The Ontological Argument and the Loch Ness monster

[Kilbourne]

What you say and said before that “something” must exist - which is too vague to be of any help.

But that is not a logical necessity.

The proposition “Something must exist” is a metaphysical truth. It most certainly is a logically necissity. We actually can say it is unconditionally necessary.

The null-world is just as free from logical contradictions as our present existence. Nevertheless to say that “something” must exist in all the possible non-null worlds is true, but meaningless.

To say that something or other must exist is not meaningless. Granted there is no information about what specific concrete entities are in a given world, but to say that there is something or other therein conveys some information and is meaningful. This is true of all metaphysical statements which say something true about every thing. Such statements just don’t provide any specific or concrete information.

 

[Kilbourne]

And so I think the ontological argument is still viable. And it seems that conceiving of Deity as the Whole of Reality is key to preserving essential components of it. The WOR overcomes the charge that Greatness is nonsensical and demonstrates why some existence is necessary.

 

[East_Anglican]

Anselm’s ontological argument is that the world is good therefore there must be a God.

Dawkins calls it infantile and then says that the world is bad (earthquakes etc) so there can’t be a God.

So he speaks against the method and then uses a reworking of the thing to back himself.

If Athiests don’t use a reworking of Anselms Ontological approach they use a reworking of Thomas Aquinas’ five ways

Has anyone else noticed this?

Why can’t Athiests think up some methods of their own?

 

[Leela]

Anselm’s ontological argument is that the world is good therefore there must be a God.

Dawkins calls it infantile and then says that the world is bad (earthquakes etc) so there can’t be a God.

So he speaks against the method and then uses a reworking of the thing to back himself.

If Athiests don’t use a reworking of Anselms Ontological approach they use a reworking of Thomas Aquinas’ five ways

Has anyone else noticed this?

Why can’t Athiests think up some methods of their own?

Neither Dawkins or anyone else I have ever heard of thinks that they possess a proof of the lack of existence of God (or unicorns or fairies or …). It is generally accepted that the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven.

 

[East_Anglican]

Neither Dawkins or anyone else I have ever heard of thinks that they possess a proof of the lack of existence of God (or unicorns or fairies or …). It is generally accepted that the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven.

After being a Christian for over twenty years I asure you that there are those who claim that they can prove God doesn’t exist.

I see you are using the classic unicorns and fairies line.

How many people have you heard of who have developed a belief in the tooth fairy in adulthood?

 

[1holycatholic]

It is generally accepted that the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven.

No, it’s not.