Presenting Ontological argument again (differently) - the predicate refutation

[firedragon]

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.

But philosophers don't really strawman it. I have never seen it being misrepresented. But I know some are skeptics and they hate it.

 

[Link]

But philosophers don't really strawman it. I have never seen it being misrepresented. But I know some are skeptics and they hate it.

I disagree. The way it's presented universally in almost all universities and colleges to me is a strawman. Both of them are misrepresented. I've made so many threads about why I believe this is the case.

The original works also predicted all the refutations including the predicate stuff except the term predicate for existence was not used, but it was already predicted by both authors.

Even the perfect island, etc, all that stuff was predicted by their original works.

 

[firedragon]

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

No. It does not follow. You can't say "if you can see, I can see". It's not P to Q, it's two different premises, worded to sound like a PtoQ modus tollens. Absolutely wrong. Unless "if you can see, I can see" means the second person sees through the first persons eyes. Or in "If you can observe, I can observe" means the second person is using the first persons observing utility, either the eyes, brains, or a device.

Modus Tollens is when it follows. "If the sun rises, we will see daylight in the open". No Daylight. No Sunrise.

 

[firedragon]

I disagree. The way it's presented universally

I have never seen it. So what could one do? Maybe if I studied at your university.

Anyway, this is a moot point. Because I already explained the necessary being being part of Anselm's argument.

Cheers.

 

[Tinker Grey]

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

That's actually a fair criticism. I could add a statement.

P0. If I could observe God, I would observe God.
P1. If You can observe God, I can observe God
P1a. I don't observe God, therefore I cannot observe God (P0).
C: Therefore, you don't observe God

 

[Link]

I have never seen it. So what could one do? Maybe if I studied at your university.

Anyway, this is a moot point. Because I already explained the necessary being being part of Anselm's argument.

Cheers.

Salam

It was a horrible class. Every argument for God was strawman presented one after the other LOL including the cosmological argument.

 

[Link]

That's actually a fair criticism. I could add a statement.

P0. If I could observe God, I would observe God.
P1. If You can observe God, I can observe God
P1a. I don't observe God, therefore I cannot observe God (P0).
C: Therefore, you don't observe God

Sure, but what if it's more complicated then that? What if you can see God, but seeing him in a state where you don't want to accept the higher reality and light would cause you to believe something else, like your being possessed by demons or that a sorcery is done upon you by an evil sorcerer?

Just because God can show himself, doesn't mean everyone can benefit from seeing him. The Quran argues if the signs are shown while soul is averse, it's harmful, and the soul will rebel further int his world.

It's only day of judgment type proofs that souls won't argue and accept, but then it's too late to love God and come close to him, since reality has been forced, deeds are no longer of value in this way.

 

[Tinker Grey]

No. It does not follow. You can't say "if you can see, I can see". It's not P to Q, it's two different premises, worded to sound like a PtoQ modus tollens. Absolutely wrong. Unless "if you can see, I can see" means the second person sees through the first persons eyes. Or in "If you can observe, I can observe" means the second person is using the first persons observing utility, either the eyes, brains, or a device.

Modus Tollens is when it follows. "If the sun rises, we will see daylight in the open". No Daylight. No Sunrise.

The construction of my syllogism is valid. You may contest the soundness however. Which is what you are doing. And, that's fine.

(Now, note that the OP said 'we' observe God. I don't. Therefore, 'we' don't.)

So now, why would you be able to observe God when I don't? Are you special? Am I refusing to see? You can say that all you want, but I won't take that seriously.

Do you other options?

 

[Link]

The construction of my syllogism is valid. You may contest the soundness however. Which is what you are doing. And, that's fine.

(Now, note that the OP said 'we' observe God. I don't. Therefore, 'we' don't.)

So now, why would you be able to observe God when I don't? Are you special? Am I refusing to see? You can say that all you want, but I won't take that seriously.

Do you other options?

Imam Sajjad (a) summarizes the Quranic arguments "You don't veil yourself from any creation except their actions are for other then you".

Believers see God because they want him and sacrifice lower world for it. Disbelievers sacrifice heavenly reality for low desires and run away from God for a world bound to perish.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Sure, but what if it's more complicated then that? What if you can see God, but seeing him in a state where you don't want to accept the higher reality and light would cause you to believe something else, like your being possessed by demons or that a sorcery is done upon you by an evil sorcerer?

Just because God can show himself, doesn't mean everyone can benefit from seeing him. The Quran argues if the signs are shown while soul is averse, it's harmful, and the soul will rebel further int his world.

It's only day of judgment type proofs that souls won't argue and accept, but then it's too late to love God and come close to him, since reality has been forced, deeds are no longer of value in this way.

It would still be true that I don't see anything identifiable as a god.

If "Just because God can show himself, doesn't mean everyone can benefit from seeing him", then the OP is still wrong. We cannot "all" observe god.

If you actually assert that I "don't want to accept", you are just calling me intellectually dishonest and I don't have time people who don't treat me as an honest interlocutor.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Imam Sajjad (a) summarizes the Quranic arguments "You don't veil yourself from any creation except their actions are for other then you".

That translation doesn't even English. (Intentional irony.)

Believers see God because they want him and sacrifice lower world for it. Disbelievers sacrifice heavenly reality for low desires and run away from God for a world bound to perish.

Yeah. See. I don't have time for people saying "you just wanna sin".

 

[Link]

It would still be true that I don't see anything identifiable as a god.

If "Just because God can show himself, doesn't mean everyone can benefit from seeing him", then the OP is still wrong. We cannot "all" observe god.

If you actually assert that I "don't want to accept", you are just calling me intellectually dishonest and I don't have time people who don't treat me as an honest interlocutor.

The Quran says only believers are truthful to themselves. Disbelievers and hypocrites (Muslims who trick themselves they are believers) lie to themselves, God and others.

They are so use to deceiving themselves and others, they are lost in their lie.

Not what you wanted to hear I know but it's the reality.

The moment we no longer try to deceive ourselves, and be truthful to ourselves, is a moment where we see the truth, it's as if we are the Angel of death taking our soul, and seeing ourselves for what it is if we are truthful to ourselves (fully).

 

[Tinker Grey]

The Quran says only believers are truthful to themselves. Disbelievers and hypocrites (Muslims who trick themselves they are believers) lie to themselves, God and others.

They are so use to deceiving themselves and others, they are lost in their lie.

Not what you wanted to hear I know but it's the reality.

The moment we no longer try to deceive ourselves, and be truthful to ourselves, is a moment where we see the truth, it's as if we are the Angel of death taking our soul, and seeing ourselves for what it is if we are truthful to ourselves (fully).

More evidence that the Quran is wrong. That's the reality.

 

[Link]

More evidence that the Quran is wrong. That's the reality.

Truthfulness is God's sword. You pick that up, and false swords will be destroyed. Till then, you won't get that honorable sword you need. They (the false swords) are all lies - everything but God is false.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Truthfulness is God's sword. You pick that up, and false swords will be destroyed. Till then, you won't get that honorable sword you need. They (the false swords) are all lies - everything but God is false.

Wrong again.

 

[firedragon]

So now, why would you be able to observe God when I don't? Are you special?

I never said I can observe God mate.

 

[firedragon]

Salam

It was a horrible class. Every argument for God was strawman presented one after the other LOL including the cosmological argument.

Oh I see. Some lecturers don't have the capacity to take a neutral approach. This is a plight of students. But you have taken the right path though.

Mind you, in some instances some lecturers try to teach religion in a language class. that is also bad.

Nevertheless, very few anti religious lecturers take pride in teaching something like the ontological argument as philosophy. Actually there are many.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I never said I can observe God mate.

I'm talking about the argument, mate.

 

[Polymath257]

No. What you just did is called affirming the consequent. Logically fallacious.

So what you gave is, again, not a definition. A definition is supposed to be a logical equivalence, not simply a deduction or an example.

Sure thy highness.

Ridicule is against RF rules.

Read the simple explanation with a little bit of humility and you will surely understand.

How about a bit more detail rather than vague claims that are not supported?

 

[Polymath257]

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 is the exact definition of reductio ad absurdum.

So when you said 'no', you were not denying that it was a redutio ad absurdum?

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".

'a form of words to refer to a being'. I'm having trouble making sense of this phrase.

And your distinction between positive and negative conception is still unclear.

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.

OK, and how is that argument any different than the 'proof' that dragons exist using magons?