RE: The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?
June 26, 2016 at 12:44 pm
(This post was last modified: June 26, 2016 at 12:45 pm by Mystic.)
You are not on point there^
You are straying off the premises It's not discussing whether or not there can be a naturalistic explanation to why we have a sense of value. It's saying for it to be accurate, and hence, justified and true, there has to be an objective perception and perfect standard of that. That is not an argument from lack of knowledge, that is not saying, we can't account for intrinsic meaning through naturalistic explanations, hence God is the answer.
It's saying a perfect standard and accurate objective perception is required to that value and merit. And I feel this is part of human nature to acknowledge, that imperfect perception can never be the full judge of value and maintain it. We at most estimate other people with some sort of distant scent, we don't ever claim to know exactly their value nor their inner beauty nor their rank.
We don't even know ourselves properly let alone others. But we do so with belief there is a true value there. That requires perception and a perfect standard.
It's sound argument. Not only are all the premises self-evident, but if we think about it truly, everyone acts and lives on the assumption of all these premises to be true. Sure we may heedless of them but we act according to them.
The reality is we all know something sees us as we truly are, the perfect being, and that is why we feel tranquility with having value and meaning. It's something else to not realize this knowledge.
At the very least, this should be admitted to be strong proof for God even if not 100% knock out argument.
This notion that Theists have no arguments in their bags that have any merit, should be abandoned. This is a strong argument, and well done Thomas Aquinas!
You are straying off the premises It's not discussing whether or not there can be a naturalistic explanation to why we have a sense of value. It's saying for it to be accurate, and hence, justified and true, there has to be an objective perception and perfect standard of that. That is not an argument from lack of knowledge, that is not saying, we can't account for intrinsic meaning through naturalistic explanations, hence God is the answer.
It's saying a perfect standard and accurate objective perception is required to that value and merit. And I feel this is part of human nature to acknowledge, that imperfect perception can never be the full judge of value and maintain it. We at most estimate other people with some sort of distant scent, we don't ever claim to know exactly their value nor their inner beauty nor their rank.
We don't even know ourselves properly let alone others. But we do so with belief there is a true value there. That requires perception and a perfect standard.
It's sound argument. Not only are all the premises self-evident, but if we think about it truly, everyone acts and lives on the assumption of all these premises to be true. Sure we may heedless of them but we act according to them.
The reality is we all know something sees us as we truly are, the perfect being, and that is why we feel tranquility with having value and meaning. It's something else to not realize this knowledge.
At the very least, this should be admitted to be strong proof for God even if not 100% knock out argument.
This notion that Theists have no arguments in their bags that have any merit, should be abandoned. This is a strong argument, and well done Thomas Aquinas!
