Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 123

Thread: Arguments for the Existence of God

  1. #61
    Veteran Member Petros Agapetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Last Online
    05-22-2023 @ 01:22 AM
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Meta-Ethnicity
    East Caucasian
    Ethnicity
    Armenian
    Country
    Canada
    Region
    Alberta
    Taxonomy
    East Alpine - East Med
    Politics
    Secular Liberal, Progressive Leftist
    Hero
    Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Robert Spencer, Bernie Sanders, Atheism-is-Unstoppable
    Religion
    Atheist
    Gender
    Posts
    4,074
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,051
    Given: 756

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Abubu View Post
    Faith is a precondition, but faith without works is dead. No serious Christian "denomination" (as if denominations are legitimate within Christianity and the existence of them prove anything) believes faith alone is necessary for salvation.



    I wasn't brought up in it.



    They don't, because using the same form of an argument but replacing the content with something absurd doesn't make the original argument argument absurd, it simply means that the other argument is. 'Godness' has very different properties from 'unicornness'. It makes no sense to define a unicorn with the properties of God, that is maximal greatness. The argument becomes contradictory and absurd because one defines a mythical being, the unicorn, with properties of maximal greatness, which it clearly wouldn't have were it to exist. You could make this sort of pretentious reductio ad absurdum argument with any piece of logic.

    It's a ridiculous way of arguing. One could make the mistake of making this sort of argument if one doesn't understand the ontological argument well. A being with maximal greatness is only maximally great if it exists in reality and exists in reality by necessity. Such a maximally great being is God. I don't think it's a good argument, but you clearly don't understand it.



    No, you clearly don't, you imbecilic, arrogant little autistic piece of shit.
    Just because I can conjure up something necessarily existing doesn't mean it necessarily exists in reality. The argument is not sound. The conclusion is not true, if it were valid. And it is not even valid. Granting all the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. It is not of a truth preserving form.

    Why don't you get this simple point? Are you an imbecile? How would you feel if I started insulting you for (supposedly) not understanding something. And yet you have the nerve to call me all these names?

    I don't owe you an explication of what I understand. Though, I have given it in my thread.
    If your reasoning capacity isn't sufficient to grasp the concepts it's not really my fault.

    Don't try to talk down to me, I am not your student sir, you are here on your own volition, if you don't like me threads, try to avoid them.

    I am not a Johnny-come-lately to this subject, you tool.
    Last edited by Petros Agapetos; 12-03-2016 at 08:41 AM.

  2. #62
    Veteran Member Petros Agapetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Last Online
    05-22-2023 @ 01:22 AM
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Meta-Ethnicity
    East Caucasian
    Ethnicity
    Armenian
    Country
    Canada
    Region
    Alberta
    Taxonomy
    East Alpine - East Med
    Politics
    Secular Liberal, Progressive Leftist
    Hero
    Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Robert Spencer, Bernie Sanders, Atheism-is-Unstoppable
    Religion
    Atheist
    Gender
    Posts
    4,074
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,051
    Given: 756

    0 Not allowed!

    Default The Ontological Argument revisited...

    The ontological argument attempts to prove that a "maximally great" entity — which always turns out to be the God of the arguer's religion — must, by definition, exist.
    All known attempts to make the ontological argument have been plagued by numerous show-stopping logical errors.

    It is also important to remember that ontological arguments are only being attempted in the first place due to the complete absence of evidence for the existence of God in the natural world, as a desperate last-ditch effort to keep the God hypothesis relevant.

    Naturally, this is a fallacy in itself, because even if "God" could be shown to exist deductively, that would by necessity pose all the other problems which have already been identified in the face of the faithful always having assumed God's existence anyways.

  3. #63
    Veteran Member Petros Agapetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Last Online
    05-22-2023 @ 01:22 AM
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Meta-Ethnicity
    East Caucasian
    Ethnicity
    Armenian
    Country
    Canada
    Region
    Alberta
    Taxonomy
    East Alpine - East Med
    Politics
    Secular Liberal, Progressive Leftist
    Hero
    Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Robert Spencer, Bernie Sanders, Atheism-is-Unstoppable
    Religion
    Atheist
    Gender
    Posts
    4,074
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,051
    Given: 756

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    An Ontological Counter-proof for the non-existence of God

    Another objection to the ontological argument is that one could change the possibility premise, and flip the argument on its head:

    2. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
    3. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
    4. It is possible that there isn’t a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
    5. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being does not exist.
    6. Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist. (axiom S5)
    7. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist.
    Last edited by Petros Agapetos; 12-03-2016 at 08:46 AM.

  4. #64
    Veteran Member Petros Agapetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Last Online
    05-22-2023 @ 01:22 AM
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Meta-Ethnicity
    East Caucasian
    Ethnicity
    Armenian
    Country
    Canada
    Region
    Alberta
    Taxonomy
    East Alpine - East Med
    Politics
    Secular Liberal, Progressive Leftist
    Hero
    Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Robert Spencer, Bernie Sanders, Atheism-is-Unstoppable
    Religion
    Atheist
    Gender
    Posts
    4,074
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,051
    Given: 756

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Metaphysical vs epistemic possibility

    The modal ontological argument, in some presentations, relies on an equivocation between metaphysical and epistemic possibility. It may very well be that the existence of a maximally great being is epistemically possible (i.e. we don't know that it's false) but not metaphysically possible (i.e. non-contradictory). If the concept of a maximally great being is not self-consistent, then it is not metaphysically possible for such a being to exist. Compare: we don't know whether the twin prime conjecture is true or not. Suppose it is false but we don't yet know it; it follows that it is (metaphysically) necessarily false. We might nevertheless agree that it might be true because we don't know its truth value.

    The issue with the metaphysical possibility as it relates to the first three premises can be clearly shown with a competing version of the argument:

    It is possible that a maximally great being (God) does not exist.
    If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then there is some possible world where a maximally great being does not exist.
    If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
    A maximally great being does not exist in every possible world (from 2).
    Therefore, a maximally great being (God) does not exist.

    This further highlights that the argument has two likely sources of error: with the construction of the argument in general (in which case the argument is not useful for proving anything) or a problem specific to the first premise (in which case the possibility of the existence or non-existence of the character God must be defended with further arguments). Of course it is also entirely possibly the problem lies in both areas, and it is neither possible to prove an actuality from a mere possibility or accept a possibility without supporting empirical evidence.

  5. #65
    Veteran Member Petros Agapetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Last Online
    05-22-2023 @ 01:22 AM
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Meta-Ethnicity
    East Caucasian
    Ethnicity
    Armenian
    Country
    Canada
    Region
    Alberta
    Taxonomy
    East Alpine - East Med
    Politics
    Secular Liberal, Progressive Leftist
    Hero
    Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Robert Spencer, Bernie Sanders, Atheism-is-Unstoppable
    Religion
    Atheist
    Gender
    Posts
    4,074
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,051
    Given: 756

    0 Not allowed!

    Default God's "Great"-ness

    The most noticeable fallacy of the ontological argument is the assumption that this which exists in reality and imagination is somehow "greater" than that which exists only in imagination. "Greater" and "greatness" as a quality is not at all defined in this context, and it is only the far overreaching manner in which the term is applied that allows this argument some semblance of logical appeal. The first counter to the argument was developed by Gaunilo of Marmoutier in the eleventh century.

    Anselm performed a bit of sloppy reasoning by assuming that there was a difference between our concept of a God and a God which exists in fact, so that he could elevate the latter case as supreme. But if God can be shown to exist through means other than pure reason (such as by direct observation, or historical veracity), then his existence is automatically incorporated into the true concept of God. We can have false concepts of God all we want, but the true concept of God always tracks the status of God in reality, whether he exists or does not. So it is never possible to demonstrate the existence of God purely by juggling our definitions of God and making a word salad, which is what the ontological argument is all about. So, while it may be assumed that Anselm merely intended to show how the concept of the ultimate entity (God) includes necessary existence, this is not clear from the form of the argument. In any case, it appears that Anselm meant to ask how, if something (as opposed to nothing) exists necessarily, can existence be deduced not to be a property even of that which exists contingently.

    The weakness of "greatness" opens up the argument to further refutations. What happens if two people disagree on what makes something "great"? If a sociopath comes up and says, "maximally great includes maximal hatred for conscious life", what argument can be presented for that not being an actual quality of greatness? In fact, what argument at all is put forward for how we determine what is greatness? Consider the claim: "something that is maximally great cannot be denied." The argument suddenly becomes a reductio ad absurdum with the simple addition of that and "I deny god."

    If this is supposed to follow from the definition of "maximally great being," then that definition needs substantial defense. Otherwise it is question-begging. It suffers from the same problem as St. Anselm's: existence is not a real predicate. A being that exists in every possible world is not greater than a being who does not exist in every possible world.

  6. #66
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Croatia
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Slavic+Romance
    Ethnicity
    Croatian
    Ancestry
    3/4 Croatian and 1/4 North Italian
    Country
    Croatia
    Region
    Dalmatia
    Y-DNA
    I2a1b
    Taxonomy
    Atlantid+CM
    Politics
    Direct Democracy
    Hero
    Jordan Peterson
    Religion
    Deist
    Gender
    Posts
    9,888
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 12,781
    Given: 8,063

    1 Not allowed!

    Default

    @Petros Agapetos

    All your writings (even though I respect them) are no different than writings of religious ppl, both of you (no offence) have no clue what to do with your life considering spirituality, in one way both of you are opposite sides of same coin.

    Truth about this is not complicated for our state of mind, because even if it would be complicated you or I or anyone else couldn't comprehend it, so it is in fact very simple.

  7. #67
    Veteran Member Petros Agapetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Last Online
    05-22-2023 @ 01:22 AM
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Meta-Ethnicity
    East Caucasian
    Ethnicity
    Armenian
    Country
    Canada
    Region
    Alberta
    Taxonomy
    East Alpine - East Med
    Politics
    Secular Liberal, Progressive Leftist
    Hero
    Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Robert Spencer, Bernie Sanders, Atheism-is-Unstoppable
    Religion
    Atheist
    Gender
    Posts
    4,074
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,051
    Given: 756

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robocop View Post
    @Petros Agapetos

    All your writings (even though I respect them) are no different than writings of religious ppl, both of you (no offence) have no clue what to do with your life considering spirituality, in one way both of you are opposite sides of same coin.

    Truth about this is not complicated for our state of mind, because even if it would be complicated you or I or anyone else couldn't comprehend it, so it is in fact very simple.
    I love arguments, but my experience with the religious has been that they tend to just accept their religion on faith, rather than critically evaluate them.

    I am open to an argument that would convince me a God actually exists., it is just that I find the Ontological argument to be a kind of philosophical slight of hand, it simply defines God into existence. I am not very impressed by it. I was just wondering what religious people feel about these types of arguments. I am doing this for you, the readers, I know this stuff.
    Last edited by Petros Agapetos; 12-03-2016 at 08:48 AM.

  8. #68
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Croatia
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Slavic+Romance
    Ethnicity
    Croatian
    Ancestry
    3/4 Croatian and 1/4 North Italian
    Country
    Croatia
    Region
    Dalmatia
    Y-DNA
    I2a1b
    Taxonomy
    Atlantid+CM
    Politics
    Direct Democracy
    Hero
    Jordan Peterson
    Religion
    Deist
    Gender
    Posts
    9,888
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 12,781
    Given: 8,063

    1 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petros Agapetos View Post
    I love arguments, but my experience with religious is that they tend not to and just accept their religion on faith, rather than critically evaluate them.
    I am open to an argument that would convince me a God actually exists., it is just that I find the Ontological argument to be a kind of philosophical slight of hand, it simply defines God into existence. I am not very impressed by it. I was just wondering what religious people feel about these types of arguments. I am doing this for you, the readers, I know this stuff.
    I hope you will read it all what I have to say (nevermind do you agree or disagree, I respect your opinion, but this is my way of thinking);

    Religious ppl wouldn't notice a God if "he" would be sitting on their heads but they see "him" everywhere else, why do you think they created religions.

    Every individual is unique, means his/her "me" is unique, you can call it "soul, spirit, human awareness" but that somethin defines every individual, including you. What religions do not understand is that you cannot cover all those unique spirits/souls or "your inner you" with GENERAL "spiritual" (what they think It's spiritual) rituals, imagine how... STUPID and irresponsible that is from Intellectual and Spiritual point of view.

    Intelligence alone would create out of you a simple Artificial Intelligence, because ask yourself this; why do you help someone you don't know? Why do you feel that urge? Example; some random individual you would see on the street, if you wouldn't help him/her it wouldn't hurt you in any way (except in a way you cannot explain why), it wouldn't bring world, society or your local area of city down, so... it is totally Illogical from Intellectual point of view from you to help that particular random individual who is in need of help.

    You can say; it is because of MORAL.

    But what is moral?

    Some Atheists says that Moral was created because our distant ancestors wanted to survive, that's bullshit.

    One particular Paleolithic human community wouldn't gain anything to save some injured old woman or man, they would benefit more if they would leave such person, why would they even feel responsible to bury her/him or set him/her fire as sign of respect?

    Why... it has no logic and you know it, no logic from Intellectual side of thinking, from pure intellect without any sort of spirituality.

    If someone would create Artificial Intelligence (such intelligence couldn't feel any emotions or moral, ScFi which says they do, that's bullshit, you cannot program or make any sort of chip or anything which would bring that to Artificial Intelligence, the only thing you would be able to do is make; robotic laws, means to prevent A.I. from hurting Human), but let me continue;

    If you would ask such Artificial Intelligence (without any robotic laws), and that A.I. is totally self-awared, if you would ask "her";

    Please solve the problem of hunger on this world considering Humans.

    Do you know what way would A.I. probably go?

    "She" would exterminate maybe 2 billion of people, maybe even 3..., because to A.I., there is nothin wrong with that, it solves problem, just like 2+2=4.

    Your answer to A.I. on such move would be somethin like; "You can't do that..."

    A.I. Why?

    You: Because...., It's not human, It's not moral thing to do...

    A.I. What is moral, define moral?

    You: (Nevermind of your answer, "she" would go again)

    A.I.; You are not in danger, your existence is not in danger, your economy is not in danger (on the cotrary), your job is not in danger, your sons and daughters are not in danger, your relatives are not in danger, why is it wrong?


    P.S. At the end of the day, you couldn't find true answer for A.I., no way man, no way you could find it so that "she" can understand it from logical intellectual point of view, BUT YOU WOULD FEEL FROM YOUR "LEGS TO BRAIN" that's wrong, you would know, your conscience "would scream", and you wouldn't be able to control that, nevermind of your Intellect.

    Anyway, you wouldn't be able to explain it to "her", but you would KNOW IT, just like you know it now, but in "her" Intelligence THERE IS NO SUCH THING as that what you feel, that DOESN'T EXIST..., you cannot define it, you cannot touch it, you cannot present it, you cannot describe it, you cannot draw it, you cannot program it, nothing..., but YOU KNOW it exists because It's "screaming" in you.

    Same thing with God, do not try to understand "him" trough religions or trough our HUMAN LOGIC, because you are in position of that A.I., relatively in same position in such case.

    What you need to do, is accept what you feel (this what I was describing to you), and KNOW, there is something beyond ourselves, beyond religion, beyond science as we know it, something inside us which we can feel, It's not in church, in mosque etc..., It cannot be found by simple math or viewing the Hubble telescope, or on Archaeological digs...

    It is there, from dawn of men, and before men, and after men, it is there .

    Cheers
    Last edited by Robocop; 12-02-2016 at 07:57 PM.

  9. #69
    Veteran Member barkoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Last Online
    05-15-2019 @ 08:26 PM
    Location
    France
    Ethnicity
    French, Italian, Iberian, distant Greek, Britain.
    Ancestry
    Campania, Lazio, Marche, Emilia-Romagna, Tuscany, Abruzzo, Sicily Normandy, Occitanie
    Country
    Italy
    Region
    Campania
    Y-DNA
    J2a1
    mtDNA
    H7
    Taxonomy
    Gracile-Mediterranid
    Hero
    Bender Bending Rodríguez
    Relationship Status
    ---
    Gender
    Posts
    3,160
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,973
    Given: 1,732

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robocop View Post
    You say you don't see God so "he" doesn't exist?

    Do you see thoughts of some person's brain? No? Means that person and his/her brain doesn't exist...or?

    Well you don't see thoughts of that person, where is evidence those thoughts exist?

    Should doctor see human thoughts in brain while he operates on brain? He see only ORGAN - Brain.

    Be open minded, fuck religions they have nothin to do with God, they never did.
    Right, but a brain is materialized physically which is used indeed for abstraction thinking.
    There is no prove whatsoever that a thought can be decoupled from an entire physical process, that's what you presuppose.
    And no prove that God could think of his own, if we suppose he exist though. Always a presupposed image we get of him from us subjects.

  10. #70
    Veteran Member Petros Agapetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Last Online
    05-22-2023 @ 01:22 AM
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Meta-Ethnicity
    East Caucasian
    Ethnicity
    Armenian
    Country
    Canada
    Region
    Alberta
    Taxonomy
    East Alpine - East Med
    Politics
    Secular Liberal, Progressive Leftist
    Hero
    Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Robert Spencer, Bernie Sanders, Atheism-is-Unstoppable
    Religion
    Atheist
    Gender
    Posts
    4,074
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,051
    Given: 756

    1 Not allowed!

    Default

    I hope you will read it all what I have to say (nevermind do you agree or disagree, I respect your opinion, but this is my way of thinking);

    Religious ppl wouldn't notice a God if "he" would be sitting on their heads but they see "him" everywhere else, why do you think they created religions.
    Religion is humanity's first attempt at science and philosophy, and because it is our first, it is our worst.
    Every individual is unique, means his/her "me" is unique, you can call it "soul, spirit, human awareness" but that somethin defines every individual, including you. What religions do not understand is that you cannot cover all those unique spirits/souls or "your inner you" with GENERAL "spiritual" (what they think It's spiritual) rituals, imagine how... STUPID and irresponsible that is from Intellectual and Spiritual point of view.
    What theory of mind do you follow:

    A. Substance Dualism (mind and body are separate substances)
    B. Property Dualism (mind and body are separate properties)
    C. Epiphenomenalism (the brain causes mind, but the mind does not cause the brain)
    D. Identity theory (mind and body are one and the same)
    E. Functionalism (the mind is what the brain does)

    Just curious.

    Intelligence alone would create out of you a simple Artificial Intelligence, because ask yourself this; why do you help someone you don't know? Why do you feel that urge? Example; some random individual you would see on the street, if you wouldn't help him/her it wouldn't hurt you in any way (except in a way you cannot explain why), it wouldn't bring world, society or your local area of city down, so... it is totally Illogical from Intellectual point of view from you to help that particular random individual who is in need of help.
    It is not illogical to help people for the following reasons:
    Morality is about evaluating the consequences of actions, taking into account intentions and decisions made. Under this consequentialist construal of morality, it is in our best interest to help people. The central frames of reference for morality are human flourishing, well-being of thinking creatures, as well as pleasure and happiness. Under this view of morality, it is perfectly moral to help people in need, regardless of whether you get any additional reward or benefit from doing so.

Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Which TA arguments are the worst?
    By Szegedist in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 11-08-2016, 11:07 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •