Ontological Argument: Understanding What is Meant by the Term 'Greatness' and How It's Applied to the Idea of God

[Speakpigeon]

Ya, and if the Flash wanted to make you late for work, he could zip into your house and hide the car keys between the couch cushions. Since you don't know that the Flash doesn't exist and this is something that he potentially has the power to do, you can't rule it out and therefore need to keep it as a viable possibility up there with other possibilities like they fell out of your pocket while you were watching TV.

Nobody would waste time about Flash. Why anybody would do that, exactly?

But, personally, I understand that some people think it's worth their time to take the idea of God seriously.

And lot's of people do just that, while I've never heard of anybody considering a Flash scenario to explain their lost keys.
EB

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Ya, and if the Flash wanted to make you late for work, he could zip into your house and hide the car keys between the couch cushions. Since you don't know that the Flash doesn't exist and this is something that he potentially has the power to do, you can't rule it out and therefore need to keep it as a viable possibility up there with other possibilities like they fell out of your pocket while you were watching TV.

Nobody would waste time about Flash. Why anybody would do that, exactly?

But, personally, I understand that some people think it's worth their time to take the idea of God seriously.

But there is no "idea of God" because the "idea of God" is too unideable.

And lot's of people do just that, while I've never heard of anybody considering a Flash scenario to explain their lost keys.

Because inserting The Flash exposes the stupidity of the argument.

 

[Underseer]

Ya, and if the Flash wanted to make you late for work, he could zip into your house and hide the car keys between the couch cushions. Since you don't know that the Flash doesn't exist and this is something that he potentially has the power to do, you can't rule it out and therefore need to keep it as a viable possibility up there with other possibilities like they fell out of your pocket while you were watching TV.

Nobody would waste time about Flash. Why anybody would do that, exactly?

But, personally, I understand that some people think it's worth their time to take the idea of God seriously.

And lot's of people do just that, while I've never heard of anybody considering a Flash scenario to explain their lost keys.
EB

Tom was using something called reductio ad absurdum.

Because of cognitive biases*, some people refuse to understand what is wrong with the logic of an argument simply because they are emotionally attached to the conclusion.

So one way to get around this is to apply the same logic to a conclusion that the other person isn't emotionally attached to. Make no mistake, this is a powerful tool for those of us who have no formal training in logic or are simply emotional about a particular conclusion.

* The bias involved here is confirmation bias. We are supposed to evaluate each argument and piece of evidence separately on its own merits, but we have a nasty habit of accepting or rejecting them based purely on whether or not they support conclusions that we already have.

 

[Underseer]

Did anyone post this yet?

 

[Underseer]

If the logic of an argument is valid, them it supports conclusions regardless of which conclusion you apply it to.

If you insist that the logic of an argument is valid when applied to one conclusion, but not valid when applied to a different conclusion, then you are committing a special pleading fallacy.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If the logic of an argument is valid, them it supports conclusions regardless of which conclusion you apply it to.

If you insist that the logic of an argument is valid when applied to one conclusion, but not valid when applied to a different conclusion, then you are committing a special pleading fallacy.

Which is why god belief usually comes down to, "I believe in my god. Therefore my god is real."

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Nobody would waste time about Flash. Why anybody would do that, exactly?

But, personally, I understand that some people think it's worth their time to take the idea of God seriously.

And lot's of people do just that, while I've never heard of anybody considering a Flash scenario to explain their lost keys.
EB

Tom was using something called reductio ad absurdum.

Because of cognitive biases*, some people refuse to understand what is wrong with the logic of an argument simply because they are emotionally attached to the conclusion.

So one way to get around this is to apply the same logic to a conclusion that the other person isn't emotionally attached to. Make no mistake, this is a powerful tool for those of us who have no formal training in logic or are simply emotional about a particular conclusion.

* The bias involved here is confirmation bias. We are supposed to evaluate each argument and piece of evidence separately on its own merits, but we have a nasty habit of accepting or rejecting them based purely on whether or not they support conclusions that we already have.

This about sums up my response. Just because someone takes God seriously isn't an excuse to accept faulty logic in favour of his existence. The level to which one cares about an argument is irrelevant to an analysis of the argument and can, as Underseer said, that emotional attachment can be very counter productive to looking at what's being said.

Whether the Flash goes around hiding people's keys in their couches is not related to how often people consider that to be a reason they get in there and whether God exists is not related to how often people think it's worth their time to consider God's existence. Arguments in favour of either are based solely on the merits of those arguments, not on how many shits are given about the conclusions of those arguments.

 

[Underseer]

If the logic of an argument is valid, them it supports conclusions regardless of which conclusion you apply it to.

If you insist that the logic of an argument is valid when applied to one conclusion, but not valid when applied to a different conclusion, then you are committing a special pleading fallacy.

Which is why god belief usually comes down to, "I believe in my god. Therefore my god is real."

The existence of the field apologetics is bizarre.

In every other academic discipline, you begin with the arguments and evidence, then shape your conclusions to fit. Trial lawyers and apologists are exactly the opposite: they start with the conclusion, then seek arguments and evidence to fit. I can't imagine having such contempt for the truth.

The fact that they have a field dedicated to finding arguments that support a conclusion that they already have means that they don't actually know why they believe that those things are true. I find the whole concept terrifying.

 

[blastula]

But who can run faster, the Flash or God?

 

[Underseer]

But who can run faster, the Flash or God?

Flash. Totally. God lost a wrestling match to an ordinary human, remember?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Nobody would waste time about Flash. Why anybody would do that, exactly?

But, personally, I understand that some people think it's worth their time to take the idea of God seriously.

And lot's of people do just that, while I've never heard of anybody considering a Flash scenario to explain their lost keys.
EB

Tom was using something called reductio ad absurdum.

Because of cognitive biases*, some people refuse to understand what is wrong with the logic of an argument simply because they are emotionally attached to the conclusion.

So one way to get around this is to apply the same logic to a conclusion that the other person isn't emotionally attached to. Make no mistake, this is a powerful tool for those of us who have no formal training in logic or are simply emotional about a particular conclusion.

* The bias involved here is confirmation bias. We are supposed to evaluate each argument and piece of evidence separately on its own merits, but we have a nasty habit of accepting or rejecting them based purely on whether or not they support conclusions that we already have.

Sure, and I've just shown why it's reductio doesn't work.
EB

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But who can run faster, the Flash or God?

Flash. Totally. God lost a wrestling match to an ordinary human, remember?

I thought it was a draw, and God permanently injured Jacob's hip with that chair shot.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Sure, and I've just shown why it's reductio doesn't work.
EB

You didn't show that reducito doesn't work. You said that you didn't think it was valid because people care about God and don't care about the Flash. That's an invalid reason to accept or reject a logical argument, so it doesn't show anything.

 

[Underseer]

Tom was using something called reductio ad absurdum.

Because of cognitive biases*, some people refuse to understand what is wrong with the logic of an argument simply because they are emotionally attached to the conclusion.

So one way to get around this is to apply the same logic to a conclusion that the other person isn't emotionally attached to. Make no mistake, this is a powerful tool for those of us who have no formal training in logic or are simply emotional about a particular conclusion.

* The bias involved here is confirmation bias. We are supposed to evaluate each argument and piece of evidence separately on its own merits, but we have a nasty habit of accepting or rejecting them based purely on whether or not they support conclusions that we already have.

Sure, and I've just shown why it's reductio doesn't work.
EB

You showed nothing of the sort. You have is an example of exactly the sort of special pleading fallacy that I talked about.

If the logic of an argument is sound, then it is sound regardless of which conclusion we apply it to.

You want us to believe that the logic of this argument is sound when applied to one conclusion, but becomes bad logic when applied to another conclusion. That's not how logic works. That was never how logic worked.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure, and I've just shown why it's reductio doesn't work.
EB

You didn't show that reducito doesn't work. You said that you didn't think it was valid because people care about God and don't care about the Flash. That's an invalid reason to accept or reject a logical argument, so it doesn't show anything.

Yeah, in other words, he committed exactly the sort of special pleading fallacy that I talked about.

Worse, he added an appeal to emotion fallacy to his special pleading fallacy. Having feelings about a conclusion doesn't make it more nor less true.

- - - Updated - - -

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special_pleading

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

- - - Updated - - -

Flash. Totally. God lost a wrestling match to an ordinary human, remember?

I thought it was a draw, and God permanently injured Jacob's hip with that chair shot.

Even if it was a draw, same conclusion. Someone with the Flash's superpowers would not have tied, if for no other reason that he could make wrestling move faster than the other guy could possibly react.

 

[Underseer]

By the way, Speakpigeon? Your use of Descartes as your avatar is absolutely perfect! In his famous "I think, therefore I am," essay, he tried to prove the existence of God with an argument ad populum fallacy.

 

[Underseer]

I guess now we have to discuss the appeal to emotion fallacy.

I feel very strongly that Valyries are fucking awesome.

I feel a great deal of desire to be married to all of them. Wouldn't it be great to have an entire harem of Valyries?

Regardless of how strong or weak my feelings are, if I want to claim that they are real and that I am married to all of them, I still have to provide evidence that they exist, then I have to provide evidence that I am married to all of them. The emotions I feel about the legend of Valyries are totally unrelated to any truth claims that I make about them.

I'm half Japanese. I think it would be awesome if ninjas were real. Unfortunately, the historical evidence is such that we can't say for certain whether or not ninjas were real. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't

I'm also half Scandinavian, and am equally disappointed that we can't actually prove if shield maidens were ever a real thing.

No matter how strong or weak my feelings, my feelings have zero impact on whether or not a truth claim is true.

 

[Speakpigeon]

By the way, Speakpigeon? Your use of Descartes as your avatar is absolutely perfect! In his famous "I think, therefore I am," essay, he tried to prove the existence of God with an argument ad populum fallacy.

Descartes was a man and men are fallible. So nothing new here. Welcome to our world, man...

I use his portrait as my avatar because I take his 'I think, therefore I am' as the only truth we know. And, obviously, he was the guy who said it first. He beat me to it by something like 350 years.
EB

 

[Underseer]

By the way, Speakpigeon? Your use of Descartes as your avatar is absolutely perfect! In his famous "I think, therefore I am," essay, he tried to prove the existence of God with an argument ad populum fallacy.

Descartes was a man and men are fallible. So nothing new here. Welcome to our world, man...

I use his portrait as my avatar because I take his 'I think, therefore I am' as the only truth we know. And, obviously, he was the guy who said it first. He beat me to it by something like 350 years.
EB

Except that in this case, the man had a formal education in philosophy and logic, and his appeal to popularity fallacy is still held up by Christians as evidence for the existence of God. That is the most damning thing of all. That tells you both that they honestly don't have better arguments, and further that none of them seem willing to correct each other, even when obviously wrong. The most likely explanation for this is that they are so emotionally attached to the conclusion that they honestly don't care if the logic is obviously wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

This isn't an example of "men are fallible," this is an example of people choosing to be wrong because they can't bear the thought of admitting that they are wrong.

All of this business about allowing emotional attachment to conclusions to cloud judgment is precisely why your use of that portrait is so appropriate.

 

[Treedbear]

Descartes was a man and men are fallible. So nothing new here. Welcome to our world, man...

I use his portrait as my avatar because I take his 'I think, therefore I am' as the only truth we know. And, obviously, he was the guy who said it first. He beat me to it by something like 350 years.
EB

Except that in this case, the man had a formal education in philosophy and logic, and his appeal to popularity fallacy is still held up by Christians as evidence for the existence of God. That is the most damning thing of all. That tells you both that they honestly don't have better arguments, and further that none of them seem willing to correct each other, even when obviously wrong. The most likely explanation for this is that they are so emotionally attached to the conclusion that they honestly don't care if the logic is obviously wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

This isn't an example of "men are fallible," this is an example of people choosing to be wrong because they can't bear the thought of admitting that they are wrong. ...

But Descartes' conclusions are based on western philosophy going all the way back to Plato. The error is not ontological it's epistemological. It's not a matter of choice so much as it's the basic structure of our system of knowledge which is based on hierarchies of existence rather than existence based on inter-relationships. That's the basis of the need for the perfect. The absolute. Without accepting that concept the system falls apart. Thus the self exists independently rather than as the interplay of thoughts. I suggest that rather than saying "I think, therefore I am", consider the alternative: "I have thoughts, therefore I am." This makes the whole free will debate unnecessary.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Nobody would waste time about Flash. Why anybody would do that, exactly?

But, personally, I understand that some people think it's worth their time to take the idea of God seriously.

And lot's of people do just that, while I've never heard of anybody considering a Flash scenario to explain their lost keys.
EB

Tom was using something called reductio ad absurdum.

Because of cognitive biases*, some people refuse to understand what is wrong with the logic of an argument simply because they are emotionally attached to the conclusion.

So one way to get around this is to apply the same logic to a conclusion that the other person isn't emotionally attached to. Make no mistake, this is a powerful tool for those of us who have no formal training in logic or are simply emotional about a particular conclusion.

* The bias involved here is confirmation bias. We are supposed to evaluate each argument and piece of evidence separately on its own merits, but we have a nasty habit of accepting or rejecting them based purely on whether or not they support conclusions that we already have.

(Wikipedia)
Straw man argument A fallacious argument similar to reductio ad absurdum often seen in polemical debate is the straw man logical fallacy. A straw man argument attempts to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") has an absurd, unpleasant, or ridiculous consequence, relying on the audience failing to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition.

If you want to prove anything, you better make sure you spell it out properly. Right now, I don't even know what you're on about.
EB