[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 51 KB, 550x342, Kitten-in-a-hat-cute-funny-кот-animals-cats-кошка-funny-animals-kitty-котёнок-шапка-йо-fun-юмор-cat-animal-Gatos-photo-1-pisi-galeri-gatto-freddo_large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1716998 No.1716998 [Reply] [Original]

0. I can conceive of an infinitely perfect being.
1. It has every perfection.
2. Existence is a perfection.
3. The infinitely perfect being, God, exists.

ITT deluded children think they have what it takes to resist this elegant, powerful argument.

>> No.1717009

0. I can conceive of an infinitely perfect sandwich.
1. It has every perfection.
2. Being in my mouth is a perfection.
3. The infinitely perfect being, god-sandwich, is in my mouth.

>> No.1717013

>>1717009
/thread

>> No.1717014

Elegant?

>> No.1717018

Gosh, it's just like The Secret!

>> No.1717020

i can think of it,therefore "it" is.

>> No.1717019

>>1717014

Yes.

>>1717013
>>1717009

Please see OP;

>deluded children

You can't actually conceive of a concept that has a hidden contradiction in it. "perfect sandwich" contains a contradiction in it because sandwiches are extended; extended things aren't eternal or immutable, and thus aren't perfect.

>> No.1717025

Thought /lit/ was better than god threads. I thought wrong, i guess.

>> No.1717027

Citing the ontological argument...

How is philosophy 101 OP?

>> No.1717028

Your and idiot

>> No.1717043

>>1717019
You're still question begging.

>> No.1717046

0 - god is the greatest
1 - the creation of the universe is the greatest feat
2- in an act of creation, the greater the handicap of the creator, the greater the achievment
3- the greatest handicap is non-existence
4- god does not exist

>> No.1717047

>>1717028
>>1717027
>>1717025
>>1717020

If something's wrong you need to say why it's wrong. If you don't have an argument, you have to (or rather should) stay silent on the issue.

>>1717043

I'm not, but if you you explain why you think I am, I'll tell you why you're wrong.

>> No.1717048

The ontological argument is about as effective as faith...

>> No.1717051

>>1717019
If we're saying that God contains all perfections, including sandwiches, bicycles, and faggots, does that mean that God is the best possible sandwich, bicycle, and the OP simultaneously? If not, we're talking about Spinoza's god.

>> No.1717053

>>1717046
I might take issue with 2.

>> No.1717055

show me guanilo's island and I will believe

>> No.1717056

>>1717047
By defining existence as part of perfection.

Also: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/#ObjOntArg

>> No.1717058

>>1717053
replace it with whatever you think the greatest feat is, and it is greater still performed with a handicap

>> No.1717059

>>1717051

God does have every perfection, but in the post you quoted, I explained why the notion of a perfect sandwich is incoherent...

>>1717046

(2) doesn't really apply here. God is omnipotent so he can't be handicapped.

>> No.1717060

0. I can conceive of an infinitely perfect OP.
1. It has every perfection.
2. Existence is a perfection.
3. The infinitely perfect OP, exists.

AND YET IT IS NOT THIS OP

> In reality, I got stuck on point zero

>> No.1717065

You can't conceive of an infinitely perfect being.

Being able to string together a sentence containing the words "infinitely perfect being"=/=being able to conceive an infinitely perfect being

>> No.1717064

>>1717059
>doesn't really apply here. God is omnipotent so he can't be handicapped
then he can't be perfect

>> No.1717062

'being' is obviously not a real predicate

>> No.1717067

>>1717056

So objections exist on a website. Now that's fucking conclusive.

Okay, so you want some motivation for assuming that existence is a perfection? Existing is better than not existing; done.

>> No.1717070

0. I can conceive of an infinite nothing.
1. It has every nothing.
2. Nothing is a nothing.
3. The nothingly nothing thing, nothing, no-things.

>> No.1717072

>>1717064

Being handicapped is an imperfection, you silly goose. Why would God want to be handicapped?

>narf narf but he's omnipotent so he should be able to make himself be handicapped

No, it doesn't matter (it seems like a contradiction but God is prior to the eternal truths of logic)

>> No.1717074

>>1717067
Okay, so you want some motivation for assuming that non-existence is a perfection? Not existing is better than existing; done.

>> No.1717083

>>1717072
>Being handicapped is an imperfection
the lack of which now forces him to perform acts less perfect than if he was handicapped

it's a lose-lose

>God is prior to the eternal truths of logic
Oh, so he is a banana. That explains alot.

>> No.1717090

>>1717067
That's not just any website, that's the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, you wanker. Have a little respect for your elders and betters (unless you're actually the telephonic ghost of C.S. Lewis, in which case well done, now get back to sliding inevitably into agnosticism).

>> No.1717093

>>1717074

Like I said: nothing!

trollface.png

>> No.1717096

>>1717074
That's still a weak argument. By defining putting existence as perfection you are essentially reducing the argument to :"God must exist since God is defined as perfect and part of being perfect is existing.

>> No.1717095

>Existence is a perfection.

harlequin fetus

It sure is easy to defeat this "argument"

>> No.1717100

OP has so much logic-fail. Look OP, you can believe what you want, but the ontological argument is pretty terrible and you're not convincing anyone.

>> No.1717108

>I can conceive of an infinitely perfect being.
no you can't

>> No.1717110

>>1717100

^^^

Rehashing other people's ideas usually doesn't work because that person is not there to debate back. You're better off just coming up with your own ideas/theories, OP.

>> No.1717134

LOL the cat has a hat!

>> No.1717161

(3) doesn't follow from (0) - (1). Being able to conceive of a being with property X doesn't mean that the being exists, it means that IF the being existed, it would have property X. Being able to conceive of a being that has the property of existence doesn't mean that the being exists, it means that IF the being existed, it would have the property of existence.

Enjoy your pointless tautology.

>> No.1717166

>>1717161
It's not even a tautology, it's circular logic plain and simple.

>> No.1717167

First, this is a terrible attempt at repeating the Ontological Argument.
Second, the Ontological Argument isn't proof of the existence of God, nor has anyone serious about theology used it as such for centuries. Heck, Aquinas didn't even think it was a good *introduction* to theological statements.
Now, the modal logic versions of the Ontological Argument by Plantinga and Godel *do* demonstrate that belief in God is no more or less rational than disbelief, which is what Anselm probably intended way back when, and is a very interesting point.

[FWIW I have a Theology degree)

>> No.1717171
File: 37 KB, 670x496, woofbark.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1717171

>>1717166
might want to look up the definition of tautology in regards to rhetoric, friend

>> No.1717177

>>1717171
It is not correct to equate circular reasoning with a tautology. A tautology is a formula that is true in all instances, for example the formula (A AND A) and (A OR NOT A) are both tautological and non-circular. On the other hand the “fallacy of circular reasoning”, aka “begging the question”, is one where the conclusion exists (implicitly or explicitly) as one (or inside one) of the premises in an argument. Moreover, it might strike you as odd that not all circular reasoning is fallacious.

>> No.1717178

>>1717167

You theologians are so fucking cute :3. It's not that he was WRONG, he was just HINTING at a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ARGUMENT which was made HUNDREDS OF YEARS LATER.

>Second, the Ontological Argument isn't proof of the existence of God,

Yes. It is. Whether you think it is successful is another matter.

>> No.1717190

>>1717177
Within *logic*, yes, but within *rhetoric* (which is, after all, different) 'tautology' does, indeed, refer to what is commonly called circular reasoning.
Hence, my specific reference to tautology within the realm of rhetoric and suggested you look it up. 20 second on ggogle including reading the damn paragraph

>> No.1717191

>>1717166

I was referring to this part, which is indeed a tautology.

>IF the being (with the property of existence) existed, it would have the property of existence.

>> No.1717208

This is what happens when an agnostic smokes pot for the first time.

>> No.1717209

>>1717178
Hmmmm. Interesting. So, when Thomas Aquinas stated in 1270 AD that Anselm's Ontological Argument isn't proof of the existence of God, he got it wrong?
The Ontological Argument as formulated by Anselm is, yes, an argument, but as formulated by Anselm is it not proof that God exists. Plantinga and Godel did variations of the argument that prove that belief in God is no more or less rational than disbelief.
The discussion of the Ontological Argument has been going on since 1078; you've, what? Read wikipedia?
Also, in case you *have* read the Proslogium you will recall that Anselm did not include the Ontological Argument within the chapter "That God truly Exists" but rather in the chapter "That God Cannot be Thought Not to Exist" which was about the rationality or logic of belief, as opposed to formal evidence of existence.

But you knew that, right?

>> No.1717214

>>1717209

The proof in the OP is the Cartesian one. It's interesting, but not terribly important, if those goofy medievals wanted to say that the ontological argument isn't really an argument for God's existence. It certainly was for Descartes.

>> No.1717224

It's been awhile since I looked at the ontological argument but here's my two cents:
modern philosophers (brecher, hartshorne, malcom) don't dwell on 'existence' being a great-making property or anything like that. Kant refuted that kind of argument long ago. What can be argued is that the traditional view if God is logically necessary by definition. For instance, if it is a property of greatness to exert causal influence over something then B is greater than A only if B exerts causal influence over A. C would be greater than B and A only if it exerted causal influence over both. If C exerted causal influence over everything, C would be the greatest possible being. If God is such a being, it's difficult to imagine any state of affairs that might have rendered him non-existent.

>> No.1717229

>>1717214
Sorry, but it strikes me as more similar to a poor repetition of Anselm's version; Descartes was more succinct. Also, IMO (and feel free to disagree, I am not a Cartesian scholar) Descartes used the Ontological Argument more as a demonstration of how the intuition discovers God rather than as a formal proof (although he did have I think 3 versions of a proof in the Scholastic style)

>> No.1717234

> 0. Using numbers
> 1. For the same statement
> 2. Make it more logical-seeming
> 3. And accomplishes nothing

>> No.1717235

>>1717209
Plantinga and Godel gave variations that prove this according to whom, exactly? Plantinga, Godel and theists?

>> No.1717243

>>1717235
So, how familiar are you with formal logic and the modal expression of it?
If you are familiar with it, go look it up. If you aren't, there are some great resources in google books and you can make up your own mind.
I encourage anyone on /lit/ to read up on formal logic and modal logic becasue we are, after all, on /lit/

>> No.1717254

>>1717243
I've only done intro logic. Upside down A's, backwards E's and so on.

>you can make up your own mind
sorry, you made it sound like it was a sure uncontroversial thing

>> No.1717269

>>1717254
Like I said, study how modal logic works, then read Plantinga's argument.

>> No.1717272

>>1717269
you don't feel comfortable summarizing it in the meantime?

>> No.1717274
File: 83 KB, 1000x928, atheists vs theists.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1717274

>> No.1717281

>>1717272
I will quote a portion; the rest can be found here
http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/readings/plantinga.html

"(29) There is a possible world in which maximal greatness is instantiated.

[52] And the analogues of (27) and (28) spell out what is involved in maximal greatness:

(30) Necessarily, a being is maximally great only if it has maximal excellence in every world

and

(31) Necessarily, a being has maximal excellence in every world only if it has omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection in every world.

[53] Notice that (30) and (31) do not imply that there are possible but nonexistent beings -- any more than does, for example,

(32) Necessarily, a thing is a unicorn only if it has one horn.

[54] But if (29) is true, then there is a possible world W such that if it had been actual, then there would have existed a being that was omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect; this being, furthermore, would have had these qualities in every possible world. So it follows that if W had been actual, it would have been impossible that there be no such being. That is, if W had been actual,

(33) There is no omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being

would have been an impossible proposition. But if a proposition is impossible in at least one possible world, then it is impossible in every possible world; what is impossible does not vary from world to world. Accordingly (33) is impossible in the actual world, i.e., impossible simpliciter. But if it is impossible that there be no such being, then there actually exists a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect; this being, furthermore, has these qualities essentially and exists in every possible world."

>> No.1717284
File: 53 KB, 410x410, 1290064751251.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1717284

I saw this thread the last time you made it. The people in this one are smarter, at least.

>> No.1717288

>>1717284
I will admit to 'familiar with the subject' but would hesitate to call myself smarter than anybody. After all, I am on 4chan in the middle of the night on a Thursday

>> No.1717295

>>1717281
interesting, but I think that as their premises expand, so to do the avenues that they have to defend.
(31) makes claims about what perfection is which no one is obliged to agree with, while using problematic concepts such as omnipotence (has logical issues) and moral perfection (in what sense, ethical anti-realist, relativist, objectivist? In whatever sense, the common refutations of the type will apply to the premise)
There are already three avenues of refutation in a single premise.

Premise (30) suggets a being needs to be maxed out in every world. Every real world or every possible world? And why is a single world isntanciation not enough?

To be honest, this particular brand of A Priori reasoning is a dead end.

>> No.1717296

or you could honestly not care and actually live your life, instead of wasting it searching for answers you will never get or will never be satisfied with.

>> No.1717300

>>1717295
one, read the entire thing and two, is mathematics, the a priori science, dead, too?

>> No.1717307

>>1717300
>one, read the entire thing
I sure will, but these specific premises have fundamental problems in what they claim

>is mathematics, the a priori science, dead, too?
don't get snarky with me mister, and re-read what I said carefully

>> No.1717314

>>1717307
Well, considering the fact that you completely misread premise (30) within the limited context of the quote I am not overly concerned with your initial assessment. And as far as 'getting snarky' what are you going to do, make more unsubstantiated claims like your previous post?

>> No.1717365

>>1717314
you can claim that I misread it, or you can respond to the problems that I put forward, which you did not

>within the limited context of the quote
Like I said, these premises themselves have internal problems with the concepts that they invoke. Implicit premises, a lack of conceptual integrity and so on.

>as far as 'getting snarky' what are you going to do, make more unsubstantiated claims like your previous post?
how seriously do you want to be taken?

>> No.1717379

existence is not better than non-existence. deal with it.

>> No.1717384

>>1717365
I'll tell you what; since I have already given you an excerpt, an online resource (that you haven't taken advantage of yet, it seems) and the author where you can get the book to do the reading for yourself rather than spend several hours regurgitating it for you, why don't you go ahead and answer something for me, OK?

in >>1717295
you state
>>To be honest, this particular brand of A Priori reasoning is a dead end

Now, bearing in mind you had not yet even read the full *summary* of the argument, please support this statement in full, with examples.

Then, go ahead and learn modal logic and read Plantinga's book.

>> No.1717385

>>1717379
remove yourself from existence and confirm that for us, please. Then eat a sandwich that only exists in your mind and kiss the girlfriend you fantasize about and get back to me.

>> No.1717396

>>1717384
By 'this particular brand', the dead line of A Priori reasoning I am referring to is the ontological argument
It's premises rely on a concept of perfection which is going to be self-justifying
As for being concerened with me reading the entire argument, that's fine, but I have raised problems with the excerpt of that argument itself, that, without addressal, indicate to me that the rest of it needn't be bothered with.

>> No.1717401

>>1717385
is perfection subjection or objective? If the former, my answer is meaningless

>> No.1717406

>>1717385
non-existence isn't better than existence, either.

>> No.1717413

>>1717406
are you sure?

think of all the unhappiness you've experienced while exisiting.

Now think of all the unhappiness you didn't experience while you weren't existing. Hell, while you weren't existing, you literally didn't have a care in the world.

>> No.1717416

>>1717413
does happiness or even cognitive affect for that matter have an objective metaphysical value, and does a lack of qualia have an objective metaphysical value?

>> No.1717419

>>1717413
"better" is a meaningless term outside of conscious existence. i mispoke before. i should have said: "saying that existence is better or worse than non-existence is meaningless"

>> No.1717422

>>1717396
1) define the "brand" of a priori you are mentioning, please
2)So - you admit you haven't gotten around to reading the definition of perfection which I provided n a link
3) You cannot justify 2 of the 3 (issues with definitions, which you haven't read) and never made clear your issues with omnipotence (which, in my epxerience, are usually sophomoric).
In other words, you are so unserious about this you can't be bothered to read a link that gives the other half of the summary you are stating is wrong.
Which is pretty typical, in my experience. As Bertrand Russell said "The argument does not, to a modern mind, seem very convincing, but it is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies."
I spent a great deal of time studying ontology, teleology, modal logic, etc. as a sideline to philosophy, heuristics, hermeneutics, and exegesis before I got to theodicy and the Ontological Argument as intros to theology.

Go read the book.

>> No.1717423

>>1717406
reading this thread makes me want to not exist

>> No.1717428

>>1717422
1) as I stated, the ontological argument itself
2) yes, jesus christ, you'd think it would be an admission of guilt when all I really wanted was a level-headed response to my intital concerns
3) Why can't I justify them? It's my job to convince you why omnipotence or omniscience is a necessary condition for perfection, it is the other way around. And my more serious concern was that moral perfection was a condition. Before I get into that, perhaps you could elaborate on what you think that means?

>In other words, you are so unserious
ad hominems won't help

>As Bertrand Russell said "The argument does not, to a modern mind, seem very convincing, but it is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies."
fascinating, you can read wikipedia

>I spent a great deal of time studying ontology, teleology, modal logic, etc. as a sideline to philosophy, heuristics, hermeneutics, and exegesis before I got to theodicy and the Ontological Argument as intros to theology
that's fantastic, but if you're implying that has anything to do with your correctness...

>> No.1717485

>>1717384
here are some problems I find

-the assumption that perfection is a state of certain properties that have reached their absolute representation
- the assumption that omnipotence is a logically coherent concept
- the assumption that omnipotence and omniscience have metaphysical value that links them to greatness or perfection
- the assumption that there is a moral absolute that it is possible to attain perfection in
-the absurd assumption that a being is only perfect in a given world if it exists in every world (24) and (27)
-the assumption that if a proposition is impossible in one possible world it is impossible in all possible worlds
-finally, no support of your initial claim that this set of premises logically concludes that theism and atheism are equally rational. The premise it suggests there is nothing irrational to accept is one of possibility of attributes which being traditionally attribute to the supposed creator of the reality and moral law for humans.

>> No.1717566

The only thing you prove in the ontological argument is that you can conceive of something existing, which of course doesn't mean it exists.

>> No.1717571

let me simplify this argument for you.
1. I can conceive of something existing.
2. It must therefore exist.
FUCKING FLAWLESS

>> No.1717809
File: 118 KB, 294x371, 6a00d8341c562c53ef0148c85fe8a7970c-500wi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1717809

Immanuel Kant: Existence is not a predicate
/thread