How effective is the ontological argument?
|
This argument claims that just because we can conceive of a supremely perfect being such as a god means it must exist, the argument fails because it contains the logical fallacy of Circular Reasoning because it simply assumes god exists from the premise. You could easily say there is nothing greater than a magical multicoloured unicorn but just because you can conceive the idea of such a creature does not mean it actually exists. Your mental faculties do not influence whether or not a being or a god exists. I recently had a debate with Stain about this and he presented the usual variants on the argument as used by Lane Craig and others each one is just as bad as the others 1
point
1
point
You'd like my other debate, http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Apparently, Anselm sounds like a funny guy. Some nuts seem to have taken it too seriously. As to a perfect God, you might want to see Aristotle for what makes for one. It certainly isn't the christian deity - anything else can be given a thought than it. 1
point
1
point
That's a very good point. Theists work on the idea of something existing being better than something not existing. But why is this the case? Why does something need to exist to be perfect? We all have the image of our perfect woman or man, and sure, it'd be nice if he/she existed, but it doesn't make him/her any less perfect in our minds. 1
point
Sodomites love their sin more than live and they hate God. They would rather burn in Hell than turn against their sin like God is against their sin. It's easier to say "there is no God" than it is to be realistic about what a sinner deserves; so most sinners will remain unforgiven and end up in Hell. 1
point
You sure spend a lot of time thinking about sodomy. Methinks thou dost protest too much. You really need to stop fantasizing about sodomizing Jesus or you're going to end up in hell. I'll pray for you. Dear God, please help NowASaint stop lusting after Jesus. His carnal desires have have gotten the best of him and he continually fantasizes about Jesus' muscular body dripping with sweat. Give him the strength to overcome his desire to sodomize Jesus so that he may be spared from the fiery pits of hell. In Jesus' name, amen. You're welcome. 1
point
1
point
Not effective at all. Subjective epistemology applied to ancient fiction of unknown origin declarative of an unprovable entity beyond the scope of human reasoning itself. That's literally about as far from effective logic as you can get. It fails on scores of accounts. It's based upon no testable theory, postulate, hypothesis or even concept. It uses circular reasoning. It presupposes that conceptualisation of something is proof of the thing's material existence, in which case the boogeyman and Santa Claus are entirely real, as is the tooth fairy. It's solipsism. It's casuistry. It's a form of existential fallacy. Need I go on? |
