Why do you think its incoherent and meaningless? You say it's wrong at every level, so perhaps you could mention why it's wrong at a few levels at lea...
It seems you didn't read the whole thing: They would not argue that a universe without a rock or without the sun or the milky way is infinitely simple...
First things first, some things need to be clarified: Are B, T and M each categorized/defined (for example when M is categorized as one who shaves him...
Like I said in my OP, I think the reason he, like Martin Gardner, says that is beacuse of an argument like this: In a response to another comment I ga...
Kolakowski argued that we are incapable of conceving the non-existence of the universe which implies absolute nothingness, and that therefore we have ...
If I were to look at that here that would get us off topic (specially since after reading your thread it's still unclear to me how the argument is rel...
1. What does it matter if it's «cheating» or not? It seems to me like that's unimportant in comparison. 2. I do think that happiness is obtained only ...
I gotta say I honestly don't understand people who think like you. (Not that there's anything bad with thinking like that, I just don't understand the...
You sound kind of like a relativist here, since you say people «have different logical aparatuses», which sounds a lot like Protagoras' doctrine that ...
So if I understand you correctly, you deny the transcendental notion of truth (like Husserl's for example), according to which an assertion is true in...
I am asking if you think the proposition «The universe could have not existed» is true, false or meaningless. Is there something selfcontradictory in ...
I was just trying to emphasize the ideas and things I was talking about to avoid confusion, and thought it unnecessary to use the quote function for t...
Well, I don't know if I should argue with you about that, since that would get us slightly off-topic, but I'll only say this: It seems to me like Desc...
I see, my question for you would be: Do you think it was logically possible for the universe not to have existed? Or do you think that very question i...
I just wanted to emphasize that I wasn't asking for an «explanation» or a «why» of the universe, rather the question is: Is it meaningful to even assi...
I know about Descartes' Evil Deceiver argument. And so far as theory is concerned, I am a philosophical sceptic, so I am not concerned with refuting i...
The idea of God (defined as the subject of all perfections) and the idea that existence is A perfection (one among other perfections). When saying «Th...
By definition they are, because the perfections the subject of all perfections possesses are all those things can can be predicated truly about it. If...
I should like to point out that the question isn't exactly «why is there something rather than nothing?», rather: «What was the likelihood of there be...
Strange as in unusual, since when many philosophers use that term they usually mean something different from what you say. Didn't want to convey anyth...
No, they claim the subject of all perfections exists necessarily, that is not the same as «necessary thinking and existing can also be experienced by ...
No, I'm not trying to prove anything either, I only mention that this is an argument that can be presented, I don't maintain, like some theists who de...
I agree, but I don't see what that has to do with the argument. How does that relate to the argument exactly? Oh, so that's what you meant by that. I ...
But do you accept that those disjunctions are true? If you do, then either p or not p must be true, where p is «Existence is a perfection» and not p i...
1.The complete cessation and non-existence of what? Of anything? 2. Why are you only open to that kind of thinking? The argument is a priori, which me...
I first gave a definition of perfection, then I said we have the idea of the subject (or a subject) of all perfections. Which would imply the subject ...
I'm open to the possibility that there may be more than one subject of all perfections, provided we define that subject also as one such that nothing ...
Fair enough, then it's a question whether Leibniz is right or whether Aquinas is right (given some assumptions). I'm open to both possibilities. What ...
1.An argument may be invalid or valid, but not true or false. The conclusion of the argument, on the other hand, may be false. But that's not what you...
Now hold on a second, if by state you mean a mental state, then the problem that I have with that view is that if a mental state could be the subject ...
Because the subject of all perfections isn't the only subject that can possess a perfection. For example, we (according to the argument) possess the p...
Since Leibniz was a christian, he probably did. But I am not trying to defend what Leibniz says, I only borrowed some of his definitions, and his proo...
I never claimed it proves its conclusion (unless it's valid, which I don't claim), I only mentioned it because I wanted to see how people in a philoso...
As for the difference between «the subject of all perfections» and «the subject of all perfection», with the latter definition you are trying to equat...
The argument, if valid, would prove that the subject of all perfections exists, not that «perfection» exists. The subject of all perfections is not th...
2. If you think that is equivalent to the argument, which was formalized by the user «TheMadFool», then this is clearly a strawman. 3. First of all, I...
1. You said Notice what you are defining here isn't «God», but rather «perfection» Then I replied: and once again, I was refering to «perfection», not...
Like I said, the argument does not depend on that «experience», if you could tell me why you think it does, that would help. What is the basis of this...
It seems you misunderstand the argument. It doesn't state that God and perfection are synonyms, rather it states he is the subject of all perfections....
Let me clarify (even thought I already did since my first post): I am not talking about «moral perfection», but rather, as I stated at the beggining o...
I forgot to respond to this statement of yours: But if God is nothing and can't be anything at all, doesn't that imply that «God does not exist» is tr...
Let's see... if one admits that existence and non-existence are predicates, and that a subject of all perfections can be conceived, then said subject ...
No it doesn't. The argument does not rely on the «divine cogito» nor on the experience of «necessary thinking activity», nor on the idea that God give...
Comments