breathilizer

Exactly right.

It also changes the definition of God. God is no longer an omni-3. It is merely the sum of all things. Chimp concludes that to be everything is to be coherent, and this is true, but this is not the definition of God. The concept of an omni-3 god possesses cognition. Coherence does not necessitate cognition.

God is a supernatural entity. Nothing in Chimp's ontological argument suggests a supernatural being.

(Braistorming: ) Suppose ontological arguments weren't outlandish, and that it did prove God. Is this also to state that at one point, God did not exist, as the universe did not exist? Does it state that God is irrelevant, without control?

Silent Acorns

OK, let's see if I can acurately translate your argument ...
You seem to be using a form of symbolism I'm not familiar with that is annoyingly similar to one that I am familiar with. But OK, from your response to pope fiction I take it that this means that G is "that which is greater than can be conceived".

My first question would be, can G conceive of G? If so, then G isn't G. If not, then what are the consequences of G not being able to conceive of itself?
Translation: If G exists, then G must exist.

I assume that you reason this with the classic "necessary existence is greater than conditional existence", hereafter called "NE>CE".
Translation: Either G has to exist or G doesn't have to exist.
Translation: If G doesn't have to exist then it is necessary that G doesn't have to exist.

It is far from clear to me how you reasoned [5] out. Did you use the NE>CE argument?
Translation: Either G must exist or it is necessary that G doesn't have to exist.

I have no argument with this, assuming that you can clarify [5].
translation: If it is necessary that G doesn't have to exist then G must not exist.

Again, I fail to see how this follows. Is it a result of NE>CE?
Translation: Either G must exist or G can't exist.

Again, I have no argument with this, assuming that you can clarify [5] and [7].
Translation: G can exist.

This appears to be a bold assertion on your part. Please support it.
Translation: Therefore G must exist. Therefore G exists.

Once again, I have no argument with this assuming you can back up [5], [7], and [9].

In summary, you need to clarify how you reasoned out [5], [7], and [9]. And if you can, you still have the problem of accounting for a G that can't conceive of itself.

aychamo

lol. So you are a quasi atheist, unsure about the existance of a god and you are going to try to prove it to yourself using poor, unworkinig logic?

If you are unsure about god, you need to have a few deep thoughts to yourself. This isn't the proper way to make yourself believe or not believe in a god.

NottyImp

I can't follow these formal logical arguments as I have no training in it, but Chimp has been doing this for months, and I always look forward to his latest effort. It is usually greeted by the regularly-posting logicians on here with the sympathetic question: "why are you doing this to yourself again?!"

The Bearded One

Better minds than mine have taken up the arguments put forth by Chimp. I am going to bow out of this thread due to time constraints, but I wanted to thank Chimp for responding to my posts so promptly.

You may also want to browse this portion of the Internet Infidels Library.

-- The Bearded One

Goliath

Chimp,

What do you mean by your ordering? Which set are you applying this ordering to? How do you know that this set (whatever it is) has an upper bound on this ordering? How do you know that this set has a biggest element under this ordering? Is this ordering a partial ordering? well ordering? linear ordering? lattice ordering? quasi ordering?

In other words: What in the name of Alpha Trion are you talking about?! Your argument fails, since it is (at this point) nonsensical.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Chimp

That is the whole point, a person cannot "make" themselves believe in something and by force of belief, make it so. If something is true, it can only be demonstrated to exist, via rational, or empirical, "proof".

Thanks for the great ideas. I will start a new thread.

Chimp

G[x] > x

G[x] = G[x]

G[G[x]] = G[x]

G[G[G[x]]] = G[x]

etc.

G[x] can conceive of G[x] since G[x] is a set that is its own powerset.

But that requires another "proof" :banghead: of the largest possible set that is its own powerset, so the argument is now floundering?

Thanks.

Afghan

I'm pretty sure there are very good reasons why you can't do this but I can't recall the proof.

Anyway, if you are using '>' to mean 'is a superset of' which is implied by this, all your argument amounts to is "everything is bigger than any particular thing" which is just a statement of the blindingly obvious.

Sven

A minor nitpick: This is not a general definition. It only holds true if A and B commute (counterexample: matrices). This is not circular at all.