Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 16:23:44 UTC No. 16070268

You could just as easily write pic related in formal logic and call it a day.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 16:26:56 UTC No. 16070273

>>16070258
No, it can't be refuted, see Anderson's emendation of Godel's formal ontological argument which doesn't suffer from modal collapse.

Also OP you're a fucking imbecile if you think a human being made out of atoms is God as in the picture you posted.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 16:27:48 UTC No. 16070274

Even god is subject to Parmenides' concept of being, so no, your first premise is wrong..

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 16:41:50 UTC No. 16070293

>>16070273
even a lesser god could assemble a body for itself if he really wanted to pff

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:17:27 UTC No. 16070350

>>16070258
>therefore God is a word for whatever humans think is the ''greatest'' aspect of their experience
Your argument has no relation with christianity implied by picrel.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:17:29 UTC No. 16070351

>>16070258
That's not the logic used in the modal ontological argument. The argument can be refuted by denying parts of modal logic/necessity itself, trivially.

The bigger issue is that nobody had an issue with necessity until it was used in a proof of God (probably not your god tho), making the criticism seem very ad hoc.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:18:55 UTC No. 16070358

>>16070258
>be me
>I am
>my mind is the only thing I can confirm exists
>greatest being my mind can experience and conceive is me
>ergo (latin) I am God
C'est QED.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:25:07 UTC No. 16070366

>>16070258
A God who can annihilate himself after creation and still have creation follow his wishes is greater than a God who's limited by having to stick around. Therefore, God existed, but he doesn't anymore.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:32:52 UTC No. 16070380

>>16070366
suicidal god? we're fucked aren't we

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:33:05 UTC No. 16070381

>>16070351
>The bigger issue is that nobody had an issue with necessity until it was used in a proof of God
Maybe because the existence of God is more momentous than analytic trifles about unmarried bachelors.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:40:11 UTC No. 16070394

>>16070258
>God is the greatest conceivable being
A God who can conceive of a being greater than himself is greater than a God who cannot.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:41:17 UTC No. 16070398

>>16070380
Why do you think Western civilization is killing itself. We're becoming gods!

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:41:59 UTC No. 16070400

At best it's an argument for the existence of a general god. It says nothing about your theology specifically.
>tips-fedora.jpg

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:46:26 UTC No. 16070406

>>16070400
>I accept your argument.
>Great! See you in church?
>No, I revere Brahman where I stand.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:51:01 UTC No. 16070415

>>16070381
Modal logic seems quite a lot more important than correcting the theology of organized religions.

Anyway I agree that the criticism of this arguments premises is motivated by people being intellectually threatened, that's what I pointed out.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:54:17 UTC No. 16070423

>>16070258
>lesser
>greater

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:55:53 UTC No. 16070430

>>16070394
>A God who can conceive of a being greater than himself is greater than a God who cannot.
I'm pro AGI

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 18:17:27 UTC No. 16070450

The imaginary is necessarily greater than the real. Observe:
/sci/ is a shitty board
I can conceive of a /sci/ that is not shitty
Therefore imaginary /sci/ > actual /sci/

Therefore any God that actually exists is necessarily less great than the greatest God we can imagine.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 18:23:08 UTC No. 16070457

picrel >>16066574

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 23:34:51 UTC No. 16070954

>>16070258
>Gorboflax, the goblin who hates ontological arguments for god, is the most effective being at killing philosophers who use ontological arguments (K1)
>If gorboflax exists only in the mind and not reality, then it is a being that less effective at killing philosophers who use ontological arguments who exists both in the mind and reality (K2)
>K2 is gorboflax
>gorboflax is real and will be killing OP and I shortly

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 23:46:51 UTC No. 16070971

>>16070258
>if God existed he'd be the greatest
>still doesn't show existence
Wow, your philosocuck language games are so easily refuted.