Imagine Steve. He is a white house lawn troll. He is a white house lawn troll greater than any white house lawn troll that can be conceived. A white house lawn troll that exists is a greater conception than one that does not. Therefore, there is a really awesome troll named Steve living on the white house lawn. Its only logical
It is possible that a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists. If it is possible that a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists, then a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in some possible world. If a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in some possible world, then a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in every possible world. If a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in every possible world, a maximally great sock stealing coffee p
i always regarded the ontological argument for god as a virtual "what if" construct, with no connection to our current reality. It is also in regard of the perspective for occams razor, an unnecessary complication and produces more questions than answers.
Perhaps allot is going right over my head but I fail to see why the ontological argument should be considered anything other than laughable. "I have in my mind the image of a perfect pink bunny. In order to be perfect it would have to exist because if it did not exist it would not be perfect. Therefore it exists."
Thoughts can construct all kinds of crap. I can think of a an alligator with the head of a duck and the tail of a lion. Doesn't mean it exists in reality.
"This has been refuted by Kant many years ago..."
While Kant's objection does refute St. Anselm's version, it is irrelevant to contemporary, modal versions of the argument. Alvin Plantinga's, for example, does not assume that God exists (for Kant rightly pointed out that existence is not a property), nor does it assume that an existent being is greater than a non-existent being. No good refutations have ever been supplied for the contemporary versions.
*facepalm* So now you're stalking me? Great, No, the idea of a MGB is not logically incoherrent, as I've said, and as Robert Maydoles Modal Perfection argument shows:
1) If a property is a great-making property, its negation is a lesser-making property.
2) GMP's do not entail LMP's.
3) Maximal-greatness is a GMP.
4) Therefore, MG doesn't entail its negation of non-MG.
5) Therefore, a MGB is logically coherent and possible.
Because I'm guessing you have no idea what I just said, I will try to explain:
If something is logically incoherent, then all properties would entail the negation of the property, including the property itself. For example, let’s take square circularity, something that we can agree is logically incoherent and therefore impossible. If square-circularity is impossible, then all things would have non-square circularity. . If all things had non-square circularity, than all...
...properties would entail non-square circularity, including square-circularity itself. Therefore, by asserting that square-circularity is possible, we are saying that both square-circularity and non-square-circularity are possible. According to the principle of explosion, if one asserts two contradicting statements as premises, anything can logically be concluded from them. By asserting that square-circularity and non-square circularity are both possible, we are asserting...
...two contradicting statement, and, via the law of non-contradiction, our argument in favor of square-circularity would fail. Now, suppose, that maximal-greatness was impossible. All things would then have non-maximal-greatness. Therefore, all properties would entail non-maximal-greatness, including maximal-greatness itself. But as has been shown by the modal perfection argument, maximal-greatness cannot entail non-maximal greatness. Therefore, maximal-greatness is...
@THEEVANTHETOON Let me guess tomorrow you claim that you responded to my argument. just like you claim to have responded to my comment regarding biblical verses which contradict your assertion that Yahweh is omniscient omnipresent and omnipotent
"just like you claim to have responded to my comment regarding biblical verses"
Do you know why I claim I did? Because I did, twice. I spent--no, wasted--30 minutes of my times doing research on those verses, looking up interpretations, etc. and then it goes in one ear and out the other. So, if it will make you happy, give me the verses again, I will respond to them, and this time, READ WHAT I WROTE!
@THEEVANTHETOON". I spent--no, wasted--30 minutes of my times doing research on those verses, l" yet when I brought up the subject that there are verses that claim that your god is not omniscient not omnipotent and not omnipresent ., you said nothing
IS EVERYTHING ETERNAL, DOES NOTHING EXIST, OR DID EVERYTHING POP INTP BEING, UNCAUSED, OUT OF NOTHING? MMMaaayyybbbeee iiittt wwwooouuulllddd hhheeelllppp iiifff III tttyyypppeeeddd rrreeeaaallllllyyy ssslllooowwwlllyyy.
@THEEVANTHETOON .and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of Jehovah God amongst the trees of the garden. And Jehovah God called unto the man, and said unto him, Where art thou (Genesis 3:8-9, ASV)
Much from showing that God is no omnipresent, it actually greater emphasizes the fact that He is. Adam and Eve tried to hide from God, but they could not. Why? Because God is omniscient and omnipresent.
"Genesis 6:6-7"
I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here. It just reveals that God was upset that man had become so evil.
@THEEVANTHETOON and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of Jehovah God amongst the trees of the garden. And Jehovah God called unto the man, and said unto him, Where art thou (Genesis 3:8-9, ASV) How do you explain that God didn't know where the man and his wife were hiding?
@THEEVANTHETOON And Jehovah repenteth that He hath made man in the earth, and He grieveth Himself--unto His heart. And Jehovah saith, "I wipe away man whom I have prepared from off the face of the ground, from man unto beast, unto creeping thing, and unto fowl of the heavens, for I have repented that I have made them." (Genesis 6:6-7, YLT)
@THEEVANTHETOON Unto a land flowing with milk and honey: for I will not go up in the midst of thee; for thou art a stiffnecked people: lest I consume thee in the way. (Exodus 33:3, KJV)
This verse speaks not so much of God's location as His interaction with the Israelites. He is simply stated that He will aid them less and His presence would become less visible to them, as context reveals.
@THEEVANTHETOON So your god was incapable of conveying his thoughts to man without any confusion. You would think he would have know something like that
"So your god was incapable of conveying his thoughts to man without any confusion"
No, the Theist belief if God gave us free-will, but we chose to rebel against Him. It has nothing to do with us not know, but us not wanting to.
"I see you have conceeded that my argument is valid?"
You're kidding me right? Is said your logic structure is valid, but the argument is false because 2) is wrong. I've shown you why God is possible, and therefore not impossible...
@THEEVANTHETOON And Jehovah was with Judah; and drove out the inhabitants of the hill-country; for he could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. (Jdg 1:19)
So I see that you have conceeded that the ontological argument is valid? If not, please refute the modal perfection argument that I have presented, as you have not even addressed it.
...You have not even responded to my argument about the possiblity of God, and yes, I have responded to yours. Seriously, I've got better things to do than argue with someone who as an ass for a brain.
"Your god is powerless against Iron chariots?
Maybe I should type in all capital letters. For the 5th time:
Many explanations are provided for this, none of which conclude that God cannot be omnipotent...
Some suggest that the first clause in this verse terminates 1:18, such as the NIV, and further suggest that the second clause is a completely different incident all-together. Some suggest that did not help the Israelites because they rebelled against Him, as context makes clear. Please read the entire chapter.
Don't you even think about rambling off shit that I didn't respond to you.
...logically coherent, as it does not entail its opposite. Because maximal-greatness is logical coherent, it is therefore possible.
"Did you claim that your MGB is omniscient omnipotent omni-benevalent"
I did, and I even researched verses from the Bible that define God with those attributes, though I'm guessing it went in one ear and out your ass, as has everything else I've said.
"Possibly a maximally great being does not exist"
Because God is, by definition, necessary, either He exists in all possible worlds or no possible world. I maintain. It is impossible for both to be true. I maintain that God is possible, and therefore would exist in every possible world. When you assert that it is possible for God to not exist, you are saying that it is not possible for God to exist, or, in other words, God is impossible. As I have shown with Robert...
...Maydole's model perfection argument, God's existence is possible. So, unless you are able to refute the modal perfection argument, and build up a case that a maximally-great being is a logically incoherent concept, your argument fails, and the ontological argument proves true, and it is a very strange Atheism indeed who hold the existence of a maximally-great being who it does not call God.
Your argument is valid (the conclusion follows the premises), but it is not sound (the premises are not correct). You stated that it is not possible for a maximally-great being to exist. I showed that it was possible, and you have yet to even respond to this argument. So until you refute the modal perfection argument, and show that a MGB is logically incoherent, the ontological argument stands.
@THEEVANTHETOON Do you really think that Alvin's argument really proves God's existence? In my opinion we cannot debate about something being necesarily or the excellence by itself because these concepts are only in our intelligent mind, we cannot debate about the "noúmenon". It's just imposible to prove God's existence simply because we lack the "a posteriori" part for this. I mean, can you give me an example of something proven to be real, to exist, without needing experimental data?
"Do you really think that Alvin's argument really proves God's existence?"
The argument is valid and there is good reason to believe that the premises are sound, so why wouldn't it be?
You are arguing that something has to be emprirically verifiable for it to be true. But can you empirically verify that this is true? No, you can't. Furthermore, there are things that are reasonable to accept without empirical verification, such as logic, mathematics, and the metaphysical realm
@THEEVANTHETOON "This argument is valid" yeah for believers maybe. Axiom 5 is pretty incoherent... A being that has possible existence turns into a necesarily true being... meh.
Logic and mathematics are based on time and space. And methaphysical judgements such as "Man is free" are not verifiably because they do not refer to the phenomenical world but to the noumenical.
Axiom S5 states 2 things: 1) possibly P implies necessarily possibly P, and 2) possibly necessary P implies necessary P. No where does it state that "Possibly P implies necessary P". It also, if I understand you correctly, has nothing to with a transformation or, as you put it, "turning into".
"You forgot to mention that there is an anti Axion 5"
There is not "anti-Axiom S5". Assuming you are referring to the anti-ontological argument, I've already refuted that (and your reply to this objection was, no offense, really bad). My objection shouldn't be hard to find, as I've send it to you a dozen or so times.
@THEEVANTHETOON Y The argument omniscience and free will incomparably has yet to be reconciled by any theist.> I never got a response to the question Is there a theory which reconciles free will with an omniscient god?
"The argument omniscience and free will incomparably has yet to be reconciled by any theist"
*facepalm* It would help you actually read what I wrote. The burden of proof is on you to tell me why they are incompatible, and so far, every one of your arguments relies on the faulty assumption that God has to take away free-will for Him to know what we are going to do. Here is basically how this is going:
@emailpobox666 ..and here is why... You: Omniscience and free-will are incompatible. This has never been reconciled by any Theist. Me: They are not, and here is why. You: Omniscience and free-will... X10 You: Omniscience and free-will... Me: *facepalm* "I never got a response to the question..." "Yes, as knowledge of the future has absolutely nothing to do with the decisions that make it up. THEEVANTHETOON 2 hours ago "
@THEEVANTHETOON Wow I'm awed at your genius . Philosophers have yet to resolve this problem for thousands of years and you with one proclamation have declared it not to be a problem. Who would have thought that this enormous problem would be solved on you tube . Can I have your autograph? . Fame an fortune are bound to follow . Since I was the one to asked you the question can I get 10% ?
"Philosophers have yet to resolve this problem for thousands of years"
No, it's not a problem. Theologians have resolved it time and tme again. It is the Atheists who have yet to prove that God has to take away our free-will to be omniscient and omnipotent. We've met our burden of proof in reagrds to this, and we're waiting on you.
It's not a "problem", as you seem to think it is. No Atheist has ever demonstrated that God has to take away our free-will for Him to be omniscient and omnipotent. So no, the burden of proof is not on me the "resolve the problem", but for you to show that there is a problem in the first place.
As for Theologians: Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Luis de Molina, William Lane Craig, etc.
"I saw you on the other channel looking for an answer"
No, I was horsing around on the internet because I had all my homework done, and I was just curious to see what the Atheist Experience had to say about this.
"how did the theologians resolve the problem?"
I'll resolve the problem when you prove to me that there is one in the first place.
You are making a claim: namely that omniscience and free-will are incompatible because the omniscient being would have to take away the agent's free-will. As you know, claims need evidence, and I am waiting for you to supply me with this evidence.
@THEEVANTHETOON For Christ's sake ( Excuse the Pun) You had 3 days to answer my question. You were on the other channels soliciting the answer from others and still you do not have an adequate answer
"You were on the other channels soliciting the answer from others"
You're funny. No, I was playing around on the internet waiting for you to respond. You're really not that good at debating as you like to think you are, and no, my life does not center around you.
You are claiming that God has to take away free-will for Him to know what we are going to do. In other words, you are making a claim, and claims need evidence. Where is your evidence?
Some time today please: why does God have to take away free-will to know what we are going to do? If my answer is so "inadequate", why don't you answer it.
@THEEVANTHETOON I asked you first . You Claim it's not a problem. Theologians have resolved it time and tme again" and I asked "Exactly how did the theologians resolve the problem?" You never responded .
"you were incorrect about it not being a problem and your embarrassed to say so"
*facepalm* No, I'm still waiting for you to show me that an omniscient being must take away our free-will if He is to know everything? If I'm only a kid, surely such a question shouldn't be hard to answer by the big-mean debating machine that you like to think you are, should it?
I'll answer your question when you answer mine: you are claiming that for God to know what we are going to do, He must take away our free-will. This is a claim, and claims need evidence. So until you show me that free-will and omniscience are incompatible in the first place (which you have yet to do without making unjustified assumptions, such as the one mentioned above), I have no question to answer.
@THEEVANTHETOON You said "it's not a problem. Theologians have resolved it time and tme again"" Acknowledging that there was a problem ( you know the same problem you are asking me to restate, that problem) You CLAIM that it (THE PROBLEM) was resolved. I asked for you to prove your claim. You ask me to state the same PROBLEM that your acknowledge and are aware ?You made a CLAIM that the PROBLEM has been resolved, I asked for evidence which you FAILED to provide
Ignoring that fact that you are guilty of the glittering-generalities fallacy, you claim that for God to be omniscient, He must take away our free-will. My answer to this is this is an unjustified assumption; why can't God know what choices we are going to choose before we choose them, for God is timeless or omnitemporal? I claim that you are wrong because God's foreknowledge has nothing to do with our choice. You claim you are right because...
@THEEVANTHETOON "this is an unjustified assumption;" Why ? You said the problem has been solved time and again by many theologians. Are you seriously saying that they would work on a non existent problem. Or are you unable to provide Evidence of your CLAIM
Yes, I claimed it was solved because, as many have pointed out, God does not have to take away our free-will to know what we are going to do. You claim that He does, but this claim has not yet met its burden of proof. Some time today, please.
@THEEVANTHETOON You said and I quote " it's not a problem. Theologians have resolved it time and tme again" and I asked "Exactly how did the theologians resolve the problem?" You never responded .
@THEEVANTHETOON You also forgot to mention that your god';s existence is predicated on the A theory of time being correct and that the B theory of time would have to be incorrect.
"You also forgot to mention that your god';s existence is..."
Remind me of what the A and B theories of time are (and don't tell me to look it up, because I'd execpt you to understand what it is yourself if you are going to use this argument).
"Omniscience omni benevolence omni potent and omnipresence are incompatible withe each other"
@THEEVANTHETOON Let's strip away the emotional ties you have to the argument Proposition X the definition which includes the requirement that X is true necessarily. Possibly X is false There is a world which X is False X is necessarily false
And I've shown why this statement cannot be true if we insert maximally-great being via Robert Maydole's Modal Perfection argument.
"The labels, A-theory and B-theory, are derived from the analysis of time and change"
I firgured that out, but what are they? How are they different? Why is God incompatible with the B-theory? I'm going to be sutbborn and not look it up, as it's your argument, and you should understand the terms you are using.
@THEEVANTHETOON The B-theory of time is a term, given to one of two positions taken by theorists, in the philosophy of time. The labels, A-theory and B-theory, are derived from the analysis of time and change developed by Cambridge philosopher J. M. E. McTaggart in The Unreality of Time, in which events are ordered via a tensed A-series or a tenseless B-series.
@THEEVANTHETOON You also forgot that Omniscience omni benevolence omni potent and omnipresence are incompatible withe each other making the concept incoherent
@THEEVANTHETOON You also never answered my question .Is there any theory of free will which could be considered compatible with a being perfectly knowing the future?
"Logic and mathematics are based on time and space"
You're confused. The laws of nature are dependent on time and space, not the laws of math or logic. Numbers, for example, don't actually exist, as they have no causal relation with any other thing. They are just concepts. The laws of logic describe the way things are, such as why A and not A cannot both be true at the same time, or why A=A. The laws of logic don't "collapse" past the space-time contimuum.
@THEEVANTHETOON Three reasons. 1) You were the first one to send me a PM (so if you are thinking I'm debating here because I don't want to "embarrass myself", think again). 2) So we can have more complete responses. 3) So we don't take up space on a comment board. No, it has nothing to do with your debating skills.
While this definition is overly simplified, metaphysics can be defined as "what actually exists". There is no way to prove that anything exists apart from our mind. I enjoy confusing my teachers and classmates by telling that I do not exist. They suppose that I do, because they can see me, but I ask them how do they know that I am not a figment of their imagination, or, in other words, that their senses are not deceiving them? They don't.
"There is no way to prove that anything exists apart from our mind" what happened Philosopher? You answered your own question about God!
Don't take it personal, you are very intelligent to be just 15.
You cannot even trust your own mind, what about dreams? We could actually be living in something like "Matrix" you know? That's sounds pretty scary to me XD
@gabixu93 Reality is a continuum. Our minds carve it up and categorize it into things. It is infinite and ever changing. It is like a painting that is always morphing. People get stuck in the moment and don't see it for the way it is. Take away our ability to see color and our depth perception and we alter our experience of reality. Our minds make our realities. A fly sees a totally different world than a human. God was created by an organism with a limited perception.
@THEEVANTHETOON Why do you theists try to verify God existence trough logic? Logical judgements are suposed to explain how things work not to add additional information about them.
"But can you empirically verify that this is true"?
@THEEVANTHETOON And before you start picking on the way I phrased that last comment , Craig said I depends on which premise you think is true. So whatever premise you accept you get the answer you want Either Possibly a MGB does not exist or Possibly a MGB exists
@THEEVANTHETOON Even Alvin says that it doesn't prove God existence, you wouldn't need faith to believe in it and you actually do. The argument sounds pretty circular to me... Conclusion proves first premise which is already true. Therefore third premise " It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness" is supposed to be true and only if it's true the argument is valid but how can you prove that it's actually true?
" Philosophers don't ask how, we ask why." So you find explanation to God through concept analyzing (logic)... you must be living in Platon's Ideal world. And let me tell you another thing, what's the difference between me, only "believeng" in something that's logically AND empirically valid, and you, believing in some being whose existence is "logically proven" but not empirically? Can you proove your way?
Is God the answer to "WHY"? Science is still not able to perfectly explain some phenomenom like Universe and "The origin" but does that mean that default answer ("God") is best?
How can you say that mathematics are not based on time and space? Mathematics is possible through the intuition, the structuring of sensibility-------->>>>>>>>>> Logic ( rules of this structure).
You make only one valid observation... yes,. the Ontological Argument as invented by Anselm is deficient. But this is readily admitted by every Christian philosopher I'm aware of. What your presentation fails to do is address the actual "Ontological Argument" as revised by Alvin Plantinga which is the one used by modern Christian philosophers. I'd be interested in hearing a refutation of the revised argument. Thanks.
(continued from below) as is the way of Absurdism, in literature, like the story "Bartleby the Scrivener". Which one do you think is going to live a happier, and not only happier, but a more morally structured life as a better human being? So someone believes, but when he dies it turns out their really is not such thing, so what? He ends up like the rest, decomposing matter in the earth. On the chance that it does exist, the non-believer "burns in hell". Which one would you rather be?
@TheMasterSwordThief First off, even if your theory that the religious are more moral than the nonreligious is correct, illusion =/= reality (besides the fact that such a statement is misleading at best and dishonest at worst, case in point jihadist muslims and crusading christians).
Secondly, Pascals Wager is quite faulty in that it assumes the identity of "god" in this equation is the christian facet of the judeo-christain diety. What if you're wrong about Zeus or Odin? Why just one god?
@idunno22909 You bring up a good point, but that's not what I was getting at, obviously. Please tell me how it's misleading and dishonest? And bringing up events that happened 8 centuries ago hardly solidifies your argument. The Crusades were just about as just as us going to Iraq, if not more. You have a society that lives and breathes Christian faith. So for Muslims to possess that territory was like blasphemy (nothing against Muslims). Almost like if terrorists had control over our capital.
1- You assume that living life with the acceptance of the concept of spiritual eternity automatically makes one live a moral life. What moral guidelines are we using, because prisons in the USA are packed with Christians? You're making rather subjective claims with rather vague and faulty reasonings. I consider that misleading and potentially dishonest
2- Last two lines: Appeal to majority and (what I assume) is an appeal to pity.
@TheMasterSwordThief Also, I never said any thing that had anything to do with the fact of Christians believing in one God. I merely said that a religious man is most likely to live a happier life. And, say you're a gambler, you like placing bets. Which one would you rather bet on? You have either A: You die, and live an immortal and perfect afterlife, or nothing at all happens because no higher being exists. Or B: You die, and you go to hell, or nothing happens. "A" seems most logical to pick.
If this "god" was omniscient as a most deities supposedly are (the monotheistic ones at least) would it not see through such a shallow ploy such as Pascal's Wager? Believing because it is the best option? You betray the shallowness of faith, friend. Once again, in such a situation illusion=/=truth. Just because an answer makes you happier, does not make it factually correct, morally sound, or free from impugnity.
@idunno22909 1. Yes the deity would most likely see through the "ploy". And how is it "betraying the shallowness of faith"? 2. Never said it was factually correct, morally sound. But it would in fact make you happier. Even if a God does not exist. Regardless, how is it not morally sound? You're making a choice to live a certain way, but not because a book tells you too, because your heart and brain tell you to. We don't need the Bible to tell us murder and cheating is wrong, we're born with it.
@TheMasterSwordThief 1a) If such a proposition is faulty at conception, why use it all? 1b) If such a definition of "faith" is offered, does it not follow that the individual in question holds faith in equal regard? Would s/he be guilty of malignancy if not? 2a) Your presupposition that belief in an afterlife necessarily = happiness holds severe structual fault. You're assuming that such belief brings happiness with no concrete proof. Its called begging the question and that's not cool.
@TheMasterSwordThief 2b) "Morally stuctured" =/= morally sound? 2c) How is faking a worldview with such fantastic, nigh incredible implications and touting it as absolute, unquestionable truth not morally bankrupt? If false, any and all baggage such a belief system allows for (misogyny, racism, homophobia, pro-slavery, anti-inquiry) would be UNNECESSARY. Why on earth would one not consider it immoral? 2d) If it's not necessary WHY KEEP USING IT? There are secular worldviews without the bullsh!t.
Ok, let's say, as a basis, a God does not exist. When we die, nothing will happen. Their is no hell, and no heaven. Don't people who believe in God, and are a Christian, or any other religion that believes in an afterlife and a creator/God, in a general sense , live a better life? Think about it... You have someone who believes he's bound for an immortal, perfect afterlife. Next you have someone who believes he's pointless, and life is pointless in the end, because we're all just going to die,
...also, he's actually confirming a metaphysical existence by claiming concepts exist. Are concepts mere reflections or descriptions of physical reality or are there non-physical ideas that can be only attributed to the conceptual? If we can conceive a God, then just because God does not exist in the physical reality, does it show that God does not exist? And if you replace God with pink unicorns, you are simply replacing the object in question and denying the attributes being placed on God.
"an orange is always orange" let's replace the fruit "apple is always orange" logic fails. THere is just as much circular logic used to denounce the ontological argument as there is in it. I'm not saying the onotological argument doesn't have issues. All philosophical arguments run into problems or logic and reason at some point. On the surface, these refutations seem sound, but they are coming from false premesis.
Wow you dolt. Wrong again. You don't have to prove God exists to prove a conditional: If God exists, then He is a necessary being. That conditional is true whether God exists or not you flea.
@CzarDB I'm an atheist. But I'm also very interested in Philosophy, and I have to agree with you. This guy does a horrendous job of "refuting" the ontological argument. 1st, he chooses the easiest version and most primitive version of the argument, then he refutes it poorly. Meanwhile youtube dilettantes fuckin eat it up by high fiving and sucking each other off with painfully bad jokes.
Also, learn the argument you abject hobbit. If the being than which none greater can be thought exists only in the mind (that is, it is only a concept), then the being than which none greater can be thought is a being than which a greater can be thought, which is absurd by reducio. You didn't even portray the argument correctly you goat.
@Smownage@Smownage Another abject buffoon. Anselm's argument is a classical example of a reducio ad absurdum argument. It starts from a premise and then points out that the truth of that premise leads to absurdities. Any PHI 101 student would know this. "He proceeds by a form of argument called reductio ad absurdum -- reduction to absurdity"
@Smownage The reducio follows from the following claim:
The being than which none greater being can be thought is a possible being. The being than which none greater can be thought exists only in the mind (atheist claim) and not in reality. Every possible being that exists only in the mind can be thought to be greater: existing in reality as well. Therefore, the being than which none greater can be thought is a being than which a greater CAN be thought. This is contradictory and absurd.
These are the worst objections to this argument I have ever heard. Anselm doesn't mean God physically exists in the mind you abject dolt. When he says "God exists in the mind" he means that when someone says "God" even the atheist understands what that person is talking about. The concept is present in the mind. He defines God as a being than which none greater can be thought. This is a CONCEPT so your objection is a straw man.
You're kicking a dead horse. The original ontological argument has been considered fallacious by atheists and theist alike for years now.
The ontological argument you are hearing people refer too is most likely Alvin Plantinga’s, which does not commit the fallacies that the original does.
I hate philosophy.Actually I love it but I think it's ridiculous to argue over theories because no matter what someone will always find something wrong with your theory and create a new one, one of there own.Nothing can be truly trusted. BUTTT hey it's fun to argue what you believe in. :)
These arguments don't exist to convince non-believers. They are to keep believers believing after they meet a non-believer. They give theists the ability to derail discussion before it starts and avoid needing to understand what they OR the other guy are saying.
Plus, even if you can get them to follow what you are saying they just give you a, "but where do your morals come from, and what happened before the big bang, the divinity of Christ is scientifically proven, and there are no fossils."
@no2religions How is that different from atheists? Most of the time, when I try to have a discussion with atheists and challenge them on their own points, they just forefeith the discussion with "WHY SHUD I LISTEN 2 U?? U BELIEVE IN A SKY WIZARD BECUAS OF A BOOK OF FAIREY TAELS LOLOLOLOL!!"
@stallion4life Honestly, I would have to guess that what you call "challenging them on their points" was more likely the same thing they had heard 1000 times before, and as such, not seen as a challenge but as someone parroting apologetics. It's also a good bet that if you post your best "challenge" here I can link 10+ videos addressing it. It's not a joke. You say one line and I bet everyone here can tell you the rest of the conversation. So, your challenges, aren't.
@no2religions Funny, I feel the same way about atheist arguments. They tell me something that they very obviously think is going to blow my mind, but instead I just feel insulted that they think I haven't encountered their completely hackneyed argument dozens of times before.
@stallion4life: Seriously, though...why SHOULD people listen to you when you admit that you believe in an invisible, telepathic super-being who runs the entire universe?
And it may be that there's actual proof of those "weirder things", which in that case would make them believable. But there isn't a shred of proof for any god whatsoever.
Imagine Steve. He is a white house lawn troll. He is a white house lawn troll greater than any white house lawn troll that can be conceived. A white house lawn troll that exists is a greater conception than one that does not. Therefore, there is a really awesome troll named Steve living on the white house lawn. Its only logical
KidInTheSweater 1 week ago
therefor: adv. for that [thing]; for that, for it Ex. I will give you my pocket knife if you will give me your watch therefor.
therefore: adv.consequently, hence Ex. I think, therefore I am. I was afraid; therefore I ran.
TwistedLemniscate 3 weeks ago
I am a Christian, and I thoroughly enjoyed this video. Thank you for such a level-headed, clear, and concise rebuttal.
beardbreath 3 weeks ago
None of the objections debunk Alvin Plantinga's ontological argument
Runrunred1 3 weeks ago
Be my lawyer.
TheSyrupMan 4 weeks ago
It is possible that a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists. If it is possible that a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists, then a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in some possible world. If a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in some possible world, then a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in every possible world. If a maximally great sock stealing coffee pot exists in every possible world, a maximally great sock stealing coffee p
TheAnteMatter 1 month ago
4:34 "Your premise is bad and you should feel bad!"
BlarghsGameEditor 1 month ago
i always regarded the ontological argument for god as a virtual "what if" construct, with no connection to our current reality. It is also in regard of the perspective for occams razor, an unnecessary complication and produces more questions than answers.
Serpico261 1 month ago
The greatest conceivable being is one that has taken an arrow to the knee and yet is still out adventuring.
RPFS2008 1 month ago 17
@RPFS2008 Best use of that meme I have ever seen.
In fact, only use of that meme I have ever appreciated. It's brand new, and already way too old IMO. Either way, good on ya :D
zebezd 1 month ago
@RPFS2008 Greatest. Meme. Ever.
BigLundi 1 month ago
@RPFS2008 You just won the internet sir.
Wened 1 month ago
@RPFS2008 SO RANDOM XD
Crobat87 2 weeks ago
@RPFS2008 I got tired of the Skyrim jokes pretty quickly, but that one made me chuckle. :-)
419Films 1 week ago
Is it wrong that im a straight dude that wants to have your babies?
McFluffyNugget 1 month ago 7
@McFluffyNugget well... ontologically:
1. You are a straight dude who wants to have Scott's babies.
2. Straight dudes exists in Scott's mind.
3. It is sexier to have babies with Scott than to just be in Scott's mind alone.
C: You must have Scott's babies; if you did not, you could not be a straight dude.
TheAstrobleme 1 month ago
Ontological is another word for metaphysical
mattgresh1 2 months ago
Perhaps allot is going right over my head but I fail to see why the ontological argument should be considered anything other than laughable. "I have in my mind the image of a perfect pink bunny. In order to be perfect it would have to exist because if it did not exist it would not be perfect. Therefore it exists."
dymchurch1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thoughts can construct all kinds of crap. I can think of a an alligator with the head of a duck and the tail of a lion. Doesn't mean it exists in reality.
Luigi84289 2 months ago
Hot AND intelligent, sweet :)
ChaoticReverie1 2 months ago
I just dont understand why they keep using this argument... This has been refused by Kant many years ago...
gabixu93 3 months ago
@gabixu93
"This has been refuted by Kant many years ago..."
While Kant's objection does refute St. Anselm's version, it is irrelevant to contemporary, modal versions of the argument. Alvin Plantinga's, for example, does not assume that God exists (for Kant rightly pointed out that existence is not a property), nor does it assume that an existent being is greater than a non-existent being. No good refutations have ever been supplied for the contemporary versions.
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON Isn't your MGB incoherent?
emailpobox666 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emailpobox666
"Isn't your MGB incoherent?"
*facepalm* So now you're stalking me? Great, No, the idea of a MGB is not logically incoherrent, as I've said, and as Robert Maydoles Modal Perfection argument shows:
1) If a property is a great-making property, its negation is a lesser-making property.
2) GMP's do not entail LMP's.
3) Maximal-greatness is a GMP.
4) Therefore, MG doesn't entail its negation of non-MG.
5) Therefore, a MGB is logically coherent and possible.
Your move.
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@emailpobox666
Because I'm guessing you have no idea what I just said, I will try to explain:
If something is logically incoherent, then all properties would entail the negation of the property, including the property itself. For example, let’s take square circularity, something that we can agree is logically incoherent and therefore impossible. If square-circularity is impossible, then all things would have non-square circularity. . If all things had non-square circularity, than all...
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@emailpobox666
...properties would entail non-square circularity, including square-circularity itself. Therefore, by asserting that square-circularity is possible, we are saying that both square-circularity and non-square-circularity are possible. According to the principle of explosion, if one asserts two contradicting statements as premises, anything can logically be concluded from them. By asserting that square-circularity and non-square circularity are both possible, we are asserting...
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON Did you claim that your MGB is omniscient omnipotent omni-benevalent
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666
...two contradicting statement, and, via the law of non-contradiction, our argument in favor of square-circularity would fail. Now, suppose, that maximal-greatness was impossible. All things would then have non-maximal-greatness. Therefore, all properties would entail non-maximal-greatness, including maximal-greatness itself. But as has been shown by the modal perfection argument, maximal-greatness cannot entail non-maximal greatness. Therefore, maximal-greatness is...
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON Let me guess tomorrow you claim that you responded to my argument. just like you claim to have responded to my comment regarding biblical verses which contradict your assertion that Yahweh is omniscient omnipresent and omnipotent
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666
"just like you claim to have responded to my comment regarding biblical verses"
Do you know why I claim I did? Because I did, twice. I spent--no, wasted--30 minutes of my times doing research on those verses, looking up interpretations, etc. and then it goes in one ear and out the other. So, if it will make you happy, give me the verses again, I will respond to them, and this time, READ WHAT I WROTE!
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON". I spent--no, wasted--30 minutes of my times doing research on those verses, l" yet when I brought up the subject that there are verses that claim that your god is not omniscient not omnipotent and not omnipresent ., you said nothing
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666
You claim that my premise is incorrect. So what do you object to in the below argument?
"you said nothing"
*facepalm* No comment.
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@THEEVANTHETOONYou claim that my premise is incorrect. So what do you object to in the below argument?
"you said nothing"
*facepalm* No comment.
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666
IS EVERYTHING ETERNAL, DOES NOTHING EXIST, OR DID EVERYTHING POP INTP BEING, UNCAUSED, OUT OF NOTHING? MMMaaayyybbbeee iiittt wwwooouuulllddd hhheeelllppp iiifff III tttyyypppeeeddd rrreeeaaallllllyyy ssslllooowwwlllyyy.
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON Prove that my premise is incorrect . how do you base your assertion that my premise is incorrect?
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON .and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of Jehovah God amongst the trees of the garden. And Jehovah God called unto the man, and said unto him, Where art thou (Genesis 3:8-9, ASV)
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666
"Genesis 3:8-9"
Much from showing that God is no omnipresent, it actually greater emphasizes the fact that He is. Adam and Eve tried to hide from God, but they could not. Why? Because God is omniscient and omnipresent.
"Genesis 6:6-7"
I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here. It just reveals that God was upset that man had become so evil.
"Jdg 1:19"
I've already resonded to this. Check the PM I've sent you.
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@THEEVANTHETOON and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of Jehovah God amongst the trees of the garden. And Jehovah God called unto the man, and said unto him, Where art thou (Genesis 3:8-9, ASV) How do you explain that God didn't know where the man and his wife were hiding?
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON And Jehovah repenteth that He hath made man in the earth, and He grieveth Himself--unto His heart. And Jehovah saith, "I wipe away man whom I have prepared from off the face of the ground, from man unto beast, unto creeping thing, and unto fowl of the heavens, for I have repented that I have made them." (Genesis 6:6-7, YLT)
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON Unto a land flowing with milk and honey: for I will not go up in the midst of thee; for thou art a stiffnecked people: lest I consume thee in the way. (Exodus 33:3, KJV)
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666
"Exodus 33:3"
This verse speaks not so much of God's location as His interaction with the Israelites. He is simply stated that He will aid them less and His presence would become less visible to them, as context reveals.
As for God's omnipresence:
John 4:24- "God is spirit..."
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@THEEVANTHETOON I will not go up in the midst of thee. I will not go not I will not be seen
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON So your god was incapable of conveying his thoughts to man without any confusion. You would think he would have know something like that
emailpobox666 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emailpobox666
"So your god was incapable of conveying his thoughts to man without any confusion"
No, the Theist belief if God gave us free-will, but we chose to rebel against Him. It has nothing to do with us not know, but us not wanting to.
"I see you have conceeded that my argument is valid?"
You're kidding me right? Is said your logic structure is valid, but the argument is false because 2) is wrong. I've shown you why God is possible, and therefore not impossible...
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON And Jehovah was with Judah; and drove out the inhabitants of the hill-country; for he could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. (Jdg 1:19)
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666
So I see that you have conceeded that the ontological argument is valid? If not, please refute the modal perfection argument that I have presented, as you have not even addressed it.
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON So I see you have conceeded that my argument is valid?If not, please refute it as you have not even addressed it.
emailpobox666 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emailpobox666
...You have not even responded to my argument about the possiblity of God, and yes, I have responded to yours. Seriously, I've got better things to do than argue with someone who as an ass for a brain.
"Your god is powerless against Iron chariots?
Maybe I should type in all capital letters. For the 5th time:
Many explanations are provided for this, none of which conclude that God cannot be omnipotent...
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON Your god is powerless against Iron chariots?
emailpobox666 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emailpobox666
Some suggest that the first clause in this verse terminates 1:18, such as the NIV, and further suggest that the second clause is a completely different incident all-together. Some suggest that did not help the Israelites because they rebelled against Him, as context makes clear. Please read the entire chapter.
Don't you even think about rambling off shit that I didn't respond to you.
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emailpobox666
...logically coherent, as it does not entail its opposite. Because maximal-greatness is logical coherent, it is therefore possible.
"Did you claim that your MGB is omniscient omnipotent omni-benevalent"
I did, and I even researched verses from the Bible that define God with those attributes, though I'm guessing it went in one ear and out your ass, as has everything else I've said.
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON 1. By definition a maximally great being is one that exists necessarily and necessarily is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good.
2. Possibly a maximally great being does not exist.
3. Therefore, possibly an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being that, if it exists, exists necessarily, does not exist.
emailpobox666 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emailpobox666
"Possibly a maximally great being does not exist"
Because God is, by definition, necessary, either He exists in all possible worlds or no possible world. I maintain. It is impossible for both to be true. I maintain that God is possible, and therefore would exist in every possible world. When you assert that it is possible for God to not exist, you are saying that it is not possible for God to exist, or, in other words, God is impossible. As I have shown with Robert...
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON continued
4. Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist.
5. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist.
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666
...Maydole's model perfection argument, God's existence is possible. So, unless you are able to refute the modal perfection argument, and build up a case that a maximally-great being is a logically incoherent concept, your argument fails, and the ontological argument proves true, and it is a very strange Atheism indeed who hold the existence of a maximally-great being who it does not call God.
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON I noticed you did not refute my argument.Why is that?
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666
"Could it be that it's as valid as yours?"
Your argument is valid (the conclusion follows the premises), but it is not sound (the premises are not correct). You stated that it is not possible for a maximally-great being to exist. I showed that it was possible, and you have yet to even respond to this argument. So until you refute the modal perfection argument, and show that a MGB is logically incoherent, the ontological argument stands.
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON I say your premise is incorrect.
emailpobox666 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emailpobox666
"I say your premise is incorrect...Prove that my premise is incorrect"
1) If a property is a great-making property, its negation is a lesser-making property.
2) GMP's do not entail LMP's.
3) Maximal-greatness is a GMP.
4) Therefore, MG doesn't entail its negation of non-MG.
5) Therefore, a MGB is logically coherent and possible
I've proved that my premise is correct and that your's is incorrect.
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON Could it be that it's as valid as yours?
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON Do you really think that Alvin's argument really proves God's existence? In my opinion we cannot debate about something being necesarily or the excellence by itself because these concepts are only in our intelligent mind, we cannot debate about the "noúmenon". It's just imposible to prove God's existence simply because we lack the "a posteriori" part for this. I mean, can you give me an example of something proven to be real, to exist, without needing experimental data?
gabixu93 2 months ago
@gabixu93
"Do you really think that Alvin's argument really proves God's existence?"
The argument is valid and there is good reason to believe that the premises are sound, so why wouldn't it be?
You are arguing that something has to be emprirically verifiable for it to be true. But can you empirically verify that this is true? No, you can't. Furthermore, there are things that are reasonable to accept without empirical verification, such as logic, mathematics, and the metaphysical realm
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON "This argument is valid" yeah for believers maybe. Axiom 5 is pretty incoherent... A being that has possible existence turns into a necesarily true being... meh.
Logic and mathematics are based on time and space. And methaphysical judgements such as "Man is free" are not verifiably because they do not refer to the phenomenical world but to the noumenical.
gabixu93 2 months ago
@gabixu93
"Axiom 5 is pretty incoherent"
Axiom S5 states 2 things: 1) possibly P implies necessarily possibly P, and 2) possibly necessary P implies necessary P. No where does it state that "Possibly P implies necessary P". It also, if I understand you correctly, has nothing to with a transformation or, as you put it, "turning into".
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON You forgot to mention that there is an anti Axion 5
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666
"You forgot to mention that there is an anti Axion 5"
There is not "anti-Axiom S5". Assuming you are referring to the anti-ontological argument, I've already refuted that (and your reply to this objection was, no offense, really bad). My objection shouldn't be hard to find, as I've send it to you a dozen or so times.
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON Y The argument omniscience and free will incomparably has yet to be reconciled by any theist.> I never got a response to the question Is there a theory which reconciles free will with an omniscient god?
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666
"The argument omniscience and free will incomparably has yet to be reconciled by any theist"
*facepalm* It would help you actually read what I wrote. The burden of proof is on you to tell me why they are incompatible, and so far, every one of your arguments relies on the faulty assumption that God has to take away free-will for Him to know what we are going to do. Here is basically how this is going:
You: Omniscience and free-will are incompatible.
Me: They are not...
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON Wow I'm awed at your genius . Philosophers have yet to resolve this problem for thousands of years and you with one proclamation have declared it not to be a problem. Who would have thought that this enormous problem would be solved on you tube . Can I have your autograph? . Fame an fortune are bound to follow . Since I was the one to asked you the question can I get 10% ?
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666
"Philosophers have yet to resolve this problem for thousands of years"
No, it's not a problem. Theologians have resolved it time and tme again. It is the Atheists who have yet to prove that God has to take away our free-will to be omniscient and omnipotent. We've met our burden of proof in reagrds to this, and we're waiting on you.
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON "Theologians have resolved it time and tme again" Which Theologians were you refering ?
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON And exactly how did they reslove the problem?
emailpobox666 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emailpobox666
"how did they reslove the problem?"
It's not a "problem", as you seem to think it is. No Atheist has ever demonstrated that God has to take away our free-will for Him to be omniscient and omnipotent. So no, the burden of proof is not on me the "resolve the problem", but for you to show that there is a problem in the first place.
As for Theologians: Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Luis de Molina, William Lane Craig, etc.
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON I saw you on the other channel looking for an answer so do you have one?Exactly how did the theologians resolve the problem?
emailpobox666 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emailpobox666
"I saw you on the other channel looking for an answer"
No, I was horsing around on the internet because I had all my homework done, and I was just curious to see what the Atheist Experience had to say about this.
"how did the theologians resolve the problem?"
I'll resolve the problem when you prove to me that there is one in the first place.
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@emailpobox666
Fine. Run away if you want. Sorry I made you think.
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON Way to turn that around . I was awaiting your response and this it it?
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666
"this it it?"
You are making a claim: namely that omniscience and free-will are incompatible because the omniscient being would have to take away the agent's free-will. As you know, claims need evidence, and I am waiting for you to supply me with this evidence.
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@THEEVANTHETOON " it's not a problem. Theologians have resolved it time and tme again"Exactly how did the theologians resolve the problem?
emailpobox666 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@THEEVANTHETOON I saw you on the other channel looking for an answer so do you have one?Exactly how did the theologians resolve the problem?
emailpobox666 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@THEEVANTHETOON You Claim that Theologians have resolved it time and tme again" and I was waiting on your evidence to back up your Claim
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON For Christ's sake ( Excuse the Pun) You had 3 days to answer my question. You were on the other channels soliciting the answer from others and still you do not have an adequate answer
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666
"You were on the other channels soliciting the answer from others"
You're funny. No, I was playing around on the internet waiting for you to respond. You're really not that good at debating as you like to think you are, and no, my life does not center around you.
You are claiming that God has to take away free-will for Him to know what we are going to do. In other words, you are making a claim, and claims need evidence. Where is your evidence?
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON Insults instead of answer . Big surprise there kid.
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666
Some time today please: why does God have to take away free-will to know what we are going to do? If my answer is so "inadequate", why don't you answer it.
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@THEEVANTHETOON I asked you first . You Claim it's not a problem. Theologians have resolved it time and tme again" and I asked "Exactly how did the theologians resolve the problem?" You never responded .
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON Let me guess you were incorrect about it not being a problem and your embarrassed to say so.
emailpobox666 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emailpobox666
"you were incorrect about it not being a problem and your embarrassed to say so"
*facepalm* No, I'm still waiting for you to show me that an omniscient being must take away our free-will if He is to know everything? If I'm only a kid, surely such a question shouldn't be hard to answer by the big-mean debating machine that you like to think you are, should it?
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON Fine then don't answer me.
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666
I'll answer your question when you answer mine: you are claiming that for God to know what we are going to do, He must take away our free-will. This is a claim, and claims need evidence. So until you show me that free-will and omniscience are incompatible in the first place (which you have yet to do without making unjustified assumptions, such as the one mentioned above), I have no question to answer.
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON You said "it's not a problem. Theologians have resolved it time and tme again"" Acknowledging that there was a problem ( you know the same problem you are asking me to restate, that problem) You CLAIM that it (THE PROBLEM) was resolved. I asked for you to prove your claim. You ask me to state the same PROBLEM that your acknowledge and are aware ?You made a CLAIM that the PROBLEM has been resolved, I asked for evidence which you FAILED to provide
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666
Ignoring that fact that you are guilty of the glittering-generalities fallacy, you claim that for God to be omniscient, He must take away our free-will. My answer to this is this is an unjustified assumption; why can't God know what choices we are going to choose before we choose them, for God is timeless or omnitemporal? I claim that you are wrong because God's foreknowledge has nothing to do with our choice. You claim you are right because...
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON "this is an unjustified assumption;" Why ? You said the problem has been solved time and again by many theologians. Are you seriously saying that they would work on a non existent problem. Or are you unable to provide Evidence of your CLAIM
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666
"You said the problem has been solved time and again by many theologians"
No. What I mean is there are a number of different theories as to how God can exercise control over free beings, such as Molinism.
Again, I'm still waiting for you to show me that God has to take away our free-will to know what we are going to do.
"Evidence of your CLAIM"
I'm not claiming anything. I'm rejecting your claim, a claim which has not met its burden of proof.
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON You CLAIMED that the Problem was Solved. Did you not?
emailpobox666 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emailpobox666
"You CLAIMED that the Problem was Solved"
Glittering generalities....
Yes, I claimed it was solved because, as many have pointed out, God does not have to take away our free-will to know what we are going to do. You claim that He does, but this claim has not yet met its burden of proof. Some time today, please.
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@THEEVANTHETOON Molinism has been refuted time ad again. Is that the best answer you have?
emailpobox666 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@THEEVANTHETOON You said and I quote " it's not a problem. Theologians have resolved it time and tme again" and I asked "Exactly how did the theologians resolve the problem?" You never responded .
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON As far as anti axiom 5 you should reference the journal of symbolic logic
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON You also forgot to mention that your god';s existence is predicated on the A theory of time being correct and that the B theory of time would have to be incorrect.
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666
"You also forgot to mention that your god';s existence is..."
Remind me of what the A and B theories of time are (and don't tell me to look it up, because I'd execpt you to understand what it is yourself if you are going to use this argument).
"Omniscience omni benevolence omni potent and omnipresence are incompatible withe each other"
Explain.
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON Let's strip away the emotional ties you have to the argument Proposition X the definition which includes the requirement that X is true necessarily. Possibly X is false There is a world which X is False X is necessarily false
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666
"Possibly X is false"
And I've shown why this statement cannot be true if we insert maximally-great being via Robert Maydole's Modal Perfection argument.
"The labels, A-theory and B-theory, are derived from the analysis of time and change"
I firgured that out, but what are they? How are they different? Why is God incompatible with the B-theory? I'm going to be sutbborn and not look it up, as it's your argument, and you should understand the terms you are using.
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON The B-theory of time is a term, given to one of two positions taken by theorists, in the philosophy of time. The labels, A-theory and B-theory, are derived from the analysis of time and change developed by Cambridge philosopher J. M. E. McTaggart in The Unreality of Time, in which events are ordered via a tensed A-series or a tenseless B-series.
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON You also forgot that Omniscience omni benevolence omni potent and omnipresence are incompatible withe each other making the concept incoherent
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON You also never answered my question .Is there any theory of free will which could be considered compatible with a being perfectly knowing the future?
emailpobox666 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emailpobox666
"Is there any theory of free will which could be considered compatible with a being perfectly knowing the future?"
Yes, as knowledge of the future has absolutely nothing to do with the decisions that make it up.
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@gabixu93
"Logic and mathematics are based on time and space"
You're confused. The laws of nature are dependent on time and space, not the laws of math or logic. Numbers, for example, don't actually exist, as they have no causal relation with any other thing. They are just concepts. The laws of logic describe the way things are, such as why A and not A cannot both be true at the same time, or why A=A. The laws of logic don't "collapse" past the space-time contimuum.
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON Three reasons. 1) You were the first one to send me a PM (so if you are thinking I'm debating here because I don't want to "embarrass myself", think again). 2) So we can have more complete responses. 3) So we don't take up space on a comment board. No, it has nothing to do with your debating skills.
OK if you say so.
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@gabixu93
"methaphysical judgements such as..."
While this definition is overly simplified, metaphysics can be defined as "what actually exists". There is no way to prove that anything exists apart from our mind. I enjoy confusing my teachers and classmates by telling that I do not exist. They suppose that I do, because they can see me, but I ask them how do they know that I am not a figment of their imagination, or, in other words, that their senses are not deceiving them? They don't.
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON
"There is no way to prove that anything exists apart from our mind" what happened Philosopher? You answered your own question about God!
Don't take it personal, you are very intelligent to be just 15.
You cannot even trust your own mind, what about dreams? We could actually be living in something like "Matrix" you know? That's sounds pretty scary to me XD
gabixu93 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gabixu93 Reality is a continuum. Our minds carve it up and categorize it into things. It is infinite and ever changing. It is like a painting that is always morphing. People get stuck in the moment and don't see it for the way it is. Take away our ability to see color and our depth perception and we alter our experience of reality. Our minds make our realities. A fly sees a totally different world than a human. God was created by an organism with a limited perception.
Luigi84289 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON Why do you theists try to verify God existence trough logic? Logical judgements are suposed to explain how things work not to add additional information about them.
"But can you empirically verify that this is true"?
Scientific method.
gabixu93 2 months ago
@gabixu93
"Why do you theists try to verify God existence trough logic?"
Because Alvin Plantinga's version of the Ontological argument is a very strong argument with sound premises and a valid logic structure.
"Logical judgements are suposed to explain how things work"
Incorrect. Science deals with this. Philosophers don't ask how, we ask why.
"Scientific method"
How'd the experiment go where you verified that only empirically verified things can be true?
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@THEEVANTHETOON 1. By definition a maximally great being is one that exists necessarily and necessarily is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good.
2. Possibly a maximally great being does not exist.
3. Therefore, possibly an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being that, if it exists, exists necessarily, does not exist.
emailpobox666 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@THEEVANTHETOON 4. Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist.
5. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist.
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON Even your Hero William Lane Craig says that the argument isn't valid
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON And before you start picking on the way I phrased that last comment , Craig said I depends on which premise you think is true. So whatever premise you accept you get the answer you want Either Possibly a MGB does not exist or Possibly a MGB exists
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON Even Alvin says that it doesn't prove God existence, you wouldn't need faith to believe in it and you actually do. The argument sounds pretty circular to me... Conclusion proves first premise which is already true. Therefore third premise " It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness" is supposed to be true and only if it's true the argument is valid but how can you prove that it's actually true?
gabixu93 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON
" Philosophers don't ask how, we ask why." So you find explanation to God through concept analyzing (logic)... you must be living in Platon's Ideal world. And let me tell you another thing, what's the difference between me, only "believeng" in something that's logically AND empirically valid, and you, believing in some being whose existence is "logically proven" but not empirically? Can you proove your way?
gabixu93 2 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON
Is God the answer to "WHY"? Science is still not able to perfectly explain some phenomenom like Universe and "The origin" but does that mean that default answer ("God") is best?
How can you say that mathematics are not based on time and space? Mathematics is possible through the intuition, the structuring of sensibility-------->>>>>>>>>> Logic ( rules of this structure).
gabixu93 2 months ago
You make only one valid observation... yes,. the Ontological Argument as invented by Anselm is deficient. But this is readily admitted by every Christian philosopher I'm aware of. What your presentation fails to do is address the actual "Ontological Argument" as revised by Alvin Plantinga which is the one used by modern Christian philosophers. I'd be interested in hearing a refutation of the revised argument. Thanks.
Oupavios 3 months ago
Comment removed
Oupavios 3 months ago
(continued from below) as is the way of Absurdism, in literature, like the story "Bartleby the Scrivener". Which one do you think is going to live a happier, and not only happier, but a more morally structured life as a better human being? So someone believes, but when he dies it turns out their really is not such thing, so what? He ends up like the rest, decomposing matter in the earth. On the chance that it does exist, the non-believer "burns in hell". Which one would you rather be?
TheMasterSwordThief 3 months ago
@TheMasterSwordThief First off, even if your theory that the religious are more moral than the nonreligious is correct, illusion =/= reality (besides the fact that such a statement is misleading at best and dishonest at worst, case in point jihadist muslims and crusading christians).
Secondly, Pascals Wager is quite faulty in that it assumes the identity of "god" in this equation is the christian facet of the judeo-christain diety. What if you're wrong about Zeus or Odin? Why just one god?
idunno22909 3 months ago
@idunno22909 You bring up a good point, but that's not what I was getting at, obviously. Please tell me how it's misleading and dishonest? And bringing up events that happened 8 centuries ago hardly solidifies your argument. The Crusades were just about as just as us going to Iraq, if not more. You have a society that lives and breathes Christian faith. So for Muslims to possess that territory was like blasphemy (nothing against Muslims). Almost like if terrorists had control over our capital.
TheMasterSwordThief 3 months ago
@TheMasterSwordThief
1- You assume that living life with the acceptance of the concept of spiritual eternity automatically makes one live a moral life. What moral guidelines are we using, because prisons in the USA are packed with Christians? You're making rather subjective claims with rather vague and faulty reasonings. I consider that misleading and potentially dishonest
2- Last two lines: Appeal to majority and (what I assume) is an appeal to pity.
idunno22909 3 months ago
@TheMasterSwordThief Also, I never said any thing that had anything to do with the fact of Christians believing in one God. I merely said that a religious man is most likely to live a happier life. And, say you're a gambler, you like placing bets. Which one would you rather bet on? You have either A: You die, and live an immortal and perfect afterlife, or nothing at all happens because no higher being exists. Or B: You die, and you go to hell, or nothing happens. "A" seems most logical to pick.
TheMasterSwordThief 3 months ago
@TheMasterSwordThief
If this "god" was omniscient as a most deities supposedly are (the monotheistic ones at least) would it not see through such a shallow ploy such as Pascal's Wager? Believing because it is the best option? You betray the shallowness of faith, friend. Once again, in such a situation illusion=/=truth. Just because an answer makes you happier, does not make it factually correct, morally sound, or free from impugnity.
idunno22909 3 months ago
@idunno22909 1. Yes the deity would most likely see through the "ploy". And how is it "betraying the shallowness of faith"? 2. Never said it was factually correct, morally sound. But it would in fact make you happier. Even if a God does not exist. Regardless, how is it not morally sound? You're making a choice to live a certain way, but not because a book tells you too, because your heart and brain tell you to. We don't need the Bible to tell us murder and cheating is wrong, we're born with it.
TheMasterSwordThief 3 months ago
@TheMasterSwordThief 1a) If such a proposition is faulty at conception, why use it all? 1b) If such a definition of "faith" is offered, does it not follow that the individual in question holds faith in equal regard? Would s/he be guilty of malignancy if not? 2a) Your presupposition that belief in an afterlife necessarily = happiness holds severe structual fault. You're assuming that such belief brings happiness with no concrete proof. Its called begging the question and that's not cool.
idunno22909 3 months ago
@TheMasterSwordThief 2b) "Morally stuctured" =/= morally sound? 2c) How is faking a worldview with such fantastic, nigh incredible implications and touting it as absolute, unquestionable truth not morally bankrupt? If false, any and all baggage such a belief system allows for (misogyny, racism, homophobia, pro-slavery, anti-inquiry) would be UNNECESSARY. Why on earth would one not consider it immoral? 2d) If it's not necessary WHY KEEP USING IT? There are secular worldviews without the bullsh!t.
idunno22909 3 months ago
Ok, let's say, as a basis, a God does not exist. When we die, nothing will happen. Their is no hell, and no heaven. Don't people who believe in God, and are a Christian, or any other religion that believes in an afterlife and a creator/God, in a general sense , live a better life? Think about it... You have someone who believes he's bound for an immortal, perfect afterlife. Next you have someone who believes he's pointless, and life is pointless in the end, because we're all just going to die,
TheMasterSwordThief 3 months ago
...also, he's actually confirming a metaphysical existence by claiming concepts exist. Are concepts mere reflections or descriptions of physical reality or are there non-physical ideas that can be only attributed to the conceptual? If we can conceive a God, then just because God does not exist in the physical reality, does it show that God does not exist? And if you replace God with pink unicorns, you are simply replacing the object in question and denying the attributes being placed on God.
FaceLikeTheSun 3 months ago
"an orange is always orange" let's replace the fruit "apple is always orange" logic fails. THere is just as much circular logic used to denounce the ontological argument as there is in it. I'm not saying the onotological argument doesn't have issues. All philosophical arguments run into problems or logic and reason at some point. On the surface, these refutations seem sound, but they are coming from false premesis.
FaceLikeTheSun 3 months ago
wait what was that about cookies and unicorns not being necessary?
COOKIES ARE VERY NECESSARY!!
Nails077 3 months ago
Unfortunately, cookies aren't the tastiest snack you can eat. By definition, god is the tastiest snack.
Conclusion: god is in your mouth.
Zedprice 4 months ago
Wow you dolt. Wrong again. You don't have to prove God exists to prove a conditional: If God exists, then He is a necessary being. That conditional is true whether God exists or not you flea.
CzarDB 4 months ago
You miserable baboon. This argument doesn't prove the Christian God. Another straw man.
CzarDB 4 months ago
@CzarDB I'm an atheist. But I'm also very interested in Philosophy, and I have to agree with you. This guy does a horrendous job of "refuting" the ontological argument. 1st, he chooses the easiest version and most primitive version of the argument, then he refutes it poorly. Meanwhile youtube dilettantes fuckin eat it up by high fiving and sucking each other off with painfully bad jokes.
Marcopolo965 3 months ago
@Marcopolo965 I think he does a good job, and I don't think being an atheist has any thing to do with it.
SandGoose0 3 months ago
Also, learn the argument you abject hobbit. If the being than which none greater can be thought exists only in the mind (that is, it is only a concept), then the being than which none greater can be thought is a being than which a greater can be thought, which is absurd by reducio. You didn't even portray the argument correctly you goat.
CzarDB 4 months ago
Comment removed
Smownage 4 months ago
@Smownage @Smownage Another abject buffoon. Anselm's argument is a classical example of a reducio ad absurdum argument. It starts from a premise and then points out that the truth of that premise leads to absurdities. Any PHI 101 student would know this. "He proceeds by a form of argument called reductio ad absurdum -- reduction to absurdity"
CzarDB 4 months ago
@CzarDB Buffoon? Hobbit? Dolt?
Well apart from the weak attempts at rebuttal.... you certainly have a handle on " Insults from the 1950s "
Roper122 3 months ago
@Smownage The reducio follows from the following claim:
The being than which none greater being can be thought is a possible being. The being than which none greater can be thought exists only in the mind (atheist claim) and not in reality. Every possible being that exists only in the mind can be thought to be greater: existing in reality as well. Therefore, the being than which none greater can be thought is a being than which a greater CAN be thought. This is contradictory and absurd.
CzarDB 4 months ago
These are the worst objections to this argument I have ever heard. Anselm doesn't mean God physically exists in the mind you abject dolt. When he says "God exists in the mind" he means that when someone says "God" even the atheist understands what that person is talking about. The concept is present in the mind. He defines God as a being than which none greater can be thought. This is a CONCEPT so your objection is a straw man.
CzarDB 4 months ago
game,set,match
kdskdkdkdk 4 months ago
You're kicking a dead horse. The original ontological argument has been considered fallacious by atheists and theist alike for years now.
The ontological argument you are hearing people refer too is most likely Alvin Plantinga’s, which does not commit the fallacies that the original does.
babertron 4 months ago 2
circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works
ontological shit is just a concept fallacy/word game
mutageno 5 months ago 19
@mutageno are you familiar with modal logic kind sir?
ansaz14 4 months ago
So, St. Anselm is the first person to ever use the Chewbacca argument?
StrikaAmaru 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I hate philosophy.Actually I love it but I think it's ridiculous to argue over theories because no matter what someone will always find something wrong with your theory and create a new one, one of there own.Nothing can be truly trusted. BUTTT hey it's fun to argue what you believe in. :)
TheBLVDofdreams 5 months ago
goddamnit what the fuck is wrong with people an....THIS IS SO OBVIOUSLY FALSE!
pv2barrows 5 months ago
@pv2barrows Can you think of anything greater than God?
I cant....
xxboelstler5xx 4 months ago
@xxboelstler5xx Two Gods.
Oh snap!
NinjaDoilyn 4 months ago
@NinjaDoilyn The Triune God is three Gods in itself and is all powerful
If your all powerful what would another God do?
xxboelstler5xx 4 months ago
These arguments don't exist to convince non-believers. They are to keep believers believing after they meet a non-believer. They give theists the ability to derail discussion before it starts and avoid needing to understand what they OR the other guy are saying.
Plus, even if you can get them to follow what you are saying they just give you a, "but where do your morals come from, and what happened before the big bang, the divinity of Christ is scientifically proven, and there are no fossils."
no2religions 6 months ago 17
@no2religions YES YES YES. Exactly. Ontological is easily one of the worst when you get down to bare essentials.
FoldedTapestry 4 months ago
@no2religions How is that different from atheists? Most of the time, when I try to have a discussion with atheists and challenge them on their own points, they just forefeith the discussion with "WHY SHUD I LISTEN 2 U?? U BELIEVE IN A SKY WIZARD BECUAS OF A BOOK OF FAIREY TAELS LOLOLOLOL!!"
stallion4life 3 months ago
@stallion4life Honestly, I would have to guess that what you call "challenging them on their points" was more likely the same thing they had heard 1000 times before, and as such, not seen as a challenge but as someone parroting apologetics. It's also a good bet that if you post your best "challenge" here I can link 10+ videos addressing it. It's not a joke. You say one line and I bet everyone here can tell you the rest of the conversation. So, your challenges, aren't.
That's just a guess.
no2religions 3 months ago
@no2religions Funny, I feel the same way about atheist arguments. They tell me something that they very obviously think is going to blow my mind, but instead I just feel insulted that they think I haven't encountered their completely hackneyed argument dozens of times before.
stallion4life 3 months ago
@stallion4life: Seriously, though...why SHOULD people listen to you when you admit that you believe in an invisible, telepathic super-being who runs the entire universe?
mikefromwa 3 months ago
@mikefromwa Weirder things are accepted as fact.
stallion4life 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stallion4life: "Weirder things are accepted as fact."
That may be, but that doesn't mean they ARE fact.
And it may be that there's actual proof of those "weirder things", which in that case would make them believable. But there isn't a shred of proof for any god whatsoever.
mikefromwa 3 months ago