A problem for the Ontological Argument

Author: Sum1hugme

Posts

Total: 107
#31
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Sum1hugme
I was just trying to show that if you only rely on things that can be measured, you are leaving out vast quantities of, and entire categories, of possible evidence(for whatever you are trying to figure out)
#32
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@janesix
What about the things you can't measure? How do you deal with those? Do you just ignore everything with any small amount of subjectivity?

Last night, I fished the last M&M out of the package. It was yellow. Then over a period of about two seconds, it slowly disappeared from my hand as I watched it. How do you "measure" something like that? 
Ok... well if I saw an M&M disappear in an unexplainable way... I would have to conclude that it was an unexplained phenomenon and if a phenomenon is unexplained then it makes no sense to suggest an explanation. So are you suggesting an explanation for an unexplained phenomenon? 
If I observed an M&M disappear like that I would have to conclude that it was an unexplained phenomenon. Unexplained phenomenon are unexplained. It is not reasonable to suggest that a phenomenon is e explainable through the "spiritual" if we don't actually know the explanation 
#33
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
We can think about it and make guesses as to the explanation. We can look at past experiences. Your idea feels like giving up, and just accepting that it is unexplained.
#34
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@janesix
We can think about it and make guesses as to the explanation.
I can also guess if a defendant is guilty but if there is no evidence of guilt then a verdict of guilty is premature.
We can look at past experiences.
Past experiences of unexplained phenomenon seems less useful to me as a learning tool than past experience of an event that reliably is explainable based on past experience.

For example it doesn't matter how often I experience finding my keys in a different place than I remember putting them and I've never had an adequate explanation then I have NO EXPLANATION. 
Your idea feels like giving up, and just accepting that it is unexplained.
Not at all. 

IF we guess at a cause and simply decide to believe it THEN we may stop seeking an answer. 

I don't know followed by investigation is ALWAYS the beginning of discovery. 
#35
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't know how thinking about it and looking at past experiences is NOT investigation.
#36
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@janesix
I don't know how thinking about it and looking at past experiences is NOT investigation.
Just thinking does not constitute investigation in and of itself AND any investigation conducted will by necessity be only as reliable as the methodology employed. 

Simply thinking and/or or imagining an answer is not the same as investigating some phenomena utilizing scientific methodology. I just don't know how to categorize something as spiritual without an adequate definition and a demonstration of some supernatural thing which can be investigated. 

The supernatural is indistinguishable to me from any other unexplainable phenomenon.
#37
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
Yeah I think you are wrong. We were given brains and higher thought for a reason.
#38
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Sum1hugme
I think one major problem for the Ontological argument is that it cannot convey knowledge of god's existence. It is a wholly conceptual argument, and without an empirical element, it can only become more specific as a concept.
So concept does not inform existence?

But no concept, however specific, can convey actual knowledge if it doesn't correlate to some empirical element. So the argument can only generate specific concepts of god, but it is empty as a source of actual knowledge. 
It must correlate to some empirical element? First, how do you control that which you "observe" independent of the concepts you assign it?
Topic's author
#39
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Athias
You don't. In order to have knowledge, either empirical or conceptual, it has to bridge the gap between those categories. Concepts must tie to something empirical in order to have substance, and observations must be brought under concepts to be intelligible.
#40
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Sum1hugme
In order to have knowledge, either empirical or conceptual, it has to bridge the gap between those categories. Concepts must tie to something empirical in order to have substance,
Why?

and observations must be brought under concepts to be intelligible.
This is an inescapable consequence of being subjective observers.
Topic's author
#41
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Athias
Why?

  Because if they don't, then you cannot ever connect that concept to reality, you can only specify the concept. 
#42
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Sum1hugme
Because if they don't, then you cannot ever connect that concept to reality, you can only specify the concept. 
So concept does not inform reality?
Topic's author
#43
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Athias
Concept alone cannot bridge the gap between concepts and reality. That bridge is incorporation of an empirical element. Without that, it cannot inform about reality. 
#44
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
How do you determine the difference between something "spiritual" and just something?
How do you determine the difference between someone who loves their spouse and someone who just like and respects their spouse. Both may look like love but one is missing and element they other has. If an experience feels spiritual it is. If it feels like life it's probably not. Just like you can watch sunsets over and over and one evening you feel small or get overwhelmed with emotion or sense a stronger than usual connection to the Earth. It's as small as that most times. Other times it's like being smacked in the face. You know if your in a spiritual experience. 
#45
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Sum1hugme
Concept alone cannot bridge the gap between concepts and reality. That bridge is incorporation of an empirical element. Without that, it cannot inform about reality. 
Let me rephrase: you stated that observations (empirical) must be brought under concept in order to be intelligible. So what is reality independent of concept? That is, what function does an unintelligible observation serve in an argument of proof? You’ve already delineated what concept provides an observation, but what does observation provide a concept? Why is reason alone not sufficient in arguments of proof?

#46
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@janesix
Yeah I think you are wrong. We were given brains and higher thought for a reason.
Before we can even begin speculation on the issue can you demonstrate that our brains were "given" to us or demonstrate any purpose behind the act or are you simply assuming that? I only ask because brains give every indication of having simply evolved according to mindless, unguided and nevertheless inevitable naturalistic laws.
#47
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->@Polytheist-Witch 
How do you determine the difference between someone who loves their spouse and someone who just like and respects their spouse. Both may look like love but one is missing and element they other has. If an experience feels spiritual it is. If it feels like life it's probably not. Just like you can watch sunsets over and over and one evening you feel small or get overwhelmed with emotion or sense a stronger than usual connection to the Earth. It's as small as that most times. Other times it's like being smacked in the face. You know if your in a spiritual experience. 
IF spiritual = some emotional brainstates THEN there is perfectly logical explanation for it which is the interactions of biology and chemistry within the brain itself. 
Topic's author
#48
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Athias
  The reason that a concept needs an empirical element is because the concept and the observation are interdependent in order to inform about reality. Reality can't be reasoned conceptually alone, or else it has no tie to reality; in a similar fashion, observations rely on concepts to be intelligible. In this way, they are interdependent. Alone, neither produces knowledge, they have to be Incorporated together. 

  Without an empirical element, you can never bridge the gap between a specified concept, no matter how specific, and knowledge. 
#49
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
 brains give every indication of having simply evolved according to mindless, unguided and nevertheless inevitable naturalistic laws
Demonstrate that. I see no evidence for that at all.

 can you demonstrate that our brains were "given" to us or demonstrate any purpose behind the act or are you simply assuming that? 
I see plenty of evidence for creation over natural selection/darwinism.

Like for instance, the fact that it is impossible to "accidentally" develop DNA in the time span of 13.7 billion years. I assume you have read up on this, so I won't provide links unless you ask, and it will take some time for me to find it.

#50
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@janesix
Demonstrate that.
You have this backwards. It would need to be demonstrated that there was more to it. Occum's Razer my dear. The solution that makes the fewest assumptions.
I see plenty of evidence for creation over natural selection/darwinism.

Like for instance, the fact that it is impossible to "accidentally" develop DNA in the time span of 13.7 billion years. I assume you have read up on this, so I won't provide links unless you ask, and it will take some time for me to find it.

Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Both could be true but one is a demonstrable and widely accepted scientific fact. As for anything being by "accident" you would have to demonstrate some actual goal before we could talk about what was according to that goal and what was an "accident". Absent goal there are no accidents only occurrences. 

Or in other words it is what it is.
#51
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
Evolution is certainly not a fact. It's a poorly understood theory or even hypothesis, the only reason it is still around is because there is no "better" theory around yet, although there are some scientists that are ignored or snubbed when they challenge the Darwinian paradigm. Scientists such as Simon Conway Morris, and I know there are others but they won't come to mind at the moment, and I don't have time to look it up presently.
#52
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@janesix
According to wikipedia's article on the man Conway Morris, a Christian, holds to theistic views of biological evolution.

Or in other words he believes in evolution amd creation simultaneously. I am making no argument concerning a "creator" other than that none has been demonstrated but IF a creator COULD NOT EXIST in the same universe with evolution I may have some bad news for you.
#53
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
when I say evolution, I mean neodarwinian evolution, the Modern Synthesis. I should probably be more specific

I have said before that I believe in a form of orthogenesis, but you might not remember that. So I will be more specific in the future.
#54
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@janesix
Orthinogenesis, like some god(s), does not contradict the fact that evolution observably takes place but would have to be demonstrated separately. Occum's Razer again.
#55
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Sum1hugme
The reason that a concept needs an empirical element is because the concept and the observation are interdependent in order to inform about reality. Reality can't be reasoned conceptually alone, or else it has no tie to reality; in a similar fashion, observations rely on concepts to be intelligible. In this way, they are interdependent. Alone, neither produces knowledge, they have to be Incorporated together. 

  Without an empirical element, you can never bridge the gap between a specified concept, no matter how specific, and knowledge. 
How can an unintelligible element offer "substance" to concept? That is, how does an unintelligible element tie concept to reality? (Again, I'm using your description.) If the two are mutually dependent on one another (interdependent) then there'd  be no concept without observation and no observation without concept. When I asked how you'd control for observation independent of conceptualization, you responded that you don't. Yet your criticism of the ontological argument presumes to control for conceptualization independent of observation. Why have you done this knowing that the two are mutually dependent?

To elaborate on this further, I'll invoke the concepts of physical laws. What makes a physical law a physical law? It's not observation, per se, but conceptualization. That is, a physical law is substantiated by mathematical proof alone. And what is the reason mathematics alone is sufficient in substantiating physical laws? Because mathematics is an arithmetical derivation/expression of what? Reason--a concept.

So let's revisit your argument:
  1. No concept, however specific, can convey actual knowledge if it doesn't correlate to some empirical element.
  2.  So the argument can only generate specific concepts of god, but it is empty as a source of actual knowledge. 
  3.  In order to have knowledge, either empirical or conceptual, it has to bridge the gap between those categories. Concepts must tie to something empirical in order to have substance, and observations must be brought under concepts to be intelligible.
  4. Because if they don't, then you cannot ever connect that concept to reality, you can only specify the concept. 
So why does concept need observation--an unintelligble element--to tie into reality? What would your description of reality be? And how does observation connect concept to reality?

#56
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
@janesix
@Sum1hugme
The post is specifically about the failure of the Ontological Argument to include an empirical element. Without it, it will never bridge the gap between a specific concept and knowledge.
One IT, two IT, three IT four, five IT six IT, seven IT more.

Add all the ITs, plus some synergy, now IT IS, dynamic energy.

Energy to some, is physical reality, what lays beyond, may exist as Gravity (  ).

Dark Energy )( accelerating out, these latter two are opposites, of this I have  no doubt.

Energy we know, as a mudpie hits our eye, and that which lies beyond, as semi-Pi-in-the-sky.

Conceptual that is, Metaphysical-1, 'a unified whole' states Todd, so he names IT god.

So this spiri-1 god, as a  trancendental equilibrum, only sprouts its face, from our bilateral  cerebrum.

Nature abhors a truly empty space,  so Gravity  (  ) and Dark Energy)( , become our saving Grace.

Grace invaginates herself,   her cloning is eternal,  popping in (><) and out  <)(>,  mass as our cosmic kernel.

.................................Space(> * <) i (> * <)Space......................................

Spin-torque-orbit, inside-out-expand-contract,   this only leaves precession, two-masses-dancing, in radiant light.




#57
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@ebuc
It's all about the sevens. That is, six and one.
#58
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
Evolution, in any form, has never been demonstrated. Some minor adaptation, which is itself unexplained especially by Darwinian evolution, has been observed. Usually much much quicker than expected by Darwinian evolution.
Topic's author
#59
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Athias
  Reality - The world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

  Physical Laws are descriptions of properties of matter. The empirical elements of matter inform the concepts they are brought under: physical laws. Observation is, as you agreed, unintelligible without a concept to be brought under. If they are interdependent, then they will necessarily have to both be present with the other to convey knowledge. There is a problem trying to take a concept alone as knowledge, because there is no way to differentiate that between what's real and what's in one's mind. There is a gap between a concept, and knowledge about reality. That gap can only be bridged with an empirical correlate. 
#60
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@janesix
It's all about the sevens. That is, six and one.

thank you.

Seven sets  of axi;  4-fold 3,

....... 3, 4, 6 and 12 axi ---conceptually spun great-circles/tori---   are the 25, 4-fold primary axi.

......6, 10 and 15 left-skew 5-old symmetry ergo 31   of 62

......6, 10 and 15 right-skew 5-fold symmetry ergo 31 of 62

.................................................................................25 of 4-fold

..............................................................................Total = 87, with 14 of those being redundantly congruent to another

Total is seven setsof  axi and,

87 primary  subet of Euclidean { edges, vertexi and openings/surfaces/faces 87 minus the  reduntant 14 ergo 73 primary Great Circles/Tori

Grand total is 73 primary subsets of more primary Seven.

Truncating 3-fold tetra{4}hedron gives 14 faces/openings/surfaces. So probably 4-fold also ergo 3 and 4-fold but no  5-fold, yet. At least not with some set of axi based on tetra{4]hedrons 6 Great Circles/Tori. These six great are the subdivision squares of cube via 12, since rendundant with its opposite diagonal, so then again were, back to primary 6 of tera{4}hedron that we find in 4-fold set , 3, 4, 6 and 12.

  7 >>>> mutli-plication-by-{sub}-division set of  4-fold ,25 axi and,

31 left-skew set of symmetry

31 right-skew set of ymmetry
____________________________
Total 87 minus 14 = 73.....h,mm at first appearence I would say 73 is prime number.  I dunno.....how many years have had that number in back, or side of my mind? And yes, more likely than not it complements nervous system in many if not all ways. But of course.


So, 3-fold '6'

......4-fold, 3, 4, '6' and 12

......5-fold 6, 10 and 15