• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

I heard a whopper today.

Lord Kenneth

Banned
L
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
2,604
Me and Scizerus were amazed at this kid's stupidity:

His "proof" of god went something like this...

God is the greatest thing possible.
Aquinus (SP???) proved that it is better to exist than not exist.
Therefore to be the greatest thing in the world you must exist.
Therefore, God exists.


Its "philosophy", he said. Me and Scizerus laughed at his stupidity.
 
I guess that shows how good some people are at logical solutions.

A is true
B is true
C = A + B
C is true

WRONG WRONG WRONG!

Of course, I would state that "A" is unprovable and lacks postive or negative evidence.
 
Lord Kenneth said:
Me and Scizerus were amazed at this kid's stupidity:

His "proof" of god went something like this...

God is the greatest thing possible.
Aquinus (SP???) proved that it is better to exist than not exist.
Therefore to be the greatest thing in the world you must exist.
Therefore, God exists.
Click to expand...

I thought that was St. Anselm, not Aquinas.

Anyway. Even if it proved the existence of God, it doesn't prove the existence of Yahweh, who by His own words is a jealous God, and it is better to not be jealous than it is to be jealous.
 
It's an old and silly chestnut, and when it was first published it was found unconvincing even by religious contemporaries.

Exactly the same argument "proves" the existence of the ultimately tasty hamburger, the ultimately evil and powerful demon, the ultimately perfect girlfriend/boyfriend and so on indefinitely.

There are other ways to analyse it and show it wanting, but you can pick up almost any first year philosophy textbook and find it discussed in detail if that's what you're after.
 
Haha, so it is an old argument?

Just goes to show how well the average person thinks. :(

They honestly find that to be a "Good argument", yet it's wrong on so many levels... that has to be one of the worst I've ever heard.
 
Lord Kenneth said:
Haha, so it is an old argument?
Click to expand...
Not old... ancient. It's called the "Ontological" argument.

As Kevin pointed out, it was laughed at the day it came out.

Take this lesson to heart, Kenneth. From now until doomsday you will hear the same tired arguments, some thousands of years old, presented as fresh and exciting by people with very spotty educations.
 
Therefore to be the greatest thing in the world you must exist.
Click to expand...

I exist. Does that make me the greatest thing in the world?

No.

And who can prove god of any sort is the greatest thing in the world?

I think gods suck. It sucks if you suck and exist. Therefore sucky gods don't exist.

Meh. Very childish, but just as dumb as the other argument.
 
Eos of the Eons said:


I exist. Does that make me the greatest thing in the world?

No.
Click to expand...
I think the question is whether it makes you greater than someone who is exactly like you in every respect but who is purely hypothetical.

Anyhow, the ontological proof is intuitively unconvincing and I would be surprised if it had ever persuaded anyone to believe in God. On the other hand, it is extremely difficult to pinpoint precisely what is wrong with it, which is why even contemporary philosophers still devote ink to discussing it (mostly in efforts to disprove it). But there is disagreement among them as to where the fault lies.
 
This is the fault.
God is the greatest thing possible. Oh, wait. A god that gave me whatever I wanted whenever I wanted it would be even greater than that. Blah, blah.
Therefore a god that gives me whatever I want exists.

No, it doesn't.
 
The original argument and yes, it was Anselm, was this:

If God is that than which nothing greater can exist, then he must exist.

That was the initial statement, and the reasoning went like this.

If God is that than which nothing greater CAN exist,

But he does not exist,

Then something greater than he can exist because one of the properties of greatness includes existence.

For example if you think of the greatest god that is possible, but it is only a concept in your mind, than an even greater god can exist, namely, that very same God with the additional property of actual existence.

Therefore God must exist.

Of course the major fallacy here is that you must buy into the given conditions that God is in fact that than which nothing greater can exist. The "If" clause that starts the argument is never shown to be self evident.
 
Best class i took in college wasn't philosophy (just couldn't stomach it) but logic. I loved logic class. Only night class I stuck with and didn't drop. It was a little like math, a little like philosophy and taught by this cute priest from the seminary in a neighboring town :).

I wish I still had my logic book, or that I remembered more of it.
 
All right, seriously then. Kenneth, I'm interested in how (or whether) you rebutted this person's argument. It's long been my opinion that, whether you're right or not, laughing and walking away is the lamest argument anybody can muster.
 
Andonyx said:
Of course the major fallacy here is that you must buy into the given conditions that God is in fact that than which nothing greater can exist. The "If" clause that starts the argument is never shown to be self evident.
Click to expand...
But "God" here is simply shorthand for "the being than which no greater can be conceived." That definition is really what starts the argument. Even if you object to identifying such a being as God, you are left with an argument for the existence of a being than which no greater being can be conceived. That essentially leaves the proof intact. The particular objection you've raised doesn't materially undermine Anselm's reasoning. Anselm's God is what he defines it to be, and it hardly seems fruitful to quibble over his definition - so I don't see it as the major problem with this proof. The real question is whether the existence of "that being than which no greater can be conceived" - whether you call it God or George - can be logically demonstrated in the manner Anselm suggests.
 
ceo_esq said:
But "God" here is simply shorthand for "the being than which no greater can be conceived." That definition is really what starts the argument. Even if you object to identifying such a being as God, you are left with an argument for the existence of a being than which no greater being can be conceived. That essentially leaves the proof intact. The particular objection you've raised doesn't materially undermine Anselm's reasoning. Anselm's God is what he defines it to be, and it hardly seems fruitful to quibble over his definition - so I don't see it as the major problem with this proof. The real question is whether the existence of "that being than which no greater can be conceived" - whether you call it God or George - can be logically demonstrated in the manner Anselm suggests.
Click to expand...

Not exactly....

Because Anselm's defining God that way does not necessarily make it so.

Even if you take the word God out of the proof entirely the argument still boils down to this...

"If you believe in a being than which nothing greater can exist, you must also believe in its existence."

Which boils down even further to...

"If you believe in a being that exists, you must believe in a being that exists."

It's the self reflexive property of identity.

But you still haven't proven that there is anything with all those properties...

Which is the major condition of that "If" clause.

Which I guess I should calarify...Yes, Anselm's logic is a valid argument in that If A, then B. However it is not a valid proof in that A is not self evident and therefore we cannot conclude B to be true.
 
Logic is derived from reality, not the other way round. The Ontological argument thinks it can will into being an object simply by logically proving that object must exist. This is metaphysical absurdity. Of course, our idealist monists will find the argument compelling, but no one else will.

As well to use your brush to paint a picture of a car, and then insist that since you can paint it, the car must exist. You're not going to get a lot of mileage out of that.
 
Yahzi said:
Logic is derived from reality, not the other way round. The Ontological argument thinks it can will into being an object simply by logically proving that object must exist. This is metaphysical absurdity. Of course, our idealist monists will find the argument compelling, but no one else will.

As well to use your brush to paint a picture of a car, and then insist that since you can paint it, the car must exist. You're not going to get a lot of mileage out of that.
Click to expand...
Gotta disagree with you here, Yahzi. Logic can be used for ANYTHING, real or otherwise (Wizards are more powerful than Magicians and Magicians are more powerful than Clerics, therefore Wizards are more powerful than Clerics). It is the assumptions you bring to the table that should be derived from reality if you want your conclusions to deal with reality.

Or alternatively you could rely on the word of the Sage of Baltimore
Logic works by having people compare their explanations and seeing which is more logical.
Click to expand...
 
Yahzi said:
The Ontological argument thinks it can will into being an object simply by logically proving that object must exist. This is metaphysical absurdity.
Click to expand...
A popular but not universally accepted refutation is given by Kant and others, baldly stated "existence is not a predicate". That is, saying "X exists" adds nothing to the concept of X.

I have an idea of a circle, the geometric definition. It is a perfect circle, by definition. No such circle exists. Same with the perfect (or better, but still not good enough) "necessary being".

I have an idea of a logically necessary being. This idea has implications that make it superior to the idea of a being whose existence is not necessary. If this necessary being does not exist, then it is inferior than beings that do exist. But that contradicts the necessity inherent in my idea. Therefore that thing I have an idea of exists.

Here, I'd argue that you don't have an idea of a necessary being. Ask the person making the argument to state just what he means by "necessary" - without using that word, or the words "real" or "existing".

Bet they can't. Necessity is a loaded term. Logical necessity is purely formal. Physical necessity is more in the nature of "highly probable, other things being equal". Operations that are claimed to be "medically necessary" may not be. Otherwise I'd go to a logician for my heartbeat irregularity, rather than a cardiologist.

You might also say "why yes, I'll grant you that god has exactly as much existence as a perfect circle in euclidean geometry - just as much and no more".

Or "whatever exists is subject to coming into being and passing away. If God exists then he can cease to exist. If god cannot cease to exist, then his existence is quite different than the existence of everything else, and you are not entitled to use the word 'existence' to describe his manner of being."
 
I don't get the argument.

Firstly, what is meant by "greater"?

Second, the argument appears to have the form:

If concept X is "greater" than any concept having the property of existence, then concept X must have the property of existence.

How is this different from:

If a dog larger-than-the-earth is "greater" than any dog having the property of existence, than a dog larger-than-the-earth must have the property of existence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom