Philosopical feedback request

[hian]

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.

[immabrit]

Well, he is the greatest conceiveable god, but the gods of other religions are at the same level. Consider hinduism, they have multiple gods. but they could be grouped together into the christian and catholic God. Judaisim is very similar to Catholisism, and christianity. but Christianity and catholisism practice that all others have the wrong belief, and therefore are heretics. Where as most other religions believe that the other religions beleive that the religion is correct but the way it is practiced is incorrect. Also, Atheism isn't just the belief that God doesn't exist, but that all the Deities of all other religions are also false. But believe in the universe, which is another form of karma an indian religion. So, if you believe gods are false yet believe in the universe, then the universe would be considered your deity. So unless you don't believe in anything then you belong to another religion, you may not know exists Jainism for an example, is a path of non-violence for all things in the world. No clue, hope this helps. and this is coming from someone who understands other religions, with many friends that are of other religions.

[Ronin]

I am a little puzzled at the stance of how you define "existence".

Following the deduction of
- I think therefore I am
- What can influence me is too
- What can not influence me is not

Nothing that can never influence me exists.

If you do not adhere to this, as is my conclusion, the difference between existence and non-existence is void, you have no definition of what existence is and any argument about an existence of god falls flat on it's nose, when you accept the idea of things existing that can't be found out about.

Hence agnosticism is a sham.

Ins short:
It's pointless to talk about "inconceivable" as an a-priori quality, but I believe you do so here. That's not the purpose of the meaning of the word. If you have 2 actors engaging in dialogue, one might say: "This truth is inconceivable by you, you where not present at the occurring of the effects." This implies that it would have been possible to conceive the effects if present and the one making the statement uses this as the lever of the argument.
Now experience and a certain amount of good-will allows the other party to consider the possibility of the occurrence.

Without the other witness party, however, it would be insane to consider it as even a possibility, like agnostics do, or you do in your abstract argument.

[Pok]

(1) God is percieved to be the greatest entity that can possibly exist.

Why? There are many gods that were dreamed up that were not the greatest entity possible, many had glaring personality flaws (Jealousy for one). I don't think that it is necessary that if there was a god, it is the greatest entity that could exist. If you do consider this something that is required of a god, I think it could boil down to an argument of semantics and calling the god a creator.

Kinda reminds me of a reversed kalam cosmological argument. Also, the word inconceivable being used so many times makes me think of the princess bride.

[hian]

^Exactly, I'm of that opinion too. I also personally believe that we can know whether god exists, but of course that is dependant on what god is supposed to mean to begin with.

However, if god is "greatest"(great as predicated on our ability to perceive stuff) in the sense Anselm uses it, then god is unknowable.
Even if that is nonsensical from a pragmatic naturalist point of view, it is a valid logical position, granted the premises used in the argument.
A good example of something similar is "Pascals Wager" - While the formulation of the argument is sound, the argument itself is inapplicable because it doesn't take into account all the other possible alternative deities(and other conceivable alternatives), and is as such, a false dichotomy in and of itself(even if the argument internally consistant).

I.E The structure of the argument is true, even if the premises aren't. That's also what I'm looking to do with my argument - To create an argument that is logically sound based on false premises that theists accept when they apply their arguments.
If this can be done, theists must either accept my conclusion and lose all grounds for arguing, or reject my premises, which would mean rejecting their own arguments as well.

IMO it can serve as a great reminder to people, never to accept unthinkingly premises that are simply asserted through an argument, and also always to question not only the coherency of the logic, but whether the argument is actually applicable to our world or not.

Thanks for the feedback though. It actually helped me a lot in the process of reformulating a tightening the argument.