I suppose the ontological argument starts out by being analytic. Personally I believe that the existence of anything metaphysical should not attempt to be anything but an analytic statement.

My problem is however slightly different to what Kant held here if I understand you correctly. I think it's a bit more Platonic (if I can take certain liberties with Plato's work). The idea of a horse - as in the archetype or form of the perfect horse - is true to horseness (apologies for my creative word use) in ways that a real horse cannot be. We only recognize the real horse because it has enough of the archetype or original form to allow us to distinguish it from everything else that has far less or no horse at all. The horse is pure in understanding but loses those qualities here in the real world. The horse might therefore be better off and even superior in understanding alone.

While I don't think it was the original idea with the argument, one must admit that it opens the door to at least consider an argument that says existing in understanding alone is superior to existing in both reality and understanding. We would in a way taint the perfect idea by bringing it into a broken reality. But I am stretching it.

Now I understand that some people would feel offended by me calling reality broken and all such but it's just an idea. If it makes any sense.

Could you explain a little more about why you understand Kant asks this question? I'm not sure I understand how you bring the two together. Thanks.

I'm a bit late on this. But why isn't there something wrong in assuming 'reality' as perceived by us is necessarily a step up? Why does ultimate perfection lead to existence. And what makes us think we can perceive of the kind of excellence that would assume existence?

We all laugh when we hear that people used to think we were the center of the universe. But isn't it equally dangerous to assume that we can perceive an appropriate excellence and that our consciousness perceives a reality that is a necessary consequence of such excellence?

It's not an atheist that knows the thoughts of people, it's just another person who cared enough to read more about Einstein than the little quotes you find under motivational posters.

At no point did I say I'm either a theist or an atheist. So revisit that. I tend to keep this to myself as I'm here for the argument and not my personal beliefs. So before you advise people to be 'good little atheists' you must make sure that they are (a) and atheist and (b) that 'good little atheist' means what you say it does. I suspect that in this case it was used as a patronizing term. That does not make for good arguments.

I never said it is amusing

I merely pointed to the fact that arguments have a tendency to become amusing as they fall apart or as they become void of any point or logic. Your mentioning the dictionary is beyond funny: it has degraded beyond funny and is now just ridiculous. Note that I'm not calling you ridiculous. I don't know you. But I've seen your argument and it does not look good.

I never stated that these things are gods, the dictionary does.

Words have true meaning only within a given context. The dictionary would give you a literal meaning and then some dictionaries give you a little sentence to illustrate context. The dictionary didn't give the word meaning in this context, you did that, and that's why your argument is wrong.

The same people that say gods exists also say man landed on the moon, the earth is round, we revolve around the sun, etc.

I'm not sure if this is true. Firstly, do you mean those exact people? I don't think there's an organisation called they like in Larson's cartoon that comes up with facts. It would in all probability be people from the same field, inclination or school of thought. But this is not a conclusive response to your statement - it's grey because we can't really establish who these people are.

My second point is better. Say someone makes point A and point A is true and shifts humanity into a desirable future. That person then makes point B. Does the findings and validity of point A have any bearing on point B? Unless they are based on the same findings they do not.

The fact however is that the assumptions, methodologies and logic that resulted in the moon landing and the discovery of the solar system, fails to give us any evidence that points to a god. The facts don't say 'a god does not exist', they just can't prove that a god does. There is no negative proof, but in the absence of positive proof they assume. That assumption you can challenge. You can say 'you can't assume until you have evidence' but then you must do the same and then no one knows (and that is probably a better logical position to take).

To illustrate the point of negative proof I always like to use the out of stock shelf. A full shelf is proof that they have the product (say cinnamon cola). An empty shelf merely means that cinnamon cola is not stocked here but can be somewhere else. So while there is no proof that the store has stock, you can keep looking because there is no proof that they have no stock either. A little sign that says 'cinnamon cola out of stock' is negative proof. You can call the search off because you now have evidence that there is no cinnamon cola in the store.

Both theists and atheists are at a shelf with no cinnamon cola. Atheists believe that the product must be here, on this shelf because this is where products are sold - if it's not here it must be out of stock. Theists say that cinnamon cola is different and that it need not be on the shelf to be available for purchase.

On both sides I get arguments that make no sense. Your dictionary one is such an argument. On the other side is the atheist (and atheist comedian's) favorite one where they ridicule the possibility of a man in the sky. Their lack of knowledge in that way is frightening. But some atheists has hopped on this band wagon and they hide their bigotry under the veil of 'fashionable arguments'.

The linear flow of time might be an illusion. Time might not be a line at all (maybe a mesh intertwined with space as both have separation abilities :) ) . So yes, the passing of time is an illusion. But time is real. If it wasn't everything would be 'now'. The fact that you are reading this word now and this word now means you are in fact at two different 'time places'. Given the current reality and the perceptive capacity of our brain, time is real.

Thewayitis, your argument is not even amusing. To assume that by believing in one definition of the word 'god' you are providing a premise from which you can argue a atheist is in fact a theist is beyond ridiculous.

The argument is not a linguistic one and does not deal with the nature of the word. A handsome man has very little in common with a higher being. A higher being is in question and has nothing to do with what is almost nothing more than homonyms.

I think it's insulting to any god (be it the God or who ever you choose to believe in) to be associated with your logic. I personally think it's illogical to look for scientific evidence of something that is by definition 'super natural' and beyond nature. If you believe, do so to the benefit of other people. If you don't, do that too to the benefit of others.

I think there's a lot to be said for anyone who honestly and sincerely pursues the truth (as opposed to people looking for being 'right').

Logically it would make sense to kill one to save two. There's surplus life saved if you want to look at it like that.

But I don;t think I have the balls to actively kill someone. I know the details are not the point but if it was a matter of 'stab this guy to death with this here knife and I'll let those two in the next room live', the guys in the room is out of luck as I'd have to get my hands dirty and kill someone I've (briefly) met. I'll also have to deal with his pleading. If however I let the other two die I won't have to do the actual killing. Morally it's worse, but practically I'm in a far better situation with letting the two die.

If I've got to kill either the one or the two I'm only killing one. Less trouble as well.

The third option would be to let the one die or let the two die. Then I'd also let the one die.

I think you have to be clear on who will be doing the killing as the average person will see killing as an extra cost that might be too much to deal with.

Logically it would make sense to kill one to save two. There's surplus life saved if you want to look at it like that.

But I don;t think I have the balls to actively kill someone. I know the details are not the point but if it was a matter of 'stab this guy to death with this here knife and I'll let those two in the next room live', the guys in the room is out of luck as I'd have to get my hands dirty and kill someone I've (briefly) met. I'll also have to deal with his pleading. If however I let the other two die I won't have to do the actual killing. Morally it's worse, but practically I'm in a far better situation with letting the two die.

If I've got to kill either the one or the two I'm only killing one. Less trouble as well.

The third option would be to let the one die or let the two die. Then I'd also let the one die.

I think you have to be clear on who will be doing the killing as the average person will see killing as an extra cost that might be too much to deal with.

Logically it would make sense to kill one to save two. There's surplus life saved if you want to look at it like that.

But I don;t think I have the balls to actively kill someone. I know the details are not the point but if it was a matter of 'stab this guy to death with this here knife and I'll let those two in the next room live', the guys in the room is out of luck as I'd have to get my hands dirty and kill someone I've (briefly) met. I'll also have to deal with his pleading. If however I let the other two die I won't have to do the actual killing. Morally it's worse, but practically I'm in a far better situation with letting the two die.

If I've got to kill either the one or the two I'm only killing one. Less trouble as well.

The third option would be to let the one die or let the two die. Then I'd also let the one die.

I think you have to be clear on who will be doing the killing as the average person will see killing as an extra cost that might be too much to deal with.

Logically it would make sense to kill one to save two. There's surplus life saved if you want to look at it like that.

But I don;t think I have the balls to actively kill someone. I know the details are not the point but if it was a matter of 'stab this guy to death with this here knife and I'll let those two in the next room live', the guys in the room is out of luck as I'd have to get my hands dirty and kill someone I've (briefly) met. I'll also have to deal with his pleading. If however I let the other two die I won't have to do the actual killing. Morally it's worse, but practically I'm in a far better situation with letting the two die.

If I've got to kill either the one or the two I'm only killing one. Less trouble as well.

The third option would be to let the one die or let the two die. Then I'd also let the one die.

I think you have to be clear on who will be doing the killing as the average person will see killing as an extra cost that might be too much to deal with.