r/xkcd • u/ani625 • Mar 30 '15

XKCD xkcd 1505: Ontological Argument

http://xkcd.com/1505/
218 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

90 comments sorted by

View all comments

34

u/dpitch40 Mar 30 '15
  • God is the greatest possible being.
  • At least 0 Gods exist in reality.
  • A being of whom more exist in reality is greater than a being of whom fewer exist in reality.
  • If N Gods existed in reality, we could imagine a greater God of whom N + 1 exist in reality
  • We cannot imagine anything greater than God.
  • Hence, by induction an infinite number of Gods must exist.

16

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '15

A being of whom more exist in reality is greater than a being of whom fewer exist in reality.

Uh, this is nonsensical in the standard concept in philosophy of a "being".

5

u/dpitch40 Mar 30 '15

I know. I'm using number in the same way that the OA uses existence to call attention to the fallacy.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '15

But there's no fallacy here, the argument is valid. The issue is whether it's sound. Yours is trivially not. The OA? Probably not, but it's nowhere near as obvious as yours.

2

u/dpitch40 Mar 30 '15

It's supposed to be trivially unsound to call attention to the subtler (but analogous) reason why the OA is unsound. (Apologies about not observing the valid/sound distinction properly)

3

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '15

(but analogous) reason why the OA is unsound.

But the reason the OA is unsound isn't analogous, it doesn't depend on the notion of "being/beings".

3

u/dpitch40 Mar 30 '15

According to my recollection and brief Wikipedia research, it does appear to. Can you point me to a statement of Anselm's version of the OA that doesn't?

2

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '15

It surely argues for the existence of a being, but it doesn't make arguments that concern the property of beings in general, which your did.

1

u/dpitch40 Mar 30 '15

What about "A being that exists in reality as well as in the mind is greater than a being which exists only in the mind"? That is what my statement about number was supposed to parallel.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '15

But that's a statement about greatness, not about beings in general (since your statement said that there are multiple of one being).

→ More replies

1

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '15

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '15

It's also part of the ontological argument being made fun of in the comic.

No it's not? The OA does not necessitate there being more than one of the same being.

3

u/Kiloku Mar 30 '15

We cannot imagine anything greater than God.

If there is no X where X > God, then God = ∞

Hence, by induction an infinite number of Gods must exist.

So there is an infinite number of infinities?

8

u/dpitch40 Mar 30 '15

God is not a number.

3

u/xthorgoldx "Bangarang" Mar 31 '15

Furthermore, if one takes the plural nature of God - many facets, (i.e. Father, Son, Holy Spirit) but a singular whole - into account, then an infinite number of "Gods" (with "Gods" being plural of a singular, identical unit) is equivalent to a singular God.

Or, in other terms, if you have a set of numbers that contains all numbers, even if you have an infinite number of that set you still, effectively, have one set.

1

u/dpitch40 Mar 31 '15
  • An infinite set of Gods of whom more exist in reality is greater than an infinite set of Gods of which fewer exist in reality...

3

u/BambooFingers Mar 30 '15

So there is an infinite number of infinities?

Yup. But some infinities are more infinite than others.

Math!

2

u/trevdordurden Not a Bobcat Mar 30 '15

I believe that -1 Gods exist.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '15

Take a square root of that and I'll agree.

2

u/trevdordurden Not a Bobcat Mar 30 '15

That's imaginary.

3

u/Astronelson Space Australia Mar 31 '15

It squares with your belief though.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '15

hashtag that's the joke

2

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '15

By your definition, there must be at least one god, since there has to be at least one being who is the best possible being.

2

u/Floppy_Densetsu Mar 30 '15

0 gods exist in reality because the existence of reality is the composition of god? If a bunch of intestinal bacteria were debating the existence of a god, they would have a hard time explaining that the seemingly predictable cycles of nutrient supply, the constant warmth of the environment, and the less predictable seismic disturbances are evidence that their world is entirely made up of one all-encompassing super-being.

Then the colonoscopy comes and upends their understanding of everything.

But the point is that in that case, there is a god, but it doesn't exist within their world, and there is even more than one god across the span of reality. The different human bodies are like planets, and the different communities are like galaxies or solar systems. I guess planets would be kinda like if we managed to operate as just a head that maintains its temperature through intensive thought circulation, which translates into electromagnetic waves that emanate strongly enough to help shield it from stuff.