1 The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, 2 until the day in which He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen, 3 to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering _ by many infallible proofs _, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.



Just because unbelievers refuse to believe the evidence doesn't mean God can't be proven. The problem is with their rebellion and blindness, not with reason or logic.


----------



## mgeoffriau (Nov 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Just because unbelievers refuse to believe the evidence doesn't mean God can't be proven. The problem is with their rebellion and blindness, not with reason or logic.



+1

Christ performed miracles to validate His identity. The Pharisees were condemned because they denied His deity in the face of undeniable proof.

EDITED TO CORRECT FORMATTING

[Edited on 11-30-2005 by mgeoffriau]


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



Are you really suggesting that Christ was trying to prove his own existence by his appearing after his resurrection?

Geneva Study Bible:



> (b) He called those things infallible proofs which are otherwise termed necessary: now in that Christ spoke, and walked, and ate, and was felt by many, these are sure signs and proofs that he truly rose again.



Nobody is arguing against proofs for things in general, but proofs _for the existence of God_.

If proofs for the existence of God (either rational or empirical) are sound and valid for use in the Christian life, what is one? All historical arguments have been shown to be logical fallacies.


----------



## BrianLanier (Nov 29, 2005)

Jeff, help me understand here. Maybe I reading you wrong. You say:



> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> I am saying one can not prove God by rationalism. All attempts have been shown to be futile.



Of which I agree. 

But then you say:



> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Of course not. I am not against using logic. Logic comes from the Scriptures. That does not mean that proving God by rational or empircal means is a good thing. God needs no proof, and furthermore, cannot be proved. He must be presupposed.



1) It seems that you are saying rational proof = rationalism. Of course there is a big difference.
2) When you say that God 'cannot be proved', are you including in that statement transcendental proof? Or are you just saying that upon autonomous reasoning, whether rational or empirical, God cannot be proven. If you suppose a Christian framework or epistemology then of course there is rational and empirical evidence that points to the proof of God's existence, i.e. general revelation.

I am probably just reading you wrong, but those were my thoughts after reading your posts.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BrianLanier_
> 1) It seems that you are saying rational proof = rationalism. Of course there is a big difference.



Rationalism is specifically what I am arguing against. If you are speaking of the VanTillian contruction, see next comment.



> _Originally posted by BrianLanier_
> 2) When you say that God 'cannot be proved', are you including in that statement transcendental proof? Or are you just saying that upon autonomous reasoning, whether rational or empirical, God cannot be proven. If you suppose a Christian framework or epistemology then of course there is rational and empirical evidence that points to the proof of God's existence, i.e. general revelation.



I am saying that autonomous reasoning cannot prove the existence of God. The transcendental argument does not "prove" the existence of God in the common usage of the term. When people want "proof", they want autonomous visible or rationalistic syllogisms. 

I think that the transcendental argument has holes in it. I believe it is impossible to prove the impossbility of all other worldviews, and therefore I deny the second premise in VanTil's contruction.

See this thread for more.


----------



## mgeoffriau (Nov 29, 2005)

Still wondering if your belief is irrational or not...

Also, if you are arguing from a presuppositional position, then is it not true that one cannot simply presuppose the existence of God, but one must presuppose the Christian God of Scripture? Including, therefore, the Messiah Jesus Christ as the only Son of God? 

Seems to me that the example of Jesus verifying His identity through miracles is not relying upon a presupposition that He was God; rather, He assumed that His audience had generally reliable senses, memory, and rational abilities, and could observe the miracles and come to a conclusion. Their failure to do this is what led to their condemnation (ie for the unforgivable sin, not their condemnation in general for sin).


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 29, 2005)

Jeff, I agree with you that there is one sense in which the only "proof" that can be _biblically_ offered for God's existence is the simple presupposing of it - and I would say that is what Proverbs 26:4 is referencing. But you seem to stop there, whereas I would say that the "transcendental proof" that Van Tillians use is simply taking the second step and heeding Proverbs 26:5 as well, since it is merely trying to show the unbeliever that none of their Christ-less worldviews can make sense of anything, even themselves - which is merely answering the fool according to his folly, for the sake of argument.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> Still wondering if your belief is irrational or not...



How can I convince you? 



> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> Also, if you are arguing from a presuppositional position, then is it not true that one cannot simply presuppose the existence of God, but one must presuppose the Christian God of Scripture? Including, therefore, the Messiah Jesus Christ as the only Son of God?



Agreed. Not only must the existence of God be presupposed, but Scripture as well.



> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> Seems to me that the example of Jesus verifying His identity through miracles is not relying upon a presupposition that He was God; rather, He assumed that His audience had generally reliable senses, memory, and rational abilities, and could observe the miracles and come to a conclusion. Their failure to do this is what led to their condemnation (ie for the unforgivable sin, not their condemnation in general for sin).



The devil performed miracles. So did Pharoah's sidekicks. Lazarus rose from the dead, and during the time of Christ MANY people rose from the grave. Are these people Christ simply because they rose from the dead?


----------



## Larry Hughes (Nov 29, 2005)

Though it has nice symmetry, the ontological argument will never work with an atheist, I know I was one. Why? Because of the scandal of the cross. What you must realize with a true atheist is that fundamentally they do not believe (ascend to the idea) there is a God at all. And this they've done to justify themselves. Read Fredrick N. Thus, when they begin to explore the possibility they will start with all the attributes of God that are what we call His frontal glory that is not approachable except in wrath; sovereignty, omniscience, eternality, singularity even holiness, perfection, absolute justness and so on. 

Once the atheist has these set up when shown the cross he will immediately stumble and see it as foolishness for it contradicts these other ideas of God's "frontal glory". "How and why would a holy God crucify Himself for evil men?" And if it contradicts these then "there must not be a God, at least not the Christian God". The atheist will then have to arrive back where he was OR some other deistic position but never at Christianity.

Many atheist just stay pure atheist. Myself I arrived at there might be a God but Christ as Christ never made sense to me, reason cannot go there or arrive at the cross of God the Son suffering. But unless the atheist becomes a Christian he will not be able to sustain his other god or deistic position very long for he will have to continue to justify himself. Thus, seeing only a purely just and holy God he will again have to deny God altogether - he can survive no other way.

L


----------



## mgeoffriau (Nov 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> The devil performed miracles. So did Pharoah's sidekicks. Lazarus rose from the dead, and during the time of Christ MANY people rose from the grave. Are these people Christ simply because they rose from the dead?



I disagree strongly. What, if not validation, was the purpose of Jesus' miracles?

Jesus performed fiat (not the car) miracles that displayed His godly power. No one else created or transformed matter, no one else raised the dead (except possibly those given the power by Jesus), and certainly no one else raised themselves from the dead.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Jeff, I agree with you that there is one sense in which the only "proof" that can be _biblically_ offered for God's existence is the simple presupposing of it - and I would say that is what Proverbs 26:4 is referencing. But you seem to stop there, whereas I would say that the "transcendental proof" that Van Tillians use is simply taking the second step and heeding Proverbs 26:5 as well, since it is merely trying to show the unbeliever that none of their Christ-less worldviews can make sense of anything, even themselves - which is merely answering the fool according to his folly, for the sake of argument.



Chris, 

I agree with Proverbs 26:5 as well. I think that I would apply it similarly to VanTil. But destroying one's autonomous worldview does not disprove ALL worldviews. There are in infinite number of worldviews to destroy, and we must battle them all using the Word of God as our sword.

If this is VanTil's syllogism (Transcendental) with A being the Christian worldview, and ~A being all other worldviews:

A or ~A

~~A.

Therefore A. 

I don't see how using Proverbs 26:5 can ever get you to ~~A without disproving all of the infinite worldviews out there that are against Christ.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...


 This objection simply is not enough. You must deal with the objections. Other people did the same miracles that Christ performed. That does not *prove* that they are Christ does it?



> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> Jesus performed fiat (not the car) miracles that displayed His godly power. *No one else created or transformed matter*,



I agree that no one else created. But was anyone there to witness creation and therefore use it as a *proof* of his existence or validity? How do we know that he created?



> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> no one else raised the dead (except possibly those given the power by Jesus),


Ah, but this does not get you out of the problem. The apostle's raised people from the dead, and even the witch of Endor summoned Samuel's spirit. 



> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> and certainly no one else raised themselves from the dead.



But once again, nobody was there to see if Christ rose himself from the dead. How do you know that he rose himself from the grave? 

The only way we know that Christ rose himself from the dead, and created all things is by Scripture.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Nov 29, 2005)

The primary purpose of Christ's miracles were not His power as God. We see this in the penultimate miracle of the raising of Lazarus from the dead. The primary purpose of the miracles were as signs pointing to redemption.

Thus, Christ said to Mary, "I am the ressurection." In this miracle it was not His power as God to show "power per se", but that He, Jesus would have be the justice allowing Lazarus to rise again - that is Christ would pay the price of justice due, death, for sin and thus He would have the power to reverse the death sentance all the way back at Gen. 3:15.

Because we must ask why is there death, misery, sickness and so forth. And the answer is the fall. Christ's miracles where not so much shows of power but signs pointing to the judicial justification that He alone would purchase with His blood.

Analogy: If a friend of mine was justly convicted of a crime and in a local jail. And if I had the US Army at my disposal and no hinderance to my commands, then I could easily exercise raw power to free my friend and no local yokal sheriff could resist the power of the US Army. Thus, I could free my friend by raw display and naked use of power. But would I be justified in doing so? No.

Lazarus's raising for example was not a display of raw power per se but pointing to the justice to be fulfilled by Christ Himself at Calvary - hence He said not, "I show you how I will resurrect." but rather "I AM the resurrection."


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 29, 2005)

Larry


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...



I suppose we're basically in the same place right now then. Van Til's apologetic has been by far the most consistent one I have seen, save that remaining mystery. In fact, though there is a lot of talk about the universal, single disproof of ~~A as one statement, even when Bahnsen, Butler and the like defend the faith against non-atheistic unbelievers, they always seem to go down the worldview-by-worldview route in doing so.


----------



## BrianLanier (Nov 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BrianLanier_
> ...



Remember though, the transcendental argument is not made from a neutral, autonomous standpoint. It has already presupposed the Christian worldview. The bible says that Christ is the only way and therefore is exclusive. Now, if the the Christian worldview provides the transcendentals for intelligble experience, then it can be the only one, hence the impossiblity of the contrary. Think about it. The Christian worldview could not provide the transcendentals if it contained error and internal contradictions. According to the Bible, it is either A v ~A (for Christ or against Christ) and that ALL wisdom is deposited in Christ. So if there was even a possibility of another worldview providing the trancendentals, then the Christian worldview would have internal contradictions and fail to provide them.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BrianLanier_
> Remember though, the transcendental argument is not made from a neutral, autonomous standpoint. It has already presupposed the Christian worldview. The bible says that Christ is the only way and therefore is exclusive. Now, if the the Christian worldview provides the transcendentals for intelligble experience, then it can be the only one, hence the impossiblity of the contrary. Think about it. The Christian worldview could not provide the transcendentals if it contained error and internal contradictions. According to the Bible, it is either A v ~A (for Christ or against Christ) and that ALL wisdom is deposited in Christ. So if there was even a possibility of another worldview providing the trancendentals, then the Christian worldview would have internal contradictions and fail to provide them.



I understand this reasoning. But why the complicated syllogism then? I could come up with MANY proofs for the existence of God using all of my premises from Scripture.

For example:

Premise 1: The Bible is true
Premise 2: The Bible says that God exists
Conclusion God exists

This is in essence the transcendental argument all widdled down. If you call this a proof, so be it. I see it as practically useless for the unbeliever. They will never accept this type of reasoning, so why try it? When the unbeliever wants *proof*, they want visible or rationalistic convincing. I agree that we cannot (and should not) give this to them. However, the transcendental argument is merely presupposing scripture and the existence of God from the get-go. I guess I just don't see any value in this and it seriously doubt it will convince anyone.

Preach the gospel, you will have much better results!


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BrianLanier_
> The bible says that Christ is the only way and therefore is exclusive. Now, if the the Christian worldview provides the transcendentals for intelligble experience, then it can be the only one, hence the impossiblity of the contrary. Think about it. The Christian worldview could not provide the transcendentals if it contained error and internal contradictions. According to the Bible, it is either A v ~A (for Christ or against Christ) and that ALL wisdom is deposited in Christ. So if there was even a possibility of another worldview providing the trancendentals, then the Christian worldview would have internal contradictions and fail to provide them.



This is the single point I have never been able to completely "come home" on with Van Til's apologetic; perhaps I'm just not hearing it correctly. Let me try and unpack my thought on it:

I see how from the Proverbs 26:4 side, the "there are only two worldviews, if ours provides it that proves there are none others that do" argument works. Furthermore, presupposing Scripture, there are no contradictions in our worldview, even if there may appear to be at times.

But what I do not see is how that argument continues to consistently apply once we move into the Proverbs 26:5 side. I mean, from their perspective ("according to his folly"), we haven't done anything whatsoever to show that there are only two worldviews, or that Christianity necessarily doesn't have any internal contradictions. *How would you go about that?*

[Edited on 11-30-2005 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## BrianLanier (Nov 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



I feel you here Chris. This used to bother me for a long time as a Van Tillian until (see my above post). The 'universal, single disproof of ~~A as one statement' is simple: anti-theism presupposes theism. As you know you can't talk about every worldview at once, but when some one says, "hey my world view has the transcendentals necessary", you can say, "really, show me." Then you can demonstrate your general, broad argument by using the form Av~A, ~~A :. A


----------



## BrianLanier (Nov 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BrianLanier_
> ...



I not sure I completely follow you here. It seems to me that the prov. 26:4 side is where we would say antitheism presupposes theism or give the argument, then the 26:5 side would be to demolish their own particular worldview.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BrianLanier_
> I not sure I completely follow you here. It seems to me that the prov. 26:4 side is where we would say antitheism presupposes theism or give the argument, then the 26:5 side would be to demolish their own particular worldview.



I'm basically talking about verse 4 as presenting the Christian worldview and showing how it accounts for logic and human experience. Then verse 5 is the part that consists in showing them that their view cannot account for anything without presupposing ours, since it is answering them _according to their folly_, or starting with their premises for the sake of argument and showing where they lead without God - and we know where we can be lead _with_ God because of the former step.

P. S. For clarification to all readers, I would like to say that the presuppositional method does not prescribe a "Four Spiritual Laws approach," as Dr. Bahnsen once pointed out. Rather, one can really start anywhere, as long as he gets to all the essential elements eventually in whatever order works in the conversation.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BrianLanier_
> 
> I suppose we're basically in the same place right now then. Van Til's apologetic has been by far the most consistent one I have seen, save that remaining mystery. In fact, though there is a lot of talk about the universal, single disproof of ~~A as one statement, even when Bahnsen, Butler and the like defend the faith against non-atheistic unbelievers, they always seem to go down the worldview-by-worldview route in doing so.



I feel you here Chris. This used to bother me for a long time as a Van Tillian until (see my above post). The 'universal, single disproof of ~~A as one statement' is simple: anti-theism presupposes theism. As you know you can't talk about every worldview at once, but when some one says, "hey my world view has the transcendentals necessary", you can say, "really, show me." Then you can demonstrate your general, broad argument by using the form Av~A, ~~A :. A [/quote]

I agree with you here. There are not an infinite amount of unbelieving worldviews. There is _one_ unbelieving worldview with several different vocabularies. They are all man's autonomous reason living in rebellion. That is where presuppositionalism comes in handy. No matter what the vocabulary the unbeliever uses to describe his worldview (i.e. atheism, hinu, muslim, etc.) they all build it the same way, presupposing the truth of the Christian worldview in order to rebel against it.


----------



## mgeoffriau (Nov 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> I agree that no one else created. But was anyone there to witness creation and therefore use it as a *proof* of his existence or validity? How do we know that he created?



I am not speaking about the initial creation of all things. I am talking about things like turning water into wine, walking upon water, healing the blind, etc. These are well attested events that many witnesses saw and could plainly understand.



> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_Ah, but this does not get you out of the problem. The apostle's raised people from the dead, and even the witch of Endor summoned Samuel's spirit.



As I had already noted, nobody outside of those whom Christ Himself had given authority and power to do so could these things. If you really want me to explain how "summoning a spirit" is in a different catagory from commanding a dead cold body to stand up and walk, then I will. 



> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> But once again, nobody was there to see if Christ rose himself from the dead. How do you know that he rose himself from the grave?
> 
> The only way we know that Christ rose himself from the dead, and created all things is by Scripture.



I know that He rose because there were witnesses who saw Him die, saw Him buried, and saw Him alive again. The accounts from these witnesses were written down to keep an accurate account. 

It's unavoidable: you must use your reason to separate Scripture as an inerrant, inspired work from pagan religous literature that is not.

And aside from a funny remark, you still have not answered my question: is your belief irrational or not?

Good discussion...let's keep it going.


----------



## mgeoffriau (Nov 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> The primary purpose of Christ's miracles were not His power as God. We see this in the penultimate miracle of the raising of Lazarus from the dead. The primary purpose of the miracles were as signs pointing to redemption.



Then explain to me the purpose of the miracle at the wedding, the turning of water into wine. I see no obvious redemptive analogical meaning from the text. Instead, in John 2:11 (NASB), you find:

"This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him."

It's purpose was to validate the person and work of Jesus Christ, to give clear evidence of His nature, and therefore to separate Himself from those false messiahs making similar claims, but unable to perform supernatural miracles.


----------



## BrianLanier (Nov 30, 2005)

Mark,

While I do disagree with Jeff on certain things, he is right in that the Scriptures must be presupposed as your ultimate epistemological starting point; not man's autonomous reason. Remember the noetic effects of the fall (men suppress the truth in unrighteousness).

If you use the authority of your own reason to separate Scripture from other literature, then YOU become your ultimate authority and not Scripture. Of course we all want to affirm that Scripture IS our ultimate authority and that we should not put God to the test.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 30, 2005)

mgeoffriau 


Just a question...is your avator pic Bruce Campbell.

"Shop smart...shop S Mart.."???


----------



## mgeoffriau (Nov 30, 2005)

Jesus Himself explains it wonderfully in Matthew 9:1-6 (NASB):

1 Getting into a boat, Jesus crossed over the sea and came to His own city. 

2 And they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralytic, "Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven." 

3 And some of the scribes said to themselves, "This fellow blasphemes." 

4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, "Why are you thinking evil in your hearts? 

5 "Which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, and walk'? 

6 "But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"--then He said to the paralytic, "Get up, pick up your bed and go home."


My commentary - What could be clearer? The scribes do not believe Jesus' claims to deity (which is assumed in the power to forgive sins). Jesus answers their doubt by performing a supernatural miracle to attest to His divine nature, and therefore validate His claim to forgive sins. Please, if you find my understanding to be at fault, explain, because I really don't see how one can avoid Christ's own words on the matter.


----------



## BrianLanier (Nov 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> ...



I mostly agree with you here. It is just what conclusions that you are drawing that I might disagree with. Evidences or 'facts' are always interpreted within one's broader framework or worldview. Remember the story of the rich man and Lazarus. 

Luke 16:29-31: 

"29 But Abraham said, "˜They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.´ 30 And he said, "˜No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.´ 31 He said to him, "˜If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead."


----------



## mgeoffriau (Nov 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BrianLanier_
> While I do disagree with Jeff on certain things, he is right in that the Scriptures must be presupposed as your ultimate epistemological starting point; not man's autonomous reason. Remember the noetic effects of the fall (men suppress the truth in unrighteousness).
> 
> If you use the authority of your own reason to separate Scripture from other literature, then YOU become your ultimate authority and not Scripture. Of course we all want to affirm that Scripture IS our ultimate authority and that we should not put God to the test.



Sorry, I'm a classical apologist (*gasps and moans from the audience*). 

I do agree that Scripture is the ultimate authority. I disagree that I can somehow approach Scripture without using my own intellect. Being a man, I am forced to use my senses, my memory, and my reason to understand the words printed on the pages of my Bible. If you can explain to me how it is that you can understand Scripture without using your reason, I would be interested to hear it (unfortunately, I will be forced to use my reason to understand your answer).


----------



## BrianLanier (Nov 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> Jesus Himself explains it wonderfully in Matthew 9:1-6 (NASB):
> 
> 1 Getting into a boat, Jesus crossed over the sea and came to His own city.
> ...



Once again, I agree with you. Jesus gave no shortage of evidence. The question is why they were not convinced?


----------



## mgeoffriau (Nov 30, 2005)

And the answer to that is clear...because of the sinfulness of their hearts -- not because of a deficiency in their minds.


----------



## mgeoffriau (Nov 30, 2005)

And I'll mention that if you continue in the passage, it reads:

8 But when the crowds saw this, they were awestruck, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

Were they brought to a salvific knowledge of Christ? No, only the work of the Holy Spirit can do that. Were they (apparently, from the text) convinced that God had given Christ the authority to heal paralytics and forgive sins? Yes.


----------



## BrianLanier (Nov 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BrianLanier_
> ...



If you have to decide using your own reasoning and knowledge whether or not the Bible is God's word, then how are you going to escape the problem of ultimate authority. There is no way around it. If I were to say to you that all knowledge comes from sense experience and that it was my ulitmate authority, I couldn't appeal to anything other than my senses to prove it. If I did, then not ALL knowledge would be by sense experience and whatever I appealed to prove it would then become my ultimate authority. Remember, "the BEGINNING of knowledge is fear of Jehovah".


----------



## mgeoffriau (Nov 30, 2005)

So can you explain to me how you understand Scripture without looking at it with your eyes, and understanding it given your framework of language?


----------



## BrianLanier (Nov 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> So can you explain to me how you understand Scripture without looking at it with your eyes, and understanding it given your framework of language?



Of course I understand Scripture by using my mind and my eyes, etc. I believe that God has created us in his image and we are capable of reasoning and understanding things and the Scriptures are clearly an example of God revealing himself to us in such a way that we can understand. I am affraid that you are misunderstanding my position (the presuppositionalist position). This is, I am sure, no fault of yours. From what I gather, you haven't read that much from presuppositionalists. I mean absolutely NO disrespect, and if I am wrong then I apologize. 

On the other hand you are right in that they don't believe because of moral reasons, not because they can't understand what we are saying (intellectually, that is). You see, the problem is, any time an unbeliever thinks in a correct manner it is only justified given the truth of the Christian worldview.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> So can you explain to me how you understand Scripture without looking at it with your eyes, and understanding it given your framework of language?



Reason does not exist in a vacuum. We use reason to understand Scripture, but Scripture more importantly informs our reason. It is the final authority of our reason, and sets the boundaries for where we finite men are allowed to go. Man is designed to reason, he was created in the image of God in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. But that knowledge is now corrupt. Our mind needs to be transformed and renewed. We need to be reducated so that we think correctly about God and His world. This will only happen if you you submit to Scripture as the final and ultimate authority. Reason never stands alone. It is always governed by presuppositions.


----------



## mgeoffriau (Nov 30, 2005)

I've changed my mind - 

I don't think presups go far enough, actually. You say, "It's not enough to say that man's will was corrupted by the fall - his mind was corrupted too."

I say, "It's not enough to say that his will and his mind were corrupted - his body was corrupted as well. Man does evil all day long, and profanes the very image of God in his flesh, by the evil acts he commits with his hands. Until man's body is renewed, everything done by his body is corrupt."

Right? Man does evil things with his hands, so his very hands must be evil and corrupt? Is this not a parallel situation?


----------



## BrianLanier (Nov 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> I've changed my mind -
> 
> I don't think presups go far enough, actually. You say, "It's not enough to say that man's will was corrupted by the fall - his mind was corrupted too."
> ...



1. What do you mean, "I've changed my mind-"?

2. Were the explanations given to your last question sufficent or do we need to discus it further. I say this because I think systematic dialog is the most helpful (rather than jumping around all over the place).

3. I am not quite sure where you're going with this post. Could you clarify.


----------



## BrianLanier (Nov 30, 2005)

BTW, did you notice that we both attend a "redeemer" presbyterian church.


----------



## mgeoffriau (Nov 30, 2005)

The reason that I answered as I did was because both of your answers basically resorted to the noetic effects of the fall as a reason for man's inability to rely on his senses, memory, and reason.

I think that the "noetic effects of the fall" is a solution looking for a problem. It's unnecessary to talk about the effects of the fall upon the mind. It's akin (which I attempted, rather poorly, to show in my post) to talking about the corrupting effects of the fall on the body. 

Here is what I believe about the noetic effects of the fall, plain and simple:

Man's ability to use reason was undoubtedly limited in the fall -- that is, he is no longer as efficient at it. Difficulties and confusions make it a much more problematic thing than it was before.

However, the faculty of reason itself, along with the senses and memory, remain generally reliable. Man's corrupt will make him _think_ evil things, just as his corrupt will makes him _do_ evil things. When man uses reason to run from God, it is not because his faculty of reason has failed him or led him astray, but because his fallen will has used his faculty of reason to run from God.

Therefore, I think it is a category mistake to talk about a "fallen reason." Reason is just a tool; it is not good or evil in and of itself, apart from being a good "thing" as a creation of God. But it is capable of being used for evil or for good, just as any other tool is (like our bodies).

Now tell me this: what does your system (the mind, or reason, corrupted) explain that my simpler system (a corrupt will directing man's reason) can't explain? I think that my system explains the situation better.

For example, an atheist writes an argument for the non-existence of God. Now, you say it's a product of his fallen and corrupt reason, which leads him away from God. I say it's a product of his fallen and corrupt will, which uses every opportunity, _including language and reason_, to lead him away from God.

EDITED TO ADD: Sorry for any confusion with my last post...it made sense to me, because I knew where I was leading, but I can understand that it seemed a non sequitur.

I did notice your church name...and this is what makes debates like these enjoyable, is that I can debate heatedly and good-naturedly with a brother in Christ our Redeemer.

[Edited on 11-30-2005 by mgeoffriau]


----------



## JohnV (Nov 30, 2005)

The electricity was off for six hours last night, so I couldn't join in on this conversation. Sorry.

I've read a few posts, and I think we're getting the responses that I was expecting, and hoping for. I would really like to answer some of the posts. I think, though, that I am going to try to avoid Chris's first post, as I don't want to get into debating over his version of Presuppositionalism right now. I'm sure we'll get into it sooner or later, but for now I want to just get around that and just defend the propositions. 

I need to go back and read all the posts carefully first, and make some notes. I'm putting this post here as a kind of doorstop for myself, so that I know when I'm fully updated.

Thanks for all the responses.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BrianLanier_
> Some quick thoughts:
> 
> P1. Prove it (why must God be perfect?). Also, what do you mean by perfect?
> ...



I'd like to respond to some of the ideas that have been put into the mix. I'd like to start with this one.

What I'm not doing is trying to take God by the hand and lead Him to you to show Him to you. I can't do that; and that would deny God more than prove Him. If I by-pass His sovereignty in order to show you His omnipotence, for example, then I've shown you less than His omnipotence, and so I have not shown you His omnipotence at all. 

If you were able to put all the top representatives of each religion standing in one room, one for each religion, and began to list the necessary attributes of God, explaining with each item on the list why it is necessary, then, beginning with the atheist and the pantheist they would all sit down one by one as the list is being read and explained. They would all know that better is better than worse, and that God would have to be the best in order to fit the concept. Of course, I'm assuming honesty here, not excuses and arguments. 

So when you beging with "It is better to be _one thing_ than to be the _other thing_, therefore God must be the _one thing_", you can ascend on that same principle to it being necessary that God is the best example of that _one thng_. For example: _knowledge_: it is better to know than not to know, therefore God must know. But it is better to know all than not to know all, therefore God must know all. This leads to it being necessary that God is the perfection of knowledge, not just all knowing. In other words, it isn't just that He must know all things, but that He knows all things in their place, purpose, origin, relationships, etc., etc. It is that way with all considerations of God, beginning with the ones that every person has of the idea of God.

So all ideas of God involve a comparison of one attribute to another, and agreeing that the better one would be more suitable to God than the worse one. And if one follows that up the ladder, then it has to be that the perfection of that attribute is more suitable to God than anything that lacks that perfection. Therefore perfection has to be necessarily attributable to God alone. 

As to the second part of this, in terms of predication, that is exactly what I was trying to avoid. This is a linguistic criticism. That is why I tried to make sure that the verb was used exactly the same way each time, and not as predication. It is stative, and it is descriptive in terms of the object. 

It follows this line: The Vatican is in Rome; Rome is in Italy; therefore the Vatican is in Italy. 

In the same way: existence is in perfection; perfection is in God; therefore, existence is in God. 

I'm putting these propositions out there as necessary axioms. I'm deliberately using "is" the same way each time, so as not to confound the thing by different uses of the verb. That way the verb "is" is not a debatable consideration, but rather the subject and object of each proposition is debatable, with the verb connecting them in the same way in each proposition. So we are considering perfection, existence, and God in relationship, and that it is impossible to have one without the others. That was the idea. 

So this is not the Ontological Argument itself; you might say this is a preamble to it.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 30, 2005)

As I said, no one has yet been able to describe or limn the non-existence of a perfect being. 

Why any would attempt to undermine the self evident knowledge of God's existence is a mystery. We would not even conceive of the idea of perfection if God did not exist. We would not conceive of anything higher than ourselves, because we would intrinsically be the highest order of being.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> As I said, no one has yet been able to describe or limn the non-existence of a perfect being.
> 
> Why any would attempt to undermine the self evident knowledge of God's existence is a mystery. We would not even conceive of the idea of perfection if God did not exist. We would not conceive of anything higher than ourselves, because we would intrinsically be the highest order of being.



Yes and No, Mark. 

Yes, it is true that we 'would not even be able to conceive of the idea of perfection if God did not exist.' But the statement that follows is a contradiction when you think about it. It is not possible that we would conceive of ourselves as the highest order of being. The idea of "highest" is a consideration of comparisons which suggests that it is better to be one than the other ( i.e., judgment ) and so suggest perfection again, ( i.e., high, higher, highest, in terms of good, better, best ) and so intrinsically suggests God. 

I am not familiar with the term "limn". Can you help me out with that?


----------



## Saiph (Nov 30, 2005)

Any being, self-aware, must reference the ontological nature of some other being in order to ascertain its position in the hierarchy. Except for the being that exist "in Himself". We are aware of plant life, animal life, and each other, but we are also aware of diety. Animals do not buid altars or bury their dead. Why not ?

To limn is to draw.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Any being, self-aware, must reference the ontological nature of some other being in order to ascertain its position in the hierarchy. Except for the being that exist "in Himself". We are aware of plant life, animal life, and each other, but we are also aware of diety. Animals do not buid altars or bury their dead. Why not ?


That is what I am saying. To ascertain position is to beg the question. So as soon as man references himself as having some kind of supremecy, he must include in that the concept of "most supreme", which he cannot himself be if he must wonder at it at all. So the idea of "more supreme" or "higher" forces an ontological consideration of God. 



> To limn is to draw.


I knew that. 



[Edited on 11-30-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## Saiph (Nov 30, 2005)

Methinks we are saying the same thing.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Though it has nice symmetry, the ontological argument will never work with an atheist, I know I was one. Why? Because of the scandal of the cross. What you must realize with a true atheist is that fundamentally they do not believe (ascend to the idea) there is a God at all. And this they've done to justify themselves.



Good point, Larry. I agree with this. I think that there is a point in here that is part of the OA. It is not that the atheist is convinced by facts about what he believes, for what he holds is basically an unbelief. In other words, he believes his excuses, not real reason: his own "reasons", but not what reason brings to him. His belief is not really reasonable if considered honestly. He refuses the truth; it is not that he is an atheist because of truth.



> Once the atheist has these set up when shown the cross he will immediately stumble and see it as foolishness for it contradicts these other ideas of God's "frontal glory". "How and why would a holy God crucify Himself for evil men?" And if it contradicts these then "there must not be a God, at least not the Christian God". The atheist will then have to arrive back where he was OR some other deistic position but never at Christianity.
> 
> Many atheist just stay pure atheist. Myself I arrived at there might be a God but Christ as Christ never made sense to me, reason cannot go there or arrive at the cross of God the Son suffering. But unless the atheist becomes a Christian he will not be able to sustain his other god or deistic position very long for he will have to continue to justify himself. Thus, seeing only a purely just and holy God he will again have to deny God altogether - he can survive no other way.
> 
> L



I'm going to pay attention to Jeff's post, but part of that comes in here now. There is a difference between knowledge of God through ontological considerations and that which is specifically revealed in Scripture. I can understand your former atheist position, I think. Once such a position has taken up certain paradigms it refuses to acknowledge things which militate against it. 

But my response is that, in the end, atheism must leave its foundation if it responds at all truthfully to that which is revealed, whether it is natural revelation or special revelation. So, though I agree that atheist dig in their heels at a thought repugnant to their position, that repugnancy is really only in their heads, not in reality or reason.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Methinks we are saying the same thing.



Well of course. What's the fun in this if we can't agree on something?

I wasn't trying to disagree with you, Mark. I was trying to be precise in the simple terms and ideas. What you said only showed the necessity of God's existence, when it was taken to its logical conclusion. That was what I was trying to get across. I'm just trying to take each thought carefully and accurately, not allowing myself to make mistakes in thought. And I hope to try to invoke this in others as we think these things through.


----------



## BrianLanier (Nov 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BrianLanier_
> ...



John,

I still don't see why God must be perfect. Why is this necessary? The different conceptions of God all use the term perfect to mean different things. Some even have said that God doesn't have to be perfect, i.e. not all powerful since there is evil in the world. Why is it better to know than not to know, etc., etc. By what standard would one know this?

Also, why must 'perfection' exist? Remember you said perfection must (necessary) exist. But why?

It seems that the premises of your syllogysim are very controversial and must be proven.

[Edited on 11-30-2005 by BrianLanier]


----------



## JohnV (Nov 30, 2005)

> _from Jeff_
> I would also like to add that even IF the ontological argument was sound (which it is not) it would not prove a moral god (hence not the God of the Bible) and it would not prove that there is ONE God (hence not the trinity as in the Bible). So what kind of god have you proved even if you get this to work? You have proved an idol.


If it were possible to prove that there is a God, then it would only be possible to prove the God that is there, and no other. If morality was excluded, then it would not be God; if He were not one, it would not be God; if it were an idol, it would not be God. Therefore it would not be proof of God's existence. 

Don't get the wrong idea of what is being proved here. It is not that this proves God's existence as much as it proves that the concept of God necessarily involves His existence, even for those who hold to a conclusion that He does not exist. It is impossible that God could exist only in the mind; and He *does* exist in the mind. 



> Secondly, this syllogism makes the fallacy of equivication with the term "exist." To exist in the mind or in theory is not the same to exist in reality.


That was what I was trying hard to avoid. Notice that this is not the ordinary formulation; it deliberately evades mixed uses of the verb "is".



> Thirdly, it is sinful to try to prove the existence of God by rational or empirical means. God himelf tells us not to swear by heaven or earth or any created thing, but we ARE swearing by reason, or empirical evidence when appealing to such forms of "proof."
> 
> Heb 6:13 For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself,


Believe it or not, I agree with this in part. I agree with the notion of not "putting God under the microscope", as if He fits under it. I don't think that this is doing that, though. This is just trying to be honest with reality, and the fact that, no matter where you turn, God's existence is suggested upon the thing under consideration.



> Fourthly, why prove the existence of God? The scriptures are clear that every man knows that God exists.


That's the point this is making.



> Should we believe the athiest when he says otherwise? That's exactly what we do when we try to prove God to them, we say "you're right, you DON'T believe that God exists, let me PROVE it to you." We must not reject scripture to grant this premise.


That's just the idea: he can't say otherwise and be honest to reality, nor even be consistent in his ideas and concepts. He puts limitations where he wants them, not where the they really are. 


> Lastly, everything exists, the question is "What is it?" Is God a figmant of your imagination? Or is he the God of the Bible? This is why the Westminster Shorter Catechism does not begin with "Does God exist?" But it begins with :
> 
> Q4: What is God?
> A4: God is a Spirit,[1] infinite,[2] eternal,[3] and unchangeable,[4] in his being,[5] wisdom,[6] power,[7] holiness,[8] justice, goodness, andtruth.[9]
> ...



Exactly. It is so much a part of the basis of things that it does not require the question, "Does God exist?" It is assumed. This shows that this is true for all. It must be so, that following things honestly and truly cannot lead to doubt about God's existence. Atheists are being dishonest. 

But so are other religions. Getting back to representatives of religions standing in a room, and reading off a list of "necessary attributes", this would show how, one by one, beginning with the atheist and the pantheist, they would all sit down except one; this is a reducing of the competing religions by calling into question their honesty in representing the God that must follow. As we progress from facts from nature to facts from Scripture ( because they will eventually be the only ones standing ), we can also take these revelational notions to their logical perfection, and end up with, in conception, the one true religion. In a way, that is what the Reformation did in concluding in such documents as the Westminster Standards, The Three Forms of Unity, or the London Confession. The Canons of Dordt, the renunciation of errors, is a good example.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 30, 2005)

Brian:

You said,


> I still don't see why God must be perfect. Why is this necessary? The different conceptions of God all use the term perfect to mean different things. Some even have said that God doesn't have to be perfect, i.e. not all powerful since there is evil in the world. Why is it better to know than not to know, etc., etc. By what standard would one know this?


Just take it simply. If God knows, then how can it be that He does not know perfectly? He is not subject to anything, so it would follow that all knowledge is perfected in Him, That is, if it can be made perfect then He alone can do it. 

I am using the term simply. 



> Also, why must 'perfection' exist? Remember you said perfection must (necessary) exist. But why?


What I said was that the idea of perfection is necessary. And therefore existence was necessarily a part of that. One thing is better than another, and something else is better yet. It is impossible to exclude the idea of perfection. So the better question would be to ask where this comes from? There must be an absolute that becomes the reference for comparison. 

This syllogism only speaks of things that are necessarily suggested, and of avoiding contradiction within them. 



> It seems that the premises of your syllogysim are very controversial and must be proven.


That's the idea. I'm just trying to call the question, and asking us all to consider it carefully and honestly.

[Edited on 11-30-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## Saiph (Nov 30, 2005)

> I still don't see why God must be perfect. Why is this necessary?



???

God is perfection personified.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 30, 2005)

Another way to see it is that unbelief is hardness of heart. Hardness against what? What God reveals about Himself is revealed truly, both in creation and Scripture. Unbelief hardens itself against that testimony; unbelief is not any kind of integrity. 

And the same is true of disbelief and misbelief. How do we correct these? With instruction, convincing through truths, with demonstrations of true reason. That's why we use sound logic and argumentation based on solid bases. 

If we had any inkling that sound reason, truth, or perfection did not lead us to God, then we would not employ them to demonstrate the truths of our religion. We have every confidence in them. 

When unbelief, disbelief, or misbelief appeal to these same principles, then we are confident that it is not the facts that lead them astray, but rather their own suasions in spite of the facts. If we are ready to use logic, then we have to agree that perfection in it leads us to God's revelation of Himself.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > I still don't see why God must be perfect. Why is this necessary?
> ...



The point is, that many people will not accept this premise. The greek gods were far from perfect.

How then would you go about using this argument as a "proof" given that not everybody will accept the premise that God is perfect? They will ask you, "How do you know God is perfect?"


----------



## JohnV (Nov 30, 2005)

Jeff:

Do you think your argument is reasonable? Would it be better if it were perfectly reasonable, without flaw? Do you think it is logical? Would it be better if it were perfectly logical?

Do you see how the qualifiers we use to convince others are better if they are perfect, without flaw? Why, then, do we use these things when we argue in favour of one doctrine over another, to show that one is Biblical and the other not? Not only do we cite Scripture, but we provide grounds rooted in sound reason to show that the interpretation of Scripture is valid. We use qualifiers which are better, sounder, truer, more perfect. If we didn't have them, then we would really be lost in upholding doctrine. They testify to truth. And God is necessarily true. He is not subject to anything. These things must follow for anyone if he is ready and willing to consider them honestly. 

It has already been pointed out that it is dishonesty with the facts that argue agaist God, not honesty with them. But to be even better than honest would be to be perfectly honest. And we cannot doubt but that this would be absolutely consistent with God's revelations of Himself. That is why, whenever someone holds to what he thinks is true, he assumes that appeal to reason will establish what he holds. 

The truth is, though, that even for the best of us, the better we appeal to reason and truth, the more we will also correct ourselves, if *we* are willing.

In short, we are calling others who do not believe to be honest with the facts, to leave their presuppositions because they are flawed. And so we also do for ourselves, as we gain in our understanding. We leave the childish notions we had when we were less mature in the faith, and grow up. We discard our presuppositions as we find them to be failing, as falling short of that perfection to which we are called. 

God would be calling us to a useless endeavour in calling us to test all things if we did not have a basis upon which to objectively test them. We have to learn to de-establish wrong notions, not just for unbelievers, but from our own misbeliefs. God has provided for us Scripture, His testimony of Himself and His deity in creation, and created us in His image. All I am saying is that this is plainly so.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> The point is, that many people will not accept this premise. The greek gods were far from perfect.
> 
> How then would you go about using this argument as a "proof" given that not everybody will accept the premise that God is perfect? They will ask you, "How do you know God is perfect?"



Jeff, name ANY diety other than YHWH and I can show by the religious writings concerniing that god that the deity is imperfect. And if the diety is shown to be imperfect in any measure, that diety cannot be God.

If someone says, how do you know God is perfect I would say that the very the word idea of God gives "perfection" meaning in our minds.

They have to embrace absurdity to deny it. And I am fine with that. 
No one will stand before God and say, "Well, there just was not enough proof to convince me you existed, so why should I be held accountable ?"


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Jeff, name ANY diety other than YHWH and I can show by the religious writings concerniing that god that the deity is imperfect. And if the diety is shown to be imperfect in any measure, that diety cannot be God.



I agree that any other deity besides Jehovah cannot be God, but the point of my objection is that many if not most people will not accept that.



> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> If someone says, how do you know God is perfect I would say that the very the word idea of God gives "perfection" meaning in our minds.



Just because God gives "perfection" meaning in our minds does not answer the question. "How do you KNOW that God is pefect?" Only by the Scriptures. And therefore, in order to prove that God is perfect, you have to assume or presuppose Him.



> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> They have to embrace absurdity to deny it. And I am fine with that.
> No one will stand before God and say, "Well, there just was not enough proof to convince me you existed, so why should I be held accountable ?"



I agree, but the point is that the ontological argument is fallacious. It has been refuted by a great deal of philosophers, and has been clearly shown to commit a logical fallacy, and for some reason, people ignore that and still try to use it.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 30, 2005)

> Just because God gives "perfection" meaning in our minds does not answer the question. "How do you KNOW that God is pefect?" Only by the Scriptures. And therefore, in order to prove that God is perfect, you have to assume or presuppose Him.



The OA is not fallacious. 

"œBut clearly that than which a greater cannot be thought cannot exist in the understanding alone. For if it is actually in the understanding alone, it can be thought of as existing also in reality, and this is greater... Without doubt, therefore, there exists, both in the understanding and in reality, something than which a greater cannot be thought." 

[St Anselm, Proslogion, Chapter II]


It seems like a linguistic legerdemain, but it is only because of Kant that we accept that deceptive idea as fact.



1. God is a being which none greater can be conceived.
2. Even an atheist claims God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. However, God would be a better being if he existed in reality, not just as an idea.
4. Therefore, God must exist in reality, not just as an idea.





> Kant's objection to the ontological argument is that existence is not a property that can be attributed to beings like we can attribute other properties such as being blue, hard, or round. When we talk about entities existing, Kant contends that we do not mean to add existence as a property to their beings. In other words, the objection seems to be that one cannot go around adding existence as a property to God (or anything else for that matter) in order to define God (or anything else) into existence. Just as defining my bedroom as such a place that contains millions of dollars would not mean that a careful understanding of that definition of my room would really make it so. In order to see if that definition is true, we should go look at my room and see if it is accurate. Similarly, a definition of God must be checked with reality to see if it is correct.
> 
> Although Kant's objection has been influential and receives credence to this very day, it has been found unsatisfactory by some philosophers. For example, some thinkers controversially believe that existence can be thought of as a unique property. Alvin Plantinga has forcefully argued that Kant's objection does not conflict with anything in Anselm's argument. For Anselm does not contingently add existence as a property to God and define him into existence. Naturally these objections are contentious, which adds to the intrigue of the ontological argument.



Plantinga's outline:


I. There is a possible world where a being has maximal greatness.
II. Necessarily, a being is maximally great only if it has maximal excellence in all possible worlds.
III. Necessarily, a being is maximally excellent in all possible worlds only if it has omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection.
IV. It would be impossible for a being with maximal greatness not to exist in any possible world.
V. Therefore, a being of maximal greatness exists in all possible worlds.



> Plantinga is careful to admit that his argument will only be convincing to those who believe that premise I is acceptable, which he knows will only be acceptable to those who already believe in God. However, Plantinga thinks this argument still has some philosophical value. For even though it probably will not persuade anyone to become a theist, it demonstrates that theism is rational, which is no trivial conclusion.



Read "God,Freedom & Evil" by Alvin Plantinga
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802817319/christiaphilosop/103-8359446-3395843




(quotes from :http://apologetics.johndepoe.com/onto.html )

[Edited on 12-1-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## JohnV (Dec 1, 2005)

Nice work, Mark. 

As to Jeff's objection that, though God may be perfect, many will not accept that: whether people accept it or not is not the point. What is at stake here is whether it is true. If people don't accept it, is it because it is not true or because they will not accept it even though it is true? 

Let's assume that a person rightly holds that God is not perfect. How would he know that if God is not perfect? Would not perfection cease to be a paramount point of evaluation? Would it not be, then, that perfection or imperfection have no real difference? Or does perfection exist by itself, apart from God, as something that perhaps even God tries to attain to? 

No, perfection is a possible concept only because it exists in God first.


----------



## Saiph (Dec 1, 2005)

True John.

Islam is one of many religions where God is not perfect. Allah is whimsical and capricious.


----------



## Arch2k (Dec 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> As to Jeff's objection that, though God may be perfect, many will not accept that: whether people accept it or not is not the point. What is at stake here is whether it is true.



The point that many people will not accept the premise that "God is perfect" is the point if you are trying to PROVE the existence of God. 

The only way we can know that God is perfect is by the Scriptures. Therefore, when one uses the premise "God is perfect" they are stealing this from the Bible. In this, we are PRESUPPOSING the bible to be true, but wait....that is what we are ultimately trying to PROVE.

If we accept that the Bible is true, there is no need to try to prove the existence of God. But advocating the perfection of God is presupposing the Bible is true.

Anselm's entire point in the OA is to true to prove the existence of God APART FROM THE BIBLE. He failed. Even if the argument is sound, he steals a premise from the Bible, namely the perfection of God.

As I stated above, if we want to steal premises from the Bible, why not come up with a much simpler syllogism?

1. The bible is true. (something we are presupposing to advocate the perfection of God)
2. The bible says God exists. (it also says that God is perfect)
Conclusion: God exists. (the same conclusion as the OA)

In advocating the perfection of God, we are essentially doing the same thing, only a few steps removed. This was not Anselm's goal.

If you call the syllogism I made above a "proof" for the existence of God, so be it. However, this is not what the world wants when they ask for "proof."


----------



## Saiph (Dec 1, 2005)

> Anselm's entire point in the OA is to true to prove the existence of God APART FROM THE BIBLE. He failed. Even if the argument is sound, he steals a premise from the Bible, namely the perfection of God.



Jeff, with all due respect, Paul in Romans 1 seems to be saying that there are two things apart from Scripture that prove the existence of God.

1. Creation
2. Conscience

Both of those are contained in the OA. God made man's mind.


----------



## JohnV (Dec 1, 2005)

Jeff:

You keep missing it, it seems to me. 



> The point that many people will not accept the premise that "God is perfect" is the point if you are trying to PROVE the existence of God.


If I'm wearing brown socks, and pull up my trousers to prove it, and people just won't look, that does not make my socks another colour. People won't accept perfection or existence in God because they don't want to, not because it doesn't make good sense. Just think about it, if it doesn't make good sense, then it wouldn't be in the Bible either. 



> The only way we can know that God is perfect is by the Scriptures. Therefore, when one uses the premise "God is perfect" they are stealing this from the Bible. In this, we are PRESUPPOSING the bible to be true, but wait....that is what we are ultimately trying to PROVE.


Maybe "prove" is the wrong word here. Let's just say that we don't have to prove that God exists because He will do that on His own when and where He needs to, and do it much more convincingly than we could. The thing that I am doing is working with the truth that God is, and being consistent with that, because truth is consistent 100 times out of 100. Where it isn't consistent has nothing to do with truth, but with me. So I'm wrestling with my thinking in order to bring it in line with those things I do not yet understand but are definitely true. Both nature and Scripture attest to these things. 



> If we accept that the Bible is true, there is no need to try to prove the existence of God. But advocating the perfection of God is presupposing the Bible is true.


If we accept the Bible as true then we ought to also begin to see the overall consistency in God's other modes of revelation. Sure, the unbeliever is not going to believe it, even if someone they know well, and whom they know surely to be dead, should rise from the dead to testify to them. They have Moses and the prophets, if they do not believe them, then they will not believe if someone should rise from the dead. Look at all the miracles that Jesus did, and even of the kind that had never been done before, and could not be done in our time, such as restoring the sight of a man born blind, or healing a withered arm; purely impossible from a physical point of view, and yet done without qualm. 

( Val Kilmer has done a movie about a man who has never seen who has his eyes healed; it really shows what a person goes through who has this done. This is well documented. Jesus overcame that too in healing the blind man. )



> Anselm's entire point in the OA is to true to prove the existence of God APART FROM THE BIBLE. He failed. Even if the argument is sound, he steals a premise from the Bible, namely the perfection of God.


I've read Proslogium several times, and never got that out of it. Where do you get "apart from the Bible" from; because I don't see that in his work?



> As I stated above, if we want to steal premises from the Bible, why not come up with a much simpler syllogism?
> 
> 1. The bible is true. (something we are presupposing to advocate the perfection of God)
> 2. The bible says God exists. (it also says that God is perfect)
> ...


Again, you are attributing to Anselm motives that you cannot prove. But your syllogism is a good example of what I am trying to do, or to advocate. If the Bible says its true, then why would it not be consistent with all truth? And why can we not advocate that such truth is plain to all, as these things are also shadowed in nature?



> If you call the syllogism I made above a "proof" for the existence of God, so be it. However, this is not what the world wants when they ask for "proof."



Just because the world does not want it, that does not make it less true. Just because it is not enough proof for them, that does not make it any less proof. 

If God exists, then how could there be any evidence to the contrary? There isn't. Those who say there is insufficient grounds to believe it are just fooling themselves; and those who think that the proofs add up to a different conclusion, they are not interested in real proofs, but just satisfying their own unbelief with what they call proofs.


----------



## Arch2k (Dec 1, 2005)

John, 

It is accepted that Anselm's Ontological argument is a proof via Rationalism.

From the article on rationalism:



> Rationalism, also known as the rationalist movement, is a philosophical doctrine that asserts that the truth can best be discovered by *reason and factual analysis, rather than  faith, dogma or religious teaching. *



From the article on the ontological argument:



> In theology and the philosophy of religion, an ontological argument for the existence of God is an argument that God's existence can be proved a priori, that is, *by intuition and reason alone *.



I think that I have shown above that Anselm's argument fails at this.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 1, 2005)

As I understand Anselm, he is actually basing his whole argument upon the Scripture in Psalm 14, "The fool says in his heart, there is no God." That doesn't sound like "reason alone" to me. His entire argument seems like an exposition of the psychology of a man's unbelief in light of this Scripture. I could be wrong. John and Mark know Anselm much better than I.


----------



## Saiph (Dec 1, 2005)

Patrick, Plato's form of the good and Aristotle's unmoved/prime mover are prime examples of using rational thought to conclude some transcendant realities.

They did not succeed in showing a personal God who is omniscient, but I think it was because of their supression of that truth, not an incapability of the human mind to reasonably deduce it from nature.

[Edited on 12-1-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Saiph (Dec 1, 2005)

> I think that I have shown above that Anselm's argument fails at this.


 You have accepted the lie of Kant. You either did not understand, or did not read the refactoring of the proof by Plantinga.




The OA will not persuade anyone to become a theist, but it does demonstrate that theism is rational.

[Edited on 12-1-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## JohnV (Dec 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> As I understand Anselm, he is actually basing his whole argument upon the Scripture in Psalm 14, "The fool says in his heart, there is no God." That doesn't sound like "reason alone" to me. His entire argument seems like an exposition of the psychology of a man's unbelief in light of this Scripture. I could be wrong. John and Mark know Anselm much better than I.



Psalm 14 is central to what Anselm was working to understand. That was it, to show that to there is no God is foolishness, i.e., not reasonable. 

But though this exposes man's foolishness, Anselm's actual treatise was also about the positive aspects: not only was it impossible to hold to a concept of God that was a non-existent god, but that the positive aspects of His attributes are central to all of man's thinking. To put it modern terms, man cannot think, judge, or have intuition without the paradigms that God placed into creation, including man's mind. 

All things hold together in God; so why would it be strange to think that the consideration of things does not include the consideration of the God who holds it all together? A rough simile would be thinking about the colour red, but excluding all objects in thinking of it; the colour red cannot exist by itself, because it has to be on something to exist. Red is our thinking, God's creation is what our thinking is on. 

So again, if all things make sense in God, because He created and upholds it all by His perfect will, why then would it strange to say that all things make sense together ( that is, that general revelation does not disagree with special revelation ), and that those who disagree are the ones who don't make sense?


----------



## JohnV (Dec 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> John,
> 
> It is accepted that Anselm's Ontological argument is a proof via Rationalism.
> ...



Jeff:

You're right, I by-passed all that. I did that on purpose. As I said, this is more a preamble to the Ontological Argument. I don't claim to know better than anyone, but all the things that I've read criticizing the OA just don't make sense to me. I just can't see why it is so hard to understand that, if God made the world, then it would just make better sense all around, not just from Scripture, but from creation as well ( which God had made ), to believe that all things can do nothing else but uphold the axiom that God exists. And it has to be axiomatic if all things exist and are upheld in Him. Why wouldn't it make sense to say that those who don't believe God's existence are resoning foolishly? And why wouldn't it follow to say that, if they would only reason truly, then that reason would not disagree with the fact that God does exist? Why would the fool be justified in his unbelief? And on what grounds could he possibly be justified? 

All I'm saying is that what the fool deems justification is really nothing more than self-deception, not reason. He goes against reason to believe that God does not exist, not with it. Every point of reference that he must use to make the kinds of judgments that he does testifies rather to God's existence than His non-existence. It is hard enough to understand why unbelievers don't believe the obvious. It is obstinacy, not sound reason that does this. 

I'm not going to go too deeply into this, because that would involve going into refutations of all the refutations of the OA. All I want to do is to set the basis for considering it according to what Anselm really was saying, not according to the presentation such as Wikipedia's analysis. And even if Anselm wasn't saying that, then I am saying that this is what I got out of Anselm's treatise, and this is what I'm putting on the table for discussion. But I find no counter in Anselm's own work that would negate that he meant the thing that I'm trying to defend here. I find negative notions only in the arguments opposed to the conclusion.


----------



## JohnV (Dec 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > I think that I have shown above that Anselm's argument fails at this.
> ...



I'm not going to advocate Plantinga either, though he did help to set me on to the ideas here. I'm trying to stay away from all that, and just put out the simple ideas in equitable fashion, so that each proposition can be evaluated for its necessity, without the accruing criticisms attached. 

Mind you, I'm not standing agaist this either, because many of the notions that we have are inherited from men like Kant, Descartes, Plantinga, etc., and we need to deal with them in our own minds. But if we can just establish a solid grounding from which to evaluate, then we'll have a leg up on the whole thing. 

This is an interesting thing: your last statement is a very curious contradiction. You are absolutely right, that the OA itself will not convince. If that was all that was needed, then belief would only be an intellectual assent, and that is not what belief is. Belief carries farther, because it is tested by how far the thing is believed. In this way belief overlaps faith itself. And in the Dutch these terms overlap not only in concept, but in the very language. ( I'll look up the words. ) Yet it is also true that proof of any kind cannot contradict God's existence; how can it if He made and upholds all things? So it is perversely irrational to hold to the notion that God does not exist, finding no reason in anything to support it. Why then would not people be convinced by such overwhelming proofs? Certainly the OA holds to the reasonableness of theism. A very curious contradiction; but one that is explained by the Bible when it begins with man's creation and then immediately tells of the Fall.


----------



## JohnV (Dec 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> I probably won't get very far into this one, but as just an initial thought, one of my main problems is with the "Existence is a necessary attribute of Perfection" statement. Epistemologically, one must ask how you even know what "perfection" is, or in other words by what standard you are defining it, or how you even have a concept of what that means.
> ...



Let's say that I compare my presuppositions with yours, and figure out that yours are better. The thing to do is to adopt yours and leave mine. Then someone else comes along with better ones yet, so I adopt those and leave yours behind. Christian presuppositions are better, but better yet are more upright Christian presuppositions. If I keep doing that, leaving behind the lesser ones for the better ones, then I am agreeing that better is better, until I reach the very best. And even that may be improved by being perfect in not only holding the very best presuppositions, but upholding them perfectly. 

You see, it works here too. Judgments are made, and for that to happen there has to be an intrinsic measuring reference point. Whether we are talking about truer, better (good-er), more beautiful, more excellent, more unchangeable, or whatever, we are comparing one thing to another and exerting our judgment upon them, judgment according to a measuring line that is above even ourselves. These all suggest a perfection which must exist for it to be perfect. And so it is with the idea of supreme being, that whatever is most supreme is to be called God. 

We can compare different religions' gods, and assume that the most supreme, the most excellent, the most unchanging, would be the one who rightly can be called God. This immediately leaves out those who hold that God exists only in the mind, because even a man that exists is better than a God who doesn't exist; a reality is better, more excellent, than an idea. This also eventually leaves out the lesser gods, in whom there is a shadow of turning, a spot of darkness within the light. There is only one God that all things can attribute supremecy and deity to. And there is only one God that has ever been presented to mankind that fits the bill. 

In calling others' attention to our presuppositions we are calling them to compare. Whoever thinks that he is right also implicitly believes that true reason will bear him out; he is not afraid to reason out his belief for others, so that they will see that his belief is more reasonable. We do that with our presuppositions, implicitly asking others to compare according to the most reasonable criteria, and to adopt that which is most reasonable. We believe that the most reasonable is the most right, and we think that this is true for everyone; so we appeal to reason to convince. We use Scripture as authority, and reason to convince. 

I don't mean that reason is elevated to some kind of autonomous position above God. That is rationalism, and that is not reasonable. How can reason be above God without destroying the witness of God in reason? No, God is entirely reasonable, true, and consistent. This puts reason as being completely under His sovereignty. Neither does this put man's mind above God's, for I am not advocating reason that ends with man's mind, but one that man's mind is subject to. God's mind is supreme, and entirely reasonable; so to subject one's mind to the reasons given by better truth, better excellency, better goodness, leaving behind the lesser for the better every time, is being subject to God's mind. 

All I'm saying is that this makes sense. It makes sense because God exists, His Word is true, and that nothing in all creation can produce evidence to the contrary: all evidence cannot help but be evidence towards God's existence because all things are created by Him and upheld by Him. 

To call others just to live in reality is quite simply ordinary. And reality cannot help but bear witness to God's sovereignty and deity. We do not know who God will call, and we are called to present the gospel to all, we who were called out of our own worm-hood, with the hope that the Spirit will quicken their souls and minds, granting to them repentence. There is no reason to think that unbelief or disbelief or misbelief is somehow reasonable by any standard. It is always more reasonable to be true to the facts than not true to the facts. 

This does not undermine faith; this upholds it, and gives it a firm grounding. I believe the impossible, such as miracles, such as salvation for my soul, because I believe in a God for whom these things are not impossible. And I believe in Him because He has made Himself known to me, both in creation and in His Word, but also both through these outward witnesses as well as the inward witness of the Spirit in my heart. 

Yes, a real Spirit bearing real witness to someone such as me. A personal contact. I trust in Him, in His truth, in His promise that truth will triumph over falseness, and then do what is true. And He shows me that what He has promised does come true. He speaks to me in truth, goodness, beauty, excellence, immutability, and so on, things that even words, language, and thoughts are subject to. He speaks to me in my spirit. A real person to person relationship, but on a scale that physical relationships are only a shadow of, a true shadow, but only a shadow. 

Words, ideas, language ( i.e., putting words together to from propostions ), these suggest to us the relationship that God has to us in truth, goodness, and excellence in all things. These are common to all men, because all men are created in God's image, to communicate spiritually. And that's what we're doing here on this Board, not just communicating ideas and thoughts, but communicating excellencies in these ideas and thoughts, through these ideas and thoughts. In doing so we are calling each other to what is more excellent than what we already have, taking every thought captive into truth, and taking into captivity even our own minds, subjecting our own presuppositions to the unchangeable truth of God. 

We have a long way to go. We may have the right basic presuppositions, but that does not itself redeem us from using them to our own advantage, or for wrong purposes. We still need to take them captive to refine them, to purge them of evil, and to have them serve us toward the goal of a more reasonable service to Christ, our redeemer.


----------



## JohnV (Dec 3, 2005)

> Perfection is a necessary attribute of God;
> Existence is a necessary attribute of Perfection;
> Therefore, Existence is a necessary attribute of God.



I thought for sure that the main objection to this would be on the second proposition, that existence is a necessary attribure of perfection. That's the one I was preparing for. I was not expecting that anyone would find any difficulty with the first proposition. I was thinking that, since everyone agrees that God's attributes consisted of unlimitedness, and encompassing all things, that perfection any any attribute would be an understood quality.


----------



## Saiph (Dec 3, 2005)

I do not have a problem with the major premise John. But the minor premise is sketchy. I think that is why Plantinga refactored it. A perfect triangle is conceivable in theory, but does that neccessitate its existence in reality ? I think your syllogism is an enthymeme based on the assumed ontological necessity contained in the idea of perfection.


----------



## mgeoffriau (Dec 3, 2005)

I disagree. 

A perfect triangle does not include the quality of existence. When one speaks of a "perfect triangle," the point is the exact mathematical relationships of the sides and angles. It is not necessary for it to exist in reality.

However, the concept "god" includes _all_ the perfections of being - including existence. If the word "god" is troublesome (because some cultures believe in imperfect gods), then try to understand it as shorthand for the concept "a being than which there can be no greater." 

By necessity, a being than which there can be no greater must exist, because an extant "god" is more perfect than a conceptual or imaginary "god."

In summary - the concept of god includes all the perfections of being, including existence.



> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> A perfect triangle is conceivable in theory, but does that neccessitate its existence in reality ? I think your syllogism is an enthymeme based on the assumed ontological necessity contained in the idea of perfection.


----------



## Saiph (Dec 3, 2005)

Mark, you and I agree. That was my point. The ontological necessity of God being perfect and existing by necessity, is different than abstract theoretical perfections in mathematics. Yet both are "perfect". The perfect triangle only exists by necessity in the subjective reality of mind. God exists subjectively and objectively.

The syllogism JohnV set forth assumes a metaphysical necessity for anything perfect, not just God. Unless I am reading it wrong. PLantinga's idea removes the argument from subjective contingencies, and limits the idea of perfection to a measure of ontological quality.

I. There is a possible world where a being has maximal greatness.
II. Necessarily, a being is maximally great only if it has maximal excellence in all possible worlds.
III. Necessarily, a being is maximally excellent in all possible worlds only if it has omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection.
IV. It would be impossible for a being with maximal greatness not to exist in any possible world.
V. Therefore, a being of maximal greatness exists in all possible worlds.


----------



## mgeoffriau (Dec 3, 2005)

Ahh I see your objection to the minor premise now. Yes, I'd agree with you there. Perfection in God is unique, because it is not a "perfect triangle," or a "perfect machine," or anything that communicates a limited perfection, but in fact all the perfections of being. Excellent point. Thanks for the further explanation.


----------



## JohnV (Dec 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> I do not have a problem with the major premise John. But the minor premise is sketchy. I think that is why Plantinga refactored it. A perfect triangle is conceivable in theory, but does that neccessitate its existence in reality ? I think your syllogism is an enthymeme based on the assumed ontological necessity contained in the idea of perfection.



This is, in part, Gaunilon's objection too ( the perfect island ). In some ways it is a _non sequitor_, in that the perfect triangle's perfection is in its triangular properties; it would be more perfect if it had other qualities. It is certain that the perfect triangle does not have perfect symmetry, for that would require a fourth line, dividing it perfectly into two mirror halves. I could not be said that the perfect triangle has perfect beauty for no one has ever seen a perfect triangle to describe that beauty. And so it is with many other attributes that the perfect triangle does not possess; or, if it did, would detract from its perfection.

One of those attributes to consider would be its existence: i.e., would the perfect triangle be more perfect if it existed? And if so, can it be said anymore that the perfect triangle is perfect, since it does not exist?

But I realize that this side-steps the thrust behind your objection. I hope you don't mind that I want to ignore Plantinga's redefinition for now, and just focus on each premise individually, keeping in mind the relationship the syllogism forms. I am not trying to define God into existence; if I were, it would not be God. What has to be kept in mind is that the only God that could be proven ( and it must be that all proofs sustain the fact of God's existence ) is the one that created all things, i.e., that all things are upheld by the God that must be. Underline that "must be" phrase in your mind. For that is the point, that the idea cannot be honestly escaped once it is postulated. 

So the Word begins with "In the beginning God....", and that is all that is needed to establish God's existence. From that point on only the fool, not the wise man, who says in his heart that there is no God: it cannot be honestly escaped anymore. It is impossible to conceive of God honestly and to deny His existence. That is the positive argument of the OA.

I understand that the syllogism can be understood as assuming the attribute of perfection's necessity ontologically. That is the part that I wanted to discuss, to show that it is necessary even in the denial of it. Perfection is something like the verb "is" in that what it is attached to defines its boundaries of meaning. Perfection itself is kind of a nebulous concept by itself. Yet it is not without meaning that "Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God shines forth. " ( Psa 50:2 ). Once we begin to explore the idea of perfection we will find that, just as it is ontologically necessary that God be perfect, so it is that it is ontologically necessary that perfection exists. The thing is, we could not be discussing it if it didn't exist: i.e., the idea cannot be just an idea. It is an idea we attach to many things, such as a triangle; and that attachment may be proper or not proper, but the idea of perfection cannot be without there being a perfect something for reference. 

In this way you can see that the minor premise is also resident in the major premise already. That, in basis, is your objection. And I say that if that objection holds, then it is not the existence of the real God that we are discussing. The real God must pre-exist all things; and the understanding of the syllogism has to keep that distinction clearly up front.


----------



## JohnV (Dec 4, 2005)

Part II



> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Mark, you and I agree. That was my point. The ontological necessity of God being perfect and existing by necessity, is different than abstract theoretical perfections in mathematics. Yet both are "perfect". The perfect triangle only exists by necessity in the subjective reality of mind. God exists subjectively and objectively.
> 
> The syllogism JohnV set forth assumes a metaphysical necessity for anything perfect, not just God. Unless I am reading it wrong. PLantinga's idea removes the argument from subjective contingencies, and limits the idea of perfection to a measure of ontological quality.
> ...



What I am saying, Mark, is that *we all* assume a metaphysical necessity merely in applying the word "perfect" to anything at all. We may use it subjectively, but we assume its objectivity, otherwise our many uses of it to describe attributes of various things, such as God or triangles, are meaningless. 

How is the idea escaped by replacing the word and idea of perfection with the descriptive, "maximally"? We're still talking about the same thing. All that is done is to try to escape the connotations that objectors have applied to the term, by using a more philosophically neutral term. But it is still the same thing. The difference is the honesty of the positor and the objector. When it comes right down to it, there is not much onus placed upon me as the positor, because I am merely stating three simple terms in their simple relationship. It is the objectors that do the philosophical acrobatics to deflect the meanings of the terms and their relationship, while all I am doing is acquiescing to the ontological necessities of the ideas themselves.


----------



## Saiph (Dec 4, 2005)

> When it comes right down to it, there is not much onus placed upon me as the positor, because I am merely stating three simple terms in their simple relationship. It is the objectors that do the philosophical acrobatics to deflect the meanings of the terms and their relationship, while all I am doing is acquiescing to the ontological necessities of the ideas themselves.



True John, simple terms in simple relationships seem almost too easy to be true. Yet many of Christ's words were this way. On the surface, they were sometimes very cryptic, but to those with ears to hear, the cypher was solved, ans the simplicity became a richness with different layers of application and metaphor.

Could we instead add to the syllogism, that the necessisty of an eternal mind makes certain the basis for the ontological reality of even abstract perfections such as the perfect triangle ?


----------



## Larry Hughes (Dec 4, 2005)

Mark 

I´m not trying to war with you here brother, I´m just telling you coming from a real ex-atheist and not just an arm chair version, my degree was pursued for that very purpose - these arguments will never work at length until the dereliction of the cross is presented.



> Then explain to me the purpose of the miracle at the wedding, the turning of water into wine. I see no obvious redemptive analogical meaning from the text. Instead, in John 2:11 (NASB), you find:
> 
> "This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him."
> 
> It's purpose was to validate the person and work of Jesus Christ, to give clear evidence of His nature, and therefore to separate Himself from those false messiahs making similar claims, but unable to perform supernatural miracles.



The first thing to note here is that the "œfalse messiahs" then and today are not just those making the claim of being "œmessiahs". False messiahs arise when the view is unto something other than Christ as the Christ, that is the Redeemer who would go to the empty scandal of the Cross, die for His enemies and alone redeem wrath deserving sinners. Even the Apostles of His time missed this, they had a false idea of the messiah all during His ministry and thus abandoned Him as derelict alone at calvary. For they could not fathom that THIS was their Messiah that is Christ, that is that is what the Christ was to be. Jesus warns us against those who would say, "œthere is Christ, here is Christ" not so much the bafoonery David Koresh´s who would fool few, but false views of Christ altogether other than Him as full Redeemer, the WWJD types, Jesus as an example, Jesus the good teacher and so forth. All of those are false Christ´s and by extension false Messiahs.

The miracle of wine very much points to this glory and is obvious. In short, AW Pink does a lengthy treatment of this you can check out, the old religion had become dead no longer pointing to or looking forward to the real Christ to come. But had degraded into an overburdening system of religiosity and works, empty and vain it laid heavy burdens upon the people of God to in essence work their way to heaven - a vain anti-Christ pursuit. The old wine had become nothing and the religion mere religion and religiosity as stone cold as the stone pots. But the best wine Christ created and set forth at the banquet. The whole scene, Christ coming on the scene of the dead religion to fulfill His role as SAVING Messiah and not conquering messiah as in the way they thought but rather the one Who would be rejected and left scandalized at the cross for His people´s sin, the suffering servant, the great Bride Groom who would rescue His bride who had been the harlot. The whole banquet itself points forward to the marriage banquet of the Christ and His bride the church. It is a tremendously beautiful picture of redemption and that is the true glory, "This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him.", pointed to. The whole miracle scene is ripe with redemption and NOT just an exercise in changing elements.

L


----------



## JohnV (Dec 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > When it comes right down to it, there is not much onus placed upon me as the positor, because I am merely stating three simple terms in their simple relationship. It is the objectors that do the philosophical acrobatics to deflect the meanings of the terms and their relationship, while all I am doing is acquiescing to the ontological necessities of the ideas themselves.
> ...



When we describe some things as "perfect" then we are often speaking in abstractions. As such, they are fitting for the categories of the mind. But this limits perfection to abstraction, and that will not do. As abstractions they are only existent in the mind, not necessarily in reality. The syllogism I proposed posits that existence is a necessary attribute of perfection. In other words, perfection can exist as a mere category of the mind because it does exist in reality in relation to something. But it is impossible to think of perfection as not existing, while the concept, or category of the mind, does exist: it is meaningless if perfection does not exist in reality. 

Think of it this way: of the three terms, namely God, perfection, and existence, only the one is self-contained. The other two are categories of the mind, but they are more than that: they are necessary to thought because they describe necessaries of reality. I am not denying that God's mind is essential to thought, but I would be skeptical of confining the argument to thought alone: God has to pre-exist all things as being, not just as thought.

As to the first part of your post, that is the beauty of many of Jesus' teachings. Occam had something right about reducing truth to its simplest terms, but Jesus outdid Occam on that score. In the same way, looking at church history, a lot of the confessional and creedal documentation that we have is refutation of doctrinal errors, which are then stated in positive terms. In other words, necessities following the excluding of errors prompted doctrinal assertions upheld by the historical church. Its the simple truths being upheld against error that has given us our confessional, doctrinal heritage. 

That gets to the point of things, that we all appeal to reality, perfection, and to various attributes of God as if they are real, but often reduce them only to categories of the mind, as if they could even be referenced at all unless they were attributes of an existent God Himself.


----------

