|
CADman904
Abortion Clinic Builder (5)
No Avatar
Posts: 399
|
Ontological Argument (March 18, 2005, 03:28:45 PM) |
 |
Right now I am reading through Michael Martin's book Atheism - A philosophical Justification. The first sentence on the chapter regarding the ontological argument reads:
quote:
| The ontological argument is an attempt to prove the existence of God by simply analysing the concept of God. |
As a conceptualist I find this argument to be in trouble before even attempting to begin such an analysis. As the argument from non-cognitivism shows the concept god is problematic. One cannot arrive at an argument if the concept is devoid of meaning.
Martin discusses existence as a predicate for god in his analysis of Anselm's argument. Again, as a conceptualist with an epistemology built upon an axiomatic concept such as existence further damages the ontological argument. Conceptually, the units that make up the concept existence are all existents. The concept is purely materialist in nature. Existence is not an attribute of existents - existents are all "attributes" of existence.
The claim that existence is an attribute of god is both cognitviely meaningless and false.
When the Israelites replaced El with his son Yhvh it was only a matter of time before Yhvh's son would one day replace him. |
 Status: logged off |
  |
| Order of replies: first reply last :: first reply first |
CADman904
Abortion Clinic Builder (5)
No Avatar
Posts: 399
|
Attributing perfection to God (March 18, 2005, 04:18:52 PM) |
|
Reading further into Martin's chapter on the ontological argument it occurs to me that concept "perfect" or "perfection" as attributed to god suffers from two problems that I can see so far.
1. By what standard does one measure the perfection of a deity?
2. Perfection as a mode of existence does not make sense apart from a conceptual being applying it to a categorical purpose. One does not say that something is perfect apart from a purpose.
When the Israelites replaced El with his son Yhvh it was only a matter of time before Yhvh's son would one day replace him. |
| Status: logged off |
|
Franc28
Administrator (X)
Posts: 508
|
RE: Ontological Argument (March 18, 2005, 04:44:32 PM) |
|
Yes, of course. I've asked Gastrich repeatedly in our debate to define what he means by "God is perfect". He failed. They cannot answer the question because it is inherently circular.
|
| Status: logged off |
  |
CADman904
Abortion Clinic Builder (5)
No Avatar
Posts: 399
|
RE: Ontological Argument (March 18, 2005, 05:15:39 PM) |
|
I remembered that I bought your handbook to atheist apologetics some time back and found that you explained similar problems with the ontological argument... Martin repeadetly shows how a lack of specificity allows for pretty much any "perfect" entity to exist.
When the Israelites replaced El with his son Yhvh it was only a matter of time before Yhvh's son would one day replace him. |
| Status: logged off |
|
Franc28
Administrator (X)
Posts: 508
|
RE: Ontological Argument (March 18, 2005, 06:45:09 PM) |
|
Right, precisely.
|
| Status: logged off |
|
