The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Uh, sorry I repeated a post - maybe the page didn't load correctly in Firefox, but I thought the post without the Roman enumeration had turned to ether and vanished somehow.

It was mistakenly caught in our spam filter.  If that happens again, please PM a moderator or admin to unstick it.

Is there any reason why my post would trigger a spam alert? Something I can avoid doing, going forward?

[Pizza]

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.

I guess we just don't understand perfection Rob.

[Delicate]

You're to figure out something a lot more basic before you step up to that level.

Why can't you just answer my question? I'm not asking for much here.

Are you conceding that the Ontological argument isn't an argument for a personal cause? Well, okay then. I don't see how that's a victory for Christian theism at all.

Also if you can't get anyone to believe your conceptual analysis of maximal greatness is correct then I don't see how you and others think this argument is to work. In this case an "omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect" cause creating a world like this one is insulting to intelligence of atheist and theist alike.

Because you're asking a loaded question that presupposes semantic trickery.

I don't think real progress can be made with a mind so closed.

Why are you even having this discussion if you've already made up your mind? Intellectual dishonesty doesn't make me MORE interested in having this discussion.

Fix that and get back to me.

[wiploc]

I have never seen this argument before, so I'm interested in some discussion of it. A philosopher by the name of Alvin Plantinga states it this way:

The Ontological Argument

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
   
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists is some possible world.
   
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
   
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
   
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
   
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
   

Thoughts?

1. It is possible that a maximally great being does not exist. 
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world. 
3. If a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world, then it does not exist in any possible world.
4. If a maximally great being does not exist in any possible world, then it does not exist in the actual world. 
5. If a maximally great being does not exist in the actual world, then a maximally great being does not exist.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being does not exist.

So, using Plantinga's logic, it is as easy to prove that god doesn't exist as that he does.  Any argument that proves both X and not-X is worthless.  It weighs zero in the scales of persuasion. 

An argument so easily slam-dunk refuted shouldn't have any standing or fame.  But this is a famous argument because the Christians have no better arguments.  Since they have no good arguments, they have to field trash like this.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Why can't you just answer my question? I'm not asking for much here.

Are you conceding that the Ontological argument isn't an argument for a personal cause? Well, okay then. I don't see how that's a victory for Christian theism at all.

Also if you can't get anyone to believe your conceptual analysis of maximal greatness is correct then I don't see how you and others think this argument is to work. In this case an "omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect" cause creating a world like this one is insulting to intelligence of atheist and theist alike.

Because you're asking a loaded question that presupposes semantic trickery.

I don't think real progress can be made with a mind so closed.

Why are you even having this discussion if you've already made up your mind? Intellectual dishonesty doesn't make me MORE interested in having this discussion.

Fix that and get back to me.

Multiple users here have observed the devious trickery in the ontological argument, and I have pointed out in plain terms at leas twice how it applies logical fallacy and mathematical sleight-of-hand. There has been no response on this from any believers, guess you just couldn't raise your heads up from the rubble.

[Pizza]

Did the pot just call me black?

[downbeatplumb]

What the arguments come down to is "I really want this to be true so will try and make it possible that it might, with words"

So here's a challenge.

Come up with a stupid premise then the next person puts an argument FOR it.

I think you can come up with an argument for any proposition no matter how stupid.

So to begin.

Black is the same as white.

[downbeatplumb]

Ha that was a mad coincidence.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Why can't you just answer my question? I'm not asking for much here.

Are you conceding that the Ontological argument isn't an argument for a personal cause? Well, okay then. I don't see how that's a victory for Christian theism at all.

Also if you can't get anyone to believe your conceptual analysis of maximal greatness is correct then I don't see how you and others think this argument is to work. In this case an "omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect" cause creating a world like this one is insulting to intelligence of atheist and theist alike.

Because you're asking a loaded question that presupposes semantic trickery.

Yep - the Devil's out to get you here. Just keep telling yourself that, and you'll never have to believe anything unless you want to.

The most interesting fact on faith-based beliefs is that before an evangelist can make one a "believer", he must first trick him with the false notion  that you can actually "believe" an idea by "choice". This idea detracts the mark (as in a con man's "mark") from actually evaluating what he tells them, including the ideas that the bible is the absolute truth, that he knows it well, and that he is in close contact with the god who he claims to follow. He'll say it's up to you to follow that god as well, and that this choice is what it means to be a "believer", when it has nothing whatsoever to do with evaluating the veracity of the claims made of that god's reality or power. He wouldn't want you to make that evaluation because once you have, believing his doctine is no choice at all - either it makes sense to you, or it doesn't.

You, Delicate, are indeed in a delicate situation with your faith, as is any believer who chooses to ignore his sense of logic in favor of the so-called belief which he chooses, and this is why you refuse to show any sense of logic here - you are afraid that if you do, then you will no longer be able to continue making that choice of living by ignorance. You face a different sort of choice here, and you may have it confused - no atheist is asking you to follow him, nor anyone else! Just open your eyes and evaluate the information we give you fairly before you apply judgment. Be warned that if you do, then it may change your mind, but if you won't even do that, then all you can do here is waste time and insult people.

[robvalue]

My position feels pretty solid, because the existence of God is, to me, a non issue. I couldn't care less either way, except out of the obvious scientific curiosity.

However, it appears some people wouldn't be able to function without God "being real" because they've built their whole house on it.

If such people do ever escape, they will probably find that what they built their house on was themselves, being labelled as god. God is a mirror. Where else could something live that a person knows so much about but can't demonstrate the merest existence of but in their mind?