Ontological Argument.......Really?

[Jack Knave]

I'm reading a book that was written in the late 80's and it states that this argument is still alive and kicking and philosophers, though they feel it is wrong, can't put their finger on it.

Is this so? I find this hard to believe!!!

And are there any Christians (or anyone else, but it was posited by a Christian) who still use this in their argument for the claim for the existence of God?

I reckon I can blow this argument out of the water for good.

[Shaker]

Even if you couldn't, Jack, countless others have

[Jack Knave]

Even if you couldn't, Jack, countless others have

What, 100% without doubt? Why did some top philosophers say they couldn't in the late 80's then, as mentioned above. Who have done this?

[Gordon]

Even if you couldn't, Jack, countless others have

What, 100% without doubt? Why did some top philosophers say they couldn't in the late 80's then, as mentioned above. Who have done this?

Kant disposed of the ontological argument a couple of centuries ago. It is history outwith Christian apologists.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm reading a book that was written in the late 80's and it states that this argument is still alive and kicking and philosophers, though they feel it is wrong, can't put their finger on it.

Is this so? I find this hard to believe!!!

And are there any Christians (or anyone else, but it was posited by a Christian) who still use this in their argument for the claim for the existence of God?

I reckon I can blow this argument out of the water for good.

Surely this is just similar to Russell's statement on it that it feels hard to dispute because it doesn't really put anything forward. The problem with the ontological argument is not its power, but its emptiness. Arguing against it directly is like punching a shadow. the argument itself has no substance, so indulging it gives it too much credit.

[wigginhall]

I've never met anyone who was impressed by it.  Are there such people?  Incidentally, Aquinas gave it a right kicking. 

[Shaker]

I've never met anyone who was impressed by it.  Are there such people?  Incidentally, Aquinas gave it a right kicking.

I think it must be in the autobiography: as a young man Bertrand Russell was very briefly persuaded by it - he had a sudden epiphany coming out of the tobacconist and threw his tin of pipe baccy up in the air - until he stopped to think about it more and realised why he was wrong to have thought so.

[jeremyp]

It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a being than which none Pinker can be imagined (that is, the Pinkest possible being that can be imagined).

The Invisible Pink Unicorn exists as an idea in the mind.

A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, Pinker than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.

Thus, if The Invisible Pink Unicorn exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is Pinker than The Invisible Pink Unicorn (that is, a Pinkest possible being that does exist).

But we cannot imagine something that is Pinker than The Invisible Pink Unicorn (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being Pinker than the Pinkest possible being that can be imagined.)

Therefore, The Invisible Pink Unicorn exists.

The above is the version of the argument given by Wikipedia but with "God" replaced by "Invisible Pink Unicorn" and "Great" replaced by "Pink".The logic is thus identical in form to that of the Ontological Argument. Most people would claim that the conclusion is nonsense, therefore there must be something wrong with the argument.

There are a number of things wrong with it.

The first is the idea that there is a maximum possible pinkness/greatness. That seems to me like arguing that there is a maximum number. You imagine a maximum possible number, there's always a bigger one. Furthermore, is greatness even something that is quantifiable. Is Pele greater than Serena Williams or Fangio?

The second is the idea that being real is a property of an object that somehow enhances its other attributes. When comparing real objects, the attributes of imaginary objects all count for zero. The jeremyp Tower is made from sticky backed plastic and washing up liquid bottles. It's located in the Place de la Concorde and is 325 metres high. It's one metre taller than the Eiffel Tower. Is it the tallest tower in Paris? No. If Paris was levelled so that the tallest building left is a one story building on the Rue Morgue, would it be the tallest building in Paris? Still no. The fictional height of my tower counts for nothing in the real World. In comparison to an imaginary greatest being, I an greater than it is in the real World.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a being than which none Pinker can be imagined (that is, the Pinkest possible being that can be imagined)

Except anything that isn't invisible and even the vaguest shade of pink.

Sorry Jezzer but Dulux fucked your argument decades ago.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a being than which none Pinker can be imagined (that is, the Pinkest possible being that can be imagined).

What about Steven Pinker?

[jeremyp]

It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a being than which none Pinker can be imagined (that is, the Pinkest possible being that can be imagined)

Except anything that isn't invisible and even the vaguest shade of pink.

Sorry Jezzer but Dulux fucked your argument decades ago.

Have you got anything to say about the substantial points of my post or are you picking nits with a minor point about the example because you've got nothing? Whether the unicorn is visible or invisible, if I'd chosen "tower" and "tallness" or "Christian" and "boneheadedness" the destruction of the ontological argument remains the same.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a being than which none Pinker can be imagined (that is, the Pinkest possible being that can be imagined)

Except anything that isn't invisible and even the vaguest shade of pink.

Sorry Jezzer but Dulux fucked your argument decades ago.

Have you got anything to say about the substantial points of my post

Yes.......No matter what Pink you imagine.........Steven's Pinker.

[NicholasMarks]

I'm reading a book that was written in the late 80's and it states that this argument is still alive and kicking and philosophers, though they feel it is wrong, can't put their finger on it.

Is this so? I find this hard to believe!!!

And are there any Christians (or anyone else, but it was posited by a Christian) who still use this in their argument for the claim for the existence of God?

I reckon I can blow this argument out of the water for good.

If you want to know about Almighty God the best person to ask is Jesus Christ. He portrayed him and told us everything we need to know,...This being that God is the figure-head of all universal knowledge...mainly because he is the living voice of all that energy, all that science, and all that creativity...This is why he is known as an All Knowing God...and why we are invited to share in all that knowledge.

 

[floo]

I'm reading a book that was written in the late 80's and it states that this argument is still alive and kicking and philosophers, though they feel it is wrong, can't put their finger on it.

Is this so? I find this hard to believe!!!

And are there any Christians (or anyone else, but it was posited by a Christian) who still use this in their argument for the claim for the existence of God?

I reckon I can blow this argument out of the water for good.

If you want to know about Almighty God the best person to ask is Jesus Christ. He portrayed him and told us everything we need to know,...This being that God is the figure-head of all universal knowledge...mainly because he is the living voice of all that energy, all that science, and all that creativity...This is why he is known as an All Knowing God...and why we are invited to share in all that knowledge.

Do you have the home address/telephone number/e-mail/facebook/twitter accounts for Jesus? He must have updated as the prayer line is defunct!

[BashfulAnthony]

I'm reading a book that was written in the late 80's and it states that this argument is still alive and kicking and philosophers, though they feel it is wrong, can't put their finger on it.

Is this so? I find this hard to believe!!!

And are there any Christians (or anyone else, but it was posited by a Christian) who still use this in their argument for the claim for the existence of God?

I reckon I can blow this argument out of the water for good.

If you want to know about Almighty God the best person to ask is Jesus Christ. He portrayed him and told us everything we need to know,...This being that God is the figure-head of all universal knowledge...mainly because he is the living voice of all that energy, all that science, and all that creativity...This is why he is known as an All Knowing God...and why we are invited to share in all that knowledge.

Do you have the home address/telephone number/e-mail/facebook/twitter accounts for Jesus? He must have updated as the prayer line is defunct!

A bit like these monks who just appear and disappear!   

[NicholasMarks]

I'm reading a book that was written in the late 80's and it states that this argument is still alive and kicking and philosophers, though they feel it is wrong, can't put their finger on it.

Is this so? I find this hard to believe!!!

And are there any Christians (or anyone else, but it was posited by a Christian) who still use this in their argument for the claim for the existence of God?

I reckon I can blow this argument out of the water for good.

If you want to know about Almighty God the best person to ask is Jesus Christ. He portrayed him and told us everything we need to know,...This being that God is the figure-head of all universal knowledge...mainly because he is the living voice of all that energy, all that science, and all that creativity...This is why he is known as an All Knowing God...and why we are invited to share in all that knowledge.

Do you have the home address/telephone number/e-mail/facebook/twitter accounts for Jesus? He must have updated as the prayer line is defunct!

You are so busy condemning rather than listening Floo that you pass right over Almighty God's Wi-Fi connection. It is set up by Jesus Christ who tells us that unless we try and follow him as accurately as possible we will never contact God. Now, if we follow that instruction we find that we must put on meekness and meekness is similar to the electric attitude of 'lilies in the valley' and this is the wave-length that Almighty God...Jesus Christ...every sincere Christian, and all life, finds the most rewarding because it gives us God's finest reward being a righteous attachment to God's 'love'...'dynamic energy'...'fountain of living waters'.

[jeremyp]

It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a being than which none Pinker can be imagined (that is, the Pinkest possible being that can be imagined)

Except anything that isn't invisible and even the vaguest shade of pink.

Sorry Jezzer but Dulux fucked your argument decades ago.

Have you got anything to say about the substantial points of my post

Yes.......No matter what Pink you imagine.........Steven's Pinker.

You could have just said no.

[floo]

I'm reading a book that was written in the late 80's and it states that this argument is still alive and kicking and philosophers, though they feel it is wrong, can't put their finger on it.

Is this so? I find this hard to believe!!!

And are there any Christians (or anyone else, but it was posited by a Christian) who still use this in their argument for the claim for the existence of God?

I reckon I can blow this argument out of the water for good.

If you want to know about Almighty God the best person to ask is Jesus Christ. He portrayed him and told us everything we need to know,...This being that God is the figure-head of all universal knowledge...mainly because he is the living voice of all that energy, all that science, and all that creativity...This is why he is known as an All Knowing God...and why we are invited to share in all that knowledge.

Do you have the home address/telephone number/e-mail/facebook/twitter accounts for Jesus? He must have updated as the prayer line is defunct!

You are so busy condemning rather than listening Floo that you pass right over Almighty God's Wi-Fi connection. It is set up by Jesus Christ who tells us that unless we try and follow him as accurately as possible we will never contact God. Now, if we follow that instruction we find that we must put on meekness and meekness is similar to the electric attitude of 'lilies in the valley' and this is the wave-length that Almighty God...Jesus Christ...every sincere Christian, and all life, finds the most rewarding because it gives us God's finest reward being a righteous attachment to God's 'love'...'dynamic energy'...'fountain of living waters'.

Listening to whom? I have read the Bible many times and the nicey, nicey deity of your vivid imagination is not featured in it!

[Samuel]

If you have a spare 45 minutes there was an In Our Time episode devoted to this. It's on the radio 4 iplayer. It was good.

[BashfulAnthony]

I'm reading a book that was written in the late 80's and it states that this argument is still alive and kicking and philosophers, though they feel it is wrong, can't put their finger on it.

Is this so? I find this hard to believe!!!

And are there any Christians (or anyone else, but it was posited by a Christian) who still use this in their argument for the claim for the existence of God?

I reckon I can blow this argument out of the water for good.

If you want to know about Almighty God the best person to ask is Jesus Christ. He portrayed him and told us everything we need to know,...This being that God is the figure-head of all universal knowledge...mainly because he is the living voice of all that energy, all that science, and all that creativity...This is why he is known as an All Knowing God...and why we are invited to share in all that knowledge.

Do you have the home address/telephone number/e-mail/facebook/twitter accounts for Jesus? He must have updated as the prayer line is defunct!

You are so busy condemning rather than listening Floo that you pass right over Almighty God's Wi-Fi connection. It is set up by Jesus Christ who tells us that unless we try and follow him as accurately as possible we will never contact God. Now, if we follow that instruction we find that we must put on meekness and meekness is similar to the electric attitude of 'lilies in the valley' and this is the wave-length that Almighty God...Jesus Christ...every sincere Christian, and all life, finds the most rewarding because it gives us God's finest reward being a righteous attachment to God's 'love'...'dynamic energy'...'fountain of living waters'.

Listening to whom? I have read the Bible many times and the nicey, nicey deity of your vivid imagination is not featured in it

The quite staggering repetition of your ignorance is almost beyond description.  You have never read the Bible many times:  if you had you would realise that the love shown by Our Lord shines through.  Shame on you for your deceit!!

[Shaker]

The quite staggering repetition of your ignorance is almost beyond description. You have never read the Bible many times

I don't know if Floo has read the Bible never, once, twice or many times; I do know however that for precisely the same reason you're in no position to refute her statement.

if you had you would realise that the love shown by Our Lord shines through.  Shame on you for your deceit!!

Apart from the many times where it doesn't, of course. References (plenty of) available on request, boring as they are. No deceit involved; just the ability to read.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Even if you couldn't, Jack, countless others have

What, 100% without doubt? Why did some top philosophers say they couldn't in the late 80's then, as mentioned above. Who have done this?

Kant disposed of the ontological argument a couple of centuries ago. It is history outwith Christian apologists.

It's first disposal came with Guanilo.....Lying or ignorant antitheists accredit it to Hume.

[BashfulAnthony]

  Shaker,


"I don't know if Floo has read the Bible never, once, twice or many times; I do know however that for precisely the same reason you're in no position to refute her statement." 


I studied the subject at College; taught RE all my working life, and continue to study the subject.  I have a far greater experience of and knowledge of the Bible than Floo (or you, of course), and all that leads me to the pretty obvious conclusion that Floo talks ignorant, biased, and closed-minded nonsense about the Bible.   

   

[Shaker]

... all of which little rant, beside being a masterclass in irrelevance to the point at hand that I made, is that you don't like what Floo says about the Bible and Christianity, not that she's wrong. So what?

[BashfulAnthony]

... all of which little rant, beside being a masterclass in irrelevance to the point at hand that I made, is that you don't like what Floo says about the Bible and Christianity, not that she's wrong. So what?

Not a rant  -  usual mis-representation by you, or perhaps just a failure to understand.  And it was not i who introduced irrelevance to the thread  -  I simply respond the the comment of others.  No, I don't like what she says, nor do I accept for a second her claim to have read the Bible "many times." But my main gripe is that she merely repeats the same silly and puerile comments daily, and makes no attempt to argue her case, simply ignoring every post addressed to her.  She has not answered even one of my attempts to engage her in actual discussion.  Yes, she is wrong, and, "so what?"  Well, dear fellow, when someone is wrong you try to point it out to them, and talk it through.  With Floo that, as I said, is not possible, for her mind is totally closed to all other views.