Posts: 3837
Threads: 197
Joined: August 28, 2013
Reputation:
38
RE: Debate Challenge
November 19, 2015 at 10:11 pm
(November 19, 2015 at 8:20 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I would actually be interested in a bizzaro debate, each contestant arguing against what they actually believe.
Sounds like it would be a fun and enlightening experience.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: Debate Challenge
November 19, 2015 at 10:55 pm
(This post was last modified: November 19, 2015 at 10:56 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(November 19, 2015 at 6:16 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Congratulations, though. At least you have identified one serious objection to Aquinas, shared by Aristotle, Hume, Kant, Frege and Russell. The idea, as I understand it is that 'existence' is not a property in itself. Now, would you care to present that argument yourself or are you content to make an argument from authority?
Existence indeed is not a property in itself. Existence and essence are separate. "What is it?" And "Does whatever it "is" actually exist?" are separate questions entirely.
This is just one reason why the ontological argument fails too.
For those who don't know the ontological argument goes "Imagine the most perfect being imaginable, such a being would be even more perfect if it also existed, therefore a truly perfect being is existent, therefore a truly perfect beings exists."
It's ridiculous because existence is not a property.
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: Debate Challenge
November 19, 2015 at 11:02 pm
I think such a perfect being would be even more perfect if it didn't exist. Imagine, being able to create a Universe and make talking, thinking, creating animals that do your bidding (sometimes) and you get to torture and kill them when they don't - all while not actually existing at all. Now that's what I call a powerful god.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: Debate Challenge
November 19, 2015 at 11:17 pm
(This post was last modified: November 19, 2015 at 11:18 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
Ha, Dawkers mentioned someone in TGD who actually made that argument, I forget their name though.
ETA:
From the actual Ontological Argument Wiki on Wikipedia:
Wikipedia Wrote:Australian philosopher Douglas Gasking (1911–1994) developed a version of the ontological argument meant to prove God's non-existence. It was not intended to be serious; rather, its purpose was to illustrate the problems Gasking saw in the ontological argument.[57][58]
Gasking asserted that the creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable. The merit of such an achievement is the product of its quality and the creator's disability: the greater the disability of the creator, the more impressive the achievement. Non-existence, Gasking asserts, would be the greatest handicap. Therefore, if the universe is the product of an existent creator, we could conceive of a greater being—one which does not exist. A non-existent creator is greater than one which exists, so God does not exist.[58] Gasking's proposition that the greatest disability would be non-existence is a response to Anselm's assumption that existence is a predicate and perfection. Gasking uses this logic to assume that non-existence must be a disability.[57]
Oppy criticized the argument, viewing it as a weak parody of the ontological argument. He stated that, although it may be accepted that it would be a greater achievement for a non-existent creator to create something than a creator who exists, there is no reason to assume that a non-existent creator would be a greater being. He continued by arguing that there is no reason to view the creation of the world as "the most marvellous achievement imaginable". Finally, he stated that it may be inconceivable for a non-existent being to create anything at all.[4]
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: Debate Challenge
November 19, 2015 at 11:20 pm
(This post was last modified: November 19, 2015 at 11:20 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
Quote: Finally, he stated that it may be inconceivable for a non-existent being to create anything at all.
Gee, d'y think?
Posts: 7967
Threads: 38
Joined: March 18, 2014
Reputation:
54
RE: Debate Challenge
November 19, 2015 at 11:24 pm
(November 18, 2015 at 11:45 am)Stimbo Wrote: Offering Stimbo?
As every good soldier knows, Rule 1 is "never volunteer for anything".
When the soldiers first took their fight to the waters, they even adopted the acronym for the name of their fighting force:
Never Again Volunteer Yourself
Thief and assassin for hire. Member in good standing of the Rogues Guild.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Debate Challenge
November 19, 2015 at 11:33 pm
(This post was last modified: November 19, 2015 at 11:33 pm by robvalue.)
While there was just God, everything was absolutely perfect.
The universe is not as perfect as God.
So God made things less perfect overall, through his action of creating the universe.
Posts: 8709
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Debate Challenge
November 20, 2015 at 2:13 am
For the record the ontological argument came from Anslem. Aquinas makes cosmological arguments.
|
