Proof and evidence will always equal Science

[vulcanlogician]

You're right. No one thinks that. And no one said that.

How can you give kudos to a reply saying people proposing an ontological argument are trying to logically conjour god, then post the above. It is a bit confusing to me since those seem mutually exclusive.

I personally have a "don't judge kudos" rule. I kudos posts for all kinds of reasons, not always because I 100% agree with the contents of the post. I never take kudos to mean anything substantive as far as someone's position. Even though that's a safe assumption most of the time.

But, about the ontological argument, Poly is right on about that. Conjuring God sounds about right. It really is some kind of logical smoke and mirrors. And that sucks, because philosophical arguments (at the very least logical syllogisms) are supposed to be about clarity, not obscurity.

The ontological argument is so fishy. And even when I try to treat it as charitably as possible, I don't see anything. It's dizzyingly circular.

In that dualism paper you recommended some time back, the author did some impromptu analysis of why circular reasoning can be a problem, even with careful thinkers. His hypothesis? Because when we already agree with the conclusion from the outset, we are also bound to accept a premise that contains the conclusion as true. Thus, theists are bound to see more in the ontological argument than nontheists.

---

I do remember it. I avoided it. Because it was an absurd and not very useful line of questioning. Where we are right now talking together with letters and typing and me sitting in my room and you sitting somewhere else; there's a certain level of idiocy "gotcha" in challenging the reality we both acknowledge and interact with on a practical basis.

So, this is what I've done. I've accidentally remade the "derp are things that I touch real?" thread. Great.

See? You're making metaphysical assertions, though. You're arguing that it is impractical, thus unwise, to engage in such debates. No empirical finding will ever prove you correct here. Even empiricists resort to logic to explain why they are empiricists.

All that being said, I don't think you've remade the chairs thread. And I disagree with Bel that it's a category error. The only thing I agree with Bel about is that metaphysical assertions can't be proven with empirical evidence.

I also think you misunderstood the gist... the implications... of what was argued in the chair thread. But maybe you don't. In either case, I never try to make anyone take seriously the things I think are interesting. I just found the question intriguing. If you think it's "derp," I respect that. I put those sorts of questions out there for interested parties. And, if someone thinks it's silly, I'm fine if they say so.

---

---