Helping out Atheists with the Ontological argument

DDD said:

No but it is about religion to atheist favors. Favors should be reciprocated.

Click to expand...

Its a philisophical argument ... I was hoping for a philisophical discussion on that specific argument, perhaps about the nature of necessity ... but I guess this isn't really a philosophy section, just a "people who've read Dawkins and think that his books are actually sophisticated arguments" section.

RGacky3 said:

Its a philisophical argument ... I was hoping for a philisophical discussion on that specific argument, perhaps about the nature of necessity ... but I guess this isn't really a philosophy section, just a "people who've read Dawkins and think that his books are actually sophisticated arguments" section.

Click to expand...

Reciprocity though is applied and that is my contribution. As for Dawkins, I've heard about him, and should check him up on Youtube sometime when I have the time.

RGacky3 said:

Who created the creator doesn't work, since the God is not created and is not explained through creation, but rather causally necessary, or existing eternally, or self-existing.

Click to expand...

That isn't something explicitly stated in the ontological argument.

The Ontological Argument fails on it's face for many of the reasons that have been presented here. In reality, the claim that God is outside of time and space is absolutely nonsensical. How do you know that? Where is your evidence? It's just a definition that you've invented to get around problems with the argument itself. Perhaps the biggest problem with the Ontological Argument, even if we're willing to grant it for the sake of argument, is that it doesn't lead to any particular gods. There's no way to get from A to B without massive leaps of illogic. Even if we're willing to grant that there's some force, some entity, some thing, that created the universe, that doesn't mean it's any of the thousands of gods man has made up for himself to worship. You cannot get from "something" to "this particular god that I happen to favor".

So congrats, you've achieved nothing. Great argument.

Cephus said:

It's just a definition that you've invented to get around problems with the argument itself.

Click to expand...

That's pretty much it exactly. Gods have changed over the centuries into their now modern form. And in the course of that evolution, humans learned what to remove in order to make it so their deities go unchallenged. Removing all measurable quantities is that way, and in order to do that you have to remove the god from reality.

Ben K. said:

That isn't something explicitly stated in the ontological argument.

Click to expand...

I wasn't refering to the ontological argument with that.