The Ontological Argument

[Dancing Mustard]

Oh right, good stuff; 'God still isn't real no matter how much you dream about kissing Jesus' and all that jazz. I remember it well.

I'll go back to throwing popcorn and heckling from the rear of the auditorium again.

Good day to you all.

[Napoleon Ier]

So, what's going on in here? Is everybody having fun?

Yeah...the fun really started for me when no-one respondd to the actual ontological argument, but started debating racism instead. Then called that a victory for the "non-fundies".

Anyway snorrarse, you gonna try and refute the actual Ontological arguments, or keep saying that "scientists don't believe in God and so God doesn't exist"?

[Napoleon Ier]

Oh right, good stuff; 'God still isn't real no matter how much you dream about kissing Jesus' and all that jazz. I remember it well.

I'll go back to throwing popcorn and heckling from the rear of the auditorium again.

Good day to you all.

Oh no, no! Do feel free to try and demonstrate the flaws in the ontological argument, after all, you took a quantum course in Law, which wouldmake you a real expert, right?

[Dancing Mustard]

you took a quantum course in Law, which wouldmake you a real expert, right?

It would on matters of law and legal philosophy yes. That's why I deftly overpower you with my supreme knowledge every time those topics come up.

By the way, I note that you haven't actually taken your GCSEs yet, so by your above-quoted logic you are a self-certified expert in nothing (well, apart from playing patty-cake, hop-scotch and Jump-rope with your other playground chums). Right?

Anyway, good day to you young Padawan, have fun making a pinata of yourself.

[Napoleon Ier]

you took a quantum course in Law, which wouldmake you a real expert, right?

It would on matters of law and legal philosophy yes. That's why I deftly overpower you with my supreme knowledge every time those topics come up.

By the way, I note that you haven't actually taken your GCSEs yet, so by your above-quoted logic you are a self-certified expert in nothing (well, apart from playing patty-cake, hop-scotch and Jump-rope with your other playground chums). Right?

Anyway, good day to you young Padawan, have fun making a pinata of yourself.

Whoooooooosh....

That's the sweet sound of sarcasm as it's flying right over your head....

[Dancing Mustard]

That or it was the wind whistling merrily on its journey through the middle of your head...

[Napoleon Ier]

That or it was the wind whistling merrily on its journey through the middle of your head...

Actually I personally don't find myself affected by this phenomenon...

[Dancing Mustard]

That's not the impression you're currently giving...

[Napoleon Ier]

Not that any of this matters though, eh, mouseturd?

I'm sure you're more than able to "deftly overpower" me by demonstrating that necessary existence isn't a property?

Right...? I'm only doing my GCSEs, after all...

[DangerBoy]

I think snorri is pretty correct in a sense

then which part is he incorrect about?

[Snorri1234]

Anyway snorrarse, you gonna try and refute the actual Ontological arguments,

Why would I? Countless philosophers have already poked holes in it, I see no reason for me to do it.

or keep saying that "scientists don't believe in God and so God doesn't exist"?

This is rich. I love how me disagreeing with Jenos' ridiculous notion that because some scientists believed/belief in God it means god is logical suddenly means I hold the exact opposite view.

Holy shit Nappy, can you actually read?

[Napoleon Ier]

Come on then Mustard. Even a below-average intelligence philosophy AS student could have googled up and pasted a chunk of the Critique of Pure Reason dealing with the subject by now...

Won't a self-proclaimed Jedi-master of philosophy such as you not be able to construct a rebuttal so powerful Kant himself would be proud to have written it?

[got tonkaed]

Come on then Mustard. Even a below-average intelligence philosophy AS student could have googled up and pasted a chunk of the Critique of Pure Reason dealing with the subject by now...

Won't a self-proclaimed Jedi-master of philosophy such as you not be able to construct a rebuttal so powerful Kant himself would be proud to have written it?

It wasnt like Kant was some hack who came up with such complete rubbish than any joe could spend 15 minutes and put him to shame or anything.

[Napoleon Ier]

Come on then Mustard. Even a below-average intelligence philosophy AS student could have googled up and pasted a chunk of the Critique of Pure Reason dealing with the subject by now...

Won't a self-proclaimed Jedi-master of philosophy such as you not be able to construct a rebuttal so powerful Kant himself would be proud to have written it?

It wasnt like Kant was some hack who came up with such complete rubbish than any joe could spend 15 minutes and put him to shame or anything.

No, well Kant, intrestingly, firmly believed in an omnipotent and personal creator-Deity but rejected the ontological argument on the grounds that it assues existance is a "property". However, he does show up Hume's fork (to an extent, anyway), which snorri brought up in another thread.

So all Mustard had to do was copy and paste some Kant only thinking about whether it had some vague relevance and leave me with the donkey work of pondering its significance and using the work of other philosophers (I'd hope I wouldn't have the arrogance of certain atheists posting in this thread by assuming I could pontificate on this subject whilst dissmissing Hume or Russell as "not presenting a scrap of evidence"/"not being worthy as quoted by a gcse student") to create a substantiated rebuttal. But this great master of philosophy and legal matters couldn't even do that...

[got tonkaed]

I think your getting to focused on the win again.

[CoffeeCream]

I think your getting to focused on the win again.

I agree. Before I became a Christian I was asking questions because I couldn't reason out certain things. The humility of people like Nate, Daddy1Gringo & CrazyAnglican attracted me more towards a reasonable view of who God is than trying to win an argument. Of course I've witnessed arrogance on the part of atheists here in the forums. I don't see how imitating that kind of behavior is supposed to attract people to a theist/Christian worldview. A Christian is supposed to be different than the world, Napoleon. Just tone it down a little. In the end, who really cares if an atheist doesn't accept our points? It doesn't change us one bit and we don't need them to accept us.

[MeDeFe]

I distinctly remember posting a response to a 10 step argument, so far there hasn't been any response to my response. It's really a shame that when Nappy manages to create a thread with a good debatable topic he after 10 pages goes and spoils it all with the usual ranting.

[suggs]

I think your getting to focused on the win again.

I agree. Before I became a Christian I was asking questions because I couldn't reason out certain things. The humility of people like Nate, Daddy1Gringo & CrazyAnglican attracted me more towards a reasonable view of who God is than trying to win an argument. Of course I've witnessed arrogance on the part of atheists here in the forums. I don't see how imitating that kind of behavior is supposed to attract people to a theist/Christian worldview. A Christian is supposed to be different than the world, Napoleon. Just tone it down a little. In the end, who really cares if an atheist doesn't accept our points? It doesn't change us one bit and we don't need them to accept us.

[Jenos Ridan]

I think your getting to focused on the win again.

I agree. Before I became a Christian I was asking questions because I couldn't reason out certain things. The humility of people like Nate, Daddy1Gringo & CrazyAnglican attracted me more towards a reasonable view of who God is than trying to win an argument. Of course I've witnessed arrogance on the part of atheists here in the forums. I don't see how imitating that kind of behavior is supposed to attract people to a theist/Christian worldview. A Christian is supposed to be different than the world, Napoleon. Just tone it down a little. In the end, who really cares if an atheist doesn't accept our points? It doesn't change us one bit and we don't need them to accept us.

Suggs, go back to your hole.

CoffeeCream, Naps is a bit of what some might call a Fanatic. You are right when you call for him to tone his sauciness back. And in the grand scheme of things, you're right again; who needs'um? We can walk the walk and by the way we live, we can demonstrate the nature and power of God better than all the clever talk in the world. Thanks for bringing that up.

[Jenos Ridan]

To put the method of determining rationallity on paper, I quote a summart of pamplet on the ten steps put forth by Philosophy Professor Tom Morris:

1. The existance of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation (this is confirmed by the definition of the term intelligiblity.)

2. The existance of the Universe is therefore either:
a. unintelligible, or
b. has an explanation

(logical deduction from #1)

3. No rational person should accept 2a. (confirmed by the definition of rationallity.)

4. Therefore, 2b is the rational conclusion and the Universe has an explanation.

5. But there are only three kinds of explanation:
a) Scientific: C + L = E (Independent physical, initial conditions, plus relevant laws, yield the Event explained.)
b) Essential: the essense of the thing to be explained requires it's existance.
c) Personal: this posits explanations that cite the intentions and powers of some personal Agent.

6. The existance of the Universe cannot be explained Scientifically; if the Universe is just natural conditions and laws, there can be no initial physical conditions or laws outside of it--independent of it--to explain it.

7. The explanation cannot be an Essential one; the Universe is a contingent one, and therefore is not necessary. It could just as well 'not exist' as exist. Its essence doesn't require it to existence.

8. So a rational person should believe that the Universe has a Personal explanation.

9. The only personal agent capable--having the power and wisdom--to create the entire universe out of nothing is 'God'.

10. Therefore, a rational person believes there exists a God.

It all the rage these days in alot of university and other colliegate settings to equate religious belief with irrationallity. It should come as a cold splash of water to the face that in light of that, a good number of the major names in science were/are strong believers in some sort of deity; examples being Boyle, Babbage, Davy, Fabre, Faraday, Pascal (of the Wager), Kelvin, Lister, Maxwell, Newton, Pasteur, Riemann and Simpson. It should be a little supprising to learn that as our knowledge of the Universe increases, it becomes ever clearer that there indeed is a God and it is quite rational to believe in one. The next logical step is to ask "can this God be known?" The reassuring answer is yes. Since He created the human mind, He is more that able to communicate with us in a logical, reasonable manner. Whatsmore, He wants to have a truelly one-on-one relationship with each of us. To facillitate this understanding, Jesus came to us and will, as He said, come back soon.

In linking up with the Source of Wisdom we become rational in the fullest sence.

Nobody has refuted this, just dodged it with "it points to agnosticism" or some such. Interesting.

[Neutrino]

So, what's going on in here? Is everybody having fun?

Yeah...the fun really started for me when no-one respondd to the actual ontological argument, but started debating racism instead. Then called that a victory for the "non-fundies".

There was also that bit a page or two ago where you claimed to know of a "very strong" arguent for Jesus' (singular) divinity, but never actually got around to sharing your divine knowledge with the rest of us mere mortals...

Anyways, I already posted my reasons for believing why ontological arguments fail. Using exceptionally limited human experience to make huge, unconfirmable statements about the universe and the existence of God is instafail. You wouldn't take an average 3-year-old's views on the nature of quantum mechanics seriously in much the same way you shouldn't take ontological arguments seriously.

[MeDeFe]

To put the method of determining rationallity on paper, I quote a summart of pamplet on the ten steps put forth by Philosophy Professor Tom Morris:

1. The existance of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation (this is confirmed by the definition of the term intelligiblity.)

2. The existance of the Universe is therefore either:
a. unintelligible, or
b. has an explanation

(logical deduction from #1)

3. No rational person should accept 2a. (confirmed by the definition of rationallity.)

4. Therefore, 2b is the rational conclusion and the Universe has an explanation.

5. But there are only three kinds of explanation:
a) Scientific: C + L = E (Independent physical, initial conditions, plus relevant laws, yield the Event explained.)
b) Essential: the essense of the thing to be explained requires it's existance.
c) Personal: this posits explanations that cite the intentions and powers of some personal Agent.

6. The existance of the Universe cannot be explained Scientifically; if the Universe is just natural conditions and laws, there can be no initial physical conditions or laws outside of it--independent of it--to explain it.

7. The explanation cannot be an Essential one; the Universe is a contingent one, and therefore is not necessary. It could just as well 'not exist' as exist. Its essence doesn't require it to existence.

8. So a rational person should believe that the Universe has a Personal explanation.

9. The only personal agent capable--having the power and wisdom--to create the entire universe out of nothing is 'God'.

10. Therefore, a rational person believes there exists a God.

It all the rage these days in alot of university and other colliegate settings to equate religious belief with irrationallity. It should come as a cold splash of water to the face that in light of that, a good number of the major names in science were/are strong believers in some sort of deity; examples being Boyle, Babbage, Davy, Fabre, Faraday, Pascal (of the Wager), Kelvin, Lister, Maxwell, Newton, Pasteur, Riemann and Simpson. It should be a little supprising to learn that as our knowledge of the Universe increases, it becomes ever clearer that there indeed is a God and it is quite rational to believe in one. The next logical step is to ask "can this God be known?" The reassuring answer is yes. Since He created the human mind, He is more that able to communicate with us in a logical, reasonable manner. Whatsmore, He wants to have a truelly one-on-one relationship with each of us. To facillitate this understanding, Jesus came to us and will, as He said, come back soon.

In linking up with the Source of Wisdom we become rational in the fullest sence.

Nobody has refuted this, just dodged it with "it points to agnosticism" or some such. Interesting.

Then let me direct you to page 4, the last post, I'm starting to feel like I'm being ignored on purpose.

[silvanricky]

Napoleon, I can't understand why you would list sound and valid as options. What is the difference? You either think it's a good argument or it's stupid. Why didn't you offer different levels of disagreement in your poll?

[comic boy]

To put the method of determining rationallity on paper, I quote a summart of pamplet on the ten steps put forth by Philosophy Professor Tom Morris:

1. The existance of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation (this is confirmed by the definition of the term intelligiblity.)

2. The existance of the Universe is therefore either:
a. unintelligible, or
b. has an explanation

(logical deduction from #1)

3. No rational person should accept 2a. (confirmed by the definition of rationallity.)

4. Therefore, 2b is the rational conclusion and the Universe has an explanation.

5. But there are only three kinds of explanation:
a) Scientific: C + L = E (Independent physical, initial conditions, plus relevant laws, yield the Event explained.)
b) Essential: the essense of the thing to be explained requires it's existance.
c) Personal: this posits explanations that cite the intentions and powers of some personal Agent.

6. The existance of the Universe cannot be explained Scientifically; if the Universe is just natural conditions and laws, there can be no initial physical conditions or laws outside of it--independent of it--to explain it.

7. The explanation cannot be an Essential one; the Universe is a contingent one, and therefore is not necessary. It could just as well 'not exist' as exist. Its essence doesn't require it to existence.

8. So a rational person should believe that the Universe has a Personal explanation.

9. The only personal agent capable--having the power and wisdom--to create the entire universe out of nothing is 'God'.

10. Therefore, a rational person believes there exists a God.

It all the rage these days in alot of university and other colliegate settings to equate religious belief with irrationallity. It should come as a cold splash of water to the face that in light of that, a good number of the major names in science were/are strong believers in some sort of deity; examples being Boyle, Babbage, Davy, Fabre, Faraday, Pascal (of the Wager), Kelvin, Lister, Maxwell, Newton, Pasteur, Riemann and Simpson. It should be a little supprising to learn that as our knowledge of the Universe increases, it becomes ever clearer that there indeed is a God and it is quite rational to believe in one. The next logical step is to ask "can this God be known?" The reassuring answer is yes. Since He created the human mind, He is more that able to communicate with us in a logical, reasonable manner. Whatsmore, He wants to have a truelly one-on-one relationship with each of us. To facillitate this understanding, Jesus came to us and will, as He said, come back soon.

In linking up with the Source of Wisdom we become rational in the fullest sence.

Nobody has refuted this, just dodged it with "it points to agnosticism" or some such. Interesting.

The only one dodging anything is you,some sound points were made which you attempted to rebuff with utter nonsense which was soundly discredited.

[Napoleon Ier]

Napoleon, I can't understand why you would list sound and valid as options. What is the difference? You either think it's a good argument or it's stupid. Why didn't you offer different levels of disagreement in your poll?

It's a philosophical distinction. "Valid" means you think it makes the right conclusions from its premises, but for it to be "sound", it must have premises which are correct.

So the argument

P1 The carpet in this room is blue.

P2 All blue things taste of chesse.

C The carpet in my room tastes of cheese.

is valid, but obviously untrue, and said to be "unsound".