|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 18, 2010 12:13:24 GMT -5
Um, m52nickerson, I have to implore you to not use analogies coming from mathematics anymore. If you wish to do that you will need to refresh your knowledge. Just consider the statement that the sum of all integers in the real set is -Infinity (or +Infinity) or just zero and it is very easy to show (which is why summing infinite series is not trivial and the whole notion of diverging and converging sums is utilized). I realize that is a strict mathematical sense the sum of .....-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3..... is not defined, because it is not convergent. That is the strict mathematical sense. Then again we find that as we add new terms the sum will fluctuate between a positive (or negative) integer and zero. Here is the thing, the infinite set of real numbers will always a positive and a negative of any given integer. So the sum will always return to zero. It is easy to see that would be the answer if we were able to see the entire set.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 18, 2010 10:18:45 GMT -5
So a solider loses sight of a couple of buddies during a fire fight. Charges into an area were the enemy is to fine them. Drags both of them back to relative safety, while killing one enemy and wounding another......and that is somehow feminizing the metal of honor?
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 18, 2010 9:01:13 GMT -5
Heck, I've been called a monster on these very boards for that stance, though I'm pleased to see less of that and more of the usual snark that I've come to love FSTDT for. I must be a monster also zachski. Hell I'm a triple monster now since I have three sons, 4 years, 23 months and 6 weeks old and all of them have been circumcised. I did a lot of research and talked to both the doctors that delivered my sons and their pediatrician before making my decision. Anyone who wants to know why my wife and I came to make the decision we made can ask. Those who just want to say that I abused or mutilated my boys......well they can kiss my ass.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 18, 2010 7:43:45 GMT -5
Philosophy can ignore evidence, but that dooms it to uselessness, it becomes mental masturbation rather than a way of obtaining knowledge. And people do look at philosophy to provide real answers, as exemplified by the very topic of this discussion. The ontological argument, by those who believe it, is supposed to show something about the world we are living in. It's supposed to show that God is real. Those who believe that philosophy provides answers like that are simply wrong. It may provide insight into our own thoughts and knowledge but little else. I'm fine with it just being mental masturbation because after all masturbation is fun! Understanding the concept of limitlessness is different then understanding that which is limitless. I think you meant to say that the infinity of rational numbers is larger then real numbers. That seems to be the case because the rational number set includes the real numbers (integers) as well as an infinite set of rational numbers (fractions) between each integer. Both sets would seem to be larger then the natural number set. I say seems to be because that can't be proven, because we can't ever look at the entire set. Here the interesting thing. If we look at the infinite sets of real numbers and natural numbers we can use it to prove the second part of the ontological argument. That it is greater to exist in reality then only in the mind. Real numbers contain both positive and negative integers. Negative integers do not exist in the reality. You can't have -1 apples in you hand. The sum of all integers within the real number set is 0. Since each positive integer will also have a negative counterpart. The Natural number set does not contain negative numbers and set exist within reality. The sum of the natural number set is an infinite sum. So when we compare the to sums the set that exist entirely in reality is greater then the sum of the set that only half of which exist in reality.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 17, 2010 16:04:35 GMT -5
Except that is not the ontological argument of Anselm who pretty much said what I said, but in a different way, and this was why I called it the argument from indoctrination 2 pages ago. Nor is it the ontological argument used by Descartes. Nor can it ever be used to prove the Christian God, who quite frankly is an out and out cunt! I don't care whichever champion of the universe no-one's ever heard of that deserves today's title of God - although Jessica Alba get's my vote for this millisecond of thought, but don't you think applying a title with theistic connotations to something mortal is just a tad retarded, and should only be tried by those desperate for a "God" --- and yes, I'm aware that applies to Christians (a God/the God, have some lamb nonsense aside)... OK. Of course it can't be used to prove the Christian God, or any other for that matter. It is only a mental exercise. I'm not trying to prove anything to you or anyone else. Calm down. I'm have fun arguing for a proof, that is it.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 17, 2010 15:44:11 GMT -5
And the premise that the existing is greater than the non-existing is also subjective. Is a brain tumor that exists greater than one that does not? And when writing fiction the author depends on the characters existing only in the imagination, an autonomous being could not serve that purpose. It's pretty retarded actually... The logic kind of goes - if God is a/the perfect being, he must exist or he wouldn't be perfect... It's retarded, because the source of God being perfect is the bible, which kind of takes that whole God existing thing for granted, so if you're going to base your premise for God existing on the bible, you may as well just read what it really says instead of making up a load of intermangled twaddle. A logical step from an illogical premise, doesn't mean the premise must be true, no matter how much you wish it were so or base your life round it. [Edit:] I mean talk about seriously weird... So a being conceived by people, and later annotated by different people as being the ultimate perfect being, apparently has to exist, and not only that, but adding the 'perfect being' label to a clearly flawed character, apparently meant that the entire of humanity was now incapable of imagining anything greater ever --- no wonder John Lennon got a bullet! The argument has noting to do with the bible. The first statement in the argument can also be stated as, the greatest possible being is God. Remember, this argument does not have any other input or meaning other then what is in the proof. We can also express the proof as; 1. It is greater to exist in reality then to only exist in the mind. 2. Therefore the greatest possible being must exist in reality. 3. The greatest possible being is called God. In the end you can call the greatest possible being anything you would like. Most ideas of god would fit this description.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 17, 2010 15:31:12 GMT -5
And what I am trying to convey is that already mathematics provides us with concepts that show that intuitive understanding of ideas is flawed. Infinity doesn't iclude any numbers. It does not belong to the set of natural or real numbers. In the sets of real or natural numbers there is no largest number. The correct (mathematical and logical) understanding of infinity makes it inappropriate for using as an example in your argument. And in my opinion it shows that the ontological argument is completely hollow in both of its premises. What is a set of endlessly expanding of numbers described as? You know an unbounded limit. It is described as infinite. If you like we can just change my example from infinity to the set of all real or natural numbers.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 17, 2010 15:15:46 GMT -5
And the premise that the existing is greater than the non-existing is also subjective. Is a brain tumor that exists greater than one that does not? And when writing fiction the author depends on the characters existing only in the imagination, an autonomous being could not serve that purpose. Yes a brain tumor that exists is greater. One that does not exist, or only exist in the mind, can't kill you. Greater does not mean good. A character that exists both in the author mind and in reality could serve that purpose.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 17, 2010 15:11:09 GMT -5
God's black? When did that happen? Sometime around 1951.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 17, 2010 13:25:40 GMT -5
Um... No. You can add and subtract from Infinity and produce other Infinities. The mathematical abstraction of Infinity is rather complicated, which is just one of the reasons for which using it in this argument is flawed. And while the abstraction of Infinity when talking about numbers can be defined (and a whole new part of mathematics that deals with different infinities and how to add and subtract them etc was invented) this says nothing about whether it exists beyond an abstraction. Mathematics has many abstractions and some are extremely unintuitive and even counterintuitive. Luckily they need not exist as real entities. If you wish to read about something extremely weird I suggest reading about the Banach-Tarski paradox and the axiom of choice (which axiom is very intuitive but produces monstrosities). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choiceInfinity is the un-ending line of numbers, or an ever expanding set. That means it all ready includes all possible numbers. So any other infinity would be the same as the original. ....but before we get into higher math, understand that I'm using Infinity as an example because you can understand that idea. We could also substitute the universe for God. Well ignoring alternate universes, string theory and others theoretical physics. The universe contains everything. Therefore as a single thing it is the greatest thing that can be.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 17, 2010 11:08:33 GMT -5
But the example with mathematical infinity is flawed. Infinity is not a natural (or real) number (for which the ordering function is well established), nor is it "greatest" since we can easily define greater things than infinity (and btw you can add and subtract from infinity) . In addition you have to show that inifnity can exist in the real world (on its own, independently of the existence of numbers) which is very very questionable. Yes you can add and subtract from infinty, but the result is always infinity. So in reality you can't have a result greater then infinity. Infintity, when talking about numbers, does exist. There is no limit or maximum number. Infinity is the un-ending number line.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 17, 2010 9:03:25 GMT -5
Any method of thinking that's supposed to have relevant results needs evidence. The ontological argument attempts to show something about the real world, so it needs its premises to be true in the real world, not in some hypothetical universe. You can't know something about the real world without evidence, be it its physicality, whether it holds that you can define a "greatest" for everything, or whether such greatestness matches the common use of the term God. Philosophy seeks understanding through thought and reasoning. It does not rely on physical evidence. That is way philosophy is not science, nor do we look to it to provide real answers. Not really. We can't know because of our limitations. Let me present it in another way..... If we change God to Infinity and say "Infinity is the greatest of all numbers" you can understand that because you know what infinity and numbers are. Infinity is the greatest (biggest for this argument) because nothing is larger. You can't change it, add to it or subtract from it. ‡ - 1 = ‡
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 17, 2010 7:43:21 GMT -5
Wait, is it free, government-provided health coverage? Or does it pay the cost of private health insurance? Or is it an out-of-salary kind of package? 'cause if it's one of the first two, every member of Congress who has ever bitched about Obamacare is a massive douche bag. "I work for my health care... by getting it handed to me on a silver platter." Federal employees pay for 1/3 of their coverage premiums. I believe that 1/3 payment is taken from the employees wages. Each employee choices their own plan from all the available options. That includes many plans issued by private insurance companies. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Employees_Health_Benefits_Programwww.opm.gov/insure/health/
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 16, 2010 17:26:07 GMT -5
I thought Muhammad Ali was the greatest. Greatest heavyweight, yes. Greatest overall..... well that would be Sugar Ray Robinson.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 16, 2010 17:03:31 GMT -5
The noticeable absence of any good evidence to the contrary, for starters. Who needs evidence, this is philosophy not science. I've always been puzzled by the ontological argument, in a "wait, the fuck?" kind of way. Mostly the "OK, even if that works, how do you know what properties this "greatest thing" has, since you haven't defined greatness?" angle. Greatest would all depend on the trait. Then again the greatest would be without limits and thus could not be known.
|
|