This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
I also think the Ontological argument ultimately does not work, but, and contrary to most of the idiotic "rebuttals" suggest, it is definitely not easy to point out where exactly the argument goes wrong. More importantly, I do think it is trying to tell us something non-trivial about God.
VR: "I have never thought well of the OA ..."What!? You haven't realized that the Argument From Reason is a species of the OA?VR: " ... and I remember writing a comment ... outlining several rebuttals."grodrigues: "I also think the Ontological argument ultimately does not work, but, and contrary to most of the idiotic "rebuttals" suggest, it is definitely not easy to point out where exactly the argument goes wrong."The OA "fails" is a manner similar to how the Argument From Evil/Pain "succeeds". No matter how often and how thoroughly the Argument From Evil/Pain is demolished, people keep trotting it out, because it is emotionally gratifying. Similarly, no matter how often and how thoroughly the objections to the Ontological Argument are demolished, people keep trotting them out, because the OA is *not* emotionally gratifying. However, 'emotionally gratifying' is not, to say the least, a term of logic nor of rational evaluation of claims and arguments.
"I also think the Ontological argument ultimately does not work ..."As I understand it, the logic of the OA, at least as it is typically proposed, hinges on "possible worlds". But -- definitionally -- God is not merely one more being in the collection of beings and possible beings which in sum constitute the world. So, perhaps the flaw in (the straight or common presentation of) the OA is that is subtly, without anyone realizing it, elevates the world into the position of "maximally great being".
That video was painful to listen to ... because of the stupid pseudo-sophisticated accent chosen as its delivery mode.
That video has a lot wrong with it. Anselm said nothing about possible worlds. They make it sound like possible worlds were used back in the middle ages.To the pizza argument that was Gunilon who did argue one could prove a perfect anything he used island as an example. I really don't like the way they altered things to make them fit the possible worlds way of thinking. I think philosophy is way too crazy about possible worlds.
1) God can be analytically conceived without contradiction.2) Therefore God is not impossible.3) By definition God cannot be contingent.4) Therefore God is either necessary or impossible.5) God is not impossible (from 2) therefore, God is necessary.6) Necessary existence equates to actual existenceIt's complicated and thinking about has changed many times. actually theologian Karl Barth that brought it back for Norman Malcom and Charles Hartshorne they influenced Plantinga.the best way to lkearn about it is to read The many faced Argument by John Hick, That's the best thing one can do.Hartshorne's modal argument is the best version it is vald and it does work. Although Hick didn't think so.August 23, 2016 6:59 AM Delete
I really like this video on the OA.Enjoy!
the second one is betterMetacrock's blog for Wednesday does inequality make God less probable?
Post a Comment