Posts: 66911
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Modal ontological argument
February 2, 2022 at 4:11 pm
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2022 at 4:14 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(February 2, 2022 at 3:41 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: The gratuitous slur directed to my beliefs proves you have no idea what you're talking about. Feel free to dismiss arguments without understanding them, I know for a fact that philosophers devote entire books to arguments like the ontological to explain why each variant doesn't work and where it fails exactly, meanwhile you're just insulting arguments and people left and right. There are many other variants of the ontological not covered in the thread like Descartes's, Leibniz's, Hegel's, etc, do you have some total refutation of these variants (and any other possible variant) that you care to share with us? Additionally, I doubt many people here seriously studied modal logic to even understand the words used in the arguments.
Child...fucking...warlord.
That's just a fact of what you believe, even by your own account. Does it prove something?
You're over here asking if I have refutations..but my entire participation in this thread has been to explain that it's a perfectly good argument. If the premises are true, the conclusion follows. You don't even know what you're arguing against. Par for the course..to an adherent of the child fucking warlord religion.
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: 1101
Threads: 15
Joined: November 29, 2019
Reputation:
2
RE: Modal ontological argument
February 2, 2022 at 4:13 pm
(February 2, 2022 at 4:01 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: I have studied logic more seriously than you who is still using logical fallacies.
The bullshit premise is bullshit no matter who studied it. The logical fallacy that I should read all possible books about it, especially from sound names, is like saying that you should read books on alchemy by Newton, Paracelsius, Jean Baptista Van Helmont, etc.
Godel's variant doesn't contain logical fallacies, the argument is valid in structure. I am currently reading bits of Graham Oppy's Arguing about Gods and he concedes this. The premises of the argument are controversial, OFC.
Posts: 66911
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Modal ontological argument
February 2, 2022 at 4:16 pm
And still, you follow a child fucking warlord religion.
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: 1101
Threads: 15
Joined: November 29, 2019
Reputation:
2
RE: Modal ontological argument
February 2, 2022 at 4:17 pm
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2022 at 4:18 pm by R00tKiT.)
(February 2, 2022 at 4:11 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: You're over here asking if I have refutations..but my entire participation in this thread has been to explain that it's a perfectly good argument. If the premises are true, the conclusion follows. You don't even know what you're arguing against.
Nobody here considers the argument to be good. It's valid in structure, but that's it. Anyone can blurt out thousands of valid arguments that are empty of meaning....
Posts: 66911
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Modal ontological argument
February 2, 2022 at 4:18 pm
That's obviously not true. I think it's a perfectly good argument
-and still, you follow a child fucking warlords religion.
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: 1750
Threads: 0
Joined: December 11, 2019
Reputation:
9
RE: Modal ontological argument
February 2, 2022 at 4:19 pm
It's possible that a billionaire playboy, weapons dealer could build a super suit. But we don't see Iron Man flying around.
Posts: 29347
Threads: 115
Joined: February 22, 2011
Reputation:
159
RE: Modal ontological argument
February 2, 2022 at 4:42 pm
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2022 at 4:44 pm by Angrboda.)
(February 2, 2022 at 2:58 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: (February 2, 2022 at 9:41 am)Angrboda Wrote: Suppose that it is possible that there never was anything, that nothing ever existed. Is this possible? Of course. If that's the case then it's trivial to produce a modal ontological disproof of God.
1. There exists a possible world in which nothing exists;
2. If nothing exists in some possible world then a maximally excellent being does not exist in that world;
3. If a maximally excellent being does not exist in some possible world, then it does not exist in all possible worlds;
4. Therefore, a maximally excellent being does not exist in this world.
Your argument is invalid because premise 1 is false. A world that simultaneously exists and doesn't exist is an impossible world. (P and non-P) is never true,
That's not how possible world semantics works. And it's trivially easy to reformulate the same argument without the possible world semantics, so you're doubly wrong besides being ninja'd.
Asked and answered.
Posts: 66911
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Modal ontological argument
February 2, 2022 at 4:45 pm
You missed a term. "Therefore, a maximally excellent being -necessarily- does not exist."
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: 29347
Threads: 115
Joined: February 22, 2011
Reputation:
159
RE: Modal ontological argument
February 2, 2022 at 4:47 pm
(February 2, 2022 at 4:13 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: (February 2, 2022 at 4:01 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: I have studied logic more seriously than you who is still using logical fallacies.
The bullshit premise is bullshit no matter who studied it. The logical fallacy that I should read all possible books about it, especially from sound names, is like saying that you should read books on alchemy by Newton, Paracelsius, Jean Baptista Van Helmont, etc.
Godel's variant doesn't contain logical fallacies, the argument is valid in structure. I am currently reading bits of Graham Oppy's Arguing about Gods and he concedes this. The premises of the argument are controversial, OFC.
Actually it does. Reification.
Posts: 28137
Threads: 522
Joined: June 16, 2015
Reputation:
90
RE: Modal ontological argument
February 2, 2022 at 4:48 pm
(February 2, 2022 at 4:17 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Nobody here considers the argument to be good. It's valid in structure, but that's it. Anyone can blurt out thousands of valid arguments that are empty of meaning....
Face it, your's is a violent religion, the same as christian. Your's is no better or worse than any other religion of that era. Time for you to give it up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_in_the_Quran
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
|
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
