I honestly did not know what that acronym represented. But I have to say this......disproving the Ontological proof is pretty impressive. You should feel you are a genius. Brilliant men have been working on it for centuries. Congratulation on demonstrating either 1) You are smarter than all previous humans or 2) You haven't really shown either premise to be faulty.

Fine Jim, but the point I was actually trying to make was this:

When does it become irrational to allow your feelings to impact your belief system? To be rational, must everything you believe be based on objective scientific fact? Are morality and ethics real, and if so, how does one objectively quantify them?

P: I am thinking of a being than which there can be no greater.
P: A being that exists is greater than a being that does not exist.
C: The being of which I am thinking.......exists.

"Exists" does not designate a property. It is what you're setting out to prove. Blue, or furry are properties.

God is not a being which there can be no greater. By your own biblical texts, god is petty and vengeful and seemingly non-omnipotent as he/she/it would already know men's actions ahead of time, yet lets them act, and then punishes them for those acts. God is unable to create perfect humans. Nature is flawed. No, not greater by any stretch of the imagination.

edit: A being that is cruel that exists (non-fictional) is arguably not greater than a being that does not exist (fictional).

What is with you and this intellect thing?

Feelings, beliefs...both sound like the same thing. I'm confused by what you're asking. Rational, in my off-the-cuff dictionary, is using the best available facts to make a decision, without the inputs of feelings, or emotions. I'm sure a real dictionary could do this more justice. :)

edit: let's not play in the moral absolutism/relativism playground, OK? It's been done on ITAG and is too far off topic. Just let me go back to some work I have to do for my day job. :)

Superman was beaten up by the nerdy intellectual kids when he was still on Krypton.

Exactly. According to the Bible there were four people on the planet and there was a murder. A defect. 25% of the populous was faulty. Now if GM created a car that killed 25% of owners it would be recalled and scrapped pronto. But no, God just let it continue.

You must be thinking of Ford. ;)

Because the Christian/ Muslim God believers want to rule the planet and have proven they will kill, torture and invade nations to do it.

lol

Priceless.

It is truly pathetic that you feel these observations weaken the argument.

Exists does indeed designate a property. Some of the things we imagine have this property, and some do not. The Ontological Argument, abbreviated to the point where the argument no longer exists......abbreviated to the point of a single statement, is that God's essense requires His existence. But again, that statement is not the Ontological Argument. Your assertion that "exists" is not a property is, as I mentioned, obviously and clearly not correct. But......with this notion you have, you are going down the path of what I consider to be the most potentially damaging argument. To find out where you would need to go with this in order to actually raise a question about the second premise, read Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. It is probably the most famous of attacks on the Ontological Argument, but you are nowhere near elucidating it. And BTW, while I find the attack brilliant, I find it less than convincing. Similar to yours, it is a "semantics" argument. It has more to do with grammar than logic.

Next you say we're using the wrong definition of God. We should use your definition of God, which includes your interpetation of God's decisions as recounted by various second and third and fourth hand observations. This doesn't even get the consolation prize. With all due respect, we're going to continue using the common and ordinary definition of a Supreme Being.

As I say, the Ontological Argument is almost universally dismissed out of hand when someone first reads it. The interesting feature of this argument is that the more you attempt to actually refute it (unlike what I see above), the more you end up scratching your chin. You've spent enough time with this argument to still be dismissing it, but just not enough time to assemble the wisdom to start rubbing your chin.

OK, you're right...I'm no Immanuel Kant. So what? BTW, I didn't dismiss it out of hand. If I said it was mental masturbation, that might be dismissing it out of hand. :)

What gave you that idea? The ontological arguments have been soundly disproven, centuries ago. A simple Google search or even Wikipedia will tell you that.

(I’ve been too busy to partake in this thread recently. I’ve peeked at it from time to time, but have not read the entire thread. I have a moment of time right now to comment on the ontological proof.)

This proof was shown to be false in the ITAG thread. Using a similar argument, you can “prove” that god does NOT exist:

1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.


Here is your argument in the form you have given it:

P: I am thinking of a being than which there can be no greater.
P: A being that exists is greater than a being that does not exist.
C: The being of which I am thinking.......exists.

This argument is missing the link from thinking about something to that something actually existing. I can think about anything I want, it doesn’t mean that thing exists:

P: I am thinking about a great unicorn
P: A unicorn that exists is greater than a unicorn that doesn’t exist
C: The great unicorn I am thinking about exists

Or

P: I am thinking about winning a really big lottery
P: Winning a lottery is bigger than not winning the lottery
C: I have won a really big lottery.

For these things to be true, there needs to be a link between thinking about something and that thing existing:

P: I am thinking about a great unicorn
P: A unicorn that exists is greater than a unicorn that doesn’t exist
P: Thinking about unicorns can cause them to exist
C: The great unicorn I am thinking about exists

And

P: I am thinking about winning a really big lottery
P: Winning a lottery is bigger than not winning the lottery
P: Thinking about winning the lottery can cause me to win one
C: I have one the lottery.

The ontological argument has no such link. It would look like this:

P: I am thinking of a being than which there can be no greater.
P: A being that exists is greater than a being that does not exist.
P: Thinking about a being can cause it to exist
C: The being of which I am thinking.......exists.

The reason none of these work is because thinking about something does not cause it to exist.

Given this, the ontological proof that god does NOT exist seems stronger than the ontological argument that he DOES exist.

And no, I am not smarter than all previous humans and no, I haven’t shown either premise to be faulty. I have merely reiterated what others who have already disproven this have said, that a premise (thinking about something can cause it to exist) is missing.

Ok, so here we have it. Confirmation that at least this one atheist's motivation is past transgressions made by man in the name of God.

Now, here is the next question, and please answer truthfully.

What bearing does the actual existence of God have on any discussion of what man may have done in the name of organized religion?

Jim, you remove faith in God from the rational realm because it is based on a feeling rather than objective scientific proof. I am curious if you hold all of your beliefs to the same standard. If not, why are feelings about God less rational than those regarding ethics or morality?

Kang, again you are posting from a biased position. ( you do not believe there can be a God )

The points you make, make no sense.
How do you come up with the idea of a disabilty or handicap?
You make a false statement and then build upon it.


Unicorns? Lotteries?


KT

Each group thinks their god(s) exist(s), and is/are the only correct god(s). The worship of other god(s) is deemed sinful and must be eradicated. Other than that...no worries. :)

I remove faith in god because there is no evidence that one exists. Do you remove faith in Odin, or Thor, or Ra? How 'bout Zenu?

Thanks Kang, as I said, I'm no Kant. But then our Superman is no Kal-el.