(December 18, 2015 at 6:32 pm)athrock Wrote: In the universe???

There's your problem right there.

It's a lot less of a problem than positing a god that exists 'outside the universe'.

Positing a god that exists outside the universe, is an incoherent statement. The word 'exists' no longer has any meaning. 

Existence requires time and space. Since those are attributes of this universe, what does it mean to exist without time and space?

It is completely incoherent.

The ontological argument demonstrates that god belief is rational? Oh sure....except that it doesn't demonstrate that, at all. You'd need to make "The moral argument for why belief in god isn't irrational". Which would, incidentally, be as irrational as the moral argument for god.

(December 18, 2015 at 6:32 pm)athrock Wrote: Yes, thank you. I only asked because you expressed that someone (and you may have meant me though I'm not sure of this) was posting shit and giggles or something to that effect all over the forum.

It was in reply to ApeNotKillApe, the "someone" to whom I referred was not specified and intended to be general, and the phrase "shits 'n' giggles" (and the concomitant humorous observation) is a fairly common expression. I welcome any criticism for things I do, but not for things I don't (unless it's something I'm supposed to do and fail so to do). Perhaps asking me to clarify would have helped to avoid potential offense as well as save time.

(December 12, 2015 at 1:37 pm)athrock Wrote: I have never seen this argument before, so I'm interested in some discussion of it. A philosopher by the name of Alvin Plantinga states it this way:

The Ontological Argument

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
   
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists is some possible world.
   
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
   
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
   
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
   
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
   

Thoughts?

I hate those antiquated terms.

We don't need to rely on them at all.

All god claims are are reflections of humans and their social norms and desires. There is no evidence for any god claim, made in the past or currently, and even the idea of a so called generic god, are all still gap answers. They are nothing but naked assertions.

Scientific method is how we gain knowledge and labs are where we determine if a claim is valid. This is simply mental masturbation. 

Does this make sense to you?

Thor makes lightening=we observe lightening=therefor Thor exists.

Ra moves the sun= we observe the sun in the sky=therefor Ra exists.

So why would any invisible being claim made today be any less of a naked assertion?

Stephen Hawking "A god is not required".

Ontological is simply a fancy word for making excuses for human ignorance. You start a claim with crap, no matter what "formula" you follow it up with is going to produce bad conclusions.

Being open minded isn't about "anything is possible as a starting point", being open minded is starting with good data collecting and the ability to discard bad claims and bad data. 

The older I get the less big words impress me. The older I get the more facts impress me. Start with good data from the start you minimize the chances of mistakes and increase the chances that your conclusions will be accurate.

It's easy to prove there is a god.

Look at the "design" of humans. We're absolutely perfectly made so that every aspect of us completely resembles what you would expect from a natural iterative process, right down to innate vulnerabilities, wildly inefficient wiring, useless organs and varying ideas about morality. Just think how hard it must be to make a being that would convince a hardened sceptic that it had "evolved", by leaving just the right evidence everywhere.

That kind of genius belongs only to a god.

Welcome back Rob!

Thank you!

I'll put up some pictures of my holiday when I get them sorted out.

(December 18, 2015 at 6:32 pm)athrock Wrote:

(December 15, 2015 at 11:44 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I don't see what my admin status has to do with it, but I don't necessarily agree. I can only speak for the forae I've been acquainted with; and while it is entirely possible to learn from the shared and not-so-shared opinions of others, which sort of the bread and butter of discussion, I think likening it to a Sunday school is misrepresenting things somewhat. I've been on a forum where we had a Young-Earth Creationist member, in the particularly zealous Kent Hovind mould. Eventually after many months, he started to see cracks in his arguments, then in his faith, finally to cross the floor as a full-fledged atheist. (We still keep in touch via Facebook, though I haven't heard from him in a while.) I remember the day he told us. He'd been dithering about 'coming out' to his parents; finally he plucked up the courage and confessed his atheist conversion. He told us his mum had said "Oh, is that all? We thought you were going to tell us you're gay, like your brother!"

Does this address your question and why did you want to know?

Yes, thank you. I only asked because you expressed that someone (and you may have meant me though I'm not sure of this) was posting shit and giggles or something to that effect all over the forum.

Spam is a thing to be prohibited, but decent questions asked in the right spirit seem to be something that you can accept as a good thing in an online forum like this.

Cool! 

---

(December 16, 2015 at 4:05 pm)Pizza Wrote: There is no argument needed Chad. You argument is just noise if you don't deal with the problem of anthropomorphism. Because it's self-evident that anthropomorphic god is not the greatness being imaginable.

Anthropomorphism may well be the problem.

Too many people envision god as a Marvel comic character instead of as a supreme being.

---

(December 17, 2015 at 4:35 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: It is possible that FSM exists.
If it is possible that FSM exists, then FSM exists is some possible world.
If FSM exists in some possible world, FSM exists in every possible world.
If FSM exists in every possible world, FSM exists in the actual world.
If FSM exists in the actual world, then FSM exists.
Therefore, FSM exists.

So why arn't you a pastafarian OP?

Also this is a great resource for debunking the ontological argument: https://www.youtube.com/user/AntiCitizenX/videos

As I have pointed out in this thread previously more than once...

ALL you have done is to propose a candidate, FSM, for the office of maximally great being.

You have not, thereby, actually proven that a maximally great being cannot exist.

---

(December 17, 2015 at 6:58 pm)Cecelia Wrote: A maximally great being defined as god would simply mean the greatest being in the universe is god.  Since I'm absolutely fabulous, and obviously exist, I guess that makes me god.  Now worship me.  And none of that blood sacrifices.  Vodka and cash make great sacrifices. Gum will suffice if you're unable to acquire either of those things because you're poor but not because you're cheap.

In the universe???

There's your problem right there.

 Well it does and it's FSM.

Anyway, Again I refer ti AnticitzenX's youtube page.

(December 18, 2015 at 7:22 pm)athrock Wrote: Cato, I agree with you to this point. I think the value of the Ontological Argument for the theist camp is that arguments such as this demonstrate that belief in a supreme being IS rational. That, in and of itself, is a blow to the notion that belief in god is irrational.

Are you intentionally misrepresenting me? I quite specifically stated that I disagreed with this conclusion and pointed out that the referenced article dismantled that part of Plantinga's claim.

Your quiver analogy is misplaced. Your effort is more similar to loading a trebuchet full of shit in the hope of getting some to stick.

(December 18, 2015 at 7:08 pm)Pizza Wrote:

(December 18, 2015 at 6:32 pm)athrock Wrote: Anthropomorphism may well be the problem.

Too many people envision god as a Marvel comic character instead of as a supreme being.

What are you actually left with once you remove all forms of anthropomorphism(saying a supreme being wants, commands, etc is anthropomorphism)? Not anything most people would call a god. Atheism is what is left.

No reply to me? Okay, the defenders of the The Ontological Argument have got nothing. You can't reject anthropomorphism and bring anthropomorphism in the backdoor by using weasel words like "personal god." You can't have it both ways, Athrock, Chad, and friends. Because a personal(anthropomorphism) god is not identical to a maximally great being.  Ontological Argument does not work for that reason, in fact, it's a moot point because no one cares about vaguely defined "supreme being or first cause or whatever" and non-sequitur to debate over a personal/anthropomorphic cause of the universe existing.