Fun with the Ontological argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-12-2012, 05:09 PM (This post was last modified: 16-12-2012 05:14 PM by Vosur.)
RE: Fun with the Ontological argument
(16-12-2012 05:03 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Of course, I agree that WLC's argument is laughable. Premise #1 seems easy enough to defend, even though I can think of some examples of properties that can't be "maximal" (for instance, is it possible for something to be maximally slow-moving? Isn't there always a slower speed than whatever you could imagine?). Premise #2 is indefensible, though. How would one prove that something must exist simply because it can exist?
Craig also assumes that there are "other worlds" while possessing no evidence that suggests that this is the case.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
16-12-2012, 05:21 PM
RE: Fun with the Ontological argument
(16-12-2012 05:09 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(16-12-2012 05:03 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Of course, I agree that WLC's argument is laughable. Premise #1 seems easy enough to defend, even though I can think of some examples of properties that can't be "maximal" (for instance, is it possible for something to be maximally slow-moving? Isn't there always a slower speed than whatever you could imagine?). Premise #2 is indefensible, though. How would one prove that something must exist simply because it can exist?
Craig also assumes that there are "other worlds" while possessing no evidence that suggests that this is the case.
Yeah, I don't get that either. Not only can he not prove what properties are true of "other worlds", but he just seems to assume that their are other worlds.

He could be agreeing with the "many worlds" theory of science, but if he holds that conclusion, then he has to admit that not "every world" has a "greatest being" (and our world could be one of them). Theologians typically don't accept the many worlds theory for this reason.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2012, 07:44 PM
RE: Fun with the Ontological argument
(16-12-2012 05:21 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(16-12-2012 05:09 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Craig also assumes that there are "other worlds" while possessing no evidence that suggests that this is the case.
Yeah, I don't get that either. Not only can he not prove what properties are true of "other worlds", but he just seems to assume that their are other worlds.

He could be agreeing with the "many worlds" theory of science, but if he holds that conclusion, then he has to admit that not "every world" has a "greatest being" (and our world could be one of them). Theologians typically don't accept the many worlds theory for this reason.
He uses this argument to show that if you think of god then god exists.

It's essentially a logical fallacy, where in you can conjure supernatural entities in to the world via logical magic spell.

NOTE:
Reification (also known as concretism, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a concrete thing something which is not concrete, but merely an idea. For example: if the phrase "fighting for justice" is taken literally, justice would be reified.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2013, 04:52 PM
RE: Fun with the Ontological argument
If god is infinite in many ways, and his ways are inconceivable, then we can never conceive of god in any world.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2013, 05:41 PM
RE: Fun with the Ontological argument
Why must the universe be finite?
What lies beyond the ends? Beyond our science and definitions, that is!
How is the totality of power,wisdom, love, omniscience, omnipresence, and any other omni ever justified other than by coercion.
It only takes one dissenter. We are neccessarily locked into the limits of our science..................
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2013, 05:52 PM (This post was last modified: 17-02-2013 06:05 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Fun with the Ontological argument
(17-02-2013 05:41 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Why must the universe be finite?
What lies beyond the ends? Beyond our science and definitions, that is!
How is the totality of power,wisdom, love, omniscience, omnipresence, and any other omni ever justified other than by coercion.
It only takes one dissenter. We are necessarily locked into the limits of our science..................
It's hard to say if the universe is infinite or not.
Beyond the universe is meaningless unless you subscribe to the multiverse theories.
It has been yet to be demonstrated that science has limits.

Why are you asking these questions, and how do they relate to the ontological argument.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2013, 06:23 PM (This post was last modified: 17-02-2013 09:52 PM by Mr Woof.)
RE: Fun with the Ontological argument
I like to ask questions and to ponder out side of the box.

The fact that I find myself in 2013, and science has arguably evolved (exclusively) to this point is not reason IMO not to ponder, speculate, consider, question,contemplate etc etc issues beyond science's directives which posit degrees of probability, quite high in some cases within its confines, but not applicable to 'out there' issues which may or may not have much or any bearing from an ontological perspective.

I do not dogmatize, simply considering possibilities, which may fly in the face of laws, that I do not see as absolutes, within change. My outlook here, in that practise, may vaguely engage ideas held by Kant, Berkeley, Hume, Kuhn, Popper, and some of the other post modernist existentialist philosophers. Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2013, 06:55 PM (This post was last modified: 17-02-2013 07:19 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Fun with the Ontological argument
(17-02-2013 06:23 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  I like to ask questions and to ponder out side of the box.

The fact that I find myself in 2013, and science has arguably evolved (exclusively) to this point is not reason IMO not to ponder, speculate, consider, question,contemplate etc etc issues beyond science's directives which posit degrees of probability, quite high in some cases within its confines, but not applicable to 'out there' issues which may or may not have much or any bearing from an ontological perspective.

I do not dogmatize, simply considering possibilities, which may fly in the face of laws, that I do not see as absolutes, within change. My outlook here, in that practise, may vaguely engage ideas held by Kant, Berkeley, Hume, Kuhn, Popper, and some of the other most modernist existentialist philosophers. Wink
I hate existentialism. No offense intended.

I find the existentialist notions to be a modern day individualist, inner-subjective, philosophical cry fest. It goes on to reject all encompassing systems, from science to religion, based on the idea that they do not take into account what it means to be human. Yet it doesn't even know what being human means in the first place.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like fstratzero's post
17-02-2013, 07:45 PM
RE: Fun with the Ontological argument
Philosophy should be put in its rightful place...in the history books, along side Alchemy and Astrology.

Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2013, 07:51 PM
RE: Fun with the Ontological argument
(17-02-2013 07:45 PM)StorMFront Wrote:  Philosophy should be put in its rightful place...in the history books, along side Alchemy and Astrology.
Smartass Don't get me wrong. I think philosophy is fun, and is a great way to do brain exercises, or see the world from different perspectives. It's an artwork of ideas, not a collection of facts.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: