Fun with the Ontological argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-02-2013, 07:58 PM
RE: Fun with the Ontological argument
With all due respect I think you are a philologist, not a philosopher, if indeed, you ever sought to be one.

Sticks and stones may break my bones
but names will never hurt me~~~~~
Cooyon WillieLaughat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2013, 08:01 PM
RE: Fun with the Ontological argument
Who are you talking to? Mr Woof ._.

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, 08:01 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.
Keep on spouting that stuff. You may well go far here. Yes

Sticks and stones may break my bones
but names will never hurt me~~~~~
Cooyon WillieLaughat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2013, 04:45 AM
RE: Fun with the Ontological argument
You have to define what universe means.

Interesting coincidence that this thread was made at the same time that MinutePhysics made a video about what "universe" means.

As I see it there are three main definitions of "Universe"

The Observable Universe -- that domain which is theoretically observable by humanity, bounded by lightspeed and the age of the universe. Everything that we can ever know exists, and study. Unless we can find a way to go faster than c.

A Universe in a Multiverse -- the idea that the universe is a thing which, finite or infinite, is only a smaller set of some larger cosmology. Usually loosely defined, at least when presented to a lay audience, but essentially a single contiguous domain of space, time, matter, and energy with internally (reasonably) consistent laws.

The Universe -- definition by those who don't subscribe to multiverse theory, this being defined as everything that is, was, or will be, from the beginning of time to the end, from one end of space to the other; everything, no ifs, ands, or buts.



Philosophers and apologists, being generally ignorant of science beyond what makes it onto CNN, don't understand the differences between these three concepts; so throw them around and mix them up at will.

Interesting to note that WLC's ontological argument fails with any one of the definitions of universe. Try it yourself.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2013, 05:15 AM
 
RE: Fun with the Ontological argument
Its supposed to be "A being than which no greater can be conceived." Such a being is different than other objects.
Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2013, 06:24 AM (This post was last modified: 18-02-2013 06:28 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Fun with the Ontological argument
(18-02-2013 05:15 AM)Egor Wrote:  Its supposed to be "A being than which no greater can be conceived." Such a being is different than other objects.

Catch 22 - for your God to be real and have any affect on us, it must exist.

However any other God that had all of your God's properties, but also didn't exist? Well now, it must certainly be greater, because it managed to be everything your God is and do all your God does, while being non-existent! I'd say that it would be far more impressive for a non-existent God to have done all these things.

Therefore the 'greatest conceivable' God would be a non-existent one. Which fortunately means we don't have to worry about it either.

Q.E.D.



[Image: horrorcat-meme-generator-damn-shit-just-...e2042b.jpg]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2013, 06:34 AM
RE: Fun with the Ontological argument
(17-02-2013 07:58 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  With all due respect I think you are a philologist, not a philosopher, if indeed, you ever sought to be one.
Since when is being called a philologist something people should take offence at? At least we actually learn something and then do something with what we've learnt. I'll take philologist over philosophiser any day of the week.

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2013, 07:47 AM
RE: Fun with the Ontological argument
(18-02-2013 06:34 AM)Vera Wrote:  
(17-02-2013 07:58 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  With all due respect I think you are a philologist, not a philosopher, if indeed, you ever sought to be one.
Since when is being called a philologist something people should take offence at? At least we actually learn something and then do something with what we've learnt. I'll take philologist over philosophiser any day of the week.
haha totally agree

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
18-02-2013, 12:41 PM
RE: Fun with the Ontological argument
(18-02-2013 05:15 AM)Egor Wrote:  Its supposed to be "A being than which no greater can be conceived." Such a being is different than other objects.
That's the problem Egor. It's impossible for anybody to really conceive of large numbers like we do in mathematics. 10^60th miles, is beyond imagination, yet a being who is infinitely x(what ever property you insert) is supposed to be something we can imagine?

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
18-02-2013, 04:21 PM
RE: Fun with the Ontological argument
(18-02-2013 06:34 AM)Vera Wrote:  
(17-02-2013 07:58 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  With all due respect I think you are a philologist, not a philosopher, if indeed, you ever sought to be one.
Since when is being called a philologist something people should take offence at? At least we actually learn something and then do something with what we've learnt. I'll take philologist over philosophiser any day of the week.
I did not put down philologists, nor did I elevate philosophy in any substantial way.

My claim was simply that science/logic, in its might, could become over valued and sheer force confused with any real benefits to the whole world. If sheer power is deemed synonymous with moral convictions we may be fooling ourselves in a good many instances..........

Sticks and stones may break my bones
but names will never hurt me~~~~~
Cooyon WillieLaughat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: