Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Ontological Argument?

Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,763
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 8:56:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Could someone explain it to me? I know the basics, but I'm not really sure what all it means. It seems like it makes a few assumptions about the universe. So if someone could explain to me what it means that would be nice.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9

http://www.debate.org...
TheWarrior
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 9:50:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 8:56:15 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
Could someone explain it to me? I know the basics, but I'm not really sure what all it means. It seems like it makes a few assumptions about the universe. So if someone could explain to me what it means that would be nice.
Here is a link to a site that I think describes it well http://www.existence-of-god.com... I will say that this is possibly the worst argument that theists have for the existence of God. It was criticized by both Aquinas and Kant who where both theists. Personally, I think that argument should be disregarded because it does make drastic assumptions.
https://docs.google.com...
Lead Enforcer of the DDO Revolutionary Party
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 9:53:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
P!: gross
P2: nasty
C1: eat trash
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 10:12:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 8:56:15 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
Could someone explain it to me? I know the basics, but I'm not really sure what all it means. It seems like it makes a few assumptions about the universe. So if someone could explain to me what it means that would be nice.

"The Ontological Argument" doesn't exist. Ontology is an area of study in philosophy and ontological arguments have consequently arose from it. However, there is no single ontological argument that exists. However, I should point out that all of them are equally bad and fallacious.
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,763
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 10:17:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 10:12:29 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 2/24/2014 8:56:15 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
Could someone explain it to me? I know the basics, but I'm not really sure what all it means. It seems like it makes a few assumptions about the universe. So if someone could explain to me what it means that would be nice.


"The Ontological Argument" doesn't exist. Ontology is an area of study in philosophy and ontological arguments have consequently arose from it. However, there is no single ontological argument that exists. However, I should point out that all of them are equally bad and fallacious.

I mean the one for the existence of a maximally great being. Sorry, I didn't clarify. I was just wondering what it was because I was curious.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9

http://www.debate.org...
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,763
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 10:19:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 9:50:42 AM, TheWarrior wrote:
At 2/24/2014 8:56:15 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
Could someone explain it to me? I know the basics, but I'm not really sure what all it means. It seems like it makes a few assumptions about the universe. So if someone could explain to me what it means that would be nice.
Here is a link to a site that I think describes it well http://www.existence-of-god.com... I will say that this is possibly the worst argument that theists have for the existence of God. It was criticized by both Aquinas and Kant who where both theists. Personally, I think that argument should be disregarded because it does make drastic assumptions.

Thanks! It just confused me so I got curious about an actual explanation for it :P
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9

http://www.debate.org...
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 10:23:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 10:17:00 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 2/24/2014 10:12:29 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 2/24/2014 8:56:15 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
Could someone explain it to me? I know the basics, but I'm not really sure what all it means. It seems like it makes a few assumptions about the universe. So if someone could explain to me what it means that would be nice.


"The Ontological Argument" doesn't exist. Ontology is an area of study in philosophy and ontological arguments have consequently arose from it. However, there is no single ontological argument that exists. However, I should point out that all of them are equally bad and fallacious.

I mean the one for the existence of a maximally great being. Sorry, I didn't clarify. I was just wondering what it was because I was curious.

1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.


That's it presented. The argument does and necessarily works by Axiom S5, iff (NOTE: iff is a mathematical way to denote "if and only if") the first premise is correct. The problem is that it is never shown to be true, as proponents tend to equivocate the different definition of "possible", philosophically.

Do you want me to elaborate on "possible"? (I'm happy to, but if you're happy with that, I'll stop).
TheWarrior
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 10:25:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 10:19:50 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 2/24/2014 9:50:42 AM, TheWarrior wrote:
At 2/24/2014 8:56:15 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
Could someone explain it to me? I know the basics, but I'm not really sure what all it means. It seems like it makes a few assumptions about the universe. So if someone could explain to me what it means that would be nice.
Here is a link to a site that I think describes it well http://www.existence-of-god.com... I will say that this is possibly the worst argument that theists have for the existence of God. It was criticized by both Aquinas and Kant who where both theists. Personally, I think that argument should be disregarded because it does make drastic assumptions.

Thanks! It just confused me so I got curious about an actual explanation for it :P
You are welcome. Glad I could help.
https://docs.google.com...
Lead Enforcer of the DDO Revolutionary Party
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 10:31:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 9:53:29 AM, Noumena wrote:
P!: gross
P2: nasty
C1: eat trash

P3: consume yer weight's worth of trash
C2: literally become trash
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,763
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 10:49:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 10:23:05 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 2/24/2014 10:17:00 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 2/24/2014 10:12:29 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 2/24/2014 8:56:15 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
Could someone explain it to me? I know the basics, but I'm not really sure what all it means. It seems like it makes a few assumptions about the universe. So if someone could explain to me what it means that would be nice.


"The Ontological Argument" doesn't exist. Ontology is an area of study in philosophy and ontological arguments have consequently arose from it. However, there is no single ontological argument that exists. However, I should point out that all of them are equally bad and fallacious.

I mean the one for the existence of a maximally great being. Sorry, I didn't clarify. I was just wondering what it was because I was curious.

1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.


That's it presented. The argument does and necessarily works by Axiom S5, iff (NOTE: iff is a mathematical way to denote "if and only if") the first premise is correct. The problem is that it is never shown to be true, as proponents tend to equivocate the different definition of "possible", philosophically.

Do you want me to elaborate on "possible"? (I'm happy to, but if you're happy with that, I'll stop).

Yeah, what exactly would "possible" be then? Or maybe what should it be? The possible part is what gets me. Like I guess it asserts possibility into reality specifically because a maximally great beat or being which none greater can be conceived could exist in imagination or possibility and thus must exist in reality by necessity? I'm not really sure if that made sense.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9

http://www.debate.org...
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 11:07:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 10:49:50 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 2/24/2014 10:23:05 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 2/24/2014 10:17:00 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 2/24/2014 10:12:29 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 2/24/2014 8:56:15 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
Could someone explain it to me? I know the basics, but I'm not really sure what all it means. It seems like it makes a few assumptions about the universe. So if someone could explain to me what it means that would be nice.


"The Ontological Argument" doesn't exist. Ontology is an area of study in philosophy and ontological arguments have consequently arose from it. However, there is no single ontological argument that exists. However, I should point out that all of them are equally bad and fallacious.

I mean the one for the existence of a maximally great being. Sorry, I didn't clarify. I was just wondering what it was because I was curious.

1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.


That's it presented. The argument does and necessarily works by Axiom S5, iff (NOTE: iff is a mathematical way to denote "if and only if") the first premise is correct. The problem is that it is never shown to be true, as proponents tend to equivocate the different definition of "possible", philosophically.

Do you want me to elaborate on "possible"? (I'm happy to, but if you're happy with that, I'll stop).

Yeah, what exactly would "possible" be then? Or maybe what should it be? The possible part is what gets me. Like I guess it asserts possibility into reality specifically because a maximally great beat or being which none greater can be conceived could exist in imagination or possibility and thus must exist in reality by necessity? I'm not really sure if that made sense.

Here we go:

There are many different kinds of possibility. The colloquial (common) type is when we mean: "it could be true; it might not be; I don't know, so I'll treat this as possible." This is what most people will use when they say possible and it's a form of possibility called epistemic possibility.

This is not used in logic, ever, to my knowledge. Certainly not in modal logic. This is because it is very subjective to induction, which defeats the purpose. Therefore, we use, in modal logic, a wide branch of possibility called subjunctive possibility.

In subjunctive possibility, we don't say: "I don't know, so we assume yes."
In subjunctive possibility; we say: "It is not impossible."

So, unless proponents prove that it is not impossible for the first premise, they have not met their burden and the argument can be dismissed.

What annoys me is how often people say: "Do you at least admit that it's possible?" to atheist and skeptics, because they force the neutral person - who's never heard the argument before - to commit the fallacy of equivocation and trick them into "seeing the light".

Still, I hope that helps!
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,763
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 11:13:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 11:07:09 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 2/24/2014 10:49:50 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 2/24/2014 10:23:05 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 2/24/2014 10:17:00 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 2/24/2014 10:12:29 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 2/24/2014 8:56:15 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
Could someone explain it to me? I know the basics, but I'm not really sure what all it means. It seems like it makes a few assumptions about the universe. So if someone could explain to me what it means that would be nice.


"The Ontological Argument" doesn't exist. Ontology is an area of study in philosophy and ontological arguments have consequently arose from it. However, there is no single ontological argument that exists. However, I should point out that all of them are equally bad and fallacious.

I mean the one for the existence of a maximally great being. Sorry, I didn't clarify. I was just wondering what it was because I was curious.

1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.


That's it presented. The argument does and necessarily works by Axiom S5, iff (NOTE: iff is a mathematical way to denote "if and only if") the first premise is correct. The problem is that it is never shown to be true, as proponents tend to equivocate the different definition of "possible", philosophically.

Do you want me to elaborate on "possible"? (I'm happy to, but if you're happy with that, I'll stop).

Yeah, what exactly would "possible" be then? Or maybe what should it be? The possible part is what gets me. Like I guess it asserts possibility into reality specifically because a maximally great beat or being which none greater can be conceived could exist in imagination or possibility and thus must exist in reality by necessity? I'm not really sure if that made sense.

Here we go:

There are many different kinds of possibility. The colloquial (common) type is when we mean: "it could be true; it might not be; I don't know, so I'll treat this as possible." This is what most people will use when they say possible and it's a form of possibility called epistemic possibility.

This is not used in logic, ever, to my knowledge. Certainly not in modal logic. This is because it is very subjective to induction, which defeats the purpose. Therefore, we use, in modal logic, a wide branch of possibility called subjunctive possibility.

In subjunctive possibility, we don't say: "I don't know, so we assume yes."
In subjunctive possibility; we say: "It is not impossible."

So, unless proponents prove that it is not impossible for the first premise, they have not met their burden and the argument can be dismissed.

What annoys me is how often people say: "Do you at least admit that it's possible?" to atheist and skeptics, because they force the neutral person - who's never heard the argument before - to commit the fallacy of equivocation and trick them into "seeing the light".

Still, I hope that helps!

Perfect, thank ya!
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9

http://www.debate.org...
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 11:17:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 11:13:37 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 2/24/2014 11:07:09 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 2/24/2014 10:49:50 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 2/24/2014 10:23:05 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 2/24/2014 10:17:00 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 2/24/2014 10:12:29 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 2/24/2014 8:56:15 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
Could someone explain it to me? I know the basics, but I'm not really sure what all it means. It seems like it makes a few assumptions about the universe. So if someone could explain to me what it means that would be nice.


"The Ontological Argument" doesn't exist. Ontology is an area of study in philosophy and ontological arguments have consequently arose from it. However, there is no single ontological argument that exists. However, I should point out that all of them are equally bad and fallacious.

I mean the one for the existence of a maximally great being. Sorry, I didn't clarify. I was just wondering what it was because I was curious.

1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.


That's it presented. The argument does and necessarily works by Axiom S5, iff (NOTE: iff is a mathematical way to denote "if and only if") the first premise is correct. The problem is that it is never shown to be true, as proponents tend to equivocate the different definition of "possible", philosophically.

Do you want me to elaborate on "possible"? (I'm happy to, but if you're happy with that, I'll stop).

Yeah, what exactly would "possible" be then? Or maybe what should it be? The possible part is what gets me. Like I guess it asserts possibility into reality specifically because a maximally great beat or being which none greater can be conceived could exist in imagination or possibility and thus must exist in reality by necessity? I'm not really sure if that made sense.

Here we go:

There are many different kinds of possibility. The colloquial (common) type is when we mean: "it could be true; it might not be; I don't know, so I'll treat this as possible." This is what most people will use when they say possible and it's a form of possibility called epistemic possibility.

This is not used in logic, ever, to my knowledge. Certainly not in modal logic. This is because it is very subjective to induction, which defeats the purpose. Therefore, we use, in modal logic, a wide branch of possibility called subjunctive possibility.

In subjunctive possibility, we don't say: "I don't know, so we assume yes."
In subjunctive possibility; we say: "It is not impossible."

So, unless proponents prove that it is not impossible for the first premise, they have not met their burden and the argument can be dismissed.

What annoys me is how often people say: "Do you at least admit that it's possible?" to atheist and skeptics, because they force the neutral person - who's never heard the argument before - to commit the fallacy of equivocation and trick them into "seeing the light".

Still, I hope that helps!

Perfect, thank ya!

EDIT: This form is expanded, so it is normally presented already justified. In other words, when I say "premise one", I mean the third point of the argument I gave you. However, this is normally presented as premise one in many-a-presentation.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 11:19:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 8:56:15 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
Could someone explain it to me? I know the basics, but I'm not really sure what all it means. It seems like it makes a few assumptions about the universe. So if someone could explain to me what it means that would be nice.

This is it:

1. Imagine something that necessarily exists.
2. Ask yourself 'Does it exist?'
3. No? Well clearly you aren't imagining it correctly. Return to step one.
Conclusion: If you get this far, you've managed to trick yourself into believing that God exists.
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,763
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 11:19:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 11:17:16 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 2/24/2014 11:13:37 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 2/24/2014 11:07:09 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 2/24/2014 10:49:50 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 2/24/2014 10:23:05 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 2/24/2014 10:17:00 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 2/24/2014 10:12:29 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 2/24/2014 8:56:15 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
Could someone explain it to me? I know the basics, but I'm not really sure what all it means. It seems like it makes a few assumptions about the universe. So if someone could explain to me what it means that would be nice.


"The Ontological Argument" doesn't exist. Ontology is an area of study in philosophy and ontological arguments have consequently arose from it. However, there is no single ontological argument that exists. However, I should point out that all of them are equally bad and fallacious.

I mean the one for the existence of a maximally great being. Sorry, I didn't clarify. I was just wondering what it was because I was curious.

1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.


That's it presented. The argument does and necessarily works by Axiom S5, iff (NOTE: iff is a mathematical way to denote "if and only if") the first premise is correct. The problem is that it is never shown to be true, as proponents tend to equivocate the different definition of "possible", philosophically.

Do you want me to elaborate on "possible"? (I'm happy to, but if you're happy with that, I'll stop).

Yeah, what exactly would "possible" be then? Or maybe what should it be? The possible part is what gets me. Like I guess it asserts possibility into reality specifically because a maximally great beat or being which none greater can be conceived could exist in imagination or possibility and thus must exist in reality by necessity? I'm not really sure if that made sense.

Here we go:

There are many different kinds of possibility. The colloquial (common) type is when we mean: "it could be true; it might not be; I don't know, so I'll treat this as possible." This is what most people will use when they say possible and it's a form of possibility called epistemic possibility.

This is not used in logic, ever, to my knowledge. Certainly not in modal logic. This is because it is very subjective to induction, which defeats the purpose. Therefore, we use, in modal logic, a wide branch of possibility called subjunctive possibility.

In subjunctive possibility, we don't say: "I don't know, so we assume yes."
In subjunctive possibility; we say: "It is not impossible."

So, unless proponents prove that it is not impossible for the first premise, they have not met their burden and the argument can be dismissed.

What annoys me is how often people say: "Do you at least admit that it's possible?" to atheist and skeptics, because they force the neutral person - who's never heard the argument before - to commit the fallacy of equivocation and trick them into "seeing the light".

Still, I hope that helps!

Perfect, thank ya!


EDIT: This form is expanded, so it is normally presented already justified. In other words, when I say "premise one", I mean the third point of the argument I gave you. However, this is normally presented as premise one in many-a-presentation.

Oh, that's why it looked different than I've previously seen it XD
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9

http://www.debate.org...
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 3:02:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Descartes' version is the simplest to understand. Unfortunately it's also the least sound. "I have an idea of a supremely perfect being, i.e. a being having all perfections. Necessary existence is a perfection. Therefore a supremely perfect being exists."

Basically, we can clearly and distinctly perceive necessary existence as part of the idea of God. God is a being containing all perfections. Since necessary existence is a perfection, it must be contained by God. If we exclude necessary existence from God, we're contradicting the idea of God. Thus, God exists.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 3:27:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 3:02:13 PM, phantom wrote:
Descartes' version is the simplest to understand. Unfortunately it's also the least sound. "I have an idea of a supremely perfect being, i.e. a being having all perfections. Necessary existence is a perfection. Therefore a supremely perfect being exists."

Basically, we can clearly and distinctly perceive necessary existence as part of the idea of God. God is a being containing all perfections. Since necessary existence is a perfection, it must be contained by God. If we exclude necessary existence from God, we're contradicting the idea of God. Thus, God exists.

That's not even a logically valid argument.
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,763
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 4:10:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 3:27:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 3:02:13 PM, phantom wrote:
Descartes' version is the simplest to understand. Unfortunately it's also the least sound. "I have an idea of a supremely perfect being, i.e. a being having all perfections. Necessary existence is a perfection. Therefore a supremely perfect being exists."

Basically, we can clearly and distinctly perceive necessary existence as part of the idea of God. God is a being containing all perfections. Since necessary existence is a perfection, it must be contained by God. If we exclude necessary existence from God, we're contradicting the idea of God. Thus, God exists.

That's not even a logically valid argument.

Well, he did say it was the least sound argument.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9

http://www.debate.org...
Nzrsaa
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 4:57:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 10:12:29 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 2/24/2014 8:56:15 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
Could someone explain it to me? I know the basics, but I'm not really sure what all it means. It seems like it makes a few assumptions about the universe. So if someone could explain to me what it means that would be nice.


"The Ontological Argument" doesn't exist. Ontology is an area of study in philosophy and ontological arguments have consequently arose from it. However, there is no single ontological argument that exists. However, I should point out that all of them are equally bad and fallacious.

What is fallacious about the modal ontological argument?
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 5:01:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 4:57:48 PM, Nzrsaa wrote:
At 2/24/2014 10:12:29 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 2/24/2014 8:56:15 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
Could someone explain it to me? I know the basics, but I'm not really sure what all it means. It seems like it makes a few assumptions about the universe. So if someone could explain to me what it means that would be nice.


"The Ontological Argument" doesn't exist. Ontology is an area of study in philosophy and ontological arguments have consequently arose from it. However, there is no single ontological argument that exists. However, I should point out that all of them are equally bad and fallacious.

What is fallacious about the modal ontological argument?

Hmm. Thinking back, nothing. However, they're normally presented fallaciously. That was my message.
Nzrsaa
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 5:08:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 5:01:51 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 2/24/2014 4:57:48 PM, Nzrsaa wrote:
At 2/24/2014 10:12:29 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 2/24/2014 8:56:15 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
Could someone explain it to me? I know the basics, but I'm not really sure what all it means. It seems like it makes a few assumptions about the universe. So if someone could explain to me what it means that would be nice.


"The Ontological Argument" doesn't exist. Ontology is an area of study in philosophy and ontological arguments have consequently arose from it. However, there is no single ontological argument that exists. However, I should point out that all of them are equally bad and fallacious.

What is fallacious about the modal ontological argument?

Hmm. Thinking back, nothing. However, they're normally presented fallaciously. That was my message.

Ah ok.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 6:36:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 8:56:15 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
Could someone explain it to me? I know the basics, but I'm not really sure what all it means. It seems like it makes a few assumptions about the universe. So if someone could explain to me what it means that would be nice.

Well there's alot of versions of it... the modalized versions are the best. Godel's version is also interesting, though I don't know it well enough to defend it.

Pretty much, if God is possible to exist, then he must exist.

That sounds very simplistic, but that's pretty much the argument. Lol. If you're keen on logic, you should check this out: http://www.angelfire.com...

It's also just an excellent introduction to modal symbolic logic... which is pretty da*n cool if you ask me. ;)

I don't mean to be a jerk, but Plantinga's version which deals with "possible worlds" is just a colloquial version... I mean, with the argument in the link I gave above, you get an understanding of how the S5 axiom actually pertains to the argument.

If anybody says something about "maximally great unicorns" as being a defeater to the argument, then they obviously don't know what they're talking about. The problem is that the argument is always viewed in a theistic personalist sense, of "the biggest sky fairy imaginable." It's not. You should try to understand it in the original context, which is Scholastic metaphysics.
"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: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 6:43:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I personally think that a modalized version of the ontological argument is probably sound. However, I think the anti-MOA can be presented as a good objection, and I'm not learned enough in modal logic to refute it.

Professor Edward Feser also notes:

"Now you can"t get more existence-like than existence itself, and Aquinas would, of course, later characterize God as He whose essence just is existence, Being Itself rather than a being among other beings. But something like this doctrine existed already in the Platonic tradition that preceded and influenced Anselm, and it is surely lurking in the background of his conception of God as that which cannot even be thought not to exist. Throw in the Scholastic doctrine of the convertibility of the transcendentals (which entails that being, goodness, and unity are all the same thing considered from different points of view) and it is easy to see why someone would judge that that than which nothing greater can be conceived and that which cannot be thought not to exist must be one and the same thing, and something utterly unique. Throw in also a broadly Platonic metaphysics of essences, and the conclusion that God so conceived of must exist in reality seems to follow straightaway. For how could that which is Existence Itself fail to exist? And if God just is Existence Itself, how could He fail to exist?

Most of the standard objections to Anselm seem to me to rest on a failure to appreciate this larger philosophical context of his argument. But not all of them. As my readers know, I hate to come across like a doctrinaire Thomist. But it does seem to me that Aquinas"s objection to Anselm is the one that really gets to the nub of the matter. Aquinas agrees that to grasp God"s essence would be to see that He cannot possibly not exist. God"s existence is in that sense self-evident in itself. But it is not self-evident to us, given the way we have to come to know things (ST I.2.1)."

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...
"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."
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 6:44:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 6:36:06 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/24/2014 8:56:15 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
Could someone explain it to me? I know the basics, but I'm not really sure what all it means. It seems like it makes a few assumptions about the universe. So if someone could explain to me what it means that would be nice.

Well there's alot of versions of it... the modalized versions are the best. Godel's version is also interesting, though I don't know it well enough to defend it.

Pretty much, if God is possible to exist, then he must exist.

That sounds very simplistic, but that's pretty much the argument. Lol. If you're keen on logic, you should check this out: http://www.angelfire.com...

It's also just an excellent introduction to modal symbolic logic... which is pretty da*n cool if you ask me. ;)

I don't mean to be a jerk, but Plantinga's version which deals with "possible worlds" is just a colloquial version... I mean, with the argument in the link I gave above, you get an understanding of how the S5 axiom actually pertains to the argument.

If anybody says something about "maximally great unicorns" as being a defeater to the argument, then they obviously don't know what they're talking about. The problem is that the argument is always viewed in a theistic personalist sense, of "the biggest sky fairy imaginable." It's not. You should try to understand it in the original context, which is Scholastic metaphysics.

This argument makes me laugh - not in a bad way. But before I can finish the premises I am already sticking in random words in place if 'maximally great being' such as 'exceedingly red tomato' or 'maximally delicious sandwich. Then I forget what I was reading after completing the thought

Thanks for the link though, I think I finally get the gist of the argument.....

...... actually I don't :-( I'll come back later.... I fancy a tomato sandwich....
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 6:48:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 6:44:35 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/24/2014 6:36:06 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/24/2014 8:56:15 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
Could someone explain it to me? I know the basics, but I'm not really sure what all it means. It seems like it makes a few assumptions about the universe. So if someone could explain to me what it means that would be nice.

Well there's alot of versions of it... the modalized versions are the best. Godel's version is also interesting, though I don't know it well enough to defend it.

Pretty much, if God is possible to exist, then he must exist.

That sounds very simplistic, but that's pretty much the argument. Lol. If you're keen on logic, you should check this out: http://www.angelfire.com...

It's also just an excellent introduction to modal symbolic logic... which is pretty da*n cool if you ask me. ;)

I don't mean to be a jerk, but Plantinga's version which deals with "possible worlds" is just a colloquial version... I mean, with the argument in the link I gave above, you get an understanding of how the S5 axiom actually pertains to the argument.

If anybody says something about "maximally great unicorns" as being a defeater to the argument, then they obviously don't know what they're talking about. The problem is that the argument is always viewed in a theistic personalist sense, of "the biggest sky fairy imaginable." It's not. You should try to understand it in the original context, which is Scholastic metaphysics.

This argument makes me laugh - not in a bad way. But before I can finish the premises I am already sticking in random words in place if 'maximally great being' such as 'exceedingly red tomato' or 'maximally delicious sandwich. Then I forget what I was reading after completing the thought

Thanks for the link though, I think I finally get the gist of the argument.....

...... actually I don't :-( I'll come back later.... I fancy a tomato sandwich....

Think of it like a pyramid. Necessary existence would of course be at the top. So only the greatest possible thing could have necessary existence. But the greatest possible thing would also not be a greatest possible unicorn, or a greatest possible x. If it were any of these things, it wouldn't be the greatest possible thing anymore.

I'm also prone to read the ontological argument in terms of Thomistic metaphysics, that of a pure subsistent being, which is ontologically simple, and the most fundamental thing.

Another point to make is that a maximally great physical object is obviously impossible, since it requires space time to exist, and space time doesn't exist in all possible worlds.
"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: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 6:49:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 6:44:35 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/24/2014 6:36:06 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/24/2014 8:56:15 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
Could someone explain it to me? I know the basics, but I'm not really sure what all it means. It seems like it makes a few assumptions about the universe. So if someone could explain to me what it means that would be nice.

Well there's alot of versions of it... the modalized versions are the best. Godel's version is also interesting, though I don't know it well enough to defend it.

Pretty much, if God is possible to exist, then he must exist.

That sounds very simplistic, but that's pretty much the argument. Lol. If you're keen on logic, you should check this out: http://www.angelfire.com...

It's also just an excellent introduction to modal symbolic logic... which is pretty da*n cool if you ask me. ;)

I don't mean to be a jerk, but Plantinga's version which deals with "possible worlds" is just a colloquial version... I mean, with the argument in the link I gave above, you get an understanding of how the S5 axiom actually pertains to the argument.

If anybody says something about "maximally great unicorns" as being a defeater to the argument, then they obviously don't know what they're talking about. The problem is that the argument is always viewed in a theistic personalist sense, of "the biggest sky fairy imaginable." It's not. You should try to understand it in the original context, which is Scholastic metaphysics.

This argument makes me laugh - not in a bad way. But before I can finish the premises I am already sticking in random words in place if 'maximally great being' such as 'exceedingly red tomato' or 'maximally delicious sandwich. Then I forget what I was reading after completing the thought

Thanks for the link though, I think I finally get the gist of the argument.....

...... actually I don't :-( I'll come back later.... I fancy a tomato sandwich....

Ergh, I've never been able to stand tomatoes.. heh ;P I think I'll stick with my mom's lasagna. :]
"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."
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 6:53:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 6:48:24 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/24/2014 6:44:35 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/24/2014 6:36:06 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/24/2014 8:56:15 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
Could someone explain it to me? I know the basics, but I'm not really sure what all it means. It seems like it makes a few assumptions about the universe. So if someone could explain to me what it means that would be nice.

Well there's alot of versions of it... the modalized versions are the best. Godel's version is also interesting, though I don't know it well enough to defend it.

Pretty much, if God is possible to exist, then he must exist.

That sounds very simplistic, but that's pretty much the argument. Lol. If you're keen on logic, you should check this out: http://www.angelfire.com...

It's also just an excellent introduction to modal symbolic logic... which is pretty da*n cool if you ask me. ;)

I don't mean to be a jerk, but Plantinga's version which deals with "possible worlds" is just a colloquial version... I mean, with the argument in the link I gave above, you get an understanding of how the S5 axiom actually pertains to the argument.

If anybody says something about "maximally great unicorns" as being a defeater to the argument, then they obviously don't know what they're talking about. The problem is that the argument is always viewed in a theistic personalist sense, of "the biggest sky fairy imaginable." It's not. You should try to understand it in the original context, which is Scholastic metaphysics.

This argument makes me laugh - not in a bad way. But before I can finish the premises I am already sticking in random words in place if 'maximally great being' such as 'exceedingly red tomato' or 'maximally delicious sandwich. Then I forget what I was reading after completing the thought

Thanks for the link though, I think I finally get the gist of the argument.....

...... actually I don't :-( I'll come back later.... I fancy a tomato sandwich....

Think of it like a pyramid. Necessary existence would of course be at the top. So only the greatest possible thing could have necessary existence. But the greatest possible thing would also not be a greatest possible unicorn, or a greatest possible x. If it were any of these things, it wouldn't be the greatest possible thing anymore.

I'm also prone to read the ontological argument in terms of Thomistic metaphysics, that of a pure subsistent being, which is ontologically simple, and the most fundamental thing.

Another point to make is that a maximally great physical object is obviously impossible, since it requires space time to exist, and space time doesn't exist in all possible worlds.

Ah thanks, I don't feel giddy when reading the premises now you explained it like that. I can finally get around to understanding it now :-D
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 6:54:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 6:53:31 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/24/2014 6:48:24 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/24/2014 6:44:35 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/24/2014 6:36:06 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/24/2014 8:56:15 AM, Jonbonbon wrote:
Could someone explain it to me? I know the basics, but I'm not really sure what all it means. It seems like it makes a few assumptions about the universe. So if someone could explain to me what it means that would be nice.

Well there's alot of versions of it... the modalized versions are the best. Godel's version is also interesting, though I don't know it well enough to defend it.

Pretty much, if God is possible to exist, then he must exist.

That sounds very simplistic, but that's pretty much the argument. Lol. If you're keen on logic, you should check this out: http://www.angelfire.com...

It's also just an excellent introduction to modal symbolic logic... which is pretty da*n cool if you ask me. ;)

I don't mean to be a jerk, but Plantinga's version which deals with "possible worlds" is just a colloquial version... I mean, with the argument in the link I gave above, you get an understanding of how the S5 axiom actually pertains to the argument.

If anybody says something about "maximally great unicorns" as being a defeater to the argument, then they obviously don't know what they're talking about. The problem is that the argument is always viewed in a theistic personalist sense, of "the biggest sky fairy imaginable." It's not. You should try to understand it in the original context, which is Scholastic metaphysics.

This argument makes me laugh - not in a bad way. But before I can finish the premises I am already sticking in random words in place if 'maximally great being' such as 'exceedingly red tomato' or 'maximally delicious sandwich. Then I forget what I was reading after completing the thought

Thanks for the link though, I think I finally get the gist of the argument.....

...... actually I don't :-( I'll come back later.... I fancy a tomato sandwich....

Think of it like a pyramid. Necessary existence would of course be at the top. So only the greatest possible thing could have necessary existence. But the greatest possible thing would also not be a greatest possible unicorn, or a greatest possible x. If it were any of these things, it wouldn't be the greatest possible thing anymore.

I'm also prone to read the ontological argument in terms of Thomistic metaphysics, that of a pure subsistent being, which is ontologically simple, and the most fundamental thing.

Another point to make is that a maximally great physical object is obviously impossible, since it requires space time to exist, and space time doesn't exist in all possible worlds.

Ah thanks, I don't feel giddy when reading the premises now you explained it like that. I can finally get around to understanding it now :-D

Haha, yeah. ;P It's honestly just a weird 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."
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 6:59:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 3:27:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 3:02:13 PM, phantom wrote:
Descartes' version is the simplest to understand. Unfortunately it's also the least sound. "I have an idea of a supremely perfect being, i.e. a being having all perfections. Necessary existence is a perfection. Therefore a supremely perfect being exists."

Basically, we can clearly and distinctly perceive necessary existence as part of the idea of God. God is a being containing all perfections. Since necessary existence is a perfection, it must be contained by God. If we exclude necessary existence from God, we're contradicting the idea of God. Thus, God exists.

That's not even a logically valid argument.

Maybe you're right, but how so?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 7:11:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 6:59:35 PM, phantom wrote:
At 2/24/2014 3:27:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/24/2014 3:02:13 PM, phantom wrote:
Descartes' version is the simplest to understand. Unfortunately it's also the least sound. "I have an idea of a supremely perfect being, i.e. a being having all perfections. Necessary existence is a perfection. Therefore a supremely perfect being exists."

Basically, we can clearly and distinctly perceive necessary existence as part of the idea of God. God is a being containing all perfections. Since necessary existence is a perfection, it must be contained by God. If we exclude necessary existence from God, we're contradicting the idea of God. Thus, God exists.

That's not even a logically valid argument.

Maybe you're right, but how so?

Because if necessary existence is part of the idea of God, then this only means that IF God exists, he is necessary. That doesn't mean he actually exists. Also, IF God exists, he contains all perfections. However, this is just a conditional.