Talk:Ontological argument/Archive 2

message: I'm sorry, but I'm upset about what happened here. There was no reason to delete every single addition I contributed on the 16th. Many of my arguments were not original (the predication argument underneath "Existence as a Property" was Kant, and the ninth argument of Miscellaneous, that of divine simplicity, was partially Aquinas, partially Plantinga, (ironically for both) and also various modern philosophers). As well, much of the page (the lengthy Miscellaneous section, for instance) neglects to cite anything, whatsoever, including the ontological argument responses to criticisms. I revised the page, again, editing my own comments to remain as neutral as possible, but I didn't cite sources. If it's absolutely mandatory I cite a source for every sentence (which is completely inconsistent with the overwhelming majority of the page), then I'll be doing this in the future. However, much of the rest of the page should also be removed then, such as, "Defenders of the ontological argument have replied to this objection that its conclusion does not follow from its premise," etc. Just deleting everything is not the appropriate way to handle such additions; first try modifying them. Second, remove only the unnecessary, frivolous, unfounded, and seemingly original comments (note: they can't all have been one of these). Finally, start a discussion (and if you have, please direct me; I missed it). I worked hard on those additions, and indiscriminately removing them ALL was careless and unjustified (at least to an extent, if nothing else). If you reply to me, here (can you do that?), I will certainly consider/include any of your objections/comments in my contribution. Thank you.
:Don't be upset. You're right, a lot of the page is unsourced, but I didn't have time to reedit it all, but I'll get to it in the future. You can't point to another error to justify yours. All content in Wikipedia must be verifiable, and you're edits were not. Plus, is seemed many were simply your own arguments, and that is not what this site is for. Wikipedia is not our personal debating club or a place to publish original research. Any argument for or against it you add must come from a verifiable source from reputable philosophers. Kant's argument about existence not being a property is already in there. It just needs a cite from that page of Critique of Pure Reason. You do not need to cite every sentence, but you do need to cite every point. I'll go over your new edits on this page. Roy Brumback 07:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, one cannot imagine anything whatsoever and also claim it was imagined as an entity which didn't exist, as, if it was imagined by the subject, it was imagined to have existed (even if it did not have an existing counterpart outside the imagination). A final way of phrasing this is that, if existence is a property, then there exist a number of things that have the property of not existing.
I don't really agree with them, as it seems obvious to me that you can imagine something that does not exist except as an idea, and I don't really think that's what Kant was saying.  I'll look through the book and see.  And if existence is a property, why do there have to exist things without that property?  I don't think that really follows.  So these conclusions about the argument needs cites.  And we don't need to continually resummarize the arguments with every editors' interpretation of it.  It's already summarized, and I think in better language, so I think we should just leave it at that. Roy Brumback 07:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions, OCT 16th

message: Thank you for responding. :)  I appreciate it.
Okay, onto your points:  
For the above statement (wherein you respond to my passage), I don't understand why your disagreement should matter.  Shouldn't Kant's argument be at least featured, even if it's blatantly fallacious? (Btw, the ontological argument I believe is discussed in CPR between pages 450 and 500; I don't own a copy, but Lawhead's Voyage of Discovery cites this particular argument on page 337).  And, in his defense, I think you're misunderstanding the sentiment.  If you imagine a unicorn, for example, which certainly does not feature a corporeal counterpart to the concept, you've still imagined a unicorn which, in the imagined concept, was existing, even if only for the sake of the hypothesis.  In essence, it is impossible to imagine something which isn't existing in the concept, even if it is never instantiated somewhere in the universe.  If you believe in God, and I'm assuming you do, then this would be comparable to imagining the universe before He created anything (even though many Judeo-Christians do not grant anything existed before God, per se; just suppose for a moment for my argument to work).  It's unimaginable, to make a long story short.  One final illustration:  Imagine a unicorn which exists and imagine a unicorn which doesn't, standing side by side.  You'll notice absolutely no difference.  Go ahead and picture the one which exists in a realistic world filled with similar creatures, too; all this does is add an environment to the concept.  The other one I guess is probably standing in a black void, or something, but that's just a difference in environment, as well.
:This doesn't really have to do with the article, but as for the argument, I'll grant you that the existing and unexisting unicorn have the same image in my mind, but the image is not the sum total of the idea.  For instance, I can imagine my grandmother, who is dead, and I can imagine her there, but the fact that she is not existing as a living  body is part of the total idea of my grandmother in my mind.  I therefore hold that her existence or nonexistence is part of the total idea of my grandmother in my head, and as such is a property, contra Kant. Roy Brumback 23:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just don't think you are quite accurately summarizing his point.  Like I said, I'll check the book when I have time. Roy Brumback 22:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: See, you are assuming.  Original research.  If it's really so good, submit it to a philosophy journal.  If they publish it, then you can put it in. Roy Brumback 22:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't agree with your characterization of Descartes argument being that silly as you make it sound, and as your assertion is thus disputable, it is not obviously true and therefore needs a cite. Roy Brumback 22:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not trying to prove anything.  If certain philosophers have argued as you have, cite them.  Roy Brumback 23:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, you're assuming something not proved, that the greatest being can't be something we can conceive of but must be inconceivable.  Why?  I can concieve of infinity, or following Cantor, infinite infinity and transfinite infinity.  The fact that we're talking about it proves we can conceive of it.  You are saying an inconceivable being is greater then a conceivable one.  Again, why?  Something could be inconceivable to us based on how people think but still not be the greatest thing there is.  You were saying an inconceivable being could be the greatest being we could conceive of, which is not true by definition.  It seems you're the one with the confusion. If a philosopher has argued the opposite, reinsert with that cite. Roy Brumback 23:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: In the end, all I'm really asking for is cites.  As you've admitted much of your editing is your original research, it can't be allowed.  As encyclopediasts, were just summarizing knowledge, not generating new knowledge.  If you wish to personally argue this argument, do it in philosophy journals, not here.  I realize too much of the article already has such stuff, but it has been flagged for such a reason and is to be distrusted accordingly.  The solution is not to put in more unverified stuff.  Just find some reputable philosophers who have argued as you have and then they can be reinserted. Roy Brumback 23:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits OCT 23rd

message: Whoa, whoa; I've only said one thing was original.  Where did you get that?  In this particular discussion outside the article, I'm using original arguments to illustrate points which you appear (to me) to be misunderstanding.  Don't use that against me.  
And you still didn't answer why much of the article which doesn't cite anything more than I did was allowed to remain in tact (or why my contributions weren't).  I think this really deserves addressing before I continue to your points.
:I said I will get to them later.  They should not be allowed to stand. Roy Brumback 08:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Substitute dead thing x if a personal example is too much.  I have no problem with it.  You can therefore extend it to an abstraction, showing it is not weak.  You are not your particles, as they continually change.  I am not the same matter I was yesterday, and yet I'm positive I'm the same person.  Otherwise, why do you keep debating me.  Are you from moment to moment debating someone totally different, as I am now different particles than I was yesterday?  I'm pretty sure you're still the same person.  You might disagree, but I'll take that as an axiom of mine.  So therefore I don't buy your argument about the particles or matter state of your sister.  As for the unicorn, imagining the unicorn that doesn't exist necessetates that not existing be part of the idea of the unicorn.  I can imagine the image, but ideas are not necessarily images, and many ideas have no image to them at all .  I'm not imaging an existing unicorn, I'm thinking of an unexistant unicorn.  As the unexistant part is a part of the total idea, it is a property of the idea.  The not existing or existing part does change the idea, as they are two different total ideas, even if they are not two different images. Roy Brumback 09:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Dude, Kant is already included.  I'm disputing your summary of his argument.  CPR is available online.  Look it up and find it.  I don't have time now, but in a few days I will.  I "singled you out" because I just happened to check this article right after your edits, saw they were not verified and disagreed with many of them, showing they are not obviously true, and so needed cites.  That's why I deleted them.  If you wish, I will delete all unverified content quickly.  Are you arguing you can break wiki verifiability rule because others have? Roy Brumback 09:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I can conceive of something not existing except as a thought.  Can't you?  Descartes point is you can't truely conceive of nothing, not something that only exists as an idea. Roy Brumback 09:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Then cite it dude, that's all I'm saying.  And I can't quite understand what you're getting at here, as it seems a little jumbled.  Are you arguing infinity doesn't exist?  Why?  Are you sure the perfect circle doesn't exist?  How do you know?  And what does any of that have to do with the article? Roy Brumback 09:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You are kind of insulting me "but what do you know", but as a Christian, I'll forgive you :)  Validity does not prove truth, but a valid sound argument does.  I learned that day one in philosophy class.  It's impossible to have true premises yield false (i.e. not true) conclusions.  But what is this about?  The statement of faith thing?  All premises are statements of faith, as premises can't be proven, except by other premises, which themselves can't be proven except by other...ect. Roy Brumback 09:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You can conceive of infinity, or a perfect circle.  Just conceive of it.  Now you're done.  And a God that doesn't exist can't be anything, by definition.  It's like the dead person.  Once you add the non existant part, that necessitates that it have no properties, showing they are two different ideas.  But now were debating about the argument, not the article.  And I don't personally agree with Descartes proof.  I'm simply asking you to cite an established real philosopher for a counter to his point.  No matter how much you think your conclusions are obvious, something I don't, if they are you're' arguments, they are original research.  Cite your sources dude.  Let the concept sink in. Roy Brumback 09:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Once again, you're argument.  Don't you understand this page is not for you're arguments.  If it was, I'd insert my stuff.  But I don't, because that would be original research.  And I personally think Kierkegaard is wrong, about a lot of things.  If for instance someone, Moses for instance, actually talked to God, then he obviouly knew God by more than just faith. Roy Brumback 09:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses Cont.

message: "What argument dude?  This has nothing to do with the article.  Please quit using this page to rant.  I already told you what I believe and why.  And particles do change, as do atoms, they are wavefunctions of probability that are constantly changing, and yet they are still the same thing, the particles."
I never said it did; you were arguing with me, and if you trace my points all the way back, you'll find I was trying to convince you, ORIGINALLY, about the damn unicorn/dead person argument.  Oh, yeah, cause I'm just ranting for no reason.  I'm just crying like a baby, aren't I?  I obviously wasn't trying, a long time ago before we started arguing about it, to get something into the article. Nope; I'm just a compulsive narcissist with a penchant for frivolous debate with random strangers.  Yeah, thanks a lot.  >:(
"And one last thing dude.  A proton is always a proton, alone or in an atom.  Saying it's changed is like saying I have changed by going from outside to inside and becoming part of the set of things in my house.  And you dodged the question.  If I am not the same person I was just a second ago, no change has occurred, as change can only happen to a thing that is still the thing, otherwise you can't say it changed, as there has to be an it that is still there.  According to you, there was a person called Roy.  That thing was then totally destroyed and a new thing, Roy2, came into being the next instant, then was destroyed and Roy3 took it's place, ect...  There is no thing called Roy that continually exists from moment to moment, and so Roy can't change, as he can't exist for more than an instant.  Now you can whip this argument up to the entire universe and say the universe is continually destroyed and a new universe takes it's place.  I find such a conclusion absurd, and so by the reductio absurdem I reject the premise.  As for the desk, you prove my point.  If you paint it, it's changed, but is still the desk.  If you break it apart, it's no longer the desk and has been destroyed, showing change and destruction are two different things.  You can't now change the destroyed desk as it no longer exists.  I can only change it if it's still there.  If you wish to say all change is really destruction that's fine, but then we have the universe thing, which I reject."
First of all, I didn't realize that was what you were asking.  Your phraseology in the last post was much less clear; I wasn't dodging any question.
Secondly, I never said I wasn't the same general thing as a second ago; if you remember, I argued about the constant mass of the universe.  "I'm" not the 'thing' that's changing, the particle arrangements are.   "Thing" is relative, is my point.  If your definition of chair includes no less than 1000000 particles, then maybe it will never stop being a chair until it loses enough to hit the threshold.  If a 'chair' simply has to look and function like one to you, that's fine.  What I'm saying is the actual entity, in a world where we didn't have names for things, and we didn't compare objects/people/whatever to our conceptions of them, there would be no reason for objective evaluaters to suggest the 'chair' was at all the same as it was three seconds ago.  What if we were beings without depth perception and we absolutely couldn't determine the extention of the chair?  Or even the shape?  How would we know when it changed?  What if all we could make of the world was a giant, hazy blue impulse, so that everything seemed a part of everything else and wasn't differentiable?  Would we still think the chair (that is, the thing we point out as a place to sit with our current perception and awareness of the world) was remaining the same, "thing" when it looked like a part of a wall and suddenly someone sat on it?  If we could all see each and every atom in each and every thing, would ANYTHING in the world seem like it WASN'T always changing?
Wow; you're taking everything I said completely out of context.  Yes, YOU'RE A DIFFERENT ENTITY THAN THE ONE FIVE SECONDS AGO.  Just because the entities share an extremely similar body and extremely similar mind does not make them identical.  EVERYTHING IS ALWAYS UNDERGOING A PROCESS.  When I say "Roy," I'm referring to the collection of particles which APPEARS the same as it used to be (but really isn't) so I can easily address it without always having to account for the new change.  It's colloquial; not scientific.  
Third of all, you completely misunderstood my point about the universe.  The universe has constant mass.  That. Doesn't. Change.  No destruction, no nothing.  However, the universe's rearrangement of particles CONSTANTLY changes.  So, even the UNIVERSE is constantly changing, vis a vis.  Instead of destruction, I would use "rotate."  Yes, every time you speak, you're a new rotation of particles, which, yes, replaces the old configuration (destruction has such an inappropriate connotation, I don't know why anyone would use it, not that they don't).  SO WHAT?
"It isn't meaningless to say something doesn't exist.  Dur."
Now, see, you're acting like all I was talking about was the actual existence of unicorns, when I was talking about the ideas of them.  No need for the dur, especially since you're wrong (or rather,  misrepresenting my argument).
"The term idea occurs nowhere in that argument. Dur."
What the hell happened to you?  I used to look forward to your next post, but apparently you're determined to make this personal..?
Um, but did you even read it?  I said "CONCEPT IN MY HEAD," implying it was an idea!?  
"You don't have to make your concept unexist to say it doesn't exist outside of an idea.  We know one thing about the unicorn, it doesn't exist.  Are you actually saying you don't know unicorns don't exist?  Dur."
Oh you got me with that cunning "dur," again.  I really am out of my league.  
Okay, you are not understanding that I was referring to the existence CONTAINED WITHIN THE IDEA.  Of COURSE unicorns don't actually exist; I never said they did!!!!!!!!  If I can't make an argument without clarifying that I'm talking about existence IN THE IDEA OF THE UNICORN (as in, NOT IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THEIR ACTUAL EXISTENCE), then I probably can't help you understand the point behind it. (Note: in this particular post, you haven't disputed my arguments; you've drawn a red herring out of each one [except the one I misinterpreted before] which is unrelated to my actual point)
"Attack from a dozen different levels?  Commit to the regime?  I'm laughing dude, I really am."
That shows your ignorance.  First of all, you're OBVIOUSLY spinning 'regime' into some region of definition I certainly didn't intend (a regulated system or pattern of philosophical thought); it was a figurative use, not literal like a government regime or something.  Sheesh.  Blow something stupid out of proportion, why don't you. 
And yeah, I could attack it from a dozen different levels.  You don't think I could?  Empiricists.  Oh, wow, that's like two or three dozen major philosophers right there.  Skeptics.  Oops, there's another bunch.  Soft rationalists.  Geez, a hit from home turf.  Materialists (not necessarily empiricists, and with different emphasis even if).  Cynics.  Stoics.  Epicureans.  Logical Positivists.  Process.  Pragmatists... ETC.
I'm glad to know you're laughing.  I'm glad to know you're no longer interested in this serious debate (...about getting arguments [as proposed by certain philosophers] into the article).  If you still are, I'm doubting it, and that isn't a good sign.  Come on; just stop. :(
"Nope, I'm using conceive in the same way. It's simply to think about it. And please quit labeling me. You can only conceive of the desk through abstraction and extension too, as it's a desk you're talking about, not a bunch of wood, which is what it materially is."
No, you THINK you're using it the same way.  And, I KNOW THAT ALREADY.  I already said we conceive of things in abbreviated ways so we can readily use them as concepts.  I already said this.
"I told you, I don't agree with Kant, I've already read the book.  Don't waste space on this page."
What?  Weren't you also the one who said these?:
"and I don't really think that's what Kant was saying. I'll look through the book and see."
"I therefore hold that her existence or nonexistence is part of the total idea of my grandmother in my head, and as such is a property, contra Kant."
"Dude, Kant is already included. I'm disputing your summary of his argument. CPR is available online. Look it up and find it. I don't have time now, but in a few days I will."
"Cite your sources dude. Let the concept sink in." [several like this]
"Hilbert et al. [including Kant] are wrong"  
"Once again, you're argument. Don't you understand this page is not for you're arguments." (This didn't have to do with Kant, but it's clear that if I develop any sort of argument to any degree, I am going to be faced with a quote like this.  Therefore, to prevent it, I was intending to quote Kant, again.)
And yes, I know you've said you disagree with Kant, it just seems you aren't going to allow my summary of one of his arguments without agreeing to it, so I have to draw attention to this.
And anyway, how am I wasting space if you keep arguing with me?  You won't let my version of Kant's summary into the article, so HOW ELSE am I supposed to convince you other than with definitive passages from his work?  So now I'm not even allowed to 'waste space' with citations?  DO NOT say I'm just repeating myself.  Like I said, I apparently have to convince Roy Brumback that Kant said something specifically along the lines of my own terms (which were different than what was already featured in the article) in order for it to be posted.  I'm really losing confidence in the process here; there appears to be a problem.
"When did I say that can't be in the article?"
You didn't; you said this:
"Your argument, or Russell's, is about existence of an external thing, not an idea."
Which is completely false... absolutely false, I might add.  And anyway, you seem to be the authority for the ontological argument article in this argument (at least, I've agreed to consider your opinion for everything so far, and I've kept from modifying the article in light of this never-ending debate), so I'm waiting for you to say I CAN use it.  When you dispute things he [Russell] says, I get the impression you're just going to delete it, if I use it.
"Never said that either."
That was a joke (dur).  Now, can we stop using "dur" in this?  It's pretty damn childish, after all.
"I think he was begging the question here too, all I said is find a cite.  Dizam."
Are you regressing into your preadolescence or something?  What's your problem?  You used to be at least somewhat formal until now..  "Dizam?"  Is that a Christian way to avoid cursing or something? I don't even know what I said in the passage to which you were responding which frustrated you so much...? 
I know you want a cite, but what if I can't find anything more specific than a general rule (all ontological arguments beg the question, for instance)?  I guess I'll just cite someone arguing about question-begging and stick it somewhere else in the article.
"Nope, no cite, no agreement on talk page among many editors, no stay in article.  And that's about it dude.  This page isn't for personal debate.  Edit the article with cites or throw a specific edit out here and see if agreement is reached.  Please quit posting your debates with me about things other then what to include on this page, such as the existence as property thing, which is already in the article anyway, and I'm not trying to delete it am I?  If you want a debate partner, find a friend or join a discussion group or something.  Quit filling up this page with your ranting. "
What are you TALKING ABOUT!?  The ONLY one disagreeing with me is YOU; if I would've posted, and you wouldn't have been here, then what do you think would have happened?  Whether it's a good or bad thing, I can't just 'post an idea and watch how it floats,' like you keep telling me.
Why am I the one responsible for these debates?  And why are you forgetting the original purpose behind nearly every single argument we've had?  Trace. it. back.  Do it.  All of them originated from me trying to get comments/arguments/whatever INTO the article.  You've totally lost your decorum by calling this ranting (like I would have any trouble just starting a blog if that was my purpose for crying out loud).  Are you trying to pull an argumentum ad hominem?  I'm not some evil person sitting around trying to provide arguments without cause.  Do Wikipedia a favor and show a smidgeon more respect.  As you know, and as I've said a few times now, I've managed to resist editing the page without your consent, thus far.  Maybe I sound angry at times; maybe I sometimes pose rhetorical questions like, "Do you know what you're saying?"  However, I only do this after I perceive repeated misuse of an argument/description/whatever which actually makes me wonder.  However, I don't jump around saying "DUR" all over your arguments, and I don't just pretend like you're a "ranter/troll/n00b/whatever internet slang you want" because you don't agree with me.  If you remember, I ASKED you to debate in the first post; if you no longer desire to do so, I'm not coercively forcing you to continue in any way.  And again, I'm not ranting.  I've provided GOOD arguments, EVEN IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THEM, so far for the particular comments deleted in times past.  And you've done the same for the converse, although, obviously, I still disagree as well..
:Yawn.  The only thing that happened to me is I got sick of the endless pointless debates, most of which are not even about the article.  Dude, it's simple, what cited info about the ontological arguments for God do you wish to include in the article? Roy Brumback 07:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses Cont. IV