Scientific Conclusions

[_Some Schmo]

Also, I do think there is some irony in Stak telling others they need to work on their humility.

What you call irony I call hypocrisy.

But then, I'm just a simpleton. It makes me easily entertained.

[_Sethbag]

Ok. Thanks for your explanation. I'd like to respond, and see how you respond to it.

If people don't actually argue that an ontological argument proves that God really must exist, then I concede that my argument against it is off the mark.

If they do, however, argue that an ontological argument proves that God really must exist, then I think I have a fair point. They are trying to prove that God exists, by first asserting a definition of God that depends in part on God's actual existence. Since that is what the argument is intended to prove, however, I argue that this is in fact begging the question. Where am I off the mark? Is it my statement that a given definition of God depends at least in part on God's actual existence?

[_Sethbag]

Let me give an example of this, to see if I'm thinking clearly about this or not.

1. God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2. We can imagine God existing.
3. A being which actually exists is greater than a being which is merely imagined to.
4. God's non-existence implies a logical contradiction, because we can conceive of a God who exists, and we would therefor be conceiving of a being greater than God, if God only existed in our imaginations.
5. Therefor, God must exist.

The whole argument depends on the definition step 1 being accurate. But we just make this up - no physical evidence from the universe implies it. We could only verify this if God actually existed, and could be examined to see if the definition fits. The asserted definition in step 1 actually assumes the real existence of God, in order to be a definition that is consonant with reality.

I did some more reading on this, and it appears Kant specifically criticized the logic in my step 3, saying that existence cannot be asserted to be "greater" than non-existence. I am curious why Kant would accept the definition in step 1 to begin with. Is it possible that he overlooked that simply because he was raised on a conception of God that made this definition seem natural and obvious, and easy to overlook?

[_EAllusion]

Is it my statement that a given definition of God depends at least in part on God's actual existence?

Yes. If you develop this thought, I think you'll get to Kant's existence is not a (real) predicate objection. But that's not quite the same thing.

[_Sethbag]

What you are doing is assuming that an argument for something's existence can only be derived a posteriori, probably because you take that for granted. That's what's driving your thinking. What ontological arguments do is say that an object defined in a particular way (God in this case) logically must exist if you think about it correctly. It's an a priori argument.

I wanted to make sure I did my due diligence here, so to make sure I was understanding you correctly, I read up again on a posteriori and a priori arguments, and I agree with you that you have probably correctly identified the true gist of my argument.

If I'm understanding correctly, I would probably agree that one cannot prove that a being such as God must exist based on a priori arguments. How this ties in here is that the definition of God given in step 1 of Anselm's ontological argument is one I would argue we cannot know without first God's actual existence, and secondly some kind of verification that the definition does in fact match God's nature. We cannot "just know" that this definition of God is accurate - we would have to "do something" to show it, or God would have to do something, but either way, something would have to be done. That it hasn't been done, and the definition yet been asserted, renders the argument invalid.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Also, I do think there is some irony in Stak telling others they need to work on their humility.

It would be an irony if there was a thread up right now, where I was calling Brant Gardner’s work all sorts of unflattering terms while getting basic facts about Mesoamerican archeology ass backwards.

I’m not telling you to be nice, I’m telling you to not get basic facts ass backwards.

[_Sethbag]

I thought you were talking about me, but apparently not then. I haven't said jack about Brant's work, and I admit I'm no expert in mesoamerican archeology, and have never claimed otherwise. Well, that's a relief.

[_Some Schmo]

Also, I do think there is some irony in Stak telling others they need to work on their humility.

It would be an irony if there was a thread up right now, where I was calling Brant Gardner’s work all sorts of unflattering terms while getting basic facts about Mesoamerican archeology ass backwards.

I’m not telling you to be nice, I’m telling you to not get basic facts ass backwards.

So what you're really saying is that you've had your hand up your ass so long, you don't even feel it any more. Sure, sometimes you absentmindedly pull it out, hold it up to your nose and take a deep breath because you're just so damn pleased with yourself, but for the most part, sticking it your hole helps fill the emotional one you're sporting, the one that causes your need for people to be impressed by your regurgitation of last night's reading assignment.

I see.

[_Hoops]

So what you're really saying is that you've had your hand up your ass so long, you don't even feel it any more. Sure, sometimes you absentmindedly pull it out, hold it up to your nose and take a deep breath because you're just so damn pleased with yourself, but for the most part, sticking it your hole helps fill the emotional one you're sporting, the one that causes your need for people to be impressed by your regurgitation of last night's reading assignment.

I see.

And what you're really saying is that Stak so completely outpaces your ability to follow an argument that your only recourse is to behave like a foul, disgusting, teeny tiny pig.

[_marg]

So, when all is said and done, is this really all about the imprecision of the wording of my assertion, as marg has suggested?

Marg is...well....Marg.

The way you worded things is fine, but the issue is the role of evidence in deciding which theory to take over others. Any theory you craft can be mirrored to produce 10+ theories of equal evidentiary value.

As you may have noticed beefcalf, there was nothing wrong with your statement and despite Stak going on about "Any theory you craft can be mirrored to produce 10+ theories of equal evidentiary value" that only applied to philosophical word games and not to your statement which was about how science operates.