#124817 - 09/30/05 06:14 PM
Re: Ontological Arguments
[Re: LordMoloch]
|
<B>CoS Member</B>
Registered: 04/16/05
Posts: 888
Loc: UK
|
It's fairly simple - the ontological argument can prove anything, and therefore proves nothing. It's a word game.
1.I define a blubble-blib as a perfect, all-powerful monkey
2.To exist is more perfect than non-existence
3.Therefore, by definition a blubble-blib must exist
4.HAIL THE MONKEY!
_________________________
Yes, I named myself after a neurotransmitter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#124818 - 09/30/05 06:15 PM
Re: Ontological Arguments
[Re: LordMoloch]
|
CoS Reverend
Registered: 07/28/01
Posts: 11183
Loc: New England, USA
|
>>Satanists have a tendency to value reason and logic very
>>highly. I know I do.
I do too, being the math nut that I am. However, unlike your garden-variety atheist, I don't treat logic itself as infalliable dogma and the only way of learning about the world. Ultimately it's just ONE way of finding answers and working with the world. I do hold much disgust for pseudo-science, and people who fall back on solipsism arguments ("Well we're not 100% sure about anything, so the moon is equally likely to be made of green cheese as it is to be made of rock"). But I don't dismiss each and every metaphysical concept as having no merit. If logic contradicts reality, reality wins.
As for the ol' Ontological Argument (which I've known as basically the following: "There are two types of God: one that exists and one that doesn't. God is defined as the most perfect being, therefore he has to be the first type."), I think Immanual Kant pretty much shot that one down. You can use the same logic to prove the existence of the unicorn, defined as a "most perfect" horse.
I have two main problems with arguments like this. First, if Xtians assume that knowing God has to come through "faith", then what use would they have for constructing any logical arguments? Seems to me that the only people who feel the need to push these are those whose faith is questionable to begin with.
Second of all, even if the existence of "God" could be logically proven, it would still beg the question of whether there's more than one, whether this deity is omnipotent, omnipresent, and other external things that people associate, how to go about worshipping it (Is only one sect correct? Who? How?), which in turn begs the question of whether such a deity would demand worship in the first place, etc.
So in short, I find ontological arguments, as well as any other logical argument that attempts to prove God's existence, not only fallacious, but inapplicable.
_________________________
Reverend Bill M. http://www.devilsmischief.com: Carnal Comedy Clips, Netherworld Novelty Numbers, New hour every week. Download the mp3 now! http://www.aplaceformystuff.org: Tales of Combat Clutter and other Adventures (Wenn du Google's Übersetzer verwendest, um diese Worte zu lesen, dann bist du ein Arschloch.)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#124819 - 09/30/05 06:24 PM
Re: Ontological Arguments
[Re: Bill_M]
|
<B>CoS Member</B>
Registered: 04/16/05
Posts: 888
Loc: UK
|
Your post made me think of Plato's "unmoved mover" - an unconcious entity with several of the same traits as the monotheistic god. Many rely too much on arguments which prove the possibility of a god, but don't specify any other traits other than simple existence. For example: the "first cause" argument, if correct, simply proves that there is a first cause. This first cause does not have to be a concious entity.
And of course, there's the problem of homo-centricity: man tries to make god concerned with himself so god takes on the traits of being "all loving" etc.
I'm preaching to the converted a bit here so i'll stop.
_________________________
Yes, I named myself after a neurotransmitter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#124821 - 09/30/05 07:02 PM
Re: Ontological Arguments
[Re: Quaark]
|
<B>CoS Member</B>
Registered: 04/16/05
Posts: 888
Loc: UK
|
Strange, I thought god preferred coke to pepsi, and a nice bowl of pasta with pesto and garlic sauce topped with parmesan cheese. mmmmmmmm Yes, I do prefer that actually 
_________________________
Yes, I named myself after a neurotransmitter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#124824 - 10/01/05 02:47 AM
Re: Ontological Arguments
[Re: Cholinergic]
|
CoS Member
Registered: 01/29/04
Posts: 396
Loc: Hungary
|
Quote:
2.To exist is more perfect than non-existence
Or, if you ask a Buddhist, the ultimate perfection is non-existence. 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#124826 - 10/01/05 07:52 AM
Re: Ontological Arguments
[Re: Quaark]
|
CoS Priest
Registered: 08/06/01
Posts: 2108
Loc: Florida
|
I know God exists.
I'm watching him type.Sounds kind of like my response when asked if I believed in God once. "Of course! I saw him in the mirror this morning, brushing his teeth." But that god prefers Dr. Pepper. 
_________________________
Everyone is special in their own way, and by "special" I mean the short-bus variety.
"Recognize the phrase 'national interest' as a synonym for 'self-interest' and you will find no moral obstacle that cannot be removed from the highway of ambition."
-Lewis Lapham
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#124828 - 10/01/05 10:05 AM
Re: Ontological Arguments
[Re: LordMoloch]
|
CoS Warlock
Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 7140
Loc: Canada
|
Immanuel Kant, although a Christian himself, answered the Ontological Argument in his book, Critique of Pure Reason. Kant points out that the argument makes an illegal operation from a hypothetical to an assertive statement. Kant said that all this argument proves, is that IF there were a perfect transcendental being, THEN it would necessarily exist. But that doesn't tell us whether such a being actually exists.
Kant also points out that any argument for an all-inclusive being must presuppose an inductive synthesis, which we can't perform. In other words, a "being of all beings" presupposes being able to include all beings under one concept, when we can never experience all beings or have the time to synthesize them fully. I don't know how I feel about this argument, since inductive reasoning of this sort seems to apply to math quite effectively, so why not metaphysics? But I'll be thinking about this problem this semester; ask me again in December!
_________________________
reprobate
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#124829 - 10/01/05 10:36 AM
The Lord hath spoken...
[Re: Roho_the_Rooster]
|
CoS Member
Registered: 07/15/05
Posts: 784
Loc: SinCity
|
Quote:
I am confused...I thought the big thing around here was chocolate.
Now I have to decide between Coke and Pepsi?
Hmmm...but the third way could be Dr. Pepper.
Sir Rooster, your confusion is understandable, and your intention to seek truth is praiseworthy. But the answer is clear, as Witch LKRice suggested, for the Lord of Coke and Hot Dogs hath spoken:
Quote:
I am the Lord, thy Dog. Thou shalt have no other 96 oz Coke Cups before me. - Pronouns, 11:58
Through the ages, wicked sophists have argued that so long as one uses a Coke cup, one may pour into that cup any preferred beverage, whether it be Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, 7-Up, or even, dare I say, Country Time lemonade.
Do not be misled!
Those deceived by the sophists' alluring speech have, inevitably, suffered great harm. The Lord's promises are not idle:
Quote:
I am the Lord of Coke and Hot Dogs...
and I will haunt your DREAMS!
For your sake!
For the Lord's sake!
For the sake of a good night's rest!
Drink Coke!!!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#124833 - 10/01/05 02:30 PM
Re: Ontological Arguments
[Re: Barb]
|
Registered: 07/22/05
Posts: 238
Loc: Scotland
|
Quote:
Quote:
Now I have to decide between Coke and Pepsi?
Hmmm...but the third way could be Dr. Pepper.
I like either Mountain Dew or root beer.
Its aaaaaaaaaaall about root beer. But remember, the cool kids slip a little JD in there too...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#124834 - 10/01/05 02:40 PM
Re: The Lord hath spoken...
[Re: Quaark]
|
CoS Warlock
Registered: 03/10/05
Posts: 6968
Loc: Eremitica
|
Quote:
Mr. Lynch and The Lord go way back.
It shows in Lynch's very clear plot developments, and strong grip on reality.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#124836 - 10/01/05 02:43 PM
Re: Ontological Arguments
[Re: BlameMe]
|
CoS Warlock
Registered: 03/10/05
Posts: 6968
Loc: Eremitica
|
Quote:
But remember, the cool kids slip a little JD in there too...
True...but the kids with class pass it all up for Tanqueray on the rocks.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#124837 - 10/01/05 03:42 PM
The Lord's pourings
[Re: Roho_the_Rooster]
|
CoS Member
Registered: 07/15/05
Posts: 784
Loc: SinCity
|
Dear Rooster, Warlock Daark is quite right about the nature of the Lord’s dream-hauntings: Quote:
The dreams are directed by David Lynch.
But there is another aspect of the hauntings to consider, an aspect I think you know intuitively. As you questioned:
Quote:
If the Lord of Coke and Hot Dogs invades my dreams...what are we talking about? Mildly annoying dreams, terrifying dreams, or, since a beverage is involved, a not so dry dream?
Definitely a not so dry dream.
However, this may not mean what you think. Do not celebrate too quickly. Though from your avatar I see that you don pampers and are, to some degree, protected, please understand that down below you have two holes out of which wetness may pour. Sometimes the pouring fourth is pleasurable and great fun. But sometimes the pouring flows from the other place. And this experience is neither pleasurable nor fun.
Which pouring might the Lord smite thee with?
Again, I think intuitively you know the answer.
DarkWater
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#124838 - 10/01/05 03:49 PM
Re: Ontological Arguments
[Re: LordMoloch]
|
CoS Magister
Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 12460
Loc: Florida, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
Satanists have a tendency to value reason and logic very highly. I know I do. I have my own answer to this question based on modern logic sequences and the way in which we deal with if-then statements . I am posting to get a response from others. I was wondering how a Satanist (and I am particularly interested in the opinions of those who are members and hold offices in the COS) would respond to the Ontological Argument for the existence of God. Mainly referring to St. Anselm (1066 A.D.) and Descartes. I will not go into detail about their arguments, if you don't know them then please learn about them prior to posting a response. Please note that this is not an attack, simply a question concerning a logical argument.
The bottom line is that you cannot argue or define something into existence.
_________________________
Live and Let Die."If I have to choose between defending the wolf or the dog, I choose the wolf, especially when he is bleeding." -- Jaques Verges "I may have my faults, but being wrong ain't one of them." -- Jimmy Hoffa "As for wars, well, there's only been 268 years out of the last 3421 in which there were no wars. So war, too, is in the normal course of events." -- Will Durant. "Satanism is the worship of life, not a hypocritical, whitewashed vision of life, but life as it really is." -- Anton Szandor LaVey “A membership ticket in this party does not confer genius on the holder.” -- Benito Mussolini MY BOOK: ESSAYS IN SATANISM | MY BLOG: COSMODROMIUM | Deep Satanism Blog
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#124839 - 10/01/05 03:50 PM
Re: Ontological Arguments
[Re: Roho_the_Rooster]
|
Registered: 07/22/05
Posts: 238
Loc: Scotland
|
Quote:
Quote:
But remember, the cool kids slip a little JD in there too...
True...but the kids with class pass it all up for Tanqueray on the rocks.
you shut your dirty, whorish, lying mouth!!! Jack Daniels has class! IT DOES IT DOES IT DOEEEEEEEESSSSS!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#124840 - 10/01/05 09:31 PM
Re: Ontological Arguments
[Re: BlameMe]
|
CoS Warlock
Registered: 03/10/05
Posts: 6968
Loc: Eremitica
|
Quote:
you shut your dirty, whorish, lying mouth!!! Jack Daniels has class! IT DOES IT DOES IT DOEEEEEEEESSSSS!
You found me out...I do like Jack Daniels. I have also been known to drink Old Crow. But...Dirty...Whorish...Why the compliments...Thank you! 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#124841 - 10/01/05 09:35 PM
Re: The Lord's pourings
[Re: DarkWater]
|
CoS Warlock
Registered: 03/10/05
Posts: 6968
Loc: Eremitica
|
Quote:
Which pouring might the Lord smite thee with?
Again, I think intuitively you know the answer.
Oh...shit.
That's my answer, not an expletive.
You are right about David Lynch. I drank Pepsi last week. That night, I had a dream. It ended with small person talking backwards.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#124843 - 10/05/05 03:48 PM
Re: The Lord hath spoken...
[Re: DarkWater]
|
CoS Reverend
Registered: 07/28/01
Posts: 11183
Loc: New England, USA
|
>> for the Lord of Coke and Hot Dogs hath spoken: Thank you for spreading the word. 
_________________________
Reverend Bill M. http://www.devilsmischief.com: Carnal Comedy Clips, Netherworld Novelty Numbers, New hour every week. Download the mp3 now! http://www.aplaceformystuff.org: Tales of Combat Clutter and other Adventures (Wenn du Google's Übersetzer verwendest, um diese Worte zu lesen, dann bist du ein Arschloch.)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#124844 - 10/10/05 03:47 PM
Re: Ontological Arguments
[Re: LordMoloch]
|
Registered: 04/19/05
Posts: 63
Loc: Chicago
|
I studied this argument in some detail back in philosophy school. It is often presented in introductory philosophy or logic courses as an easy example of a bad argument, but in my advanced metaphysics course, we spent some time exploring exactly what is wrong with it. The standard criticisms of it--proves too much, not specific to God, existence not a predicate--seem sound, but it still has its fans. The philosopher Alvin Plantinga developed a version of it that used techniques of modal logic to go from possibly being necessary to being necessarily actual, and got into one of the national news magazines in the 1970s for having proved the existence of God. No firm result lasts long in philosophy, but Plantinga's work is probably the most sophisticated variant of the ontological argument, so if you're interested in it, you might enjoy grappling with his writings. I could never get myself to take it seriously because of my strong presumption against conclusions in favor of spirit-beings, and I'm especially sympathetic to the "proves too much" class of objections (isn't the Easter Bunny a rabbit than which none greater can be conceived?).
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#124845 - 10/10/05 03:51 PM
Re: Ontological Arguments
[Re: Helian]
|
CoS Magister
Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 12460
Loc: Florida, U.S.A.
|
There are even pseudo-satanic cultniks who have presented ontological arguments for the existence of "Satan."
_________________________
Live and Let Die."If I have to choose between defending the wolf or the dog, I choose the wolf, especially when he is bleeding." -- Jaques Verges "I may have my faults, but being wrong ain't one of them." -- Jimmy Hoffa "As for wars, well, there's only been 268 years out of the last 3421 in which there were no wars. So war, too, is in the normal course of events." -- Will Durant. "Satanism is the worship of life, not a hypocritical, whitewashed vision of life, but life as it really is." -- Anton Szandor LaVey “A membership ticket in this party does not confer genius on the holder.” -- Benito Mussolini MY BOOK: ESSAYS IN SATANISM | MY BLOG: COSMODROMIUM | Deep Satanism Blog
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#124846 - 10/10/05 05:28 PM
Re: Ontological Arguments
[Re: Svengali]
|
Registered: 09/29/05
Posts: 100
Loc: A nordic place draped in snow
|
I was certainly smiling with your reply above, but now I'm laughing.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index
