Total Posts:70|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Least convincing argument you've heard

Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 2:01:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Christianity is true and a Christian nation is the best because there was tons of nonchristian nations that have failed. It's a whole post hoc ergo prompter hoc (if I spelled that right) and it seems to affirm the consequent.

1. If Christianity is true, nonchristian nations should fail.
2. Some nonchristian nations have failed.
3. Christianity is true.

I saw this on a moody science video.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
TheOncomingStorm
Posts: 249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 2:49:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Anything that's a blatant logical fallacy basically. I'm not sure I could really pick one out on the spot, but if you want a more specific answer I'll think a little more about it.
Official "Director of Weather and Hyperbole in the Maximum Degree of Mice and Men" of the FREEDO bureaucracy.
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 5:00:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 2:01:46 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
Christianity is true and a Christian nation is the best because there was tons of nonchristian nations that have failed. It's a whole post hoc ergo prompter hoc (if I spelled that right) and it seems to affirm the consequent.

1. If Christianity is true, nonchristian nations should fail.
2. Some nonchristian nations have failed.
3. Christianity is true.

I saw this on a moody science video.

By Christian nations do they mean places like the Vatican, or do they include secular countries with a Christian majority?
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 5:04:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 5:00:16 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 2:01:46 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
Christianity is true and a Christian nation is the best because there was tons of nonchristian nations that have failed. It's a whole post hoc ergo prompter hoc (if I spelled that right) and it seems to affirm the consequent.

1. If Christianity is true, nonchristian nations should fail.
2. Some nonchristian nations have failed.
3. Christianity is true.

I saw this on a moody science video.

By Christian nations do they mean places like the Vatican, or do they include secular countries with a Christian majority?

I believe they meant places like the Vatican. I remember them saying if a Christian majority doesn't take leadership and pass Christian laws, God will punish them.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Subutai
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 9:05:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Anselm's ontological argument. Even when I was a theist, I never understood how this argument showed how a God exists. Essentially, this goes:

1. I have an idea of God as the greatest conceivable being.
2. A being can exist merely as an idea or as an idea and in reality.
3. It is greater to exist in reality too rather than just as an idea.
4. If I think of this greatest conceivable being as existing merely as an idea, then I can think of a greater being, i.e. a being that exists in reality too.
5. This greatest conceivable being must exist in reality too, i.e. God exists.

The first thing I thought was:

1. Let us define a unicorn as a magical equine being that has one horn, and that exists.
2. By that definition, such a being must necessarily exist.
3. Therefore unicorns exist.

So, I have never accepted the ontological argument generally because it, by no means, proves God exists. If God exists, then everything else must exist as well, like unicorns. I could go into the more modern MOA, but I'll leave it at this.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 1:05:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 9:05:38 PM, Subutai wrote:
Anselm's ontological argument. Even when I was a theist, I never understood how this argument showed how a God exists. Essentially, this goes:

1. I have an idea of God as the greatest conceivable being.
2. A being can exist merely as an idea or as an idea and in reality.
3. It is greater to exist in reality too rather than just as an idea.
4. If I think of this greatest conceivable being as existing merely as an idea, then I can think of a greater being, i.e. a being that exists in reality too.
5. This greatest conceivable being must exist in reality too, i.e. God exists.

The first thing I thought was:

1. Let us define a unicorn as a magical equine being that has one horn, and that exists.
2. By that definition, such a being must necessarily exist.
3. Therefore unicorns exist.

So, I have never accepted the ontological argument generally because it, by no means, proves God exists. If God exists, then everything else must exist as well, like unicorns. I could go into the more modern MOA, but I'll leave it at this.

God's necessary existence would follow from the fact that God is defined as the greatest conceivable being. You're putting the cart before the horse when you compare it to the unicorn example.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 1:11:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 9:05:38 PM, Subutai wrote:
Anselm's ontological argument. Even when I was a theist, I never understood how this argument showed how a God exists. Essentially, this goes:

1. I have an idea of God as the greatest conceivable being.
2. A being can exist merely as an idea or as an idea and in reality.
3. It is greater to exist in reality too rather than just as an idea.
4. If I think of this greatest conceivable being as existing merely as an idea, then I can think of a greater being, i.e. a being that exists in reality too.
5. This greatest conceivable being must exist in reality too, i.e. God exists.

The first thing I thought was:

1. Let us define a unicorn as a magical equine being that has one horn, and that exists.
2. By that definition, such a being must necessarily exist.
3. Therefore unicorns exist.

So, I have never accepted the ontological argument generally because it, by no means, proves God exists. If God exists, then everything else must exist as well, like unicorns. I could go into the more modern MOA, but I'll leave it at this.

I'm looking to debate the existence of God if you're interested. I have arguments you definitely haven't seen before.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 1:13:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Modal Ontological Argument is the least convincing argument I have ever heard. When I didn't understand it, I thought it was absurd. Now that I understand it, I still think it is absurd.
Subutai
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 1:31:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 1:05:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/19/2014 9:05:38 PM, Subutai wrote:
Anselm's ontological argument. Even when I was a theist, I never understood how this argument showed how a God exists. Essentially, this goes:

1. I have an idea of God as the greatest conceivable being.
2. A being can exist merely as an idea or as an idea and in reality.
3. It is greater to exist in reality too rather than just as an idea.
4. If I think of this greatest conceivable being as existing merely as an idea, then I can think of a greater being, i.e. a being that exists in reality too.
5. This greatest conceivable being must exist in reality too, i.e. God exists.

The first thing I thought was:

1. Let us define a unicorn as a magical equine being that has one horn, and that exists.
2. By that definition, such a being must necessarily exist.
3. Therefore unicorns exist.

So, I have never accepted the ontological argument generally because it, by no means, proves God exists. If God exists, then everything else must exist as well, like unicorns. I could go into the more modern MOA, but I'll leave it at this.

God's necessary existence would follow from the fact that God is defined as the greatest conceivable being. You're putting the cart before the horse when you compare it to the unicorn example.

I'm aware that that's what the ontological argument states. It's just that it can be argued that anything exists just by substituting that non-existing thing in for God. I could even substitute that God doesn't exist, like this:

P(1) It is possible that God does not exist, i.e. there is some possible world where God does not exist.
P(2) God is defined as a necessary being, i.e. exists in all possible worlds.
P(3) If there is one possible world where God does not exist, then there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4) If there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds, then it is impossible that God exists.
C(1) It is impossible that God exists.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 1:38:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 1:31:07 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/21/2014 1:05:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/19/2014 9:05:38 PM, Subutai wrote:
Anselm's ontological argument. Even when I was a theist, I never understood how this argument showed how a God exists. Essentially, this goes:

1. I have an idea of God as the greatest conceivable being.
2. A being can exist merely as an idea or as an idea and in reality.
3. It is greater to exist in reality too rather than just as an idea.
4. If I think of this greatest conceivable being as existing merely as an idea, then I can think of a greater being, i.e. a being that exists in reality too.
5. This greatest conceivable being must exist in reality too, i.e. God exists.

The first thing I thought was:

1. Let us define a unicorn as a magical equine being that has one horn, and that exists.
2. By that definition, such a being must necessarily exist.
3. Therefore unicorns exist.

So, I have never accepted the ontological argument generally because it, by no means, proves God exists. If God exists, then everything else must exist as well, like unicorns. I could go into the more modern MOA, but I'll leave it at this.

God's necessary existence would follow from the fact that God is defined as the greatest conceivable being. You're putting the cart before the horse when you compare it to the unicorn example.

I'm aware that that's what the ontological argument states. It's just that it can be argued that anything exists just by substituting that non-existing thing in for God. I could even substitute that God doesn't exist, like this:

P(1) It is possible that God does not exist, i.e. there is some possible world where God does not exist.
P(2) God is defined as a necessary being, i.e. exists in all possible worlds.
P(3) If there is one possible world where God does not exist, then there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4) If there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds, then it is impossible that God exists.
C(1) It is impossible that God exists.

No, it only works with something of which nothing greater can be conceived. And your syllogism is not comparable to the OA.
Subutai
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 1:44:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 1:38:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/21/2014 1:31:07 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/21/2014 1:05:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/19/2014 9:05:38 PM, Subutai wrote:
Anselm's ontological argument. Even when I was a theist, I never understood how this argument showed how a God exists. Essentially, this goes:

1. I have an idea of God as the greatest conceivable being.
2. A being can exist merely as an idea or as an idea and in reality.
3. It is greater to exist in reality too rather than just as an idea.
4. If I think of this greatest conceivable being as existing merely as an idea, then I can think of a greater being, i.e. a being that exists in reality too.
5. This greatest conceivable being must exist in reality too, i.e. God exists.

The first thing I thought was:

1. Let us define a unicorn as a magical equine being that has one horn, and that exists.
2. By that definition, such a being must necessarily exist.
3. Therefore unicorns exist.

So, I have never accepted the ontological argument generally because it, by no means, proves God exists. If God exists, then everything else must exist as well, like unicorns. I could go into the more modern MOA, but I'll leave it at this.

God's necessary existence would follow from the fact that God is defined as the greatest conceivable being. You're putting the cart before the horse when you compare it to the unicorn example.

I'm aware that that's what the ontological argument states. It's just that it can be argued that anything exists just by substituting that non-existing thing in for God. I could even substitute that God doesn't exist, like this:

P(1) It is possible that God does not exist, i.e. there is some possible world where God does not exist.
P(2) God is defined as a necessary being, i.e. exists in all possible worlds.
P(3) If there is one possible world where God does not exist, then there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4) If there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds, then it is impossible that God exists.
C(1) It is impossible that God exists.

No, it only works with something of which nothing greater can be conceived. And your syllogism is not comparable to the OA.

If it is possible that a god does exist, it must also be possible that a god doesn't exist, because the probability of a possibility is not 1, and the probability of the set of all possibilities must equal 1. Since there are essentially an infinite number of possible worlds, a god must not exist in some of them by its probability, and this negates the idea of a god in all possible worlds.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 1:59:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 1:44:46 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/21/2014 1:38:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/21/2014 1:31:07 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/21/2014 1:05:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/19/2014 9:05:38 PM, Subutai wrote:
Anselm's ontological argument. Even when I was a theist, I never understood how this argument showed how a God exists. Essentially, this goes:

1. I have an idea of God as the greatest conceivable being.
2. A being can exist merely as an idea or as an idea and in reality.
3. It is greater to exist in reality too rather than just as an idea.
4. If I think of this greatest conceivable being as existing merely as an idea, then I can think of a greater being, i.e. a being that exists in reality too.
5. This greatest conceivable being must exist in reality too, i.e. God exists.

The first thing I thought was:

1. Let us define a unicorn as a magical equine being that has one horn, and that exists.
2. By that definition, such a being must necessarily exist.
3. Therefore unicorns exist.

So, I have never accepted the ontological argument generally because it, by no means, proves God exists. If God exists, then everything else must exist as well, like unicorns. I could go into the more modern MOA, but I'll leave it at this.

God's necessary existence would follow from the fact that God is defined as the greatest conceivable being. You're putting the cart before the horse when you compare it to the unicorn example.

I'm aware that that's what the ontological argument states. It's just that it can be argued that anything exists just by substituting that non-existing thing in for God. I could even substitute that God doesn't exist, like this:

P(1) It is possible that God does not exist, i.e. there is some possible world where God does not exist.
P(2) God is defined as a necessary being, i.e. exists in all possible worlds.
P(3) If there is one possible world where God does not exist, then there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4) If there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds, then it is impossible that God exists.
C(1) It is impossible that God exists.

No, it only works with something of which nothing greater can be conceived. And your syllogism is not comparable to the OA.

If it is possible that a god does exist, it must also be possible that a god doesn't exist, because the probability of a possibility is not 1, and the probability of the set of all possibilities must equal 1. Since there are essentially an infinite number of possible worlds, a god must not exist in some of them by its probability, and this negates the idea of a god in all possible worlds.

There's a distinction to be made between the possibility of a world in which God doesn't exist, and the possibility of the possibility of a world in which God doesn't exist. If God exists, then "a world in which God does not exist" is not a possible world. I wrote pretty extensively on the topic in this thread: http://www.debate.org...

Essentially, your argument wrongly presumes the nonexistence of God by failing to acknowledge the stratification of "possibility".
Subutai
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 2:07:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 1:59:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/21/2014 1:44:46 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/21/2014 1:38:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/21/2014 1:31:07 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/21/2014 1:05:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/19/2014 9:05:38 PM, Subutai wrote:
Anselm's ontological argument. Even when I was a theist, I never understood how this argument showed how a God exists. Essentially, this goes:

1. I have an idea of God as the greatest conceivable being.
2. A being can exist merely as an idea or as an idea and in reality.
3. It is greater to exist in reality too rather than just as an idea.
4. If I think of this greatest conceivable being as existing merely as an idea, then I can think of a greater being, i.e. a being that exists in reality too.
5. This greatest conceivable being must exist in reality too, i.e. God exists.

The first thing I thought was:

1. Let us define a unicorn as a magical equine being that has one horn, and that exists.
2. By that definition, such a being must necessarily exist.
3. Therefore unicorns exist.

So, I have never accepted the ontological argument generally because it, by no means, proves God exists. If God exists, then everything else must exist as well, like unicorns. I could go into the more modern MOA, but I'll leave it at this.

God's necessary existence would follow from the fact that God is defined as the greatest conceivable being. You're putting the cart before the horse when you compare it to the unicorn example.

I'm aware that that's what the ontological argument states. It's just that it can be argued that anything exists just by substituting that non-existing thing in for God. I could even substitute that God doesn't exist, like this:

P(1) It is possible that God does not exist, i.e. there is some possible world where God does not exist.
P(2) God is defined as a necessary being, i.e. exists in all possible worlds.
P(3) If there is one possible world where God does not exist, then there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4) If there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds, then it is impossible that God exists.
C(1) It is impossible that God exists.

No, it only works with something of which nothing greater can be conceived. And your syllogism is not comparable to the OA.

If it is possible that a god does exist, it must also be possible that a god doesn't exist, because the probability of a possibility is not 1, and the probability of the set of all possibilities must equal 1. Since there are essentially an infinite number of possible worlds, a god must not exist in some of them by its probability, and this negates the idea of a god in all possible worlds.

There's a distinction to be made between the possibility of a world in which God doesn't exist, and the possibility of the possibility of a world in which God doesn't exist. If God exists, then "a world in which God does not exist" is not a possible world. I wrote pretty extensively on the topic in this thread: http://www.debate.org...

Essentially, your argument wrongly presumes the nonexistence of God by failing to acknowledge the stratification of "possibility".

That's not the first premise. The first premise states that there is a possibility that a god exists, meaning that there is an equal possibility that a god does not exist. The premise is not that a god exists; that is the conclusion. In other words, the first premise only assumes the possibility of a god, leaving the possibility for a world without a god, and therefore a god doesn't exist.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
TheOncomingStorm
Posts: 249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 4:19:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 5:04:56 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 5:00:16 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 2:01:46 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
Christianity is true and a Christian nation is the best because there was tons of nonchristian nations that have failed. It's a whole post hoc ergo prompter hoc (if I spelled that right) and it seems to affirm the consequent.

1. If Christianity is true, nonchristian nations should fail.
2. Some nonchristian nations have failed.
3. Christianity is true.

I saw this on a moody science video.

By Christian nations do they mean places like the Vatican, or do they include secular countries with a Christian majority?

I believe they meant places like the Vatican. I remember them saying if a Christian majority doesn't take leadership and pass Christian laws, God will punish them.

That's not a view I've ever known a Christian to have and is in no way supported by the Bible. The Bible actually kind of says the opposite especially when put in context.
Official "Director of Weather and Hyperbole in the Maximum Degree of Mice and Men" of the FREEDO bureaucracy.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 6:12:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 1:48:46 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
It needs to be a logically valid argument which some people seriously adopt.

Cogito ergo sum.

Gotta be the worst argument I've ever heard. The only good thing is that it's in latin...

that, and the people who argue "We should only believe something if it's empirically verifiable." Completely self-defeating...
"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: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 6:23:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 2:07:33 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/21/2014 1:59:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/21/2014 1:44:46 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/21/2014 1:38:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/21/2014 1:31:07 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/21/2014 1:05:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/19/2014 9:05:38 PM, Subutai wrote:
Anselm's ontological argument. Even when I was a theist, I never understood how this argument showed how a God exists. Essentially, this goes:

1. I have an idea of God as the greatest conceivable being.
2. A being can exist merely as an idea or as an idea and in reality.
3. It is greater to exist in reality too rather than just as an idea.
4. If I think of this greatest conceivable being as existing merely as an idea, then I can think of a greater being, i.e. a being that exists in reality too.
5. This greatest conceivable being must exist in reality too, i.e. God exists.

The first thing I thought was:

1. Let us define a unicorn as a magical equine being that has one horn, and that exists.
2. By that definition, such a being must necessarily exist.
3. Therefore unicorns exist.

So, I have never accepted the ontological argument generally because it, by no means, proves God exists. If God exists, then everything else must exist as well, like unicorns. I could go into the more modern MOA, but I'll leave it at this.

God's necessary existence would follow from the fact that God is defined as the greatest conceivable being. You're putting the cart before the horse when you compare it to the unicorn example.

I'm aware that that's what the ontological argument states. It's just that it can be argued that anything exists just by substituting that non-existing thing in for God. I could even substitute that God doesn't exist, like this:

P(1) It is possible that God does not exist, i.e. there is some possible world where God does not exist.
P(2) God is defined as a necessary being, i.e. exists in all possible worlds.
P(3) If there is one possible world where God does not exist, then there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4) If there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds, then it is impossible that God exists.
C(1) It is impossible that God exists.

No, it only works with something of which nothing greater can be conceived. And your syllogism is not comparable to the OA.

If it is possible that a god does exist, it must also be possible that a god doesn't exist, because the probability of a possibility is not 1, and the probability of the set of all possibilities must equal 1. Since there are essentially an infinite number of possible worlds, a god must not exist in some of them by its probability, and this negates the idea of a god in all possible worlds.

There's a distinction to be made between the possibility of a world in which God doesn't exist, and the possibility of the possibility of a world in which God doesn't exist. If God exists, then "a world in which God does not exist" is not a possible world. I wrote pretty extensively on the topic in this thread: http://www.debate.org...

Essentially, your argument wrongly presumes the nonexistence of God by failing to acknowledge the stratification of "possibility".

That's not the first premise. The first premise states that there is a possibility that a god exists, meaning that there is an equal possibility that a god does not exist. The premise is not that a god exists; that is the conclusion. In other words, the first premise only assumes the possibility of a god, leaving the possibility for a world without a god, and therefore a god doesn't exist.

You missed my point.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 6:31:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 2:07:33 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/21/2014 1:59:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/21/2014 1:44:46 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/21/2014 1:38:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/21/2014 1:31:07 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/21/2014 1:05:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/19/2014 9:05:38 PM, Subutai wrote:
Anselm's ontological argument. Even when I was a theist, I never understood how this argument showed how a God exists. Essentially, this goes:

1. I have an idea of God as the greatest conceivable being.
2. A being can exist merely as an idea or as an idea and in reality.
3. It is greater to exist in reality too rather than just as an idea.
4. If I think of this greatest conceivable being as existing merely as an idea, then I can think of a greater being, i.e. a being that exists in reality too.
5. This greatest conceivable being must exist in reality too, i.e. God exists.

The first thing I thought was:

1. Let us define a unicorn as a magical equine being that has one horn, and that exists.
2. By that definition, such a being must necessarily exist.
3. Therefore unicorns exist.

So, I have never accepted the ontological argument generally because it, by no means, proves God exists. If God exists, then everything else must exist as well, like unicorns. I could go into the more modern MOA, but I'll leave it at this.

God's necessary existence would follow from the fact that God is defined as the greatest conceivable being. You're putting the cart before the horse when you compare it to the unicorn example.

I'm aware that that's what the ontological argument states. It's just that it can be argued that anything exists just by substituting that non-existing thing in for God. I could even substitute that God doesn't exist, like this:

P(1) It is possible that God does not exist, i.e. there is some possible world where God does not exist.
P(2) God is defined as a necessary being, i.e. exists in all possible worlds.
P(3) If there is one possible world where God does not exist, then there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4) If there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds, then it is impossible that God exists.
C(1) It is impossible that God exists.

No, it only works with something of which nothing greater can be conceived. And your syllogism is not comparable to the OA.

If it is possible that a god does exist, it must also be possible that a god doesn't exist, because the probability of a possibility is not 1, and the probability of the set of all possibilities must equal 1. Since there are essentially an infinite number of possible worlds, a god must not exist in some of them by its probability, and this negates the idea of a god in all possible worlds.

There's a distinction to be made between the possibility of a world in which God doesn't exist, and the possibility of the possibility of a world in which God doesn't exist. If God exists, then "a world in which God does not exist" is not a possible world. I wrote pretty extensively on the topic in this thread: http://www.debate.org...

Essentially, your argument wrongly presumes the nonexistence of God by failing to acknowledge the stratification of "possibility".

That's not the first premise. The first premise states that there is a possibility that a god exists, meaning that there is an equal possibility that a god does not exist. The premise is not that a god exists; that is the conclusion. In other words, the first premise only assumes the possibility of a god, leaving the possibility for a world without a god, and therefore a god doesn't exist.

The possibility that God doesn't exist =/= there is a possible world in which God doesn't exist, is essentially my point.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 7:00:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 1:48:46 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
It needs to be a logically valid argument which some people seriously adopt.

oooh, silly rule. I had plenty of examples lined up. The most unconvincing arguments aren't logically valid :( Most of them don't even qualify as true arguments.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 11:39:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 4:19:14 PM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
At 3/19/2014 5:04:56 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 5:00:16 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 2:01:46 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
Christianity is true and a Christian nation is the best because there was tons of nonchristian nations that have failed. It's a whole post hoc ergo prompter hoc (if I spelled that right) and it seems to affirm the consequent.

1. If Christianity is true, nonchristian nations should fail.
2. Some nonchristian nations have failed.
3. Christianity is true.

I saw this on a moody science video.

By Christian nations do they mean places like the Vatican, or do they include secular countries with a Christian majority?

I believe they meant places like the Vatican. I remember them saying if a Christian majority doesn't take leadership and pass Christian laws, God will punish them.

That's not a view I've ever known a Christian to have and is in no way supported by the Bible. The Bible actually kind of says the opposite especially when put in context.

They did cite a few verses. When God punishes nations xyz happens. I'm pretty sure they didn't get the view straight from the bible, but just inferred it.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 12:13:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It has to be this.

'People prevent global warming from worsening by eating CO2- and methane- producing animals, thereby controlling their population.'
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Subutai
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 4:50:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 6:31:27 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/21/2014 2:07:33 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/21/2014 1:59:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/21/2014 1:44:46 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/21/2014 1:38:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/21/2014 1:31:07 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 3/21/2014 1:05:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/19/2014 9:05:38 PM, Subutai wrote:
Anselm's ontological argument. Even when I was a theist, I never understood how this argument showed how a God exists. Essentially, this goes:

1. I have an idea of God as the greatest conceivable being.
2. A being can exist merely as an idea or as an idea and in reality.
3. It is greater to exist in reality too rather than just as an idea.
4. If I think of this greatest conceivable being as existing merely as an idea, then I can think of a greater being, i.e. a being that exists in reality too.
5. This greatest conceivable being must exist in reality too, i.e. God exists.

The first thing I thought was:

1. Let us define a unicorn as a magical equine being that has one horn, and that exists.
2. By that definition, such a being must necessarily exist.
3. Therefore unicorns exist.

So, I have never accepted the ontological argument generally because it, by no means, proves God exists. If God exists, then everything else must exist as well, like unicorns. I could go into the more modern MOA, but I'll leave it at this.

God's necessary existence would follow from the fact that God is defined as the greatest conceivable being. You're putting the cart before the horse when you compare it to the unicorn example.

I'm aware that that's what the ontological argument states. It's just that it can be argued that anything exists just by substituting that non-existing thing in for God. I could even substitute that God doesn't exist, like this:

P(1) It is possible that God does not exist, i.e. there is some possible world where God does not exist.
P(2) God is defined as a necessary being, i.e. exists in all possible worlds.
P(3) If there is one possible world where God does not exist, then there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4) If there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds, then it is impossible that God exists.
C(1) It is impossible that God exists.

No, it only works with something of which nothing greater can be conceived. And your syllogism is not comparable to the OA.

If it is possible that a god does exist, it must also be possible that a god doesn't exist, because the probability of a possibility is not 1, and the probability of the set of all possibilities must equal 1. Since there are essentially an infinite number of possible worlds, a god must not exist in some of them by its probability, and this negates the idea of a god in all possible worlds.

There's a distinction to be made between the possibility of a world in which God doesn't exist, and the possibility of the possibility of a world in which God doesn't exist. If God exists, then "a world in which God does not exist" is not a possible world. I wrote pretty extensively on the topic in this thread: http://www.debate.org...

Essentially, your argument wrongly presumes the nonexistence of God by failing to acknowledge the stratification of "possibility".

That's not the first premise. The first premise states that there is a possibility that a god exists, meaning that there is an equal possibility that a god does not exist. The premise is not that a god exists; that is the conclusion. In other words, the first premise only assumes the possibility of a god, leaving the possibility for a world without a god, and therefore a god doesn't exist.

The possibility that God doesn't exist =/= there is a possible world in which God doesn't exist, is essentially my point.

If there are an infinite number of worlds, and the possibility that a god doesn't exist, in at least one of those worlds must no god exist.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 8:07:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here is an example explaining why I don't buy the MOA. For one, prima facie, there is nothing contradictory or metaphysically absurd about a possible world with universal impotence. A world with universal impotence entails that every being in that world, is impotent to some extent. We can make sense of that idea, and there are no contradictions on the face of it. Now, if this world is possible, then God doesn't exist. This is because if God exists, then in every possible world, there is omnipotence. That means, there can be no worlds with universal impotence if God exists. Therefore, if even one world has universal impotence; God doesn't exist (it follows via modus tollens),

A maximally great being seems just as coherent as a world with universal impotence. I see to no good reason to grant the MOA's initial premise.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 10:01:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 8:07:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Here is an example explaining why I don't buy the MOA. For one, prima facie, there is nothing contradictory or metaphysically absurd about a possible world with universal impotence. A world with universal impotence entails that every being in that world, is impotent to some extent. We can make sense of that idea, and there are no contradictions on the face of it. Now, if this world is possible, then God doesn't exist. This is because if God exists, then in every possible world, there is omnipotence. That means, there can be no worlds with universal impotence if God exists. Therefore, if even one world has universal impotence; God doesn't exist (it follows via modus tollens),

A maximally great being seems just as coherent as a world with universal impotence. I see to no good reason to grant the MOA's initial premise.

That'st he least convincing argument I've heard.
"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
3/22/2014 10:04:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 10:01:37 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/22/2014 8:07:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Here is an example explaining why I don't buy the MOA. For one, prima facie, there is nothing contradictory or metaphysically absurd about a possible world with universal impotence. A world with universal impotence entails that every being in that world, is impotent to some extent. We can make sense of that idea, and there are no contradictions on the face of it. Now, if this world is possible, then God doesn't exist. This is because if God exists, then in every possible world, there is omnipotence. That means, there can be no worlds with universal impotence if God exists. Therefore, if even one world has universal impotence; God doesn't exist (it follows via modus tollens),

A maximally great being seems just as coherent as a world with universal impotence. I see to no good reason to grant the MOA's initial premise.

That'st he least convincing argument I've heard.

It shouldn't be, it completely undermines the Modal Ontological Argument.
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 10:20:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 9:05:38 PM, Subutai wrote:
Anselm's ontological argument. Even when I was a theist, I never understood how this argument showed how a God exists. Essentially, this goes:

1. I have an idea of God as the greatest conceivable being.
2. A being can exist merely as an idea or as an idea and in reality.
3. It is greater to exist in reality too rather than just as an idea.
4. If I think of this greatest conceivable being as existing merely as an idea, then I can think of a greater being, i.e. a being that exists in reality too.
5. This greatest conceivable being must exist in reality too, i.e. God exists.

The first thing I thought was:

1. Let us define a unicorn as a magical equine being that has one horn, and that exists.
2. By that definition, such a being must necessarily exist.
3. Therefore unicorns exist.

So, I have never accepted the ontological argument generally because it, by no means, proves God exists. If God exists, then everything else must exist as well, like unicorns. I could go into the more modern MOA, but I'll leave it at this.

But isn't that incredible easy to refute?
What guarantees the existence of a greatest conceivable being at all?
Subutai
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 10:22:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 10:20:30 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 3/19/2014 9:05:38 PM, Subutai wrote:
Anselm's ontological argument. Even when I was a theist, I never understood how this argument showed how a God exists. Essentially, this goes:

1. I have an idea of God as the greatest conceivable being.
2. A being can exist merely as an idea or as an idea and in reality.
3. It is greater to exist in reality too rather than just as an idea.
4. If I think of this greatest conceivable being as existing merely as an idea, then I can think of a greater being, i.e. a being that exists in reality too.
5. This greatest conceivable being must exist in reality too, i.e. God exists.

The first thing I thought was:

1. Let us define a unicorn as a magical equine being that has one horn, and that exists.
2. By that definition, such a being must necessarily exist.
3. Therefore unicorns exist.

So, I have never accepted the ontological argument generally because it, by no means, proves God exists. If God exists, then everything else must exist as well, like unicorns. I could go into the more modern MOA, but I'll leave it at this.

But isn't that incredible easy to refute?
What guarantees the existence of a greatest conceivable being at all?

That's just it, the MOA doesn't.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 11:43:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I agree comparing to unicorns may not refute the MOA.

There was a reply to Anselm in dialectic form by someone around the same time period, I forgot his name. Basically he said that the MOA proves that a maximally great island exists. "Great" can mean whatever we want it to mean. But the point is, that since we can conceive of this maximally great island, it must exist, because to exist in reality is greater than to exist in the mind.

You could bring the qualifier of "greatness" down to whatever you wanted. So, a maximally great donut, a maximally great unicorn, etc. And since great can mean whatever you want it to mean, you can prove the existence of any object. So, actually the MOA can prove unicorns, but you have to construct the premises so that we speak about unicorns as if they are the maximally great form of something.

I think.