tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-298531568883958258.post3556416545482834569..comments2023-05-15T10:52:16.192-04:00Comments on SecularStudent: A Journey Through College: Refuting the Previous Post from Two Days Ago!SecularStudenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10184807596604371610noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-298531568883958258.post-5777309927940344302011-03-18T11:04:43.490-04:002011-03-18T11:04:43.490-04:00You have these arguments completely wrong.
There ...You have these arguments completely wrong.<br /><br />There is no such thing as "the" ontological argument. There are multiple ontological arguments. Anselm wrote two versions, Descartes wrote two versions, Godel has one, and so on. And philosophers are always coming out with new ones. Robert Maydole published one in the peer-reviewed journal Philo in 2003. Were you aware of this?<br /><br />"The first premise, "God is the greatest imaginable being", isn't demostrated and entirely subjective. "<br /><br />The first premise does not need to be demonstrated because it isn't trying to prove God's existence in the very first premise. Do I need to demonstrate that unicorns have a single horn? No. A horse having a single horn is what we mean when we say "unicorn". Similarly, when we say "God" with a capital G, we are referring to an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator of the universe, who is the greatest conceivable being. All it's D&D attributes are maxed out.<br /><br />And so the idea of "greatness" is inherent in the idea of God, like "a single horn" is inherent in the idea of a unicorn. In contrast, "greatest conceivable animal" is NOT inherent in the idea of a unicorn.<br /><br />And the parody does not work because it has a logically impossible premise: "one who created everything while not existing." <br /><br />On to the cosmological argument:<br /><br />"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. "<br /><br />No cosmological argument has EVER argued that everything that exists needs a cause. Thomistic cosmological arguments argue that there must be an unmoved mover in every causal chain, not back in time, but deeper into reality right here and now. Leibnizian arguments assert that there is a causal principle that applies to all contingent facts, but not necessary ones. And kalam arguments apply a causal principle to things that begin to exist.<br /><br />Finally, biological design arguments have indeed been done away with by Darwin, but fine-tuning arguments are still around and still being debated. <br /><br />I would take issue with this statement:Martinnoreply@blogger.com