Argument from degree
m (Wikification. Source. Removed superfluous categories.) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
As formulated by [[Thomas Aquinas]], the '''argument from degree''' is stated as follows: | As formulated by [[Thomas Aquinas]], the '''argument from degree''' is stated as follows: | ||
| − | + | {{Quote-source|We notice that things in the world differ. There are degrees of, say, goodness or perfection. But we judge these degrees only by comparison with a maximum. Humans can be both good and bad, so the maximum goodness cannot rest in us. Therefore there must be some other maximum to set the standard for perfection, and we call that maximum [[God]]|2=Richard Dawkins, ''[http://richarddawkins.net/print.php?id=258 Why There Is No God]'', The Times, Oct. 31, 2006}} | |
==Counter-apologetics== | ==Counter-apologetics== | ||
| − | {{ | + | {{Quote-source|That's an argument? You might as well say, people vary in smelliness but we can make the comparison only by reference to a perfect maximum of conceivable smelliness. Therefore there must exist a pre-eminently peerless stinker, and we call him God. Or substitute any dimension of comparison you like, and derive an equally fatuous conclusion.|[[Richard Dawkins]], ''[[The God Delusion]]''}} |
| − | |||
| − | |||
[[Category: Ontological arguments]] | [[Category: Ontological arguments]] | ||
Revision as of 20:29, 19 April 2007
As formulated by Thomas Aquinas, the argument from degree is stated as follows:
"We notice that things in the world differ. There are degrees of, say, goodness or perfection. But we judge these degrees only by comparison with a maximum. Humans can be both good and bad, so the maximum goodness cannot rest in us. Therefore there must be some other maximum to set the standard for perfection, and we call that maximum God"
- — Richard Dawkins, Why There Is No God, The Times, Oct. 31, 2006
Counter-apologetics
"That's an argument? You might as well say, people vary in smelliness but we can make the comparison only by reference to a perfect maximum of conceivable smelliness. Therefore there must exist a pre-eminently peerless stinker, and we call him God. Or substitute any dimension of comparison you like, and derive an equally fatuous conclusion."
