Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#124816 - 09/30/05 05:45 PM Ontological Arguments
LordMoloch Offline


Registered: 09/30/05
Posts: 23
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.

Top
#124817 - 09/30/05 06:14 PM Re: Ontological Arguments [Re: LordMoloch]
Cholinergic Offline
<B>CoS Member</B>

Registered: 04/16/05
Posts: 888
Loc: UK
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!
_________________________
Yes, I named myself after a neurotransmitter

Top
#124818 - 09/30/05 06:15 PM Re: Ontological Arguments [Re: LordMoloch]
Bill_M Offline
CoS Magister

Registered: 07/28/01
Posts: 11565
Loc: New England, USA
>>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.
_________________________
Reverend Bill M.

http://www.devilsmischief.com: Carnal Comedy Clips, Netherworld Novelty Numbers,
New hour every week. Download the mp3 now!

http://www.aplaceformystuff.org: Tales of Combat Clutter and other Adventures

(Wenn du Google's ‹bersetzer verwendest, um diese Worte zu lesen, dann bist du ein Arschloch.)

Top
#124819 - 09/30/05 06:24 PM Re: Ontological Arguments [Re: Bill_M]
Cholinergic Offline
<B>CoS Member</B>

Registered: 04/16/05
Posts: 888
Loc: UK
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.
_________________________
Yes, I named myself after a neurotransmitter

Top
#124821 - 09/30/05 07:02 PM Re: Ontological Arguments [Re: Quaark]
Cholinergic Offline
<B>CoS Member</B>

Registered: 04/16/05
Posts: 888
Loc: UK
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
_________________________
Yes, I named myself after a neurotransmitter

Top
#124822 - 09/30/05 08:35 PM Re: Ontological Arguments [Re: Cholinergic]
LKRice Offline

CoS Priestess

Registered: 06/28/01
Posts: 6363
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.

_________________________
Director
Committee for the
Promotion of Vice and
Prevention of Virtue

Top
#124823 - 10/01/05 01:18 AM Re: Ontological Arguments [Re: LordMoloch]
LordMoloch Offline


Registered: 09/30/05
Posts: 23
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.

Top
#124824 - 10/01/05 02:47 AM Re: Ontological Arguments [Re: Cholinergic]
Powaqqatsi Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 01/29/04
Posts: 396
Loc: Hungary
Quote:

2.To exist is more perfect than non-existence



Or, if you ask a Buddhist, the ultimate perfection is non-existence.

Top
#124825 - 10/01/05 07:17 AM Re: Ontological Arguments [Re: LKRice]
Cholinergic Offline
<B>CoS Member</B>

Registered: 04/16/05
Posts: 888
Loc: UK
May the lord of coke and hotdogs forgive me
_________________________
Yes, I named myself after a neurotransmitter

Top
#124826 - 10/01/05 07:52 AM Re: Ontological Arguments [Re: Quaark]
Virus9 Offline
CoS Priest

Registered: 08/06/01
Posts: 2108
Loc: Florida
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.
_________________________
Everyone is special in their own way, and by "special" I mean the short-bus variety.

"Recognize the phrase 'national interest' as a synonym for 'self-interest' and you will find no moral obstacle that cannot be removed from the highway of ambition."
-Lewis Lapham

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill

Top
#124827 - 10/01/05 09:53 AM Re: Ontological Arguments [Re: LKRice]
Roho_the_Rooster Offline
CoS Warlock

Registered: 03/10/05
Posts: 6999
Loc: Pre-Apocalypolis
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.
_________________________
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/clickToGive/home.faces

http://theepicureandilettante.blogspot.com/

"Life is the only race you lose by reaching the end." - M.M.

Top
#124828 - 10/01/05 10:05 AM Re: Ontological Arguments [Re: LordMoloch]
reprobate Offline

CoS Warlock

Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 7140
Loc: Canada
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!
_________________________
reprobate

Top
#124829 - 10/01/05 10:36 AM The Lord hath spoken... [Re: Roho_the_Rooster]
DarkWater Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 07/15/05
Posts: 784
Loc: SinCity
Quote:

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.



Sir Rooster, your confusion is understandable, and your intention to seek truth is praiseworthy. But the answer is clear, as Witch LKRice suggested, for the Lord of Coke and Hot Dogs hath spoken:

Quote:

I am the Lord, thy Dog. Thou shalt have no other 96 oz Coke Cups before me. - Pronouns, 11:58



Through the ages, wicked sophists have argued that so long as one uses a Coke cup, one may pour into that cup any preferred beverage, whether it be Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, 7-Up, or even, dare I say, Country Time lemonade.

Do not be misled!

Those deceived by the sophists' alluring speech have, inevitably, suffered great harm. The Lord's promises are not idle:

Quote:

I am the Lord of Coke and Hot Dogs...
and I will haunt your DREAMS!



For your sake!

For the Lord's sake!

For the sake of a good night's rest!


Drink Coke!!!

Top
#124830 - 10/01/05 01:02 PM Re: Ontological Arguments [Re: Roho_the_Rooster]
Barb Offline

CoS Member

Registered: 04/09/05
Posts: 587
Quote:


Now I have to decide between Coke and Pepsi?
Hmmm...but the third way could be Dr. Pepper.



I like either Mountain Dew or root beer.
_________________________
"... it is much more gratifying to change your own world than the whole world." ~Magistra Ygraine

"Life is the great indulgence-death the great abstinence. Therefore, make the most of life-here and now!" ~Anton Szandor LaVey

"The true test of anyone's worth as a living creature is how much he can utilize what he has." ~Anton Szandor LaVey

"Twenty percent of your priorities will give you 80 percent of your production, IF you spend your time, energy, money, and personnel on the top 20 percent of your priorities." ~The Pareto Principle, as stated by John C. Maxwell

Top
#124831 - 10/01/05 02:18 PM Re: The Lord hath spoken... [Re: DarkWater]
Roho_the_Rooster Offline
CoS Warlock

Registered: 03/10/05
Posts: 6999
Loc: Pre-Apocalypolis
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?
_________________________
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/clickToGive/home.faces

http://theepicureandilettante.blogspot.com/

"Life is the only race you lose by reaching the end." - M.M.

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >


Forum Stats
12255 Members
73 Forums
44035 Topics
406363 Posts

Max Online: 197 @ 10/04/11 06:49 AM
Advertisements