Total Posts:88|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Ontological Argument For God's Existence

MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 12:36:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 11:11:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any theists on here who thinks this is a good argument? If so, why?

Because it's all dressed up. :D It's the "lipstick on a pig" argument. That should be a book title!
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 12:37:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 11:11:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any theists on here who thinks this is a good argument? If so, why?

Tell you what: You should challenge Smithereens to a debate on it. It appears to be what he specialises* in.

*As much as you can specialise in an argument for God's existence.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 1:48:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 12:37:55 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 10/26/2013 11:11:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any theists on here who thinks this is a good argument? If so, why?


Tell you what: You should challenge Smithereens to a debate on it. It appears to be what he specialises* in.


*As much as you can specialise in an argument for God's existence.

I'll debate any theist on it if they wish.
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 2:46:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 11:11:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any theists on here who thinks this is a good argument? If so, why?

There is a difference between a "good" argument and a "successful" argument.

There are a lot of arguments which are "good" in the sense that they are novel, creative, clarify issues, inspired other lines of argument, etc. but aren't successful in their conclusion.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 2:52:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 2:46:35 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 10/26/2013 11:11:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any theists on here who thinks this is a good argument? If so, why?

There is a difference between a "good" argument and a "successful" argument.

There are a lot of arguments which are "good" in the sense that they are novel, creative, clarify issues, inspired other lines of argument, etc. but aren't successful in their conclusion.

I suppose...What I meant was successful.
marcusmoon
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 5:19:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 2:52:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 2:46:35 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 10/26/2013 11:11:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any theists on here who thinks this is a good argument? If so, why?

There is a difference between a "good" argument and a "successful" argument.

There are a lot of arguments which are "good" in the sense that they are novel, creative, clarify issues, inspired other lines of argument, etc. but aren't successful in their conclusion.

I suppose...What I meant was successful.

I think 'successful' means that it is convincing, which presupposes an audience who is sufficiently open to rational influences. I do not think that describes these debate participants. What I suspect you meant was 'logically sound' and, perhaps, 'compelling' or 'engaging'.
marcusmoon
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 6:42:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I enjoyed your response to the ontological argument, but I think you missed the most glaring weaknesses, because the argument is not, as you say, "logically valid."
1)The argument structure is basically:
P1: It is possible that X exists.
P2: If it is possible that X exists, then X exists in some possible world.
P3: If X exists in some possible world, then X exists in every possible world.
P4: If X exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
P5: Therefore X exists in the actual world.
P6: Therefore X exists.
C: X exists
Logical rules apply to arguments about God"s existence in EXACTLY the same way they apply to rules about the existence of anything else. If the argument is sound, then we can substitute anything for X and the argument still will work.
Let us substitute a great aunt or great uncle. I conceive of a possible world wherein my great grandmother did not die in the 1918 influenza epidemic, and she went on to have a ninth child. The existence of that child in that possible world does not any way imply the existence of that child in every possible world, because in this possible world that child never existed.
This shows us that the problem is in P3. There is nothing to indicate that P3 is a valid statement. Making sense grammatically and syntactically does not preclude it from being nonsense.
2)There is no definition or set of parameters given to the term maximally great being. This leaves the term open to any set of interpretations. For example, you cite the assumption of omnibenevolence, and then use that to undermine the argument. One might just as easily stipulate that maximum greatness includes bunny ears; you could then say that because we can conceive of a possible world with only elephant ears, the Ontological Argument is false.
People have used the flipside of that to "prove" God exists. I know one argument for the Ontological Proof of God is that the quality of existence is a baseline requirement for maximally great. (Being imaginary is a weakness. God has no weakness, therefore God is not imaginary.) That just bypasses the proof by stipulating that God exists. Acceptance of the definition of God is de facto acceptance of the conclusion.
3)The argument suffers from rampant equivocation of the term exist. There are no parameters stipulated for the word exist. This is especially problematic when discussing possible worlds. When saying something can exist in a possible world, we are really saying nothing more than we can imagine it, that it exists as an abstract concept in the context of human imagination. This is a different meaning for exist than in the sentence "Mount Everest exists." The argument essentially boils down to "God exists in the way that George Jetson"s flying car exists, therefore God exists the same way Mount Everest exists. George Jetson"s car, or a reasonable facsimile, may even come to exist in the future, but that in no way demonstrates that it is in someone"s driveway as I sit typing this.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 6:56:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 6:42:50 PM, marcusmoon wrote:
I enjoyed your response to the ontological argument, but I think you missed the most glaring weaknesses, because the argument is not, as you say, "logically valid."
1)The argument structure is basically:
P1: It is possible that X exists.
P2: If it is possible that X exists, then X exists in some possible world.
P3: If X exists in some possible world, then X exists in every possible world.
P4: If X exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
P5: Therefore X exists in the actual world.
P6: Therefore X exists.
C: X exists

That's not the argument. If something is possibly necessary, that is, it is necessary one possible world then it is necessary is all possible worlds.

Logical rules apply to arguments about God"s existence in EXACTLY the same way they apply to rules about the existence of anything else. If the argument is sound, then we can substitute anything for X and the argument still will work.
Let us substitute a great aunt or great uncle. I conceive of a possible world wherein my great grandmother did not die in the 1918 influenza epidemic, and she went on to have a ninth child. The existence of that child in that possible world does not any way imply the existence of that child in every possible world, because in this possible world that child never existed.
This shows us that the problem is in P3. There is nothing to indicate that P3 is a valid statement. Making sense grammatically and syntactically does not preclude it from being nonsense.
2)There is no definition or set of parameters given to the term maximally great being. This leaves the term open to any set of interpretations. For example, you cite the assumption of omnibenevolence, and then use that to undermine the argument. One might just as easily stipulate that maximum greatness includes bunny ears; you could then say that because we can conceive of a possible world with only elephant ears, the Ontological Argument is false.
People have used the flipside of that to "prove" God exists. I know one argument for the Ontological Proof of God is that the quality of existence is a baseline requirement for maximally great. (Being imaginary is a weakness. God has no weakness, therefore God is not imaginary.) That just bypasses the proof by stipulating that God exists. Acceptance of the definition of God is de facto acceptance of the conclusion.
3)The argument suffers from rampant equivocation of the term exist. There are no parameters stipulated for the word exist. This is especially problematic when discussing possible worlds. When saying something can exist in a possible world, we are really saying nothing more than we can imagine it, that it exists as an abstract concept in the context of human imagination. This is a different meaning for exist than in the sentence "Mount Everest exists." The argument essentially boils down to "God exists in the way that George Jetson"s flying car exists, therefore God exists the same way Mount Everest exists. George Jetson"s car, or a reasonable facsimile, may even come to exist in the future, but that in no way demonstrates that it is in someone"s driveway as I sit typing this.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 7:10:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 11:11:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Are there any theists on here who thinks this is a good argument? If so, why?

I don't, but I do like them cause of the pure reasoning or what I think is wrong reasoning involved in such arguments.
"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
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 7:18:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 6:56:08 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/26/2013 6:42:50 PM, marcusmoon wrote:
I enjoyed your response to the ontological argument, but I think you missed the most glaring weaknesses, because the argument is not, as you say, "logically valid."
1)The argument structure is basically:
P1: It is possible that X exists.
P2: If it is possible that X exists, then X exists in some possible world.
P3: If X exists in some possible world, then X exists in every possible world.
P4: If X exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
P5: Therefore X exists in the actual world.
P6: Therefore X exists.
C: X exists

That's not the argument. If something is possibly necessary, that is, it is necessary one possible world then it is necessary is all possible worlds.

And if it exists in all possible worlds then it exists in the actual world, right ?

So we go from X possibly necessary exists = X actually exists

Your entitled to your axioms................here is mine.

X possibly necessarily exists does NOT = X actually exists.......

Now what ?
"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
10/26/2013 7:39:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 7:18:50 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/26/2013 6:56:08 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/26/2013 6:42:50 PM, marcusmoon wrote:
I enjoyed your response to the ontological argument, but I think you missed the most glaring weaknesses, because the argument is not, as you say, "logically valid."
1)The argument structure is basically:
P1: It is possible that X exists.
P2: If it is possible that X exists, then X exists in some possible world.
P3: If X exists in some possible world, then X exists in every possible world.
P4: If X exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
P5: Therefore X exists in the actual world.
P6: Therefore X exists.
C: X exists

That's not the argument. If something is possibly necessary, that is, it is necessary one possible world then it is necessary is all possible worlds.

And if it exists in all possible worlds then it exists in the actual world, right ?

So we go from X possibly necessary exists = X actually exists

Your entitled to your axioms................here is mine.

X possibly necessarily exists does NOT = X actually exists.......

Now what ?

Apparently you have no concept of what "possiblity" or "necessary" means then. Not much I can do there... *shrug*
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 7:50:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And if it exists in all possible worlds then it exists in the actual world, right ?

So we go from X possibly necessary exists = X actually exists

Your entitled to your axioms................here is mine.

X possibly necessarily exists does NOT = X actually exists.......

Now what ?

It seems absurd to counter a well-founded premise of Modal logic by a premise of your own. Modal logic has proof systems and mathematical applications(I've personally used one of its computer science applications). It's not that easy to come up with an advanced form of logic, I assure you. But you could try.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 7:51:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 7:18:50 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/26/2013 6:56:08 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/26/2013 6:42:50 PM, marcusmoon wrote:
I enjoyed your response to the ontological argument, but I think you missed the most glaring weaknesses, because the argument is not, as you say, "logically valid."
1)The argument structure is basically:
P1: It is possible that X exists.
P2: If it is possible that X exists, then X exists in some possible world.
P3: If X exists in some possible world, then X exists in every possible world.
P4: If X exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
P5: Therefore X exists in the actual world.
P6: Therefore X exists.
C: X exists

That's not the argument. If something is possibly necessary, that is, it is necessary one possible world then it is necessary is all possible worlds.

And if it exists in all possible worlds then it exists in the actual world, right ?

So we go from X possibly necessary exists = X actually exists

Your entitled to your axioms................here is mine.

X possibly necessarily exists does NOT = X actually exists.......

The bolded is false. If x possibly necessarily exists, then that means x has to exist. This is a basic Modal inference.


Now what ?
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 8:01:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 7:51:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 7:18:50 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
X possibly necessarily exists does NOT = X actually exists.......

The bolded is false. If x possibly necessarily exists, then that means x has to exist. This is a basic Modal inference.


"Possibly necessarily" is up for interpretation. I could say that it's possibly necessarily fact that there is a cup in my bathroom, but if it isn't there, then there isn't a cup in my bathroom.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 8:13:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 8:01:24 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/26/2013 7:51:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 7:18:50 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
X possibly necessarily exists does NOT = X actually exists.......

The bolded is false. If x possibly necessarily exists, then that means x has to exist. This is a basic Modal inference.


"Possibly necessarily" is up for interpretation.

Not really.

I could say that it's possibly necessarily fact that there is a cup in my bathroom, but if it isn't there, then there isn't a cup in my bathroom.

...no.

First, a cup is contingent, so it can't be possibly necessary.

Two, even if there was a possibly necessary cup, the conclusion if the cup isn't there is that the cup exists in no possible world at all, including the actual.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 8:19:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 8:13:02 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/26/2013 8:01:24 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/26/2013 7:51:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 7:18:50 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
X possibly necessarily exists does NOT = X actually exists.......

The bolded is false. If x possibly necessarily exists, then that means x has to exist. This is a basic Modal inference.


"Possibly necessarily" is up for interpretation.

Not really.

I could say that it's possibly necessarily fact that there is a cup in my bathroom, but if it isn't there, then there isn't a cup in my bathroom.

...no.

First, a cup is contingent, so it can't be possibly necessary.

Two, even if there was a possibly necessary cup, the conclusion if the cup isn't there is that the cup exists in no possible world at all, including the actual.

Oh, so you are making the point that "possibly necessarily" refers to how much of it exists, rather than its probability of existing? So that in my example you cannot have 99% of a cup, as even if you cut the cup into pieces, there is still 100% of a cup somewhere?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 8:32:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 8:01:24 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/26/2013 7:51:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 7:18:50 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
X possibly necessarily exists does NOT = X actually exists.......

The bolded is false. If x possibly necessarily exists, then that means x has to exist. This is a basic Modal inference.


"Possibly necessarily" is up for interpretation.

Actually its very specifically defined. There really is no other interpretation of that in Modal logic.

I could say that it's possibly necessarily fact that there is a cup in my bathroom, but if it isn't there, then there isn't a cup in my bathroom.

How is it possible for a cup to be necessary? lol
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 8:33:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 8:13:02 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/26/2013 8:01:24 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/26/2013 7:51:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 7:18:50 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
X possibly necessarily exists does NOT = X actually exists.......

The bolded is false. If x possibly necessarily exists, then that means x has to exist. This is a basic Modal inference.


"Possibly necessarily" is up for interpretation.

Not really.

I could say that it's possibly necessarily fact that there is a cup in my bathroom, but if it isn't there, then there isn't a cup in my bathroom.

...no.

First, a cup is contingent, so it can't be possibly necessary.

WHo said that something can only be possible necessary if and only if it is not contingent ?

Is that in modal logic pop........or did you just make that up to create a work around ?
"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
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 8:39:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 8:33:57 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/26/2013 8:13:02 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/26/2013 8:01:24 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/26/2013 7:51:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 7:18:50 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
X possibly necessarily exists does NOT = X actually exists.......

The bolded is false. If x possibly necessarily exists, then that means x has to exist. This is a basic Modal inference.


"Possibly necessarily" is up for interpretation.

Not really.

I could say that it's possibly necessarily fact that there is a cup in my bathroom, but if it isn't there, then there isn't a cup in my bathroom.

...no.

First, a cup is contingent, so it can't be possibly necessary.

WHo said that something can only be possible necessary if and only if it is not contingent ?

If something is contingent, then its not possible that its necessary because they are mutually exclusive.


Is that in modal logic pop........or did you just make that up to create a work around ?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 8:47:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 8:39:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 8:33:57 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/26/2013 8:13:02 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/26/2013 8:01:24 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/26/2013 7:51:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 7:18:50 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
X possibly necessarily exists does NOT = X actually exists.......

The bolded is false. If x possibly necessarily exists, then that means x has to exist. This is a basic Modal inference.


"Possibly necessarily" is up for interpretation.

Not really.

I could say that it's possibly necessarily fact that there is a cup in my bathroom, but if it isn't there, then there isn't a cup in my bathroom.

...no.

First, a cup is contingent, so it can't be possibly necessary.

WHo said that something can only be possible necessary if and only if it is not contingent ?

If something is contingent, then its not possible that its necessary because they are mutually exclusive.

Your claiming that something that is contingent can't exist in all possible worlds.

Same question to you.........

Is that in modal logic .......or did you just make that up to create a work around ?

Even if we accept this that something can only be possible necessary if it is not contingent.......

We can merely ask about a non contingent cup, or island, the same way people claim God is a non contingent person.

If they can just assert that it's not possible for a cup or island to not be contingent we can just as easily assert it's not possible for a person to not be contigent.

What I am getting at here is I am sensing alot of arbitrarily bullsh*t in these ontological arguments.



Is that in modal logic pop........or did you just make that up to create a work around ?
"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
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 8:56:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 7:50:51 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
And if it exists in all possible worlds then it exists in the actual world, right ?

So we go from X possibly necessary exists = X actually exists

Your entitled to your axioms................here is mine.

X possibly necessarily exists does NOT = X actually exists.......

Now what ?

It seems absurd to counter a well-founded premise of Modal logic by a premise of your own. Modal logic has proof systems and mathematical applications(I've personally used one of its computer science applications). It's not that easy to come up with an advanced form of logic, I assure you. But you could try.

I know that axioms are just that...........axioms. You can build different systems of different axioms. Different axioms, different system, different result.

Although I am open to be persuaded, but if some one is just going to assert one axiom and I counter with another you gonna have to do more than just give me a personal assurance.

Once again, I am very suspicious of the axiom that.......

X is possible necessary entails X actually exists
"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
10/26/2013 9:57:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 8:33:57 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/26/2013 8:13:02 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/26/2013 8:01:24 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/26/2013 7:51:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 7:18:50 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
X possibly necessarily exists does NOT = X actually exists.......

The bolded is false. If x possibly necessarily exists, then that means x has to exist. This is a basic Modal inference.


"Possibly necessarily" is up for interpretation.

Not really.

I could say that it's possibly necessarily fact that there is a cup in my bathroom, but if it isn't there, then there isn't a cup in my bathroom.

...no.

First, a cup is contingent, so it can't be possibly necessary.

WHo said that something can only be possible necessary if and only if it is not contingent ?

Is that in modal logic pop........or did you just make that up to create a work around ?

It's modal logic.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 10:05:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 8:56:30 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

Once again, I am very suspicious of the axiom that.......

X is possible necessary entails X actually exists

That's nice. You can always bite the bullet and reject some premise or axiom or something or the other in philosophy if you're really motivated to do so. There's precious few little rationally compelling (as in a rational person is obligated to assent to the premise in order to remain rational) arguments in philosophy. Who cares? Do you have a point you're going to eventually get around to?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 10:06:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 9:57:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/26/2013 8:33:57 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/26/2013 8:13:02 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/26/2013 8:01:24 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 10/26/2013 7:51:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 7:18:50 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
X possibly necessarily exists does NOT = X actually exists.......

The bolded is false. If x possibly necessarily exists, then that means x has to exist. This is a basic Modal inference.


"Possibly necessarily" is up for interpretation.

Not really.

I could say that it's possibly necessarily fact that there is a cup in my bathroom, but if it isn't there, then there isn't a cup in my bathroom.

...no.

First, a cup is contingent, so it can't be possibly necessary.

WHo said that something can only be possible necessary if and only if it is not contingent ?

Is that in modal logic pop........or did you just make that up to create a work around ?

It's modal logic.

Maybe not. You might be confusing other idea's/arguments of necessary vs contingent existence into modal logic.

My understanding that according to modal logic something is necessary if it exists in all possible worlds. I have not seen any qualification that states that it also must be non contingent.
"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
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 10:16:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
which ontological argument?

As for what I think of them? the debate on the objections to it have yet to be settled. There are different objections to each one, but for the most popular one, Anselm's first ontological argument, the three biggest objections are Gaunillo's island, Kant's objection, and the rejection of the definition.

Gaunilo's island was debunked by Anselm himself not long after it was formulated. Quite amusing that there are so many atheists out there who still hold onto an objection made up by a theist against another theist.

Kant's objection I give credit to, but the definition of greatest or positive I believe to be a self-refuting argument. It holds that there can be no objective definitions of anything, including greatest, but under this logic terms like valid and invalid also have subjective definitions and thus the objection kills itself.

Overall my point of view is that ontological arguments aren't a necessary proof for God, but it they are sure as hell fun to analyse. You should look at Godel's ontological argument. Its my favourite and good for anyone learning to be fluent in propositional calculus and first order logical principles and symbols.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 10:20:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 10:05:35 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/26/2013 8:56:30 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

Once again, I am very suspicious of the axiom that.......

X is possible necessary entails X actually exists

That's nice. You can always bite the bullet and reject some premise or axiom or something or the other in philosophy if you're really motivated to do so. There's precious few little rationally compelling (as in a rational person is obligated to assent to the premise in order to remain rational) arguments in philosophy. Who cares? Do you have a point you're going to eventually get around to?

Sure consider.........

If X is possible = X may not actually exists

If X is possible necessary = X may not actually exist

I am of the view that X is "possible" does not entail it is actual. ( As do you)

BUT...what i hear from some one like you is that if X is possibly necessary then that entails it is actual.

I seem them both as possibilites, and as such does not entail them being actual.

If you want me to have a different standard when it comes to possiblities, possible doesn't entail actual, possibly necessary does entail actual, then I asked for justification for that.

Till then............

X is possible (yes even if possibly necessary) entails it may not be actual.
"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
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 10:28:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 10:16:27 PM, Smithereens wrote:


Gaunilo's island was debunked by Anselm himself not long after it was formulated. Quite amusing that there are so many atheists out there who still hold onto an objection made up by a theist against another theist.

"Anselm responded to Gaunilo's criticism by arguing that the argument applied only to concepts with necessary existence. He suggested that only a being with necessary existence can fulfill the remit of "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". "

We can amend the island to be a.......................island................that exists....................necessarily.
"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
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 10:35:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 10:28:19 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/26/2013 10:16:27 PM, Smithereens wrote:


Gaunilo's island was debunked by Anselm himself not long after it was formulated. Quite amusing that there are so many atheists out there who still hold onto an objection made up by a theist against another theist.

"Anselm responded to Gaunilo's criticism by arguing that the argument applied only to concepts with necessary existence. He suggested that only a being with necessary existence can fulfill the remit of "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". "

We can amend the island to be a.......................island................that exists....................necessarily.

If you amend this island to exist necessarily, you must also accept that there is a reason why this island exists necessarily. In the case of God, it is because He is the greatest possible being. Saying that an island exists necessarily is nonsensical. Unless that island were to be God. The greatest possible island must therefore be greater than any other island. This is impossible as there can always be an island with 'one more palm tree,' and is thus equal to saying there is a greatest possible integer, and here it is. But to remain consistent, you have made the claim that the greatest possible island exists in reality and thus you must now point out why it is greater. For it to even be great it must not have physical restraints. ie. it can't be limited to being an island. So it must transcend reality, it must have perfection in every way, include morally, but for this is needs consciousness, and will thus require omniscience. Since its transcendent the island is omnipresent and being greatest it is omnipotent. Now describe the differences between the island we have now, and the theistic definition of God. None.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...