ontological win

Post Reply New Topic

Imagine the most delicious food possible that is next to you.

Food that exists is more delicious than food that doesn't exist.

Food that is next to you is more next to you than food that isn't next to you.

You are next to the most delicious possible food.

Enjoy.

That is certainly food for thought.

....

/cringe

I am not sure if that works as an ontological argument.(regardless of whether ontological arguments work)

1) The idea that the most delicious food possible next to you can be conceived
2) Food that exists is more delicious than non-existent food
3) Food that is close to you is closer than food that isn't close to you.
4) You are next to the most delicious possible food.

There is nothing connecting the notions together.

This argument, while perhaps wrong somewhere, is connected within it:

1. God is something of which nothing greater can be thought.
2. God may exist in the understanding.
3. It is greater to exist in reality and in the understanding than just in understanding.
4. Therefore, God exists in reality

God is the greatest thing, we know that God exists in the understanding, it is greater the exist in reality than just to exist in the understanding, therefore if God, the greatest thing, exists, then God must exist in reality rather than just the understanding.

I swear I had to break my mind just to get this argument though. It really doesn't make much sense, and I figure that you are attempting a Gaunillo's island objection, but stronger ones exist. Including one arguing for an evil God.

Nah, I just want to materialise food and also have it next to me.

And it worked.

Here you go:

[Image removed, disruption of page format - M.]

TallyMan, that is epic...

But seriously, I can make real physical objects materialise next to me using pseudo ontological arguments.

Anyone care to argue otherwise?

Language emerged due to sociological pressures. Applying logic to something does not make it objective, it must already be objective in the first place. Some part of our language resemble objective things. These examples do not.

This is not an objective statement except as a tautology: "God is something of which nothing greater can be thought". This is not particularly relevant. Assuming there is a God then this statement seems true but so would so many other statements about God. Unless you can manifest the truth of those other statements then you only have a tautology, that you have not invoked any normal notion of God but only that the greatest thing that can be thought will exist in reality. The ontological argument would then work like this

There is something of which nothing greater can be thought.
That something of which nothing greater can be though may exist in the understanding.
It is greater to exist in reality and in the understanding than just in understanding.
Therefore, the greatest thing of which nothing greater can be thought exists in reality

Any claim about God beyond being something of which nothing greater can be thought, such as a physical existence, creating the universe, intelligence, anything at all, none of those other things go through on this argument.

As for the food example, I can just posit that 500 miles away is more delicious than the food next to me because the level to which I believe something exists is not connected to how close it is to me. You show that real food is more delicious than food I imagine, even if I have a slice of bread next to me and I imagine a feast. However, that feast could have a real existence, even if I am only able to imagine it. You've only shown real food is more delicious than imaginary food, not that the entire existence of real food is constrained by my proximity.

Well, you don't have an argument, so what am I arguing against?

Think I spotted your difficulty right away:

1) Imagine the most delicious food possible that is next to you.
2) Food that exists is more delicious than food that doesn't exist.
3) Food that is next to you is more next to you than food that isn't next to you.
4) You are next to the most delicious possible food.

2) negates 1), perhaps in an apples to oranges way; most delicious theoretically possible - real food is more delicious, negates that the imagined food can be delicious unless its factored in that your speaking about completely different universes, theory and reality, neither of which are joined through the later arguments but just run on side by side.

the jump from 3) to 4) bears no concern for what's closest to you - whether that's PF Chang's, Red Robin, or a plate of cold haggis. Closest proximity is a variable absolutely independent of the logic argument which is nothing more than a stack of words on a website. Some could debate that there are some kinds of food to where eating nothing at all would be much more savory or simply imagining that you're eating your favorite thing done right.


For what its worth, even if that fell apart in my hands like mummy wrappings - you still succeeded in making me hungry.

There is no way to make Anselm's proof, prove anything. It is utter nonsense.

ruveyn

I guess I should show two of Russel's paradoxes...

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspa ... ogic01.htm

-Print this out.
-Put on the wall of a weight watchers meeting room.
-Ruin lives.