How can you know that your inability to see the dragon in my room is because you can't as opposed to you have not and simply don't?
The answers are the same: because of attempts made to see that failed.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Presenting Ontological argument again (differently) - the predicate refutation
- Thread starter Link
- Start date
How can you know that your inability to see the dragon in my room is because you can't as opposed to you have not and simply don't?
The answers are the same: because of attempts made to see that failed.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Okay. So take a dragon, think about the definition of the argument, and the definitions within the argument and use it to apply that to the dragon in the same form, and then I will explain. This was only on Anselms argument explained to someone else. You are responding to someone else's discourse.
Thanks.
Last edited:
firedragon
Veteran Member
Oh really Poly? Are you using your admin powers to threaten people to submit? Go back and read how you ridicule.
Read again. You might understand.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Not Modus Tollens. Take a read of the examples I gave, and compare.
Last edited:
In this case, he was right. It *is* the same *logical structure*.
p-->q
not(q)
--------
not(p)
which is a valid argument form.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Who said it's not valid?
If you feel I have broken the rules, report me.
I am not an admin. I am a moderator. I don't vote on cases involving myself.
This is one of your favorite tactics. I have read it. Now it is your turn to explain. But I have found that you never actually do so.
dragon<---> beging
necessary<-->existing
God is defined as a necessary being. I define a magon as an existing dragon.
It is said that a necessary being cannot fail to exist. I say an existing dragon cannot fail to exist.
It is then concluded that God exists. I conclude that dragons exist.
How is it not a perfectly analogous argument?
firedragon
Veteran Member
Rather than making things up, "read it again".
firedragon
Veteran Member
Then read it again.
firedragon
Veteran Member
fallacious. Try to get a book on different forms of ontological arguments, read it, and understand meanings of the argument and terms you are using, and present your case properly like I have presented above.
yes, the ontological argument is fallacious. But so is the argument from magons. My point is that they are essentially the same type of argument and that is why both are fallacious.
Please give more detail than 'read it again'. I have read it and I feel that I have understood it. You seem to disagree and seem to expect me to see my error by simply reading it again. Maybe you need to write with more detail?
it would be much simpler if you simply give details on how you think I am wrong.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Prove it. After studying it as I said a little.
firedragon
Veteran Member
No thanks.
color me surprised
firedragon
Veteran Member
No thanks.
Only God is candidate for Necessary Being.
The Necessary Being is seen to exist by virtue of being necessary.
The first premise shows why this doesn't apply to other things or beings.
The second premise is an obvious fact, if seen. The only question is there a Necessary being.
Anselm argues when the greatest being is conceived, it's seen to be great to the extent of being necessary (level). So when you recall that it's greatness is at the necessary level and no other being has this quality, then it's known it exists. You can only imagine beings less great then it not existing, but if you understood necessary and it's greatness, you can't see God not existing. It's virtually impossible if you grasp both these aspects. But it has more implications.
Not only is God known to exist, but that it alone is eternal. Not only is it alone eternal, but it can't be repeated, and so can't beget nor is begotten. The reason being is that vastness implies it exists in all possible worlds while things come to be by definition as not necessary.
And there is only One necessary being possible and so there is nothing on par with it.
The Necessary Being is seen to exist by virtue of being necessary.
The first premise shows why this doesn't apply to other things or beings.
The second premise is an obvious fact, if seen. The only question is there a Necessary being.
Anselm argues when the greatest being is conceived, it's seen to be great to the extent of being necessary (level). So when you recall that it's greatness is at the necessary level and no other being has this quality, then it's known it exists. You can only imagine beings less great then it not existing, but if you understood necessary and it's greatness, you can't see God not existing. It's virtually impossible if you grasp both these aspects. But it has more implications.
Not only is God known to exist, but that it alone is eternal. Not only is it alone eternal, but it can't be repeated, and so can't beget nor is begotten. The reason being is that vastness implies it exists in all possible worlds while things come to be by definition as not necessary.
And there is only One necessary being possible and so there is nothing on par with it.
But morality and goodness is not linked to seeing or not seeing an invisible dragon unlike it's relation to God who is the light of all light and who is seen through vision from light.