Go back
Ontological argument

Ontological argument

Spirituality

Vote Up
Vote Down

Im not saying God doesnt exist, but what the **** is up with this argument? god exists because we can DEFINE Him?" can someone make this credible to me, or reinforce my view that it is ridiculous please
maybe Anselm was having a bad day?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by mazziewag
Im not saying God doesnt exist, but what the **** is up with this argument? god exists because we can DEFINE Him?" can someone make this credible to me, or reinforce my view that it is ridiculous please
maybe Anselm was having a bad day?
I also wonder if people laughed at him the first time he formulated it.

(and then put on a very serious face trying to find out where the hell is his formal mistake)

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Palynka
I also wonder if people laughed at him the first time he formulated it.

(and then put on a very serious face trying to find out where the hell is his formal mistake)
I don't think Anselm was trying to "prove" the existence of God to a skeptic/atheist.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by mazziewag
Im not saying God doesnt exist, but what the **** is up with this argument? god exists because we can DEFINE Him?" can someone make this credible to me, or reinforce my view that it is ridiculous please
maybe Anselm was having a bad day?
The concept that it is possible to DEFINE something that is by definition unknowable is what is rediculous.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by twhitehead
The concept that it is possible to DEFINE something that is by definition unknowable is what is rediculous.
How is God "unknowable by definition"??

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I don't think Anselm was trying to "prove" the existence of God to a skeptic/atheist.
What was he trying to do?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Palynka
What was he trying to do?
Don't know really. He certainly goes on to use his definition of God to derive other attributes of God.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Don't know really. He certainly goes on to use his definition of God to derive other attributes of God.
That's what I meant. I mean, do you know anyone who read it for the first time and the first reaction wasn't: what the hell?!?

(Ok, without the profanity 😉)

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Palynka
That's what I meant. I mean, do you know anyone who read it for the first time and the first reaction wasn't: what the hell?!?

(Ok, without the profanity 😉)
Probably not. It wasn't even well-received within the Church (Aquinas, for instance, was a notable critic).

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Probably not. It wasn't even well-received within the Church (Aquinas, for instance, was a notable critic).
Aquinas, now there's an interesting scholar. Have you read his Summa Theologiae? Is his writing a heavy read or is it clear and fluent?

I've been curious about it for a long time.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Palynka
Aquinas, now there's an interesting scholar. Have you read his Summa Theologiae? Is his writing a heavy read or is it clear and fluent?

I've been curious about it for a long time.
Provided you're reasonably clear on your Aristotle and Plato, it's not particularly heavy.

You can read the Summa online at

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by mazziewag
god exists because we can DEFINE Him?"
Some of the ontological arguments aren't that ridiculous. But I don't know too many people who think any of them are persuasive.

Check out the "Hegelian" ontological argument:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/