Philosopical feedback request
So, like always, I've been out debating people all over the place, and lately I've been getting back into theological debates - and before everyone groans and goes "OH GOD NO, NO MORE RELIGIOUS DEBATES" - That is not the purpose of this thread(although I'm afraid it might evolve into that if people don't keep on topic, in which case I hope a mods steps up and locks it).
What I'd like to request is that some of you guys take a stab at helping me either (1)completely disprove(in which I'll have to start over, or give up), or (2)critique(so that I may improve upon it), an argument which I have constructed.
The argument is not really meant seriously, and is more of a small mind-game meant to challeng people who readily accept the counter-part from which I derived this work, which is the argument known as "The Ontological Argument For The Existence of God".
It would be a great help, if the people involved were at least slightly familiar with this argument(or similar ones) from the get go(so I don't have to side-track to much explaining stuff), but it is by no means required.
That being said, don't take this seriously as if I'm having a go at religion etc. I'm simply having fun with an exercise in logic, and hope some of you(looking at you xeno, ronin, murx, and a few others - Too bad norrin isn't around) would want to chip in.
So here is the argument:
I've dubbed it -
"The ontological argument for agnostisism/atheism"
[0] Agnosticism as used in this argument, is the stance that the existence of god is undetereminable.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) God is the greatest concievable entity.
(2) an entity inconcievable to humans, is greater than one which is.
(premise "2" is, of course, open for debate, but I base this on
the fact that humans are fallible, and that anything readily
concievable by humans can hardly be considered to be "greatest" in any meaningfull sense. I consider this the weakest part of the argument)
(3) Granted (2), if god is concievable, he is not the greatest entity there is and therefor he/she is not god, by definition.
(4) If god is inconcievable, humans cannot reasonably assert anything about the nature of god.
(5) To argue for the existence, or assert anything about the nature of something which cannot be concieved is to commit the fallacy of "argument from ignorance".
(6) To argue for the the existence of god, granted 1-5, is either to argue for an entity which is not god, by definition, or to commit the fallacy of "argument from ignorance".
(7) Granted 1-6, no valid arguments can be made for the existence of god, and therefore his/hers existence cannot be verified by those means.
(8) Granted 0-7, the only valid stance to the claim "god exists",
is agnosticism [or atheism, if we grant that it is most reasonable thing to do, is to not entertain faith in unverifiable claims(consider unicorns etc)].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, before anyone tries to point out that this entire argument can be thwarted simply by asserting that god is "not the greatest entity", but simply "the greatest concievable entity", then bear in mind that taking such a stance would render the concept of theistic gods redundant, as that would mean that greater beings than god are just as likely as god himself, which would create one hell of a problem for theistic consistancy.
So what do people think?
Is it sound? If not, were is it flawed? Can it be improved, or should it be discarded altogether?
Again, I would never use this argument in a real discussion(considering that what we can concieve or not, is not relevant to whether something actually exists or not), I'm simply trying to point out, that by accepting the premises of the original ontological argument, I believe this argument to be just as sound.
The only way I can see, as of now, of escaping this argument, is by rejecting premises that would also render the ontological argument invalid, and that was the point of me creating this argument.
IMPORTANT:
Don't ask for a summary of this. If you're not willing to spend the 5-10 minuttes it takes to read this text, then it's unlikely that you'll be able to contribute anything of value to the discussion.
HELP ME ONRPG <3
-------------------------------------------------------
EDIT:
I've made a new reformulation of the argument that might deal with some of the more obvious flaws, which goes as follows:
(1) God by definition, must be the greatest of all entities if he/she exists.
(2) Inconceivable greatness is greater than conceivable greatness.
(conceivable greateness is finite and limited, inconceivable greatness is not)
(3) For an entity to warrant the label of "greatest", granted (2),
it must be inconceivably great
(4) [in the Ontological argument]
God is an entity of "which no greater can be conceived".
(5) That of which "no greater can be conceived", is, granted (2)
still less great than the "inconceivable".
(6) [Ontological]God, granted 2-4, is not an entity that warrants the label
of "greatest"
(7) Granted 1-7, "Ontological God" is not God
(8) Granted 1-3, If God exists, he/she is inconceivable.
Add.
(9) If Gods greatness is inconceivable all arguments regarding
God predicated on his/her nature, are fallacious by proxy
by committing the fallacy of argument from ignorance.
Originally Posted by hian
