Christian lies in textbooks

[rareblackatheist]

I've decided to go back to school and change my major. I decided to take Philosophy of religion as one of my required electives. Class doesn't start for a few weeks but i could not help but to start reading. The first required reading was on the traditional arguments for the existence of God. The first argument used is the ontological argument , which he quotes Bertrand Russell as saying:

I remember the precise moment, one day in 1984. as i was walking along Trinity lane when i saw in a flash that the ontological argument is valid. I had gone out to by a tine of tobacco, on my way back, I suddenly threw it up in the air and exclaimed as i caught it: "Great Scott, the ontological argument is sound!

As soon as i read this, i knew something was wrong, or missing. I'm pretty ignorant about Bertrand Russell's work but i knew this could not have been his last and final say on the subject or no other reason Christians like to lie to promote their point of view. I found a PDF file of his autobiography and the very next sentence says

Although after 1898 I no longer accepted McTaggarts Philosophy

Who is McTaggart? Russell says he was under his influence for "two or three years"

It amazes me how people could be so dishonest, even in textbooks! This isn't a elementary creation science textbook either. What is even worse is that most students won't even bother to look into that quote. I read that and could not read anymore until i found out if what the author quoted was in an honest context. Of course it wasn't.

Am i missing something or am i right that this is a flat out lie being told here?

 

[unkerpaulie]

The ontological argument is one of the few arguments for the existence of God that actually impressed me. It approaches the question logically, and its premise tackles the single most important element for arguing God's existence: a definition. Unfortunately, its the same reason why the argument gets picked apart so easily. As a defensive measure, theists will always withdraw their definition and claim that God cannot be defined. Obviously, you can't logically approach the issue of God's existence if you not only claim that you don't have and don't know the definition of the thing you claim exists, but further claim that this thing you believe exists cannot be defined. As dishonest as such a position is, it is the only reason why theists and agnostics even entertain the idea that God could possibly exist.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Interestingly, my impression was the opposite. It's one of the least convincing arguments for the existence of a deity. In my experience, nothing is ever as good as you imagine it to be.

Ultimately, it's a fatuous attempt to define an entity into existence, and it fails miserably. Apart from anything else, no attempt is made to define 'greatness'.

P1. is a blind assertion, not least because there are many conceptions of god, not all of them great. This alone is sufficient to defeat the ontological argument, because it goes directly to soundness. Blind assertions always render arguments unsound.

It should also be pointed out that the second premise is horribly misleading, to whit:

P2. The idea of god exists in the mind.

If this statement is unpacked, it turns out that what exists in mind is merely a word, and nothing like a coherent idea. Where there is an idea, it varies from person to person. Does this mean, then, that all those conceptions exist? Here we get into the realm of such vacuous horseshit as 'Yablo Conceivability'.

ETA: Plantinga's attempted rescue of this bollocks made it even worse, by including omnipotence and omniscience in P1 (he also exchanged 'greatness' for 'maximal excellence', similarly undefined). These two omnis are mutually exclusive, quite aside from omnipotence being logically absurd.

 

[RedYellow]

How is this argument saying more than, "I can imagine God, therefore my imagination dictates what happens in reality." ?

And yeah, it pretty much collapses when you point out that 'greatness' has no solid definition outside of some other qualifier, such as the 'greatest warrior,' or the 'greatest artist.'

What is God great at being? Being God? It all just runs back down to theistic notions of entitlement without qualification. It's the same way they think good and evil are just 'things' that exist without contextual justification. Greatness and perfection in this sense become like properties that can apparently be measured.

 

[The Felonius Pope]

Steve is defined as the happiest conceivable being.

1. Our understanding of Steve is that he is the happiest concievable being.

2. The idea of Steve exists in the mind.

3. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is more happy than a being that only exists in the mind.

4. If Steve exists only in the mind, then we can concieve of a being who is more happy - one who actually exists.

5. We cannot, by definition, imagine a being that is more happy than Steve.

6. Therefore, Steve exists.

:facepalm:

 

[Laurens]

Steve is defined as the happiest conceivable being.

1. Our understanding of Steve is that he is the happiest concievable being.

2. The idea of Steve exists in the mind.

3. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is more happy than a being that only exists in the mind.

4. If Steve exists only in the mind, then we can concieve of a being who is more happy - one who actually exists.

5. We cannot, by definition, imagine a being that is more happy than Steve.

6. Therefore, Steve exists.

:facepalm:

Urmm Darren is happier than Steve, therefore Steve doesn't exist, but Darren does.

 

[Visaki]

I'm kinda wondering why people use the ontological argument as proof for God (Christian brand) (at least in the original Anselm of Canterbury setting) and I'll tell you why. If you take Bible as a literal truth of Gods qualities and attributes reflected in his recorded deeds and you accept the validity of the ontological argument it seems to me (and I'll freely admit this I have very little experience in philosophical arguments) that the ontological argument either disproves Biblical God (in case only one godly great being exists, because most of us can imagine a being with greater atributes than those of the Biblical God) or it disproves monotheism (Biblical God exists but it isn't the greatest possible being since we can imagine a greater being than those of the Biblical God).

I'm sure apologetics have some nifty rebuttal to this, but then again they've had decades to think it over. I suspect it'll be a combination of sophistry, wordplay, fiddling with defenitions, misrepresenting the points and insulting the opposition. Since WLC seems to like the term "maximally great" I imagine the defenition of great is one of WLCs get-out-of-exlaning-free cards.

 

[unkerpaulie]

The reason why no argument can ever prove that God exist is that God has no definition. This is also the proof that God does not exist.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Steve is defined as the happiest conceivable being.

1. Our understanding of Steve is that he is the happiest concievable being.

2. The idea of Steve exists in the mind.

3. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is more happy than a being that only exists in the mind.

4. If Steve exists only in the mind, then we can concieve of a being who is more happy - one who actually exists.

5. We cannot, by definition, imagine a being that is more happy than Steve.

6. Therefore, Steve exists.

:facepalm:

I love this argument:
X is defined as the X most thing.

1. Our understanding of X is that it is the X most concievable being.

2. The idea of X exists in the mind.

3. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is more like X than a being that only exists in the mind.

4. If X exists only in the mind, then we can concieve of a being who is more like X - one who actually exists.

5. We cannot, by definition, imagine a being that is more X like than X.

6. Therefore, X exists.

 

[RedYellow]

The greatest imaginable being would necessarily be greater than God.

Therefore, Super-God.

 

[nemesiss]

The greatest imaginable being would necessarily be greater than God.

Therefore, Super-God.

therefor, me!

 

[televator]

Steve is defined as the happiest conceivable being.

1. Our understanding of Steve is that he is the happiest concievable being.

2. The idea of Steve exists in the mind.

3. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is more happy than a being that only exists in the mind.

4. If Steve exists only in the mind, then we can concieve of a being who is more happy - one who actually exists.

5. We cannot, by definition, imagine a being that is more happy than Steve.

6. Therefore, Steve exists.

:facepalm:

I love this argument:
X is defined as the has the X most thing.

1. Our understanding of X is that it is the X most concievable being.

2. The idea of X exists in the mind.

3. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is more like X than a being that only exists in the mind.

4. If X exists only in the mind, then we can concieve of a being who is more like X - one who actually exists.

5. We cannot, by definition, imagine a being that is more X like than X.

6. Therefore, X exists.

Sounds legit.

In all seriousness I think step 3 is where the serious doozy is. That's where it basically says imagination becomes reality.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Sounds legit.

Well yes, I have been using this template to prove that I am a Wizard everytime someone uses it to prove that God exists.

 

[Laurens]

As an aside, why are Christians using someone who wrote an essay titled 'Why I am Not a Christian' (containing criticisms from which the church hasn't fully recovered yet) as support for their views?

 

[The Felonius Pope]

As an aside, why are Christians using someone who wrote an essay titled 'Why I am Not a Christian' (containing criticisms from which the church hasn't fully recovered yet) as support for their views?

It appears to me that religious people are great at overcoming cognitive dissonance. I'm currently reading a book wherein the author argues that all religions are true.

 

[Laurens]

As an aside, why are Christians using someone who wrote an essay titled 'Why I am Not a Christian' (containing criticisms from which the church hasn't fully recovered yet) as support for their views?

It appears to me that religious people are great at overcoming cognitive dissonance. I'm currently reading a book wherein the author argues that all religions are true.

Ugh I hate that kind of nonsense. You often get it from New Age/Buddhist/hippy types who say things like "all religious are just different paths to the same goal...man..."

 

[televator]

As an aside, why are Christians using someone who wrote an essay titled 'Why I am Not a Christian' (containing criticisms from which the church hasn't fully recovered yet) as support for their views?

It appears to me that religious people are great at overcoming cognitive dissonance. I'm currently reading a book wherein the author argues that all religions are true.

I busted out laughing when I read that bit. The whimsical "anything goes" nature of that sounds truly absurd. :lol:

Sounds legit.

Well yes, I have been using this template to prove that I am a Wizard everytime someone uses it to prove that God exists.

You know what? I think this also proves the existence of the great FSM. In fact, I think the case is stronger than that of god. After all, what has greater taste? God, or a big warm plate of noodly goodness covered in tomato sauce?

 

[evilotakuneko]

Of course the ontological argument proves God's existence.

It proves his existence as a fictional character in a storybook. See, fictitious characters exist both in the mind--of the author and the reader--and in reality--as part of the book! The ontological argument just has it backward. The character goes from real to imagined, not imagined to real!

Or something like that.

 

[Laurens]

I can't understand how anyone could view the ontological argument as anything other than childish nonsense...

All it does is take an adjective that denotes superiority such as 'greatest' or 'most perfect' then says that imaginary things by definition cannot be the superior to real things, so in order for something to really be the greatest or most perfect it must be real.

To me this is like the theological equivalent of children saying "yeah well my dad is a ninja..."

 

[Dogma's Demise]

I define unicorn as an equine being with a horn on its forehead that exists.
Therefore unicorns exist.