The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?

[Edwardo Piet]

What's CW stand for? Cunting wanker?

Good God, man.  Why would you call Chad that?  Terribly uncivil of you, old chap.  Still it does have a certain humorous quality to it.  

Sorry Chad.  Hope you're having at least a little fun here.

Ohhhhh I didn't realize "CW" stood for "ChadWooters".

[GrandizerII]

@ Irrational

I am not interested in your fallacy of the argument from authority "Hey, we're just lay people, if you don't agree with me yet ask someone academic."

Yes, an actual world is different to a possible world. I know this. You're misrepresenting me.

The point is something cannot exist in a possible world because existence is about actuality. Possible existence in a possible world is not the same thing as actual existence in a possible world. It's equivocating to say that because the existence of something is possible in a possible world then that means it actually exists in a possible world.

yes, you are right, now that I reread your post, I did misrepresent you a bit, so apologies for that.

It's just that in one system of logic, which you are certainly free to reject but it means you have to consistently reject it, possible existence is existence in a possible world (it's actual in the sense that it's true in that kind of world).

[robvalue]

Conflation! That's what it was Hammy Just came to me.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Alasdair, please explain to me why, without any provocation, you called me fuckface. How can I not take this as an indication that you will automatically dispute everything I say without consideration?

Contradicted yourself already. As we just agreed, that a thing is is a different question to what a thing is. Now you're already suggesting that that it is is related to what it is. That its thatness can be part of its whatness and that the binary approach you just agreed to in the above quote somehow is a problem now. And why do you take issue with it and contradict yourself?

I was setting up the problem. There is a paradox that needs to be resolved. Your objection is similar to Kant’s when he said that “a hundred actual thalers do not contain the least coin more than a hundred possible thalers”. Meaning that if you list all the properties of a thing then saying a thing exists adds nothing to the description that wasn’t already there. That sounds true when we talk about things in isolation, but it doesn’t seem to work when comparing very different objects like scissors and stories or numbers and bridges. Some say that these types of comparisons are category mistakes. That objection begs the question; what is the ontological status of categories as categories? My point is that a proper consideration of existence takes into account the degree to which something participates in what is essential to its quiddity.

Sorry Chad. Hope you're having at least a little fun here.

I could accept it as a playful jab from you. For more than three years I never had more than 3 people on my ignore list. That has changed recently. I am starting to get tired of people like Ham acting like assholes for no good reason. I’ve crossed the line a few times myself and publicly apologized for doing so, an act of graciousness that has never been extended to me despite the vicious gratuitous attacks I have received. It’s gotten worse with time, Whateverist. It makes me very sad. I enjoy the back and forth, but I post less frequently because it seems that more and more people are going out of their way to twist and misconstrue what believers say, including one staff member in particular.

[Edwardo Piet]

It's just that in one system of logic, which you are certainly free to reject but it means you have to consistently reject it, possible existence is existence in a possible world (it's actual in the sense that it's true in that kind of world).

Possible existence is just existence that is possible. Actual existence in a possible world isn't merely existence that is possible. To conflate the two is a mistake.

[Edwardo Piet]

Alasdair, please explain to me why, without any provocation, you called me fuckface. How can I not take this as an indication that you will automatically dispute everything I say without consideration?

Because it doesn't imply that.

[robvalue]

I still want to know how anyone thinks they can outsmart the scientists who study this for a living just by using a few statements and some logic.

If it was that simple, don't you think they'd have tried it already?

And obviously it doesn't work, because it doesn't turn up any verifiable results. You need to consult reality again, if you care about reality. But these "conclusions" are so loosely defined that you couldn't test them even if you got them by the scruff of the neck.

[Edwardo Piet]

Meaning that if you list all the properties of a thing then saying a thing exists adds nothing to the description that wasn’t already there.

That's because it's a separate question.

My point is that a proper consideration of existence takes into account the degree to which something participates in what is essential to its quiddity.

No existence is a separate question.

[robvalue]

You can't define stuff into real existence. Either you're talking about something that is already real, or you are not. It's up to you to establish which.

You can define things into an abstract system, however. Whether you ever want to come back out of that system and into reality depends on your willingness to adopt the scientific method.

Cue conflating reality with abstract systems.

[Edwardo Piet]

Either you're talking about something that is already real, or you are not. It's up to you to establish which.

This.