Try it in English. Do you agree with the proof I pasted from your link? If so, what’s your response to my argument against it? If you disagree with that proof, can you explain your proof in English? You appear to be agreeing with Cheesesteak’s characterization of your proof; what’s your response to my argument against that?
Dead Badger:
But that blade cuts both ways. If it cripples my argument, then it cripples yours as well. And in general, it cripples any deductive argument because its axioms are critical to its conclusion. You can’t just reject an axiom in hindsight just because it leads to an inference you don’t like. I mean, you can, but hell — that’s what creationists and astrologers do.
Priceguy:
The proof you gave was Anselm’s original. What Hartshorne, Godel, and others did was modalize it. There is narrative annotation provided for the modal form on a previous page.
For what it’s worth, I’ve posted a hopefully useful summary on the various aspects of the proof being discussed here.
I don’t know if what I found is what you meant here, but hell, I’ll keep trying until I get a response from you.
One big problem here is that “great” isn’t defined. What does “the greatest possible being” mean? “Great” according to whom? You and I certainly don’t agree on what a “great” society is, why should this be any different? Who says necessary existence is the “greatest” form of existence?
That’s exactly my point. Either side, to prove anything, has to reject the other’s assumption, namely that either <>g or <>~g is valid. Neither (as Cheesesteak shows) is more intuitively obvious than the other, so the question is just as unresolved as the original “does god exist?”. The only thing added is that he either exists everywhere or nowhere. Comparisons with astrologers and suchlike are IMO entirely unfair, because the premises on which the inferences are based are not observations, they are assumptions, and entirely open to question. I question your assumption, and you question mine, but neither has any more basis in empirical fact than a bald assertion of god’s existence or otherwise.
Fundamentally, this is your proof, not mine. It rests almost entirely on your rejection of <>~g. You therefore need to demonstrate or justify this in some way. Several people have now asked why one might not equally assume <>~g, and you have replied, essentially, with “because.” It is not silly to question this reasoning, as you imply, because it is not reasoning. It’s just assertion.
Wow. That’s all that need be said, in my opinion. Whatever the questions, the answers are there.
Good. Then I can use SentientMeat’s summary as the basis for my criticism.
-
I’m not buying that necessary existence is true. This may well be because I don’t understand the proof in that link, because quite frankly I don’t. Does it merely mean that “something must exist”? In that case, I’m with it. Something certainly does exist.
-
Accepting the existence of the metaphysical is a prerequisite, it appears. What’s the basis for doing that?
-
What is your response to SentientMeat’s questions regarding words such as “perfect”, “supreme” and “best”, or indeed my questions about the word “great”?
-
You do realize that by calling “necessary existence” God you’re turning yourself into a lightning-rod for criticism? If the only property of God is necessary existence, why call it God and make the majority of your readers assume you’re talking about an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being?
Not to mention that that particular ontological proof was refuted in Anselm’s lifetime by Kant. “Existence is not predicate.” It’s as simple as that.
I suppose this means me, since as far as I know I’m the only woman who’s been much involved here.
Lib, the reason you don’t have credibility is because you attempt to use the trappings of philosophy (Latin terms, formal proofs, names of famous philosophers) to intimidate or confuse people. The OP started a pretty ordinary Pit thread about being annoyed by superstitious friends, but you decided that he had to be taught a lesson. He made the mistake of posting something that might be interpreted to mean that he disagreed with one of Lib’s deeply held beliefs, and that cannot be allowed!
You did not come into this thread with hopes of a genuine exchange of ideas or even with the intent of enlightening an ignorant person. You came here to show off and to “win” by confusing or frustruating your opponent so much that he would give up. Your perfunctory “apology” to the OP doesn’t make you any less of a bully. You’ve toned down the act now that there are people around who aren’t so easily awed, but I don’t think you’ve changed your tune. I’ve seen this too many times before. You are not sorry and you will do it again, because you’re just a big bully who thinks that his ability to copy down an ontological proof makes him an intellectual heavyweight. That’s pathetic and it’s petty, but it’s certainly not philosophy.
Lamia is cool.
'Nuff said.
Totally.
Never done a “me, too” post.
Can’t think of a better time.
Thanks Lamia. I especially liked this part:
Hey, Lib, where’s the love you so value, man, where’s the love?
Do you want to educate? Spread understanding or love? Then set an example.
Well, I see Libertarian has chosen the same strategy here as in his politics threads: when asked difficult questions, either ignore them, Pit the asker, or make up some reason why you shouldn’t have to answer.
Libertarian makes his arguments in Chinese, then berates us for not understanding Chinese. His references are to fellow speakers of Chinese. He won’t bother to translate for us, because we might find the flaws in his logic.
I think the gist of his pompous prattlings are:
Does the person think there’s a possibility that God exists?
If yes, then God does exist.
Because of the possibility that God exists, there’s another plane of existence where God exists. Much like there’s an alternate plane of existence that pops up when a decision is made. In one plane, existence is dictated by the decision that was made. In another plane, existence is dictated by the decision NOT being made.
God is infinite in scope.
If God exists in one plane, he exists in all planes, since he is infinite in scope.
Therefore, God exists.
To me, it’s more accurate to say:
If a person acknowledges there’s a possiblity God exists, then God does exist, provided we define God to be infinite in scope.
Now, the OP doubted the existence of the supernatural.
Lib subs God for the supernatural without saying so. Apparently we’re supposed to understand the two terms are the same before we fully understand Chinese. So in essence, what he is saying is:
If a person acknowledges there’s a possiblity the supernatural exists, then the supernatural does exist, provided we define the supernatural to be infinite in scope.
I don’t recall the OP saying there was the possiblity the supernatural exists. Why would he think there’s a possibilty it does exist if he doubts it altogether? Even if under all those layers of Chinese pomposity he did say so, he sure as hell didn’t assume the supernatural was infinite in scope! “I don’t believe in it, but if I did, I’d assume it was everywhere!”
Even those who speak Lib’s obscure dialect of Chinese are skeptical.
Here here! Very well said, Madam!
And about time too. Newbies like the OP are particularly easy targets for Libertarian’s tiresome and repetitious wiggly symbols and letter-riddled, god-conjuring, semantic trick. But methinks he should find a new audience altogether, because he’s done that one to death here.
In fact, if you look up "Libertarian + ontological" on the search engine, you’ll come with fifteen threads on that topic alone! And his fucking “argument” has been exposed for the meaningless dribble that it is in each and every one of them.
Believe whatever the fuck you want, Libertarian, but find a new shtick. This one’s played to tears and you’re impressing no one but your own fuckin’ deluded and megalomaniacal self.
This philosphy is pretty heavy sledding. I think somebody should start a thread about idiots who believe in ghosts. That would be fun!