Dawkins-inspired Ontological argument

BooBoo · **#281** by **BooBoo** » Apr 29, 2015 10:47 am

Fallible wrote:Can God choose to kill himself? If he can, he's not maximally great because he is clearly mortal.

Right.

If he can't, he's not maximally great because there are limitations to his abilities.

No. Because God's indestructibility is a property of being maximally great and not a limitation.

BooBoo · **#282** by **BooBoo** » Apr 29, 2015 10:50 am

Newmark wrote:
What is it with theists and infinities? How do "timeless" follow from "beginningless"?

Something with no beginning does not experience the passage of time. It is beyond time, and is therefore ageless and timeless.

Thomas Eshuis · **#283** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Apr 29, 2015 10:52 am

BooBoo wrote:
Fallible wrote:Can God choose to kill himself? If he can, he's not maximally great because he is clearly mortal.

Right.

If he can't, he's not maximally great because there are limitations to his abilities.

No. Because God's indestructibility is a property of being maximally great and not a limitation.

It's a limit. A limitation, meaning it's not maximally great.

Thomas Eshuis · **#284** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Apr 29, 2015 10:53 am

BooBoo wrote:
Newmark wrote:
What is it with theists and infinities? How do "timeless" follow from "beginningless"?

Something with no beginning does not experience the passage of time.

Bollocks.

BooBoo wrote:It is beyond time, and is therefore ageless and timeless.

More nonsense.
Beginingless only means it had no beginning. You have offered no rational explanation why it would also be timeless.
Get this: mindlessly asserting things =/= making a rational argument, let alone demonstrating anything.

BooBoo · **#285** by **BooBoo** » Apr 29, 2015 10:56 am

Anontheist wrote:
An argument, even a logically coherent argument, cannot demonstrate that anything exists. In the case of the ontological argument, all it can show that the existence of a maximally great being is conceptually possible.

It does more than that. It shows that it is logically coherent that if a maximally great being is possible then it necessarily follows that it exists.

That "something" is "something physical". This immediately places limitations on a being, even a maximally great being. Unless you can demonstrate the existence of a non-physical being (and no, fictional/conceptual beings are not non-physical, as their conception is dependent on physical minds), then I can't accept the argument.

You are assuming a priori that all reality is physical/material. But, in any case, a maximally great being must encompass all space and time or else it would be limited.

It shows nothing of the sort. It shows that if you start with a faulty assumption about causality, you get a faulty argument about causality.

The law of cause and effect is the basis of reason and science. Once you disregard it, you appeal to irrationality.

BooBoo · **#286** by **BooBoo** » Apr 29, 2015 11:01 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
More nonsense.Beginingless only means it had no beginning. You have offered no rational explanation why it would also be timeless.Get this: mindlessly asserting things =/= making a rational argument, let alone demonstrating anything.

I already explained why. A being with no beginning does not experience the passage of time. It doesn't get older with each passing moment. Rather, it is eternal, and nothing ever changes in the world of eternity like it does in the world of temporality. Hence, that which is beginningless is timeless and changeless. The universe, however, is temporal and subject to change. Therefore, the universe cannot be eternal and without beginning. So it needs a cause for its existence.

Thomas Eshuis · **#287** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Apr 29, 2015 11:03 am

BooBoo wrote:
Anontheist wrote:
An argument, even a logically coherent argument, cannot demonstrate that anything exists. In the case of the ontological argument, all it can show that the existence of a maximally great being is conceptually possible.

It does more than that.

It really doesn't.

BooBoo wrote:It shows that it is logically coherent that if a maximally great being is possible then it necessarily follows that it exists.

It doesn't. It blindly asserts that.
Again assertions =/= reasoning or facts.

BooBoo wrote:
That "something" is "something physical". This immediately places limitations on a being, even a maximally great being. Unless you can demonstrate the existence of a non-physical being (and no, fictional/conceptual beings are not non-physical, as their conception is dependent on physical minds), then I can't accept the argument.

You are assuming a priori that all reality is physical/material. But, in any case, a maximally great being must encompass all space and time or else it would be limited.

And it should also be both immortal and mortal, otherwise it would be limited.
It should also be all colours of the rainbow and none, otherwise it would be limited.
It should also be tiny and huge, otherwise it would be limited.
Do you get the asinine nature of the attribute you're trying to defend yet?

BooBoo wrote:
It shows nothing of the sort. It shows that if you start with a faulty assumption about causality, you get a faulty argument about causality.

The law of cause and effect is the basis of reason and science.

Except that it isn't.
At least not the way you're wibbling.

BooBoo wrote:Once you disregard it, you appeal to irrationality.

You mean like you do, when you just assert whatever you want and ignore refutations of your silly guff?

BooBoo · **#288** by **BooBoo** » Apr 29, 2015 11:07 am

Thommo wrote:
To borrow a phrase, that is a modest claim with much to be modest about. What is "conceptual possibility"? Is a square circle a conceptual possibility? Presumably not, since it's contradictory within the terms of its own definition.

A square circle is logically incoherent whereas a maximally great being is logically coherent.

Thommo · **#289** by **Thommo** » Apr 29, 2015 11:09 am

BooBoo wrote:
Thommo wrote:
To borrow a phrase, that is a modest claim with much to be modest about. What is "conceptual possibility"? Is a square circle a conceptual possibility? Presumably not, since it's contradictory within the terms of its own definition.

A square circle is logically incoherent whereas a maximally great being is logically coherent.

It's not even properly defined. Let alone logically coherent.

Thomas Eshuis · **#290** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Apr 29, 2015 11:09 am

BooBoo wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
More nonsense.Beginingless only means it had no beginning. You have offered no rational explanation why it would also be timeless.Get this: mindlessly asserting things =/= making a rational argument, let alone demonstrating anything.

I already explained why.

You really didn't. Again, assertions =/= reasoning.

BooBoo wrote:A being with no beginning does not experience the passage of time.

Blind assertion, no matter how many times you mindlessly regurgitate it.
Also begging the question that such a being exists.
Also ignoring the possibility that the universe, which isn't an entity, has no beginning.

BooBoo wrote:It doesn't get older with each passing moment.

Still doesn't mean it doesn't experience passing of time.
FFS, do you not realise it will still see other things changing? Because that's experiencing time.

BooBoo wrote:Rather, it is eternal, and nothing ever changes in the world of eternity like it does in the world of temporality.

Another blind assertion.
Just because the universe itself is eternal, does not mean the things in the universe are, nor that they are unchanging.

BooBoo wrote:Hence,

There is no hence BooBoo.
You have not demonstrated the truth of your ludicrous assertions, in fact I've just eviscerated them again.

BooBoo wrote:that which is beginningless is timeless and changeless.

Still blindly asserted non-sequiturs, no matter how many times you extract them from your rectum.

BooBoo wrote:The universe, however, is temporal.

Only in the sense that time exists, within it. You have failed to demonstrate the universe itself is temporary.

BooBoo wrote: and subject to change. Therefore, the universe cannot be eternal and without beginning.

Still a blindly asserted non-sequitur.

BooBoo wrote:So it needs a cause for its existence.

Except that it doesn't.
Demonstrate the truth of your premises, instead of mindlessly asserting them over and over.

Thomas Eshuis · **#291** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Apr 29, 2015 11:09 am

Thommo wrote:
BooBoo wrote:
Thommo wrote:
To borrow a phrase, that is a modest claim with much to be modest about. What is "conceptual possibility"? Is a square circle a conceptual possibility? Presumably not, since it's contradictory within the terms of its own definition.

A square circle is logically incoherent whereas a maximally great being is logically coherent.

It's not even properly defined. Let alone logically coherent.

BooBoo · **#292** by **BooBoo** » Apr 29, 2015 11:16 am

Nebogipfel wrote:
It contradicts the property of being "superlative in every respect". If I, a being not highly elevated in ranks of greatness, can do something that the maximally great being cannot do, then whither the maximally great being's maximal greatness?

If I say that God cannot do evil, it doesn't mean that God is effete compared to a very evil person. It just means that he is so perfectly good that he doesn't do evil things. Likewise, God's immortality and indivisibility are features of his maximal greatness. If he didn't possess them, then he could not be maximally great. That being said, God can create beings that are mortal, that are liable to commit evil, that are weak and so on. Therefore, God's creation shows that he is capable of making that which he is not.

Newmark · **#293** by **Newmark** » Apr 29, 2015 11:18 am

BooBoo wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
More nonsense.Beginingless only means it had no beginning. You have offered no rational explanation why it would also be timeless.Get this: mindlessly asserting things =/= making a rational argument, let alone demonstrating anything.

I already explained why. A being with no beginning does not experience the passage of time. It doesn't get older with each passing moment. Rather, it is eternal, and nothing ever changes in the world of eternity like it does in the world of temporality. Hence, that which is beginningless is timeless and changeless. The universe, however, is temporal and subject to change. Therefore, the universe cannot be eternal and without beginning. So it needs a cause for its existence.

You've got it backwards, it seems. I can buy that a "being"* that is timeless and eternal does not have a beginning, but you have presented no argument that the reverse would be true. Why can't something without a beginning "experience" the passage of time?

But you have raised another interesting point:
1. A maximally great being must encompass all of the universe.
2. A maximally great being is eternal and changeless.
3. The universe is subject to change.
What conclusion can we draw from this?

*assuming that "being" is a coherent concept in an atemporal setting

Thomas Eshuis · **#294** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Apr 29, 2015 11:23 am

BooBoo wrote:
Nebogipfel wrote:
It contradicts the property of being "superlative in every respect". If I, a being not highly elevated in ranks of greatness, can do something that the maximally great being cannot do, then whither the maximally great being's maximal greatness?

If I say that God cannot do evil, it doesn't mean that God is effete compared to a very evil person. It just means that he is so perfectly good that he doesn't do evil things.

If God is not perfectly evil, he's not maximally great.
Do you get the asinine nature yet, of the attribute you're trying to defend?

BooBoo wrote: Likewise, God's immortality and indivisibility are features of his maximal greatness.

If he cannot die, he's limited and thus not maximally great.
Do you get the asinine nature yet, of the attribute you're trying to defend?

BooBoo wrote:If he didn't possess them, then he could not be maximally great.

If he cannot die, he's limited and not maximally great.
Do you get the asinine nature yet, of the attribute you're trying to defend?

BooBoo wrote:That being said, God can create beings that are mortal, that are liable to commit evil, that are weak and so on. Therefore, God's creation shows that he is capable of making that which he is not.

Can he make himself not great?
If he can't, he's not maximally great.
Do you get the asinine nature yet, of the attribute you're trying to defend?

Newmark · **#295** by **Newmark** » Apr 29, 2015 11:23 am

BooBoo wrote:
Nebogipfel wrote:
It contradicts the property of being "superlative in every respect". If I, a being not highly elevated in ranks of greatness, can do something that the maximally great being cannot do, then whither the maximally great being's maximal greatness?

If I say that God cannot do evil, it doesn't mean that God is effete compared to a very evil person. It just means that he is so perfectly good that he doesn't do evil things. Likewise, God's immortality and indivisibility are features of his maximal greatness. If he didn't possess them, then he could not be maximally great. That being said, God can create beings that are mortal, that are liable to commit evil, that are weak and so on. Therefore, God's creation shows that he is capable of making that which he is not.

So Gods maximal goodness doesn't allow him the free will he granted humans? I guess "freedom" is a deficiency too...

scott1328 · **#296** by **scott1328** » Apr 29, 2015 1:00 pm

Thommo wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Have you met a fanatical theist before?

I know what you mean, but this feels like "internet behaviour" because people I meet in my real life never behave this way, no matter how devoted they are.

My suspicion is that the person behind "booboo" must on some level be aware how pointless this whole exercise is. The argument doesn't show a god or maximally great being exists, literally nobody really thinks it does, not even lifelong Christian apologists who write such stuff for a living.

There certainly is a word coined for this kind of internet behavior. It won't be long before someone's avatar is emblazoned with it.

BooBoo · **#297** by **BooBoo** » Apr 29, 2015 1:08 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Also ignoring the possibility that the universe, which isn't an entity, has no beginning.

That is indeed the atheist proposition used to circumvent the cosmological argument: i.e. the universe is eternal and uncaused. It has always existed. However, this proposition denies everything we know about the universe, namely that is subject to change, that it is temporal, and that all events are caused in some way and depend upon previous events. So this amounts to an incoherent special pleading on the part of the atheist.

Still doesn't mean it doesn't experience passing of time.

If something has no beginning, it has no age. It has always existed. When we speak of the passage of time we are referring to temporal change. But that which has no beginning does not change since it is eternal and there is no succession of moments in eternity. It would be absolutely absurd for a beginningless being to get "older" with each passing moment.

FFS, do you not realise it will still see other things changing? Because that's experiencing time.

What is the "it" that you are referring to?

Another blind assertion.

You may be confusing eternity with sempiternity. The former refers to that which is "outside of time" whereas the latter merely refers to that which endures forever. The universe could well continue forever, but that wouldn't make it past eternal.

Just because the universe itself is eternal, does not mean the things in the universe are, nor that they are unchanging.

The universe is not separate to the things within it. Everything in the universe experiences the passage of time and change.

Still blindly asserted non-sequiturs, no matter how many times you extract them from your rectum.

There is no such thing as an ageless being getting older any more than there is a spaceless being getting bigger.

Only in the sense that time exists, within it. You have failed to demonstrate the universe itself is temporary.

Anything which exists in time, as the universe does, is temporal by nature. The past cannot logically be eternal.

Still a blindly asserted non-sequitur.

The temporal universe is subject to change and time, cause and effect. Eternity is, by definition, changeless, beginningless and timeless. It exists outside of time and so transcends the temporal reality of the universe.

Except that it doesn't.Demonstrate the truth of your premises, instead of mindlessly asserting them over and over.

If something is eternal, it doesn't need a cause for its existence as it has always existed. But that which began to exist does require a cause as do all things.

Newmark · **#298** by **Newmark** » Apr 29, 2015 1:20 pm

BooBoo wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Still doesn't mean it doesn't experience passing of time.

If something has no beginning, it has no age. It has always existed. When we speak of the passage of time we are referring to temporal change. But that which has no beginning does not change since it is eternal and there is no succession of moments in eternity. It would be absolutely absurd for a beginningless being to get "older" with each passing moment.

Ok, this is just silly. The sequence of integers (or reals if you wish) has no beginning, yet it is perfectly possible to have a transition from "1" to "2", with each being a distinct state. Why would it be impossible for time to be modeled in a similar fashion?

Thomas Eshuis · **#299** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Apr 29, 2015 1:43 pm

BooBoo wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Also ignoring the possibility that the universe, which isn't an entity, has no beginning.

That is indeed the atheist proposition

Stop making shit up.
It isn't 'the atheist proposition'.
Atheism is the absence of belief in gods, nothing more.
It's the absence of a specific position.

BooBoo wrote: used to circumvent the cosmological argument:

Nope. It's a valid alternative that people who cling to the cosmological argument fail to succesfully adress, consistently.

BooBoo wrote: i.e. the universe is eternal and uncaused. It has always existed. However, this proposition denies everything we know about the universe,

Except that it doesn't. But that won't stop you from making shit up to support your position, innit? :nono:

BooBoo wrote: namely that is subject to change

So what?

BooBoo wrote: that it is temporal,

Again, time exists within the universe from the viewpoint of someone within the universe, so what?

BooBoo wrote: and that all events are caused in some way and depend upon previous events.

Within the universe, yes. So what?

BooBoo wrote: So this amounts to an incoherent special pleading on the part of the atheist.

Oh look, yet another blind assertion.
Do you even know what special pleading means BooBoo?

BooBoo wrote:
Still doesn't mean it doesn't experience passing of time.

If something has no beginning, it has no age.

False. Just because we cannot express an age of something in numbers, doesn't mean it doesn't have an age.
Again blind assertions =/= reasoning.

BooBoo wrote: It has always existed.

Correct.
Doesn't mean it doesn't have an age though or that it had a beginning or that it had a cause.

BooBoo wrote: When we speak of the passage of time we are referring to temporal change.

Yes, we're well aware of what time is.

BooBoo wrote: But that which has no beginning does not change

Doesn't mean the things withing it do not change.
Is it really that hard for you to grasp that?

BooBoo wrote: since it is eternal and there is no succession of moments in eternity. It would be absolutely absurd for a beginningless being to get "older" with each passing moment.

Again, only if you confuse the contents of the universe, with the universe itself.

BooBoo wrote:
FFS, do you not realise it will still see other things changing? Because that's experiencing time.

What is the "it" that you are referring to?

The universe, antropomorphised for the sake of your asinine analogy.
Just because the universe itself doesn't change, doesn't mean that things within it do not change.

BooBoo wrote:
Another blind assertion.

You may be confusing eternity with sempiternity.

Nope and I suggest you stop assuming what your interlocutor is doing.

BooBoo wrote: The former refers to that which is "outside of time" whereas the latter merely refers to that which endures forever. The universe could well continue forever, but that wouldn't make it past eternal.

You have just demonstrated that you do not understand the concept of eternity.
There's no such thign as 'past eternal', it's incoherent gibberish.
You've also failed to acknowledge the blind assertion I pointed out.

BooBoo wrote:
Just because the universe itself is eternal, does not mean the things in the universe are, nor that they are unchanging.

The universe is not separate to the things within it.

They are not one and the same thing.

BooBoo wrote: Everything in the universe experiences the passage of time and change.

How do rocks experience anything?
How does dark matter experience time?
Unless you mean to say that everything within the universe changes, which is not something I've disputed, but which does fuck up your asinine assertion that something eternal cannot experience change/time.
More-over you're just stacking red herrings at this point.
You're begging the question that the universe cannot be eternal, without a cause and trying to support that with a bunch of blind assertions extracted from your posterior.
It won't fly.

BooBoo wrote:
Still blindly asserted non-sequiturs, no matter how many times you extract them from your rectum.

There is no such thing as an ageless being getting older any more than there is a spaceless being getting bigger.

The universe is not a being.
And ageless =/= eternal.
Ageless =/= without a beginning.
From our relative perspective the universe would be older than humanity for example.

BooBoo wrote:
Only in the sense that time exists, within it. You have failed to demonstrate the universe itself is temporary.

Anything which exists in time, as the universe does, is temporal by nature.

The universe does not exist within time, it's the other way around. Time is part of the universe.

BooBoo wrote: The past cannot logically be eternal.

Another blind assertion that demonstrates ignorance of the concept of relativity.

BooBoo wrote:
Still a blindly asserted non-sequitur.

The temporal universe is subject to change and time, cause and effect.

Nope, things within the universe are temporal and subject to change.
You're begging the question that the universe, as in, all of existence, is temporal or subject to change itself.
More importantly you are still blindly asserting that something whic is eternal and has no beginnning cannot change.
It's a blind assertion, no matter how many times you mindlessly regurgitate it or reformulate it.

BooBoo wrote: Eternity is, by definition, changeless, beginningless and timeless.

Absolute nonsense.
Really, stop making shit up, you won't fool anyone.
Eternal, means without end.
There's nothing in definition about changeless or beginningless or timeless.
If I will never die and cease to exist, I'm eternal, despite being subject to change and having a beginning.

BooBoo wrote:It exists outside of time and so transcends the temporal reality of the universe.

Nope. That's what you desperately need your god to be because then you believe you can argue it into existence.
Eternity is not defined as being outside of time. It simple means without (temporal) end.
Stop making shit up.

BooBoo wrote:
Except that it doesn't.Demonstrate the truth of your premises, instead of mindlessly asserting them over and over.

If something is eternal, it doesn't need a cause for its existence as it has always existed. But that which began to exist does require a cause as do all things.

What part of:

Demonstrate the truth of your premises, instead of mindlessly asserting them over and over.

do you not understand?
Eternal means without (temporal) end. That's it. Nothing about unchanging, nothing about not having a beginning.
IE stop making shit up.

Thomas Eshuis · **#300** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Apr 29, 2015 1:49 pm

Voila:

eternal
Line breaks: eter|nal
Pronunciation: /ɪˈtəːn(ə)l/
/iːˈtəːn(ə)l/

Definition of eternal in English:
adjective
1. Lasting or existing forever; without end: the secret of eternal youth fear of eternal damnation

1.1 (Of truths, values, or questions) valid for all time; essentially unchanging: eternal truths of art and life

1.2 informal Seeming to last or persist forever, especially on account of being tedious or annoying: eternal nagging demands she is an eternal optimist

2. Used to emphasize expressions of admiration, gratitude, etc. to his eternal credit, he maintained his dignity throughout

3. (the Eternal) Used to refer to an everlasting or universal spirit, as represented by God: a man entirely under the sway of the Eternal and not of the material

Note that only 1.1 comes close to your asinine version and that deals specifically with truth, questions and values, ie concepts, not things like the universe.
Even nr. 3 which deals with gods, refers to everlasting, not non-beginning or unchanging.

Dawkins-inspired Ontological argument

Re: Dawkins-inspired Ontological argument

Re: Dawkins-inspired Ontological argument

Re: Dawkins-inspired Ontological argument

Re: Dawkins-inspired Ontological argument

Re: Dawkins-inspired Ontological argument

Re: Dawkins-inspired Ontological argument

Re: Dawkins-inspired Ontological argument

Re: Dawkins-inspired Ontological argument

Re: Dawkins-inspired Ontological argument

Re: Dawkins-inspired Ontological argument

Re: Dawkins-inspired Ontological argument

Re: Dawkins-inspired Ontological argument

Re: Dawkins-inspired Ontological argument

Re: Dawkins-inspired Ontological argument

Re: Dawkins-inspired Ontological argument

Re: Dawkins-inspired Ontological argument

Re: Dawkins-inspired Ontological argument

Re: Dawkins-inspired Ontological argument

Re: Dawkins-inspired Ontological argument

Re: Dawkins-inspired Ontological argument

Who is online