Total Posts:65|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Anselm's model ontological argument.

Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2012 3:57:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I wonder if it is a valid argument. At the present time, I do not believe so, but I am willing to be open-minded on this subject.

Some problems I have heard about it:
>Existence is not a necessary trait of a perfect being.
My thoughts: By definition of perfect being, God must be triomni. Omni-presence means existence in reality and all other worlds, otherwise the definition collapses.

>It can be used to prove Utopia.
My thoughts: No it can't. The ontological argument cannot be used to logically prove the existence of anything that can be expressed as an integer. Utopia cannot be the greatest possible thing due to a utopia unconstrained by logic being greater than it. What I mean: assume you use the Ontological argument to prove that the worlds greatest table must exist, it exists in all possible worlds, but there is something greater than it still, ie. a table that is omnipotent, omnipresent, sentient, and omniscient. And there would still something greater than a triomni table, a triomni table that is not constrained as to being a table, ie. A being that is triomni. God. So I think this rebuttal merely proves God.

>apriori reasoning cannot be used to prove if something exists, only aposteriori.
My thoughts: Ontological arguments usually use an approach called reducio ab absurdum. If all premises are correct, then God must exist, the alternative is a contradiction, which is impossible. Premise 2 is the most controversial and is attacked via rebuttal 1 that I mentioned.

Any thoughts?
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2012 7:34:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm just responding because I feel bad that no one has bothered to. :(
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2012 1:29:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Apriori reasoning is used for all sorts of scientific proofs. Einstein didn't have aposteriori proof of black holes. Many theories, like Newtons, because of their universality and method of reasoning, are synthetic apriori. So I don't agree with your last objection.

I do disagree with the ontological argument though and that is because, as you mentioned, existence should not be considered a trait of perfection. Actually perfection is somewhat subjective. Perfection is something conceived by human beings. We say something is perfect, because that's our way of perceiving reality. It's perfect to us, but if we didn't exist would it still retain that property? We say it's greater to be than not to be but we only say that because our rationale makes it seem so. It's greater according to us, but the laws of logic make no such necessities.
"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)
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2012 1:32:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I prefer Plantinga-style modal ontological arguments myself.

The problem I have with older ontological arguments is that they rely on mental conception (ie, no greater being can be conceived).

NOTE: I do not know what I'm talking about.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2012 4:15:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/16/2012 1:29:14 PM, phantom wrote:
Apriori reasoning is used for all sorts of scientific proofs. Einstein didn't have aposteriori proof of black holes. Many theories, like Newtons, because of their universality and method of reasoning, are synthetic apriori. So I don't agree with your last objection.

I do disagree with the ontological argument though and that is because, as you mentioned, existence should not be considered a trait of perfection. Actually perfection is somewhat subjective. Perfection is something conceived by human beings. We say something is perfect, because that's our way of perceiving reality. It's perfect to us, but if we didn't exist would it still retain that property? We say it's greater to be than not to be but we only say that because our rationale makes it seem so. It's greater according to us, but the laws of logic make no such necessities.

Yes, the objection to perfection being a trait is known as Kant's rebuttal and is currently the standard rebuttal against the model ontological argument. However, I think that it can be rebutted, look at my thoughts under the rebuttal in my first post, that's my rebuttal to it, I'm pretty sure its valid.
P1. God is omnipresent
P2. God must exist in all possible worlds
P3. Reality is a possible world
C: God exists in reality.

I also have some thoughts about your use of the term laws of logic in your last sentence. God is omnipotent, but this omnipotence applies only to that which can be logically conceived. eg, God cannot make a rounded cube, simply because it is not logically possible. God cannot make a rock too heavy for Himself to lift simply because it is not logically possible. However, He is still omnipotent, and this could all be answered by the fact that humans cannot visualise anything like this.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2012 4:22:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/16/2012 1:32:55 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
I prefer Plantinga-style modal ontological arguments myself.

The problem I have with older ontological arguments is that they rely on mental conception (ie, no greater being can be conceived).

NOTE: I do not know what I'm talking about.

Plantiga's ontological argument is an example of many modern day ontological arguments: Way too many premises. Another problem with his is that he assumes God can be expressed as an integer, which means God is not infinite and anything can be equal to God.
P1. There is a possible world W in which there exists a being with maximal greatness.

P2. Maximal greatness entails having maximal excellence in every possible world.

P3. Maximal excellence entails omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection in every possible world.

P4. So in W there exists a being which is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect in every possible world.

P5. So in W the proposition "There is no omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect being" is impossible.

P6. But what is impossible in one possible world is impossible in every possible world.

P7. So the proposition "There is no omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect being" is impossible in the actual world.

C: So there is in the actual world an omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect being.

How can there exist a limit in the universe when we know that a number that approaches infinity exists? One answer to this is that nothing can be greater than God and hence God himself is the definition of this maximum enabling 'maximum' to exist. Otherwise, this ontological argument is a very stable one.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2012 5:46:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/16/2012 4:22:08 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 11/16/2012 1:32:55 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
I prefer Plantinga-style modal ontological arguments myself.

The problem I have with older ontological arguments is that they rely on mental conception (ie, no greater being can be conceived).

NOTE: I do not know what I'm talking about.

Plantiga's ontological argument is an example of many modern day ontological arguments: Way too many premises. Another problem with his is that he assumes God can be expressed as an integer, which means God is not infinite and anything can be equal to God.
P1. There is a possible world W in which there exists a being with maximal greatness.

P2. Maximal greatness entails having maximal excellence in every possible world.

P3. Maximal excellence entails omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection in every possible world.

P4. So in W there exists a being which is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect in every possible world.

P5. So in W the proposition "There is no omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect being" is impossible.

P6. But what is impossible in one possible world is impossible in every possible world.

P7. So the proposition "There is no omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect being" is impossible in the actual world.

C: So there is in the actual world an omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect being.

How can there exist a limit in the universe when we know that a number that approaches infinity exists? One answer to this is that nothing can be greater than God and hence God himself is the definition of this maximum enabling 'maximum' to exist. Otherwise, this ontological argument is a very stable one.

How is there too many premises? That's just a way for the argument to be understood. For example, he could shorten it to what I use:

1. If a maximally great being possibly exists, a maximally great being exists
2. A maximally great being possibly exists
3. Therefore, a maximally great being exists

It's the same concept, just with most of the 'extra' premises condensed into P1. It just takes a bit more explanation.

But I don't understand what you mean by "expressing God as an integer."
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2012 6:32:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/16/2012 4:15:50 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 11/16/2012 1:29:14 PM, phantom wrote:
Apriori reasoning is used for all sorts of scientific proofs. Einstein didn't have aposteriori proof of black holes. Many theories, like Newtons, because of their universality and method of reasoning, are synthetic apriori. So I don't agree with your last objection.

I do disagree with the ontological argument though and that is because, as you mentioned, existence should not be considered a trait of perfection. Actually perfection is somewhat subjective. Perfection is something conceived by human beings. We say something is perfect, because that's our way of perceiving reality. It's perfect to us, but if we didn't exist would it still retain that property? We say it's greater to be than not to be but we only say that because our rationale makes it seem so. It's greater according to us, but the laws of logic make no such necessities.

Yes, the objection to perfection being a trait is known as Kant's rebuttal and is currently the standard rebuttal against the model ontological argument.

Yes, one reason I like Kant.

However, I think that it can be rebutted, look at my thoughts under the rebuttal in my first post, that's my rebuttal to it, I'm pretty sure its valid.
P1. God is omnipresent
P2. God must exist in all possible worlds
P3. Reality is a possible world
C: God exists in reality.

No, it doesn't. Here's why. The original ontological attempts to prove something that is perfect. That perfect being rightly should be considered God. Your argument only attempts to prove something that is omnipresent, which in itself deserves no such name as God. In fact it doesn't prove a being at all, just something that exists in every possible world. Mathematics is as such. So your premise are fallacious. You can't use "God is omnipresent" because nothing in the word "omnipresence" entails God.

I also have some thoughts about your use of the term laws of logic in your last sentence. God is omnipotent, but this omnipotence applies only to that which can be logically conceived. eg, God cannot make a rounded cube, simply because it is not logically possible. God cannot make a rock too heavy for Himself to lift simply because it is not logically possible. However, He is still omnipotent, and this could all be answered by the fact that humans cannot visualise anything like this.

Yes that is the common definition of omnipotence. I'm not sure your point.
"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)
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2012 7:53:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/16/2012 6:32:19 PM, phantom wrote:
At 11/16/2012 4:15:50 PM, Smithereens wrote:
At 11/16/2012 1:29:14 PM, phantom wrote:
Apriori reasoning is used for all sorts of scientific proofs. Einstein didn't have aposteriori proof of black holes. Many theories, like Newtons, because of their universality and method of reasoning, are synthetic apriori. So I don't agree with your last objection.

I do disagree with the ontological argument though and that is because, as you mentioned, existence should not be considered a trait of perfection. Actually perfection is somewhat subjective. Perfection is something conceived by human beings. We say something is perfect, because that's our way of perceiving reality. It's perfect to us, but if we didn't exist would it still retain that property? We say it's greater to be than not to be but we only say that because our rationale makes it seem so. It's greater according to us, but the laws of logic make no such necessities.

Yes, the objection to perfection being a trait is known as Kant's rebuttal and is currently the standard rebuttal against the model ontological argument.

Yes, one reason I like Kant.

However, I think that it can be rebutted, look at my thoughts under the rebuttal in my first post, that's my rebuttal to it, I'm pretty sure its valid.
P1. God is omnipresent
P2. God must exist in all possible worlds
P3. Reality is a possible world
C: God exists in reality.

No, it doesn't. Here's why. The original ontological attempts to prove something that is perfect. That perfect being rightly should be considered God. Your argument only attempts to prove something that is omnipresent, which in itself deserves no such name as God. In fact it doesn't prove a being at all, just something that exists in every possible world. Mathematics is as such. So your premise are fallacious. You can't use "God is omnipresent" because nothing in the word "omnipresence" entails God.

you raise a valid point, however, the aim of the ontological argument is not to prove God, but to prove a being that is perfect, and exist in all possible worlds. The premises I introduced up there was just a mediocre summary of what I meant in my first post, ignore it, I see that its no good.

I also have some thoughts about your use of the term laws of logic in your last sentence. God is omnipotent, but this omnipotence applies only to that which can be logically conceived. eg, God cannot make a rounded cube, simply because it is not logically possible. God cannot make a rock too heavy for Himself to lift simply because it is not logically possible. However, He is still omnipotent, and this could all be answered by the fact that humans cannot visualise anything like this.

Yes that is the common definition of omnipotence. I'm not sure your point.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 1:22:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/16/2012 1:29:14 PM, phantom wrote:
Apriori reasoning is used for all sorts of scientific proofs. Einstein didn't have aposteriori proof of black holes. Many theories, like Newtons, because of their universality and method of reasoning, are synthetic apriori. So I don't agree with your last objection.

I do disagree with the ontological argument though and that is because, as you mentioned, existence should not be considered a trait of perfection. Actually perfection is somewhat subjective. Perfection is something conceived by human beings. We say something is perfect, because that's our way of perceiving reality. It's perfect to us, but if we didn't exist would it still retain that property? We say it's greater to be than not to be but we only say that because our rationale makes it seem so. It's greater according to us, but the laws of logic make no such necessities.

Uhhh what haha
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 1:43:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/17/2012 1:22:05 AM, stubs wrote:
At 11/16/2012 1:29:14 PM, phantom wrote:
Apriori reasoning is used for all sorts of scientific proofs. Einstein didn't have aposteriori proof of black holes. Many theories, like Newtons, because of their universality and method of reasoning, are synthetic apriori. So I don't agree with your last objection.

I do disagree with the ontological argument though and that is because, as you mentioned, existence should not be considered a trait of perfection. Actually perfection is somewhat subjective. Perfection is something conceived by human beings. We say something is perfect, because that's our way of perceiving reality. It's perfect to us, but if we didn't exist would it still retain that property? We say it's greater to be than not to be but we only say that because our rationale makes it seem so. It's greater according to us, but the laws of logic make no such necessities.

Uhhh what haha

In no objective sense of the word.

What's your objection?
"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)
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 1:51:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/17/2012 1:43:26 AM, phantom wrote:
At 11/17/2012 1:22:05 AM, stubs wrote:
At 11/16/2012 1:29:14 PM, phantom wrote:
Apriori reasoning is used for all sorts of scientific proofs. Einstein didn't have aposteriori proof of black holes. Many theories, like Newtons, because of their universality and method of reasoning, are synthetic apriori. So I don't agree with your last objection.

I do disagree with the ontological argument though and that is because, as you mentioned, existence should not be considered a trait of perfection. Actually perfection is somewhat subjective. Perfection is something conceived by human beings. We say something is perfect, because that's our way of perceiving reality. It's perfect to us, but if we didn't exist would it still retain that property? We say it's greater to be than not to be but we only say that because our rationale makes it seem so. It's greater according to us, but the laws of logic make no such necessities.

Uhhh what haha

In no objective sense of the word.

What's your objection?

Something that is perfect cannot be perfect if it doesn't exist. Existence in all possible worlds entails maximum perfection.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 1:56:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/17/2012 1:51:38 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 11/17/2012 1:43:26 AM, phantom wrote:
At 11/17/2012 1:22:05 AM, stubs wrote:
At 11/16/2012 1:29:14 PM, phantom wrote:
Apriori reasoning is used for all sorts of scientific proofs. Einstein didn't have aposteriori proof of black holes. Many theories, like Newtons, because of their universality and method of reasoning, are synthetic apriori. So I don't agree with your last objection.

I do disagree with the ontological argument though and that is because, as you mentioned, existence should not be considered a trait of perfection. Actually perfection is somewhat subjective. Perfection is something conceived by human beings. We say something is perfect, because that's our way of perceiving reality. It's perfect to us, but if we didn't exist would it still retain that property? We say it's greater to be than not to be but we only say that because our rationale makes it seem so. It's greater according to us, but the laws of logic make no such necessities.

Uhhh what haha

In no objective sense of the word.

What's your objection?

Something that is perfect cannot be perfect if it doesn't exist. Existence in all possible worlds entails maximum perfection.

That doesn't provide any objective standards for existence being a trait of perfection.
"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)
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 3:09:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/17/2012 1:56:56 AM, phantom wrote:
At 11/17/2012 1:51:38 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 11/17/2012 1:43:26 AM, phantom wrote:
At 11/17/2012 1:22:05 AM, stubs wrote:
At 11/16/2012 1:29:14 PM, phantom wrote:
Apriori reasoning is used for all sorts of scientific proofs. Einstein didn't have aposteriori proof of black holes. Many theories, like Newtons, because of their universality and method of reasoning, are synthetic apriori. So I don't agree with your last objection.

I do disagree with the ontological argument though and that is because, as you mentioned, existence should not be considered a trait of perfection. Actually perfection is somewhat subjective. Perfection is something conceived by human beings. We say something is perfect, because that's our way of perceiving reality. It's perfect to us, but if we didn't exist would it still retain that property? We say it's greater to be than not to be but we only say that because our rationale makes it seem so. It's greater according to us, but the laws of logic make no such necessities.

Uhhh what haha

In no objective sense of the word.

What's your objection?

Something that is perfect cannot be perfect if it doesn't exist. Existence in all possible worlds entails maximum perfection.

That doesn't provide any objective standards for existence being a trait of perfection.

Perfect = most possible, highest possible etc...

God = existence in all possible worlds (necessary existence) A necessary God is more perfect than a possible God, who doesn't exist in as many worlds as God. yet perfection can't really be applied to infinity. So it must be that everything in the universe is finite, meaning that God by definition of perfection has the greatest possible integer of anything that can be attributed to God. Existence included.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 11:55:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/17/2012 1:43:26 AM, phantom wrote:
At 11/17/2012 1:22:05 AM, stubs wrote:
At 11/16/2012 1:29:14 PM, phantom wrote:
Apriori reasoning is used for all sorts of scientific proofs. Einstein didn't have aposteriori proof of black holes. Many theories, like Newtons, because of their universality and method of reasoning, are synthetic apriori. So I don't agree with your last objection.

I do disagree with the ontological argument though and that is because, as you mentioned, existence should not be considered a trait of perfection. Actually perfection is somewhat subjective. Perfection is something conceived by human beings. We say something is perfect, because that's our way of perceiving reality. It's perfect to us, but if we didn't exist would it still retain that property? We say it's greater to be than not to be but we only say that because our rationale makes it seem so. It's greater according to us, but the laws of logic make no such necessities.

Uhhh what haha

In no objective sense of the word.

What's your objection?

Yeah the other dude pretty much said what I would have. Dawkins tried to make the opportunity that it's greater to create and not exist than to create and exist. That, however, is simply a contradiction. Being metaphysically necessary, which entails existing in every possible world, is a maximally excellent quality which a maximally great being would have.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 1:34:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/17/2012 3:09:32 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 11/17/2012 1:56:56 AM, phantom wrote:
At 11/17/2012 1:51:38 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 11/17/2012 1:43:26 AM, phantom wrote:
At 11/17/2012 1:22:05 AM, stubs wrote:
At 11/16/2012 1:29:14 PM, phantom wrote:
Apriori reasoning is used for all sorts of scientific proofs. Einstein didn't have aposteriori proof of black holes. Many theories, like Newtons, because of their universality and method of reasoning, are synthetic apriori. So I don't agree with your last objection.

I do disagree with the ontological argument though and that is because, as you mentioned, existence should not be considered a trait of perfection. Actually perfection is somewhat subjective. Perfection is something conceived by human beings. We say something is perfect, because that's our way of perceiving reality. It's perfect to us, but if we didn't exist would it still retain that property? We say it's greater to be than not to be but we only say that because our rationale makes it seem so. It's greater according to us, but the laws of logic make no such necessities.

Uhhh what haha

In no objective sense of the word.

What's your objection?

Something that is perfect cannot be perfect if it doesn't exist. Existence in all possible worlds entails maximum perfection.

That doesn't provide any objective standards for existence being a trait of perfection.

Perfect = most possible, highest possible etc...

God = existence in all possible worlds (necessary existence) A necessary God is more perfect than a possible God, who doesn't exist in as many worlds as God. yet perfection can't really be applied to infinity. So it must be that everything in the universe is finite, meaning that God by definition of perfection has the greatest possible integer of anything that can be attributed to God. Existence included.

I thought I addressed this in initial post. We might think of it as perfect and you could argue all day long for that and perhaps prove so in a sense but you've still only proven it from a subjective or inter-subjective standpoint. That is because humans have all these concepts of good, better and perfect, but none of them stray farther than just our conception of reality. Our brains work in such a way that too us, some things would be absolutely perfect but the fact that it's just "too us" makes it none objective. The laws of logic entail no such forms of better except in relation to our conceptions. I do like the ontological argument. When we define a maximally great being it does seem like we should include the property of existing in all possible worlds. But that's just the human opinion of perfection. The physical laws of the universe, independent of sentient creatures, do not necessitate a God existing in all possible worlds. It only seems to do so when it is in relation to our conceptions.
"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)
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 6:59:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 1:34:16 PM, phantom wrote:
I thought I addressed this in initial post. We might think of it as perfect and you could argue all day long for that and perhaps prove so in a sense but you've still only proven it from a subjective or inter-subjective standpoint. That is because humans have all these concepts of good, better and perfect, but none of them stray farther than just our conception of reality. Our brains work in such a way that too us, some things would be absolutely perfect but the fact that it's just "too us" makes it none objective. The laws of logic entail no such forms of better except in relation to our conceptions. I do like the ontological argument. When we define a maximally great being it does seem like we should include the property of existing in all possible worlds. But that's just the human opinion of perfection. The physical laws of the universe, independent of sentient creatures, do not necessitate a God existing in all possible worlds. It only seems to do so when it is in relation to our conceptions.

Yeah I see what you are saying. It would come down to a debate of are the great making properties subjective or objective.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 9:49:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
1. One can imagine a being than which none greater can be conceived.
2. We know that existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind alone.
3. If the being we imagine exists only in our mind, then it is not a "being than which none greater can be conceived".

4. A being than which none greater can be conceived must also exist in reality.
5. Failure to exist in reality would be failure to be a being than which none greater can be conceived.
6. Thus a being than which none greater can be conceived must exist, and we call this being God.

Arguments two and three make no sense. How do we know existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind? How can we know anything, without using our minds? Can we know something exists, apart from using our minds?

Secondly, for clarity, I will paraphrase argument three: If the being we have conceived only exists, in our minds, then it's not the greatest of conceived beings.

Where can our conception exist other than our minds? Can we conceive of it, outside of our minds? If so, demonstrate how it is you can conceive of anything, without using your mind.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 10:43:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Congrats people, you have just discovered why proofs of god's existence never lead anywhere. You guys could back and forth for hours and still never convince each other. Logical proofs have never succeeded and, chances are, they never will. By attempting to prove the existence of god using logical methods, you have assumed that things are in fact logical, so prove things are logical before you prove god through logic. Prove logic is an absolute.

Also, if God exists in all possible worlds you limit god to those worlds which are possible, what about those which are impossible? Why can't such a being exist in an impossible world? If by definition, God is limitless, how can you place such a limit on god and limit he/she/it to the realm of possibility? And this my dear friends is the result of sleep deprivation :D
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 11:06:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 10:43:22 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
Also, if God exists in all possible worlds you limit god to those worlds which are possible, what about those which are impossible? Why can't such a being exist in an impossible world? If by definition, God is limitless, how can you place such a limit on god and limit he/she/it to the realm of possibility? And this my dear friends is the result of sleep deprivation :D

Only that which is possible exists. Something that is impossible, by definition, does not exist. Saying why is it that which is impossible is not possible is using contradictory terms. It's like saying why is it that nothing is not something.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 11:19:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 10:43:22 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
Congrats people, you have just discovered why proofs of god's existence never lead anywhere. You guys could back and forth for hours and still never convince each other. Logical proofs have never succeeded and, chances are, they never will. By attempting to prove the existence of god using logical methods, you have assumed that things are in fact logical, so prove things are logical before you prove god through logic. Prove logic is an absolute.

You sound like a metaphysically, nihilistic, religious, fideist.

The fact that we can't prove logic isn't absolute doesn't matter a whole lot to me. I strongly believe it leads to philosophical skepticism but I don't think we need to take it to unnecessary lengths. You can't prove or disprove it but it's one or the other. We have both rationale and intuition. Using our rational minds to prove logic leads to fallacies because you are assuming what you are proving in your proving of it. It's like saying x is true and my backing of x being true stems from x. But disproving it also leads to fallacies because you're assuming what you're disproving in disproving it. So it's like saying x is not true and using x to prove it's untrue at the same time. Our intuitions however highly seem to suggest it is absolute whereas it intuitively seems false to conceive of it as incorrect. That's not much but it just highlights the fact that there isn't really anything leading to the side that it's not absolute whereas there is to the position that it's absolute.

So taking the true dichotomy that it is either true or false, it is most likely true even if we can't prove it.

Also we can just apply pragmatic means to it I believe. We operate under the assumption that logic is absolute and there's not much reason not to, except when it's under debate or relevant in a debate. If it's not absolute than nothing makes sense. If it is though, our lives are a bit more meaningful. There's really no reason to assume it's not absolute in debating issues. If it isn't, than so what? Besides, the epistemological infinite regress problem entails much more need of proofs than what you're saying. Every fact requires an explanation correct? Every argument needs something to back it up. Following those premises leads us to an infinite regress of premises that need to be proven. Even if we did somehow manage to prove logic was absolute, we'd also need to make an argument for each premise used to support the conclusion that it was so, and an argument for that argument too and so on. There's really no reason to say well I can't justify all my presuppositions so I'm just going to become a full-out epistemological nihilist and sit around as an agnostic to everything. We argue under unproven assumptions but that's okay because they are far out of our realm of knowledge. I am a huge skeptic but I think people over-estimate the negative impact it has on philosophy.


Also, if God exists in all possible worlds you limit god to those worlds which are possible, what about those which are impossible? Why can't such a being exist in an impossible world? If by definition, God is limitless, how can you place such a limit on god and limit he/she/it to the realm of possibility? And this my dear friends is the result of sleep deprivation :D

Because something cannot exist in impossible worlds. It's the greatest being that can be conceived. That entails some limits.
"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)
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2012 12:18:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 1:34:16 PM, phantom wrote:
At 11/17/2012 3:09:32 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 11/17/2012 1:56:56 AM, phantom wrote:
At 11/17/2012 1:51:38 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 11/17/2012 1:43:26 AM, phantom wrote:
At 11/17/2012 1:22:05 AM, stubs wrote:
At 11/16/2012 1:29:14 PM, phantom wrote:
Apriori reasoning is used for all sorts of scientific proofs. Einstein didn't have aposteriori proof of black holes. Many theories, like Newtons, because of their universality and method of reasoning, are synthetic apriori. So I don't agree with your last objection.

I do disagree with the ontological argument though and that is because, as you mentioned, existence should not be considered a trait of perfection. Actually perfection is somewhat subjective. Perfection is something conceived by human beings. We say something is perfect, because that's our way of perceiving reality. It's perfect to us, but if we didn't exist would it still retain that property? We say it's greater to be than not to be but we only say that because our rationale makes it seem so. It's greater according to us, but the laws of logic make no such necessities.

Uhhh what haha

In no objective sense of the word.

What's your objection?

Something that is perfect cannot be perfect if it doesn't exist. Existence in all possible worlds entails maximum perfection.

That doesn't provide any objective standards for existence being a trait of perfection.

Perfect = most possible, highest possible etc...

God = existence in all possible worlds (necessary existence) A necessary God is more perfect than a possible God, who doesn't exist in as many worlds as God. yet perfection can't really be applied to infinity. So it must be that everything in the universe is finite, meaning that God by definition of perfection has the greatest possible integer of anything that can be attributed to God. Existence included.

I thought I addressed this in initial post. We might think of it as perfect and you could argue all day long for that and perhaps prove so in a sense but you've still only proven it from a subjective or inter-subjective standpoint. That is because humans have all these concepts of good, better and perfect, but none of them stray farther than just our conception of reality. Our brains work in such a way that too us, some things would be absolutely perfect but the fact that it's just "too us" makes it none objective. The laws of logic entail no such forms of better except in relation to our conceptions. I do like the ontological argument. When we define a maximally great being it does seem like we should include the property of existing in all possible worlds. But that's just the human opinion of perfection. The physical laws of the universe, independent of sentient creatures, do not necessitate a God existing in all possible worlds. It only seems to do so when it is in relation to our conceptions.

I see what you mean
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2012 12:19:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 9:49:49 PM, s-anthony wrote:
1. One can imagine a being than which none greater can be conceived.
2. We know that existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind alone.
3. If the being we imagine exists only in our mind, then it is not a "being than which none greater can be conceived".

4. A being than which none greater can be conceived must also exist in reality.
5. Failure to exist in reality would be failure to be a being than which none greater can be conceived.
6. Thus a being than which none greater can be conceived must exist, and we call this being God.

Arguments two and three make no sense. How do we know existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind? How can we know anything, without using our minds? Can we know something exists, apart from using our minds?

Secondly, for clarity, I will paraphrase argument three: If the being we have conceived only exists, in our minds, then it's not the greatest of conceived beings.

Where can our conception exist other than our minds? Can we conceive of it, outside of our minds? If so, demonstrate how it is you can conceive of anything, without using your mind.

Tut tut, dualism. There is no such thing as existence in mind. The brain is merely a bunch of neural synapses firing electronic signals, its as real as reality, but not a world of its own.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2012 12:22:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 10:43:22 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
Congrats people, you have just discovered why proofs of god's existence never lead anywhere. You guys could back and forth for hours and still never convince each other. Logical proofs have never succeeded and, chances are, they never will. By attempting to prove the existence of god using logical methods, you have assumed that things are in fact logical, so prove things are logical before you prove god through logic. Prove logic is an absolute.

Also, if God exists in all possible worlds you limit god to those worlds which are possible, what about those which are impossible? Why can't such a being exist in an impossible world? If by definition, God is limitless, how can you place such a limit on god and limit he/she/it to the realm of possibility? And this my dear friends is the result of sleep deprivation :D

Reality has no contradictions in it.
Reality is a possible world.
No possible world has contradictions in it
God must exist in all worlds where contradictions cannot occur.

But before you say that God can exist in impossible worlds, first we must know if impossible worlds can exist. By definition of impossible, no it can't. So there exists no impossible world. All worlds are possible worlds, all possible worlds cannot have contradictions in them. if you argue that an impossible world exist, then it becomes possible.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2012 12:26:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I thought I addressed this in initial post. We might think of it as perfect and you could argue all day long for that and perhaps prove so in a sense but you've still only proven it from a subjective or inter-subjective standpoint. That is because humans have all these concepts of good, better and perfect, but none of them stray farther than just our conception of reality. Our brains work in such a way that too us, some things would be absolutely perfect but the fact that it's just "too us" makes it none objective. The laws of logic entail no such forms of better except in relation to our conceptions. I do like the ontological argument. When we define a maximally great being it does seem like we should include the property of existing in all possible worlds. But that's just the human opinion of perfection. The physical laws of the universe, independent of sentient creatures, do not necessitate a God existing in all possible worlds. It only seems to do so when it is in relation to our conceptions.

Perfect I guess is just something we attribute to God, but that doesn't make it wrong. If we cannot comprehend perfectness, then that is an arguement in Gods favour. But lets not think of it via single words, whenever one of us says perfect, just mentally replace it with 'greatest possible being' or something along those lines and then we can skip past this abstract meta-reasoning.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2012 9:32:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/19/2012 12:19:54 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Tut tut, dualism. There is no such thing as existence in mind. The brain is merely a bunch of neural synapses firing electronic signals, its as real as reality, but not a world of its own.

Again, how are you made aware of anything, without using your mind?

The brain is real but nothing exists inside of it? So, I guess that would mean it's empty. How can you conceive of nothing? What does nothing look like? Is it tall or short? What color is it? Even if the brain is nothing more than a bunch of neural synapses, it's still real and has existence; and, the neural firings producing ideation are real, also, so are the ideas our brains produce. All of these things exist or they would not exist, and if they do not exist, then, they are nothing; and, being nothing, we would have nothing about which to talk.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 12:46:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/19/2012 9:32:48 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/19/2012 12:19:54 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Tut tut, dualism. There is no such thing as existence in mind. The brain is merely a bunch of neural synapses firing electronic signals, its as real as reality, but not a world of its own.

Again, how are you made aware of anything, without using your mind?

The brain is real but nothing exists inside of it? So, I guess that would mean it's empty. How can you conceive of nothing? What does nothing look like? Is it tall or short? What color is it? Even if the brain is nothing more than a bunch of neural synapses, it's still real and has existence; and, the neural firings producing ideation are real, also, so are the ideas our brains produce. All of these things exist or they would not exist, and if they do not exist, then, they are nothing; and, being nothing, we would have nothing about which to talk.

What I was saying that while the brain is real, any consciousness inside does not constitute as a world separate to reality. Some people believe that a world visulised in the brain is an actual world which is what I argue against. Whatever you conceive of is still in reality, you can conceive of things that don't exist, but you cannot conceive something that cannot exist, like a rounded cube or something that cannot be conceived, like God.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 9:24:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 12:46:39 AM, Smithereens wrote:
What I was saying that while the brain is real, any consciousness inside does not constitute as a world separate to reality. Some people believe that a world visulised in the brain is an actual world which is what I argue against. Whatever you conceive of is still in reality, you can conceive of things that don't exist, but you cannot conceive something that cannot exist, like a rounded cube or something that cannot be conceived, like God.

How is it consciousness is not separated from reality, yet it's not actual? If being one with reality, it must be real; and, being real, it must possess the property of actuality.

That which doesn't exist, by definition, is nothing. What properties does nothing have?
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2012 1:43:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 9:24:52 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/20/2012 12:46:39 AM, Smithereens wrote:
What I was saying that while the brain is real, any consciousness inside does not constitute as a world separate to reality. Some people believe that a world visulised in the brain is an actual world which is what I argue against. Whatever you conceive of is still in reality, you can conceive of things that don't exist, but you cannot conceive something that cannot exist, like a rounded cube or something that cannot be conceived, like God.

How is it consciousness is not separated from reality, yet it's not actual? If being one with reality, it must be real; and, being real, it must possess the property of actuality.

That which doesn't exist, by definition, is nothing. What properties does nothing have?

Perception and reality are different things, what we think up is a world in reality that is not an actual world, it is perception. It might as well be a bucket of milk, it has nothing at all to do with the real world. Your second statement is fallacious, you cannot say that 'nothing' is something and that it is an entity with properties, it is an absence of properties.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2012 11:09:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/21/2012 1:43:24 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Perception and reality are different things, what we think up is a world in reality that is not an actual world, it is perception. It might as well be a bucket of milk, it has nothing at all to do with the real world. Your second statement is fallacious, you cannot say that 'nothing' is something and that it is an entity with properties, it is an absence of properties.

That which we think of is real, yet is not real?