I'll admit that the definition of God is somewhat fluid, but the one quality a force must have in order to qualify as God is both a knowledge of and interest in human affairs. Accordingly, I feel the lack of evidence suggesting that there is such a force at work in our lives is the strongest argument against the existence of a God.
But in any case, I don't see how you can justify reducing the qualifications for the position of God to extraordinary strength and intelligence.
Why? If you met an omnipotent being who created the universe, but he didn't give two shits about humans, you wouldn't call him a god?
No, I wouldn't. The relationship between God and man is pretty important to the mythology of God. Without that relationship, you're left with an entirely different arrangement, and so you can't apply the name of God to that force without suggesting something entirely inaccurate about the force's role and motives.
Course, it's clear to me that your definition of God is simply an assessment of power that says nothing about how that power is used (above and beyond creating the universe, of course) and whether or not the possessor of that power demands or deserves our reverence and supplication.
Mythology doesn't matter. snip
No.
The ontological argument has been bullshit since it was invented. The easy-mode evidence is the fact that it can be just as easily be used to disprove of anything which you believe God to be. Just take the same God, then make another one who can cockpunch his omnipotence and is even more powerful.
No amount of imagination, wishing, or intellectual masturbation makes a difference when God doesn't exist outside of your mind.
No, I don't think the universe needs to be constructed of anything. It appears to be, but that could be wrong.
Then where does matter come from? If the material universe does not have a fundamental foundation, then it becomes much harder to understand how matter exists and how cause and effect works.
Search me. What am I, a physicist?
I don't understand how or why cause and effect works. I don't understand what matter is or where it comes from. I understand a very limited scope of knowledge that will most likely one day be proven false.
So why would I bother having strong believes about the construction of the universe? For all I know it's being dreamed by a giant.
I'll admit that the definition of God is somewhat fluid, but the one quality a force must have in order to qualify as God is both a knowledge of and interest in human affairs. Accordingly, I feel the lack of evidence suggesting that there is such a force at work in our lives is the strongest argument against the existence of a God.
But in any case, I don't see how you can justify reducing the qualifications for the position of God to extraordinary strength and intelligence.
Why? If you met an omnipotent being who created the universe, but he didn't give two shits about humans, you wouldn't call him a god?
No, I wouldn't. The relationship between God and man is pretty important to the mythology of God. Without that relationship, you're left with an entirely different arrangement, and so you can't apply the name of God to that force without suggesting something entirely inaccurate about the force's role and motives.
Course, it's clear to me that your definition of God is simply an assessment of power that says nothing about how that power is used (above and beyond creating the universe, of course) and whether or not the possessor of that power demands or deserves our reverence and supplication.
Mythology doesn't matter. snip
No.
The ontological argument has been bullshit since it was invented. The easy-mode evidence is the fact that it can be just as easily be used to disprove of anything which you believe God to be. Just take the same God, then make another one who can cockpunch his omnipotence and is even more powerful.
No amount of imagination, wishing, or intellectual masturbation makes a difference when God doesn't exist outside of your mind.
Wow! You've figured out the incoherency in Plantinga's Modal Ontological Argument? You've dealt handily with Godel Ontological Argument?
There have been ontological arguments since Descartes and St. Anselm's failures. In fact, I don't think anyone have demonstrated any fault with Plantinga's argument yet. I don't really know a damn thing about Godel's.
EDIT: Totally not a theist.
LoserForHireX on
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
0
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
I'll admit that the definition of God is somewhat fluid, but the one quality a force must have in order to qualify as God is both a knowledge of and interest in human affairs. Accordingly, I feel the lack of evidence suggesting that there is such a force at work in our lives is the strongest argument against the existence of a God.
But in any case, I don't see how you can justify reducing the qualifications for the position of God to extraordinary strength and intelligence.
Why? If you met an omnipotent being who created the universe, but he didn't give two shits about humans, you wouldn't call him a god?
No, I wouldn't. The relationship between God and man is pretty important to the mythology of God. Without that relationship, you're left with an entirely different arrangement, and so you can't apply the name of God to that force without suggesting something entirely inaccurate about the force's role and motives.
Course, it's clear to me that your definition of God is simply an assessment of power that says nothing about how that power is used (above and beyond creating the universe, of course) and whether or not the possessor of that power demands or deserves our reverence and supplication.
Mythology doesn't matter. snip
No.
The ontological argument has been bullshit since it was invented. The easy-mode evidence is the fact that it can be just as easily be used to disprove of anything which you believe God to be. Just take the same God, then make another one who can cockpunch his omnipotence and is even more powerful.
No amount of imagination, wishing, or intellectual masturbation makes a difference when God doesn't exist outside of your mind.
Besides the fact that you show zero understanding of how the ontological argument for the existence of god works, and foreshadowed the fact that you might not understand how arguments work in general, you also show that you have no idea of reference works. If there does exist some all-powerful (omnipotent, omniscient, infinite, and omnipresent) Being, the term God would refer to him. If he doesn't have a personal relationship with humanity, so be it.
Nor is this a thread for discussing the ontological argument, so it's pretty out of line in the first place.
Is there a metaphysical realm? Well, that all depends on whether there's a mental realm. If your inner life somehow has substance, then there is a metaphysical realm. If it doesn't, there isn't.
Besides the fact that you show zero understanding of how the ontological argument for the existence of god works
Nor is this a thread for discussing the ontological argument, so it's pretty out of line in the first place.
There are plenty of other ways to disprove the ontological argument. If you think this isn't the proper place to discuss it, then you shouldn't have brought it up twice in the last page to begin with.
Putting God on the same level as subatomic particles is farcical.
zerg rush on
0
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Is there a metaphysical realm? Well, that all depends on whether there's a mental realm. If your inner life somehow has substance, then there is a metaphysical realm. If it doesn't, there isn't.
Certainly seems like there is, doesn't it?
This seems fragmented to me. By it's very inception as ta meta ta physica (that which is over the physical), metaphysical "being" is not dependent on the physical being of beings. So, no, it doesn't depend on whether there's a mental realm. For instance, if numbers are actually platonic entities, then "five" exists independently of any physical manifestation of "five" as a particular. Likewise, the law of the excluded middle holds "exists" even if there is nothing physical to demonstrate its existence.
If the metaphysical depends on the mental, then there is no real metaphysical realm at all, because that would mean that the metaphysical is not subsistent but rather dependent on the existence of the physical. Then it is not really metaphysical at all, but some sort of" Nietzchean return of the physical; i.e., metaphysics is the physical-world experienced as if it weren't the physical world, the physical world repeated but differed through thinking.
Besides the fact that you show zero understanding of how the ontological argument for the existence of god works
Nor is this a thread for discussing the ontological argument, so it's pretty out of line in the first place.
There are plenty of other ways to disprove the ontological argument. If you think this isn't the proper place to discuss it, then you shouldn't have brought it up twice in the last page to begin with.
Putting God on the same level as subatomic particles is farcical.
There isn't just one ontological argument. As far as I'm aware, no one has trounced Plantinga's Modal version. Now, there are numerous other reasons to not believe in God's existence, but the ontological argument isn't as much of a laughingstock as many would like to believe
LoserForHireX on
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Besides the fact that you show zero understanding of how the ontological argument for the existence of god works
Nor is this a thread for discussing the ontological argument, so it's pretty out of line in the first place.
There are plenty of other ways to disprove the ontological argument. If you think this isn't the proper place to discuss it, then you shouldn't have brought it up twice in the last page to begin with.
Putting God on the same level as subatomic particles is farcical.
There isn't just one ontological argument. As far as I'm aware, no one has trounced Plantinga's Modal version. Now, there are numerous other reasons to not believe in God's existence, but the ontological argument isn't as much of a laughingstock as many would like to believe
There's the fact that it's based on ontology in the first place, which is not based on physical reality.
jothki on
0
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Besides the fact that you show zero understanding of how the ontological argument for the existence of god works
Nor is this a thread for discussing the ontological argument, so it's pretty out of line in the first place.
There are plenty of other ways to disprove the ontological argument. If you think this isn't the proper place to discuss it, then you shouldn't have brought it up twice in the last page to begin with.
Putting God on the same level as subatomic particles is farcical.
There isn't just one ontological argument. As far as I'm aware, no one has trounced Plantinga's Modal version. Now, there are numerous other reasons to not believe in God's existence, but the ontological argument isn't as much of a laughingstock as many would like to believe
There's the fact that it's based on ontology in the first place, which is not based on physical reality.
How is ontology not "based on physical reality? Ontology is primarily the philosophy of how things exist and how to discuss their Being. One of the major ways for things to exist is as physical matter.
If the metaphysical depends on the mental, then there is no real metaphysical realm at all, because that would mean that the metaphysical is not subsistent but rather dependent on the existence of the physical. Then it is not really metaphysical at all, but some sort of" Nietzchean return of the physical; i.e., metaphysics is the physical-world experienced as if it weren't the physical world, the physical world repeated but differed through thinking.
I have seen and experienced things so unbelievably fucked up (while completely sober) that I have no doubt in my mind that there is something more than what we can quantify or measure currently.
No, that opinion is stupid. If humans’ reaction to things we didn’t understand was always “Welp, it’s mysterious and unknowable, no use trying to explain it!”, we would still be at a Cro-Magnon level of understanding about the universe. You do realize that at one point we had no idea what the Moon was, right? I don’t think a giant glowing orb in the sky is really any less mysterious than an opaque black shadow-man you may or may not have seen in South Dakota (nothing personal, but this is an Internet forum, and you were posting in the equivalent of a thread for ghost stories). Let’s say that any of the half-dozen more prosaic explanations I can think of for a real subjective experience you remember aren’t true, and it really was something unexplainable within our current understanding of the world. So? You said it was opaque. That means it was blocking the photons coming from behind it. Meaning it clearly interacts with the physical world*. We should go find another one and throw x-rays at it, see if they’re absorbed or reflected. Find out how many of the things there are and where they’ve been sighted, etc. If your story is true and doesn’t have another explanation, you witnessed one of the most amazing events in modern history, a phenomena that can’t be explained by our (admittedly incomplete but still pretty comprehensive for most purposes) current scientific understanding, something which hasn’t happened much for decades, and then only in smaller ways, whereas this could open whole new realms of discovery. At yet the most you seem to do with that knowledge is occasionally post about it on the internet as an interesting anecdote.
* If you want to claim that it doesn’t interact with the physical world and the image was some kind of psychic projection into your mind, then we’re back to it being literally all in your head, and a whole host of more prosaic explanations.
Shit like this is what annoys me about the “supernatural”. First there’s the word itself, which is essentially meaningless in a rigorous sense. If something exists, then it’s a part of the natural world by definition, even if it’s a part we have no understanding of. If it doesn’t exist, I defy you to tell me how we can be aware of it or affected by it in any way.
Then there’s the complacency of people who believe this sort of thing. They always seem to either a) Have a Dark Ages mindset of actively not wanting to even try understanding said phenomena, presumably because they find some aesthetic value in ignorance, as you seem to (which I can somewhat empathize with as we are limited beings after all, and have evolved to accept a “good enough” knowledge of the world around us to enable survival, but it’s still not exactly endearing), or b) come up with their own, generally elaborate, explanations more or less out of thin air, and then defend them to the death despite the lack of any shred of evidence for their interpretations. Here’s the thing- I would love to be able to believe in ghosts, fairies, psychic phenomena, etc., because it would open up whole new avenues of understanding of the universe, I just have yet to see anything that implies they’re a worthwhile study as it relates to actual reality, rather than psychology and related cognitive sciences. The Randi Prize has gone unclaimed for decades. You’d think someone who knew how to demonstrate a good paranormal phenomena would have wanted a million dollars by now.
I think that sums up my personal beliefs pretty well, actually. I think things far outside our current understanding may exist, including beings we would consider a God or gods, and would regard it with great interest if they did, but don’t take it on faith that they do.
As for things beyond the physical observable universe existing, I would hope so, since this one is pretty much doomed to heat death as far as we can tell. I’d like to think our descendants could find a way to escape to different parts of a larger multiverse, or something along those lines, at some point in the future. But there’s no evidence it’s possible at present, and I’m not going to assume it is just because I want it to be. If other universes followed mathematically definable laws as ours seems to, I suppose you could consider them just extensions of our universe instead of something actually metaphysical, at which point I would have to refer back to my point about pointlessness of the term “supernatural”.
P.S. – syndalis, I’d like to hear about some of the other fucked up shit you’ve seen that relates to this topic, if you’re not too offended by my (I think reasonable) skepticism. I’m not being facetious, either. I’ve had some odd experiences myself, just nothing outside the realm of what can be reasonably explained by the limited consciousness we have of our own brains, along with random chance and our general tendency towards pattern-seeking.
EDIT: I'd also like to comment on some of the "definition of 'physical'" issues in the recent posts, but I'm about to get off work and have Christmassy stuff to do, so I'll have to come back later. Suffice it to say that there's nothing much like our conception of solid matter in modern quantum physics, so in a sense the mystics were right all along and this world is an illusion, just one less ineffable than they seem to like to think.
My metaphysical beliefs center around the idea of emergence—of simple phenomena combining and interacting over time to create new "levels" of complexity, like flocking behavior in birds.
I basically think that the entire universe can be explained by emergence. Every "level" of knowledge and experience seems to emerge from a more fundamental level. This is most obvious in biology, which clearly emerges from chemistry. Chemistry, in turn, emerges from the behavior of particles on the level of physics. Those particles themselves, I think, emerge from abstract mathematics.
Another metaphysical belief—the universe seems to have a "direction" towards the evolution of complexity. On the level of human experience, history also seems to have a "direction" towards greater equality and comfort. I agree with Robert Wright's idea that there's a fundamental mathematical basis for this—nonzero sum games are more profitible than zero-sum games.
My metaphysical beliefs center around the idea of emergence—of simple phenomena combining and interacting over time to create new "levels" of complexity, like flocking behavior in birds.
I basically think that the entire universe can be explained by emergence. Every "level" of knowledge and experience seems to emerge from a more fundamental level. This is most obvious in biology, which clearly emerges from chemistry. Chemistry, in turn, emerges from the behavior of particles on the level of physics. Those particles themselves, I think, emerge from abstract mathematics.
Another metaphysical belief—the universe seems to have a "direction" towards the evolution of complexity. On the level of human experience, history also seems to have a "direction" towards greater equality and comfort. I agree with Robert Wright's idea that there's a fundamental mathematical basis for this—nonzero sum games are more profitible than zero-sum games.
This sounds a lot like a term that came up when I was frantically trying to keep up with Podly's jargon using wikipedia: supervenience. Unfortunately, in part because I was learning about exciting things like supervenience, I never did get around to figuring out what the hell "ontical" means so I'm still left behind as far as that discussion goes. Off to remedy that I go.
EDIT: and regarding plantinga's shiny fucking ontological argument: somewhere in there, he's gonna talk about "maximal greatness." And yet no two humans can come to an agreement regarding just what "maximal greatness" (or maximal whateverthefuck) entails. Why is it that philosophy allows what I wouldn't let fly in a discussion of pop music? I can think of only one good reason to believe in an objective scale of greatness against which all beings, Beings, !beings, bing-bongs, thingamahoozits, and memes are judged, and that's believing in God in the first place.
I try to be damn near completely rational about things and I consider myself a pragmatic person. I judge things based on supporting evidence and practical application or utility, to certain degrees of course.
I do not believe in any sort of supreme being or the like, and if I were to lean in favor of something it would probably be a type of buddhistic system of reincarnation. It's hard to come to terms with what makes my consciousness MY consciousness, however, because if after reincarnation I'm no longer me in terms of how I think, it's near impossible for me to imagine that still being me.
That said, do I believe in ghosts, or something? I...honestly don't know. Yes, I know what my first paragraph says, but here's a little anecdote from someone who dismisses metaphysical anecdotes as readily as you lot do:
When I was 10-years-old I lived in foster care, and one of the girls at my school was having a birthday party. Her house was kind of secluded in the woods, with a small shack beside it that was now serving as a garage. We were all inside the house, when some kids decided to go outside in the dark and just run around the house, it was kind of spooky and we were all having fun.
It was around this time the birthday girl told us about their shack and how they used to own a bull that resided in there. The bull had been a weird one, easily startled and prone to short bursts of temper tantrums for apparently no reason. One day, the bull died and after an examination the veterinarian could not explain why. They had been taking good care of the bull and he had been deemed healthy several times before by the same veterinarian.
So, as kids we were obviously kinda frightened by her story and some go back inside, but the birthday girl laughs it off and says there is nothing to be afraid of, and she and her friend decides to call the rest of us chicken while walking up to the shack. At this point I was standing by the stairs to her house, there were lights around the house and shack so I had a very clear view of what happened next.
The friend of the birthday girl is laughing to herself as they move up to the shack and she starts opening the gate, which is the type that opens upwards.
She opens the gate until it is almost all the way up, and that piece of information is important: The gate was ABOVE HER, and then she screams. Her scream was one of those screams where halfway through it, you can hear the agony because her voice flutters into a deeper moan instead of a shrilling sound. I can explain this so clearly because I have replayed the situation in my mind a million times.
She passes out and falls over while the birthday girl starts screaming in fear and calls for help.
I ran inside at this point, scared out of my wits, calling for her mother to go outside and help them. It doesn't take long before parents arrive and start picking up their kids, and I leave without seeing either of the girls again.
After the weekend, I had thought about the entire situation so much that I had barely slept, and I had come to the conclusion that they had just tricked us and I was going to laugh it all off with them as a great prank. I arrive at school and I see the birthday girl and I am about to start laughing with her when I see her friend; her leg was in a cast. She had broken her damn leg, and she was waltzing around in crutches for six months after the incident. I will also note that she was the daughter of the swim coach, an awesome swimmer who was physically fit; she had no problems with her bones that we knew about.
I know what I saw that night, and there was nothing physical that hit her that any of us could see. There were lights around the shack, so the darkness was not the problem; there was nothing there.
I mean, three of my friends saw impossibly fast UFO's when they were drunk, and I will readily just ignore that as some kind of figment of their imagination or some type of phenomenon, but I cannot for the life of me figure out what happened to that girl on that night. The experience has been with me my entire life.
I'll admit that the definition of God is somewhat fluid, but the one quality a force must have in order to qualify as God is both a knowledge of and interest in human affairs. Accordingly, I feel the lack of evidence suggesting that there is such a force at work in our lives is the strongest argument against the existence of a God.
But in any case, I don't see how you can justify reducing the qualifications for the position of God to extraordinary strength and intelligence.
Why? If you met an omnipotent being who created the universe, but he didn't give two shits about humans, you wouldn't call him a god?
No, I wouldn't. The relationship between God and man is pretty important to the mythology of God. Without that relationship, you're left with an entirely different arrangement, and so you can't apply the name of God to that force without suggesting something entirely inaccurate about the force's role and motives.
Course, it's clear to me that your definition of God is simply an assessment of power that says nothing about how that power is used (above and beyond creating the universe, of course) and whether or not the possessor of that power demands or deserves our reverence and supplication.
Mythology doesn't matter. snip
No.
The ontological argument has been bullshit since it was invented. The easy-mode evidence is the fact that it can be just as easily be used to disprove of anything which you believe God to be. Just take the same God, then make another one who can cockpunch his omnipotence and is even more powerful.
No amount of imagination, wishing, or intellectual masturbation makes a difference when God doesn't exist outside of your mind.
Besides the fact that you show zero understanding of how the ontological argument for the existence of god works, and foreshadowed the fact that you might not understand how arguments work in general, you also show that you have no idea of reference works. If there does exist some all-powerful (omnipotent, omniscient, infinite, and omnipresent) Being, the term God would refer to him. If he doesn't have a personal relationship with humanity, so be it.
Nor is this a thread for discussing the ontological argument, so it's pretty out of line in the first place.
And you don't understand how language works. What you call "the term God" is a word. You don't get to decide what it means by yourself.
I mean, you can, but it makes for a lonely conversation.
Besides the fact that you show zero understanding of how the ontological argument for the existence of god works
Nor is this a thread for discussing the ontological argument, so it's pretty out of line in the first place.
There are plenty of other ways to disprove the ontological argument. If you think this isn't the proper place to discuss it, then you shouldn't have brought it up twice in the last page to begin with.
Putting God on the same level as subatomic particles is farcical.
There isn't just one ontological argument. As far as I'm aware, no one has trounced Plantinga's Modal version. Now, there are numerous other reasons to not believe in God's existence, but the ontological argument isn't as much of a laughingstock as many would like to believe
1) It is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2) It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a being that has maximal
greatness. (Premise)
3) Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
4) Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. (By S5)
5) Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
Let's see here:
A bullshit definition that comes up with an entirely anthropocentric definition of "greatness" and applies it to a non-human entity? Check.
A confusion of possibility and necessity? Check.
A perverse belief that a priori logic can dictate existence instead of the other way around? Check.
Conclusion: Using fancy modal logic does not alleviate the basic incoherences in the ontological argument.
As to my own metaphyiscal beliefs, I would echo what Qingu said, and put forward free will, consciousness, evolution, and other such emergent properties as metaphysical things that exist.
But classical metaphysics is pretty much bullshit.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
0
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
That's the old "it is greater to exist than not" argument I take it? Yeah, so any concept I assign the 'great' attribute to exists. Great demons, great daffodils, great big honking dicks.
Great philosophers? The hull of reality captain, she cannae take the strain.
Well, it's better than I thought at least, since it actually defines what is meant by maximal excellence, sort of. I'm willing to buy that 3,4,5 follow from 1&2, but I could dispute 1 if I were inclined ("actually, I think maximal excellence entails omnichewiness, omnimintiness, and omnisarcasm") and 2 has the same problem Anselm of Canterbury had with assuming the logical possibility of God (specifically, "maximal greatness is possibly exemplified"), which I am not willing to grant. I don't deny the possibility of maximal greatness, but I don't accept it as granted either.
And hell, since omnipotence, omniscience, and omnigoodness are right there in the first premise, I could even bring up the problem of evil just to be a douche.
So yeah, really really cool old idea with a nifty modal twist, but some fundamentally new, airtight form of the ontological argument it is not.
To paraphrase Carl Sagan, real science is more weird and screwed up and interesting than any sort of metaphysics. Of course this doesn't stop me from having some rather foolish and silly ideas on superstitions and ghosts.
Now for superstitions for the most part for me it is kissing the mizuzah on the door frame when I come home for luck or not breaking a mirror. I know neither of these things in the vast randomness of universe really affect anything but they do help me fill better. I think most superstition falls under the making one feel better.
Now on the ghost thing, I have had a few strange experiences in my life. The thing is I know sleep paralysis and most of these things don't fall under that category. Some of the experiences I know are just me starting REM sleep while still slightly awake so I ignore those as well. Now the strangest experience I had was a dream in which I say a friend's friend who killed herself long before I know this friend. I didn't even know her name just that my friend was one of the last people to talk to her before she did it. I described the girl who killed herself down to the clothing she was wearing that day perfectly to him after the dream. He never told me this information. Now we were roommates, it could be possible he described it to someone else while I was sleeping and I picked up the information or something like that but he says he never did.
In general strange things happen, they probably can be explained using the laws of physics somehow and we just haven't gotten there yet. Like my theory on ghost just follows the energy that makes up our consciousness has to go somewhere. And if it ends up moving into the surroundings or attaching itself to something you have a ghost. Though for the most part it probably just changes to potential energy that gets eaten by worms but it is the best theory I have for it.
Now on some of the new age stuff like crystal crap and such. I figure that is probably crap. And it is hard for me to believe in alien abductions because why would a species so advance they can break/bend the laws of physics as we know them come to our backwater planet and put anal probes in hicks from Mississippi? Seems kind of stupid to me.
I personally believe that the entire universe is merely a simulation running in God's imagination. God designed it and influenced its beginnings and is now just letting it run, waiting to see if/when we will become little gods ourselves. I also think this is congruent with the biblical concepts of God "being in all things" and of man being created in God's image. Obviously "in God's image" doesn't mean that God had two feet and two arms and a head with eyes and all that shit. It means that man was created with God-like tendencies; mainly curiosity and the desire to create. But I guess that's a whole separate thread, so yeah... simulation.
Edit: I don't have wide knowledge of philosophy but I'm curious if there's something close to my beliefs and what it's called.
I'm way too rational to have metaphysical beliefs.
This is basically me as well.
Only problem with this is that rationality itself is a sort of metaphysical attribute; it doesn't really mean anything in the "objective" physical universe.
I'm way too rational to have metaphysical beliefs.
Some of the brightest people in history still had some. Look at Einstein. But of course intelligence doesn't always mean rationality.
I bet you have a couple you don't even realize just because they seem normal or part of culture you got from your parents type of thing.
There are several metaphysical claims(in the sense already discussed at page one) I agree with and try to support in a discussion(all formed well past my teen years after trying to get the maximum possible information on the subjects), but no, I like to hope that I don't hold a single belief associated with the pop culture use of the word. You could always be right and I could be forgetting something.
I'm way too rational to have metaphysical beliefs.
This is basically me as well.
Only problem with this is that rationality itself is a sort of metaphysical attribute; it doesn't really mean anything in the "objective" physical universe.
What does that mean? The word doesn't have a definition?
In the 2 million years humans have been walking upright there hasn't been one observable phenomenon that could not eventually be explained through science. I have no reason to doubt that will change anytime soon.
1) It is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2) It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a being that has maximal
greatness. (Premise)
3) Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
4) Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. (By S5)
5) Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
Let's see here:
A bullshit definition that comes up with an entirely anthropocentric definition of "greatness" and applies it to a non-human entity? Check.
A confusion of possibility and necessity? Check.
A perverse belief that a priori logic can dictate existence instead of the other way around? Check.
Conclusion: Using fancy modal logic does not alleviate the basic incoherences in the ontological argument.
As to my own metaphyiscal beliefs, I would echo what Qingu said, and put forward free will, consciousness, evolution, and other such emergent properties as metaphysical things that exist.
But classical metaphysics is pretty much bullshit.
Now, I'm not prepared in any way to defend Plantinga. Now, I'm going to come right out an say that you probably don't understand modality and God as much as Plantinga does. Hell, I don't either, so it's not a crime or anything. I just think that saying that someone who devotes their life to a certain pursuit and is very well educated in it, and who is generally by the academic community to have created a "victorious" argument probably knows what they're talking about.
LoserForHireX on
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
The cold, suffocating dark goes on forever, and we are alone. Live our lives, lacking anything better to do. Devise reason later. Born from oblivion; bear children, hell-bound as ourselves; go into oblivion. There is nothing else.
Existence is random. Has no pattern, save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose.
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It's us. Only us.
Let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch. He's a prankster. Think about it. He gives man... instincts! He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do, I swear, for His own amusement, His own private, cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time. Look, but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, don't swallow. And while you're jumpin' from one foot to the next, what is He doing? He's laughin' His sick, fuckin' ass off. He's a tight-ass. He's a sadist. He's an absentee landlord! Worship that? Never.
If our society seems more nihilistic than that of previous eras, perhaps this is simply a sign of our maturity as a sentient species. As our collective consciousness expands beyond a crucial point, we are at last ready to accept life's fundamental truth: that life's only purpose is life itself.
If you are pained by external things, it is not they that disturb you, but your own judgment of them. And it is in your power to wipe out that judgment now.
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
I became much happier once I grew comfortable with my cognitive dissonance.
Salvation122 on
0
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
I just think that saying that someone who devotes their life to a certain pursuit and is very well educated in it, and who is generally by the academic community to have created a "victorious" argument probably knows what they're talking about.
If this sentence is true, self-referential logic is wrong.
Now, I'm not prepared in any way to defend Plantinga. Now, I'm going to come right out an say that you probably don't understand modality and God as much as Plantinga does. Hell, I don't either, so it's not a crime or anything. I just think that saying that someone who devotes their life to a certain pursuit and is very well educated in it, and who is generally by the academic community to have created a "victorious" argument probably knows what they're talking about.
Which part of the academic community considers this to be "victorious"?
Now, I'm not prepared in any way to defend Plantinga. Now, I'm going to come right out an say that you probably don't understand modality and God as much as Plantinga does. Hell, I don't either, so it's not a crime or anything. I just think that saying that someone who devotes their life to a certain pursuit and is very well educated in it, and who is generally by the academic community to have created a "victorious" argument probably knows what they're talking about.
You say this as though you expect me to have any respect for the academic community, where in "academic community" is probably best read as "a bunch of analytic philosophers".
Also, from Wikipedia: "This argument has two controversial premises: The axiom S5 and the "possibility premise" that a maximally great being is possible. The more controversial of these two is the "possibility premise" since S5 is widely (though not universally) accepted. "
If it's controversial that clearly means that not everyone agrees with it.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I'm way too rational to have metaphysical beliefs.
This is basically me as well.
Only problem with this is that rationality itself is a sort of metaphysical attribute; it doesn't really mean anything in the "objective" physical universe.
What does that mean? The word doesn't have a definition?
In the 2 million years humans have been walking upright there hasn't been one observable phenomenon that could not eventually be explained through science. I have no reason to doubt that will change anytime soon.
I'm trying to say something more basic than that. What you call being "explained through science" is a physical process that just happens, just as being "explained by God's will" is. Calling it anything more than that (or indeed that, since the idea of a "physical process" is itself an abstraction) is metaphysics.
1) It is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2) It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a being that has maximal
greatness. (Premise)
3) Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
4) Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. (By S5)
5) Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
Let's see here:
A bullshit definition that comes up with an entirely anthropocentric definition of "greatness" and applies it to a non-human entity? Check.
A confusion of possibility and necessity? Check.
A perverse belief that a priori logic can dictate existence instead of the other way around? Check.
Conclusion: Using fancy modal logic does not alleviate the basic incoherences in the ontological argument.
As to my own metaphyiscal beliefs, I would echo what Qingu said, and put forward free will, consciousness, evolution, and other such emergent properties as metaphysical things that exist.
But classical metaphysics is pretty much bullshit.
Now, I'm not prepared in any way to defend Plantinga. Now, I'm going to come right out an say that you probably don't understand modality and God as much as Plantinga does. Hell, I don't either, so it's not a crime or anything. I just think that saying that someone who devotes their life to a certain pursuit and is very well educated in it, and who is generally by the academic community to have created a "victorious" argument probably knows what they're talking about.
Our verdict on these reformulated versions of St. Anselm's argument must be as follows. They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion. But since it is rational to accept their central premise, they do show that it is rational to accept that conclusion.
In other words, Plantinga's ontological argument doesn't show that God exists, it shows that we have justification for believing God exists. It's dishonest to believe we should believe in God's existence but not actually believe in Him, so then we should actually believe in Him. Arguments of this sort are not uncommon in ontological disputes about abstract objects, for example.
Now, I'm not prepared in any way to defend Plantinga. Now, I'm going to come right out an say that you probably don't understand modality and God as much as Plantinga does. Hell, I don't either, so it's not a crime or anything. I just think that saying that someone who devotes their life to a certain pursuit and is very well educated in it, and who is generally by the academic community to have created a "victorious" argument probably knows what they're talking about.
I don't want to sound like an ignorant twat but the ontological argument (no matter how it is couched) is, seemingly, founded on defining god as something that exists and then going "Tada, god exists". I've never seen it as a tricky arguement to spot flaws in.
1) The perfect ham sandwich is tasty, moist and well seasoned.
2) The perfect ham sandwich is exactly the right size for how hungry I am feeling right now.
3) Something is perfect if it exists.
4) A ham sandwich is perfect if is right in front of me.
There is no ham sandwich in front of me. Shit, something's fucked there then.
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
edited December 2009
HamHamJ, it's very, VERY evident that you have no training in modal logic. For starters, that S5 is contested is not the formal inference itself -- if you accept modal logic, you accept S5. The contest comes from people like Quine and his ilk who reject modal logic as a whole. As for the "possibility" of there being a "maximally possible being," unless you can show how that is IMPOSSIBLE, then it is possible necessarily. So you can reject Plantinga's argument, but you'd have to reject modal logic as well.
As for your continental argument -- Plantinga teaches at Notre Dame, which is packed with mostly teachers of the history of philosophy, mathematical platonists, but it is overwhelmingly analytic. The debate as a whole takes place in the analytic departments. You won't see many continental philosophers talking about modal logic. I really don't understand why you partake in so many philosophy discussions without ever once furthering your understanding of the subject.
Bethryn: "great," in classical metaphysics, is not really a value claim. Great is generally a lazy use of the term "perfect," which, in philosophical discourse, means complete. God is perfect because he cannot be incomplete -- there is nowhere that God cannot be, and there is nothing about God that could be changed. It's hard to really talk about daffodils in such a way unless we want to say that there is some sort of essence about daffodils.
Mike: I'll try and address that tomorrow and make a coherent post for you.
Alistar: that isn't how the predication works: for P1 to work, the perfect ham sandwhich must be the only thing which is tasty, moist, and well seasoned.
I'm down with the idea of things that we currently think of as metaphysical (say, ghosts, psychic powers, etc) being real, but having entirely "material" explanations that are simply beyond our current capacity to measure or understand.
I wouldn't say I believe in these things so much as acknowledge the possibility of them...and think it more likely that such things would have a natural explanation if they do exist, even if we don't know what it is yet.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that the "being" proposed in any ontological argument is a god, either a specific deity like Yahweh or in any sense the word is traditionally used (i.e. as a being with an interest in human history or morality).
HamHamJ, it's very, VERY evident that you have no training in modal logic. For starters, that S5 is contested is not the formal inference itself -- if you accept modal logic, you accept S5. The contest comes from people like Quine and his ilk who reject modal logic as a whole. As for the "possibility" of there being a "maximally possible being," unless you can show how that is IMPOSSIBLE, then it is possible necessarily. So you can reject Plantinga's argument, but you'd have to reject modal logic as well.
Shit, I'll do that. All things which have not been demonstrated impossible are not possible. Consider them rejected.
Bethryn: "great," in classical metaphysics, is not really a value claim. Great is generally a lazy use of the term "perfect," which, in philosophical discourse, means complete. God is perfect because he cannot be incomplete -- there is nowhere that God cannot be, and there is nothing about God that could be changed. It's hard to really talk about daffodils in such a way unless we want to say that there is some sort of essence about daffodils.
You only get to say that if you can say why omnibenevolence is part of perfection while omnimalevolence is not without using a value judgement.
Alistar: that isn't how the predication works: for P1 to work, the perfect ham sandwhich must be the only thing which is tasty, moist, and well seasoned.
Now you're just being deliberately obtuse. The perfect ham sandwich is the only ham sandwich which is as tasty, moist and well-seasoned as the perfect ham sandwich. Unless you're now going to argue that God is the only entity which is powerful, knowing, and good, I don't see how this helps you out.
Posts
No.
The ontological argument has been bullshit since it was invented. The easy-mode evidence is the fact that it can be just as easily be used to disprove of anything which you believe God to be. Just take the same God, then make another one who can cockpunch his omnipotence and is even more powerful.
No amount of imagination, wishing, or intellectual masturbation makes a difference when God doesn't exist outside of your mind.
Search me. What am I, a physicist?
I don't understand how or why cause and effect works. I don't understand what matter is or where it comes from. I understand a very limited scope of knowledge that will most likely one day be proven false.
So why would I bother having strong believes about the construction of the universe? For all I know it's being dreamed by a giant.
Wow! You've figured out the incoherency in Plantinga's Modal Ontological Argument? You've dealt handily with Godel Ontological Argument?
There have been ontological arguments since Descartes and St. Anselm's failures. In fact, I don't think anyone have demonstrated any fault with Plantinga's argument yet. I don't really know a damn thing about Godel's.
EDIT: Totally not a theist.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Besides the fact that you show zero understanding of how the ontological argument for the existence of god works, and foreshadowed the fact that you might not understand how arguments work in general, you also show that you have no idea of reference works. If there does exist some all-powerful (omnipotent, omniscient, infinite, and omnipresent) Being, the term God would refer to him. If he doesn't have a personal relationship with humanity, so be it.
Nor is this a thread for discussing the ontological argument, so it's pretty out of line in the first place.
Certainly seems like there is, doesn't it?
There are plenty of other ways to disprove the ontological argument. If you think this isn't the proper place to discuss it, then you shouldn't have brought it up twice in the last page to begin with.
Putting God on the same level as subatomic particles is farcical.
This seems fragmented to me. By it's very inception as ta meta ta physica (that which is over the physical), metaphysical "being" is not dependent on the physical being of beings. So, no, it doesn't depend on whether there's a mental realm. For instance, if numbers are actually platonic entities, then "five" exists independently of any physical manifestation of "five" as a particular. Likewise, the law of the excluded middle holds "exists" even if there is nothing physical to demonstrate its existence.
If the metaphysical depends on the mental, then there is no real metaphysical realm at all, because that would mean that the metaphysical is not subsistent but rather dependent on the existence of the physical. Then it is not really metaphysical at all, but some sort of" Nietzchean return of the physical; i.e., metaphysics is the physical-world experienced as if it weren't the physical world, the physical world repeated but differed through thinking.
There isn't just one ontological argument. As far as I'm aware, no one has trounced Plantinga's Modal version. Now, there are numerous other reasons to not believe in God's existence, but the ontological argument isn't as much of a laughingstock as many would like to believe
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
There's the fact that it's based on ontology in the first place, which is not based on physical reality.
How is ontology not "based on physical reality? Ontology is primarily the philosophy of how things exist and how to discuss their Being. One of the major ways for things to exist is as physical matter.
No, that opinion is stupid. If humans’ reaction to things we didn’t understand was always “Welp, it’s mysterious and unknowable, no use trying to explain it!”, we would still be at a Cro-Magnon level of understanding about the universe. You do realize that at one point we had no idea what the Moon was, right? I don’t think a giant glowing orb in the sky is really any less mysterious than an opaque black shadow-man you may or may not have seen in South Dakota (nothing personal, but this is an Internet forum, and you were posting in the equivalent of a thread for ghost stories). Let’s say that any of the half-dozen more prosaic explanations I can think of for a real subjective experience you remember aren’t true, and it really was something unexplainable within our current understanding of the world. So? You said it was opaque. That means it was blocking the photons coming from behind it. Meaning it clearly interacts with the physical world*. We should go find another one and throw x-rays at it, see if they’re absorbed or reflected. Find out how many of the things there are and where they’ve been sighted, etc. If your story is true and doesn’t have another explanation, you witnessed one of the most amazing events in modern history, a phenomena that can’t be explained by our (admittedly incomplete but still pretty comprehensive for most purposes) current scientific understanding, something which hasn’t happened much for decades, and then only in smaller ways, whereas this could open whole new realms of discovery. At yet the most you seem to do with that knowledge is occasionally post about it on the internet as an interesting anecdote.
* If you want to claim that it doesn’t interact with the physical world and the image was some kind of psychic projection into your mind, then we’re back to it being literally all in your head, and a whole host of more prosaic explanations.
Shit like this is what annoys me about the “supernatural”. First there’s the word itself, which is essentially meaningless in a rigorous sense. If something exists, then it’s a part of the natural world by definition, even if it’s a part we have no understanding of. If it doesn’t exist, I defy you to tell me how we can be aware of it or affected by it in any way.
Then there’s the complacency of people who believe this sort of thing. They always seem to either a) Have a Dark Ages mindset of actively not wanting to even try understanding said phenomena, presumably because they find some aesthetic value in ignorance, as you seem to (which I can somewhat empathize with as we are limited beings after all, and have evolved to accept a “good enough” knowledge of the world around us to enable survival, but it’s still not exactly endearing), or b) come up with their own, generally elaborate, explanations more or less out of thin air, and then defend them to the death despite the lack of any shred of evidence for their interpretations. Here’s the thing- I would love to be able to believe in ghosts, fairies, psychic phenomena, etc., because it would open up whole new avenues of understanding of the universe, I just have yet to see anything that implies they’re a worthwhile study as it relates to actual reality, rather than psychology and related cognitive sciences. The Randi Prize has gone unclaimed for decades. You’d think someone who knew how to demonstrate a good paranormal phenomena would have wanted a million dollars by now.
I think that sums up my personal beliefs pretty well, actually. I think things far outside our current understanding may exist, including beings we would consider a God or gods, and would regard it with great interest if they did, but don’t take it on faith that they do.
As for things beyond the physical observable universe existing, I would hope so, since this one is pretty much doomed to heat death as far as we can tell. I’d like to think our descendants could find a way to escape to different parts of a larger multiverse, or something along those lines, at some point in the future. But there’s no evidence it’s possible at present, and I’m not going to assume it is just because I want it to be. If other universes followed mathematically definable laws as ours seems to, I suppose you could consider them just extensions of our universe instead of something actually metaphysical, at which point I would have to refer back to my point about pointlessness of the term “supernatural”.
P.S. – syndalis, I’d like to hear about some of the other fucked up shit you’ve seen that relates to this topic, if you’re not too offended by my (I think reasonable) skepticism. I’m not being facetious, either. I’ve had some odd experiences myself, just nothing outside the realm of what can be reasonably explained by the limited consciousness we have of our own brains, along with random chance and our general tendency towards pattern-seeking.
EDIT: I'd also like to comment on some of the "definition of 'physical'" issues in the recent posts, but I'm about to get off work and have Christmassy stuff to do, so I'll have to come back later. Suffice it to say that there's nothing much like our conception of solid matter in modern quantum physics, so in a sense the mystics were right all along and this world is an illusion, just one less ineffable than they seem to like to think.
I basically think that the entire universe can be explained by emergence. Every "level" of knowledge and experience seems to emerge from a more fundamental level. This is most obvious in biology, which clearly emerges from chemistry. Chemistry, in turn, emerges from the behavior of particles on the level of physics. Those particles themselves, I think, emerge from abstract mathematics.
Another metaphysical belief—the universe seems to have a "direction" towards the evolution of complexity. On the level of human experience, history also seems to have a "direction" towards greater equality and comfort. I agree with Robert Wright's idea that there's a fundamental mathematical basis for this—nonzero sum games are more profitible than zero-sum games.
This sounds a lot like a term that came up when I was frantically trying to keep up with Podly's jargon using wikipedia: supervenience. Unfortunately, in part because I was learning about exciting things like supervenience, I never did get around to figuring out what the hell "ontical" means so I'm still left behind as far as that discussion goes. Off to remedy that I go.
EDIT: and regarding plantinga's shiny fucking ontological argument: somewhere in there, he's gonna talk about "maximal greatness." And yet no two humans can come to an agreement regarding just what "maximal greatness" (or maximal whateverthefuck) entails. Why is it that philosophy allows what I wouldn't let fly in a discussion of pop music? I can think of only one good reason to believe in an objective scale of greatness against which all beings, Beings, !beings, bing-bongs, thingamahoozits, and memes are judged, and that's believing in God in the first place.
I do not believe in any sort of supreme being or the like, and if I were to lean in favor of something it would probably be a type of buddhistic system of reincarnation. It's hard to come to terms with what makes my consciousness MY consciousness, however, because if after reincarnation I'm no longer me in terms of how I think, it's near impossible for me to imagine that still being me.
That said, do I believe in ghosts, or something? I...honestly don't know. Yes, I know what my first paragraph says, but here's a little anecdote from someone who dismisses metaphysical anecdotes as readily as you lot do:
It was around this time the birthday girl told us about their shack and how they used to own a bull that resided in there. The bull had been a weird one, easily startled and prone to short bursts of temper tantrums for apparently no reason. One day, the bull died and after an examination the veterinarian could not explain why. They had been taking good care of the bull and he had been deemed healthy several times before by the same veterinarian.
So, as kids we were obviously kinda frightened by her story and some go back inside, but the birthday girl laughs it off and says there is nothing to be afraid of, and she and her friend decides to call the rest of us chicken while walking up to the shack. At this point I was standing by the stairs to her house, there were lights around the house and shack so I had a very clear view of what happened next.
The friend of the birthday girl is laughing to herself as they move up to the shack and she starts opening the gate, which is the type that opens upwards.
She opens the gate until it is almost all the way up, and that piece of information is important: The gate was ABOVE HER, and then she screams. Her scream was one of those screams where halfway through it, you can hear the agony because her voice flutters into a deeper moan instead of a shrilling sound. I can explain this so clearly because I have replayed the situation in my mind a million times.
She passes out and falls over while the birthday girl starts screaming in fear and calls for help.
I ran inside at this point, scared out of my wits, calling for her mother to go outside and help them. It doesn't take long before parents arrive and start picking up their kids, and I leave without seeing either of the girls again.
After the weekend, I had thought about the entire situation so much that I had barely slept, and I had come to the conclusion that they had just tricked us and I was going to laugh it all off with them as a great prank. I arrive at school and I see the birthday girl and I am about to start laughing with her when I see her friend; her leg was in a cast. She had broken her damn leg, and she was waltzing around in crutches for six months after the incident. I will also note that she was the daughter of the swim coach, an awesome swimmer who was physically fit; she had no problems with her bones that we knew about.
I know what I saw that night, and there was nothing physical that hit her that any of us could see. There were lights around the shack, so the darkness was not the problem; there was nothing there.
I mean, three of my friends saw impossibly fast UFO's when they were drunk, and I will readily just ignore that as some kind of figment of their imagination or some type of phenomenon, but I cannot for the life of me figure out what happened to that girl on that night. The experience has been with me my entire life.
And you don't understand how language works. What you call "the term God" is a word. You don't get to decide what it means by yourself.
I mean, you can, but it makes for a lonely conversation.
1) It is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2) It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a being that has maximal
greatness. (Premise)
3) Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
4) Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. (By S5)
5) Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
Let's see here:
A bullshit definition that comes up with an entirely anthropocentric definition of "greatness" and applies it to a non-human entity? Check.
A confusion of possibility and necessity? Check.
A perverse belief that a priori logic can dictate existence instead of the other way around? Check.
Conclusion: Using fancy modal logic does not alleviate the basic incoherences in the ontological argument.
As to my own metaphyiscal beliefs, I would echo what Qingu said, and put forward free will, consciousness, evolution, and other such emergent properties as metaphysical things that exist.
But classical metaphysics is pretty much bullshit.
Great philosophers? The hull of reality captain, she cannae take the strain.
And hell, since omnipotence, omniscience, and omnigoodness are right there in the first premise, I could even bring up the problem of evil just to be a douche.
So yeah, really really cool old idea with a nifty modal twist, but some fundamentally new, airtight form of the ontological argument it is not.
Now for superstitions for the most part for me it is kissing the mizuzah on the door frame when I come home for luck or not breaking a mirror. I know neither of these things in the vast randomness of universe really affect anything but they do help me fill better. I think most superstition falls under the making one feel better.
Now on the ghost thing, I have had a few strange experiences in my life. The thing is I know sleep paralysis and most of these things don't fall under that category. Some of the experiences I know are just me starting REM sleep while still slightly awake so I ignore those as well. Now the strangest experience I had was a dream in which I say a friend's friend who killed herself long before I know this friend. I didn't even know her name just that my friend was one of the last people to talk to her before she did it. I described the girl who killed herself down to the clothing she was wearing that day perfectly to him after the dream. He never told me this information. Now we were roommates, it could be possible he described it to someone else while I was sleeping and I picked up the information or something like that but he says he never did.
In general strange things happen, they probably can be explained using the laws of physics somehow and we just haven't gotten there yet. Like my theory on ghost just follows the energy that makes up our consciousness has to go somewhere. And if it ends up moving into the surroundings or attaching itself to something you have a ghost. Though for the most part it probably just changes to potential energy that gets eaten by worms but it is the best theory I have for it.
Now on some of the new age stuff like crystal crap and such. I figure that is probably crap. And it is hard for me to believe in alien abductions because why would a species so advance they can break/bend the laws of physics as we know them come to our backwater planet and put anal probes in hicks from Mississippi? Seems kind of stupid to me.
This is basically me as well.
Some of the brightest people in history still had some. Look at Einstein. But of course intelligence doesn't always mean rationality.
I bet you have a couple you don't even realize just because they seem normal or part of culture you got from your parents type of thing.
Perhaps, but if they were brought to my attention I'd probably try to re-assess them.
Edit: I don't have wide knowledge of philosophy but I'm curious if there's something close to my beliefs and what it's called.
Only problem with this is that rationality itself is a sort of metaphysical attribute; it doesn't really mean anything in the "objective" physical universe.
There are several metaphysical claims(in the sense already discussed at page one) I agree with and try to support in a discussion(all formed well past my teen years after trying to get the maximum possible information on the subjects), but no, I like to hope that I don't hold a single belief associated with the pop culture use of the word. You could always be right and I could be forgetting something.
What does that mean? The word doesn't have a definition?
In the 2 million years humans have been walking upright there hasn't been one observable phenomenon that could not eventually be explained through science. I have no reason to doubt that will change anytime soon.
Now, I'm not prepared in any way to defend Plantinga. Now, I'm going to come right out an say that you probably don't understand modality and God as much as Plantinga does. Hell, I don't either, so it's not a crime or anything. I just think that saying that someone who devotes their life to a certain pursuit and is very well educated in it, and who is generally by the academic community to have created a "victorious" argument probably knows what they're talking about.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
I'm also Catholic, so:
I became much happier once I grew comfortable with my cognitive dissonance.
Have fun with that one.
You say this as though you expect me to have any respect for the academic community, where in "academic community" is probably best read as "a bunch of analytic philosophers".
Also, from Wikipedia: "This argument has two controversial premises: The axiom S5 and the "possibility premise" that a maximally great being is possible. The more controversial of these two is the "possibility premise" since S5 is widely (though not universally) accepted. "
If it's controversial that clearly means that not everyone agrees with it.
I'm trying to say something more basic than that. What you call being "explained through science" is a physical process that just happens, just as being "explained by God's will" is. Calling it anything more than that (or indeed that, since the idea of a "physical process" is itself an abstraction) is metaphysics.
I don't want to sound like an ignorant twat but the ontological argument (no matter how it is couched) is, seemingly, founded on defining god as something that exists and then going "Tada, god exists". I've never seen it as a tricky arguement to spot flaws in.
1) The perfect ham sandwich is tasty, moist and well seasoned.
2) The perfect ham sandwich is exactly the right size for how hungry I am feeling right now.
3) Something is perfect if it exists.
4) A ham sandwich is perfect if is right in front of me.
There is no ham sandwich in front of me. Shit, something's fucked there then.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
As for your continental argument -- Plantinga teaches at Notre Dame, which is packed with mostly teachers of the history of philosophy, mathematical platonists, but it is overwhelmingly analytic. The debate as a whole takes place in the analytic departments. You won't see many continental philosophers talking about modal logic. I really don't understand why you partake in so many philosophy discussions without ever once furthering your understanding of the subject.
Bethryn: "great," in classical metaphysics, is not really a value claim. Great is generally a lazy use of the term "perfect," which, in philosophical discourse, means complete. God is perfect because he cannot be incomplete -- there is nowhere that God cannot be, and there is nothing about God that could be changed. It's hard to really talk about daffodils in such a way unless we want to say that there is some sort of essence about daffodils.
Mike: I'll try and address that tomorrow and make a coherent post for you.
Alistar: that isn't how the predication works: for P1 to work, the perfect ham sandwhich must be the only thing which is tasty, moist, and well seasoned.
I wouldn't say I believe in these things so much as acknowledge the possibility of them...and think it more likely that such things would have a natural explanation if they do exist, even if we don't know what it is yet.
It is altogether semantic wankery.
Shit, I'll do that. All things which have not been demonstrated impossible are not possible. Consider them rejected.
You only get to say that if you can say why omnibenevolence is part of perfection while omnimalevolence is not without using a value judgement.
Now you're just being deliberately obtuse. The perfect ham sandwich is the only ham sandwich which is as tasty, moist and well-seasoned as the perfect ham sandwich. Unless you're now going to argue that God is the only entity which is powerful, knowing, and good, I don't see how this helps you out.
Oh, and what Qingu said.