• bloc said on Jun 03, 2007....

  logic is a funny thing that can lead to nonsense ;) For example, you can never get form point A to point B. Here's why! first, you have to go half way to B; then half way from that point. At each point you have to go half way from that point to B ad infinitum and you will never reach point B because there are an infinite number of halves.
  

• kelly said on Jun 03, 2007....

  So, in essence what you're saying is that it's turtles all the way down?  :-)

• silverwhisper said on Jun 04, 2007....

  ah yes, the ontological argument...wow but i hate it so.
  
  and yet, it gets a whole lot of utility here on SC, i find.
  
  ed

• Antimatter said on Jun 04, 2007....

  Fortunately, logic does not lead to nonsense when used properly. Calculus elegantly solved bloc’s example using infinite series. The ontological argument also fails on a number of points. What is perfect? Why must a perfect being be a supernatural intelligence that listens to our thoughts and answers prayers? Is existence really an attribute of something we can conceive?

• bloc said on Jun 04, 2007....

  "Calculus elegantly solved bloc’s example using infinite series."
  
  Yes, but would most people realize that if they haven't already learned calculus already ;)
  
  The problem is that there are many things outside the realm of logic and outside the limits of the human brain. What is perfect? Good question. Can joy exist without sadness? Does that make sadness perfection?
  

• lfbno7 said on Jun 08, 2007....

  I never read anything by Dawkins but I did see his video, I believe on Youtube, and I found it to be pretty bad.  I didn't come to it as a critic but I became one as I watched his video.  He made unsupported statements.  That is pretty much the whole video.  I didn't see any logic there.  I just saw a windbag making unsupported statements.

• Antimatter said on Jun 09, 2007....

  lfbno7: Dawkins has quite a number of videos on YouTube including a large number of interviews from various television programs, so I’m not sure which one you saw. I decided to read his book after watching some of those interviews, because I understand the difficulty of providing solid reasoning and strong sources when the interviewer keeps prompting you in a different direction.

  My impression of him after reading The God Delusion is very different than yours, lfbno7. He’s clearly passionate about the dangers he sees in religion, but his reasoning is sound, his book is chock full of sources, and he doesn’t hesitate to point out the avenues along which his argument could be improved.

• shiningstar said on Jun 09, 2007....

  Has any one read the new book "God Is Not Great?". 

• bloc said on Jun 09, 2007....

  @lfbn
  It's impossible to give a thorough argument for anything is a typical television format.
  
  @shining
  I haven't, but I'm thinking about getting it. Too many books on my "to read" list already :/
  

• Antimatter said on Jun 10, 2007....

  I actually ordered God Is Not Great off Amazon.com last week. It hasn’t arrived yet.

• shiningstar said on Sep 03, 2007....

  I hope you read the book.  It is not that I like Dawkins so much.  It is just that I think that he is on target.  Even CNN's 3 day presentation of the "Gods"  helps people to understand that organized religion is not helping us to have better lives and live in peace.  As more and more generations of living children are sacraficed to the gods of war perhaps we will wake up to the face that peace and religion can only coexhist if religion is personal and not organized into one must believe the same s all others. It is alright to believe anything,  worship a worm ,  if you will,  but when you force your beliefs on another you cross the line of peace and begin war.Peace

• lfbno7 said on Sep 03, 2007....

  Why does Dawkins call the God of the Bible sadomasochistic?  I can understand calling him sadistic but where does the masochism come in?  I don't remember God saying hurt me hurt me.  Any ideas?  Don't reach too far to make sense of it, either it's right there or it isn't.
  

• lfbno7 said on Sep 03, 2007....

  I'm in accord with Dawkins when he finds fault with our modern religious beliefs but he loses me when he argues that there can be no designer, that evolution accounts for intelligence.  I don't think it does.  I can't quite get myself to go down on my knees and worship the magic morphing amoeba, capable of splitting itself into dinosaurs and people over a mere few billion years.  I'm not impressed by the supposedly long time scale involved, and I don't think our little amoeba buddy could pull off the trick in 14 gazillion years.  I think at the end of that very long time he would merely be a very fat and complicated amoeba, unable to see, hear, smoke, or digest lactose, so at least we have one thing in common.

• shiningstar said on Sep 04, 2007....

  I would just say that the statement evolution "accounts for intelligence", perhaps could be said another way.(By me not Dawkins.I have no idea how he would explain it)The grand intelligence that created everything that makes up evolution is the Divine Intelligence that created All That Is or Ever Will Be because it is all of the parts of creation. If one makes pigs,  clouds or water out of any building material ,  it is still all the same material no matter what it looks like. I believe what Ramtha says when he tells of the creation of all of the gods(us) and how each,  individually created everything. Makes sense when one sees the infinite variety of all of the many species.  A world of any way you like it exists and billions of gods all creating would create that scene.

• lfbno7 said on Sep 04, 2007....

  I like the concept that we ourselves are creators, and that there are many creators.  That is part of what I believe.  I don't want to use the word "gods" for this purpose.  That is such a loaded word, and seems unnecessarily authoritarian and miraculous.  I'd be looking for a much more everyday, understated word to describe who we, the creators, are.  Angels?
  
  I think that we, in Heaven (if we like to use that term to define our real home), or some of us at least, are the so-called "intelligent designers" that so many here on Soul Cast refuse to believe exist.  To me, that is like doubting one's own existence.
  
  I don't believe that the creator of the universe went to the trouble to design thousands of slightly different species of beetle and mosquito.  Nor do I believe that a mindless form of evolution is capable of coming up with anything at all.  Mindless evolution could only come up with mistakes, mutations, damaged goods, disorder.
  

• shiningstar said on Sep 04, 2007....

  Well we are somewhat on the same mind-set.  I love the teachings of the Ram because his explanations make so much sense. Since  the word god has always been used to describe a creator I suppose that is why I am comfortable with using it. I know that Divine Intelligence is within all and does the work to create what we,  the people,  the gods,  focus our minds and will upon. This is no different than what Jesus taught when he said it is done "as ye believe". It is no different than the book and movie "The Secret",  or what Earnest Holmes teaches in his book "The Science of Mind".All people are competitive to some extent and I can see everyone competing to get the best color,  the most unusual design,  the fastest flyer,  the highest flyer,  the brightest color and so on and so on into infinity.Peace

Comment on "The Ontological Argument"

Currently tagged	logic god religion philosophy atheism ontological argument Dawkins the windbag Bible Jesus (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously