4 ms·

IMO, the existence of such arguments is one of the best arguments for God not existing. If there were any better arguments, we'd be using them instead. Nobody

IMO, the existence of such arguments is one of the best arguments for God not existing. If there were any better arguments, we'd be using them instead. Nobody needed an ontological argument for platypuses, because we had actual material evidence.

kej 3y ago
That's an interesting example to pick since there was a brief period when educated people doubted the existence of the platypus, too.
CodeGroyper 3y ago
It would be silly to request material things as proof for immaterial things. Similar to math or ethics, it doesn't make sense to ask for material evidence that the square root of 2 is irrational or that torturing babies is evil.
- woodruffw 3y ago
  The person you're responding to isn't asking for a material proof. They're pointing out that ontological arguments are typically seen as an "argument of last resort" in a philosophical setting, and are making an (abductive) argument that the use of an ontological argument indicates a weaker position than the importance of the proof (the existence of a god) would otherwise suggest.
- kelseyfrog 3y ago
  I can conceive of a greater God which does have a material existence, so I think it's valid to request material proof.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  In which case you have no claims The only claims possible are material Please demonstrate to me a non-materialist claim that has no impact on the materialist world, and still complies with a conception of an omnipresent God
- gosub100 3y ago
  the claim (sqrt(2) being irrational) needing material evidence can be reduced even further to the number two needing material evidence. I'm not posing this either for/against your argument, just saying at some point you can doubt the existence of 2 itself. (handing me 2 items doesn't count, what is ... two?)
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
gizajob 3y ago
The truth of these arguments also seemingly removes any degree of faith from Christianity, because it's been proven that God now exists. Have always been puzzled why they want to prove this given the circumstances of needing faith.

kej 3y ago

That's an interesting example to pick since there was a brief period when educated people doubted the existence of the platypus, too.

CodeGroyper 3y ago

It would be silly to request material things as proof for immaterial things. Similar to math or ethics, it doesn't make sense to ask for material evidence that the square root of 2 is irrational or that torturing babies is evil.

woodruffw 3y ago
The person you're responding to isn't asking for a material proof. They're pointing out that ontological arguments are typically seen as an "argument of last resort" in a philosophical setting, and are making an (abductive) argument that the use of an ontological argument indicates a weaker position than the importance of the proof (the existence of a god) would otherwise suggest.
kelseyfrog 3y ago
I can conceive of a greater God which does have a material existence, so I think it's valid to request material proof.
AndrewKemendo 3y ago
In which case you have no claims The only claims possible are material Please demonstrate to me a non-materialist claim that has no impact on the materialist world, and still complies with a conception of an omnipresent God
gosub100 3y ago
the claim (sqrt(2) being irrational) needing material evidence can be reduced even further to the number two needing material evidence. I'm not posing this either for/against your argument, just saying at some point you can doubt the existence of 2 itself. (handing me 2 items doesn't count, what is ... two?)

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

gizajob 3y ago

The truth of these arguments also seemingly removes any degree of faith from Christianity, because it's been proven that God now exists. Have always been puzzled why they want to prove this given the circumstances of needing faith.