• **
  • 173 Posts
    • View Profile
Are All the Ontological Arguments Debunked?
« on: October 30, 2018, 09:17:53 am »
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.