Why ontological arguments are illogical

[CliveStaples]

Why not? Suffering is irrelevant to beauty. Just ask Helen of Troy.

You're defining "perfect beauty" in terms of "amount of attractiveness". How do you know that that's what 'perfect' beauty amounts to?

Yes, it kind of does.

No, it doesn't.

It'd include winning with no damage and the number of moves issue would be resolved by whether the standard of perfection is intricacy or efficiency.

How do you know it would be "winning with no damage"? Why wouldn't a 'perfect' victory mean maximizing the amount of damage taken while still securing a victory?

I did and they didn't. So I had to assume that Leibniz is using "perfect" in the same sense as the dictionary.

Can you provide Leibniz's argument here?

Ofcourse not. Though you'd still need a good argument against an atheist who stands up saying that he does.

Nah, they'd have to convince me, not the other way around.

Pick two contradictory qualities and conceptualize the perfect form of both.

The perfect form of a negative quality is to possess none of it; the perfect form of a positive quality is to possess it to an optimal degree.

The contradiction isn't necessarily unprovable in perpetuity, just within that context. Changing the axiom (that perfection can be analyzed) entails a provable contradiction, which would mean that it still entails a contradiction - just not provable.

What provable contradiction does it entail? What is the proof?

I don't understand your last claim. "Perfection can be analyzed" entails a provable contradiction, which means that "it still entails a contradiction, just not provable". So if "Perfection can be analyzed" entails a provable contradiction, then "Perfection can be analyzed" still entails a contradiction, but not a provable one? Or have I mistaken your claim?

So give me the "actual" argument then. This is the best I've found.

You're the one criticizing Leibniz's argument. It's your responsibility to get his argument right.

[Reforged]

er... kind of looks like you're arguing with yourself.
Might want to correct that?

[genkaus]

You're defining "perfect beauty" in terms of "amount of attractiveness". How do you know that that's what 'perfect' beauty amounts to?

Because that is what 'beauty' amounts to. Perfection is a measure.

No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does. Your turn.

How do you know it would be "winning with no damage"? Why wouldn't a 'perfect' victory mean maximizing the amount of damage taken while still securing a victory?

Because every time you take damage its a partial loss and therefore a flaw in the game. Perfection would require the victory to be without flaws.

Can you provide Leibniz's argument here?

How is it any different from the one posted in OP?

Nah, they'd have to convince me, not the other way around.

Why'd he have to convince you? Do you have any reason to believe he is lying?

The perfect form of a negative quality is to possess none of it; the perfect form of a positive quality is to possess it to an optimal degree.

1. Can you prove either of those statements?
2. How do you classify qualities as positive or negative?
3. Two supposed positive qualities can be contradictory as well.

What provable contradiction does it entail? What is the proof?

I don't understand your last claim. "Perfection can be analyzed" entails a provable contradiction, which means that "it still entails a contradiction, just not provable". So if "Perfection can be analyzed" entails a provable contradiction, then "Perfection can be analyzed" still entails a contradiction, but not a provable one? Or have I mistaken your claim?

Yes, you have. "Perfection can/cannot be analyzed" is only one of the axioms. The other is "An entity can have all types of perfections". If we take "Perfection can be analyzed" with the latter, it entails a contradiction. If we take "Perfection cannot be analyzed" with the latter, it prevents us from analyzing and therefore proving a contradiction which we could before. Thus, we get an unprovable contradiction.

You're the one criticizing Leibniz's argument. It's your responsibility to get his argument right.

Where have I gone wrong?

[CliveStaples]

Because that is what 'beauty' amounts to. Perfection is a measure.

Yes, but the "perfect" amount of beauty might not be the most. The perfect amount of pizza isn't necessarily the largest amount of pizza.

No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does. Your turn.

Because every time you take damage its a partial loss and therefore a flaw in the game. Perfection would require the victory to be without flaws.

Do you see my point? Yes, if you define "taking damage" to be a flaw, then flawlessness requires taking no damage. But why should "taking damage" be a flaw?

This is like saying that a "perfect" run of a game would be at max level. But lots of people try to beat the game at the lowest level possible. "Perfect" =/= "biggest".

How is it any different from the one posted in OP?

You're the one criticizing it, you tell me.

Why'd he have to convince you? Do you have any reason to believe he is lying?

Because if he didn't support his claim, I can reject it. Unsupported claims can be rejected.

1. Can you prove either of those statements?

No, that's my whole point; what you call "perfect" is somewhat arbitrary. It depends on what you're trying to 'optimize'.

2. How do you classify qualities as positive or negative?

Probably something like, "A quality is negative <=> the more one possesses it, the more unjustified suffering occurs"

3. Two supposed positive qualities can be contradictory as well.

Proof?

Yes, you have. "Perfection can/cannot be analyzed" is only one of the axioms. The other is "An entity can have all types of perfections". If we take "Perfection can be analyzed" with the latter, it entails a contradiction. If we take "Perfection cannot be analyzed" with the latter, it prevents us from analyzing and therefore proving a contradiction which we could before. Thus, we get an unprovable contradiction.

But "An entity can have all types of perfections" isn't an axiom. It was derived.

1) How do you know that "Perfection can be analyzed" together with "An entity can have all types of perfections" entails a provable contradiction?

2) How do you know that "Perfection cannot be analyzed" together with "An entity can have all types of perfections" entails an unprovable contradiction?

Your argument is necessarily false.

Let A be your argument; then if A is true, "Perfection cannot be analyzed" together with "An entity can have all types of perfections" entails a contradiction, AND it cannot be proved that "Perfection cannot be analyzed" together with "An entity can have all types of perfections" entails a contradiction.

But if A is true, then it proves that "Perfection cannot be analyzed" together with "An entity can have all types of perfections" entails a contradiction. This is a contradiction. Therefore, A is false.

Do you see?


Let P = "Perfection can be analyzed", E = "An entity can have all types of perfections. Let F(x) = "X can be proved".

A states: "P and E => c (where c means 'contradiction'); ~P and E => ~F(~P and E => c); ~P and E => c." That is, if P and E are true, then there's a contradiction; if ~P and E are true, then there's a contradiction, but it can't be proved that there's a contradiction.

Suppose A true. Then under A, we know "~P and E => c", and we know ~F(~P and E => c). But then A is a proof that "~P and E => c". Hence F(~P and E => c). Thus A entails contradiction.

Where have I gone wrong?

Well, you didn't look at his actual argument. You looked at Stanford's one-sentence summation of his conclusion. So you might want to go look at his actual reasoning.

[Reforged]

Yeah, I can pretty much end this right here.

Prove perfection exists Clive, give me an example of something that is perfect that is demonstrable.
Anything. Then define what makes it perfect.

[CliveStaples]

Yeah, I can pretty much end this right here.

Prove perfection exists Clive, give me an example of something that is perfect that is demonstrable.
Anything. Then define what makes it perfect.

Well, that's a trivial question.

All rocks are perfect. The thing that makes a rock perfect is that it is a rock. Thus, since rocks exist, and all rocks are perfect, perfect rocks exist. Thus perfection exists.

The question is, what is meant by "perfection"? You'll have to look to the authors of the argument to answer that question.



If the argument fails to define its terms, then there's really no reason to address the argument. Although some arguments don't rely on defining all their terms; instead, they make a structural claim (example: Godel's ontological argument).

This is common in mathematics; the results of group theory apply to anything that satisfies the group axioms.

[genkaus]

Yes, but the "perfect" amount of beauty might not be the most. The perfect amount of pizza isn't necessarily the largest amount of pizza.

But we are not talking about perfect amount of beauty, we are talking about perfect beauty.

Yes, it does. Your turn.

No. it doesn't.

Do you see my point? Yes, if you define "taking damage" to be a flaw, then flawlessness requires taking no damage. But why should "taking damage" be a flaw?

Because you take damage when the opponent's attack gets through your defense. A flawless defense does not allow that to happen. Ergo, taking damage = flaw.

This is like saying that a "perfect" run of a game would be at max level. But lots of people try to beat the game at the lowest level possible. "Perfect" =/= "biggest".

Nonsense. The indicator is number of points garnered. You can get points at a higher rate at higher levels and you can end up with more points at lower level and getting further. So yes, a perfect game would take place at the higher level you get through.

You're the one criticizing it, you tell me.

I'm telling you its not.

Because if he didn't support his claim, I can reject it. Unsupported claims can be rejected.

He's not making a claim, he's making a statement - one common enough not to warrant independent support.

No, that's my whole point; what you call "perfect" is somewhat arbitrary. It depends on what you're trying to 'optimize'.

No, what you call "perfect" is arbitrary, since I have actually laid out what it means and stayed consistent.

Probably something like, "A quality is negative <=> the more one possesses it, the more unjustified suffering occurs"

Then no quality would be classified as positive or negative, because its effect is rarely consistent and depends much more on the context than the amount.

Proof?

Mercy and justice.

But "An entity can have all types of perfections" isn't an axiom. It was derived.

Really? Because it seems like Leibniz started with that premise.

1) How do you know that "Perfection can be analyzed" together with "An entity can have all types of perfections" entails a provable contradiction?

See the example of perfect morality and immorality.

2) How do you know that "Perfection cannot be analyzed" together with "An entity can have all types of perfections" entails an unprovable contradiction?

Starting analysis of perfection with the premise "An entity can have all types of perfections" entails a contradiction. Having the added premise of "Perfection cannot be analyzed" prevents any analysis and therefore proof, but the contradiction pursuant to the first would still entail.

Your argument is necessarily false.

Let A be your argument; then if A is true, "Perfection cannot be analyzed" together with "An entity can have all types of perfections" entails a contradiction, AND it cannot be proved that "Perfection cannot be analyzed" together with "An entity can have all types of perfections" entails a contradiction.

But if A is true, then it proves that "Perfection cannot be analyzed" together with "An entity can have all types of perfections" entails a contradiction. This is a contradiction. Therefore, A is false.

Do you see?


Let P = "Perfection can be analyzed", E = "An entity can have all types of perfections. Let F(x) = "X can be proved".

A states: "P and E => c (where c means 'contradiction'); ~P and E => ~F(~P and E => c); ~P and E => c." That is, if P and E are true, then there's a contradiction; if ~P and E are true, then there's a contradiction, but it can't be proved that there's a contradiction.

Suppose A true. Then under A, we know "~P and E => c", and we know ~F(~P and E => c). But then A is a proof that "~P and E => c". Hence F(~P and E => c). Thus A entails contradiction.

What are you talking about? What is "A"?

Well, you didn't look at his actual argument. You looked at Stanford's one-sentence summation of his conclusion. So you might want to go look at his actual reasoning.

Is it any different from the one posted in OP?

---

Yeah, I can pretty much end this right here.

Prove perfection exists Clive, give me an example of something that is perfect that is demonstrable.
Anything. Then define what makes it perfect.

That's stupid. How is actual existence of relevant to an argument about god?

[Reforged]

Yeah, I can pretty much end this right here.

Prove perfection exists Clive, give me an example of something that is perfect that is demonstrable.
Anything. Then define what makes it perfect.

Well, that's a trivial question.

All rocks are perfect. The thing that makes a rock perfect is that it is a rock. Thus, since rocks exist, and all rocks are perfect, perfect rocks exist. Thus perfection exists.

The question is, what is meant by "perfection"? You'll have to look to the authors of the argument to answer that question.



If the argument fails to define its terms, then there's really no reason to address the argument. Although some arguments don't rely on defining all their terms; instead, they make a structural claim (example: Godel's ontological argument).

This is common in mathematics; the results of group theory apply to anything that satisfies the group axioms.

By that same logic all paedophilia is perfect. The thing that makes paedophilia perfect is that it is paedophilia. Thus, since paedophilia exists, and all paedophilia is perfect, perfect paedophilia exists. Thus perfection exists.

Is that argument for perfection also correct? Please tell me if I've misunderstood your line of reasoning.

[genkaus]

Well, that's a trivial question.

All rocks are perfect. The thing that makes a rock perfect is that it is a rock. Thus, since rocks exist, and all rocks are perfect, perfect rocks exist. Thus perfection exists.

Wrong. Rocks are defined as naturally occurring solid aggregates of minerals within a size range. No naturally occurring rock would be completely solid with all its structural constituents within that size range and any intervention to make it so would make it artificial. No rocks are perfect.

The question is, what is meant by "perfection"? You'll have to look to the authors of the argument to answer that question.

No, for terms common in language, you can reliably look to a dictionary.

If the argument fails to define its terms, then there's really no reason to address the argument. Although some arguments don't rely on defining all their terms; instead, they make a structural claim (example: Godel's ontological argument).

This is common in mathematics; the results of group theory apply to anything that satisfies the group axioms.

Another thing that's common - using terms that even an idiot can look up in a dictionary so you don't have to give an English class just to make an argument.

[DeistPaladin]

The argument, for those who dont know it, is effectively:
God is the most perfect thing ever
A thing is more perfect if it is real
Therefore God is real

These "blah blah blah, therefore Jesus" arguments are the closest that religious apologists ever come to providing any evidence for their supernatural claims. That's probably the most pathetic thing about them.

Where are the supernatural powers that Jesus promised believers would have? Can they move mountains into the sea by the power of their faith (Mark 11:23)? Can they cast out demons and speak in tongues (Mark 16:17)?

Perhaps they could produce some artifacts? How about Paul's magic handkercheifs and aprons that could heal the sick (Acts 19:11-12)? These could be turned over to the medical profession for independent peer review, using repeatable double-blind tests that filter out the placebo effect.

Or maybe we could get the big guy in the sky to appear before the UN and give a speech just like he once did to the entire nation of Israel (Judges 1:1-2)? Or maybe have him set an offering on fire (Elijah and the priests of Baal)? A booming voice from the sky would get our attention (Mark 1:11).

If the Christians want me to seriously believe that the Bible is an accurate representation of how the universe works, then show me. One can barely turn a page in the Bible without reading about some extraordinary supernatural events, from angels speaking to people to faith healing. Yet, when we put down the Bible, all we see and experience is a natural universe, the kind of universe we would expect to find if the Bible's claims were NOT true.

Sorry, but "blah blah blah" doesn't cut it. Even if your logic were solid (it isn't) or if the conclusion seemed to follow (it doesn't), it would still fall short of the burden of proof established by the extraordinary nature of your claims.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is the standard by which we evaluate every other claim in our life.

Examples:

Let's say I told you I had lunch today with...
1. My wife
2. The governor of my state.
3. The President of the United States.
4. My dead father, who passed away 10 years ago.

Your reaction would probably be...

1. Accepted with testimony alone (mundane claim)
2. Met with suspicion as a tall tale, independent evidence required.
3. Outlandish tale! News reports by reputable agencies required.
4. Batshit insane story! Overwhelming evidence required and even then it should be taken with suspicion of a hoax.

The more extraordinary the claim, the greater the evidence required.

Christian claims are pretty much at level 4 above. Therefore, "Blah blah blah" fails from the get-go.

Besides, the argument is a bare assertion regarding a subjective claim followed by a non sequitur of "therefore it MUST be real" (as if reality was obligated to conform to what we think would be cool) and contains an implicit but invalid assumption "and of course this 'God' is the Christian god, who else?" The only part of this "argument" that makes me wonder anything is how anyone could possibly take it seriously.