RE: The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?
June 26, 2016 at 12:23 pm
(This post was last modified: June 26, 2016 at 12:24 pm by Mystic.)
The human perception believes in human value, in levels towards more value and less value. Ultimately, we do have subjective judgement, but we do have judgement on belief that there is an objective value to humans, and that there is some sort real standard out there that is accurate.
That doesn't prove that our perception is based on reality, but, if we know for certain our valuing and standards of value are not meaningless, these are good reasons to investigate what is possibly the source of all this value?
A perception that sees value as it is, would obviously be necessary. That measures things as they by a perfect understanding of reality and standard, and what perfect standard can possibly be different then ultimate value and perfection itself.
I would have to read what Thomas Aquinas actually says and his argument form. But I think we are justified to believe that our value judgments are not meaningless.
Yes we can doubt everything down to our very identity, or we can say, we believe in these things, perhaps we even knows these things, if we know these things, what do they imply? And the ultimately do we know these things?
The argument is saying we are justified to believe that value and standards of more and less in value are not meaningless. I think it's hard to argue against that. If we are going to deny everything spiritual simply because it points to the Divine, then yes, there would be no arguments for the Divine.
But is this at all rational?
That doesn't prove that our perception is based on reality, but, if we know for certain our valuing and standards of value are not meaningless, these are good reasons to investigate what is possibly the source of all this value?
A perception that sees value as it is, would obviously be necessary. That measures things as they by a perfect understanding of reality and standard, and what perfect standard can possibly be different then ultimate value and perfection itself.
I would have to read what Thomas Aquinas actually says and his argument form. But I think we are justified to believe that our value judgments are not meaningless.
Yes we can doubt everything down to our very identity, or we can say, we believe in these things, perhaps we even knows these things, if we know these things, what do they imply? And the ultimately do we know these things?
The argument is saying we are justified to believe that value and standards of more and less in value are not meaningless. I think it's hard to argue against that. If we are going to deny everything spiritual simply because it points to the Divine, then yes, there would be no arguments for the Divine.
But is this at all rational?
