The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

[downbeatplumb]

The [atheistic] assumption being that none of the arguments ARE quality arguments…. "You theists must be wrong because you've used a lot of fancy words that I can't be bothered with."

Really? This passes for atheist argumentation?

In short, yes. Generally, they uncritically accept the idea that every demonstration and proof of God has been debunked or refuted. Generally, but not always. I used to be an atheist, just not one irrationally committed to a particular worldview.

And your demand [Equilax’s] for "simple evidence"...what's that about, E? What is "simple evidence" that would convince you?

He’s lying. Coming from an ideological atheist like him, the demand for evidence is always disingenuous.

But we aren't specifically discussing Christianity, and that doesn't really explain how you justify not believing in ANY supreme being.

Inside a thread about general revelation, many atheists like Cato, blur the distinction so they can start riding their little hobby horses about ‘bible contradictions’ to distract people from the reasonableness of the general proofs.

You can make an argument for anything.


Lets see lets make an argument that ducks can't fly.

1: Things that rise are less dense than the medium in which they are placed.
2: Ducks are more dense than air.
3: therefore ducks cannot rise into the sky.

4: Therefore Ducks cannot fly. 

Obviously this is false, but you must agree that it is evidence of the non-flying abilities of ducks. After all it is an argument, some of it is even true and arguments, no matter how bad are "evidence" aren't they.