Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Anslem's Ontological Argument

Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 9:34:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I know this topic is discussed ad nauseum, but I was wondering if anyone on the philosophy forum still defends the Ontological argument, and if so, on what grounds?
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 11:22:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I like the way you worded this question.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 11:31:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 11:22:06 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
I like the way you worded this question.

Should I have worded it in some other way?
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 11:33:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 11:31:38 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 4/22/2014 11:22:06 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
I like the way you worded this question.

Should I have worded it in some other way?

I didn't say I hated the way you worded this question.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 11:36:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 11:33:43 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/22/2014 11:31:38 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 4/22/2014 11:22:06 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
I like the way you worded this question.

Should I have worded it in some other way?

I didn't say I hated the way you worded this question.

I thought you were just saying you liked how I worded it with tongue in cheek, but very well.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 11:37:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 11:36:46 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 4/22/2014 11:33:43 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/22/2014 11:31:38 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 4/22/2014 11:22:06 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
I like the way you worded this question.

Should I have worded it in some other way?

I didn't say I hated the way you worded this question.

I thought you were just saying you liked how I worded it with tongue in cheek, but very well.

Nah, I actually liked it. It amused me.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 11:42:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 11:37:33 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/22/2014 11:36:46 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 4/22/2014 11:33:43 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/22/2014 11:31:38 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 4/22/2014 11:22:06 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
I like the way you worded this question.

Should I have worded it in some other way?

I didn't say I hated the way you worded this question.

I thought you were just saying you liked how I worded it with tongue in cheek, but very well.

Nah, I actually liked it. It amused me.

Because the ontological argument is indefensible, perhaps? lol
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 12:49:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Plantinga's Modal Ontological Argument is the most debated, pretty much all philosophers regard Anslem's version as unsound (as far as I know).
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 4:02:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 3:36:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I haven't heard any good arguments against it.

I think Kant has the most famous one.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 4:41:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 3:36:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I haven't heard any good arguments against it.

How about the rather basic premise that reality exists independently of mental conception, so a god that is mentally conceived to be maximally great can exist in thought, but not in reality and still be the greatest being conceived of.

Reality and mental conception are not intertwined as Anslem tries to claim they are with his infamous example of an artist thinking of an image and then painting it. In that case, mental conception is only advanced in to reality because of action in reality. Since we cannot create god (if we did he wouldn't be maximally great since he was created and thereby could be destroyed by lesser beings), we can conclude that Anslem's argument isn't very sound.

Mental Conception=/=Reality

Greatest being conceived of mentally=/=Greatest being in reality

Why?

Because Mental Conception=/=Reality

How can we conclude this? Because the simple act of thinking of something doesn't make it exist, action does.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 4:44:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Or, on a lesser scale

The greatest being mentally conceived of COULD exist in reality, but simply conceiving of he/she mentally does not necessitate that they exist in reality.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 5:02:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 4:44:38 PM, Objectivity wrote:
Or, on a lesser scale

The greatest being mentally conceived of COULD exist in reality, but simply conceiving of he/she mentally does not necessitate that they exist in reality.
Yeah, I always thought that this was a rather obvious objection. How about these other criticisms:

1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
(OK, but God might be even greater than anyone can conceive...)

2. The idea of God exists in the mind.
(As well as a good number of many other things, some of which do not exist in reality...)

3. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
(This is almost an opinion, only because there is no empirical way to deal with what is in people's minds; or an equivocation of "greater" in the form of "greater" like 2 is greater than 1 vs "greater" as in Superman is greater than Spiderman...)

4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being"that which exists in reality.
(So how exactly does one compare an abstraction with the concrete? Are these not 2 separate domains?)

5. We cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
(Yeah, by definition/given above, 1...)

6. Therefore, God exists.
(Does not follow.)
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 5:29:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 4:02:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/22/2014 3:36:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I haven't heard any good arguments against it.

I think Kant has the most famous one.

Yes, and it's incorrect. If God must exist because God must exist (which is essentially what the argument is saying) then God's existence is necessary, which is greater than if God were contingent...i.e. if he existed but doesn't HAVE to.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 6:25:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 4:41:34 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 4/22/2014 3:36:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I haven't heard any good arguments against it.

How about the rather basic premise that reality exists independently of mental conception, so a god that is mentally conceived to be maximally great can exist in thought, but not in reality and still be the greatest being conceived of.


No, he may not. The very act of thinking that God doesn't exist means you could conceive of a being greater. Whereof one cannot think, one must be silent.

Reality and mental conception are not intertwined as Anslem tries to claim they are with his infamous example of an artist thinking of an image and then painting it. In that case, mental conception is only advanced in to reality because of action in reality. Since we cannot create god (if we did he wouldn't be maximally great since he was created and thereby could be destroyed by lesser beings), we can conclude that Anslem's argument isn't very sound.

Mind is real, and therefore ultimately the same as anything else that is real
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 6:36:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 6:25:27 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/22/2014 4:41:34 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 4/22/2014 3:36:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I haven't heard any good arguments against it.

How about the rather basic premise that reality exists independently of mental conception, so a god that is mentally conceived to be maximally great can exist in thought, but not in reality and still be the greatest being conceived of.


No, he may not. The very act of thinking that God doesn't exist means you could conceive of a being greater. Whereof one cannot think, one must be silent.

Er, it still comes to a contradictory conclusion where thought is advanced to reality on fallacious premises. What constitutes reality=/=What constitutes thought. I could imagine punching the locker and putting a dent in it, but that doesn't mean it /actually/ happened independently of my thoughts. You are also implying that something being real is a quality that contributes to greatness, existence of a subject in and of itself, not a predicate or adjective. You don't say "Juan is the basketball player with red shorts, who also exists". His existence is presupposed since you are talking about him and assigning existential properties to him, such as the color of his shorts, his profession (playing basketball), and his name Therefore we cannot say 'God is a maximally great being that exists' because his existence should be presupposed when we start speaking of adjective qualities of god. It would indeed be a different story if existence was a subject. Since god's existence cannot be proven through empirical or sensual means, he does not exist.

Reality and mental conception are not intertwined as Anslem tries to claim they are with his infamous example of an artist thinking of an image and then painting it. In that case, mental conception is only advanced in to reality because of action in reality. Since we cannot create god (if we did he wouldn't be maximally great since he was created and thereby could be destroyed by lesser beings), we can conclude that Anslem's argument isn't very sound.

Mind is real, and therefore ultimately the same as anything else that is real

The mind is real, what it conceives of is not necessarily real. The senses are in some cases independent of the mind, the laptop exists not just because I can see it in front of me, but because I can feel my fingers stroke the keys and hear it's buzzing sound.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 6:43:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
An idea is abstract, but it can be great because of the impact it has in reality.

The point is that greatness, even maximal greatness can be possible without existence. God's conception could have a greater impact than any actual human being has had, it can be argued that it has. Therefore god is still the greatest being conceived of and surpasses all others in greatness.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 6:44:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 6:36:12 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 4/22/2014 6:25:27 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/22/2014 4:41:34 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 4/22/2014 3:36:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I haven't heard any good arguments against it.

How about the rather basic premise that reality exists independently of mental conception, so a god that is mentally conceived to be maximally great can exist in thought, but not in reality and still be the greatest being conceived of.


No, he may not. The very act of thinking that God doesn't exist means you could conceive of a being greater. Whereof one cannot think, one must be silent.

Er, it still comes to a contradictory conclusion where thought is advanced to reality on fallacious premises. What constitutes reality=/=What constitutes thought.

The argument is not (or does not have to be) predicated on the assumption that all mental conceptions correspond to anything but the neural firing patterns which produced them. However, our cognitive syntax is necessarily identical up to isomorphism (which means perfect correspondence) with reality, since reality itself is a conception. This means that if something is actually true of our mind, then we must conclude that it is actually true of "reality", or we get a contradiction.

Suppose that there is some degree of noncorrespondence between cognitive syntax and perceptual content (observed phenomena). Then there exist items of perceptual content which do not correspond to or coincide with cognitive syntax. But if these items do not coincide with cognitive syntax, then they are unrecognizable, i.e. inobservable (since cognitive syntax is by definition the basis of recognition). But then these items are not included in perceptual reality (the set of observable phenomena), and we have a contradiction. Therefore, perceptual reality must coincide with cognitive syntax. This establishes the existence of the mapping to which Jacob refers, and we can leave the details for later.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 6:59:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 6:44:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/22/2014 6:36:12 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 4/22/2014 6:25:27 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/22/2014 4:41:34 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 4/22/2014 3:36:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I haven't heard any good arguments against it.

How about the rather basic premise that reality exists independently of mental conception, so a god that is mentally conceived to be maximally great can exist in thought, but not in reality and still be the greatest being conceived of.


No, he may not. The very act of thinking that God doesn't exist means you could conceive of a being greater. Whereof one cannot think, one must be silent.

Er, it still comes to a contradictory conclusion where thought is advanced to reality on fallacious premises. What constitutes reality=/=What constitutes thought.

The argument is not (or does not have to be) predicated on the assumption that all mental conceptions correspond to anything but the neural firing patterns which produced them. However, our cognitive syntax is necessarily identical up to isomorphism (which means perfect correspondence) with reality, since reality itself is a conception. This means that if something is actually true of our mind, then we must conclude that it is actually true of "reality", or we get a contradiction.


Suppose that there is some degree of noncorrespondence between cognitive syntax and perceptual content (observed phenomena). Then there exist items of perceptual content which do not correspond to or coincide with cognitive syntax. But if these items do not coincide with cognitive syntax, then they are unrecognizable, i.e. inobservable (since cognitive syntax is by definition the basis of recognition). But then these items are not included in perceptual reality (the set of observable phenomena), and we have a contradiction. Therefore, perceptual reality must coincide with cognitive syntax. This establishes the existence of the mapping to which Jacob refers, and we can leave the details for later.

That was all somewhat informative and interesting, but it fails to address a significant portion of my argument and presupposes that reality can be arrived at simply through one's perception of reality. Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.[1] In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still more broad definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

As you can see in the beginning, reality exists regardless of how things may appear, meaning that perceptual reality=/=reality, one could perceive something that is entirely independent of reality and this definition still upholds the separation of conception and reality by it's very nature. I am simply trying to prove that reality and conception are independent of one another and therefore a maximally great being can be conceived of that does not actually exist in reality. We can see this, as shown before by simply using a part of Kant's argument, which is that existence in reality does not necessitate greatness. And as I pointed out above, going by most definitions of greatness, an idea can be greater than any man simply based off of the impact it has, but what we arrive at is that man conceived of the idea, making the man great, not the idea. The man who conceives of the idea is great, not the idea in and of itself. What we can then conclude is that ideas are simply a product of man, and their greatness is dependent on the greatness of man, therefore no god could be maximally great since their greatness is dependent on those that conceive of them.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 7:05:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Basically, no being is maximally great and therefore cannot conceive of a maximally great being, since ideas are only as great as those that conceive of them, only a maximally great being could conceive of another maximally great being. God is a being of which no greater can be conceived, since only the greatest could conceive of the greatest, god does not exist, since ideas are only as great as the person that conceives them.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 7:07:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 6:59:21 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 4/22/2014 6:44:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/22/2014 6:36:12 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 4/22/2014 6:25:27 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/22/2014 4:41:34 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 4/22/2014 3:36:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I haven't heard any good arguments against it.

How about the rather basic premise that reality exists independently of mental conception, so a god that is mentally conceived to be maximally great can exist in thought, but not in reality and still be the greatest being conceived of.


No, he may not. The very act of thinking that God doesn't exist means you could conceive of a being greater. Whereof one cannot think, one must be silent.

Er, it still comes to a contradictory conclusion where thought is advanced to reality on fallacious premises. What constitutes reality=/=What constitutes thought.

The argument is not (or does not have to be) predicated on the assumption that all mental conceptions correspond to anything but the neural firing patterns which produced them. However, our cognitive syntax is necessarily identical up to isomorphism (which means perfect correspondence) with reality, since reality itself is a conception. This means that if something is actually true of our mind, then we must conclude that it is actually true of "reality", or we get a contradiction.


Suppose that there is some degree of noncorrespondence between cognitive syntax and perceptual content (observed phenomena). Then there exist items of perceptual content which do not correspond to or coincide with cognitive syntax. But if these items do not coincide with cognitive syntax, then they are unrecognizable, i.e. inobservable (since cognitive syntax is by definition the basis of recognition). But then these items are not included in perceptual reality (the set of observable phenomena), and we have a contradiction. Therefore, perceptual reality must coincide with cognitive syntax. This establishes the existence of the mapping to which Jacob refers, and we can leave the details for later.

That was all somewhat informative and interesting, but it fails to address a significant portion of my argument and presupposes that reality can be arrived at simply through one's perception of reality. Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.[1] In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still more broad definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist.

You didn't understand the distinction made. Asserting that reality does not coincide with one's cognitive syntax is contradictory, since it amounts to the assertion that one's cognitive syntax is not the same as one's cognitive syntax. This doesn't mean that every thought exists in the sense you mean. It does, however, mean that something which can be proven in the mental realm through logic is true of reality.

In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible."

Those things cannot be said to exist and are therefore not part of reality.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 7:10:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 7:07:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/22/2014 6:59:21 PM, Objectivity wrote:

In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible."

Those things cannot be said to exist and are therefore not part of reality.

They can't even be described, essentially. When you say "it", you have already crossed the bounds you set for yourself.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 7:16:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 7:07:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/22/2014 6:59:21 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 4/22/2014 6:44:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/22/2014 6:36:12 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 4/22/2014 6:25:27 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/22/2014 4:41:34 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 4/22/2014 3:36:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I haven't heard any good arguments against it.

How about the rather basic premise that reality exists independently of mental conception, so a god that is mentally conceived to be maximally great can exist in thought, but not in reality and still be the greatest being conceived of.


No, he may not. The very act of thinking that God doesn't exist means you could conceive of a being greater. Whereof one cannot think, one must be silent.

Er, it still comes to a contradictory conclusion where thought is advanced to reality on fallacious premises. What constitutes reality=/=What constitutes thought.

The argument is not (or does not have to be) predicated on the assumption that all mental conceptions correspond to anything but the neural firing patterns which produced them. However, our cognitive syntax is necessarily identical up to isomorphism (which means perfect correspondence) with reality, since reality itself is a conception. This means that if something is actually true of our mind, then we must conclude that it is actually true of "reality", or we get a contradiction.


Suppose that there is some degree of noncorrespondence between cognitive syntax and perceptual content (observed phenomena). Then there exist items of perceptual content which do not correspond to or coincide with cognitive syntax. But if these items do not coincide with cognitive syntax, then they are unrecognizable, i.e. inobservable (since cognitive syntax is by definition the basis of recognition). But then these items are not included in perceptual reality (the set of observable phenomena), and we have a contradiction. Therefore, perceptual reality must coincide with cognitive syntax. This establishes the existence of the mapping to which Jacob refers, and we can leave the details for later.

That was all somewhat informative and interesting, but it fails to address a significant portion of my argument and presupposes that reality can be arrived at simply through one's perception of reality. Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.[1] In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still more broad definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist.

You didn't understand the distinction made. Asserting that reality does not coincide with one's cognitive syntax is contradictory, since it amounts to the assertion that one's cognitive syntax is not the same as one's cognitive syntax. This doesn't mean that every thought exists in the sense you mean. It does, however, mean that something which can be proven in the mental realm through logic is true of reality.

But we can conclude that since god is supposedly a being of which no greater can be conceived, and ideas and their conception are dependent on someone to conceive of them, only the greatest being that exists in reality could conceive of the greatest being that exists in mental conception. I could conceive of a maximally great being, but since I am a man and I am not a maximally great man, I cannot conceive of a maximally great being. Basically, god would have to conceive of himself for him to exist.

In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible."

Those things cannot be said to exist and are therefore not part of reality.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 7:38:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 7:16:36 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 4/22/2014 7:07:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/22/2014 6:59:21 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 4/22/2014 6:44:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/22/2014 6:36:12 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 4/22/2014 6:25:27 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/22/2014 4:41:34 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 4/22/2014 3:36:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I haven't heard any good arguments against it.

How about the rather basic premise that reality exists independently of mental conception, so a god that is mentally conceived to be maximally great can exist in thought, but not in reality and still be the greatest being conceived of.


No, he may not. The very act of thinking that God doesn't exist means you could conceive of a being greater. Whereof one cannot think, one must be silent.

Er, it still comes to a contradictory conclusion where thought is advanced to reality on fallacious premises. What constitutes reality=/=What constitutes thought.

The argument is not (or does not have to be) predicated on the assumption that all mental conceptions correspond to anything but the neural firing patterns which produced them. However, our cognitive syntax is necessarily identical up to isomorphism (which means perfect correspondence) with reality, since reality itself is a conception. This means that if something is actually true of our mind, then we must conclude that it is actually true of "reality", or we get a contradiction.


Suppose that there is some degree of noncorrespondence between cognitive syntax and perceptual content (observed phenomena). Then there exist items of perceptual content which do not correspond to or coincide with cognitive syntax. But if these items do not coincide with cognitive syntax, then they are unrecognizable, i.e. inobservable (since cognitive syntax is by definition the basis of recognition). But then these items are not included in perceptual reality (the set of observable phenomena), and we have a contradiction. Therefore, perceptual reality must coincide with cognitive syntax. This establishes the existence of the mapping to which Jacob refers, and we can leave the details for later.

That was all somewhat informative and interesting, but it fails to address a significant portion of my argument and presupposes that reality can be arrived at simply through one's perception of reality. Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.[1] In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still more broad definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist.

You didn't understand the distinction made. Asserting that reality does not coincide with one's cognitive syntax is contradictory, since it amounts to the assertion that one's cognitive syntax is not the same as one's cognitive syntax. This doesn't mean that every thought exists in the sense you mean. It does, however, mean that something which can be proven in the mental realm through logic is true of reality.

But we can conclude that since god is supposedly a being of which no greater can be conceived, and ideas and their conception are dependent on someone to conceive of them, only the greatest being that exists in reality could conceive of the greatest being that exists in mental conception. I could conceive of a maximally great being, but since I am a man and I am not a maximally great man, I cannot conceive of a maximally great being. Basically, god would have to conceive of himself for him to exist.

This is contradictory for the same reason. If you cannot conceive of a maximally great being, then what can't you conceive of? Since God would necessarily coincide with reality, and since the mind is real, there is nothing in principle which prevents us from conceiving of God.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 7:41:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
God's definition can be simplified as: if we could conceive of something greater than God, then that would be God. God is a being which is bound by nothing but itself.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 7:56:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Another way to look at it: if we conceive that God doesn't exist, then we are conceiving of a being which obviously doesn't necessarily exist. If God doesn't necessarily exist, then God is bound by something which isn't himself, in which case he is not God.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 7:55:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 9:34:46 AM, Objectivity wrote:
I know this topic is discussed ad nauseum, but I was wondering if anyone on the philosophy forum still defends the Ontological argument, and if so, on what grounds?

Smithereens defends a modal ontological argument as well as Godel's ontological argument. You might ask him about it... he's a pretty smart dude.
"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."
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 7:49:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 7:38:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/22/2014 7:16:36 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 4/22/2014 7:07:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/22/2014 6:59:21 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 4/22/2014 6:44:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/22/2014 6:36:12 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 4/22/2014 6:25:27 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/22/2014 4:41:34 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 4/22/2014 3:36:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I haven't heard any good arguments against it.

How about the rather basic premise that reality exists independently of mental conception, so a god that is mentally conceived to be maximally great can exist in thought, but not in reality and still be the greatest being conceived of.


No, he may not. The very act of thinking that God doesn't exist means you could conceive of a being greater. Whereof one cannot think, one must be silent.

Er, it still comes to a contradictory conclusion where thought is advanced to reality on fallacious premises. What constitutes reality=/=What constitutes thought.

The argument is not (or does not have to be) predicated on the assumption that all mental conceptions correspond to anything but the neural firing patterns which produced them. However, our cognitive syntax is necessarily identical up to isomorphism (which means perfect correspondence) with reality, since reality itself is a conception. This means that if something is actually true of our mind, then we must conclude that it is actually true of "reality", or we get a contradiction.


Suppose that there is some degree of noncorrespondence between cognitive syntax and perceptual content (observed phenomena). Then there exist items of perceptual content which do not correspond to or coincide with cognitive syntax. But if these items do not coincide with cognitive syntax, then they are unrecognizable, i.e. inobservable (since cognitive syntax is by definition the basis of recognition). But then these items are not included in perceptual reality (the set of observable phenomena), and we have a contradiction. Therefore, perceptual reality must coincide with cognitive syntax. This establishes the existence of the mapping to which Jacob refers, and we can leave the details for later.

That was all somewhat informative and interesting, but it fails to address a significant portion of my argument and presupposes that reality can be arrived at simply through one's perception of reality. Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.[1] In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still more broad definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist.

You didn't understand the distinction made. Asserting that reality does not coincide with one's cognitive syntax is contradictory, since it amounts to the assertion that one's cognitive syntax is not the same as one's cognitive syntax. This doesn't mean that every thought exists in the sense you mean. It does, however, mean that something which can be proven in the mental realm through logic is true of reality.

But we can conclude that since god is supposedly a being of which no greater can be conceived, and ideas and their conception are dependent on someone to conceive of them, only the greatest being that exists in reality could conceive of the greatest being that exists in mental conception. I could conceive of a maximally great being, but since I am a man and I am not a maximally great man, I cannot conceive of a maximally great being. Basically, god would have to conceive of himself for him to exist.

This is contradictory for the same reason. If you cannot conceive of a maximally great being, then what can't you conceive of?

You could conceive of a great being if you are also great, but not a maximally great one unless you are also maximally great, and since only one being can be greater than no other, god would have to conceive of himself to exist, which is a logical and empirical impossibility from my understanding. Only one who is truly maximally great could be the judge of what maximal greatness is, since it is more of an experienced based thing than a logical thing.

Since God would necessarily coincide with reality, and since the mind is real, there is nothing in principle which prevents us from conceiving of God.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 7:50:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Everybody knows this is proof for the invisible pink unicorn...

So stop worrying.
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
4/23/2014 8:05:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 7:50:36 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
Everybody knows this is proof for the invisible pink unicorn...

So stop worrying.

May her magical horn never wear a condom.
"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."