RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
December 18, 2015 at 6:32 pm
(This post was last modified: December 18, 2015 at 7:08 pm by athrock.)
(December 15, 2015 at 11:44 pm)Stimbo Wrote:Quote:Forgive me, Stimbo, but I see that your name is in red and that you are an administrator, so I must ask:
Is it a good thing or a bad thing if one of this forum's functions is that it becomes a sort of online learning center for people who want to go deeper with subjects like this?
Believers go to Sunday School to learn more about what they believe; it seems that online forums have become the classrooms of non-believers.
Do you agree?
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.
![[Image: 2012-12-27-marvel_superheroes.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.geeksofdoom.com%2FGoD%2Fimg%2F2012%2F12%2F2012-12-27-marvel_superheroes.jpg)
(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.
