Ontological Argument For The Existence Of God

Science & Reason on Facebook: http://tinyurl.com/ScienceReason

Ontological Argument For The Existence Of God (The Atheist Experience #588 with Russell Glasser, Tracie Harris & Charity Spiers).

---
Please subscribe to Science & Reason:
• http://www.youtube.com/Best0fScience
• http://www.youtube.com/ScienceMagazine
• http://www.youtube.com/ScienceTV
• http://www.youtube.com/FFreeThinker
---

An ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT for the existence of God attempts the method of a priori proof, which uses intuition and reason alone. In the context of the Abrahamic religions, ontological arguments were first proposed by the Medieval philosophers, Avicenna (in The Book of Healing) and Anselm of Canterbury (in his Proslogion). Important variations were developed by later philosophers like Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi, René Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz, Norman Malcolm, Charles Hartshorne, and Alvin Plantinga. A modal-logic version of the argument was devised by the mathematician Kurt Gödel.

The ontological argument has been a controversial topic in philosophy. Many philosophers, including Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and Gottlob Frege, have openly criticized it. Among Islamic philosophers, Al-Ghazali, Averroes and Mulla Sadra criticised Avicenna's argument in varied ways, and Mulla Sadra put forward a substitute argument.

The argument examines the concept of God and argues that if we can conceive of God he must exist. The argument is often criticised as committing a bare assertion fallacy, as it offers no supportive premise other than qualities inherent to the unproven statement. This is also called a circular argument, because the premise relies on the conclusion, which in turn relies on the premise.

The differences among the argument's principal versions arise mainly from using different concepts of God as the starting point. Anselm, for example, starts with the notion of God as a being than which no greater can be conceived, while Descartes starts with the notion of God as being maximally perfect, or having all perfections.

More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument_for_the_existence_of_God
More: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Ontological_argument

What is The Atheist Experience?

The Atheist Experience is a weekly cable access television show in Austin, Texas, geared at an atheist and non-atheist audience. The Atheist Experience is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin (ACA), a nonprofit educational corporation to develop and support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing and friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of state-church separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists and to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.

http://www.atheist-experience.com/
http://www.atheist-community.org/
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/the-atheist-experience
http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/
http://www.nonprophetsradio.com/
http://www.atheist-community.org/donate/
Wiki: http://www.ironchariots.org/
Fan club: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=20603369467&ref=ts
Cartoons: http://www.atheist-community.org/atheisteve/
E-mail: tv@atheist-community.org
.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Ontological
• Argument
• For
• The
• Existence
• Of
• God
• Atheist
• Experience
• 588
• Atheists
• Atheism
• Christianity
• Christians
• Religion
• Evolution
• Theory
• Science
• Islam
• Islamic
• Muslim
• Intelligent
• Design
• ID
• Religious
• Faith
• Belief
• Bible
• Jesus
• Christ
• Satan
• Hell
• Catholic
• Quran
• Koran
• Terror
• Young
• Earth
• Creation
• Creationists
• Creationism
• Reason
• Delusion
• Secular
• Coalition
• American
• Humanists
• Matt
• Dillahunty
• Tracie
• Harris
• Charity
• Spiers
• ACA
• Community
• Austin
• Texas
• Freethinker
• FFreeThinker

[kaliber1234]

Wow. This is a disservice to modern philosophers, Anselm, and free thinking people everywhere. I have no problem with people dismissing the argument, but to so freely misrepresent the argument and so illogically debunk the argument is a disgrace. I guess it survived hundreds of years and is still heavily debated by great minds because the average layperson can say unicorns exist so they exist. These people remind me of people that would laugh at you at church for asking legitimate questions.

[emailpobox666]

@TimelessApologist Wow you can cut and paste . Can you walk and chew gum at the same time. that than which nothing greater can be thought Really?Omniscience omnipotence and omni-benevolence are incoherent combined concepts.

[emailpobox666]

@TimelessApologist "On Oppy’s Objections to the Modal Perfection Argument," I can post many other sources. Leave it to a theist to ignore anything that the find unpleasant.

[emailpobox666]

@TimelessApologist Idiot really.? Incoherent definition of maximal greatness . Congratulation on defining god into existence. Idiot. Perhaps you should read something other than the works of apologist.

[TimelessApologist]

@emailpobox666

No one has refute Maydole's modal perfect you abject dolt.

Graham Oppy gave up in the 2003 exchange and then complained about theists making too good of arguments LOL

Also who gives a shit about how many scientists believe in God. God = philosophy of religion

[TimelessApologist]

@emailpobox666 d=that than which nothing can be thought to be greater U= is in the understanding R = is in reality G = Can be thought to be greater than 1. g=d 2. U(d) Assume atheism: 3. ~R(d) 4. (x)(U(x) & ~R(x) --> Ey(G(y)(x)) 5. (U(d) & ~R(d) --> Ey(G(y)(d)) 6. U(d) & ~R(d) 6. Ey(G(y)(d)) 6 is contradiction by meaning of terms, therefore we reject assumption and R(d). Refute

[TimelessApologist]

Ah no wikipedia this should be fun, 1. q⊃◻q 2. ◻q∨~◻q 3. ~◻q ⊃ ◻~◻q 4. ◻q ∨ ◻~◻q 5. ◻~◻q ⊃ ◻~q 6. ◻q∨◻~q 7. ~◻~q 8. ◻q 9. ◻q⊃q 10. q q = God exist Refute village atheists

[emailpobox666]

@Gericho49 But a recent survey published in the leading science journal Nature conclusively showed that the National Academy of Science is anti-God to the core. A survey of all 517 NAS members in biological and physical sciences resulted in just over half responding. 72.2% were overtly atheistic, 20.8% agnostic, and only 7.0% believed in a personal God.t.

[emailpobox666]

@Gericho49 I was hoping that you would like to debate the definition of maximal greatness not the absurd debate over necessary. If you can't see that you're wrong them it would be pointless to argument that the definition of Maximal greatness that the modal perfection argument is incoherent . this argument is superficial while the coherence or incoherence of maximal greatness is at a different level

[emailpobox666]

@Gericho49 The biggest problem with the modal perfection OA is the incoherent definition of maximal greatness. the anti OA is logically valid and proves that god doesn't exists so theist step it up with Maydoyle's modal perfection argument . But you hve to realize that your defination which you've gotten from a youtube video is incorrect