Posts: 761
Threads: 18
Joined: November 24, 2015
Reputation:
4
RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
December 12, 2015 at 5:12 pm
(This post was last modified: December 12, 2015 at 5:14 pm by athrock.)
(December 12, 2015 at 1:49 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote: "It is possible that a maximally great being exists."
No.
Not even possible?
Why not?
(December 12, 2015 at 2:30 pm)Cato Wrote: athrock,
I understand this argument is new to you; however, its first form appeared in 1078. There's also been a shitload of conversation since. If you are sincere in your quest, please get this underneath you first:
http://sandefur.typepad.com/freespace/20...=pulsenews
This isn't just someone's blog, it's the Stanfoed Encyclopedia of Philosophy that deals with arguments even handed.
Thanks.
Posts: 66329
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
160
RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
December 12, 2015 at 5:21 pm
(This post was last modified: December 12, 2015 at 5:26 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Typical. Shits on the boards and then refuses to follow through, preferring instead to get others to elaborate. The answer to your question is simple. If you can claim it's possible without elaboration, anyone else can claim it's impossible without elaboration..and the modal form cuts both ways - as has already been lain out for you in this thread.
The ontological argument -for- god proves gods existence just as competently as the ontological argument -against- god proves that god doesn't exist......which is made using the same language and structure.
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: 1494
Threads: 0
Joined: July 26, 2014
Reputation:
14
RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
December 12, 2015 at 5:28 pm
(December 12, 2015 at 5:21 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Typical. Shits on the boards and then refuses to follow through, preferring instead to get others to elaborate. The answer to your question is simple. If you can claim it's possible without elaboration, anyone else can claim it's impossible without elaboration..and the modal form cuts both ways - as has already been lain out for you in this thread.
The ontological argument -for- god proves gods existence just as competently as the ontological argument -against- god proves that god doesn't exist......which is made using the same language and structure.
Bingo
Posts: 761
Threads: 18
Joined: November 24, 2015
Reputation:
4
RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
December 12, 2015 at 5:29 pm
(December 12, 2015 at 2:28 pm)IATIA Wrote:
- It is possible that a Leprechaun exists.
- If it is possible that a Leprechaun exists, then a Leprechaun exists is some possible world.
- If a Leprechaun exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
- If a Leprechaun exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
- If a Leprechaun exists in the actual world, then a Leprechaun exists.
- Therefore, a Leprechaun exists.
Leprechauns (or any other thing commonly used to parody this argument) are not commonly thought to have the same characteristics that are attributed by definition to a supreme being. These characteristics include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence and so forth. And these are necessary for a being to be "maximally great".
If you do wish to claim that a leprechaun (or  , for that matter) does have ALL of these, then I submit that all you have done is to assign a name of sorts to the supreme being.
Yahweh, Allah, Baha'u'llah, Zeus, Osiris...the name changes, but the being behind the name is the same. Provided that all the "omni" characteristics are present in that being.
Posts: 66329
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
160
RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
December 12, 2015 at 5:31 pm
(This post was last modified: December 12, 2015 at 5:32 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Not commonly thought? We're back to appealing to majorities and agreements are we? Odin and Yahweh (nor Zues, nor Baha, nor Osiris) are definitively -not- the same thing. How callous and bigoted of you to even propose such a thing, lol. OTOH, starting to like you a little more because of it.
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: 3628
Threads: 20
Joined: July 20, 2011
Reputation:
47
RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
December 12, 2015 at 5:39 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?
All this argument succeeds in doing is define a god into existence.
Plantinga adds modal logic to the argument, that does not help.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Posts: 761
Threads: 18
Joined: November 24, 2015
Reputation:
4
RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
December 12, 2015 at 5:40 pm
(December 12, 2015 at 5:21 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Typical. Shits on the boards and then refuses to follow through, preferring instead to get others to elaborate. The answer to your question is simple. If you can claim it's possible without elaboration, anyone else can claim it's impossible without elaboration..and the modal form cuts both ways - as has already been lain out for you in this thread.
The ontological argument -for- god proves gods existence just as competently as the ontological argument -against- god proves that god doesn't exist......which is made using the same language and structure.
WTF is your problem? Did you even read the OP?
I said this is new to me and that I wanted to discuss it. I did not say I wanted to defend it. I did not say I thought it was true.
If you'd like to provide some intelligent commentary to help me and others to understand why the argument fails, great.
Otherwise, if you don't want to discuss the argument, just ignore me or the thread.
Posts: 66329
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
160
RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
December 12, 2015 at 5:42 pm
(This post was last modified: December 12, 2015 at 5:42 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
I've already had all the intelligent discussion regarding that argument that your participation can afford. I could probably muster up a little more, but that would require your participation. Thanks for being typical yet again, though.
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: 3628
Threads: 20
Joined: July 20, 2011
Reputation:
47
RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
December 12, 2015 at 5:42 pm
(This post was last modified: December 12, 2015 at 5:45 pm by Simon Moon.)
(December 12, 2015 at 5:29 pm)athrock Wrote: (December 12, 2015 at 2:28 pm)IATIA Wrote:
- It is possible that a Leprechaun exists.
- If it is possible that a Leprechaun exists, then a Leprechaun exists is some possible world.
- If a Leprechaun exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
- If a Leprechaun exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
- If a Leprechaun exists in the actual world, then a Leprechaun exists.
- Therefore, a Leprechaun exists.
Leprechauns (or any other thing commonly used to parody this argument) are not commonly thought to have the same characteristics that are attributed by definition to a supreme being. These characteristics include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence and so forth. And these are necessary for a being to be "maximally great".
If you do wish to claim that a leprechaun (or , for that matter) does have ALL of these, then I submit that all you have done is to assign a name of sorts to the supreme being.
Yahweh, Allah, Baha'u'llah, Zeus, Osiris...the name changes, but the being behind the name is the same. Provided that all the "omni" characteristics are present in that being.
So, what's your point?
The being that the argument argues for is the one that has the attributes that many religions claim their god has.
What a coincidence.
What if an attribute that I consider to be maximally great for a god is being omni-evil? Does this argument work for that god?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Posts: 761
Threads: 18
Joined: November 24, 2015
Reputation:
4
RE: The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
December 12, 2015 at 5:44 pm
(December 12, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I've already had all the intelligent discussion regarding that argument that your participation can afford. I could probably muster up a little more, but that would require your participation. Thanks for being typical yet again, though.
Okay, I'll bite...typical of what, exactly? What am I typical of?
|
