Which just shows that you are almost as ignorant as I am on these matters - the difference being that I've stumbled across a book or two and thereby am a little less ignorant than I was. We, and most folks, do not understand the "ontological" argument, although we persuade ourselves that we do. But we don't even have to go that far to detect unsound ground. We need simply reflect a little on the words we use - our words. "omnibenevolence, omniscience and omnipotence." All-kind, all-knowing, all-powerful: our words, our concepts. Well might they apply to an idea of ours. But the task for those who claim a material existence for God is to show how these ideas, or any such ideas, derive from that material existence and to make clear how they, our ideas and concepts, can apply this being. And to facilitate this demonstration, the existence is granted for the sake of argument.I'm familiar with the following:...
3. The ontological argument....
However, 3. the ontological proof does prove EVERYTHING about God (omnibenevolence, omniscience and omnipotence), after all God is the most perfect being possible in that argument. — TheMadFool
In all this I argue from a definition, plus observations/things we already know about, to a conclusion about something's existence. — bert1
The folks being addressed in this thread - challenged, if you will, are those who claim a) that God exists materially, and b) that they can prove it. In short they proceed from notion to idea to argument and as a deduction from argument, to material existence. It's the last step that's a problem.To insist I start with existence and nothing else is strange, and I don't understand why you would do that. — bert1
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.