A question for agnostics.

Post Reply New Topic

The Ontological Argument is pretty funny, it's so absurd.

It applies for every adjective. There is a Divine standard of Geekiness, somewhere out there

The existence of a spectrum, doesn't imply that the maxima/minima of that spectrum must exist. Why would it??

Interesting comment. I'll note that Augustine is also known for having prayed (before his full conversion): "Lord, make me chaste - but not yet."



Yes! The perfected ideal of geekiness...what's not to love??

Oooh, kinky.

St. Augustine: Bringing cool to Religion for 1600 hundred years

Ouch. Game point.

@AG

Necessity and existing in possible worlds does exist within the ontological argument, that does not mean they are the same arguement. It just means that there is a crossover in their use of perfect being philosophy. You also seem to be still tripping at the first hurdle of the ontological argument, I think I have explained this enough, at least a dozen times, and perhaps you ought to just leave it as an unreconcilable difference. As to perfect evil; the opposite of a perfection is not a perfection of itself, therefor you argument is not maximally great.

Well, no, the issue is pretty basic. Without the notion of God as necessary, the use of God as an explanation is questionable and/or fails, God is no different than positing that the universe exists as a brute fact, but with that notion, one does not need a cosmological argument.

No, I have solidly engaged the ontological argument multiple times. No tripping here. Everything I've done is valid and an observer can see the validity. In fact, I am not even being horribly original in what I say on the matter, so I can't see the objection.

I said "wholly evil", I could also use "maximally evil". It really doesn't matter though, as that premise of Plantinga is literally a fill in the blank, and my basic objection was just permissiveness.

ryan93:

"Likewise. The process of discovering morality, meaning and knowledge is far better than reading reams of stale text anyway. I feel sorry that the religious will never experience the feeling."

You actually said that? Please! Get real and open an eye.

I - unlike you - happen to enjoy reading, get a lot out of it. Very little of it scriptural or even religion focussed - in the middle now of a book on architecture which is very excitingly refining a lot of psychological, theological, and cosmological ideas for me, some of which I will likely share.

But I have put a lot of non reading time into varios areas of discovery. Can't say a lot of discovery of morality - those understanding come either from inside or from watching two of the Inner Circle reacting to times I have messed up.

Speaking of which rereading I realized an earlier post COULD be mistaken as calling something you said stupid, when in fact I was agreeing with you in critiquing those who try to demonstrate free will by acting - which, I was trying to say is a dumb thing to do.

If that DID get heard the wrong way, please accept my apologies and assurances that no slight was intended, and forgive my internationally famous tendency to miscommunicate.

Is "the sky is coloured blue" a belief? Are facts beliefs?

It comes from my experience as a former Christian, meeting more devout Christians who spoke as if their beliefs were reality and not subjective beliefs. These included fundamentalists who seemed to act as if what they did or wanted was always God's Will. Psychoanalytically, this could be called superego contamination of a person's reason, i.e. prejudice.

What I mean is to mentally identify my beliefs about x to not be the same as x, and having the ability to examine my beliefs and claims to make sure I maintain this differentiation, as well as questioning the beliefs themselves and changing them.


I entered this thread convinced I was "Agnostic", I started considering I was in fact "Alternative" (My beliefs can suggest I know God, in an unconventional way), now I am unsure.

Yes. A true belief is still a belief.

No, facts aren't beliefs.

.

A fact is an actual state of the world, the way the world is. What we believe (or don't believe) are declarative sentence which purport to assert facts. The utterance is not the thing. The map is not the territory and the portrait is not the subject.

ruveyn

very fine, except most linguists will believe it necessary to point out - admittedly nitpicking - that it is not a fact that beliefs are declarative sentences.

You MAY have a declarative sentence which announces a belief - but as you say the utterance is not the thing.

So your perspective is "knowledge is facts and beliefs", but beliefs are not facts. I agree with the latter, but disagree that belief is a form of knowledge.

What is your reasoning that beliefs are knowledge?

this, again, is exactly what i'm talking about when i bring up your inconsistency. you don't believe that god was created from nothing any more than i believe the universe was created from nothing. where the inconsistency comes in is that you don't believe the universe could possibly be "uncreated" and yet you demand this accepted as given for your "god." you posit the most complicated (by necessity) being in the universe and then, to avoid the need to explain the source of complexity, cite "divine simplicity." very pretty language, but says pretty much nothing. "word salad," as it were.

perhaps this trip around the merry-go-round has, after all, brought us to a point of agreement. you state that "if he could be caused, he would, by definition, not be god." i share this sentiment. here's where it gets fun: i don't have a problem with god not needing to be caused. nor do i have a problem with existence not needing to be caused. however, if existence can exist without being caused, there is no room for your existence-creating-god. if you don't believe that existence can exist without being caused, it's f***ing ridiculous to assert that anything can exist without being caused.

you can propose that "god" created what-we-think-of-as our universe, maintaining that "he" is simply a being much more complicated than what-we-think-of-as reality (not being native to our universe, he would not be bound by our laws of physics but would, instead, be bound by a somewhat different set of physical -or even extraphysical- laws.) but this is not how you define god and this being would be a far cry from your "maximally great being" who magically exists in all possible worlds.

i don't see how you can argue against the notion that something can exist without a cause while, simultaneously, arguing that something must exist without a cause. i've seen your arguments over and over again and this simple inconsistency seems invisible to you. why?

I pretty much agree with all of the sentiments expressed.