We get an "open-minded" apologist on these boards every few weeks, the pattern is always the same.  The same arguments are trotted out, no elaboration is offered, no attempt to discuss the argument is made, and no acknowledgement or discussion of any academic point regarding proper argument form or structure is ever made. Said apologist hops from thread to thread...abandoning old arguments and offering "new" ones...decrying those who criticize their arguments and comments as not having an "intelligent" discussion.....while peppering other threads with comments regarding abortion and same sex marriage.

You've hit everything but the last issue already. Care to opine?

(December 12, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(December 12, 2015 at 5:29 pm)athrock Wrote: Leprechauns (or any other thing commonly used to parody this argument) are not commonly thought to have the same characteristics that are attributed by definition to a supreme being. These characteristics include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence and so forth. And these are necessary for a being to be "maximally great".

If you do wish to claim that a leprechaun (or  , for that matter) does have ALL of these, then I submit that all you have done is to assign a name of sorts to the supreme being.

Yahweh, Allah, Baha'u'llah, Zeus, Osiris...the name changes, but the being behind the name is the same. Provided that all the "omni" characteristics are present in that being.

So, what's your point?

The being that the argument argues for is the one that has the attributes that many religions claim their god has.

What a coincidence.

My point is that the common tactic used by folks who want to undermine the strength of this argument is to parody it by substituting something like "leprechauns" for "maximally great being". I was directed to do a bit of research, and in the course of some brief reading, I learned that some monk named Gaunilo attempted this by saying that a perfect island could be proven by this proof. But Gaunilo's own argument has flaws, too. And I think I just undermined the parody approach myself in the post you quoted.

And yes, if all religions are reasoning about the same BIG issues (goodness, justice, the afterlife, etc.) it seems reasonable that they might have some commonalities, doesn't it? They might all be wrong, of course, but certain attributes, characteristics or ingredients are bound to be held in common when people consider something - whether it is god, a good football team or the best recipe for chocolate cake. 

So, wow. Can we get beyond the hostility that seems to flair up whenever anyone questions anything concerning atheism's sacred cows? How is anyone ever going to learn how to respond to arguments like this if there is no serious discussion of its pros and cons? I mean, if Cato is right, this argument must have SOME strengths to have survived as long as he suggested.

It's strength lies in the desire of believers to believe. There -is- no pro to an argument which fails to prove that which it sets out to prove..as that is the only purpose of an argument. It's a hammer that can't strike a nail.

(December 12, 2015 at 5:48 pm)Rhythm Wrote: We get an "open-minded" apologist on these boards every few weeks, the pattern is always the same.  The same arguments are trotted out, no elaboration is offered, no attempt to discuss the argument is made, and no acknowledgement or discussion of any academic point regarding proper argument form or structure is ever made.  Said apologist hops from thread to thread...abandoning old arguments and offering "new" ones...decrying those who criticize their arguments and comments as not having an "intelligent" discussion.....while peppering other threads with comments regarding abortion and same sex marriage.

You've hit everything but the last issue already.  Care to opine?

I see. So that's your opinion of what I've been doing? Interesting.

And which arguments or threads have I abandoned, Rhythm?

Why ask me a question you already know the answer to, lol?  This one will be the next casualty, ofc.

Man, I had alot more patience with this years ago..I kind of miss that.

(December 12, 2015 at 6:02 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Why ask me a question you already know the answer to, lol?  This one will be the next casualty, ofc.  

Man, I had alot more patience with this years ago..I kind of miss that.

So, you can't actually name one because I haven't abandoned any. My threads are:

First post (I said hello and asked a few questions. Is that abandoned?)
Television Series Recommendations (I got some ideas and said thanks. Is that abandoned?)
Damned School Administrators (I posted a spoof of another member's frequent threads. Okay...maybe that's abandoned since the point was made with the OP itself.)
The Moral Argument for God (still active)
Appropriate Forum/Subforum (I asked today where this thread should be posted. Answered and done.)
This thread (still active)

My post count says seven, but I only count six which is weird, but whatever. Anyway, which thread have I abandoned???

And why are you attacking me personally with your "typical" comment and false claim that I have abandoned my arguments?

Do you have me confused with someone else?

---

(December 12, 2015 at 2:30 pm)Cato Wrote: athrock,

I understand this argument is new to you; however, its first form appeared in 1078. There's also been a shitload of conversation since. If you are sincere in your quest, please get this underneath you first:

http://sandefur.typepad.com/freespace/20...=pulsenews

This isn't just someone's blog, it's the Stanfoed Encyclopedia of Philosophy that deals with arguments even handed.

The link took me to "FreeSpace a blog by Timothy Sandefur" who was talking about his adopted brother being killed by the terrorists in San Bernadino...

What did I miss?

What is this boring quibbling? Back to the argument itself!

(December 12, 2015 at 6:20 pm)Quantum Wrote: What is this boring quibbling? Back to the argument itself!

Hear, hear.

You're absolutely right.  I've got you completely wrong and/or confused...continue -not- defending your arguments, and -not- abandoning them, lol. In fact, you can show me up right now...do the one thing necessarry to make the ontological argument stick..and to hell with form or structure, just to make it easier. Demonstrate the veracity of it's propositions.

(December 12, 2015 at 6:15 pm)athrock Wrote:

(December 12, 2015 at 2:30 pm)Cato Wrote: athrock,

I understand this argument is new to you; however, its first form appeared in 1078. There's also been a shitload of conversation since. If you are sincere in your quest, please get this underneath you first:

http://sandefur.typepad.com/freespace/20...=pulsenews

This isn't just someone's blog, it's the Stanfoed Encyclopedia of Philosophy that deals with arguments even handed.

The link took me to "FreeSpace a blog by Timothy Sandefur" who was talking about his adopted brother being killed by the terrorists in San Bernadino...

What did I miss?

Not speaking for Cato but try this:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontolo...#ObjOntArg