Total Posts:166|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Modal Ontological Argument

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 9:01:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 8:27:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do any theists on here think this is actually a good argument? By good, I mean sound.

Which argument are you referring to?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 9:10:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 8:27:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do any theists on here think this is actually a good argument? By good, I mean sound.

This one? http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 9:41:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 9:10:00 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:27:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do any theists on here think this is actually a good argument? By good, I mean sound.

This one? http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...

Essentially, yes.

P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists
P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world
P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then a maximally great being exists in the actual world
P5: A maximally great being exists in the actual world
C: A maximally great being exists
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 10:33:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 9:41:49 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/23/2014 9:10:00 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:27:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do any theists on here think this is actually a good argument? By good, I mean sound.

This one? http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...

Essentially, yes.

P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists
P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world
P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then a maximally great being exists in the actual world
P5: A maximally great being exists in the actual world
C: A maximally great being exists

Okay, here's what I've got:

1. If God does not exist, then by virtue of his definition (namely, his omnipresence) he necessarily exists in no worlds. The argument presumes this to not be the case (and thus presumes his existence) when it concludes that God must exist in some world. In other words, the argument is contingent upon the conclusion it purports to reach. Since the premise that God exists is not a universal premise (if it were, then there would be no need for the argument) the argument's use of tautology is unjustified.

2. If all possibilities exist, then there must be a world in which God does not (thus discrediting God's claim to omnipresence, a necessary condition of 'God'). To claim otherwise is to take God's existence for granted.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 10:46:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Oh, by the way, im not actually claiming number two's reasoning is valid, but rather That the arguments premises would support it as well
dvande28
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 3:09:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
P1: It is possible that a maximally great being does not exist
P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world
P3: If a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world, then a maximally great being does not exist in every possible world
P4: If a maximally great being does not exist in every possible world, then a maximally great being does not exist in the actual world
P5: A maximally great being does not exist in the actual world
C: A maximally great being does not exist
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 4:13:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 8:27:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do any theists on here think this is actually a good argument? By good, I mean sound.

I always thought the ontological arguments were clearly fallacious, and just plain stupid. Now I'm starting to realize they're not nearly as obviously false as they may seem.

Anyways, I really don't have an opinion on the modal ontological argument. If the first premise is true, then sure. I suppose one could argue that the first premise seems intuitively true, but there do seem to be some decent objections to the first premise.

Does you understand Kurt Godel's ontological argument (or anyone else)? It seems to me that I read somewhere he presented arguments for the possibility of a maximally great being...

Also, could't we just say "maximal greatness" and then point out that "maximal greatness" includes intelligence, since to be a being is always "greater"? Otherwise, can't we just say "maximally great unicorn", "maximally great metal-band", etc.?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 5:18:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 4:13:24 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:27:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do any theists on here think this is actually a good argument? By good, I mean sound.

I always thought the ontological arguments were clearly fallacious, and just plain stupid. Now I'm starting to realize they're not nearly as obviously false as they may seem.

Anyways, I really don't have an opinion on the modal ontological argument. If the first premise is true, then sure. I suppose one could argue that the first premise seems intuitively true, but there do seem to be some decent objections to the first premise.

Does you understand Kurt Godel's ontological argument (or anyone else)? It seems to me that I read somewhere he presented arguments for the possibility of a maximally great being...

Also, could't we just say "maximal greatness" and then point out that "maximal greatness" includes intelligence, since to be a being is always "greater"? Otherwise, can't we just say "maximally great unicorn", "maximally great metal-band", etc.?

NO because the game is rigged. They only allow a maximal great god, but if you put forth a maximally great unicorn, they say, no unicorns can't be maximally great.

Like many God arguments, the rules are just made up to get to a certain outcome.
"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
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 6:07:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 5:18:27 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/23/2014 4:13:24 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:27:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do any theists on here think this is actually a good argument? By good, I mean sound.

I always thought the ontological arguments were clearly fallacious, and just plain stupid. Now I'm starting to realize they're not nearly as obviously false as they may seem.

Anyways, I really don't have an opinion on the modal ontological argument. If the first premise is true, then sure. I suppose one could argue that the first premise seems intuitively true, but there do seem to be some decent objections to the first premise.

Does you understand Kurt Godel's ontological argument (or anyone else)? It seems to me that I read somewhere he presented arguments for the possibility of a maximally great being...

Also, could't we just say "maximal greatness" and then point out that "maximal greatness" includes intelligence, since to be a being is always "greater"? Otherwise, can't we just say "maximally great unicorn", "maximally great metal-band", etc.?

NO because the game is rigged. They only allow a maximal great god, but if you put forth a maximally great unicorn, they say, no unicorns can't be maximally great.

Like many God arguments, the rules are just made up to get to a certain outcome.

True. I suppose one could examine what "maximally great unicorn" means... But wouldn't it make more sense we just said "maximal greatness"? It seems to me that "being" would follow from "maximal greatness."
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 7:45:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Since omnipresence is a necessary condition of God, one must either exist in all worlds or no worlds. In other words, either God exists, and exists everywhere, or doesn't exist, and exists nowhere. Therefore, the only valid way to state that God "might exist" is the following: it is possible that God exists in all worlds and it is possible that God exists in no worlds. Without acknowledging the latter, one is necessarily claiming that God exists, in which case it is hardly the case that God "might exist". The possibility that God exists in no worlds negates the notion that "God must exist in some world". Argument refuted.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 8:34:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 4:13:24 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:27:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do any theists on here think this is actually a good argument? By good, I mean sound.

I always thought the ontological arguments were clearly fallacious, and just plain stupid. Now I'm starting to realize they're not nearly as obviously false as they may seem.

Anyways, I really don't have an opinion on the modal ontological argument. If the first premise is true, then sure. I suppose one could argue that the first premise seems intuitively true, but there do seem to be some decent objections to the first premise.

Does you understand Kurt Godel's ontological argument (or anyone else)? It seems to me that I read somewhere he presented arguments for the possibility of a maximally great being...

Godel's argument is interesting. However, you have to accept the axioms for it to work. One of the axioms is " a necessary condition for a perfection, is itself a perfection", but this is clearly a flawed axiom. He argues that it is true because if X is dependent on Y, and X is a perfection, and you cannot have X without Y, then Y is also a perfect, because it is a necessary condition for perfection.

Can you see the flaw in the premise? I'm curious to see if you can spot it like I did.


Also, could't we just say "maximal greatness" and then point out that "maximal greatness" includes intelligence, since to be a being is always "greater"? Otherwise, can't we just say "maximally great unicorn", "maximally great metal-band", etc.?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 8:37:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 6:07:47 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 5:18:27 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/23/2014 4:13:24 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:27:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do any theists on here think this is actually a good argument? By good, I mean sound.

I always thought the ontological arguments were clearly fallacious, and just plain stupid. Now I'm starting to realize they're not nearly as obviously false as they may seem.

Anyways, I really don't have an opinion on the modal ontological argument. If the first premise is true, then sure. I suppose one could argue that the first premise seems intuitively true, but there do seem to be some decent objections to the first premise.

Does you understand Kurt Godel's ontological argument (or anyone else)? It seems to me that I read somewhere he presented arguments for the possibility of a maximally great being...

Also, could't we just say "maximal greatness" and then point out that "maximal greatness" includes intelligence, since to be a being is always "greater"? Otherwise, can't we just say "maximally great unicorn", "maximally great metal-band", etc.?

NO because the game is rigged. They only allow a maximal great god, but if you put forth a maximally great unicorn, they say, no unicorns can't be maximally great.

Like many God arguments, the rules are just made up to get to a certain outcome.

True. I suppose one could examine what "maximally great unicorn" means... But wouldn't it make more sense we just said "maximal greatness"? It seems to me that "being" would follow from "maximal greatness."

Or, the axiom, more accurately, is:

"A property necessarily implied by a positive property is positive" [http://www.logic.at...]
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 8:40:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 4:13:24 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:27:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do any theists on here think this is actually a good argument? By good, I mean sound.

I always thought the ontological arguments were clearly fallacious, and just plain stupid. Now I'm starting to realize they're not nearly as obviously false as they may seem.

Anyways, I really don't have an opinion on the modal ontological argument. If the first premise is true, then sure. I suppose one could argue that the first premise seems intuitively true, but there do seem to be some decent objections to the first premise.

Does you understand Kurt Godel's ontological argument (or anyone else)? It seems to me that I read somewhere he presented arguments for the possibility of a maximally great being...

Also, could't we just say "maximal greatness" and then point out that "maximal greatness" includes intelligence, since to be a being is always "greater"? Otherwise, can't we just say "maximally great unicorn", "maximally great metal-band", etc.?

Also, the arguments for possibility are by Robert Maydole, not Kurt Godel (I believe). Kurt Godel's argument is based on Modal Logic, but not Axiom S5 like Plantinga's argument, and I don't think he has any extensive argument for possibility, like Maydole does.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 8:44:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 8:34:51 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/23/2014 4:13:24 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:27:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do any theists on here think this is actually a good argument? By good, I mean sound.

I always thought the ontological arguments were clearly fallacious, and just plain stupid. Now I'm starting to realize they're not nearly as obviously false as they may seem.

Anyways, I really don't have an opinion on the modal ontological argument. If the first premise is true, then sure. I suppose one could argue that the first premise seems intuitively true, but there do seem to be some decent objections to the first premise.

Does you understand Kurt Godel's ontological argument (or anyone else)? It seems to me that I read somewhere he presented arguments for the possibility of a maximally great being...

Godel's argument is interesting. However, you have to accept the axioms for it to work. One of the axioms is " a necessary condition for a perfection, is itself a perfection", but this is clearly a flawed axiom. He argues that it is true because if X is dependent on Y, and X is a perfection, and you cannot have X without Y, then Y is also a perfect, because it is a necessary condition for perfection.

Can you see the flaw in the premise? I'm curious to see if you can spot it like I did.


I have almost no background in modal logic, or anything like that, so I don't even understand Godel's argument. I've been meaning to look into it more, and really read up on it, but I've been meaning to do that for a lot of things, and I'm already busy...

To me, it doesn't quite seem to follow. Couldn't something we generally consider "bad" be a prerequisite for a positive quality? In other words, couldn't a negative quality be a preempt for a positive quality? And then the negative quality would actually be a positive quality. But that seems contradictory.


Also, could't we just say "maximal greatness" and then point out that "maximal greatness" includes intelligence, since to be a being is always "greater"? Otherwise, can't we just say "maximally great unicorn", "maximally great metal-band", etc.?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 8:46:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 8:40:31 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/23/2014 4:13:24 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:27:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do any theists on here think this is actually a good argument? By good, I mean sound.

I always thought the ontological arguments were clearly fallacious, and just plain stupid. Now I'm starting to realize they're not nearly as obviously false as they may seem.

Anyways, I really don't have an opinion on the modal ontological argument. If the first premise is true, then sure. I suppose one could argue that the first premise seems intuitively true, but there do seem to be some decent objections to the first premise.

Does you understand Kurt Godel's ontological argument (or anyone else)? It seems to me that I read somewhere he presented arguments for the possibility of a maximally great being...

Also, could't we just say "maximal greatness" and then point out that "maximal greatness" includes intelligence, since to be a being is always "greater"? Otherwise, can't we just say "maximally great unicorn", "maximally great metal-band", etc.?

Also, the arguments for possibility are by Robert Maydole, not Kurt Godel (I believe). Kurt Godel's argument is based on Modal Logic, but not Axiom S5 like Plantinga's argument, and I don't think he has any extensive argument for possibility, like Maydole does.

If that's the case, then everything I had guessed at about Godel's ontological argument is incorrect. Lol... Any good places for a person with minimal modal logic knowledge to understand what Godel is getting at?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 8:46:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 8:44:06 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:34:51 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/23/2014 4:13:24 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:27:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do any theists on here think this is actually a good argument? By good, I mean sound.

I always thought the ontological arguments were clearly fallacious, and just plain stupid. Now I'm starting to realize they're not nearly as obviously false as they may seem.

Anyways, I really don't have an opinion on the modal ontological argument. If the first premise is true, then sure. I suppose one could argue that the first premise seems intuitively true, but there do seem to be some decent objections to the first premise.

Does you understand Kurt Godel's ontological argument (or anyone else)? It seems to me that I read somewhere he presented arguments for the possibility of a maximally great being...

Godel's argument is interesting. However, you have to accept the axioms for it to work. One of the axioms is " a necessary condition for a perfection, is itself a perfection", but this is clearly a flawed axiom. He argues that it is true because if X is dependent on Y, and X is a perfection, and you cannot have X without Y, then Y is also a perfect, because it is a necessary condition for perfection.

Can you see the flaw in the premise? I'm curious to see if you can spot it like I did.


I have almost no background in modal logic, or anything like that, so I don't even understand Godel's argument. I've been meaning to look into it more, and really read up on it, but I've been meaning to do that for a lot of things, and I'm already busy...

To me, it doesn't quite seem to follow. Couldn't something we generally consider "bad" be a prerequisite for a positive quality? In other words, couldn't a negative quality be a preempt for a positive quality? And then the negative quality would actually be a positive quality. But that seems contradictory.

Bingo my friend. A negative property and a positive property could both entail, or be dependent upon the truth of X. However, why would we say X is a positive, but not a negative when both are dependent on it?



Also, could't we just say "maximal greatness" and then point out that "maximal greatness" includes intelligence, since to be a being is always "greater"? Otherwise, can't we just say "maximally great unicorn", "maximally great metal-band", etc.?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 8:47:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 8:46:38 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:40:31 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/23/2014 4:13:24 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:27:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do any theists on here think this is actually a good argument? By good, I mean sound.

I always thought the ontological arguments were clearly fallacious, and just plain stupid. Now I'm starting to realize they're not nearly as obviously false as they may seem.

Anyways, I really don't have an opinion on the modal ontological argument. If the first premise is true, then sure. I suppose one could argue that the first premise seems intuitively true, but there do seem to be some decent objections to the first premise.

Does you understand Kurt Godel's ontological argument (or anyone else)? It seems to me that I read somewhere he presented arguments for the possibility of a maximally great being...

Also, could't we just say "maximal greatness" and then point out that "maximal greatness" includes intelligence, since to be a being is always "greater"? Otherwise, can't we just say "maximally great unicorn", "maximally great metal-band", etc.?

Also, the arguments for possibility are by Robert Maydole, not Kurt Godel (I believe). Kurt Godel's argument is based on Modal Logic, but not Axiom S5 like Plantinga's argument, and I don't think he has any extensive argument for possibility, like Maydole does.

If that's the case, then everything I had guessed at about Godel's ontological argument is incorrect. Lol... Any good places for a person with minimal modal logic knowledge to understand what Godel is getting at?

Read this paper on Godel's Argument: http://www.logic.at...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 8:49:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 8:46:38 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:40:31 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/23/2014 4:13:24 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:27:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do any theists on here think this is actually a good argument? By good, I mean sound.

I always thought the ontological arguments were clearly fallacious, and just plain stupid. Now I'm starting to realize they're not nearly as obviously false as they may seem.

Anyways, I really don't have an opinion on the modal ontological argument. If the first premise is true, then sure. I suppose one could argue that the first premise seems intuitively true, but there do seem to be some decent objections to the first premise.

Does you understand Kurt Godel's ontological argument (or anyone else)? It seems to me that I read somewhere he presented arguments for the possibility of a maximally great being...

Also, could't we just say "maximal greatness" and then point out that "maximal greatness" includes intelligence, since to be a being is always "greater"? Otherwise, can't we just say "maximally great unicorn", "maximally great metal-band", etc.?

Also, the arguments for possibility are by Robert Maydole, not Kurt Godel (I believe). Kurt Godel's argument is based on Modal Logic, but not Axiom S5 like Plantinga's argument, and I don't think he has any extensive argument for possibility, like Maydole does.

If that's the case, then everything I had guessed at about Godel's ontological argument is incorrect. Lol... Any good places for a person with minimal modal logic knowledge to understand what Godel is getting at?

To me, A2 in the argument strikes me as problematic. Which is why I don't think the argument is sound.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 8:54:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The main reason I don't think the Modal Ontological Argument is sound is because it seems intuitively reasonable to claim there is a possible world in which there is no omnipotence. However, this entails a maximally great being exists in no possible world, because if he existed in any, he would exist in all, and omnipotence would be the case in every possible world. Thus, from the mere possibility of a world without omnipotence, there is no maximally great being. This is why I think the Modal Ontological Argument doesn't work as an argument for God (at least a God defined as maximally great). It is at a stale-mate with arguments that show the non-existence of a maximally great being based on possibility claims, such as Ryan Stringer's Modal Ontological Argument for Atheism [http://infidels.org...].
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 8:56:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 8:47:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:46:38 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:40:31 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/23/2014 4:13:24 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:27:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do any theists on here think this is actually a good argument? By good, I mean sound.

I always thought the ontological arguments were clearly fallacious, and just plain stupid. Now I'm starting to realize they're not nearly as obviously false as they may seem.

Anyways, I really don't have an opinion on the modal ontological argument. If the first premise is true, then sure. I suppose one could argue that the first premise seems intuitively true, but there do seem to be some decent objections to the first premise.

Does you understand Kurt Godel's ontological argument (or anyone else)? It seems to me that I read somewhere he presented arguments for the possibility of a maximally great being...

Also, could't we just say "maximal greatness" and then point out that "maximal greatness" includes intelligence, since to be a being is always "greater"? Otherwise, can't we just say "maximally great unicorn", "maximally great metal-band", etc.?

Also, the arguments for possibility are by Robert Maydole, not Kurt Godel (I believe). Kurt Godel's argument is based on Modal Logic, but not Axiom S5 like Plantinga's argument, and I don't think he has any extensive argument for possibility, like Maydole does.

If that's the case, then everything I had guessed at about Godel's ontological argument is incorrect. Lol... Any good places for a person with minimal modal logic knowledge to understand what Godel is getting at?

Read this paper on Godel's Argument: http://www.logic.at...

Meh... I don't think I have enough knowledge of modal logic to understand it fully. Little bits and pieces, but I really don't see what he's driving at.

Anyways, I just finally got Plantinga's ontological argument. I felt like Bertrand Russell... ""Great Scott, the ontological argument is sound."" lol.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 8:59:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 8:49:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:46:38 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:40:31 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/23/2014 4:13:24 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:27:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do any theists on here think this is actually a good argument? By good, I mean sound.

I always thought the ontological arguments were clearly fallacious, and just plain stupid. Now I'm starting to realize they're not nearly as obviously false as they may seem.

Anyways, I really don't have an opinion on the modal ontological argument. If the first premise is true, then sure. I suppose one could argue that the first premise seems intuitively true, but there do seem to be some decent objections to the first premise.

Does you understand Kurt Godel's ontological argument (or anyone else)? It seems to me that I read somewhere he presented arguments for the possibility of a maximally great being...

Also, could't we just say "maximal greatness" and then point out that "maximal greatness" includes intelligence, since to be a being is always "greater"? Otherwise, can't we just say "maximally great unicorn", "maximally great metal-band", etc.?

Also, the arguments for possibility are by Robert Maydole, not Kurt Godel (I believe). Kurt Godel's argument is based on Modal Logic, but not Axiom S5 like Plantinga's argument, and I don't think he has any extensive argument for possibility, like Maydole does.

If that's the case, then everything I had guessed at about Godel's ontological argument is incorrect. Lol... Any good places for a person with minimal modal logic knowledge to understand what Godel is getting at?

To me, A2 in the argument strikes me as problematic. Which is why I don't think the argument is sound.

Interesting... Other than that, you don't have any problems with it?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 8:59:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 8:56:36 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:47:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:46:38 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:40:31 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/23/2014 4:13:24 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:27:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do any theists on here think this is actually a good argument? By good, I mean sound.

I always thought the ontological arguments were clearly fallacious, and just plain stupid. Now I'm starting to realize they're not nearly as obviously false as they may seem.

Anyways, I really don't have an opinion on the modal ontological argument. If the first premise is true, then sure. I suppose one could argue that the first premise seems intuitively true, but there do seem to be some decent objections to the first premise.

Does you understand Kurt Godel's ontological argument (or anyone else)? It seems to me that I read somewhere he presented arguments for the possibility of a maximally great being...

Also, could't we just say "maximal greatness" and then point out that "maximal greatness" includes intelligence, since to be a being is always "greater"? Otherwise, can't we just say "maximally great unicorn", "maximally great metal-band", etc.?

Also, the arguments for possibility are by Robert Maydole, not Kurt Godel (I believe). Kurt Godel's argument is based on Modal Logic, but not Axiom S5 like Plantinga's argument, and I don't think he has any extensive argument for possibility, like Maydole does.

If that's the case, then everything I had guessed at about Godel's ontological argument is incorrect. Lol... Any good places for a person with minimal modal logic knowledge to understand what Godel is getting at?

Read this paper on Godel's Argument: http://www.logic.at...

Meh... I don't think I have enough knowledge of modal logic to understand it fully. Little bits and pieces, but I really don't see what he's driving at.

Anyways, I just finally got Plantinga's ontological argument. I felt like Bertrand Russell... ""Great Scott, the ontological argument is sound."" lol.

Well, it is logically valid. But, I wouldn't call it sound.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 9:00:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 8:59:28 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:49:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:46:38 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:40:31 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/23/2014 4:13:24 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:27:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do any theists on here think this is actually a good argument? By good, I mean sound.

I always thought the ontological arguments were clearly fallacious, and just plain stupid. Now I'm starting to realize they're not nearly as obviously false as they may seem.

Anyways, I really don't have an opinion on the modal ontological argument. If the first premise is true, then sure. I suppose one could argue that the first premise seems intuitively true, but there do seem to be some decent objections to the first premise.

Does you understand Kurt Godel's ontological argument (or anyone else)? It seems to me that I read somewhere he presented arguments for the possibility of a maximally great being...

Also, could't we just say "maximal greatness" and then point out that "maximal greatness" includes intelligence, since to be a being is always "greater"? Otherwise, can't we just say "maximally great unicorn", "maximally great metal-band", etc.?

Also, the arguments for possibility are by Robert Maydole, not Kurt Godel (I believe). Kurt Godel's argument is based on Modal Logic, but not Axiom S5 like Plantinga's argument, and I don't think he has any extensive argument for possibility, like Maydole does.

If that's the case, then everything I had guessed at about Godel's ontological argument is incorrect. Lol... Any good places for a person with minimal modal logic knowledge to understand what Godel is getting at?

To me, A2 in the argument strikes me as problematic. Which is why I don't think the argument is sound.

Interesting... Other than that, you don't have any problems with it?

Not really, but that one problem seems devastating enough.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 9:02:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 8:56:36 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:47:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:46:38 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:40:31 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/23/2014 4:13:24 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:27:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do any theists on here think this is actually a good argument? By good, I mean sound.

I always thought the ontological arguments were clearly fallacious, and just plain stupid. Now I'm starting to realize they're not nearly as obviously false as they may seem.

Anyways, I really don't have an opinion on the modal ontological argument. If the first premise is true, then sure. I suppose one could argue that the first premise seems intuitively true, but there do seem to be some decent objections to the first premise.

Does you understand Kurt Godel's ontological argument (or anyone else)? It seems to me that I read somewhere he presented arguments for the possibility of a maximally great being...

Also, could't we just say "maximal greatness" and then point out that "maximal greatness" includes intelligence, since to be a being is always "greater"? Otherwise, can't we just say "maximally great unicorn", "maximally great metal-band", etc.?

Also, the arguments for possibility are by Robert Maydole, not Kurt Godel (I believe). Kurt Godel's argument is based on Modal Logic, but not Axiom S5 like Plantinga's argument, and I don't think he has any extensive argument for possibility, like Maydole does.

If that's the case, then everything I had guessed at about Godel's ontological argument is incorrect. Lol... Any good places for a person with minimal modal logic knowledge to understand what Godel is getting at?

Read this paper on Godel's Argument: http://www.logic.at...

Meh... I don't think I have enough knowledge of modal logic to understand it fully. Little bits and pieces, but I really don't see what he's driving at.

Anyways, I just finally got Plantinga's ontological argument. I felt like Bertrand Russell... ""Great Scott, the ontological argument is sound."" lol.

In order for the MOA to be sound, all the premises have to be true. However, since all the premises just follow after the first; the first premise has to be true. However, no theist, that I know of, has shown the first premise to be true. I think Ryan Stringer's rebuttal against Plantinga's argument is good.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 9:03:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 8:59:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:56:36 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:47:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:46:38 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:40:31 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/23/2014 4:13:24 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:27:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do any theists on here think this is actually a good argument? By good, I mean sound.

I always thought the ontological arguments were clearly fallacious, and just plain stupid. Now I'm starting to realize they're not nearly as obviously false as they may seem.

Anyways, I really don't have an opinion on the modal ontological argument. If the first premise is true, then sure. I suppose one could argue that the first premise seems intuitively true, but there do seem to be some decent objections to the first premise.

Does you understand Kurt Godel's ontological argument (or anyone else)? It seems to me that I read somewhere he presented arguments for the possibility of a maximally great being...

Also, could't we just say "maximal greatness" and then point out that "maximal greatness" includes intelligence, since to be a being is always "greater"? Otherwise, can't we just say "maximally great unicorn", "maximally great metal-band", etc.?

Also, the arguments for possibility are by Robert Maydole, not Kurt Godel (I believe). Kurt Godel's argument is based on Modal Logic, but not Axiom S5 like Plantinga's argument, and I don't think he has any extensive argument for possibility, like Maydole does.

If that's the case, then everything I had guessed at about Godel's ontological argument is incorrect. Lol... Any good places for a person with minimal modal logic knowledge to understand what Godel is getting at?

Read this paper on Godel's Argument: http://www.logic.at...

Meh... I don't think I have enough knowledge of modal logic to understand it fully. Little bits and pieces, but I really don't see what he's driving at.

Anyways, I just finally got Plantinga's ontological argument. I felt like Bertrand Russell... ""Great Scott, the ontological argument is sound."" lol.

Well, it is logically valid. But, I wouldn't call it sound.

Well if you already believe in God, you're alot more likely to agree that it's sound ;P I think most people would accept the first premise.

What of the objection that we can put "maximally great" in front of any noun?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 9:05:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 9:02:15 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:56:36 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:47:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:46:38 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:40:31 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/23/2014 4:13:24 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:27:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do any theists on here think this is actually a good argument? By good, I mean sound.

I always thought the ontological arguments were clearly fallacious, and just plain stupid. Now I'm starting to realize they're not nearly as obviously false as they may seem.

Anyways, I really don't have an opinion on the modal ontological argument. If the first premise is true, then sure. I suppose one could argue that the first premise seems intuitively true, but there do seem to be some decent objections to the first premise.

Does you understand Kurt Godel's ontological argument (or anyone else)? It seems to me that I read somewhere he presented arguments for the possibility of a maximally great being...

Also, could't we just say "maximal greatness" and then point out that "maximal greatness" includes intelligence, since to be a being is always "greater"? Otherwise, can't we just say "maximally great unicorn", "maximally great metal-band", etc.?

Also, the arguments for possibility are by Robert Maydole, not Kurt Godel (I believe). Kurt Godel's argument is based on Modal Logic, but not Axiom S5 like Plantinga's argument, and I don't think he has any extensive argument for possibility, like Maydole does.

If that's the case, then everything I had guessed at about Godel's ontological argument is incorrect. Lol... Any good places for a person with minimal modal logic knowledge to understand what Godel is getting at?

Read this paper on Godel's Argument: http://www.logic.at...

Meh... I don't think I have enough knowledge of modal logic to understand it fully. Little bits and pieces, but I really don't see what he's driving at.

Anyways, I just finally got Plantinga's ontological argument. I felt like Bertrand Russell... ""Great Scott, the ontological argument is sound."" lol.

In order for the MOA to be sound, all the premises have to be true. However, since all the premises just follow after the first; the first premise has to be true. However, no theist, that I know of, has shown the first premise to be true. I think Ryan Stringer's rebuttal against Plantinga's argument is good.

There's lots of average atheists who would accept God, defined as in the modal ontological argument, as a possibility though.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 9:07:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 9:02:15 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:56:36 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:47:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:46:38 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:40:31 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/23/2014 4:13:24 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:27:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do any theists on here think this is actually a good argument? By good, I mean sound.

I always thought the ontological arguments were clearly fallacious, and just plain stupid. Now I'm starting to realize they're not nearly as obviously false as they may seem.

Anyways, I really don't have an opinion on the modal ontological argument. If the first premise is true, then sure. I suppose one could argue that the first premise seems intuitively true, but there do seem to be some decent objections to the first premise.

Does you understand Kurt Godel's ontological argument (or anyone else)? It seems to me that I read somewhere he presented arguments for the possibility of a maximally great being...

Also, could't we just say "maximal greatness" and then point out that "maximal greatness" includes intelligence, since to be a being is always "greater"? Otherwise, can't we just say "maximally great unicorn", "maximally great metal-band", etc.?

Also, the arguments for possibility are by Robert Maydole, not Kurt Godel (I believe). Kurt Godel's argument is based on Modal Logic, but not Axiom S5 like Plantinga's argument, and I don't think he has any extensive argument for possibility, like Maydole does.

If that's the case, then everything I had guessed at about Godel's ontological argument is incorrect. Lol... Any good places for a person with minimal modal logic knowledge to understand what Godel is getting at?

Read this paper on Godel's Argument: http://www.logic.at...

Meh... I don't think I have enough knowledge of modal logic to understand it fully. Little bits and pieces, but I really don't see what he's driving at.

Anyways, I just finally got Plantinga's ontological argument. I felt like Bertrand Russell... ""Great Scott, the ontological argument is sound."" lol.

In order for the MOA to be sound, all the premises have to be true. However, since all the premises just follow after the first; the first premise has to be true. However, no theist, that I know of, has shown the first premise to be true. I think Ryan Stringer's rebuttal against Plantinga's argument is good.

How does your view of idealism, and the physical world being thoughts in a greater being affect your perception of this argument?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 9:07:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 9:05:48 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 9:02:15 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:56:36 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:47:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:46:38 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:40:31 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/23/2014 4:13:24 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:27:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do any theists on here think this is actually a good argument? By good, I mean sound.

I always thought the ontological arguments were clearly fallacious, and just plain stupid. Now I'm starting to realize they're not nearly as obviously false as they may seem.

Anyways, I really don't have an opinion on the modal ontological argument. If the first premise is true, then sure. I suppose one could argue that the first premise seems intuitively true, but there do seem to be some decent objections to the first premise.

Does you understand Kurt Godel's ontological argument (or anyone else)? It seems to me that I read somewhere he presented arguments for the possibility of a maximally great being...

Also, could't we just say "maximal greatness" and then point out that "maximal greatness" includes intelligence, since to be a being is always "greater"? Otherwise, can't we just say "maximally great unicorn", "maximally great metal-band", etc.?

Also, the arguments for possibility are by Robert Maydole, not Kurt Godel (I believe). Kurt Godel's argument is based on Modal Logic, but not Axiom S5 like Plantinga's argument, and I don't think he has any extensive argument for possibility, like Maydole does.

If that's the case, then everything I had guessed at about Godel's ontological argument is incorrect. Lol... Any good places for a person with minimal modal logic knowledge to understand what Godel is getting at?

Read this paper on Godel's Argument: http://www.logic.at...

Meh... I don't think I have enough knowledge of modal logic to understand it fully. Little bits and pieces, but I really don't see what he's driving at.

Anyways, I just finally got Plantinga's ontological argument. I felt like Bertrand Russell... ""Great Scott, the ontological argument is sound."" lol.

In order for the MOA to be sound, all the premises have to be true. However, since all the premises just follow after the first; the first premise has to be true. However, no theist, that I know of, has shown the first premise to be true. I think Ryan Stringer's rebuttal against Plantinga's argument is good.

There's lots of average atheists who would accept God, defined as in the modal ontological argument, as a possibility though.

Refer to my post please.