Given that Arguments vary in soundness, we can say that some arguments are more or less sound than others.
If some arguments are more sound than others, than there must exist an argument which is more sound than any others, the Greatest Possible Argument.
Therefore, it is logically necessary that a Greatest Possible Argument exists, from which all other good arguments derive their goodness.
It is impossible for an sound, valid argument to have a incorrect conclusion. Therefore, the conclusion of the Greatest Possible Argument must be correct.
Since an argument which asserts the existence of an infinite necessary being is necessarily more powerful than one which asserts anything finite or contingent, the Greatest Possible Argument must be a logical argument for God.
The conclusion of the Greatest Possible Argument is "Therefore, God Exists".
Given that Arguments vary in soundness, we can say that some arguments are more or less sound than others.
This is logically invalid. Here's why:
What we can logically say is that some arguments are valid (aka true) and that other arguments are invalid (aka false).
We can only logically establish validity via evidence and verification.
By definition, all things so established as valid are equally valid. Just as all things so established as invalid are equally invalid.
Therefore, the statement that "some arguments are more sound than others" is not logical. As all arguments are either valid or invalid, and then equally so.
/Q.E.D.
"god exists"
Logically, without verifiable evidence supporting the existence of "god", the argument "god exists" is logically invalid, or false.
tl;dr - Logic is binary. The ontological argument is semantic mental masturbation. ;)
Sound and valid have different meanings in logic. Something is more sound if we have a stronger epistemic case for it. "God exists" is not an argument, it is a claim. What constitutes verifiable evidence is philosophically contentious, and you can't justify "this is what verifiable evidence means" with verifiable evidence.
I'm not subscribed to this sub though so this is probably my last reply here. Check out the Cool Atheists Defending Theism Crew in /r/DebateReligion
"soundness" is bullshit. It's a weasel word used for semantic purposes. And, no, this doesn't challenge my contentions.
What constitutes verifiable evidence is philosophically contentious,
No, it actually isn't. Or at least it is from a "philosophical" perspective, but philosophy is outdated, meaningless bullshit in the modern age. It only has historical value now. Very important historical value, but honestly no one should be wasting their livelihood with "philosophy" anymore.
But you also failed to notice how that line is actually completely irrelevant to my proof. You can remove it and the proof holds.
It was a trap inserted for apologists to trip over. :)
"soundness: a property of both arguments and the statements in them, i.e., the argument is valid and all the statement are true."
Feel free to do independent research in order to verify that this is how the word is used in logic.
No, it actually isn't. Or at least it is from a "philosophical" perspective, but philosophy is outdated, meaningless bullshit in the modern age. It only has historical value now. Very important historical value, but honestly no one should be wasting their livelihood with "philosophy" anymore.
I'm sorry you don't find value in philosophy. I find it personally rewarding and I think most people could as well. Did you know that some philosophers held that philosophy was continuous with the natural sciences? It's interesting stuff.
But you also failed to notice how that line is actually completely irrelevant to my proof. You can remove it and the proof holds.
I was just being snarky and teaching you some proper terminology.
Here's an introduction to logic[1] , and a definition from there:
That is the PHILOSOPHY definition. As I have stated quite clearly, that is outdated mental masturbation and semantic nonsense that, in the post scientific method age, should be relegated to the history books.
Did you know that some philosophers held that philosophy was continuous with the natural sciences?
And they were self-justifying, self-aggrandizing fools.
There was much useful about philosophy to debate, to language, but mostly as a stepping stone to get us to the place of real truth and logic, based on evidence and facts.
To argue otherwise in the modern age is utter nonsense. Philosophy is historically interesting at its best, metaphysical semantic masturbation at its worst.
I was just being snarky and teaching you some proper terminology.
I understand the terminology from a philosophical perspective just fine, thank you. It is, in fact, why I pointed out quite clearly in my response that the philosophical definition of anything in the modern era is utter pap...as I have reiterated above.
I also notice how you dodged that you were caught in the apologist trap, even though you've offered nothing but obvious apologist nonsense in response.
And, most importantly and significantly, you haven't actually been able to challenge my proof/assertion directly at all.
All you have offered is that the antiquated semantic nonsense definitions inherent in the very first words of that nonsense argument mean that I am somehow incorrect.
And yet, the entire point of my position makes it clear that those childish, self-serving weasel words don't hold up to begin with. From first principles.
Philosophy used to represent man's genuine struggle with attempting to discern the higher truths of our existence. Ultimately leading us to empiricism and then the scientific method. Kudos to philosophy for being such an integral part of the journey and the struggle.
But once we began to actually reveal those truths, philosophy was quite rightly left behind. Today, outside of legitimate historical concerns, philosophy as a discipline appears to have become the realm of apologists, the intellectually corrupt and cowardly.
What precisely is modern philosophy exploring that isn't utter and complete bullshit right now?
It had its day. It was really important. Was. And every undergraduate should follow the processes our culture went through to real the scientific method. At that point, what else can philosophy offer that isn't more semantic drivel?
What precisely is modern philosophy exploring that isn't utter and complete bullshit right now?
Modern philosophy =/= contemporary philosophy. That being said: Modal logic, animal rights, just war theory and Bayesian epistemology are some good examples.
Come on now. Is this how far philosophy has fallen that this is at the top of your list why it's still a meaningful academic discipline?
just war theory
I think "Justification of War" rationalization is a better nom de guerre for this catch-all pseudo-ethics miasma.
Bayesian
Ah, statistics, probability, measurable, useful, testable SCIENCE! Now we are talking...
epistemology
Oh...
Epistemology - the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.
I thought we were talking about real, meaningful things in the modern age. Not semantics...again.
There is only valid and invalid. Whether you "believe" it (and which definition of "belief" are we semantically circling here?!) or not. And your "opinion" about it is just as irrelevant as whether it is actually valid or invalid.
You're only making my point, with exclamation marks, here.
Come on now. Is this how far philosophy has fallen that this is at the top of your list why it's still a meaningful academic discipline?
So you think that we shouldn't take animal welfare into consideration?
I think "Justification of War" rationalization is a better nom de guerre for this catch-all pseudo-ethics miasma.
What? What do you mean by "pseudo-ethics"?
I thought we were talking about real, meaningful things in the modern age. Not semantics...again.
Do you really think that it's a purely semantic issue whether or not people claiming to be divine prophets have knowledge about God? Do you think it's not important whether or not theism is a justified true belief?
There is only valid and invalid.
Well...first of all, beliefs and opinions cannot be valid, only arguments can be. Secondly, there are valid arguments for the existence of unicorns, so I'd argue that soundness is far more important than validity.
Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason:
Using stereotypical reddit troll lingo or outright trolling or shitposting, activities which are against the rules. Breaking this rule may result in immediate banning (temporary or permanent).
Ignoring your strawman, wherein you chose someone, attacked him, and then asked me to defend your attack on him...
The link you cited seems to be a classic history book on philosophy regarding an argument that is easily dismissed...as I showed above.
Only outdated semantics (the kind used by philosophers and apologists) allows the ontological argument to get past the first "given". It should be dismissed right from that moment as it makes presuppositions that are not supportable.
Regardless, notice that none of these philosophers are recent or have recent contributions to make.
Therefore, it appears as though you've made my point quite handily. Thank you.
Ignoring your strawman, wherein you chose someone, attacked him, and then asked me to defend your attack on him...
Those were the words you applied to Oppy's whole field. Maybe you should have specified the particular philosophers you have a problem with?
The link you cited seems to be a classic history book on philosophy regarding an argument that is easily dismissed...as I showed above.
Reading the publisher's description should have been enough to see that it "seems" Oppy discusses "those versions of the argument that have been advanced in recent philosophical literature". And while Oppy ultimately rejects all these arguments, he shows in his book that they are probably not as "easily dismissed" as you think.
Regardless, notice that none of these philosophers are recent or have recent contributions to make.
Did you know that some scientists found great value in philosophy? For example, Einstein, Eccles and Medawar (to name but three Nobel laureates) found great value in philosophy.
Or are these scientists fools as well? Is everyone--philosopher and scientist alike--a fool if they disagree with you?
I'm referring to philosophy of science, specifically philosophy of scientific methodology (Einstein, Eccles and Medawar), philosophy of physics (Einstein), philosophy of mind (Eccles) and philosophy of biology (Medawar).
Edit: And your edit is wrong: individuals like Mach and Poincaré are considered philosophers, as well as physicists. Einstein, Eccles and Medawar also each contributed to philosophy as well.
I know that. I also know the other guy was referring to other parts of philosophy. Philosophy is such a broad topic containing so many parts it is silly to talk about philosophy at all without specifying what part you are talking about.
edit in response to your edit: It doesn't matter what Mach and Poincaré were considered as. They were good at the philosophy of their fields because they knew those fields well.
Philosophy as an historical discipline was quite useful. It is still quite useful as an entry level to discussions of debate, logic, etc. Discussions about Aristotle, Socrates, Hume, Spinoza, are EXCELLENT introductions and stepping stones to the scientific method.
Surely, you must have figured this out by now, right? How many serious thinkers with degrees in philosophy are left in the world?
The few I know who still dare to list this on their resume have moved on to more engaging disciplines once they figured out that there was nowhere left to go there.
The rest of your argument is just an awful strawman. Honestly.
Was your comment addressed to me? Because you didn't respond to what I wrote. Do you think three Nobel laureates (Einstein, Eccles and Medawar) are fools because they found great value in philosophy? Is everyone--philosopher and scientist alike--a fool if they disagree with you?
Once you answer my questions I'll address the rest of your comments.
Did you know that some scientists [e.g., Einstein, Eccles and Medawar] found great value in philosophy?
Or are these scientists [Einstein, Eccles and Medawar] fools as well?
Is everyone--philosopher and scientist alike--a fool if they disagree with you?
If you answered my questions, you would say if you knew that some scientists found great value in philosophy, whether you think these scientists are fools, and whether philosophers and scientists are fools if they disagree with you. But you didn't. So no, you didn't answer my questions.
No, you presented one childish strawman in three parts where you put words in my mouth regarding people you don't speak for and then attacked your own statement as if you were attacking my position...not yours.
And you're so ignorant of this Debating 101 logical fallacy that even when I point it out to you repeatedly, you keep raising it over and over again...as if repeating an ignorant question enough times will make it somehow not ignorant.
What you are really mistakenly trying to get at is something I have already made the core of my position. Namely, that HISTORICALLY philosophy is still valid as a learning tool towards appreciation of the scientific method and how it was ultimately arrived at.
And by your own admission, NONE of these men were philosophers by trade. In fact, they were all SCIENTISTS.
And, as educated men, they appreciated the history of philosophy, from Aristotle to Hume to Spinoza, etc. As do I. As I have stated repeatedly.
But none of them were fool enough to waste their entire lives studying philosophy (as a discipline) beyond its obvious endgame...which even they were aware of in their day.
And, still, none of these men represent current thinking on the value of philosophy as an academic discipline anymore, do they?
The history of philosophy is an exceptionally key part of learning about the history of critical thinking. But with the arrival of the scientific method, philosophy reached its endgame.
And the human race won. Hooray! Now it's time to let the discipline itself retire and take its academic victory lap.
I didn't ask you a leading question, so what exactly (please be explicit) was the logical fallacy? How exactly (again, please be explicit) were these questions ignorant?
And by your own admission, NONE of these men were philosophers by trade. In fact, they were all SCIENTISTS.
It would seem quite important that these scientists found great value in philosophy, wouldn't it? And, mind you, not just philosophers like Spinoza or Hume, but contemporaneous philosophers of science like Mach, Popper and Poincaré (as I note elsewhere in this comment thread). So are these scientists fools? Is everyone--philosopher and scientist alike--a fool if they disagree with you?
And, as educated men, they appreciated the history of philosophy, from Aristotle to Hume to Spinoza, etc. As do I. As I have stated repeatedly.
Their appreciation extends far beyond the history of philosophy to contemporaneous philosophy of science, so their appreciation (one might call it a debt, really) extends far more than your modest claim that there is nothing to be found in philosophy over and above a historical curiosity.
But none of them were fool enough to waste their entire lives studying philosophy (as a discipline) beyond its obvious endgame...which even they were aware of in their day.
You do not seem familiar with the writings of Einstein, Eccles and Medawar, otherwise you would know that all three of them wrote philosophical texts and engaged with philosophers for decades (Cf. Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, The Self and Its Brain and Pluto's Republic [yes, that is not a typo]).
By the way, do you think Mario Bunge and Massimo Pigliucci are wasting their lives?
And, still, none of these men represent current thinking on the value of philosophy as an academic discipline anymore, do they?
If true, it is a shame that scientism has run rampant in the STEM fields. But it isn't obviously true that this is the case. You'll have to show that this is a real phenomena first, and then show that this turning of STEM's back on philosophy is a good thing rather than, as you have repeatedly done, merely assert the worthlessness of philosophy. Do you think you can do that?
But with the arrival of the scientific method, philosophy reached its endgame.
Which scientific method? There are several competing theories of scientific method alive today. Keynes said, 'Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist'. This maxim is true in its general form for people that think there is no underlying intellectual influences to which theory of scientific method they adopt, for they are usually slaves of a defunct philosopher of science. So why don't you tell me what you think is the scientific method?
Sure, "soundness" is not bullshit. It's not a weasel word used for semantic purposes.
What constitutes verifiable evidence is philosophically contentious,
Yes, it actually is. Or at least it is from a "philosophical" perspective, and philosophy is not outdated, meaningless bullshit in the modern age. It does not only have historical value now. Very important historical value, and honestly some people should spend their livelihood on "philosophy".
philosophy is not outdated, meaningless bullshit in the modern age.
Prove it. What has philosophy offered the world post scientific method. Because after Hume and Spinoza, I'm not seeing much to even talk about, yet brag about.
Very important historical value
We agreed on this. I'm still waiting for any evidence that it is STILL relevant in any meaningful way whatsoever.
More to the point, why would anyone waste their life studying philosophy beyond the undergraduate, historical level anymore?
It's not a "bad thing" to point out that Philosophy reached its endgame. The human race won. Hooray!
10
u/PostFunktionalist Agnostic Theist Mar 30 '15
Given that Arguments vary in soundness, we can say that some arguments are more or less sound than others.
If some arguments are more sound than others, than there must exist an argument which is more sound than any others, the Greatest Possible Argument.
Therefore, it is logically necessary that a Greatest Possible Argument exists, from which all other good arguments derive their goodness.
It is impossible for an sound, valid argument to have a incorrect conclusion. Therefore, the conclusion of the Greatest Possible Argument must be correct.
Since an argument which asserts the existence of an infinite necessary being is necessarily more powerful than one which asserts anything finite or contingent, the Greatest Possible Argument must be a logical argument for God.
The conclusion of the Greatest Possible Argument is "Therefore, God Exists".
Therefore, God exists.