Sunday, April 03, 2005

Douglas On The Existence Of God

Samuel Douglas has had his essay 'Arguements over the existence of God' published in Opus Issue 2, 2005. (Opus is the University's student magazine). Copies are available around the campus (there are stacks in the Auchmuty Foyer).

Given that the piece was born of an attempt to engage the various Christian organisations in discussion, this post is being made available to anyone who would like to comment on Samuel's piece, or who would like to make any - rational - comments on the general topic of God's existence.

Also, a reminder that the NASA debate will be held on Thursday (details).

4 comments:

Rosie said...

Well, this is me avoiding doing real work on my essay due on friday on the ontological argument. It's mostly written which is exciting, but I thought of a few questions while I was doing it that I'm sure there are good answers back to, so please go ahead and tell me :)
1. Isn't a god who would/could (hmm) create the world in a millisecond more perfect than the one who took a whole week?
2. the whole 'concept of god' thing. Surely thats really afflicted with not being able to be removed from its relgious doctrine. How can a generalisation on our conception of God be made. For an aetheist, a god who doesn't exist is more perfect? but then you can't really talk about something properly in terms of non existence anyways..? the point here was that when forced to step outside of itself, and out of religious doctrine, it can't stand up. And its only fair it should have to be able to do that, you can't judge sommething from the inside. But then how else can it possibly be judged?? hmmmm
3. A god who wears purple sparkly suspenders is obviously far superior and more perfect than one who does not- therefore God wears sparkly purple suspenders...rock on God!

This is a bit of an incomprehensible ramble, but I have taken it upon myself to be the token newbie who doesn't know whats going with anything yet, and will ask silly questions. Huzzuh.
Rosie :)

Cooly McCool said...

Rose, the basic answers to your three questions is:
1) you would think so
2) there is a specific conception of God trying to be proved by the otological argument and the answer here is yes, you are right, but I'm sure that Sam can give you the modal logic arguments of more recent times that would probably avoid this critique.
3) but by the same token the more expensive a god, the gooder it is.

MH said...

But Mr McCool, by a variation on your logic the older a god is the gooder it is also ...

Rosie said...

ah but the older the God is, the more expensive it is...