An Ontological Proof that God Does Not Exist

[firedragon]

I love this. You make the claim, but utterly fail to JUSTIFY your claim. You just say, "Nah, you're wrong," asserting it without evidence.

And since you assert it without evidence, I will reject it for having no evidence.

Of course that kind of thing is all someone who just cut's and pastes a parody without knowing anything about it. Do you even know what your cut and paste job is? It's not a formal argument, it's a parody. That is why prior to making such magnificent claims, you should read a little bit about your own propositions.

I have already told you that your points 1 and 3 are contradictory. You can't answer that so obviously you have to come up with some rhetorical statement because even though these are Internet forums your ego is superior to your research.

• Your 1 and 3 are contradictory. Your conclusion is begging the question. Your premises are contradictory. A maximally great God by definition cannot be handicapped and still be maximally greater. Contradictory.
• A maximally greater God cannot be anthropomorphised to have a handicap like a legless human being.
• And if a maximally greater god does not exist God cannot be maximally greater anyway, thus it's not an ontological argument you are making but begging the question based on an epistemic stance.
• The ontological argument is not about a most magnificent feat of creation, it is an argument based on the ontology of God. So your second premise is not based on ontology but an act of will which is a strawman.
• Ontology is not based on an achievement which is a grave lack of understanding of simple terms in philosophy. That's a strawman fallacy.
• A non-existent creator cannot be a greater being. It's nonexistent. It's absurd. And philosophers have noted this.
• If the ontology of a most white being is most white, it's the whitest that possibly can be. That is the ontology of it. Your argument is (cut and paste of course) that a less white being is greater than the most white because it achieved brightening something (strawman and not ontology). A less white being cannot be whiter than the whitest being. It's a contradiction.
• And conclusion is a non-white being is whiter than the whitest being ontologically. Most ridiculous contradiction.

If all of this flies over your head, consider a basic contradiction. Something absolutely basic. What is a being? A being is something that exists. How could a non-existent being exist? This is a joke.

This is not a serious argument. That's why I thought it was a joke because no one will do this kind of cut and paste job without even reading a little about it. At least five minutes.

The problem is Gasking said this to Robinson over lunch, and is hearsay, and that hearsay claims he was not serious, and did not posit it as a formal argument, and you are worshiping it blindly since you don't know anything about it. That's the problem with quick cut and paste jobs.

 

[blü 2]

I don't know but this interpretation seems to intimate that our awareness is more than biological.

I agree our consciousness is, all our mental processes are, the product of our biochemistry and bioelectricity. But our awareness, as we experience it, runs along the NOW, albeit there's a tiny delay while the sensory input is processed.

I still think there is no difference between our position in time and that of someone from the far past, but you have given me a lot to think about with this conversation.

I think most people are acculturated to the idea that distance in time is analogous to distance in space ─ certainly I think that way about history, and about past events in my life. When I say eg "My grandfather died a long time ago", I intend to convey the psychological sense of "distance" between that event and me.

Yes, although it was a simulation of an electron rather than an actual electron. Honestly I was not able to follow precisely how they were able to simulate the electron and whether it really had implications for reality besides error correction for computing. They were looking for error correcting measures for qbit machines, and it seems they believed that they had achieved time reversal within the simulation. They also said, though, that this would have been impossible in the real world. They said "In nature, restoring this particle back to its original state -- in essence, putting the broken teacup back together -- is impossible." but they also said "At this moment, it's very hard to imagine all the implications this can have," For me it seems inconclusive with regard to what we have been talking about.

I wish I could find the article I originally read, which had more details; but the one I found gives the outline.

 

[PureX]

Unsupported claim.

At best this is some weak version of pantheism.

That's one mighty weak objection. What do you think the term "God" refers to? Some beardy guy in the sky? Or the mystery source and essence of all that exists regardless of how people may choose to conceptualize that mystery?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I agree with you that God doesn't exist. I think you missed the point of my post.

No, I'm pretty sure you're (respectfully, just a suggestion) in mental duress.

 

[Tiberius]

Of course that kind of thing is all someone who just cut's and pastes a parody without knowing anything about it. Do you even know what your cut and paste job is? It's not a formal argument, it's a parody. That is why prior to making such magnificent claims, you should read a little bit about your own propositions.

I have stated several times in this thread that I know it's a parody.

I have already told you that your points 1 and 3 are contradictory. You can't answer that so obviously you have to come up with some rhetorical statement because even though these are Internet forums your ego is superior to your research.

Your 1 and 3 are contradictory. Your conclusion is begging the question. Your premises are contradictory. A maximally great God by definition cannot be handicapped and still be maximally greater. Contradictory.

So you are saying that a God who must overcome a greater handicap is LESSER? How can a lesser God overcome a handicap that a greater god can not?

A maximally greater God cannot be anthropomorphised to have a handicap like a legless human being.

Oh come on, religions anthropomorphise Gods all the time.

And if a maximally greater god does not exist God cannot be maximally greater anyway, thus it's not an ontological argument you are making but begging the question based on an epistemic stance.

As I ahve said many times already (and you have not paid attention to) it's a PARODY.

The ontological argument is not about a most magnificent feat of creation, it is an argument based on the ontology of God. So your second premise is not based on ontology but an act of will which is a strawman.

It's still an argument from philosobabble.

Ontology is not based on an achievement which is a grave lack of understanding of simple terms in philosophy. That's a strawman fallacy.

Feel free to call it some other kind of argument then, rather than an ontological one.

Honestly, your argument here is absurd. It's like claiming a car is rubbish because it's got the wrong badge on it.

A non-existent creator cannot be a greater being. It's nonexistent. It's absurd. And philosophers have noted this.

Look who's claiming God is bound by logic!

If the ontology of a most white being is most white, it's the whitest that possibly can be. That is the ontology of it. Your argument is (cut and paste of course) that a less white being is greater than the most white because it achieved brightening something (strawman and not ontology). A less white being cannot be whiter than the whitest being. It's a contradiction.

Why are you ranting so much?

And conclusion is a non-white being is whiter than the whitest being ontologically. Most ridiculous contradiction.

Imagine the brightest light.

A light that produces a certain Lux is not going to be as strong as a light that produces a certain lux after shining through a dirty window.

Thus, the light that produces that certain lux after shining through a dirty window must be brighter than the light that produces that lux without shining through a dirty window.

The dirtiest window will not allow any light through.

If the light shining through the dirtiest window can still produce that same lux, then it must be the brightest light.

Seems like you just don't understand the argument.

If all of this flies over your head, consider a basic contradiction. Something absolutely basic. What is a being? A being is something that exists. How could a non-existent being exist? This is a joke.

Again, you are binding God in your concept of logic. Is God bound by logic? Yes or no?

This is not a serious argument. That's why I thought it was a joke because no one will do this kind of cut and paste job without even reading a little about it. At least five minutes.

The problem is Gasking said this to Robinson over lunch, and is hearsay, and that hearsay claims he was not serious, and did not posit it as a formal argument, and you are worshiping it blindly since you don't know anything about it. That's the problem with quick cut and paste jobs.

Lemme get this straight...

You conclude this is a joke, you can't even be bothered to read enough of my posts here to see that I have freely admitted that it's a joke, and yet you get so upset about it that you start ranting and raving...

And you freely admit it's a joke?

Why are you getting so upset about a joke?

 

[Tiberius]

That's one mighty weak objection. What do you think the term "God" refers to? Some beardy guy in the sky? Or the mystery source and essence of all that exists regardless of how people may choose to conceptualize that mystery?

There are probably as many different answers as there are people who hold a belief in God.

I personally wouldn't know, as I don't believe in God.

 

[Tiberius]

No, I'm pretty sure you're (respectfully, just a suggestion) in mental duress.

duress
/djʊ(ə)ˈrɛs,ˈdjʊərɛs/
noun

1. threats, violence, constraints, or other action used to coerce someone into doing something against their will or better judgement.
   "confessions extracted under duress"
   
   
   
   • LAW
     constraint illegally exercised to force someone to perform an act.
   • ARCHAIC
     forcible restraint or imprisonment.

Who do you think is forcing me to do something against my will?

 

[firedragon]

I have stated several times in this thread that I know it's a parody.

Hmm. Knowing it's a parody, but do you know who said it, to whom, in what setting? I have stated that several times to you directly. Not to others in the thread where I expect you to go reading the whole thread.

I have stated several times in this thread that I know it's a parody.

I have already told you that your points 1 and 3 are contradictory. You can't answer that so obviously you have to come up with some rhetorical statement because even though these are Internet forums your ego is superior to your research.



So you are saying that a God who must overcome a greater handicap is LESSER? How can a lesser God overcome a handicap that a greater god can not?



Oh come on, religions anthropomorphise Gods all the time.



As I ahve said many times already (and you have not paid attention to) it's a PARODY.



It's still an argument from philosobabble.



Feel free to call it some other kind of argument then, rather than an ontological one.

Honestly, your argument here is absurd. It's like claiming a car is rubbish because it's got the wrong badge on it.



Look who's claiming God is bound by logic!



Why are you ranting so much?



Imagine the brightest light.

A light that produces a certain Lux is not going to be as strong as a light that produces a certain lux after shining through a dirty window.

Thus, the light that produces that certain lux after shining through a dirty window must be brighter than the light that produces that lux without shining through a dirty window.

The dirtiest window will not allow any light through.

If the light shining through the dirtiest window can still produce that same lux, then it must be the brightest light.

Seems like you just don't understand the argument.



Again, you are binding God in your concept of logic. Is God bound by logic? Yes or no?



Lemme get this straight...

You conclude this is a joke, you can't even be bothered to read enough of my posts here to see that I have freely admitted that it's a joke, and yet you get so upset about it that you start ranting and raving...

And you freely admit it's a joke?

Why are you getting so upset about a joke?

You have not given a single logical answer to the logical problems raised. I raised logical problems in your cut and paste either from Dawkins or some web page.

You are asking me "Again, you are binding God in your concept of logic. Is God bound by logic? Yes or no?" while you are cutting and pasting someone's proposed "logical problem".

Or are you just looking for faith statements to your "logical problem"? No way.

You cannot respond to a single logical problem I raised. That means you have "Blind Faith".

 

[Tiberius]

Hmm. Knowing it's a parody, but do you know who said it, to whom, in what setting? I have stated that several times to you directly. Not to others in the thread where I expect you to go reading the whole thread.

You're just determined to find something to rant about, aren't you?

You have not given a single logical answer to the logical problems raised. I raised logical problems in your cut and paste either from Dawkins or some web page.

You are asking me "Again, you are binding God in your concept of logic. Is God bound by logic? Yes or no?" while you are cutting and pasting someone's proposed "logical problem".

Or are you just looking for faith statements to your "logical problem"? No way.

You cannot respond to a single logical problem I raised. That means you have "Blind Faith".

And you seem to insist on having me produce an air-tight defense of something I have already admitted is a joke.

You need to loosen up. I recommend prunes.

 

[firedragon]

You're just determined to find something to rant about, aren't you?

Respond to the logical problems presented against your OP.

And you seem to insist on having me produce an air-tight defense of something I have already admitted is a joke.

You presented it as an argument used to present a logical problem in the ontological argument. It is not. All the logical problems in the OP was presented to you. They are not theological faith based arguments Tiberius that were presented to you. They are all logical problems pointed out by philosophers.

When you present an argument against a philosophical argument like the ontological argument, your presentation must point out logical problems. It cannot be a mess of logic by itself. Even if its a parody or a thought experiment.

Cheers.

 

[YoursTrue]

Premise 1: God is the greatest possible being.

Premise 2: God accomplished the creation of the universe.

Premise 3: To accomplish something while suffering a handicap is greater than accomplishing that thing with no handicap.

Conclusion: A God who created the universe while being handicapped is greater than a God who created the universe without being handicapped.

Premise 4: The greatest possible handicap is non-existence.

Conclusion: The greatest possible God necessarily does not exist.

I agree with Premise #s 1 & 2. But what does Premise 3 mean?

 

[Tiberius]

Respond to the logical problems presented against your OP.

No. I've already told you it's a joke, I freely admitted it long before you ever tried to tell me it was a joke, and you still insist I must defend it as though it were completely serious.

So no. Because you can't take a joke.

You presented it as an argument used to present a logical problem in the ontological argument. It is not. All the logical problems in the OP was presented to you. They are not theological faith based arguments Tiberius that were presented to you. They are all logical problems pointed out by philosophers.

When you present an argument against a philosophical argument like the ontological argument, your presentation must point out logical problems. It cannot be a mess of logic by itself. Even if its a parody or a thought experiment.

Cheers.

Yawn.

 

[Tiberius]

I agree with Premise #s 1 & 2. But what does Premise 3 mean?

it means that to accomplish something while facing some hardship which makes it more difficult means the accomplishment is greater than if you had not faced that hardship.

Shooting the bullseye is a good accomplishment. To shoot the bullseye while someone is moving the target randomly is a greater accomplishment, because the movement of the target makes it harder to hit the bullseye.

 

[firedragon]

No. I've already told you it's a joke, I freely admitted it long before you ever tried to tell me it was a joke, and you still insist I must defend it as though it were completely serious.

So no. Because you can't take a joke.

Alright. So it does not present any problem with the ontological argument though you presented it as one! No problem.

 

[YoursTrue]

it means that to accomplish something while facing some hardship which makes it more difficult means the accomplishment is greater than if you had not faced that hardship.

Shooting the bullseye is a good accomplishment. To shoot the bullseye while someone is moving the target randomly is a greater accomplishment, because the movement of the target makes it harder to hit the bullseye.

OK, I guess I'm just not at your level of explanation since I'd have to really search myself to figure what you mean. But no matter, I can't figure what hardships exactly (?) are you talking about following Premises 1 & 2? Aside from shooting a moving target. What were or are the hardships you're talking about?

 

[YoursTrue]

No. I've already told you it's a joke, I freely admitted it long before you ever tried to tell me it was a joke, and you still insist I must defend it as though it were completely serious.

So no. Because you can't take a joke.



Yawn.

So you didn't really mean it logically or -- ? illogically? or logically.

 

[Sheldon]

OK, I guess I'm just not at your level of explanation since I'd have to really search myself to figure what you mean. But no matter, I can't figure what hardships exactly (?) are you talking about following Premises 1 & 2? Aside from shooting a moving target. What were or are the hardships you're talking about?

Not existing, this would make the task much harder, thus a according to the rational of the ontological argument a non existent deity is the greatest deity one can imagine. It's a parody of Anselm's argument, which fails on it's own of course, but still it's pretty funny, and doesn't violate any principles of logic the original ontological argument doesn't already violate.

 

[Sheldon]

So you didn't really mean it logically or -- ? illogically? or logically.

The ontological argument is being parodied, it already is irrational, since it makes unevidenced assumptions about the thing it is arguing for, that's called a begging the question fallacy. If anyone found Anselm's original argument at all compelling, then they can't object to the original fallacies it violates being repeated here obviously.

So it's actually quite a clever parody.

 

[PureX]

There are probably as many different answers as there are people who hold a belief in God.

I personally wouldn't know, as I don't believe in God.

There are lots of different God-images, and "God-characters", but when you LOOK for the fundamental commonalities, they're pretty easy to see. The God/gods are that mysterious source, sustenance, and purpose within and behind existence as we experience it. And we tend to be obsessed with this mystery "God" because we want to figure out how to gain control over our experience of existence. We want to be in control of our own fate.

 

[Tiberius]

Alright. So it does not present any problem with the ontological argument though you presented it as one! No problem.

The ontological argument has huge problems.