Fun with the Ontological argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-02-2013, 04:24 PM
RE: Fun with the Ontological argument
(18-02-2013 07:47 AM)StorMFront Wrote:  
(18-02-2013 06:34 AM)Vera Wrote:  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
You really excell at laughing and agreeing don't you!
A pretty common trait. Yes Laughat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2013, 04:32 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.
Given Anselm's "ineffable something" the 'greater' is negated by the limitations relevant to what is great held by the observer. The so called 'difference' of the 'being' renders it not great in our understanding, simply a possible, non descript value neutral "SOMETHING" out there, with no practical implications to us....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2013, 04:59 PM
RE: Fun with the Ontological argument
(18-02-2013 04:24 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(18-02-2013 07:47 AM)StorMFront Wrote:  haha totally agree
You really excell at laughing and agreeing don't you!
A pretty common trait. Yes Laughat
Yup, guess Im pretty common...we all cant be odd balls like you, unfortunately.

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, 05:28 PM
RE: Fun with the Ontological argument
(18-02-2013 04:59 PM)StorMFront Wrote:  
(18-02-2013 04:24 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  You really excell at laughing and agreeing don't you!
A pretty common trait. Yes Laughat
Yup, guess Im pretty common...we all cant be odd balls like you, unfortunately.
I don't know that its unfortunate....


Non odd balls are prolly much more popular..............group supporters and all that. Confused
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2013, 05:31 PM
RE: Fun with the Ontological argument
(18-02-2013 05:28 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(18-02-2013 04:59 PM)StorMFront Wrote:  Yup, guess Im pretty common...we all cant be odd balls like you, unfortunately.
I don't know that its unfortunate....


Non odd balls are prolly much more popular..............group supporters and all that. Confused
yea they also like to climb bell towers too...... Tongue

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, 05:35 PM
RE: Fun with the Ontological argument
(18-02-2013 04:21 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(18-02-2013 06:34 AM)Vera Wrote:  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..........

Ethics

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, 05:49 PM
RE: Fun with the Ontological argument
The way I read the argument it is:

1. Let G be a set of "greatness" values corresponding to things that exist in a particular possible world.
2. Let G(any) = {G1...Gn}, the "G" set for every possible world.
3. There exists a value x such that x is the greatest value of any G set.
4. If x exists in any G set then it must exist in all G sets.
5. Therefore x exists in our G set - ie exists in our universe.

We're pretty sure something exists, at least in our G set. I think therefore I am. So x does exist. There may be an infinite number of entities that match the x greatness value, either because G(any) is infinite or because any of the G sets are individually infinite in such a manner as to allow their maximum value to be infinitely represented.

The x value doesn't need to necessarily differ significantly from the greatness value that is the next lower in the set. There might be a pantheon where one god is a little greater than another god, but most gods are pretty great.

In any case with our one god or infinite gods or our pantheon of gods we still fall down at step 4. It doesn't follow that the maximum value present in one set need also be present in all sets. Therefore there is no reason under this formulation to think that a god that can be imagined or could possibly exist in some universe should actually exist in our universe.

I think some formulations throw in the property of "necessary". That is to say that G is not simply the set of greatness values for things that exist, but only the greatness values of things that must necessarily exist for things that exist to exist. Now, I don't think my existence is necessary for the existence of other things (unless perhaps you count my direct creations and progeny) so the "I think therefore I am" argument doesn't serve to populate the G set under this alternative. That is to say that by adding the word "necessary" there is no reason to think that any G set has more than zero entries. The only way we could be sure that any such set is non-zero is to start with the assumption that a god exists. Likewise, even if a possible universe had one or more necessary beings there is no reason to think that that being would also be necessary for other universes such as the actual universe.

Unless someone can come up with a better formulation I think this is simply a word game. The words used in the argument are designed to confuse and conflate. The conclusion itself does not follow from the argument.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Hafnof's post
19-02-2013, 11:46 AM
RE: Fun with the Ontological argument
(18-02-2013 05:49 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  The way I read the argument it is:

1. Let G be a set of "greatness" values corresponding to things that exist in a particular possible world.
2. Let G(any) = {G1...Gn}, the "G" set for every possible world.
3. There exists a value x such that x is the greatest value of any G set.
4. If x exists in any G set then it must exist in all G sets.
5. Therefore x exists in our G set - ie exists in our universe.
I love the way you put this together. Kudos.

So there's still a couple problems that jump out at me from this logical statement. The "greatest value" must exist, but it doesn't necessarily have to be the "maximum value". You suggested that one might assume that G is an infinite set, but there's no reason to assume such. For example, if we were talking about speed rather than greatness, light is the maximum value but is not infinitely fast... we can imagine something faster, though such a thing cannot exist with our present physics. Also, some descriptions defy a "maximum", such as smelliness (always a great example when discussing the ontological argument). How could something be the "smelliest"?

Furthermore, it doesn't prove a god, but rather attempts to prove a "maximally great being" which one is to assume is god. Like all of WLC's arguments, he hopes that you'll agree with one definition of god so that he can slip in all of the other unproven qualities that he personally believes are also a part of that god. Acceptance of a "first cause" or "maximally great being" or "fine-tuner" or "self-resurrecting being" is not a good reason to accept a personal, benevolent god that answers prayer.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Starcrash's post
19-02-2013, 11:59 AM
RE: Fun with the Ontological argument
(19-02-2013 11:46 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  Like all of WLC's arguments, he hopes that you'll agree with one definition of god so that he can slip in all of the other unproven qualities that he personally believes are also a part of that god.
I've noticed that too. When WLC presents his flawed Kalam Cosmological argument, he always concludes that the first cause of the universe must have been an intelligent, sentient and omni-benevolent being with interest in the human race without ever substantiating this claim in a coherent manner.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
19-02-2013, 12:41 PM
RE: Fun with the Ontological argument
(19-02-2013 11:59 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(19-02-2013 11:46 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  Like all of WLC's arguments, he hopes that you'll agree with one definition of god so that he can slip in all of the other unproven qualities that he personally believes are also a part of that god.
I've noticed that too. When WLC presents his flawed Kalam Cosmological argument, he always concludes that the first cause of the universe must have been an intelligent, sentient and omni-benevolent being with interest in the human race without ever substantiating this claim in a coherent manner.


Precisely, he tries (and fails) to argue for a deistic god, then tries to wave his hands and hope you don't see him switch out the deistic one with a theistic one...

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: