This is incorrect. You may have noticed that logic includes both predicates, which express relationships between properties and elements of the universe of discourse, and quantifiers, which express something about the quantity of elements that satisfy the property.
Define “greatness” for us, please. Do you mean it in the mathematical sense? If so, four and four are equal as abstract concepts, regardless of what objects we assign them to for description. Or do you mean it in the sense that, “My father is a greater man than that murderer I heard about on the news?” If so, that’s subjective, and cannot be used to formulate a sound argument (you can’t test the truth value of a subjective quality).
How do you define intelligence? The selection of quantities?!
I have great respect for Kant who argued for the existence of God elsewhere but even great philosophers are fallible. His assumption that existence is not a property* is *questionable. Even so I am not sure whether the ontological argument is valid but there is another possibility which is similar - and, I believe, irrefutable. Consider the following:
Yes, you posed St. Anselm’s argument correctly. But what I proposed was different in that it does not talk about Being or Existence in itself, but the property of existence which is “maximal excellence” of the being.
Kant argued against St. Anselm’s view and did not deal with the property of existence as I posed it (it’s not my modification of the argument).
Notice again, the argument I posed does not refer to existence as a property, but rather the quality of “maximal excellence” which is a property of existence.
Kant’s argument fails here because we can talk about the properties that God possesses and not God’s pure being.
Again, the error here is that the qualities of maximal excellence versus contingent excellence certainly can be contrasted. Kant didn’t deal with that argument because he never saw it.
You are forgetting that we have polluted the world and have the ability to destroy all life on this planet. Power does not necessarily entail total independence…
In that case you equate power with longevity - which is arbitrary to say the least. You could have that tree chopped down whereas the tree doesn’t even know you exist…
I am surprised you know what God is concerned about…
Apologies! You anticipated me but I hadn’t read your post. Great minds think alike!
Kant’s assumption leads to the conclusion that existence is not greater than non-existence. He says that they’re both the same. So, if you imagine something, then what you imagine is just as great as something that actually exists outside of the imagination.
***Wow!I don’t think I said, “The universe just is.” Nor did I say, or imply, that it had no cause. I just see no evidence of a purpose. There is plenty of opportunity to increase our understanding. Unless you simply say, “God did it.” How does this increase our understanding? It’s a dead-end statement!Proving absolutely nothing. I can see that you’re clinging to your “rationality must have come from a rational creator” principle like a drowning sailor to a piece of driftwood, but you have to accept, even if just to yourself, that this does not constitute evidence.That’s just illogical. And you are being disingenuous by equating ‘answer’ with ‘explanation.’ And you are ignoring the fact that simply positing a creator raises more questions than it answers.That’s an arbitrary differentiator that you use simply because you want it to be true.We know almost certainly that the universe hasn’t always existed. There are more than two alternatives to God. I can make up any old nonsense to fit whatever observable criteria you like, and from an evidential point of view, my hypotheses will be just as valid as God. Furthermore, there is a theory, supported by observable experiment, for the creation of the Universe from a singularity.Answered above. Just because we don’t know the explanation for something, it doesn’t follow that a random super-deity is a sensible answer.It is arbitrary because there is no evidence to support it. It just fits your personal belief. You are mistaking correlation for causality.I’ve already dismissed the first suggestion. Although ‘cyclical universe’ may be an answer. The point is that these theories leave the door open for further experiment. Your hypothesis just propagates irrational superstition and precludes the opportunity to learn more about our universe.Are you so arrogant that you believe you MUST know everything? I do not need an alternative explanation to point out that your answer is speculative at best. I don’t know why you continually ignore this basic logical truth. I bet you don’t apply your “any answer is better than no answer” paradigm to other aspects of your life. It’s just ridiculous.You need to look up ‘obscurant’ - you are implying that I know the answer but am refusing to divulge it. I am simply pointing out that nobody knows the answer. Don’t panic, this is okay.Shock horror, you are twisting my words. For only about the thousandth time. It’s a shame that you have to resort to dishonesty in order to appear logical. I didn’t say “no answer is better than theism,” I said that there is no evidence for God, and that not having an explanation is perfectly acceptable.Ha! Pot calling kettle!!You clearly do not know what a non sequitur is. You have implied (and claimed outright) that believing in God is better than admitting we don’t know everything about the universe. It is a logical follow-on question to ask whether you apply this principle to everything you don’t know.Where to start? Firstly, it doesn’t do justice to the facts because it explains nothing. Secondly, there is no proof of spiritual energy, ergo there can be no proof of experiencing it. Finally, there is not a shred of evidence other than the desire of the theist, to support it as an answer… let alone an explanation.Then you are undoubtedly irrational.No, but it leaves the door open to further experiment, whereas, “God did it” slams that door shut.Well, it seems my original post has been deleted without notification, maybe we have an over-zealous new moderator. I’m afraid I can’t remember the point I was making. But at a guess, you are implying that the universe had to have been created by a rational being in order to contain rational beings. I was refuting this due, as always, to a lack of evidence.Because there is no reason to infer an intent behind every effect. It would then become a philosophical discussion rather than a scientific analysis.Proving nothing! Other than perhaps your own propensity for non sequitur?Because, as I’ve pointed out to you many, many times: an unnecessary complication - and without evidence to the contrary, God must be considered unnecessary - is less efficient than the lack of that complication. This is basic stuff, I’m surprised you need it to be spelt out for you.Well, actually it lies in your inability to read something without twisting it into a target. For example, “I went on holiday last week. It rained.” Do you read that as, “I went on holiday last week because it rained?” Or, “I went on holiday last week therefore it rained?” Do you infer a causal link? No, I didn’t think so.
I thought it was absurd when I read it! But my respect for Kant made me use the word “questionable”!
I’m not sure he regarded **all **truth as relative… but that subject is “untopical”.
I think you vastly overestimate our capability to destroy the life on the planet. As far as “chosen adversaries” go, while we have managed to wipe out or almost wipe out many species of larger mammals and birds, the simplest of insects and rodents still manage to befuddle us, to say nothing of plants.
Eh, you can check up on the last class of organisms to poison the entire atmosphere.
Have a look at the Hubble deep field image. You sound pretty confident for someone living in a universe where you can fit 1,500 galaxies into a point on the sky no bigger than a dime would be at 75 feet away.
You’re right - I have no idea, I’m not a quantum physicist. But even if it is derived from something, there’s no way of knowing what that something is, ergo no rational reason for declaring it to be God.
You can - what you’re saying is that I reject the consideration of things that cannot be shown to exist, either directly or by effect. I’m fine with that
No, this doesn’t make me gullible, it makes me logical and honest.
Yes, in one sense of the word ‘virtue.’ It’s honest because it’s the only means that can produce reliable methods.
I believe it is, but I accept that there might be other types of energy. Whether they would actually be defined as ‘energy’ is an interesting but ultimately moot point. The fact remains that there is no evidence of any other type of energy. It’s easy to say that that’s because we can only observe physical energy, but that’s sort of the point. Why believe in something you can’t observe, measure, test?
Well, I’ve had this conversation with WSP as I’m sure you’re aware. You can call it my personal definition if you like, but the, “beyond reasonable doubt” standard of evidence is ubiquitous and I think most people would agree that it is the level of evidence required when attempting to prove the existence of a given entity. I think that trying to equate the intent of an individual with non-physical energy, as you seem to be doing in your example, would fall under the heading of “redefinition fallacy.”
I’ve started to, but it’s quite tough going. Can you summarise the parts that you think support your argument?
It’s not dogma, it’s common sense. If I experience a vision of the FSM, floating in front of me, does that mean it’s really there? If I believe in fairies, does that mean that they exist?
Well, it depends on the nature of the experience. Generally such a set of experiences should have some historical basis in fact. For example, if a group of people experienced extreme cold, then it’s not unreasonable to accept this as evidence that the temperature was low at the time. We know about cold, we have each experienced it at one time or another, we know that being cold is possible. If however, a group of people underwent an experience that convinced them that Allah wanted them to fly aeroplanes into buildings, does that mean that Allah exists and he really did want it to happen? (And if so, where does that leave Yahweh?)
But such investigation can prove nothing, so the activity holds no validity or value.
It has a better chance than philosophy, which can only provide us with subjective, untestable rhetoric.
Slightly ambiguous question. Certainly I do not think things like, “I’ll pop to the shops tonight because E=MC2,” or whatever. Neither do I say, “I’ll pop to the shops tonight because the abyss also looks into me.” I’ll pop to the shops because I need some milk or something. Ultimately I believe that my decisions are governed by the laws of nature - some of which are known, others of which aren’t.
Yes.
I guess it counts as objective evidence that we have the ability to think and make decisions.
There are different forms and interpretations of the PSR, and after a recent war of words in another thread, I won’t commit myself to a simple, “Yes” or “No.” That “no fact can be real or no statement true unless it has sufficient reason why it should not be otherwise” rings true, but ‘sufficient’ quickly becomes subjective when used in discussions such as this, as I have found out in another thread. Also, the PSR can be read in two ways - firstly: “If a statement has sufficient reason to be true, then it must be true,” or “A statement must have sufficient reason to even be considered further as to its truth.” Both of these statements can be held to be correct, but rely on different levels of “sufficient” and different meanings of “reason.”
Are you referring to the 2nd law of thermodynamics? I’m certainly not educated enough to contradict it.
I think therefore I am. That’s the only evidence to which I can personally attest.
The number of unknowns has no link to the validity of atheism. Yet again you demonstrate your lack of understanding of a very simple principle. The atheist position is a lack of belief in God due to the absence of evidence. The alternatives to atheism are agnosticism, delusion, or blind faith. The only way to refute the beliefs of atheists is to provide evidence of the existence of God. As I said previously, “beyond reasonable doubt” is an appropriate level of evidence.
I guess if that was known, we’d have the right answer.
Theoretically forever, unless an acceptable explanation can be found. However, my opposition is not based on obstinacy, but on logic and rationality. Your emotive wording does nothing to change the fact that your explanation is insufficient.
Well, facts by definition should be provable, therefore there are no facts other than empirical facts.
Logic does not dispel open-mindedness.
…WHAT??? You can’t really believe that, can you? You can’t hold a fact in your hand, so physicalism is false?
No. By definition, surely it is not! Unless you are referring to the fact that is a belief, in which case you are committing a logical fallacy whereby your conclusion simply reflects your initial assumption.
Two things. Firstly you are straw-manning again. It’s not that I am unable to answer your questions, it’s that the answer is not known. By anybody. Secondly, What I see as a strength is not our lack of knowledge, but the ability to accept that we don’t know, rather than make something up to fill the gap.
It’s clearly not selective thinking. It’s just an observation of reality. The reality is, there are a lot of things we don’t know. The reality is, God is not a sufficient explanation other than for those who already believe in him.
Good point, well made. Let me rephrase - “it deals with what is known, not what is speculated.” Atheism is not true or false, any more than, say, a specific gender can be held to be true or false.
Well, your attempt to refute it fails at the first hurdle, where you replace a point of view (atheism) with an entity (God). Atheism is logically a stronger position than theism becauses it refuses to accept assertion without supporting evidence. This is logical bedrock. You can’t prove that God exists, therefore your claim that he does, is baseless. Atheism doesn’t make a counter-claim, it just points out the weakness in the theist’s claim. This weakness leads most atheists to conclude that God doesn’t exist, in the same way as a lack of evidence for unicorns leads most people to conclude that unicorns don’t exist.
I agree that it’s good to be respectful of Kant for many reasons – I was just showing some of the problems that don’t get mentioned in the claims that he “refuted” St. Anselm.I’m not sure he regarded **all **truth as relative… but that subject is “untopical”.
***Friend you are confused. Love demands a conscious decision, that I can choose to love someone I dislike, and also one I like very much.