V
Vir_Dei
Guest
- Status
A
AnAtheist
Guest
That is what the onotlogical argument does, it defines existence into God. That definition is very well hidden in the ordering schema.
“God is the greatest thinkable thing.”
What does “greater” mean? Nothing, there is no rule how to determine greatness except one. Something that exists is “greater” than the “otherwise equal” but not-existing thing. You may replace the adjective “great” by anything else, like “more perfect” or “blazorg”. The argument just uses a term with fitting connotations to hide the circular reasoning, like “Come on, it’s obvious that God is the Greatest.”
“God is the blazorgest thinkable thing.” + “Something is blazorger, if it exists.” → “God exists.”
Equally valid: “Bazonga is the blazorgest thinkable thing.” + “Something is blazorger, if it exists.” → “Bazonga exists.”
Now the fun part. I define: God is the greatest thinkable thing. A thing is greater, if it has more attributes than another.Now take two thinkable things A and B, with the same number of attributes, then A = B.
Add the attribute x to both A+x = B+x.
Now add the opposite of x (not x, !x) to A, then A has one attribute more than B, A+x+!x > B+x.
By the ontological argument, God as the greatest thing, must have contardictory attribute and that’s impossible. → God does not exist.
Now, let’s forbid contradictory attributes, thus A+x+!x is not possible. What’s still possible, is to add the attribute x to A and !x to B, while A and B are otherwise equal.
Then: A+x = B+!x
Now, let’s say x is existence → An existing God is as great as a non-existing God.
M
mikew262
Guest
I suppose you’re the wise man?
M
mikew262
Guest
What happened to Ty? Did he surrender?
M
mlchance
Guest
Then it seems sensible to point out you really don’t know enough to be discussing Christianity or Christianity’s conception of God.
Silence is the beginning of wisdom.
– Mark L. Chance.
V
Vir_Dei
Guest
This is laughable. You are using a man-made system to describe something that can barely be put into man-made words.
But, I’m assuming you won’t settle for that answer so let’s have a little fun. Your first error - existence is an attribute that cannot be subtracted from. Once you exist, you always will. Thus adding the opposite of existence to something that has existence is… how should I put it - futile.
Your second error, something that would pain your previous math teachers, you failed to add the opposite of existence to side B.
You can’t just start adding things to equations and expect them to remain equal.
Your argument:
10 = 10. Assume God is 10.
10 + 1 = 10 + 1. Assume 1 is his attribute of existence.
10 + 1 + (-1) = 10 + 1. Assume -1 (does not have to be -1, but let’s logically assume it is) is the opposite of existence.
10 =/= 11. The equation is invalid; in order for the equation to remain equal, you must add the opposite of existence, -1, to each side.
Your final error is that in using A = B, you are giving God the attribute of being able to be equal to something, and by definition, He is not.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
Vir Dei:
To order two things A and B you need a function f(A,B) → {<,=,>} or f(a,b) → {-1,0,+1} (this is often done in programming languages). My defintition of “greatness” is a function N(X), which gives the numerical account of all attributes of X. Then A is greater (">") B, if N(A) is numericaly greater (real >) than N(B).
I used A+x > B as a short form for “A with the additional attribute of x is greater than B, because N(A,x) = N(A) + 1 > N(B), because N(A) = N(B).”
Then the ontological argument is unvalid. Fine with me.
You have not understood my “math”. The > and = operator here are used to order thinkable things, i.e. to decide which thing is “greater”. Those are not equations.
To order two things A and B you need a function f(A,B) → {<,=,>} or f(a,b) → {-1,0,+1} (this is often done in programming languages). My defintition of “greatness” is a function N(X), which gives the numerical account of all attributes of X. Then A is greater (">") B, if N(A) is numericaly greater (real >) than N(B).
I used A+x > B as a short form for “A with the additional attribute of x is greater than B, because N(A,x) = N(A) + 1 > N(B), because N(A) = N(B).”
A = B in this context does not mean, A and B are identical, it means they are of the same “greatness”, see above. Btw, the ontological argument does exactly that, it only omits a precise defintion of “greatness”, except that existing things are “greater” than non-existing things.
K
kev7
Guest
Vir Dei:
the question of gods existance is undefined. You would first have to understand all possible forms of existance before you could perform any logic on the question of existance.
that is why the atheistic assertion that God does not exist is based on Faith in man. It just isn’t possbile to draw a logical conclusion because logic can’t be used.
exactly,
the question of gods existance is undefined. You would first have to understand all possible forms of existance before you could perform any logic on the question of existance.
that is why the atheistic assertion that God does not exist is based on Faith in man. It just isn’t possbile to draw a logical conclusion because logic can’t be used.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
Not in Anselm’s ontological argument. It defines God’s existence to prove it later. If you keep the existence out of the definition, the ontological argument can lead to an impossible God (atheism) or to a point, where we see, that it is impossible to decide whether God exists or not (agnosticism). That is what I wanted to show.
(All based on Anselm’s defintion of God = “The greatest thinkable thing” of course.)
T
TySixtus
Guest
I’ve been at my girlfriends house since yesterday afternoon. I just got back. She doesn’t have the internet, but wouldn’t you know it, we find other ways to entertain ourselves.*
Ty
*We watched some movies.
T
TySixtus
Guest
See, here we go again. Please, Buffalo, what truths have been uncovered in religion? And keep in mind, coincidence is not the game, here. If you are going to claim that truths have been revealed in religion, you need to show me that:
- They actually sprung from the religion in question
- They are verifiably true
A
AndyF
Guest
Actually, there is more evidence to cause to ask how there could not be a God.
I always find it curious why atheists gravitate to religious debates. As if searching for something they cannot satisfy in their own philosophy. But we all know why they’re here. They want someone to comfort them in that gamble of all gambles that makes them sweat. The need that pat on the back that they’re doing the right thing.
Get it wrong and you have an atheist in front of God trying to explain why he ignored all the messages He sent, just so He could receive the tiniest basic charity and worship that was due Him, in gesture of having existed.
Get it right and he suffers not, extinction the finality, inspite of the unforgiven sins against society, all the bad deeds,etc. This is a more comfortable viewpoint, nothing to do, where even obligation is pointless as there is nothing to pay but in the here and now.
It is ironic when we use that logic tool, that favorite they like to use most. If all efforts are for naught, then one more effort of naught makes no difference in the outcome. If you are on a roll of pointless activity, taking on one more pointless activity makes no difference, so why not.
Therefore, taking on a religion is as pointless as taking on anything else in life. But!, there could be an advantage, and a possibility to gain. Through a sincere effort one can swing the probability in his favor,chance nothing, and has a bonus, benefits mankind in the process.
But that requires effort, which is the real issue with the atheist. Oh well, lottsa time before discovering the truth…errrrr…I hope!.
You figure.
Andy
T
TySixtus
Guest
Hold on a minute, there, tiger.
Thus far, I’ve put up with being called immoral, blind, stupid, young and niave, ignorant, and your very own estesbob pointed out that people were a lot smarter than me.
In his list of “smart people” was Jesus. Jesus cursed a fig tree for not having figs: out of season. If anyone else were to do this, we would call them, at the very least, hasty. Tempermental, perhaps. But since estesbob was content on calling me stupid, well…
I came to this forum with a good attitude, respectful of everyone, if not every idea. What was I met with? Typical Christian charity: name calling, soul-damning, etc.
So pardon my defensiveness. It is warranted.
Ty
V
Vir_Dei
Guest
I understand your point in that you did not mean to express it mathmatically.
The variable A does not equal God but rather equals his attributes, I understand, however, you are asserting that God is something that can be added to.
To simplify understanding, let us say 3 attributes came from God - X, Y, and Z. If God created X, Y, and Z, is it possible for X, Y, or Z to be added to God? Would he not already be made up of X, Y, and Z? Similarly, a thing that has the attribute of white cannot be given the attribute any more nor can it be given the attribute of the opposite of white without changing what it is entirely. Sorry, that was one of my random rambles.
T
TySixtus
Guest
I swear, you guys read the first post of every page and then post. Nevermind the fact that your attempting to psychologize has already been dealt with, by atheists and Catholics alike. If I haven’t said so before, when you attempt to tell me I need comfort, it’s the same thing as me telling you that you need god because you’re a coward who can’t face the world without needing the love of an invisible sky man who murders babies.
Not a very nice thing to say, right? So why are you saying the equivalent to us?
On top of that, your post was vacuous. There was nothing in there of substance, excluding, of course, your typical “You’ll see you were wrong when you die, Atheist!” comments.
Ty
E
estesbob
Guest
AMEN! http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif
Also, having made the BIG step its fun for them to call Jesus stupid and God a a babykiller and see the reaction they get.
E
estesbob
Guest
You may have felt you dealt with it but you havent even come close. You posts come acroos not as an attempt to convince us but as an attempt to convince yourself. You dont seem to be doing a very good job of it…
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Ah, I see your point, Ty. You’re arguing against a specific characterization of God, not against more generic characterizations of God.
I could say God is sustainer of the universe, and you would have no problem with that. But if I say that God talked to Joshua and told him to invade and destroy cities, then you would have a problem.
What if God were the sustainer of the universe, and also lived up to your expectations of what God should do – would you venerate such a God?
I could say God is sustainer of the universe, and you would have no problem with that. But if I say that God talked to Joshua and told him to invade and destroy cities, then you would have a problem.
What if God were the sustainer of the universe, and also lived up to your expectations of what God should do – would you venerate such a God?
T
TySixtus
Guest
No, I’m a strong atheist. Meaning, I believe it’s impossible for a god of any kind to exist.
Yes I would. Why does the universe need sustaining? How can you prove (or at least provide evidence) that there is a being out there capable of, and actively engaging in, sustaining the universe?
This causes me about as much anguish as, say, Zeus turning himself into a bull to get laid, or Loki being pinned to a rock slab with the wolven intestines of his son.
In other words, I dismiss them all as fairy tales.
Even if there were a god, and it did sustain the universe, why should I venerate it? Because it wants me to?
Ty
B
buffalo
Guest
He does all the time for people who ask. Miracles are part of our lives.
Now if you are asking why doesn’t He end the disease in total, why pancreatic cancer. Why not another cancer, or why not all diseases? Which ones should He choose? What about mans influence on the environment as to the possible causes of these disease?
- Status