INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

The Achilles Heel of Atheism

Any topics that are primarily about humanism or other non-religious life stances fit in here.
Post Reply
Message
Author
DougS
Posts: 737
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 9:48 am

The Achilles Heel of Atheism

#1 Post by DougS » November 4th, 2007, 3:14 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aETl0oALYxg

I can't work out if this is a weak attempt at humour or the guy is actually serious. He's all dressed up in a suit and tie and standing in front of a book case - is he taking off someone or genuinely trying to give himself an air of gravitas? If the latter, he fails miserably.

He begins with "Salutations. I believe I have found the Achilles Heel of Atheism". He says something about it being immune from Kant's criticism then launches into it:

>>The Lord created the Earth in seven days and I will prove the existence of God in seven steps.

1. If God does not exist then his existence is logically impossible because God by definition cannot come into existence or be caused to come into existence.

2. If God exists then his existence is logically necessary because God cannot have come into existence for the reasons I stated in the first premise or God cannot cease to exists because if God ceased to exist he would be limited and God, by definition, is unlimited.

3. Either the existence of God is logically necessary or logically impossible.

4. If the existence of God is logically impossible, then the concept of God is self contradictory.

5. The concept of God is not self contradictory.

6. Therefore, the existence of God is logically necessary.

7. Therefore God exists.<<


WTF? :puzzled:

kbell
Posts: 1146
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 11:27 pm

#2 Post by kbell » November 4th, 2007, 3:26 pm

I don't think it's a joke though some of the disparaging comments are pretty funny! Isn't this a modal ontological argument?

verte
Posts: 153
Joined: July 6th, 2007, 9:23 pm

#3 Post by verte » November 4th, 2007, 3:33 pm

Autumn wrote:I don't think it's a joke
It certainly is funny, intentional or not.
Space for rent, cheap.

User avatar
Lifelinking
Posts: 3248
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 11:56 am

#4 Post by Lifelinking » November 4th, 2007, 3:53 pm

He really needs to get out more. Getting laid may also help. Searching the term 'modal ontological' leads to rivetting articles such as A Refutation of Plantinga's Modal Ontological Argument - and why it even suggests a disproof of God. About a third of the way down page one I had an out of body experience. Both sides of this particular 'argument' deserve each other.
"Who thinks the law has anything to do with justice? It's what we have because we can't have justice."
William McIlvanney

Bryn
Posts: 665
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:47 pm

#5 Post by Bryn » November 4th, 2007, 5:21 pm

1. If God does not exist then his existence is logically impossible
I don't get this. Surely there are plenty of things that don't exist but whose existence is logically possible?

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 633
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

#6 Post by Lord Muck oGentry » November 4th, 2007, 6:54 pm

There are several modern versions of the Ontological Argument. As that cove mentioned Norman Malcolm, I imagine this is what he had in mind:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/ont-arg.htm

Section 4, about two thirds of the way down the page.

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 9294
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

#7 Post by Maria Mac » November 4th, 2007, 9:16 pm

Bryn wrote:
1. If God does not exist then his existence is logically impossible
I don't get this. Surely there are plenty of things that don't exist but whose existence is logically possible?

The whole of the first premise is problematic (and all the other premises too, probably).
1. If God does not exist then his existence is logically impossible because God by definition cannot come into existence or be caused to come into existence.
He says 'God by definition cannot....' but he hasn't actually given a definition of God.

The part of the sentence you quote is conditional on the second and third parts which are given as facts - but where do these facts come from?

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 633
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: The Achilles Heel of Atheism

#8 Post by Lord Muck oGentry » November 5th, 2007, 12:48 am

DougS wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aETl0oALYxg

I can't work out if this is a weak attempt at humour or the guy is actually serious. He's all dressed up in a suit and tie and standing in front of a book case - is he taking off someone or genuinely trying to give himself an air of gravitas? If the latter, he fails miserably.

He begins with "Salutations. I believe I have found the Achilles Heel of Atheism". He says something about it being immune from Kant's criticism then launches into it:

>>The Lord created the Earth in seven days and I will prove the existence of God in seven steps.

1. If God does not exist then his existence is logically impossible because God by definition cannot come into existence or be caused to come into existence.

2. If God exists then his existence is logically necessary because God cannot have come into existence for the reasons I stated in the first premise or God cannot cease to exists because if God ceased to exist he would be limited and God, by definition, is unlimited.

3. Either the existence of God is logically necessary or logically impossible.

4. If the existence of God is logically impossible, then the concept of God is self contradictory.

5. The concept of God is not self contradictory.

6. Therefore, the existence of God is logically necessary.

7. Therefore God exists.<<


WTF? :puzzled:
Have a look at how at how the word God is being used here. Is it being used as a name ( like Sherlock Holmes) or as an implicit description?

If it's a name, premiss 4 is not even wrong-it's gibberish.

If it's an implicit description, then we need to know what the description is . So far, we haven't been told.

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 9294
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

#9 Post by Maria Mac » November 5th, 2007, 12:51 am

I like how you think, Lord Muck.

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 633
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

#10 Post by Lord Muck oGentry » November 5th, 2007, 1:08 am

Maria wrote:I like how you think, Lord Muck.
I bet you say that to all the boys!

:)

Post Reply