Satanists have a tendency to value reason and logic very highly. I know I do. I have my own answer to this question based on modern logic sequences and the way in which we deal with if-then statements . I am posting to get a response from others. I was wondering how a Satanist (and I am particularly interested in the opinions of those who are members and hold offices in the COS) would respond to the Ontological Argument for the existence of God. Mainly referring to St. Anselm (1066 A.D.) and Descartes. I will not go into detail about their arguments, if you don't know them then please learn about them prior to posting a response. Please note that this is not an attack, simply a question concerning a logical argument.

It's fairly simple - the ontological argument can prove anything, and therefore proves nothing. It's a word game.

1.I define a blubble-blib as a perfect, all-powerful monkey
2.To exist is more perfect than non-existence
3.Therefore, by definition a blubble-blib must exist
4.HAIL THE MONKEY!

>>Satanists have a tendency to value reason and logic very
>>highly. I know I do.

I do too, being the math nut that I am. However, unlike your garden-variety atheist, I don't treat logic itself as infalliable dogma and the only way of learning about the world. Ultimately it's just ONE way of finding answers and working with the world. I do hold much disgust for pseudo-science, and people who fall back on solipsism arguments ("Well we're not 100% sure about anything, so the moon is equally likely to be made of green cheese as it is to be made of rock"). But I don't dismiss each and every metaphysical concept as having no merit. If logic contradicts reality, reality wins.

As for the ol' Ontological Argument (which I've known as basically the following: "There are two types of God: one that exists and one that doesn't. God is defined as the most perfect being, therefore he has to be the first type."), I think Immanual Kant pretty much shot that one down. You can use the same logic to prove the existence of the unicorn, defined as a "most perfect" horse.

I have two main problems with arguments like this. First, if Xtians assume that knowing God has to come through "faith", then what use would they have for constructing any logical arguments? Seems to me that the only people who feel the need to push these are those whose faith is questionable to begin with.

Second of all, even if the existence of "God" could be logically proven, it would still beg the question of whether there's more than one, whether this deity is omnipotent, omnipresent, and other external things that people associate, how to go about worshipping it (Is only one sect correct? Who? How?), which in turn begs the question of whether such a deity would demand worship in the first place, etc.

So in short, I find ontological arguments, as well as any other logical argument that attempts to prove God's existence, not only fallacious, but inapplicable.

Your post made me think of Plato's "unmoved mover" - an unconcious entity with several of the same traits as the monotheistic god. Many rely too much on arguments which prove the possibility of a god, but don't specify any other traits other than simple existence. For example: the "first cause" argument, if correct, simply proves that there is a first cause. This first cause does not have to be a concious entity.

And of course, there's the problem of homo-centricity: man tries to make god concerned with himself so god takes on the traits of being "all loving" etc.

I'm preaching to the converted a bit here so i'll stop.

Strange, I thought god preferred coke to pepsi, and a nice bowl of pasta with pesto and garlic sauce topped with parmesan cheese. mmmmmmmm

Yes, I do prefer that actually

Strange, I thought god preferred coke to pepsi, and a nice bowl of pasta with pesto and garlic sauce topped with parmesan cheese.

You got the Coke part right, but have you not yet learned that it is the Sacred Hot Dog which is what Our Lord offers unto us and it is THAT which we must crave?

I think it is time for you to be taken by Magister Paradise and Bill_M to the Coke and Hot Dog Re-education Center.

Thank you all for showing me the light (sarcasm). Seriously though I appreciate your responses. Being new to the forum, I considered this question a sort of test as to what to expect from members. You have exceeded my expectations. I am relieved to hear from someone well versed in modern philosophy (Kant). I am going to enjoy the discussions here very much.

May the lord of coke and hotdogs forgive me

I know God exists.

I'm watching him type.

Sounds kind of like my response when asked if I believed in God once.

"Of course! I saw him in the mirror this morning, brushing his teeth."

But that god prefers Dr. Pepper.

I am confused...I thought the big thing around here was chocolate.
Now I have to decide between Coke and Pepsi?
Hmmm...but the third way could be Dr. Pepper.

Immanuel Kant, although a Christian himself, answered the Ontological Argument in his book, Critique of Pure Reason. Kant points out that the argument makes an illegal operation from a hypothetical to an assertive statement. Kant said that all this argument proves, is that IF there were a perfect transcendental being, THEN it would necessarily exist. But that doesn't tell us whether such a being actually exists.

Kant also points out that any argument for an all-inclusive being must presuppose an inductive synthesis, which we can't perform. In other words, a "being of all beings" presupposes being able to include all beings under one concept, when we can never experience all beings or have the time to synthesize them fully. I don't know how I feel about this argument, since inductive reasoning of this sort seems to apply to math quite effectively, so why not metaphysics? But I'll be thinking about this problem this semester; ask me again in December!

I see.
My confusion is caused by the fact that I was once a disciple of Hank, may His buttocks be kissed. Hank did not care what one drank before kissing his ass, only that the proper mustard was used on your weiner.

I do have one very serious question, before I decide to heed the words so wisely spoken. If the Lord of Coke and Hot Dogs invade my dreams...what are we talking about? Mildly annoying dreams, terrifying dreams, or, since a beverage is involved, a not so dry dream?