tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post7176403675823705052..comments2024-03-28T13:23:50.623-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Fictional characters and the ontological argumentAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-47905421817945253272017-04-05T17:24:04.666-05:002017-04-05T17:24:04.666-05:00I would think that those who accept fictional exis...I would think that those who accept fictional existence as a kind of existence would be disinclined to accept (1) unless they already think it is true that God exists in a supreme way. Valid but perhaps a bit question begging.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-2373649974709179282017-04-01T16:11:32.885-05:002017-04-01T16:11:32.885-05:00https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b9/Mag...https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b9/MagrittePipe.jpgJaroslaw Michalakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11977769411203926787noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-90328860567947766662017-04-01T14:40:30.275-05:002017-04-01T14:40:30.275-05:00Existing as a fictional character would be a way o...Existing as a fictional character would be a way of existing. I myself am sceptical of fictional characters, so I wouldn't say that anything exists as a fictional character.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-86611492716081035612017-04-01T13:40:17.685-05:002017-04-01T13:40:17.685-05:00OK, now I think I have absorbed the secondary comm...OK, now I think I have absorbed the secondary comment and this is supposed to be a reductio ad absurdem and not a conditional proof. <br /><br />In that case it is simply an equivocation fallacy, because existence as a fictional character is a different sense of existence than actual existence which is the type of existence necessary to carry P1.<br /><br />Still have to think this is an April Fools joke.tompainehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10954685650302286616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-11608424912215936802017-04-01T11:43:50.329-05:002017-04-01T11:43:50.329-05:00This is an April fools joke. It is not a valid arg...This is an April fools joke. It is not a valid argument because...<br /><br /> a proper conditional proof. Such a proof should take the form<br /><br />1. A → B ("If A, then B")<br />2. B → C ("If B, then C")<br />3. A (conditional proof assumption, "Suppose A is true")<br />4. B (follows from lines 1 and 3, modus ponens; "If A then B; A, therefore B")<br />5. C (follows from lines 2 and 4, modus ponens; "If B then C; B, therefore C")<br />6. A → C (follows from lines 3–5, conditional proof; "If A, then C")<br /><br />So for this argument it would be <br /><br />1. If God exists in any way, he exists in the supreme way of existing.<br />2. If God does not exist in the supreme way of existing, God exists as a fictional character.<br />3. Suppose it true God exists in some way<br />4. God exists in the supreme way of existing<br />5. God exists as a fictional character<br />6 God exists in the supreme way of existing, therefore God exists as a fictional character?<br /><br />Wow, that is truly bollixed. Either I made a mistake, the argument is just nonsense, or Pruss proved God is a fictional character. ????<br /><br />I think the thing is it's just not a proper proof of anything. The conclusion as I think the argument is intended to make one think would follow from by asserting that God is not a fictional character. <br /><br />But that would beg the question egregiously.<br /><br />I see the problem. The consequent in 1, B, doesn't match the antecedent in 2, which should also be B.<br /><br />So, actually what he gave was <br /><br />1. A->B<br />2. ~B-> C<br />3. C<br /><br />ERROR MESSAGEtompainehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10954685650302286616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-86324409681767842592017-04-01T11:11:45.382-05:002017-04-01T11:11:45.382-05:00It's valid.
Here are the steps between 2 and...It's valid. <br /><br />Here are the steps between 2 and 3.<br /><br />Suppose for a reductio that God does not exist in the supreme way of existing.<br />Then God exists as a fictional character (by 2).<br />Then God exists in the supreme way of existing (by 1, since existing as a fictional character is a way of existing).<br />That's a contradiction.<br /><br />So, God exists in the supreme way of existing.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-13425557039986831052017-04-01T10:37:03.305-05:002017-04-01T10:37:03.305-05:00Are you sure this is valid?
If we accept 1, we sho...Are you sure this is valid?<br />If we accept 1, we should IMO reject 2. Because if 1 is true, God can only exist in the supreme way of existing and unless existing as a fictional character is the same as existing in the supreme way, 2 cannot be true.Walter Van den Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16101735542155226072noreply@blogger.com