Would this be a proof of God?

wrong path me thinks

Worst example of circular reasoning so far.

Well, that sounds like typical Christian logic.

No

Hi,

First of all, I would like to say that I don't know if the ontological argument is valid or not, and I don't care: to me if it were valid, it would prove to little, I don't want to prove the existence of a God, but the existence of the God of the Bible.

But permit me to say, that you have oversimplifying it in order to make it ridiculous, Thomas Aquinas had developed it on several pages, and it would be fair to do with the real argument and not a caricature.

But it shows again how most of atheists would do everything to prove to themselves that God does not exist.

Regards,

Emmanuel

Even as circular reasoning goes, this is pretty weak. Being God does not mean being perfect - look at Roman, Greek or Norse mythology...those deities were full of flaws.

A logical proof needs a statement backed up by its contrapositive statement.
If both are true then the first statement is valid.
Example of a false.
All men are sexist. If I am not sexist then I am not a man. False.
Example of a true.
All squares are rectangles. If it is not a rectangle then it can not be a square. True.

Your proof: God exists because He is perfect. If he is not perfect then he is not God. Weak.

No offence, but that's the stupidest thing I've read today.

No, here, I'll demonstrate the fail in silly terms so that you understand: there must be a zombie in my backyard because I believe there is one, I believe there is a zombie in my backyard because there is. Besides, that's assuming that perfection is both a set standard and can be achieved. And you know what they say about assuming, it makes an as..s out of u and me.

So all things that are called "perfect" by definition exist?

You've gone wrong because you treat "existence" as a characteristic.
Also you're trying to make him exist by saying that he must exist, because you think he's perfect. That's circular.

No. This is not proof. Because it is said god is perfect doesn't mean he has to exist.

Woo hoo- its like a merry go round!

We know the bible is true because it is the work of god and we know god is real because it says so in the Bible... YAYYYYYYYYYY!

No - try it this way:

Voldimult, being defined as most great or perfect, must exist, since voldimult who exists is greater than a Voldimut who does not.

Ģ๑Đ is not limited to being detected by our physical world

Pics or didn't happen

No, that doesn't even make sense.

Perfection is subjective anyway.

I am a Christian, and even I can see the faulty logic there. It is what is called a "circular argument," where the conclusion of the argument is assumed in the premise, one of the most basic and common of all logical fallacies. Sorry.

But don't feel too badly about it. I see the "logical" atheists make the same mistake on here all the time. LOL!

somebody need help with their homework?

um. . . . It's crackers to slip a Rozzer a dropsy in snide!

Obviously not, who defined God?...Man of course. Anybody who has done Science or History etc knows that you cant use cyclical arguments to back up a point, theres either facts or there are not. By all means though believe in God, im not trying to belittle the idea but its only ever going to be something based on faith never a fact.