Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
The Ontological Argument
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ToHoldNothing" data-source="post: 55780893" data-attributes="member: 263193"><p>It seems like this is a purely hypothetical statement to admit that the Christian perspective or even the theistic perspective is not something innate or absolutely necessary to perceive a world that is cogent and coherent. </p><p> </p><p>People can imagine God not existing, therefore the argument fails on the premise in the argument that God cannot be thought of as non existent in any sense. </p><p> </p><p>A quick look at criticisms of the argument are from Hume and Kant in particular. Hume says no being can be demonstrated to exist through an a priori argument. </p><p> </p><p>Kant gets more detailed into it, the best criticism I find is his second one, saying that if we define existence as part of the definition of something, then asserting it exists is a tautology, or I believe in simpler terms, begging the question. </p><p> </p><p>He also notes that the concept of God is not something we can put into explanations like we would give for say a unicorn. Therefore God as an object of pure thought is based primarily on our conception thereof through various considerations of formulations of the concept.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ToHoldNothing, post: 55780893, member: 263193"] It seems like this is a purely hypothetical statement to admit that the Christian perspective or even the theistic perspective is not something innate or absolutely necessary to perceive a world that is cogent and coherent. People can imagine God not existing, therefore the argument fails on the premise in the argument that God cannot be thought of as non existent in any sense. A quick look at criticisms of the argument are from Hume and Kant in particular. Hume says no being can be demonstrated to exist through an a priori argument. Kant gets more detailed into it, the best criticism I find is his second one, saying that if we define existence as part of the definition of something, then asserting it exists is a tautology, or I believe in simpler terms, begging the question. He also notes that the concept of God is not something we can put into explanations like we would give for say a unicorn. Therefore God as an object of pure thought is based primarily on our conception thereof through various considerations of formulations of the concept. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
The Ontological Argument
Top
Bottom