Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Philosophical Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (165)	8/7/2005 11:25:41 AM
From: Rarebird	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26251

>>"the(re) exists the idea of perfection" , does not equal "there exists a perfect being"<< Whether you realize it or not, you are affirming existence as an attribute or quality of "the idea of perfection". Since no human is perfect, you are making a statement about the subject, God, in the premise, "there exists the idea of perfection". Thus, your argument is invalid. There is nothing original in this critique. It comes straight from Kant (in my own words, of course.) Descartes, of course, makes the idea more metaphysically appealing by saying that the idea of perfection comes from God. But the Kantian critique likewise applies to him. >>It simply doesn't do that<< You are mixing up the two arguments, the Ontological Argument for the existence of God with the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God. The Ontological argument tries to show that the very concept of Perfection implies the necessity of God's existence. The Cosmological Argument, in its Leibnitzian form, (Saint Tomas Aquinas presented 5 other forms of the Argument in the Summa Theologica) argues that every contingent being must have a cause, which in its turn must have another, which, if contingent, must have its cause, until this chain of causes reaches an absolute and necessary cause. Such cause is God. The Ontological argument is completely apriori. The Cosmological argument is Not. The Cosmological Argument, in its Leibnitzian form, is ultimately rooted in Leibnitz's "Principle of Sufficient Reason". There is a reason or cause for everything. All the reasons are ultimately linked together in a chain until an Absolute or Prime Reason is reached. The Ultimate Reason for Everything is God. Now, if the Absolute Reason or God cannot be proven to exist, then all the other reasons, which are linked in a chain and ultimately depend on the Prime Reason for its existence break asunder. To provide a Reason or Cause when there is no valid Reason or Cause is tantamount to the logical fallacy of Affirming the Consequent, which is what the Cosmological Argument does if the Prime Reason or Cause cannot be proven to exist. I would refer to the Cosmological Argument For The Existence of God as the Dominoe Theory of Reason. With the exception of the Prime Reason, all the other reasons linked in the chain of causes possess a contingent side to them insofar as there is an another independent reason or cause for their existence. If the Ontological Argument is Not valid, then the Cosmological Argument is Not Valid. We are left with relative reasons or interpretations. PS I would appreciate it if you would try providing reasons for some of your arguments rather than just stating, "it simply doesn't do that" or it "does not equal there exists a perfect being". What matters here primarily is the quality of the dialogue.