Retired Boards (Archived)
Ontological Argument
Posted by: igr
« on: December 13, 2016, 04:21:27 AM »A Being that is Maximal has the maximum possible number of attributes/properties/characteristics, and it has them in the maximum amount.
So proponents talk about a few omnis but stop there. A Being that is Maximal is more than these omnis because there are additional attributes/properties/characteristics that are not in the list of omnis.
So the Being that is Maximal exists is all possible contexts and dimensions. The Being that is Maximal also is everything that exists. Don't agree? Compare a Being that is omni-only with a Being that is the same omnis plus my extras. Mine is a greater Being.
So proponents talk about a few omnis but stop there. A Being that is Maximal is more than these omnis because there are additional attributes/properties/characteristics that are not in the list of omnis.
So the Being that is Maximal exists is all possible contexts and dimensions. The Being that is Maximal also is everything that exists. Don't agree? Compare a Being that is omni-only with a Being that is the same omnis plus my extras. Mine is a greater Being.
Posted by: ParaclitosLogos
« on: October 22, 2016, 07:57:59 PM »
It´s not strictly formally valid , but, it can be made so.
The little details notwithstanding, yes, your argument is also valid.
Now, all that is needed is to know what is the support for the mains premises.
I agree the formalism may be improved.
I truly hope everybody understands my point. I do not want to make a valid argument against God, nor to find a specific weakness in WLC's argument. I wanted however to prove it wrong, so I built my 1'...5' argument. If somebody considers sound WLC's Ontological argument, they must consider my argument also to be sound, since if follows exactly the same line of reasoning. Therefore, the reasoning can't be sound.
If you have 2 arguments with contradictory conclusions, at least one must have a false conclusion, but, it does not follow that both are unsound.
In fact, if we hold to the law of excluded middle it is the case that either p or not p.
As I mentioned, what we need is to know the support for the main premises, of your argument.
Posted by: Shade
« on: October 22, 2016, 03:09:43 PM »
It´s not strictly formally valid , but, it can be made so.
The little details notwithstanding, yes, your argument is also valid.
Now, all that is needed is to know what is the support for the mains premises.
I agree the formalism may be improved.
I truly hope everybody understands my point. I do not want to make a valid argument against God, nor to find a specific weakness in WLC's argument. I wanted however to prove it wrong, so I built my 1'...5' argument. If somebody considers sound WLC's Ontological argument, they must consider my argument also to be sound, since if follows exactly the same line of reasoning. Therefore, the reasoning can't be sound.
Posted by: Atheist in Louisiana
« on: October 20, 2016, 02:02:27 PM »No, it isn't valid. It conflates possibility with necessity. There are some people who accept "S5" and those people would argue that it is valid. I do not accept S5, so I don't accept that kind of reasoning as valid. It allows for unicorns to exist necessarily and all kinds of other absurdities by simply including defining something as necessary.
S5 does not allow for unicorns to exist necessarily.
Yes it does. It allows for anything you define as existing necessarily to exist necessarily, including the MGB and unicorns. Simply substitute the B of MGB with Unicorns, and MGUnicorns necessarily exist.
S5 is an axiom that establishes that if something is possible then it is not possible that it is not possible.
Unicorns are contingent beings, namely, and as such , no amount of S5 would make it so that a an animal with a contingent animal necessarily exists, if it exists, much less, that it exists necessarily if it is possible, merely for that sole reason, so, simply substituting a MGB for MGU does not do it, not even close.
You're confused. A maximally great unicorn isn't contingent because it is greater to not be contingent.
You're talking about a false MGU, a demon! The MGU isn't contingent upon anything. (You know this routine.)
The concept of a unicorn is of a being that can be killed (e.i. to get their valuable horns ) and thus the concept of a contingent being, Your MGU is just an ad-hoc concept you are making up, just to save your position, which makes it thoroughly implausible.
No, the MGU can't be killed. It's insane to think that it can. Normal unicorns can't even be killed. You've never killed one nor have you even heard stories of someone who has. Don't be silly.
And yes, the MGU is ad-hoc, just like the MGB.
Ok, good, you admit the MGU is ad-hoc, which indeed is.
A MGB is not, and ad-hoc concept, it is argued for , being rooted in Chrisitan theology , that has been developed for milenia, and, it is also argued for that it must be necessarily existing, by Plantinga. So there, the MOA remains unchallenged.
And you were incorrect about S5.
Thanks for the exchange.
Just because Plantinga argued something doesn't make it true. Thank you for the exchange as well.
Posted by: ParaclitosLogos
« on: October 20, 2016, 12:43:14 PM »No, it isn't valid. It conflates possibility with necessity. There are some people who accept "S5" and those people would argue that it is valid. I do not accept S5, so I don't accept that kind of reasoning as valid. It allows for unicorns to exist necessarily and all kinds of other absurdities by simply including defining something as necessary.
S5 does not allow for unicorns to exist necessarily.
Yes it does. It allows for anything you define as existing necessarily to exist necessarily, including the MGB and unicorns. Simply substitute the B of MGB with Unicorns, and MGUnicorns necessarily exist.
S5 is an axiom that establishes that if something is possible then it is not possible that it is not possible.
Unicorns are contingent beings, namely, and as such , no amount of S5 would make it so that a an animal with a contingent animal necessarily exists, if it exists, much less, that it exists necessarily if it is possible, merely for that sole reason, so, simply substituting a MGB for MGU does not do it, not even close.
You're confused. A maximally great unicorn isn't contingent because it is greater to not be contingent.
You're talking about a false MGU, a demon! The MGU isn't contingent upon anything. (You know this routine.)
The concept of a unicorn is of a being that can be killed (e.i. to get their valuable horns ) and thus the concept of a contingent being, Your MGU is just an ad-hoc concept you are making up, just to save your position, which makes it thoroughly implausible.
No, the MGU can't be killed. It's insane to think that it can. Normal unicorns can't even be killed. You've never killed one nor have you even heard stories of someone who has. Don't be silly.
And yes, the MGU is ad-hoc, just like the MGB.
Ok, good, you admit the MGU is ad-hoc, which indeed is.
A MGB is not, and ad-hoc concept, it is argued for , being rooted in Chrisitan theology , that has been developed for milenia, and, it is also argued for that it must be necessarily existing, by Plantinga. So there, the MOA remains unchallenged.
And you were incorrect about S5.
Thanks for the exchange.
Posted by: Atheist in Louisiana
« on: October 20, 2016, 12:36:53 PM »No, it isn't valid. It conflates possibility with necessity. There are some people who accept "S5" and those people would argue that it is valid. I do not accept S5, so I don't accept that kind of reasoning as valid. It allows for unicorns to exist necessarily and all kinds of other absurdities by simply including defining something as necessary.
S5 does not allow for unicorns to exist necessarily.
Yes it does. It allows for anything you define as existing necessarily to exist necessarily, including the MGB and unicorns. Simply substitute the B of MGB with Unicorns, and MGUnicorns necessarily exist.
S5 is an axiom that establishes that if something is possible then it is not possible that it is not possible.
Unicorns are contingent beings, namely, and as such , no amount of S5 would make it so that a an animal with a contingent animal necessarily exists, if it exists, much less, that it exists necessarily if it is possible, merely for that sole reason, so, simply substituting a MGB for MGU does not do it, not even close.
You're confused. A maximally great unicorn isn't contingent because it is greater to not be contingent.
You're talking about a false MGU, a demon! The MGU isn't contingent upon anything. (You know this routine.)
The concept of a unicorn is of a being that can be killed (e.i. to get their valuable horns ) and thus the concept of a contingent being, Your MGU is just an ad-hoc concept you are making up, just to save your position, which makes it thoroughly implausible.
No, the MGU can't be killed. It's insane to think that it can. Normal unicorns can't even be killed. You've never killed one nor have you even heard stories of someone who has. Don't be silly.
And yes, the MGU is ad-hoc, just like the MGB.
Posted by: ParaclitosLogos
« on: October 20, 2016, 12:19:55 PM »No, it isn't valid. It conflates possibility with necessity. There are some people who accept "S5" and those people would argue that it is valid. I do not accept S5, so I don't accept that kind of reasoning as valid. It allows for unicorns to exist necessarily and all kinds of other absurdities by simply including defining something as necessary.
S5 does not allow for unicorns to exist necessarily.
Yes it does. It allows for anything you define as existing necessarily to exist necessarily, including the MGB and unicorns. Simply substitute the B of MGB with Unicorns, and MGUnicorns necessarily exist.
S5 is an axiom that establishes that if something is possible then it is not possible that it is not possible.
Unicorns are contingent beings, namely, and as such , no amount of S5 would make it so that a an animal with a contingent animal necessarily exists, if it exists, much less, that it exists necessarily if it is possible, merely for that sole reason, so, simply substituting a MGB for MGU does not do it, not even close.
You're confused. A maximally great unicorn isn't contingent because it is greater to not be contingent.
You're talking about a false MGU, a demon! The MGU isn't contingent upon anything. (You know this routine.)
The concept of a unicorn is of a being that can be killed (e.i. to get their valuable horns ) and thus the concept of a contingent being, Your MGU is just an ad-hoc concept you are making up, just to save your position, which makes it thoroughly implausible.
Posted by: Atheist in Louisiana
« on: October 20, 2016, 12:07:32 PM »No, it isn't valid. It conflates possibility with necessity. There are some people who accept "S5" and those people would argue that it is valid. I do not accept S5, so I don't accept that kind of reasoning as valid. It allows for unicorns to exist necessarily and all kinds of other absurdities by simply including defining something as necessary.
S5 does not allow for unicorns to exist necessarily.
Yes it does. It allows for anything you define as existing necessarily to exist necessarily, including the MGB and unicorns. Simply substitute the B of MGB with Unicorns, and MGUnicorns necessarily exist.
S5 is an axiom that establishes that if something is possible then it is not possible that it is not possible.
Unicorns are contingent beings, namely, and as such , no amount of S5 would make it so that a an animal with a contingent animal necessarily exists, if it exists, much less, that it exists necessarily if it is possible, merely for that sole reason, so, simply substituting a MGB for MGU does not do it, not even close.
You're confused. A maximally great unicorn isn't contingent because it is greater to not be contingent.
You're talking about a false MGU, a demon! The MGU isn't contingent upon anything. (You know this routine.)
Posted by: ParaclitosLogos
« on: October 20, 2016, 11:59:07 AM »No, it isn't valid. It conflates possibility with necessity. There are some people who accept "S5" and those people would argue that it is valid. I do not accept S5, so I don't accept that kind of reasoning as valid. It allows for unicorns to exist necessarily and all kinds of other absurdities by simply including defining something as necessary.
S5 does not allow for unicorns to exist necessarily.
Yes it does. It allows for anything you define as existing necessarily to exist necessarily, including the MGB and unicorns. Simply substitute the B of MGB with Unicorns, and MGUnicorns necessarily exist.
S5 is an axiom that establishes that if something is possible then it is not possible that it is not possible.
Unicorns are contingent beings, namely, and as such , no amount of S5 would make it so that a an animal with a contingent animal necessarily exists, if it exists, much less, that it exists necessarily if it is possible, merely for that sole reason, so, simply substituting a MGB for MGU does not do it, not even close.
Posted by: Atheist in Louisiana
« on: October 20, 2016, 11:47:35 AM »No, it isn't valid. It conflates possibility with necessity. There are some people who accept "S5" and those people would argue that it is valid. I do not accept S5, so I don't accept that kind of reasoning as valid. It allows for unicorns to exist necessarily and all kinds of other absurdities by simply including defining something as necessary.
S5 does not allow for unicorns to exist necessarily.
Yes it does. It allows for anything you define as existing necessarily to exist necessarily, including the MGB and unicorns. Simply substitute the B of MGB with Unicorns, and MGUnicorns necessarily exist.
Posted by: ParaclitosLogos
« on: October 20, 2016, 10:32:33 AM »This is my first post here and I'm not a philosopher so please be gentle. I will refer to the Ontological argument as formulated in Dr. Craig's latest video:
Now, from 1 - "it is possible that a MBG exist" by the very definition / meaning of the word possible, I can write:
1' It is possible that a MBG does not exist.
then by the same logic between 1 and 2, I can write:
2' There is (at least) a possible world where MGB does not exist.
therefore
3' A MGB does not exist in all / every possible world.
so then it follows that
4' A MGB is not maximally great, so it contradicts itself.
therefore,
5' A MGB cannot exist.
It´s not strictly formally valid , but, it can be made so.
The little details notwithstanding, yes, your argument is also valid.
Now, all that is needed is to know what is the support for the mains premises.
Posted by: ParaclitosLogos
« on: October 20, 2016, 10:31:28 AM »This is my first post here and I'm not a philosopher so please be gentle. I will refer to the Ontological argument as formulated in Dr. Craig's latest video:
Now, from 1 - "it is possible that a MBG exist" by the very definition / meaning of the word possible, I can write:
1' It is possible that a MBG does not exist.
then by the same logic between 1 and 2, I can write:
2' There is (at least) a possible world where MGB does not exist.
therefore
3' A MGB does not exist in all / every possible world.
so then it follows that
4' A MGB is not maximally great, so it contradicts itself.
therefore,
5' A MGB cannot exist.
No, it isn't valid. It conflates possibility with necessity. There are some people who accept "S5" and those people would argue that it is valid. I do not accept S5, so I don't accept that kind of reasoning as valid. It allows for unicorns to exist necessarily and all kinds of other absurdities by simply including defining something as necessary.
S5 does not allow for unicorns to exist necessarily.
Posted by: Atheist in Louisiana
« on: October 20, 2016, 09:44:36 AM »This is my first post here and I'm not a philosopher so please be gentle. I will refer to the Ontological argument as formulated in Dr. Craig's latest video:
Now, from 1 - "it is possible that a MBG exist" by the very definition / meaning of the word possible, I can write:
1' It is possible that a MBG does not exist.
then by the same logic between 1 and 2, I can write:
2' There is (at least) a possible world where MGB does not exist.
therefore
3' A MGB does not exist in all / every possible world.
so then it follows that
4' A MGB is not maximally great, so it contradicts itself.
therefore,
5' A MGB cannot exist.
No, it isn't valid. It conflates possibility with necessity. There are some people who accept "S5" and those people would argue that it is valid. I do not accept S5, so I don't accept that kind of reasoning as valid. It allows for unicorns to exist necessarily and all kinds of other absurdities by simply including defining something as necessary.
Posted by: UnreasonableFaith
« on: October 20, 2016, 07:08:17 AM »Well it's not identical to WL Craig's argument. As I said a very definition of MGB includes the existence in every possible world. So in case of OA you simply define god into existence, whereas your argument has contradiction.
MGB by very definition exists in every possible world, so you can't say it's possible MGB doesn't exist.
If you want a neat rebuttal to OA using itso wn logic here is one:
1. God is a being that which nothing greater can be conceived
2. I can conceive a being greater than Yahweh
3. Therefore Yahweh is no god.
Obviously you can put any god you wish here, obviously it doesn't work against deists.
MGB by very definition exists in every possible world, so you can't say it's possible MGB doesn't exist.
If you want a neat rebuttal to OA using itso wn logic here is one:
1. God is a being that which nothing greater can be conceived
2. I can conceive a being greater than Yahweh
3. Therefore Yahweh is no god.
Obviously you can put any god you wish here, obviously it doesn't work against deists.
Posted by: Shade
« on: October 16, 2016, 03:01:11 AM »I am not sure that I can follow you here:
Then, you say:
Quote
The problem is being greater means possessing more or being more of something. If Y is defined as lack of X then the greater being, the more X it has.
Then, you say:
Quote
SO I think your objection is easily refutable. [...]Well I thought it was self evident, it's meant to be refutable since it it basically identical to WL Craig's, only Premise 1 was taken the opposite way. I was expecting to be replyied by the proponents of OA, only to see that they had nothing to say after 2 months and over 50 views.