It seems you wrongly define primary qualities as material composition. Primary qualities are simply qualities which an entity has that are independent of an observer. Omniscience and omnipotence could be considered primary qualities because they convey facts about God, that are independent of the effects they have of observers. A things taste, smell, feel, or preference would be secondary qualities of an entity.
Interesting video, I enjoyed watching. Though I would urge you to look at the many possibilities such as the string theory and 4th dimensional concept. Im not saying you should watch and believe, but understand that the concept of reality and what we experience and have come to know in life are indescribable. It is not wise to sign yourself up for an idea without looking at the entirety of what your suggesting/arguing or the purpose of which you hope to obtain.
Definition of immaterial: Having no matter or substance. Air has substance, so that is a false analogy and thus irrelevant. Gravity, of course, has neither. When you think of 'a force puling down on an object in free fall,' you're thinking of the effects of gravity, not gravity itself. And when you say 'Immaterial things don't exist. Get over it,' this is nothing more than a bald assertion of that which you are trying (with a breath-taking amount of incompetence) to prove.
Traveling faster than the speed of light is a physical impossibility, not a logical one.
Your claim that immaterial things cannot exist is absurd. When I say the word 'gravity,' what thoughts enters your mind, excluding the thoughts of the meaning of the word? Nothing? Does that prove then that gravity doesn't exist?.
The meaning of something is by definition equivalent to that thing. Hence, when thinking of the meaning of God, you are indeed thinking of God.
The thought that enters my mind is a force puling down on an object in free fall. Your comparison is ridiculous anyway. It's like you saying we can't see air, so it's immaterial. We can FEEL the effects of air and gravity. Immaterial things don't exist. Get over it
Creating the unliftable rock is the strength NOT a weakness. This goes against my conception of the almighty, and I REFUSE to continue this discussion with a heretic like you.
Anyway, anyone who believes that rocklifting>rockbuilding is a wikipedia-using psuedo-intellectual. It is clear that YOU,rocklifting fanatic, are the one who knows nothing of philosophy. I suppose if you want things to go back to that 11th century "Great Chain of Being" bullshit, you can be my guest..but as for me, no thanks
I have done to you what Kant has done to Anselm, barifkin. The ontological argument is one full of holes, whose holes are full of even greater holes.
Anyway, a god that cannot create unliftable rocks is not a god in my books. I am thoroughly commited to that, and your conception of god is HIGHLY wrong, so much so that I'd be willing to start a religious war over it. Greatness is absolute, and you're on the wrong end of the great chain of being
Kant didn't do anything to anselm. You think that reading a few wikipedia articles and posturing on the internet = intellectual success. No, you're wrong. In fact, I've refuted every single one of your qualms with the argument, and you've yet to respond cogently. You don't use correct terms or phrases, and it's very clear that you've done little if any studying in the realm of philosophy.
I already refuted your claim about the rock. Creating the rock would be a demonstration of weakness...
That is: we have no clue whether or not god exists.
B
y the logic of the ontological argument(which is absurd and flawed in more ways than I can speak of here) I could "prove" that Chuck Norris has a strength value of Infinity+1.(when, in fact, he is only provably stronger than the idea, rather than the assigned strength of the hypothetical god figure.)
So I suppose, according to Anselm, Chuck Norris is the almighty.
The ontological argument is an example of faulty programming
The strongest person conceivable has a strength value of infinity.
The actual strongest person has astrength value of 600
In reality, the idea of the strongest person conceivable has a strength value of 0, for it is just an idea.
The ontological argument conflates the idea with the hypothetical being, and asserts that god is stronger than the idea by at least 1. It then assumes that the reader can't tell the difference between the hypothetical being and the idea.
So, we get god >=1 in terms of strength, whereas the ontological argument asserts wrongly that he is infinity+1 in terms of strength(an absurdity) Here, as we have not yet defined the god in consideration as the almighty, god is simply anyone we are taking into consideration, ranging from a worm to Chuck Norris.
However, by definition,the almighty's power is infinite. Therefor, we cannot assume that any given entity is almighty.
So we arrive at what we already know we don't know
The rest of your arguments rest on this fallacious assertion that strength is the only component to God. False. In addition, God's strength is not infinity + 1, it is merely infinity. infinity plus 1 = infinity. infinity, by definition, is that which is the same whether one is added or one is taken away.
And there you have it , people. The ontological argument is clearly flawed. Considering the combination of every character trait only makes the ontological argument more absurd. This path only leads to the ontological argument failing harder
In addition, insults aren't arguments. I know it might be fun and exciting to impress your high school buddies with this pseudo-intellectual garbage that you've posted, but it's amounted to absolutely nothing. You don't think clearly. Try reading the proslogion for a better representation of the argument instead of just playing around on the computer.
Premise #4 might be your best shot, but it doesn't prove that God is self-contradictory. You must prove that man is incapable of conceiving of infinities. That might be the best route in attacking the ontological argument. If absolutes can't even be conceived, let alone exist, then the proof doesn't work. Your last part is complete and utter nonsense. Not even the conception of God is 'nothing'. Saying he doesn't exist, and then claiming he can't because he doesn't, is begging the question.
Man's perception of infinity has nothing to do with the existence of an immortal wizard that created the world. I have no idea why you seem to think that absolute perfection is objectively verifiable. Absolute perfection is self contradictory (stone lifting vs. stone creating, etc.)
Contrary to what you assert,there is a gulf between conception and reality. People can conceive additional dimensions or super heroes , but that does not necessarily mean they can exist.
The ontological argument has EVERYTHING to do with the conception of an absolutely perfect entity. If you think otherwise, you don't understand the argument. I think an absolutely perfect entity is objective because I think that good and bad are objective. I'll challange you to offer me a positive charcteristic that someone else might state as negative.
In regards to your omnipotence contradiction, that's false. creating an unliftable stone displays weakness, not power, so it doesn't contradict
Infinity is...synonymous with absolute perfection? Silly.
The ontological argument can be summed up as "wishful thinking." Asserting that your every fantasy is real by stating that a necessary characteristic of the fantasy is its existence.
On another note, I am DEEPLY offended by your attempt to discredit the value of creating stone. Not being able to create a stone that someone can't lift displays weakness, not power. Creating exceedingly heavy stones is positive, not negative
all positive characteristics in an infinite supply is synonomous with absolute perfection, not simply infinity. It's no more wishful thinking than the argument
1. I am holding a banana
2. Bananas are fruits
3. Therefore, I'm holding a fruit
Are you claiming that an absolutely perfect being doesn't have to exist in order to be absolutely perfect? That makes very little, if any, logical sense.
Pitted in a fight, Yakumo Yukari probably has a 6-4 matchup against your hypothetical perfect being. It's pretty obvious that she doesn't exist, though.
An absolute perfectly strong being, Hercules, would have to exist to be perfectly strong.
However, there is no evidence that such a being exists. The statement on its own is meaningless. There could just be no being that has ever attained such strength. There could be a strongest person in the world, though.
Your scenario is completely fanciful and in no way is based on anything in logic, math, or reason. What matchup are you referring to? Why would your entity win?
No, an absolutely strong being would not have to exist in order to exist because there's nothing about strength that implies existence, as opposed to absolute perfection, which does. the analogy doesn't hold up.
FALSE. This is the biggest misconception have about the ontolgical argument. It's not that an absolutely perfect entity must exist in order to exist...that much is given. It must exist in order to adhere to the structure and rules of logic and our minds. An absolutely perfect being that didn't exist wouldn't be absolutely perfect. An absolutely strong entity that didn't exist could still be absolutely strong. It doesn't form any logical contradictions.
Taking that approach, existence is a characteristic of a perfect god. The only thing you can cling to, then, is approaching existence as a trait, like I did with the sample trait of strength
A hypothetical perfect god has an existence value of 0. A crystallized idea has an existence value of infinity. At BEST, we can assume that god has a higher existence value than 0. This value, however, is not necessarily the same thing as infinity.
Here, it seems, you're trying to have it both ways.
This argument borders on the unintelligible. Of course existence is a characteristic, I've constantly been affirming that. In regards to that last paragraph...
What are your reasons for claiming that the value is not necessarily infinite? You're simply stating your opinion without backing it up logically...
If X does not exist, I can at least pretend it does. My fantasy is Z. The hypothetical Z is actually technically not the best at Y, because it doesn't exist, therefor X must exist.
Of course, this is silly. The coldest thing ever is 0 kelvin, but a dunce could conceive of something to be colder than 0 kelvin. This does not mean that you can go below absolute 0. There are some ideas that exceed reality.
First of all, your depiction of the argument is in no way accurate.
Also, not even "a dunce" could conceive of something colder than kelvin. Just because you say it doesn't mean it's capable of being conceived. If your qualm is with the conception of an absolutely perfect being, I already stated that that is a fair assessment, however, in doing so, you are limiting the conceptual powers of every mind (not only human) that ever has and ever will exist. A bit presumptuous if you ask me...
Of course a dunce could conceive of something colder than 0 K, and in fact it would be the natural assumption of anyone unschooled with chemistry. 30C is hot. 0 C is cold. It would only make sense to the human mind that -300C would just be something that's even colder.
Also, I SINCERELY object to your assertion that Stone creating is somehow underhanded or negative. I very much disagree with that.
1. The dunce is not conceiving of the temperature, but just a number. In order to conceive of a temperature, one must know within what limits temperatures are capable of existing.
2. Creating an unliftable stone is negative because it's illogical. Part of God is that he is perfectly logical, so to create a stone he couldn't lift would be illogical, demonstrating logical WEAKNESS, not power. strength does not equal power.
Premise 3 is untrue because Absolute Perfection is an objectively verifiable entity (at least thoretically). It's not that the belief creates the existence, but rather the belief could never have taken place if not for the existence. I conceive of a perfect God. However, unless that absolutely perfect being exists, I'm not conceiving of God...but I am conceiving of God, so that absolutely perfect entity must exist.
Premise #2 doesn't work because what you're saying is false, and provably so. Omnipotence, or unlimited power, doesn't imply the power to be powerless. That's an oxymoron. That's like saying unlimited sight is capable of not seeing. NO! Omniscience does not imply lack of knowledge either. Same premise applies. You're saying because one is not knowledgable of non-knowledge and one is not powerful enough to not have power, the arguments refute themselves. No, that's a deductive fallacy.
Immaterial things have no attributes? I don't buy that for a second. Do the laws of thermodynamics or the laws of physics not have any attributes? If not, what distinguishes them? Is there no difference between a thought of an orange and the thought of an apple? These almost certainly seem like attributes. The thoughts conjure different mental pictures and feelings, so they have to be different somehow.
All we can know for certain is that we ourselves exist and as we experience life we take in information about our world through our sensors and reconstruct them in our minds. That being said how did the concept of God/Perfection enter our minds without an original transfer of information; it seems apparent to me that since I am not perfect that some form of perfection exist somewhere. By your own logic you prove that the only thing that can't exist is "Nothing"
1) You cannot exist as a spirit. Spirit is an emotion or character trait. Emotions and character traits don't have primary attributes. Something cannot exist as just a mind. That's a fallacy of hypostatization.
2) The contradictions of God's properties have not been refuted by the theory of Middle Knowledge. To say so indicates you have no idea what you're yapping about.
3) I can conceive of the Universe expanding, and it's size.
I am an atheist, but this is horrible. There are stronger ways to disprove the arguments, the meaning of words like omnicient and omnipotent now mean being able to do anything logically possible and knowing anything logically possible, and your arguments are based on premises that are easy to object to.
I apologize if youtube have a 500 character limit for comments. I also apologize if it is difficult to find the time to post several comments on a video. You want possible objections? Here they are.
1. Your definition of primary attribute seems to assume naturalism already. One can possibly say that God's primary attribute is his spirit, soul, essence, etc. While God is immaterial (i.e. not made of matter according to Merriam-Webster online dictionary), this does not mean that he is
not made of anything, therefore nothing, therefore no primary attribute and therefore not existing. All the definition says is "not made of matter" You are assuming that anything not made of matter is nonexistent and cannot have properties.
2. The properties of omnipotence and omniscience mean being able to do everything logically possible to do and omniscience means to know anything possible to know. These definitions have been this way since medieval times. My source? Philosopher
of Religion James Hall, who taught the Philosophy of Religion course from the teaching company. Look up him if you want to. I do not like these definitions, but that is the way they are! What you should have done to show that Plantinga's first premise is circular is say that it is possible that there is a world in which sentient beings cannot exist. Thus, it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, and you can observe what that does to the rest of the argument.
3. You might be right about your third refutation, at least for Anselm's definition of the argument. However, I can easily imagine one arguing that perfection requires existence by definition, and this can overcome your objection if it is not argued against. It can be argued against (i.e. saying existence is not a property), but you do not mention that in your video, and it is a refutation all by itself. Plantinga's argument does not really have anything to do with whether something
can be conceived or not; it simply observes whether it is possible that a maximally great being exists and lets the argument work its magic.
4. I don't think this argument works. Even if something is beyond true human grasp, humans can create concepts (like being all-powerful) to understand certain things. Also, just because we cannot conceive of something does not mean it does not exist. The reason "nothing" cannot be conceived of and cannot exist is because it is not a state of
being. Existence does not consist of both something and nothing, only something. To say that nothing exists is logically contradictory. Furthermore, you expose the circularity of your argument right here by saying outright that if something is immaterial, it is (or is the equivalent of) nothing. Again, this is simply false by the definition of immaterial and does not work because you presuppose naturalism. Also again, just because we cannot conceive of something does not it does not
mean that it does not exist. Nor does something's nonexistence mean it cannot be conceived of. People can conceive of unicorns, but seeing as they are not perfect, it does not follow that they exist. The reverse does not logically follow either. Let me put your argument in step format.
1. The human mind can only not conceive of something if it does not exist.
2. The human mind cannot conceive of God.
3. God does not exist.
The first premise is completely unproven. All you do
to support it is comparisons with what can't exist and what we have seen to exist. It is possible that the human mind cannot conceive of the reason why particles defy our intuitions (like going through two slits at the same time). Does that mean the reason does not exist? Where's your proof for 1? Why can't some things be beyond human grasp? Just asserting that the reason one cannot conceive of God is that he does not exist does not work. Again, and I cannot stress this enough,
Please tell me if I have accidently created a straw man of any of your arguments.
One thing I will not apologize for is saying that I am an atheist. I do not want to be associated with those that pretend to give logical reasons for God's existence. I am essentially on your side; I just think that these arguments do not work, with the possible exception of #3, which is on really shaky ground. I'm done posting now.
The notion of imposing human qualities on the objective universe is, in the first place, absurd. There is no such thing as "maximal greatness" because "great" or "large" or anything regarding the scale of things are purely artificial human constructs. Up and down and big and small are merely creations of the human mind. Something universal like god is inherently beyond the capacity of our minds to define.
or you are saying it is the difference between perception and a testable reality, of course that would be a philosophical debate thats been around since man has had the ability to think.
"You breake ALLOT of copyright violations in your videos, as far as music and video goes."
^^^No. It's called fair use. I'm very close to
blocking you for your slanderous insinuations, and irritating conduct. Further, you are a lousy hypocrite, since in your video "Why you should read scripture!", you used a good portion of the X-Files theme song. In fact, you used over 40 seconds, and fair use usually cuts off at 30 seconds, though it depends on the the holder.
Then your use of the X-Files theme music is illegal you troll. I have no idea why I don't block you forthwith for your hypocrisy, stupidity, and arrogant insolence.
in fact he screws himself over again by making the argument that when god does good it's opposite must exist somewhere, but what he is arguing means there are limits to god's power because if that's the case then god doesn't have total control
Man, you haven't even seen Maydole's argument. Wait until I upload my series and then please tell me which premise or theorem of the argument is false.
If you don't believe that virtually everyone thinks the LPOE is unsound, go the the "Logical Problem of Evil" page on the internet infidels and read the intro from Jeff Lowder.
"Every function of a computer runs on mathematics. The problem is there is no mathematical equation that can equate qualia. Qualia cant be described in physical terms, therefore it is no physical"
^^^The above fails, since the prior analogy upon which is was founded, was exposed as a double fallacy.
"If pure naturalism is true, then our brains are really just computers."
^^^Fail. Fallacy of Begging the Question. Since you render a baseless assertion, you do nothing to logically substantiate.
it's also a fallacy of false analogy, since the comparison of the brain to a computer is erroneous, since the brain is a biological phenomenon, while a computer is not. A computer is an artificial machine. The brain is apart of a living organism.
Naturalism strongly supports determinism, and determinism states that EVERYTHING is predetermined. "There is no true present, the present is only the past in the now."
"Qualia is what makes red red, and its what makes pain hurt. Qualia is everywhere, and yet it cant be described in words. It can only be described by relating it to other qualia."
^^^The above fails, since it's a neo-mystical assertion, which is self refuting in it's truth value. You cannot use the word qualia, to explain (X), when the word Qualia, cannot be explained, but by invoking an erroneous tautology. That's circular reasoning and a fallacious floating abstraction.
uh oh wait...if science proves man evolved then that means there was no adam and eve and thus no reason for jesus to die. i think science just liberated us from the stupidity of christianity! we're done here guys it's all over, go celebrate!!!
also on that note, we found another missing link Ida! thank you science for proving evolution and yet somehow by that guy's word pointing out a creator.
Damn that was good.. I would also add that all Ontological arguments are really, really guhey.. the smug satisfaction these guys seem to derive from this wafer thin construct of philosophical dumbfuckery is hilarious.. not a single human being has been swayed to faith by this bullshit, not even it's most vocal proponents.. it's for rationalization of preexisting belief without evidence and righteous defense of faith.. these guys are also dicks.
^^^Sound is a travelling wave. It is a disturbance through air with the transference of energy. As such, it's material, and has a primary attribute(wave/energy)
Philo is a secular philosophy of religion journal. You should try writing a paper i n which you give the argumentation in the video and send it to the editorial board.
Saying that God does not exist, and basing that claim around a materialistic philosophy is nothing new.
Such logic is as rediculous and reductionistic, as if you said that love=pheromones, when love in fact is a mutual psychological understanding between two or more persons.
Scientific American has also turned its back to atheism, there are tons of articles and essays there about the holographic Universe, and spirituality in science.
The Law of Identity, applies to all actual existence, and this is proven by the corollary of the contrary. Since "NOTHING", has no compositional nature. No Identity. That's why "NOTHING" is "NOTHING", and that's why your God is non-existent.
Dhoorf, every atheist do by definition not believe in God, ergo they think God is "nothing".
Me and Aristotle have both demolished your "Law of Identity" argument. God is never said to be nothingness. Infinite and being immaterial does not equal being non-existent, due to the fact of our universe being a physical manifestation of Gods immaterial being. The Universe is in harmony and exibit all the characteristics of God.
I debunked your previous anti-intelligent-design video, by pointing out the scientific errors in your logic. Science points to God, period. You will continue to loose every science debate until you accept that fact.
Jake has totally failed to refute any of the refutations in this video. He has further failed to render a single referral to reality for something that exists, that's immaterial.
Thus this video continues to stand as an total refutation of all Ontological Arguments. Jakes God is disproved, since immaterial existence is impossible, and that was proved by my argument from kinetic potentiality, the Law of Identity, and the corollary of the contrary. Jake's Chrisitan worldview is illegitimate.
Nothingness is not the same as immaterial. They may both be difficult or even impossible to truly concieve, but doesn't mean they don't exist.
Just because God's primary attribute is inconcievable, it doesn't mean His secondary attributes are. You can know someone's personality without knowing what they look like/are made of.
Your epistemology is utterly bankrupt. There were so many things wrong with what you said, it's hard to know where to start.
Suffice to say, you can know SOMEONE'S personality, because when you say SOMEONE, it's obvious you're referencing HUMANS, of which we know WHAT HUMANS PRIMARY ATTRIBUTE IS.
Your God doesn't exist, and the God concept is a complete joke.
Well suppose you had humans, aliens who were not made of carbon compounds, highly intelligent robots, and aliens made of pure energy, and all these species would be mentally identical. If you recieved, say, a YouTube comment from one, you would know a bit about their personality, but you would not know their primary attribute.
"but you would not know their primary attribute."
^^^But no one would say, or is saying the aliens are immaterial. Christianity clams it's God is immaterial, therefore, since immaterial existence is impossible, the Christian God doesn't exist.
The problem is that if immaterial existance is impossible, then there is no soul, and our minds are really just highly sophisticated organic machines. Although a computer as complex as the brain would be able to produce human interaction, it would not be able to percieve. That is to say, it would be able to record and react to its enviorment, but it would not actually experience its enviorment. I guess the thing is, if there is no immaterial, why are we not philisophical zombies?
Conciousness is the result of experiencing qualia. Qualia is what makes red red, and its what makes pain hurt. Qualia is everywhere, and yet it cant be described in words. It can only be described by relating it to other qualia.
If pure naturalism is true, then our brains are really just computers. Every function of a computer runs on mathematics. The problem is there is no mathematical equation that can equate qualia. Qualia cant be described in physical terms, therefore it is no physical
The problem is that 'consciousness' is a word that has come to have several meanings in the English language.
I believe what youre refering to is the ability to process information on a scale comparable with the human brain, which is an emergent property.
What I'm talking about though is the ability to experience qualia. There's a big difference between being able to detect an image, store an image, pick out whats in an image, and actually experiencing the image's qualia.
Well, the thing is that qualia is makes up everything we know about the world. If qualia doesn't exist, then nothing else does. Right now while you are reading this text, you are experiencing qualia in the form of black and white letters. If the qualia doesn't exist, then the comment doesn't exist.
Ok, what I mean by 'qualia' is well, quality. For instance qualia is what makes the difference between simply recognizing a 700 nm wavelength of light, and actually seeing red.
Qualia is basically the quality of our experiences. It's what red looks like, what cheese tastes like, what pain feels like. It's what prevents us from being 'philisophical zombies'.
uhm, that would almost make sense if those things were true for everyone, what about the millions of people who see red as green? i don't think you thought this through.
You use Aristotles Law of Identity and YOU IGNORE COMPLTELY ARISTOTLES IDEAS ABOUT GOD.
According to Aristotle:
God is all actuality, Actus Purus. To prove that there is a Supreme Cause is one of the tasks of metaphysics the Theologic Science. And this Aristotle undertakes to do in several portions of his work on First Philosophy.
"This is karma, you are now simply paying for your lousy research into Aristotles great ideas."
^^^^The Law of Identity is recognized as fact, and Aristotle, if he believed in a God, did not prove God exists. THAT'S WHY GOD, UNLIKE THE LAW OF IDENTITY, IS NOT A LAW, OR A PROVEN FACT.
The ignorance of what you're saying is equivalent to saying, because Newton believed in a God, God must be real, because Newtons ideas on optics and gravity were correct.
In the metaphysical order, the highest determinations of Being are Actuality and Potentiality. Actuality and potentiality are above all the Categories; they are found in all beings, with the exception of the Supreme Cause, in Whom there is no imperfection, and, therefore, no potentiality. God is all actuality, Actus Purus. All other beings are composed of actuality and potentiality.
Actuality and potentiality are not primary attributes. Your God has no primary attribute, therefore, your God does not exist.
It's that simple. And as for your comment about Aristotle. If I'm not mistaken he was either agnostic, or pagan. Can you substantiate his belief in ONE GOD, by sending a link to me by PM? Otherwise, it looks like you're wrong there as well.
Aristotle believed in a one God, though he partially believed God was a part of our Universe, so his views differs from Platos.
Dhoorf you are, and you are not the one who decides what is a primary attribute or not. You have no idea what a primary attribute is in the first place, do you? Define primary attribute Dhoorf.
this is why xians make me physically ill, if i get to heaven and it is the xian god judging me and he asks why i wouldn't believe i'm going to say because of all your idiotic followers who claim to know everything about you. he should understand.
you sound like the stupid children you are, you arent making any point other than you are mindless drones ready to spit out whatever your church and parents told you.
"Jakes God is disproved, since immaterial existence is impossible, and that was proved by my argument from kinetic potentiality, the Law of Identity, and the corollary of the contrary. Jake's Chrisitan worldview is illegitimate. "
If you act in such ways again, one more time, I'm blocking you Russ. Start acting more mature, even if you are just an 18 year old kid. I'm giving you a fair warning. Don't force me to ban you bro.
The only thing you are doing in this video, is trying to debunk your own concept of God. Your OWN concept of God. An atheist refuting his own concept of God, is not an argument against anything but that in which he personally imagined.
You pick and choose here like a spoiled child in a toystore, you fragment God to such a level, that you are not talking about God at all.
You ignore many attributes of God, thus this video is not about God, but purely absolutes out of context.
You use Aristotles Law of Identity and YOU IGNORE COMPLTELY ARISTOTLES IDEAS ABOUT GOD.
According to Aristotle:
God is all actuality, Actus Purus. All other beings are composed of actuality and potentiality, a dualism which is a general metaphysical formula for the dualism of matter and form, body and soul, substance and accident, the soul and its faculties, passive and active intellect.
It seems you wrongly define primary qualities as material composition. Primary qualities are simply qualities which an entity has that are independent of an observer. Omniscience and omnipotence could be considered primary qualities because they convey facts about God, that are independent of the effects they have of observers. A things taste, smell, feel, or preference would be secondary qualities of an entity.
philosophizer149 2 months ago
Space, time, dimensions, gravity, etc. are not 'things' as such but merely physical or conceptual phenomena.
A 'being' without material is not a real thing, it's an imagined creature. Gods are the original X-Men.
If you believe consciousness/mind/soul can exist without a specific physical arrangement, chop your head off and prove it.
Ataensic 1 year ago
In layman's terms: Throwing a bunch of impossible qualities together does not an existent make.
How to determine if something exists:
1. If it's there, observe it
2. Study it, measure it, name it, define it
Ataensic 1 year ago
"This statement is false"
Self-contradiction.
Necropedophile90 1 year ago
You say something non-material can not exist. What about dimensions? Space time and whatever else there might be. Just curious.
JoakimfromAnka 1 year ago
Comment removed
jamesontheweb 1 year ago
Interesting video, I enjoyed watching. Though I would urge you to look at the many possibilities such as the string theory and 4th dimensional concept. Im not saying you should watch and believe, but understand that the concept of reality and what we experience and have come to know in life are indescribable. It is not wise to sign yourself up for an idea without looking at the entirety of what your suggesting/arguing or the purpose of which you hope to obtain.
jamesontheweb 1 year ago
Definition of immaterial: Having no matter or substance. Air has substance, so that is a false analogy and thus irrelevant. Gravity, of course, has neither. When you think of 'a force puling down on an object in free fall,' you're thinking of the effects of gravity, not gravity itself. And when you say 'Immaterial things don't exist. Get over it,' this is nothing more than a bald assertion of that which you are trying (with a breath-taking amount of incompetence) to prove.
1Costello11 1 year ago
Traveling faster than the speed of light is a physical impossibility, not a logical one.
Your claim that immaterial things cannot exist is absurd. When I say the word 'gravity,' what thoughts enters your mind, excluding the thoughts of the meaning of the word? Nothing? Does that prove then that gravity doesn't exist?.
The meaning of something is by definition equivalent to that thing. Hence, when thinking of the meaning of God, you are indeed thinking of God.
1Costello11 1 year ago 5
@1Costello11
The thought that enters my mind is a force puling down on an object in free fall. Your comparison is ridiculous anyway. It's like you saying we can't see air, so it's immaterial. We can FEEL the effects of air and gravity. Immaterial things don't exist. Get over it
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
Dude. That's blasphemy.
Blas
Phem
Y
Creating the unliftable rock is the strength NOT a weakness. This goes against my conception of the almighty, and I REFUSE to continue this discussion with a heretic like you.
KyazuTheInsane 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KyazuTheInsane
Anyway, anyone who believes that rocklifting>rockbuilding is a wikipedia-using psuedo-intellectual. It is clear that YOU,rocklifting fanatic, are the one who knows nothing of philosophy. I suppose if you want things to go back to that 11th century "Great Chain of Being" bullshit, you can be my guest..but as for me, no thanks
KyazuTheInsane 2 years ago
I have done to you what Kant has done to Anselm, barifkin. The ontological argument is one full of holes, whose holes are full of even greater holes.
Anyway, a god that cannot create unliftable rocks is not a god in my books. I am thoroughly commited to that, and your conception of god is HIGHLY wrong, so much so that I'd be willing to start a religious war over it. Greatness is absolute, and you're on the wrong end of the great chain of being
KyazuTheInsane 2 years ago
Kant didn't do anything to anselm. You think that reading a few wikipedia articles and posturing on the internet = intellectual success. No, you're wrong. In fact, I've refuted every single one of your qualms with the argument, and you've yet to respond cogently. You don't use correct terms or phrases, and it's very clear that you've done little if any studying in the realm of philosophy.
I already refuted your claim about the rock. Creating the rock would be a demonstration of weakness...
barifkin31 2 years ago
That is: we have no clue whether or not god exists.
B
y the logic of the ontological argument(which is absurd and flawed in more ways than I can speak of here) I could "prove" that Chuck Norris has a strength value of Infinity+1.(when, in fact, he is only provably stronger than the idea, rather than the assigned strength of the hypothetical god figure.)
So I suppose, according to Anselm, Chuck Norris is the almighty.
The ontological argument is an example of faulty programming
KyazuTheInsane 2 years ago
The strongest person conceivable has a strength value of infinity.
The actual strongest person has astrength value of 600
In reality, the idea of the strongest person conceivable has a strength value of 0, for it is just an idea.
The ontological argument conflates the idea with the hypothetical being, and asserts that god is stronger than the idea by at least 1. It then assumes that the reader can't tell the difference between the hypothetical being and the idea.
KyazuTheInsane 2 years ago
So, we get god >=1 in terms of strength, whereas the ontological argument asserts wrongly that he is infinity+1 in terms of strength(an absurdity) Here, as we have not yet defined the god in consideration as the almighty, god is simply anyone we are taking into consideration, ranging from a worm to Chuck Norris.
However, by definition,the almighty's power is infinite. Therefor, we cannot assume that any given entity is almighty.
So we arrive at what we already know we don't know
KyazuTheInsane 2 years ago
The rest of your arguments rest on this fallacious assertion that strength is the only component to God. False. In addition, God's strength is not infinity + 1, it is merely infinity. infinity plus 1 = infinity. infinity, by definition, is that which is the same whether one is added or one is taken away.
barifkin31 2 years ago
your using only one character trait, where God is conglomeration of EVERY character trait.
barifkin31 2 years ago
@barifkin31
And there you have it , people. The ontological argument is clearly flawed. Considering the combination of every character trait only makes the ontological argument more absurd. This path only leads to the ontological argument failing harder
KyazuTheInsane 2 years ago
In addition, insults aren't arguments. I know it might be fun and exciting to impress your high school buddies with this pseudo-intellectual garbage that you've posted, but it's amounted to absolutely nothing. You don't think clearly. Try reading the proslogion for a better representation of the argument instead of just playing around on the computer.
barifkin31 2 years ago
Can you conceive an infinity?
jav90xw 2 years ago
Premise #4 might be your best shot, but it doesn't prove that God is self-contradictory. You must prove that man is incapable of conceiving of infinities. That might be the best route in attacking the ontological argument. If absolutes can't even be conceived, let alone exist, then the proof doesn't work. Your last part is complete and utter nonsense. Not even the conception of God is 'nothing'. Saying he doesn't exist, and then claiming he can't because he doesn't, is begging the question.
barifkin31 2 years ago
@barifkin31
Man's perception of infinity has nothing to do with the existence of an immortal wizard that created the world. I have no idea why you seem to think that absolute perfection is objectively verifiable. Absolute perfection is self contradictory (stone lifting vs. stone creating, etc.)
Contrary to what you assert,there is a gulf between conception and reality. People can conceive additional dimensions or super heroes , but that does not necessarily mean they can exist.
KyazuTheInsane 2 years ago
The ontological argument has EVERYTHING to do with the conception of an absolutely perfect entity. If you think otherwise, you don't understand the argument. I think an absolutely perfect entity is objective because I think that good and bad are objective. I'll challange you to offer me a positive charcteristic that someone else might state as negative.
In regards to your omnipotence contradiction, that's false. creating an unliftable stone displays weakness, not power, so it doesn't contradict
barifkin31 2 years ago
@barifkin31
Infinity is...synonymous with absolute perfection? Silly.
The ontological argument can be summed up as "wishful thinking." Asserting that your every fantasy is real by stating that a necessary characteristic of the fantasy is its existence.
On another note, I am DEEPLY offended by your attempt to discredit the value of creating stone. Not being able to create a stone that someone can't lift displays weakness, not power. Creating exceedingly heavy stones is positive, not negative
KyazuTheInsane 2 years ago
all positive characteristics in an infinite supply is synonomous with absolute perfection, not simply infinity. It's no more wishful thinking than the argument
1. I am holding a banana
2. Bananas are fruits
3. Therefore, I'm holding a fruit
Are you claiming that an absolutely perfect being doesn't have to exist in order to be absolutely perfect? That makes very little, if any, logical sense.
barifkin31 2 years ago
@barifkin31
Pitted in a fight, Yakumo Yukari probably has a 6-4 matchup against your hypothetical perfect being. It's pretty obvious that she doesn't exist, though.
An absolute perfectly strong being, Hercules, would have to exist to be perfectly strong.
However, there is no evidence that such a being exists. The statement on its own is meaningless. There could just be no being that has ever attained such strength. There could be a strongest person in the world, though.
KyazuTheInsane 2 years ago
Your scenario is completely fanciful and in no way is based on anything in logic, math, or reason. What matchup are you referring to? Why would your entity win?
No, an absolutely strong being would not have to exist in order to exist because there's nothing about strength that implies existence, as opposed to absolute perfection, which does. the analogy doesn't hold up.
barifkin31 2 years ago
@barifkin31
strength does imply existance. A non existing person cannot lift any lifting thing
KyazuTheInsane 2 years ago
FALSE. This is the biggest misconception have about the ontolgical argument. It's not that an absolutely perfect entity must exist in order to exist...that much is given. It must exist in order to adhere to the structure and rules of logic and our minds. An absolutely perfect being that didn't exist wouldn't be absolutely perfect. An absolutely strong entity that didn't exist could still be absolutely strong. It doesn't form any logical contradictions.
barifkin31 2 years ago
Taking that approach, existence is a characteristic of a perfect god. The only thing you can cling to, then, is approaching existence as a trait, like I did with the sample trait of strength
A hypothetical perfect god has an existence value of 0. A crystallized idea has an existence value of infinity. At BEST, we can assume that god has a higher existence value than 0. This value, however, is not necessarily the same thing as infinity.
Here, it seems, you're trying to have it both ways.
KyazuTheInsane 2 years ago
This argument borders on the unintelligible. Of course existence is a characteristic, I've constantly been affirming that. In regards to that last paragraph...
What are your reasons for claiming that the value is not necessarily infinite? You're simply stating your opinion without backing it up logically...
barifkin31 2 years ago
@barifkin31
The ontological argument is simple:
X is by definition the best at trait Y
If X does not exist, I can at least pretend it does. My fantasy is Z. The hypothetical Z is actually technically not the best at Y, because it doesn't exist, therefor X must exist.
Of course, this is silly. The coldest thing ever is 0 kelvin, but a dunce could conceive of something to be colder than 0 kelvin. This does not mean that you can go below absolute 0. There are some ideas that exceed reality.
KyazuTheInsane 2 years ago
First of all, your depiction of the argument is in no way accurate.
Also, not even "a dunce" could conceive of something colder than kelvin. Just because you say it doesn't mean it's capable of being conceived. If your qualm is with the conception of an absolutely perfect being, I already stated that that is a fair assessment, however, in doing so, you are limiting the conceptual powers of every mind (not only human) that ever has and ever will exist. A bit presumptuous if you ask me...
barifkin31 2 years ago
@barifkin31
Of course a dunce could conceive of something colder than 0 K, and in fact it would be the natural assumption of anyone unschooled with chemistry. 30C is hot. 0 C is cold. It would only make sense to the human mind that -300C would just be something that's even colder.
Also, I SINCERELY object to your assertion that Stone creating is somehow underhanded or negative. I very much disagree with that.
KyazuTheInsane 2 years ago
I'll address your criticisms one by one...
1. The dunce is not conceiving of the temperature, but just a number. In order to conceive of a temperature, one must know within what limits temperatures are capable of existing.
2. Creating an unliftable stone is negative because it's illogical. Part of God is that he is perfectly logical, so to create a stone he couldn't lift would be illogical, demonstrating logical WEAKNESS, not power. strength does not equal power.
barifkin31 2 years ago
@barifkin31
lifting an unliftable stone is illogical, good sir. Creating the stone is logical. I disagree entirely. To fail to create a heavy stone is a WEAKNESS
KyazuTheInsane 2 years ago
Premise 3 is untrue because Absolute Perfection is an objectively verifiable entity (at least thoretically). It's not that the belief creates the existence, but rather the belief could never have taken place if not for the existence. I conceive of a perfect God. However, unless that absolutely perfect being exists, I'm not conceiving of God...but I am conceiving of God, so that absolutely perfect entity must exist.
barifkin31 2 years ago
Premise #2 doesn't work because what you're saying is false, and provably so. Omnipotence, or unlimited power, doesn't imply the power to be powerless. That's an oxymoron. That's like saying unlimited sight is capable of not seeing. NO! Omniscience does not imply lack of knowledge either. Same premise applies. You're saying because one is not knowledgable of non-knowledge and one is not powerful enough to not have power, the arguments refute themselves. No, that's a deductive fallacy.
barifkin31 2 years ago
Immaterial things have no attributes? I don't buy that for a second. Do the laws of thermodynamics or the laws of physics not have any attributes? If not, what distinguishes them? Is there no difference between a thought of an orange and the thought of an apple? These almost certainly seem like attributes. The thoughts conjure different mental pictures and feelings, so they have to be different somehow.
barifkin31 2 years ago
All we can know for certain is that we ourselves exist and as we experience life we take in information about our world through our sensors and reconstruct them in our minds. That being said how did the concept of God/Perfection enter our minds without an original transfer of information; it seems apparent to me that since I am not perfect that some form of perfection exist somewhere. By your own logic you prove that the only thing that can't exist is "Nothing"
afailuretocomply 2 years ago
The Brain is the human mind ,stroke, traumatic brain injury prove that.....
mrgetrealpeople 2 years ago
Interesting points, but this is not an "ultimate refutation" for these reasons:
1) Primary attribute of God is not "nothing" just because he is immaterial. According to most theists, God is a spirit or mind.
2) The apparent "contradictions" of God's properties have been refuted by the theory of Middle Knowledge.
3) To say "that which can't be conceived can't exist" is nonsense. Can you conceive of the universe expanding or its size?
4) Jesus is meant to be God, not just anthropropmorphic.
Birdieupon 2 years ago 5
1) You cannot exist as a spirit. Spirit is an emotion or character trait. Emotions and character traits don't have primary attributes. Something cannot exist as just a mind. That's a fallacy of hypostatization.
2) The contradictions of God's properties have not been refuted by the theory of Middle Knowledge. To say so indicates you have no idea what you're yapping about.
3) I can conceive of the Universe expanding, and it's size.
4) Mohammad is supposed to be divine. So what?
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
@Dhorpatan oh dude you need to learn theology Muhammed is said to be a prophet, not divine.
philosophizer149 2 months ago
I am an atheist, but this is horrible. There are stronger ways to disprove the arguments, the meaning of words like omnicient and omnipotent now mean being able to do anything logically possible and knowing anything logically possible, and your arguments are based on premises that are easy to object to.
Feldmm1 2 years ago
@Feldmm1
Your comment was horrible. It contained very little substance, and too much assertion.
And stating that you're Atheist, is a very cliche and tiresome bit of manipulation.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Part 2
I apologize if youtube have a 500 character limit for comments. I also apologize if it is difficult to find the time to post several comments on a video. You want possible objections? Here they are.
1. Your definition of primary attribute seems to assume naturalism already. One can possibly say that God's primary attribute is his spirit, soul, essence, etc. While God is immaterial (i.e. not made of matter according to Merriam-Webster online dictionary), this does not mean that he is
Feldmm1 2 years ago
Part 3
not made of anything, therefore nothing, therefore no primary attribute and therefore not existing. All the definition says is "not made of matter" You are assuming that anything not made of matter is nonexistent and cannot have properties.
2. The properties of omnipotence and omniscience mean being able to do everything logically possible to do and omniscience means to know anything possible to know. These definitions have been this way since medieval times. My source? Philosopher
Feldmm1 2 years ago
Part 4
of Religion James Hall, who taught the Philosophy of Religion course from the teaching company. Look up him if you want to. I do not like these definitions, but that is the way they are! What you should have done to show that Plantinga's first premise is circular is say that it is possible that there is a world in which sentient beings cannot exist. Thus, it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, and you can observe what that does to the rest of the argument.
Feldmm1 2 years ago
Part 5
3. You might be right about your third refutation, at least for Anselm's definition of the argument. However, I can easily imagine one arguing that perfection requires existence by definition, and this can overcome your objection if it is not argued against. It can be argued against (i.e. saying existence is not a property), but you do not mention that in your video, and it is a refutation all by itself. Plantinga's argument does not really have anything to do with whether something
Feldmm1 2 years ago
Part 6
can be conceived or not; it simply observes whether it is possible that a maximally great being exists and lets the argument work its magic.
4. I don't think this argument works. Even if something is beyond true human grasp, humans can create concepts (like being all-powerful) to understand certain things. Also, just because we cannot conceive of something does not mean it does not exist. The reason "nothing" cannot be conceived of and cannot exist is because it is not a state of
Feldmm1 2 years ago
Part 7
being. Existence does not consist of both something and nothing, only something. To say that nothing exists is logically contradictory. Furthermore, you expose the circularity of your argument right here by saying outright that if something is immaterial, it is (or is the equivalent of) nothing. Again, this is simply false by the definition of immaterial and does not work because you presuppose naturalism. Also again, just because we cannot conceive of something does not it does not
Feldmm1 2 years ago
Part 8
mean that it does not exist. Nor does something's nonexistence mean it cannot be conceived of. People can conceive of unicorns, but seeing as they are not perfect, it does not follow that they exist. The reverse does not logically follow either. Let me put your argument in step format.
1. The human mind can only not conceive of something if it does not exist.
2. The human mind cannot conceive of God.
3. God does not exist.
The first premise is completely unproven. All you do
Feldmm1 2 years ago
Part 9
to support it is comparisons with what can't exist and what we have seen to exist. It is possible that the human mind cannot conceive of the reason why particles defy our intuitions (like going through two slits at the same time). Does that mean the reason does not exist? Where's your proof for 1? Why can't some things be beyond human grasp? Just asserting that the reason one cannot conceive of God is that he does not exist does not work. Again, and I cannot stress this enough,
Feldmm1 2 years ago
Part 10
immaterial does not equal nonexistence.
Please tell me if I have accidently created a straw man of any of your arguments.
One thing I will not apologize for is saying that I am an atheist. I do not want to be associated with those that pretend to give logical reasons for God's existence. I am essentially on your side; I just think that these arguments do not work, with the possible exception of #3, which is on really shaky ground. I'm done posting now.
Feldmm1 2 years ago
@Feldmm1
presuppose naturalism?
you mean to say "discount magic?"
KyazuTheInsane 2 years ago
perfection requires non-existence by definition since its only achievable by reduction ad absurdum... ;-)
pikechris1 2 years ago
The notion of imposing human qualities on the objective universe is, in the first place, absurd. There is no such thing as "maximal greatness" because "great" or "large" or anything regarding the scale of things are purely artificial human constructs. Up and down and big and small are merely creations of the human mind. Something universal like god is inherently beyond the capacity of our minds to define.
coolmichaelcho 2 years ago
or you are saying it is the difference between perception and a testable reality, of course that would be a philosophical debate thats been around since man has had the ability to think.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
so it seems what you have done there is disproven qualia, since quality varies so greatly.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
has anyone read Immaneul Kant's 'critique of pure reason'?
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
You breake ALLOT of copyright violations in your videos, as far as music and video goes.
Create your own music and videos, or at least, only use material from firms you have some affillitaion with.
Absit3iniuria7verbis 2 years ago
Site your sources!
Absit3iniuria7verbis 2 years ago
@Absit3iniuria7verbis
"You breake ALLOT of copyright violations in your videos, as far as music and video goes."
^^^No. It's called fair use. I'm very close to
blocking you for your slanderous insinuations, and irritating conduct. Further, you are a lousy hypocrite, since in your video "Why you should read scripture!", you used a good portion of the X-Files theme song. In fact, you used over 40 seconds, and fair use usually cuts off at 30 seconds, though it depends on the the holder.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
I site my sources.
And BTW, ALL USE of copyrighted material is ILLEGAL.
Absit3iniuria7verbis 2 years ago
@Absit3iniuria7verbis
Then your use of the X-Files theme music is illegal you troll. I have no idea why I don't block you forthwith for your hypocrisy, stupidity, and arrogant insolence.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
its*
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
in fact he screws himself over again by making the argument that when god does good it's opposite must exist somewhere, but what he is arguing means there are limits to god's power because if that's the case then god doesn't have total control
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
looking at a quote right here from the man that says the god he is talking about can't actualize everything.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
so that defense is good yes, if you are talking about a god other than the one you are thinking about.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
hilarious all of these people under the age of 20 thinking they have answers when they don't realize it's all been refuted a hundred times over.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
Man, you haven't even seen Maydole's argument. Wait until I upload my series and then please tell me which premise or theorem of the argument is false.
Pumbaelo 2 years ago
pumbaelo, there's no need for you to make an entire series until you can prove something wrong in this.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? -Epicurus
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
Thanks to Alvin Plantinga, virtually all philosophers, atheists and theists alike, agree that this argument is unsound.
Pumbaelo 2 years ago
@Pumbaelo
"Thanks to Alvin Plantinga, virtually all philosophers, atheists and theists alike, agree that this argument is unsound."
^^^The above holds no Intellectual worth, since it's just an arbitrary assertion, that's supposed to be true, JUST BECAUSE YOU SAID SO.
If you have any intellectual bandwidth, to refute this video, other than arbitrary assertions, and arguments from supposed authority, let me know.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
If you don't believe that virtually everyone thinks the LPOE is unsound, go the the "Logical Problem of Evil" page on the internet infidels and read the intro from Jeff Lowder.
Pumbaelo 2 years ago
@Pumbaelo
Why are you talking about the Logical Problem of Evil, when I'm talking about Ontological arguments?
And why did you ban me from your page like a craven coward?
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
"Why are you talking about the Logical Problem of Evil, when I'm talking about Ontological arguments?"
I was responding to a comment that used the LPOE. Read it for yourself.
"And why did you ban me from your page like a craven coward?"
Because I don't want your annoying messages. You'll be allowed to comment on my videos on Maydole's argumen soon.
Pumbaelo 2 years ago
@Pumbaelo
"Because I don't want your annoying messages. You'll be allowed to comment on my videos on Maydole's argumen soon."
^^^^You're a hypocritical joke. I could ban you for all your annoying comments, like that ignorant PM you sent me.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Fine, then ban me. You stop annoying me, I stop annoying you. Deal?
Pumbaelo 2 years ago
if you are talking about his free will defense there are plenty of holes in that.
"Note that the defense only answers the logical problem of evil which is the claim that God cannot possibly exist in an evil world."
the god he is talking about is not omnipotent, since he believes there are things that god cannot actualize.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
Sounds like you really fit to this channel. Then I don't want to disturb you anymore. Have a nice day.
Pumbaelo 2 years ago
wtf, do you not concede the god he is talking about is not omnipotent?
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
so let's see here: evolution, life being created in a lab which shows it can happen on it's own accord.
wait, why did you say science is proving a god again?
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
hey hey, the science supports god guy is back.
science supported god again when they figured out how to create the basic elements of RNA.
wired . com /wiredscience/tag/rna/
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
@ggcage
"Every function of a computer runs on mathematics. The problem is there is no mathematical equation that can equate qualia. Qualia cant be described in physical terms, therefore it is no physical"
^^^The above fails, since the prior analogy upon which is was founded, was exposed as a double fallacy.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
@ggcage
"If pure naturalism is true, then our brains are really just computers."
^^^Fail. Fallacy of Begging the Question. Since you render a baseless assertion, you do nothing to logically substantiate.
it's also a fallacy of false analogy, since the comparison of the brain to a computer is erroneous, since the brain is a biological phenomenon, while a computer is not. A computer is an artificial machine. The brain is apart of a living organism.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Naturalism strongly supports determinism, and determinism states that EVERYTHING is predetermined. "There is no true present, the present is only the past in the now."
Absit3iniuria7verbis 2 years ago
@ggcage
"Qualia is what makes red red, and its what makes pain hurt. Qualia is everywhere, and yet it cant be described in words. It can only be described by relating it to other qualia."
^^^The above fails, since it's a neo-mystical assertion, which is self refuting in it's truth value. You cannot use the word qualia, to explain (X), when the word Qualia, cannot be explained, but by invoking an erroneous tautology. That's circular reasoning and a fallacious floating abstraction.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
uh oh wait...if science proves man evolved then that means there was no adam and eve and thus no reason for jesus to die. i think science just liberated us from the stupidity of christianity! we're done here guys it's all over, go celebrate!!!
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
also on that note, we found another missing link Ida! thank you science for proving evolution and yet somehow by that guy's word pointing out a creator.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
just make sure the next time you reach that deep in your ass to pull a statement like that you don't get your head stuck.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
"Science points to God, period."
uuuuuh no, how far in your ass did you have to go to pull that out?
even Hawking who is christian said he sees no reason a creator was needed to start the universe.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
Damn that was good.. I would also add that all Ontological arguments are really, really guhey.. the smug satisfaction these guys seem to derive from this wafer thin construct of philosophical dumbfuckery is hilarious.. not a single human being has been swayed to faith by this bullshit, not even it's most vocal proponents.. it's for rationalization of preexisting belief without evidence and righteous defense of faith.. these guys are also dicks.
SofaKingLoaded 2 years ago
@fingtyin
"sounds,"
^^^Sound is a travelling wave. It is a disturbance through air with the transference of energy. As such, it's material, and has a primary attribute(wave/energy)
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
EVERYTHING has energy as its primary attribute Dhoorf, even God!
And energy is below the level of what is termed material. No one calls quantum mechanics a study of things material, except Dhoorfs that is.
Absit3iniuria7verbis 2 years ago
@Absit3iniuria7verbis
"EVERYTHING has energy as its primary attribute Dhoorf, even God!"
^^^Who is Dhoorf?
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
You are the Dhoorf.
Absit3iniuria7verbis 2 years ago
@fingtyin
"circulations"
^^^I don't know what you mean by this.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Dhorpatan, just a question: abstract objects like networks, circulations and sounds, wich have no primary attributes, don't they exist?
fingtyin 2 years ago
@fingtyin
"abstract objects like networks,"
^^^A Network is an interconnected system of things or people. People and things are material, and thus have a primary attribute.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Come to think of it, "god" pretty much has everything in common with nothing.
hydroids 2 years ago
You should send a paper like this to Philo!
Deliratio 2 years ago
@Deliratio
"You should send a paper like this to Philo!"
^^^What are you talking about? Paper like this? This is a video. And what is a Philo? Some Philosophy website?
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Philo is a secular philosophy of religion journal. You should try writing a paper i n which you give the argumentation in the video and send it to the editorial board.
Deliratio 2 years ago
This video is a pure rip-off of other atheists work, like Hoppkins, Freud and Monte.
Absit3iniuria7verbis 2 years ago
@Absit3iniuria7verbis
Have any proof for your slander other than it being true, just because you said so?
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Saying that God does not exist, and basing that claim around a materialistic philosophy is nothing new.
Such logic is as rediculous and reductionistic, as if you said that love=pheromones, when love in fact is a mutual psychological understanding between two or more persons.
Scientific American has also turned its back to atheism, there are tons of articles and essays there about the holographic Universe, and spirituality in science.
Absit3iniuria7verbis 2 years ago
@Absit3iniuria7verbis
The Law of Identity, applies to all actual existence, and this is proven by the corollary of the contrary. Since "NOTHING", has no compositional nature. No Identity. That's why "NOTHING" is "NOTHING", and that's why your God is non-existent.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Dhoorf, every atheist do by definition not believe in God, ergo they think God is "nothing".
Me and Aristotle have both demolished your "Law of Identity" argument. God is never said to be nothingness. Infinite and being immaterial does not equal being non-existent, due to the fact of our universe being a physical manifestation of Gods immaterial being. The Universe is in harmony and exibit all the characteristics of God.
Absit3iniuria7verbis 2 years ago
I debunked your previous anti-intelligent-design video, by pointing out the scientific errors in your logic. Science points to God, period. You will continue to loose every science debate until you accept that fact.
Absit3iniuria7verbis 2 years ago
Dhor, you are just toying with these troglodytes at this point. Great refutation of another argument which just wants to argue god into existence.
Cheers
lynchmobb2000 2 years ago 2
Great arguments. I'll use these, they are very strong.
stevenweir76 2 years ago 2
I am no-thing.
KosmicCitizen 2 years ago
Where did you get the Mike Campochiaro video from?
MikeCampochiaro2 2 years ago
Jake has totally failed to refute any of the refutations in this video. He has further failed to render a single referral to reality for something that exists, that's immaterial.
Thus this video continues to stand as an total refutation of all Ontological Arguments. Jakes God is disproved, since immaterial existence is impossible, and that was proved by my argument from kinetic potentiality, the Law of Identity, and the corollary of the contrary. Jake's Chrisitan worldview is illegitimate.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Nothingness is not the same as immaterial. They may both be difficult or even impossible to truly concieve, but doesn't mean they don't exist.
Just because God's primary attribute is inconcievable, it doesn't mean His secondary attributes are. You can know someone's personality without knowing what they look like/are made of.
ggcage 2 years ago
@ggcage
Your epistemology is utterly bankrupt. There were so many things wrong with what you said, it's hard to know where to start.
Suffice to say, you can know SOMEONE'S personality, because when you say SOMEONE, it's obvious you're referencing HUMANS, of which we know WHAT HUMANS PRIMARY ATTRIBUTE IS.
Your God doesn't exist, and the God concept is a complete joke.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Well suppose you had humans, aliens who were not made of carbon compounds, highly intelligent robots, and aliens made of pure energy, and all these species would be mentally identical. If you recieved, say, a YouTube comment from one, you would know a bit about their personality, but you would not know their primary attribute.
ggcage 2 years ago
@ggcage
"but you would not know their primary attribute."
^^^But no one would say, or is saying the aliens are immaterial. Christianity clams it's God is immaterial, therefore, since immaterial existence is impossible, the Christian God doesn't exist.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
The problem is that if immaterial existance is impossible, then there is no soul, and our minds are really just highly sophisticated organic machines. Although a computer as complex as the brain would be able to produce human interaction, it would not be able to percieve. That is to say, it would be able to record and react to its enviorment, but it would not actually experience its enviorment. I guess the thing is, if there is no immaterial, why are we not philisophical zombies?
ggcage 2 years ago
@ggcage
"why are we not philisophical zombies?"
^^^What prevents evolution from evolving free will and higher consciousness?
if you can't explicate a barrier that would prevent evolution from doing so, then your claim that without a soul, we would be zombies, fails totally.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Conciousness is the result of experiencing qualia. Qualia is what makes red red, and its what makes pain hurt. Qualia is everywhere, and yet it cant be described in words. It can only be described by relating it to other qualia.
If pure naturalism is true, then our brains are really just computers. Every function of a computer runs on mathematics. The problem is there is no mathematical equation that can equate qualia. Qualia cant be described in physical terms, therefore it is no physical
ggcage 2 years ago
@ggcage
"Conciousness is the result of experiencing qualia."
^^^^Consciousness is an emergent property, created from networked neurons, and cerebral complexity.
This is proven by empirical evidence, and emergent processes.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
The problem is that 'consciousness' is a word that has come to have several meanings in the English language.
I believe what youre refering to is the ability to process information on a scale comparable with the human brain, which is an emergent property.
What I'm talking about though is the ability to experience qualia. There's a big difference between being able to detect an image, store an image, pick out whats in an image, and actually experiencing the image's qualia.
ggcage 2 years ago
"The problem is that 'consciousness' is a word that has come to have several meanings in the English language."
funny you should say that because the definition of qualia is under heavy debate.
and there is more than enough argument going on as to if qualia is even a plausible concept.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
If qualia isn't a plausible concept, then what are we experiencing all the time?
ggcage 2 years ago
Qualia are unobservable in others and unquantifiable in us
what says we are?
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
Well, the thing is that qualia is makes up everything we know about the world. If qualia doesn't exist, then nothing else does. Right now while you are reading this text, you are experiencing qualia in the form of black and white letters. If the qualia doesn't exist, then the comment doesn't exist.
ggcage 2 years ago
no, it doesn't. this comment exists because matter exists.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
how about you define what you mean by qualia, it is not like it is one universally accepted term.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
Ok, what I mean by 'qualia' is well, quality. For instance qualia is what makes the difference between simply recognizing a 700 nm wavelength of light, and actually seeing red.
Qualia is basically the quality of our experiences. It's what red looks like, what cheese tastes like, what pain feels like. It's what prevents us from being 'philisophical zombies'.
ggcage 2 years ago
uhm, that would almost make sense if those things were true for everyone, what about the millions of people who see red as green? i don't think you thought this through.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
It's still qualia. It's just a different type of qualia. The concept of qualia is still valid, and there is no physical explanation for it.
ggcage 2 years ago
For every Q (fact), there must me an X (foundation),
that grounds Q in Y(justification).
G(God), cannot provide Universal
instantiation of (Y), as
(G) presupposes prior (Q).
Only (Obj)Objectivism can provide
(X) to instantiate (Y) for (Q).
Therefore, Theism presupposes Objectivism.
God is necessarily false.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? -Epicurus
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
o_0
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
You use Aristotles Law of Identity and YOU IGNORE COMPLTELY ARISTOTLES IDEAS ABOUT GOD.
According to Aristotle:
God is all actuality, Actus Purus. To prove that there is a Supreme Cause is one of the tasks of metaphysics the Theologic Science. And this Aristotle undertakes to do in several portions of his work on First Philosophy.
Absit3iniuria7verbis 2 years ago
@Absit3iniuria7verbis
Your made up God doesn't exist. It violates the Law of Identity. Immaterial existence is impossible.
You have shown nothing that refutes this, other than biased nonsense.
You can refutes this only by rendering a referral to reality of actual existence, that's immaterial.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Aristotles Law of Identity says nothing against God`s existence.
Aristotle clearly proved that God exists in his theological works, and he showed that God is the supreme actuality.
You have obviously been using the Law of Identity in complete ignorance of what its creator had in mind for it.
This is karma, you are now simply paying for your lousy research into Aristotles great ideas.
Absit3iniuria7verbis 2 years ago
@Absit3iniuria7verbis
"This is karma, you are now simply paying for your lousy research into Aristotles great ideas."
^^^^The Law of Identity is recognized as fact, and Aristotle, if he believed in a God, did not prove God exists. THAT'S WHY GOD, UNLIKE THE LAW OF IDENTITY, IS NOT A LAW, OR A PROVEN FACT.
The ignorance of what you're saying is equivalent to saying, because Newton believed in a God, God must be real, because Newtons ideas on optics and gravity were correct.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
In the metaphysical order, the highest determinations of Being are Actuality and Potentiality. Actuality and potentiality are above all the Categories; they are found in all beings, with the exception of the Supreme Cause, in Whom there is no imperfection, and, therefore, no potentiality. God is all actuality, Actus Purus. All other beings are composed of actuality and potentiality.
Absit3iniuria7verbis 2 years ago
Your twarted use of the Law of Identity, is equivalent to using syringes as popstickles.
Aristotle MADE the law of identity, and he thus knows its limitations better than anyone else.
And he concluded that GOD IS.
Absit3iniuria7verbis 2 years ago
@Absit3iniuria7verbis
Actuality and potentiality are not primary attributes. Your God has no primary attribute, therefore, your God does not exist.
It's that simple. And as for your comment about Aristotle. If I'm not mistaken he was either agnostic, or pagan. Can you substantiate his belief in ONE GOD, by sending a link to me by PM? Otherwise, it looks like you're wrong there as well.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Google Aristotle+God it is that simple Dhoorf.
Aristotle believed in a one God, though he partially believed God was a part of our Universe, so his views differs from Platos.
Dhoorf you are, and you are not the one who decides what is a primary attribute or not. You have no idea what a primary attribute is in the first place, do you? Define primary attribute Dhoorf.
Absit3iniuria7verbis 2 years ago
@Absit3iniuria7verbis
"You have no idea what a primary attribute is in the first place, do you? Define primary attribute Dhoorf"
^^^It's defined in this video. Since your made up God doesn't have one, your God doesn't exist.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
You are a close-minded person, and your life will always feel as isolated as your mind is.
Give me a link to the academic definition, not the Dhoorfademic one.
Absit3iniuria7verbis 2 years ago
this is why xians make me physically ill, if i get to heaven and it is the xian god judging me and he asks why i wouldn't believe i'm going to say because of all your idiotic followers who claim to know everything about you. he should understand.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
your argument is 'i believe in god and therefore know everything about him and his attributes'
god is a giant school bus who enjoys vanilla ice cream PRAISE JESUS
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
you sound like the stupid children you are, you arent making any point other than you are mindless drones ready to spit out whatever your church and parents told you.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
all you idiotic christians are doing is coming in here and stating you beliefs.
WHY????
God possesses the highest and most complete reality, since He is in the highest grade of determinateness. <<<NOT FACT of any sort
you think coming in here wasting yours and my time stating your stupid beliefs you have no basis for is good?
fuck off the lot of yah
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
one of you xians explain to me how we are modeled physically after a god who is essentialy immaterial.
thnx
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
@Absit3iniuria7verbis
bullshit, stop stating things you dont know as truth
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
"Jakes God is disproved, since immaterial existence is impossible, and that was proved by my argument from kinetic potentiality, the Law of Identity, and the corollary of the contrary. Jake's Chrisitan worldview is illegitimate. "
LMFAO
TheIrrationalAtheist 2 years ago
@Continued @Russ
If you act in such ways again, one more time, I'm blocking you Russ. Start acting more mature, even if you are just an 18 year old kid. I'm giving you a fair warning. Don't force me to ban you bro.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
The only thing you are doing in this video, is trying to debunk your own concept of God. Your OWN concept of God. An atheist refuting his own concept of God, is not an argument against anything but that in which he personally imagined.
You pick and choose here like a spoiled child in a toystore, you fragment God to such a level, that you are not talking about God at all.
You have debunked nothing but yourself.
Absit3iniuria7verbis 2 years ago
@Absit3iniuria7verbis
Your comment was weightless. All you did was make a huge, unargued for assertion.
In what way does this video refute it's own concept of God? You never specifically explain, so your comment holds no weight.
In other words, how does this video concept of God, differ from your God, or the Christian God?
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
§Your comment was weightless. All you did was make a huge, unargued for assertion.§
Super massive simplification of comment, first and last, symptom of intellectual decay.
How does this video concept of God, differ from your God, or the Christian God?
Answer: God is ALL about love and Universal Brotherhood and care among Gods creatures.
God experience ignorance, and how it feels like to be a human, through our souls. God experience himself partly through us, both theist and atheists.
Absit3iniuria7verbis 2 years ago
@Absit3iniuria7verbis
Do you have any idea what the Ontological argument even is?
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
Trying to change the cource of our discussion I see, errrr.
Reply to what I wrote, not what you wish I wrote.
Absit3iniuria7verbis 2 years ago
@Absit3iniuria7verbis
That's just the thing. What you wrote
indicates you don't know what you're talking about, and don't even know what Ontological argument are.
if you did, you wouldn't think this video debunks my own concept of God.
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
You ignore many attributes of God, thus this video is not about God, but purely absolutes out of context.
You use Aristotles Law of Identity and YOU IGNORE COMPLTELY ARISTOTLES IDEAS ABOUT GOD.
According to Aristotle:
God is all actuality, Actus Purus. All other beings are composed of actuality and potentiality, a dualism which is a general metaphysical formula for the dualism of matter and form, body and soul, substance and accident, the soul and its faculties, passive and active intellect.
Absit3iniuria7verbis 2 years ago