|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9204 total) |
| |
azlesmiles | |
Total: 919,286 Year: 6,543/9,624 Month: 121/270 Week: 34/83 Day: 8/12 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Ontological arguments - where's the beef? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
By your terms, NOTHING is possible unless it is shown. How do you know it is possible for you to draw a King of Hearts until you do it? And for that matter you don't know if its possible for you to draw a King of Hearts from a deck of cards ever again. Maybe it is no longer possible. Maybe you can only draw a King of hearts 3 times and then after that it is impossible. You are basing your definition of possible on having seen it or done it before. That means everything that you have not seen or done before is not possible. No he isn't, as is clear from his choice of example.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
crashfrog writes: Prediction: you'll respond to this post by accusing me of oppressing you in some way. My prediction, before I submitted my question, was that you'd eat crow on this one. I looked it up. That's why I asked about the connection. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17894 Joined: Member Rating: 8.2 |
quote: In my experience the only examples which would qualify would be attempts to illustrate the problems with ontological arguments (e.g. Gaunilo's 'perfect island').
quote: Might I suggest that the opinion of someone who doesn't understand what he is saying carries little weight. Can you cite even one such argument ? Do you even know what an ontological argument is ?Or is this another case where you simply don't know what you are talking about, like your claim that scientists invoked Quantum Mechanics to explain the low entropy in Earth's surface - where you couldn't even support the assertion that Earth's surface had a low entropy, let alone find any mention of QM in relation to it ? quote: This is mere incoherent babbling. You literally do not understand what you are saying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3943 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Buzsaw writes:
...and you don't even have evidence of your own predictions. My prediction, before I submitted my question, was that you'd eat crow on this one.Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
PaulK writes: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In my experience the only examples which would qualify would be attempts to illustrate the problems with ontological arguments (e.g. Gaunilo's 'perfect island'). Perhaps you need to widen your experience and to consider other applications. According to the Free Online Dictionary, it can apply to other things such as theory.
quote: PaulK writes: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Might I suggest that the opinion of someone who doesn't understand what he is saying carries little weight. Can you cite even one such argument ? Do you even know what an ontological argument is ?Or is this another case where you simply don't know what you are talking about, like your claim that scientists invoked Quantum Mechanics to explain the low entropy in Earth's surface - where you couldn't even support the assertion that Earth's surface had a low entropy, let alone find any mention of QM in relation to it ? Perhaps you need to widen your own understanding of the meaning of the term, so as to comprehend what I was talking about.
PaulK writes: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is mere incoherent babbling. You literally do not understand what you are saying. Argue with the dictionary, as to whether it's authors are incoherent or whether your understanding of the meaning of the term is limited. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17894 Joined: Member Rating: 8.2
|
quote: I think not, since the term "ontological argument" is frequently restricted to a class of arguments for the existence of God (see the link in my previous post) - and since you offer absolutely no counter-examples, even if a wider interpretation of the term were taken.
quote: My disagreement is with you, not the dictionary. Aside from the fact that you ignored the usage of "ontological argument" you have not provided any support for your assertion at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I think that Buz saw the word "theory" used in one of the definitions and so assumed that it might also apply to science.
Here is the definitions in Buz's link in full:
quote: The problem might be that Buzsaw simply does not know how to read a dictionary, he might not understand that in each case the definitions are qualified to show that they refer only to philosophy and metaphysics. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1697 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Goddamn autocorrect. I swear I've been typing in "epistemological."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1697 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
My prediction, before I submitted my question, was that you'd eat crow on this one. I looked it up. Eat crow on what? What did you look up?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
Perhaps you need to widen your experience and to consider other applications. According to the Free Online Dictionary, it can apply to other things such as theory. quote:1. (Philosophy) Philosophy the branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being 2. (Philosophy / Logic) Logic the set of entities presupposed by a theory The definition you're pointing to does not say that ontological arguments 'apply to a theory', however you want to interpret this. It's saying that, in addition to being used to describe a branch of philosophy, the word 'ontology' is also used as a way of saying the sum total of things and the way those things are, in a particular world view. So, the ontology of your world-view would include a creator God, and a heaven, and whatnot. An atheist wouldn't share that ontology. None of this has anything to do with the matter under discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Jar writes: Here is the definitions in Buz's link in full: Blatant lie, Jar. My link cited the Free Online Dictionary, rendition of the definition, being inclusive of what I alleged. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Based on that assertion I suggest that folk actually click on the link and determine the truth.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3943 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
Are you claiming that Jar did not post the complete list of definitions from your link? Blatant lie, Jar.Because I have clicked your link and it looks like he did. Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPhat Inactive Member |
Topic Starter Cavediver writes: While still a Christian, I had no need for proofs of God - faith was central to my, well, faith. As a mathematician, I was aware of Godel's ontological proof of God; but knowing what a fruit-bat Godel had been, I never bothered to investigate. So, following my Damascus Road conversion to atheism, I have been reading up on the ontological arguments of Anselm, Descartes, Plantinga, and of course, Godel, to find out what all the fuss is about... My first impression was simple confirmation of something I had long suspected: logic in the hands of philosophers tends to result in the use of very precise and well defined rules to push around exceptionally nebulous and ill-defined concepts. The ideas of maximal goodness, maximal greatness, maximal perfection, etc, suggest extremely naive one-dimensional thinking, almost certainly inspired by the age-old tenets of the faith held by the philosopher in question. My second impression, primarily from reading Plantinga and associated apologetics (e.g. William Land Craig), is just how blatantly dishonest the argument appears. The bait-and-switch on the term "possible" is a text-book case. The modern Plantinga argument (put into readable english) is: - It is possible that a maximally great being exists.- If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. - If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. - If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. - If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists. - Therefore, a maximally great being exists. The possible of the first line looks innocuous enough, and on a generous day some of us may even make grudging acceptance. Possible is this context tends to be taken as "not definitely impossible". BUT the use of possible in the second line is very different. This is now the "possible" of modal logic, with very different meaning: something that is "possible" must occur in some plausible example of existence (the "possible world" mentioned.) If we agree up front that the first "possible" is in the colloquial sense, then the argument fails immediately as the "possible"s of lines 1 and 2 are now different. If it is in the modal logic sense, then we have essentially begged the question, as we have essentially agreed as premise that this "maximally great being" is necessary. And finally (for now), the "possible worlds" of modal logic are a perfectly sound concept when looking at strictly defined systems with specific parameter spaces, but their applicability is extremely questionable when it comes to considering possible examples of Existence. We even have no surety that there is any such thing as a possible example of existence that is not our own! So, am I missing something? Lets focus on the topic and not on each others quirks, shall we?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024