Theophage

It's kind of funny that you say this here, and then ask me to "prove" something empirically in the other thread. A bit schizo are we?

Edited to add:

And while I'm at it, I ought to address this:

It isn't "faith" it's called "reason"; there is a big difference. And reason certainly does not entail nor require "proof".

[ January 26, 2002: Message edited by: Theophage ]</p>

Detached9

It isn't "faith" it's called "reason"; there is a big difference. And reason certainly does not entail nor require "proof".

About the umpteenth time someone distorted faith to mean believing in something without absolute proof.

[ January 26, 2002: Message edited by: Detached9 ]</p>

Theophage

All we can do is to keep smacking 'em on the back of the head until they get it right:

"But if naturalism is true, there is no reason to trust your senses..."

*WHACK!*

xoc

No. Simple attributes are the basest apprehensions of an object, complex attributes are simply a set of simple attributes arranged in a certain way. There is a big difference. Primary attributes are recognized by primary intuitions, like basic color and feelings. "The rock is slippery." Or "the rock is dry." Slippery and dry act as primary attributes. Bright and dark also act as primary attributes. You can't introduce new attributes of these kind as meaningful because they are basic apprehensions of real objects, which can later be applied to mythic objects. Since their meaning is generated and produced from the apprhended phenomenal world, they are dependent on the "real world" for meaning and you can't make that kind of stuff up.
See above.
I actually agree with your point on "perfection" in the context and wasn't particularly serious about the onto argument being a "proof" of God rather than an intuitive argument. It just would have seemed empty to get to point 4 and leave it there.

As for "three bad premises", wrong. 1 and 2 go hand in hand and are still good, for whatever can be done with them.

xoc

To continue the point on simple and complex attributes.
1. Simple attributes cannot be viewed as objects as attributes are what define the objects that contain them
2. Complex attributes can be viewed as objects, they are only called attributes because they are contained within Container objects and "act" as attributes. 17 toes are definitely objects.

Like I said before, "objects" can have meaningful attributes and still lack existence while attributes are dependent on existence for meaning. Since complex attributes are objects, there is no case of special pleading as the distinction is defined.

[ January 26, 2002: Message edited by: xoc ]</p>

ManM

I apologize for being a bit slow to respond, but I really want to explore this further. When I mention 'existence' I am referring to the word in it's formal sense, namely instantiation in reality.

Now, I can conceive of a red ball. I can also perceive a red ball. Both of those balls would have the same list of predicates: red, spherical, etc. However, we use a word to denote the difference between those two, namely 'existence'. Now, several of you have mentioned that the red ball in mind does indeed exist as a concept, but this really isn't what I'm talking about. The subject is 'red ball', not 'the idea of a red ball' ('unicorn', not 'the thought in my head of a unicorn'). Anyway, the two red balls are exactly the same with the exception of one thing: the red ball I perceive is independent of my being, while the red ball I conceive is dependant on my being. That which is independent of mind must be differentiated from that which is a product of mind. Is this not what we mean by 'existence'? How is this not a valid property?

Devilnaut

Just to jump in here and weigh in on the ontological "argument".

I think that whether or not 'existence' is a property is basically irrelevant as to this argument's validity.

The argument simply equivocates concepts and reality. God must exist because one of the properties of (the concept) God is "existence". If anyone here can't see how silly this is I am suprised.

The purple spoon of existing must exist, because one of the properties of a purple spoon of existence is, that it exists. I am almost laughing as I type that, it is so absurd.

A ridiculous 'argument' if i've ever heard one.

devilnaut

pug846

Devilnaut says:

That’s actually not the argument – clearly concepts exists and what should correspond to it in reality often doesn’t. Although there are varying ways to state the ontological argument, one way to state it would be:

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

Therefore,
3. God exits.

Number one is true, by definition. If existence was in fact a property and it were more perfect to exist than not to exist, then a theist might have an argument. Kant attacks the first assumption here, while most eastern philosophers would attack the second one.

Devilnaut

*shrug* looks the same to me.

I disagree that this argument is invalid simply because existence is not a property.

Here is my own critique of the ontological argument:

"God is perfect."

This is incorrect, if one of your criteria for 'perfection' is existence. This is the problem with the argument. Theists define God to exist and use that to prove he exists. It is circular.

You cannot define something as 'perfect', and then tack on attributes later. If everyone accepted that a necessary attribute of perfection was existence, then God could not have ever been defined as perfect in the first place, until he was shown to exist.

Check this out:

My red ball is perfect.

My favourite color is purple.

It is more perfect to be purple than red.

My red ball is purple.

devilnaut

[ January 26, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]

[ January 26, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

Kharakov

I actually got the impression that you were attempting to use (empirical) evidence to prove something in the other thread.

I asked you:
Can you prove that empirical evidence shows that consciousness ends at death?

The key word is shows.

and I asked you:

Can using empirical evidence even prove that consciousness ever ends?

I asked this because you seemed to believe that empirical evidence proved that consciousness ended at death with your statement :"But guess what the empirical evidence shows? Yep, consciousness quits at death. ".

I am sorry that I misunderstood your pontification- I should have just showed that you were wrong about empirical evidence being able to show anything about whether or not something is conscious (I did it in our other thread).

I called it faith to point out that the position taken was no firmer than any theists. After all, the definition of faith is: firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

Detached9 thanks for the humor .

I will go on to add that if you believe the image of a red ball you percieve with your mind is real, there is no reason for you to doubt the reality of the unicorn that you percieve within your mind, even though you can't feel it "outside" of your own mind because of some weird separateness that you apply to your thoughts.

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: Kharakov ]</p>