Zoink's and other matters...
Speaking of the Ontological argument, I have something that is completely stupid... but fun.
If you notice in the most recent Campus News they are having a contest to name the Denver Seminary recruiting mascot guy. It's some Bull dude.
Anyway, they are accepting any suggestions for his name. I sent in... you guessed it: Zoink. I recommend that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US submits "Zoink" as the name of the mascot. Wouldn't it be cool if they named him Zoink?
I mean, you guys take ONE look at this thing and tell me that it is NOT the second greatest conceivable being! It certainly is! Heck, it's what I picture when I think of what the second most conceivable being is...
Speaking of Zoinks. Let me try my Zoink argument again. Using your layout of the argument Ian, let's suppose that a Zoink is the 2nd greatest conceivable being, but it is ALSO a necessary being. The way or manner in which it is the 2nd greatest is because of some other attribute that is a little bit less than the greatest conceivable being (GCB). Let's say, for example, that the Zoink is just shy of omnipotent. It is very, very powerful no doubt... Indeed, the only thing MORE powerful in all of existence is the GCB. So... The Zoink is still in the category of necessary being -- that is, it shares all other attributes with the GCB, except this one of omnipotence, which it has slightly less power than the GCB. Ok, so now, you ontological argument nuts, does the Zoink exist?
I am certainly conceiving of it. And my conception of it is that it necessarily exists. That IS the concept of a Zoink. So you tell me... Why is this not a valid counter-example? Because we all know that a Zoink does not exist -- yet according to the logic of the Ont. Arg. it does.
I guess at the heart of all of our frustrations with the Ont. Arg. is that it comes across with the feeling that you've been "Duped". After you hear it, you say, "well... hmmm, OK I guess that seems to work. But I feel liked I've been tricked -- like a linguistic slight of hand just happened." The reason for this psychological skepticism concerning the Ont. Arg. I suggest comes from the fact that the argument rests upon OUR conception of something. The cosmological arguments, by contrast, rest upon the simplicity of a cause and effect reality -- not what is our highest conception of being. Yet, I suppose that almost all of the args. for God's existence include anthropological elements (We are the one's analyzing them and offering them in any case).
I will continue to listen to reassertions of the argument, but as of yet I am still unconvinced that 1) it works, and 2) that even supposing it does "technically" work I don't see how it can contribute to the cumulative case for God. I have no problem if an argument doesn't directly point to the Christian God -- just arguing for the existence of any supreme being is a huge step for most naturalists -- I just don't see this argument convincing anybody. Actually, I think such an argument would turn people AWAY from the truth because they would feel like we are really "stretching". I see no need to risk such a reaction when we have SOLID arguments in the cosmological, teleological, axiological, and others. (Of course, Dr. Obitts thinks the Ontological is SOLID).
Let us continue to wrestle. Jed and others -- I know that in the philosophical issues class with Dr. G, you guys are going to spend a good deal of time on the Ont. Arg. Because of that, I'm sure that your more refined and developed thoughts on the matter would be profitable to all of us here as you guys walk through it.
Go and vote for ZOINK as the mascot!!! :)
-BJ the Tornado
a confused philosopher thinking of Zoinks.
If you notice in the most recent Campus News they are having a contest to name the Denver Seminary recruiting mascot guy. It's some Bull dude.
Anyway, they are accepting any suggestions for his name. I sent in... you guessed it: Zoink. I recommend that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US submits "Zoink" as the name of the mascot. Wouldn't it be cool if they named him Zoink?
I mean, you guys take ONE look at this thing and tell me that it is NOT the second greatest conceivable being! It certainly is! Heck, it's what I picture when I think of what the second most conceivable being is...
Speaking of Zoinks. Let me try my Zoink argument again. Using your layout of the argument Ian, let's suppose that a Zoink is the 2nd greatest conceivable being, but it is ALSO a necessary being. The way or manner in which it is the 2nd greatest is because of some other attribute that is a little bit less than the greatest conceivable being (GCB). Let's say, for example, that the Zoink is just shy of omnipotent. It is very, very powerful no doubt... Indeed, the only thing MORE powerful in all of existence is the GCB. So... The Zoink is still in the category of necessary being -- that is, it shares all other attributes with the GCB, except this one of omnipotence, which it has slightly less power than the GCB. Ok, so now, you ontological argument nuts, does the Zoink exist?
I am certainly conceiving of it. And my conception of it is that it necessarily exists. That IS the concept of a Zoink. So you tell me... Why is this not a valid counter-example? Because we all know that a Zoink does not exist -- yet according to the logic of the Ont. Arg. it does.
I guess at the heart of all of our frustrations with the Ont. Arg. is that it comes across with the feeling that you've been "Duped". After you hear it, you say, "well... hmmm, OK I guess that seems to work. But I feel liked I've been tricked -- like a linguistic slight of hand just happened." The reason for this psychological skepticism concerning the Ont. Arg. I suggest comes from the fact that the argument rests upon OUR conception of something. The cosmological arguments, by contrast, rest upon the simplicity of a cause and effect reality -- not what is our highest conception of being. Yet, I suppose that almost all of the args. for God's existence include anthropological elements (We are the one's analyzing them and offering them in any case).
I will continue to listen to reassertions of the argument, but as of yet I am still unconvinced that 1) it works, and 2) that even supposing it does "technically" work I don't see how it can contribute to the cumulative case for God. I have no problem if an argument doesn't directly point to the Christian God -- just arguing for the existence of any supreme being is a huge step for most naturalists -- I just don't see this argument convincing anybody. Actually, I think such an argument would turn people AWAY from the truth because they would feel like we are really "stretching". I see no need to risk such a reaction when we have SOLID arguments in the cosmological, teleological, axiological, and others. (Of course, Dr. Obitts thinks the Ontological is SOLID).
Let us continue to wrestle. Jed and others -- I know that in the philosophical issues class with Dr. G, you guys are going to spend a good deal of time on the Ont. Arg. Because of that, I'm sure that your more refined and developed thoughts on the matter would be profitable to all of us here as you guys walk through it.
Go and vote for ZOINK as the mascot!!! :)
-BJ the Tornado
a confused philosopher thinking of Zoinks.
posted by BJS at
10:08:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home