-->
@Dr.Franklin
If you are going to use this argument then you want to make it clear it is a modal ontological argument for others to understand where the deduction comes from.
That being said, please prove P1. Good luck.
The Ontological Argument is Sound
Posts
Total:
170
-->
@Envisage
what is your objections to P1
I expalined it in OP
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Your defence of P1 is literally this:
"First, it is certainly possible that an MGB could exist"
Is that seriously supposed to be your standard of proof?
-->
@Dr.Franklin
My above post is the most substantive thing I can push on you. The definition of "possible" you use must be exactly the same concept throughout the argument or its invalid. People are conflating metaphysical possibility (the type required for this argument to be valid) with epistemological possibility ("...it could be true/correct") therefore grant P1 far too freely.
To give the reverse argument:
1. It is possible that a maximally great being does not exist.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then a maximally great does not exist in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great does not exist in some possible world, then it does not exist in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being does not exist in every possible world, then it does not exist in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great does not exist in the actual world, then a maximally great being does not exist.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being does not exist
Just to explain P3, as you stated in your original argument, if god exists in 44 out of 100 worlds, then it would be greater if it existed in 60 of 100, and so on. Therefore, either god exists in 100/100 worlds, or he exists in none, there is no in between. Thus if there exists one world where a MGB does not exist, then none of the worlds contain a MGB whatsoever.
Thus we are left with opposite conclusions form two "possible" premises
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
or
1. It is possible that a maximally great being does not exist.
Thus why I asked you to prove your P1.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great exists in some possible world.3. If a maximally great exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
I think that does not follow, it's a false premise that will create a false conclusion.
A rotten apple can exist in a box of apples, but that does not mean all boxes of apples contain one that is rotten. A spider can build a web in a tree, but not all trees contain spider webs. Some men are named John, but not all men are named John. The list goes on and on.
55 days later
-->
@Dr.Franklin
This argument bothers me a lot. Thought about it a few times but don't think got a clear idea. Anyway to help me?
-->
@Shamayita
what do you not understand about it?
-->
@Shamayita
If you're wondering why it doesn't work, then #101 and #103 have got you covered.
-->
@Shamayita
Blah de blah de blah....therefore god....Nope, just doesn't work....Might have fooled the gullible a few hundred years ago, but we're not all quite so daft these days.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Well maybe because I am not as intelligent as you all. Moreover I find myself standing somewhere in the middle of the two boats. So just wanted some clarifications which I doubt I will ever get because this is a highly debatable issue.
-->
@PressF4Respect
Yeah went through it. It definitely cleared some of my doubts but somewhere deep within I think it is there and find it hard to deny. Anyways thank you for clearing some of my doubts.
-->
@zedvictor4
Yeah. True I also don't want to believe in something like you said. Dunno maybe because I am dumb but I can't deny the fact that I feel there is a God. I know seems like a paradox but can't help.
-->
@Shamayita
No prob
-->
@Shamayita
What is a feeling?
It's an internal physiological response to an internally generated idea.
I can run with the notion of a god principle which is suggestive of a universal purpose.
But all those biblical stories and characters are just so irrelevant to an ultimate purpose or intelligence, especially in the context of our modern technological lives.
Technological evolution is exceeding human evolution, so if answers are to be found, they are more than likely going to to be found in a computer data base somewhere, rather than upon tablets of stone.
-->
@Shamayita
if it is possible that God exists, he exists
-->
@zedvictor4
I don't believe in the biblical characters. Yeah and I do believe more in a computer database than in such tales. And I do know what a feeling is, what role different organs and hormones play in generating it. Same with me, "I can also run with the notion of a god principle which is suggestive of a universal purpose." But there are certain things beyond science. Once every bit of the puzzle can be solved accurately I will give up on the idea of God.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Yes. And I believe there is a power over all.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
If it is possible that a god does exist, then it is possible that a god does exist.
If it is possible that a god doesn't exist, then it is possible that a god doesn't exist.
With a little imagination anything is possible.
-->
@zedvictor4
wrong
-->
@Shamayita
good.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
How so Mr one syllable?
I would suggest, only wrong because you have been conditioned to deny it's correctness.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Please refute the points I made in #101 and #103
-->
@PressF4Respect
no.
-->
@zedvictor4
cause Im right
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I admire your strict one syllable code.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
No?
-->
@PressF4Respect
It might require more than one syllable.
-->
@zedvictor4
@Dr.Franklin
Well if he thinks my disproofs are completely valid, then he need not say any more.
-->
@PressF4Respect
True.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
@PressF4Respect
Please refute the points I made in #101 and #103
Dr. Franklin, I hope you don't mind that I take this one.
This is my argument:P1: A being that convinces more people that it exists is greater than one that convinces less people of its existence.P2: Since the MGB is the greatest being, it would convince everyone that it exists.P3: I am not convinced that the MGB exists.C1: Since there is at least one person that is not convinced of the MGB's existence (me), it cannot be the MGB.C2: The MGB does not exist.P1 is the bread and butter of the argument. If you agree with P1, then P2 would naturally follow (from the very definition of the MGB). P3 is true, unless you say that I (somehow) secretly believe in the existence of the MGB, even though I stated that I don't. And the conclusions follow from all three of the premises.Also, it is explicitly written in the Bible that God is the only true deity, and anyone who believes in other deities is destined for eternal damnation. With that in mind, if God had the ability to convince everyone of His existence, then why hasn't he done so, if He doesn't want to send people to eternal damnation? Or does He want to do that?
Your second premise is erroneous. Since your second premise operates on applying superlatives to the qualifiers, "greater," and "more" from the first premise, then the second premise should read as such: "Since the MGB is the greatest being, it would convince the most that it exists." Using your revised premise, your third premise is no longer substantiated since the second premise no longer requires that you be convinced that the MGB exists. Given that your second premise has been revised, and your third premise has been rendered unsubstantiated, your conclusion is nullified.
Furthermore, C2 is also unsubstantiated even if your second premise was valid. The MGB exists as outlined by the parameters of your first premise. You can argue that the subject doesn't meet those parameters, but that does not permit you to posit that the MGB doesn't exist without undermining your first premise.
Another problem with the argument:1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great exists in some possible world.3. If a maximally great exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.5. If a maximally great exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.Premise 1 states that it is possible that a maximally great being exists in some possible world. That is, I can think of a possible world that the MGB exists in. Since the MGB is in the realm of possibility, then it is also possible to think of a world where the MGB doesn't exist.But if we go to premise 3, it states that the MGB exists in every possible world. That is, it is impossible to think of a possible world where the MGB doesn't exist, since it exists in every possible world.Premise 1 and premise 3 contradict each other.
There is no contradiction in the argument you reference. The contradiction is actually in your response, "it is also possible to think of a world where the MGB doesn't exist." It begs the question: how do you think about something that doesn't exist if it doesn't exist? How do you conceive a world where you acknowledge the nonexistence of the MGB, when nonexistence cannot be perceived? Existence is epistemologically rational; nonexistence is not.