The Ontological Arugment is an attempt to define God into existence. Again, the Ontological Argument goes something like:
- God is the greatest imaginable being.
- All else being equal, a being or entity that exists is greater than one that doesn't.
- Therefore, God exists.
- Cats are the greatest imaginable pets.
- All else being equal, pets that exist are greater than those that don't
- Therefore, cats exist.
- Unicorns are the greatest imaginable creatures.
- All else being equal, creatures that exist are greater than those that don't
- Therefore, unicorns exist.
A humorous take on the Ontological Argument (Gasking's Proof) which proves that God does not exist follows:
- The creation of the universe is the greatest achievement imaginable.
- The merit of an achievement consists of its intrinsic greatness and the ability of its creator.
- The greater the handicap to the creator, the greater the achievement (would you be more impressed by Turner painting a beautiful landscape or a blind one-armed dwarf?)
- The biggest handicap to a creator would be non-existence
- Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the creation of an existing creator, we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
- Therefore, God does not exist.
Taken from http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Ontological_argument.
For more information on the Ontological Argument, please see http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/anselm.htm for more information.
The next argument that I am going to dispel is the First Cause Argument (sometimes called the Cosmological Argument). There is an internal contradiction in the First Cause Argument. One of the premises of the First Cause Argument is that everything that exists needs a cause and later in the argument an assertion is made that God doesn't need a cause. These views are inconsistant which makes the argument flawed. Another point that is incorrect in the First Cause Argument is that it assumes the first cause is God. Let's assume there is a "first cause". Would apologists still use this argument if found that this "first cause" is a single particle? The apologist has no grounds to assert that this "first cause" is necessarily a God and is a variant of the "God of the Gaps" fallacy.
The final argument is Argument from Design. Disregarding the fact evolution accounts for the complexity of life on Earth, what defines complexity? Is a pile of rocks less complex then a perfect sphere? A perfect sphere, I would argue, is more complex than a pile of rocks because of the mathematics involved in making a perfect sphere. A perfect shape or form is nonexistant in natural. The reason we recognize what is designed is from prior knowledge. In order to attribute nature as a creation of a designer, we would have to know what nature would look like if it wasn't created by a designer. Furthermore, even if we found hard evidence that nature was designed, where is the line between this and your God? This is also a special pleading argument because proponents of the Argument from Design are assuming a "who" that created nature instead of "what".
Please e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org or comment below if you have questions, concerns, or (most importantly) if you disagree. I'll be happy to start a discussion with you! Have a wonderful day!