The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: garygreen on November 04, 2014, 05:43:33 PM
-
I figured I'd make this a separate thread since the Jew thread is already a giant dumpster fire. An awesome dumpster fire, don't get me wrong. Like in a dumpster next to a fireworks warehouse or something.
Until you can come up with an argument that can defeat the Ontological Argument, I advise shutting your yap. Since we're dealing with God here, the Ultimate Reality is that which is coherent. My God, I just went through this in the LAST post! How dense is it possible for one group of people to be?! It can't possibly be that bad, can it? The atheist cannot prove a negative. I, on the other hand, can give you strong reasons for believing that God exists, albeit not deductively certain ones. You cannot give me strong reasons for assuming that he does not. You've tried, in this and other threads, and failed, miserably at it.
Yonah is apparently unaware of the last 200+ years in the development of the philosophy of religion and thinks that Anselm's Ontological Argument is a thing that anyone takes seriously anymore. Kant killed this argument in the 18th Century. Existence is not a predicate. Argument over.
So I have two questions for you, Yonah:
1. How exactly do you go about proving the truth of this premise? Why is existence 'greater' than non-existence? Existence is greater than non-existence.
2. Do you find the following argument both sound and valid? Why or why not?
1.It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that The Most Perfect Ham Sandwich is a ham sandwich than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible ham sandwich that can be imagined).
2.TMPHS exists as an idea in the mind.
3.A ham sandwich that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a ham sandwich that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4.Thus, if TMPHS exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine a ham sandwich that is greater than TMPHS (that is, a greatest possible ham sandwich that does exist).
5.But we cannot imagine a ham sandwich that is greater than TMPHS (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a ham sandwich greater than the greatest possible ham sandwich that can be imagined.)
6.Therefore, The Most Perfect Ham Sandwich exists.
Also, I'm not sure where you got the idea that it's impossible to prove a negative. That's just something people say. It isn't true.
-
What does this argument do other than prove the idea of God exists?
It can also be used to prove polytheism since two gods of equal greatness above which no others exist is greater than one god.
-
Except that Kant only THOUGHT he proved the Ontological Argument wrong. TMPHS is not greater than any possible thing. It may be great in some sense, but what if you don't like ham? What if you are more partial to bacon? Then it is not perfect at all. You see, Gary, the fact that you are a schmuck (possibly the Most Perfect Schmuck) is not my fault. The Ontological Argument has been attacked by many people, and has withstood the challenge pretty well.
-
Okay, just The Most Perfect Sandwich, then.
-
What if I don't like sandwiches? And before we get to the most perfect food, humans are not capable of living without food, and there is no perfect food. we know that. See, the argument fails. But, with God it does not, because total perfection can be imagined. It simply cannot be imagined in the finite.
-
I can imagine The Most Perfect Bottle which never empties no matter how much is drank
Existence is greater than non-Existence
Therefore TMPB exists.
-
What if I don't like sandwiches? And before we get to the most perfect food, humans are not capable of living without food, and there is no perfect food. we know that. See, the argument fails. But, with God it does not, because total perfection can be imagined. It simply cannot be imagined in the finite.
You cannot imagine something other than in the finite since it by definition would exceed the capacity of your mind, ergo you cannot imagine God, ergo God does not exist.
[/thread]
-
Yes, because I can think of unicorns with lightsaber horns, they must exist. No, gtfo.
-
The Ontological Argument has been attacked by many people, and has withstood the challenge pretty well.
Saying it doesn't make it true (This is also a pretty good refutation of the Ontological Argument). You might as well be trying to defend Zeno's paradox. Some ancient asshole thinking he's clever is in no way evidence of anything.
-
Gary, you seem to be unaware that this argument has already been made (when Yaakov originally brought up Anselm's argument as if it was worth anything a few months ago). Yaakov is either not smart enough to understand why he is wrong or is simply a character troll.
-
What if I don't like sandwiches? And before we get to the most perfect food, humans are not capable of living without food, and there is no perfect food. we know that. See, the argument fails. But, with God it does not, because total perfection can be imagined. It simply cannot be imagined in the finite.
But I don't like God, therefore he's not perfect
-
1. How exactly do you go about proving the truth of this premise? Why is existence 'greater' than non-existence? Existence is greater than non-existence.
I, too, would like to see this answered.
-
I hope Anselm wasn't trying to apply his argument to Abrahamic God, because that guy is a fucking asshole.
-
Gary, you seem to be unaware that this argument has already been made (when Yaakov originally brought up Anselm's argument as if it was worth anything a few months ago). Yaakov is either not smart enough to understand why he is wrong or is simply a character troll.
I was genuinely unaware of that, but I really only check the Jew thread occasionally to see if Yaakov has shot up a mosque yet.
Except that Kant only THOUGHT he proved the Ontological Argument wrong. The Ontological Argument has been attacked by many people, and has withstood the challenge pretty well.
Kant's argument that existence is not a predicate is a well-established consensus at this point, so merely declaring that he's wrong isn't persuasive. Would you mind elaborating on why you think he's wrong on this point?
TMPHS is not greater than any possible thing. It may be great in some sense, but what if you don't like ham? What if you are more partial to bacon? Then it is not perfect at all.
You don't appear to understand Anselm's argument very well. For one thing, his argument isn't about preference. You don't have to prefer God or ham sandwiches. His proof doesn't depend on that. You don't have to want to eat the ham sandwich; but, if you find Anselm's logic valid and sound, then you must accept that TMPHS exists.
Second, Anselm doesn't define God as the greatest possible thing. He defines God as "a being than which none greater can be imagined." I'm defining TMPHS as "a sandwich than which none greater can be imagined." I don't see what the problem is.
And to echo PP (and myself, I guess), I'm still super curious to understand how existence is greater than non-existence and what that even means.
-
I don't know, I sort of want Anselm's argument to be true now. I bet the most perfect ham sandwich is very delicious and would like to eat/worship it.
-
I would love to imagine the most perfect money. It would be infinite and owned by me, therefore it must exist. Alas... :[
-
I would love to imagine the most perfect money. It would be infinite and owned by me, therefore it must exist. Alas... :[
It exists now. You just haven't owned it yet.
-
Yaakov, I think you may be confusing subjective perfection and objective perfection. God or TMPHS or whatever doesn't have to be subjectively perfect to you. I, for example, find the idea of YHWH to be extremely morally problematic; therefore, God is not the most perfect being to me. However, he is objectively the most perfect according to the Bible, which is as good a definition of objectivity as any other.
-
Well, on a totally different subject, we are now stuck with Joni Ernst, the Tea Party whore, for the next six years, as our Senator in Iowa. Ultimately, this state is royally fucked.
-
I can't imagine a senator more great or perfect than Joni Ernst. Truly the most perfect senator.
-
Well, on a totally different subject, we are now stuck with Joni Ernst, the Tea Party whore, for the next six years, as our Senator in Iowa. Ultimately, this state is royally fucked.
And here I thought Romney was winning by a landslide.
-
And here I thought Romney was winning by a landslide.
Well, he didn't, but the Republicans just did. Pretty huge majority in the House and a slight majority in the Senate.
-
Which ultimately means that the Republic is fucked for at least the next two years. The President will get nothing accomplished, because the Congress won't let him, but doesn't have enough people to override a veto. I expect the next thing the Rethugs will attempt to do is to impeach the President, which won't work, but they will try it nonetheless.
Of course, ultimately, to me it doesn't much matter. I won't say it outright, but I am a Maoist, and we all know what a Maoist would prefer over the status quo of things. If any of you say it, I'll deny it straight out, and I would never attempt it, because I don't care to be arrested and shot. But, I am a Maoist, so... follow the dots where that leads you...
-
As for the Ontological Argument, it only proves the existence of One God. Not necessarily the Abrahamic God, but One God. I can conceive of a Being a greater than which cannot possibly be conceived. Who said we were talking about any particular understanding of God? Now, I could go from there and try to prove the biblical God, but that is not what I am trying to do with this particular argument. That would be stupid.
-
You're not even using Anselm's argument anymore, at this point you made your own, even worse, argument as to why you think god exists. If I can even call "because I say so" an argument...
-
As for the Ontological Argument, it only proves the existence of One God. Not necessarily the Abrahamic God, but One God. I can conceive of a Being a greater than which cannot possibly be conceived. Who said we were talking about any particular understanding of God? Now, I could go from there and try to prove the biblical God, but that is not what I am trying to do with this particular argument. That would be stupid.
I may not be able to conceive of a greater being, but I could conceive of an additional, equally great being.
-
Only then I could conceive of a being greater than either of those. You see, you ultimately get to one, greatest.
-
Only then I could conceive of a being greater than either of those. You see, you ultimately get to one, greatest.
No, it would just go on infinitely, or he would think of another, equally great one again and again and again
-
Only then I could conceive of a being greater than either of those. You see, you ultimately get to one, greatest.
Wouldn't this being be constrained by the limits of human imagination? An omniscient, omnipotent being limited by a puny human? To quote Disney's Aladdin: Phenomenal cosmic powers! Itty bitty living space.
-
Only then I could conceive of a being greater than either of those. You see, you ultimately get to one, greatest.
If there was a greater conceivable being, then how could the first one have been the greatest?
-
Let me get this straight: This "logical" argument is that because I can think of a perfect being, it must be real because I can't imagine a non-existent perfect being? Because that's the biggest shit argument I've ever heard. Why did it take several hundred years to disprove?!
In fact, I can disprove God using it.
Taking the Ham Sandwich example. A Ham Sandwich is defined as ham between two pieces of bread. However there are many types of Ham: Smoked, boiled, cooked, honey glazed, etc...
And even bread has many different versions: white, wheat, oats, grain, Italian, French, etc...
So how could we define the perfect ham sandwich?
Well, the most perfect sandwich is that which is greater than any other and can't be better. But since everyone has different tastes, what is "best" is impossible as some will find wheat bread less than white while others will feel the opposite. And what about additions? Cheese, lettuce, tomato, mayo, etc...
So if we ignore everyone who doesn't like any ham sandwiches, we still have too many people and too many tastes to have one single ham sandwich that is perfect for everyone. So, it's impossible to imagine such a sandwich. However, when a sandwich does not exist, it can be everything at once. An imaginary sandwich doesn't need to conform to any one person but can be any kind of sandwich, based on what the person wants. This, in fact, is the only perfect sandwich since no other sandwich can be better than every sandwich combination.
-
And then there's dave...
-
And then there's dave...
Oh come now. My argument that the only perfect being is the one that doesn't exist isn't THAT bad.
-
I enjoyed your argument Dave.
-
Oh come now. My argument that the only perfect being is the one that doesn't exist isn't THAT bad.
The idea of "best" implies an objectively perfect ham sandwich, so it wouldn't matter if a person normally prefers wheat or white bread.
-
What if they've got celiac? Then both whole wheat, and white are bad choices.
-
Let me get this straight: This "logical" argument is that because I can think of a perfect being, it must be real because I can't imagine a non-existent perfect being? Because that's the biggest shit argument I've ever heard. Why did it take several hundred years to disprove?!
In fact, I can disprove God using it.
Taking the Ham Sandwich example. A Ham Sandwich is defined as ham between two pieces of bread. However there are many types of Ham: Smoked, boiled, cooked, honey glazed, etc...
And even bread has many different versions: white, wheat, oats, grain, Italian, French, etc...
So how could we define the perfect ham sandwich?
Well, the most perfect sandwich is that which is greater than any other and can't be better. But since everyone has different tastes, what is "best" is impossible as some will find wheat bread less than white while others will feel the opposite. And what about additions? Cheese, lettuce, tomato, mayo, etc...
So if we ignore everyone who doesn't like any ham sandwiches, we still have too many people and too many tastes to have one single ham sandwich that is perfect for everyone. So, it's impossible to imagine such a sandwich. However, when a sandwich does not exist, it can be everything at once. An imaginary sandwich doesn't need to conform to any one person but can be any kind of sandwich, based on what the person wants. This, in fact, is the only perfect sandwich since no other sandwich can be better than every sandwich combination.
Well, I let the atheists tangle their peabrains trying to resolve the issue. It took several hundred years to refute (and it still hasn't been,really), because ultimately, it is not refutable. Existence is better than non-existence. You see how that works? Its pretty easy, really. If your existence is no better than your non-existence, the next time you and I walk near a cliff, how about I throw you off it? You shouldn't mind. Your existence is not better than your non-existence,correct?
-
Let me get this straight: This "logical" argument is that because I can think of a perfect being, it must be real because I can't imagine a non-existent perfect being? Because that's the biggest shit argument I've ever heard. Why did it take several hundred years to disprove?!
In fact, I can disprove God using it.
Taking the Ham Sandwich example. A Ham Sandwich is defined as ham between two pieces of bread. However there are many types of Ham: Smoked, boiled, cooked, honey glazed, etc...
And even bread has many different versions: white, wheat, oats, grain, Italian, French, etc...
So how could we define the perfect ham sandwich?
Well, the most perfect sandwich is that which is greater than any other and can't be better. But since everyone has different tastes, what is "best" is impossible as some will find wheat bread less than white while others will feel the opposite. And what about additions? Cheese, lettuce, tomato, mayo, etc...
So if we ignore everyone who doesn't like any ham sandwiches, we still have too many people and too many tastes to have one single ham sandwich that is perfect for everyone. So, it's impossible to imagine such a sandwich. However, when a sandwich does not exist, it can be everything at once. An imaginary sandwich doesn't need to conform to any one person but can be any kind of sandwich, based on what the person wants. This, in fact, is the only perfect sandwich since no other sandwich can be better than every sandwich combination.
Well, I let the atheists tangle their peabrains trying to resolve the issue. It took several hundred years to refute (and it still hasn't been,really), because ultimately, it is not refutable. Existence is better than non-existence. You see how that works? Its pretty easy, really. If your existence is no better than your non-existence, the next time you and I walk near a cliff, how about I throw you off it? You shouldn't mind. Your existence is not better than your non-existence,correct?
Is an existent Hitler better than an imaginary Hitler? What about the Batterwitch, or Voldemort?
-
What if they've got celiac? Then both whole wheat, and white are bad choices.
It doesn't matter because we're talking about the perfect sandwich, not your personal preference at the deli market.
Well, I let the atheists tangle their peabrains trying to resolve the issue. It took several hundred years to refute (and it still hasn't been,really), because ultimately, it is not refutable. Existence is better than non-existence. You see how that works? Its pretty easy, really. If your existence is no better than your non-existence, the next time you and I walk near a cliff, how about I throw you off it? You shouldn't mind. Your existence is not better than your non-existence,correct?
Define better.
-
Is an existent Hitler better than an imaginary Hitler?
Yes, because he would exist in a world that was created by the perfect being. So everything that exists is the optimal set of circumstances.
-
Oh come now. My argument that the only perfect being is the one that doesn't exist isn't THAT bad.
The idea of "best" implies an objectively perfect ham sandwich, so it wouldn't matter if a person normally prefers wheat or white bread.
Why? Best implies that it's loved by all who eat it. (who doesn't love the best?) Which means that best must be subjective, in the case of ham sandwiches.
And in the case of God, Best is also subjective. Tell me, What defines the Best God? What can he do or not do? Is it a he? What is it's personality like? Does it smite the wicked? Does it use it's power to reshape the universe to give everyone infinite space so no conflicts occur?
-
Oh come now. My argument that the only perfect being is the one that doesn't exist isn't THAT bad.
The idea of "best" implies an objectively perfect ham sandwich, so it wouldn't matter if a person normally prefers wheat or white bread.
Why? Best implies that it's loved by all who eat it.
No, it means it has the most benefit, not that the most amount of people desire it.
-
Oh come now. My argument that the only perfect being is the one that doesn't exist isn't THAT bad.
The idea of "best" implies an objectively perfect ham sandwich, so it wouldn't matter if a person normally prefers wheat or white bread.
Why? Best implies that it's loved by all who eat it.
No, it means it has the most benefit, not that the most amount of people desire it.
Benefit? That sounds subjective to me. And what benefit would you give a ham sandwich?
caloric intake? Taste? Enjoyment?
-
I remember seeing a similar argument "proving" that god doesn't exist. It goes more or less like
1 - The creation of the universe is the greatest achievement imaginable
2 - The merit of an action consists of an intrinsic greatness and the ability of the creator
3 - The greater the handicap to the creator, the greater the action
4 - The biggest handicap to a creator is non-existence
5 - Therefore, if the universe was created by a creator, it would be a greater achievement if the creator was non-existing than otherwise
6 - God does not exist
Edit: Upon further research, this is called Gasking's proof.
-
Oh come now. My argument that the only perfect being is the one that doesn't exist isn't THAT bad.
The idea of "best" implies an objectively perfect ham sandwich, so it wouldn't matter if a person normally prefers wheat or white bread.
Why? Best implies that it's loved by all who eat it.
No, it means it has the most benefit, not that the most amount of people desire it.
Benefit? That sounds subjective to me.
Don't over exert yourself thinking about this too much Lord Dave. The OP gave a shit example. Presumably, there is only one path to god, but there are different benefits that come with ham sandwiches for different people. So for the purpose of this shitty discussion, the perfect ham sandwich is the one that gives the most amount of people a comprehensive amount of benefit. Let's call it "Ham Sandwich Prime".
-
Oh come now. My argument that the only perfect being is the one that doesn't exist isn't THAT bad.
The idea of "best" implies an objectively perfect ham sandwich, so it wouldn't matter if a person normally prefers wheat or white bread.
Why? Best implies that it's loved by all who eat it.
No, it means it has the most benefit, not that the most amount of people desire it.
Benefit? That sounds subjective to me.
Don't over exert yourself thinking about this too much Lord Dave. The OP gave a shit example. Presumably, there is only one path to god, but there are different benefits that come with ham sandwiches for different people. So for the purpose of this shitty discussion, the perfect ham sandwich is the one that gives the most amount of people a comprehensive amount of benefit. Let's call it "Ham Sandwich Prime".
Then how do you define the best god?
-
There's no way a person could know that. The notion of a perfect god requires that said god would possess qualities or perform actions we are incapable of understanding or imagining, so the ontological argument sort of disproves itself.
-
Actually, as strange as this will sound, using Augustinian logic, existence is better than non-existence. Therefore, an existing Hitler is better than one who does not exist. HOWEVER, and this is key, every time Hitler does something evil, he becomes less existent. Why?
Evil does not exist per se. Evil is defined as an absence of good. In other words, God is the Summum Bonum, the All Good. When you do something that is less than all good, you become less than All Good, ie, less than God. Humans were less than that already in Paradise, by virtue of being Created things. But, they did not know the difference between Good and Evil, and could have lived forever there as a result, in union with their heavenly Father.
Hitler would have existed. But he would not have been what he was. After humans learned what Evil was, by the commission of the sin of disobedience to God, and were forced out of Paradise, they knew to choose Good or Evil. At this point, choosing evil renders the soul less than All Good, less existent.
Notice that although they had insanely long lifespans, they still died. And eventually, their lifespans contracted to what they are today. Moses lived to be 120, which is what the very oldest of our people are living to be today. As they chose more and more the evil, they became less and less existent spiritually before God, until the Flood, when God eliminated them except for a small number.
After that, starting anew with a small number of people (however you want to interpret that), people still could choose the good or the evil. Using Hitler as an example (by the way; Godwin's Law, you lose [I'm kidding; its actually not a bad example]), his existence is better than his non-existence. He made himself less existent by the evil choices he made. Granted, this is no comfort to the people whose lives he took. But, lets be honest, if it hadn't been him, it would have been another asshole. If it hadn't been us, it would have been some other group.
We aren't the only ones to have ever been "genocided" (to coin a word). We just happen to perhaps have had the largest numbers lost. 6 million IS a hell of a lot to lose. I don't recall any other genocide taking quite that number, although in terms of a percentage, some have taken an equal percentage (or even higher) of the population at which they were aimed.
I think perhaps the craziest was the auto-genocide in Cambodia. What crazy bastard kills his own people, for fuck's sake? That one just boggles the mind. I understand killing other people. I don't like it, but I can at least wrap my head around it. They are the enemy, kill them. But your own people? Holy shit.
Back to my point. Another example. If John rapes a woman, Jane. Jane surely suffers an evil. There is no doubt of that. But John suffers an even greater evil in the philosophical sense insofar as he becomes less existent in his soul. This renders him more likely to do awful things in the future because he is less able to resist the power that evil now has over him, as he is less good. Now, that may not be a comfort to Jane. But it is something to think about.
There is actually an argument in this line of reasoning to be made AGAINST the State using the death penalty. As much as John might deserve it, does the State want to put itself in the position of committing the evil act of killing someone, and thus render itself less existent in its collective soul?
I had to write a paper on that. Having always been pro-death penalty, it was an interesting way to look at it, and I got an A on the paper. Definitely interesting. Anyway, for whatever those thoughts are worth. I have to go. The wife will be home soon.
-
Evil makes you exist less?
That has got to be the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time. Existence physically doesn't change with good or evil. Social existence (if you're noticed in the world) increases drastically the more evil you are. We all remember Hitler, but we forgot the men who stopped him.
So tell me how one exists less?
-
Evil makes you exist less?
That has got to be the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time. Existence physically doesn't change with good or evil. Social existence (if you're noticed in the world) increases drastically the more evil you are. We all remember Hitler, but we forgot the men who stopped him.
So tell me how one exists less?
It is just Yaakov asserting this and also trying to slip in his definition of Evil as the one we should accept. We all know this is balls.
-
Wow good thread