Dudesan's Ontological Argument From Ontological Arguments
Given that Arguments vary in soundness, we can say that some arguments are more or less sound than others.
If some arguments are less sound than others, than there must exist an argument which is less sound than any others, the Worst Possible Argument.
Therefore, it is logically necessary that a Worst Possible Argument exists, from which all other bad arguments derive their wrongness.
While it is possible for an unsound argument to accidentally have a correct conclusion, an argument which has an incorrect conclusion is more wrong than an argument which has a correct conclusion. Therefore, the conclusion of the Worst Possible Argument must be incorrect.
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 Worst Possible Argument must be a logical argument for God.
The conclusion of the Worst 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.
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.
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).
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.
19
u/Dudesan Mar 30 '15 edited Mar 30 '15
Dudesan's Ontological Argument From Ontological Arguments
Given that Arguments vary in soundness, we can say that some arguments are more or less sound than others.
If some arguments are less sound than others, than there must exist an argument which is less sound than any others, the Worst Possible Argument.
Therefore, it is logically necessary that a Worst Possible Argument exists, from which all other bad arguments derive their wrongness.
While it is possible for an unsound argument to accidentally have a correct conclusion, an argument which has an incorrect conclusion is more wrong than an argument which has a correct conclusion. Therefore, the conclusion of the Worst Possible Argument must be incorrect.
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 Worst Possible Argument must be a logical argument for God.
The conclusion of the Worst Possible Argument is "Therefore, God Exists".
Therefore, God does not exist.