It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Godel's ontological argument. Lets have some fun.

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver




1). It is possible that you are a ham sandwich named Harry Ridgeback.

2) if it is possible that you are a ham sandwich, in some possible world, then it is possible that you are a ham sandwich in every possible world.


I don't grant either premise. It is not possible for me, Tanner Terry, to be Harry Ridgeback as if I was Harry Ridgeback I would not be Tanner Terry. Law of noncontradiction has been broken.

Even If I granted premise 1, We have the same thing in premise two in which you state it is possible for me, a Human, to be a Ham sandwich. Again I cannot be me without being Human so it is not possible for me to be a ham sandwich and even it it was it would not logically follow that it must be that way in every possible world.




posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Exactly, so you solved the problem by convincing me, with enough evidence that you are not in fact a ham sandwich. (I'm assuming you're telling the truth based on what i know about a ham sandwich's typing abilities.)

Now convince me with evidence that god is real and you will not need complicated unlogical arguments to try and trick people that your god is not a fantasy. If i was a person who believed in gods, i would take whatever convinced me, and i would show it to everybody. If all you have is your belief and no reason to believe it, that is to say, if whatever convinced you, isn't very convincing, why would you be so convinced?


I could take a page from your playbook and say that there is a possibility that we do not know every attribute that ham sandwiches have. Maybe ham sandwiches can type, and just nobody has ever seen it before. You seem to like to argue from a position that anything is possible.
edit on 9-4-2016 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver




Exactly, so you solved the problem by convincing me, with enough evidence that you are not in fact a ham sandwich. (I'm assuming you're telling the truth based on what i know about a ham sandwich's typing abilities.)


I solved the problem by determining there was flawed logic in your premises. Because the idea of me being a ham sandwich would require you to change essential properties about myself. In order for a maximally great being to be impossible the very idea of it must be contradictory. It is not therefore the conclusion stand a MGB exists in the actual world.





I could take a page from your playbook and say that there is a possibility that we do not know every attribute that ham sandwiches have. Maybe ham sandwiches can type, and just nobody has ever seen it before. You seem to like to argue from a position that anything is possible.


Not at all. It is not possible for a square to have three sides. It is not possible for a human to also be a ham sandwich. I see not reason why the statement "It is possible a MGB does not exists" its certainly true that is a possibility, but if that is the position you affirm you would have to prove that it is indeed possible that a MGB does not exists. You see a MGB has those and only those properties that it is better to essentially have than not to have to their maximal extent. So is it better to be All powerful or Powerless? Is it better to be All knowing or Ignorant? Is it better to be essentially Good or Evil? I feel the answer to these questions are rather self evident. I would argue that if it is possible that MGB exists, there is a possible world in which a MGB has necessary existence. By necessary existence, I mean the essential property of existing in all possible worlds.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Yes. I understand what you are saying. There is no confusion. Do you understand what my point is? Can you even explain my position?


a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

No.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver




Yes. I understand what you are saying. There is no confusion. Do you understand what my point is? Can you even explain my position?


What point the only point I saw you attempt is the illogical point that a Human could possibly be a ham sandwich? Your position seems to be that I am using word play to try and trick people into thinking that God is real, but in Good philosopher would know thats not what is going on here.




As an atheist, i can have the position that gods are possible but extremely unlikely. So unlikely as not to believe. I do not need to be a 100% denier of the possiblity that gods could exist. But when we look at traditional examples of known god concepts, i can be 100% sure that Thor was never a real entity. Likewise with Zeus, jesus, Mithra, Osirus, and the others.


Actually no.. If we are discussing the argument I gave, if you concede that a MGB is possible(premise 1) then the conclusion logically follows that a MGB must exists in the actual world because if it is possible there is a possible world in which this being has necessary existence. If something exists necessarily then it is ontological nature exists in all possible worlds, if that is the case it exists in the actual world. This gives real world relevancy to the problem you just don't like the conclusion or the position you would need to take to refute it.




I could take a page from your playbook and say that there is a possibility that we do not know every attribute that ham sandwiches have. Maybe ham sandwiches can type, and just nobody has ever seen it before. You seem to like to argue from a position that anything is possible.


By no means do I believe anything is possible. It is not possible for there to be a married bachelor. It is not possible for a square to have three sides. It is not possible for a Human to be a sandwich. These things cannot possibly be as they are logically contradictory. A three sided square would have impossible existence. You have been trying to show that this argument works for anything but it doesn't and that is the problem I have with all your rebuttals. You don't understand seem to understand that when philosophers talk about existence there are three kinds:

Impossible existence -three sided sqaure.

Contingent Existence- Vampires, Unicorns, and Humans.

Necessary Existence - Abstract Concepts.

The argument is that a MGB based solely on its nature must exists if it is even possible for it to exists. This is not some cheap trick of word play its well defined deductive argument for the existence of a MGB.

You keep asking me what convinced me and I would simply say that my belief in God is a properly basic belief based on personal experiences but I could never give that to you as evidence as I cannot share those experiences with you.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: imjack

Yea thats what I would do if I made such a ridiculous argument an IQ of 149 you should know better.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


if you concede that a MGB is possible(premise 1) then the conclusion logically follows that a MGB must exists in the actual world because if it is possible there is a possible world in which this being has necessary existence.


Hahaahaa. So, saying something is possible, somehow makes it a given? Are you drinking before church again?

Or did you just admit that you are a ham sandwhich? It is unlikely, but possible, and your logic says that that is enough to go forward to the next axiom.

If i assume that unicorns are possible, does that also make them real? How about all of the other gods? Or anything else? Why does your god work in this word problem, but other gods don't?

You have got to see the problem with this right?

God is just as self contradictory as a married bachelor.

He is a perfect, omniscient, omni present, omnipotent, being, (according to some) who; makes mistakes, doesn't know everything, can't be everywhere, and has limitations on what he can do.
edit on 10-4-2016 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-4-2016 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-4-2016 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-4-2016 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


You keep asking me what convinced me and I would simply say that my belief in God is a properly basic belief based on personal experiences but I could never give that to you as evidence as I cannot share those experiences with you.


How convenient. Whenever asked this question, you always answer the same. You cannot produce any tangible reason why you believe. This in itself proves you are not interested in reason. Which is why this conversation can go on for so long, without any.

This present argument uses the same amount of reason as your choice to believe in god. That is to say, it feels right to you. Try reading up on real logic problems and you will start to see why this isn't one. Your lack of evidence and reason is what makes this fall apart.
edit on 10-4-2016 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)
this problem would work better if you just use algebraic place holders like x and y. But when you start defining these place holders with things that are not proven to exist, you then need to prove they exist.
edit on 10-4-2016 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)


X+y=z

Flour + yeast + water + appropriate amount of time in appropriate heat = bread

Unicorn + grass = rainbow flavored poop.


One of these problems needs more vetting.
edit on 10-4-2016 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-4-2016 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver




Hahaahaa. So, saying something is possible, somehow makes it a given? Are you drinking before church again?


No saying something is possible doesn't make it a given, but saying a MGB is possible does make it a given based on the deductive argument from Plantinga. The concept of ontology is still eluding you.




Or did you just admit that you are a ham sandwhich? It is unlikely, but possible, and your logic says that that is enough to go forward to the next axiom.


Those are not axioms. Those are premises in a deductive argument using modal logic. No it is not unlikely that I am a ham sandwich it is impossible for me to be a ham sandwich. You seem to also forget the law of identity. If I were a ham sandwich I could not logically be me as that change essential properties of being me namely that to be me I must be a human.. The premise is flawed. The argument doesn't work. Why are you saying my argument doesn't work? You have given no reasons.




If i assume that unicorns are possible, does that also make them real? How about all of the other gods? Or anything else? Why does your god work in this word problem, but other gods don't?


You don't have to assume unicorns are possible. There is some possible world in which a unicorn exists, but the nature of a unicorn doesn't imply that its existence is necessary but rather contingent. So we could say that a unicorn exists in some possible worlds but not all possible worlds and as such their is no reason to believe a unicorn exists in all possibles and therefore no reason to believe unicorns exists in the actual world. Again the argument doesn't work for unicorns just like it doesn't work for me being a ham sandwich. I don't use this argument for the Christian God. I use it for theism over atheism. Look at my thread we want REASONS for God and you'll see how I came to the realization that its the Christian God as I give 5 reference points.




You have got to see the problem with this right?


I see what you think is the problem, but its kind of like listening to someone who has never seen the sun describe what a sunset is. I know where your misunderstandings are because I actually understand the argument the idea of somethings essential nature still seems to be no where in your responses and your talking about an argument in the realm of ontology which deals specifically with the nature of things.




God is just as self contradictory as a married bachelor.


Now we are getting somewhere. If this is indeed true then it would confirm premise 1 on the negative side of the argument it is possible that a MGB does not exists and as such would mean it is indeed true that a MGB does not exists. Please present a reason as to why the concept of a MGB is self contradictory.




He is a perfect, omniscient, omni present, omnipotent, being, (according to some) who; makes mistakes, doesn't know everything, can't be everywhere, and has limitations on what he can do.


This shows no contradiction in the nature of the described being. It just shows that you don't like the source of the arguments that does nothing to make it more or less true.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver




How convenient. Whenever asked this question, you always answer the same. You cannot produce any tangible reason why you believe. This in itself proves you are not interested in reason. Which is why this conversation can go on for so long, without any.


You might not like that answer but it is completely rational, and it was honest. I very clearly stated that the most convincing thing to me is not something I could give to you but I find this argument extremely convincing as well. Along with the others presented in the other thread.




But when you start defining these place holders with things that are not proven to exist, you then need to prove they exist.


Another statement that shows you don't quite grasp what ontology is . This argument is seeking to prove that something exists based on its essential nature of that thing.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Yea sure, but you do not know the nature of this thing, because you cannot present it, and have never observed it. It is in your imagination.

For some reason, you think you know this thing, even though you have never seen it. You simply have invented it's properties. Why can you not understand this? Why do you think you know the nature of this thing? Do you want the world to accept your opinion without proving it is valid? Does the world not deserve some evidence other than your word?


This is the saddest thread you have ever made. You think you can prove god is real, without presenting it for observation, because you have invented and given it the property of being real?
edit on 11-4-2016 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-4-2016 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)
i guess i'll say this again too. Ontological arguments only work if the axioms have been proven valid. That is why it starts with "IF". You have not, and seem to think it is not necessary to prove your axioms.
edit on 11-4-2016 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver




Yea sure, but you do not know the nature of this thing, because you cannot present it, and have never observed it. It is in your imagination.


What says you have to have observed a thing before you can know its nature. Is it essential to have seen a square to understand what it is? I think not.




For some reason, you think you know this thing, even though you have never seen it. You simply have invented it's properties. Why can you not understand this? Why do you think you know the nature of this thing?


I don't know the things nature in totality just what I can understand must be the case.




Do you want the world to accept your opinion without proving it is valid? Does the world not deserve some evidence other than your word?


Nothing is based on my word you just don't seem to get the idea that the argument is discussing the attribute or set of attributes that makes a MGB a MGB. Some of those attributes that we can know are Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent, and Necessarily these things in all possible worlds. Your problem is you do cannot grasp what it means to be essentially necessary.




This is the saddest thread you have ever made. You think you can prove god is real, without presenting it for observation, because you have invented and given it the property of being real?


The fact that you think you can observe God the way you would observe a Planet seems to be to be the saddest excuse for an intellectual idea I have ever heard. That is like saying if God were a programmer and we were a program those in the program should be able to observe the one that transcends that reality, and unless the programmer chose to be imminent in his design at some point. I didn't arbitrarily give it the property of necessary existence.




i guess i'll say this again too. Ontological arguments only work if the axioms have been proven valid. That is why it starts with "IF". You have not, and seem to think it is not necessary to prove your axioms.


You see you joke on presuppositional apologetics and then you make a statement like this that makes me wonder if you've ever taken to the time to study what they seem to be claiming. If in order for something to be true its axioms must also be true, can you prove the axiom all of Science depends that being the belief that the future will be like the past? They don't start with IF because the axioms need to be proven, they start with if because its modal Logic. Each Premise is deduced from the preceding premise...


1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

2. If It is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If amaximally great being exists in every possible world, thenit exists in the actual world.

5. Ifa maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists


As you can see the if statement is saying if the premise above is true then this is true also it has nothing to do with axioms this time. It seems to elude you that there could be a possible world in which a being like this exists. You keep saying you made the up the idea. I didn't make up the idea of a square, I simply have the capacity to understand what it means to be square. The same thing goes for the idea of a Maximally Great Being, I have the capacity to understand what I mean when I say this, but that doesn't entail that you have made something up rather than better understood an idea. So my question is why do you think God needs to be observable in order for the first premise to hold. 1 if is possible that a maximally great being exists?



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Woodcarver




Yea sure, but you do not know the nature of this thing, because you cannot present it, and have never observed it. It is in your imagination.


What says you have to have observed a thing before you can know its nature. Is it essential to have seen a square to understand what it is? I think not.




For some reason, you think you know this thing, even though you have never seen it. You simply have invented it's properties. Why can you not understand this? Why do you think you know the nature of this thing?


I don't know the things nature in totality just what I can understand must be the case.




Do you want the world to accept your opinion without proving it is valid? Does the world not deserve some evidence other than your word?


Nothing is based on my word you just don't seem to get the idea that the argument is discussing the attribute or set of attributes that makes a MGB a MGB. Some of those attributes that we can know are Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent, and Necessarily these things in all possible worlds. Your problem is you do cannot grasp what it means to be essentially necessary.




This is the saddest thread you have ever made. You think you can prove god is real, without presenting it for observation, because you have invented and given it the property of being real?


The fact that you think you can observe God the way you would observe a Planet seems to be to be the saddest excuse for an intellectual idea I have ever heard. That is like saying if God were a programmer and we were a program those in the program should be able to observe the one that transcends that reality, and unless the programmer chose to be imminent in his design at some point. I didn't arbitrarily give it the property of necessary existence.




i guess i'll say this again too. Ontological arguments only work if the axioms have been proven valid. That is why it starts with "IF". You have not, and seem to think it is not necessary to prove your axioms.


You see you joke on presuppositional apologetics and then you make a statement like this that makes me wonder if you've ever taken to the time to study what they seem to be claiming. If in order for something to be true its axioms must also be true, can you prove the axiom all of Science depends that being the belief that the future will be like the past? They don't start with IF because the axioms need to be proven, they start with if because its modal Logic. Each Premise is deduced from the preceding premise...


1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

2. If It is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If amaximally great being exists in every possible world, thenit exists in the actual world.

5. Ifa maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists


As you can see the if statement is saying if the premise above is true then this is true also it has nothing to do with axioms this time. It seems to elude you that there could be a possible world in which a being like this exists. You keep saying you made the up the idea. I didn't make up the idea of a square, I simply have the capacity to understand what it means to be square. The same thing goes for the idea of a Maximally Great Being, I have the capacity to understand what I mean when I say this, but that doesn't entail that you have made something up rather than better understood an idea. So my question is why do you think God needs to be observable in order for the first premise to hold. 1 if is possible that a maximally great being exists?
Uhhmmm.... Yes you would have to observe a square before you know that it is a square. Of course you do. You also would need to observe a god to know it's attributes. There is no other way to know what attributes something has unless you observe it. How can you possibly not get this?

This is not modal logic. This you saying you can imagine a god, therefor it must be real. You cannot prove that something exists by stating that it exists. What else would you accept this logic to prove? I can swap out the word godzilla or any other words for this max being? Would it also prove that it exists? Of course not. You would not accept that.
edit on 12-4-2016 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

1. It is possible that a unicorn exists.

2. If It is possible that a unicorn exists, then unicorns exists in some possible world.

3. If a unicorn exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If a unicorn exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

5. If a unicorn exists in the actual world, then a unicorn exists.

6. Therefore, unicorns exist.




Well, i guess unicorns are everywhere huh?
of course not. Because saying something exists doesn't make it so. What would you need from me to convince you that unicorns are real? Was my "modal logic" not enough for you? What would you need to believe me?
edit on 12-4-2016 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver




1. It is possible that a unicorn exists. 2. If It is possible that a unicorn exists, then unicorns exists in some possible world. 3. If a unicorn exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4. If a unicorn exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5. If a unicorn exists in the actual world, then a unicorn exists. 6. Therefore, unicorns exist. Well, i guess unicorns are everywhere huh? of course not. Because saying something exists doesn't make it so. What would you need from me to convince you that unicorns are real? Was my "modal logic" not enough for you? What would you need to believe me?


This is your problem dude. Premise three does not logically follow when you replace MGB with unicorn. Unicorn's are contingent beings therefore they may exists in some possible worlds but not others.



posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Why? Because you say so? Care to explain it instead of just assert that?



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver





Why? Because you say so? Care to explain it instead of just assert that?


What explain why a unicorn is contingent in nature? It is material, and nothing about its essence says otherwise.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 12:14 PM
link   
I'm not the one claiming that your argument makes sense. My unicorn shows that your argument doesn't work because you don't agree with it when something absurd is put into the equation. Not that unicorns make sense. Surely your not that dense.

Now would you please explain why the possibility of an MGB existing, equates to it actually existing, but that same (and equal) possibility of unicorns existing does not.


edit on 16-4-2016 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-4-2016 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I see you edited your post, but you didn't care to answer mine?

Well i'll answer your new statement

You say there is nothing about the "essence" (attributes?) of unicorns that would allow it to exist in multiple worlds, right? Mainly because it is "in essence", and mythology, described as a material being. A horselike creature with magical powers. I could easily appoint it some attributes that would make that it possible for it to transcend this earthly realm and travel hence to other worlds.


Just like you do with god. What's the difference?

The attributes that you ascribe to your version of god, are just as arbitrary. You are inventing your god by giving it attributes that you think it would have. You don't even know if it is real, much less what attributes it would have.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join