Talk:1505: Ontological Argument - Revision history

162.158.74.68 at 21:27, 2 January 2025

2025-01-02T21:27:37Z

162.158.172.170 at 21:06, 2 January 2025

2025-01-02T21:06:18Z

172.71.130.142 at 12:43, 29 November 2024

2024-11-29T12:43:11Z

172.69.68.70 at 11:27, 29 November 2024

2024-11-29T11:27:43Z

172.69.68.71: Fixed "whats"

2024-11-29T11:26:22Z

Fixed "whats"

172.69.68.70 at 11:22, 29 November 2024

2024-11-29T11:22:12Z

162.158.33.253 at 12:54, 24 November 2024

2024-11-24T12:54:38Z

172.69.222.164 at 07:47, 24 November 2024

2024-11-24T07:47:29Z

172.69.222.164 at 07:45, 24 November 2024

2024-11-24T07:45:18Z

Stardragon: comment

2022-04-06T23:50:50Z

comment

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:27, 2 January 2025
Line 54:		Line 54:
	:: "things ''which'' can be conceived", "those ''which'' can't be conceived" [[Special:Contributions/172.71.130.142\|172.71.130.142]] 12:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)		:: "things ''which'' can be conceived", "those ''which'' can't be conceived" [[Special:Contributions/172.71.130.142\|172.71.130.142]] 12:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
	::: So, what is correct writing? Is it this: God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". "Things what can be conceived" ("Conceivable") are subset of bigger group, "All things, including those what can't be conceived". The Great Unconceivable One is "that than which nothing greater can or could exist, regardless of whether it's conceivable". Since "conceivable" group is subset of (smaller than and included in) "everything including non-conceivable", '''The Great Unconceivable One is greater than God'''.. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.172.170\|162.158.172.170]] 21:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)		::: So, what is correct writing? Is it this: God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". "Things what can be conceived" ("Conceivable") are subset of bigger group, "All things, including those what can't be conceived". The Great Unconceivable One is "that than which nothing greater can or could exist, regardless of whether it's conceivable". Since "conceivable" group is subset of (smaller than and included in) "everything including non-conceivable", '''The Great Unconceivable One is greater than God'''.. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.172.170\|162.158.172.170]] 21:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
		+	:::: Grammar in such as "{{w\|The Play What I Wrote}}" is ''deliberately'' bad. If that 'what' you wrote is ok in your dialect, then use it there, but it's certifiably wrong in more general use and learning to code-switch might help you in the wider world. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.68\|162.158.74.68]] 21:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:06, 2 January 2025
Line 53:		Line 53:
	: Shorter version: God is "(t/w)hat than which nothing greater can be conceived". "Things what can be conceived" ("Conceivable") are subset of bigger group, "All things, including those what can't be conceived". The Great Unconceivable One is "(t/w)hat than which nothing greater can or could exist, regardless of whether it's conceivable". Since "conceivable" group is subset of (smaller than and included in) "everything including non-conceivable", '''The Great Unconceivable One is greater than God'''. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.70\|172.69.68.70]] 11:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)		: Shorter version: God is "(t/w)hat than which nothing greater can be conceived". "Things what can be conceived" ("Conceivable") are subset of bigger group, "All things, including those what can't be conceived". The Great Unconceivable One is "(t/w)hat than which nothing greater can or could exist, regardless of whether it's conceivable". Since "conceivable" group is subset of (smaller than and included in) "everything including non-conceivable", '''The Great Unconceivable One is greater than God'''. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.70\|172.69.68.70]] 11:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
	:: "things ''which'' can be conceived", "those ''which'' can't be conceived" [[Special:Contributions/172.71.130.142\|172.71.130.142]] 12:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)		:: "things ''which'' can be conceived", "those ''which'' can't be conceived" [[Special:Contributions/172.71.130.142\|172.71.130.142]] 12:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
		+	::: So, what is correct writing? Is it this: God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". "Things what can be conceived" ("Conceivable") are subset of bigger group, "All things, including those what can't be conceived". The Great Unconceivable One is "that than which nothing greater can or could exist, regardless of whether it's conceivable". Since "conceivable" group is subset of (smaller than and included in) "everything including non-conceivable", '''The Great Unconceivable One is greater than God'''.. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.172.170\|162.158.172.170]] 21:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:43, 29 November 2024
Line 52:		Line 52:
	:(I have no problem with your argument, generally, but the multiple use of severl "what"s, instead of "that"s, might be something that you want to resist doing that. Fitting in with your local dialect or idiolect is fine, whether you be {{w\|Just William\|William Brown}} or from the various council estates of East London, but learn {{w\|Code-switching}} and represent yourself (and your philosophy) better. Just a friendly tip. You might already know this, of course, but on the off-chance that you're not deliberately adopting a patois feel...) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.33.253\|162.158.33.253]] 12:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)		:(I have no problem with your argument, generally, but the multiple use of severl "what"s, instead of "that"s, might be something that you want to resist doing that. Fitting in with your local dialect or idiolect is fine, whether you be {{w\|Just William\|William Brown}} or from the various council estates of East London, but learn {{w\|Code-switching}} and represent yourself (and your philosophy) better. Just a friendly tip. You might already know this, of course, but on the off-chance that you're not deliberately adopting a patois feel...) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.33.253\|162.158.33.253]] 12:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
	: Shorter version: God is "(t/w)hat than which nothing greater can be conceived". "Things what can be conceived" ("Conceivable") are subset of bigger group, "All things, including those what can't be conceived". The Great Unconceivable One is "(t/w)hat than which nothing greater can or could exist, regardless of whether it's conceivable". Since "conceivable" group is subset of (smaller than and included in) "everything including non-conceivable", '''The Great Unconceivable One is greater than God'''. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.70\|172.69.68.70]] 11:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)		: Shorter version: God is "(t/w)hat than which nothing greater can be conceived". "Things what can be conceived" ("Conceivable") are subset of bigger group, "All things, including those what can't be conceived". The Great Unconceivable One is "(t/w)hat than which nothing greater can or could exist, regardless of whether it's conceivable". Since "conceivable" group is subset of (smaller than and included in) "everything including non-conceivable", '''The Great Unconceivable One is greater than God'''. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.70\|172.69.68.70]] 11:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
		+	:: "things ''which'' can be conceived", "those ''which'' can't be conceived" [[Special:Contributions/172.71.130.142\|172.71.130.142]] 12:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 "Beings what can be conceived" are subset of greater category - "All things, including those what humans can't conceive". Therefore, let's say what God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Then, let's say we have The Great Unconceivable One, "that than which nothing greater can or could exist, regardless of whether it's conceivable". Basically, The Great Unconceivable One is eldrich being of such power, what only God himself can merely '''conceive''' The Great Unconceivable One, and what '''even God can't match the The Great Unconceivable One in power'''. That would make The Great Unconceivable One greater than God. And then, we would have infinite recursion - next in line is The Greater Unconceivable One, what only The Great Unconceivable One can conceive - then even more eldrich and powerful things. At the "top" of said infinite line of increasingly powerful beings would be '''The Greatest Unconceivable One''', the greatest of them all. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.222.164|172.69.222.164]] 07:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
 :(I have no problem with your argument, generally, but the multiple use of severl "what"s, instead of "that"s, might be something that you want to resist doing that. Fitting in with your local dialect or idiolect is fine, whether you be {{w|Just William|William Brown}} or from the various council estates of East London, but learn {{w|Code-switching}} and represent yourself (and your philosophy) better. Just a friendly tip. You might already know this, of course, but on the off-chance that you're not deliberately adopting a patois feel...) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.33.253|162.158.33.253]] 12:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
-: Shorter version: God is "what than which nothing greater can be conceived". "Things what can be conceived" ("Conceivable") are subset of bigger group, "All things, including those what can't be conceived". The Great Unconceivable One is "what than which nothing greater can or could exist, regardless of whether it's conceivable". Since "conceivable" group is subset of (smaller than and included in) "everything including non-conceivable", '''The Great Unconceivable One is greater than God'''. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.70|172.69.68.70]] 11:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
+: Shorter version: God is "(t/w)hat than which nothing greater can be conceived". "Things what can be conceived" ("Conceivable") are subset of bigger group, "All things, including those what can't be conceived". The Great Unconceivable One is "(t/w)hat than which nothing greater can or could exist, regardless of whether it's conceivable". Since "conceivable" group is subset of (smaller than and included in) "everything including non-conceivable", '''The Great Unconceivable One is greater than God'''. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.70|172.69.68.70]] 11:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 "Beings what can be conceived" are subset of greater category - "All things, including those what humans can't conceive". Therefore, let's say what God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Then, let's say we have The Great Unconceivable One, "that than which nothing greater can or could exist, regardless of whether it's conceivable". Basically, The Great Unconceivable One is eldrich being of such power, what only God himself can merely '''conceive''' The Great Unconceivable One, and what '''even God can't match the The Great Unconceivable One in power'''. That would make The Great Unconceivable One greater than God. And then, we would have infinite recursion - next in line is The Greater Unconceivable One, what only The Great Unconceivable One can conceive - then even more eldrich and powerful things. At the "top" of said infinite line of increasingly powerful beings would be '''The Greatest Unconceivable One''', the greatest of them all. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.222.164|172.69.222.164]] 07:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
 :(I have no problem with your argument, generally, but the multiple use of severl "what"s, instead of "that"s, might be something that you want to resist doing that. Fitting in with your local dialect or idiolect is fine, whether you be {{w|Just William|William Brown}} or from the various council estates of East London, but learn {{w|Code-switching}} and represent yourself (and your philosophy) better. Just a friendly tip. You might already know this, of course, but on the off-chance that you're not deliberately adopting a patois feel...) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.33.253|162.158.33.253]] 12:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
-: Shorter version: God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". "Things what can be conceived" ("Conceivable") are subset of bigger group, "All things, including those what can't be conceived". The Great Unconceivable One is "that than which nothing greater can or could exist, regardless of whether it's conceivable". Since "conceivable" group is subset of (smaller than and included in) "everything including non-conceivable", '''The Great Unconceivable One is greater than God'''. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.70|172.69.68.70]] 11:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
+: Shorter version: God is "what than which nothing greater can be conceived". "Things what can be conceived" ("Conceivable") are subset of bigger group, "All things, including those what can't be conceived". The Great Unconceivable One is "what than which nothing greater can or could exist, regardless of whether it's conceivable". Since "conceivable" group is subset of (smaller than and included in) "everything including non-conceivable", '''The Great Unconceivable One is greater than God'''. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.70|172.69.68.70]] 11:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:22, 29 November 2024
Line 51:		Line 51:
	"Beings what can be conceived" are subset of greater category - "All things, including those what humans can't conceive". Therefore, let's say what God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Then, let's say we have The Great Unconceivable One, "that than which nothing greater can or could exist, regardless of whether it's conceivable". Basically, The Great Unconceivable One is eldrich being of such power, what only God himself can merely '''conceive''' The Great Unconceivable One, and what '''even God can't match the The Great Unconceivable One in power'''. That would make The Great Unconceivable One greater than God. And then, we would have infinite recursion - next in line is The Greater Unconceivable One, what only The Great Unconceivable One can conceive - then even more eldrich and powerful things. At the "top" of said infinite line of increasingly powerful beings would be '''The Greatest Unconceivable One''', the greatest of them all. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.222.164\|172.69.222.164]] 07:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)		"Beings what can be conceived" are subset of greater category - "All things, including those what humans can't conceive". Therefore, let's say what God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Then, let's say we have The Great Unconceivable One, "that than which nothing greater can or could exist, regardless of whether it's conceivable". Basically, The Great Unconceivable One is eldrich being of such power, what only God himself can merely '''conceive''' The Great Unconceivable One, and what '''even God can't match the The Great Unconceivable One in power'''. That would make The Great Unconceivable One greater than God. And then, we would have infinite recursion - next in line is The Greater Unconceivable One, what only The Great Unconceivable One can conceive - then even more eldrich and powerful things. At the "top" of said infinite line of increasingly powerful beings would be '''The Greatest Unconceivable One''', the greatest of them all. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.222.164\|172.69.222.164]] 07:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
	:(I have no problem with your argument, generally, but the multiple use of severl "what"s, instead of "that"s, might be something that you want to resist doing that. Fitting in with your local dialect or idiolect is fine, whether you be {{w\|Just William\|William Brown}} or from the various council estates of East London, but learn {{w\|Code-switching}} and represent yourself (and your philosophy) better. Just a friendly tip. You might already know this, of course, but on the off-chance that you're not deliberately adopting a patois feel...) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.33.253\|162.158.33.253]] 12:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)		:(I have no problem with your argument, generally, but the multiple use of severl "what"s, instead of "that"s, might be something that you want to resist doing that. Fitting in with your local dialect or idiolect is fine, whether you be {{w\|Just William\|William Brown}} or from the various council estates of East London, but learn {{w\|Code-switching}} and represent yourself (and your philosophy) better. Just a friendly tip. You might already know this, of course, but on the off-chance that you're not deliberately adopting a patois feel...) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.33.253\|162.158.33.253]] 12:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
		+	: Shorter version: God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". "Things what can be conceived" ("Conceivable") are subset of bigger group, "All things, including those what can't be conceived". The Great Unconceivable One is "that than which nothing greater can or could exist, regardless of whether it's conceivable". Since "conceivable" group is subset of (smaller than and included in) "everything including non-conceivable", '''The Great Unconceivable One is greater than God'''. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.70\|172.69.68.70]] 11:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:54, 24 November 2024
Line 50:		Line 50:

	"Beings what can be conceived" are subset of greater category - "All things, including those what humans can't conceive". Therefore, let's say what God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Then, let's say we have The Great Unconceivable One, "that than which nothing greater can or could exist, regardless of whether it's conceivable". Basically, The Great Unconceivable One is eldrich being of such power, what only God himself can merely '''conceive''' The Great Unconceivable One, and what '''even God can't match the The Great Unconceivable One in power'''. That would make The Great Unconceivable One greater than God. And then, we would have infinite recursion - next in line is The Greater Unconceivable One, what only The Great Unconceivable One can conceive - then even more eldrich and powerful things. At the "top" of said infinite line of increasingly powerful beings would be '''The Greatest Unconceivable One''', the greatest of them all. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.222.164\|172.69.222.164]] 07:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)		"Beings what can be conceived" are subset of greater category - "All things, including those what humans can't conceive". Therefore, let's say what God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Then, let's say we have The Great Unconceivable One, "that than which nothing greater can or could exist, regardless of whether it's conceivable". Basically, The Great Unconceivable One is eldrich being of such power, what only God himself can merely '''conceive''' The Great Unconceivable One, and what '''even God can't match the The Great Unconceivable One in power'''. That would make The Great Unconceivable One greater than God. And then, we would have infinite recursion - next in line is The Greater Unconceivable One, what only The Great Unconceivable One can conceive - then even more eldrich and powerful things. At the "top" of said infinite line of increasingly powerful beings would be '''The Greatest Unconceivable One''', the greatest of them all. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.222.164\|172.69.222.164]] 07:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
		+	:(I have no problem with your argument, generally, but the multiple use of severl "what"s, instead of "that"s, might be something that you want to resist doing that. Fitting in with your local dialect or idiolect is fine, whether you be {{w\|Just William\|William Brown}} or from the various council estates of East London, but learn {{w\|Code-switching}} and represent yourself (and your philosophy) better. Just a friendly tip. You might already know this, of course, but on the off-chance that you're not deliberately adopting a patois feel...) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.33.253\|162.158.33.253]] 12:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:47, 24 November 2024
Line 49:		Line 49:
	Is it worth mentioning that an omnipresent God would, by definition, have eaten EVERY skateboard that was ever eaten, and even if that number is zero, would therefore be at worst tied for the world record?		Is it worth mentioning that an omnipresent God would, by definition, have eaten EVERY skateboard that was ever eaten, and even if that number is zero, would therefore be at worst tied for the world record?

−	"Beings what can be conceived" are subset of greater category - "All things, including those what humans can't conceive". Therefore, let's say what God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Then, let's say we have The Great Unconceivable One, "that than which nothing greater can or could exist, regardless of whether it's conceivable". Basically, The Great Unconceivable One is eldrich being of such power, what only God himself can merely '''conceive''' The Great Unconceivable One, and what '''even God can't match the The Great Unconceivable One in power'''. That would make The Great Unconceivable One greater than God. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.222.164\|172.69.222.164]] 07:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)	+	"Beings what can be conceived" are subset of greater category - "All things, including those what humans can't conceive". Therefore, let's say what God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Then, let's say we have The Great Unconceivable One, "that than which nothing greater can or could exist, regardless of whether it's conceivable". Basically, The Great Unconceivable One is eldrich being of such power, what only God himself can merely '''conceive''' The Great Unconceivable One, and what '''even God can't match the The Great Unconceivable One in power'''. That would make The Great Unconceivable One greater than God. And then, we would have infinite recursion - next in line is The Greater Unconceivable One, what only The Great Unconceivable One can conceive - then even more eldrich and powerful things. At the "top" of said infinite line of increasingly powerful beings would be '''The Greatest Unconceivable One''', the greatest of them all. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.222.164\|172.69.222.164]] 07:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:45, 24 November 2024
Line 48:		Line 48:

	Is it worth mentioning that an omnipresent God would, by definition, have eaten EVERY skateboard that was ever eaten, and even if that number is zero, would therefore be at worst tied for the world record?		Is it worth mentioning that an omnipresent God would, by definition, have eaten EVERY skateboard that was ever eaten, and even if that number is zero, would therefore be at worst tied for the world record?
		+
		+	"Beings what can be conceived" are subset of greater category - "All things, including those what humans can't conceive". Therefore, let's say what God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Then, let's say we have The Great Unconceivable One, "that than which nothing greater can or could exist, regardless of whether it's conceivable". Basically, The Great Unconceivable One is eldrich being of such power, what only God himself can merely '''conceive''' The Great Unconceivable One, and what '''even God can't match the The Great Unconceivable One in power'''. That would make The Great Unconceivable One greater than God. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.222.164\|172.69.222.164]] 07:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:50, 6 April 2022
Line 11:		Line 11:

	::I think the greatest fallacy is that they start with the conclusion that the fantasy that God exists isn't a fantasy, and then try to "reason" their way into finding support for that conclusion. IOW, claiming to apply reason while working in exactly the opposite way that true reasoning demands. I realize ontological arguments, as the explanation currently says, "seek to prove that God exists using only premises about the nature of existence and logical deductions from them. This is '''in contrast to arguments that are based on observations of the world'''". But you don't get to reject the logical scientific method (marshal the facts and '''THEN''' draw conclusions from them) and then claim you're being logical. - Equinox [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.120\|199.27.128.120]] 15:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)		::I think the greatest fallacy is that they start with the conclusion that the fantasy that God exists isn't a fantasy, and then try to "reason" their way into finding support for that conclusion. IOW, claiming to apply reason while working in exactly the opposite way that true reasoning demands. I realize ontological arguments, as the explanation currently says, "seek to prove that God exists using only premises about the nature of existence and logical deductions from them. This is '''in contrast to arguments that are based on observations of the world'''". But you don't get to reject the logical scientific method (marshal the facts and '''THEN''' draw conclusions from them) and then claim you're being logical. - Equinox [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.120\|199.27.128.120]] 15:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	:::I'm not sure that checks out. While it's true that they are looking for proof of their belief rather than forming a belief, it's more like an experiment where you are looking for the cause of something you know about, at least from their perspective. It's a philosophical argument/thought experiment about religion, so they get away with some things that don't fly in science. No, the biggest flaw is the assumption that since we can conceive of it, it must exist. just because we can conceive of a perfect being, and it would be even greater if it existed, does not inherently mean it does. I can conceive of a world in which I do not exist, but that doesn't mean we are in that world, nor that such a world exists (ignoring anything to do with a multiverse). It's tautological at best, like saying, this thing would be true if it was true. it can also be thought of as "in order for a being to be perfect, it must exist, so such a being must exist so that it can be perfect," which is a little easier to wrap your head around. I'm not saying there is no god, to be clear, I'm just saying that the ontological argument is not acceptable proof of that god's existence. [[User:Stardragon\|Stardragon]] ([[User talk:Stardragon\|talk]]) 23:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

	::I find some humor in that 'A god who could find a flaw in the ontological argument' could easily be accomplished by a being who met and/or exceeded the original premise of being 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived'. Some of the more obvious logical flaws are pointed out in this thread, and proving the thought process wrong doesn't really affect its overall truthiness in either direction. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.133\|108.162.221.133]] 07:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)		::I find some humor in that 'A god who could find a flaw in the ontological argument' could easily be accomplished by a being who met and/or exceeded the original premise of being 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived'. Some of the more obvious logical flaws are pointed out in this thread, and proving the thought process wrong doesn't really affect its overall truthiness in either direction. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.133\|108.162.221.133]] 07:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)