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

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Again, you're not making sure I know what you're talking about precisely. If you can't bother to argue your case properly, I don't mind to let the matter slip unaddressed.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Sorry, but if you can't articulate what the argument in question exactly is, there's nothing I can do for you.

The reductio suggested just doesn't apply to what I said. That's my point.

So, what was the argument you are on about?
EB

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

Sorry, but if you can't articulate what the argument in question exactly is, there's nothing I can do for you.

The reductio suggested just doesn't apply to what I said. That's my point.

So, what was the argument you are on about?
EB

But again, you haven't laid out how you feel it doesn't apply. All you've said is that more people care about God than the Flash so ... that makes the rules of logic different between them or something? You never got around to rebutting anything and then said everyone should move on because of your rebuttal.

The argument I'm making is that the ontological argument is invalid and internally inconsistent logic and, as a result, the premises do not lead to the conclusion. My argument has nothing to do with whether God does or dos not exist, just that this particular argument does not give information about the matter either way.

 

[Underseer]

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.

Again, you're not making sure I know what you're talking about precisely. If you can't bother to argue your case properly, I don't mind to let the matter slip unaddressed.
EB

So you're not actually going to address anything I said and instead are calling me stupid.

Very well. I am intellectually inferior to you. I bow before your august greatness and look forward to learning from so wise a person as yourself.

Because I am so obviously inferior to your greatness, can you help me out and ask me what you are having a problem with? Because in my stupidity, I thought I was being clear.

Let me guess, this is the part where you "rephrase" my argument into something you can actually counter?

I'd be only too happy to clarify my statement, you'll have to be more specific. All I see is a clumsy use of a poisoning the well fallacy to avoid addressing anything I said. If you are unclear on something, I'm not even certain where to begin.

Are you just going to keep piling logical fallacies on top of logical fallacies in the hopes that I will eventually give up?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Sorry I'm really lost so maybe it's time to go back to the origin of this dispute.


So, here it is:

But I don't know how you could prove that. How could you prove that a god in your understanding is not really a god?

So, I think it just leaves the one flaw in Anselm's argument that he himself has to assume these two gods are the same and he can't prove.

You're in the same situation, you and Anselm. You can't prove your assumption.

At the end of the day, we should accept both that we cannot prove that God exists and that we cannot prove that God does not exist. Is that a problem?
EB

Except that I'm not now or ever was in this thread trying to prove either of those things, and Anshelm is. He makes a bad assumption. So yeah, I'd accept your proposition. It is all I was ever saying. But it's you who seem to be the one making the assumption that the God in your understanding qualifies as an actual God when you say "he himself has to assume these two gods are the same and he can't prove". It's not a matter of proving they are the same because you first have to prove the one in your understanding is actually a God.

No. I'm not claiming that a god in one's understanding could be a god at all. I just don't know that it couldn't be the case.

I do assume that it's what Anselm meant but of course I can't be sure of that. It's just that it's the only way I can see for Anselm's argument to make sense.

If there is a god at all, he could, for all I know, choose my understanding as his adobe. Since I don't actually know that gods don't exist, it might be the case that there is one and that he is within my understanding. Even so, I wouldn't know that it would be the same god as another possible god that would be outside my understanding.
EB

I don't think I could be clearer than that and there's nothing I would change in my post.

So, if you want to come back on this, you better make sure we all understand what's you're on about, what's your point and what's your argument.

Thanks for your efforts.
EB

 

[Underseer]

Sorry I'm really lost so maybe it's time to go back to the origin of this dispute.


So, here it is:

But I don't know how you could prove that. How could you prove that a god in your understanding is not really a god?

So, I think it just leaves the one flaw in Anselm's argument that he himself has to assume these two gods are the same and he can't prove.

You're in the same situation, you and Anselm. You can't prove your assumption.

At the end of the day, we should accept both that we cannot prove that God exists and that we cannot prove that God does not exist. Is that a problem?
EB

Except that I'm not now or ever was in this thread trying to prove either of those things, and Anshelm is. He makes a bad assumption. So yeah, I'd accept your proposition. It is all I was ever saying. But it's you who seem to be the one making the assumption that the God in your understanding qualifies as an actual God when you say "he himself has to assume these two gods are the same and he can't prove". It's not a matter of proving they are the same because you first have to prove the one in your understanding is actually a God.

No. I'm not claiming that a god in one's understanding could be a god at all. I just don't know that it couldn't be the case.

I do assume that it's what Anselm meant but of course I can't be sure of that. It's just that it's the only way I can see for Anselm's argument to make sense.

If there is a god at all, he could, for all I know, choose my understanding as his adobe. Since I don't actually know that gods don't exist, it might be the case that there is one and that he is within my understanding. Even so, I wouldn't know that it would be the same god as another possible god that would be outside my understanding.
EB

I don't think I could be clearer than that and there's nothing I would change in my post.

So, if you want to come back on this, you better make sure we all understand what's you're on about, what's your point and what's your argument.

Thanks for your efforts.
EB

Well, that clears everything up. Thank you, oh wise one.

So I am wrong and you are right because I am a big dumb stupidhead and you are full of wisdom.

So if I start using poisoning the well fallacies, can I be as wise as you? Or do poisoning the well fallacies only make one wise if one uses them to argue for the existence of god?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Well, that clears everything up. Thank you, oh wise one.

So I am wrong and you are right because I am a big dumb stupidhead and you are full of wisdom.

So if I start using poisoning the well fallacies, can I be as wise as you? Or do poisoning the well fallacies only make one wise if one uses them to argue for the existence of god?

Sorry, I just don't understand and I'm not going to spend any time to read the runes.

It wouldn't be very difficult I'm sure to make yourself clear and I'm sure you could do it but it appears you're not interested to even try just now.

Have a nice day.
EB

 

[Underseer]

Well, that clears everything up. Thank you, oh wise one.

So I am wrong and you are right because I am a big dumb stupidhead and you are full of wisdom.

So if I start using poisoning the well fallacies, can I be as wise as you? Or do poisoning the well fallacies only make one wise if one uses them to argue for the existence of god?

Sorry, I just don't understand and I'm not going to spend any time to read the runes.

It wouldn't be very difficult I'm sure to make yourself clear and I'm sure you could do it but it appears you're not interested to even try just now.

Have a nice day.
EB

OK, got it.

You're right and I'm wrong because I'm a stupidhead, and you are wise, and you just don't have time to explain to someone as stupid as me why my arguments fail to support my conclusion, nor why your arguments successfully support your conclusion.

Gosh, I hope that some day I can be half as brilliant as you. Then I too can avoid demonstrating that my truth claims are true by calling people stupid!

But you didn't answer my most recent question.

Can I also make my arguments correct by calling people stupid, or does that only work when the conclusion under consideration is the existence of God? When is a poisoning the well fallacy valid logic, and when is it invalid logic? Because I'm so stupid, I'm not sure I can tell the difference, because to my uneducated mind, a fallacy fails to support a conclusion regardless of which conclusion the argument is applied to.

Gosh, I'm so jealous of your intellect! Please have patience with me.

 

[Speakpigeon]

According to Albert Einstein, apparently, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.

You should meditate on this I think.
EB

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

According to the Internet, according to Albert Einstein, apparently, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.

FIFY.

You should meditate on this I think.
EB

I'd prefer to meditate on this psychobabble.

If there is a god at all, he could, for all I know, choose my understanding as his adobe. Since I don't actually know that gods don't exist, it might be the case that there is one and that he is within my understanding. Even so, I wouldn't know that it would be the same god as another possible god that would be outside my understanding.

It is up there with Rumsfeld's "things you know you don't know" rambling. Sure, it is true, but it seems to be a distraction from the actual conversation at hand (thousands of dead US soldiers in Iraq for Rumsfeld, and the utter bullshit that is the ontalogical argument for this thread).

 

[Speakpigeon]

You'd do well to wipe yourself after that I think.
EB

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You'd do well to wipe yourself after that I think.
EB

So now down to trolling responses, it seems.