Why ontological arguments are illogical

[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.