I'll have to disagree with that one. Here is a quote from David Lewis I got off of SEP (has to do with reconciling math with physicalism by eliminating classes, or sets):Stem wrote:We ought to recognize that arguments for gods existence is what tires people on philosophy as much as anything
Theology is a small part of the overall distaste people have for philosophy.David Lewis wrote:I’m moved to laughter at the thought of how presumptous it would be to reject mathematics for philosophical reasons. How would you like the job of telling the mathematicians that they must change their ways, and abjure countless errors, now that philosophy has discovered that there are no classes? Can you tell them, with a straight face, to follow philosophical argument wherever it may lead? If they challenge your credentials, will you boast of philosophy’s other great discoveries: that motion is impossible, that a Being than which no greater can be conceived cannot be conceived not to exist, that it is unthinkable that anything exists outside the mind, that time is unreal, that no theory has ever been made at all probable by evidence (but on the other hand that an empirically adequate ideal theory cannot possibly be false), that it is a wide-open scientific question whether anyone has ever believed anything, and so on, and on, ad nauseum? Not me!
Now Stem, I did tell you that the ontological argument is original to theology, and not the invention of say, a Greek philosopher, that just got rebranded as "God" when some priest discovered it. So that was one thing I have in mind. Another thing I mentioned, well, let's take a look at your own recast of the argument so that I can show you.Stem wrote:I certainly don't know what Gadianton has in mind when he speaks of the virtues of ontological argument via Anselm
In your version, you've got a rock-paper-scissors theme happening:
Superman beats god because
Three powerful individuals face off and we're having a tough time figuring out which one is the greatest. Questions like, does love trump physical strength? are included along the way.God loves everyone
Is the point of the story that there is a tie, and that we can't say that out of these three great beings, that one is clearly greater than the other? (Maybe taken together they represent the best of the greatest attributes; three beings sharing in the commonality of all positive attributes yet without confounding the persons?)
Is the point that only one can be the greatest, but there are too many variables to consider in order to figure out who wins?