Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: What do you think of this argument for God?
March 5, 2017 at 10:35 pm
Just because a thing might be defined as possible doesn't automatically make it likely; or even probable. It's possible for me to become a famous movie star - not realistically going to happen, though.
However, premise 1 is also flawed in another way. Let's grant "God" the possibility of existence. The most that be drawn from that, then, is that it could exist in some possible world - "every possible world" is a total non sequitur, smuggled in through the back door. And exploring further, what's the justification for believing that our world is one of those possible worlds in which the character might exist?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 3045
Threads: 14
Joined: July 7, 2014
Reputation:
14
RE: What do you think of this argument for God?
March 6, 2017 at 9:41 am
(This post was last modified: March 6, 2017 at 9:42 am by SteveII.)
(March 4, 2017 at 3:57 am)TheAtheologian Wrote: I heard an argument like this:
1. God is the greatest possible being.
2. God is a necessary being, which means that God exists in every possible world (If God exists).
3. If God exists in one possible world, God must logically exist in every possible world.
4. Since God is the greatest possible being, it follows that every aspect of God (being possible) exists in some possible world.
5. Therefore, God exists (in all possible worlds, including ours).
I actually just structured the premises this way myself but is the same idea as an argument I heard before.
What do you think of it?
This argument falls apart right from the beginning because you used the word 'possible' instead of 'conceivable' when describing God. You should look at the real version of the Ontological Argument--every word is carefully defined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
Posts: 183
Threads: 1
Joined: September 30, 2015
Reputation:
7
RE: What do you think of this argument for God?
March 6, 2017 at 2:31 pm
(March 6, 2017 at 9:41 am)SteveII Wrote: You should look at the real version of the Ontological Argument--every word is carefully defined.
They're really not, but it wouldn't make a difference if they were.
Every ontological argument makes the same mistake - or, rather, they fail to do what would actually be necessary to prove their conclusion. They attempt to define "God" as "an entity which is necessary", but even granting that this definition is coherent (and it really isn't), it fails to actually establish that it applies. At best, it is valid, but not established as sound, and becomes bare assertion.
Other issues depend on the specific version of the argument you wish to back.
"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Posts: 152
Threads: 11
Joined: March 3, 2017
Reputation:
2
RE: What do you think of this argument for God?
March 6, 2017 at 6:22 pm
(This post was last modified: March 6, 2017 at 6:57 pm by SuperSentient.
Edit Reason: Remove needless parts.
)
(March 6, 2017 at 9:41 am)SteveII Wrote: (March 4, 2017 at 3:57 am)TheAtheologian Wrote: I heard an argument like this:
1. God is the greatest possible being.
2. God is a necessary being, which means that God exists in every possible world (If God exists).
3. If God exists in one possible world, God must logically exist in every possible world.
4. Since God is the greatest possible being, it follows that every aspect of God (being possible) exists in some possible world.
5. Therefore, God exists (in all possible worlds, including ours).
I actually just structured the premises this way myself but is the same idea as an argument I heard before.
What do you think of it?
This argument falls apart right from the beginning because you used the word 'possible' instead of 'conceivable' when describing God. You should look at the real version of the Ontological Argument--every word is carefully defined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
Why should we start from what the human mind can conceive?
Hail Satan!  
Posts: 23918
Threads: 300
Joined: June 25, 2011
Reputation:
151
RE: What do you think of this argument for God?
March 6, 2017 at 6:31 pm
(March 6, 2017 at 6:22 pm)TheAtheologian Wrote: (March 6, 2017 at 9:41 am)SteveII Wrote: This argument falls apart right from the beginning because you used the word 'possible' instead of 'conceivable' when describing God. You should look at the real version of the Ontological Argument--every word is carefully defined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
But God is also the greatest possible being, is he not? Why should we start from what the human mind can conceive?
That was probably Elvis or Michael Jackson.
Posts: 19789
Threads: 57
Joined: September 24, 2010
Reputation:
85
RE: What do you think of this argument for God?
March 6, 2017 at 6:34 pm
(This post was last modified: March 6, 2017 at 6:35 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(March 4, 2017 at 3:57 am)TheAtheologian Wrote: I heard an argument like this:
1. God is the greatest possible being.
2. God is a necessary being, which means that God exists in every possible world (If God exists).
3. If God exists in one possible world, God must logically exist in every possible world.
4. Since God is the greatest possible being, it follows that every aspect of God (being possible) exists in some possible world.
5. Therefore, God exists (in all possible worlds, including ours).
I actually just structured the premises this way myself but is the same idea as an argument I heard before.
What do you think of it?
1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. No
Since 5 wrongs make a right, therefore god.
Posts: 152
Threads: 11
Joined: March 3, 2017
Reputation:
2
RE: What do you think of this argument for God?
March 6, 2017 at 6:34 pm
(This post was last modified: March 6, 2017 at 6:41 pm by SuperSentient.)
(March 6, 2017 at 6:31 pm)Whateverist Wrote: (March 6, 2017 at 6:22 pm)TheAtheologian Wrote: But God is also the greatest possible being, is he not? Why should we start from what the human mind can conceive?
That was probably Elvis or Michael Jackson.
Nah, probably a transhumanist type ET in a stage 5 civilization.
Hail Satan!
Posts: 23918
Threads: 300
Joined: June 25, 2011
Reputation:
151
RE: What do you think of this argument for God?
March 6, 2017 at 6:50 pm
(This post was last modified: March 6, 2017 at 6:51 pm by Whateverist.)
Then too we should probably make some attempt to clarify which criteria are essential in the greatest possible being stakes. Are those criteria objective in some sense other than it says so?
(March 6, 2017 at 6:34 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: (March 4, 2017 at 3:57 am)TheAtheologian Wrote: I heard an argument like this:
1. God is the greatest possible being.
2. God is a necessary being, which means that God exists in every possible world (If God exists).
3. If God exists in one possible world, God must logically exist in every possible world.
4. Since God is the greatest possible being, it follows that every aspect of God (being possible) exists in some possible world.
5. Therefore, God exists (in all possible worlds, including ours).
I actually just structured the premises this way myself but is the same idea as an argument I heard before.
What do you think of it?
1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. No
Since 5 wrongs make a right, therefore god.
Riddle me this: who has five wrongs and no rights?
(March 6, 2017 at 6:34 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: (March 4, 2017 at 3:57 am)TheAtheologian Wrote: I heard an argument like this:
1. God is the greatest possible being.
2. God is a necessary being, which means that God exists in every possible world (If God exists).
3. If God exists in one possible world, God must logically exist in every possible world.
4. Since God is the greatest possible being, it follows that every aspect of God (being possible) exists in some possible world.
5. Therefore, God exists (in all possible worlds, including ours).
I actually just structured the premises this way myself but is the same idea as an argument I heard before.
What do you think of it?
1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. No
Since 5 wrongs make a right, therefore god.
Riddle me this: who has five wrongs and no rights?
Posts: 3045
Threads: 14
Joined: July 7, 2014
Reputation:
14
RE: What do you think of this argument for God?
March 6, 2017 at 7:34 pm
(March 6, 2017 at 6:22 pm)TheAtheologian Wrote: (March 6, 2017 at 9:41 am)SteveII Wrote: This argument falls apart right from the beginning because you used the word 'possible' instead of 'conceivable' when describing God. You should look at the real version of the Ontological Argument--every word is carefully defined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
Why should we start from what the human mind can conceive?
The human mind is not the problem. Using 'possible' creates a couple of problems.
Defining God as the greatest possible being is not the definition of God. How do you define what is 'possible'? Since it is not clear that God would necessarily exist from premise 1, you you have an unsupported assertion in 2.
The whole argument hinges on greatest conceivable (maximally great) being concept and it is a greater to exist in all possible worlds than one possible world. Premise 3 requires understanding of S5 Modal Logic. Substituting "possible" does not allow you to bridge the argument from 2 to 3 because you need it to be necessarily so.
Posts: 152
Threads: 11
Joined: March 3, 2017
Reputation:
2
RE: What do you think of this argument for God?
March 6, 2017 at 8:01 pm
(This post was last modified: March 6, 2017 at 8:05 pm by SuperSentient.)
(March 6, 2017 at 7:34 pm)SteveII Wrote: (March 6, 2017 at 6:22 pm)TheAtheologian Wrote: Why should we start from what the human mind can conceive?
The human mind is not the problem. Using 'possible' creates a couple of problems.
Defining God as the greatest possible being is not the definition of God. How do you define what is 'possible'? Since it is not clear that God would necessarily exist from premise 1, you you have an unsupported assertion in 2.
The whole argument hinges on greatest conceivable (maximally great) being concept and it is a greater to exist in all possible worlds than one possible world. Premise 3 requires understanding of S5 Modal Logic. Substituting "possible" does not allow you to bridge the argument from 2 to 3 because you need it to be necessarily so.
True, God is the postulated to be the greatest possible being in theistic thinking, but this argument fails to demonstrate neccessity and what this being is.
As for the ontological argument you mentioned, the greatest conceivable being is no better since that relies on epistemic possibility rather than metaphysical possibility. Also, how do you define 'greater'? It suffers from the same problem as the "possibility" argument, that would be, How do you define what is 'conceivable'? I cannot conceive a being that is outside space-time, immaterial, and omnipresent at the same time, therefore the monotheist concept of God doesn't count in this argument, since it is inconceivable. Being conceivable is dependent upon experience and knowledge.
I fail to see any more success in that argument.
Hail Satan!
|
