Monday, July 4, 2016

A Formal Response to Inspiring Philosophy


A long time ago I made a video that dismantled the Modal Ontological Argument for God's Existence as presented by Inspiring Philosophy.  To IP's credit, he later put together a formal response to my video called AntiCitizenX's Maximally Great Field of Straw Men.  You can tell that he put a lot of work into his response, so I feel that I owe him a formal rebuttal.  This is philosophy, after all, and good philosophy rests on a proper exchange of ideas.

Dear Inspiring Philosophy,

What part of "You cannot prove God's existence by rote definition" does your idiotic, peon brain fail to understand?

Thanks for reading.


12 comments:

Anonymous said...

So basically the Ontologial Argument is "I define God as a being that exists therefore God exists." Couldn't you then just define God as a being that doesn't exist/exist necessarily? Or is it more complicated than that?

AnticitizenX said...

That's exactly what the Modal Ontological Argument entails. The word "God" is defined as a "maximally great being." Then maximal greatness is defined in such a way that includes the property of "necessary existence in all possible worlds." God's existence is therefore assumed outright as a matter of pure definition. It is therefore no longer an argument, but an assertion. So if you get to assert God's existence as a matter of definition, then I get to do the opposite. That's why logical question-begging is a formal fallacy.

Charles R. Cherry said...

LOL. So now we will see your name listed in all the latest philosophy textbooks as the person who defeated Anselm's Ontological Argument in one sentence?

Will your name be listed as "anticitizenX" or do you have a real name? I sure hope you get the credit due.

AnticitizenX said...

Charles,

Philosophers around the world overwhelmingly reject the ontological argument for essentially the reason I just described. I honestly don't know what you're trying to prove with this attitude of yours, except for your own complete ignorance on the subject.

Trev of Economia said...

Very "convincing" "rebuttal".

Anonymous said...

Why do you have to be so mean? Can't you just point out why he's wrong and leave it at that? Why do you have to insult him?

AnticitizenX said...

“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them." - Thomas Jefferson

When IP learns that rote definition cannot magically determine hard facts about objective reality, then he can join the rest of us at the philosophical grown-up table.

Anonymous said...

Obviously ridicule isn't the only weapon that can be used against ip's position, you actually used arguments in some of your videos. Obviously ip is more likely to agree with you if you don't call him names. But i guess you just don't care about convincing people, but you're just doing this to be popular.

AnticitizenX said...

What's to argue? The guy literally believes that if you define the word "God" in a fancy way, then that fact alone can be used to prove God's existence in objective reality. I have explained this a hundred times to him, and he doesn't get it.

Pray tell, how exactly do you argue with someone who believes the Earth is flat, despite having been shown images from space?

Anonymous said...

"What's to argue? The guy literally believes that if you define the word "God" in a fancy way, then that fact alone can be used to prove God's existence in objective reality. I have explained this a hundred times to him, and he doesn't get it. "

You can show him how you came to the conclusion that you can't define god into existence. And if he really isn't intelligent enough to understand your reasoning, why bother responding? Just to insult him? What are you going to acomplish by doing that aside from becoming more popular in the atheist community? Maybe you think ip is stupid for not understanding your opinion, but you don't go around insulting children or mentally challenged people just because they're stupid, do you? So why would you go around insulting people like ip.

"Pray tell, how exactly do you argue with someone who believes the Earth is flat, despite having been shown images from space?"

Martymer 81 made a video series called flat out wrong, in which he gives a couple of proofs that don't require you to go to space, also the greeks knew that the earth was a sphere and they never went to space.

AnticitizenX said...

"You can show him how you came to the conclusion that you can't define god into existence."

I did. See this video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt2dywK1RZs

And this video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=853uLRNlMHo

"And if he really isn't intelligent enough to understand your reasoning, why bother responding?"

IP is a sophist and a dogmatist. He will never admit that he is wrong about anything related to his faith, no matter how categorically fallacious his reasoning is. So obviously the goal is not to "convince" IP of anything, to convince a more general audience. Most people don't have the time or energy to dismantle the rhetorical word-salad that people IP present, so I'm doing that job for them in an easy-to-understand way.

"Maybe you think ip is stupid for not understanding your opinion, but you don't go around insulting children or mentally challenged people just because they're stupid, do you? So why would you go around insulting people like ip."

Are you saying that IP has the mind of a child? Or that he is mentally challenged? Because I really don't exactly disagree. He does, however, have many tens of thousands of subscribers and viewers to his videos. They deserve to know why his arguments are bad.

"Martymer 81 made a video series called flat out wrong, in which he gives a couple of proofs that don't require you to go to space, also the greeks knew that the earth was a sphere and they never went to space."

Guess what? Not a single, true-believing flat-Earther was convinced by any of it. If you also go back and watch his videos more closely, you will find many instances where Marty openly mocks them.



Anonymous said...

"I did."

I've seen the video's. And you did a great job at explaining why ip is wrong. But again why not just leave it at that? Why so you also have to insult him?

"IP is a sophist and a dogmatist. He will never admit that he is wrong about anything related to his faith, no matter how categorically fallacious his reasoning is."

I don't know about that, didn't ip abandon subjective idealism because of knownnomore's video against idealism 2.1. He might not have admitted that he was wrong and he lied about not having argued for subjective idealism, but he did stop arguing for subjective idealism. So that's an example of him changing his mind about something relating his faith.

"So obviously the goal is not to "convince" IP of anything, to convince a more general audience. Most people don't have the time or energy to dismantle the rhetorical word-salad that people IP present, so I'm doing that job for them in an easy-to-understand way."

And you do a great job at showing why he is wrong, but you could do that without insulting him. If the audience is not convinced after watching your video's 'nothing exists necessarily' and 'everything wrong with the ontological argument', do you really think that this post is going to convince them? I don't think that insults are going to convince his audience either.

"Are you saying that IP has the mind of a child? Or that he is mentally challenged?"

That's not exactly what i meant, i'm just saying that you wouldn't insult children and mentally challenged people just because they're stupid. So why would you insult other people that aren't as smart as you, like ip?

"Because I really don't exactly disagree. He does, however, have many tens of thousands of subscribers and viewers to his videos. They deserve to know why his arguments are bad."

Insults aren't going to tell them why ip is wrong, so just stick to the arguments.

"Guess what? Not a single, true-believing flat-Earther was convinced by any of it. If you also go back and watch his videos more closely, you will find many instances where Marty openly mocks them."

Martymer shouldn't have mocked them.