Bertrand Russell was, Kant wasn't; now what about you?
2007-09-24 11:41:17 · 14 answers · asked by mrblonde3056 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Think metaphysics before dismissing this question altogether.
2007-09-24 11:49:31 · update #1
Re: Windom Earle
Bertrand Russell read Anselm's "The Ontological Argument", claimed it sound and was agnostic.
One of his famous quotes is "Great Scott, the ontological argument is sound!"
2007-09-24 11:52:39 · update #2
Over the years there have been many 'proofs' of the existence of God. Though I -do- believe in God, I find all these proofs very unsatisfying. They seem to be designed to 'prove' something only to someone who already believes it.
I think the ontological proof is the weakest! The concept of 'perfection' is an abstract concept. Just because we understand this abstraction doesn't prove that something -perfect- exists. Just as we are able to conceptualize a pure vacuum but no such thing exists in nature.
People who profess to believe that the ontological argument PROVES the existence of God, those same people 'knew' that God existed beforehand. The BIBLE is enough proof for them! If you didn't believe in God to start with the ontological argument will leave you cold. So what good is it?
2007-09-24 11:48:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
God is beyond human intellect so argument either way is either futile or good subject matter for debate over a bottle of wine.
2007-09-24 18:48:23 · answer #2 · answered by CJ Cole 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
God is neither an argument nor a debate. He is Almighty God of the universe.
2007-09-24 18:43:47 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
To me, this sounds like a school question. Do a lot of people actually think of topics like this. Not to be mean, but I don't think about stuff like this that often!
2007-09-24 18:44:36 · answer #4 · answered by ballerinagirlkaf 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am convinced for the following reasons:
1) I have a living relationship with Him
2) Logic: the creation was no accident.
2007-09-24 18:44:27 · answer #5 · answered by Mr Ed 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Bertrand Russel wasn't convinced by those arguments.
Neither am I.
2007-09-24 18:46:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Intellectualizing god, is no more meaningful than Benny Hinn whacking his followers on the forehead.
You cannot talk something into being, anymore than you can will it, wish it, or whack it.
2007-09-24 19:06:28 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The existence of God is a matter of faith. It cannot be proved or disproved.
2007-09-24 18:45:23 · answer #8 · answered by curious connie 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Negative.
They all presume unreasonably that the prima causa had to be intelligent. There is no sound basis for doing so other than human bias.
2007-09-24 18:44:44 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
No argument can convince me on the existence of a delusional fallacy, be it gods, the tooth fairy, centaurs, Santa Claus or leprechauns.
2007-09-24 18:44:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋