Posts: 9915
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
December 30, 2015 at 3:36 pm
Chad, apologies. I see the error in my post. Your link was to PNC, and I was speaking of the principle of PSR that was being discussed in the AF thread you had linked to. I DID try to familiarize my self with PNC via the link you provided, but I admit this one is quite over my head. Maybe you, or someone else can explain it in layman' terms so I may understand and properly comment?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
December 30, 2015 at 6:05 pm
(This post was last modified: December 30, 2015 at 6:07 pm by robvalue.)
PNC?
Principle of non contradiction... Let's see...
A statement can't be both true and false, in the same sense, at the same time. I think that's it? Sometimes called the "excluded middle" if I remember rightly.
As far as I can tell, it's an axiom we put in place based on observation. Like all our attempts to model reality, it's descriptive rather than prescriptive.
Life is absurd. Everything about it. We don't know if there is any purpose. If there is one, we don't know what it is. Trying to ask "why" only gets you so far. After a while, you just have to accept we're here, and things appear to work a certain way. We can get on with it, or be forever trapped by insistence on definitive answers.
Someone can probably clean that up, I'm not formally trained in logic. I just picked up the basics recently.
Posts: 9915
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
December 30, 2015 at 9:33 pm
(This post was last modified: December 30, 2015 at 9:34 pm by LadyForCamus.)
robvalue Wrote:Life is absurd. Everything about it. We don't know if there is any purpose. If there is one, we don't know what it is. Trying to ask "why" only gets you so far. After a while, you just have to accept we're here, and things appear to work a certain way. We can get on with it, or be forever trapped by insistence on definitive answers.
Someone can probably clean that up, I'm not formally trained in logic. I just picked up the basics recently.
You kind of described my general world view better, and more succinctly than I did, thank you. [emoji15]
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
December 31, 2015 at 5:52 am
You're welcome! 
The human mind seems extremely good at brushing aside these concerns and just getting on with it. This makes sense as an evolved trait, as people who just sit there pondering what is real and what is not aren't going to do much reproducing 
Here's a link to a wiki article, I think my description of the PNC was fairly accurate. Contradictory statements can't both be true at the same time in the same sense. So I can't own exactly 1 car and also own exactly 3 cars.
Posts: 9915
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
January 22, 2016 at 3:14 pm
(December 31, 2015 at 5:52 am)robvalue Wrote: You're welcome!
The human mind seems extremely good at brushing aside these concerns and just getting on with it. This makes sense as an evolved trait, as people who just sit there pondering what is real and what is not aren't going to do much reproducing
Here's a link to a wiki article, I think my description of the PNC was fairly accurate. Contradictory statements can't both be true at the same time in the same sense. So I can't own exactly 1 car and also own exactly 3 cars.
Hey, Rob!
I know this is bordering on necroposting, but I just wanted to say thank you so much for introducing me to The Atheist Experience! I love it, and Matt D. is just plain awesome. I could listen to him debate all day. How nice to have a program like this out there in the world. Thanks again!
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 9915
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
January 22, 2016 at 3:15 pm
Necroposting, aaaand I quoted the wrong post...I'm on fire today!
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
January 22, 2016 at 3:19 pm
(This post was last modified: January 22, 2016 at 3:24 pm by robvalue.)
Lol that's okay! And you're very welcome
Yes, the AXP is the nuts. You would probably also love their spinoff show, The Non-Prophets which is similar content but without callers.
This is one of my favourites segments of all time. If you skip to 9:20 Don Baker does the most awesome takedown of apologetics in general. Pure gold.
http://youtu.be/ng2VFfb-4gA
Posts: 3160
Threads: 56
Joined: February 14, 2012
Reputation:
39
RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
January 22, 2016 at 3:28 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?
1. It is possible that a maximally smelly being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally smelly being exists, then a maximally smelly being exists is some possible world.
3. If a maximally smelly being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally smelly being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally smelly being exists in the actual world, then a maximally smelly being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally smelly being exists.
Explain to me the problems with this argument and why they are not the exact same problems your argument faces.
"That is not dead which can eternal lie and with strange aeons even death may die."
- Abdul Alhazred.
Posts: 9915
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
January 22, 2016 at 3:29 pm
Lol, damn, someone pass me the nose plugs!
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 43162
Threads: 720
Joined: September 21, 2008
Reputation:
133
RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
January 22, 2016 at 3:47 pm
(This post was last modified: January 22, 2016 at 3:47 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(January 22, 2016 at 3:28 pm)RaphielDrake 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?
1. It is possible that a maximally smelly being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally smelly being exists, then a maximally smelly being exists is some possible world.
3. If a maximally smelly being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally smelly being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally smelly being exists in the actual world, then a maximally smelly being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally smelly being exists.
Explain to me the problems with this argument and why they are not the exact same problems your argument faces.
Hahaha. I always found that funny the first few times I read that "smelliness" version of the argument in TGD. Was my favorite book of all time for years, I read TGD over and over so many times the pages wore out and I could paraphrase a good deal of the book onto these forums hehe.
|
