An Ontological Proof that God Does Not Exist

[Tiberius]

OK, I guess I'm just not at your level of explanation since I'd have to really search myself to figure what you mean. But no matter, I can't figure what hardships exactly (?) are you talking about following Premises 1 & 2? Aside from shooting a moving target. What were or are the hardships you're talking about?

I thought it has been quite clear.

If a person writes their name, then that is a rather minor accomplishment. But let's say they have some handicap - something which makes it more difficult for them to write their name. Let's say they have lost both of their arms. Now they write their name by holding the pen with their toes. And their name is written just as legibly as it would have been if written with their hands. They have faced a handicap - a lack of hands - and still managed to accomplish the same goal - writing their name. So, for the person with no hands, writing their name legibly is a greater accomplishment than a person who has perfectly functional hands.

Another example:

Being able to ride a bike is a minor accomplishment. It's fairly easy to learn, after all, and lots of people can do it. But this guy is completely blind. For him, riding a bike is a much bigger accomplishment than it is for me to ride a bike, because he has an additional hardship that I do not have - he can not see at all while I can see just fine. A Fully Blind Man Rides His Bike in Traffic and Becomes a Real-Life Batman

As we can see, accomplishing something while facing some hardship makes that accomplishment greater than it would if that hardship was NOT faced.

Likewise, for God to create the universe is an accomplishment, but if God had to face some handicap, some hardship in order to do it, then the creation of the universe becomes an even greater accomplishment.

 

[firedragon]

The ontological argument has huge problems.

Of course it does.

 

[YoursTrue]

I thought it has been quite clear.

If a person writes their name, then that is a rather minor accomplishment. But let's say they have some handicap - something which makes it more difficult for them to write their name. Let's say they have lost both of their arms. Now they write their name by holding the pen with their toes. And their name is written just as legibly as it would have been if written with their hands. They have faced a handicap - a lack of hands - and still managed to accomplish the same goal - writing their name. So, for the person with no hands, writing their name legibly is a greater accomplishment than a person who has perfectly functional hands.

Another example:

Being able to ride a bike is a minor accomplishment. It's fairly easy to learn, after all, and lots of people can do it. But this guy is completely blind. For him, riding a bike is a much bigger accomplishment than it is for me to ride a bike, because he has an additional hardship that I do not have - he can not see at all while I can see just fine. A Fully Blind Man Rides His Bike in Traffic and Becomes a Real-Life Batman

As we can see, accomplishing something while facing some hardship makes that accomplishment greater than it would if that hardship was NOT faced.

Likewise, for God to create the universe is an accomplishment, but if God had to face some handicap, some hardship in order to do it, then the creation of the universe becomes an even greater accomplishment.

Your statement is not making sense, you ask if God faced some handicap.

 

[Tiberius]

Of course it does.

And, pray tell, what problems does it have?

 

[YoursTrue]

The ontological argument is being parodied, it already is irrational, since it makes unevidenced assumptions about the thing it is arguing for, that's called a begging the question fallacy. If anyone found Anselm's original argument at all compelling, then they can't object to the original fallacies it violates being repeated here obviously.

So it's actually quite a clever parody.

I'm smiling at your assessment not because I agree with it.

 

[Tiberius]

Your statement is not making sense, you ask if God faced some handicap.

No I didn't.

I said that God creating the universe while suffering from a handicap is a greater accomplishment than God creating the universe with no handicap.

I also said that the greater the handicap, the greater the accomplishment.

Thus, if we say that a God who creates the universe while suffering a handicap is greater than a God who creates the universe without suffering a handicap, and if we also say that a God who creates the universe while suffering a severe handicap is greater than a God who creates the universe while suffering a mild handicap, then the greatest possible God must suffer from the greatest possible handicap, that is, non-existence.

Not once in this thread have I asked, "Do you think God is handicapped in some way?"

 

[YoursTrue]

No I didn't.

I said that God creating the universe while suffering from a handicap is a greater accomplishment than God creating the universe with no handicap.

I also said that the greater the handicap, the greater the accomplishment.

Thus, if we say that a God who creates the universe while suffering a handicap is greater than a God who creates the universe without suffering a handicap, and if we also say that a God who creates the universe while suffering a severe handicap is greater than a God who creates the universe while suffering a mild handicap, then the greatest possible God must suffer from the greatest possible handicap, that is, non-existence.

Not once in this thread have I asked, "Do you think God is handicapped in some way?"

That's right. You only suggest maybe if. Ok.

 

[firedragon]

And, pray tell, what problems does it have?

Maybe another thread. Definitely not this.

Ciao.

 

[Sheldon]

I'm smiling at your assessment not because I agree with it.

Odd that you're minded to disparage it, but can offer absolutely nothing cogent as to why. Perhaps not that odd really, I'm being too generous perhaps.

 

[Sheldon]

Your statement is not making sense, you ask if God faced some handicap.

Good grief seriously? It's pretty simple, so you either don't understand the ontological argument, or you don't understand what @Tiberius has done with this parody of it, or both perhaps?

 

[YoursTrue]

Good grief seriously? It's pretty simple, so you either don't understand the ontological argument, or you don't understand what @Tiberius has done with this parody of it, or both perhaps?

Either way, it doesn't make sense. Parody or not parody.

 

[Tiberius]

Maybe another thread. Definitely not this.

Ciao.

Why not? We're talking about ontological arguments here, after all, so it's not off topic. Come on, tell us of the problems you've found in the Ontological argument for God.

 

[Tiberius]

That's right. You only suggest maybe if. Ok.

And the ontological argument for God does the same thing.

IF God is the greatest being, then he must exist.

 

[F1fan]

Either way, it doesn't make sense. Parody or not parody.

This is an odd criticism since theologies don't make sense either. In religion a person can say anything is the truth, with no tests in reality.

 

[firedragon]

Why not? We're talking about ontological arguments here, after all, so it's not off topic. Come on, tell us of the problems you've found in the Ontological argument for God.

I have already stated it. It's in the nature of it. It's a priori. Don't you even try to understand an argument? Please try and read the source material, and as a skeptic you might understand. Don't go fishing on the internet with such shallow searches.

 

[firedragon]

And the ontological argument for God does the same thing.

Can you explain the difference between ontological argument and an epistemological argument and where it stands with your OP in this thread?

 

[BilliardsBall]

duress
/djʊ(ə)ˈrɛs,ˈdjʊərɛs/
noun

1. threats, violence, constraints, or other action used to coerce someone into doing something against their will or better judgement.
   "confessions extracted under duress"
   
   
   • LAW
     constraint illegally exercised to force someone to perform an act.
   • ARCHAIC
     forcible restraint or imprisonment.

Who do you think is forcing me to do something against my will?

Because not only are demons real, they are invisible entities.

 

[Tiberius]

Can you explain the difference between ontological argument and an epistemological argument and where it stands with your OP in this thread?

You still sore that I'm not treating as serious as you?

 

[Tiberius]

Because not only are demons real, they are invisible entities.

And so are fairies and leprechauns and ginormous dragons who live in caves on top of mountains of treasure!

 

[firedragon]

You still sore that I'm not treating as serious as you?

Some people make wishes and think it's reality. Your comment is an example of that.