Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Philosophical Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rarebird who wrote (174)	8/7/2005 2:00:21 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26251

Whether you realize it or not, you are affirming existence as an attribute or quality of "the idea of perfection". Since no human is perfect, you are making a statement about the subject, God, in the premise, "there exists the idea of perfection". Thus, your argument is invalid. Since no human is perfect, you are making a statement about the subject, God, in the premise, "there exists the idea of perfection". "Since no human is perfect" is true (and I would agree with it) would only mean that you are making an argument about something other than a human. It doesn't automatically refer to God. And the premise itself is only that the idea of perfection exists, not that there actually is a perfect being. In the premise "there exists the idea of perfection", there is no statement about a perfect being existing. You are mixing up the two arguments, the Ontological Argument for the existence of God with the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God. I've been talking about the same argument, in the same form from the beginning. I am not mixing anything up. PS I would appreciate it if you would try providing reasons for some of your arguments rather than just stating, "it simply doesn't do that" or it "does not equal there exists a perfect being". What matters here primarily is the quality of the dialogue. 1 - I have provided plenty of reason. I have more than once, shown the form of the argument in question, and the form of a somewhat similar argument that actually would be affirming the consequent and shown how they don't match. 2 - If you say 2+2 equals 5, or "The US army is currently invading Mars", I don't see why I should be expected to prove that it isn't the case. The form of the argument is not one of affirming the consequent. That's a simple and direct fact, and not much more complex than simple arithmetic. "There exists the idea of perfection" , does not equal "there exists a perfect being". That fact is simple and straightforward. It would be both difficult and fairly useless to explain it, just as it might be difficult and would probably be useless to try to explain to someone that 2+2 doesn't equal 5 but in fact equals 4. If I was primarily dicussing the wider issue of something like "Are either Ontological Argument for the existence of God or the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God convincing?", or the even wider issue "Does God exist?", than I would have to either just assert personal belief, or lack their of, or develop a more complex argument that would might include both induction and deduction. But I am not discussing those wider issues, merely pointing out that the Ontological argument has a valid form. I am not saying it is convincing. I am not defending either its premises or its conclusion. Perhaps you consider discussions about the forms of arugments, low quality dialogue, compared to discussion about the issues behind the arguments? I'm not sure. Tim