(February 1, 2022 at 10:43 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: I recently came upon William Lane Craig's addition to the ontological argument which is called "Modal ontological argument" that "proves" God's existence.
Ontological arguments are too suspicious to be regarded as correct, even if few people really understand why they fail. How can one possibly prove the existence of anything by wordplay without appeal to any premises or fact about reality?
One is faced with what is called Hume's fork, there is a thick layer between "relations of ideas" (analytic propositions) and matters of fact. Although there is no total refutation of ontological arguments, they are unfortunately vulnerable to all kinds of fallacies and parody arguments.
I think the teleological argument is far better to argue for God's existence (indeed, it was universally regarded as convincing until some people started babbling about Darwin's theory being a "fatal blow")
(February 2, 2022 at 9:41 am)Angrboda Wrote: Suppose that it is possible that there never was anything, that nothing ever existed. Is this possible? Of course. If that's the case then it's trivial to produce a modal ontological disproof of God.
1. There exists a possible world in which nothing exists;
2. If nothing exists in some possible world then a maximally excellent being does not exist in that world;
3. If a maximally excellent being does not exist in some possible world, then it does not exist in all possible worlds;
4. Therefore, a maximally excellent being does not exist in this world.
Your argument is invalid because premise 1 is false. A world that simultaneously exists and doesn't exist is an impossible world. (P and non-P) is never true,
(February 2, 2022 at 9:10 am)Lobster Lover Wrote: It's invalid when he's using the same term in more than one way. This would change his X or Y, for example to an X* or Y* on some occasions but not others. So the inferencing would fail. When his terms are being used equivocally then his form is invalid.
But yes, the premises are also unsound the begin with.
So, basically, there isn't really anything charitable to say here besides the fact that he can at least spell words or something (I mean—there are plenty of times when theists can't even do that, even when English is their first language and they're neither dyslexic nor disabled—theists are just, generally, that thick. Sure, so are most atheists and agnostics. But, in general, theists are even dumber. But I digress. Plus, it's perhaps fairer to just say that they're more irrational and emotional. It's one thing to have an intellect and quite another thing to know how to use it and to not let your emotions corrupt it).
It's really not trivial to disprove the ontological arguments, especially given how many variants there are. I don't think you can hand-wave them away with a few accusations of equivocation.
