I'm here.
And I miss you all. Hope all is well in Colorado. UCONN is a very solid school. I am pleased to say that the classes are incredibly challenging. Particualarly advanced logic. Let me just say that Set Theory is nuts. I don't normally use the terminology I am about to use out of respect for Dr. Lewis's personal gripes... but... Set Theory is blowing my mind. :) And just imagine taking 4 classes each of Obitts difficulty level, WITH required papers, all at the same time. That's what I'm doing right now. ...it's a damn good thing I think this stuff is important. :)
Hey, on another (yet related) note. A friend of mine here in the department just tossed me this "revised" style of ontological argument AGAINST God's existence. I offered a couple early responses. My main objection was that I had a problems with premise 3. I'll list them for you in a bit, but I am curious as to what your objections (if any) would be against the argument -- I am sure there are other places to hit it... where are they?
Thanks guys. Here it is:
1. If God exists, then he is a perfect being.
2. Being perfect entails (instead of existence here) a knock down logical proof of your existence, because, after all, it would be better to have an absolute knock down logical proof of your existence than not, and so, anything that's perfect will have this.
3. There is no knock down logical proof of God's existence (this is evidenced by the fact that there are some reasonable, intellegent people who have thought about it and do not believe in his existence)
4. therefore God does not exist, or he is not perfect.
BJ's PS, my friend mentioned that her point here was not to prove God's nonexistence but to show that arguments of this type (which she thinks the ontological falls under) are really just "slight of hand" style "tricks".
Thanks for any thoughts you have.
Hey, on another (yet related) note. A friend of mine here in the department just tossed me this "revised" style of ontological argument AGAINST God's existence. I offered a couple early responses. My main objection was that I had a problems with premise 3. I'll list them for you in a bit, but I am curious as to what your objections (if any) would be against the argument -- I am sure there are other places to hit it... where are they?
Thanks guys. Here it is:
1. If God exists, then he is a perfect being.
2. Being perfect entails (instead of existence here) a knock down logical proof of your existence, because, after all, it would be better to have an absolute knock down logical proof of your existence than not, and so, anything that's perfect will have this.
3. There is no knock down logical proof of God's existence (this is evidenced by the fact that there are some reasonable, intellegent people who have thought about it and do not believe in his existence)
4. therefore God does not exist, or he is not perfect.
BJ's PS, my friend mentioned that her point here was not to prove God's nonexistence but to show that arguments of this type (which she thinks the ontological falls under) are really just "slight of hand" style "tricks".
Thanks for any thoughts you have.
posted by BJS at
12:08:00 AM
4 Comments:
Ahh..."the god of the philosophers" (grin). Clearly God is perfect, but I think ontological arguments that follow Descartes' form in beginning at this point are flawed from the beginning. These, to me, do seem to be rabbit out of hat exercises.
I think that ontological arguments beginning with God as "that than which none greater can be conceived" (a la Anselm) or as the "greatest possible being" a la Plantinga's modal version are far more likely to be sustainable. Though I do doubt that anyone would ever be persuaded by them.
Premise two is the albatross I think. And perhaps the walrus too (coo coo ka joo). I fail to see how a irrefutable (read: indisputable) logical proof of one's existence is either possible (for *anything*) or, if it is possible, is a great-making property.
I think the ontological argument seems to establish that if it is possible that God exists, then God must exist, since God (as a necessary being) must exist in all possible worlds. So, by granting the possibility of God's existence, the unbeliever may have admitted more than she intends.
In fact, Christians should disagree with this premise for a couple of theological reasons:
1. Pascal had a good point about God being evident to those who seek him earnestly. If God's existence was irrefutable, then we could not respond to him in faith.
2. Romans 1:20 - God's existence is evident, but the world supresses that knowledge in unrighteousness.
Just some quick thoughts.
Paul.
By
Paul, at 8:52 AM
BJ,
Glad all is going well! A few thoughts from a measly third semester student. lol
2. Is very unclear on what a knock down logical proof entails. If it means that a perfect being entails and undoubtable proof for its existence then I think that this is a flawed argument. Just because an undoubtable proof is not available does not entail there is no God or that he is not perfect. But hey what the heck does knock down logical proof mean anyways.
3. Is also weak. There were some people that were intelligent that thought the world was flat too but that proved to turn out wrong! Just because people that are smart believe stuipid things does not mean that the opposite of their beliefs are automaticallly false.
4. seems odd and perhaps this is just my logic background which is weak. However, what is the interaction between God's existence and perfectness? If god exists then by deffinition he is perfect. Thus, God could not exist apart from being perfect. The existence of God without being perfect does not make sense. Thus, God can not exist if he is not perfect and if he is not perfect then he does not exist. Perhaps this is what they mean by or? But this could be crappy logic, not sure.
Just some thoughts...
Chad Styles
By
Anonymous, at 12:34 PM
On premise 2: Is it possible to imagine a perfect being who chooses (for reasons unknown to us) not to reveal a "knock down" proof of existence? If so, premise 2 is false.
In other words, premise 2 is more about our perception or our ability to discern the existence of God and less about "necessary" qualities of God. For this reason, it misses the point of the ontological argument entirely.
By
Darrell, at 5:09 PM
apart from a basic distrust of logic and philosophy, I found this quite clever, touching the classic question: If God exist, why does he not make it easier to believe in him.
This question, again, leads to interesting answers.
By
Geir Skårland, at 11:48 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home