(December 18, 2015 at 7:08 pm)Pizza Wrote: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.(December 18, 2015 at 6:32 pm)athrock Wrote: Anthropomorphism may well be the problem.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.
Too many people envision god as a Marvel comic character instead of as a supreme being.
It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all. - Denis Diderot
We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
