Ontological and teleological arguments cannot accurately tell us whether God exists

I thank Con for his response. I’ve used non italics for his words, and italics for mine, just as he did, and suggest continuing that convention. I also abbreviated his comments to save space. What evidence do you have that Craig knows “full well” that the ontological argument isn’t useful or persuasive? None. No evidence at all. I used an a priori bias to arrive at that intuition, and we all know how unpersuasive claims without evidence are – and ought to be – now don’t we? Consider the issue of what Craig knows to be withdrawn. I am not sure what you or Oppy mean by “persuasive.”... It is a necessary first step of any argument, but validity alone isn’t enough. Con correctly identified arguments as persuasive which are “logically valid and the premises are true.” (emphasis mine). Consider how inaccurate human intuition has been on any number of matters that are at least within the bounds of our universe. From heliocentricity, to relativity, to string theory, to dark matter, to any number of things, we have only just begun to peel back the mysteries of how the universe works, thanks to advances in math, science, and technology. Our intuitions about all these things are and have been frequently wrong. Especially without the benefit of technology, our brains are not up to the task of knowing about God’s existence one way or the other. Statements such as the one my friend offered, "knowledge of perfection, that tells me I am imperfect, does not arise from within me. It must arise from something outside of me” cannot be known to be true, and are thus overly presumptuous to use in “proofs”. Since his argument aims to prove that God exists necessarily, it is impossible to prove atheism... Theists like Craig and my opponent pretend to have proved there is a God, and by the way they’re on chummy terms with him. The burden of proof for these claims is on theists to prove, not on atheists to disprove. Richard Dawkins points out that “we are all atheists with respect to Zeus and Thor. Only the atheist has realized that the biblical god is no different”. Harris argues that “no one ever need identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines. Likewise, “atheism” is a term that should not even exist. [1] Harris in particular dislikes the term. The link to his talk [2] is worth hearing, particularly between 10 minutes and 11 minutes, and 19:45 to 22:00. Let’s call this the fallacy of name-calling. It is useful to paint your opponent as stupid, evil, or stooping to intellectual dishonesty. But Pro’s attack fails to prove that Craig is mistaken. I am not the first to consider Craig to be a dirty fighter. [3] However, as I said before, I’ll drop the line of attack against Craig, as I consider an examination of the man himself as being unnecessary to defending the resolution. These comments make little sense. Pro’s argument dips into the wonders of modal logic... Con incorrectly identifies the source of my annoyance – it most certainly isn’t mathematics. I used 2 + 2 = 4 as a tacit admission that I am not challenging the logical validity of most ontological arguments, but also as an abbreviation for what I consider to mostly be uninteresting fluff. Here is another attempt to parody a fine argument... Skeptics are usually the ones to ride heroically into the battle of absurdity atop a unicorn. Con is right that it makes no sense, but as far as I’m concerned, the ontological argument makes no sense even when you insert its intended language. Take for example Planinga's “Victorious argument” which describes an “entity which possesses maximal greatness.” My opponent would like to compare this kind of God to a number, and his earlier suggestion was, perhaps arbitrarily, 12 (I reference 5 + 7 = 12 from round 1). A more accurate analogy to an “entity which possesses maximal greatness” would be a “number which possesses maximal greatness,” would it not? But there is no maximally great number, is there? Even a child realizes that we can keep adding 1 to any number, no matter how large it gets. The idea of an “entity which possesses maximal greatness” is, so far as we know, equally incoherent. "Perfection" fares no better when mapped onto a number system. Why bother with rational argument? Let’s take a survey... It is curious that my presumably Christian opponent would choose the example of slavery. If slavery were morally wrong, why would the God of the Old Testament make provision for Israelites to engage in its practice? [4] Divine Command Theory, which many Christians use for moral basis seems to encounter some very awkward questions here. But that's all for another time and another discussion. I agree with Con that the number of people who agree with a position does not by itself make a position true or false. I will note, however, that if Con wants to take a position contrary to that of the philosophical community, I hope for his sake he’s packing some pretty good arguments. I look forward to eventually seeing them. So, I ask my fine friend here: “How does this quote prove your point?” I will once more draw upon SEP. “Plantinga himself agrees: the “victorious” modal ontological argument is not a proof of the existence of a being which possesses maximal greatness. [5] The point, my friend, is that even your allies, the distinguished scholars who construct these arguments in the first place, admit that they are not proof of God’s existence! I certainly do look forward to seeing how you will try to prove them wrong. Citations: 1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 2) http://www.youtube.com... 3) http://www.patheos.com... 4) http://en.wikipedia.org... 5) http://plato.stanford.edu...