Presenting Ontological argument again (differently) - the predicate refutation

[Alien826]

I am not defending the validity or the soundness or anything brother. I am only saying things as it is. I have summarised the argument as posited by three different philosophers including Leibniz, Descartes, and of course Anselm. That's all I did.

You said "the ontological argument for God is based on definitions, premises, and formal logical validity. How is that not defending the validity of the argument?

What you saw is wrong Alien.

No offense intended. It's just the way you phrase things and the occasional grammatical error suggested that you might not be a native English speaker. No matter.

You can if you like take it to mean indefinable. Generally in Philosophy irresolvable means something that cannot be broken down into small pieces. Like a Cohort audit.

OK.

No. Reductio is to make a point stand based on a premise by arguing the opposite argument is absurd.

That's one side of it, yes. What does your "no" refer to? Obviously not the definition of reductio ad absurdum.

Do you understand the difference between negatively conceivable and positively conceivable?

I understand what the individual words mean. If they are technical terms in philosophy, then no.
Please explain.

This is an A Priori argument. That's why you have that issue. If you expect me to justify this argument to prove the existence of God I cannot. But if you did not understand the argument, that's probably because the explanations are too brief and with jargon. Maybe.

To repeat, I've had difficulty understanding what the argument is trying to say, not I don't follow the words.

 

[Alien826]

Or maybe he understand the argument, but thinks it is unsound or invalid.

What I'm trying to say is that I find it incoherent, and thus I am unable to judge its validity or soundness. That should be enough for me to dismiss the whole thing perhaps, but when supposedly intelligent educated people consider it to have value, I'm humble enough to admit that I may be missing something. So, whenever it arises in debate, I pick at it and ask questions in the hope that something coherent will emerge.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I believe you should speak for your self.

P1: If you can observe God, I can observe God
P2: I can't observe God
C: You can't observe God

Classic modus tollens

 

[Link]

Please don't do that.

Chopping off someone's quote mid-sentence to change its meaning is dishonest.

How did I change meaning? My post is relevant to what you said and in the context you said it.

 

[firedragon]

You said "the ontological argument for God is based on definitions, premises, and formal logical validity. How is that not defending the validity of the argument?

I am not defending anything. I giving the nature of the argument and the basis's. If you wish to take it as defending, your wish Alien.

I came back to this point of yours. Maybe you are not understanding validity. A valid syllogism in logic is "formal validity" which means it follows the rules. Validity does not mean it is true or ultimately correct. A valid syllogism can very well be not sound and cannot be accepted as a sound argument. It can be false, and fallacious. So don't think that when I say formal logical validity, I am defending it. I can't put it in any other way.

That's one side of it, yes. What does your "no" refer to? Obviously not the definition of reductio ad absurdum.

That is the exact definition of reductio ad absurdum.

I understand what the individual words mean. If they are technical terms in philosophy, then no.
Please explain.

They are terms used by some philosophers. Since they are formally used, maybe you could them technical terms. It's no big deal. Let's say someone claims that his wife is the greatest woman on earth, it is a "positive conceiving". But someone else can negatively conceive that there is a possibility that there could be a greater woman than the proponent's wife. In order to have a negative conception of something, you need to have a form of words to refer to a being. And does refer to that being. Even if that form of words attributes no positive characteristics to the being. That is called a "negative conceiving".

To repeat, I've had difficulty understanding what the argument is trying to say, not I don't follow the words.

Okay. Let write in a way you will understand better. Not in logical form or anything of the sort. No attempt at modus ponens.
An ontological argument is one which starts from the idea or concept of God. Examining the content of this idea, it looks to infer the existence of God. Maybe I will give the earliest known form of the ontological argument. Anselm's version. There are many versions.

God is a being than which none greater can be thought. God is, by definition, a Being, greater than which nothing can be conceived. It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind. Therefore God must exist in reality. If he didn’t he wouldn’t be the greatest being possible. The second form of the argument comes from the idea of a Necessary Being: God is, by definition, a Necessary Being. It is logically necessary to affirm what is necessary to the concept of a Necessary Being. Existence is logically necessary to the concept of a Necessary Being. Therefore, a Necessary Being necessarily exists.

 

[firedragon]

P1: If you can observe God, I can observe God
P2: I can't observe God
C: You can't observe God

Classic modus tollens

That's wrong Tinker Grey. Your P1 is not wrong. It's not If p, then q you have written. You just worded it to sound like it. Modus Tollens is

P1. If you can observe God, you can know God.
P2. You don't know God'
Q. You cannot observe God.

That is modus tollens.

 

[Link]

God is a being than which none greater can be thought. God is, by definition, a Being, greater than which nothing can be conceived. It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind. Therefore God must exist in reality. If he didn’t he wouldn’t be the greatest being possible. The second form of the argument comes from the idea of a Necessary Being: God is, by definition, a Necessary Being. It is logically necessary to affirm what is necessary to the concept of a Necessary Being. Existence is logically necessary to the concept of a Necessary Being. Therefore, a Necessary Being necessarily exists.

Salam

Anselm version uses the necessary concept. Actually, he emphasizes "by virtue of it being necessary". Just university professors and so called Academics, tend to ignore that part even though he emphasized on so much.

He says make all things equal, if you divorce existence from God, it would be less great by virtue of no longer being necessary. He emphasizes on this, but through out the writing emphasizes the reason it's greater the all non-existing versions (ideas), is because the maximum being has to exist by virtue of being necessary. The lesser versions don't have to exist, but the greatest version does, by virtue of it being necessary.

I argued with the professor who presented in the way you did. He gave me bonus marks on the test for "creativity", but I would read original works and not trust academia.

They misrepresent it.

 

[Link]

That's wrong Tinker Grey. Your P1 is not wrong. It's not If p, then q you have written. You just worded it to sound like it. Modus Tollens is

P1. If you can observe God, you can know God.
P2. You don't know God'
Q. You cannot observe God.

That is modus tollens.

The argument is valid. Not sound. But valid. Tinker Grey made a valid but unsound argument in my view.

 

[firedragon]

Salam

Anselm version uses the necessary concept. Actually, he emphasizes "by virtue of it being necessary". Just university professors and so called Academics, tend to ignore that part even though he emphasized on so much.

He says make all things equal, if you divorce existence from God, it would be less great by virtue of no longer being necessary. He emphasizes on this, but through out the writing emphasizes the reason it's greater the all non-existing versions (ideas), is because the maximum being has to exist by virtue of being necessary.

I argued with the professor who presented in the way you did. He gave me bonus marks on the test for "creativity", but I would read original works and not trust academia.

They misrepresent it.

I think I have said "necessary being" in my post.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How did I change meaning? My post is relevant to what you said and in the context you said it.

I'm not playing this game with you.

And I'm not going to continue the discussion if you're going to keep approaching it in bad faith.

 

[firedragon]

The argument is valid. Not sound. But valid. Tinker Grey made a valid but unsound argument in my view.

Bro. My post was not about formal validity or soundness. Please read it again.

 

[Link]

I think I have said "necessary being" in my post.

Yes, but there isn't more then one version. Anselm version used the necessary being as well. Same with Descartes except the latter emphasizes on triangles and angles and tries to show by analogy. And emphasizes on perfection instead of greatness, but their synonymous and it's the same argument.

Academia misrepresents both and doesn't even talk about what they emphasized on, the necessary being part.

 

[Link]

Bro. My post was not about formal validity or soundness. Please read it again.

I see, it's been a long time, I forget the different implication logical ways and their names.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, but there isn't more then one version. Anselm version used the necessary being as well. Same with Descartes except the latter emphasizes on triangles and angles and tries to show by analogy. And emphasizes on perfection instead of greatness, but their synonymous and it's the same argument.

Bro. Anselm mentions two forms separately. Not Descartes.

That does not mean Anselm had two different arguments just because he cites them in separate forms.

 

[Link]

Bro. Anselm mentions two forms separately. Not Descartes.

That does not mean Anselm had two different arguments just because he cites them in separate forms.

I read the original works. When he emphasizes a non-existing version of all the qualities of God but minus existence, he says, it's less great, because it doesn't have the utmost degree of it to the extent of necessary level. The one that you can't divorce existence from is greater then the ones you can, by virtue, that maximumly great being is necessary. Descartes to emphasize on this says God is perfect, and all his perfections existence in oneness, and is actually commenting and explaining Anselm argument. He makes a math analogy to triangles. And says when you recall God, you can't divorce existence from it, same way you can't understand triangles and make there angles add to more then 180 degrees. He is saying if you understand God, you can't divorce existence from him, because the perfect being has to the extent of necessary level. Both of them emphasized and explained in terms of necessary.

Academia tries to avoid talking about "necessary" in the argument. They strawman it.

 

[Link]

The flaw of the original works, is the way they phrased it, talked about as a concept and actuality. The duality is impossible, God doesn't exist as an idea, only reality. This is the flaw of it. And because it's implied God exists in the first premise, it's not really a proof or argument, but a reminder of how we can know God exists by virtue of "necessary".

This means we recall God (the maximum one), we can't make an idea, but are making use of the real being.

Since the atheist believes it's an idea, he can't make the switch, and thinks the argument is cheating.

 

[firedragon]

I read the original works. When he emphasizes a non-existing version of all the qualities of God but minus existence, he says, it's less great, because it doesn't have the utmost degree of it to the extent of necessary level. The one that you can't divorce existence from is greater then the ones you can, by virtue, that maximumly great being is necessary. Descartes to emphasize on this says God is perfect, and all his perfections existence in oneness, and is actually commenting and explaining Anselm argument. He makes a math analogy to triangles. And says when you recall God, you can't divorce existence from it, same way you can't understand triangles and make there angles add to more then 180 degrees. He is saying if you understand God, you can't divorce existence from him, because the perfect being has to the extent of necessary level. Both of them emphasized and explained in terms of necessary.

Academia tries to avoid talking about "necessary" in the argument. They strawman it.

When this same fool hears what I am speaking about, namely something that nothing greater can be thought, he understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his mind, even if he does not understand that it actually exists . ........

Me too mate.

I don't understand why you keep saying academia tries to avoid the necessary being argument. And I cant understand how that relates to me.

I think we are talking past each other.

 

[Link]

When this same fool hears what I am speaking about, namely something that nothing greater can be thought, he understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his mind, even if he does not understand that it actually exists . ........

Me too mate.

I don't understand why you keep saying academia tries to avoid the necessary being argument. And I cant understand how that relates to me.

I think we are talking past each other.

I would read the whole thing. Contextualize it all. When I took a university course presenting it, I did the readings before the professor presented it, and realized the way universities and colleges present it, is strawman version of it. They build it weak to refute it by predicate stuff.

 

[Tinker Grey]

That's wrong Tinker Grey. Your P1 is not wrong. It's not If p, then q you have written. You just worded it to sound like it. Modus Tollens is

P1. If you can observe God, you can know God.
P2. You don't know God'
Q. You cannot observe God.

That is modus tollens.

My syllogism is valid. If p, then q. Not q. Therefore not p.

Now if one wants to contest soundness of the syllogism, that's different. It may be that 'you' in P1 is special and it does not follow that 'I' can also observe. Of course, you might contest P2 and assert that in fact I do observe God. Certainly, Xians do all the time assert that we non-believers perversely deny what we plainly see.

But if you contest P2, please don't expect any non-believer to take you seriously.

 

[Link]

P1: If you can observe God, I can observe God
P2: I can't observe God
C: You can't observe God

Classic modus tollens

How do you know you can't observe God as opposed to the fact you have not and simply don't?