1. Post #41
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    February 2007
    13,269 Posts
    Saying "since god is perfect, god exists because otherwise he would not be perfect", assumes the unproven fact that god actually exists and is perfect as support for his argument.
    It's pretty funny really.

  2. Post #42
    GOD FUCKING DAMNIT
    KILLTHIS's Avatar
    September 2005
    1,391 Posts
    Replace "god" with "invisible unicorn" and it's even more fun. Basically it shows how ridiculous this argument is.

  3. Post #43
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,043 Posts
    I don't really know about the argument of "Therefore God Exists" - wouldn't this be simplified into:

    "Everything is perfect, therefore perfection exists" - and not "Everything is perfect, therefore god exists" - which would require the definition of god as in the OP mentioned "Tripple O-God". But then I have to ask, if we decide to define a being such as "god", what gives us proof of our descripton?

    It's a bit too hypothetical - it's philosophy, yes - but it's somewhat sluggish. It's an opinion on "god" (I don't question the existence of god here, I'm just about the definition). Calling him "perfect" would be OUR vision about god, calling him perfect in every way - but what if god is not perfect, but capable of a lot of things, therefore making him omnipotent? Than he is neither willing nor benevolent - but at least has the possibility to change / alter / create / destroy things. So I wouldn't go for a "Tripple O-God" but for an "Omnipotent but not perfect" god - if you go for it at all.
    If all you're arguing about is the definition of something, it's bad philosophy. You can define anything as whatever as much as you like but ultimately, that doesn't change a thing, logically. If someone is arguing for the existence of something, just accept whatever definition they give otherwise you're both wasting your time.

    Edited:

    Saying "since god is perfect, god exists because otherwise he would not be perfect", assumes the unproven fact that god actually exists and is perfect as support for his argument.
    It's pretty funny really.
    Well no, that's not why the argument fails at all. The ontological argument is supposed to work a priori, meaning without empirical proof. The argument is quite clever and not quite as silly as everyone here takes for granted. Ultimately it's wrong, but a great deal of you fail to understand why.

  4. Post #44
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    February 2007
    13,269 Posts
    Well no, that's not why the argument fails at all. The ontological argument is supposed to work a priori, meaning without empirical proof. The argument is quite clever and not quite as silly as everyone here takes for granted. Ultimately it's wrong, but a great deal of you fail to understand why.
    He's using a fact that can't be proved as an attempt to prove that it's a fact.
    An amusing idea, but ultimately wrong because his base lacks evidence. If I'm still wrong, lecture me.

  5. Post #45
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,043 Posts
    He's using a fact that can't be proved as an attempt to prove that it's a fact.
    An amusing idea, but ultimately wrong because his base lacks evidence. If I'm still wrong, lecture me.
    Anselm is most definitely not trying to do that. His argument does make mistakes, but his mistake isn't the assumption that God exists.

    Pointing to a lack of evidence is not a sufficient counter argument for a priori arguments. It would be like trying to prove that a maths equation is wrong by saying there's nothing observable in the universe that proves it is true. It's just not how a priori arguments operate. You refute a priori arguments through logic alone, without appealing to observable phenomena.

  6. Post #46
    GOD FUCKING DAMNIT
    KILLTHIS's Avatar
    September 2005
    1,391 Posts
    If all you're arguing about is the definition of something, it's bad philosophy. You can define anything as whatever as much as you like but ultimately, that doesn't change a thing, logically. If someone is arguing for the existence of something, just accept whatever definition they give otherwise you're both wasting your time.
    Yes, as I can see, I went a bit too short on this term - my bad. But still I have to say it's better to start with small steps in order to actually prove or disprove things. Even though he goes a priori on this, which I definitely accept, I still have to disagree that perfection is the prove of existence of god; If he'd went for something actually happening, as matter of fact "active", I think it would've been more likely to get a better glimpse on this.

  7. Post #47
    Anselm is most definitely not trying to do that. His argument does make mistakes, but his mistake isn't the assumption that God exists.

    Pointing to a lack of evidence is not a sufficient counter argument for a priori arguments. It would be like trying to prove that a maths equation is wrong by saying there's nothing observable in the universe that proves it is true. It's just not how a priori arguments operate. You refute a priori arguments through logic alone, without appealing to observable phenomena.
    look this probably sounds really dumb of me but

    I think that the entire concept of "a priori" is a load of shit

    thoughts are observable phenomena too, why do they have a separate magical world completely independent of the empirical one?

  8. Post #48
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,043 Posts
    look this probably sounds really dumb of me but

    I think that the entire concept of "a priori" is a load of shit

    thoughts are observable phenomena too, why do they have a separate magical world completely independent of the empirical one?
    Yup, I agree with you. I haven't totally rejected a priori claims quite yet, but I'm at very least very, very sceptical of them. I was just point out how unconvincing it would be to point to empirical evidence (or even worse, a lack of evidence) when your opponent is attempting to use pure logic to support a claim.

  9. Post #49
    Yup, I agree with you. I haven't totally rejected a priori claims quite yet, but I'm at very least very, very sceptical of them. I was just point out how unconvincing it would be to point to empirical evidence (or even worse, a lack of evidence) when your opponent is attempting to use pure logic to support a claim.
    what

    it's perfectly reasonable to point to a lack of evidence. absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

    I trust the real world more than another brain's chain of deductive reasoning (when all else is equal)

  10. Post #50
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,043 Posts
    what

    it's perfectly reasonable to point to a lack of evidence. absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

    I trust the real world more than another brain's chain of deductive reasoning (when all else is equal)
    Well then pretty much the whole philosophical world disagrees with you. Deductive reasoning trumps everything except maybe observed phenomena (i.e. that which is proved to exist empirically). If you disagree with valid deductive reasoning, you're committed to explosivity (every premise is both true and false). Also, evidence is a pretty useless concept, analytically, along with most induction. It's great for functioning as a human being and for formulating scientific theories, but as far as analytic, deductively valid philosophy goes, it's pretty weak. I've never seen a black swan which is absence of evidence, but I have no philosophically valid argument demonstrating they don't exist.

    Edited:

    Of course you can reject the ontological argument because it's objectively wrong, deductively.

    But if we assumed it was valid, you couldn't point to absence of evidence because you'd reach a contradiction and explosivity would happen.

  11. Post #51
    Gekkosan's Avatar
    October 2010
    5,668 Posts
    That's not Anselm's argument though.

    Saying that everything = god is philosophically trivial because all you're doing is defining something as such.
    Change your avatar please, it always reminds me of a girl pig rather than a guy in a funny pose every time I take a glimpse at it.

    And I'm sure 100% of people agree with me on that one. Maybe even you?

  12. Post #52
    Gold Member

    May 2005
    2,268 Posts
    He's using a fact that can't be proved as an attempt to prove that it's a fact.
    An amusing idea, but ultimately wrong because his base lacks evidence. If I'm still wrong, lecture me.
    The ontological argument is wrong because "existence" is not a property (or "predicate") of a thing.

  13. Post #53
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    February 2007
    13,269 Posts
    The ontological argument is wrong because "existence" is not a property (or "predicate") of a thing.
    Makes sense

  14. Post #54
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,043 Posts
    Change your avatar please, it always reminds me of a girl pig rather than a guy in a funny pose every time I take a glimpse at it.

    And I'm sure 100% of people agree with me on that one. Maybe even you?
    I can't see anything except Tom Waits in a funny pose :(

    I'll change it as soon as I think of something.

    Edited:

    trace around what you see for me?

  15. Post #55
    Gekkosan's Avatar
    October 2010
    5,668 Posts


    see, clearly a pig with its mouth open. (when you see it, you cannot unsee it)

  16. Post #56
    Well then pretty much the whole philosophical world disagrees with you. Deductive reasoning trumps everything except maybe observed phenomena (i.e. that which is proved to exist empirically). If you disagree with valid deductive reasoning, you're committed to explosivity (every premise is both true and false). Also, evidence is a pretty useless concept, analytically, along with most induction. It's great for functioning as a human being and for formulating scientific theories, but as far as analytic, deductively valid philosophy goes, it's pretty weak. I've never seen a black swan which is absence of evidence, but I have no philosophically valid argument demonstrating they don't exist.

    Edited:

    Of course you can reject the ontological argument because it's objectively wrong, deductively.

    But if we assumed it was valid, you couldn't point to absence of evidence because you'd reach a contradiction and explosivity would happen.
    deductive reasoning is a form of inductive reasoning.

    thoughts are evidence.

  17. Post #57
    matsta's Avatar
    September 2009
    347 Posts
    deductive reasoning is a form of inductive reasoning.

    thoughts are evidence.
    No, it isn't. And they are not.

    There is a clear difference between deductive and inductive reasoning.

    Edited:

    You just reminded me of Kant's introduction to his Critique of Pure Reason. He makes that distinction right away.

  18. Post #58
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,043 Posts
    deductive reasoning is a form of inductive reasoning.
    No it isn't. It just flat out isn't.

    Edited:

    Induction is an invalid form of logic, while deduction is valid.

  19. Post #59
    matsta's Avatar
    September 2009
    347 Posts
    invalid, but very useful.

  20. Post #60
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,043 Posts
    invalid, but very useful.
    Definitely. But undeniably less analytically powerful than deduction.

  21. Post #61
    prove to me that you remembered your reasons for making a conclusion correctly

    the human brain can't hold more than a few concepts at once in working memory, so good luck proving 100% that you didn't make a mistake in a chain of complex deductive reasoning

  22. Post #62
    matsta's Avatar
    September 2009
    347 Posts
    the human brain can't hold more than a few concepts at once in working memory
    That's why you write them down, duh.

  23. Post #63
    That's why you write them down, duh.
    how do you know you wrote them down right
    how do you know you read them right
    how do you know you interpreted them right

    Yes I know, the actual probability of fucking up understanding something so trivial as modus ponens is fucking tiny, but it's not zero, and that's the point.

  24. Post #64
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,043 Posts
    prove to me that you remembered your reasons for making a conclusion correctly

    the human brain can't hold more than a few concepts at once in working memory, so good luck proving 100% that you didn't make a mistake in a chain of complex deductive reasoning
    Most solutions to philosophical problems have very simple chains of deductive reasoning.

    If you're denying the vaildity of valid deductive reasoning you can't argue anything. It's a self-refuting claim.

  25. Post #65
    matsta's Avatar
    September 2009
    347 Posts
    And what is "better" than reasoning for proving things? Evidence?

    "Evidence" also has to be interpreted correctly, and interpretations of evidence rest upon previous thoughts.
    Evidence has to be obtained correctly. And the way of obtaining it also rests upon previous thoughts.

    Moreover, evidence alone doesn't say anything. WE are the ones who deduce BASED on empirical evidence. You should seriously read some Kant, lol.

    Edited:

    No, actually, if you trust evidence alone, you must read "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" . Then you'll know what you can conclude with just evidence, and it will be nothing of what you think you can.

  26. Post #66
    Most solutions to philosophical problems have very simple chains of deductive reasoning.

    If you're denying the vaildity of valid deductive reasoning you can't argue anything. It's a self-refuting claim.
    ofcourse

    I'm just saying deductive reasoning shouldn't be put on such a high pedestal. it's evidence that happens to correspond extremely well with the truth.

    Edited:

    No, actually, if you trust evidence alone, you must read "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" . Then you'll know what you can conclude with just evidence, and it will be nothing of what you think you can.
    give an example, I'm not going to read a tome like that

  27. Post #67
    Bat-shit's Avatar
    October 2010
    12,981 Posts
    So.. what's the topic exactly? You are kind of like speaking in general about what is evidence, what is proof, what is valid..

    As for OP; God is made out to be perfect, and he's made out not to be seen, ever. Not to mention the scriptures and books and all that yazz that was made out to be the God's wish or command. Ask "who's the creator?" it's the people, "creator of what?" All of this bullshit.

  28. Post #68
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,043 Posts
    ofcourse

    I'm just saying deductive reasoning shouldn't be put on such a high pedestal. it's evidence that happens to correspond extremely well with the truth.
    Well, I don't think your argument is of much significance. I think competent beings can be absolutely 100% certain of some kinds of argument's validity. Acceptance of the legitimacy of deductive claims are really axiomatic in logic. If you don't have logic you're literally incapable of any level of analysis. Even evidence is useless, because if you doubt the validity of any logic axiom, it's possible for evidence to be both true and false, rendering it absolutely useless.

    Edited:

    give an example, I'm not going to read a tome like that
    I just studied this book, and I'd have to say there's not much point reading it unless you're willing to devote a lot of time studying it properly; let's just say if I didn't have a module on it, I wouldn't have gotten the same experience.

    But his most bizarre conclusions are things like the non-existence of an external world (an argument totally distinct from Descartes' scepticism, and much more sophisticated), the non-existence of selves and the non-rationality of induction (this is a matter of some controversy, over whether Hume means to say induction [and hence the scientific method] is irrational or non-rational.) And that's just book one; we didn't cover any of his stuff on the passions or morality, etc.

  29. Post #69
    Well, I don't think your argument is of much significance. I think competent beings can be absolutely 100% certain of some kinds of argument's validity. Acceptance of the legitimacy of deductive claims are really axiomatic in logic. If you don't have logic you're literally incapable of any level of analysis. Even evidence is useless, because if you doubt the validity of any logic axiom, it's possible for evidence to be both true and false, rendering it absolutely useless.
    100% is not a probability

    Edited:

    try converting it to odds, see what happens

  30. Post #70
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,043 Posts
    Hume definitely takes empiricism to its logical conclusion. But even he never doubts the validity of deduction, because to do so successfully would invalidate every single fact comprising the whole universe

    Edited:

    100% is not a probability

    Edited:

    try converting it to odds, see what happens
    I'm aware it's not; I'm just disagreeing with your claim. I think we are certain of deduction's validity.

  31. Post #71
    Bat-shit's Avatar
    October 2010
    12,981 Posts
    What we sense with our eyes and hands is very reliable. So that we actually know that we don't even see the full picture of things.

  32. Post #72
    I'm aware it's not; I'm just disagreeing with your claim. I think we are certain of deduction's validity.
    Yeah sure, I'm not actually suggesting that mathematics is false.

  33. Post #73
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,043 Posts
    What we sense with our eyes and hands is very reliable. So that we actually know that we don't even see the full picture of things.
    Reliable relative to what? Of the external world? If that's what you're suggesting, you're wrong. On their own, our senses do not and can not cause the idea of the external world. Our imagination - ultimately an analytically invalid tool - is what causes our sense data to be interpreted as belief.

  34. Post #74
    ultimately an analytically invalid too
    woa woa woa slow down there

  35. Post #75
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,043 Posts
    woa woa woa slow down there
    Huh?

  36. Post #76
    well what else are you using to analyse things?

  37. Post #77
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,043 Posts
    well what else are you using to analyse things?
    Oh sorry, I mean imagination in a quite restricted sense.

    In the sense of our minds "spreading themselves on the world" as Hume calls it, where we take the idea of ideas being connected to each other onto the world, creating the notion of cause and effect, even though it isn't in the world itself. In this sense, the imagination is just our mind going over and above what it can rationally deduce.

  38. Post #78
    Oh sorry, I mean imagination in a quite restricted sense.

    In the sense of our minds "spreading themselves on the world" as Hume calls it, where we take the idea of ideas being connected to each other onto the world, creating the notion of cause and effect, even though it isn't in the world itself. In this sense, the imagination is just our mind going over and above what it can rationally deduce.
    Yeah that makes perfect sense. I use the "map/territory" analogy myself.

  39. Post #79
    Bat-shit's Avatar
    October 2010
    12,981 Posts
    In this sense, the imagination is just our mind going over and above what it can rationally deduce.
    So? We can "rationally deduce" too much if you ask me. So indeed we went over and beyond just our eyes to sense and learn all the stuff that's out there and wherever.

  40. Post #80
    matsta's Avatar
    September 2009
    347 Posts
    No, we can't.

    For example, we can't rationally deduce the existence of god.