Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(June 20, 2016 at 11:05 am)Little lunch Wrote: It's so funny how x-tians try to prove there is a god with a bunch of words that sound as complicated as legislation and then, even if their proof was conclusive, when asked which god it is, they would point at their contradictory, fucked up bible.
Sorry, but how pompous and at the same time deluded is fucking that?
Doesn't exactly fit the blundering idiot described in their book, does it.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
This argument is what I call the 'Neverland supper' of theistic arguments - as with the lost boys' food in Peter Pan, Craig is trying to manifest God by closing his eyes and using his imagination to believe it into existence.
You can watch William Lane Craig giving the Ontological Argument for the existence of God on YouTube here:
This is the syllogism in Craig's words verbatim from this video:
Premise 1: It's possible that a 'maximally great being' exists.
Premise 2: If it's possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
Premise 3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
Premise 4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
Premise 5: Therefore a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
Premise 6: Therefore a maximally great being exists
Conclusion: Therefore God exists.
So, let's have a look at this.
I'm not particularly tied to this argument (actually just started learning about it last weak), but I think that the comments here are interesting.
My comments below in Red.
[quote Premise 1: It's possible that a 'maximally great' being exists.
Craig is conflating a possibility with a hypothetical idea. Hypothetically you can posit the idea that a 'maximally great being exists' but that in and of itself doesn't make it possible. If you want to say that something is possible, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it is possible. All Craig does is assert that it is, with no evidence and flawed logic. As Hitchens rightly says, anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I don't think you understand, what is meant by possible here, and in regards to possible worlds. This is saying that it is logically possible or that there isn't a logical reason to reject it. It is an argument from pure reason
Premise 2: If it's possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
We can't get to 2 because 1 is flawed, but for the sake of argument - again, Craig is making the same mistake (I am giving him the benefit of the doubt that it is an intellectual error rather than a conscious deception) confusing the idea of a hypothetical reality, which only exists in the mind of the person thinking about it, and a possibility as being something that might exist in some alternate reality. Again, bald assertion, no evidence, faulty logic.
Again, you have the same error as premise 1
Premise 3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
This is contingent upon Craigs own definition - which literally means that is so because he says so. What is a possible world? Does he mean an alternate universe in the multiverse? Or does he mean an abstract hypothetical - because the latter does not exist, only the idea of it exists in Craig's mind.
You should probably look to understand the argument before trying to refute it!
Premise 4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
Another bald assertion and non-sequitur. All we have here is Craig's say so. It's the same fallacy of conflating 'possible worlds' with alternate realities or hypothetical ideas. He's trying to manifest God directly out of his imagination.
This is definitional true, please explain why you think that it is non-sequitur. Do you not think that the actual world is a possible world?
Premise 5: Therefore a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
This is where the supper manifests directly from your imagination into your bowl... which is great unless you actually have an appetite for real truth.
Did you not follow the logic
Premise 6: Therefore a maximally great being exists
That's not really a 'therefore' as it's implicit in the previous premise, he could have skipped this one.
Conclusion: Therefore God exists.
And here's a rabbit I've pulled straight out of my ass! Let's call him Zeus!
[/quote]
I think that it is interesting, when some try to oppose everything in an argument concerning God (You see this also in the Kalam Cosmological Argument). I am curious if your expert opinion in psychology from the other thread, would also agree, that it's not really about logic and reason, but a need to not let a divine foot in the door.
(June 19, 2016 at 1:04 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Which, again, merely presumes without justification that existence is a component of maximal greatness, which is an entirely subjective criteria asserted out of convenience. I would, for example, suggest that a being capable of doing all of the things a god is purported to do, while simultaneously not existing, is far greater than a being hamstrung by this requirement that he must exist to do things: the latter has a limitation that the former does not.
But then, I too would be making an argument based on my own subjective opinions of what greatness entails, which is good for the hypothetical but doesn't escape my main point, which is that the ontological argument relies exclusively on unsupported opinions of the criteria it seeks to explain, which doesn't exactly count for a lot.
If you had the choice to be stuck in a cage with one of two hungry lions who have all the same properties, except one exists in the actual world, and the other possibly exists, but not actually. Which one would you choose?
While overcoming adversity or handicap is commendable I don't think there is anything which logically makes it greater (emotionally perhaps). In this separate argument which you have created to knock down, it leads to absurdity, and therefore it is not possible (given the principle of sufficient reason). I don't see how it effects the ontological argument.
The ontological arguement is valid, insofar as valid propositions are made to support the notion. It presucceeds most ideas, for instance. Many, very basic obvious propositions/theories. The best bet is to state that God is an omnisicent being, or at least one who suggests the ability to rule as a God, (it is in my opinion absurd to expect a perfect being to rule over imperfect beings, and this supposes our own power: Man is gifted with such a power in his own posession, and is given a women as helpmeets for instance. We only wish to see God as universally true) has power over the realms of possible rational being that we would not (normally) suppose. Being it is the case that rational omniscence is a particular logical/rational fact from the get-go, it only supposes a God, or makes him more necessary.
Arguing the case for the ontological being/arguement is akin to arguing the case over a flat tire. Does the flat tire exist? If it is fully pumped up, does it make much sense to question it? What about if it is flat? A flat tire is flat! In this case, it is obvious that we have an omniscecent being, that of the air pump!
What more case needs to be made, I do not expect to see any "evidence"!
Sorry if you feel this is trolling, but we do need a logical arguement to base upon his existence, not simply pure speculations. I am open to criticisms.
(June 20, 2016 at 11:43 pm)JBrentonK Wrote: The ontological arguement is valid, insofar as valid propositions are made to support the notion.
The whole ontological argument is simply that god is possible, therefore god exists.
For this argument to even have a chance at working, one must show that a god is possible.
I do not accept that a god is possible, therefore there is no god.
See how that works.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
(June 20, 2016 at 11:38 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: If you had the choice to be stuck in a cage with one of two hungry lions who have all the same properties, except one exists in the actual world, and the other possibly exists, but not actually. Which one would you choose?
The latter, but changing the frame of the topic also changes the variables under discussion. At the point that we're discussing lions and cages, we're no longer having a conversation in any way related to the god question.
Quote:While overcoming adversity or handicap is commendable I don't think there is anything which logically makes it greater (emotionally perhaps). In this separate argument which you have created to knock down, it leads to absurdity, and therefore it is not possible (given the principle of sufficient reason). I don't see how it effects the ontological argument.
So, in my hypothetical, you have two beings: one is the maximally great being as understood by the ontological argument, which is a being that does things and has power, but that those things and that power are conditional on that being existing, given that "demonstrating" the existence of that being is the purpose of the argument and if it fails to do so, obviously the premises and characteristics of that being no longer matter. The other is my proposed maximally great being, which is exactly as powerful as the former being, but lacks this limitation of needing to exist in order to do things and have power.
Which one is greater: the being limited by needing to exist, or the one whose greatness does not carry this requirement? I fail to see how it's even possible to suggest the former.
Now, of course, in real life I don't find that argument particularly compelling, but that's a function of my not finding the ontological argument compelling in the least. I've already had to lower my standards of argumentation in order to address this particular dumpster fire on its own anemic merits, instead of just relying on the obvious point ("you can't argue a god into existence") but I think the fact that I was able to construct a valid rebuttal to the ontological argument that is also completely nonsensical on the face of it just demonstrates how nonsensical the thing I was responding to is.
It's the same problem that all these "I'm going to logic god into existence with vaguely defined philosophical handwaving," style arguments: a skilled enough wordsmith, equally as unencumbered from having to demonstrate a damn thing as the apologist is, can easily turn the terms of the argument back on itself without breaking a sweat. I sweetened the pot by adding in a few more points regarding the illogic of the individual premises, but thus far they've been largely ignored in favor of simply assuming the premises to be valid and rolling from there.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
(June 20, 2016 at 11:43 pm)JBrentonK Wrote: The ontological arguement is valid, insofar as valid propositions are made to support the notion.
The whole ontological argument is simply that god is possible, therefore god exists.
For this argument to even have a chance at working, one must show that a god is possible.
I do not accept that a god is possible, therefore there is no god.
See how that works.
I have just deleted my response, you would gather what it would be, from my previous post. But again I will state, I cannt see your point, that God is apparently necessary also that ontologicial is self explinatory.( We are simply rationalizing words into existence by using these phrases is my feelings.)
(June 20, 2016 at 11:29 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I don't think you understand, what is meant by possible here, and in regards to possible worlds. This is saying that it is logically possible or that there isn't a logical reason to reject it. It is an argument from pure reason
There is a logical reason to reject the premise: "maximally great being" is a logically incoherent concept and such a being could never actually exist.
Done.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
June 21, 2016 at 12:29 am (This post was last modified: June 21, 2016 at 12:30 am by madog.)
(June 20, 2016 at 11:29 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
(June 18, 2016 at 3:26 pm)Veritas_Vincit Wrote:
This argument is what I call the 'Neverland supper' of theistic arguments - as with the lost boys' food in Peter Pan, Craig is trying to manifest God by closing his eyes and using his imagination to believe it into existence.
You can watch William Lane Craig giving the Ontological Argument for the existence of God on YouTube here:
This is the syllogism in Craig's words verbatim from this video:
Premise 1: It's possible that a 'maximally great being' exists.
Premise 2: If it's possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
Premise 3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
Premise 4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
Premise 5: Therefore a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
Premise 6: Therefore a maximally great being exists
Conclusion: Therefore God exists.
So, let's have a look at this.
I'm not particularly tied to this argument (actually just started learning about it last weak), but I think that the comments here are interesting.
My comments below in Red.
[quote Premise 1: It's possible that a 'maximally great' being exists.
Craig is conflating a possibility with a hypothetical idea. Hypothetically you can posit the idea that a 'maximally great being exists' but that in and of itself doesn't make it possible. If you want to say that something is possible, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it is possible. All Craig does is assert that it is, with no evidence and flawed logic. As Hitchens rightly says, anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I don't think you understand, what is meant by possible here, and in regards to possible worlds. This is saying that it is logically possible or that there isn't a logical reason to reject it. It is an argument from pure reason
If this premise can be accepted "Premise 1: It's possible that a 'maximally great' being exists."
Then this premise must be accepted "Premise 1: It's possible that a 'maximally great' being does not exist."
Which leads to "[i]Premise 6: Therefore a maximally great being does not exists"[/i]
[i]"Conclusion: Therefore God does not exist. "[/i]
Religion is the top shelf of the supernatural supermarket ... Madog
