(no subject)
Dec. 28th, 2018 12:39 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
feotakahari I just got linked to a list of seven different kinds of ontological argument for the existence of God. This is glorious, and I intend to spend a lot of time going through it. Preliminary thoughts from the initial list:
A): My previous post about the failure of the ontological argument was intended against type 2, but it's easiest to understand in reference to type 4. Rather than saying "the F G is F," it makes more sense to say "any F G that exists is F," e.g. "any pink poodle that exists is a poodle." This does not automatically prove that there exists a pink poodle! Thus, rather than "the existent God exists," it is true and trivial that "any existent God exists." I think variants 1, 2, 4, and 7 are related in some fashion, such that they're all making this switch from "any" to "the" while cloaking it in different terminology.
B): Variant 5 is basically just this:
C): Variant 6 sounds like it's touching upon some form of set theory. This isn't a field with which I'm familiar, unfortunately. I'm aware that if you have a set that contains all numbers, then by definition, any given number will be contained in the set. But if you have a given number, then does that prove the existence of a set that contains all numbers?
D): Variant 6 is proposing a very different God from variant 7. A God that exists as the sum of all things within the universe is not an omnibenevolent God, since it includes things within the universe that are not benevolent.
E): I straight-up don't understand what variant 3 is trying to do. This doesn't make sense to me at all.
A): My previous post about the failure of the ontological argument was intended against type 2, but it's easiest to understand in reference to type 4. Rather than saying "the F G is F," it makes more sense to say "any F G that exists is F," e.g. "any pink poodle that exists is a poodle." This does not automatically prove that there exists a pink poodle! Thus, rather than "the existent God exists," it is true and trivial that "any existent God exists." I think variants 1, 2, 4, and 7 are related in some fashion, such that they're all making this switch from "any" to "the" while cloaking it in different terminology.
B): Variant 5 is basically just this:
C): Variant 6 sounds like it's touching upon some form of set theory. This isn't a field with which I'm familiar, unfortunately. I'm aware that if you have a set that contains all numbers, then by definition, any given number will be contained in the set. But if you have a given number, then does that prove the existence of a set that contains all numbers?
D): Variant 6 is proposing a very different God from variant 7. A God that exists as the sum of all things within the universe is not an omnibenevolent God, since it includes things within the universe that are not benevolent.
E): I straight-up don't understand what variant 3 is trying to do. This doesn't make sense to me at all.
no subject
Date: 2018-12-28 04:52 pm (UTC)This is usually used in cases where current physics have errors or blank spots that haven't been figured out, which people see as proof of the possibility of God, and thus proof of the necessity of God for the universe to function.
Since God is necessary for the universe to function, and the universe is functioning, God must exist.
no subject
Date: 2018-12-28 08:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-12-28 09:54 pm (UTC)