OA makes sense — khaled
The OA hasn't been refuted in a way that silences its proponents or satisfies its opponents. — TheMadFool
The first premise is a veiled ontological assertion. Among all beings, there is some being which is the greatest being. That being is God. It doesn't prove god's existence so much as define it. — Pantagruel
Why is god a tyrannical despot, ergo undesirable, in the eyes of anti-theists? Well, I suppose it has to do with God's omniptence. Omnibenevolence and, to some extent, omniscience, would function as the checks and balances on omnipotence but God wouldn't be God unless God has free will. If so, God's omnipotence becomes a liability for he can resist and run counter to his omnibenevolence and omniscience i.e. God can do "bad things" - it's not an if question but a when one. — TheMadFool
And counter-rational things. I think this idea of god undermines the notion that the universe is rational also — Pantagruel
Well, if god is not bound by morality then equally he is not bound by rationality. So if rationality is no longer the arbiter of meaning (because god is) then the universe is reduced to absurdity. — Pantagruel
OA makes sense
— khaled
The OA hasn't been refuted in a way that silences its proponents or satisfies its opponents. — TheMadFool
The God delusion is an awful book and is not at all representative of actual atheology. If your interested in real responses to proper formulations of the OA, look towards actual atheist philosophers like Graham Oppy for example. — Elliot Fischer
This is an awful formulation, a Plantingian Modal OA is much better and even those are hard to defend (albeit I accept it). — Elliot Fischer
The OA hasn't been refuted in a way that silences its proponents or satisfies its opponents. — TheMadFool
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.