↪charleton Noooo, the flourish of color from the dress is what makes the portrait. That re-framing also messes with the rule of thirds. — StreetlightX

I was not interested in the dress. This is a PORTRAIT, the dress is incidental.
The image I linked seems to have a better face for some reason.

Do you say that the condition is unknowable to the agent themselves? — Perplexed

We can never have full knowledge of all the causalities, but no I am not saying that. On the most basic level, we are not aware of all the chemical pathways that make us hungry for example. Low blood sugar ,balance of hormones etc... we just feel hunger and that informs our motivation to seek food.

↪charleton While I agree that it would be surprising if Kant did not know about this geometry, he had no reason to apply it to space as a whole and for the reasons mentioned above it is irrelevant to his conception of space. — Perplexed

I puzzled at the way you seem to view this idea.
All maths is a conceit. It's a means by which humans are able to describe space. There are no points, straight lines, nor perfect shapes in nature.
It's not that he 'did not know about it' because it had yet to be invented by Gauss, by the time Kant was DEAD.

Sherald seems to be a one-trick-pony.

The sign said "...the clerk will give the diamond to you, and at that time it will become yours" — Michael Ossipoff

AT THAT TIME. Why is this codicil present?
It's a rental!

If a probabilistic determinism allows space for free will then that enough of a compromise for me. — Perplexed

This just reduces free choice to a roll of the dice.
I prefer to determine my choices. They have more meaning that way.

If who I am at a given moment is completely determinate then is any choice possible? — Perplexed

Yes, all choices are determined by antecedent conditions. What makes them different from the automatic consequences of inanimate cause and effect is that outwardly the choice emerged from an agent whose condition is unknowable to an observer. Each of us (agents) are a universe unto themselves, a black box of complexity.

Example:

1. All observed swans have been white
2. There is a natural law that ensures that swans must be white
C. Therefore all swans are white

A more truly tautologous form which basically says the same thing would be:

If there is a natural law that ensures that swans must be white then all swans must be white.

It does depend on the definition of 'tautology' though. Are tautologies simply true by definition? — Janus

But this puts it all back to deduction, since you are not drawing out a generality from the particularities. You are using a generalism -point 1 (above) is redundant, C the conclusion is a tautology of 2.

FYI there are black swans BTW.

It's a piss-poor portrait.
Standards must have fallen.

However. This image seems to be a little better.

The concept of a pizza in the mind is the same as the concept found in an existing pizza (ideally). That doesn't mean that the predicate of existence does not make a difference though. Clearly the pizza in your mind is different than the pizza in reality, even though their concept is existentially the same. — Agustino

But we know Pizzas exist, so your analogy is faulty.

You think reputable philosophers like Alvin Plantinga would "purposefully" word an argument in a misleading way? — Agustino

Platinga is not reputable in anyway.
He's a total nut case.

The only explanation I can see for your behaviour is that you think an appropriate response to the ontological argument is immediate dismissal through ridicule with the purpose of derailing the thread into a flame war. — fdrake

No, that would be your intention.
You seem to see everything as a confrontation.

It has nothing to do with offering employment. — charleton

Eh?

I assume you are an American.
In English English people are not hired, cars are hired.
What I meant was The notice implies that the diamond was for RENTAL.

Are we clear?

I'm surprised you think criticisms of ontological arguments in general are bollocks. You actually read me as someone who believed they could summon a God into actuality through an operation of thought. — fdrake

You are dreaming.
I stated exactly what I stated. No more no less. All the accretion is your invention.
Belief does not make things real. Imagination does not make things real.
Since the essence of this particular argument lives or dies with these falsehoods, the argument dies.

You are just enabling those that think the argument has legs.

Read the rest of the freakin' post you trigger happy wing-nut. — fdrake

It's full of bollocks. I just pulled out a crazy sentence. I have no need to remark on every silly line.
All your efforts are worthless, and just give succour to the theists, since the "OA" falls at the first hurdle as I have pointed out. A thing which we all know. Why bust your balls and encourage Agustino?

I'm not claiming otherwise. I'm arguing that one of the argument's premises is false. As others have suggested, your criticisms seem to be directed at the wrong people. — Michael

You are busting your own balls arguing over nothing whatever. The ontological argument cannot survive the most cursory glance at the opening premise.
Case closed.

After that I wrote that I literally summoned a God through the power of my imagination... I mean my understanding of God as an infinite being with no un-actualised potentials... — fdrake

Crazy talk.

As far as I'm aware Kant did not mention the geometry of the surface of spheres but in any case that is merely a subset within Euclidean space and as such would have no bearing on the form of our intuition. — Perplexed

I am not saying he did.
I am saying that he could. Any child can see the difference between a flat triangle and one which is plastered on the side of a ball.

It does, as the key premise of the argument is "we can imagine something greater". The content of our concepts are an integral part of the argument. — Michael

But that is simply rubbish. Imagining a thing does not help it to become real. This is so obvious. This is a no brainer. The entire argument is absurd for this simple reason; imaginings add no weight.
What is wrong with you?

The parallel postulate is simply true by the law of non-contradiction. Lines which do not meet are parallel lines. Lines which are not parallel meet. Anything else would be contradictory. — Metaphysician Undercover

Since we do not have, and cannot have access to infinity then the premise can only work at a mundane level. Since we can never know if the universe is infinite, or tell if it might or might not coalesce into a pinprick then it might be the case that all lines, including apparently parallel ones might at some point meet.

The argument conflates the content of a concept (e.g. God is imagined to be real/unreal) with a fact about that concept (e.g. God is real/unreal). — Michael

As I say, belief makes no difference to an ontological argument.
It does not make it 'greater'.

I shall call this being God. — fdrake

Has he got big ears and a fluffy tail? Does he tend to hop and love carrots?

That's your mistake. Ideality and actuality are different only in finite beings. But for the infinite being, God, there is no gap between ideality and actuality. So of course, if you treat God as a finite thing - as one more being amongst other beings - then the argument fails. That's precisely the reason why the argument doesn't work for the perfect island. — Agustino

LOL.
Here's why I make the point.

“If, at any particular time, you have given $5000 to the sales-clerk (under no circumstances will it be returned), then, within 60 seconds after your giving him that money, he will give you this diamond, and it will at that time become yours.” — Michael Ossipoff

This offer is a HIRE offer.
The rest of the scenario is of no consequence and is nothing but sophistry.
"at that time it will be yours" implies a limit.

↪charleton Yeah, Charlie I don't think you understand what's going on at all. — StreetlightX

You can believe what you like. If it helps you to think the fault is with me, then think that. But as with all cases belief is useless, unless grounded.

Another example, coming up with a fictional character and telling a story about them is a lot different from having an imaginary friend you believe is real. — fdrake

NOT in matters of ontology.

Your belief does not make a thing true. In an "ontological" argument, as in any other belief is of no consequence.

Another example, coming up with a fictional character and telling a story about them is a lot different from having an imaginary friend you believe is real. — fdrake

What you believe is of no consequence at all.

It does not exist just because you imagine it does, and there is nothing more to be said on that matter.
So why bother?

Then all the argument shows is that a being who is imagined to be real and have God's properties is greater than a being who is imagined to be imaginary and have God's properties.
— Michael — StreetlightX

These are the same things.

What about an imagined imaginary imagined God?
Surely such a thing would be "greater" for having to be more difficult to conceive?ad infinitem...

And then if YOU imagine an imagined imaginary imagined God, and ask me to imagine your conception of it, would that not be greater still?

Deduction is about definitions. About figuring out a fact from a generalised law.
Induction is empirical. It seeks to offer provisional laws FROM observations.
All Ps are Qs, and such arguments have no bearing on induction.
If you can't work that our you need to run along.

1.There are immutable laws which determine every event down to the minutest detail
2. Every event must occur exactly as it does occur and the immutable laws are its sufficient reason — Janus

This is more of a tautology.

I hit the cat and it runs away!
— charleton

GTFO — SophistiCat

lol

You're being pedantic. It's what people to do in order to feel superior (when they are actually not.) See Banno for example. — Magnus Anderson

You problem is that you just don't know what you are talking about.
If you don't find out, people are just going to laugh at you.

At the risk of not causing more confusion....

By "expect" I was responding to the statement "For nature's regularity to be such a surprising fact - something we could even notice - we would have had to have been expecting something rather different.", which you asked apokrisis about.

No one "expects."
We get born and learn.
And shit, if that rock was just like the last one. I drop it and it falls!!!
I hit the cat and it runs away! I fall over and it hurts.
The sun keeps on appearing every morning.
That's what a deterministic universe looks like.
Maybe tomorrow the sun will be shaped like a turnip?

My claim is that most of human behavior originates through linguistic-conceptual thought and not instinct. — schopenhauer1

This claim has to be false since the meaning of the word "most" here is unquantifiable.
Humans more than any other animal are more tabula rasa than any other, yet how could you possibly measure behaviour of self preservation as simply linguistic/cultural, as separate from innate and instinctual sense of fear of death etc.
You can't learn hunger, sex drive, breathing, walking. To what ever degree these 'behaviours' have linguistic and cultural origins they are all innate too. Even the ability to have language is innate; how do you divide the parole from the langue, let alone innate grammar systems and body language from learned behaviour?
No cultural theory can explain some of the most fundamental and universal behaviours of human kind. I am currently watching on TV, Chinese people SMILE. How would you weight this universal against a dictionary? Does a smile count as ONE thing, when its value could mean the difference between life and death?

I would agree that what makes people DIFFERENT is less about genes and much more about environment, culture and learning, but that is to be set against a world of universal human characteristics.
In the nurture vs nature debate, nature is what we all share as a species, and there is precious little difference between a 21stC pale white scandinvian and a black as coal 15thC Australian aborigine when it comes to our natures, but a world of difference in culture and upbringing.

"What would Kant have made of non-Euclidan geomety?"

He'd have said it was obvious if you decide that triangles can exist across 3D space, or on the surface of spheres.
He was smart enough to realise that Euclid assumed 2D.

Move along now.... nothing to see here!

Not true.

Here's an inductive argument:

1. Some Ps are Qs
2. Therefore, all Ps are Qs — Magnus Anderson

Rubbish.
This is just poor logic. A broken deduction, pretending to be something. Nothing to do with induction at all.


An inductive argument is more like X happens after Y all the time. So maybe X is caused by Y.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is only fallacious if it is wrong.