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

Proof of God

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 3:19:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is just an updated form of Anselm's Ontological Argument.

Let God be defined as a being bound by nothing but itself (I can prove that this corresponds to the O4 God if needed). If we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a being which does not necessarily exist, in which case we are conceiving of a being bound (constrained/limited by) something which is not itself, in which case we are not conceiving of God. Claiming that we cannot conceive of God is contradictory since we must conceive of him in the course of denying that we can (what can't we conceive of?). Thus, we cannot deny the existence of a being bound by nothing but itself. Ergo, God exists.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 3:28:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 3:19:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is just an updated form of Anselm's Ontological Argument.

Let God be defined as a being bound by nothing but itself (I can prove that this corresponds to the O4 God if needed). If we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a being which does not necessarily exist, in which case we are conceiving of a being bound (constrained/limited by) something which is not itself, in which case we are not conceiving of God. Claiming that we cannot conceive of God is contradictory since we must conceive of him in the course of denying that we can (what can't we conceive of?). Thus, we cannot deny the existence of a being bound by nothing but itself. Ergo, God exists.

So you're saying that in the process of denying gods existence, we actually acknowledge it by conceiving his existence?
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 3:29:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 3:19:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is just an updated form of Anselm's Ontological Argument.

Let God be defined as a being bound by nothing but itself (I can prove that this corresponds to the O4 God if needed). If we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a being which does not necessarily exist, in which case we are conceiving of a being bound (constrained/limited by) something which is not itself, in which case we are not conceiving of God. Claiming that we cannot conceive of God is contradictory since we must conceive of him in the course of denying that we can (what can't we conceive of?). Thus, we cannot deny the existence of a being bound by nothing but itself. Ergo, God exists.

I see no reason to accept that something bound by nothing but itself is a God. I.e. Your conclusion is a non sequitir. I could just state that as all of reality and leave it as that.
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...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 3:30:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 3:28:08 PM, Df0512 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 3:19:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is just an updated form of Anselm's Ontological Argument.

Let God be defined as a being bound by nothing but itself (I can prove that this corresponds to the O4 God if needed). If we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a being which does not necessarily exist, in which case we are conceiving of a being bound (constrained/limited by) something which is not itself, in which case we are not conceiving of God. Claiming that we cannot conceive of God is contradictory since we must conceive of him in the course of denying that we can (what can't we conceive of?). Thus, we cannot deny the existence of a being bound by nothing but itself. Ergo, God exists.

So you're saying that in the process of denying gods existence, we actually acknowledge it by conceiving his existence?

I'm claiming that God's existence is necessary, and that this argument reveals the fact.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 4:10:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 3:29:22 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 5/1/2014 3:19:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is just an updated form of Anselm's Ontological Argument.

Let God be defined as a being bound by nothing but itself (I can prove that this corresponds to the O4 God if needed). If we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a being which does not necessarily exist, in which case we are conceiving of a being bound (constrained/limited by) something which is not itself, in which case we are not conceiving of God. Claiming that we cannot conceive of God is contradictory since we must conceive of him in the course of denying that we can (what can't we conceive of?). Thus, we cannot deny the existence of a being bound by nothing but itself. Ergo, God exists.

I see no reason to accept that something bound by nothing but itself is a God. I.e. Your conclusion is a non sequitir. I could just state that as all of reality and leave it as that.

God and reality are synonymous; you just need to qualify reality by defining it to possess O4 attributes. Since God is bound by nothing but himself, there's nothing logically consistent that he can't do or be. Therefore, the greatest possible being necessarily exists. Since there is nothing external to God to constrain him, he must constrain himself in order to exist i.e. he must conform to the logical requirement that he distinguish between what he is and what he is not -- that he is bound by nothing but himself. Since God is bound by nothing but himself, there is nothing external which could cause him to exist, so he must cause himself to exist by providing himself with a reason for existing. Second, God cannot act deterministically or indeterministcally because they would both imply that God is "not bound by nothing but himself ... he would either be bound by external laws or he would be unbound (not bound by himself). Third, if something is outside of God, then it is not constrained by God. Fourth, since God must select himself for existence (because he is constrained by nothing but himself), he must define himself to be infinitely intelligent in order to solve all problems relevant to reality (his existence)...since intelligence just means problem solving and problem solving just means figuring out what is (what is real)...reality thus embodies the answers to all questions. And finally, God must retain monotheistic identity in order to remain self-consistent.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 7:12:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
what can't we conceive of?

Uh, many things. Such as something out of the realm of logic, like what you just defined as God.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 7:19:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 3:19:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is just an updated form of Anselm's Ontological Argument.

Let God be defined as a being bound by nothing but itself (I can prove that this corresponds to the O4 God if needed). If we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a being which does not necessarily exist, in which case we are conceiving of a being bound (constrained/limited by) something which is not itself, in which case we are not conceiving of God. Claiming that we cannot conceive of God is contradictory since we must conceive of him in the course of denying that we can (what can't we conceive of?). Thus, we cannot deny the existence of a being bound by nothing but itself. Ergo, God exists.

Proof of unicorns

A realacorn is defined as a unicorn that actually exists. Since it would be a contradiction to say a realacorn doesn't exist (you would have to say that a unicorn that exists, doesn't exist), then a realacorn exists. Ergo, a unicorn exists.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 7:55:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 3:19:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is just an updated form of Anselm's Ontological Argument.

Let God be defined as a being bound by nothing but itself (I can prove that this corresponds to the O4 God if needed). If we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a being which does not necessarily exist, in which case we are conceiving of a being bound (constrained/limited by) something which is not itself, in which case we are not conceiving of God.

Let's stop here for a moment. To conceive that God does not exist is not the equivalent of conceiving of a being bound by something which is not itself. The two are not the same.



Claiming that we cannot conceive of God is contradictory since we must conceive of him in the course of denying that we can (what can't we conceive of?). Thus, we cannot deny the existence of a being bound by nothing but itself. Ergo, God exists.

Simply because we can't not conceive God does not automatically mean that we cannot deny the existence of such a God. Thinking of something = / = accepting the existence of it.

Even if this was the case, simply because we accept that God (as you defined him) exists, it does not mean that God exists. It only means that, from our perspectives, God exists.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 8:56:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 7:19:51 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 3:19:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is just an updated form of Anselm's Ontological Argument.

Let God be defined as a being bound by nothing but itself (I can prove that this corresponds to the O4 God if needed). If we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a being which does not necessarily exist, in which case we are conceiving of a being bound (constrained/limited by) something which is not itself, in which case we are not conceiving of God. Claiming that we cannot conceive of God is contradictory since we must conceive of him in the course of denying that we can (what can't we conceive of?). Thus, we cannot deny the existence of a being bound by nothing but itself. Ergo, God exists.

Proof of unicorns

A realacorn is defined as a unicorn that actually exists. Since it would be a contradiction to say a realacorn doesn't exist (you would have to say that a unicorn that exists, doesn't exist), then a realacorn exists. Ergo, a unicorn exists.

The definition of a unicorn X that exists and the definition of a unicorn X are no different from each other. Existence is not a property that can be "added" to a definition; a definition defines something which exists (in its object universe). Only a unicorn that 'actually exists' fits the definition of a unicorn, essentially. What you mean to say is that "a realacorn is defined as a unicorn that necessarily exists." If a realacorn necessarily exists, then it is bound by nothing but itself, in which case you are merely calling God "realacorn".
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 9:06:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 8:56:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/1/2014 7:19:51 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 3:19:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is just an updated form of Anselm's Ontological Argument.

Let God be defined as a being bound by nothing but itself (I can prove that this corresponds to the O4 God if needed). If we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a being which does not necessarily exist, in which case we are conceiving of a being bound (constrained/limited by) something which is not itself, in which case we are not conceiving of God. Claiming that we cannot conceive of God is contradictory since we must conceive of him in the course of denying that we can (what can't we conceive of?). Thus, we cannot deny the existence of a being bound by nothing but itself. Ergo, God exists.

Proof of unicorns

A realacorn is defined as a unicorn that actually exists. Since it would be a contradiction to say a realacorn doesn't exist (you would have to say that a unicorn that exists, doesn't exist), then a realacorn exists. Ergo, a unicorn exists.

The definition of a unicorn X that exists and the definition of a unicorn X are no different from each other. Existence is not a property that can be "added" to a definition; a definition defines something which exists (in its object universe). Only a unicorn that 'actually exists' fits the definition of a unicorn, essentially. What you mean to say is that "a realacorn is defined as a unicorn that necessarily exists." If a realacorn necessarily exists, then it is bound by nothing but itself, in which case you are merely calling God "realacorn".

Why can't you add existence to a definition? We can define a unicorn without assuming it exists, most people assume a unicorn doesn't exist. So, adding "existence" to the definition changes everything.

The point is even if denying X entails a contradiction in terms, that doesn't mean X exists. You seem to agree, as talking about a unicorn that exists, that doesn't exist, is a contradiction, even though unicorns don't exist.

So, even if denying God's possibility entails a contradiction in terms, that wouldn't mean he exists, as we can come up with examples where denying X entails a contradiction in terms, even though X does not exist.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 9:07:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 7:55:16 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/1/2014 3:19:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is just an updated form of Anselm's Ontological Argument.

Let God be defined as a being bound by nothing but itself (I can prove that this corresponds to the O4 God if needed). If we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a being which does not necessarily exist, in which case we are conceiving of a being bound (constrained/limited by) something which is not itself, in which case we are not conceiving of God.

Let's stop here for a moment. To conceive that God does not exist is not the equivalent of conceiving of a being bound by something which is not itself. The two are not the same.


If you conceive that God does not exist, then whatever you are conceiving of is bound by something that is not itself. That is self-evident. How could you be conceiving of a being that is bound by nothing but itself if you deny it necessarily exists? If you deny it necessarily exists, then you are implying it is bound by something which is not itself.



Claiming that we cannot conceive of God is contradictory since we must conceive of him in the course of denying that we can (what can't we conceive of?). Thus, we cannot deny the existence of a being bound by nothing but itself. Ergo, God exists.

Simply because we can't not conceive God does not automatically mean that we cannot deny the existence of such a God. Thinking of something = / = accepting the existence of it.

Denying the existence of God means you aren't denying the existence of 'God' as I defined it. His existence can't be denied.


Even if this was the case, simply because we accept that God (as you defined him) exists, it does not mean that God exists. It only means that, from our perspectives, God exists.

One could say the same of any statement that has ever been made - including yours.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 9:10:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 3:19:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is just an updated form of Anselm's Ontological Argument.

Let God be defined as a being bound by nothing but itself (I can prove that this corresponds to the O4 God if needed). If we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a being which does not necessarily exist, in which case we are conceiving of a being bound (constrained/limited by) something which is not itself, in which case we are not conceiving of God. Claiming that we cannot conceive of God is contradictory since we must conceive of him in the course of denying that we can (what can't we conceive of?). Thus, we cannot deny the existence of a being bound by nothing but itself. Ergo, God exists.

"If we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a being which does not necessarily exist"

The above is false, if we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a possible world which lacks a boundless being. That doesn't mean we are conceiving a boundless being, who does not necessarily exist. We aren't conceiving of a being at all, we are conceiving the lack of a being in a possible world. The way you word it makes it seem like we are conceiving of a possible world with a boundless being, who is bounded. That is not true.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 9:19:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 9:06:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 8:56:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/1/2014 7:19:51 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 3:19:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is just an updated form of Anselm's Ontological Argument.

Let God be defined as a being bound by nothing but itself (I can prove that this corresponds to the O4 God if needed). If we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a being which does not necessarily exist, in which case we are conceiving of a being bound (constrained/limited by) something which is not itself, in which case we are not conceiving of God. Claiming that we cannot conceive of God is contradictory since we must conceive of him in the course of denying that we can (what can't we conceive of?). Thus, we cannot deny the existence of a being bound by nothing but itself. Ergo, God exists.

Proof of unicorns

A realacorn is defined as a unicorn that actually exists. Since it would be a contradiction to say a realacorn doesn't exist (you would have to say that a unicorn that exists, doesn't exist), then a realacorn exists. Ergo, a unicorn exists.

The definition of a unicorn X that exists and the definition of a unicorn X are no different from each other. Existence is not a property that can be "added" to a definition; a definition defines something which exists (in its object universe). Only a unicorn that 'actually exists' fits the definition of a unicorn, essentially. What you mean to say is that "a realacorn is defined as a unicorn that necessarily exists." If a realacorn necessarily exists, then it is bound by nothing but itself, in which case you are merely calling God "realacorn".

Why can't you add existence to a definition? We can define a unicorn without assuming it exists, most people assume a unicorn doesn't exist. So, adding "existence" to the definition changes everything.

No, you are missing the point. "Existence" cannot be added to a definition, since something only meets the definition of something if it exists in the first place. Defining something to "actually exist" is not even a coherent concept. You are merely asserting that the realacorn - as per its definition - exists.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 9:25:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 9:19:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:06:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 8:56:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/1/2014 7:19:51 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 3:19:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is just an updated form of Anselm's Ontological Argument.

Let God be defined as a being bound by nothing but itself (I can prove that this corresponds to the O4 God if needed). If we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a being which does not necessarily exist, in which case we are conceiving of a being bound (constrained/limited by) something which is not itself, in which case we are not conceiving of God. Claiming that we cannot conceive of God is contradictory since we must conceive of him in the course of denying that we can (what can't we conceive of?). Thus, we cannot deny the existence of a being bound by nothing but itself. Ergo, God exists.

Proof of unicorns

A realacorn is defined as a unicorn that actually exists. Since it would be a contradiction to say a realacorn doesn't exist (you would have to say that a unicorn that exists, doesn't exist), then a realacorn exists. Ergo, a unicorn exists.

The definition of a unicorn X that exists and the definition of a unicorn X are no different from each other. Existence is not a property that can be "added" to a definition; a definition defines something which exists (in its object universe). Only a unicorn that 'actually exists' fits the definition of a unicorn, essentially. What you mean to say is that "a realacorn is defined as a unicorn that necessarily exists." If a realacorn necessarily exists, then it is bound by nothing but itself, in which case you are merely calling God "realacorn".

Why can't you add existence to a definition? We can define a unicorn without assuming it exists, most people assume a unicorn doesn't exist. So, adding "existence" to the definition changes everything.

No, you are missing the point. "Existence" cannot be added to a definition, since something only meets the definition of something if it exists in the first place.

So a unicorn has to exist in order to define it?

Defining something to "actually exist" is not even a coherent concept. You are merely asserting that the realacorn - as per its definition - exists.

Yes, and you are merely asserting that some being - as per its definition - is boundless.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 9:27:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 9:10:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 3:19:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is just an updated form of Anselm's Ontological Argument.

Let God be defined as a being bound by nothing but itself (I can prove that this corresponds to the O4 God if needed). If we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a being which does not necessarily exist, in which case we are conceiving of a being bound (constrained/limited by) something which is not itself, in which case we are not conceiving of God. Claiming that we cannot conceive of God is contradictory since we must conceive of him in the course of denying that we can (what can't we conceive of?). Thus, we cannot deny the existence of a being bound by nothing but itself. Ergo, God exists.

"If we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a being which does not necessarily exist"

The above is false, if we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a possible world which lacks a boundless being. That doesn't mean we are conceiving a boundless being, who does not necessarily exist. We aren't conceiving of a being at all, we are conceiving the lack of a being in a possible world. The way you word it makes it seem like we are conceiving of a possible world with a boundless being, who is bounded. That is not true.

If there is a possible world which lacks a boundless being, then the being is not boundless insofar as it cannot affect said world. It is "bounded" because it cannot do something which is possible.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 9:29:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 9:07:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

If you conceive that God does not exist, then whatever you are conceiving of is bound by something that is not itself. That is self-evident.

Already a problem arises. Conceiving that God does not exist is not the same as conceiving of something that is bound by something that is not itself. In fact, conceiving the absence of something is not the same as conceiving something that is bound by anything. If I am thinking to myself, "God does not exist," then this statement that I am thinking of is not bound by something other than itself.

Furthermore, I am not conceiving of a different being. I am still conceiving that "God (the one you defined) does not exist." You stated "whatever you are conceiving of is bound by something that is not itself," but I am not conceiving of a different being, I am thinking of the same God.


How could you be conceiving of a being that is bound by nothing but itself if you deny it necessarily exists?

The same way I can conceive of a mythical creature if I deny it necessarily exists.


If you deny it necessarily exists, then you are implying it is bound by something which is not itself.

I find this statement to be redundant. If I deny that "X" exists, then I am not implying it is bound by anything period. If it does not exist, then it has no qualities or attributes, so how could you say, "This, which I do not believe to exist, is bound by something, even though I don't think it exists."

Imagine I think, "Unicorns do not exist." Am I implying that unicorns are bound by something which is not itself? No, because I am thinking "Unicorns do not exist," not "Unicorns are bound by something which is not itself." Furthermore, if I am thinking "Unicorns do not exist," then how could I imply that that which does not exist is bound by something which is not itself? If they don't exist, then they're don't have boundaries for the simple fact that they don't exist. The two are mutually exclusive.

One could say the same of any statement that has ever been made - including yours.

That's exactly my point.

Just because we are unable to not imagine a being doesn't mean it exists.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 9:30:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 9:27:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:10:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 3:19:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is just an updated form of Anselm's Ontological Argument.

Let God be defined as a being bound by nothing but itself (I can prove that this corresponds to the O4 God if needed). If we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a being which does not necessarily exist, in which case we are conceiving of a being bound (constrained/limited by) something which is not itself, in which case we are not conceiving of God. Claiming that we cannot conceive of God is contradictory since we must conceive of him in the course of denying that we can (what can't we conceive of?). Thus, we cannot deny the existence of a being bound by nothing but itself. Ergo, God exists.

"If we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a being which does not necessarily exist"

The above is false, if we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a possible world which lacks a boundless being. That doesn't mean we are conceiving a boundless being, who does not necessarily exist. We aren't conceiving of a being at all, we are conceiving the lack of a being in a possible world. The way you word it makes it seem like we are conceiving of a possible world with a boundless being, who is bounded. That is not true.

If there is a possible world which lacks a boundless being, then the being is not boundless insofar as it cannot affect said world.

What BEING?!! This is the point...

You said saying "the being is not boundless in that world", but you are confused, as we are not conceiving of a being in that world, we are conceiving of the LACK of a being. How can you say we are conceiving of a being who is not boundless in W1, when really what we are conceiving is a LACK of this being in W1? That's a clear contradiction.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 9:31:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 9:25:14 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:19:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:06:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 8:56:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/1/2014 7:19:51 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 3:19:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is just an updated form of Anselm's Ontological Argument.

Let God be defined as a being bound by nothing but itself (I can prove that this corresponds to the O4 God if needed). If we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a being which does not necessarily exist, in which case we are conceiving of a being bound (constrained/limited by) something which is not itself, in which case we are not conceiving of God. Claiming that we cannot conceive of God is contradictory since we must conceive of him in the course of denying that we can (what can't we conceive of?). Thus, we cannot deny the existence of a being bound by nothing but itself. Ergo, God exists.

Proof of unicorns

A realacorn is defined as a unicorn that actually exists. Since it would be a contradiction to say a realacorn doesn't exist (you would have to say that a unicorn that exists, doesn't exist), then a realacorn exists. Ergo, a unicorn exists.

The definition of a unicorn X that exists and the definition of a unicorn X are no different from each other. Existence is not a property that can be "added" to a definition; a definition defines something which exists (in its object universe). Only a unicorn that 'actually exists' fits the definition of a unicorn, essentially. What you mean to say is that "a realacorn is defined as a unicorn that necessarily exists." If a realacorn necessarily exists, then it is bound by nothing but itself, in which case you are merely calling God "realacorn".

Why can't you add existence to a definition? We can define a unicorn without assuming it exists, most people assume a unicorn doesn't exist. So, adding "existence" to the definition changes everything.

No, you are missing the point. "Existence" cannot be added to a definition, since something only meets the definition of something if it exists in the first place.

So a unicorn has to exist in order to define it?


No. A definition defines something which exists, by which I mean implicit in the definition of X is X's existence in its object universe. When you define a cup, you are defining something which exists within the hypothetical realm.

Defining something to "actually exist" is not even a coherent concept. You are merely asserting that the realacorn - as per its definition - exists.

Yes, and you are merely asserting that some being - as per its definition - is boundless.

How is that equivalent?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 9:33:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 9:31:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:25:14 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:19:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:06:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 8:56:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/1/2014 7:19:51 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 3:19:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is just an updated form of Anselm's Ontological Argument.

Let God be defined as a being bound by nothing but itself (I can prove that this corresponds to the O4 God if needed). If we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a being which does not necessarily exist, in which case we are conceiving of a being bound (constrained/limited by) something which is not itself, in which case we are not conceiving of God. Claiming that we cannot conceive of God is contradictory since we must conceive of him in the course of denying that we can (what can't we conceive of?). Thus, we cannot deny the existence of a being bound by nothing but itself. Ergo, God exists.

Proof of unicorns

A realacorn is defined as a unicorn that actually exists. Since it would be a contradiction to say a realacorn doesn't exist (you would have to say that a unicorn that exists, doesn't exist), then a realacorn exists. Ergo, a unicorn exists.

The definition of a unicorn X that exists and the definition of a unicorn X are no different from each other. Existence is not a property that can be "added" to a definition; a definition defines something which exists (in its object universe). Only a unicorn that 'actually exists' fits the definition of a unicorn, essentially. What you mean to say is that "a realacorn is defined as a unicorn that necessarily exists." If a realacorn necessarily exists, then it is bound by nothing but itself, in which case you are merely calling God "realacorn".

Why can't you add existence to a definition? We can define a unicorn without assuming it exists, most people assume a unicorn doesn't exist. So, adding "existence" to the definition changes everything.

No, you are missing the point. "Existence" cannot be added to a definition, since something only meets the definition of something if it exists in the first place.

So a unicorn has to exist in order to define it?


No. A definition defines something which exists, by which I mean implicit in the definition of X is X's existence in its object universe. When you define a cup, you are defining something which exists within the hypothetical realm.

Yes, within the hypothetical realm. But when I add "existence" to the word, that means the actual world.


Defining something to "actually exist" is not even a coherent concept. You are merely asserting that the realacorn - as per its definition - exists.

Yes, and you are merely asserting that some being - as per its definition - is boundless.

How is that equivalent?

How isn't it? You are just merely stating as something is true by definition!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 9:35:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 9:30:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:27:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:10:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 3:19:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is just an updated form of Anselm's Ontological Argument.

Let God be defined as a being bound by nothing but itself (I can prove that this corresponds to the O4 God if needed). If we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a being which does not necessarily exist, in which case we are conceiving of a being bound (constrained/limited by) something which is not itself, in which case we are not conceiving of God. Claiming that we cannot conceive of God is contradictory since we must conceive of him in the course of denying that we can (what can't we conceive of?). Thus, we cannot deny the existence of a being bound by nothing but itself. Ergo, God exists.

"If we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a being which does not necessarily exist"

The above is false, if we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a possible world which lacks a boundless being. That doesn't mean we are conceiving a boundless being, who does not necessarily exist. We aren't conceiving of a being at all, we are conceiving the lack of a being in a possible world. The way you word it makes it seem like we are conceiving of a possible world with a boundless being, who is bounded. That is not true.

If there is a possible world which lacks a boundless being, then the being is not boundless insofar as it cannot affect said world.

What BEING?!! This is the point...

You said saying "the being is not boundless in that world", but you are confused, as we are not conceiving of a being in that world, we are conceiving of the LACK of a being. How can you say we are conceiving of a being who is not boundless in W1, when really what we are conceiving is a LACK of this being in W1? That's a clear contradiction.

That's not what I said.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 9:42:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 9:35:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:30:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:27:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:10:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 3:19:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is just an updated form of Anselm's Ontological Argument.

Let God be defined as a being bound by nothing but itself (I can prove that this corresponds to the O4 God if needed). If we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a being which does not necessarily exist, in which case we are conceiving of a being bound (constrained/limited by) something which is not itself, in which case we are not conceiving of God. Claiming that we cannot conceive of God is contradictory since we must conceive of him in the course of denying that we can (what can't we conceive of?). Thus, we cannot deny the existence of a being bound by nothing but itself. Ergo, God exists.

"If we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a being which does not necessarily exist"

The above is false, if we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a possible world which lacks a boundless being. That doesn't mean we are conceiving a boundless being, who does not necessarily exist. We aren't conceiving of a being at all, we are conceiving the lack of a being in a possible world. The way you word it makes it seem like we are conceiving of a possible world with a boundless being, who is bounded. That is not true.

If there is a possible world which lacks a boundless being, then the being is not boundless insofar as it cannot affect said world.

What BEING?!! This is the point...

You said saying "the being is not boundless in that world", but you are confused, as we are not conceiving of a being in that world, we are conceiving of the LACK of a being. How can you say we are conceiving of a being who is not boundless in W1, when really what we are conceiving is a LACK of this being in W1? That's a clear contradiction.

That's not what I said.

The point is that your argument fails, because it confuses conceiving a being's existence, and conceiving the lack of a being's existence. Also, If I say a there is no boundless being in W1, that would only be a contradiction if a boundless being existed. Because if this being exists, then he would stretch across every possible world. However, if there is no boundless being, then obviously, there is no contradiction in saying there is no boundless being in W1. So you can only say that denying God's existence is contradictory, if you assume God exists already. Which begs the question.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 9:42:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 9:33:14 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:31:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:25:14 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:19:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:06:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 8:56:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/1/2014 7:19:51 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 3:19:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is just an updated form of Anselm's Ontological Argument.

Let God be defined as a being bound by nothing but itself (I can prove that this corresponds to the O4 God if needed). If we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a being which does not necessarily exist, in which case we are conceiving of a being bound (constrained/limited by) something which is not itself, in which case we are not conceiving of God. Claiming that we cannot conceive of God is contradictory since we must conceive of him in the course of denying that we can (what can't we conceive of?). Thus, we cannot deny the existence of a being bound by nothing but itself. Ergo, God exists.

Proof of unicorns

A realacorn is defined as a unicorn that actually exists. Since it would be a contradiction to say a realacorn doesn't exist (you would have to say that a unicorn that exists, doesn't exist), then a realacorn exists. Ergo, a unicorn exists.

The definition of a unicorn X that exists and the definition of a unicorn X are no different from each other. Existence is not a property that can be "added" to a definition; a definition defines something which exists (in its object universe). Only a unicorn that 'actually exists' fits the definition of a unicorn, essentially. What you mean to say is that "a realacorn is defined as a unicorn that necessarily exists." If a realacorn necessarily exists, then it is bound by nothing but itself, in which case you are merely calling God "realacorn".

Why can't you add existence to a definition? We can define a unicorn without assuming it exists, most people assume a unicorn doesn't exist. So, adding "existence" to the definition changes everything.

No, you are missing the point. "Existence" cannot be added to a definition, since something only meets the definition of something if it exists in the first place.

So a unicorn has to exist in order to define it?


No. A definition defines something which exists, by which I mean implicit in the definition of X is X's existence in its object universe. When you define a cup, you are defining something which exists within the hypothetical realm.

Yes, within the hypothetical realm. But when I add "existence" to the word, that means the actual world.

If you fully understood how definitions work, you'd see why this is nonsense. Anyway, this is irrelevant to my argument.




Defining something to "actually exist" is not even a coherent concept. You are merely asserting that the realacorn - as per its definition - exists.

Yes, and you are merely asserting that some being - as per its definition - is boundless.

How is that equivalent?

How isn't it? You are just merely stating as something is true by definition!

I'm not claiming that God's existence is established by defining God to exist, but that God's existence follows from his definition.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 9:55:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 9:42:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:35:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:30:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:27:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:10:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 3:19:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is just an updated form of Anselm's Ontological Argument.

Let God be defined as a being bound by nothing but itself (I can prove that this corresponds to the O4 God if needed). If we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a being which does not necessarily exist, in which case we are conceiving of a being bound (constrained/limited by) something which is not itself, in which case we are not conceiving of God. Claiming that we cannot conceive of God is contradictory since we must conceive of him in the course of denying that we can (what can't we conceive of?). Thus, we cannot deny the existence of a being bound by nothing but itself. Ergo, God exists.

"If we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a being which does not necessarily exist"

The above is false, if we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a possible world which lacks a boundless being. That doesn't mean we are conceiving a boundless being, who does not necessarily exist. We aren't conceiving of a being at all, we are conceiving the lack of a being in a possible world. The way you word it makes it seem like we are conceiving of a possible world with a boundless being, who is bounded. That is not true.

If there is a possible world which lacks a boundless being, then the being is not boundless insofar as it cannot affect said world.

What BEING?!! This is the point...

You said saying "the being is not boundless in that world", but you are confused, as we are not conceiving of a being in that world, we are conceiving of the LACK of a being. How can you say we are conceiving of a being who is not boundless in W1, when really what we are conceiving is a LACK of this being in W1? That's a clear contradiction.

That's not what I said.

If I say a there is no boundless being in W1, that would only be a contradiction if a boundless being existed. Because if this being exists, then he would stretch across every possible world. However, if there is no boundless being, then obviously, there is no contradiction in saying there is no boundless being in W1. So you can only say that denying God's existence is contradictory, if you assume God exists already. Which begs the question.

You've apparently missed the point of the argument. If you say there is no boundless being in W1, then you are saying there is no boundless being period. But if you say there is no boundless being, then you aren't even talking about a boundless being in the first place, because you are claiming that it does not necessarily exist in which case it is bounded by something that is not itself. Denying God's existence is contradictory because it amounts to the claim that God is not God (as I defined it).
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 9:57:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 9:55:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:42:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:35:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:30:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:27:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:10:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 3:19:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is just an updated form of Anselm's Ontological Argument.

Let God be defined as a being bound by nothing but itself (I can prove that this corresponds to the O4 God if needed). If we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a being which does not necessarily exist, in which case we are conceiving of a being bound (constrained/limited by) something which is not itself, in which case we are not conceiving of God. Claiming that we cannot conceive of God is contradictory since we must conceive of him in the course of denying that we can (what can't we conceive of?). Thus, we cannot deny the existence of a being bound by nothing but itself. Ergo, God exists.

"If we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a being which does not necessarily exist"

The above is false, if we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a possible world which lacks a boundless being. That doesn't mean we are conceiving a boundless being, who does not necessarily exist. We aren't conceiving of a being at all, we are conceiving the lack of a being in a possible world. The way you word it makes it seem like we are conceiving of a possible world with a boundless being, who is bounded. That is not true.

If there is a possible world which lacks a boundless being, then the being is not boundless insofar as it cannot affect said world.

What BEING?!! This is the point...

You said saying "the being is not boundless in that world", but you are confused, as we are not conceiving of a being in that world, we are conceiving of the LACK of a being. How can you say we are conceiving of a being who is not boundless in W1, when really what we are conceiving is a LACK of this being in W1? That's a clear contradiction.

That's not what I said.

If I say a there is no boundless being in W1, that would only be a contradiction if a boundless being existed. Because if this being exists, then he would stretch across every possible world. However, if there is no boundless being, then obviously, there is no contradiction in saying there is no boundless being in W1. So you can only say that denying God's existence is contradictory, if you assume God exists already. Which begs the question.

You've apparently missed the point of the argument. If you say there is no boundless being in W1, then you are saying there is no boundless being period.

Yes, what's the problem with that?

But if you say there is no boundless being, then you aren't even talking about a boundless being in the first place, because you are claiming that it does not necessarily exist in which case it is bounded by something that is not itself.

You say "in that case "it" is bounded by something that is not itself". But I am not conceiving of "it" I am conceiving of a LACK of "it". Therefore, your argument doesn't apply to someone conceiving of a world that lacks this being.

Denying God's existence is contradictory because it amounts to the claim that God is not God (as I defined it).

False. Read above.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 10:03:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Basically, to talk about a possible world in which a boundless being is bounded, is to talk about a possible world in which there is a boundless being. But the question is whether or not we can conceive of a LACK of this being, not conceive of this being in a way that entails a contradiction.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 8:09:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 9:57:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:55:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:42:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:35:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:30:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:27:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:10:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 3:19:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is just an updated form of Anselm's Ontological Argument.

Let God be defined as a being bound by nothing but itself (I can prove that this corresponds to the O4 God if needed). If we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a being which does not necessarily exist, in which case we are conceiving of a being bound (constrained/limited by) something which is not itself, in which case we are not conceiving of God. Claiming that we cannot conceive of God is contradictory since we must conceive of him in the course of denying that we can (what can't we conceive of?). Thus, we cannot deny the existence of a being bound by nothing but itself. Ergo, God exists.

"If we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a being which does not necessarily exist"

The above is false, if we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a possible world which lacks a boundless being. That doesn't mean we are conceiving a boundless being, who does not necessarily exist. We aren't conceiving of a being at all, we are conceiving the lack of a being in a possible world. The way you word it makes it seem like we are conceiving of a possible world with a boundless being, who is bounded. That is not true.

If there is a possible world which lacks a boundless being, then the being is not boundless insofar as it cannot affect said world.

What BEING?!! This is the point...

You said saying "the being is not boundless in that world", but you are confused, as we are not conceiving of a being in that world, we are conceiving of the LACK of a being. How can you say we are conceiving of a being who is not boundless in W1, when really what we are conceiving is a LACK of this being in W1? That's a clear contradiction.

That's not what I said.

If I say a there is no boundless being in W1, that would only be a contradiction if a boundless being existed. Because if this being exists, then he would stretch across every possible world. However, if there is no boundless being, then obviously, there is no contradiction in saying there is no boundless being in W1. So you can only say that denying God's existence is contradictory, if you assume God exists already. Which begs the question.

You've apparently missed the point of the argument. If you say there is no boundless being in W1, then you are saying there is no boundless being period.

Yes, what's the problem with that?

But if you say there is no boundless being, then you aren't even talking about a boundless being in the first place, because you are claiming that it does not necessarily exist in which case it is bounded by something that is not itself.

You say "in that case "it" is bounded by something that is not itself". But I am not conceiving of "it" I am conceiving of a LACK of "it". Therefore, your argument doesn't apply to someone conceiving of a world that lacks this being.

Implicit in the concept of a boundless being is necessary - not contingent- existence. As soon as you claim that a boundless being doesn't exist, you can't be talking about a truly boundless being, since you are saying that the concept in question is bounded.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 8:14:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 8:09:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:57:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

You say "in that case "it" is bounded by something that is not itself". But I am not conceiving of "it" I am conceiving of a LACK of "it". Therefore, your argument doesn't apply to someone conceiving of a world that lacks this being.

Implicit in the concept of a boundless being is necessary - not contingent- existence. As soon as you claim that a boundless being doesn't exist, you can't be talking about a truly boundless being, since you are saying that the concept in question is bounded.

The most you can say, essentially, is that a bounded being doesn't exist.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 8:21:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 8:09:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:57:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:55:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:42:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:35:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:30:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:27:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:10:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 3:19:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is just an updated form of Anselm's Ontological Argument.

Let God be defined as a being bound by nothing but itself (I can prove that this corresponds to the O4 God if needed). If we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a being which does not necessarily exist, in which case we are conceiving of a being bound (constrained/limited by) something which is not itself, in which case we are not conceiving of God. Claiming that we cannot conceive of God is contradictory since we must conceive of him in the course of denying that we can (what can't we conceive of?). Thus, we cannot deny the existence of a being bound by nothing but itself. Ergo, God exists.

"If we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a being which does not necessarily exist"

The above is false, if we conceive that such a being does not exist, then we are conceiving of a possible world which lacks a boundless being. That doesn't mean we are conceiving a boundless being, who does not necessarily exist. We aren't conceiving of a being at all, we are conceiving the lack of a being in a possible world. The way you word it makes it seem like we are conceiving of a possible world with a boundless being, who is bounded. That is not true.

If there is a possible world which lacks a boundless being, then the being is not boundless insofar as it cannot affect said world.

What BEING?!! This is the point...

You said saying "the being is not boundless in that world", but you are confused, as we are not conceiving of a being in that world, we are conceiving of the LACK of a being. How can you say we are conceiving of a being who is not boundless in W1, when really what we are conceiving is a LACK of this being in W1? That's a clear contradiction.

That's not what I said.

If I say a there is no boundless being in W1, that would only be a contradiction if a boundless being existed. Because if this being exists, then he would stretch across every possible world. However, if there is no boundless being, then obviously, there is no contradiction in saying there is no boundless being in W1. So you can only say that denying God's existence is contradictory, if you assume God exists already. Which begs the question.

You've apparently missed the point of the argument. If you say there is no boundless being in W1, then you are saying there is no boundless being period.

Yes, what's the problem with that?

But if you say there is no boundless being, then you aren't even talking about a boundless being in the first place, because you are claiming that it does not necessarily exist in which case it is bounded by something that is not itself.

You say "in that case "it" is bounded by something that is not itself". But I am not conceiving of "it" I am conceiving of a LACK of "it". Therefore, your argument doesn't apply to someone conceiving of a world that lacks this being.

Implicit in the concept of a boundless being is necessary - not contingent- existence. As soon as you claim that a boundless being doesn't exist, you can't be talking about a truly boundless being, since you are saying that the concept in question is bounded

I can not imagine what might be living under the seas of a methane ocean on titan. I have no experience with liquid methane based lifeforms. But the fact that I can not conceive of them does not necessitate their existence. Existence is on effected by thought forms.