Total Posts:77|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A new ontological argument for God

Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 4:13:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 3:59:41 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Critique it.

1. God is great
2. it would be greater for God to exist than to not exist
3. therefore, God exists

Can somebody help me out here? Because this makes no sense to me????

How does this conclude god exists?
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...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 4:50:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 3:59:41 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Critique it.

1. God is great
2. it would be greater for God to exist than to not exist
3. therefore, God exists

If you mean that God is great that also means God exists, that means your already assuming that God exists which is what you are setting out to prove.......begging the question
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 5:21:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 3:59:41 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Critique it.

1. God is great
2. it would be greater for God to exist than to not exist
3. therefore, God exists

A parody would be...

1. Pokemons are great.
2. It would be greater for Pokemons to exist than not exist.
3. Therefore, Pokemons exist.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 5:28:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 3:59:41 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Critique it.

Okay.

1. God is great

How do we know that God is great? There is no evidence of this.

2. it would be greater for God to exist than to not exist

Why is that? That is a personal opinion of yours, not a fact.

3. therefore, God exists

Since you have not proved 1 or 2 this cannot be concluded. Even if 1 and 2 were proven it still does not cause this conclusion to be met since it is made under the assumption that God exists.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 5:43:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 3:59:41 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Critique it.

1. God is great
2. it would be greater for God to exist than to not exist
3. therefore, God exists

I think you mean "God is the greatest".
Vis13
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 5:49:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 3:59:41 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Critique it.

1. God is great
2. it would be greater for God to exist than to not exist
3. therefore, God exists

Your property isn't self-important to conclude that God exist.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 7:14:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 3:59:41 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Critique it.

1. God is great
2. it would be greater for God to exist than to not exist
3. therefore, God exists

It sound exactly like Anselm's ontological argument, except God is just defined as "great"....
"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."
Subutai
Posts: 3,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2014 9:21:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 3:59:41 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Critique it.

1. God is great
2. it would be greater for God to exist than to not exist
3. therefore, God exists

Doesn't sound like a new ontological argument to me. It sounds just about what Anselm formulated with the original ontological argument. And it's full of just as many fallacies as the original, too.
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.
SubterFugitive
Posts: 255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 3:56:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 3:59:41 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Critique it.

1. God is great
2. it would be greater for God to exist than to not exist
3. therefore, God exists

It's formally invalid since nothing follows from 1. I would suggest appending "maximally" or "supremely" great since you have a "greater than" relation in your premise 2, which presumably you'd like to use.

There are other formal and informal fallacies with this but I won't list them, I'd rather reformulate it to save my breath:

For any thing x, if x is maximally great then x exists necessarily
God is maximally great
/God exists necessarily
SubterFugitive
Posts: 255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 4:02:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 5:28:03 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/28/2014 3:59:41 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Critique it.

Okay.

1. God is great

How do we know that God is great? There is no evidence of this.

It's supposed to be an identity relation. We're saying that X is an S... asking for evidence here is a pseudo-question.


2. it would be greater for God to exist than to not exist

Why is that? That is a personal opinion of yours, not a fact.

How so? Between Adolf Grunbaum and Sherlock Holmes who would you say is greater? What sense would it make to say that Holmes, a nonexisting fiction, is somehow greater than Grunbaum, an existing human being?
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2014 9:54:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There's nothing new about this....
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
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 9:41:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/28/2014 3:59:41 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Critique it.

1. God is great
2. it would be greater for God to exist than to not exist
3. therefore, God exists

That is not only not new, but the original and oldest form of the argument. It's therefore horribly, horribly flawed in all the known ways.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 9:46:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 9:41:24 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 3/28/2014 3:59:41 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Critique it.

1. God is great
2. it would be greater for God to exist than to not exist
3. therefore, God exists

That is not only not new, but the original and oldest form of the argument. It's therefore horribly, horribly flawed in all the known ways.

How so? I'm not convinced either, but I find no specific reason to object it. I was looking for counter arguments to it, but all the ones I found were ridiculous.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 10:01:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 9:46:21 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/30/2014 9:41:24 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 3/28/2014 3:59:41 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Critique it.

1. God is great
2. it would be greater for God to exist than to not exist
3. therefore, God exists

That is not only not new, but the original and oldest form of the argument. It's therefore horribly, horribly flawed in all the known ways.

How so? I'm not convinced either, but I find no specific reason to object it. I was looking for counter arguments to it, but all the ones I found were ridiculous.

You can't be looking very hard:

Existence isn't a quality, it is the medium for qualities.

Greatest is rather subjective; greatest according to what metric?

The argument can be used to prove all sorts of things; the greatest island, the greatest cake, the greatest... well anything, really. So it proves nothing at all, it's just a closed semantic loop that doesn't express what it appears to express.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 10:08:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 10:01:13 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 3/30/2014 9:46:21 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/30/2014 9:41:24 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 3/28/2014 3:59:41 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Critique it.

1. God is great
2. it would be greater for God to exist than to not exist
3. therefore, God exists

That is not only not new, but the original and oldest form of the argument. It's therefore horribly, horribly flawed in all the known ways.

How so? I'm not convinced either, but I find no specific reason to object it. I was looking for counter arguments to it, but all the ones I found were ridiculous.

You can't be looking very hard:

Existence isn't a quality, it is the medium for qualities.

Greatest is rather subjective; greatest according to what metric?

The argument can be used to prove all sorts of things; the greatest island, the greatest cake, the greatest... well anything, really. So it proves nothing at all, it's just a closed semantic loop that doesn't express what it appears to express.

No, that's a common fallacy associated with it. God is defined as being the greatest conceivable being, which just means: if you could think of a being greater than "God", your first "God" was not God, or you've just thought of something which is not greater. It's not that existence is a quality of God, but that it is deduced from his definition via reductio ad absurdum i.e., if the greatest conceivable being is only a mental construct, then it doesn't exist objectively, in which you could conceive of a being that is greater (one that exists in objective reality).
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 10:17:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 10:01:13 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 3/30/2014 9:46:21 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/30/2014 9:41:24 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 3/28/2014 3:59:41 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Critique it.

1. God is great
2. it would be greater for God to exist than to not exist
3. therefore, God exists

That is not only not new, but the original and oldest form of the argument. It's therefore horribly, horribly flawed in all the known ways.

How so? I'm not convinced either, but I find no specific reason to object it. I was looking for counter arguments to it, but all the ones I found were ridiculous.

You can't be looking very hard:

Existence isn't a quality, it is the medium for qualities.

Greatest is rather subjective; greatest according to what metric?

The argument can be used to prove all sorts of things; the greatest island, the greatest cake, the greatest... well anything, really. So it proves nothing at all, it's just a closed semantic loop that doesn't express what it appears to express.

And no, it doesn't work for anything other than God since it does not follow that "if the greatest island is only a mental construct, I could conceive of a greater island - one that exists in reality as well". It only works for something which necessarily contains everything. So either you are simply substituting "island" for "God", or it's a non sequitur.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 10:21:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 10:08:55 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/30/2014 10:01:13 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 3/30/2014 9:46:21 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/30/2014 9:41:24 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 3/28/2014 3:59:41 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Critique it.

1. God is great
2. it would be greater for God to exist than to not exist
3. therefore, God exists

That is not only not new, but the original and oldest form of the argument. It's therefore horribly, horribly flawed in all the known ways.

How so? I'm not convinced either, but I find no specific reason to object it. I was looking for counter arguments to it, but all the ones I found were ridiculous.

You can't be looking very hard:

Existence isn't a quality, it is the medium for qualities.

Greatest is rather subjective; greatest according to what metric?

The argument can be used to prove all sorts of things; the greatest island, the greatest cake, the greatest... well anything, really. So it proves nothing at all, it's just a closed semantic loop that doesn't express what it appears to express.

No, that's a common fallacy associated with it. God is defined as being the greatest conceivable being, which just means: if you could think of a being greater than "God", your first "God" was not God, or you've just thought of something which is not greater. It's not that existence is a quality of God, but that it is deduced from his definition via reductio ad absurdum i.e., if the greatest conceivable being is only a mental construct, then it doesn't exist objectively, in which you could conceive of a being that is greater (one that exists in objective reality).

No, that's not a common fallacy, it's an established and accepted philosophical fact. Playing with definitions does not dictate reality. If you think it does, I suggest you buy a book of magic spells. You could purchase it using the greatest possible money, which is obviously greater if you have access to it than if you do not. I suspect, however, this will not cause you to rush off and check your bank balance.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 10:23:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 10:17:26 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/30/2014 10:01:13 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 3/30/2014 9:46:21 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/30/2014 9:41:24 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 3/28/2014 3:59:41 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Critique it.

1. God is great
2. it would be greater for God to exist than to not exist
3. therefore, God exists

That is not only not new, but the original and oldest form of the argument. It's therefore horribly, horribly flawed in all the known ways.

How so? I'm not convinced either, but I find no specific reason to object it. I was looking for counter arguments to it, but all the ones I found were ridiculous.

You can't be looking very hard:

Existence isn't a quality, it is the medium for qualities.

Greatest is rather subjective; greatest according to what metric?

The argument can be used to prove all sorts of things; the greatest island, the greatest cake, the greatest... well anything, really. So it proves nothing at all, it's just a closed semantic loop that doesn't express what it appears to express.

And no, it doesn't work for anything other than God since it does not follow that "if the greatest island is only a mental construct, I could conceive of a greater island - one that exists in reality as well". It only works for something which necessarily contains everything. So either you are simply substituting "island" for "God", or it's a non sequitur.

Abracadabra!

I really recommend you stop reading so much fringe pseudo-philosophy/science and study under someone who knows what they're talking about. God as 'the necessarily greatest being' is a mental construct. That there may or may not be something that matches up to this mental construct is beside the point; it is Hume's golden mountain, something we can imagine and phrase linguistically but that has absolutely no semantic content regarding what actually is.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 10:32:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 10:21:04 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 3/30/2014 10:08:55 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/30/2014 10:01:13 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 3/30/2014 9:46:21 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/30/2014 9:41:24 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 3/28/2014 3:59:41 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Critique it.

1. God is great
2. it would be greater for God to exist than to not exist
3. therefore, God exists

That is not only not new, but the original and oldest form of the argument. It's therefore horribly, horribly flawed in all the known ways.

How so? I'm not convinced either, but I find no specific reason to object it. I was looking for counter arguments to it, but all the ones I found were ridiculous.

You can't be looking very hard:

Existence isn't a quality, it is the medium for qualities.

Greatest is rather subjective; greatest according to what metric?

The argument can be used to prove all sorts of things; the greatest island, the greatest cake, the greatest... well anything, really. So it proves nothing at all, it's just a closed semantic loop that doesn't express what it appears to express.

No, that's a common fallacy associated with it. God is defined as being the greatest conceivable being, which just means: if you could think of a being greater than "God", your first "God" was not God, or you've just thought of something which is not greater. It's not that existence is a quality of God, but that it is deduced from his definition via reductio ad absurdum i.e., if the greatest conceivable being is only a mental construct, then it doesn't exist objectively, in which you could conceive of a being that is greater (one that exists in objective reality).

No, that's not a common fallacy, it's an established and accepted philosophical fact. Playing with definitions does not dictate reality. If you think it does, I suggest you buy a book of magic spells. You could purchase it using the greatest possible money, which is obviously greater if you have access to it than if you do not. I suspect, however, this will not cause you to rush off and check your bank balance.

The "greatest possible money" is in competition, so to speak, with the greatest possible being, meaning that "the greatest possible money" is not necessarily "anything", since "possible" is restricted according to God. God, however, is defined such that this does not apply to him (since there can be no competition with God).
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 10:40:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I can only assume you don't read your own posts, because that was absolute twaddle.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 10:56:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 10:40:50 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
I can only assume you don't read your own posts, because that was absolute twaddle.

No it wasn't. The greatest possible money is necessarily restricted by the greatest possible being, since "possible" is "that which can exist", and God would be in the position of defining and enforcing that.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 11:19:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
As far as the Ontological Argument is concerned, If universal impotence (a possible world in which every being is impotent to some extent) is possible, then a maximally great being is impossible. There doesn't seem anything impossible about a world in which every being is impotent to some degree.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 11:21:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Please just go and actually study of this stuff. A good start would be how definitions work.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 11:23:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 11:21:21 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
Please just go and actually study of this stuff. A good start would be how definitions work.

Translation: "I cannot think of a counterargument".
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 11:27:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 11:23:25 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/30/2014 11:21:21 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
Please just go and actually study of this stuff. A good start would be how definitions work.

Translation: "I cannot think of a counterargument".

No, you're just woefully wrong. Definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive; just because something can be conceptually defined does not mean that definition pertains to something real. As I said, it is Hume's golden mountain. I don't need any more arguments than I've already given here and if you really are so stupid to think you can babble nonsense and expect someone with actual philosophical training to fall for it, you're not equipped to take part in philosophical discussion.

Seriously. If you aren't going to listen to me, go to a philosophy department and ask someone there to explain to you why you're so totally and laughably wrong.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 12:08:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 11:27:24 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 3/30/2014 11:23:25 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/30/2014 11:21:21 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
Please just go and actually study of this stuff. A good start would be how definitions work.

Translation: "I cannot think of a counterargument".

No, you're just woefully wrong. Definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive; just because something can be conceptually defined does not mean that definition pertains to something real. As I said, it is Hume's golden mountain. I don't need any more arguments than I've already given here and if you really are so stupid to think you can babble nonsense and expect someone with actual philosophical training to fall for it, you're not equipped to take part in philosophical discussion.

You really don't have a clue, do you? Of course a definition does not automatically evoke the existence of a definiendum. The point is that we can deduce from God's definition that he exists.

Seriously. If you aren't going to listen to me, go to a philosophy department and ask someone there to explain to you why you're so totally and laughably wrong.

As if I have any faith in the orthodoxical, mass production-oriented bureaucracy that is acadumbia.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2014 12:15:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/30/2014 11:19:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
As far as the Ontological Argument is concerned, If universal impotence (a possible world in which every being is impotent to some extent) is possible, then a maximally great being is impossible. There doesn't seem anything impossible about a world in which every being is impotent to some degree.

Nonsense. The possibility of such a world is totally contingent upon the existence or non-existence of God. Claiming that a universally impotent world seems possible is equivalent to saying "it seems possible that God doesn't exist", which obviously doesn't disprove God. Like I've said a million times, there's a difference between a possibility made possible by our ignorance, and a possibility that is actually reflected in the real world.