1818 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

The ONTOLOGICQAL ARGUMENT from the Possibility
of God’s Existence to His Actuality
by Alvan Plantaga http://shrewddoveapo...inga-explained/

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.

It all hangs on whether you think that (1) is true. (2)-(5) are true whether or not (1) is true. But if all the premisses are true, the conclusion logically follows.

[shadowhawk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JRsHIN5ATY

[shadowhawk]

[N.T.M.]

One of the problems with the ontological argument--and the one that I most often point out--is that it's based on the idea that given infinite possibilities, eventually one must be God. The problem, however, is that there could just as easily be a God-negating force which could have come into existence first. Infinite possibilities doesn't mean that everything must happen providing there's enough time.

*edit* I only listened to the first minute and a half of the video (above), but it seems clear that it only makes sense if you concentrate on ignoring everything the guy's saying. Did he really just say that it's easy to evaluate the qualities of God, but much harder to evaluate something as "nebulous" as mathematics?

Edited by N.T.M., 16 January 2014 - 08:33 AM.

[platypus]

*edit* I only listened to the first minute and a half of the video (above), but it seems clear that it only makes sense if you concentrate on ignoring everything the guy's saying. Did he really just say that it's easy to evaluate the qualities of God, but much harder to evaluate something as "nebulous" as mathematics?

LOL

[johnross47]

Like all these proofs, the immediate reaction to this, of any reasonable uncommitted person, is a strong feeling that it is nonsense; it looks like logic and it all seems to be in working order, but an ordinary grade BS detector tells you something is wrong. It's very wrong. This crock can be used to prove the existence of just about anything, gods, man-eating teapots, fairies, whatever you like. It's all in the definition used at the start. You can use it to prove god does not exist by negating the first premise. It is a great source of silliness because it is ultimately worthless.

"Well, let’s see what else we can prove with this argument. What about our friendly neighborhood coffee pot that is the explanation for all the missing socks that you never find.

• It is possible that a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists.
• If it is possible that a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists, then a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in some possible world.
• If a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in some possible world, then a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in every possible world.
• If a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in every possible world, a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in the actual world.
• If a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in the actual world, then a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists.
• Therefore maximally great sock stealing coffee pots exist.

fromhttp://godlessons.co...ument-debunked/

Cool, that explains all your missing socks. Well, not really. This can also be worked in reverse. We can take the argument and make it show that God doesn’t exist too. Unfortunately in the same manner, the coffee pot loses its existence as well. (sad face)

• 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 a maximally great being does not exist in any possible world.
• If a maximally great being does not exist in any possible world, a maximally great being cannot exist in the actual world.
• If a maximally great being cannot exist in the actual world, a maximally great being does not exist.
• Therefore, a maximally great being does not exist."

There are many examples. Try this one from http://skeptico.blog...d-rebuttal.html

"The Ontological Argument for God



I’ve never understood the supposed difficulty in refuting the ontological argument for god’s existence. Apart from the fact that it’s an argument from logic and reason alone, rather than from any actual verifiable evidence – which should rule it out as an argument to be considered seriously anyway in my view – it never seemed to make any sense. Still, some people apparently believe it, including onerecent commenter who listed it among the numerous “proofs” that god exists, so I thought it was time I deconstructed it. As you’ll see, it didn’t take long to locate the logical fallacy that’s at its heart.
The ontological argument was originally put forward by Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century. Wikipedia has two versions of it, but I’m going to refer to what I think is a better version at The Internet Dictionary of Philosophy: “The Classic Version of the Ontological Argument” as they call it, which they say can accurately be summarized thus:

1) It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (i.e., the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
2) God exists as an idea in the mind.
3) A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4) Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (i.e., a greatest possible being that does exist).

No. Correction - if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then all this means is that we can imagine something that is greater than the idea of God in the mind – not greater than a God who actually exists. Anselm’s argument relies entirely on equivocation - the misleading use of a term that has more than one meaning, while glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time. Specifically, Anselm relies on there being two meanings of the word “God,” and he slips between these definitions as it suits him. What are these two meanings of the word “God”? They are (1) a god who exists in reality and (2) a god who exists only in the mind. In point 4 above he uses the “god who exists only in the mind” version, but in point 5 he tries to make you think he was talking about the “god who exists in reality,” because point 5 is:

5) But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)

Yes, but “the greatest possible being that can be imagined” is not God who exists only as an idea in the mind – so there is no contradiction. It only seems to be a contradiction because Anselm is equivocating between the different meanings of the word “God” and has glossed over which meaning he is using at different points in his argument.

6) Therefore, God exists.

No. Epic FAIL. Therefore nothing. All this shows is that we can imagine something greater than a God who exists only in the mind. But “God who exists only in the mind” is not “a being than which none greater can be imagined.” In fact, premise 3 specifically states therecan be something greater than this – a God who exists in reality - and so the argument is contradicted by its own premises. “God who exists only in the mind” is not God, as defined in premise 1, and so it ispossible to imagine something greater, without violating premise 1.
Anselm’s mistake will become clearer if we define his terms in a less ambiguous way. I will rename Anselm’s different versions of God, as God-1 and God-2:
God-1 = God who exists in reality (the thing whose existence we are trying to prove).
God-2 = a God who exists only as an idea in the mind.
Now we can rephrase the argument:

• Nothing greater than God-1 can be imagined
• God-2 exists.
• God-1 is greater than God-2
• If God-1 does not exist then we can imagine something greater than God-2 (i.e., God-1)
• But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God-1
• Therefore God-1 exists

You can see quite clearly now that the argument is bogus. Point 4 is where it goes wrong. It only appears to work because Anselm equivocates about the definitions of God-1 and God-2. This is what he is doing. He is trying to make point 4 sound like, “If God-1 does not exist then we can imagine something greater than God-1” (which would be a contradiction to point 1). But point 4 only makes sense as “…we can imagine something greater than God-2 (i.e., God-1),” as in my version. (Otherwise he is actually saying “If God-1 does not exist then we can imagine something greater than God-1 (i.e., God-1),” which is gibberish.) He hopes you won’t notice he changed God-2 to God-1 in point 5, setting up the contradiction to point 1. But he wasn’t talking about God-1 in point 4, so there is no contradiction. Consequently, point 6 “Therefore God-1 exists,” just doesn’t follow.
Not only that, but now we’ve deconstructed it, we can see it doesn’t even make sense. Consider this. Point 5 is just a restatement of point 1. So if you leave out this repeated point (you don’t need it here since it’s already been stated), the last two points (4 and 6) are:

• If God-1 does not exist then we can imagine something greater than God-2 (i.e., God-1)
• Therefore God-1 exists

To simplify even further, we can cut out what this allows us to imagine, which leaves:

• If God-1 does not exist then …
• … God-1 exists

To go back to the phrasing of the original argument, he is saying, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then God exists in reality. Or, put it even more simply, if God doesn’t exist then he exists.
I have read several versions of Anselm’s argument, and they all fall apart for exactly the same reason - the logical fallacy of equivocation. The only surprising thing about this argument, in my view, is that anyone thinks it should be taken seriously."
I'm not a great believer in cut and paste, but since SH does it incessantly, and simply shouts adolescent abuse at my original posts, I don't think it's worth the time and effort of composing stuff myself.

[DukeNukem]

When you have to rely on ontological arguments to prove your deity exists, then you should know right from the start you are skating on super thin ice. Ontological arguments are the desperate last refuge before absolute defeat.

Good link about ontological arguments and why they should be renamed, antilogical arguments:

http://plato.stanfor...ical-arguments/

[Deep Thought]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JRsHIN5ATY

Formal logic dictates that it should be the other way around.

It's basically a conditional statement, i.e. P implies Q, Q if P, if Q then P and so on.

From Premise 2 to Premise 3:

"If it is true in some possible worlds, then Gold. conjecture is true in all possible worlds."

The predicate is "is true in" and let P equal the statement "Gold. conjecture is true in some worlds" and Q "Gold. conjecture true in all possible worlds", then we have:

P -> Q.
The truth table says that the conditional statement is true if P is true and Q is true, if P is false and Q is false, and if P is false, but Q is true.

So it's only false for the following statement:

"If Gold. conjecture is true in some worlds, then Gold. conjecture is true in all possible worlds".

The correct way to state it would be:

"If Gold. conjecture is true in all worlds, then Gold. conjecture is true in some worlds".

It's a common error to make when dealing with quantifiers.

∃P∀Q(P(x) → Q(x))

Anyways the above statement is supposed to illustrate the concept that P is not true in all worlds, if it's true in some worlds. If I botched it let me know.



Your logic says that even though the proposition evaluates to false, it's still true?

Edited by Deep Thought, 16 January 2014 - 04:03 PM.

[shadowhawk]

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.

Let us deconstruct this .

Is it possible that a maximally great being exists? I hear no from some! I said, it all hangs on whether you think that (1) is true. (2)-(5) are true whether or not (1) is true. But if all the premisses are true, the conclusion logically follows. So is 1 true? http://www.longecity...300#entry636722
For those who are unfamiliar with the semantics of possible worlds, let me explain that by “a possible world” I do not mean a planet or even a universe, but rather a complete description of reality, or a way reality might be.

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, like the concept of a married bachelor. The concept of a married bachelor is not a strictly self-contradictory concept (as is the concept of a married unmarried man), and yet it is obvious, once one understands the meaning of the words “married” and “bachelor,” that nothing corresponding to that concept can exist. By contrast, the concept of a maximally great being doesn’t seem even remotely incoherent. This provides some prima facie warrant for thinking that it is possible that a maximally great being exists.

Next I will apply the multi verse to this.

Is premise one plausible?
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

No? Proof

[shadowhawk]

N.T.M.
One of the problems with the ontological argument--and the one that I most often point out--is that it's based on the idea that given infinite possibilities, eventually one must be God. The problem, however, is that there could just as easily be a God-negating force which could have come into existence first. Infinite possibilities doesn't mean that everything must happen providing there's enough time. http://www.longecity...330#entry636786

This form of the argument did not use “infinite.” I do not believe in an infinite regress of anything. However I plan later to use it for arguments sake. Is this your version of a God eating snake? There is no god because the snake ate Hin.

platypus http://www.longecity...330#entry636791
LOL

Powerful argument.

johnross47 http://www.longecity...330#entry636845

...an ordinary grade BS detector tells you something is wrong. It's very wrong. This crock can be used to prove the existence of just about anything, gods, man-eating teapots, fairies, whatever you like. It's all in the definition used at the start. You can use it to prove god does not exist by negating the first premise. It is a great source of silliness because it is ultimately worthless.

We are talking about a maximally great being who exists not a faire or teapot.

DukeNukem http://www.longecity...330#entry636857
When you have to rely on ontological arguments to prove your deity exists, then you should know right from the start you are skating on super thin ice. Ontological arguments are the desperate last refuge before absolute defeat.

No real argument here. Name calling.

Deep Thought
Your logic says that even though the proposition evaluates to false, it's still true? http://www.longecity...330#entry636860

No, where did you get this from what I argued?

[N.T.M.]

N.T.M.
One of the problems with the ontological argument--and the one that I most often point out--is that it's based on the idea that given infinite possibilities, eventually one must be God. The problem, however, is that there could just as easily be a God-negating force which could have come into existence first. Infinite possibilities doesn't mean that everything must happen providing there's enough time. http://www.longecity...0#entry636786

This form of the argument did not use “infinite.” I do not believe in an infinite regress of anything. However I plan later to use it for arguments sake. Is this your version of a God eating snake? There is no god because the snake ate Hin.

Infinite possibilities is clearly implied in premise two, which could easily be proven by contradiction. If you accept the argument as a proof, then by definition there must be no possibility of error, but if God's existence is possible within a finite number of "chances," then premise two is false because this criterion doesn't hold (each "chance" is mutually exclusive, which means there's no guarantee). Therefore, assuming premise two is coherent (it isn't, but let's assume that it is), it must be based on an infinite number of chances. This is apart from the equally possible God-precluding force randomly occurring first.

As many others have already pointed out, the argument's full of holes.

*edit* Just to be clear, it doesn't matter whether the number of opportunities is finite or infinite; either leads to problems.

Edited by N.T.M., 17 January 2014 - 02:38 AM.

[Deep Thought]

Platypus:
The Christian God was perfectly OK with having slaves in the Old Testament. It seems like keeping slaves was not objectively morally wrong at all. Is it morally right to torture people forever just because you want to do it?

. The Xtian god is a great example of how objective moral do not exist, not even for gods. Can we close this case and move to the next "proof"?

Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
http://www.nizkor.or...ed-herring.html

So I will decline to answer, especially when you do not answer amy of my questions. I think I have shown you have no basis to make any objective moral judgements So you turn to namecalling.

But if the topic is relevant, you are the one committing a logical fallacy.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I asked Platypus
http://www.longecity...270#entry635144
http://www.longecity...270#entry635315
http://www.longecity...270#entry635315
http://www.longecity...270#entry635365
(Even Repeated several times more)

““Lets see how you apply this. In order to win the second world war we believed it was right to carpet bomb Germany killing men, women and children. The Nazis fired rockets into Great Brittan with little concern who they hit. Each side believed in their own sides moral position.”
http://www.longecity...270#entry635315

Based on your view, were they both right? Neither was right. One or the other was right.”

No answer by Platypus. This is typical of his style for the last few years. I wanted to see, given his theory of there being no objective morals, “This one is easy: there are no "objective" moral values.“ How would he apply his position?
http://www.longecity...270#entry635060
As I said this “easy,” one was repeatedly put to the test. So what did Platypus do? He started attacking Theists and God.

1. The Old Testament. Between four and six thousand years ago, the Israelites had a war and some details were recorded in the Bible. There is no other record. You may study this if you wish. http://www.amazon.co...ntt_at_ep_dpi_1
You either believe the Biblical reasons or account or you have no other evidence. Platypus rejects the Biblical reasons and puts his own spin on it. Christians believe the Biblical reasons for this war and have no other evidence.

2. Slavery: http://www.amazon.co...ntt_at_ep_dpi_1
Excerpt:
“We should compare Hebrew debt-servanthood (many translations render this “slavery”) more fairly to apprentice-like positions to pay off debts — much like the indentured servitude during America’s founding when people worked for approximately 7 years to pay off the debt for their passage to the New World. Then they became free.

In most cases, servanthood was more like a live-in employee, temporarily embedded within the employer’s household. Even today, teams trade sports players to another team that has an owner, and these players belong to a franchise. This language hardly suggests slavery, but rather a formal contractual agreement to be fulfilled — like in the Old Testament.3

Through failed crops or other disasters, debt tended to come to families, not just individuals. One could voluntarily enter into a contractual agreement (“sell” himself) to work in the household of another: “one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself” (Leviticus 25:47). A wife or children could be “sold” to help sustain the family through economically unbearable times — unless kinfolk “redeemed” them (payed their debt). They would be debt-servants for 6 years.4 A family might need to mortgage their land until the year of Jubilee every 50 years.5

Note: In the Old Testament, outsiders did not impose servanthood — as in the antebellum South.6 Masters could hire servants “from year to year” and were not to “rule over … [them] ruthlessly” (Leviticus 25:46,53). Rather than being excluded from Israelite society, servants were thoroughly embedded within Israelite homes.

The Old Testament prohibited unavoidable lifelong servanthood — unless someone loved his master and wanted to attach himself to him (Exodus 21:5). Masters were to grant their servants release every seventh year with all debts forgiven (Leviticus 25:35–43). A slave’s legal status was unique in the ancient Near East (ANE) — a dramatic improvement over ANE law codes: “Hebrew has no vocabulary of slavery, only of servanthood.”7

An Israelite servant’s guaranteed eventual release within 7 years was a control or regulation to prevent the abuse and institutionalizing of such positions. The release-year reminded the Israelites that poverty-induced servanthood was not an ideal social arrangement. On the other hand, servanthood existed in Israel precisely because poverty existed: no poverty, no servants in Israel. And if servants lived in Israel, this was voluntary (typically poverty-induced) — not forced.”

Christians do not believe in slavery

3. As for torturing people where does God say this is alright?

Deep Thought, have you thought deeply about this? How have I committed a logical fallacy? Platypus won't answer my questions and instead name calls. You seem to agree with it!

I have thought deeply. If Platypus' post is relevant to the discussion, then you have committed a logical fallacy. It's a matter of opinion though, whether or not you have committed the logical fallacy of setting up a straw man.

Neither was right from an objective point of view, because an objective point of view does not exist.

They were both right from their own subjective points of view. Some nazis were not only psychopathic, but also deeply disturbed men. I take comfort knowing that I am not the only one who thinks the nazis were highly immoral; many people share this sentiment.

Shadowhawk
No, where did you get this from what I argued?

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.

Number three is wrong. If it exists in some possible world, then it does not exist in every possible world.

If it was the set of every possible world, then it would exist as an element in the set of all possible worlds.

Edited by Deep Thought, 17 January 2014 - 07:43 AM.

[johnross47]

The point I was making, which you have side stepped as usual, was that it all depends on the definition being used. What is a maximally great being? Why do you assume that it corresponds with your god, or any of the others? The greatest possible being allowed by the rules of the universe might be a long way short of a god. It does not require much imagination to suspect that your god is very improbable. Infinity is not the only maximal member possible in sets. The greatest imaginable being is not the same as the greatest possible being.

[shadowhawk]

N.T.M.
One of the problems with the ontological argument--and the one that I most often point out--is that it's based on the idea that given infinite possibilities, eventually one must be God. The problem, however, is that there could just as easily be a God-negating force which could have come into existence first. Infinite possibilities doesn't mean that everything must happen providing there's enough time. http://www.longecity...0#entry636786

This form of the argument did not use “infinite.” I do not believe in an infinite regress of anything. However I plan later to use it for arguments sake. Is this your version of a God eating snake? There is no god because the snake ate Hin.

Infinite possibilities is clearly implied in premise two, which could easily be proven by contradiction. If you accept the argument as a proof, then by definition there must be no possibility of error, but if God's existence is possible within a finite number of "chances," then premise two is false because this criterion doesn't hold (each "chance" is mutually exclusive, which means there's no guarantee). Therefore, assuming premise two is coherent (it isn't, but let's assume that it is), it must be based on an infinite number of chances. This is apart from the equally possible God-precluding force randomly occurring first.

As many others have already pointed out, the argument's full of holes.

*edit* Just to be clear, it doesn't matter whether the number of opportunities is finite or infinite; either leads to problems.

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.

I am not interested in someone saying the argument is full of holes. I could declare it is not full of holes. So... There are many more atheists here than theists, shall we take a vote?

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.”.

I accept the argument as “evidence,” not proof of God. I live in a small community in the Santa Cruz mountains, about five miles from the City of Santa Cruz, the home of the University Of California. Within a short distance is also Cabrillo College, San Jose State, Santa Clara University, Stanford, the university of San Francisco and UC Berkley among many others. T|here are signs pointing to all these places on the freeway and I follow them when going to the location. The signs are not “Proof,“ these places exist. I could not prove these places exist by the signs alone but only a fool would not pay attention. We all live by faith.

Premise 2
N.T.M. “...if God's existence is possible within a finite number of "chances," then premise two is false.”
Hardly, a maximally great being can exist in one world as well as many. You are confused by the term ology. Craig says, “To say that God exists in some possible world is just to say that there is a possible description of reality which includes the statement ‘God exists’ as part of that description.” Only if that description is true will the entity, in this case God, actually exist. So (2) is definitionally true.” http://www.reasonabl...ogical-argument

The non existent multi verse is used to explain away many arguments for the existence of God. Surely if you have an infinite number of universes, one such as ours must exist, so chance defeats God.. Not so fast, if there are an infinite universes, one must contain God. If God exists in one universe, than God exists in the multi verse. God exists. However this misses the point of the Ontological Argument. You have misunderstood premise 2.

[shadowhawk]

ShadowHawk: ““Lets see how you apply this. In order to win the second world war we believed it was right to carpet bomb Germany killing men, women and children. The Nazis fired rockets into Great Brittan with little concern who they hit. Each side believed in their own sides moral position.”
http://www.longecity...270#entry635315

Based on your view, were they both right? Neither was right. One or the other was right.”

After deep thinking Deep Thought said:

Neither was right from an objective point of view, because an objective point of view does not exist.[/u]

They were both right from their own subjective points of view. Some Nazis were not only psychopathic, but also deeply disturbed men. I take comfort knowing that I am not the only one who thinks the Nazis were highly immoral; many people share this sentiment.

http://www.longecity...330#entry637061

Each did what is right in his own eyes!!! The Nazis were right killing over 12 million people and so were the British and the Allies in carpet bombing men, women and children. We were right to bomb entire cities in Japan and they were right with Pearl Harbor. Just depends on how you subjectively feel. Makes a rape or murder seem like nothing doesn’t it? If Deep Thought was born a Nazi, just think of what his subjectivisim could justify. No moral authority here and you can justify anything if there is no God.

Then after more deep thinking, Deep Thought still thinks I may have committed a logical fallacy and set up a straw man by mentioning this problem of subjective ethics.. http://www.longecity...330#entry637061
http://www.longecity...300#entry635671

What else could we expect from a self described, “blank slate.”
http://www.longecity...300#entry635464

Edited by shadowhawk, 18 January 2014 - 12:49 AM.

[shadowhawk]

The point I was making, which you have side stepped as usual, was that it all depends on the definition being used. What is a maximally great being? Why do you assume that it corresponds with your god, or any of the others? The greatest possible being allowed by the rules of the universe might be a long way short of a god. It does not require much imagination to suspect that your god is very improbable. Infinity is not the only maximal member possible in sets. The greatest imaginable being is not the same as the greatest possible being.

Think of “nothing.” You can’t think of nothing that does not exist in some way. Even our make believe is made up of things that exist. You presented a red herring version of my ontological argument, not the one I presented. You then proceeded to take the straw man apart and claim I won’t answer you.

See my discussion if the topic.
http://www.longecity...330#entry637232

[Deep Thought]

ShadowHawk: ““Lets see how you apply this. In order to win the second world war we believed it was right to carpet bomb Germany killing men, women and children. The Nazis fired rockets into Great Brittan with little concern who they hit. Each side believed in their own sides moral position.”
http://www.longecity...270#entry635315

Based on your view, were they both right? Neither was right. One or the other was right.”

After deep thinking Deep Thought said:

Neither was right from an objective point of view, because an objective point of view does not exist.[/u]

They were both right from their own subjective points of view. Some Nazis were not only psychopathic, but also deeply disturbed men. I take comfort knowing that I am not the only one who thinks the Nazis were highly immoral; many people share this sentiment.

http://www.longecity...330#entry637061

Each did what is right in his own eyes!!! The Nazis were right killing over 12 million people and so were the British and the Allies in carpet bombing men, women and children. We were right to bomb entire cities in Japan and they were right with Pearl Harbor. Just depends on how you subjectively feel. Makes a rape or murder seem like nothing doesn’t it? If Deep Thought was born a Nazi, just think of what his subjectivisim could justify. No moral authority here and you can justify anything if there is no God.

Then after more deep thinking, Deep Thought still thinks I may have committed a logical fallacy and set up a straw man by mentioning this problem of subjective ethics.. http://www.longecity...330#entry637061
http://www.longecity...300#entry635671

What else could we expect from a self described, “blank slate.”
http://www.longecity...300#entry635464

Not every nazi took a stance though, let me cite Ian Kershaw: "the road to Auschwitz was built by hate, but paved with indifference".

We see this everyday. Let me give you some examples:

The case of Nick Townsell.

http://healthland.ti...me-do-nothing/.

The Genovese incident is a bit of an urban legend, some people have claimed that there were fewer than 38 witnesses: http://www.psycholog...-and-dont-help.

From the average german's point of view the nazis might be considered extreme. Recall that Germany was in fact a democracy, so the Nazi party won by holding the majority of the voters. Hitler was a charismatic speaker, but absolutely insane and psychopathic - and addicted to methamphetamine it would seem. Out of fear of sounding like a nazi-sympathizer, let me make it clear that I abhor what the nazis did.

I imagine it would have been terrifying to live in the third reich, because you'd have to constantly fear a list of things that are too great to mention here, but including prosecution for your political beliefs, indoctrination and so on.

I stated that they were subjectively right, because I can do that without confusing my own morals with those of a nazi; my opinion is that they were right in doing what they did in their own eyes. Though I can't read minds, I would assume this is the case.

[N.T.M.]

N.T.M. “...if God's existence is possible within a finite number of "chances," then premise two is false.”
Hardly, a maximally great being can exist in one world as well as many. You are confused by the term ology. Craig says, “To say that God exists in some possible world is just to say that there is a possible description of reality which includes the statement ‘God exists’ as part of that description.” Only if that description is true will the entity, in this case God, actually exist. So (2) is definitionally true.” http://www.reasonabl...ogical-argument

The non existent multi verse is used to explain away many arguments for the existence of God. Surely if you have an infinite number of universes, one such as ours must exist, so chance defeats God.. Not so fast, if there are an infinite universes, one must contain God. If God exists in one universe, than God exists in the multi verse. God exists. However this misses the point of the Ontological Argument. You have misunderstood premise 2.

lol Of course I understand that. You could underscore the idea as succinctly as "locally omnipotent." What I'm unsure about is how you think it has any bearing on what I said.

I'll stop right here. If you want to respond to my original post, you're welcome to, but I feel that I can offer very little at this point given your response.

[johnross47]

The point I was making, which you have side stepped as usual, was that it all depends on the definition being used. What is a maximally great being? Why do you assume that it corresponds with your god, or any of the others? The greatest possible being allowed by the rules of the universe might be a long way short of a god. It does not require much imagination to suspect that your god is very improbable. Infinity is not the only maximal member possible in sets. The greatest imaginable being is not the same as the greatest possible being.

Think of “nothing.” You can’t think of nothing that does not exist in some way. Even our make believe is made up of things that exist. You presented a red herring version of my ontological argument, not the one I presented. You then proceeded to take the straw man apart and claim I won’t answer you.

See my discussion if the topic.
http://www.longecity...330#entry637232

I don't think anyone else here would have the slightest difficulty in getting my point, but if you really can't follow it I suppose I will just have to spell it out. The argument is worthless because it can used to prove the existence of things, such as fairies, which are patently absurd. This alone is enough to expose it as a mere semantic conjuring trick. Powerful tools, like guns and modal logic, should not be put in the hands of infants, madmen or people with an axe to grind.

Edited by johnross47, 18 January 2014 - 08:41 PM.

[Deep Thought]

The point I was making, which you have side stepped as usual, was that it all depends on the definition being used. What is a maximally great being? Why do you assume that it corresponds with your god, or any of the others? The greatest possible being allowed by the rules of the universe might be a long way short of a god. It does not require much imagination to suspect that your god is very improbable. Infinity is not the only maximal member possible in sets. The greatest imaginable being is not the same as the greatest possible being.

Think of “nothing.” You can’t think of nothing that does not exist in some way. Even our make believe is made up of things that exist. You presented a red herring version of my ontological argument, not the one I presented. You then proceeded to take the straw man apart and claim I won’t answer you.

See my discussion if the topic.
http://www.longecity...330#entry637232

I don't think anyone else here would have the slightest difficulty in getting my point, but if you really can't follow it I suppose I will just have to spell it out. The argument is worthless because it can used to prove the existence of things, such as fairies, which are patently absurd. This alone is enough to expose it as a mere semantic conjuring trick. Powerful tools, like guns and modal logic, should not be put in the hands of infants, madmen or people with an axe to grind.

Spot on as always.

Especially that last bit is food for thought.

I don't think everyone quite realizes how powerful words can be. (Psychological manipulation -> indoctrination etc.)

[johnross47]

The other main point I was making might also benefit from some expansion. The use of the ontological argument to "prove" the existence of god suffers from multiple problems. It depends on the definition of god. By using a definition of god that effectively mimics set theory, the theists create the appearance of a necessary being; this an illusion. The definition begs the question. It implies that the definer knows who and what god is; it makes claims that can only derive from either actual knowledge of god or invention. If one could have direct knowledge of god no proof would be needed. The definition is an arbitrary invention; it presumes not only knowledge of god, but what the limits are of the sets of godly properties. It is entirely possible that the limits are much less than required for godness.

[DukeNukem]

Ontological arguments are tricks. They do not prove a thing except to the gullible mind. Does anything in science require an ontological argument? lol

Once you've pulled out the ontological argument card, you've truly given away the weakness of your claim.

Here's a great example of a verbal trick, which absolutely fools most people:

Three men walk into a hotel, and as luck would have it, there are three rooms left. The hotel manager says the rooms are $10 per room, and each man pays for their own room, and then they head off to sleep. Fifteen minutes later the manager realizes he didn't apply the late night discount. He calls over the bellhop and hands over five $1 bills, telling the bellhop to take the money up to the three men. On the way up the elevator, the bellhop realizes that $5 doesn't divide well for three people, so he keeps two dollars for himself, and hands each of the three men a dollar back. So...... Each man has paid $9. Three men, times $9 equals $27. Plus the bellhop's $2, equals $29. Where's the missing $1?

[shadowhawk]

N.T.M. “...if God's existence is possible within a finite number of "chances," then premise two is false.”
Hardly, a maximally great being can exist in one world as well as many. You are confused by the term ology. Craig says, “To say that God exists in some possible world is just to say that there is a possible description of reality which includes the statement ‘God exists’ as part of that description.” Only if that description is true will the entity, in this case God, actually exist. So (2) is definitionally true.” http://www.reasonabl...ogical-argument

The non existent multi verse is used to explain away many arguments for the existence of God. Surely if you have an infinite number of universes, one such as ours must exist, so chance defeats God.. Not so fast, if there are an infinite universes, one must contain God. If God exists in one universe, than God exists in the multi verse. God exists. However this misses the point of the Ontological Argument. You have misunderstood premise 2.

lol Of course I understand that. You could underscore the idea as succinctly as "locally omnipotent." What I'm unsure about is how you think it has any bearing on what I said.

I'll stop right here. If you want to respond to my original post, you're welcome to, but I feel that I can offer very little at this point given your response.

N.T.M. Infinite possibilities is clearly implied in premise two, which could easily be proven by contradiction. If you accept the argument as a proof, then by definition there must be no possibility of error, but if God's existence is possible within a finite number of "chances," then premise two is false because this criterion doesn't hold (each "chance" is mutually exclusive, which means there's no guarantee). Therefore, assuming premise two is coherent (it isn't, but let's assume that it is), it must be based on an infinite number of chances. This is apart from the equally possible God-precluding force randomly occurring first.

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.

Repeatedly calling the argument “proof,” is a red herring. No sense explaining it again. I don’t see how either premise make use of “infinite” possibilities, nor is it implied. I did not use it that way but if one wishes go ahead. I gave an example of how it could be done with the multiverse. You are the one talking about infinity first and that is why it is relevant. It does not become false with “finite” choices either, as you seem to argue it does. If you had bothered listening to the video I provided you would have discovered that Plantinga uses possible world to mean “real,” world. One that can (it is possible to) exist. He is not talking about infinity.

You haven’t shown me why premise one is false. Saying, “*edit* Just to be clear, it doesn't matter whether the number of opportunities is finite or infinite; either leads to problems. “ This is not a defeater and is meaningless. Is it possible that a maximally great being tl exist?
http://www.longecity...330#entry636990

Edited by shadowhawk, 20 January 2014 - 10:00 PM.

[shadowhawk]

The point I was making, which you have side stepped as usual, was that it all depends on the definition being used. What is a maximally great being? Why do you assume that it corresponds with your god, or any of the others? The greatest possible being allowed by the rules of the universe might be a long way short of a god. It does not require much imagination to suspect that your god is very improbable. Infinity is not the only maximal member possible in sets. The greatest imaginable being is not the same as the greatest possible being.

Think of “nothing.” You can’t think of nothing that does not exist in some way. Even our make believe is made up of things that exist. You presented a red herring version of my ontological argument, not the one I presented. You then proceeded to take the straw man apart and claim I won’t answer you.

See my discussion if the topic.
http://www.longecity...330#entry637232

I don't think anyone else here would have the slightest difficulty in getting my point, but if you really can't follow it I suppose I will just have to spell it out. The argument is worthless because it can used to prove the existence of things, such as fairies, which are patently absurd. This alone is enough to expose it as a mere semantic conjuring trick. Powerful tools, like guns and modal logic, should not be put in the hands of infants, madmen or people with an axe to grind.

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists. (Not truing to prove fairies who are not maximally great beings, despite your claim..)

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

This response spells nothing out but is nothing more than a poor straw man and ad hominem attacks.
Typical... In your world is there anything greater than anything else? Don’t answer "fairies," though I KNOW you think you can prove they are maximally great.

[shadowhawk]

Ontological arguments are tricks. They do not prove a thing except to the gullible mind. Does anything in science require an ontological argument? lol

Once you've pulled out the ontological argument card, you've truly given away the weakness of your claim.

Here's a great example of a verbal trick, which absolutely fools most people:

Three men walk into a hotel, and as luck would have it, there are three rooms left. The hotel manager says the rooms are $10 per room, and each man pays for their own room, and then they head off to sleep. Fifteen minutes later the manager realizes he didn't apply the late night discount. He calls over the bellhop and hands over five $1 bills, telling the bellhop to take the money up to the three men. On the way up the elevator, the bellhop realizes that $5 doesn't divide well for three people, so he keeps two dollars for himself, and hands each of the three men a dollar back. So...... Each man has paid $9. Three men, times $9 equals $27. Plus the bellhop's $2, equals $29. Where's the missing $1?

Believing in Science itself does not require a Scientific argument. So... Lots of name calling, little scientific evidence. If anything that is true requires scientific evidence, where is your scientific evidence that this is true? You are playing tricks on us with this weak argument.

The rest of this is a straw man, which is supposed to prove something???

[shadowhawk]

johnross47 The other main point I was making might also benefit from some expansion. The use of the ontological argument to "prove" the existence of god suffers from multiple problems.

How many times have I made a point of clarifying the difference between evidence and proof?

johnross47 It depends on the definition of god. By using a definition of god that effectively mimics set theory, the theists create the appearance of a necessary being; this an illusion. The definition begs the question.

The argument does not identify who the “maximally great being,” is. It does not depend on the definition of God. Perhaps if there is the appearance of a necessary being, there is one to fulfill our expatiation. Prove it is an illusion or are you just blowing smoke? We expect a maximatelly great being, being put on the alert by the ontological argument. Our hearts can’t help but look.

Begging the Question
1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
http://www.nizkor.or...e-question.html

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
Without begging the question is it possible a maximally great being exists? Yes, no.

johnross47 It implies that the definer knows who and what god is; it makes claims that can only derive from either actual knowledge of god or invention. If one could have direct knowledge of god no proof would be needed.

Hardly, this argument claims nothing of the kind. It is based on observation and logic. It remain to be seen, if one had direct knowledge of god, one would believe in Him. That is beside the point here.

johnross47 The definition is an arbitrary invention; it presumes not only knowledge of god, but what the limits are of the sets of godly properties. It is entirely possible that the limits are much less than required for godness.

The argument makes its own clams and nothing more. It is based on the evidence of observation. It is a sign pointing in the direction of a maximally great being. In that, it is evidence that something very great is there.

[N.T.M.]

Here's a great example of a verbal trick, which absolutely fools most people:

Three men walk into a hotel, and as luck would have it, there are three rooms left. The hotel manager says the rooms are $10 per room, and each man pays for their own room, and then they head off to sleep. Fifteen minutes later the manager realizes he didn't apply the late night discount. He calls over the bellhop and hands over five $1 bills, telling the bellhop to take the money up to the three men. On the way up the elevator, the bellhop realizes that $5 doesn't divide well for three people, so he keeps two dollars for himself, and hands each of the three men a dollar back. So...... Each man has paid $9. Three men, times $9 equals $27. Plus the bellhop's $2, equals $29. Where's the missing $1?

I recall explaining the solution to somebody who adamantly disagreed. lol Finding the track to the solution's easy once you realize that the point of inference leads to a contradiction (because contradictions don't exist, the inference must be wrong).

[sthira]

I feel like this thread could use a group hug.

[johnross47]

johnross47 The other main point I was making might also benefit from some expansion. The use of the ontological argument to "prove" the existence of god suffers from multiple problems.

How many times have I made a point of clarifying the difference between evidence and proof?

johnross47 It depends on the definition of god. By using a definition of god that effectively mimics set theory, the theists create the appearance of a necessary being; this an illusion. The definition begs the question.

The argument does not identify who the “maximally great being,” is. It does not depend on the definition of God. Perhaps if there is the appearance of a necessary being, there is one to fulfill our expatiation. Prove it is an illusion or are you just blowing smoke? We expect a maximatelly great being, being put on the alert by the ontological argument. Our hearts can’t help but look.

Begging the Question
1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
http://www.nizkor.or...e-question.html

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
Without begging the question is it possible a maximally great being exists? Yes, no.

johnross47 It implies that the definer knows who and what god is; it makes claims that can only derive from either actual knowledge of god or invention. If one could have direct knowledge of god no proof would be needed.

Hardly, this argument claims nothing of the kind. It is based on observation and logic. It remain to be seen, if one had direct knowledge of god, one would believe in Him. That is beside the point here.

johnross47 The definition is an arbitrary invention; it presumes not only knowledge of god, but what the limits are of the sets of godly properties. It is entirely possible that the limits are much less than required for godness.

The argument makes its own clams and nothing more. It is based on the evidence of observation. It is a sign pointing in the direction of a maximally great being. In that, it is evidence that something very great is there.

One of the many difficulties involved in arguing with Christians is their incorrigible dishonesty. It's exactly the same problem as when creationists and intelligent designers say that they are not claiming that a specific god did it. We all, (even the courts), know that they do exactly and specifically intend the creative designer, or maximally great being to be, not just any old god, not Thor or Zeus or Allah, but their own personal sect's particular god. That is so clearly the origin of their specification of characteristics that it is rather like watching a chocolate faced three year old denying knowledge of the missing goodies.
Another point which I thought I had clarified, is that the form of the argument does not require that the entity in question is at the big end of the set; it could be at the opposite extreme, "maximally" small, or indeed in the middle of the range. All that is required is that it occupies a necessarily existent niche. S5 says very little except that things that exist exist. Dressing it up in the language of possibility and necessity makes it look important, but it still comes up against the issue of whether existence is a predicate? Most people think not. Clearly, truth is not determined by voting, but I think you would have a hard job showing that existence adds anything to anything; it's only an issue where there is no evidence of it.

[sthira]

... it is rather like watching a chocolate faced three year old denying knowledge of the missing goodies.

Maybe god doesn't want us to believe in god.  Since god won't give us one clue or another, god wants us to be atheists.  God is like way too almighty to be acknowledged.  You know, like high school.  God is the really boss kid and too cool to nod a simple "Hi!" to the rest of us dorks straggling in the hallways of life.  

"I have no idea who they are," god mutters to god, flips His hair in disgust. "I mean, one of them ate an apple so I really don't give a flying fuck about them."

Edited by sthira, 21 January 2014 - 02:07 PM.