Ontological Argument Against God Existing

From Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion", page 83: Douglas Gasking's jokey use of the ontological argument to proove that God **doesn't** exist.

But what is the "ontological argument"? It was originally proposed by St. Anselm in 1078, but Dawkins sums it up on page 80 thus:

"Bet you I can prove God exists"
--"Bet you can't"
"Right then, imagine the most perfect perfect perfect thing possible"
--"Okay, now what?"
"Now, is the perfect perfect perfect thing real? Does it exist?"
--"No, it's only in my mind"
"But if it was real it would be even more perfect, because a really really perfect thing would have to be better than a silly old imaginary thing. So I've proved that God exists. Nur nurny Nur nur. All atheists are fools".


Dawkins then quotes Anselm, instead of paraphrasing, and this is what Anselm said (pg 81):

"Hence, even the fool is convinced that something exists in the understanding, at least, than which nothing greater can be conceived. For, when he hears of this, he understands it. And whatever is understood, exists in the understanding. And assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For, suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater"

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

• God
• Anselm
• Dawkins
• Ontological
• Proof

[hybrid572]

1 God does not exist, although there's no real way to prove it either way.

2 Richard Dawkins demonstrates a clear lack of logic and common sense, but is popular among atheists because he is preaching to the converted.

3 Listing a sense of dodgy-at-best premises to come to a preconceived conclusion is pretty much the opposite of what we define as a logical argument.

4 Conclusion: Dawkins-ism is the new Christianity

[BryanAJParry]

@hybrid572 1. Video has a picture of Richard Dawkins book cover. 2. The description says this argument IS NOT RD's but is mentioned by him in his book. 3. RD specifically states, as does the description, that the "argument" is meant as a jokey parody. 4. a big FAIL to everyone who keeps thinking it is serious or that it is RD's argument in any case.

[Jcolinsol]

I love the idea of human beings trying to logically deduce the existence or non-existence of god. I bet the hilarity of it makes God giggle.

[BryanAJParry]

@Jcolinsol I dout God, being a God and not a mammal, would LAUGH at anything. I dout he even can.

[AgApE010]

A non-existent being creating is logically incoherent. There is no possible world where a non-existent being exists.

Your brain = broken.

[BryanAJParry]

@AgApE010 Once again, someone who is incapable of following a simple line or argument (or reading a video description). The above argument is (1) not even mine, and (2) meant to be jocular and satirical.

Cheers

[AgApE010]

@MrSwofis

No, they have not. The premise that you're thinking of is that concerning virtual particles coming into existence spontaneously out of a quantum vacuum. However:

There are different interpretations of what is going on here by quantum physicists. Secondly, a quantum vacuum is not "nothing."

[MrSwofis]

@AgApE010 Impossible is impossible. Scientists already made elementary particles out of nothing. Also, they promised to create a god in the nearest future ))

[StygianDysnomia]

It's charming, but contradicts itself..

[bgiv2010]

Also, yeah the only conclusion is that a deity that does exist would never be as impressive as a deity that does not exist...but then again, who cares?

[bgiv2010]

I'd like to think that a creation is considered more impressive, the higher creation-to-creator skill ratio is.

That is, it would be more impressive for a human to create the universe than it would be for a deity to create a handwritten letter...

Also, one must consider the creative skill of the observer because a handwritten letter would be more impressive to a child than to me.

Nice vid otherwise!

[bgiv2010]

@hybrid572 Also, no one is trying to prove that God doesn't exist...at least, it would be intellectually dishonest to try to do so. We are simply poking our fingers through the holes in the "proofs" that it does exist and saying, "What about this one? Can you fill this one up, too?"

We merely try to make sure any argument for the existence of God is strong and logical because really, who wouldn't want to live in a universe where a deity exists?

[bgiv2010]

@BryanAJParry Oh but remember, God can do anything!!! lol

[lfzadra]

@hybrid572

1 - Dawkins never said this, his argument is probabilistic, which proves that theists can´t read properly.

2 - Dawkins extracts several arguments of his book from thinkers like Hume and Kant. Dumb heretics, anyway. All are burning now.

3 - The argument is not stated as a syllogism in Dawkins book, he never made a "list" of premises followed by a conclusion. Craig is a straw man maniac preaching to delusional morons.

4 - Conclusion: Christianity is the same old stupidity.

[huruey]

@huruey The conclusion that a being which exists does not exist, as you pointed out in the comment to which this is a reply.

[NewVinland]

@huruey What is the logically incoherent conclusion?