Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Maydole's Argument From Perfection

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2013 12:39:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A1. If a property is a perfection, its negation is not a perfection.
A2. Being a necessary condition is a perfection.
A3. Being supreme is a perfection.

---

P1. If it is not possible that a Supreme Being exists, then everything has the property of not being supreme.

P2. If everything has the property of not being supreme, then not being supreme is a necessary condition.

P3. If not being supreme is a necessary condition, then not being supreme is a perfection. (From A2)

P4. Not being supreme is not a perfection. (From A1 and A3)

P5. Therefore, a Supreme Being is possible.

---

Does the argument show a maximally great being is possible? Which premises do you find fishy? Discuss....
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2013 3:33:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/19/2013 12:39:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
A1. If a property is a perfection, its negation is not a perfection.
A2. Being a necessary condition is a perfection.
A3. Being supreme is a perfection.

---

P1. If it is not possible that a Supreme Being exists, then everything has the property of not being supreme.

P2. If everything has the property of not being supreme, then not being supreme is a necessary condition.

P3. If not being supreme is a necessary condition, then not being supreme is a perfection. (From A2)

P4. Not being supreme is not a perfection. (From A1 and A3)

P5. Therefore, a Supreme Being is possible.

---

Does the argument show a maximally great being is possible? Which premises do you find fishy? Discuss....

The flesh of man loves to entertain itself.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2013 3:34:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/19/2013 3:33:06 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/19/2013 12:39:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
A1. If a property is a perfection, its negation is not a perfection.
A2. Being a necessary condition is a perfection.
A3. Being supreme is a perfection.

---

P1. If it is not possible that a Supreme Being exists, then everything has the property of not being supreme.

P2. If everything has the property of not being supreme, then not being supreme is a necessary condition.

P3. If not being supreme is a necessary condition, then not being supreme is a perfection. (From A2)

P4. Not being supreme is not a perfection. (From A1 and A3)

P5. Therefore, a Supreme Being is possible.

---

Does the argument show a maximally great being is possible? Which premises do you find fishy? Discuss....

The flesh of man loves to entertain itself.

You never have anything of interest to contribute... Please, leave my threads alone.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2013 3:40:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/19/2013 3:34:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/19/2013 3:33:06 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/19/2013 12:39:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
A1. If a property is a perfection, its negation is not a perfection.
A2. Being a necessary condition is a perfection.
A3. Being supreme is a perfection.

---

P1. If it is not possible that a Supreme Being exists, then everything has the property of not being supreme.

P2. If everything has the property of not being supreme, then not being supreme is a necessary condition.

P3. If not being supreme is a necessary condition, then not being supreme is a perfection. (From A2)

P4. Not being supreme is not a perfection. (From A1 and A3)

P5. Therefore, a Supreme Being is possible.

---

Does the argument show a maximally great being is possible? Which premises do you find fishy? Discuss....

The flesh of man loves to entertain itself.

You never have anything of interest to contribute... Please, leave my threads alone.

MY THREADS???? This goes to show you how selfish you really are.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 12:13:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 12:07:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Nobody?

Like I said, the flesh loves to entertain itself with selfish interests. Enjoy your loneliness in this world of selfish people.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 12:19:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 12:13:52 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:07:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Nobody?

Like I said, the flesh loves to entertain itself with selfish interests. Enjoy your loneliness in this world of selfish people.

Get out of here troll, you never contribute anything of value and everyone here knows it.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 12:22:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 12:19:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:13:52 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:07:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Nobody?

Like I said, the flesh loves to entertain itself with selfish interests. Enjoy your loneliness in this world of selfish people.

Get out of here troll, you never contribute anything of value and everyone here knows it.

I'm the only saint in this world who knows how we were created but that doesn't interest unbelievers. All my believers are amazed when I tell them about how our Creator formed the illusions of this world through His processed thoughts. You happen to be one of those unbelievers.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 12:24:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 12:22:18 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:19:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:13:52 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:07:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Nobody?

Like I said, the flesh loves to entertain itself with selfish interests. Enjoy your loneliness in this world of selfish people.

Get out of here troll, you never contribute anything of value and everyone here knows it.

I'm the only saint in this world who knows how we were created but that doesn't interest unbelievers. All my believers are amazed when I tell them about how our Creator formed the illusions of this world through His processed thoughts. You happen to be one of those unbelievers.

Nobody believes you. Even Christians on this site think you are a nut job...
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 12:25:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 12:24:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:22:18 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:19:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:13:52 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:07:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Nobody?

Like I said, the flesh loves to entertain itself with selfish interests. Enjoy your loneliness in this world of selfish people.

Get out of here troll, you never contribute anything of value and everyone here knows it.

I'm the only saint in this world who knows how we were created but that doesn't interest unbelievers. All my believers are amazed when I tell them about how our Creator formed the illusions of this world through His processed thoughts. You happen to be one of those unbelievers.

Nobody believes you. Even Christians on this site think you are a nut job...

Most Christians are unbelievers who have no clue who our Creator is. Believers are chosen by our Creator to listen to a saint's gospel, which is the voice of our Creator. If you can't understand what we say, then you're an unbeliever.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 12:26:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 12:25:22 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:24:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:22:18 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:19:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:13:52 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:07:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Nobody?

Like I said, the flesh loves to entertain itself with selfish interests. Enjoy your loneliness in this world of selfish people.

Get out of here troll, you never contribute anything of value and everyone here knows it.

I'm the only saint in this world who knows how we were created but that doesn't interest unbelievers. All my believers are amazed when I tell them about how our Creator formed the illusions of this world through His processed thoughts. You happen to be one of those unbelievers.

Nobody believes you. Even Christians on this site think you are a nut job...

Most Christians are unbelievers who have no clue who our Creator is. Believers are chosen by our Creator to listen to a saint's gospel, which is the voice of our Creator. If you can't understand what we say, then you're an unbeliever.

You are no saint, but a troll.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 12:30:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 12:26:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:25:22 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:24:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:22:18 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:19:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:13:52 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:07:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Nobody?

Like I said, the flesh loves to entertain itself with selfish interests. Enjoy your loneliness in this world of selfish people.

Get out of here troll, you never contribute anything of value and everyone here knows it.

I'm the only saint in this world who knows how we were created but that doesn't interest unbelievers. All my believers are amazed when I tell them about how our Creator formed the illusions of this world through His processed thoughts. You happen to be one of those unbelievers.

Nobody believes you. Even Christians on this site think you are a nut job...

Most Christians are unbelievers who have no clue who our Creator is. Believers are chosen by our Creator to listen to a saint's gospel, which is the voice of our Creator. If you can't understand what we say, then you're an unbeliever.

You are no saint, but a troll.

In your mind I'm a troll. In God's mind I'm a saint. I trust the mind of God where I get the information to speak from.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 12:48:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 12:30:31 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:26:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:25:22 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:24:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:22:18 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:19:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:13:52 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:07:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Nobody?

Like I said, the flesh loves to entertain itself with selfish interests. Enjoy your loneliness in this world of selfish people.

Get out of here troll, you never contribute anything of value and everyone here knows it.

I'm the only saint in this world who knows how we were created but that doesn't interest unbelievers. All my believers are amazed when I tell them about how our Creator formed the illusions of this world through His processed thoughts. You happen to be one of those unbelievers.

Nobody believes you. Even Christians on this site think you are a nut job...

Most Christians are unbelievers who have no clue who our Creator is. Believers are chosen by our Creator to listen to a saint's gospel, which is the voice of our Creator. If you can't understand what we say, then you're an unbeliever.

You are no saint, but a troll.

In your mind I'm a troll. In God's mind I'm a saint. I trust the mind of God where I get the information to speak from.

To bad you give nobody else a reason to trust you.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 1:03:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 12:48:31 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:30:31 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:26:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:25:22 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:24:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:22:18 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:19:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:13:52 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:07:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Nobody?

Like I said, the flesh loves to entertain itself with selfish interests. Enjoy your loneliness in this world of selfish people.

Get out of here troll, you never contribute anything of value and everyone here knows it.

I'm the only saint in this world who knows how we were created but that doesn't interest unbelievers. All my believers are amazed when I tell them about how our Creator formed the illusions of this world through His processed thoughts. You happen to be one of those unbelievers.

Nobody believes you. Even Christians on this site think you are a nut job...

Most Christians are unbelievers who have no clue who our Creator is. Believers are chosen by our Creator to listen to a saint's gospel, which is the voice of our Creator. If you can't understand what we say, then you're an unbeliever.

You are no saint, but a troll.

In your mind I'm a troll. In God's mind I'm a saint. I trust the mind of God where I get the information to speak from.

To bad you give nobody else a reason to trust you.

It's very difficult to trust anyone that you can't see or hear them speak. If you were standing before me and I was preaching the gospel to you, you would definitely witness something completely different than what I write. That's because bodily language is just as important as written or verbal language. You would easily see the confidence I have when I speak for our Creator. I can speak for hours at a time without any hesitation about the past, present and future without referring to any memorized scripts like Christians use.

If you want, we can talk on Skype so you can see the difference.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 1:26:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 1:03:48 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:48:31 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:30:31 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:26:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:25:22 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:24:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:22:18 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:19:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:13:52 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/20/2013 12:07:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Nobody?

Like I said, the flesh loves to entertain itself with selfish interests. Enjoy your loneliness in this world of selfish people.

Get out of here troll, you never contribute anything of value and everyone here knows it.

I'm the only saint in this world who knows how we were created but that doesn't interest unbelievers. All my believers are amazed when I tell them about how our Creator formed the illusions of this world through His processed thoughts. You happen to be one of those unbelievers.

Nobody believes you. Even Christians on this site think you are a nut job...

Most Christians are unbelievers who have no clue who our Creator is. Believers are chosen by our Creator to listen to a saint's gospel, which is the voice of our Creator. If you can't understand what we say, then you're an unbeliever.

You are no saint, but a troll.

In your mind I'm a troll. In God's mind I'm a saint. I trust the mind of God where I get the information to speak from.

To bad you give nobody else a reason to trust you.

It's very difficult to trust anyone that you can't see or hear them speak. If you were standing before me and I was preaching the gospel to you, you would definitely witness something completely different than what I write. That's because bodily language is just as important as written or verbal language. You would easily see the confidence I have when I speak for our Creator. I can speak for hours at a time without any hesitation about the past, present and future without referring to any memorized scripts like Christians use.

If you want, we can talk on Skype so you can see the difference.

Tell me something only a saint would know.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 2:25:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/19/2013 12:39:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
A1. If a property is a perfection, its negation is not a perfection.

Denying the antecedent.
A2. Being a necessary condition is a perfection.

I don't quite follow what you mean here.
A3. Being supreme is a perfection.

This is the first time the term "supreme" is mentioned, so isn't that a non-sequitur?

---

P1. If it is not possible that a Supreme Being exists, then everything has the property of not being supreme.

P2. If everything has the property of not being supreme, then not being supreme is a necessary condition.

P3. If not being supreme is a necessary condition, then not being supreme is a perfection. (From A2)

P4. Not being supreme is not a perfection. (From A1 and A3)

P5. Therefore, a Supreme Being is possible.

---

Does the argument show a maximally great being is possible? Which premises do you find fishy? Discuss....
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 3:05:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 2:25:17 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/19/2013 12:39:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
A1. If a property is a perfection, its negation is not a perfection.

Denying the antecedent.

How? Denying the antecedent would be:

If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.

A1 only states "if P, then Q".

A2. Being a necessary condition is a perfection.

I don't quite follow what you mean here.

A necessary condition for perfection, is also a perfection. For example, if y is needed for x, and x is perfect, then y is also perfect (because without y, you couldn't get x, and x is perfect).

A3. Being supreme is a perfection.

This is the first time the term "supreme" is mentioned, so isn't that a non-sequitur?

A1, A2, and A3 isn't forming an argument, just a list of "facts" the argument is based on.


---

P1. If it is not possible that a Supreme Being exists, then everything has the property of not being supreme.

P2. If everything has the property of not being supreme, then not being supreme is a necessary condition.

P3. If not being supreme is a necessary condition, then not being supreme is a perfection. (From A2)

P4. Not being supreme is not a perfection. (From A1 and A3)

P5. Therefore, a Supreme Being is possible.

---

Does the argument show a maximally great being is possible? Which premises do you find fishy? Discuss....
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 3:16:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 3:05:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 2:25:17 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/19/2013 12:39:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
A1. If a property is a perfection, its negation is not a perfection.

Denying the antecedent.

How? Denying the antecedent would be:

If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.

A1 only states "if P, then Q".

I read it as: If a property (P) is a perfection (Q), than it's negation (NOT P) is not a perfection (NOT Q).

A2. Being a necessary condition is a perfection.

I don't quite follow what you mean here.

A necessary condition for perfection, is also a perfection. For example, if y is needed for x, and x is perfect, then y is also perfect (because without y, you couldn't get x, and x is perfect).

Well, what are we saying is perfect? That which has no flaws, or that which can't be improved?

A3. Being supreme is a perfection.

This is the first time the term "supreme" is mentioned, so isn't that a non-sequitur?

A1, A2, and A3 isn't forming an argument, just a list of "facts" the argument is based on.


---

P1. If it is not possible that a Supreme Being exists, then everything has the property of not being supreme.

P2. If everything has the property of not being supreme, then not being supreme is a necessary condition.

P3. If not being supreme is a necessary condition, then not being supreme is a perfection. (From A2)

P4. Not being supreme is not a perfection. (From A1 and A3)

P5. Therefore, a Supreme Being is possible.

---

Does the argument show a maximally great being is possible? Which premises do you find fishy? Discuss....
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 3:34:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 3:16:54 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 3:05:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 2:25:17 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/19/2013 12:39:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
A1. If a property is a perfection, its negation is not a perfection.

Denying the antecedent.

How? Denying the antecedent would be:

If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.

A1 only states "if P, then Q".

I read it as: If a property (P) is a perfection (Q), than it's negation (NOT P) is not a perfection (NOT Q).

I still don't think A1 fallacious, because it is not saying something like:

P1: If I raised my hand, that means I moved
P1: I didn't raise my hand
C: Therefore, I didn't move

The above is fallacious, because even if I don't raise my hand I can still move in other ways. I think A1 says something different, it says if hand raising is movement, then "not hand waving" is itself not movement. So, this is saying that "not hand waving is not movement", it doesn't say "not hand waving means I am not moving". Therefore, I would still have to ask you to clarify how this is a fallacy, as the fallacious version I described would entail no movement at all, but A1 only says that not wand waving specifically is not a movement in of itself.


A2. Being a necessary condition is a perfection.

I don't quite follow what you mean here.

A necessary condition for perfection, is also a perfection. For example, if y is needed for x, and x is perfect, then y is also perfect (because without y, you couldn't get x, and x is perfect).

Well, what are we saying is perfect? That which has no flaws, or that which can't be improved?

Any perfection, which is something better to have than not. Theists would use the example of "courage" or something. Since that is a "perfection", then whatever is a necessary condition for it, is also a perfection. It too must be better to have than not, because without it, we wouldn't have courage (which is better to have than not).


A3. Being supreme is a perfection.

This is the first time the term "supreme" is mentioned, so isn't that a non-sequitur?

A1, A2, and A3 isn't forming an argument, just a list of "facts" the argument is based on.


---

P1. If it is not possible that a Supreme Being exists, then everything has the property of not being supreme.

P2. If everything has the property of not being supreme, then not being supreme is a necessary condition.

P3. If not being supreme is a necessary condition, then not being supreme is a perfection. (From A2)

P4. Not being supreme is not a perfection. (From A1 and A3)

P5. Therefore, a Supreme Being is possible.

---

Does the argument show a maximally great being is possible? Which premises do you find fishy? Discuss....
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 3:47:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 3:34:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 3:16:54 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 3:05:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 2:25:17 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/19/2013 12:39:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
A1. If a property is a perfection, its negation is not a perfection.

Denying the antecedent.

How? Denying the antecedent would be:

If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.

A1 only states "if P, then Q".

I read it as: If a property (P) is a perfection (Q), than it's negation (NOT P) is not a perfection (NOT Q).

I still don't think A1 fallacious, because it is not saying something like:

P1: If I raised my hand, that means I moved
P1: I didn't raise my hand
C: Therefore, I didn't move

The above is fallacious, because even if I don't raise my hand I can still move in other ways. I think A1 says something different, it says if hand raising is movement, then "not hand waving" is itself not movement. So, this is saying that "not hand waving is not movement", it doesn't say "not hand waving means I am not moving". Therefore, I would still have to ask you to clarify how this is a fallacy, as the fallacious version I described would entail no movement at all, but A1 only says that not wand waving specifically is not a movement in of itself.



A2. Being a necessary condition is a perfection.

I don't quite follow what you mean here.

A necessary condition for perfection, is also a perfection. For example, if y is needed for x, and x is perfect, then y is also perfect (because without y, you couldn't get x, and x is perfect).

Well, what are we saying is perfect? That which has no flaws, or that which can't be improved?

Any perfection, which is something better to have than not. Theists would use the example of "courage" or something. Since that is a "perfection", then whatever is a necessary condition for it, is also a perfection. It too must be better to have than not, because without it, we wouldn't have courage (which is better to have than not).

How can courage be an example of perfection if courage is a continuum? Also, that which is better than to have not seems quite subjective in many cases, because I could say that a certain game console is 'better' because it has more processing power, and more RAM, but somebody else could say that it is 'better', because it has a better Internet connection. Therefore not having more RAM wouldn't necessarily be not a perfection, and having more RAM couldn't necessarily be a perfection.


A3. Being supreme is a perfection.

This is the first time the term "supreme" is mentioned, so isn't that a non-sequitur?

A1, A2, and A3 isn't forming an argument, just a list of "facts" the argument is based on.


---

P1. If it is not possible that a Supreme Being exists, then everything has the property of not being supreme.

P2. If everything has the property of not being supreme, then not being supreme is a necessary condition.

P3. If not being supreme is a necessary condition, then not being supreme is a perfection. (From A2)

P4. Not being supreme is not a perfection. (From A1 and A3)

P5. Therefore, a Supreme Being is possible.

---

Does the argument show a maximally great being is possible? Which premises do you find fishy? Discuss....
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Nidhogg
Posts: 503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 3:54:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the existence of non-perfection imply the existence of an absolute perfection?

Basically, if I can look at a pane of glass and observe that it is cracked don't I need a standard of non-cracked glass to compare it to? I personally think that the fact that we as humans posses the ability to image perfection implies that a state of perfection does in fact exist. We cannot comprehend things like 4 dimensions or 1=2 and yet we seem to have innate knowledge of such a impossible goal as perfection.
Ridiculously Photogenic Debater

DDO's most mediocre member since at least a year ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 6:02:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/19/2013 12:39:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
A1. If a property is a perfection, its negation is not a perfection.
A2. Being a necessary condition is a perfection.
A3. Being supreme is a perfection.

---

P1. If it is not possible that a Supreme Being exists, then everything has the property of not being supreme.

P2. If everything has the property of not being supreme, then not being supreme is a necessary condition.

P3. If not being supreme is a necessary condition, then not being supreme is a perfection. (From A2)

P4. Not being supreme is not a perfection. (From A1 and A3)

P5. Therefore, a Supreme Being is possible.


Other than the obvious problems with the "A2" and "A3" which are not novel, P3 is clearly very fishy. It just reiterates the problem of the impossibility of a synthetic necessary truth. Synthetic truths are necessarily not analytic; analytic truths are exclusively necessary; therefore, synthetic truths are necessarily not necessary. Or, to restate the conclusion, it is impossible for a necessary synthetic truth.

Existence is synthetic; for something to be synthetic, it must not be a necessary thing; therefore, if something is a synthetic claim, it is not a necessary claim.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 6:09:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 6:02:53 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/19/2013 12:39:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
A1. If a property is a perfection, its negation is not a perfection.
A2. Being a necessary condition is a perfection.
A3. Being supreme is a perfection.

---

P1. If it is not possible that a Supreme Being exists, then everything has the property of not being supreme.

P2. If everything has the property of not being supreme, then not being supreme is a necessary condition.

P3. If not being supreme is a necessary condition, then not being supreme is a perfection. (From A2)

P4. Not being supreme is not a perfection. (From A1 and A3)

P5. Therefore, a Supreme Being is possible.



Other than the obvious problems with the "A2" and "A3" which are not novel, P3 is clearly very fishy. It just reiterates the problem of the impossibility of a synthetic necessary truth. Synthetic truths are necessarily not analytic; analytic truths are exclusively necessary; therefore, synthetic truths are necessarily not necessary. Or, to restate the conclusion, it is impossible for a necessary synthetic truth.

Existence is synthetic; for something to be synthetic, it must not be a necessary thing; therefore, if something is a synthetic claim, it is not a necessary claim.

Very thoughtful rebuttal! Did you come up with this yourself, or is this a known rebuttal to the idea of existence being necessary?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 6:09:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 6:02:53 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/19/2013 12:39:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
A1. If a property is a perfection, its negation is not a perfection.
A2. Being a necessary condition is a perfection.
A3. Being supreme is a perfection.

---

P1. If it is not possible that a Supreme Being exists, then everything has the property of not being supreme.

P2. If everything has the property of not being supreme, then not being supreme is a necessary condition.

P3. If not being supreme is a necessary condition, then not being supreme is a perfection. (From A2)

P4. Not being supreme is not a perfection. (From A1 and A3)

P5. Therefore, a Supreme Being is possible.



Other than the obvious problems with the "A2" and "A3" which are not novel, P3 is clearly very fishy. It just reiterates the problem of the impossibility of a synthetic necessary truth. Synthetic truths are necessarily not analytic; analytic truths are exclusively necessary; therefore, synthetic truths are necessarily not necessary. Or, to restate the conclusion, it is impossible for a necessary synthetic truth.

Existence is synthetic; for something to be synthetic, it must not be a necessary thing; therefore, if something is a synthetic claim, it is not a necessary claim.

Also, what do you think are the problems with A1 and A2?
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 6:13:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 6:09:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 6:02:53 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/19/2013 12:39:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
A1. If a property is a perfection, its negation is not a perfection.
A2. Being a necessary condition is a perfection.
A3. Being supreme is a perfection.

---

P1. If it is not possible that a Supreme Being exists, then everything has the property of not being supreme.

P2. If everything has the property of not being supreme, then not being supreme is a necessary condition.

P3. If not being supreme is a necessary condition, then not being supreme is a perfection. (From A2)

P4. Not being supreme is not a perfection. (From A1 and A3)

P5. Therefore, a Supreme Being is possible.



Other than the obvious problems with the "A2" and "A3" which are not novel, P3 is clearly very fishy. It just reiterates the problem of the impossibility of a synthetic necessary truth. Synthetic truths are necessarily not analytic; analytic truths are exclusively necessary; therefore, synthetic truths are necessarily not necessary. Or, to restate the conclusion, it is impossible for a necessary synthetic truth.

Existence is synthetic; for something to be synthetic, it must not be a necessary thing; therefore, if something is a synthetic claim, it is not a necessary claim.

Also, what do you think are the problems with A1 and A2?

To answer both in a sentence: it does not get around the well grounded rebuttal that "existence is synthetic". It's founded partly in Hume and Kant who said the same thing in simple terms, but more thoroughly in the basic logic we use nowadays which makes the same claim. I can't cite anyone in particular, as I'd be needing to credit most in the field of logic alongisde Hume and Kant! Alas, the ontological argument was a very obtusely shaped ship that has been sunk by a thorough understanding of the logic writers used to use, but not understand.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 6:16:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 6:13:16 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/20/2013 6:09:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 6:02:53 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/19/2013 12:39:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
A1. If a property is a perfection, its negation is not a perfection.
A2. Being a necessary condition is a perfection.
A3. Being supreme is a perfection.

---

P1. If it is not possible that a Supreme Being exists, then everything has the property of not being supreme.

P2. If everything has the property of not being supreme, then not being supreme is a necessary condition.

P3. If not being supreme is a necessary condition, then not being supreme is a perfection. (From A2)

P4. Not being supreme is not a perfection. (From A1 and A3)

P5. Therefore, a Supreme Being is possible.



Other than the obvious problems with the "A2" and "A3" which are not novel, P3 is clearly very fishy. It just reiterates the problem of the impossibility of a synthetic necessary truth. Synthetic truths are necessarily not analytic; analytic truths are exclusively necessary; therefore, synthetic truths are necessarily not necessary. Or, to restate the conclusion, it is impossible for a necessary synthetic truth.

Existence is synthetic; for something to be synthetic, it must not be a necessary thing; therefore, if something is a synthetic claim, it is not a necessary claim.

Also, what do you think are the problems with A1 and A2?

To answer both in a sentence: it does not get around the well grounded rebuttal that "existence is synthetic". It's founded partly in Hume and Kant who said the same thing in simple terms, but more thoroughly in the basic logic we use nowadays which makes the same claim. I can't cite anyone in particular, as I'd be needing to credit most in the field of logic alongisde Hume and Kant! Alas, the ontological argument was a very obtusely shaped ship that has been sunk by a thorough understanding of the logic writers used to use, but not understand.

So people like Maydole and Plantinga are just engaging in blunders of epic proportions? Seems unlikely, given their credentials, but of course that does not determine truth. You may very well be correct.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 6:22:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 6:02:53 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/19/2013 12:39:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
A1. If a property is a perfection, its negation is not a perfection.
A2. Being a necessary condition is a perfection.
A3. Being supreme is a perfection.

---

P1. If it is not possible that a Supreme Being exists, then everything has the property of not being supreme.

P2. If everything has the property of not being supreme, then not being supreme is a necessary condition.

P3. If not being supreme is a necessary condition, then not being supreme is a perfection. (From A2)

P4. Not being supreme is not a perfection. (From A1 and A3)

P5. Therefore, a Supreme Being is possible.



Other than the obvious problems with the "A2" and "A3" which are not novel, P3 is clearly very fishy. It just reiterates the problem of the impossibility of a synthetic necessary truth. Synthetic truths are necessarily not analytic; analytic truths are exclusively necessary; therefore, synthetic truths are necessarily not necessary. Or, to restate the conclusion, it is impossible for a necessary synthetic truth.

Existence is synthetic; for something to be synthetic, it must not be a necessary thing; therefore, if something is a synthetic claim, it is not a necessary claim.

I can think of literally no reason at all to accept that there aren't synthetic necessary truths.

Water = H20 is a necessary truth but it is not analytic truth; it's a synthetic, a posterori truth. Kripke established this decades ago.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 6:27:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 6:16:15 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 6:13:16 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
To answer both in a sentence: it does not get around the well grounded rebuttal that "existence is synthetic". It's founded partly in Hume and Kant who said the same thing in simple terms, but more thoroughly in the basic logic we use nowadays which makes the same claim. I can't cite anyone in particular, as I'd be needing to credit most in the field of logic alongisde Hume and Kant! Alas, the ontological argument was a very obtusely shaped ship that has been sunk by a thorough understanding of the logic writers used to use, but not understand.

So people like Maydole and Plantinga are just engaging in blunders of epic proportions? Seems unlikely, given their credentials, but of course that does not determine truth. You may very well be correct.

One thing that's certianly true about philosophy: these blunders happen - a lot! I probably make my own and use some complex reasoning to avoid them. Most do, and I think anyone who claims to be infallible on this is just joking, really.

The rebuttal just rests on two propositions, really. First: 'No synthetic statement is necessary'. And when we analyse this proposition, it becomes very cogent. Synthetic, meaning in relation to the world, is something that is contingent. Anything true or false only in relation to the world must be contingent on the world.

Secondly: "A statement of existence is a synthetic proposition." This itself is even more obvious and cogent, I would claim, almost to an extent that discussing it is not necessary. For something to exist, it must exist in relation to the world. Existence clearly means relationship to the state of affairs, so anything which exists, exists in the world. Therefore, it is synthetic.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...