A cool Ontological argument

[QUOTE="Rocky32189"]These "arguments" are ridiculous and do not prove anything. All they are doing is connecting a bunch of phrases together, starting with something reasonable that everyone can agree with and ending by saying god exists. You can do this with anything. If you want to construct a proof for the existence of god, provide some actual evidence. Theokhoth

They're logical arguments. The original statements make sense because they are logical, and the following statements attempt to follow the original statement's trail of logic. This system is behind every scientific and philosophical discovery ever made, and saying "you can do this with anything" is both true and false.

Empirical evidence is nice, but logic is necessary.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Rocky32189"]These "arguments" are ridiculous and do not prove anything. All they are doing is connecting a bunch of phrases together, starting with something reasonable that everyone can agree with and ending by saying god exists. You can do this with anything. If you want to construct a proof for the existence of god, provide some actual evidence. Teenaged

They're logical arguments. The original statements make sense because they are logical, and the following statements attempt to follow the original statement's trail of logic. This system is behind every scientific and philosophical discovery ever made, and saying "you can do this with anything" is both true and false.

Empirical evidence is nice, but logic is necessary.

That was me. And it was Zeno's paradox. And then GabuEx came in with a wall of calculus that I still can't understand and, apparently, blew it away. :P

[QUOTE="Rocky32189"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

They're logical arguments. The original statements make sense because they are logical, and the following statements attempt to follow the original statement's trail of logic. This system is behind every scientific and philosophical discovery ever made, and saying "you can do this with anything" is both true and false.

Empirical evidence is nice, but logic is necessary.

Theokhoth

Just because an argument is logical, doesn't mean it proves anything. These arguments do not make any headway at all in the proof of a god.

Empirical evidence isn't simply "nice". It is essential.

Math.

That is my answer to those statements.

That was me. And it was Zeno's paradox. And then GabuEx came in with a wall of calculus that I still can't understand and, apparently, blew it away. :P

Theokhoth

That was me. And it was Zeno's paradox. And then GabuEx came in with a wall of calculus that I still can't understand and, apparently, blew it away. :PTheokhoth

The property of 'not having maximal greatness' as being a neccesary condition is a contradiction.

If the above statement was necessary, then maximal greatness cannot exist.

The argument fails because it proposes that a necessary 'not having maximal greatness' property can coexist with the potential of maximal greatness which is a nonsense.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]That was me. And it was Zeno's paradox. And then GabuEx came in with a wall of calculus that I still can't understand and, apparently, blew it away. :PVandalvideo

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]That was me. And it was Zeno's paradox. And then GabuEx came in with a wall of calculus that I still can't understand and, apparently, blew it away. :PVandalvideo

He actually made two paradoxes: the one you listed, and another that says that if in a race one person gets a ten minute head start, then the other person will never overcome him as the other person will always be running for ten minutes less than the other guy.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]That was me. And it was Zeno's paradox. And then GabuEx came in with a wall of calculus that I still can't understand and, apparently, blew it away. :PTheokhoth

He actually made two paradoxes: the one you listed, and another that says that if in a race one person gets a ten minute head start, then the other person will never overcome him as the other person will always be running for ten minutes less than the other guy.

That paradox really annoys me.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Haven't you posted this, like, three times now?

In any case, the basic premise of all Ontological arguments--that the existence of the concept proves the existence of the thing itself--puts it on shaky ground at the very least.

danwallacefan

But what's wrong with saying that the concept of God proves the existence of God? That's like saying "Your Ontological argument is bad because its Ontological". Its pure question-begging.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] That sounds a bit different from Zeno's paradox. Isn't zeno where you have to travel half way to get there, half way of half way, half way of half way of half way, half way of half way of half way of half way, half way of half way of half way of half way of half way?-Misanthropic-

He actually made two paradoxes: the one you listed, and another that says that if in a race one person gets a ten minute head start, then the other person will never overcome him as the other person will always be running for ten minutes less than the other guy.

That paradox really annoys me.

He was just showing the issues with the Reduction to the Absurd form of arguing.

[QUOTE="metroidfood"]

You can twist the words anyway you like to cause contradictions. Fact is, there's no law of physics that says that a "maximally great" being has to exist.danwallacefan

True, there's no law of "physics". We have something better. We have the laws of logic, the law of non-contradiction. to say that a maximally great being must exist.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]That was me. And it was Zeno's paradox. And then GabuEx came in with a wall of calculus that I still can't understand and, apparently, blew it away. :PVandalvideo

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

The idea goes like this: If possibly necessarily P, then P.

If P is possible to exist, and if P is necessary to some other aspect of existence, then P must exist.

It's controversial.

Theokhoth

There are two aspects of the Axiom S5 modal: The first states that if P is possible, then P is necessarily possible; P has to be possible. This isn't controversial at all because it's common sense; almost all things are necessarily possible.

The aspect you're using, however, is very controversial.

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Haven't you posted this, like, three times now?

In any case, the basic premise of all Ontological arguments--that the existence of the concept proves the existence of the thing itself--puts it on shaky ground at the very least.

Dr_Brocoli

But what's wrong with saying that the concept of God proves the existence of God? That's like saying "Your Ontological argument is bad because its Ontological". Its pure question-begging.

The problem that arises is what is this argument trying to prove. The existence of a maximally great being (for a certain criteria - which could exist), OR a specific "model" of a deity such as the Abrahamic God? In either case imo this argument just shows that logically there is a being that is greater than all the rest (that happens in anything that can be measured -its no news-, either precisely or loosely).

But the point is that this argument in no way does it imply that religion is right (not in moral terms), or that an approach to what a deity is, is even possible.

EDIT: In other words: when one hears the phrase "an argument for the existence of (a) god", inevitably will bear in mind the common concept of all religious beliefs about what god is (a benevolent, all-powerful, all-knowing being, that is the conscious creator of the universe and the one to sustain it with its will).

In other words: when one hears god they ultimately have a narrow imagination of what that may be. Now, of course I am saying that the god of the argument may have NOTHING to do with what most people can possibly imagine as god. But not only in details, but in the full spectrum of it, its nature, the essence of its existence.

I am just clarifying why this argument is in no way a "diploma" for religions to flaunt, in order to use it as a "certificate" that proves that they are needed in the world or that their existence is something that should not be in question.

He actually made two paradoxes: the one you listed, and another that says that if in a race one person gets a ten minute head start, then the other person will never overcome him as the other person will always be running for ten minutes less than the other guy.

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

He actually made two paradoxes: the one you listed, and another that says that if in a race one person gets a ten minute head start, then the other person will never overcome him as the other person will always be running for ten minutes less than the other guy.

domatron23

It does; you just need to hear it in better terms than I know how to put it. Read Zeno and the Tortoise: How to Think Like a Philosopher.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

I have never heard of maximal greatness described in terms of physics. I've only seen it applied to arguments regarding omnipotence, omniscience, perfect goodness, eternity, and beauty, concluding that maximal greatness is necessary and sufficient for divinity.

BumFluff122

What that doesn't make any damned sense.domatron23

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

He actually made two paradoxes: the one you listed, and another that says that if in a race one person gets a ten minute head start, then the other person will never overcome him as the other person will always be running for ten minutes less than the other guy.

Theokhoth

It does; you just need to hear it in better terms than I know how to put it. Read Zeno and the Tortoise: How to Think Like a Philosopher.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Rocky32189"]These "arguments" are ridiculous and do not prove anything. All they are doing is connecting a bunch of phrases together, starting with something reasonable that everyone can agree with and ending by saying god exists. You can do this with anything. If you want to construct a proof for the existence of god, provide some actual evidence. Rocky32189

They're logical arguments. The original statements make sense because they are logical, and the following statements attempt to follow the original statement's trail of logic. This system is behind every scientific and philosophical discovery ever made, and saying "you can do this with anything" is both true and false.

Empirical evidence is nice, but logic is necessary.

Just because an argument is logical, doesn't mean it proves anything. These arguments do not make any headway at all in the proof of a god.

Empirical evidence isn't simply "nice". It is essential.

Oh and danwallacefan do you maintain that "not being maximally great" constitutes an actual property.domatron23

[QUOTE="domatron23"]Oh and danwallacefan do you maintain that "not being maximally great" constitutes an actual property.danwallacefan

[QUOTE="domatron23"]Oh and danwallacefan do you maintain that "not being maximally great" constitutes an actual property.danwallacefan

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

[QUOTE="domatron23"]Oh and danwallacefan do you maintain that "not being maximally great" constitutes an actual property.MetalGear_Ninty

This argument was Published by Robert Maydole in the Philosophy journal Philo, and even the prolific atheist philosopher Quentin Smith was stumped by it. Just one reason I'm really looking forward to the release of the Blackwell companion to Natural Theology.

(A) "Maximal greatness" is a perfection
(B) If a property is a perfection, it's negation is not a perfection
(C) If a property Q is a necessary condition for a perfection P, Q is a perfection

(1) If a maximally great being does not exist, it's not possible that a maximally great being exists (from the definition of "maximal greatness")
(2) If it's not possible that a maximally great being exists, every being has the property of "not being maximally great".
(3) If every being has the property of "not being maximally great", the property of "not being maximally great" is a necessary condition.
(4) If a maximally great being does not exist, "not being maximally great" is a perfection (from 1,2,3 and C)
(6) The property of "not being maximally great" is not a perfection (from A and B)
(7) Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

danwallacefan

Okay I've got something. Premise 4 does not follow. You've established that "not being maximally great" is a necessary property of all beings (although calling a negative a property seems odd) but you haven't established that it's a necessary property of a perfection. C says that if "not being maximally great" is a necessary property for a perfection P, then "not being maximally great" is a perception. "Not being maximally great" is a necessary property of every being but not of any perfection. Therefore the argument is a non-sequiter.

We can know the law of non-contradiction (that's something we know a priori) before we have any sort of empirical knowledge.danwallacefan

Okay I've got something. Premise 4 does not follow. You've established that "not being maximally great" is a necessary property of all beings (although calling a negative a property seems odd)domatron23

I was pondering it, and how about not address it by a negative property, but rather merely call it "less-than-maximally great" or "finitely great"? It doesn't seem like a negative property (if such things exist)

but you haven't established that it's a necessary property of a perfection. C says that if "not being maximally great" is a necessary property for a perfection P, then "not being maximally great" is a perception. "Not being maximally great" is a necessary property of every being but not of any perfection. Therefore the argument is a non-sequiter.

domatron23

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

I have never heard of maximal greatness described in terms of physics. I've only seen it applied to arguments regarding omnipotence, omniscience, perfect goodness, eternity, and beauty, concluding that maximal greatness is necessary and sufficient for divinity.

danwallacefan

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"] I maintain that it is a necessary condition.

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"] We can know the law of non-contradiction (that's something we know a priori) before we have any sort of empirical knowledge.domatron23

However, the notion that we know basic laws of logic, like the law of identity or the law of non-contradiction, through experience is absurd because knowledge only follows from experience via induction. But pray tell, how would one go about justifying induction? with induction? :lol:, that would be a circular argument.

If we seriously entertain your epistemology of logic, then logic completely falls apart thanks to the problem of induction.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]Oh and danwallacefan do you maintain that "not being maximally great" constitutes an actual property.danwallacefan

Oh and danwallacefan do you maintain that "not being maximally great" constitutes an actual property.domatron23

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]The only way something can be maximally great according to theists from an atheists perspective is to be maximally great biological evolution allows at a particular point in time in a particular place in terms of the properties of that place. All these ontological argument fail to take into account that various other questions must also be addressed such as the existence of something outside of our reality and if there even is such an existence capable from real physical reality as opposed to the human concept of reality.

BumFluff122

:( No one talks to me.

I usually prefer people quoting me even to say they find my posts hilarious, rather than ignoring them. Think of it that way: your input may make me not post hilarious things again like the ones that are ignored and I dont have any input to know what people think of those. :x

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"] I maintain that it is a necessary condition.

danwallacefan

to add to my point: I would maintain that a male is not a female because this is a CONDITION. There certainly can be negative truths or negative conditions.

That's nonsese, if 'not being maximally great' is necessary, then by logic maximal greatness does not exist.MetalGear_Ninty

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

[QUOTE="AnObscureName"]That is basically saying that a god must exist because it's possible that god exists.AnObscureName

That logic doesn't really apply to the god concept. If it is possible for god to exist, then god exist.

We don't know if that is possible though.

What constitutes "greatness"? If I am the greatest C++ programmer there is and nothing else in existence is as good at it as me, does that make the God of C++? Philosophy is so divorced from practicality, I'm amazed so many people find it engaging.xaos

*ahem* [insert my above statement]

danwallacefan

[QUOTE="xaos"]What constitutes "greatness"? If I am the greatest C++ programmer there is and nothing else in existence is as good at it as me, does that make the God of C++? Philosophy is so divorced from practicality, I'm amazed so many people find it engaging.danwallacefan

Ok, I got it...

*leaves*

[QUOTE="xaos"]What constitutes "greatness"? If I am the greatest C++ programmer there is and nothing else in existence is as good at it as me, does that make the God of C++? Philosophy is so divorced from practicality, I'm amazed so many people find it engaging.danwallacefan

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

*ahem* [insert my above statement]

BumFluff122

Underlying your entire post is the unstated assumption that Science is the paradigm of truth disciplines, that it is a necessary condition for knowledge. THAT is patently absurd. Science makes many unscientific assumptions which are needed to say that Science is a rational truth discipline. Those assumptions need philosophical justification (I would contend that one actually needs THEOLOGY to justify scientific realism)

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

I was pondering it, and how about not address it by a negative property, but rather merely call it "less-than-maximally great" or "finitely great"? It doesn't seem like a negative property (if such things exist)danwallacefan

How about contingent, that might be a better substitute given that maximal greatness implies necessity. Really though I still think that's a dodgy point of the argument.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]but you haven't established that it's a necessary property of a perfection. C says that if "not being maximally great" is a necessary property for a perfection P, then "not being maximally great" is a perfection. "Not being maximally great" is a necessary property of every being but not of any perfection. Therefore the argument is a non-sequiter.

danwallacefan

Yeah I know that "less than greatness" is a necessary condition for all beings. You need to establish that it is a necessary condition for a perfection though otherwise you can't use C.

EDIT: okay this is creepy. I'm trying to edit this thing but it always omits the first part of my quote WTF!

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

*ahem* [insert my above statement]

danwallacefan

Underlying your entire post is the unstated assumption that Science is the paradigm of truth disciplines, that it is a necessary condition for knowledge. THAT is patently absurd. Science makes many unscientific assumptions which are needed to say that Science is a rational truth discipline. Those assumptions need philosophical justification (I would contend that one actually needs THEOLOGY to justify scientific realism)

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

*ahem* [insert my above statement]

danwallacefan

Underlying your entire post is the unstated assumption that Science is the paradigm of truth disciplines, that it is a necessary condition for knowledge. THAT is patently absurd. Science makes many unscientific assumptions which are needed to say that Science is a rational truth discipline. Those assumptions need philosophical justification (I would contend that one actually needs THEOLOGY to justify scientific realism)

:( No one talks to me.

I usually prefer people quoting me even to say they find my posts hilarious, rather than ignoring them. Think of it that way: your input may make me not post hilarious things again like the ones that are ignored and I dont have any input to know what people think of those. :x

Teenaged