One of the most absurd things that has caused me to lose respect for certain ones real fast is their reliance upon the childish epithet that I'm "defining God into existence." That is just so silly and really demonstrates their inanity to read or fathom an argument.
Now I can understand why they would say it with the Ontologial/cosmological arguments. Because that really play off of deftinitions. it's stil a far cry from "defying God into existence."
Their total lack of concern with arbitrary necessities shows their lack of respect for any kind of logic. But be that as it may, I can hesitate to fault them on those arguments. But the fact that they apply it to every God argument I make just shows how thoughtless they are.
For example, there is no way on God's green earth that that argument could apply to the TS argument. No way. Because it doesn't' turn on deditions. Of course defining some terms might come into it, as it comes into any argument, but the argument destine' turn on defossion.
Now turning on a definition doesn't mean I'm defying God into existence. But when an argument turns on a defossion its easier for them to resort to that catch phrase. but when an argument has nothing to do with that, it's just stupid.
Now the basic catch about the TS argument is that all he major thinkers who have ever written about the TS have said that God is an example of a TS, and that the TS is God.
That's just common knowledge, and we a find that in the lit as far back as Nicholas of Cuss (Renaissance) in Deride, and Fouctult and Husseral and Heidegger and Culler and just everyone whose ever written on the subject of the TS. I have a quote form Derrida saying so, it's on the site where the argument is listed.
But the fact is it's only logical that that would be the case since God's function in a metaphysical hierarchy is the same as that in the TS. So they have to be the same thing.
This is especially given the law of idneity which these guys never think about
Law of identity means A=A. A = A, A is A. A is not not A, A is A. thta means if two entities sahre the same ideinty, and that identity is mutually exclusive they are one and the same.
Example: Superman and Clark Kent share the same id; had the same parents, they had the same face, they have the same DNA they have the same finger prints, they are not two sperate people, therefore they are the same being, Thus "Clark Kent" is just another name for "Superman."
The premises that I have listed many times, and you can find this under predicates of the divine in my God section on DOA, are mutually exclusive.
There can only be one deity, there can only be one God. Godhood cannot be shared. why?
(1) God is the basis of all reality, there cannot be two basises of reality, they could contradiction each other (which is the basis of the other?)
(2) there can be only one "greatest being."
(3) There can be only one final cause (or prior conditions). Which one would be prior to the other if there were two?
Of course someone could try something funky like a committee of gods that start out together and everything is based upon them and they always think in tandem. But is that really a properly basic concept? Is that just tailored to mess up the argument? And what's the difference in a committee of Gods that always work in tandem, have the same origin, are always eternal, think the same way overtime, and one God magnets several times over, like a Trinity?
So it's a really stupid ploy. The upshot of all of this is, since identify is mutually exclusive for the divine, than anything that fits the criteria for the divine has to be God.
But that's where the atheists can't handle it because it means one can really sort of prove God exists. They can't take that. They have to insist upon a straw man God that obviously is silly and doesn't exist, otherwise wheat's the point of being an atheist? Where's the fun of atheism if you can't use it to feel superior to religious people?
So because of this Principe that God might be disguised and we miss him because we aren't looking for common things we know about like being, to be God, then the atheists have to charge that I'm just defying God into existence. But they can't show why it's an invalid move. All they can do is carp because they don't read the argument.