Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Ontological Argument.

MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2013 2:33:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hey, guys!

Recently I've been discussing ontology and the ontological arguments for the existence of a god with Smithereens (a competent debater, by the way). After some discussing, I got this version out:

1) God is that which nothing greater is possible, i.e. the greatest possible being.
2) It is at least possible for God to exist in reality. That is, whether or not God actually exists in the real world, He at least exists in some possible set of circumstances. So, God might have existed in the real world.
3) If something exists only in the mind but is possible, then that something might have been greater than it is. For example, a majestic mountain that exists only in the mind might have been greater: the mountain existing in reality.
4) Suppose God exists only in the mind and not in reality.
5) Then there is a possible being that is greater, namely God existing in reality.
6) So it is possible for something to have been greater than God.
7) Since God is that which nothing greater is possible, then it is possible for something to be greater than that which nothing greater is possible.
C: Premise 7 is not possible and therefore its negation is true, God exists.


I was trying to argue how premise four is wrong, and Smithereens agreed. However, we agreed for different reasons. I apparently had some kind of mind block and couldn't get my point across. But now it's clicked, so I'll do it now:

Smithereens agreed with me that premise four is false (that's the point) because God must exist in both reality and the mind. I was trying to say how it commits a fallacy of equivocation. Nothing exists in the understanding. Concepts of things do. That was my point.

In any case, I leave the floor open to people better suited to this area. Feel free to discuss. Allez!

Kind regards,
J
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2013 2:40:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/23/2013 2:33:39 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
Hey, guys!

Recently I've been discussing ontology and the ontological arguments for the existence of a god with Smithereens (a competent debater, by the way). After some discussing, I got this version out:

1) God is that which nothing greater is possible, i.e. the greatest possible being.
2) It is at least possible for God to exist in reality. That is, whether or not God actually exists in the real world, He at least exists in some possible set of circumstances. So, God might have existed in the real world.
3) If something exists only in the mind but is possible, then that something might have been greater than it is. For example, a majestic mountain that exists only in the mind might have been greater: the mountain existing in reality.
4) Suppose God exists only in the mind and not in reality.
5) Then there is a possible being that is greater, namely God existing in reality.
6) So it is possible for something to have been greater than God.
7) Since God is that which nothing greater is possible, then it is possible for something to be greater than that which nothing greater is possible.
C: Premise 7 is not possible and therefore its negation is true, God exists.


I was trying to argue how premise four is wrong, and Smithereens agreed. However, we agreed for different reasons. I apparently had some kind of mind block and couldn't get my point across. But now it's clicked, so I'll do it now:

Smithereens agreed with me that premise four is false (that's the point) because God must exist in both reality and the mind. I was trying to say how it commits a fallacy of equivocation. Nothing exists in the understanding. Concepts of things do. That was my point.

In any case, I leave the floor open to people better suited to this area. Feel free to discuss. Allez!

Kind regards,
J

Amos 8
11: "Behold, the days are coming," says the Lord GOD, "when I will send a famine on the land; not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD.
12: They shall wander from sea to sea, and from north to east; they shall run to and fro, to seek the word of the LORD, but they shall not find it.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2013 2:40:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/23/2013 2:40:03 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 10/23/2013 2:33:39 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
Hey, guys!

Recently I've been discussing ontology and the ontological arguments for the existence of a god with Smithereens (a competent debater, by the way). After some discussing, I got this version out:

1) God is that which nothing greater is possible, i.e. the greatest possible being.
2) It is at least possible for God to exist in reality. That is, whether or not God actually exists in the real world, He at least exists in some possible set of circumstances. So, God might have existed in the real world.
3) If something exists only in the mind but is possible, then that something might have been greater than it is. For example, a majestic mountain that exists only in the mind might have been greater: the mountain existing in reality.
4) Suppose God exists only in the mind and not in reality.
5) Then there is a possible being that is greater, namely God existing in reality.
6) So it is possible for something to have been greater than God.
7) Since God is that which nothing greater is possible, then it is possible for something to be greater than that which nothing greater is possible.
C: Premise 7 is not possible and therefore its negation is true, God exists.


I was trying to argue how premise four is wrong, and Smithereens agreed. However, we agreed for different reasons. I apparently had some kind of mind block and couldn't get my point across. But now it's clicked, so I'll do it now:

Smithereens agreed with me that premise four is false (that's the point) because God must exist in both reality and the mind. I was trying to say how it commits a fallacy of equivocation. Nothing exists in the understanding. Concepts of things do. That was my point.

In any case, I leave the floor open to people better suited to this area. Feel free to discuss. Allez!

Kind regards,
J

Amos 8
11: "Behold, the days are coming," says the Lord GOD, "when I will send a famine on the land; not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD.
12: They shall wander from sea to sea, and from north to east; they shall run to and fro, to seek the word of the LORD, but they shall not find it.

That's nice, I guess...?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2013 3:05:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The argument fails, because we can say that it is possible that there no omnipotence exists in the actual world. We can also say its possible that all sentient creatures are physically realized, or that it is possible that there exists gratuitous evil. All of these possibilities make God impossible, because if God existed, he would have to exist, and exist in every possible world. Thus, there would be omnipotence in the actual world, he wouldn't be contingent upon a physical brain, and there would be no gratuitous suffering (the greatest being would be benevolent). We would basically have a stalemate between God being possible, and those things mentioned that would make God impossible. A stalemate doesn't show God exists though, only a win would do that. Thus, the ontological argument fails to establish God exists.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2013 3:52:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/23/2013 2:40:36 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 10/23/2013 2:40:03 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 10/23/2013 2:33:39 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
Hey, guys!

Recently I've been discussing ontology and the ontological arguments for the existence of a god with Smithereens (a competent debater, by the way). After some discussing, I got this version out:

1) God is that which nothing greater is possible, i.e. the greatest possible being.
2) It is at least possible for God to exist in reality. That is, whether or not God actually exists in the real world, He at least exists in some possible set of circumstances. So, God might have existed in the real world.
3) If something exists only in the mind but is possible, then that something might have been greater than it is. For example, a majestic mountain that exists only in the mind might have been greater: the mountain existing in reality.
4) Suppose God exists only in the mind and not in reality.
5) Then there is a possible being that is greater, namely God existing in reality.
6) So it is possible for something to have been greater than God.
7) Since God is that which nothing greater is possible, then it is possible for something to be greater than that which nothing greater is possible.
C: Premise 7 is not possible and therefore its negation is true, God exists.


I was trying to argue how premise four is wrong, and Smithereens agreed. However, we agreed for different reasons. I apparently had some kind of mind block and couldn't get my point across. But now it's clicked, so I'll do it now:

Smithereens agreed with me that premise four is false (that's the point) because God must exist in both reality and the mind. I was trying to say how it commits a fallacy of equivocation. Nothing exists in the understanding. Concepts of things do. That was my point.

In any case, I leave the floor open to people better suited to this area. Feel free to discuss. Allez!

Kind regards,
J

Amos 8
11: "Behold, the days are coming," says the Lord GOD, "when I will send a famine on the land; not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD.
12: They shall wander from sea to sea, and from north to east; they shall run to and fro, to seek the word of the LORD, but they shall not find it.

That's nice, I guess...?

Instead, God finds His believers through the gospel that's preached by His saints.

II Thesalonians 2:
13: But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.
14: To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I'm not talking about Christians who have no idea who God is. Believers can be of any race, religion or culture. Saints are chosen to be God's voice so whoever listens to us preach the gospel, is called a believer who believes what we say.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2013 4:25:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/23/2013 2:33:39 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
Hey, guys!

Recently I've been discussing ontology and the ontological arguments for the existence of a god with Smithereens (a competent debater, by the way). After some discussing, I got this version out:

1) God is that which nothing greater is possible, i.e. the greatest possible being.
2) It is at least possible for God to exist in reality. That is, whether or not God actually exists in the real world, He at least exists in some possible set of circumstances. So, God might have existed in the real world.
3) If something exists only in the mind but is possible, then that something might have been greater than it is. For example, a majestic mountain that exists only in the mind might have been greater: the mountain existing in reality.

As a corallary, if something exists only in reality, then it might have been greater than it is (by also existing in the mind), thus another conclusion is that god must exist in all minds. It doesn't, ergo, the ontological argument fails.

4) Suppose God exists only in the mind and not in reality.
5) Then there is a possible being that is greater, namely God existing in reality.
6) So it is possible for something to have been greater than God.
7) Since God is that which nothing greater is possible, then it is possible for something to be greater than that which nothing greater is possible.
C: Premise 7 is not possible and therefore its negation is true, God exists.


I was trying to argue how premise four is wrong, and Smithereens agreed. However, we agreed for different reasons. I apparently had some kind of mind block and couldn't get my point across. But now it's clicked, so I'll do it now:

Smithereens agreed with me that premise four is false (that's the point) because God must exist in both reality and the mind. I was trying to say how it commits a fallacy of equivocation. Nothing exists in the understanding. Concepts of things do. That was my point.

In any case, I leave the floor open to people better suited to this area. Feel free to discuss. Allez!

Kind regards,
J
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2013 4:28:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/23/2013 2:40:36 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 10/23/2013 2:40:03 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 10/23/2013 2:33:39 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
Hey, guys!

Recently I've been discussing ontology and the ontological arguments for the existence of a god with Smithereens (a competent debater, by the way). After some discussing, I got this version out:

1) God is that which nothing greater is possible, i.e. the greatest possible being.
2) It is at least possible for God to exist in reality. That is, whether or not God actually exists in the real world, He at least exists in some possible set of circumstances. So, God might have existed in the real world.
3) If something exists only in the mind but is possible, then that something might have been greater than it is. For example, a majestic mountain that exists only in the mind might have been greater: the mountain existing in reality.
4) Suppose God exists only in the mind and not in reality.
5) Then there is a possible being that is greater, namely God existing in reality.
6) So it is possible for something to have been greater than God.
7) Since God is that which nothing greater is possible, then it is possible for something to be greater than that which nothing greater is possible.
C: Premise 7 is not possible and therefore its negation is true, God exists.


I was trying to argue how premise four is wrong, and Smithereens agreed. However, we agreed for different reasons. I apparently had some kind of mind block and couldn't get my point across. But now it's clicked, so I'll do it now:

Smithereens agreed with me that premise four is false (that's the point) because God must exist in both reality and the mind. I was trying to say how it commits a fallacy of equivocation. Nothing exists in the understanding. Concepts of things do. That was my point.

In any case, I leave the floor open to people better suited to this area. Feel free to discuss. Allez!

Kind regards,
J

Amos 8
11: "Behold, the days are coming," says the Lord GOD, "when I will send a famine on the land; not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD.
12: They shall wander from sea to sea, and from north to east; they shall run to and fro, to seek the word of the LORD, but they shall not find it.

That's nice, I guess...?

Its his regular irrelevant posts.
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2013 4:30:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's weird, I used to think the Ontological Argument was a tough cookie to crack, but it's actually one of the worst theistic arguments once you take the time to critically examine it.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2013 4:55:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/23/2013 2:33:39 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
Hey, guys!

Recently I've been discussing ontology and the ontological arguments for the existence of a god with Smithereens (a competent debater, by the way). After some discussing, I got this version out:

1) God is that which nothing greater is possible, i.e. the greatest possible being.
2) It is at least possible for God to exist in reality. That is, whether or not God actually exists in the real world, He at least exists in some possible set of circumstances. So, God might have existed in the real world.
3) If something exists only in the mind but is possible, then that something might have been greater than it is. For example, a majestic mountain that exists only in the mind might have been greater: the mountain existing in reality.
4) Suppose God exists only in the mind and not in reality.
5) Then there is a possible being that is greater, namely God existing in reality.
6) So it is possible for something to have been greater than God.
7) Since God is that which nothing greater is possible, then it is possible for something to be greater than that which nothing greater is possible.
C: Premise 7 is not possible and therefore its negation is true, God exists.


I was trying to argue how premise four is wrong, and Smithereens agreed. However, we agreed for different reasons. I apparently had some kind of mind block and couldn't get my point across. But now it's clicked, so I'll do it now:

Smithereens agreed with me that premise four is false (that's the point) because God must exist in both reality and the mind. I was trying to say how it commits a fallacy of equivocation. Nothing exists in the understanding. Concepts of things do. That was my point.

In any case, I leave the floor open to people better suited to this area. Feel free to discuss. Allez!

Kind regards,
J

I read about that rebuttal recently in the book "arguing for atheism". It makes sense, painters don't paint trees, they paint pictures OF trees. God doesn't exist in the mind, he's a concept in the mind.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2013 7:35:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
X is the greatest thing possible..........

It is greater to actually exist than to not

Therefore X actually exists

As I recall the trick here is to make the distinction between what is possible and conceptual and what is actual.

Just because we can conceive of something (exists in the mind) doesn't mean it actually exists. (exists outside the mind)

Just because we can come up with the concept of "X" even if that concept includes it being the greatest/existing in all possible worlds doesn't mean it ACTUALLY exists in all possible worlds.

There is a gap here between what is conceived and what is actual that I don't think that can be jumped. And no just inserting into that concept another conception about existing in all possible worlds and/or being the greatest doesn't justify that jump.

Say would you like to hear about the greatest possible...................unicorn.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 6:32:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's just as much bobbins as all the other famous arguments for god. It's demonstrably wrong (the best possible island would not only exist but I would already be on it, for examples) but also self-defeating; the best possible argument against god is better if it does exist and is true than if it doesn't and isn't. It is also completely ignoring the fact that 'best' is a relative term and the criteria for what makes something 'best' depend on what metric you're using. Likewise 'possible'; the best possible something assumes that 1) god is possible, 2) something that is possible must exist and 3) that existence is a function of value rather than a necessary property required before anything can have value. The best of all possible devils would not exist and non-existence would here be considered a pro rather than a con.