FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-16-2002, 07:23 AM   #261
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 96
Post

Mike,
Do you believe God is dead?
strubenuff is offline  
Old 08-16-2002, 07:26 AM   #262
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 100
Post

Koy,

Entertaining response. The bible says that Adam ( the first man) was the son of God. The bible also says "be ye therefore perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect" So God is a perfect man. I didn't lable him, that's the traditional Judeo-christian concept as taught in the bible. If you don't want to call that a definition. Fine. But the implications are that if we truly understand God, we understand ourselves and if we truly understand ourselves we understand God. So here is your definition: God is a human being who is perfected or has maximized all positive human traits. By this definition he doesn't necessarily exist, but the concept of God moves from the realm of an impossible fable to theoretic possibility.
Mike is offline  
Old 08-16-2002, 08:20 AM   #263
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me.
Posts: 6,508
Question

Quote:
Originally posted by Mike:
Entertaining response.
It wasn't meant to be, but thanks, I guess.

Quote:
MORE: The bible says that Adam ( the first man) was the son of God.
Yes, it certainly does say that. It also says that snakes, donkeys and burning bushes can speak and that the dead can rise.

It says a lot of things.

Quote:
MORE: The bible also says "be ye therefore perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect" So God is a perfect man.
Non-sequitur, but, fine. According to your exegesis of the mythology in the bible, God is supposed to be a "perfect man."

Since there is no such thing and can be no such thing as a "perfect man" in reality, however, this exegesis serves little purpose, that I can see, unless it is to further prove that no such man (named "God") exists.

Quote:
MORE: I didn't lable him, that's the traditional Judeo-christian concept as taught in the bible.
No, it is not.

<ol type="1">[*] There are several differing and contradictory "traditional" Judeo/Christian concepts of God as taught in the bible[*] A commonality to those concepts is that God (the Father) is not human; that humans were fallible and simply made in God's image[*] Fine, what difference does this make?[/list=a]

Quote:
MORE: If you don't want to call that a definition. Fine.
Fine, let's call that a definition. According to your exegesis of the bible, God is defined as a perfect man, thereby further proving that he does not and cannot factually exist.

A perfect man would be a man entirely without fault (i.e., flaw) or defect. The fact that such a man is dead would automatically destroy that claim, yes?

Being dead would certainly be a defect, yes? Unless you wish to argue that he died a "perfect" death or some other such meaningless drivel.

Quote:
MORE: But the implications are that if we truly understand God,
How do you propose we "understand" what it would mean to be a "perfect" man, entirely without flaw or defect?

I don't mean imagine it or write some poetry about it or anything like that, I mean understand that there was once a man without flaw or defect who died, thereby arguably proving him to be with at least one flaw or defect, which in turn negates the "perfect" claim?

What's more, who cares? A "perfect" man is still just a man with no supernatural powers or abilities to raise the dead or heal the sick or create the entire universe ex nihilo by will alone, so, again, you'd only be arguing for a different form of impossible being.

It's good work if you can get it, but what's the point?

Quote:
MORE: we understand ourselves and if we truly understand ourselves we understand God.
How? Beside the fact that these flowery new age sentiments have no actual meaning, you're not a perfect man so how would you even begin to understand what a perfect man is (or is not)?

Quote:
MORE: So here is your definition: God is a human being who is perfected or has maximized all positive human traits.
Again, this is a definition, so fine. That is a definition.

According to you, God was a human being who perfected or maximized all positive human traits who died and rotted into the ground like all men do.

As a man with "perfect" positive human traits, he did not create the universe or any of the other creatures on earth and had no supernatural attributes. He was just very healthy, exceedingly kind and generous and, I guess, had really good eyesight and a muscular body and could play a really good game of chess.

Does that about cover it?

Quote:
MORE: By this definition he doesn't necessarily exist, but the concept of God moves from the realm of an impossible fable to theoretic possibility.
No, it does not, since it is not possible to be a "perfect" human being, but fine, if you want to explain what you mean by "perfect" and then search through history (or go door to door) and find the person who most closely fit such a description and then name that person "God" the way you would a pet, by all means, be my guest.

You'd get no argument from me. A puzzled look, perhaps, since that person most likely already has/had a name that their own parents gave them, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

According to you, there was once a man who was as close to being a perfect human being as is possible and you have decided to name that man "God," a name that has no intrinsic meaning and is just the letters "g," "o," and "d" put together. As a man, he therefore did nothing supernatural, had no particular significance, did not create the universe and everything in it and, if dead, is burried somewhere on the Earth and that's the end of it.

Got it.

[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>
Koyaanisqatsi is offline  
Old 08-16-2002, 10:35 AM   #264
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 100
Post

1. Why do you suggest that a perfect man is impossible? If He is theoretically possible, he is possible in reality.

2. I'm not claiming that the bible proves God's existence, only explaining the biblical concept of God. The idea that we are his children (race) is biblical, the idea that we, or the universe were created ex-nihilo is not biblical. The Hebrew word that is translated as "created" can also be translated as "organized."

3. Death is as natural as birth, but the biblical God did not rot into the ground, he had power over death, and rose again. Perhaps resurrection is as natural as birth and death. I guess you won't know until you die yourself, but that is what the bible claims. Yes, God died, No he is not dead. Birth isn't permanent, why should death be. Isn't matter and energy indestructable by the definition of science. Aren't we composed of matter and energy?
Mike is offline  
Old 08-16-2002, 11:27 AM   #265
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me.
Posts: 6,508
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Mike:
1. Why do you suggest that a perfect man is impossible?
Beyond the fact that you have yet to define exactly what it is you mean by a "perfect man," perfection, as a concept, is an absolute and therefore impossible, literally, to attain. One can strive for perfection, of course (the purpose of establishing such linguistic absolutes), but never actually attain it.

Quote:
MORE: If He is theoretically possible, he is possible in reality.


<ol type="1">[*] You have yet to define what a "perfect man" is[*] What is theoretically possible does not necessarily mean it is therefore possible in reality[/list=a]

Quote:
MORE: 2. I'm not claiming that the bible proves God's existence,
Then why your insistence upon quoting the bible in any way in order to support your claim?

Quote:
MORE: only explaining the biblical concept of God.
As you interpret it. There are, quite literally, millions of people who might disagree with you.

Quote:
MORE: The idea that we are his children (race) is biblical,
And irrelevant.

Quote:
MORE: the idea that we, or the universe were created ex-nihilo is not biblical. The Hebrew word that is translated as "created" can also be translated as "organized."
But it is not translated as "organized" by any of the teams of Hebrew scholars who wrote the translations, which means you are asking us to simply accept your interpretation over the teams of scholars who translated all versions of the bible that I have ever seen.

Upon what basis should we accept your word on this matter?

Further, again, upon what basis should we accept the bible's word on this matter? You claimed that you were not using the bible to prove God's existence, yet, here you are, using the bible to prove God's existence.

Whether directly or indirectly doesn't matter, of course. The bible is nothing more than a collection of cult mythology. How you do or do not translate certain words in your own personal exegesis is irrelevant across the board, not just to the question of a fictional character's factual existence.

Further, even if it were accepted that Genesis stated that God "organized" the universe, it is still an impossible task for a man, perfect or otherwise, since implicit in the claim is that he did it by will alone.

So, unless you're going for another pointless derivation of solipsism, reality is where we all live and reality is where this "perfect man" would have been living prior to there being a reality, so how do you propose he "organized" the big bang, for example, and from where did he accomplish this?

Quote:
MORE: 3. Death is as natural as birth, but the biblical God did not rot into the ground, he had power over death, and rose again.
No, he did not. The fictional character based most likely upon a radical local Rabbi named Jesus who had allegedly been executed by the Romans for sedition against Rome (the only reason he would have been crucified, beside murder) is described by the authors of the mythology to have died and then bodily (depending upon who you read) rose from the dead.

In the real world, however, dead men do not rise from their graves, perfect or otherwise.

Quote:
MORE: Perhaps resurrection is as natural as birth and death.
If that were the case then we would all be extremely overcrowded with billions of dead people walking all around, yes?

Quote:
MORE: I guess you won't know until you die yourself, but that is what the bible claims.
Actually, it is exceedingly easy to test the claim that the dead can bodily raise from their graves as a natural ability. Sit in a grave yard.

Quote:
MORE: Yes, God died, No he is not dead.
You've just contradicted yourself, thereby proving the logical impossibility of the concept.

Quote:
MORE: Birth isn't permanent, why should death be.
I don't know what that means? Birth is, indeed, "permanent" in that, once your are born you have been permanently born.

In other words, there is no way to be unborn.

Quote:
MORE: Isn't matter and energy indestructable by the definition of science.
Yes.

Quote:
MORE: Aren't we composed of matter and energy?
Yes.

What's your point? A full water balloon is composed of matter and energy and it will still be composed of matter and energy when you pop it, but the full water balloon will no longer be full of water or, for that matter, much of a balloon any more, right?

This has no bearing on the fact that all of its components remain composed of mater and energy, yes?

The proper phrase, by the way, is "energy cannot be destroyed, only diverted."

Since Einstein convincingly demonstrated that matter is energy and vice versa, it's ok to throw in "matter," but equally unnecessary, so unless you want to argue that when humans die their bodies are somehow preserved and the energy that was previously stored in bodily form is not diverted (i.e., dissipated or otherwise altered) as is so clearly the case when decomposition sets in, you'd have quite an uphill battle on your hands, yes?
Koyaanisqatsi is offline  
Old 08-16-2002, 05:07 PM   #266
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: India
Posts: 6,977
Post

Phil, the monkey can see the pentium iv and show it to others.
No one has ever seen God except in hallucinations.
<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />
hinduwoman is offline  
Old 08-16-2002, 10:33 PM   #267
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 717
Post

Quote:
It's all in correctly defining God:
"Correctly," in this case, meaning a totally ambiguous and vague definition that has no purpose other than to equivocate God with a known existent? This is a worthless exercise. Prove the God you believe in exists, not some plastic definition that could encompass pretty much anything.
Quote:
God is the first of our race. He certainly exists by this definition.
This is clearly not a coherent definition of God. This makes God perhaps, the population that maintains the allelic gap between the final precursor to humans and actual homo sapiens. It is absolutely meaningless to talk of God in this way, and I highly doubt that this is the God you believe in.
Quote:
If you don't like that one, how about this: God is the most intelligent/perfect of our race. By this definition he very likely exists.
Again, this is absolutely ridiculous. Is God is Stephen Hawking? What is a "perfect" human?
Quote:
If you accept these definitions (which by the way, have biblical support), then all you have left is to understand his attributes.
When you prove something to exist, you have to prove ALL of its attributes. You cannot just say "Wood Elves are defined as green. The property of green is exemplified. Therefore, Wood Elves exist." Noone, not even you, would accept these definitions of God. But, if you insist that God is these things, then you have disproven the God of classical Christian theology.
Quote:
You may argue that these definitions are not mainstream in the Abrahamic traditions. You would be right, but I would argue that the reason there are so many atheists is that the mainstream of believers have missed the boat. Once again, these claims have biblical support which I would be happy to share.
I believe in the "first human", and I believe there is a "most intelligent human", but calling these things God is just a trivial swapping of words and does not give us anything, plus it would be wrong, as it flies in the face of almost every typical definition of God there is. The honest thing to do would be to say not that you worship and believe in God, but that you worship and believe in our ancestors and smart people.
Automaton is offline  
Old 08-19-2002, 09:34 AM   #268
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: South Bend IN
Posts: 564
Post

Automaton,

Quote:
No, that would probably be the Unlimited, which some could agree are equated with God. The predicate "unlimited" in itself does not require all attributes to become unlimited, just the attribute it is predicating. So when I say being X is unlimited, it states that all its prior positive attributes (and also, existence -- I disagree with this, but existence must be in some form or another attributal for the ontological argument to work in the first place) must be in their maximal degree. If being X is a blue letterbox that happens to know God doesn't exist, then the characteristics of blue, letterbox, knowledge of God's nonexistence and existence must be in their maximal degree. There is no chips on its blue paint, there is no defects in the letterbox, it isn't uncertain in any way about its knowledge, and in no possible world would its existence be doubted.
Okay, fine, but I would argue that any such being would not be maximally great and would not exist necessarily. Maximal greatness is an all or nothing affair and a being that is unlimited in some respects but not others will be unlimited in arbitrary ways that could have been otherwise and thus such a being cannot be necessary.

Quote:
Here we go again, where it is somehow possible for a necessary being to do unnecessary things.
Why not? To say that God is necessary and that God is defined by a certain set of properties, G, is to say that G is instantiated in all possible worlds. This is not to say there could not be other sorts of relational properties that God holds, in addition to G, in some possible worlds but not in others.

Quote:
Yes, I obviously know of it. But that is too boring in disproving the OA, it is more fun to use a positive existential claim.
Okay, whatever floats your boat, but, as far as I can tell, all your parodies of the OA making positive existential claims amount to nothing more than the atheistic version I gave plus a few additional (and dubious) premises.

Quote:
This is a tool to demonstrate invalidity. True pemises, of the opposite nature, in the same "valid" logical structure, that lead to the opposite conclusion, show that the structure must therefore be invalid.
Yes, that’s correct, provided that the premises exchanged are still true premises. The fact that one can plug in different premises and reach a different conclusion shows nothing.

Quote:
Yes, your mind is already made up. There can be no convincing that the ontological argument is unsound, because the conclusion, and thus the base premise, has been already accepted. Abandon all hope...
I could be convinced that this particular version of the OA is unsound if I were shown that there were substantial logical or philosophical difficulties in accepting its definitions or its base premise (of course, that wouldn’t mean I would stop believing in God as a necessary being, only that I would stop believing in the soundness of this particular argument). So far though, I have not been shown anything of the sort.

Quote:
Actually it is. "Intuitive" simply means you like the premises, but don't have any reason or rationale for accepting them.
Actually, that reflects an assumption on your part. Clearly intuition does function as a source of warrant in certain cases and intuition can, in itself, function as a reason or rational for accepting a certain premise in basic sort of non-inferential way. If you hold that the only beliefs which can be rationally accepted are those that can be arrived at through inferential means, you are bound to find yourself facing an infinite regress. And, if you dismiss intuition as a source of warrant, I think you will find the number of knowledge claims you can make about the world rapidly diminishing.

Quote:
Believing in an unsound argument simply on emotion or intuition, is the very definition of irrational.
If one can see that the argument is unsound but simply chooses to believe in it anyway on the basis of emotion, then yes, that would be irrational. But if, upon reflection and critical thinking, the argument seems valid and its premises intuitive, then I see nothing irrational in believing that the argument is sound, even if others might not be convinced.

Quote:
This "safe-to-say" is merely an arbitrary judgement. Who's epistemic "methodology" is more "right" than someone else's? Can we judge this using the same epistemic "methodology" (guessing)?
Human beings share certain basic intuitions in common with one another. They also differ in their intuitive understanding from time to time. But, there are large overlapping territories in our shared cognitive domain and experience which we can often use to critique one another’s ideas and settle disagreements. Because there are still differences, however, it is not possible to settle all disagreements.

Quote:
I would dispute the logical possibility of maximal-Barney-ness on grounds of denying the possibility of maximal-existence-ness (yes, I do use this as if it is a given during my discussions of the ontological argument, but that is only for the purposes of discussion), or even, in some cases, maximalness itself
Actually, upon reflection, I would dispute the property of maximal-Barney-ness on the grounds that the property of being a stupid annoying dinosaur seems wholly arbitrary, making the property of maximal-Barney-ness an arbitrary necessity – which is a contradiction.

Quote:
It's may very well be intuitively "wrong" to me or you, but that isn't worth the price of eggs logically. We may not lose any sleep over the existence of an omni-Barney, but that does not mean our belief of the nonexistence of such a thing would be rational, which would require an actual disproof of the concept.
Again, you seem to imply the only premises in an argument that we can accept are those held on inferential grounds. Welcome to the infinite regress.

Quote:
This is an exact paraphrase of what I previously said [the idea that rational people can have conflicting intuitions]. Don't you see any problem with this, at all?
The short answer is, no, I don’t have a problem with it. Rational people sometimes disagree. That doesn’t automatically make either of their beliefs irrational or even unwarranted.

Quote:
And the controversies are constantly being solved, or attempts are being made on solving them, using actual reason. Otherwise, what is the point of philosophy or mathematics in the first place? To reinforce whoever's delusions of "intuitive TRUTH"? Happy day, sounds like the Dark Ages.
No, reason is a powerful (God-given, I believe) tool for critiquing and refining our beliefs and ideas. Since human beings share vast areas of cognitive domain and experience in common, reason allows us to come to agreements on many things. And, even where we cannot agree, we can often use reason to test the internal consistency of each other’s opinions and to mutually challenge and benefit one another in our quest to develop our own understanding of the world. Critical dialog should always be sought and attempts to solve controversies made. But, let’s also be realistic. That is not and cannot always be done.

Quote:
Do atheists have a cognitive malfunction? Do theists? Who judges this, and is it correct to state so based on intuition?
In some cases, it may be possible that a clash of intuitions is not caused by a cognitive malfunction, but by information, experience, or cognitive refinements shared by one rational individual but not another.

That clarification stated, however, in the specific case of atheism verses theism, I do believe that atheists suffer from a cognitive malfunction brought about by the noetic effects of sin. Because of original sin, human beings have an innate aversion to the things of God which causes them to repress the truth of God’s existence, even though God has made it plane and obvious to them through Creation and conscience, and atheism is one of the ways in which certain members of humanity carry out this tendency. No doubt you believe that I am the one who suffers from a cognitive malfunction, that I believe in God for emotional reasons or because of social and cultural conditioning, etc. and that I am thereby unable to see the truth concerning the matter.

So who judges who is right? Well, I suppose we do (the ones making the judgments). I do not believe myself to be delusional even though the theoretical possibility exists that I am mistaken in that respect. Likewise, I doubt you believe that you are repressing any truth about God or that you have engaged in any form of self-delusion. Who’s right – that depends on what the nature of reality actually is. We can challenge each other’s views of reality, draw out their various metaphysical and epistemological consequences, and see where things lead. Ultimately, though, it is reality that settles the matter. If God really exists and has implanted knowledge of His existence in the human heart and made His existence clearly known through His creation, then it is very likely that my belief in Him is warranted and that your lack of belief is the result of some sort of cognitive malfunction (which Christianity would attribute to the effects of sin). If, on the other hand, God does not exist, then you are correct and it is very likely that I am delusional and that my belief in God is unwarranted.

Quote:
I'd ask them to show, mathematically, how 2+2 can equal anything but 4, and if they reject mathematics on some grounds, I'd ask them, then what are they doing arguing it?

But, to agree on mathematical truths, certain basic intuitive postulates must be accepted at the outset. It is possible to provide proofs that 2+2=4, for example, that rely on other basic intuitive postulates such as 1+1=2, for instance. And, there are even proofs that 1+1=2, but, of all of these proofs, none of their premises are any more intuitive than “1+1=2” itself.

Quote:
I'd argue that induction is probably true, using a rational argument.
If you have a non-circular argument for the reliability of induction, I’d like to see it, since philosophy has unsuccessfully hunted one for years.

Quote:
I'd ask them why "I think, therefore I am" isn't universally applicable [as a justification for belief in other minds]. In fact, I wouldn't "settle" this on intuition, I'd just say there is no way of proving you wrong, so good luck to you sir. I still have no reason, except probabilstic, to deny this position though.
The problem of other minds stems from the fact that it seems impossible to make a legitimate probabilistic inference from one’s own direct experience of consciousness to the proposition that other persons exhibiting similar behaviors to one’s own also share this experience. Such an inference makes an inductive generalization from one and only one observed case. If you can come up with a good argument that avoids this difficulty, I’d love to hear it.

Quote:
You have admitted it is not sound. You state that the only reason you accept the conclusion, and thus also the premise, is because it merely "feels right". A feeling is not a support. An argument with unsupported premises, that is circular (which you occasionally admit, but see no problem with, because you have already accepted the premise/conclusion), is not sound.
Nowhere have I admitted that the argument is not sound, nor that it is circular. I believe the opposite in both cases. The premise and the conclusion are not identical. And rational intuition is not the same as something simply “feeling right” (though admittedly, it is difficult to describe what the difference is, but, then again, it is difficult to describe the difference between memory and imagination, but we all know the difference for the most part and recognize different phenomenological qualities to both types of experience).

I do admit that this particular argument is not very useful for convincing non-theists. That’s why I chose it as my example, as my point here is not about coming up with a convincing argument, but discussing the manner in which differing intuitive and intellectual commitments can condition our epistemic attitudes toward whether or not a particular argument is sound.

God Bless,
Kenny

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>
Kenny is offline  
Old 08-19-2002, 09:44 AM   #269
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: South Bend IN
Posts: 564
Post

With this post, I wrap up my participation on this thread (at least concerning the OA, I may or may no be back to mop up some side issues which may come up as a result of some of my other comments). Responses are welcome, but I will make no further replies. I am sorry that I have not addressed all responses, but I hope to have hit upon most of the major issues with my reply to Automaton in conjunction with this post.

First of all, I never adequately explained Plantinga’s version of the OA or the rational behind it, a lapse which I will correct. Then, I will sum up my opinion of the argument and its value. Finally, I will make some concluding remarks.

Plantinga’s Argument in a Nutshell

Definitions: (a) Maximal excellence - the property of having omniscience, omnipotence and moral perfection with respect to a possible world. (b) Maximal greatness - the property of having maximal excellence in every possible world.

These definitions, combined with the first premise, are the real workhorses of this argument and the source (or claimed source) of much of its intuitive warrant. The idea here is that “greatness” involves, not just being accidentally great, but necessarily great. One can think about this in terms of a being’s worship worthiness. A being who is maximally excellent in some possible world, W, but just so happens to be that way because it is lucky enough to reside in a possible world with just the right contingent features to make it that way, or whose greatness is derived in some way from the contingent features of that world, is not so nearly as great or worthy of admiration as a being who holds its excellence irrespective of the contingent features of which ever possible world it finds itself, a being that holds its greatness intrinsically and not in such a way that its greatness is a function of the contingent features of a particular world. The definition of “maximal excellence,” itself, is simply held on the intuitive grounds that things like knowledge, power, and goodness, are excellent making qualities and that these qualities can be held to a maximal degree.

1) There is a possible world in which maximal greatness is instantiated.

This is the only real premise of the argument, and the key to the whole thing. All it really asserts is that maximal greatness, as defined, is a logical possibility. As already stated, it is accepted, for the believer in this argument, on the basis of intuition.

2) Necessarily, a being is maximally great only if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.

This just follows from the definition of maximal greatness.

3) Necessarily, a being has maximal excellence in every possible world only if it has omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection in every possible world.

This just follows from the definition of maximal excellence.

4) Maximal excellence is instantiated in every possible world.

This just modally follows from 1) and 2)

5) Therefore, in the actual world there is a being that is omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect.

This just follows from 3) and 4), since if maximal excellence is instantiated in every possible world, then it is instantiated in the world in which we find ourselves.

On My Assessment of the Argument’s Value

I believe that the argument is both valid and sound. Though it is charged with question begging, I do not see how, exactly, the charge is supposed to stick. The conclusion of the argument is not identical with the first premise, and the first premise along with the definitions are not accepted on the basis of the conclusion, but on the basis of certain intuitions concerning the notion of greatness and great-making properties and the intuition concerning the logical possibility of there being something that is maximally great.

That being said, I do not believe that this argument’s primary value lies in its being an argument. It’s not very convincing to those who are not already inclined to believe, and those that do believe likely do so on different and (I, believe) far stronger grounds. I think the chief value in the argument is theological; it explores the connections between various attributes of God’s being and suggests that they can be subsumed under a single all-encompassing attribute (maximal greatness). It also helps us (Christians/Theologians/Philosophers of Religion) understand to some extent, how and why we can properly think of God as existing necessarily. Furthermore, the concept of necessary existence underscores a number of other theistic arguments, so even if the OA is not convincing as an argument for the existence of God, it may be beneficial in helping to put the idea of necessary existence on firm philosophical grounds.

However, I do think that the OA has potential as an argument. It may be that there are ways to actually argue for the first premise that rely on more basic intuitions which might be shared by a wider community. In fact, Kurt Godel (the same one of the Incompleteness Theorems), has made just such an attempt in this area. See <a href="http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology.html" target="_blank">this article</a> for more information. Perhaps even more progress will come in time.

Even if, however, the only real widely conceded conclusion that comes out of investigations of the OA is that “If it is logically possible for God to exist, God must exist,” that is no small accomplishment.

Closing Comments

The real point of this discussion is that differing intuitive and intellectual commitments can condition our assessments of whether or not particular arguments are sound, and that the mere fact that one person may not recognize that a particular argument is sound does not mean that it is not. The charge from an atheist that there are no sound theistic arguments is, thus, a rather hollow one.

God Bless,
Kenny

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>
Kenny is offline  
Old 08-19-2002, 09:53 AM   #270
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Posts: 374
Post

Again, this is identical to the argument:

1. God is perfect
2. It is more perfect to exist than to not exist

~3. God exists

Kenny, if "to exist in all possible worlds" were a necessary part of "maximal greatness", then the premise:

Quote:
1) There is a possible world in which maximal greatness is instantiated.
Is quite simply false! End of argument!

Edit to add that I find this to be a despicable form of argument!

You act at first like the maximal greatness definition is really no big deal. Hey, of course a being can possibly exist which has power, knowledge, etc to their maximal degree! Who would disagree with this?

Later, in a stealthy and altogether dishonest tactic, all of a sudden maximal greatness is understood to mean that any being possessing such qualities must actually exist, because hey! If he didn't actually exist he wouldn't be maximally great, now would he? And remember, we said he was maximally great!


This argument really is quite underwhelming.


Kenny:
Quote:
The real point of this discussion is that differing intuitive and intellectual commitments can condition our assessments of whether or not particular arguments are sound, and that the mere fact that one person may not recognize that a particular argument is sound does not mean that it is not. The charge from an atheist that there are no sound theistic arguments is, thus, a rather hollow one.
This would only be valid if we recognized that our "intuitions" are useful tools for determining whether propositions are true or false. Too bad they are not.

You seem to be trying to suggest that the actual soundness of an argument depends on the "intuitions" of the person examining it!

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>
Devilnaut is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:40 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.