The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

[Pat Mustard]

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.

You keep talking about these legendary beings as if they were simply different names applied to the same concept. For example, zeus and osiris, unlike the other three, were never considered to be omni-anything, the fact was they were in competition (well according to Greek and Egyptian religious fantasies) with other gods for power and worshipers.

Well the above statement has not always been true. yhwh was originally a minor war god within the Canaanite pantheon (as evidenced by many passages in the old testament, including the second commandment 'I am the lord thy god, thou shalt not have strange gods before me' explicitly acknowledging that other gods exist {erroneously, as none of the gods including yhwh ever existed}), thus showing that the monotheistic faiths grew up out of the same kind of roots as the Greek and Egyptian pantheons, but were subsequently radically altered by a different breed of snake oil salesmen.

______________________________________

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".

And that does not indicate to you that your argument is a bad one easily defeated? If we can point to creatures universally regarded as fantasy and validly substitute them into your argument, then your argument has no validity of itself. You should not get angry at us for easily debunking the thoughts drummed into your head, you should instead get angry at those who instilled such wrongheaded notions in you.