Ontological argument=teleogical

[thinkandmull]

**I have to say, I really like Descarte’s Meditations. I think they are given a bad rap by Catholic thinkers since, but I think they are very helpful, especially for people who struggle with phsychological doubts about there existence. Check out this:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/

The argument has the same rational intuition that the teleological argument has. Chaos may be order in itself, but disorder simply to us. But the mind seeks with intuition to understand something deeper in the world. The same can happen when you doubt the existence of the world, as Descartes shows. Even Aquinas teaches that we understand according to the mode of our intellect. I don’t believe the Church teaches that we can prove the existence of God like a Euclid demonstration. Counter arguments DO stand before us plain as day. It takes common sense reasoning to see the truth behind the minds veils.

A side note. Heisenber’s uncertainty principle states the we can measure the location of a subatomis particle, OR its speed, but not BOTH at the same time. When we try, the particle disappears, as if it can tell what we are trying to do. God right before their eyes?**

 

[Adamgu_Dalibi]

I haven’t given it a thorough read and probably won’t (because that much text makes my eyes hurt), but the only sensible objection I’ve ever seen raised against Anselm’s ontological argument is that existence isn’t a perfection. The problem with that view is that it’s always made by people perfectly happy to exist, and who certainly behave as if it is.

A side note- If you want to see God right before your eyes, give your mother a hug. It’s much more enjoyable than making sub-atomic particles disappear.

“I plead with you! Never, ever give up on hope, never doubt, never tire, and never become discouraged. Be not afraid.”
“If He asks much of you, it is because He knows you can give much.”

• St Pope John Paul II

 

[inocente]

Descartes’ argument doesn’t work for me. It relies on intuition rather than logic, but he is too clever by half, as elsewhere his demon argument tells us to doubt all things which can’t be justified by logic. The clear intuition might only be the result of his demon planting it in us.

Also it’s a bit of a non.argument to claim that those who don’t possess the intuition are confused when they may just be immune to the demon.

btw The uncertainty principle is often confused with observer effects, but I think it is due simply to the wave-like nature of matter, which is an example of where intuition leads us astray. There is a straight-forward mathematical trade-off between trying to localize the wave-packet and getting its momentum. - hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/uncer.html#c2

 

[thinkandmull]

Well people speak of the intuition of the cosmological argument

Detriech von Hildebrand said in his book the Devastated Vineyard that there is nothing unorthodox about Descartes. I think it IS rational to wonder whether there is something bad in control of the world, and argue against it ; the Matrix brings this to mind.