Philosopher19 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 3:19 am
Age wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 2:08 am
Why would someone say that they 'doubt' something, if they do not meaningfully doubt it?
People could doubt something else but say they doubt what you're saying because the semantics you want them to focus on with the language you're using has not resulted in them focusing on those semantics.
Of course people could do this, but, again, why would people want to doubt 'something else', but say they doubt what another saying?
Philosopher19 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 3:19 am
They have instead focused on different semantics.
Like what you have been doing and showing here?
Philosopher19 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 3:19 am
So, you are just more or less using the 'doubt' word here in a way the 'refute' words mean exactly, right?
I'm not sure.
Okay.
Think about what you could actually 'doubt' and what you could actually 'refute'.
Does the number of those things align?
Philosopher19 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 3:19 am
Also, why when one is doubting what they might have eaten yesterday, then this, to you, 'meaningful doubting', occurs?
Because one can legitimately be not sure about what they ate yesterday because, say, they don't remember.
So, what one just cannot remember is 'meaningful', correct?
Philosopher19 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 3:19 am
But when one is aware of the semantic of triangle, one cannot legitimately be unsure about whether triangles are triangular.
While one is agreeing with and accepting 'the definition' of 'a word', then it is fairly obvious that 'that one' would not be doubting 'the thing', itself, which 'that word' is denoting or referring to, right?
Philosopher19 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 3:19 am
Now, back to what I was pointing out and saying here, what cannot be refuted are sound and valid arguments. So, until you provide one what is meaningfully True here is that your so-called 'new ontological argument' here is not sound and valid, and therefore can be being, meaningfully, doubted, rejected, and refuted.
I believe I presented an argument.
I think you will find that what you believe here is true.
However, whether your argument is sound and valid is a completely whole other thing.
Philosopher19 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 3:19 am
I numbered it 1 to 4. If you see any part of it as refutable or dubitable, then which part? Is it 1, 2, 3 or 4 and why?
Because one cannot, yet, be sure of what you are actually meaning here, then any part of your argument here can be doubted, meaningfully, well according to your logic here.
For example;
1. What you claim as 'perfectly' existing, exists solely upon 'the definitions' one is providing and/or is agreeing with and accepting as being true. So, if one is agreeing with and accepting 'the definition' of the word 'God', for example, which includes that 'that thing' exists, then 'that one' would have already arrived at 'the conclusion' God exists. Nothing else would need to have been said here.
2. 'Semantics', themselves, are not necessarily objective at all. So, writing 'semantically/objectively' only ever works when absolutely every one is in agreement and accepting 'the definition' and 'the word' that 'the definition' is in relation to. Calling something a 'perfectly triangle' only works when absolutely every one could be in agreement and accepting 'this', (whatever 'this' is, exactly).
3. Might be Accurate and Correct, but this in no way means absolutely any thing is existing, that there even is any thing existing perfectly, nor that there even is a perfect existence, nor a perfect being existing.
4. 'We' can define the word 'God' with the words 'perfect existence' and/or 'perfect being', but you and others do not you necessarily, consciously, know what a 'perfect existence' or 'perfect being' is, exactly, at all. For example, a 'perfect triangle' has to be described with and by other words, and their definitions for 'us' to know whether a 'perfect triangle' exists or not. One cannot just ask, rhetorically, 'Do we know what a perfect existence/being is? and then just also answer and claim, {a word}, and expect everyone to know what our own personal definition is, exactly. The word 'God' also in now way at all explains nor describes what a 'perfect being' is, exactly, let alone what a 'perfect existence' is, exactly, neither. So, firstly you would have to describe what, and/or who, those things are, exactly, get absolute and total agreement and acceptance from and with every one, and then formulate' what you are trying to argue for here. But, then again, you would not then have to argue for what you are here anyway. As, 'it' would just then be an already irrefutable known Fact.
5. Your conclusion, 'Given 1-4, God indubitably exists', is not yet concluded because you have not yet described, nor explained how and why, (nor), what a 'perfect existence' and 'perfect being' is, exactly.
Also, and further more, for the ones while believing, absolutely, that God does not exist anyway, then they will doubt a 'perfect triangle' could even exist, which, to them, means, absolutely, that God also could not even be a possibility to exist. Just so you are forewarned.