The Ontological Argument is Sound

Author: Dr.Franklin

Posts

Total: 170
#31
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Dr.Franklin
@OntologicalSpider
If Anselm's Ontological argument is valid, then what about this one:

  1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in; and
  2. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
  3. It is possible that there isn’t a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
  4. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being does not exist.
  5. Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist. (axiom S5)
  6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist.

#32
Paul
Paul's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 470
1
2
2
Paul's avatar
Paul
1
2
2
-->
@Dr.Franklin
“God exists” is a synthetic proposition.

Synthetic propositions are described in logical terms and substantiated by empirical evidence.

You can propose “God exists”, but it is an unsubstantiated synthetic proposition.

#33
OntologicalSpider
OntologicalSpider's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 86
0
0
4
OntologicalSpider's avatar
OntologicalSpider
0
0
4
-->
@PressF4Respect

  • It is possible that there isn’t a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
  • Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being does not exist.
  • Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist. (axiom S5)




    • How did you jump from it is possible a MGB doesn't exist to it is necessary that a MGB doesn't exist?

    Since it is logically possible a MGB does exist you can't have the necessary non existence of a MGB. A MGB is logically possible so it's non existence is not necessary.
    #34
    PressF4Respect
    PressF4Respect's avatar
    Debates: 10
    Posts: 3,159
    3
    8
    11
    PressF4Respect's avatar
    PressF4Respect
    3
    8
    11
    -->
    @OntologicalSpider
    How did you jump from it is possible a MGB doesn't exist to it is necessary that a MGB doesn't exist? 

    Since it is logically possible a MGB does exist you can't have the necessary non existence of a MGB. A MGB is logically possible so it's non existence is not necessary. 
    The argument I presented uses the same logic that Anselm used in his, that possible = necessary. Namely, that if there is one world where the MGB can exist in, then it must exist in all possible worlds. The syllogism I presented turns this on its head. If it is possible to conceive of a world where such a being doesn’t exist (lacking omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, etc.), which it certainly is, then it must be the case for all possible worlds.


    #35
    Paul
    Paul's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 470
    1
    2
    2
    Paul's avatar
    Paul
    1
    2
    2
    -->
    @Dr.Franklin

    The word possible is also a problem.

    Definition of possible

    1a : being within the limits of ability, capacity, or realization

    b : being what may be conceived, be done, or occur according to nature, custom, or manners

    2a : being something that may or may not occur

    b : being something that may or may not be true or actual

    3 : having an indicated potential

    Another way to say would be:

    1. It may or may not be true that a maximally great being exists.

    Like this it may not be true that a maximally great being exists.

    #36
    OntologicalSpider
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    Debates: 1
    Posts: 86
    0
    0
    4
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    OntologicalSpider
    0
    0
    4
    -->
    @PressF4Respect
    "If it is possible to conceive of a world where such a being doesn’t exist (lacking omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, etc.), which it certainly is, then it must be the case for all"

    No that doesn't work. What makes it the case that a MGB exists in one world and therefore all worlds is that it is more maximally great to exist in all worlds rather than one. A being that possesses no attributes at all, a being that doesn't exist, does not have to not exist. It has no attributes that would demand  that.

    What Anselm and Plantiga were getting at is that the definition of a MGB means it exists in all possible worlds. A non existent being doesn't have that property

    #37
    PressF4Respect
    PressF4Respect's avatar
    Debates: 10
    Posts: 3,159
    3
    8
    11
    PressF4Respect's avatar
    PressF4Respect
    3
    8
    11
    -->
    @OntologicalSpider
    No that doesn't work. What makes it the case that a MGB exists in one world and therefore all worlds is that it is more maximally great to exist in all worlds rather than one. A being that possesses no attributes at all, a being that doesn't exist, does not have to not exist. It has no attributes that would demand  that.

    What Anselm and Plantiga were getting at is that the definition of a MGB means it exists in all possible worlds. A non existent being doesn't have that property
    So the MGB essentially has existence as one of its definitions. In other words: 
    "I define this thing to have existence as one of its properties, therefore it exists."

    1. This is begging the question
    2. I could literally do this with anything:

    P1: There is a unicorn which has existence as one of its properties.
    P2: It is impossible for this unicorn not to exist, since that would go against its very properties.
    C1: The unicorn exists.



    #38
    OntologicalSpider
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    Debates: 1
    Posts: 86
    0
    0
    4
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    OntologicalSpider
    0
    0
    4
    -->
    @PressF4Respect
    Again no, the MGB is not defined as simply existing ..He is defined as being maximally great. The whole point of the argument is that if an MGB exists in just one possible world, then, He must exist in all possible worlds otherwise this being is not maximally great.


    A is the greatest possible being

    It is possible A exists

    A exists in some possible worlds.

    If A exists in some possible worlds, A exists in all possible worlds, because a being that exists in some worlds but not others is inferior to a being that exists in all possible worlds. Therefore a truly maximal great being exists in all worlds


    #39
    PressF4Respect
    PressF4Respect's avatar
    Debates: 10
    Posts: 3,159
    3
    8
    11
    PressF4Respect's avatar
    PressF4Respect
    3
    8
    11
    -->
    @OntologicalSpider
    Again no, the MGB is not defined as simply existing ..He is defined as being maximally great. The whole point of the argument is that if an MGB exists in just one possible world, then, He must exist in all possible worlds otherwise this being is not maximally great.
    I never defined MGB as "simply existing". I just said that MGB has existence as one of its properties, to which you agree to. Since the entire point of the ontological argument is to argue for God's (which the argument calls the MGB) existence, defining the MGB as having "existence" as one of its properties (premises) begs the question.

    A is the greatest possible being

    It is possible A exists

    A exists in some possible worlds.

    If A exists in some possible worlds, A exists in all possible worlds, because a being that exists in some worlds but not others is inferior to a being that exists in all possible worlds. Therefore a truly maximal great being exists in all worlds
    Unicorns are the greatest possible beings

    It is possible that unicorns exist

    Unicorns exist in some possible worlds.

    If unicorns exist in some possible worlds, unicorns exists in all possible worlds, because a being that exists in some worlds but not others is inferior to a being that exists in all possible worlds. Therefore unicorns exist in all worlds

    #40
    PressF4Respect
    PressF4Respect's avatar
    Debates: 10
    Posts: 3,159
    3
    8
    11
    PressF4Respect's avatar
    PressF4Respect
    3
    8
    11
    -->
    @Dr.Franklin
    His standards is the best
    Also:
    Why are they the best standards?

    #41
    OntologicalSpider
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    Debates: 1
    Posts: 86
    0
    0
    4
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    OntologicalSpider
    0
    0
    4
    -->
    @PressF4Respect
    The first premise states that it is POSSIBLE for a MGB to exist. Existence is not defined into the properties of the MGB.

    This unicorn you posit cannot exist in all possible worlds. We can conceive of a world that has properties of extreme heat and pressure as fundamental to its nature. A unicorn could not survive that possible world. Any unicorn that could is not what we mean by unicorn.
    #42
    Swagnarok
    Swagnarok's avatar
    Debates: 7
    Posts: 1,250
    3
    2
    6
    Swagnarok's avatar
    Swagnarok
    3
    2
    6
    -->
    @Dr.Franklin
    This argument, which I assume is either the same as or closely related to the "greatest thing which could be conceived of" argument, relies on a key assumption:
    That the human imagination is the arbiter of what reality objectively looks like. In fact, even the human senses do not reflect what is true. The brain is a complicated amalgamation of neurons and synapses, which are bodily organs that perform finite, understandable functions. Rather than truly recreating reality, the brain can only conjure a representation of *what it thinks* reality looks like based on its inherent limitations. Sometimes these representations have practical value, other times they don't. That's why we are able to imagine wild fantasies: because the brain is capable of being insanely wrong about any subject.
    We don't know whether a "being of maximal (infinite) proportions" is actually a possibility. We can only imagine such, which does nothing to prove anything one way or another.
    We don't know whether "every possible Universe" is a thing, because our conception of possibility is whatever the human mind cooks up, which, as established above, is not the great arbiter of what reality actually looks like.

    In theory, one "possible Universe" could be filled entirely by the presence of such an entity. But if all possible Universes were filled entirely by that one (since it was of "maximal" size) then you would be denying the possibility that there exists a Universe without such an entity, or a Universe where such an entity exists but does not fill the entirety of it, rendering the notion of "every possible Universe" existing null and void.
    Topic's author
    #43
    Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin's avatar
    Debates: 32
    Posts: 10,673
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin's avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    4
    7
    11
    this is blowing up!
    #44
    PressF4Respect
    PressF4Respect's avatar
    Debates: 10
    Posts: 3,159
    3
    8
    11
    PressF4Respect's avatar
    PressF4Respect
    3
    8
    11
    -->
    @OntologicalSpider
    The first premise states that it is POSSIBLE for a MGB to exist. Existence is not defined into the properties of the MGB.
    I wasn't talking about the first premise. I was talking about the very way the MGB is defined. 

    This unicorn you posit cannot exist in all possible worlds. We can conceive of a world that has properties of extreme heat and pressure as fundamental to its nature. A unicorn could not survive that possible world. Any unicorn that could is not what we mean by unicorn.
    A unicorn that can survive the extreme heat and pressure of that world is better than one that cannot. Therefore, that unicorn is greater. Therefore, according to the syllogism, it exists. 
    #45
    Discipulus_Didicit
    Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
    Debates: 9
    Posts: 5,758
    3
    4
    10
    Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
    Discipulus_Didicit
    3
    4
    10
    -->
    @OntologicalSpider
    To say that something is possible is to say it could possibly exist, which is to say that it exists in a possible world.

    Okay, let's take the (according to you fictional) world where Hinduism is accurate and Brahma exists. How does Brahmas existing in this fictional world affect anything in reality? The idea that details of a fictional world could affect reality is retarded.

    If a MGB exists He by definition must exist in all possible worlds rather than some.

    But according to you Brahma exists only in the fictional world of the Hindu holy texts. That means that - according to you at least - it is possible for a 'Maximum Being' (whatever the hell that even means) to exist in some worlds and not others.
    #46
    OntologicalSpider
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    Debates: 1
    Posts: 86
    0
    0
    4
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    OntologicalSpider
    0
    0
    4
    -->
    @PressF4Respect
    A unicorn by definition is a mythological horse with one horn. We can conceive of this animal existing in some possible worlds. In the world I posited, if a unicorn could survive that, it no longer meets the definition of unicorn. Any real animal would be destroyed in this possible world. To say that the unicorn survives this possible world violates the nature and definition of a unicorn
    #47
    OntologicalSpider
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    Debates: 1
    Posts: 86
    0
    0
    4
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    OntologicalSpider
    0
    0
    4
    -->
    @Discipulus_Didicit
    But  a possible world isn't a fictional world. When we say possible world we don't mean a fantasy world, we simply mean a world in which we can conceive. A world in which the world we live in now could have been
    #48
    PressF4Respect
    PressF4Respect's avatar
    Debates: 10
    Posts: 3,159
    3
    8
    11
    PressF4Respect's avatar
    PressF4Respect
    3
    8
    11
    -->
    @OntologicalSpider
    A unicorn by definition is a mythological horse with one horn. We can conceive of this animal existing in some possible worlds. In the world I posited, if a unicorn could survive that, it no longer meets the definition of unicorn. Any real animal would be destroyed in this possible world. To say that the unicorn survives this possible world violates the nature and definition of a unicorn
    The definition of a unicorn:
    a mythological horse with one horn.
    Where in this definition does it say (either implicitly or explicitly) that it cannot survive high temperatures and pressures?
    #49
    OntologicalSpider
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    Debates: 1
    Posts: 86
    0
    0
    4
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    OntologicalSpider
    0
    0
    4
    -->
    @PressF4Respect
    Because if we're conceiving this animal as actually existing, it would be obvious it cannot. How many horses do you know could survive the surface of the sun? Horn or no horn
    #50
    PressF4Respect
    PressF4Respect's avatar
    Debates: 10
    Posts: 3,159
    3
    8
    11
    PressF4Respect's avatar
    PressF4Respect
    3
    8
    11
    -->
    @OntologicalSpider
    Because if we're conceiving this animal as actually existing, it would be obvious it cannot. How many horses do you know could survive the surface of the sun? Horn or no horn
    I could certainly conceive of a horse that can survive high temperatures and pressures. Is it in this world? No. But could such a horse exist in one of the possible worlds? Yes

    #51
    OntologicalSpider
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    Debates: 1
    Posts: 86
    0
    0
    4
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    OntologicalSpider
    0
    0
    4
    -->
    @PressF4Respect
    A possible world though is not just any world at random you can think up. It has to be logically possible. For example, a possible world with four sided triangles is NOT a possible world . Its logically incoherent

    A world where the matter a horse is made of can survive the sun is not an actually possible world. In order to get that to work you would have to violate the definition of horse/unicorn,  or say that this animal is made of some special, heat resistant material.

    To which I would grant, but then reply with a possible world where NO matter exists. Your unicorn could not survive that possible world. Which leads back to my original point, that a unicorn can exist in some possible worlds but not all

    #52
    PressF4Respect
    PressF4Respect's avatar
    Debates: 10
    Posts: 3,159
    3
    8
    11
    PressF4Respect's avatar
    PressF4Respect
    3
    8
    11
    -->
    @OntologicalSpider
    A possible world though is not just any world at random you can think up. It has to be logically possible. For example, a possible world with four sided triangles is NOT a possible world . Its logically incoherent

    A world where the matter a horse is made of can survive the sun is not an actually possible world. In order to get that to work you would have to violate the definition of horse/unicorn,  or say that this animal is made of some special, heat resistant material.

    To which I would grant, but then reply with a possible world where NO matter exists. Your unicorn could not survive that possible world. Which leads back to my original point, that a unicorn can exist in some possible worlds but not all
    Given this definition of unicorn:
    a mythological horse with one horn.
    How would the unicorn being able to survive high temperatures and pressures render the entire entity impossible to even conceive?

    In other words, how is this:
    A mythological horse with one horn that is able to survive high temperatures and pressures
    logically impossible?

    #53
    OntologicalSpider
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    Debates: 1
    Posts: 86
    0
    0
    4
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    OntologicalSpider
    0
    0
    4
    -->
    @PressF4Respect
    Let me formulate it this way

    A unicorn is a mythological horse with one horn

    Horses are made of bone and soft tissue

    A being made of bone and soft tissue cannot survive extreme heat and pressure.



    When we try to conceive of a unicorn that could, we have to step outside the definition that's already set. Again it's like saying four sided triangle. But let's just grant you a heat resistant unicorn for the sake of this discussion.

    Aside from the fact that a unicorn cannot exhibit maximal greatness for a variety of reasons, the unicorn analogy fails because a MGB has to exist in all possible worlds. A world where no matter exists would exclude the unicorn. Therefore we can't have a mg unicorn

    #54
    PressF4Respect
    PressF4Respect's avatar
    Debates: 10
    Posts: 3,159
    3
    8
    11
    PressF4Respect's avatar
    PressF4Respect
    3
    8
    11
    -->
    @OntologicalSpider
    Horses are made of bone and soft tissue

    A being made of bone and soft tissue cannot survive extreme heat and pressure.
    Unless you can demonstrate how bones and soft tissue having the ability to survive high temperatures and pressures would be logically impossible in any world, I can conceive of a world where bone and soft tissue have this attribute.

    But let's just grant you a heat resistant unicorn for the sake of this discussion.

    Aside from the fact that a unicorn cannot exhibit maximal greatness for a variety of reasons
    Like?

    Aside from the fact that a unicorn cannot exhibit maximal greatness for a variety of reasons, the unicorn analogy fails because a MGB has to exist in all possible worlds. A world where no matter exists would exclude the unicorn. Therefore we can't have a mg unicorn
    Where in the definition of a unicorn does it say that it must be made out of matter? Can I not conceive a world where there is a unicorn that is made of something else, like light energy?

    #55
    OntologicalSpider
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    Debates: 1
    Posts: 86
    0
    0
    4
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    OntologicalSpider
    0
    0
    4
    -->
    @PressF4Respect
    You can't just arbitrarily change the definition of things that exist. Bone and soft tissue cannot survive high heat and pressure. Again if you're positing that they can you're exiting the definition of that subject

    A possible world isn't a world where anything is possible, it's a world where possible things could be.

    But a unicorn, again supposing we actually use the definition of what that is, cannot exhibit maximal greatness for the following reasons

    A unicorn does not have the cognitive facilities to be omniscient. Since omniscience requires knowledge of all truths, a unicorn, by nature of what it is, does not know all truths. A unicorn does not know 2+2 = 4 how many animals real or imagined know that E=mc squared?

    A unicorn, being an animal, cannot exhibit moral perfection. There are no faculties for it to know moral truths.

    A unicorn cannot be omnipotent,  it is merely a mythological horned horse. The Minotaur could probably beat it in a fight.



    A unicorn made of light? We're so far from the definition we started from. What of a possible world where no photons exist?
    #56
    PressF4Respect
    PressF4Respect's avatar
    Debates: 10
    Posts: 3,159
    3
    8
    11
    PressF4Respect's avatar
    PressF4Respect
    3
    8
    11
    -->
    @OntologicalSpider
    Bone and soft tissue cannot survive high heat and pressure.
    In this world, that would be the case. However, in other worlds (where the laws of physics would be different), there could definitely be bones and soft tissue that can survive high temperatures and pressures.

    A unicorn does not have the cognitive facilities to be omniscient. Since omniscience requires knowledge of all truths, a unicorn, by nature of what it is, does not know all truths. A unicorn does not know 2+2 = 4 how many animals real or imagined know that E=mc squared?
    In certain worlds, unicorns could know that 2+2=4 or that E=mc^2. Definitely not out of the realm of conception. I could literally make a kids' cartoon where that is the case. 

    A unicorn, being an animal, cannot exhibit moral perfection. There are no faculties for it to know moral truths.
    There could definitely be a world that a unicorn could know moral truths, just like there could be worlds where snakes can talk, even though they don't have the mental faculties to do that in this world. 

    A unicorn cannot be omnipotent,  it is merely a mythological horned horse. The Minotaur could probably beat it in a fight.
    There could be a world where a unicorn beats a minotaur in a fight. There could also be a world where a unicorn is omnipotent. Unless it is logically impossible for any of these things to exist, they can.

    A unicorn made of light? We're so far from the definition we started from.
    This is the definition we have:
    a mythological horse with one horn.
    Does the definition provided here implicitly and/or explicitly say that a unicorn cannot be made out of photons? If not, then a world can exist where unicorns are made of photons.

    What of a possible world where no photons exist?
    Then our unicorn can be made out of something that isn't matter or photons.
    #57
    Discipulus_Didicit
    Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
    Debates: 9
    Posts: 5,758
    3
    4
    10
    Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
    Discipulus_Didicit
    3
    4
    10
    -->
    @OntologicalSpider
    When we say possible world we don't mean a fantasy world, we simply mean a world in which we can conceive.

    Uh-huh, and I am conceiving a world right now where Brahma exists. I am doing it right now as I type this.

    Is Brahma real yet? According to you the answer is no. According to you the world I am concieving is completely fictional as per post 45.

    Let me say that one more time... According to you this world is completely fictional despite being easily conceived by the mind.

    Let me know when you start believing in Brahma so I can switch my references to a different fictional omnipotent being. I may have you believing in all of them by the time 2020 rolls around lol.
    #58
    drafterman
    drafterman's avatar
    Debates: 6
    Posts: 5,653
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman's avatar
    drafterman
    3
    6
    9
    I have a number of issues with the Ontological argument.

    1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
    As defined (morally perfect, all knowing, all powerful) I don't believe that an MGB can exist. I am an incompatibilist when it comes to free will vs. omniscience.

    2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great exists in some possible world.
    Tautological; this is the definition of "possible."

    3. If a maximally great exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
    This does not follow from anything. It is usually stated that if it didn't exist in some possible world then it wouldn't be "maximally great" but this attribute of the MGB is not included (and does not step from) its definition. Furthermore, the definition of a being describes its existence in a possible world whereas saying it exists in all possible worlds is a meta description of it. Whether it exists or doesn't exist in one possible world vs. another has no impact on the nature of its existence in the worlds it does exist.

    In short, this is saying that the MGB is necessary, that its nonexistence would constitute a logical contradiction, but this is not demonstrated.

    4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
    This is taken as a given.

    5. If a maximally great exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
    Tautological.

    6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
    We can summarize this argument more succinctly:

    1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists. (◇MGB)
    2. If a maximally great being is possible, then it is necessary. (◇MGB → □MGB)
    3. If a maximally great being is necessary, then it is actual. (□MGB → MGB)
    4. A maximally great being is actual. (MGB)

    This structure is valid, but are the premises (#1 & #2) true?

    Franklin attempts to define God into existence by saying that it is a necessary being because if it wasn't it wouldn't be god. This is circular and tautological. You can't include "is true" in the definition of a statement and then consider the definition true.
    #59
    OntologicalSpider
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    Debates: 1
    Posts: 86
    0
    0
    4
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    OntologicalSpider
    0
    0
    4
    -->
    @PressF4Respect
    So, what you're positing, is an immaterial, omnipotent, omniscience,  morally perfect being you call "unicorn"?

    Do you not see what happened?

    We started off with a simple one horned horse, and in order to get the syllogisms to work we had to expand that definition to have the being exhibit the attributes of God.

    Accept you call this Omni being "unicorn" and I call the Omni being God, as an immaterial reality cannot exhibit horse likeness or possess a horn.

    Congratulations on your conversion to theism. My work here is done. ;)
    #60
    OntologicalSpider
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    Debates: 1
    Posts: 86
    0
    0
    4
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    OntologicalSpider
    0
    0
    4
    -->
    @Discipulus_Didicit
    So long as "brahma" exhibits, according to Hinduism, the qualities of a MGB, it could very well be the case the ontological argument supports that beings existence. The ontological argument doesn't prove Christianity unfortunately it just proves Theism. We would need additional arguments to show why out of YHWH, Allah, and Brahma (the only ones that really exhibit Omni qualities) YHWH is the true one.