1818 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

 

It is possible that a maximally great being does not exist.
If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world.
If a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world, then it does not exist in every possible world.
If a maximally great being does not exist in every possible world, then it does not exist in the actual world.
If a maximally great being does not exist in the actual world, then a maximally great being does not exist.

Therefore, a maximally great being does not exist.


So, let's take it one premise at a time.

1, It is possible that a maximally great being does not exist. What do you think? Give reasons, not Logical Fallacies. Try to control your name calling.

I fixed that for you.

 

The answer to your so called fix is, no.  There are things greater than others. 

 

The Ontological argument states:

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.  What is a maximally great being?

[serp777]

GODEL'S ARGUMENT #5
Here is Godels Ontological argument

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified

Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.
Axiom 2: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive
Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive.

Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
orollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.

Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.

Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.
http://plato.stanfor...ents/#GodOntArg

The logic of this argument was proved mathematically by two scientists last year and headlines were created that they had proved the existence of God.  What they proved was the soundness of the argument given the assumptions. 
http://www.spiegel.d...m-a-928668.html
http://www.decodedsc...od-exists/38801
http://www.fu-berlin..._308/index.html
http://www.logic.at/...oofAbstract.pdf
http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=20678984
http://downtrend.com...ove-god-exists/
http://www.learning-...istence-of-god/
 

Which God? Zeus, or thor, or apollo, or Allah, or Baal, or the flying spaghetti monster, or the mastermind celestial teapot, or the leprechaun master, etc? How does your ridiculous ontological argument support Christianity? This could be posted in all of your other unnecessary threads, like evidence for Islam, or evidence for Hinduism. 

[shadowhawk]

Godel as we have seen can draw a circle around anything caused and you can draw a circle around the simplest thing caused to the greatest thing caused but it still will be incomplete and need an outside explanation.  What is that greatest explanation for the caused world?  This led Godel to the Ontological Argument which as we have seen can be put in the form of a mathematical argument and proved.  There is always something outside the circle.  What is it?  Well for one thing it can’t be caused or we would just need another circle.  Second we have run out of caused things.  The Maximally Greatest being would have to be a necessary being that exists and needs no cause.  Who or what could that be?

[shadowhawk]

serp777: Which God? Zeus, or thor, or apollo, or Allah, or Baal, or the flying spaghetti monster, or the mastermind celestial teapot, or the leprechaun master, etc? How does your ridiculous ontological argument support Christianity? This could be posted in all of your other unnecessary threads, like evidence for Islam, or evidence for Hinduism.

The Ontological argument and Godel belongs to section 1 of this topic.  Is there a God?  Section 2 addresses the issue of which God.  It is certainly not the spaghetti monster or the teapot.  They were created and we know who did it and when.  As for leprechauns Zeus, Apollo or Baal, they are not serious contenders for the Ontological argument as presented by Godel.  Allah - perhaps.  Certain forms of Hinduism, perhaps.  I think certain forms of Hinduism are closer than Islam where Allah directly spoke the Quran but that is another topic.  Pluralism does not mean nothing is true.

Edited by shadowhawk, 31 July 2014 - 08:29 PM.

[serp777]

 

serp777: Which God? Zeus, or thor, or apollo, or Allah, or Baal, or the flying spaghetti monster, or the mastermind celestial teapot, or the leprechaun master, etc? How does your ridiculous ontological argument support Christianity? This could be posted in all of your other unnecessary threads, like evidence for Islam, or evidence for Hinduism.

The Ontological argument and Godel belongs to section 1 of this topic.  Is there a God?  Section 2 addresses the issue of which God.  It is certainly not the spaghetti monster or the teapot.  They were created and we know who did it and when.  As for leprechauns Zeus, Apollo or Baal, they are not serious contenders for the Ontological argument as presented by Godel.  Allah - perhaps.  Certain forms of Hinduism, perhaps.  I think certain forms of Hinduism are closer than Islam where Allah directly spoke the Quran but that is another topic.  Pluralism does not mean nothing is true.

 

And it certainly doesn't mean Christianity is true. At best you're reasonably agnostic. 

[shadowhawk]

What it argues for is there is a God.  That raises the question which God and then I present Christianity.  However you have to see each in their context.  We are dealing here, one at a time, with difficulties from each of the three sections.  I am not reasonably agnostic.  I am a Theist who has looked at the various alternatives and chose Christianity,  I have created topics where evidence can be presented for other choices.  This includes Atheism.Agnosticism doesn't know so it isn't a choice.

 

By the way simply saying the Ontological argument does not mean Christianity is true does not mean it is false either.  You have said nothing and presented no evidence.If there is a God, then Christianity is certainly an option as I have argued.

[Duchykins]

It is possible that a maximally great being does not exist.
If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world.
If a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world, then it does not exist in every possible world.
If a maximally great being does not exist in every possible world, then it does not exist in the actual world.
If a maximally great being does not exist in the actual world, then a maximally great being does not exist.

Therefore, a maximally great being does not exist.


So, let's take it one premise at a time.

1, It is possible that a maximally great being does not exist. What do you think? Give reasons, not Logical Fallacies. Try to control your name calling.

I fixed that for you.

The answer to your so called fix is, no. There are things greater than others.

The Ontological argument states:
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists. What is a maximally great being?

It is still possible that a maximally great being does not exist. Nobody is required to entertain that kind of ontological argument at face value.

I don't know why you're bitching, my counterargument isn't even original. Your little proof got slammed years and years ago.

[Duchykins]

Since this is only about defining something into existence, we can argue all kinds of ridiculous nonsense.

I can assert that a maximally great being is a quasar, or supermassive black hole. All you can do is disagree and dismiss it because it's just something I asserted.

I can say that a supermassive black hole is a sentient being. What can you do about it? Nothing but disagree and dismiss it.

All you are doing is giving us a just-so story. All we have to do is say 'not'. Ontological arguments are useless.


You want us to acknowledge your assertion that a maximally great being possibly/probably exists, and probably has all the qualities you define of it, but you will not acknowledge the possibility that it does not, and you still want us to take your assertions seriously. HAHAHAH

Go back to your teleological arguments, at least those are slightly more interesting.

Edited by Duchykins, 01 August 2014 - 05:01 AM.

[shadowhawk]

This is not about defining something into existence.  Some real things cause other real things and some things are greater than others.

 

Dychykins: It is still possible that a maximally great being does not exist. Nobody is required to entertain that kind of ontological argument at face value.
I don't know why you're bitching, my counterargument isn't even original. Your little proof got slammed years and years ago.

 

Your counter argument that a quasar, or supermassive black hole can be a maximally great being is nonsense.  You can draw a circle around either of these and they need an outside explanation.  YOU can define a peanut as your maximally great being and given your argument, I suppose you would.  Things are what ever you define them as.  OK since that is YOUR method of logic, you loose because I define it otherwise.  Insane.    Some things are greater than others and some things cause others and being uncaused is a greater property than being caused.  I don't think you get Godel at all.

 

Then you commit another logical fallacy  by simply proclaiming the Ontological argument has been defeated long ago and I say prove it.  Lets take it point at a time and we will see.

 

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.  Is it or isn't it? 

[Duchykins]

Draw a circle lmao.

Your circle stories are nonsense. Circles are two-dimensional flat objects.

[shadowhawk]

Draw a circle lmao.

Your circle stories are nonsense. Circles are two-dimensional flat objects.

 

I see, you are taking a dive.  Ok anyone else want to talk about Godel and the Ontological Argument.  OTHERWISE I will take another issue.  Here is the argument for the last time I am going to discuss it.

 

 

[Duchykins]

Aw, you mad I messed up your circle argument? Also, I have to correct myself, a circle is a one-dimensional object.


Anyway, you never defined 'maximally great being' so nobody knows what you're talking about. Ontology relies heavily on defintions, so get your shit together.

Edited by Duchykins, 01 August 2014 - 11:09 PM.

[Duchykins]

Go ahead and define it. I can prove you are using your theism to confirm your theism, hahahah. You will simply be my next victim in this.

Edited by Duchykins, 01 August 2014 - 11:18 PM.

[shadowhawk]

SUMMARY OF TOPIC IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY???
http://www.longecity...-43#entry676194

GODEL DISCUSSION STARTED HERE
http://www.longecity...-43#entry677051

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Discussed in first section post 331
http://www.longecity...-12#entry636722

Here we brought it up one more time because pf Godel's use of it.
http://www.longecity...-44#entry678257
1.   It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2.    If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3.    If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4.    If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5.    If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6.    Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Any serious takers?

1.   It is possible that a maximally great being exists.  IS IT?

 

 

[Duchykins]

What's a maximally great being?

[Duchykins]

You have to tell us what it is in order for us to say it's possible or not. How can anyone say it is or isn't possible when no one knows what the hell you're talking about?


By the way, if you keep avoiding my points and questions like a coward, others participating in the thread will notice this, and because they're smart they will realize you avoid because you are rightfully afraid I will trap you in your own filth, so they will pop the same questions on you until you either answer them directly, radically change the subject, or disappear from the thread.

[shadowhawk]

I earlier wrote concerning premise1.

 

"Is it possible that a maximally great being exists? Is it possible that a great being exists No. Yes. The idea of a maximally great being is intuitively a coherent idea, and so it seems plausible that such a being could exist. In order for the ontological argument to fail, the concept of a maximally great being must be incoherent. Do you deny this?

If the answer is yes, are there some great beings greater than others? Obviously. The greatest of all would be the “Maximally great being.” What does the word “greater” mean? Plantinga takes maximal excellence to include such properties as omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection. A being which has maximal excellence in every possible world would have what Plantinga calls "maximal greatness." the concept of a maximally great being doesn't seem even remotely incoherent. So if it is possible for a great being to exist, it follows that a maximally great being must exist or you would be saying, “the great being is the Maximally great being.”."

 

Godel draws circles around caused things.  A globe would do as well and it is nonsense to miss this point.  Anything caused can have a circle or globe put around it.  After all what is a globe but circles.  That there are degrees of greatness in this world is obvious and in many worlds this would be so as well.  All caused things need a cause outside themselves and there explanation is not to be found within themselves.  Godel shows this with incompleteness.

[Duchykins]

So omnisicence, omnipotence, moral perfection, this is the definition of maximal greatness.


Why?


On what basis are these omnis asserted? What prompts listing these properties as part of the definition? Where do these ideas of these properties come from? Why are they more accurate than other ideas of great beings?

[shadowhawk]

Duchykins: "By the way, if you keep avoiding my points and questions like a coward, others participating in the thread will notice this, and because they're smart they will realize you avoid because you are rightfully afraid I will trap you in your own filth, so they will pop the same questions on you until you either answer them directly, radically change the subject, or disappear from the thread."

 

Typical ad hominem.  That is all you have.    

[shadowhawk]

So omnisicence, omnipotence, moral perfection, this is the definition of maximal greatness.


Why?


On what basis are these omnis asserted? What prompts listing these properties as part of the definition? Where do these ideas of these properties come from? Why are they more accurate than other ideas of great beings?

Plantings says it "includes,"  but is not limited to such things.  A maximally great being would possess these attributes would she not?  It is greater to have them than not.

[Duchykins]

I thought you might say that. The definition needs to be more comprehensive than that. This is supposed to be serious ontology. If you object to my representation of your definiton then you need to provide a more complete defintion.

You also avoided my questions again.

Whenever you feel that you have defined your great being satisfactorily, I will ask those questions again.

[shadowhawk]

The argument does not say what a greater than all being is but what ever it is, is maximally great. http://www.longecity...-45#entry678700

 

Do you deny that in the real world one thing causes another?  Are all things you know of caused?  Does not the greater thing cause the lesser and without the greater the lesser cannot explain itself.  Just as Godel said.  Is it greater to cause or be caused.  Godel proved using math, that everything was incomplete by itself.  You can draw a circle around all caused things.  The physical cosmos can have a circle drawn around it because it begin and was caused.  What can't you draw a circle around?  What can explain itself?  Well it has to be different than everything else or it would also need a cause.  That is a maximally great being.  If you can't fully comprehend it what do you expect.  You were caused.  It will always be somewhat a mystery.

Edited by shadowhawk, 02 August 2014 - 01:38 AM.

[Duchykins]

Since you did not elaborate on what is included in the 'includes' part of the definiton, since you appealed to my subjective view on what is maximally great, I will simply assume what I wish under the 'includes' part of your definition. I promise you will not like my idea of maximal greatness.



Also why are you appealing to observations of phenomena occuring 'inside' this universe as if they are applicable to things 'outside' or 'before' this universe? It's greater to cause? Who is declaring this value? A theist? On what authority? What is the basis of the declaration, did it come from the land of imagination? Is basis something else?

Are all things I know of caused? ... I know that quantum mechanics allows for the occurance of uncaused events; it's not impossible however counterintuitve that seems. Studies have proved that intuitive thinking is more likely to bring you incorrect conclusions than analytical. Analytical thinking is relatively recent in human history which is why it boggles the minds of theists who rely on intuition and arguments found in intuitive thinking. Do I know everything? No. Do you? Does anyone on the planet know everything?

What can't you draw a circle around? Things that do not exist.

What can explain itself? Nothing. Explanations are of our devising to make sense of our sensory information and perceptions.

[shadowhawk]

What can explain itself? Nothing. There are things beyond us we can't explain but that does not mean they don’t exist.  We cant draw circles around uncaused things.

Maximally Greatness has been defined.  I was addressing you and I assume you are subjective.  That does not mean your subjective imagination determine what we are talking about.  I could subjectively assume you are a flea I am talking to.  Perhaps I am wrong.

As for quantum mechanics there is the measurement problem where a conscious observer determines how raw random energy waves manifest themselves.  Energy alone without the observer cannot explain how the world we experience becomes what it is.  Thinking, consciousness, observation and mind are involved in a measurable reality.  Call it Analytical or Intuitive, the maximally Great mind orders quantum reality.  No I don’t know everything nor do you, my point.  You eventually believe what you do by faith.

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 02 August 2014 - 03:30 AM.

[Duchykins]

You gave only a partial defintion, and were deliberately vague with the other part. I'll do whatever the hell I please with the definition then, within the bounds you outlined, and you're not going to like it. It's your own damn fault for leaving the definition wide open like that. But you really had no choice because the definition is based on a creature in an Abrahamic religion, a creature said to be very mysterious and poorly understood by the lower rabble, humans.

All of the classical arguments, and their modernized versions, use theism to confirm theism. There is no other source for the premises, no shred of evidence anywhere to justify something like 'moral perfection' or 'omniscience' in the definition of the god. Concepts of gods, what they do or what they have done, what they are like or not like, these all come from pre-existing religious beliefs. They are incredibly weak from an objective standpoint. This is why only theists, theists these arguments are catered toward, find these arguments powerful, they are in desperate need to have reassurance of their beliefs. A secret part of their mind understands exactly how silly some of their beliefs are, that is why theists, or other religionists, have always had such strong negative reactions to the mere existence of nonbelievers, or even theists who believe in different gods. Religious people tend to be sensitive to rejection of their beliefs and need reassurance from their peers that their beliefs are at least reasonable, or they feel uncomfortable with themselves, become self-conscious.


Virtually no one else is moved by these arguments. They are written by theists, for theists, to serve as a security blanket. They are completely absurd from a more objective standpoint and can be summarily dismissed. It takes a theist to find these arguments impressive or endearing.

Try to protest that the premises and definitions aren't founded in a pre-existing religion. Go ahead. What could be the other source? You have some empirical data somewhere that suggests a perfectly benevolent being exists? Do you have some scientific observation that the being is omniscient? Do you even have some anecdotes from living people saying the being told them it was omnipotent? Where did these concepts come from otherwise? You made it all up on the spot? The original authors came to these ideas all by themselves?

[serp777]

What can explain itself? Nothing. There are things beyond us we can't explain but that does not mean they don’t exist. We cant draw circles around uncaused things.

Maximally Greatness has been defined. I was addressing you and I assume you are subjective. That does not mean your subjective imagination determine what we are talking about. I could subjectively assume you are a flea I am talking to. Perhaps I am wrong.

As for quantum mechanics there is the measurement problem where a conscious observer determines how raw random energy waves manifest themselves. Energy alone without the observer cannot explain how the world we experience becomes what it is. Thinking, consciousness, observation and mind are involved in a measurable reality. Call it Analytical or Intuitive, the maximally Great mind orders quantum reality. No I don’t know everything nor do you, my point. You eventually believe what you do by faith.

Actually the observer being conscious has nothing to do with the observer effect. The quantization of particles has to do with the measurement itself. When you measure something, you use photons or some particle to do the measurement, which disturbs the system,thus leading to the observer effect . Anything can cause the observer effect, including a laser, or a computer optical measuring device, etc. Human consciousness does not need to be involved

[shadowhawk]

[shadowhawk]

You gave only a partial defintion, and were deliberately vague with the other part. I'll do whatever the hell I please with the definition then, within the bounds you outlined, and you're not going to like it. It's your own damn fault for leaving the definition wide open like that. But you really had no choice because the definition is based on a creature in an Abrahamic religion, a creature said to be very mysterious and poorly understood by the lower rabble, humans.

All of the classical arguments, and their modernized versions, use theism to confirm theism. There is no other source for the premises, no shred of evidence anywhere to justify something like 'moral perfection' or 'omniscience' in the definition of the god. Concepts of gods, what they do or what they have done, what they are like or not like, these all come from pre-existing religious beliefs. They are incredibly weak from an objective standpoint. This is why only theists, theists these arguments are catered toward, find these arguments powerful, they are in desperate need to have reassurance of their beliefs. A secret part of their mind understands exactly how silly some of their beliefs are, that is why theists, or other religionists, have always had such strong negative reactions to the mere existence of nonbelievers, or even theists who believe in different gods. Religious people tend to be sensitive to rejection of their beliefs and need reassurance from their peers that their beliefs are at least reasonable, or they feel uncomfortable with themselves, become self-conscious.


Virtually no one else is moved by these arguments. They are written by theists, for theists, to serve as a security blanket. They are completely absurd from a more objective standpoint and can be summarily dismissed. It takes a theist to find these arguments impressive or endearing.

Try to protest that the premises and definitions aren't founded in a pre-existing religion. Go ahead. What could be the other source? You have some empirical data somewhere that suggests a perfectly benevolent being exists? Do you have some scientific observation that the being is omniscient? Do you even have some anecdotes from living people saying the being told them it was omnipotent? Where did these concepts come from otherwise? You made it all up on the spot? The original authors came to these ideas all by themselves?

1.  The Ontological argument does not use Theism to confirm theism.  Godel did not either and I am not.  Premise One does mot do this.

2.  People with an open mind can be moved by these arguments.  Godel was.  I know lots of people who agree.  No committed atheist who is desperate will agree no matter what.

3.  Your observations of religious people are ad hominem.

4.  There is a lot of verbiage here but no refutation of the Ontological Argument at all.  Zero.

[serp777]

 

The measurement effect is complicated and no mechanism is yet known definitively, but again, has nothing to do with conscious awareness. A tool or programmed computer could arrive at the same result. Did you watch your own youtube video? Do you understand the terminology they are using? 

 

The measurement effect is actually evidence for the multiverse. When they talk about a superposition of particles, they are asking why quantization occurred at a specific spot instead of another. Although probability is deterministic, they are essentially wondering why a 7 of hearts was drawn instead of an ace of spades. That would seem to defeat the entire point of probability.

 

One conclusion though is that all possible outcomes do occur--in similar universes that branch off from our own. We just happen to be in a universe where a particular set of configurations occurred, because all configurations must occur. 

[serp777]

Problem with Godel's argument

Fundamental assumptions that dont have evidence

Axiom 1 assumes that it is possible to single out positive properties from among all properties. Impossible to know whether this is true.

 

Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive. God, being all knowing and all powerful, has to also know and contain all negative properties, else he is not all knowing and not infinite.

 

Additional problems- 

 

In this case, lets set the variable God to something else, like celestial teapot

 

• Definition 1: x is (Celestial teapot)-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
• Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
• Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified

• Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
• Axiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive
• Axiom 3: The property of being (Celestial teapot)-like is positive
• Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
• Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property
• Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
• Theorem 2: The property of being (Celestial teapot)-like is consistent.
• Theorem 3: If something is (Celestial teapot)-like, then the property of being (Celestial teapot)-like is an essence of that thing.
• Theorem 4: Necessarily, the property of being (Celestial teapot)-like is exemplified.

 

PROOF OF THE CELESTIAL TEAPOT. 

Edited by serp777, 02 August 2014 - 09:15 PM.