Total Posts:60|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Ontological Argument for God

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 7:05:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Does anyone seriously grant this argument any actual consideration? I can not comprehend how it has across the centuries been given credence and serious consideration. It's grated on my nerves again because I am reading Dawkin's God Delusion (he is a clever chap, he echoes some of my own thoughts, but the guy rambles on quite disjointedly and though is fairly logical he is only fairly logical and makes a couple of minor fallacies). Anyway he devotes far too much in attacking it.

So anyway, who gives it any sort of credence?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 7:31:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
It depends on the version of the argument that you use.

I'm personally a fan of Anselm's Ontological Argument.

1. God exists in the understanding
2. God might have existed in reality
3. If something exists only in the understanding, and might have existed in reality, then it might have been greater than it is.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 7:31:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
It gets more complicated than that but those are the original three premises (there are 8 plus a conclusion).
President of DDO
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 7:32:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
if you're talking about the whole Greatest thing Must exist b/c if not it wouldn't be the greatest, and the Greatest thing is God, Argument...

then I think it's a load of Phooey.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 7:36:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 7:32:43 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
then I think it's a load of Phooey.

Me too lol.

But it's among the best versions I've seen; the others are worse.
President of DDO
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 7:38:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 7:31:12 AM, theLwerd wrote:
It depends on the version of the argument that you use.

I'm personally a fan of Anselm's Ontological Argument.

1. God exists in the understanding
2. God might have existed in reality
3. If something exists only in the understanding, and might have existed in reality, then it might have been greater than it is.

I'm surprised... I thought only people who Already believed in God liked Anselm.

I thought everyone else had the immediate feeling that something underhanded was going on with his argument...

and it can easily be applied to other things and be demonstrated intuitively ABSURD... After reading it I immediately applied it to the "Greatest King" (king arthur) and the same argument would suggest He Must Exist too! lol

and then I read Gaunillo who was Anselm's buddy and Gaunillo demonstrates why his buddy fails Using the argument to argue for a "Greatest Island"...

and then he says anyone who spends their whole life pursuing THAT is a Moron to be laughed at. :)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 7:39:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
For instance: Aquinas.

"There is something therefore which causes in all other things their being, their goodness, and whatever other perfection they have. And this we call God."

Lol. And Christians looove them some Aquinas.
President of DDO
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 7:39:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 7:36:29 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 9/14/2010 7:32:43 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
then I think it's a load of Phooey.

Me too lol.

oh... Good :)

But it's among the best versions I've seen; the others are worse.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 7:41:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 7:38:59 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
and then I read Gaunillo who was Anselm's buddy and Gaunillo demonstrates why his buddy fails Using the argument to argue for a "Greatest Island"...

and then he says anyone who spends their whole life pursuing THAT is a Moron to be laughed at. :)

Exactly. He explained that using Anselm's argument, we can prove the existence of things we know don't exist. However there are indeed problems with Gaunillo's argument too.

I'd say the biggest critic of Anselm was Kant (surprising, I know).
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 7:43:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 7:41:38 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
I like Robert Maydole's modal perfection ontological argument.

What is it?
President of DDO
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 4:53:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 7:43:43 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 9/14/2010 7:41:38 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
I like Robert Maydole's modal perfection ontological argument.

What is it?

Mad complex and I'm not sure it works but I'm fascinated by ontological arguments for some reason. >.>

Premises:

(M1) If a property is a perfection, it's negation is not a perfection.
(M2) If a property A is a perfection and the property B is a necessary condition for A, then B is a perfection.
(M3) Being supreme is a perfection.

Theorems:

Theorem 1: If it's possible than p and q are true, then p is possible and q is possible
Theorem 2: If it's possible that p is not possible, then p is not possible
Theorem 3: If it's possible that there exists an x that is an F, then there exists an x so that it's possible that x is an F.

It's presented in 3 steps:

Possibility of a supreme being:

(P1) If it's not possible that a supreme being exists, every being has the property of not being supreme.
(P2) If every being has the property of not being supreme, not being supreme is a necessary condition.
(P3) If not being supreme is a necessary condition, not being supreme is a perfection. (from M2)
(P4) Not being supreme is not a perfection. (from M1 and M3)
(P5) It's possible that a supreme being exists. (from P1-P4)

Existence of a supreme being:

(E1) There exists an x so that it's possible that x is supreme. (from P5 and Theorem 3, the Barcan Formula)
(E2) There exists an x so that it's possible that {[it is not possible that (there exists a y such that y is Greater than x)] and [it is not possible that (there exists a y such that x is not y) and (x is not Greater than y)]}. (from E1, definition of "x is supreme")
(E3) There exists an x so that it's possible that [it is not possible that (there exists a y such that y is Greater than x)] and it's possible that [it is not possible that (there exists a y such that x is not y) and (x is not Greater than y)]. (from Theorem 1)
(E4) There exists an x so that {[it is not possible that (there exists a y such that y is Greater than x)] and [it is not possible that (there exists a y such that x is not y) and (x is not Greater than y)]}. (from Theorem 2)
(E5) There exists an x so that x is supreme. (from E4, definition of supreme)

Uniqueness of a supreme being:

(U1) If there exists an A so that A is supreme and there exists a B so that B is supreme, then A is not greater than B and B is not greater than A. (definition of "x is supreme")
(U2) If there exists an A so that A is supreme and A is not greater then B and there exists a B so that B is supreme and B is not greater than A, then A is B. (definition of "x is supreme")
(U3) All supreme beings are the same being. (from U2)
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 5:04:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 7:38:59 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 9/14/2010 7:31:12 AM, theLwerd wrote:
It depends on the version of the argument that you use.

I'm personally a fan of Anselm's Ontological Argument.

1. God exists in the understanding
2. God might have existed in reality
3. If something exists only in the understanding, and might have existed in reality, then it might have been greater than it is.

I'm surprised... I thought only people who Already believed in God liked Anselm.

I thought everyone else had the immediate feeling that something underhanded was going on with his argument...

and it can easily be applied to other things and be demonstrated intuitively ABSURD... After reading it I immediately applied it to the "Greatest King" (king arthur) and the same argument would suggest He Must Exist too! lol

and then I read Gaunillo who was Anselm's buddy and Gaunillo demonstrates why his buddy fails Using the argument to argue for a "Greatest Island"...

and then he says anyone who spends their whole life pursuing THAT is a Moron to be laughed at. :)

meh. i always thought that reducing the ontological argument to absurdity by saying "the greatest possible x" is to do it a disservice. "the greatest possible being" is greater than the greatest possible island, hairbrush, chess piece, king, etc... NOTHING can be conceived that is greater. i doubt anyone would claim that theres nothing that can be concieved greater than an island, not even the greatest possible island. the ontological argument speaks of the greatest concievable thing period. the greatest possible specific types of things would be inferior to that by definition. so that criticism misses the mark.

Kant's objection is much more compelling. "existence" can't be treated as a property because it leads to absurdities. in other words, saying "god exists" is different in logical structure from saying "god is great"; by this analysis a god that exists in reality does not posses any property not possessed by a god that exists in the understanding alone and cannot be said to be "greater" in that sense.

better explanation:

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 5:54:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 5:04:36 PM, belle wrote:
meh. i always thought that reducing the ontological argument to absurdity by saying "the greatest possible x" is to do it a disservice. "the greatest possible being" is greater than the greatest possible island, hairbrush, chess piece, king, etc... NOTHING can be conceived that is greater. i doubt anyone would claim that theres nothing that can be concieved greater than an island, not even the greatest possible island. the ontological argument speaks of the greatest concievable thing period. the greatest possible specific types of things would be inferior to that by definition. so that criticism misses the mark.

There are even more criticisms than that, belle, though that's a good one! An island may indeed be unsurpassable by any other island, but not necessarily any other thing. Good catch.

Also consider the fact that Anselm's principle was that existence is a great-making quality. In other words, if something actually exists, then it's greater than if it did not exist. Now if we apply that to the island example, all we would prove is that if the island did not exist, then then this island -- a.k.a. the island which none greater is possible -- is an island of which there can be a GREATER island because an island that was the same as the other but actually existed would be greater.

Another thing -- With Gaunilo's argument, we have to accept the premise that his island is a possible thing. In other words, we have to accept that some limited, finite thing like an island might have unlimited perfections. It's hard for us to conceptualize perfection. If you had to describe the best band, what kind of music would they play? What would their songs sound like? What constitutes them as the *best* or that of which none other could be greater? It is seemingly impossible to construct the idea of best or perfect, so how can you apply the term perfect to god, or assert that you can conceive what a perfect god wants when 'he' is admittedly so complex to the point beyond our own human reason? It doesn't make sense to me.

Kant's objection is much more compelling. "existence" can't be treated as a property because it leads to absurdities. in other words, saying "god exists" is different in logical structure from saying "god is great"; by this analysis a god that exists in reality does not posses any property not possessed by a god that exists in the understanding alone and cannot be said to be "greater" in that sense.

Werd, though that's a really complicated way of describing it lol. True though - Kant basically said that because existence is not a predicate, Anselm's argument that existence is a predicate (which ^ greatness) should be rejected. However there was always one thing I never understood and maybe you can clear it up for me...?

Kant says in his criticism that if we try to describe something, then we assume that this thing exists (if not in reality, then at least in the understanding). So, existence cannot be a predicate because the thing we are trying to describe always exists. Since it always exists, existence can't be a predicate. However I thought Anselm made it clear that something existing *in reality* would be better than something existing just in the understanding.

So, when we say "unicorns don't exist," of course unicorns exist (Kant notes) because we are able to talk about them thus know what they are thus exist in the understanding. However this seems kinda irrelevant again considering Anselm said that existing in reality > existing solely in the understanding. So how is this aspect of Kant's argument relevant?
President of DDO
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 5:56:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 4:53:20 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
...some stuff...

I've heard 'Maths is the language of the Gods' but that is ridiculous!
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 6:40:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"Theorem 1: If it's possible than p and q are true, then p is possible and q is possible."
"Theorem 2: If it's possible that p is not possible, then p is not possible."
Confusion levels high.
So, basically, for Theorem 1, if X may be true/possible, then X is possible.
Okay, I understand that, it basically means that if something could be possible, then, hey, it is possible. Agreed.
Theorem 2 is where the problem comes in.
If it is possible that X is not possible, then it is impossible.
Wait. Error.
Just because something may not be possible, does not mean it is impossible.
Key term is may, as if a negative is possible, it does not mean it is assuredly impossible.
Please explain how Theorem 2 works, I didn't bother reading after that, so if it explains later, forgive me.
I miss the old members.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 6:53:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 5:54:48 PM, theLwerd wrote:

Another thing -- With Gaunilo's argument, we have to accept the premise that his island is a possible thing. In other words, we have to accept that some limited, finite thing like an island might have unlimited perfections. It's hard for us to conceptualize perfection. If you had to describe the best band, what kind of music would they play? What would their songs sound like? What constitutes them as the *best* or that of which none other could be greater? It is seemingly impossible to construct the idea of best or perfect, so how can you apply the term perfect to god, or assert that you can conceive what a perfect god wants when 'he' is admittedly so complex to the point beyond our own human reason? It doesn't make sense to me.

The important thing to remember is that most of these ontological arguments (especially the older ones - I mean pre-20th centuy) assumed that there is a great chain or "order of being". Where a perfection ("great making property") is something that it is necessarily better to have than not. Like it's better to have intelligence than not have intelligence. It's better to be good than not be good and so on. And these arguments were basically to establish that God is the upper bound on that chain there isn't anything that could possibly be higher (that's definitionally true).

Wiki has a pretty good article on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 6:59:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 4:53:20 PM, popculturepooka wrote:

Premises:

(M1) If a property is a perfection, it's negation is not a perfection.
(M2) If a property A is a perfection and the property B is a necessary condition for A, then B is a perfection.
(M3) Being supreme is a perfection.

It's presented in 3 steps:

Possibility of a supreme being:

(P1) If it's not possible that a supreme being exists, every being has the property of not being supreme.
(P2) If every being has the property of not being supreme, not being supreme is a necessary condition.
(P3) If not being supreme is a necessary condition, not being supreme is a perfection. (from M2)
(P4) Not being supreme is not a perfection. (from M1 and M3)
(P5) It's possible that a supreme being exists. (from P1-P4)

P1:Granted.
P2:Granted, with vagueness.
P3:Actually, it needs to have a perfection first that it follows, for it to be a perfection. Aside from that, I don't see how being a perfection enabler=Perfection itself. Provided that this is all answered, what is Property A?
P4)Granted.
P5)Non-sequitor.
I miss the old members.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 7:10:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 6:40:14 PM, Atheism wrote:
"Theorem 1: If it's possible than p and q are true, then p is possible and q is possible."
"Theorem 2: If it's possible that p is not possible, then p is not possible."
Confusion levels high.
So, basically, for Theorem 1, if X may be true/possible, then X is possible.
Okay, I understand that, it basically means that if something could be possible, then, hey, it is possible. Agreed.
Theorem 2 is where the problem comes in.
If it is possible that X is not possible, then it is impossible.
Wait. Error.
Just because something may not be possible, does not mean it is impossible.
Key term is may, as if a negative is possible, it does not mean it is assuredly impossible.
Please explain how Theorem 2 works, I didn't bother reading after that, so if it explains later, forgive me.

Theorem 2: If it's possible that p is not possible, then p is not possible.

^ It's basically a re-stated version of the axiom s5 in modal logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 7:38:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 7:10:29 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/14/2010 6:40:14 PM, Atheism wrote:
"Theorem 1: If it's possible than p and q are true, then p is possible and q is possible."
"Theorem 2: If it's possible that p is not possible, then p is not possible."
Confusion levels high.
So, basically, for Theorem 1, if X may be true/possible, then X is possible.
Okay, I understand that, it basically means that if something could be possible, then, hey, it is possible. Agreed.
Theorem 2 is where the problem comes in.
If it is possible that X is not possible, then it is impossible.
Wait. Error.
Just because something may not be possible, does not mean it is impossible.
Key term is may, as if a negative is possible, it does not mean it is assuredly impossible.
Please explain how Theorem 2 works, I didn't bother reading after that, so if it explains later, forgive me.

Theorem 2: If it's possible that p is not possible, then p is not possible.

^ It's basically a re-stated version of the axiom s5 in modal logic.

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

Let me state it this way:

What is necessary in one possible world [1] is necessary in every possible world. For example: it's necessary that 2 + 2 = 4 in this world, therefore it's necessary in every possible world that 2 + 2 = 4. That's basically axiom s5.

What theorem 2 is saying is basically the same thing except in negative terms.

It's saying if there is something that is necessarily false in some possible world (2 + 2 = 5) then in every possible world 2 + 2 = 5 is necessarily false.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 8:00:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 5:54:48 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Kant says in his criticism that if we try to describe something, then we assume that this thing exists (if not in reality, then at least in the understanding). So, existence cannot be a predicate because the thing we are trying to describe always exists. Since it always exists, existence can't be a predicate. However I thought Anselm made it clear that something existing *in reality* would be better than something existing just in the understanding.

So, when we say "unicorns don't exist," of course unicorns exist (Kant notes) because we are able to talk about them thus know what they are thus exist in the understanding. However this seems kinda irrelevant again considering Anselm said that existing in reality > existing solely in the understanding. So how is this aspect of Kant's argument relevant?

if you think about it, the statement "god is great" is making two claims- there exists a thing such that we may label it "god" and this object possesses the property of greatness. likewise with god is not great- theres a statement about the existence of the thing (whether as an actual being or as an idea) and a statement about some property of it (lacking in greatness). but if you take the statement "god exists" and try to analyze it in the same way you get something like "there exists an entity such that we can call it god and furthermore this entity exists"- its redundant. thats an oddity. but the real problem comes when you try to analyze "god does not exist" in the same way. "there exists an entity such that we can label it god and it does not exist"- a self contradictory statement. in the same way "unicorns don't exist" would be asserting both that unicorns exist and they don't exist. therefore if you take "existence" to be a property like any other predicate, every statement you make about something not existing becomes self contradictory... basically meaningless. if such statements regarding existence can't be analyzed in the same way as the statement "god is great" then they must be of different logical structure- "exists" is not the same type of predicate as "great".

make sense?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 9:28:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 5:04:36 PM, belle wrote:
At 9/14/2010 7:38:59 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 9/14/2010 7:31:12 AM, theLwerd wrote:
It depends on the version of the argument that you use.

I'm personally a fan of Anselm's Ontological Argument.

1. God exists in the understanding
2. God might have existed in reality
3. If something exists only in the understanding, and might have existed in reality, then it might have been greater than it is.

I'm surprised... I thought only people who Already believed in God liked Anselm.

I thought everyone else had the immediate feeling that something underhanded was going on with his argument...

and it can easily be applied to other things and be demonstrated intuitively ABSURD... After reading it I immediately applied it to the "Greatest King" (king arthur) and the same argument would suggest He Must Exist too! lol

and then I read Gaunillo who was Anselm's buddy and Gaunillo demonstrates why his buddy fails Using the argument to argue for a "Greatest Island"...

and then he says anyone who spends their whole life pursuing THAT is a Moron to be laughed at. :)

meh. i always thought that reducing the ontological argument to absurdity by saying "the greatest possible x" is to do it a disservice. "the greatest possible being" is greater than the greatest possible island, hairbrush, chess piece, king, etc... NOTHING can be conceived that is greater. i doubt anyone would claim that theres nothing that can be concieved greater than an island, not even the greatest possible island. the ontological argument speaks of the greatest concievable thing period. the greatest possible specific types of things would be inferior to that by definition. so that criticism misses the mark.

Anselm's argument is regarding the greatest possible X... with "X" being "thing"

if you replace "thing" with "king" you see that what you mean by "Greatest" is 1 of two things...

"Greatest" among those kings which exist...

or "greatest" as in The BEST POSSIBLE King....

Anselm means the latter.... in reference to "things"

it's the same argument... same string of words... just "thing" is replaced by "king"

Clearly this line of argument is Bad... The "greatest Possible king" need not actually exist... His saying the "greatness" factor means he must is ridiculous...

when you're talking about "greatest possible King" your talking about what You would think would be "greatest" and your thinking something doesn't make it so anyhow... that goes for Existence being "greatest" too... lol... "greatest" has no Metaphysical meaning whatsoever... it's perspective based.

SO your imagined, Most Favoritist, things Don't HAVE TO exist... in fact jumping from your Understanding of "Greatest" as having to INCLUDE existence and INCLUDING your Most Favorite God Figure... to God MUST exist b/c Existence is good and God is good and the Greatest thing HAS TO exist, b/c it wouldn't be as Favored by you if it didn't... is just Ridonkulous...

it's asserting what You think are best as Metaphysical necessities... b/c You happen to like "Existence" and think it "more Great"...

lol... what you happen to like, your Ideals, do not scale up to metaphysical necessity...

"most Great" does NOT say anything about the nature of Metaphysical, Ultimate, Reality... it operates on the level of OUR perspective... quite a jump to make... one which is clearly shown absurd by examining the "logic" through replacing "thing" with anything else at all..

Jumping from What you'd want... to such a thing Existing... is sillyness.

Kant's objection is much more compelling. "existence" can't be treated as a property because it leads to absurdities. in other words, saying "god exists" is different in logical structure from saying "god is great"; by this analysis a god that exists in reality does not posses any property not possessed by a god that exists in the understanding alone and cannot be said to be "greater" in that sense.

Arguing against "existence as a predicate"... I don't like it... stuff clearly exists!


better explanation:

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 9:36:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 9:28:58 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
a lot

missing the point. imagine the greatest possible hairbrush. now imagine the greatest possible showerhead. now the greatest possible dog bone. which is better!? i have no idea.... they are all things... the greatest possible thing... whatever it is... would have to be greater than every other "greatest possible" in any specific category. so assume the greatest possible thing is GOD. this GOD is greater than the greatest possible hairbrush, the greatest possible dog bone, and indeed, the greatest possible island. because GOD is the greatest possible THING- "thing" subsuming all possible categories of things which could be mentioned. this is not to say that i think the ontological argument is successful, only that the "greatest possible island" objection to it is weak.


Kant's objection is much more compelling. "existence" can't be treated as a property because it leads to absurdities. in other words, saying "god exists" is different in logical structure from saying "god is great"; by this analysis a god that exists in reality does not posses any property not possessed by a god that exists in the understanding alone and cannot be said to be "greater" in that sense.

Arguing against "existence as a predicate"... I don't like it... stuff clearly exists!

yes. stuff exists. i never denied that. clearly you have no idea what i was getting at. read what i wrote to theLwerd in the post above yours.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 11:16:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 10:41:32 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
I think Plantinga's variation has a 50% chance of being true.

Funny, Plantinga would agree with you.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 11:17:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 11:16:07 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 9/14/2010 10:41:32 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
I think Plantinga's variation has a 50% chance of being true.

Funny, Plantinga would agree with you.

LOL
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 3:04:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I like the following counter argument; from Douglas Gasking:

1. The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievment imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievment is the product of a) it's intrinsic quality, and b) the ability of it's creator.

3. The greater the disability or handicap of the creator, the more impressive the achievment.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of a existant creator, we can concieve a greater being; namely one who created everything while not existing.

6. An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be concieved becaues an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which does not exist.

Ergo:

7. God does not exist.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 7:26:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 9:36:25 PM, belle wrote:
"there exists an entity such that we can label it god and it does not exist"- a self contradictory statement. in the same way "unicorns don't exist" would be asserting both that unicorns exist and they don't exist.

Anselm doesn't deny that something always exists (at least in the understanding), does he? I thought he clarified a distinction between existing in the understanding and existing in reality. Saying "unicorns don't exist" seems contradictory; as I said they obviously exist in the understanding, so saying they don't exist would be wrong. However if unicorns were to exist in reality, they'd be greater than unicorns that exist only in the understanding.

Point: I understand exactly what Kant is saying - that existence should not be a predicate. But what about existence in reality being a predicate?
President of DDO