Leave Mitt Romney out of this!
This sounds like the ontological argument, which was the creation of St. Anselm of Canterbury.
Most of me agrees with those who consider the ontological argument to be a case of absolutely breathtaking nonsense.
However, the argument was taken seriously and a version of it was developed by Kurt Godel, who was about ten times
smarter than anyone who has ever posted on this board, except, of course, for our Master Cecil.
See link:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Gödel’s Ontological Argument
(from link, emphasis added):
Therefore, as much as I would like to, I cannot dismiss the argument completely.
Are you saying a Doper smart enough to prove Godel wrong doesn’t exist?
(The properties of such a Doper would, necessarily, include (a) being that smart, and (b) existing.)
Yes, Cecil alone excepted.
Sounds right.
I can see two clear problems with this argument:
-
It assumes a term X can be understood without a predicate, i.e. that simply naming something is meaningful in the same way that a complete sentence is meaningful. “God does not exist” is a sentence, and hence a complete thought; the individual words themselves are not meaningful in the same way. “Fragbudalickasia does not exists” is meaningful; simply uttering “Fragbudalickasia” is not.
-
As it is used in sentences, the word “exist” can have two different meanings: One is a generic “is”, the other more specifically “is and has the quality of physical reality”. For the first definition, “God exists” is true in the same way as “unicorns exist”, and in this sense anything that can be conceived by the mind of man “exists”. Admittedly this meaning of “exist” is far less common, but it does allow us to speculate about presumed fictional items (e.g. “God exists in order for man to believe there is purpose to the universe.”).
The more common meaning is the second–“exist” means a item is conceived in the mind AND has a quality associated with physical reality, a quality much like color, size, etc. No one would say “This car is not red” already concedes that the car is red, and hence is self-refuting–this interpretation would make language impossible. Similarly, treating existence as the quality of actualness–something built into the word itself–defuses the original argument.
I have a feeling the original poster isn’t coming back.
Of course he exists, as a figment in a few people’s imagination.
Anyhow, this means we can finally prove Cecil exists. Though some would argue that it would be better to take this on faith.
Well, as per the OP referring to such a Doper – means that such a Doper exists. (As for the bit about excepting Cecil, we could in short order prove the existence of a female Doper with the requisite smarts, as well as a bachelor Doper with sufficient intelligence and a married Doper with sufficient intelligence, and so on, and so on; as soon as we claim they don’t exist, they do.)
As for the rest,
So run through the reasoning you linked to, which supposedly lets you draw conclusions about the existence of an x with the necessary property of existence.
(That said, if you still believe none of us are smart enough to dismiss Godel’s claims, are we at least minimally competent to, say, copy-and-paste stuff from Godel’s smart contemporaries? Bertrand Russell, say? “I think that, perhaps, in answering your argument, the best point at which to begin is the question of necessary being. The word ‘necessary,’ I should maintain, can only be applied significantly to propositions … The difficulty of this argument is that I don’t admit the idea of a necessary being … existence, in fact, quite definitely is not a predicate.”)
X is Y
X is not Y
Therefore, you should worship and follow God.
Note: I am only asserting the argument is valid.
But A is A, so we must worship and follow Ayn Rand.
Not a valid argument. At least, my argument was valid.
It seems to me that this argument is more that there’s a platonic form representing God more than one that there’s a god.
ETA: Or at least, a standard objection would be that the words are referring to the form, not the thing itself.
From there, you must as well do away with literal “existing” form and reduce them to abstract, non-existent “symbols” and be done with it.
I’ve merged the “A valid argument” thread into this thread because the topics seem related and it did not look like there was enough content to sustain a separate thread.
Woosh!!!
When I saw the subject of this thread, I thought, “Uh oh, this one’s going to be fun to watch.”
When I read the OP, I thought, “Well, I just got suckered into opening this thread. What a clever bit of misdirection!”
When I saw the OP’s follow-on contributions, I thought, “Oh, that first post wasn’t actually ironic or clever. What a disappointment.”
You could have been a legend, Che, if you had only left well enough alone.
This is quite a liberal reimagining of the ontological argument.
Nonono, the ontological argument says that a perfect being must exist because it is more perfect to exist than not exist.
Though they do have the same objections (i.e. the objection to the Ontological argument is “Imagine a perfect island…” and the objection to this argument is “I am referring to an island at <coordinates at which there’s clearly no island>”).
Consider the follow-ups to be the Congo. Wait for Bolivia.
But seriously, I have proven God exists and provided a valid argument to worship and follow him.
I’ll agree that your argument is valid.
However, it is not sound.
Also, you only provided a valid argument for God (every god, really) existing, not an argument for why they should be worshiped.
Honestly, if every god exists you might as well not worship one, you’re going to SOME hell for following the wrong religion either way in a world where every religion’s view of the world is true.