Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: July 12, 2025, 7:59 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ontological Arguments - A Comprehensive Refutation
#20
RE: Ontological Arguments - A Comprehensive Refutation
(March 13, 2014 at 3:00 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: @MFM, I agree with your modal factionalism position and have nothing to contribute.
With respect to sensible objects, I generally agree that every form has a substance and also the reverse, every substance has a form. However, your thought problem (one by one eliminating all properties) only applies to accidental properties.
For example, a pencil, a table, and a tool shed, may all be made from wood. Wood, as a substance, can take many forms, even if it always takes on some shape. In any collection of sensible objects, all the objects manifest being, not from an actually distinct formless substance (like you say), but with a substance capable of manifesting any form. Thus it makes sense to posit a fundamental substance (primal matter) having only one property, the propensity to be, that never occurs apart from an informing principle.

The above analysis would be incomplete without discussing the need for an informing principle. A different collection of objects like a granny smith apple, a blade of grass (be careful as you pass), and an a glass of Green River, all have the formal property of reflecting visible light between 5000 and 6000 angstroms.* Like the substance example above, in any collection of sensible objects, none exist as a disembodied form, but as an informing principle capable of manifesting in various substances . Thus it makes sense to posit a fundamental informing agency that acts through, but never apart from, primal matter.

*Here I careful distinguish between physical features of the sensible objects and the psychological responses of the mind, e.g. “green.”

Its funny how sometimes I find the answer I give in one thread fits others.

With regard to the fundamental informing agency I'm see no reason as to why there has to be only one. In fact it would seem to me that there could be a series.

I could see a fundamental material from which everything comes - although it appears there is no reason for that material to actually be nothing(ness).





(That is the video I posted yesterday in the why is there something thread).

From the above we get to a formed universe where gravitation forms galaxies, stars, planets etc.

Turning to earth we have chemical reactions that take place forming complex chemicals, chain molecules and so on.

Then we get life and the fundamental informing agency of evolution under natural selection.

Later on, as sexual reproduction cuts in we get the further guiding principle of sexual selection in addition to natural selection.
Kuusi palaa, ja on viimeinen kerta kun annan vaimoni laittaa jouluvalot!
Reply



Messages In This Thread
RE: Ontological Arguments - A Comprehensive Refutation - by max-greece - March 14, 2014 at 2:21 am

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The classic ontological argument Modern Atheism 20 2125 October 3, 2024 at 12:45 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  The modal ontological argument for God Disagreeable 29 3219 August 10, 2024 at 8:57 pm
Last Post: CuriosityBob
  Good Arguments (Certainty vs. Probability) JAG 12 1852 October 8, 2020 at 10:30 pm
Last Post: Sal
  Best arguments for or against God's existence mcc1789 22 4360 May 22, 2019 at 9:16 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Ontological Disproof of God negatio 1042 151459 September 14, 2018 at 4:05 pm
Last Post: LadyForCamus
  My own moral + ontological argument. Mystic 37 13733 April 17, 2018 at 12:50 pm
Last Post: FatAndFaithless
  Are Atheists using Intellectually Dishonest Arguments? vulcanlogician 223 44503 April 9, 2018 at 5:56 pm
Last Post: KevinM1
  Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency datc 386 62548 December 1, 2017 at 2:07 pm
Last Post: Whateverist
  Valid Arguments for God (soundness disputed) Mystic 17 3211 March 25, 2017 at 2:54 pm
Last Post: brewer
  Ontological Limericks chimp3 12 4129 December 22, 2016 at 3:22 am
Last Post: Edwardo Piet



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)