RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
December 22, 2015 at 3:47 pm
(This post was last modified: December 22, 2015 at 4:36 pm by athrock.)
(December 19, 2015 at 8:54 am)Stimbo Wrote:(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.
Ah. Glad to know it wasn't me. Santa knows who's naught and nice, so I'm on my best behaviour.
(December 21, 2015 at 4:29 pm)Evie Wrote: Do you or do you not believe God is omnipresent yet invisible, Delicate?
Classical theists would say that God is pure spirit. There is nothing to see.
This is not incompatible with omnipresence.
(December 21, 2015 at 4:29 pm)Pizza Wrote: Why are we to believe a personal(anthropomorphic) god is identical to a maximally great being? You got anything beyond semantic tricks?
Because in order for a being to be maximally great, being personal is one of the characteristics is must have by definition.
Personal means that the being has rationality, self-consciousness and volition (will).
A non-personal being which lacks one or more of these things is less great than a personal being.
(December 18, 2015 at 7:57 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:(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.
Why, Simon?
You're requiring that anything and everything that exists be physical...this is a presupposition on your part.
Spiritual beings (gods, angels, demons, etc.) are not material at all.
Maybe a god just looks in on us from time to time...
![[Image: 2b509abb832b7dfb2591203b6a45357f.jpg]](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/2b/50/9a/2b509abb832b7dfb2591203b6a45357f.jpg)
(December 19, 2015 at 12:59 pm)Cato Wrote:(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.
A casual look into the matter would reveal something different, Cato.
Just Google for accounts of atheists who converted and see for yourself how many of them were compelled to give the idea of god a second look because of one or more of these arguments. It's not an insignificant number, and just because YOU think the arguments are poor, that does not make them poor OR ineffective.
In the war of words, not every theist arrow finds every target, but as I said, theists only need one to succeed. Conversely, thinking atheists must be able to fend off all of them.
(December 19, 2015 at 3:17 pm)Pizza Wrote:(December 18, 2015 at 7:08 pm)Pizza Wrote: 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.
1. Define anthropomorphism. (I want to know how you are using the term.)
2. Define "personal god".
3. Compare and contrast. Because we may be simply talking past one another.
(December 21, 2015 at 1:05 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: In Plantinga's version, it is a part of the definition of maximally great being that it exists necessarily. It is also a part of the background assumptions that this is a conscious being, and not simply some prior natural cause. Thus premise one states that it's possible that there is a conscious being that exists necessarily. This appears to be the crux of the matter, whether or not that is actually possible. We don't know. So we don't know if premise one is sound. It doesn't seem probable that the necessarily existing entity that started everything was also a fully developed conscious being, so that casts doubt on the possibility that such a first entity is possible [emphasis added]. The rest is just elucidating the analytical truths contained in premise one. So it really is one premise away from being argument by definition.
Jorm-
Would you agree that a being that is rational, has self-conscious and has volition is greater than one that does not?
