-->
@drafterman
I can't grant any premise until you define what it means for a mode of existence to be "greater" or "superior" than another.
Pure genius.
Modal ontological argument: open for discussion and defense
Posts
Total:
86
-->
@Soluminsanis
I know this argument very well, i did a debate on it, it is one of my favorite
-->
@Soluminsanis
A necessary being however, is a being whose existence is not explained by a prior or outside reality, but one whose existence is explained in its own nature. It exists because it is existence. Not because it was actualized by a prior cause.
In other words, NOUMEON.
.
FAUXLAW,
YOUR COMICAL AND WANTING QUOTE #27: “You want to know if God exists, ask him. No philosophy, just direst. communication. It works as it should both ways.”
Barring the fact that you did not mention in which God you were referring to in your quote above, whereas the trouble with your outright comical statement is the fact that obviously many people did ask your serial killing God Jesus if He exists. Therefore, seemingly this is the reason there’re HUNDREDS of different divisions of the God of Christianity all contradicting each other where they cannot all be correct at the same time! Get it? Huh? Maybe?
Relating to you personally, isn’t it an irony that when a pseudo-christian like you asks the serial killer Jesus if He exists, they always get the answer in what they need, even down to the division of Christianity that they follow. The pseudo-christian makes the serial killer Jesus work in mysterious ways to suit their own desires! Priceless.
Fauxlaw, you are excused for now.
In the name of the hung Savior,
Brother D. Thomas
-->
@drafterman
@3RU7AL
@zedvictor4
@FLRW
@Sum1hugme
6 against 1....I like those odds.
@drafterman, thus far, most of our discussion has been me trying various ways to explain the concept of great making properties and the concept of maximal greatness. I must not be a very articulate guy because I feel like you've asked me the same question multiple times in multiple ways. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it. My fault not yours, I'm going to leave your last question off to the side for now, as I don't know how else to state it.
@3ru7al, Your maximally great chair argument is actually a really good objection which I will devote a separate individual reply to... you and FLRW and zedvictor4, plus sum1hugme will get their own responses....stand by.
@ brotherdthomas, I'm not sure if your posts are serious or jocular, either way they are simply not relevant to this discussion
-->
@3RU7AL
NOUMEON.
What is that? I had to look it up, and, instead, found numenon, which also stumped me; had to read further. It's description looks like what you're talking about, and you make a great point. Related to phenomenon - the outside, sensible reality. "Sensible" as in, able to be felt by our senses.
-->
@Soluminsanis
you will, with experience, find BroDThom neither jocular nor serious [though he thinks of himself as the latter, but has a rather doubtful outlook on anyone's but his opinion.]
Yes, I, too, welcome you to the site, though I wish more of your profile were filled in. "Unknown" to me is hiding unnecessarily because none of us should know squat about others but by our own words, which should be guarded to an extent, and of which, many will tell you, I use with near abandon.
-->
@BrotherDThomas
"What's in a name. A rose by any other name would small as sweet." Romeo had it right. Does a name really mean that much? "Late for dinner" is a bit contrary, but, other than that, most names are merely labels. There is one, however, that is supremely and ultimately most important, and it needs to be on the tongue, but, more profoundly in our hearts and hands because there is where we will demonstrate our most worshipful and appreciative expression; a name you unerringly doubt.
Barring the fact that you did not mention in which God you were referring to in your quote above,
Mostly, of late, I affectionately call him "Dad." Literally, because he is father to us all. And, I'm better equipped to ask him questions if I begin a little more informally, if gratefully.
-->
@FLRW
1. We don't know that intelligibility implies possibilityAnd2. We don't know that "maximally-great being" is a truly intelligible conceptSo3. We don't know that it is possible for a maximally-great being to exist.What's more4. We don't know that necessity is a predicateWhich means5. We don't know it is greater to exist necessarily than contingentlyTherefore6. Plantinga's proof fails.
I think you're employing an unnecessary amount of agnosticism in regards to each premise.
If we're talking about metaphysical possibility as opposed to epistemic possibility, then all that would be required for any concept to go through is it being logical coherent. Probability doesn't necessarily play a role.
I don't see anything unintelligible about the idea of an mgb. Do you have anything particular in mind?
What would be required for us to know whether or not an mgb is possible? Again if it is logically coherent there wouldn't be anything precluding its existence in modal logic.
As far as point five, I believe this to be self evident. If a being is contingent, it came into being and can go out of being. If it is necessary it did not come into being and cannot go out of being. This is self evidently greater
-->
@Sum1hugme
In regards to what constitutes greatness, I've fleshed this out in my replies to others. At risk of being repetitive, have you read my replies to drafterman or flrw?
In regards to defining God into existence, which premise do you believe does this, and we can discuss it
-->
@3RU7AL
1. It is possible that a maximally great CHAIR* (mgC for short) exists.2. A mgC exists in some possible world.3. If a mgC exists in one possible world, then a mgC exists in all possible worlds.4. A mgC exists in the actual world.5. Therefore a maximally great CHAIR exists (in every possible fraction of the multi-cosmos).*for our purposes an mgC is defined as a being that possesses all great CHAIR properties, and lacks no great CHAIR property.
So now we're getting into some more meaty objections. It was the monk Guanilo that originally opposed St. Anselm's ontological argument with the idea of a perfect conceivable island.
Some atheists parodying the argument will use unicorns, or pizza, or what have you. In this case you used a chair. We'll go with that for now.
The parodies of the OA seem convincing at first, however, I can't say that I'm convinced they go through. And because they don't go through, I still believe the OA is intact.
So let's think about possible worlds and the idea of a maximally great chair.
In order for an mgc to exist in all possible worlds, several things would need to be true.
The chair itself would have to exemplify maximal greatness.
The chair would have to exist across all possible worlds.
This simply isn't possible though.
We can imagine several possible worlds where the space time continuum either doesn't exist or is dramatically different. If there exists a possible world where no space exists, then we cannot have a mgc in that world because there is no space for the matter of the chair to be extended into.
Likewise, most chairs are made of either wood, plastic, or metal, these materials cannot exist necessarily because they have the potential for non existence. Imagine a possible world where everything was the temperature of the sun. A chair couldn't exist in that possible world due to the extreme conditions which would preclude the chair's existence.
Finally, the idea of a chair itself exemplifying maximal greatness is some what incoherent. What makes a chair great is subjective.
I like my chairs made of bean bags, others would prefer a rocking chair, others a barka lounger. The idea of chair greatness cannot exactly be nailed down.
I don't this particular version of the argument goes through
-->
@fauxlaw
Thank you for the welcome. In regards to me personally, there's not much to know about me honestly. Just an average Joe that has a theology interest.
-->
@Soluminsanis
Fair enough. By your words, then, we shall know you in time.
-->
@Soluminsanis
Would I be correct in assuming that your argument is more trying to establish that a god MUST exist than just that God exists? Subtle difference but profound none-the-less.
-->
@Soluminsanis
Would firstly, only like to know the significance of the crazy Latin name?
-->
@ethang5
I would say so. It's often been said the ontological argument frames God's existence as either being impossible or absolutely certain. The ontological argument takes away all middle ground. The idea is if God's existence is possible God's existence is certain.
-->
@zedvictor4
Would firstly, only like to know the significance of the crazy Latin name?
Soluminsanis =
Solum: Latin for alone
Insanis: Latin for insane.
Literally "alone and insane". It's an homage to not only the celibate lifestyle, but also the potential extreme mental suffering many who have embraced a monastic lifestyle have experienced throughout history. This, in my view, is greatly under mentioned whenever a monastic from history is spoken of. Years of solitude take their toll on a man. No one ever seems to mention that though.
My profile picture is St. Athanasius, the great defender of the Holy Trinity. He is often depicted as "Athanasius contra mundum" or Athanasius against the world.
The story goes he was among the last Trinitarians of his time, arguing for the truth of the Trinity from exile, while the Arians had a temporary stronghold on Christendom.
One can only imagine how lonely he felt.
-->
@Soluminsanis
I read a little, but it seems you're defining "greater" As "intuitively superior." Which is really a non-definition. You haven't defined greatness except by being "necessary. "
The argument defines god as necessary but it doesn't make him necessary. And it doesn't make him exist. Like I said you could replace the word God with literally any other noun and it would not make that thing exist. I could replace the word god with marduk, since a marduk that exists is greater than one that does not right? But that doesn't make him exist.
The argument defines god as necessary but it doesn't make him necessary. And it doesn't make him exist. Like I said you could replace the word God with literally any other noun and it would not make that thing exist. I could replace the word god with marduk, since a marduk that exists is greater than one that does not right? But that doesn't make him exist.
-->
@Soluminsanis
Any chair which was maximally great would not need to rely on matter or space to exist.
Any chair which was maximally great would not be constrained by the materials which you have listed.
It holds the greatest qualities of a chair, therefore any chair which would be greater, say - a chair which exists without matter - must be the chair that we are describing.
-->
@Sum1hugme
I could replace the word god with marduk, since a marduk that exists is greater than one that does not right? But that doesn't make him exist.
We must make our definition of "EXISTS" explicit.
I propose, "EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRABLE AND OR LOGICALLY-NECESSARY" = "EXISTS".
-->
@Soluminsanis
If a being is contingent, it came into being and can go out of being. If it is necessary it did not come into being and cannot go out of being. This is self evidently greater
Is a person who lives a long life necessarily "greater" than someone who lives a short life?
-->
@Theweakeredge
Any chair which was maximally great would not need to rely on matter or space to exist.Any chair which was maximally great would not be constrained by the materials which you have listed.It holds the greatest qualities of a chair, therefore any chair which would be greater, say - a chair which exists without matter - must be the chair that we are describing.
Well stated.
-->
@3RU7AL
I would not say logically necessary equals existence.
-->
@Sum1hugme
I would not say logically necessary equals existence.
Well, there are logically-necessary "things" that are NOT empirically demonstrable.
-->
@3RU7AL
Could you give an example?
-->
@Sum1hugme
NOUMENON.
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't think that noumenon exists because it is logically necessary. It just exists, and because it has physical attributes that are a necessary constituent of it's existence, we can verify its existence as a phenomenon.
-->
@Sum1hugme
Yes, in philosophy, a noumenon is a posited object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception.
-->
@FLRW
I am aware of that. But a noumenon necessarily has physical characteristics, which can be observed as phenomenon.