Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
December 12, 2015 at 11:15 pm
(December 12, 2015 at 1:37 pm)athrock Wrote: I have never seen this argument before, so I'm interested in some discussion of it. A philosopher by the name of Alvin Plantinga states it this way:
The Ontological Argument
- It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
- If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists is some possible world.
- If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
- If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
- If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
- Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
Thoughts?
Completely invalid and I am surprised that anyone would even entertain this type of argument.
- Why is it possible? I do not think it possible.
- Even if it were possible, that does not mandate it's existence. Unicorns are possible and they do not exist.
- Letting #1 and #2 slide, by what caveat does that pose it's existence in all worlds?
- Gotta get by 1,2, and 3 first.
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 for the Existence of God
December 13, 2015 at 2:34 am
(December 12, 2015 at 11:15 pm)IATIA Wrote: (December 12, 2015 at 1:37 pm)athrock Wrote: I have never seen this argument before, so I'm interested in some discussion of it. A philosopher by the name of Alvin Plantinga states it this way:
The Ontological Argument
- It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
- If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists is some possible world.
- If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
- If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
- If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
- Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
Thoughts?
Completely invalid and I am surprised that anyone would even entertain this type of argument.
- Why is it possible? I do not think it possible.
- Even if it were possible, that does not mandate it's existence. Unicorns are possible and they do not exist.
- Letting #1 and #2 slide, by what caveat does that pose it's existence in all worlds?
- Gotta get by 1,2, and 3 first.
It is valid argument, but it is nothing more than a trick, that's all.
To be fair, understanding modal ontological argument is a feat in itself.
Posts: 8731
Threads: 425
Joined: October 7, 2014
Reputation:
37
RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
December 13, 2015 at 2:49 am
(December 12, 2015 at 1:37 pm)athrock Wrote: I have never seen this argument before, so I'm interested in some discussion of it. A philosopher by the name of Alvin Plantinga states it this way:
The Ontological Argument
- It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
- If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists is some possible world.
- If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
- If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
- If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
- Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
Thoughts?
It's a invalid argument
Atheism is a non-prophet organization join today.
Code: <iframe width="100%" height="450" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/255506953&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true"></iframe>
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
December 13, 2015 at 11:52 am
(This post was last modified: December 13, 2015 at 12:00 pm by IATIA.)
(December 13, 2015 at 2:34 am)Irrational Wrote: (December 12, 2015 at 11:15 pm)IATIA Wrote: Completely invalid and I am surprised that anyone would even entertain this type of argument.
- Why is it possible? I do not think it possible.
- Even if it were possible, that does not mandate it's existence. Unicorns are possible and they do not exist.
- Letting #1 and #2 slide, by what caveat does that pose it's existence in all worlds?
- Gotta get by 1,2, and 3 first.
It is valid argument, but it is nothing more than a trick, that's all.
To be fair, understanding modal ontological argument is a feat in itself.
I do not see the validity in it. Besides the points I made above, earlier I showed (along with others) that substitution displays the invalidity.
Effectively, any entity can be thrown in the argument and be ?logically? proven to "exist in all worlds".
How do you rationalize step two as that is the most detrimental to the argument with #3 a nose-to-nose second.
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: 761
Threads: 18
Joined: November 24, 2015
Reputation:
4
RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
December 14, 2015 at 9:31 am
Well, I've been wandering around the web and in the course of my travels, I came across an article by Dr. Edward Feser, a Christian philosopher (and former atheist), which explains some of the weaknesses contained in Plantinga's version of the Ontological Argument. Plantinga himself, apparently, conceded that a rational person need not accept the argument. He only claimed that a rational person could accept it.
That's not much of an argument if you ask me. If the believers don't even buy it, there's no reason anyone else should.
Time to move on.
Thanks for all who participated in the discussion.
Posts: 1543
Threads: 40
Joined: April 4, 2014
Reputation:
46
RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
December 14, 2015 at 2:14 pm
(This post was last modified: December 14, 2015 at 2:16 pm by RobbyPants.)
(December 12, 2015 at 1:37 pm)athrock Wrote: Thoughts?
My first thought is that this basically posits a single thing that's unknowable, but technically possible. The problem is, we can do that about anything that follows in that vein:
- It is possible that a leprechaun exists.
- If it is possible that a leprechaun exists, then a leprechaun exists is some possible world.
- If a leprechaun exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
- If a leprechaun exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
- If a leprechaun exists in the actual world, then a leprechaun exists.
- Therefore, a leprechaun exists.
So, my first question is: do you think leprechauns are real, based on this reasoning? Back when I was a Christian, I heard this argument and could not fathom why anyone would make it.
(December 12, 2015 at 1:37 pm)athrock Wrote:
- It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
- If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists is some possible world.
- If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
- If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
- If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
- Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
Now, actually looking at the points to break down the problems of the argument:
- P1 is technically true, but you're dealing with nonfalsifiable things here, so take anything that follows with a grain of salt. Lots of grains of salt.
- P2 is not given at all. You'd have to prove that there are multiple "possible worlds".
- P3 is a non sequitur and cannot be inferred from any of the previous points.
- P4 is building off of P3, which is already not logically valid.
- P5 is logically valid, but is based off of P3 and P4, so it is not reasonable to infer, despite being logically correct in itself.
- The conclusion would also be valid, if not built off of P3 and P4.
So, that's where it all falls apart. I mean, once you take out the formal sounding syllogism, you're basically saying "if something could be real, it is real". I shouldn't have to explain why that's dumb. Again, leprechauns could be real.
Posts: 67044
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
December 14, 2015 at 2:19 pm
(This post was last modified: December 14, 2015 at 2:23 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(December 12, 2015 at 11:15 pm)IATIA Wrote:
- Letting #1 and #2 slide, by what caveat does that pose it's existence in all worlds?
The assumption of accessibility. It's a way to unify modal operators. Otherwise possibility cannot lead to actuality or necessity (the real prize). Without it, then the arguments are left as repetitions of their premise regarding possibility, and their conclusions can only refer to possibility. Basically it's a bridge.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
December 14, 2015 at 11:11 pm
(December 14, 2015 at 2:14 pm)RobbyPants Wrote: Now, actually looking at the points to break down the problems of the argument:
- P1 is technically true, but you're dealing with nonfalsifiable things here, so take anything that follows with a grain of salt. Lots of grains of salt.
- P2 is not given at all. You'd have to prove that there are multiple "possible worlds".
- P3 is a non sequitur and cannot be inferred from any of the previous points.
- P4 is building off of P3, which is already not logically valid.
- P5 is logically valid, but is based off of P3 and P4, so it is not reasonable to infer, despite being logically correct in itself.
- The conclusion would also be valid, if not built off of P3 and P4.
So, that's where it all falls apart. I mean, once you take out the formal sounding syllogism, you're basically saying "if something could be real, it is real". I shouldn't have to explain why that's dumb. Again, leprechauns could be real.
( my bold)
Yeah!  Finally, someone else sees it.
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: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
December 15, 2015 at 12:12 am
Basically there's no real difference between this masturbatory gymnastics and "I really, really want god to exist; therefore god exists."
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: 1543
Threads: 40
Joined: April 4, 2014
Reputation:
46
RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
December 15, 2015 at 7:57 am
(December 15, 2015 at 12:12 am)Stimbo Wrote: Basically there's no real difference between this masturbatory gymnastics and "I really, really want god to exist; therefore god exists."
Yeah, that about sums it up.
|
