Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9048 total)
97 online now:
(97 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume: Total: 887,586 Year: 5,232/14,102 Month: 153/677 Week: 12/26 Day: 12/2 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ontological arguments - where's the beef?
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 74 (632393)
09-07-2011 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
09-03-2011 4:59 PM


Other Applications; Ontology.
Cavediver writes:

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 blatently 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.

Ontological arguments can be applied to other things being/existing as well as to deity.

IMO, physicists sometimes unwittingly rely heavily upon it so as to arrive at theory. Scientific conclusions are too often reached ontologically.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.

Edited by Buzsaw, : Tidy up wording

Edited by Buzsaw, : Rewrite for clarity


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 09-03-2011 4:59 PM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by jar, posted 09-07-2011 7:14 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 63 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2011 1:57 AM Buzsaw has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 74 (632403)
09-07-2011 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by crashfrog
09-07-2011 9:22 PM


Re: possible=shown?
crashfrog writes:

Epidemiological modesty means making the minimal, most defensible conclusions.

Say what? Please decipher the connection for us.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by crashfrog, posted 09-07-2011 9:22 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 09-07-2011 10:00 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 74 (632413)
09-07-2011 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by crashfrog
09-07-2011 10:00 PM


Re: possible=shown?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 09-07-2011 10:00 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Panda, posted 09-08-2011 6:41 AM Buzsaw has acknowledged this reply
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 09-08-2011 10:50 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 74 (632474)
09-08-2011 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by PaulK
09-08-2011 1:57 AM


Re: Other Applications; Ontology.
PaulK writes:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ontological arguments can be applied to other things being/existing as well as to deity.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:

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

PaulK writes:

quote:
:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMO, physicists sometimes unwittingly rely heavily upon it so as to arrive at theory. Scientific conclusions are too often reached ontologically.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:
:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2011 1:57 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2011 8:50 AM Buzsaw has acknowledged this reply
 Message 70 by caffeine, posted 09-08-2011 11:16 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 74 (632757)
09-09-2011 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by jar
09-08-2011 9:09 AM


Re: Other Applications; Ontology.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by jar, posted 09-08-2011 9:09 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by jar, posted 09-09-2011 9:25 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 73 by Panda, posted 09-09-2011 9:43 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021