Posts: 6607
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?
June 21, 2016 at 2:14 am
(This post was last modified: June 21, 2016 at 2:16 am by GrandizerII.)
(June 21, 2016 at 12:30 am)IATIA Wrote: (June 20, 2016 at 11:57 pm)JBrentonK Wrote: I have just deleted my response, you would gather what it would be, from my previous post. But again I will state, I cannt see your point, that God is apparently necessary also that ontologicial is self explinatory.( We are simply rationalizing words into existence by using these phrases is my feelings.)
The "Ontological argument" is completely invalid.
Quote:"The Ontological argument is simply that god is possible, therefore god exists."
It does nothing to prove or deduce the initial unproven premise.
One needs to prove that god is possible before the argument has any validity.
What is that so difficult to see? Oh, wait ... christian sunglasses.
Just a note that, in logic, validity and soundness are not one and the same. You are referring to the soundness of the argument, not its validity. Validity is about whether or not the conclusion follows from the premises, provided that the premises are true.
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?
June 21, 2016 at 2:16 am
(This post was last modified: June 21, 2016 at 2:18 am by IATIA.)
And the premises are not true. The argument is not valid. Ain't I not speaking the good english.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
Posts: 6607
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?
June 21, 2016 at 2:19 am
(This post was last modified: June 21, 2016 at 2:20 am by GrandizerII.)
(June 21, 2016 at 2:16 am)IATIA Wrote: And the premises are not true. The argument is not valid. Ain't I speaking the good english.
No, an argument is valid if, by assuming the premises are true, they lead to the stated conclusion. Again, you are arguing about the premises not being true. This is an argument about soundness.
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?
June 21, 2016 at 2:28 am
Fish have scales
Snakes have scales
Therefore snakes are fish.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?
June 21, 2016 at 2:30 am
(June 21, 2016 at 2:14 am)Irrational Wrote: Validity is about whether or not the conclusion follows from the premises, provided that the premises are true.
And the premises are not true.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
Posts: 367
Threads: 21
Joined: October 13, 2015
Reputation:
3
RE: The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?
June 21, 2016 at 2:34 am
He is still saying that I am wrong about God being ontologicial in some way  The truth is that I am not wrong, but I am being attacked in that "I am not basing my theories in reality." This is common from atheists which wish to disprove claims of believers in God, just destroy the whole premise. MY arguement is simply stating that to have a coherant belief in God one must put a basis on the presumpsion of there being any such thing, whatsoever as ontologicial, that is omnipotent etc God in ANY general way. This is the most direct path to the entire arguement I feel. Using truth to assert that God must be ontologicial and therefore real. It also is the only arguement which supposes direct truths toward God being necessarially a first cause without any prior presumpsion, as you can clearly see. So in a way if we do use this theory to base upon any correct ontologicial arguement, it is very possible that we are correct in our presumpsions that any God we state that is the true God is indeed confirmed as the true one. There is no need for questioning this as you can see. All further that would be required is a direct physical proof of God, showing that he indeed can be confirmed as existing in physical reality, to support the proof that he exists "ontologically" as well.
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?
June 21, 2016 at 2:39 am
It is not possible for a god to exist. The truth is that I am not wrong. Again, see how that works?
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
Posts: 6607
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?
June 21, 2016 at 2:41 am
(June 21, 2016 at 2:28 am)IATIA Wrote: Fish have scales
Snakes have scales
Therefore snakes are fish.
Neither valid nor sound. Because the truth of the premises don't guarantee the truth of the conclusion, it's not even valid.
The modal ontological argument is valid because if premise 1 is true, then everything else stated in the argument must follow, under modal logic. So the matter becomes about whether the argument is sound or not.
Posts: 367
Threads: 21
Joined: October 13, 2015
Reputation:
3
RE: The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?
June 21, 2016 at 2:42 am
You obviously will never accept the ontlogical arguement then. You should go back home.
Posts: 15298
Threads: 450
Joined: March 29, 2015
Reputation:
29
RE: The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?
June 21, 2016 at 3:18 am
(This post was last modified: June 21, 2016 at 3:23 am by Fake Messiah.)
Listen the main thing with ontological argument is that believers of it are not imagining anything, let alone some objective superhuman being with superior morals. What they're actually doing is projecting themselves and saying it's "a superior being". So if they themselves hate melanoid people and women - well, what a coincidence, their superior being is also hating those people. That's why everybody has different superior being and that's why they're killing each-other of whose superior being is the "real" superior being.
That is also why, for instance, the Bible is ripe with contradictive description of so called "superior being". In some parts he's saying "Don't kill" and little bit later "Kill that particular tribe of people" and so on.
teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries. It was even possible for the most venerated patriarchs of the Church, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, to conclude that heretics should be tortured (Augustine) or killed outright (Aquinas). Martin Luther and John Calvin advocated the wholesale murder of heretics, apostates, Jews, and witches. - Sam Harris, "Letter To A Christian Nation"
|
