(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.
