The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

[Pizza]

"
1. Define anthropomorphism. (I want to know how you are using the term.)
2. Define "personal god".
3. Compare and contrast. Because we may be simply talking past one another."

"A personal god is a deity who can be related to as a person[1] instead of as an impersonal force, such as the Absolute, "the All", or the "Ground of Being"."
"In the scriptures of the Abrahamic religions, God is described as being a personal creator, speaking in the first person and showing emotion such as anger and pride, and sometimes appearing in anthropomorphic shape.[2] In the Pentateuch, for example, God talks with and instructs his prophets and is conceived as possessing volition, emotions (such as anger, grief and happiness), intention, and other attributes characteristic of a human person. Personal relationships with God may be described in the same ways as human relationships, such as a Father, as in Christianity, or a Friend as in Sufism.[3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god

"Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits, emotions, and intentions to non-human entities.[1] "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism


Sounds like the same thing to me. If you guys can't come with a non-blatantly false concept of god and non-vague concept of god I don't see much point in debating anything.

[Neo-Scholastic]

As noted, a maximally great leprichaun would also be self-consistent and necessary. If all that is required for the rest to follow (number two onward) is that the entity be necessary and self-consistent, then a necessary unicorn also follows.

Not necessarily (pun intended). No contingent thing could satisfy the necessary being requirement. It comes directly from Aquinas’s Third Way. Here is how I explained the concept elsewhere:

“Either something is possible, capable of either being or not being, or it must be of necessity. Anyone can see that many things could possibly exist that do not. Meanwhile other things that could possibly exist do. Therefore the existence of any possible thing is contingent on the existence of either something else that is possible or something that is necessary. The chain of contingency linking possible things that do exist is an essentially ordered sequence for which a possible thing cannot serve as the first member. That is because if that thing were possible it might not have been and so now there would be nothing. But there is something. As such those things that are possible to exist and do so rely for their existence on something that is necessary. That something is a Necessary Being.”

I noticed that you could substitute a necessarily existing universe in place of his necessary "being".  You can substitute an infinite number of things.

Yours is a fair critique. Your substitution of the “entire universe” works if the universe must be as it is and could be no other way. To say so means that no reason accounts for the universe being as it is, i.e. a ‘brute fact.’ It also means without explanation an unexplained and particular collection of many ultimately fundamental particles must exist in just the number it does and in all permutations that have been, are now, and ever will be. That makes just about everything a ‘brute fact’. You suggest as much when you give the missed put example.

…if there is only one set of dimensions, is it "possible" in the real world sense for the hole and the ball to be in separate dimensions?  No, it is not.  There is a difference between logically possible worlds and real existent worlds.

 

This position may be a legitimate. It just isn’t interesting, especially when your only response when challenged with the PSR is “bollocks”.

[Whateverist]

Thing is... if God is omnipresent he's still indistinguishable from nonexistent.

"Everywhere at once" looks an awful like "Nowhere to be found.".

Thing is...if this is the best that atheism can muster in response, then no wonder religions are still thriving.

You poor things.  Unless we can set you right, your religions will thrive.  It isn't my function to disabuse theists of their beliefs.  You're on your own.  

We will never all agree about this.  But at least I don't blame my disbelief on your inability to set me right.  I haven't asked and don't care what you think.  I harbor no belief in gods regardless of what you have to say about that.

[Pizza]

Because in order for a being to be maximally great, being personal is one of the characteristics is must have by definition.

Personal means that the being has rationality, self-consciousness and volition (will).

A non-personal being which lacks one or more of these things is less great than a personal being.

You don't get to just claim that. You still don't get it. I don't believe the conceptual analysis is correct. You guys seem to think you can just assume this from the start. You need to actually support this conceptual analysis with something more that posturing, mere assert, tautologies, and arguments from definitions.

Personally I don't believe in the existence of a maximally great being because a maximally great being wouldn't create a universe that isn't maximally great universe. A maximally great creator would make a maximally great creation by definition...oh see what I did there?

[Whateverist]

 

This position may be a legitimate. It just isn’t interesting ..

".. to anyone looking to rationalize god belief." 

(Fixed that for you.)

Lacking that axe to grind I find her position interesting enough.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The [atheistic] assumption being that none of the arguments ARE quality arguments…. "You theists must be wrong because you've used a lot of fancy words that I can't be bothered with."

Really? This passes for atheist argumentation?

In short, yes. Generally, they uncritically accept the idea that every demonstration and proof of God has been debunked or refuted. Generally, but not always. I used to be an atheist, just not one irrationally committed to a particular worldview.

And your demand [Equilax’s] for "simple evidence"...what's that about, E? What is "simple evidence" that would convince you?

He’s lying. Coming from an ideological atheist like him, the demand for evidence is always disingenuous.

But we aren't specifically discussing Christianity, and that doesn't really explain how you justify not believing in ANY supreme being.

Inside a thread about general revelation, many atheists like Cato, blur the distinction so they can start riding their little hobby horses about ‘bible contradictions’ to distract people from the reasonableness of the general proofs.

[Edwardo Piet]

And your demand [Equilax’s] for "simple evidence"...what's that about, E? What is "simple evidence" that would convince you?

He’s lying. Coming from an ideological atheist like him, the demand for evidence is always disingenuous.

Disingenuousness is the specialty of theologians and apologists... as for Esq, he's far from disingenuous. He's also awesome.

Furthermore, what the fuck is an "ideological atheist"?

[Cyberman]

You're requiring that anything and everything that exists be physical...this is a presupposition on your part.

Spiritual beings (gods, angels, demons, etc.) are not material at all.

And you know this how..?

Maybe a god just looks in on us from time to time...

Maybe, though not with an agenda-shopped jpeg of NGC 7293. So how could we set about demonstrating this possibility?

[Angrboda]

As noted, a maximally great leprichaun would also be self-consistent and necessary. If all that is required for the rest to follow (number two onward) is that the entity be necessary and self-consistent, then a necessary unicorn also follows.

Not necessarily (pun intended). No contingent thing could satisfy the necessary being requirement. It comes directly from Aquinas’s Third Way. Here is how I explained the concept elsewhere:

“Either something is possible, capable of either being or not being, or it must be of necessity. Anyone can see that many things could possibly exist that do not. Meanwhile other things that could possibly exist do. Therefore the existence of any possible thing is contingent on the existence of either something else that is possible or something that is necessary. The chain of contingency linking possible things that do exist is an essentially ordered sequence for which a possible thing cannot serve as the first member. That is because if that thing were possible it might not have been and so now there would be nothing. But there is something. As such those things that are possible to exist and do so rely for their existence on something that is necessary. That something is a Necessary Being.”

If it were contingent then of course it wouldn't be necessary. These things I'm substituting are necessary by definition. There may be other leprichauns and unicorns that are contingent, but these are not. They are simply necessary by virtue of having always existed.

[robvalue]

Because in order for a being to be maximally great, being personal is one of the characteristics is must have by definition.

Personal means that the being has rationality, self-consciousness and volition (will).

A non-personal being which lacks one or more of these things is less great than a personal being.

You don't get to just claim that. You still don't get it. I don't believe the conceptual analysis is correct. You guys seem to think you can just assume this from the start. You need to actually support this conceptual analysis with something more that posturing, mere assert, tautologies, and arguments from definitions.

Personally I don't believe in the existence of a maximally great being because a maximally great being wouldn't create a universe that isn't maximally great universe. A maximally great creator would make a maximally great creation by definition...oh see what I did there?

If there is a god as powerful as people say there is, then I'd rate this universe as a pretty feeble effort. The fact that anyone could think this is the best possible creation makes me think they have no imagination whatsoever. I made a thread before about why my imagination seems to be more powerful than God's creative potential. If that is indeed the case, he's unbelievably cruel for giving it to me while also being too pathetic to make anything better than this toxic vacuum.

Of course, once you drop the God nonsense, the universe is amazing. Its natural beauty is astounding. The idea that someone farted it all out robs it of all meaning to me.