The Ontological Argument is Sound

Author: Dr.Franklin

Posts

Total: 170
#61
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@OntologicalSpider
Damn. I guess you're right... It looks like I do believe in god... my god...

Let's call this unicorn god "Omnicorn God", cuz he the real OG...

Let's look at OG's attributes:
  • Greatest Being Ever
  • immaterial 
  • omnipotent
  • omniscient
  • morally perfect (omnibenevolent)
Notice how "exists" isn't one of OG's attributes. You'd have to prove the existence of OG in order to say that OG exists.

Now let's slot in another attribute:
  • Can exist in some possible worlds
But if it can only exist in some possible worlds, it wouldn't be the greatest OG. So, it must exist in all possible worlds.
  • Can exist in some possible worlds = Must exist in all possible worlds
If it must exist in all possible worlds, then it simply exists, since there is no world in which it cannot exist. Period.
    • Can exist in some possible worlds = Must exist in all possible worlds = exists
    Now let's add this attribute to the list of attributes:
    • Greatest Being Ever
    • immaterial 
    • omnipotent
    • omniscient
    • morally perfect (omnibenevolent)
    • exists
    Now, if you want to prove that OG exists, simply point to the sixth attribute, bada bing, bada boom!

    See any problems with this?

    #62
    OntologicalSpider
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    Debates: 1
    Posts: 86
    0
    0
    4
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    OntologicalSpider
    0
    0
    4
    -->
    @PressF4Respect
    I see no problem with this at all.

    You call this being omnicorn, I argue the horse likeness and horn are arbitrary and unnecessary to this beings existence. Let's get rid of those.

    If we get rid of those we'll need a new name for this being.

    Since He exists self sufficiently, how about something like...I am?


    I think we're getting somewhere.
    #63
    PressF4Respect
    PressF4Respect's avatar
    Debates: 10
    Posts: 3,159
    3
    8
    11
    PressF4Respect's avatar
    PressF4Respect
    3
    8
    11
    -->
    @Dr.Franklin
    @OntologicalSpider
    How about this:

    P1: A being that convinces more people that it exists is greater than one that convinces less people of its existence.
    P2: Since the MGB is the greatest being, it would convince everyone that it exists.
    P3: I am not convinced that the MGB exists.
    C1: Since there is at least one person that is not convinced of the MGB's existence (me), it cannot be the MGB.
    C2: The MGB does not exist.
    #64
    PressF4Respect
    PressF4Respect's avatar
    Debates: 10
    Posts: 3,159
    3
    8
    11
    PressF4Respect's avatar
    PressF4Respect
    3
    8
    11
    -->
    @OntologicalSpider
    The problem with this:
    <br>
    Now let's add this attribute to the list of attributes:
    • Greatest Being Ever
    • immaterial 
    • omnipotent
    • omniscient
    • morally perfect (omnibenevolent)
    • exists
    Now, if you want to prove that OG exists, simply point to the sixth attribute, bada bing, bada boom!
    Is that existence is literally embedded within its attributes. In essence, it boils down to this:
    P1: It exists.
    C1: Therefore, it exists.
    Now do you see any problems?
    #65
    OntologicalSpider
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    Debates: 1
    Posts: 86
    0
    0
    4
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    OntologicalSpider
    0
    0
    4
    -->
    @PressF4Respect
    I don't see any problem with that unless you **arbitrarily** insert existence as one of its attributes. Anselm didn't do that, in the argument you formulated you extrapolated necessary existence in all possible worlds from the definition of maximal greatness. It's not circular its linear.


    In regards to your other argument,  I don't think that's a very good argument, one way to look at it is....what makes a being convincing everyone of His existence more maximally great? What that would mean is, given the free will of human creatures, a being that did this would wind up with a world where there exist a large amount of people who are fully convinced of this being's existence, yet willfully choose to reject Him.


    This possible world then means that these creatures were better off NOT being fully persuaded, as the former would yeild a greater rejection and a greater punishment.

     We're sidetracking into soteriology and Divine foreknowledge, but that's one way I would approach that. Perhaps Dr. Franklin has some better thoughts.



    #66
    Discipulus_Didicit
    Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
    Debates: 9
    Posts: 5,758
    3
    4
    10
    Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
    Discipulus_Didicit
    3
    4
    10
    -->
    @OntologicalSpider
    The ontological argument doesn't prove Christianity unfortunately it just proves Theism

    According to you it proves every fictional being that claims to be all-powerful. One need simply add "also it is an all powerful being" to the definition of some being and *poof* it starts to exist.

    How would you go about proving that any of those beings you mentioned don't actually exist?
    #67
    OntologicalSpider
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    Debates: 1
    Posts: 86
    0
    0
    4
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    OntologicalSpider
    0
    0
    4
    -->
    @Discipulus_Didicit
    Well no, I would disagree with that. Adding all powerful doesn't necessitate that any being exists, it would have to be a maximally great being in order for us to get the syllogisms to work. That can't happen with just random things. Or just omnipotent things. Maximal greatness requires more than just all powerful.






    I wouldn't try to disprove the existence of Allah or Brahma. I would present a positive case for Christianity, and that would suffice. Or, if not, look at comparisons between YHWH, Allah and Brahma and see which one would be most logical. I'm not that familiar with the denomination of Hinduism that worships Brahma, but I can off the top of my head think of reasons why YHWH is the true God of Abraham rather than the Muslim deity.
    #68
    PressF4Respect
    PressF4Respect's avatar
    Debates: 10
    Posts: 3,159
    3
    8
    11
    PressF4Respect's avatar
    PressF4Respect
    3
    8
    11
    -->
    @OntologicalSpider
    I don't see any problem with that unless you **arbitrarily** insert existence as one of its attributes. Anselm didn't do that, in the argument you formulated you extrapolated necessary existence in all possible worlds from the definition of maximal greatness. It's not circular its linear.
    Anselm did **arbitrarily** insert existence as one of its attributes, albeit in a roundabout way. Anselm is basically saying that greatness = existence, and since the MGB is the greatest, it must have the most existence. Therefore, existence is literally embedded within the breadbasket definition of "greatness". Since the definition itself is part of the premise, and since the attribute of existence (the very thing the conclusion states) is already within the definition, the entire syllogism begs the question. It doesn't matter whether you implicitly (as Anselm did) or explicitly (as I did) insert existence as one of its attributes, it still begs the question.  

    In regards to your other argument,  I don't think that's a very good argument, one way to look at it is....what makes a being convincing everyone of His existence more maximally great? What that would mean is, given the free will of human creatures, a being that did this would wind up with a world where there exist a large amount of people who are fully convinced of this being's existence, yet willfully choose to reject Him.

    This possible world then means that these creatures were better off NOT being fully persuaded, as the former would yeild a greater rejection and a greater punishment.

     We're sidetracking into soteriology and Divine foreknowledge, but that's one way I would approach that. Perhaps Dr. Franklin has some better thoughts.
    A being that convinced everyone they exist and had everyone willfully choose to accept them of their own volition would be greater than one who doesn't. 

    #69
    Discipulus_Didicit
    Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
    Debates: 9
    Posts: 5,758
    3
    4
    10
    Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
    Discipulus_Didicit
    3
    4
    10
    -->
    @OntologicalSpider
    I wouldn't try to disprove the existence of Allah or Brahma. I would present a positive case for Christianity

    So you accept the arguments in favor of these three beings and others, such as the ontalogical argument, while refusing to offer any argument against them. Sounds to me like you have no reason not to admit that they exist.

    Here is an idea, let's take this just one step at a time and you can tell me where the logic fails.

    So first question - Is it possible that Brahma exists?
    #70
    OntologicalSpider
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    Debates: 1
    Posts: 86
    0
    0
    4
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    OntologicalSpider
    0
    0
    4
    -->
    @Discipulus_Didicit
    I wasn't refusing to offer arguments against them, I'm saying the better option would be to offer a positive case for Christianity.

    Is it possible Brahma exists? If we look at just the Ontological argument alone, supposing  Brahma meets the requirements of a MGB, then yes, just on that argument alone that could be a possibility.

    I do not believe that to actually be the case however. We have much more than the ontological argument. After we establish a MGB, we don't have which particular religion is true, we have monotheism.
    #71
    Discipulus_Didicit
    Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
    Debates: 9
    Posts: 5,758
    3
    4
    10
    Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
    Discipulus_Didicit
    3
    4
    10
    -->
    @OntologicalSpider
    Is it possible Brahma exists? If we look at just the Ontological argument alone, supposing  Brahma meets the requirements of a MGB, then yes, just on that argument alone that could be a possibility.

    Well yeah that is the topic of the conversation so obviously that is what we are looking at lol.

    Anyway now that we have established that you think Brahma possibly exists we must ask the next question from the OP.

    Does Brahma, who is according to Hinduism maximumally great, exist in some possible world?
    #72
    zedvictor4
    zedvictor4's avatar
    Debates: 22
    Posts: 12,078
    3
    3
    6
    zedvictor4's avatar
    zedvictor4
    3
    3
    6
    -->
    @Dr.Franklin
    God is necessary.
    Not necessarily.
    #73
    EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 2,869
    3
    3
    5
    EtrnlVw's avatar
    EtrnlVw
    3
    3
    5
    -->
    @Paul
    “God exists” is a synthetic proposition.
    Logic alone is not proof, you still need evidence.

    But, we begin with logic, commonsense and rationale. The evidence part is easy once you know what you are looking for and why. Non-believers always emphasize evidence not really knowing that evidence is simply that which indicates a proposition true or valid. In that sense I think logic, commonsense and rationale go further because they are used to articulate the existence of God and not just point to some indicator. So in actuality we have all of that not just one or the other.

    Synthetic propositions are described in logical terms and substantiated by empirical evidence.
    You can propose “God exists”, but it is an unsubstantiated synthetic proposition.

     On one hand empirical evidence and God are not compatible from a scientific method of observation and experimentation approach. On the other hand that doesn't mean God can't be experienced, known or observed. Through spirituality and inner consciousness God certainly can be experienced and known/understood. So, it's not a collective experience but an individual one (that can be personally substantiated). This of course is due to the very nature of God, how God eludes our physical sense perception (can't grab, touch or physically examine God), but not our inner conscious perceptions and observations. And while it may not be substantiated by the scientific method you would be stuck on....we are not restricted to only that approach thank God.

    Our inner conscious awareness is not limited by any outside, material method of study we have a direct connection to God because your soul and consciousness are of the very same nature. A lot like tuning into radio frequencies you have to practice tuning your awareness to a different channel. This might sound a little bizarre (at first) but it should help explain spiritual experiences and religious claims a bit better rather than assuming people are hallucinating or are deranged. If people really want to know about God on a real level they are going to have to get used to the fact you can't reach God through science or empirical evidence and experimentation. God can't be lain in a lab or studied like anything within the universe.

    Psalm 91
    1 He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.

    John 4
    23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
    24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

    you still need evidence.

    There's plenty of evidence for the Creator that correlates with the nature of God, that falls in the fields of spirituality, religion, spiritual encounters, spiritual texts, NDE's, OBE's and paranormal activity because again it's nonsensical to be looking for any other based evidence. And everyone should be aware of the fact there's more than enough evidence within those arenas to substantiate the existence of not only God, but a transcendent reality that exists beyond the physical sense perceptions.

    #74
    OntologicalSpider
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    Debates: 1
    Posts: 86
    0
    0
    4
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    OntologicalSpider
    0
    0
    4
    -->
    @PressF4Respect
    You can't have a being **make** anyone do anything of their own volition. That's a logical contradiction
    #75
    OntologicalSpider
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    Debates: 1
    Posts: 86
    0
    0
    4
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    OntologicalSpider
    0
    0
    4
    -->
    @Discipulus_Didicit
    I'm afraid you've fundamentally misunderstood my last comment. If we look at solely the Ontological argument, we could deduce that a being like Brahma possibly exists. I do not believe that to be the case, as I said, because there are many other factors that need to be taken into consideration.

    If we look at the Ontological argument alone, we don't get Christianity, we don't get Islam, and we don't get Hinduism. We get a maximally great being

    #76
    OntologicalSpider
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    Debates: 1
    Posts: 86
    0
    0
    4
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    OntologicalSpider
    0
    0
    4
    -->
    @Discipulus_Didicit
    To justify calling this being "Brahma" would necessitate that the other tenants of Hinduism are true. That's outside the scope of this argument
    #77
    PressF4Respect
    PressF4Respect's avatar
    Debates: 10
    Posts: 3,159
    3
    8
    11
    PressF4Respect's avatar
    PressF4Respect
    3
    8
    11
    -->
    @OntologicalSpider
    You can't have a being **make** anyone do anything of their own volition. That's a logical contradiction
    People can get others to like them, and they wouldn't be **making** the other person do anything. You can choose to like or dislike me, but if I am amiable to you, then you are more likely to like me.

    Of course, here we have assumed that free will is real, which can't the case if the MGB has omniscience.

    #78
    OntologicalSpider
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    Debates: 1
    Posts: 86
    0
    0
    4
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    OntologicalSpider
    0
    0
    4
    -->
    @PressF4Respect
    Acting amiably to attempt to influence people liking you and "MAKING everybody of their own free will to accept you" are obviously not the same.

    Divine foreknowledge doesn't necessitate that we don't actually choose our actions

    #79
    PressF4Respect
    PressF4Respect's avatar
    Debates: 10
    Posts: 3,159
    3
    8
    11
    PressF4Respect's avatar
    PressF4Respect
    3
    8
    11
    -->
    @OntologicalSpider
    Acting amiably to attempt to influence people liking you and "MAKING everybody of their own free will to accept you" are obviously not the same.
    I never said that this being would **make** other people accept them. I just said that, given free will, a being who is accepted (freely) by more would be greater than one who is accepted by less. There is no force or coercion involved. 

    Divine foreknowledge doesn't necessitate that we don't actually choose our actions
    If the MGB knows everything that is going to happen, it would mean that the MGB knows what you are going to choose before you make your choice. If that were the case, then everything would be predetermined, for there is a 0% chance of someone choosing something other than what the MGB foresees.
    #80
    Discipulus_Didicit
    Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
    Debates: 9
    Posts: 5,758
    3
    4
    10
    Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
    Discipulus_Didicit
    3
    4
    10
    -->
    @OntologicalSpider
    I get what you are saying, you have been pretty clear and your message is incredibly simple.

    To say that the argument 'gets us to the conclusion that a max being exists' requires that you believe the argument is valid. We are only talking about the ontalogical argument here since that is the topic of the thread. If you think it is invalid in the case of Brahma then please explain why within the scope of the argument that we are actually talking about.

    You also never gave an answer to my question - Does the 'max being' Brahma exist in some possible world?
    #81
    disgusted
    disgusted's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted's avatar
    disgusted
    2
    3
    3
    -->
    @OntologicalSpider
    Can we choose to prove your god's foreknowledge false by choosing differently?
    #82
    OntologicalSpider
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    Debates: 1
    Posts: 86
    0
    0
    4
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    OntologicalSpider
    0
    0
    4
    -->
    @PressF4Respect
    being that convinced everyone they exist and had everyone willfully choose to accept them of their own volition would be greater than one who doesn't.




    "I never said make...


    It would be impossible for this being to have every human being that ever existed and will exist to accept Him rather than reject Him, yet somehow keep their free will in tact. Either there is a free choice to accept Him or there is an agent coercing them. If the former is true some will undoubtedly choose the opposite at times.

    And yes you're absolutely right that if God foreknows what we choose, that excludes us choosing the other possibility.
    But my response is that God knowing what we choose, actually has no causal relation to us choosing it.

    If I know the end of a movie before they make it, my knowledge of that movies ending makes the ending certain, but it doesn't mean I actually caused the ending. Or the actors were robots who were being coerced. So in that sense they're still free.


    #83
    OntologicalSpider
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    Debates: 1
    Posts: 86
    0
    0
    4
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    OntologicalSpider
    0
    0
    4
    -->
    @Discipulus_Didicit
    The answer to your question is that, a maximally great being exists. On just the OA alone, we have no justification for relating this being to the religion of Hinduism. Other arguments would have to be brought in for that to happen.

    Imagine we found a body in the woods. There could two causes at this point. A human, or a predator did it. If the investigators determined the cause was human on let's say a footprint rather than a paw print near the body, you're the guy going, "I knew Bill Jones did it!!"

    We can't jump to Bill Jones doing anything on just a footprint near the body. That doesn't tell us Bill Jones it tells us human. In order to prove Bill Jones was there we need additional evidence.

    That's what's happening with the argument. The argument alone tells us "maximally great being". To then give this being a name and a corresponding true religion, we need more evidence.

    #84
    PressF4Respect
    PressF4Respect's avatar
    Debates: 10
    Posts: 3,159
    3
    8
    11
    PressF4Respect's avatar
    PressF4Respect
    3
    8
    11
    -->
    @OntologicalSpider
    It would be impossible for this being to have every human being that ever existed and will exist to accept Him rather than reject Him, yet somehow keep their free will in tact. Either there is a free choice to accept Him or there is an agent coercing them. If the former is true some will undoubtedly choose the opposite at times.
    There is a chance, but it's not 100%. Unless you can prove that there is a 0% chance for this not to happen, then there is a possible world where everyone does choose to accept, even if the other option is present.

    And yes you're absolutely right that if God foreknows what we choose, that excludes us choosing the other possibility.
    But my response is that God knowing what we choose, actually has no causal relation to us choosing it.

    If I know the end of a movie before they make it, my knowledge of that movies ending makes the ending certain, but it doesn't mean I actually caused the ending. Or the actors were robots who were being coerced. So in that sense they're still free.
    The actions that characters take in a movie are scripted. Every part of the movie (including the ending) is predetermined by a screenplay writer. That isn't free will. 
    #85
    OntologicalSpider
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    Debates: 1
    Posts: 86
    0
    0
    4
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    OntologicalSpider
    0
    0
    4
    -->
    @disgusted
    No.
    #86
    OntologicalSpider
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    Debates: 1
    Posts: 86
    0
    0
    4
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    OntologicalSpider
    0
    0
    4
    -->
    @PressF4Respect
    If we're talking about two options before us, then there is a 50/50 chance they will take either option, since there are two choices. If we're getting into possible worlds where everyone would (somehow) freely choose God of their own volition, then that's great. I wish we were in that world.

    But that world being actualized doesn't say anything about the being being more maximally great. A world where everyone was a theist is better than another world, but that world being actualized doesn't effect the nature of the MGB. The MGB would still be maximally great if no world existed.
    #87
    OntologicalSpider
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    Debates: 1
    Posts: 86
    0
    0
    4
    OntologicalSpider's avatar
    OntologicalSpider
    0
    0
    4
    -->
    @PressF4Respect
    If knew what the producer wrote of his own volition before he wrote it, that still doesn't mean I had any causal relation to that.
    #88
    zedvictor4
    zedvictor4's avatar
    Debates: 22
    Posts: 12,078
    3
    3
    6
    zedvictor4's avatar
    zedvictor4
    3
    3
    6
    -->
    @OntologicalSpider
    If only the M.G.B. would show it's face once in a while.

    It wouldn't all be down to speculation then.

    #89
    disgusted
    disgusted's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted's avatar
    disgusted
    2
    3
    3
    -->
    @OntologicalSpider
    Then there is no choice.
    #90
    Discipulus_Didicit
    Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
    Debates: 9
    Posts: 5,758
    3
    4
    10
    Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
    Discipulus_Didicit
    3
    4
    10
    -->
    @OntologicalSpider
    But does Brahma exist in some possible world or not?