1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured A bicycle illustrates why the Ontological Argument is nonsense

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by 9-10ths_Penguin, Jul 25, 2022.

  1. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Subway Stalinist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    65,622
    Ratings:
    +24,054
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    Here's a summarization of Anselm's Ontological Argument:

    Anselm: Ontological Argument for the God’s Existence | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

    I'm going to focus on point #2, but first, an exercise for you to try at home: draw a bicycle.

    Draw a bicycle in as much detail as you can manage. You can either draw a specific bicycle you're familiar with or a "generic" bicycle of your own design. Take as much time as you like, then look at it and ask yourself a question:

    Would the bicycle work?

    If the bicycle as you drew it was real - making reasonable allowances for artistic skill - would it do everything you would expect it to do?

    Would the pedals and wheels turn? Would the steering work? Would the gears shift? Would the brakes stop it?

    Getting into more detail: would the freewheel or freehub work properly? Would the bearings spin freely, or would they seize up?

    Would the bike be too heavy? Would it be so weak that the frame snaps?

    Now... is there anyone here who can say that their concept of a bike would fully reflect an actual bike?

    And for those who can't get a proper bicycle to exist in your mind: do you really think you could manage any better with a god?
     
    • Winner Winner x 5
    • Like Like x 3
    • Creative Creative x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    57,127
    Ratings:
    +37,942
    Religion:
    Atheist
    [​IMG]

    One down one to go!
     
    • Funny Funny x 6
    • Creative Creative x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. dybmh

    dybmh Terminal Optimist

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2019
    Messages:
    10,420
    Ratings:
    +7,345
    Religion:
    Judaism
    Looks like yours has all wheel drive. Nice.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    57,127
    Ratings:
    +37,942
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Yes, and notice one other fine detail. The legs are working almost in unison. Clearly a superior design.
     
    • Funny Funny x 6
  5. icehorse

    icehorse Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    Messages:
    11,758
    Ratings:
    +7,015
    Religion:
    spiritual anti-theist : )
    Fun, somewhat off-topic factoid:

    The hubs of bicycle wheels mostly hang from the spokes above, they don't really press on the spokes below :)

    Edit: And since the person and the bike all rest on the hubs...
     
    #5 icehorse, Jul 25, 2022
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2022
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. F1fan

    F1fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2021
    Messages:
    9,029
    Ratings:
    +8,486
    Religion:
    Buddhist
    Racing bikes are extremely complicated engineering marvels. They weigh about 13 pounds and the average racing bike costs $10,000-$14,000. Think of them as the Ferrari of bikes. The frame of my racing bike cost $4800 itself.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. F1fan

    F1fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2021
    Messages:
    9,029
    Ratings:
    +8,486
    Religion:
    Buddhist
    Yeah. I'll call ya.
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
  8. lewisnotmiller

    lewisnotmiller Grand Hat
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    Messages:
    23,358
    Ratings:
    +16,706
    Religion:
    atheist
    My father in law had three at one stage. He managed to damage the rims pretty badly on one, and he might as well have been burning money...lol
     
  9. lewisnotmiller

    lewisnotmiller Grand Hat
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    Messages:
    23,358
    Ratings:
    +16,706
    Religion:
    atheist
    I've never understood the Ontological Argument. Despite your best efforts here, it still makes no sense to me. People less intelligent than me have waved it around as compelling though, so I suppose I have some sort of mental block around it.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    57,127
    Ratings:
    +37,942
    Religion:
    Atheist
    What sort did he have? I am sure that you know that track bikes are quite different from road bikes. And they are amazingly light and yet still stiff where they need to be stiff. Nothing worse than a rear end fishtailing as one pours on the coals.
     
  11. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    57,127
    Ratings:
    +37,942
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I have found all "therefore God" arguments to be terribly lacking. I just got done debating another (I hope) who moved the goal posts all over the place when even he had to admit that Sean Carroll bested him. William Lane Craig was his hero. In a debate with Sean Carroll, Sean tore up the Fine Tuning argument that afterwards Craig tried to claim that he was only arguing that the odds favored the Christian God (though how he got that no one knows) but that raises the huge question of "If he was using an odds argument then why did he put it into the form of a logical argument?"

    A logical argument can be very strong. If there are no errors in one's argument then one has proved something. As a result logical arguments are also very unforgiving. If one's premise fails one loses the argument, and it was easy to show that Craig's premise fails.

    What Craigs after the debate excuse session when his donkey was still in critical care due to the kicking that it got in the debate he was back to his smarmy self and confirming my claim that one has top lie to be an apologist.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  12. stvdv

    stvdv Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2018
    Messages:
    16,764
    Ratings:
    +10,090
    Religion:
    Sanathana Dharma [The Eternal Religion]
    1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
    2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
    3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
    4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
    5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
    6. Therefore, God exists.
    Hence the proof "God is beyond mind"

    Hence you confirm "God is beyond mind"
    @stvdvRF
     
    #12 stvdv, Jul 25, 2022
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2022
  13. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Subway Stalinist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    65,622
    Ratings:
    +24,054
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    Well, no. The Ontological Argument depends on God being able to exist as a concept. It defines God as something that can be conceived (the greatest thing that can be conceived, but still something that can be conceived).
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  14. stvdv

    stvdv Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2018
    Messages:
    16,764
    Ratings:
    +10,090
    Religion:
    Sanathana Dharma [The Eternal Religion]
    Hence the proof:
    "God cannot be conceived"

    Hence assumption is false
    (The Ontological Argument depends on God being able to exist as a concept. It defines God as something that can be conceived)

     
    #14 stvdv, Jul 26, 2022
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2022
    • Like Like x 1
  15. sun rise

    sun rise Śvāna Dharma
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2014
    Messages:
    73,043
    Ratings:
    +37,451
    Religion:
    Love/Omnism
    Anyone that uses the ontological argument just proves that God has bicycle nature because the more someone peddles such an argument the more the wheels go around in circles.

    ;):rolleyes:o_O:oops::eek::D:p:cool::confused:
     
    • Funny Funny x 7
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
  16. stvdv

    stvdv Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2018
    Messages:
    16,764
    Ratings:
    +10,090
    Religion:
    Sanathana Dharma [The Eternal Religion]
    Of course this only proves that God cannot exist in the mind, cannot be conceived by the mind

    Important to know though

    From now on, nobody needs to ask nor search for scientific evidence for God's existence....pfff what a relief that fact has been established...RF religious post should decrease enormously

    This begs the question "if not possible to proof God exists Scientifically...how to know whether or not God exists" :D
     
  17. stvdv

    stvdv Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2018
    Messages:
    16,764
    Ratings:
    +10,090
    Religion:
    Sanathana Dharma [The Eternal Religion]
    Thank you for the clear definition, that helps a lot

    So

    God cannot even exist as a concept in the mind...Science will never be able to (dis) prove God
     
  18. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    57,127
    Ratings:
    +37,942
    Religion:
    Atheist
    For some odd reason some Christian apologists feel a need to "prove" that God exists. As a result they use all kinds of incredibly bad logical arguments. This is one of them.

    Please note, the fact that these arguments do not support the existence of God does not refute the existence of God, but the way that some theists react you would not think that that is the case.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    57,127
    Ratings:
    +37,942
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Very very few scientists attempt to disprove God.

    Once again the problem is with Christian apologists. By their poor reasoning if one disproves some of the myths of the Bible they will often try to claim "You are trying to disprove God". That is not the case. Their personal version of God may be shown to be wrong, but in no way is that trying to "disprove" God.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. lewisnotmiller

    lewisnotmiller Grand Hat
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    Messages:
    23,358
    Ratings:
    +16,706
    Religion:
    atheist
    I agree that science cannot prove or disprove a supernatural being.
    At best they could find things which are otherwise unexplainable by current science, which is obviously not the same thing.
     
Loading...