Descartes

>>9802356
just from reading the first few pages of meditations, I can tell you he set out to kill idea of god that christianity forced onto its subjects, and sought to replace it with a true idea of god.

which god were you referring to?

>>9802441
I'm referring to the existence of any god at all—not just the Abrahamic God.

I think I may be missing something. I just don't see why it is necessary for the idea of a god to be caused by a god.

>>9802356
No. Have you ever attended an introductory philosophy class? Nearly every professor makes clear the obscurity of the ontological argument.

>>9802505
I'm just a neurotic person, and when I read the Meditations on First Philosophy, I started freaking out because I thought I was stupid for thinking his argument is nonsense.

>>9802356
Not convinced but I don't think is nonsense either.

>>9802356
>Is anybody actually convinced by this guy's ontological argument for the existence of God?

It's just as notoriously unconvincing as Anselm's version

OP here. I enjoy hearing from other people on topics like this, so thanks. I'm going to read Descartes' replies to the objections to the Meditations, because I really want to see everything there is to be said about this before I dismiss his argument.

anyone who dismisses the Ontological Argument as intuitively wrong hasn't really understood it.

It must, of course, be invalid -- but that no one can agree precisely on what ought invalidate it. For each proposition, one can construct a rather sound metaphysical system in which that proposition is true -- however then some other proposition becomes false.

So in answer to your question -- no one believes in the Ontological Argument, but everyone argues on why it is wrong.