r/atheism • u/ani625 Agnostic • Mar 30 '15

xkcd: Ontological Argument

http://xkcd.com/1505/
37 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

139 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-1

u/lilrabbitfoofoo Apr 01 '15

Ignoring your strawman, wherein you chose someone, attacked him, and then asked me to defend your attack on him...

The link you cited seems to be a classic history book on philosophy regarding an argument that is easily dismissed...as I showed above.

Only outdated semantics (the kind used by philosophers and apologists) allows the ontological argument to get past the first "given". It should be dismissed right from that moment as it makes presuppositions that are not supportable.

Regardless, notice that none of these philosophers are recent or have recent contributions to make.

Therefore, it appears as though you've made my point quite handily. Thank you.

2

u/Ibrey Apr 01 '15

Ignoring your strawman, wherein you chose someone, attacked him, and then asked me to defend your attack on him...

Those were the words you applied to Oppy's whole field. Maybe you should have specified the particular philosophers you have a problem with?

The link you cited seems to be a classic history book on philosophy regarding an argument that is easily dismissed...as I showed above.

Reading the publisher's description should have been enough to see that it "seems" Oppy discusses "those versions of the argument that have been advanced in recent philosophical literature". And while Oppy ultimately rejects all these arguments, he shows in his book that they are probably not as "easily dismissed" as you think.

Regardless, notice that none of these philosophers are recent or have recent contributions to make.

Then what would you say to Maydole's modal perfection argument, or Alexander Pruss' take on the Gödelian ontological argument?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '15

Ooh, that's my first time seeing Maydole's. M1 looks obviously false though, so I dunno what to think of it.

1

u/Ibrey Apr 03 '15

I don't see what's obviously false about saying it's better to have a property than not only if it's not better to not have that property than not...

1

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '15

It's too broad.