I need to debate for either the Ontological, Cosmological, or Teleological argument for Phil. I don't know what board would be best to ask, but which of these is the strongest?

File: 958 KB, 2184x3064, Creation_of_the_Sun_and_Moon_face_detail[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Oct 1 02:46:55 2013 No.6060684 [Reply] [Original]

I need to debate for either the Ontological, Cosmological, or Teleological argument for Phil. I don't know what board would be best to ask, but which of these is the strongest?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 03:03:13 2013 No.6060697 >>6060684 Why's Phil so important? He's just some jerk that farts on people.

Anonymous Tue Oct 1 03:45:07 2013 No.6060726

>Ontological
Absolute nonsense. Rowe left its shit it ruins, demolishing the argument, patching it up so that it was no longer invalid in form, then demolishing it again.

>Cosmological
Ignores two thirds of the solutions to Aggripa's Trilemma and even then only succeeds at semantic bullshit and equivocation.

>Teleological
Probably the strongest, but you basically have to pretend that 'complexity' means whatever you want it to mean instead of having a mathematical definition. You also have to pretend that everything we learned about evolution, fractals, and cellular automata since the nineteenth century didn't happen.

Anonymous Tue Oct 1 03:54:07 2013 No.6060734

Well, they're all pretty crappy, but they all have their merit.

Teleological is mostly a metaphorical argument. Basically you hit the points that the world must have a creator because it looks like it was created - like a painting or a piece of machinery. Modern arguments use the example of complex genes that could not have merely evolved by chance. In the long run, this argument falls short, because it is ultimately speculative, and whatever scientific arguments you bring forward, there is in every case so far an explanation.
Ontological is mostly done by the use of language. An ontological argument claims that there must necessarily be an all-powerful being by the fact that an all-powerful being that does not exist could not be all-powerful. Sounds weird, but that is the heart of it. There actually is some sound logic to it, but only because of some fancy world-play and definitions in the proofs done by people like Gödel, et al.
Finally, the Cosmological Argument says that because the world exists, it must have had a beginning, and if the world began to exist, there must have been a cause to it, beyond the physical world. The argument is essentially that everything that exists has a cause, and those causes have prior causes, too. As there cannot be an infinite regression of causes, there must have been one cause that started them all, and that cause must itself be unchanged.

To answer your question, The Cosmological Argument, from my standpoint is the strongest. It is the only one that stands by the weight of its own logic, without calling upon spooky language or empty rhetoric. It is also the one that does not require a God, per se, but could describe many different aspects of current scientific theories, like the big bang.
Some different people to read on the subject would be Thomas Aquinas, William Lane Craig, Stephen Hawking, and Richard Taylor
A good source for subject reading would be plato.stanford.edu or the online encyclopedia of philosophy.

Anonymous Tue Oct 1 04:04:07 2013 No.6060741

>>6060734

It doesn't really stand on its own logic, in fact it arguably has the worst logic of all three, since it claims that all things must have had a prior cause, then tries to resolve this issue it has pointed out by saying "Therefore it was created because a creator doesn't need to have a cause".

All you're doing is adding an additional step to the "What caused this?" question. You might as well just say the universe didn't need to have a cause instead of going the extra step and adding a creator in so that you can claim he didn't need to have a cause.

even the Ontological argument has more merit than the Cosmological argument, even if they're both shit.

Anonymous Tue Oct 1 04:10:07 2013 No.6060745 [DELETED]

Strongest of the three. It definitely begs the question, but compared to the other two, its gold. Teleological makes ridiculous claims by comparison, with no logic involved, and the Ontological could prove that I currently have pie in my mouth, merely because it tastes good. I don't. Even if it had a completely made up premise, it isn't nearly as bad.

Anonymous Tue Oct 1 04:16:07 2013 No.6060747

>>6060741

Strongest of the three. It definitely does beg the question, but compared to the other two its gold. Teleological argument merely makes speculative comparisons with no logic involved - barely and argument - whereas Ontological could prove that I currently have pie in my mouth (I don't) merely because it tastes good. Even if it had a completely made up premise, it is still the best of the 3, IMO.

Anonymous Tue Oct 1 04:25:33 2013 No.6060756

>>6060747

True, I suppose.

OP, if you want to use them to win a debate though, you should use the Ontological argument, since it's so absurdly complex and convulted when you word it out in full that you'll probably leave your opponents with no idea how to respond to it. It sure does sound fancy though.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 05:17:23 2013 No.6060812 >>6060756 Yeah the good thing with the ontological argument is that you can dig very very deep and hope that will be enough smoke and mirrors to convince the audience that, at least, you're a smart guy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 1 16:56:10 2013 No.6061707 Choose the oncological argument. It is the only one with evidence.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 2 08:08:25 2013 No.6063064 all of them

Anonymous Wed Oct 2 08:46:55 2013 No.6063114
File: 26 KB, 260x312, william-lane-craig.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6063064
This. Make as many claims as possible as vaguely as possible, all the while keeping a confident smirk and criticizing your opponent for being too unsophisticated and sophomoric to refute you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 2 09:01:56 2013 No.6063136 >>6060684 >Ontological, Cosmological, or Teleological 1/10

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 2 19:52:18 2013 No.6064105 What is ontology? Does it really exist?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 3 04:44:11 2013 No.6064939 >>6064105 Epistemologically speaking it only exists within your post.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 3 18:28:37 2013 No.6066130 >>6064939 What epistemology are you using?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 4 04:14:43 2013 No.6067299 >>6066130 epistemological anarchism

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 4 04:21:05 2013 No.6067311 >>6067299 Woaw, how is life in the fast lane?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 4 10:00:21 2013 No.6067662 >>6067299 Epistemological anarchism literally means "u cannot know nuthin". It is the last resort for pseudo-intellectual /lit/ fags who recognized that they will never understand the basics of science and math.

Anonymous Fri Oct 4 10:14:18 2013 No.6067683
File: 793 KB, 360x203, 1380153381276.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6067662
So...let me be clear, you still think science is about truth, knowledge, nature, euphoria and fedoras?

Have you still not gotten with the plan? Models work, models explain the undefined "reality", got a better model? Good, we can trash the old one.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 4 12:51:59 2013 No.6067905 >>6063114 Well I got curious, and holy shit that guy. >hurrr "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence isn't true. Let me namedrop Condorcet and Mill. Now believe me when I say I don't need evidence."

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 4 14:53:28 2013 No.6068136 File: 74 KB, 321x250, classic-burrito[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 4 15:03:58 2013 No.6068166 File: 22 KB, 212x270, Kurt_gödel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Eh, they are all bullshit but go with ontological because apparently it made sense to Godel and Leibniz.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 4 15:16:00 2013 No.6068194 >>6067905 >extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence isn't true Definitely made me a bit angry.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 4 18:46:19 2013 No.6068716 >>6067683 The goal of science is to find objective truth in nature.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 5 05:57:48 2013 No.6069598 >>6068136 It looks delicious.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 5 19:09:05 2013 No.6070880 >>6068136 Did they put carrots in there?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 6 06:09:39 2013 No.6071686 >>6068136 How can I make it at home?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 6 17:25:59 2013 No.6072607 >>6071686 Do not try this at home. It was made in a controlled environment by trained professionals.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 6 17:27:28 2013 No.6072613 >>6068716 What is non-objective truth? And isn't truth the value of logical proposition?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 06:19:57 2013 No.6073515 >>6072613 >What is non-objective truth? measurement error >And isn't truth the value of logical proposition? Mad hallucinations of meth heads are disjoint from reality.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 7 17:21:56 2013 No.6074627 >>6072613 >What is non-objective truth? Any information not based on scientific observation. >And isn't truth the value of logical proposition? Truth is scientific measurement.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 8 06:45:22 2013 No.6076179 >>6074627 Information not based on scientific observation is objectively untrue.

Anonymous Tue Oct 8 07:02:39 2013 No.6076230

If you can handle modal logic, talk about Plantinga's reformulation of the ontological argument. It's the most interesting in my opinion, but you need to have a firm grasp of what it claims to prove. (i.e. it does not show that God's existence is possible, bur rather if God can exist, then He exists necessarily) Also, be sure to distinguish between epistemic necessity and metaphysical necessity.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 8 07:10:11 2013 No.6076255 >>6067662 It's pretty neat. I'm with Empiricus. >>6060734 >As there cannot be an infinite regression of causes Why not? That's why I don't get.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 8 16:48:43 2013 No.6077284 >>6076230 >Also, be sure to distinguish between epistemic necessity and metaphysical necessity. What is the difference?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 9 02:00:39 2013 No.6078491 >>6076179 Is "untrue" the same as "false"?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 9 12:38:14 2013 No.6079395 >>6068136 This made me hungry.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 9 18:00:36 2013 No.6080072 >>6078491 Not always.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 9 18:11:36 2013 No.6080106 This isn't science. >>>/lit/

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 10 12:59:11 2013 No.6081577 >>6080106 It is a question of science and logic.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 10 19:26:04 2013 No.6082425 >>6076230 >If you can handle modal logic I can't.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 11 10:19:09 2013 No.6083470 Teleological is the strongest.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 11 11:45:16 2013 No.6083584 >>6073515 >Mad hallucinations of meth heads are disjoint from reality. They're real within their heads, and they exist, so the hallucinations are real too.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 11 12:54:25 2013 No.6083674 They're all shit. How can a student be forced to make a wrong argument? This is the opposite of science.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 11 13:04:56 2013 No.6083683 >>6081577 Philosophy isn't science. Go away.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 11 20:30:16 2013 No.6084330 >>6083674 Why are they wrong?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 12 17:24:58 2013 No.6085618 >>6060697 Who is Phil?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 13 09:50:29 2013 No.6086823 >>6083683 Science is applied philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 13 19:44:15 2013 No.6088158 >>6086823 Science and philosophy are separated.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 13 19:59:14 2013 No.6088203 >>6088158 Science is a philosophy.

Anonymous Sun Oct 13 20:15:43 2013 No.6088252

>>6060684

How is it that theologian derives the question of 'why' from the question of 'how' in regard to natural phenomena without beginning his inquiry with the assumption that there is a rational agent who created that natural phenomena?

In short, it seems that theological arguments assume that there is purpose in the universe thereby implying the existence of God from the very beginning of the argument. These arguments are circular and seem unjustified.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 13 20:18:43 2013 No.6088264 >>6060812 And make sure to say "QED!" at the endof your argument and clap your hands twice.

God's gift to OP Sun Oct 13 20:33:13 2013 No.6088302

>>6060684
Make a Berkleyan ontological argument from solipsism.

>"Your mind interprets experience.

>Therefore you can only be certain of your own mind. (Solipsism)

>Even so, you cannot manipulate your experience at will.

>Therefore there is at least one other mind which has control over your experience.

>In observing the uniformity by which events occur in your experience (laws of physics, math, etc.) it can be deduced that there is only one mind greater than your own which controls your experience.

>This greater mind is God."

Do some research and dress it up a bit. You'll get an A.

>>	God's gift to OP Sun Oct 13 21:00:55 2013 No.6088378 >>6088302 Oh and... >"QED," said the smirking theologian. And then quote he bible: >"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 13 21:33:57 2013 No.6088424 Plz help

Talimar Sun Oct 13 22:52:48 2013 No.6088550

What are you arguing philosophy against?

If nobody bothers to tell you that Ontological and Teleological arguments would look at different parts of philosophy all together (and as such doesn't need to disprove one kind.), then you should just toss their recommendations out the window.

Honestly, I'd argue philosophy using all three. A blended approach.

Start with Ontology so that you can derive a base structure for philosophy so that you can at least have that knowledge is mind-dependent. With that, you then can use the cosmological argument for a structure which then proposes a Teleological argument for where knowledge ends at. (extra credit for keeping dualism in play.)

To be clear, each school of thought is more akin to a tool then it is to an identity.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 13 22:59:48 2013 No.6088571 >>6061707 >oncological that joke takes a few turns too many

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 13 23:02:18 2013 No.6088577 >>6068716 nah, it tries to find the best approximation and that's it anything beyond that is personal motivation and ideology

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 13 23:10:41 2013 No.6088593 File: 5 KB, 274x242, 1308178093606.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6083683 /sci/ - Science & Math All science and math related topics welcome. now kindly please fuck off

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 13 23:13:41 2013 No.6088597 >>6088593 God can be scientifically proved to exist.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 13 23:21:10 2013 No.6088611 >>6088550 OP means the three main proofs of God's existence.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 13 23:23:40 2013 No.6088612 >>6088302 >you cannot manipulate your experience at will Tell that to the Buddhist yogis. LOL

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 13 23:26:41 2013 No.6088615 >>6088612 Make something that exists completely disappear. Can't do it? Therefore God, faggot.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 14 07:38:33 2013 No.6089384 >>6088597 Weak b8 m8

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 14 18:39:13 2013 No.6090360 >>6088597 Post the proof.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 15 09:54:19 2013 No.6091626 Can someone summarize the arguments?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 15 18:34:58 2013 No.6092560 >>6088577 Science is more than an approximation. Science is exact.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 16 08:32:15 2013 No.6093556 >>6068136 I guess this is more convincing than the OP's arguments.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 16 18:33:15 2013 No.6094660 >I don't know what board would be best to ask Try /lit/.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 17 09:22:51 2013 No.6095937 >>6094660 /lit/ doesn't know anything about science.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 17 17:18:56 2013 No.6096639 Why do people think science is philosophy? Science is an endeavor. Philosophy is the study of abstract problems. Most scientists may hold a certain philosophy, but that doesn't mean science is a philosophy.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math