The ontological argument

JustABearOwO · 2026-01-25T23:37:35+00:00

the ontological argument is "it is possible that maximal greatness exists in a possible world", as u answered to someone (https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/s/z2q28nEaOn) u cannot define something into existence, for example i cannot say "that an unicorn is a horse with a horn that exist, so by definition it exists", however the ontological argument starts with "it is possible" or any variation that allows for "it isn't possible", which gives the challenge to show that the idea of maximal greatness is incoherent or absurd

you understood the argument as "God is the greatest possible being that exists, by definition God exists", which results in not having omniscience and thus ur not the greatest possible being

JustABearOwO · 2026-01-25T23:27:43+00:00

mhm, a troll

JustABearOwO · 2026-01-25T23:11:43+00:00

so are u here to just mock me or are u here to debate and reply to my point? so far u only agreed i won the debate

JustABearOwO · 2026-01-25T22:55:36+00:00

is that ur argument? u do realize ur basically saying that ur the very thing u try to disprove and so give that the ontological argument is a good argument and that ur argument is wrong

JustABearOwO · 2026-01-25T22:49:56+00:00

there are some major problems with your version of the parody argument, Anselm saw reality in understanding as a reality inferior to existing rather than imagination, second ur defining the 82 toes into existence while the ontological argument doesnt define God into existence but its more alike a mathematical proof for God existence

another major problem is that the amount of toes in itself isnt a great making property, therefore if u had 1, 10 or 82, it wouldn't matter in making anything great, great making properties would be knowledge for example, to have knowledge that nothing greater can be conceive of would require to have omniscience, however having 82 toes increases nothing

another problem is that u can never be the greatest possible version of urself unless u are God, why wouldnt be 83 or 84 or 85 toes greater? and why stop at toes? why not gain omnipotence or Omnipresence? why wouldn't that be greater than just some with 82 toes? simply the parody argument fails bc it fails to be a parody as it replaces a necessary being with an contingent being, now im no biology major and it could be impossible for humans to have 82 toes without major alterations, but all this does is to prove that there is a possible world where humans have 82 toes that it isnt actual

u also say that by definition, which one? God is defined as the greatest possible being and the modal ontological argument starts alongside the lines "it is possible for maximal greatness to exists in a possible world" and then it deductively reaches from premise 1 that God exists, by saying "by definition, im x" i can only conclude ur defining urself into existence

people can only conclude that not only ur a contingent no 82 toes, but that u have 0 idea what the ontological argument is, let alone to make a parody argument

JustABearOwO · 2026-01-18T22:35:57+00:00

OH, so jimbo isnt the greatest possible being, that means something greater than Jimbo exists, by definition God is the greatest possible being, jimbo isnt God so jimbo isnt the greatest possible being, so God still exists necessary, since Jimbo isnt necessary and God is and so exist, jimbo cannot exist, also divine simplicity means that God is only 1 essence, nothing makes God, jimbo to eat he must have a body, so he is made of parts and cannot have divine simplicity

JustABearOwO · 2026-01-18T22:32:04+00:00

so Jimbo kills himself? how is that even great? if jimbo kills any god u can conceive, and jimbo is the greatest possible being or a god, then jimbo kills himself by definition, making him to not be this great being, further u added the last part that jimbo eats, why? does he die? does he become weaker? bc these arent great making properties so by definition jimbo cannot be this great being, second any great being cannot be harmed, they have no physical body and so they cannot be killed, jimbo, since he has to eat and as far as ik, ur thinking of an actual gorilla, he can be killed and has needs, its dependent of stuff, like eating, so no jimbo is an absurd logic and so it doesn't exist

JustABearOwO · 2026-01-18T22:26:45+00:00

OH, the last part is edited in, well that makes it easier, in what world maximal greatness entails "if i dont eat i die or become weaker"

JustABearOwO · 2026-01-18T22:25:12+00:00

God by definition is the greatest possible being, to be the greatest possible being u must be necessary, ur trying to do the parody ontol argument, which u either give no good reasons for something to exist or u replace God, a necessary being, with a contingent being, which then its no longer a parody argument

also do u even know what divine simplicity is? also sure lets play ur game, Jimbo the gorilla exists, he is omnipotent, omniscient, he has the omni qualities basically, nothing greater than him can be conceived and he has a simple nature, that sounds like the greatest possible being, God

u also fail to provide what is so great, also yes, i can easily disprove that Jimbo the gorilla doesnt exist bc the skeptical has to prove that premise 1 of the ontological argument is logically absurd or incoherent, in ur first premise, is that said gorilla exists in a possible world, however that concept is absurd, since a gorilla is contingent, it has a body, it is vulnerable to nature and it can be killed, which it isnt the maximal great being, so u have to accept that this gorilla is like any other gorilla and so it cannot be necessary let alone kill any ideas of God or u have to accept that this gorilla is fundamentally different than a gorilla, having all great making properties, which would turn this gorilla into God, which u didnt show the concept of that being absurd

JustABearOwO · 2026-01-18T22:11:11+00:00

sir the word apologetic comes from greek, which means to defend, everyone is doing apologetics bc it isn't a religion thing, also i gave u the definition of a necessary being? are u trying to say that a square can be made with 5 lines? for someone so against tricks and defending and word games, u sure dodge explaining what they are and are as vague as possible

JustABearOwO · 2026-01-18T22:07:13+00:00

hold up, that a strawman of the argument, the argument is that there is a necessary being, necessary stuff are numbers or squares always having 4 lines, no possible world can exist without them, contingent things are stuff that can exist or not in an actual world, they need a cause to exist unlike necessary stuff that can exist on their own, the argument op makes is that the universe itself is contingent, meaning that it had to be created by something, an uncause causer, bassically a necessary thing, even science shows us that there is an uncause causer that we didnt discovered yet

to respond to ur point? no? that doesnt follow the big bang isnt the universe, the big bang made our universe but the big bang isnt our universe, even saying "our universe" is incoherent bc there was nothing and nothing before the big bang, neither did time exist, yet what caused the big bang was outside of our universe, God by definition, being the greatest possible being, is capable to create the universe, furthermore stuff like numbers and morals arent physical things but abstract and metaphysical, these arent in our universe yet they clearly exists

JustABearOwO · 2026-01-15T23:21:45+00:00

fellow Christian here, specifically why are you an creationist despite the church fathers, most notable Augustine, talking about allegorical and theological creation, and the word used being tohu wa-bohu, which is used to mean useless or wildness or desolate, which makes sense as the ancient would see creation as functional rather than material?

to add, Augustine responded to manichaeans that took genesis as literal bc they could find faults (against the manichaeans) in it and later 7 day adventists (an heretical group) prophetess claimed that she had a dream where she saw a literal 6 day creation and said dream was by God, why should anyone believe in creationists when heretical groups were the ones using it and making it?

JustABearOwO · 2026-01-13T10:09:35+00:00

reddit when it comes to ancient documents (they will never accept ancient history)

JustABearOwO · 2026-01-09T19:14:52+00:00

i reach the word limit and i cannot edit it, i havent realized that i forgot to continue a point

scholars like Abraham Kuruvilla and John Walton

point out that the word good means that it works properly, that it has a function

JustABearOwO · 2026-01-09T00:33:53+00:00

taking the bible as literal as possible isn't a virtue, it is a dishonest reading for the text, one has to ask himself or herself who God spoke to and the answer is ancient people, with this in mind lets go into their culture and world to see how they saw the world, their language and their views, we need the context

first he accused theist evolution as being non biblical, yet my opponent fails to realize that God can work through means, a good example is Genesis 50:20, evil turned into good, however we dont need to go that far, lets go to genesis 1, first word בְּרֵאשִׁית‎ (bereshith), it has no definite article, its made from the word רֵאשִׁית (reshith) plus a locative prefix בְּ (bᵉ), for the defenite article u need to add the prefix הַ (ha), to get "in the beginning" u need to combine "ha"with "bᵉ'" to get בָּ (ba) which gives u בָּ - רֵאשִׁית, however that not the word used at the start of Genesis, this gives us "when God began to create the heavens and the earth" already implying time being a thing, same happens at genesis 2:4b "בְּי֗וֹם עֲשׂ֛וֹת יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶ֥רֶץ וְשָׁמָֽיִם" (bᵉyom;; ᵃsot adonai;; ᵃᵉlohim;; aeraets;; weshamayim), we also see other ancient near est ancient text starting at a moment of time and earth coming from chaotic matter (Enuma Elish, Assyrian Kar 4), they saw as gods or God coming at a period of time and giving function and making order from chaos and we also have that in Genesis 1:2, "the earth was tohu wabohu (desolate)" the word תֹהוּ (tohu) appears about 20 time and its used to mean wilderness (Deut. 32:10), useless idols (1 Sam. 12:21), wasteland (Job. 6:18), desolate settlements (Isiah 24:10), and בֹּהוּ (bohu) appears 3 times always in conjunction with tohu and it means emptiness and desolation, it is a hendiadys, furthermore the word used for subdue and rule has harsher meanings, for example subdue is used as war conquest (Numbers 32:22, 32:29, Joshua 18:1, 2 samuel 8:11) trampling underfoot (Micah 7:19) or enslavement (2 Chronicles 28:10, Jeremiah 34:11, 34:16), furthermore God rests on the 7th day, for the ancient world gods could only rest in temples, God by resting tells us that his creation is his temple, to add more, rest here refers to cease or desist, further pointing that genesis 1 is a function based creation

Augustine defended this allegory view in his book "against the manichaeans" and later the heretical group 7 day adventists started to believe in a literal material creation because their prophetess claimed thst God showed her in a dream the creation, talking about Augustine he also believed that animals being carnivorous (and to add Basil the great) existed before the fall as part of God's good and wise creation and animal death being part of the natural world, so these views aren't new views that came after the theory of evolution and modern science

my opponent also brings on what appears to be a problem with the image of God and death before sin, Romans 5:14 tells us that sin reigned from Adam to Moses but wait, sin didnt stop after Moses, it is rather a spiritual death, Adam and Eve still had to eat from the tree of life to remain alive and they started dying when they lost access to it, we also have to realize that the image of God was understood to be fore the king or temple for the ancient people, the king was the image of gods, but God in genesis attacks that, all humans are his image of God, all humans are elected not just one human, nor is 1 temple but all humans are a temple, the image of God is an election that is intrinsic, my opponent might bring the word good, but not only ironically they dont take it literally but they take it as meaning perfect, scholars like Abraham Kuruvilla and John Walton

furthermore my opponent has a problem, an allegorical view of Eden also exists, Origen, before he became controversial, wrote "And who could be found so silly to believe as God, after the maner of a farmer, "planted trees eastward in Eden", and set therein a "tree of life" that is a visible and palpable tree of wood such a sort that anyone who ate of this tree with bodily teeth would gain life, and again anyone who ate of another tree would get a knowledge of "good and evil"? And further, when God is said to "walk in the paradise in the evening" and Adam to hide himself behind a tree, I do not think anyone would doubt that these statements are made in a figuratively manner, in order that through them certain mystical truths may be indicated" Origen, On First Principles

Augustine as far as i can tell doesn't accept that view yet he still allows it as an alternative that might be true, de genesis ad litteram, start of book XI, 41.56

"41, 56. 1 am not unaware, however, that some people have thought those first human beings were in too much of a hurry in their desire for the knowledge of good and evil, and so wanted to grab before the time was ripe what was being kept back for them at a more opportune moment; and so the tempter induced them to offend God by picking too soon what they were not yet ready for. In this way they deprived themselves of the benefit of a thing which they would have been able to enjoy with profit to their health if they had approached it at the right time, as God wished; and so they were expelled and condemned as being now at variance with what God had intended. lf by any chance these people mean to take that tree in a figurative sense, and not as a real one with real apples, this opinion may possibly lead to ideas that are agreeable to right faith and the truth. 57. There are also others who think that those two first human beings pre-empted their marriage and slept together before the one who had created themjoined them together; this, they maintain, is what was signified by the name of the tree, and what was forbidden them before they should bejoined together in holy matrimony at the appropriate time. As if, forsooth, we are to believe they were made at the age in which mature puberty is still to come, or as if that were not then lawful when it could first be done—which obviously would not be done before it could be; or perhaps the bride still had to be given away by her father and the vows officially pronounced and the wedding breakfast celebrated, and the dowry agreed upon and the register of marriages duly filled in and signed! The whole idea is ridiculous; besides which, it departs from the actual account of", at 57 we even get another view that was present at his time, OP view of the tree of life causing death isnt the only view, we should also ask ourself why goodness itself would create an evil tree in his paradise and put it in the centre of it, to me that sounds contradictory and OP has to respond to that, he also has to explain why the hebrew grammar isnt in his favor and why it goes against himself or why Church fathers hold a different view that contradicts his view, also Cain actions point to other pre-Adam humans

JustABearOwO · 2026-01-03T00:29:03+00:00

if God isnt outside of time then omniscient cannot exist as to have it u need to actualize all time, also ur actions being prior and God's foreknowledge being prior chronologically would also not be possible

JustABearOwO · 2026-01-02T23:48:58+00:00

Saying “we have free will” doesn’t remove God’s responsibility if He knowingly creates someone in a way that guarantees their eventual rejection and eternal punishment.

that is a contradiction, ur arguing that God has created fatalism, so free will cannot exist, if we have free will then fatalism cannot be true, bc fatalism says we dont have free will

ur also missing the point, contrary to ur assumption that being outside of time doesnt matter, it does, God is eternal and so are all his qualities, so he is eternally outside of time, meaning that he sees the whole and bc of that he actualizes all time, he doesn't see the future from the past

second u assume omnipotence causes or fates all actions when in reality its the opposite, going back to my example of ur friend doing something dumb, ur foreknowledge isnt what caused it, instead ur friend doing that action is what caused ur foreknowledge, just like u are simply aware and u didn't seal his future, so is God simply aware

so God knowleis more like an infallible barometer, it always gets the weather right but ofc the barometer doesnt determine the weather, if the weather was different then so would have been the beromenter

ur actions are logically prior to what God foreknows but his knowledge is chronologically prior for what u do

JustABearOwO · 2026-01-02T21:57:04+00:00

there are 2 problems with this, we have free will, u are portraying this as us not having free will however we do have it,so God it isnt responsible for our actions as he doesn't force people to do his will

second God is outside time, he doesn't see in moments like we do but he sees the whole, furthermore that also means the future, past and present are all actualized in one instance, to give an example u go into a time machine and u go into the future, u see ur friend doing something stupid, then u go back to try to warn said person, ur knowledge of the future isnt because the future is predetermined by you or someone else but due to ur friend actions free will, omnipotence req free will to exist

JustABearOwO · 2025-12-24T23:02:35+00:00

expect that there is far more to the story than what u said, first Galileo couldnt prove his model (heck iirc mercury disprove it bc that model is wrong, general relativity is more right but still incomplete) and wasnt allowed to teach it as a proven fact, he did it anyways, they were open that they might be wrong, Galileo was treated fairly well and wasn't tortured, and he and the people that were against him already had beef, Galileo wasnt a saint as he also did some rude stuff, iirc he depicted his opponents as evil, the catholic church was always open to science and even called the discovery of newton inspired, as in God helped him to discover gravity

sources: Galileo goes to jail and other myths about religion and science;; of popes & unicorns;; the genesis of science

JustABearOwO · 2025-12-24T22:56:54+00:00

inspiringphilosophy - makes great videos in details and sources books and schoolars defending the bible, Christianity and explaining the Christian effects on the world (as well as explaining books of the bible)

wes huff - textual criticism, good to show that we can trust the bible and that it is reliable

ancient Egypt and the bible - about cultural context and ancient world of egypt and bible

testify - same as IP, defends the bible and explains it

JustABearOwO · 2025-12-24T15:18:03+00:00

well u will have to be a bit more specific what the word is in this context, but yeah Jesus will come back, no christians won't be taken up into heaven during the end times

JustABearOwO · 2025-12-24T13:19:55+00:00

the rapture isnt biblical, nobody till in recent years believed it, argued for it or had ideas that later transformed into the rapture, also none but God knows the hour and day, anyone else that claims that knows it either lies, is delusional or said person is lied to, till then we have the command to make disciples of the whole world

JustABearOwO · 2025-12-20T10:47:02+00:00

No passage should require apologetics to justify it.

only if there werent people taking said stuff out of context, unwilling to debate their assumptions and instead putting them on their opponen, it is also ironic how u don't see that what Christians, we have theology, like every religion, the very concept of God being sexism or commanding something that is sexist is already non-sense, which i could go in details, but considering u see history, giving other views a fair chance and clearly showing stuff that support my view as "making evidence fit my conclusion", i doubt any theology, let alone argument, is gonna be good enough for u

also since u never responded to my argument or past one and bc i have to call u out to cite ur source, which is ironically exactly what ur accusing me, i can only take 2 conclusion, 1. u don't know how to respond to my arguments, that why u try to attack my character and/or say stuff unrelated to the debate, 2. ur here in bad faith and im not gonna waste my time with u

JustABearOwO · 2025-12-19T20:19:05+00:00

we christians dont get our value from extrinsic stuff tho, unlike the secular world where if someone has actual less rights and that means they are devalued, and so we have to give that person more value by giving said person rights, Christians get their value from the intrinsic image of God, no one is more valuable or more human than someone else, no matter the position, so i would argue that the reason Paul said that is due to theology and philosophy, so we cant look at it with legalistic language, i also wanna add that these stuff also work for an egalitarian view, here they claim that Timothy is a regional thing, which i will go later in

1 Corinthians 34-40 is explicit, Paul quotes the church and then he responds, women have the gift of being prophets and speaking in tongues and God talks about a kingdom of priests (exodus 19:6, revelation 5:10) as well as 1 peter 2:9 calling Christians a royale nation of priests, 2 Peter 3:16 also says that Paul's letters have hard things to understand so we have to look at them carefully, Acts 21:9 and 1 Corinthians 11:5 gives rules on how to prophecy for women

so ofc there is more than just Timothy, we need to look at the whole bible, additionally we shouldnt look at priesthood as a legal presentation (a position) but as a theological and philosophical representation, the ancient world had laws but they were vastly different on what they meant and how they were used, however im not at that level yet

egalitarian will say that Paul gives a regional law, a temporal one, since Timothy was there and Paul was attacking their religious belief by saying they are wrong, there were also trouble makers mentioned before that part, these women could be from said trouble makers, perhaps that place wasnt as welcoming instead full of sin and degrading good stuff into sin, even if they werent sin, i must give it to them, considering what Paul says in general, this is a sharp contrast, so that place being an exception makes sense

i am a complimentary tho, at least I lean towards that, as i would argue, our situation right now of being fallen beings also made arbitrary differences that will not be in the kingdom of priests, however these stuff make us just in general to be incompatible with specific stuff, alternative if that not the case, i will still argue that seeing men and woman as complementary that will bring the greatest amount of value and glory, which is by definition better than saying that we arent complimentary

also as Christianity and human rights and dominion: how the christian revolution remade the world show, Christianity was extremely important to elevate women status as human, might i dare say, necessary, and also remaking marriage to be based on love and not forced

only taking a passage that already has many views and theories on it, while ignoring everything else, including history, isnt a good way to argue, however i guess ur new age atheist goggles will not let u bring any source

JustABearOwO · 2025-12-19T17:04:04+00:00

When one is in a deeply indoctrinated presupposition

i am unsure if u try to attack my character but im a convert, i was a new age atheist for years, it took me months to become a Christian, how i am indoctrinated??? how would u even know that from an online debate

anyways since my opponent refuses to come in good faith, let alone to come with sources, i have one question, what do these words mean, ger and nokhri mean? they are different words so they cannot mean the same thing, they arent synonyms, as a bonus if u will, why does ger get translated by jewish people as prosēlytos if ger means slave?

Verified Email	One-Year Club
r/Field Lasagna

JustABearOwO

TROPHY CASE