Modal ontological argument

[Angrboda]

That's fascinating, but it does bring up a related question.  Where did God exist before he created the universe?

For time to exist, there has to be a universe. Therefore questions about "before" the universe are incoherent, as Augustine explained.

Klor has previously argued that there is a before the universe, so Augustine is irrelevant. It looks like Klor is just hoping we won't notice his silence.

Besides, Augustine is hardly the last word on the nature of time. That would be William Lane Craig.

[Jehanne]

Besides, Augustine is hardly the last word on the nature of time.  That would be William Lane Craig.

Craig denies all of modern physics in this interview:






If you can stand to watch it...

[Ranjr]

Another philosophical discussion melts, thaws and resolves itself to cosmological questions.  That tells us quite a bit.

One of the things it tells us is that God proponents should look to science to make their case.  Philosophy will only lead to more questions, as it reliably does.  God lovers should realize rehashing Anselm and Aquinas gets them nowhere. If they want to prove the existence of God, they need to work up a theory, design some experiments, and built instruments to provide data.

So either get to work on a CERN for Jesus, or just admit you believe in religion because it makes you feel better about yourself.  That's a good step toward feeling better about yourself.

[Fake Messiah]

God lovers should realize rehashing Anselm and Aquinas gets them nowhere. 

Not to mention that Aquinas rejected the Ontological argument.

[HappySkeptic]

One of the things it tells us is that God proponents should look to science to make their case.  Philosophy will only lead to more questions, as it reliably does.  God lovers should realize rehashing Anselm and Aquinas gets them nowhere. If they want to prove the existence of God, they need to work up a theory, design some experiments, and built instruments to provide data.

So either get to work on a CERN for Jesus, or just admit you believe in religion because it makes you feel better about yourself.  That's a good step toward feeling better about yourself.

I see a Kickstarter of GoFundMe idea!

[The Grand Nudger]

Another philosophical discussion melts, thaws and resolves itself to cosmological questions.  That tells us quite a bit.

One of the things it tells us is that God proponents should look to science to make their case.  Philosophy will only lead to more questions, as it reliably does.  God lovers should realize rehashing Anselm and Aquinas gets them nowhere. If they want to prove the existence of God, they need to work up a theory, design some experiments, and built instruments to provide data.

So either get to work on a CERN for Jesus, or just admit you believe in religion because it makes you feel better about yourself.  That's a good step toward feeling better about yourself.

Many of them already believe that they possess a godometer - and it's on the basis of the report from this instrument (whatever it is) that they believe what they do.  Not any argument or observation about the world around them.

[Disagreeable]

But yeah, this is really just the standard ontological bullshit in a cheap tuxedo because the premises are silly and some of them also equivocate and do not follow.

And the ontological argument, in general, is just "My imaginary friend is bigger and scarier than your lack of an imaginary friend!". Basically.