RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
December 12, 2015 at 5:42 pm
(This post was last modified: December 12, 2015 at 5:45 pm by Simon Moon.)
(December 12, 2015 at 5:29 pm)athrock Wrote:(December 12, 2015 at 2:28 pm)IATIA Wrote:
- It is possible that a Leprechaun exists.
- If it is possible that a Leprechaun exists, then a Leprechaun exists is some possible world.
- If a Leprechaun exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
- If a Leprechaun exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
- If a Leprechaun exists in the actual world, then a Leprechaun exists.
- Therefore, a Leprechaun exists.
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.
What if an attribute that I consider to be maximally great for a god is being omni-evil? Does this argument work for that god?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
