Anselm's Second Ontological Argument

[Paulomycin]

I dunno. I was cut 'n' pasting from the Wikipedia article which I linked to. Perhaps you should have read it.

From the wiki source - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

There are many kinds of parodies of Ontological Arguments. The aim is to construct arguments which non-theists can reasonably claim to have no more reason to accept than the original Ontological Arguments themselves. Of course, theists may well be able to hold that the originals are sound, and the parodies not—but that is an entirely unrelated issue.

Which is nothing more than an attempt to justify strawmanning.

This also looks like an attempt to burn down all classical logic.

 

[Kylie]

Handicaps only apply to extant beings.

How do you know?

Because He is the Logos, i.e. the universal logician Himself. The Primium Movens. If God created logic, then one is proposing an absurdist god of chaos that couldn't possibly exist in any clear or rational sense. There are some professing theists out there that believe "God can do the absurd," like make squared circles and married bachelors, but that's a complete lie. They're either scamming their audience or they bought into the belief that one can float irrational claims as-if they were rational.

If God is bound by logic, then the formation of the universe can not require any supernatural events, since they are, by definition, illogical. And if the formation of the universe can be explained logically, then why do we need to invoke God in order to do it?

I'm not picky about who gets to criticize Gasking.

So you judge an argument based on something other than the argument's own merits? That's not a good way to judge an argument, is it?

I'm sorry. My bad. You got to Oppy before I did. Wow. I can't believe he actually said that.

*digging to source*

I guess that's why it's a parody, because rationally proposing "a non-existent being" and then running with it is like something straight out of The Onion.

I've seen a lot of arguments FOR God that make even more outrageous arguments.

It's a contradiction in-itself, because the GPB would not possess any handicap to begin with. Debility does not equal ability. And we're only talking maximally great ability here.

Then a GPB with even the slightest handicap is greater than a GPB with no handicap at all.

But this is why I don't normally try to defend the OA, because GPB is more ambiguous than simply defining God according to omnipotence.

Then why are you doing so here?

If the atheist cannot imagine any better, then his argument is defeated. Let's not confuse the accuser with the Accused.

Hey, you invoked your own imagination. Unless you're saying you're an atheist, this logic doesn't fly.

Not if the Christian worldview is correct.

So it's not supposition if your supposition is correct?

Did you think that logic worked when you wrote it?

 

[Kylie]

Without that "mere description," there are no real standards, nor specs. This means the engineering blueprint of the bridge is more real than the bridge itself. Thus, mathematical platonism is justified. I don't know what you even call the opposition to it.

But the mathematics is DESCRIBING the properties of the bridge. By definition, that means maths is DESCRIPTIVE, exactly as Eight Foot Manchild said.

So you're flip-flopping. Here, you're admitting you need the math to make the bridge safe to drive across. Not just any math, but such math that you can bet your life on.

No I'm not.

The maths is nothing more than a way of describing the bridge, and we change the bridge until the maths shows that the bridge can support the weight of your car.

My position is the same as that of Eight Foot Manchild - that the mathematics DESCRIBES the bridge. Mathematics is DESCRIPTIVE.

 

[Kylie]

Which is nothing more than an attempt to justify strawmanning.

This also looks like an attempt to burn down all classical logic.

Of course, since the cut'n'paste you provided says very clearly that this strawman - that the parodies do not reflect the same reasoning as the originals - is a completely separate argument. Since it is not covered in that passage, I don't see how you conclude that the passage says that the parodies are just an attempt to justify strawman arguments.

In any case, I could argue that the original ontological argument is nothing more than a parody of the one I posted. You could of course claim that it can't be, since the original was around first, but someone who does not know which was the first wouldn't be able to make that determination, would they?

 

[Paulomycin]

How do you know?

For one thing, you can't be rationally proposing that non-existent beings exist. Are you?

For another thing. . .all the definitions I'm reading, even in medical dictionaries, refer exclusively to extant patients in-general.

If God is bound by logic, then the formation of the universe can not require any supernatural events, since they are, by definition, illogical. And if the formation of the universe can be explained logically, then why do we need to invoke God in order to do it?

No. You're either intentionally or unintentionally equivocating "supernatural." Supernaturalism can be hard math/logic, which is unfalsifiable. Therefore rationally supernatural. <-- There's your on-ramp. Everything empirically measurable is dependent on math, or else it doesn't exist.

So you judge an argument based on something other than the argument's own merits? That's not a good way to judge an argument, is it?

What? I'm perfectly okay when atheists eat each other. No worries.

Then a GPB with even the slightest handicap is greater than a GPB with no handicap at all.

A GPB with a handicap would disqualify its GPB status. Just as say, an omnipotent being with a contingent cause would disqualify that being as omnipotent. We can't have it both ways here, I'm sorry.

Then why are you doing so here?

Keeping the vultures away, I guess. lol.

Hey, you invoked your own imagination. Unless you're saying you're an atheist, this logic doesn't fly.

No, I'm clearly invoking (any) atheist's imagination, and getting nothing in-return.

So it's not supposition if your supposition is correct?

No-no. "Correct" is never merely a supposition.

 

[Paulomycin]

But the mathematics is DESCRIBING the properties of the bridge. By definition, that means maths is DESCRIPTIVE, exactly as Eight Foot Manchild said.

It's prescriptive force, and you know it. Otherwise, it wouldn't hold up.

The maths is nothing more than a way of describing the bridge, and we change the bridge until the maths shows that the bridge can support the weight of your car.

But then you merrily drive back & forth upon it with complete and total trust in the prescriptive force that is keeping you from plunging to certain death.

My position is the same as that of Eight Foot Manchild - that the mathematics DESCRIBES the bridge. Mathematics is DESCRIPTIVE.

Which is an arbitrary rule that you and 8FM will try to "proof by repeated assertion" to death until I give up. Right? Because you're completely contradicting yourself and dismissing the very math that holds your own chair up as "merely descriptive." Why? To support your confirmation bias; nothing more.

 

[Paulomycin]

Of course, since the cut'n'paste you provided says very clearly that this strawman - that the parodies do not reflect the same reasoning as the originals - is a completely separate argument. Since it is not covered in that passage, I don't see how you conclude that the passage says that the parodies are just an attempt to justify strawman arguments.

If "completely separate argument," then the parodies themselves remain a mere excuse to strawman, regardless.

In any case, I could argue that the original ontological argument is nothing more than a parody of the one I posted. You could of course claim that it can't be, since the original was around first, but someone who does not know which was the first wouldn't be able to make that determination, would they?

That's why I defer to Kurt Gödel's Proof of God, which is based on OA. The mere fact that it's being used by computer scientists to further AI means it works. And atheists would never throw a formula under the bus if "it works," would they?

 

[Kylie]

For one thing, you can't be rationally proposing that non-existent beings exist. Are you?

I'm not arguing that non-existent beings exist. I'm arguing that a non-existent God is still capable of performing some action.

I know, logically, it doesn't make sense. But I've not seen any argument that indicates that God would be bound by logic.

For another thing. . .all the definitions I'm reading, even in medical dictionaries, refer exclusively to extant patients in-general.

But they aren't generally talking about omnipotent deities.

No. You're either intentionally or unintentionally equivocating "supernatural." Supernaturalism can be hard math/logic, which is unfalsifiable. Therefore rationally supernatural. <-- There's your on-ramp. Everything empirically measurable is dependent on math, or else it doesn't exist.

But if it can be measured, then it's natural, since it is part of the measurable natural world.

What? I'm perfectly okay when atheists eat each other. No worries.

Yeah, still seems to me that you are judging the validity of an argument based on who said it. And it just don't work that way.

A GPB with a handicap would disqualify its GPB status. Just as say, an omnipotent being with a contingent cause would disqualify that being as omnipotent. We can't have it both ways here, I'm sorry.

But having a handicap which it overcomes gives it more greatness than it loses by having the handicap. So overall, the level of greatness increases.

No, I'm clearly invoking (any) atheist's imagination, and getting nothing in-return.

You said, "In which case, there is nothing "more marvellous" that we can imagine."

Specifically, you said WE. Thus, the group you were talking about includes yourself. If that group is atheists, then you are saying you are an atheist.

No-no. "Correct" is never merely a supposition.

Rubbish. I can name any number of situations where a person could easily suppose they were correct and be wrong.

 

[Kylie]

It's prescriptive force, and you know it. Otherwise, it wouldn't hold up.

No it isn't.

When the bridge supports the weight of a car, the bridge doesn't say, "The mathematics says I'm supposed to hold up the car, so I guess I better do it."

It's a case of the mathematics describing a bridge that can support a car, so you feel justified in driving across.

But then you merrily drive back & forth upon it with complete and total trust in the prescriptive force that is keeping you from plunging to certain death.

No, I drive merrily back and forth upon it knowing that the mathematics describe a bridge that can support my car.

Which is an arbitrary rule that you and 8FM will try to "proof by repeated assertion" to death until I give up. Right? Because you're completely contradicting yourself and dismissing the very math that holds your own chair up as "merely descriptive." Why? To support your confirmation bias; nothing more.

Repeating your incorrect claim will not make it more valid. And me repeating my correct claim does not make it less valid.

I have a steel beam and I conduct measurements of its length and thickness and use formulae to determine that it can support a weight of, say, one ton, which is correct?

1. The mathematics is telling the beam to support one ton.
2. The mathematics is describing a beam that can hold one ton.

Option 1 or option 2 please.

 

[Kylie]

If "completely separate argument," then the parodies themselves remain a mere excuse to strawman, regardless.

No idea how you figure that. It's just saying that the validity of an argument is a separate thing to the existence of an argument.

That's why I defer to Kurt Gödel's Proof of God, which is based on OA. The mere fact that it's being used by computer scientists to further AI means it works. And atheists would never throw a formula under the bus if "it works," would they?

Citation for this please?

 

[Paulomycin]

I know, logically, it doesn't make sense. But I've not seen any argument that indicates that God would be bound by logic.

Then I am atheistic of all god(s) not bound by logic. No worries.

But they aren't generally talking about omnipotent deities.

Omnipotence never rationally qualifies as "handicapped."

But if it can be measured, then it's natural, since it is part of the measurable natural world.

Correct. But that would mean that math supercedes nature. Or literally "supra-nature."

Yeah, still seems to me that you are judging the validity of an argument based on who said it. And it just don't work that way.

As far as I know, Oppy's the leading atheist in the current debate. William Lane Craig stated as much.

Also, I'm judging the validity of the argument as "unsettled," because two leading atheists can't even agree on it. So then (with all due respect) why would you bother trying to float it?

But having a handicap which it overcomes gives it more greatness than it loses by having the handicap. So overall, the level of greatness increases.

GPB would necessarily have to have that handicap to begin with, in-order to "overcome it," so it's still contradictory. I'm not arguing the overcoming it--as much as I am having it in the 1st place.

Specifically, you said WE. Thus, the group you were talking about includes yourself. If that group is atheists, then you are saying you are an atheist.

I'm saying any human being, period. That's why I referred to Leibniz.

Rubbish. I can name any number of situations where a person could easily suppose they were correct and be wrong.

Nooooo. . .I'm not referring to subjective opinion at all; ever. When I say someone or something is "correct," then I'm saying it in an objective sense.

Only objective opinions count.

 

[Paulomycin]

No it isn't.

When the bridge supports the weight of a car, the bridge doesn't say, "The mathematics says I'm supposed to hold up the car, so I guess I better do it."

The object conforms to its design or it doesn't.

No, I drive merrily back and forth upon it knowing that the mathematics describe a bridge that can support my car.

Because you assert. "Because I said so," is not an argument. Because you assert your arbitrary rules is not an argument to the contrary.

I have a steel beam and I conduct measurements of its length and thickness and use formulae to determine that it can support a weight of, say, one ton, which is correct?

1. The mathematics is telling the beam to support one ton.
2. The mathematics is describing a beam that can hold one ton.

Option 1 or option 2 please.

False dilemma. The beam conforms to the math-based specs necessary to support 1 ton.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The argument for God as a necessary being can be put formally:

1. God is defined as a maximally great or Perfect Being.

2. The existence of a Perfect Being is either impossible or necessary (since it cannot be contingent).

3. The concept of a Perfect Being is not impossible, since it is neither nonsensical nor self-contradictory.

4. Therefore (a) a Perfect Being is necessary.

5. Therefore (b) a Perfect Being exists.

The argument for a perfect chess piece as a necessary piece in every chess set can be put formally:

1. An Emporer is defined as a maximally great or Perfect white chess piece.

2. The existence of a Perfect white chess piece is either impossible or necessary (since it cannot be contingent).

3. The concept of a Perfect white chess piece is not impossible, since it is neither nonsensical nor self-contradictory.

4. Therefore (a) a Perfect white chess piece is necessary.

5. Therefore (b) a Perfect white chess piece exists on every chess board.

Ok, let's play chess. What? You say I can have white? Thank you.

I move my emporer. Since the emporer is a maximally great chess piece, it puts your king in check wherever I put it, and there is nothing you can do to stop it. I win.

Checkmate.

 

[Paulomycin]

No idea how you figure that. It's just saying that the validity of an argument is a separate thing to the existence of an argument.

Then it has nothing to do with either argument. The analogical comparison is either real or it isn't.

Citation for this please?

So many really, where to start?

Scientists Use Computer to Mathematically Prove Gödel God Theorem - DER SPIEGEL

Gödel and God: A surprising history | Mind Matters

 

[Kylie]

Then I am atheistic of all god(s) not bound by logic. No worries.

So your God is limited by logic?

Omnipotence never rationally qualifies as "handicapped."

Again, you seem intent on limiting God to what is logically possible.

Correct. But that would mean that math supercedes nature. Or literally "supra-nature."

Or that maths is a DESCRIPTION of nature.

As far as I know, Oppy's the leading atheist in the current debate. William Lane Craig stated as much.

Also, I'm judging the validity of the argument as "unsettled," because two leading atheists can't even agree on it. So then (with all due respect) why would you bother trying to float it?

Because I form my own opinions and have my own thoughts instead of just following what some arbitrarily specified person says. Unlike religion, atheism has no set dogma, no spefici leader.

GPB would necessarily have to have that handicap to begin with, in-order to "overcome it," so it's still contradictory. I'm not arguing the overcoming it--as much as I am having it in the 1st place.

So? It makes no less sense than a myriad arguments I've seen used to support God.

I'm saying any human being, period. That's why I referred to Leibniz.

Ah, so when you said, "No, I'm clearly invoking (any) atheist's imagination, and getting nothing in-return," you actually meant to say "human" rather than "atheist"?

Nooooo. . .I'm not referring to subjective opinion at all; ever. When I say someone or something is "correct," then I'm saying it in an objective sense.

So if anyone at any time for any reason says they are correct, then they are objectively correct?

If I say, "It is correct that there is one billion dollars in my bank account," it MUST be objectively correct and I am now a billionaire?

Only objective opinions count.

You have yet to show that yours is.

 

[Kylie]

The object conforms to its design or it doesn't.

And what that design can do is described by the maths.

Because you assert. "Because I said so," is not an argument. Because you assert your arbitrary rules is not an argument to the contrary.

Says the guy who's done nothing but ASSERT his position.

False dilemma. The beam conforms to the math-based specs necessary to support 1 ton.

And those specs are described by maths.

 

[Kylie]

So many really, where to start?

Scientists Use Computer to Mathematically Prove Gödel God Theorem - DER SPIEGEL

This link says that, "the God angle is somewhat of a red herring," "the real news isn't about a Supreme Being," "the formalization of Gödel's ontological proof is unlikely to win over many atheists," and that true believers "might argue the idea of a higher power is one that defies logic by definition," something which you have repeatedly denied.

Automating Gödel's Ontological Proof of God's Existence with Higher-order Automated Theorem Provers (fu-berlin.de)

^ I like this one.

Of course, I can use the same argument to prove the existence of the perfect Starship Enterprise...

 

[Paulomycin]

This link says that, "the God angle is somewhat of a red herring," "the real news isn't about a Supreme Being," "the formalization of Gödel's ontological proof is unlikely to win over many atheists," and that true believers "might argue the idea of a higher power is one that defies logic by definition," something which you have repeatedly denied.

And yet it works!

See, atheism isn't about evidence at all. It's about forcing one's will against any and all evidence. Flat-earthers do it all the time. It's a problem of extreme incredulity assuming that everyone else is an idiot.

The real news isn't about a Supreme Being, because the existence of a Supreme Being is old news. Really-really old news. They handed out the awards to Thomas Aquinas and everything before Alfred Nobel was even born.

Proof is objective. Persuasion is subjective.

Of course, I can use the same argument to prove the existence of the perfect Starship Enterprise...

Which version?

 

[Paulomycin]

Of course, I can use the same argument to prove the existence of the perfect Starship Enterprise...

Apologies. I had to edit that out. It was only the slides that were part of a video presentation that I have since lost track of.

 

[Kylie]

And yet it works!

See, atheism isn't about evidence at all. It's about forcing one's will against any and all evidence. Flat-earthers do it all the time. It's a problem of extreme incredulity assuming that everyone else is an idiot.

The real news isn't about a Supreme Being, because the existence of a Supreme Being is old news. Really-really old news. They handed out the awards to Thomas Aquinas and everything before Alfred Nobel was even born.

Proof is objective. Persuasion is subjective.

A tip for you: Don't get your ideas about atheism from religious propganda.

Which version?

The Enterprise J. I love that design.