4 ms·

Ontological argument for the nonexistence of God. 1. It is more great to do something with a greater handicap. 2. Not existing is the greatest possible handic

Ontological argument for the nonexistence of God. 1. It is more great to do something with a greater handicap. 2. Not existing is the greatest possible handicap. 3. The greatest possible being is thus one who could create the universe despite not existing.

ars 7y ago
You have not proved step 1 or step 2. In fact I'm quite sure your step two is false, and your step one would be quite hard to prove.
- 481092 7y ago
  Did Gödel even prove step 1?. In Gödel's argument, it's relying on very arbitrary definitions of what many have defined as a god and that their god is "great". OP defined what is "great" to him, it's not necessarily what's great to you or me. I think OP here is meaning "great" in some intellectual capacity, that you are just as powerful or great if you can make up your lack of greatness in one area with another form of greatness, something I don't see as greater but equally great. Is it greater to be successful by bootstrapping off the success of your forebearer or greater to be as successful when starting from nothing? It's a classical argument but to me it stands on just as rational ground as Gödel's argument.
  - ars 7y ago
    Maybe you can prove step 1, but step 2 is clearly false - a much greater difficulty is having an adversary unmaking what you make.
gjm11 7y ago
This (very nice) argument is due to Douglas Gasking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Douglas_Gasking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Douglas_G....
- SAI_Peregrinus 7y ago
  Thanks, I'd never found the original source! I'll add that to my saved version.
shkkmo 7y ago
> 2. Not existing is the greatest possible handicap. I would argue that impossiblity, rather than non-existence is the greatest handicap.
knowThySelfx 7y ago
Well, what is existence and nonexistence in this sense? Something which we can measure and see or something which we do not know of because we cannot measure it?

ars 7y ago

You have not proved step 1 or step 2. In fact I'm quite sure your step two is false, and your step one would be quite hard to prove.

481092 7y ago
Did Gödel even prove step 1?. In Gödel's argument, it's relying on very arbitrary definitions of what many have defined as a god and that their god is "great". OP defined what is "great" to him, it's not necessarily what's great to you or me. I think OP here is meaning "great" in some intellectual capacity, that you are just as powerful or great if you can make up your lack of greatness in one area with another form of greatness, something I don't see as greater but equally great. Is it greater to be successful by bootstrapping off the success of your forebearer or greater to be as successful when starting from nothing? It's a classical argument but to me it stands on just as rational ground as Gödel's argument.
- ars 7y ago
  Maybe you can prove step 1, but step 2 is clearly false - a much greater difficulty is having an adversary unmaking what you make.

gjm11 7y ago

This (very nice) argument is due to Douglas Gasking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Douglas_Gasking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Douglas_G....

SAI_Peregrinus 7y ago
Thanks, I'd never found the original source! I'll add that to my saved version.

shkkmo 7y ago

> 2. Not existing is the greatest possible handicap. I would argue that impossiblity, rather than non-existence is the greatest handicap.

knowThySelfx 7y ago

Well, what is existence and nonexistence in this sense? Something which we can measure and see or something which we do not know of because we cannot measure it?