Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« 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.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #1 on: November 04, 2014, 05:51:24 PM »
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.

Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #2 on: November 04, 2014, 06:02:03 PM »
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.

*

Offline Snupes

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1836
  • I summon my love back to me
    • View Profile
Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #3 on: November 04, 2014, 06:12:36 PM »
Okay, just The Most Perfect Sandwich, then.
Quote from: garygreen date=1480782226
i also took an online quiz that said i was a giraffe.  and i guess you're dumb enough to believe that i must be because the internet said so.

Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #4 on: November 04, 2014, 06:20:24 PM »
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.

Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #5 on: November 04, 2014, 06:23:44 PM »
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.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5682
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #6 on: November 04, 2014, 06:33:27 PM »
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]
« Last Edit: November 04, 2014, 06:37:44 PM by Rama Set »
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline Fortuna

  • *
  • Posts: 1954
    • View Profile
Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #7 on: November 04, 2014, 06:36:53 PM »
Yes, because I can think of unicorns with lightsaber horns, they must exist. No, gtfo.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2014, 06:49:13 PM by Andrew »
I stopped going to the gym because of Trump. Now I can't open jars

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #8 on: November 04, 2014, 06:43:46 PM »
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.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7064
    • View Profile
Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #9 on: November 04, 2014, 06:46:14 PM »
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.

*

Offline Snupes

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1836
  • I summon my love back to me
    • View Profile
Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #10 on: November 04, 2014, 06:46:48 PM »
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
Quote from: garygreen date=1480782226
i also took an online quiz that said i was a giraffe.  and i guess you're dumb enough to believe that i must be because the internet said so.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10027
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #11 on: November 04, 2014, 06:49:45 PM »
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.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #12 on: November 04, 2014, 07:15:26 PM »
I hope Anselm wasn't trying to apply his argument to Abrahamic God, because that guy is a fucking asshole.

Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #13 on: November 04, 2014, 08:21:26 PM »
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 have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7064
    • View Profile
Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #14 on: November 04, 2014, 08:30:05 PM »
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.

*

Offline Snupes

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1836
  • I summon my love back to me
    • View Profile
Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #15 on: November 04, 2014, 11:53:44 PM »
I would love to imagine the most perfect money. It would be infinite and owned by me, therefore it must exist. Alas... :[
Quote from: garygreen date=1480782226
i also took an online quiz that said i was a giraffe.  and i guess you're dumb enough to believe that i must be because the internet said so.

Ghost of V

Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #16 on: November 04, 2014, 11:55:07 PM »
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.

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #17 on: November 05, 2014, 02:00:34 AM »
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.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #18 on: November 05, 2014, 05:08:39 AM »
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.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7064
    • View Profile
Re: Anselm's Ontological Ham Sandwiches
« Reply #19 on: November 05, 2014, 05:14:43 AM »
I can't imagine a senator more great or perfect than Joni Ernst. Truly the most perfect senator.