Are All the Ontological Arguments Debunked?

[jayceeii]

Reading more about the ontological arguments in Wikipedia, I see debunking them has been a philosophical pastime for centuries. Having been through a refutation of Anselm as an exercise, I could see most of these counterarguments are valid, meaning ontological proofs point only to the mind of man, not beyond this mind to reality. One place I might contribute a little is about this consideration of a “maximally perfect being,” as men try to use their minds to think of what God might be like, having no inner pattern for reference.

It is slowwitted of theologians to ignore depictions of God made in the other religions. At the least these offer different possibilities, as rational minds countenance all possibilities. In general I argue that God is omnipotent only in the sense of having all possible powers, not as having all conceivable powers. From this it is easy for anyone to imagine a “better” God, but this would not be the real God, and there is only one God for Earth.

In the case of Hinduism and Buddhism, it is taught that the souls are all on a trek across lifetimes, towards enhanced purity and goodness. The purported goals of these religions differ, dissolving in God for the former, and annihilation for the latter, but both these goals appear not only entirely satisfactory to billions of people, but highly desirable and worthy of a mad scramble to attain them. (Even here theologians should wonder about the strange mind of the human being, to long for annihilation as if it were a happy goal.)

In this type of scenario, though, we can understand God created the souls for the animal regions first, and these are gradually ascending through the human plane and perhaps beyond. This answers all questions from the perspective of isolated Christian theology, of why a Perfect, Omnipotent God would create fallible, sinful creatures. Earth is a “soul factory,” or one might say a crucible wherein the initially animalistic souls, are perfected.

God wanted the souls to have freewill and self-determination, but with their senses oriented outward they make all the wrong choices. They must learn for themselves, in other words. They must learn to see their surroundings, accept and love the other people here, and start to use their powers for good rather than evil. They are “real people,” so to speak, not little clay models God molded (exactly) in His image. And there may have been no other way to create and build souls, meaning it’s the most perfect world possible.

The questions of how an Omnipotent God could make imperfect beings, and how a Perfect God could make an imperfect world, are answered. Also we understand how a Good and Omnipotent God could allow evil to exist. These are “spiritually uneducated” or developing souls, applying standards that worked for them as they roamed the Serengeti, but no longer apply when the bodies allow a substantial social life, of work and recreation. Perhaps the Christian view is right, and the souls are made de novo at birth, but much of the planet disagrees with this. It’s conjecture made on the basis of some slim and vague scriptural revelations, with the prophets no longer near to question.

[Tom Paine]

Reading more about the ontological arguments in Wikipedia, I see debunking them has been a philosophical pastime for centuries. Having been through a refutation of Anselm as an exercise, I could see most of these counterarguments are valid, meaning ontological proofs point only to the mind of man, not beyond this mind to reality. One place I might contribute a little is about this consideration of a “maximally perfect being,” as men try to use their minds to think of what God might be like, having no inner pattern for reference.

It is slowwitted of theologians to ignore depictions of God made in the other religions. At the least these offer different possibilities, as rational minds countenance all possibilities. In general I argue that God is omnipotent only in the sense of having all possible powers, not as having all conceivable powers. From this it is easy for anyone to imagine a “better” God, but this would not be the real God, and there is only one God for Earth.

In the case of Hinduism and Buddhism, it is taught that the souls are all on a trek across lifetimes, towards enhanced purity and goodness. The purported goals of these religions differ, dissolving in God for the former, and annihilation for the latter, but both these goals appear not only entirely satisfactory to billions of people, but highly desirable and worthy of a mad scramble to attain them. (Even here theologians should wonder about the strange mind of the human being, to long for annihilation as if it were a happy goal.)

In this type of scenario, though, we can understand God created the souls for the animal regions first, and these are gradually ascending through the human plane and perhaps beyond. This answers all questions from the perspective of isolated Christian theology, of why a Perfect, Omnipotent God would create fallible, sinful creatures. Earth is a “soul factory,” or one might say a crucible wherein the initially animalistic souls, are perfected.

God wanted the souls to have freewill and self-determination, but with their senses oriented outward they make all the wrong choices. They must learn for themselves, in other words. They must learn to see their surroundings, accept and love the other people here, and start to use their powers for good rather than evil. They are “real people,” so to speak, not little clay models God molded (exactly) in His image. And there may have been no other way to create and build souls, meaning it’s the most perfect world possible.

The questions of how an Omnipotent God could make imperfect beings, and how a Perfect God could make an imperfect world, are answered. Also we understand how a Good and Omnipotent God could allow evil to exist. These are “spiritually uneducated” or developing souls, applying standards that worked for them as they roamed the Serengeti, but no longer apply when the bodies allow a substantial social life, of work and recreation. Perhaps the Christian view is right, and the souls are made de novo at birth, but much of the planet disagrees with this. It’s conjecture made on the basis of some slim and vague scriptural revelations, with the prophets no longer near to question.

All these same problems can be answered by simply applying Occam's razor and what we are left with is just Nature. I tis omnipotent in the sense of being the source of all potential and omniscient in the sense of containing all information. It's not God, but it is godlike in it's having teleology, i.e., cosmic evolution towards consciousness would not be possible if not existing within the potential of Nature. Call it "God" if you want, but it is the "God" of Einstein and Spinoza, not the God of the Abrahamic religions.

[jayceeii]

All these same problems can be answered by simply applying Occam's razor and what we are left with is just Nature. I tis omnipotent in the sense of being the source of all potential and omniscient in the sense of containing all information. It's not God, but it is godlike in it's having teleology, i.e., cosmic evolution towards consciousness would not be possible if not existing within the potential of Nature. Call it "God" if you want, but it is the "God" of Einstein and Spinoza, not the God of the Abrahamic religions.

tp All these same problems can be answered by simply applying Occam's razor and what we are left with is just Nature.

jc: It’s a little silly to be arguing the answers must be simple. But for simple-minded folk, so it must seem. It is not only difficult to see God. It is also difficult to see the creation for what it is, forming adequate mental models for its breadth and complexity. I find no one on Earth thinking holistically about the whole Earth in its total time frame, or even trying to do so. Citing “Nature” here, you are citing unclarity, lacking any mechanisms just like the theists lack mechanisms. Were you searching for a mother-figure, in the cosmos? Do you feel consolation, that “Mother Nature” is going to watch out for you?

tp: It is omnipotent in the sense of being the source of all potential and omniscient in the sense of containing all information.

jc: This is just bristling with unclarity. You identify nature as a source or person, but if the laws of nature gave rise to everything automatically, there is no specific thing or person to be credited. The rules just exist, things just happen. None collects information.

tp:  It's not God, but it is godlike in it's having teleology, i.e., cosmic evolution towards consciousness would not be possible if not existing within the potential of Nature.

jc: Just admit that at the end of the day nobody cares. You just disappear. Smile pretty.

tp: Call it "God" if you want, but it is the "God" of Einstein and Spinoza, not the God of the Abrahamic religions.

jc: Hey, don’t lump Einstein in with Spinoza! Einstein might be highly insulted. But of course by your theories they’re both forever evaporated, never to be heard from again. And according to their own theories, so perhaps they do belong together in the neverland of never caring. The God of the Abrahamic religions is a dunce. They worship a sky ape.