 | 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 |
 | Empire total war campaign trailer part 3/5 The third superb gameplay trailer from the upcoming title Empire: Total War has been launched on SEGA websites today. After you were given a glimpse into stunning real-time combat sequences on both land and sea, you can now find out some of the great new features to be found in the new campaign map. Empire: Total War promises to be the ultimate mix of real-time and turn-based strategy gaming. While armies and ships will meet on the real-time battle map, the campaign map progresses with each faction taking a turn. From here they can build up their empire through improving their cities, recruiting their forces and conducting diplomacy along with many other possible options. To see more of these exciting new features, you can now watch the new Campaign Trailer on the Empire: Total War page or the Empire: Total War website. You can now also become a fan of Empire: Total War on Facebook. The game is set for UK release on 6th February 2009. |
 | Jesus Christ Lizard Meet a lizard that can walk, er, run on water. See all National Geographic videos: http://video.nationalgeographic.com/?source=4001 |
 | The Modal Ontological Argument (Part 3 of 8) DESIGNATION: Philosophy of Religion 2 - Natural Theology 1.3 TITLE: The Modal Ontological Argument (Part 3 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 |
 | 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 Ontological Argument for the Existence of God The Ontological Argument is presented. The argument establishes the existence of God using the valid logical form of 'reductio ad absurdum.' What could be greater? (no pun intended) The argument has always been held as controversial, but its controversy derives from the fact that it has never successfully been disproven even until the present day. Regardless of whether you love it or hate it, the argument challenges your beliefs using valid logical propositions and modes of derivation. |
 | Taking Out The Ontological Argument dealing with the ontological argument for the existence of god links: perfection doesn't imply existence; Gaunilo's island: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaunilo_of_Marmoutiers Difference between existence in reality and to conceive things to be existent; a wibble and a wooble: http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/03/anselms-argument.html Atheists dont accept these kind of ontological arguments, but if you as a theist do accept them, then you should also consider these ontological arguments AGAINST the existence of god nessecary non-existence; 1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable. 2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator. 3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement. 4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence. 5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing. 6.Therefore, God does not exist. Proof of atheism; 1. One can conceive of a perfect argument against the existence of god, namely one which proofs the non-existence of god. 2. A perfect argument which is true is more perfect than a perfect argument which is not true, hence the argument would not be perfect. 3. Therefor there must exist a perfect argument against the existence of god which must be true unfalsifiable. 4. Therefor god does not exist God beyond god: 1. If god is all-powerfull he could create a being even more powerfull than himself 2. therefor god is not the greatest being since the being he could create to be greater is greater. 3. Therefor only the being which was created by god to be greater nessecarily exists 4. huh! what the fuck???? God alone exists; 1. a being which exists alone is greater than a being which exists alongside something else; since a being who exists alone occupies all of existence and a being who exists alongside something else like a creation does at least not occupy some part of existence. 2. Therefor god alone exists god is not a nessecity; 1. God as a infinite perfect and nessecary being would have to encompass all of existence. 2. One can percieve of a reality without god (atheism) 3. Therefor god does not encompass all existence 4. God is not a nessecary being 5. If god would exist he would be nessecary existent since he cannot be caused to come into existence and cannot stop to exist. 6. As shown before god is not a nessecary being. 7. God cannot exist God likes fart jokes: 1. A god who has a sense of humour is greater than a god who has no sense of humour, since a god without a sense of humour would be a freaking lame douchebag. 2. Since god has all perfections his humour therefor must be perfect as well 3. Fart jokes are the most perfect form of jokes 4. Therefor god must like fart jokes that last one was just for fun :) music: Iron maiden - Dance of Death |
 | I Cannot Disprove The Ontological Argument But I can use it to prove something else... Mind you, I'm no philosopher, so if anyone sees a flaw in my reasoning, please let me know! This is a response to Thatgaybloke's video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2VLponGx54 Saint Anselm's prayer: Well then, Lord, You who give understanding to faith, grant me that I may understand, as much as You see fit, that You exist as we believe You exist, and that You are what we believe You to be. Now we believe that You are something than which nothing greater can be thought. Or can it be that a thing of such nature does not exist, since "the fool has said in his heart, there is no God"? But surely, when this same fool hears what I am speaking about, namely, "something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought," he understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his mind, even if he does not understand that it actually exists. For it is one thing for an object to exist in the mind, and another thing to understand that an object actually exists. Thus, when the painter plans beforehand what he's going to execute, he has a picture in his mind, but he does not yet think that it actually exists because he has not yet executed it. However, when he has actually painted it, then he both has it in his mind and understands that it exists because he has now made it. Even the fool, then, is forced to agree that something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought exists in the mind, since he understands this when he hears it, and whatever is understood is in the mind. And surely that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought cannot exist in the mind alone. For if it exists solely in the mind, it can be thought to exist in reality also, which is greater. If then that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists in the mind alone, this same that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is that-than-which-a-greater-can-be-thought. But this is impossible. Therefore, there is absolutely no doubt that something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists both in the mind and in reality. |
 | The Ontologist: Ontological Proof of my being God Ontology is the thing! More ontological arguments to come if I don't get too much negative comments. And yes, "I will kill you in your sleep" IS a negative comment. This is satire, intented as a mockery of ontological arguments. |
 | Anselm's Ontological Argument Anselm's "logical" argument for the existence of God. In a nutshell - it baffles me. Hopefully someone can explain how it could possibly be logical. UPDATE (14-Jun-08): A4AgnstcFndmntlst supplied this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ct8Vt4NtaQ I can follow the logic in this video. It seems to confirm my suspicion about philosophical debates being little more than wordplay. |
| 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
