Theli

Is that what "anti-theism" mean?
If we are mistaken then by all means, show us this "evidence".
Speaking for myself, I can't draw any conclution that would lead to god's existence based on some supposed evidence that you have hidden behind your back.

Devilnaut

John, am I to understand that you find the ontological argument for the existence of god to be a strong one?

Synaesthesia

John Galt, Jr.
WEIRD. It's like the black cross in my blind spot, I can't even see that it's not there! Amazing.

So which page is it upon which an open-minded person might find the proof to which I am blind?

Philip Osborne

Just a quick comment: I'm not sure if this is so, but I think an argument can also be considered question-begging in the event it assumes the truth of premisses that no reasonable opponent of the argument will accept. This may be so even if these premisses are not logically equivalent with the conclusion. I think that Graham Oppy has used this sense of begging the question a number of times.

Automaton

No, that would probably be the Unlimited, which some could agree are equated with God. The predicate "unlimited" in itself does not require all attributes to become unlimited, just the attribute it is predicating. So when I say being X is unlimited, it states that all its prior positive attributes (and also, existence -- I disagree with this, but existence must be in some form or another attributal for the ontological argument to work in the first place) must be in their maximal degree. If being X is a blue letterbox that happens to know God doesn't exist, then the characteristics of blue, letterbox, knowledge of God's nonexistence and existence must be in their maximal degree. There is no chips on its blue paint, there is no defects in the letterbox, it isn't uncertain in any way about its knowledge, and in no possible world would its existence be doubted.
Here we go again, where it is somehow possible for a necessary being to do unnecessary things.
Yes, I obviously know of it. But that is too boring in disproving the OA, it is more fun to use a positive existential claim.
Yes, your mind is already made up. There can be no convincing that the ontological argument is unsound, because the conclusion, and thus the base premise, has been already accepted. Abandon all hope...
This is a tool to demonstrate invalidity. True pemises, of the opposite nature, in the same "valid" logical structure, that lead to the opposite conclusion, show that the structure must therefore be invalid.
Actually it is. "Intuitive" simply means you like the premises, but don't have any reason or rationale for accepting them. Believing in an unsound argument simply on emotion or intuition, is the very definition of irrational.
This "safe-to-say" is merely an arbitrary judgement. Who's epistemic "methodology" is more "right" than someone else's? Can we judge this using the same epistemic "methodology" (guessing)? I would dispute the logical possibility of maximal-Barney-ness on grounds of denying the possibility of maximal-existence-ness (yes, I do use this as if it is a given during my discussions of the ontological argument, but that is only for the purposes of discussion), or even, in some cases, maximalness itself.
It's may very well be intuitively "wrong" to me or you, but that isn't worth the price of eggs logically. We may not lose any sleep over the existence of an omni-Barney, but that does not mean our belief of the nonexistence of such a thing would be rational, which would require an actual disproof of the concept.
This is an exact paraphrase of what I previously said. Don't you see any problem with this, at all?
And the controversies are constantly being solved, or attempts are being made on solving them, using actual reason. Otherwise, what is the point of philosophy or mathematics in the first place? To reinforce whoever's delusions of "intuitive TRUTH"? Happy day, sounds like the Dark Ages.
Do atheists have a cognitive malfunction? Do theists? Who judges this, and is it correct to state so based on intuition?
Again, who judges this, and is intuition an acceptable methodology?
Great, but this "complex theorem" would be worthless, if others in the field did not recognise that it indeed have a formal proof.
I'd ask them to show, mathematically, how 2+2 can equal anything but 4, and if they reject mathematics on some grounds, I'd ask them, then what are they doing arguing it?
I'd argue that induction is probably true, using a rational argument.
I'd ask them why "I think, therefore I am" isn't universally applicable. In fact, I wouldn't "settle" this on intuition, I'd just say there is no way of proving you wrong, so good luck to you sir. I still have no reason, except probabilstic, to deny this position though.
1. Sueoadsoepeoe, the god of infinite malevolence, exists.
2. Why? Because it is intuitive. Now go blow up that building.
And mathematics was thus irrational, but the best thing we had going at the time. Then Russel, et al., came along.
Who judges, using their intuition, which particular intuition, is the correct one?
You have admitted it is not sound. You state that the only reason you accept the conclusion, and thus also the premise, is because it merely "feels right". A feeling is not a support. An argument with unsupported premises, that is circular (which you occasionally admit, but see no problem with, because you have already accepted the premise/conclusion), is not sound. It isn't very useful for convincing nonbelievers because it is nothing more than an appeal to one's own emotion. So why are we arguing then?

St. Robert

"It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is moved is moved by another.... But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and consequently, no other mover.... Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at the first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God." - Thomas Aquinas

Here, Aquinas presents a logical theist argument within the atheistic framework of the natural world to arrive at the existence of God.

Synaesthesia

Here is Aquinas’ argument:

1)Things are in motion.
2)Motion is set in motion by something else.
3)This cannot go on forever because then there would be no first mover.
Therefore
4)There is a first mover who is God.

I would first point out that his reason for barring the non-existence of a first mover presupposes a first mover.

However, atheists often agree with Aqinas in the intuition that at some point this moving business has to get started. However it is important to note there are other alternatives to consider:

1. One unintelligent and finite first mover.
2. A network of subtle causal breakdown collectively sufficient to create the universe.
3. Other sorts of causal breakdown
4. Motion is the natural state of things and things must be set still, not set in motion!

Given these alternatives, we cannot escape the fact that his conclusion does not follow logically from the premises. Even forgetting his dubious assumptions, this argument has no force.

Theli

Synaesthesia...

Isn't this argument contradicting itself?
I mean, at P2 it assumes that motion must be set in motion by motion (mover). Something wich would make a "first mover" impossible, as that first mover must have been moving also.
Then it goes off saying (in P3) that there actually must be a first mover, and thus movement doesn't have to be set in motion by motion.
So, wich is it?

If things doesn't need a mover to be set in motion, then why do we have to assume the existence of a single first mover/creator?

Thanks for the meat, Syn...

Theli

St. Robert...

Correction. "A logical Christian argument..."

Was christianity the only religion and understanding of nature when Thomas lived? I must have missed something in history classes.

Clutch

P3 is false. See "finite universe", on the Philosophy board.