Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?
June 21, 2016 at 12:30 am
(This post was last modified: June 21, 2016 at 12:31 am by IATIA.)
(June 20, 2016 at 11:57 pm)JBrentonK Wrote: 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.)
The "Ontological argument" is completely invalid.
Quote:"The Ontological argument is simply that god is possible, therefore god exists."
It does nothing to prove or deduce the initial unproven premise.
One needs to prove that god is possible before the argument has any validity.
What is that so difficult to see? Oh, wait ... christian sunglasses.
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
Posts: 639
Threads: 47
Joined: March 7, 2012
Reputation:
34
RE: The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?
June 21, 2016 at 12:43 am
Applying the Ontological Argument to Real Life
*Walks into a bank*
"Hi, I'd like to withdraw one million dollars, please."
"Sir, do you even have an account at this bank?"
"Well, is it possible I might have an account at this bank?"
"I suppose, but I don't find you in our sys..."
"In an infinite number of universes, is it possible I have an account at this bank?"
"What?"
"I'm asking about possibilities."
"Well, I suppose but..."
"And is it possible my account would have one million dollars in it?"
"Well, I guess but..."
"And wouldn't an account with one million dollars be a great thing?"
"It would be but..."
"In fact, wouldn't you say that an account with one million dollars would be a greater thing than not having an account at all?"
"I would say so but..."
"And great things by definition exist, right?"
"Well, yes but..."
"So you admit that an account with one million dollars is a great thing?"
"But sir, you don't have..."
"You just admitted it when you said 'I would say so'. Did you not say that an account with one million dollars is a great thing?"
"Well, yes but..."
"So you admit that my account at this bank with one million dollars in it exists."
"Uh, wait, WHAT?"
"So I'd like my million dollars, please."
"Sir, you don't have an account at this bank!"
"Oh, fabulous! So now you're saying you believe in great things that don't even exist. You are confused!"
"SECURITY!"
"Ow! Religious persecution! Religious persecution!"
*Gets thrown out of bank*
"You don't need facts when you got Jesus." -Pastor Deacon Fred, Landover Baptist Church
™: True Christian is a Trademark of the Landover Baptist Church. I have no affiliation with this fine group of True Christians ™ because I can't afford their tithing requirements but would like to be. Maybe someday the Lord will bless me with enough riches that I am able to.
And for the lovers of Poe, here's your winking smiley: 
Posts: 5466
Threads: 36
Joined: November 10, 2014
Reputation:
53
RE: The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?
June 21, 2016 at 12:45 am
(June 21, 2016 at 12:29 am)madog Wrote: (June 20, 2016 at 11:29 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: 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]
Yup, it all goes back to the modal version of the term 'necessary', which means 'cannot possibly be false.' There's nothing inherent in a tri-omni being that precludes it from being false. It's necessary because theists who worship a tri-omni being demand it to be so in order for their argument to work.
"I was thirsty for everything, but blood wasn't my style" - Live, "Voodoo Lady"
Posts: 367
Threads: 21
Joined: October 13, 2015
Reputation:
3
RE: The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?
June 21, 2016 at 1:06 am
You must admit... God or no god is more rational than "no God or God"... which is a logical refutation of every bit of the atheist speculation which "invalidates ontlogicial argeuments".
The ontologicial arguement is based on truth based claims, which appear to be quite obvious, even so much as refuting philosophical notions, instead what they do in fact is create further philsophical speculations, it is my hope that they are nature based, thus proving gods existance on default... This is something atheists could never hope to do.
Posts: 367
Threads: 21
Joined: October 13, 2015
Reputation:
3
RE: The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?
June 21, 2016 at 1:09 am
It is so funny that the only arguements against god I am seeing are those which are directly violent toward God. Recgnize you cannot be directly hstile towards yourself.
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?
June 21, 2016 at 1:24 am
(June 21, 2016 at 1:06 am)JBrentonK Wrote: The ontologicial arguement is based on truth based claims,
NO, it is not! Have you actually read it? Premise #1 is never proven which invalidates the entire argument. It is not proven or deduced within the argument nor anywhere else. The "ontologicial arguement" is completely invalid (and misspelled).
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
Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?
June 21, 2016 at 1:33 am
(June 21, 2016 at 1:24 am)IATIA Wrote: (June 21, 2016 at 1:06 am)JBrentonK Wrote: The ontologicial arguement is based on truth based claims,
NO, it is not! Have you actually read it? Premise #1 is never proven which invalidates the entire argument. It is not proven or deduced within the argument nor anywhere else. The "ontologicial arguement" is completely invalid (and misspelled).
You do realize you're talking to crazy, right?
"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!
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?
June 21, 2016 at 1:36 am
I'm not talking to myself 
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
Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?
June 21, 2016 at 1:38 am
(June 21, 2016 at 1:36 am)IATIA Wrote: I'm not talking to myself
No, you're talking to a guy who, if memory serves, claims to be the son of god.
I'll leave you to decide whether that's better or worse.
"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!
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?
June 21, 2016 at 1:40 am
(This post was last modified: June 21, 2016 at 1:55 am by IATIA.)
Yeah, I saw that stupid intro post of his back when.
But in reality, it helps me to organize my thoughts. I was looking at some of my posts from several years ago, before my accident, and they seemed much more eloquent than since. I don't know if it was the accident or old age or probably both.
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
|
