(December 17, 2015 at 6:58 pm)Cecelia Wrote: A maximally great being defined as god would simply mean the greatest being in the universe is god. 

Uh, no.

(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

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
   
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists is some possible world.
   
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
   
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
   
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
   
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
   

Thoughts?

Has anyone posted this yet?

Anyway, my thought is this: how does anyone intend to demonstrate the first premise of the argument in any concrete way, knowing in advance that the moment any putative "maximally great being," is presented it can be exceeded simply by positing an identical being and including the trait "is great to a higher degree than that other being"?

(December 17, 2015 at 6:29 pm)Reflex Wrote: DBP's post is a excellent example of carelessness. If you read a little further in the article, you'll see that Wikipedia's introductory "definition" has little or nothing in common with the word's etymology, which is much more specific. Overall, it is a grand example what happens when words are carelessly used over time: they lose their specificity and dissolve into ambiguity and meaninglessness.

Reflex, you're an idiot. Words are tools, not masters. You know what words used "carelessly" over time are? Language. It's how we communicate. I used a word that doesn't fit your strict interpretation ("God"), when we still haven't had a demonstration from you as to why that interpretation is the only valid one. Meanwhile you're free to equate atheism with religion as merrily as you like, without holding yourself to the same standard you impose on me. I wonder what the word for that might be...

(December 17, 2015 at 4:10 pm)Reflex Wrote:

(December 17, 2015 at 3:06 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Please do. It'd make a nice change from being paraphrased.

I was hoping you's say yes. You said--and this what was said in its entirety and not taken out of context--:

Quote:I cry at a lot of things. Despite being Cyberman, I admit to having human feelings. If that's not spiritual, I would happily accede to an upgrade to my vocabulary algorithm.

Though the words “feeling” and “spiritual” are inseparably related, they do not mean the the same thing. This statement uses the word “spiritual” to mean “feeling” even though the words are not equivalent. It's like saying the keel of a ship is the ship itself. It's this kind of frivolous misuse of words that leads to so much confusion.

Rather than admit to misspeaking, what followed was a defense of the undefensible.

Once upon a time, the word "spirit" was coined as a reference to what resides in your head. It was believed to be something immortal, which would go somewhere when the body dies.

Once upon a time a bit later, the word "mind" was coined by the inquisitive and the curious on all matters human, and what really makes us tick. They substituted "spirit" for this word so that they could write about what they learned and avoid pissing off the jealous "spiritual" authorities.

The mind was never presumed immortal, but if you have to stand in judgment before your god at the end of your life, then it would be no just trial if you remembered nothing which your mind accumulated memories of before it died. Therefore, the mind must be the spirit, and vice versa.

That neither mind nor spirit (whatever word you choose it means the same) have not been shown to go on after death, following thousands of years of time wasted on this argument, is more than a good case for presuming there is no afterlife for the spirit-mind.

(December 17, 2015 at 6:48 pm)Reflex Wrote:

(December 17, 2015 at 6:44 pm)Cato Wrote: Right, it must be your superior intellect that allows you to gloss over the two explanatory notes and four unique references cited for just those two sentences.

You mean the ones that have nothing to do with the etymology of the word?

Then that should have been your point, not the reflexive and grossly misplaced 'wiki is unreliable' bullshit.

(December 17, 2015 at 8:58 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(December 17, 2015 at 6:29 pm)Reflex Wrote: DBP's post is a excellent example of carelessness. If you read a little further in the article, you'll see that Wikipedia's introductory "definition" has little or nothing in common with the word's etymology, which is much more specific. Overall, it is a grand example what happens when words are carelessly used over time: they lose their specificity and dissolve into ambiguity and meaninglessness.

Reflex, you're an idiot. Words are tools, not masters. 

A sledge hammer is not a useful tool for filleting a fish.  When words lose their specificity, they dissolve into ambiguity and meaninglessness. Communication cannot exist under those circumstances.

(December 17, 2015 at 4:10 pm)Reflex Wrote: Rather than admit to misspeaking, what followed was a defense of the undefensible.

Your use of 'undefensible' is indefensible. One making a name for himself by castigating the use of language of others should be more careful.

A better form of an argument goes on the lines like this.

It's possible a necessary being exists.
What is possibly necessarily, is necessarily.
Therefore a necessary being exists.

The only premise that can be argued in this argument to be wrong, is the first one. However, when it's said it's possible, it's not about it may or may not exist sort of possible. It's rather about it being logically possible. And whatever is logically possible to be necessarily, in model logic, has been proven to be necessarily.

There's a lot of talk about the etymology of the word "spiritual". Ok, let's look at that (and this is not Wikipedia):

Quote:spiritual (adj.)
c. 1300, "of or concerning the spirit" (especially in religious aspects), from Old French spirituel, esperituel (12c.) or directly from a Medieval Latin ecclesiastical use of Latin spiritualis "of or pertaining to breath, breathing, wind, or air; pertaining to spirit," from spiritus "of breathing, of the spirit" (see spirit (n.)). Meaning "of or concerning the church" is attested from mid-14c. Related: Spiritually. An Old English word for "spiritual" was godcundlic.

In avibus intellige studia spiritualia, in animalibus exercitia corporalia [Richard of St. Victoror (1110-1173): "Watch birds to understand how spiritual things move, animals to understand physical motion." - E.P.]

Since "spiritual" pertains to "spirit" - no shit, Sherlock - we need to examine that to find the answer:

Quote:Spirit (n)
mid-13c., "animating or vital principle in man and animals," from Anglo-French spirit, Old French espirit "spirit, soul" (12c., Modern French esprit) and directly from Latin spiritus "a breathing (respiration, and of the wind), breath; breath of a god," hence "inspiration; breath of life," hence "life;" also "disposition, character; high spirit, vigor, courage; pride, arrogance," related to spirare "to breathe," perhaps from PIE *(s)peis- "to blow" (cognates: Old Church Slavonic pisto "to play on the flute"). But de Vaan says "Possibly an onomatopoeic formation imitating the sound of breathing. There are no direct cognates."

Meaning "supernatural immaterial creature; angel, demon; an apparition, invisible corporeal being of an airy nature" is attested from mid-14c.; from late 14c. as "a ghost" (see ghost (n.)). From c. 1500 as "a nature, character"; sense of "essential principle of something" (in a non-theological context, as in Spirit of St. Louis) is attested from 1680s, common after 1800; Spirit of '76 in reference to the qualities that sparked and sustained the American Revolution is attested by 1797 in William Cobbett's "Porcupine's Gazette and Daily Advertiser."

From late 14c. in alchemy as "volatile substance; distillate;" from c. 1500 as "substance capable of uniting the fixed and the volatile elements of the philosopher's stone." Hence spirits "volatile substance;" sense narrowed to "strong alcoholic liquor" by 1670s. This also is the sense in spirit level (1768). Also from mid-14c. as "character, disposition; way of thinking and feeling, state of mind; source of a human desire;" in Middle English freedom of spirit meant "freedom of choice." From late 14c. as "divine substance, divine mind, God;" also "Christ" or His divine nature; "the Holy Ghost; divine power;" also, "extension of divine power to man; inspiration, a charismatic state; charismatic power, especially of prophecy." Also "essential nature, essential quality." From 1580s in metaphoric sense "animation, vitality."

According to Barnhart and OED, originally in English mainly from passages in Vulgate, where the Latin word translates Greek pneuma and Hebrew ruah. Distinction between "soul" and "spirit" (as "seat of emotions") became current in Christian terminology (such as Greek psykhe vs. pneuma, Latin anima vs. spiritus) but "is without significance for earlier periods" [Buck]. Latin spiritus, usually in classical Latin "breath," replaces animus in the sense "spirit" in the imperial period and appears in Christian writings as the usual equivalent of Greek pneuma. Spirit-rapping is from 1852.

The word, then, has several meanings, all converging in the sense of life, breath, essential animating force. Of particular interest for this conversation is the distinction in xtian terminology, between spirit as "seat of emotions" and soul.

I am therefore fully justified in using the term as an expression of emotions brought about by experiences, and you still need to justify the accusation that I misuse words, let alone tried to "defend the undefensible [sic]".

Your go.

(December 17, 2015 at 10:06 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: A better form of an argument goes on the lines like this.

It's possible a necessary being exists.
What is possibly necessarily, is necessarily.
Therefore a necessary being exists.

The only premise that can be argued in this argument to be wrong, is the first one. However, when it's said it's possible, it's not about it may or may not exist sort of possible. It's rather about it being logically possible. And whatever is logically possible to be necessarily, in model logic, has been proven to be necessarily.

Still no good! Just because something is possible does not make it so. Pink unicorns are possible. Seen any lately?