Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Maximally great being vs no maximality

izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 9:42:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
You can look at my previous posts in the religious forum for the full rebuttal. Here I intend to show why a Maximally great being is more restrictive then no maximality. If a maximally great being exists in every possible universe he must be just as great in every possible universe. So, if the equation for a maximal greatness looks like this:

x+y+z+a+c= what is maximally great.

All universes would be restricted in the sense that those variables must only add up to the same quantitative greatness. Where as if no maximality exists, there is no restriction on what those variables could be being there is no restriction that something equally as great must exist in every universe.

Of course this could also be resolved by saying that certain universes allow the variables to be greater, therefore a maximally great being only exists in certain universes. But, that would deflate the Ontological arguments 3rd premise, at least as presented by Plantinga.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 9:43:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Sad......
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 9:48:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 9:43:16 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
Sad......

yes you are.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 10:24:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
http://2.bp.blogspot.com...
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 10:40:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
What I find absurd is that people automatically think that if a maximally great being exists in 1 universe, then it must exist in all.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 3:31:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 9:42:36 AM, izbo10 wrote:
You can look at my previous posts in the religious forum for the full rebuttal. Here I intend to show why a Maximally great being is more restrictive then no maximality. If a maximally great being exists in every possible universe he must be just as great in every possible universe. So, if the equation for a maximal greatness looks like this:

x+y+z+a+c= what is maximally great.

All universes would be restricted in the sense that those variables must only add up to the same quantitative greatness.:

What exactly do those variables represent?

Izbo, I wouldn't spend time on this if I were you, as the whole concept of maximally great beings necessitating their own existence is horribly flawed from the start.

This seems like an awful lot of effort to spend on a retarded creationist argument. Why even give it legitimacy by trying to poke holes in an argument that, on it's own merits, looks like Swiss cheese already?

Don't waste your time.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 3:51:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If you use the following definitions of "Being", the Ontological argument becomes a riddle easily solved....

The first two

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

It only becomes confusing if you equate a being with "A living thing, especially a person."

The first two definitions make more sense.

There is one thing that is maximally great, and does exist in all possible universes. That thing is existence itself.

If people studied linguistics more, they'd understand both the truth and irony of this statement...

"All affirmations are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense."

The way you look at something drastically effects how it is perceived. It's all related to the Eristic and Aneristic Principle.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 5:02:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
1) Its possible that in some possible world that God does not exist
2) If its possible in some possible world that God does not exist then God does not exist in all possible worlds
3) If God does not exist in all possible worlds then God does not necessarily exist

If some one can assert that Its possible that God exists in all possible worlds, why isn't some one free to assert that its possible that God does not exist in all possible worlds ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 8:19:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 5:02:24 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
1) Its possible that in some possible world that God does not exist
2) If its possible in some possible world that God does not exist then God does not exist in all possible worlds
3) If God does not exist in all possible worlds then God does not necessarily exist

If some one can assert that Its possible that God exists in all possible worlds, why isn't some one free to assert that its possible that God does not exist in all possible worlds ?

I have demonstrated that in other threads. This is a follow up to that argument showing that because the maximally great being is more restrictive it is less likely.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 9:18:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 5:02:24 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
1) Its possible that in some possible world that God does not exist
2) If its possible in some possible world that God does not exist then God does not exist in all possible worlds
3) If God does not exist in all possible worlds then God does not necessarily exist

If some one can assert that Its possible that God exists in all possible worlds, why isn't some one free to assert that its possible that God does not exist in all possible worlds ?

......

Talking about positive properties: "Gödel suggests that it should be understood in either a moral-aesthetic sense (independent of the accidental structure of the world) or in the sense of pure attribution (as opposed to privation).20 He cautions, however, not to interpret "positive" in the moral-aesthetic sense to mean the same thing as "good" (in the ordinary utilitarian sense) because "good" (in the ordinary utilitarian sense) means "greatest advantage + smallest disadvantage [which] is negative (1995b, p. 435). Rather, he says that "positive" could be interpreted as "perfective," meaning "purely good" and implying nothing negative (1995b, p. 435). It is thus tempting to view the property of being positive in the moral-aesthetic sense as coextensive with the property of being a Platonic form. In other words, each Platonic form is positive, and each positive property is a Platonic form.
But "positive" in the sense of pure attribution rings more Leibnizian. In a footnote to his "Ontological Proof" Gödel says that a property (or proposition) that is expressed in "disjunctive normal form in terms of elementary properties [that] contains a member without negation" illustrates pure attribution (1995a, p. 404). And in his "Text" he says, "the positive properties are precisely those that can be formed out of the elementary ones through application of the operations &, V, ⊃ " (1995b, p. 437). Adams interprets these cryptic remarks in Leibnizian fashion and suggests that "the purely positive properties will be those that involve no negation at all in their construction from elementary properties (provided the disjunction operation here too is inclusive)" (1995, p. 398).

....

Df 1 A being has the property of being God-like (G1) if and only if it has every positive
property.

Df 2 A property is an essence (E1) of something if and only if it has the property, and the property entails each of its properties.

Df 3 Something has the property of being a necessary being (N2) if and only if every
essence it has is necessarily instantiated.

...

Ax 1 A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive.

Ax 2 Positive properties entail only positive properties.

Ax 3 God-likeness is positive.

...

Tm 1 It is possible that something is God-like.

Proof-sketch of Tm 1.22 Assume that it is not possible for something God-like to exist. Then God-likeness is an impossible property. Since impossible properties entail all properties, God-likeness entails the negation of God-likeness. Now God-likeness is positive by Ax 3. So the negation of God-likeness must be positive by Ax 2. But the negation of God-likeness cannot be positive by Ax 1. Therefore, by reductio ad absurdum, it must be possible that something is God-like." [1]

[1] William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland, The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, pg(s) 587-588
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2011 9:23:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Notice that my post is ignored.

Once again my position isn't taken as being legitimate.

Pity.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 4:15:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 10:40:50 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
What I find absurd is that people automatically think that if a maximally great being exists in 1 universe, then it must exist in all.

They assume a certain definition of maximally great without defining it, it is a very poorly expressed argument.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 4:39:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 3:51:35 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
If you use the following definitions of "Being", the Ontological argument becomes a riddle easily solved....

The first two

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

It only becomes confusing if you equate a being with "A living thing, especially a person."

The first two definitions make more sense.

There is one thing that is maximally great, and does exist in all possible universes. That thing is existence itself.

If people studied linguistics more, they'd understand both the truth and irony of this statement...

"All affirmations are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense."

The way you look at something drastically effects how it is perceived. It's all related to the Eristic and Aneristic Principle.

The question is, whether existence itself is conscious and is capable of rational form, rather than simply relying on chaos. If nothing else, it explains how we have form without form itself exploring all possible variables. Things seem too neatly organized and lacks the extraneous variation that can be conceivably borne of chaos.

It's true that interpretation gives form to something that is otherwise meaningless. A chair isn't a chair unless we accept that it is--however, it's also true that a floating sphere can be interpreted as a chair as well, but it will never be as functional, and therefore, as arguably factual as a chair's designation as a chair.

However, we can use those properties of designation and interpretation to find possible variables where there otherwise were none, thereby finding solutions to otherwise insurmountable riddles.
RFH
Posts: 56
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 8:46:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 9:42:36 AM, izbo10 wrote:
You can look at my previous posts in the religious forum for the full rebuttal. Here I intend to show why a Maximally great being is more restrictive then no maximality. If a maximally great being exists in every possible universe he must be just as great in every possible universe. So, if the equation for a maximal greatness looks like this:

x+y+z+a+c= what is maximally great.

All universes would be restricted in the sense that those variables must only add up to the same quantitative greatness. Where as if no maximality exists, there is no restriction on what those variables could be being there is no restriction that something equally as great must exist in every universe.

Of course this could also be resolved by saying that certain universes allow the variables to be greater, therefore a maximally great being only exists in certain universes. But, that would deflate the Ontological arguments 3rd premise, at least as presented by Plantinga.

1. Why must a maximally great being be equally as great in each possible world, rather than just maximally great in each possible world?
2. Why couldn't the "equation" for maximal greatness just look like this: "x=Mg" where 'Mg' is maximally great?

At 11/6/2011 3:31:29 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
This seems like an awful lot of effort to spend on a retarded creationist argument. Why even give it legitimacy by trying to poke holes in an argument that, on it's own merits, looks like Swiss cheese already?

This isn't a creationist argument. Theists of all stripes could use it with equal effectiveness (or ineffectiveness).
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 12:29:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 4:39:46 AM, Ren wrote:
At 11/6/2011 3:51:35 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
If you use the following definitions of "Being", the Ontological argument becomes a riddle easily solved....

The first two

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

It only becomes confusing if you equate a being with "A living thing, especially a person."

The first two definitions make more sense.

There is one thing that is maximally great, and does exist in all possible universes. That thing is existence itself.

If people studied linguistics more, they'd understand both the truth and irony of this statement...

"All affirmations are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense."

The way you look at something drastically effects how it is perceived. It's all related to the Eristic and Aneristic Principle.

The question is, whether existence itself is conscious and is capable of rational form, rather than simply relying on chaos. If nothing else, it explains how we have form without form itself exploring all possible variables. Things seem too neatly organized and lacks the extraneous variation that can be conceivably borne of chaos.


It's hard(impossible) to say whether or not the universe is conscious, and if it is conscious, it in all likelihood is not conscious in the way that we think of it.

Out of chaos, order rises, though fundamentally it is still chaotic.. And fundamentally, that chaos is bound by a deterministic universe.

Chaos is not what people think it is. Chaos is the result of every thing in the universe effecting everything else, and that in turn effecting everything else. The key thing with chaos is that it is fundamentally unpredictable. However, being unpredictable does not mean that it we are dealing with things that just act on their own accord. The unpredictability comes from the sheer amount of parallel processing going on. It's impossible to account for.

Chaos is a misleading word, but it is still accurate. See Chaos Theory.

It's true that interpretation gives form to something that is otherwise meaningless. A chair isn't a chair unless we accept that it is--however, it's also true that a floating sphere can be interpreted as a chair as well, but it will never be as functional, and therefore, as arguably factual as a chair's designation as a chair.


Words are symbols that are meant to represent concepts. Words are not the concepts themselves, and the concepts are not entirely accurate representations of actuality either. A lot of translation is going on.

Words however do have meanings and attributes. Words have meanings. However, what most people don't realize is that they don't fully understand words that they commonly use in discussion. When studying, it is always important to have a dictionary. People nowadays have no idea how important a dictionary is!

Most of communication seems to be in getting on the same page.. In fact, I found out early in my life that people are hopelessly inept at communication. We live in the tower of babel, I say.

However, we can use those properties of designation and interpretation to find possible variables where there otherwise were none, thereby finding solutions to otherwise insurmountable riddles.

That's just how our minds are programmed to work. That's what I did just now.

Most people when they think of God, they like I think you are hinting at in this post, talking about a conscious hand that guides these things. You are basically saying that I am not using the proper definitions here. I am calling a floating sphere a chair.

I am not through, I am just better at mental gymnastics than most people. Almost to the point of being incomprehensible myself, but every so often someone comes along and understands what I'm saying. Box yourself off too much, and you trap yourself in an inescapable corner riddled with absurdities. Avoid boxing yourself and at the very least you can float around in a universe of absurdities. Life is weird. It's hard to take anything, even oneself so seriously after you've come to know yourself.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 2:25:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 8:46:09 AM, RFH wrote:
At 11/6/2011 9:42:36 AM, izbo10 wrote:
You can look at my previous posts in the religious forum for the full rebuttal. Here I intend to show why a Maximally great being is more restrictive then no maximality. If a maximally great being exists in every possible universe he must be just as great in every possible universe. So, if the equation for a maximal greatness looks like this:

x+y+z+a+c= what is maximally great.

All universes would be restricted in the sense that those variables must only add up to the same quantitative greatness. Where as if no maximality exists, there is no restriction on what those variables could be being there is no restriction that something equally as great must exist in every universe.

Of course this could also be resolved by saying that certain universes allow the variables to be greater, therefore a maximally great being only exists in certain universes. But, that would deflate the Ontological arguments 3rd premise, at least as presented by Plantinga.

1. Why must a maximally great being be equally as great in each possible world, rather than just maximally great in each possible world?
2. Why couldn't the "equation" for maximal greatness just look like this: "x=Mg" where 'Mg' is maximally great?

At 11/6/2011 3:31:29 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
This seems like an awful lot of effort to spend on a retarded creationist argument. Why even give it legitimacy by trying to poke holes in an argument that, on it's own merits, looks like Swiss cheese already?

This isn't a creationist argument. Theists of all stripes could use it with equal effectiveness (or ineffectiveness).

The maximally great being must be just as maximally great in each universe, otherwise there is a potentially greater being, hence it wouldn't be maximally great.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 6:57:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm more curious what proponents of the OA think "possibility" means... How could the possibility of something ever entail its necessary existence? They try to get around this with the ridiculous perversion of logic called "possibly necessary" as though the uncertainty of something entails its actual certainty...

I'm curious how anyone can possibly defend this notion...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 7:33:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 12:29:18 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 11/7/2011 4:39:46 AM, Ren wrote:
At 11/6/2011 3:51:35 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
If you use the following definitions of "Being", the Ontological argument becomes a riddle easily solved....

The first two

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

It only becomes confusing if you equate a being with "A living thing, especially a person."

The first two definitions make more sense.

There is one thing that is maximally great, and does exist in all possible universes. That thing is existence itself.

If people studied linguistics more, they'd understand both the truth and irony of this statement...

"All affirmations are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense."

The way you look at something drastically effects how it is perceived. It's all related to the Eristic and Aneristic Principle.

The question is, whether existence itself is conscious and is capable of rational form, rather than simply relying on chaos. If nothing else, it explains how we have form without form itself exploring all possible variables. Things seem too neatly organized and lacks the extraneous variation that can be conceivably borne of chaos.


It's hard(impossible) to say whether or not the universe is conscious, and if it is conscious, it in all likelihood is not conscious in the way that we think of it.

Out of chaos, order rises, though fundamentally it is still chaotic.. And fundamentally, that chaos is bound by a deterministic universe.

Chaos is not what people think it is. Chaos is the result of every thing in the universe effecting everything else, and that in turn effecting everything else. The key thing with chaos is that it is fundamentally unpredictable. However, being unpredictable does not mean that it we are dealing with things that just act on their own accord. The unpredictability comes from the sheer amount of parallel processing going on. It's impossible to account for.

Chaos is a misleading word, but it is still accurate. See Chaos Theory.

It's true that interpretation gives form to something that is otherwise meaningless. A chair isn't a chair unless we accept that it is--however, it's also true that a floating sphere can be interpreted as a chair as well, but it will never be as functional, and therefore, as arguably factual as a chair's designation as a chair.


Words are symbols that are meant to represent concepts. Words are not the concepts themselves, and the concepts are not entirely accurate representations of actuality either. A lot of translation is going on.

Words however do have meanings and attributes. Words have meanings. However, what most people don't realize is that they don't fully understand words that they commonly use in discussion. When studying, it is always important to have a dictionary. People nowadays have no idea how important a dictionary is!

Most of communication seems to be in getting on the same page.. In fact, I found out early in my life that people are hopelessly inept at communication. We live in the tower of babel, I say.



However, we can use those properties of designation and interpretation to find possible variables where there otherwise were none, thereby finding solutions to otherwise insurmountable riddles.

That's just how our minds are programmed to work. That's what I did just now.

Most people when they think of God, they like I think you are hinting at in this post, talking about a conscious hand that guides these things. You are basically saying that I am not using the proper definitions here. I am calling a floating sphere a chair.

I am not through, I am just better at mental gymnastics than most people. Almost to the point of being incomprehensible myself, but every so often someone comes along and understands what I'm saying. Box yourself off too much, and you trap yourself in an inescapable corner riddled with absurdities. Avoid boxing yourself and at the very least you can float around in a universe of absurdities. Life is weird. It's hard to take anything, even oneself so seriously after you've come to know yourself.

I agree with the vast majority of this. I appreciate how you think...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 7:44:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/6/2011 9:18:27 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/6/2011 5:02:24 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
1) Its possible that in some possible world that God does not exist
2) If its possible in some possible world that God does not exist then God does not exist in all possible worlds
3) If God does not exist in all possible worlds then God does not necessarily exist

If some one can assert that Its possible that God exists in all possible worlds, why isn't some one free to assert that its possible that God does not exist in all possible worlds ?

......

Talking about positive properties: "Gödel suggests that it should be understood in either a moral-aesthetic sense (independent of the accidental structure of the world) or in the sense of pure attribution (as opposed to privation).20 He cautions, however, not to interpret "positive" in the moral-aesthetic sense to mean the same thing as "good" (in the ordinary utilitarian sense) because "good" (in the ordinary utilitarian sense) means "greatest advantage + smallest disadvantage [which] is negative (1995b, p. 435). Rather, he says that "positive" could be interpreted as "perfective," meaning "purely good" and implying nothing negative (1995b, p. 435). It is thus tempting to view the property of being positive in the moral-aesthetic sense as coextensive with the property of being a Platonic form. In other words, each Platonic form is positive, and each positive property is a Platonic form.
But "positive" in the sense of pure attribution rings more Leibnizian. In a footnote to his "Ontological Proof" Gödel says that a property (or proposition) that is expressed in "disjunctive normal form in terms of elementary properties [that] contains a member without negation" illustrates pure attribution (1995a, p. 404). And in his "Text" he says, "the positive properties are precisely those that can be formed out of the elementary ones through application of the operations &, V, ⊃ " (1995b, p. 437). Adams interprets these cryptic remarks in Leibnizian fashion and suggests that "the purely positive properties will be those that involve no negation at all in their construction from elementary properties (provided the disjunction operation here too is inclusive)" (1995, p. 398).

....

Df 1 A being has the property of being God-like (G1) if and only if it has every positive
property.

Df 2 A property is an essence (E1) of something if and only if it has the property, and the property entails each of its properties.

Df 3 Something has the property of being a necessary being (N2) if and only if every
essence it has is necessarily instantiated.

...

Ax 1 A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive.

Ax 2 Positive properties entail only positive properties.

Ax 3 God-likeness is positive.

...

Tm 1 It is possible that something is God-like.

Proof-sketch of Tm 1.22 Assume that it is not possible for something God-like to exist. Then God-likeness is an impossible property. Since impossible properties entail all properties, God-likeness entails the negation of God-likeness. Now God-likeness is positive by Ax 3. So the negation of God-likeness must be positive by Ax 2. But the negation of God-likeness cannot be positive by Ax 1. Therefore, by reductio ad absurdum, it must be possible that something is God-like." [1]

[1] William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland, The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, pg(s) 587-588

I don't see how this refutes the first premise.........

1) Its possible that God does not exist in ALL possible worlds

It doesn't state that God doesn't exist, it doesn't state its impossible for God to exist in all possible worlds, it just says its possible that God doesn't exist in all possible worlds.

For example maybe its the case that God exists in all possible worlds minus 1.

As long as its even possible that God does not exist in all possible worlds, it refutes the claim that God MUST exist in all possible worlds. This possibility is all that is needed to refute the ontological argument we are talking about, is it not ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 8:20:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 7:44:03 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 11/6/2011 9:18:27 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/6/2011 5:02:24 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
1) Its possible that in some possible world that God does not exist
2) If its possible in some possible world that God does not exist then God does not exist in all possible worlds
3) If God does not exist in all possible worlds then God does not necessarily exist

If some one can assert that Its possible that God exists in all possible worlds, why isn't some one free to assert that its possible that God does not exist in all possible worlds ?

......

Talking about positive properties: "Gödel suggests that it should be understood in either a moral-aesthetic sense (independent of the accidental structure of the world) or in the sense of pure attribution (as opposed to privation).20 He cautions, however, not to interpret "positive" in the moral-aesthetic sense to mean the same thing as "good" (in the ordinary utilitarian sense) because "good" (in the ordinary utilitarian sense) means "greatest advantage + smallest disadvantage [which] is negative (1995b, p. 435). Rather, he says that "positive" could be interpreted as "perfective," meaning "purely good" and implying nothing negative (1995b, p. 435). It is thus tempting to view the property of being positive in the moral-aesthetic sense as coextensive with the property of being a Platonic form. In other words, each Platonic form is positive, and each positive property is a Platonic form.
But "positive" in the sense of pure attribution rings more Leibnizian. In a footnote to his "Ontological Proof" Gödel says that a property (or proposition) that is expressed in "disjunctive normal form in terms of elementary properties [that] contains a member without negation" illustrates pure attribution (1995a, p. 404). And in his "Text" he says, "the positive properties are precisely those that can be formed out of the elementary ones through application of the operations &, V, ⊃ " (1995b, p. 437). Adams interprets these cryptic remarks in Leibnizian fashion and suggests that "the purely positive properties will be those that involve no negation at all in their construction from elementary properties (provided the disjunction operation here too is inclusive)" (1995, p. 398).

....

Df 1 A being has the property of being God-like (G1) if and only if it has every positive
property.

Df 2 A property is an essence (E1) of something if and only if it has the property, and the property entails each of its properties.

Df 3 Something has the property of being a necessary being (N2) if and only if every
essence it has is necessarily instantiated.

...

Ax 1 A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive.

Ax 2 Positive properties entail only positive properties.

Ax 3 God-likeness is positive.

...

Tm 1 It is possible that something is God-like.

Proof-sketch of Tm 1.22 Assume that it is not possible for something God-like to exist. Then God-likeness is an impossible property. Since impossible properties entail all properties, God-likeness entails the negation of God-likeness. Now God-likeness is positive by Ax 3. So the negation of God-likeness must be positive by Ax 2. But the negation of God-likeness cannot be positive by Ax 1. Therefore, by reductio ad absurdum, it must be possible that something is God-like." [1]

[1] William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland, The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, pg(s) 587-588

I don't see how this refutes the first premise.........

1) Its possible that God does not exist in ALL possible worlds

It doesn't state that God doesn't exist, it doesn't state its impossible for God to exist in all possible worlds, it just says its possible that God doesn't exist in all possible worlds.

For example maybe its the case that God exists in all possible worlds minus 1.

As long as its even possible that God does not exist in all possible worlds, it refutes the claim that God MUST exist in all possible worlds. This possibility is all that is needed to refute the ontological argument we are talking about, is it not ?

God either necessarily exists or doesn't. That's what the entire argument (and talk of maximally great beings/perfect being theology) is all about. If God doesn't exist in ONE possible world then God doesn't exist in any possible world (including the actual world). If God exists in ONE possible world then God exists in all possible worlds (including the actual world). This is due to axiom s5. If you are saying that it's possible that God doesn't exist exist in all possible world minus 1 you are essentially saying that God exists in no possible world i.e. it's impossible that God exist. That is where the argument I posted kicks in if you want to say that God existing is necessarily false.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 8:40:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
x+y+z+a+c = "infinite"

This is not a "fixed quantity" that is "more restrictive" than non-maximality. You're treating infinity like a finite number.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 1:50:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 8:40:39 PM, bluesteel wrote:
x+y+z+a+c = "infinite"

This is not a "fixed quantity" that is "more restrictive" than non-maximality. You're treating infinity like a finite number.

not really considering that we are talking about maximally great, meaning there is a restriction on the greatness, intentionally created to avoid the paradox's of the omni god.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
RFH
Posts: 56
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 4:45:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/8/2011 1:50:35 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 11/7/2011 8:40:39 PM, bluesteel wrote:
x+y+z+a+c = "infinite"

This is not a "fixed quantity" that is "more restrictive" than non-maximality. You're treating infinity like a finite number.

not really considering that we are talking about maximally great, meaning there is a restriction on the greatness, intentionally created to avoid the paradox's of the omni god.

You're assuming that maximal greatness requires multiple variables. I'm inclined to disagree. As would Thomas Aquinas.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2011 8:11:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/8/2011 4:45:20 PM, RFH wrote:
At 11/8/2011 1:50:35 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 11/7/2011 8:40:39 PM, bluesteel wrote:
x+y+z+a+c = "infinite"

This is not a "fixed quantity" that is "more restrictive" than non-maximality. You're treating infinity like a finite number.

not really considering that we are talking about maximally great, meaning there is a restriction on the greatness, intentionally created to avoid the paradox's of the omni god.

You're assuming that maximal greatness requires multiple variables. I'm inclined to disagree. As would Thomas Aquinas.

How could you possibly be maximally great if you only have 1 attribute contributing to that, that is just plain stupid.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
RFH
Posts: 56
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 3:17:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/8/2011 8:11:39 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 11/8/2011 4:45:20 PM, RFH wrote:
At 11/8/2011 1:50:35 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 11/7/2011 8:40:39 PM, bluesteel wrote:
x+y+z+a+c = "infinite"

This is not a "fixed quantity" that is "more restrictive" than non-maximality. You're treating infinity like a finite number.

not really considering that we are talking about maximally great, meaning there is a restriction on the greatness, intentionally created to avoid the paradox's of the omni god.

You're assuming that maximal greatness requires multiple variables. I'm inclined to disagree. As would Thomas Aquinas.

How could you possibly be maximally great if you only have 1 attribute contributing to that, that is just plain stupid.

Why is that?