 | La entrevista de Tula Rodirguez en Enemigos Intimos 1/6 Tenemos la entrevista completa en www.chismezaso.com |
 | Ontological Argument Against God Existing From Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion", page 83: Douglas Gasking's jokey use of the ontological argument to proove that God **doesn't** exist. But what is the "ontological argument"? It was originally proposed by St. Anselm in 1078, but Dawkins sums it up on page 80 thus: "Bet you I can prove God exists" --"Bet you can't" "Right then, imagine the most perfect perfect perfect thing possible" --"Okay, now what?" "Now, is the perfect perfect perfect thing real? Does it exist?" --"No, it's only in my mind" "But if it was real it would be even more perfect, because a really really perfect thing would have to be better than a silly old imaginary thing. So I've proved that God exists. Nur nurny Nur nur. All atheists are fools". Dawkins then quotes Anselm, instead of paraphrasing, and this is what Anselm said (pg 81): "Hence, even the fool is convinced that something exists in the understanding, at least, than which nothing greater can be conceived. For, when he hears of this, he understands it. And whatever is understood, exists in the understanding. And assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For, suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater" |
 | The Modal Ontological Argument (Part 1 of 8) DESIGNATION: Philosophy of Religion 2 - Natural Theology 1.1 TITLE: The Modal Ontological Argument (Part 1 of 8) AUTHOR: Rayndeon (also known as "Dante Alighieri") DATE: December 1, 2007 DESCRIPTION: This video critically examines the modern modal ontological argument for the existence of God. SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: http://analyticabstraction.blogspot.com/2007/11/philosophy-of-religion-2-natural_14.html |
 | The Modal Ontological Argument (Part 2 of 8) DESIGNATION: Philosophy of Religion 2 - Natural Theology 1.2 TITLE: The Modal Ontological Argument (Part 2 of 8) AUTHOR: Rayndeon (also known as "Dante Alighieri") DATE: December 1, 2007 DESCRIPTION: This video critically examines the modern modal ontological argument for the existence of God. SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: http://analyticabstraction.blogspot.com/2007/11/philosophy-of-religion-2-natural_14.html |
 | David Hume's Criticism of the Ontological Argument I discuss David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, New York: Hafner, 1960, p.58 |
 | Why is there something rather than nothing? In which i respond to a subscriber request to more carefully explain why modern logic implies the existence of at least one object. |
 | A Letter To A Theist I think you misunderstand the point I was getting at. There is no reason for a lack of reason, the lack of reason IS the reason. Let me try and explain it a different way. I was born without any knowledge of the world. I had no knowledge of any sort of deity. Now, growing up things get told to you that you accept or reject. I accept things I am given good reason to suppose are true, and reject things I am not given good reason to suppose are true. The burden of proof is on the one introducing the claim i.e. the one claiming that there is a god. I am yet to come across a convincing reason to believe in a deity of any kind. It's quite simple. You are the one making the claim. I am simply saying that you haven't convinced me. Seeing as you are claiming to hold the absolute objective truth, the single most important piece of knowledge that one can ever obtain, I am going to give you the greatest amount of scepticism that I possibly can. Especially seeing as many other people are offering the same claim, and choosing one when none are right is equally as deleterious, I want to make sure that I've got it right. In that light, not being sceptical would be quite frankly equivalent to insulting you as it shows no respect for the severity of your claim. Now, I do have a few philosophical reasons for not believing in a deity, but as we all know, philosophy is just sophistry and for every argument there is a rebuttal and a counter-rebuttal etc etc. I dont give too much credit to philosophical arguments on either side. As to your point on evolution, I understand it fully, but I do not find it convincing. You are basically saying that for evolution to take place there needs to be certain things already here i.e. life. Where do they come from? A valid scientific question, but I do not think God is a valid scientific answer. To answer those questions we need to look at abiogenesis, quantum mechanics etc. Right now your answer of God is stemming from a lack of naturalistic answer. I do not think that is intellectually honest. We do not have positive supernatural evidence, simply lack of naturalistic explanation. It's the same situation as what happened with disease before germs were discovered. I personally choose to admit when I do not know an answer rather than postulate one to explain a gap. Scientific answers are much more fulfilling to be simply because we can show them to be real. Take Hawking's wave function law for example. The early inflationary era, the density fluctuations in the background radiation discovered by the COBE satellite, the large scale homogeneity and isotropy of the universe, the fact that the universe is nearly flat etc. all confirm the hypothesis that the universe began UNCAUSED in accordance with the law. With the law in place there was a 95% chance that this would happen, and our universe was one of the most probable to have occured. (MY SCIENCE IS RUSTY, PLEASE CORRECT ANY MISTAKES) I see these questions as scientific questions. These dilemmas are not answered by a postulated answer from a lack of other answers. They are answered with positive, falsifiable evidence. God does not have that. The concept works off ambiguous philosophical claims and gaps in our knowledge. You can still hold that a god is behind everything, but at no point should the god actually BE a part of that equation. Unless, of course, there is positive falsifiable evidence for it. Even if a god did exist, wouldn't we want to know how he made his creation? This is by no means an even half-complete description of my perspective, but I hope that gives you some insight. ~Clutch |
 | The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God A quickie. - We can conceive of a Flying Spaghetti Monster That Does Exist - We can not conceive of a Flying Spaghetti Monster That Does Exist that does not exist, because a necessary characteristic of a Flying Spaghetti Monster That Does Exist is that it does exist - Therefor, a Flying Spaghetti Monster That Does Exist does exist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument |
 | The Diagonal Argument Against Reductive Materialism In which I deal the death-blow to all forms of reductive materialism for ever and ever, amen. Check out EpistemicDuty's vid, which has a link to a very interesting discussion between Grim and Plantinga about the use of similer Cantorian diagonal arguments in theology and modal logic: http://youtube.com/watch?v=EHilabPBPHI |
 | Truth? A verbal video for thinkers. Truth, Lie, Philosophy, Theory, Religion, Non-Religion, Think, Real, Non-real, Art, Critical Thinking. |
| Oceanfrontier Hideaway | |
| Sheraton Suites Philadelphia Airport | |
| The Boulders Resort and Golden Door Spa | |
| Coral Beach Club |
العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
Español
