How do you know there is nothing incoherent in this? We already agreed that humans don't know enough to determine when complex ideas are coherent. Otherwise, the question about even numbers and primes would be known.
-
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!
Shortest version -Ontological argument (again I know, I love this argument)
- Thread starter Link
- Start date
How do you know there is nothing incoherent in this? We already agreed that humans don't know enough to determine when complex ideas are coherent. Otherwise, the question about even numbers and primes would be known.
Not just that there is greatness, but also that for any two possible beings, x and y, there is some being that is greater than both.
And *that* is a claim I want to see a proof of.
And, separately, I want to see a proof that this greatness is actually maximized. There are *many* systems in math where there is no 'greatest'. Why would you expect there to be one here?
We can know virtues are great and all of them have a proper place and balance is key.
Really? How can we know this?
More specifically, how do you know it is always possible to balance them and get something greater?
The thing that shows oneness as far qualitive (we aren't talking mathematically now) is that virtues have a proper place. Extremes aren't good. Balance is key.
By assessing virtues and reflecting about it.
Virtues are only virtues if put in proper place. Taken to extremes they become vices.
Well, then I find your argument to be broken. because I don't see 'greatness' as a single thing that can be maximized. I see a variety of different virtues that are often mutually exclusive.
Such is your claim. But then, you are claiming an extreme being that maximizes all of them, which would make that being the one with the most vice.
This is actually the best argument against God. The argument of evil is an argument from ignorance. Is God logically coherent? That God is not coherent, is the best argument against God. But let's open a thread about that. Usually it's by saying virtues can be taken to extremes and so a more compassionate being will be less just and more just would be less compassionate, and who is to say which is better. Let's assume I won this debate and proved that virtues do have a maximum potential as far logical coherency goes.
Then this argument if true (God is not logically incoherent) - God would be seen to exist by ontological argument (or rather ontological argument reminds us we are seeing God).
You are right, multiple maximum beings can't be assumed to be possible quality wise for this to work.
OK....
Ie: "God might or might not be real?" This contradicts #1.
Wait -- how does this follow from the above premises?
This is not just an invalid agrument, it's not an argument at all. It's self-contradictory and non sequitur.
If this 'proved' the existence of God, wouldn't it also apply to unicorns, Cthulu, and Russel's teapot?
Polymath257 said: ↑
And mathematics? Logic?
Which of these contradictions would you like to stick with?
Link?
Doesn't this contradict multiverse and manyworlds theories?
I'm not seeing it. Explain, please.
OK, so we can assume that for any two possible beings, x and y, there is a third that is 'greater' than both.
OK, how does that prove there is one that is maximal?
No. We have been *dealing* with the ontological argument and the flaws inherent in how it is presented.
So, we have run through
1. The concept of 'greatest' isn't coherent if the virtues can be mutually exclusive past a certain level (they may be consistent for lower values).
2. That even if the idea of greatness could be defined, there is no reason to assume there is a greatest. For example, like the numbers.
3. You need, in particular, to show that existence is a virtue that is consiswith all the other virtues.
4. If 'balancing' of the virtues is used, you open up the possibility that a 'greatest' may not be the most for some virtues.
So you need to argue that this isn't the case, right?
So,
5. you need to show uniqueness in addition to existence.
And, just to be clear, you *still* need to show how 'seeing' or 'imagining' the existence of something can imply its actual existence.
Really? I would love to see that argument made.
"Virtues?" Explain. Aren't virtues human constructs? Aren't they different in different cultures.
Even if "virtues" are universal, what does that have to do with an argument for god?
Not following, sorry. Can you explain this?
Yeah, I was thinking of the title Al-Hayu in Quran (the Living). So let's ignore all the stuff about balance, virtue, greatness, goodness, coherency.
We can rephrase the ontological argument:
"Al-Hayu as a coherent concept is just a being that is maximally in life".
(then similar premises apply in ontological argument, except instead of maximally great, we are speaking maximally life).
You reach then Al-Hayu exists and can be only be One. Only one necessary being is possible, and al-hayu by definition can only be One.
Then you go on to make arguments why Al-Hayu is in fact God. I will make a bigger post about this.
Again, there is the issue of what that even means.
And the same objections hold: lack of coherency, lack of maximality proven, etc
You never proved uniqueness.
Why is only one necessary being possible? And why is this maximal in life being the same?
I'm not even sure that this al-Hayu exists at all. Can you give an argument for such?