Wouldn't that make a god, bipolar?
Offline The god that's talked about in the bible certainly is manic, and prone to severe mood swings.
He comes off as a petulant tyrannical infantile.
What's with all his out of control rage issues?
He'd get arrested in this world.
And he would be a piss poor designer of anything practical.
Is that why he's supposedly jealous of other gods?
Because he just couldn't measure up in comparison?
So he'd create a band of fanboys and groupies that elect him #1?
Ya, that's some champ.
Whadda hero!
If he wanted his creations to follow a pattern, why would he design in a mechanism that could arbitrarily override his original pattern?
Just so he could get pissy over something?
That's retarded.
Ya, talk about working in 'mysterious' ways.
Is that an apologists euphemism for being drunk, or retarded?
What a drama queen.
Who would want to put up with that ch1t, let alone sign up for that?
And why is it that he wouldn't be able to control his emotions, and just 'get over it', when we do what we like?
What would have been his issue?
We didn't ask to be born, and we certainly didn't ask for free will. So why get pissy over something he would have been responsible for making us have?
As Hitchens says, "Of course I have free will. I had no choice!"
And if he gave us a gift (life), why would he want something in return?
Isn't "It's better to give than receive" supposed to be a virtue ?
Why justification for being petty, and wanting something in return, would he have?
That's not doing something out of the goodness of your heart.
It doesn't sound like he would actually have much heart at all.
The dude sounds like he'd have a lot of anger, some real dysfunction going on, and severe control issues.
And where would he get off on hurting people that aren't strong enough to put up a fight?
He'd be beating up on women and children?
Real tough guy.
Sound like he'd be a complete fcuking douchebag.
It sounds like this dude would be completely out of control, of his emotions, and actions.
Things that we humans are supposed to learn to control.
Sound like he would have been able to learn to be more 'human', and that he should take guidance from us.
And apologize to all of us for being so despicable, and all the insane ch1t he'd have done to us.
I don't think he'd be man enough.
He really would need to piss off, and leave the minions alone, if he were real. And I'm glad he's not, and just a fairy tale.
They could use some better role models.
Why aren't those minions looking at how we (humans) are infinitely better 'beings' than a freak like that would be?
WTF?
Glad he's not real.
That would be a nightmare...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
- Login to post comments
Haha, honestly, I don't get it either. I think redneF just 'reacts' to the fact that you're a theist and isn't quite as willing to communicate.
Fair enough. Sounds reasonable to me. I wouldn't debate with someone like that either.
I don't define it that way, but if you want to define it that way, that's fine.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Whee. He pulled out the big guns. Unfortunately, the only formal logic I know is college freshmen level propositional logic. But, let me try and fail anyways. If he's better than Quaestro, he'll let me ask questions.
1), if God exists, then it is necessary that God exists.
So, with 1), there is a material implication that 'if it is not necessary that not God, then God?'
It's not necessary that there isn't a God.
Modus ponens? So the material implication sign is like a conditional?
G via modus ponens again.
---
Okay, my main problems are with 1) and 2).
If God exists, then it is necessary that God exists? What does it mean to say that it is necessary?
What is a material implication? If God exists, then it is necessary that God exists >> if it is not necessary that God doesn't exist, then God exists? How does this work? I would think that it is either possible that God exists or doesn't exist. Even if he exists, that doesn't make his existence "necessary," based on my understanding of the term, unless you just defined God as necessary, but that's just question begging.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Doesn't work, since you assume it is possible that there can be an necessary being matching the definition of God.
Otherwise all you are showing that if something is necessary, it must exist. D'uh.
There are probably physical laws that must exist in order for there to be 'existence' of some sort, but just as in the KCA, you have not demonstrated that what you have proved to exist has any of the attributes of God.
Now show us your argument.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Lol, I think he just did.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
If that is his best argument, then he is obliged to concede defeat, throw out his current world-view, and become an atheist.
But that would also require rationality and integrity, so I don' t expect to see it.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
No. The premise is 'It is not necessary that God does not exist'; it is not 'a necessary being N exists and it is possible that N is God'.
Physical laws are propositions, and they only exist inasmuch that people formalize them. Physical laws simply describe how the physical world behaves; thus, what you are saying here is that the physical behavior of the world may be necessary (specifically, you are saying that it is possible that it is necessary that the world behaves as it does). But if it's possible that it is necessary that the physical world behaves as it does, then it is necessary that the physical world behaves as it does (see the axiom of the system S5).
In essence, you would be committing yourself to the bizarre belief that the light must necessarily travel at 186,000 miles per second, such that light traveling at 186,001 miles per second is logically contradictory--even though the predicate here is clearly not contained in the subject (i.e., light is not defined as something which travels at 186,000 miles per second).
In simplest terms, he was attempting to 'bargain'.
That's what a good snake oil salesman does.
He was 'telegraphing' his desperation.
His self indulgent masturbations are 'old hat'.
I wasn't stupid enough to fall into his rabbit hole.
It was completely predictable what mistakes and inferences he was willing to allow, in order to satisfy himself as the winner.
My predictions were correct.
He's simply not very bright.
And he's dishonest about his intentions.
And we should all hope Mr_Big Dick doesn't experiment with heavy explosives, or radioactive material...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
whatever happened to Quastro? wasn't he supposed to be converting us or something among those lines?
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
It means that the idea of God's nonexistence entails a logical contradiction. Specifically, you are claiming that given the existence of an unlimited being, the unlimited being requires certain preconditions in order for his existence to be maintained; however, the requirement of such preconditions is a limitation, and therefore you would be arguing that the idea of an unlimited being includes a limitation.
It's an unqualified conditional sentence--such as 'if P, then Q'. However, the first order logic truth conditions for such sentences allow the sentence to be true even if P and Q are both false. So, for example, 'If the moon is made of green cheese, then cheeseburgers can talk' is considered a true sentence in first order logic.
Obviously, this seems paradoxical. Strict implication, however, stipulates that the conditional statement is necessary de dicto--such that consequent must necessarily follow from the antecedent; hence, it is not just 'if P, then Q', but it is 'it is necessary that P entails Q'.
It's not question begging anymore than it is question begging to say that a square has four sides. That God exists is an analytic statement.
Eh....from what I saw, he was just asking if you would accept deductively sound arguments. That doesn't seem like "bargain" you should avoid.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
All I got out of it was
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }
G = (∃x) Gx = God exists
P-->Q = strict implication
P⊃Q = material implication
⌜X = It is necessary that X
~⌜~X = It is not necessary that not-X = It is possible that X
(1) G-->⌜G
(2) (G-->⌜G)⊃(~⌜~G-->G)
(3) ~⌜~G
(4) ~⌜~G-->G (1,2; MP)
::. G (3,4; MP)
God exists entails that it is necessary that god exists.
If god exists entails that it is necessary that god exists then it is not necessary that god exists entails that god exists.
It is not necessary that god exists.
It is not necessary that god exists entails that god exists (MP)
Since it is not necessary that god exists then God exists (MP)
Help me out with a full commentary Mr metaphysics since I am not hip on modal logic. I respond as long as there is no pointless nasties.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
last I heard of him was when I responded that Plantinga while being considered the top Christian philosopher out there as Quaestro said did not succeed with his ontological argument. I offered him Godel's which I guess I'll give to Mr. metaphysics:
Godel comes closest to an ontological argument worthy of taking a look:
All capital letters represent any given property. All small letters represent objects. I use the word "negative" to merely mean non-positive.
Entailment: V "entails" W if and only if in all possible worlds, all objects with property V also have property W. Note that if in all possible worlds, there is not a single object with property V, then V automatically entails W.
Axiom 1: If Z entails Y, and if Z is positive, then Y is also positive.
Axiom 2: For all properties Z, either Z is positive or not-Z is positive, but not both.
Theorem 1: If a property Q is positive, then in some possible world there exists an object with property Q.
Proof by contradiction:
Suppose that Q is positive, and that there is not any possible world where there exists an object with property Q.
Then in all possible worlds, there are no objects with property Q.
Therefore Q entails any given property. Q entails R and Q entails not-R.
Therefore R and not-R are both positive. This contradicts Axiom 2.
God-like: An object is "god-like" if and only if the object has every property which is positive. Note that a god-like object cannot have any negative properties. If a god-like object had negative property V, then it would fail to have the positive property not-V.
Axiom 3: The property of being god-like is a positive property.
Theorem 2: In some possible world, there exists an object which is god-like.
Since god-like is a positive property, Theorem 1 states that in some possible world there exists an object with the god-like property.
Essence: Property V is an "essence" of x if and only if the following conditions hold:
The object x has the property V.
If x has any property U, then V entails U.
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is positive in all possible worlds.
Theorem 3: If an object x is god-like, then the god-like property is the essence of x.
Suppose x has any property Q. x cannot have any negative properties, so Q must be positive.
Therefore, in all possible worlds, Q is a positive property.
Therefore, in all possible worlds, any god-like object must have property Q.
Therefore the god-like property entails Q.
Necessary existence: Object x is "necessarily existing" if and only if the following condition holds: For any property V, if V is an essence of x, then in all possible worlds there exists an object with property V.
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property.
Theorem 4: In all possible worlds, there exists a god-like object.
We know that in some possible world, there exists a god-like object.
Since necessary existence is a positive property in all possible worlds, that god-like object must be necessarily existing.
That object has the god-like property as its essence.
By the definition of necessary existence, there must, in all possible worlds, exist an object which has the god-like property.
Corrolary 1: If there are two god-like objects, then they cannot have any properties which are different.
Proof by contradiction:
Suppose we have two god-like objects, and some property Q which applies to one object, but not the other.
Since god-like objects cannot have negative properties, Q must be positive.
Similarly, not-Q must be positive. This contradicts Axiom 2.
Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.
Axiom 2: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive
Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive.
Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.
There are still a lot of presuppositions in it. It is only worth a look because of his incompleteness theory.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
Why would he be concerned with what I would accept as proof, unless he wanted to bargain?
Unless he wanted me to acquiesce?
Because he's not in possession of anything that's incredibly compelling, to the layman, or the scientist, or the theorist, or the mathematician, et al.
Otherwise he'd have won the Nobel Prize, the JREF million dollar challenge, and become a living legend.
He would qualify as a potential god.
None of those are likely to ever become a reality, as far as I can see.
He's just a really bad joke.
Guys like him, are a dime a dozen...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Huh?
- What is an unlimited being? How do you know that God is an unlimited being? You just defined him as such; ergo, he exists?
So.....God is an unlimited being. Not existing is a limitation. Since God is an unlimited being, he can't be limited. Ergo, he must exist. This is your argument?
I think I remember that about truth tables. If the P and Q are both false, then the conditional is true. Weird philosophy thing.
Okay, so it's a conditional, except..........?
Well, saying that a square has four sides would also be question begging IF you did not yet demonstrate the existence of squares, but then used the properties of squares to reach another conclusion; that is essentially my rebuttal to your argument. It's not question begging in the case of squares because we know that squares exist and we know that they possess the properties that they have.
If I understand your argument correctly, then it is clearly just your basic ontological argument where you smuggle your question begging in as a definition. Based on your logic, once you define any entity in such a way that it's existence is necessary, that entity necessarily exists. I could claim that there is an "unlimited" invisible pink unicorn, and it would follow that this unicorn exists. Clearly, that cannot be.
So, that there contradiction between your definition of God and the assertion that he can't exist does not mean that he necessarily exists. It means there is a problem with your definition and your usage of the definition, namely, that you cannot attach properties suggesting existence or non-existence in the first place or that you cannot use it because you cannot define reality. It's like defining that sharks are animals that have lasers on their heads; it doesn't mean that real sharks actually have lasers on their heads. You can only define ideas; for those ideas to be relevant to reality, you have to reference reality. In short, at most, what you have is a definition of an entity that necessarily exists; simply defining it such that it necessarily exists doesn't mean that, *poof,* it really exists. Simply to have a philosophical statement that claims to address reality does not make it reality. That, my friend, is question begging.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Maybe he's concerned because he thinks you might be irrational? I mean, if someone wasn't willing to accept sound deductive arguments, I wouldn't want to debate with them either.
Surely, you would accept a sound deductive argument. Why not just say yes?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Similar arguments to Mr. metaphysics
1. God exists in the understanding but not in reality. (Assumption for reductio)
2. Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone. (Premise)
3. A being having all of God's properties plus existence in reality can be conceived. (Premise)
4. A being having all of God's properties plus existence in reality is greater than God. (From (1) and (2).)
5. A being greater than God can be conceived. (From (3) and (4).)
6. It is false that a being greater than God can be conceived. (From definition of “God”.)
7. Hence, it is false that God exists in the understanding but not in reality. (From (1), (5), (6).)
8. God exists in the understanding. (Premise, to which even the Fool agrees.)
9. Hence God exists in reality. (From (7), and 8
Plantinga's paraphrase of At. Anselm
Charles Hartshorne believes that the ontological argument forces on us the disjunction, either "God exists" is true necessarily or "God exists" is false necessarily. This, he holds, is simply a logical extension of what Anselm discovered, for, as Anselm saw, God cannot be understood in the imperfect mode of contingency, whether as existing or not. Hartshorne thinks that the possibility of "God exists" may be asserted as an intuitive postulate. If so, then the second of the disjuncts -- that "God exists" is false necessarily -- is false (and indeed could not be true). Hence, "God exists" is true necessarily.
The problem with these arguments is that they can be reversed and also prove that god does not exist.
R. L. Purtill has pointed out, a precisely parallel argument holds if we conjoin with the original disjunction the premise that "God does not exist" is possible. For then the first of the disjuncts -- that "God exists" is true necessarily -- is false (and must be so). "God exists is then false necessarily.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2581
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
Why would that be of any consequence to someone who claims they can prove the existence of a god?
Why would the one human who can do what no man has been able to do, since antiquity, give a flyin' fricken' yup, about what lil' ole me could, or could not, or will, or will not do?
Think about it.
How insecure is that?
As a proof of a god, in the abscence of any evidence that allows scientific scrutiny, and that is able to make predictions?
Why would I accept it as anything but what it is?
A hypothesis.
Why would I add anything superfluous to his hypothesis?
I must remain impartial.
The onus is on him, not me.
I'm simply an observer of a demonstration.
To assure than I remain impartial.
You may have missed it, a while back, when I caught him by surprise.
He didn't test his premise thoroughly at all.
It's full of if's and then's.
That's computer programming that I learned in the BASIC language, back in high school.
If's and then's and goto's.
He went into full syntax error (and sidestepped his fatal programming error) when I hit him with one simple qualifier question to his premise:
The qualifier that's absent to make his premises workable, and viable, begs the question "According to whom?"
In a nutshell, he's playing the part of a god, and 'commanding' people to submit to him.
This isn't a premise that's sound and logical.
It's insane.
The other important aspect is his confession to harley's question.
In which Mr_Mega Dick confesses:
He's reached a paradox in his formula that can prove that a god exists.
His formula is valid for both the chicken and the egg.
Simply put, you can't suck and blow at the same time.
Even a child could unravel this guy.
Which is why he only plays a big shot on the internets, and he's a nobody in the real world.
Mr_Mega Dick ain't got the balls to play with the big boys out in the real world, so he thinks he can escape the real world on the internets.
He can't win from losing.
Dang this has been soooooooooo anticlimactic
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
For those that remember the old tune by Traffic, you can sing along to this new one :
Dear Mr. Metaphysics play us a tune
Something to make us all happy
Do anything take us out of this gloom sing a song, play guitar, make it snappy
You are the one that can make us all laugh
But doing that you break out all in tears
Please don't be sad if it was a straight mind you had
We wouldn't have known you all these years. (Guitar solos begin)
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
nah, he's hilarious.
I know God is an unlimited being in the same way that I know a square has four sides; God is an unlimited being by definition. If you don't want to call an unlimited being 'God', then call it something else; it's what I am arguing for.
Wayne's World would be helpful in this case--
Stacy: Happy anniversary Wayne!
Wayne: Stacy, we broke up a month ago.
Stacy: Well that doesn't mean we can't still go out.
Wayne: Well yes it does, actually. You see, that's what 'breaking up' is.
No, not existing is not a limitation. But the possibility of not existing is a limitation; if God exists, and it's possible for him to not exist, then he is limited.
I'm not sure what you are asking. Strict implication is a conditional sentence qualified by the necessity operator, material implication is a condition sentence that is unqualified.
Actually, this is wrong. A standard tenet in predicate logic is that universal affirmatives have no existential import. If you examine the structure of universal affirmatives in predicate logic, this becomes clear. Take the premise, 'All apples are fruit', and let Ax = 'x is an apple', and Fx = 'x is fruit'.
(x)(Ax-->Fx)
Notice here that it's a conditional statement; it's saying that *if* something x is an apple, then x is also a fruit. Nowhere does it actually assert that something is, in fact, an apple (this would be symbolized '(∃x)Ax').
Again, the fact that we know the properties of squares has nothing to do with the fact that they exist. (On a side note, they do not actually exist in any concrete sense; they are abstract entities.)
It's not question begging anymore than it is question begging to assume that a square has four sides. Remember, universal affirmatives have no existential import, i.e., 'All apples are fruit' does not require that apples have real existence. Definitions are not proven, they are agreed upon.
Now, if you wish to argue that an unlimited being is *impossible*, then you are making a completely different argument, and you will have the burden either to show that the idea of such a being is logically contradictory, or that some logically consistent ideas cannot possibly exist.
This is just Gaunilo's Island, and Anselm debunked it over 500 years ago. 'Unlimited pink unicorn' is a contradiction in terms because unicorns are conceived to be material things, and materiality is a limitation. And if you want to say that this unicorn is immaterial, then there really is no reason to call it a 'unicorn'. Ultimately, if you keep saying 'Well, this unicorn is all-powerful, and it's omniscient... etc', then you have proven the existence of God and you are just calling it 'unicorn'.
Furthermore, 'Clearly, that cannot be' is not a legitimate objection. Let's assume that my argument *can* be used to prove that a pink unicorn exists; how does that actually show where my argument goes wrong? Just saying 'Clearly, that cannot be' is not good enough.
Ultimately, your rebuttal degenerates into 'you can't do that'. That's really not much of a rebut. If defining God as unlimited logically implies that he exists, and no contradictions ensue, then why can't I do that? There must be more to your objection than just declaring that I cannot do something.
No, it is not like that. The first premise of the argument is that God's existence entails that he exists necessarily. That sharks have lasers on their heads would be false if they were substituted in the first premise, because the antecedent condition of a shark having a laser on its head in no way entails that it is necessary that the shark has a laser on its head.
But for the sake of discussion, let's go further with your objection. Let's define a 'Smark' as a shark with a laser on its head, and let's see how far we can get in this argument.
(1) If smarks exist, then it is necessary that there is a shark with a laser on its head.
(Okay, this is true enough. If a shark with a laser on its head exists, then it necessarily follows that there is a shark with a laser on its head.)
(2) If the existence of smarks entails necessarily that there is a shark with a laser on its head, then the possibility of smarks entails the actual existence of smarks.
(This is clearly false; hence, my argument cannot be parodied in this way.)
It's not question begging. Question begging is when the truth of your premises depends on the truth of the conclusion. However, not a single one of my premises requires the prior assumption that God exists.
Once again, your statement is false. A universal affirmative does not require *any* reference to reality in order to be true. And simply declaring that knowledge of reality requires empirical observation or reference to reality is question begging on *your* part; you are making a universal claim about epistemology, and you have not even addressed the opposing claims of rationalists or idealists.
If the only substance to your objection is saying 'you can't do that', then you really do not have one. You are simply telling me what I cannot do, and then using unicorns as an intuition pump. It's a really weak objection to this argument.
(1) If God exists, then it is necessary that God exists.
(This seems true enough. God is understood to be an unlimited being, and any attempts to say that he could possibly not exist--that is, if he existed--would be to introduce a limitation into him; however, an unlimited being cannot be limited.)
(2) If God's existence entails that he necessarily exists, then the possibility of God existing entails his actual existence.
(According to system S5 of modal logic--which I see no reason to reject--if it is possible that something is necessary, then it is necessary; this is much easier to grasp using possible worlds semantics--for example, if there is a possible world where a being exists in every possible world, then this being exists in every possible world including ours.)
(3) It is possible that God exists.
(The concept of 'God' contains no prima facie contradictions; however, it is easy enough for atheists to claim that it may be logically contradictory--this is why Plantinga said that the argument is not always good--in which case the debate reaches an impasse.)
..... and then you can just apply the basic rules of First Order Logic to arrive at 'God exists'.
Couldn't 1 be also written as:
1) If God does not exist, then it is necessary that God not exist? We have also not yet established that god is an unlimited being. He may just be techno-magically advanced relative to us.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
I think that Plantinga thought that it worked for a while. He later called it victorious in the sense that it made the conclusion rational since he had a rational premise. I think that That is the problem with having a valid argument that may not be true. It can show that the thought is rational not that it IS true. Try reversing your ontological aurgument with god does not exist and you end up with the impasse. Anselm's argument (which you might wanna add to yours) started with the idea of a supreme god in thought and attempted to make it necessarily so as true. I think I posted Plantinga's reworking of the argument. Many have tried to perfect it including Oppenheimer. I think I posted Plantiga's at post 116 and Godel's which I like prior to that. Plantinga also failed ultimately with the theodicy issue using a possible worlds approach. My point about Zeno earlier is that he still causes ripples in philosophy and physics firstly because his paradoxes are presented to a phenomenological areana where it its human intuition. His intent was to show that his mentor and lover, Parmenides, theories showed that motion was impossible. What he did show is that logic derived and applied to the real world runs counter to our intuitions and experience. If there is any evidence of god we usually want it from the real world ... from a phenomenological presentation. I can accept that mathematics points to a quantum level where my intuition can not harmonize wave and particle. But But I think it has more to do with applying presuppositions that do not fit. The mathematical can show us the duality of such a thing but we will not be satisfied until we can wrap our mental imaging around it. I do think that your comment on the first premise above is still subject to discussion as to rather god is not limited by creation itself and to whether that it is necessary for god to exist if he in fact does so. A self-limiting being is still limited. If god is not willing for any to perish but all to come to eternal life then his desire can be limited. Is god's omniscience limited by creating creatures of free will? ( That too falls into Plantinga's writings). So I think a priori to the first premise is that a much more before premise 1 can be considered. it certainly would be convincing to those who espouse a certain presentation of the Abrahamic god. It might even fit Aristotle's god better than the Christian god.
The commonly employed system S5 simply makes all modal truths necessary. For example, if p is possible, then it is "necessary" that p is possible. Also, if p is necessary, then it is necessary that p is necessary. Other systems of modal logic have been formulated, in part because S5 does not describe every kind of modality of interest. If it is possible that something is necessary then it is necessary that it is possible that it is necessary.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
Say that three times fast.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
And that is why I don't get into modal logic. Give me science any day. Give me something that is there or here that responds or I can drink, eat or....
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
Well, virtually everyone "thinks" they are rational, even though most people aren't.
A sound deductive argument is not just a hypothesis. The conclusions of sound deductive arguments are observed to be true.
Huh? According to anyone that accepts logic? It's, hypothetically, a sound deductive argument; why does it matter who would accept it?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
How to burn a strawman to the ground.
How to spot a pure BS'er.
How to get the girl William Lane Craig was trying to pick up at the bar...
A few mistakes in this claim.
#1 You don't know.
#2- You 'think'. You 'presume'. You 'presuppose'. You 'project'.
#3- Number 2 is not interchangeable with number one.
#4- You do not understand number 2, so you'll do number 5 instead.
#5 - Instead of admit number 1, people will equivocate, obfuscate, prevaricate, and fabricate, instead.
This is an 'argumentum ad ignorantiam'
You still have all your work ahead of you, when you use this argument.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam insertion, is not a valid shortcut (given).
The part that you coveniently leave it out when you say "by definition', is "who's" definition?
And this is where the 'argumentum ad populum' is supposed to work, as a 'stamp' of 'credibility'.
This is not a valid argument (given).
It's not logical (given).
"What's popular is not always correct, and what's correct, is not always popular"
This is a FACT.
Argumentum ad populum has been debunked.
Moving right along...
Non sequitur.
But the attempt to circumvent or circumnavigate around this non sequitur (obstacle), is the 'argumentum ad ignorantiam', and usually tied in with the "argumentum ad populum"
Pure bunk.
These 'argumentums' are an appeal for outside verification. A common BS tactic in debate.
Obfuscation.
It's derailing into an argument apart from the main premise.
A red herring.
A rabbit hole.
Don't fall down this rabbit hole.
You'll go around in circles and circles of obfuscation, endlessly.
Correct.
Argumentum ad verecundiam, and argumentum ad potentiam.
Logic does not always lead to correct observations, or making accurate predictions.
Fact.
That's the reality.
False.
It's not practical to presume anything, in advance.
It leads to errors.
Exactly.
Which is why so many people don't simply drink the koolaid and presume and adopt many 'philosophies' and the 'logical arguments' for the 'potentiality and actuality' of a god, to be interchangeable for 'reality'.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is an appeal to agree with it's premises.
It's not practical to presume this is universally applicable.
That's drole.
Your whole premise is:
x= you
y= everyone else
A= "If I (x) can present a deductively valid argument whose premises are true and whose conclusion is 'God exists'"
B= " then you (y) have to accept that God exists--plain and simple. You have no choice in this matter."
Ya, that's logical.
Too bad it's not practical.
Too bad the logical conclusion does not=universal reality
No wonder you are so indignant.
Ya'll can't get your way.
Let me give you an example of begging (attempting to negotiate), that you do not want to admit.
You were begging me to accept your terms, before you would debate me.
You wanted to put me in a certain position.
You wanted a level of control.
And a certainty of outcome.
A constant.
Here is a universal truth about the business world, that I was brought up in, from birth, that applies universally around the whole world:
Leverage
Got it?
You're a philosopher, but maybe you can't figure out the rest.
I don't give an individual, or individuals, anything, that I don't choose to, unless I'm in their debt.
I'm in control.
Of me.
That's not up for negotiation.
Those are the RULES
RULES=(x)
x= there are no absolute patterns, I must follow, outside of society
(x) is the same as (y).
y= free will
We know (y) is true.
z= free will means everyone is free to decide
We know (z) is true.
(s1)+ (s2) are true, if (z) is true.
s1= that makes everything capable of forming their own opinion
s2 = which makes everything subjective.
x, y, z, s1, s2= HUMAN
ME = an individual
ME also= I
YOU = an individual other than (ME)
ME+YOU= M and Y
EE=individuals other than M and Y
US= (M and Y+EE)
US is also=HUMAN
HUMAN can also=HUMANS
HUMANS must follow (p), if we are in (t), but not PERSONAL PREFERENCES (God, G2, GODS, G1, Atheist, Theist)
DEMOCRACY= democratic society (rule of the people)
AWESOME= democratic society where (ME) is currently located on the WORLD*, if they are LUCKY** where certain guidelines specific to the legal laws of the specific laws of the municipality, the state, and the federal laws made by US, exist.
God= folklorish legend/ rumoured to be uber mystical, powerful, and unstoppable, extremely unstable and violent, with bipolar characteristics and homicidal tendencies
(G2) God can be adopted
(G1) One can be indifferent to God, or GODS.
(GODS) There can be more than one God.
Atheist= Whether or not a God is real/not real, matters not.
Theist= Not Complete Atheist
PERSONAL PREFERENCES= God, G2, GODS, G1, Atheist, Theist
OPINIONS= Personal thoughts and conclusions that need not encompass more
TASTES= Are based on opinions.
PERSONAL PREFERENCES and OPINIONS and TASTES are all interchangeable, and can be expressed as (PPOT)
LUCKY**= no tyrannical rules that can keep us from (PPOT) as long as they don't contradict AWESOME.
FREE= is being able to choose your own PERSONAL PREFERENCES, and being able to tell (Y) and (EE)
There are some of us who are FREE and LUCKY** and live in DEMOCRACY, which is AWESOME.
There are others who live (OTW).
OTW=Otherwise.
Otherwise=Not exactly like AWESOME
All of the above, are found in the WORLD*.
WORLD*=Planet Earth
That is logical, true, and reality.
In reality, God is (superfluous) and (detrimental) to AWESOME.
superfluous=not necessary
detrimental=harmful
Fcuk I always hated algebra
If someone wants to check for errors and clean that up, be my guest...
someone=atheist
True.
But substance does not always equal 'really having one'.
True.
Ever been guilty of trying to tell people, (or attempt to negotiate with people so that you could decide) what they would be able to do/not do?
Never mind.
It was a rhetorical question.
I've already seen you guilty of it.
Ummmm......did you not read the title of this thread, and the OP, before you started posting?
I've analyzed more than enough about what's written about this legend, to know that this legend's characteristics are completely compatible with my numerous conclusions.
We don't tend to like people who parallel those characteristics, much less want to adopt people like that, and worship them, unless we're masochistis and not very sensible or practical.
It's always been completely nonsensical to me to hear people who are familiar with this folklore legend, to adopt the legend as a reality, and worship, and want to submit to this adopted reality.
It's seems completely dysfunctional to me, on many levels.
And for good reason.
Theists get waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay ahead of themselves, and start thumping on about "Absolute Morals" as a 'logical' first cause for the emergence of 'morals', and the 'argumentum ad verecundiam' 'argumentum ad potentiam' for trying to establish that 'morals' are not 'subjective', when in fact, they are 'subjective'.
'Argumentum ad verecundiam' .
I mentioned to you much earlier in this thread, that considering yourself a 'philosopher', or some kind of 'expert' means diddly squat in 'reality', and in the 'real world'.
You little 'fanboys' and 'groupies' of this biblical legend, really need to get over yourselves, and realize that he ain't 'The Big Boss', like you would all like him to be.
We can do as we please.
Millions of 'fanboys' and 'groupies' have 'voted him off the island', and you need to stop getting pissy about it.
Suck it up, Buttercup.
Ya, it's the cheap parlor trick of magicians, mediums, barroom drunks, and narcissistic pseudo academic con artists.
Powers of persuasion.
"If (A)I can make this coin disappear, then (B) you will know that magic is (C) real!!"
STFU
Not this sh1t again....
According to 'whom'?
Are you qualifying your own statements, with a presumption?
Don't presume anyone will align, or adopt your premise.
That's taking a wild guess.
It's deception to move further till you assign a 'qualifier' other than a presumption, to your claim.
Your whole premise becomes entirely suspicious/bankrupt, if you attempt to avoid this.
Because it's not practical, OR logical to assume anything is as described, by anyone individual, or collective of individuals making a claim.
Individuals (on their own, or part of a collective) are often incorrect.
And don't say 'logic'.
Because that's a copout.
That's 'koolaid'
Logic is a banal catchall term.
It's ambiguous in meaning.
If one is concerned with 'accuracy', then we need to have 'strict' black and white definitions of words.
An individual's 'logic' is not the same and yours, nor the same as anyone else's.
We are not created equal, nor are we the same.
I have 'my' logic, and it's unique.
There is no one 'discipline' or 'brand' of 'logic'.
Logic is based on individual 'intuition'and 'interpretation'.
Not on any universal 'logic'
Make it 'black and white' clear.
So the question is 'who's' logic are YOU applying, when YOU make YOUR 'statements'and 'inferences'?
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
I don't mind using whatever terms you're using; that's just semantics. But, what is an "unlimited" being? What does that mean?
What determines that the latter is a limitation and the former isn't? Just however you define it?
It is possible that God exists, and it is possible that God doesn't exist. How can his non-existence become impossible once he exists, simply due to his properties? How is this possible?
Right. It would not be question begging to simply define and grant properties to squares. For all x, if x is a square, then x has four sides. The premise does not assert that squares exist. If you found something in reality which matched your definition of a square, then you would know that squares existed. So, that's not what I'm saying....
Let me see if I can summarize your argument a little more succinctly again. You defined God as an unlimited being. You defined unlimited in such a way that if it were possible for God to not exist, then he would be limited. He is unlimited; ergo, it is not possible for him to not exist. Ergo, he exists. Is this an essentially correct description of your argument?
What you've done is different than in the case of the square. Instead of referring to reality to justify the existence of squares, you've simply defined God in such a way that you try to argue he exists in a deductive argument. These types of arguments have always seemed like question begging to me; it must be that we simply can't define entities such that the definition suggests existence or non-existence because then you are actually making an assumption about reality. Even if that's not strictly question begging, it seems fundamentally flawed to me. I apologize; my thoughts on this aren't completely clear.
If it's just based on a definition, it seems rather cumbersome to start with an unlimited being and work through so many terms and premises. Why not just define God as a being that necessarily exists?
Isn't the burden of proof on you to show that an unlimited being is possible?
I would say it's more accurate that Gaunilo's Island debunked Anselm's ontological argument over 500 years ago. But, now I'm just saying I disagree, and that's pointless.
Well, that's your definition of unlimited. What prevents me from making my own definition which says that materiality is not a limitation?
Unicorns are necessarily existing material beings that look like horses but have rainbow colored horns made of marshmallows growing out of their heads.
Necessarily existing beings exist. Ergo, unicorns exist. What's wrong with this argument?
Reductio ad absurdum, right? If your argument produces absurdities that you don't agree with, then your argument must be unsound.
You were saying 1) is false, right? Just because smarks exist, it doesn't mean that it is necessary for them to exist. However, with God, this is true because you defined him as an unlimited being?
I still don't understand this part of the argument. How would this premise be true with an unlimited being?
I'm thinking now, perhaps, defining your being as unlimited is to implicitly assume that he exists...
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
I think of sound deductive reasoning, simply as a method of hypothesizing.
Perhaps you define it differently, I don't know.
It's a process that outputs a conclusion.
And it's a gamble on whether or not the conclusion is correct.
How I feel about that conclusion is entirely subjective.
Sometimes my 'instincts' are wrong.
It's not practical to put 'faith' in my feelings.
I don't like gambling.
That's why I wouldn't take anyone else's feelings seriously, on whether something is correct, or true.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Well that is an essential element. Non-existence would be a limitation ,if there is a god it is unlimited therefore exists since non-existence would limit the idea of god he it she exists. Sorta like Anselm. Sorta like the possible worlds arguments.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
All that has been proven, at most, is that entities that are unlimited, where unlimited is interpreted to include, cannot possibly not exist, must exist...
But there may be no such entities meeting that definition. The argument is still equivalent to saying that entities that cannot not exist, must exist. It doesn't establish that there are any such entities.
Just because you can formulate an argument, it doesn't mean it works.
It seems to be in the general category of statements like "The barber shaves everyone who doesn't shave himself". Who shaves the barber?
All the terms are clearly understood, but the statement is a paradox, so can nether be true or false - it is undecideable. Read some Gödel, especially look into "Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem".
By including "existence" as a condition in the input to your argument to establish the existence of the entity under discussion, you risk the same circular, self-referential problem as the "barber".
The simplest version is "This sentence is false".
The further you get from simple propositional statements, the more you risk this sort of thing without it being obvious.
So even arguing in strictly logical terms does not guarantee validity.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
So how do you get from making the statement to believing the statement is true? What is the thought process that leads to a play on definitions actually existing in reality? What assumptions do you have to make?
Hopefully you can answer, Mr. doesn't seem to be responding to me, which is fine.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
This ^^^ bears repetition
Probably because you called him on his "Checkmate Atheist!" setup.
You're simply too clever.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
redneF <3 mellestad
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
First of all, I appreciate that you are being polite with this. Please keep it up.
It's a negative term; as such, you can understand it extrapolating from your own limitations as a human being, and noting that such things do not apply to this being. For example, you cannot continue existing unless you breath air, eat food, go to sleep, and live in certain temperatures; these are your own limitations as a human being--that is, your existence is sustained via various other preconditions. This would not apply to an unlimited being; he is self-existent, which is to say that his existence is never competing with his non-existence. Furthermore, you require parents to bring you into existence, whereas an unlimited being's existence has no such ontological dependence. Finally, God is omnipotent, which is to say that he can do anything which does not entail a logical contradiction, whereas there are plenty of logically consistent things that you cannot do (such as flapping your arms and flying).
Look, I'm not going to go on semantic merry go rounds. Divesting words of meaning is not a legitimate objection; it's just an ad hoc maneuver. It would be like if you argued for the existence of a lion, and my only response was to say 'What determines that this is a lion, but not that?'
If you are unclear what limitations are, fine. But don't ask for a clarification on terms, and then ask me how I know that a term means what it means. If you truly had any ambivalence on this issue, then you would not question me once I offer a clarification.
It *isn't* possible that God does not exist, because the mere possibility of his nonexistence contradicts what it means to be 'God'.
No, it would be question begging because 'square' does not mean the same thing as 'God'. If 'square' and 'God' were univocal in their meaning, then you could argue from the idea of a square that it actually exists.
You said, "Well, saying that a square has four sides would also be question begging IF you did not yet demonstrate the existence of squares"; I was responding to that.
That sounds about right.
Okay. So your assumption here is that in order to bridge the chasm between knowledge and the world, it is necessary for us to actually empirically observe the world. This is just tacit endorsement of verificationism. If it is not, then you are special pleading by saying that there are some things that we can know exist in the world without recourse to empirical observation, but God is not one of those things.
The issue is this: If my argument is deductively valid, and all of the premises are true, then it does not matter what epistemology you assume; you have to accept my conclusion. So your responsibility here is to pick up specifically which premise of my argument is false, for it is clear that the form of the argument is valid.
You are absolutely correct. The argument could simply be restated as follows: 'God is thought to be a necessary being; necessary beings exist; therefore, God exists.' The reason for my particular formulation is to include the possibility premise as part of the heuristic that I am going through; then I am able to engage atheists insofar as they typically accept the possibility premise (whereas they deny the necessity premise from the outset), for they are aware that they are tacitly accepting that God actually exists.
The only metric we have for possibility is logical consistency; do I have to prove that it is possible for a woman to be President of the United States? It would be easy enough for someone to say, 'A woman President may be logically contradictory, so you have to prove that it is possible'... but without any prima facie contradictions, what more do you want from me?
Did you happen to read Anselm's response?
You are free to say whatever you want. The bottom line is, in order to be build a bridge between the conceptual and the actual, you cannot include materiality in the concept; material things are conglomerations of elementary particles, and there were many different forms that this matter could have taken. For example , the elementary particles that make up a horse could have easily been rearranged to make up a cow. Why the horse instead of a cow? Such a being requires a sufficient reason outside of itself in order to account for its existence--hence, the proposition, 'if an unlimited unicorn exists, then it is necessary that it exists' is no more coherent than saying 'if a limited unicorn exists, then it is necessary that it exists'.
I just told you; necessary beings only have one possible nature. Unicorns are material by nature, and there were a million different possible forms that the matter could have took on. 'Necessarily existent material being' is a contradiction in terms.
No, a reductio is when the argument produces a contradiction. Even if my argument could be used to prove that a unicorn exists, that does not posit any actual contradictions. Even if I agreed that you could use it to prove that a unicorn exists, you still haven't refuted the argument.
If *smarks* exist, and they are defined as a shark with a laser on its head, then it is necessary that there is a shark with a laser on its head. It is no different than saying, 'if a shark with a laser on its head exists, then there is a shark with a laser on its head'.
If the existence of something entails that it necessarily exists, then the possibility of this being entails it's actuality. That a shark with a laser on its head exists does not entail that it is necessary that such a shark exists, because a necessary material thing is a logical contradiction (necessary beings have only one possible form, material things have many possible forms).
You are correct except for the 'assume' part of your sentence: Defining a being as unlimited implies that he exists.
Lol, I bet.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I meant that is an essential element of Mr. Metaphysics argument. Anselm used a fool has an idea of a perfect being called god but that idea can't be perfect since it is only an idea and does not exist so the real perfection of the idea is that god exists. You get from making the statement to believing it true by believing the idea of an unlimited being means that it is. Bob Spense and I were discussing Zeno back and forth. It is true that an object must fall half a distance before it falls the full distance. We accept that. So once it has there is a distance left in which it must fall half of first. And so on and so on. We conclude that the object would fall forever because there would always be another half distance after the previous one to fall. The logic is sound but does not meet the real world. As Bob points out it can be solved mathematically. It can also be solved by looking at what we are doing. We are taking a one dimensional point and applying it to an actual process in the real world which has extension and is finite. Some also point out that spacetime is not infinitely divisible. Abstractions are non-dimensional or non-temporal or even possibly transcendent. An argument can be sound (valid) but not obtain the real world ...logically true ( for example in a possible world ) but not supervene the real world. The real thing that bothers me is something like the collapse of the wave function by measurement or by consciousness (two different theories) or the quantum Zeno effect where like with Zeno's dropping object a subatomic particle fails to decay as long as it is being observed. To what extent are we objectifying the objects that we observe or objectifying abstracts that are objects that are not really the things we observe? Logic is not absolute while the universe is. Pure mathematics may well be the same as the universe or at least its generator.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
Yea, I wasn't questioning you, I was just seeing if someone could explain Mr. M's thought process.
I appreciate the response though, thank you.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
According to whom?
Because I don't adopt that philosophy, at all.
So, your argument is non sequitur right there.
Nice 'rabbit hole'.
"For they are aware that they are 'tacitly' accepting that God actually exists"
Insidious tactic to "Checkmate Atheist!"
Too bad you're out of your league.
Rookie...
There you go again with the 'we' nonsense.
Who is we, Kemosabe?
I'm not part of your 'collective' we.
Stop with the parlor tricks.
It didn't work out in the end for Milli Vanilli, when they said 'we'.
Define 'we', before you collect your trophy.
Nothing.
That's why it's incorrect to give any more probability to any god being more possible/probable/plausible, than any other one that's been rejected before.
And that's what you'll often hear atheists say about the theory of gods, and all the notions surrounding them.
That they're contradictions in terms.
Ohhhh boy.
Theism has got a whole lotta 'reductio' to deal wit.
Atheists don't buy the premise.
Which is why they don't behave like a god is a reality.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
You're welcome but I don't know if I really helped ya (or myself
) what the hey I tried.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
Which could be even more precisely stated: "God is thought to be a being which cannot not exist, therefore God must exist".
IOW, if I think God must exist, he must exist.
Is that seriously supposed to be an argument???
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Ah, this bit I know as I am struggling through discrete structures this term. It is actually vacuously true.
In the world of math,
if A then B Result
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
Yeah, I know, only mathematicians think like this. But one of my class mates helped out - say the lights are out. Is it because the electricity is out? We don't know, so we assume it is true - though we can probably assume there is a problem with the circuit some where. My professor assures us that if you assume it is false, you have major problems in other advanced proofs. Since I only intend to take the minimum credits required in this subject, I don't care to find out.
"If the existence of smarks entails necessarily that there is a shark with a laser on its head, then the possibility of smarks entails the actual existence of smarks." This statement is vacuously true as we can not say anything about the sharks and lasers because we know nothing about smarks.
I believe the best Mr. M is going to come up with is the existence of god/s/dess is vacuously true -- and frankly that isn't good enough for me to waste my time on this entity.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Hmm, what do you mean exactly by vacuously true ?
Vacuous in the dictionary says : a. Without contents, empty
b. lacking in either ideas or intelligence
c. inane
d. purposeless and meaningless.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
I'm really disappointed in most of the objections I've been getting. With the exception of TGBaker, nobody has offered me anything of substance. Here's what I have so far:
Objection 1: You cannot define something into existence.
Answer: If the argument is sound, then evidently I can define something into existence; simply declaring 'you can't do that' does not refute the argument.
Objection 2: You don't know that God's existence strictly implies his necessary existence.
Answer: God is defined as an unlimited being, and any possibility of nonexistence would limit him; therefore, it is impossible that he does not exist--hence, it is necessary that he exists.
Objection 2a: You don't know that God is an unlimited being, or that the possibility of nonexistence is a limitation.
Answer: I do know that God is an unlimited being because God is defined as an 'unlimited being'; that you wish not to use the word 'God' to refer to the being in this argument does not refute the argument. The possibility of nonexistence is a limitation; it means that our existence stands upon the existence of other things--hence, there are intrinsic limitations to our respective potencies--and we thus have to qualify for existence (whereas an unlimited being can exist without any preconditions).
Objection 3: If God does not exist, then it is necessary that he does not exist.
Answer: I actually agree with this premise; however, this shifts the burden of proof--what logical contradictions inhere in the concept of God?
Objection 4: Even if the argument is sound, it does not prove that God actually exists.
Answer: Yes it does, actually.
Objection 5: We cannot know reality via a logical argument.
Answer: If the argument is sound, then evidently I can know reality via a logical argument; simply declaring 'you can't do that' does not refute the argument.
Objection 6: There are logical paradoxes such as the paradox of the Liar. Therefore, your argument is probably false.
Answer: That's a complete nonsequitur.
Objection 7: Philosophy is stupid; therefore, your argument is false.
Answer: That's a complete nonsequitur.
Objection 8: Your argument can be used to prove that unicorns exist, so long as we qualify that they are 'unlimited'.
Answer: Materiality is a limitation; therefore, 'unlimited unicorn' is a contradiction in terms. But even if I accept this objection, how does it refute my argument? So my argument can be used to prove that unicorns exist; all that would follow from that is that God and unicorns both exist--that is hardly a refutation of the argument.
In the article, Plantinga put forth several versions of the argument. There was the argument victorious, but also the argument triumphant. What Plantinga was getting at is that the argument, while valid, inevitably trades upon one's set of presuppositions; if the atheist argues that the notion of a maximally great being is logically incoherent, then there really is nothing that the theist can say to refute that--except that s/he may supply another argument to prove that God is possible, in which case he will have proven the existence of God (recall system S5, where the possibility of a necessary truth entails the necessary truth) and rendered the ontological argument superfluous. For Plantinga, the force of the argument was precisely that there are no prima facie contradictions contained in the possibility premise; thus, there is no reason to assume that theism is irrational.
It does lead to a dialectical stalemate, I admit. At the same time, I think the theist is still in a better position, provided that s/he can stand on the general reliability of our modal intuitions. In essence, the atheist would assume the daunting responsibility of showing what contradictions inhere in the idea of a maximally great being.
Anselm's argument is valid, but what makes it unsatisfactory for me is the idea that concrete existence is great-making over abstract existence. While it is generally accepted that sex in reality is greater than a sexual fantasy, there are other situations where this becomes counterintuitive--for example, is an amoeba greater than Bayes Theorem?
Actually, it was not logic; it was numbers. Logic may deal specifically with propositions about the real world, but numbers are abstract entities whose real existence, from what I've seen, has not even been purported by mathematicians. Admittedly, applying numbers to the real world leads to absurdities, such that Achilles cannot beat a tortoise in a race; this is William Lane Craig's point about the absurdity of actual infinities. However, logic is of a different ilk, and I see no reason to assume that we cannot build a bridge from the mind to the world--indeed, this was the central debate between rationalists, empiricists, and idealists.
I can understand that.
I actually appreciate these objections, because they suffice as an actual attempt to prove that the notion of the Christian God is logically incoherent; I have more respect for atheists who go on the offensive.
I'm going to bracket these for now--why don't you build on them a little bit and we can discuss them further.
Disclaimer - it ain't my definition.
But, in the case where A is false, the statement is therefore without content, so it is vacuously true. Did you see where I commented that this class is making my neurons hurt - yeah, just memorize it and get through the class.
Mr. M probably eats this kind of stuff for breakfast - which explains the quality of his posts. My professor is wacko, too. Mind, the professor is a nice guy, and Mr. M might be as well. Since I don't personally know Mr. M, it is vacuously true that he is a nice guy.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Putting it in bold letters does not make it more (or less) true.
There is no evidence for an unlimited being, therefore, it is only vacuously true that such a being may exist. And since I am a pragmatic realist - or realistic pragmatist on odd Tuesdays - your logical argument does not sway me into believing said god/s/dess exists. Especially since vacuously true only applies in logical arguments - it doesn't work at all in a real computer program, for example.
Reality is anything I can measure - yes, we can measure emotions as hormonal changes. Yes, we can measure energy - we do it all the time starting with mass spectrometry. Yes, we can measure thoughts - fMRI, PET, EEG, electrodes inserted in the brain, etc. If we can see the effects of a force, but can not yet measure it, I'm confident someone will figure out a way to do so some day. Since I have yet to see any effects of god/s/dess, I am reasonably certain there is no current or future measurable evidence of his/her/its/their existence, and therefore, s/he/it/they do not exist.
Can I say I'm 100% certain there is and will be no way to measure the effects of a supernatural force? Maybe not, but I'm in the 99.9999999999% confidence interval range of certainty.
Give me Epicurus any day.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
In order for you to sustain this claim, you have to prove that my argument is unsound. Otherwise, my argument *is* evidence that an unlimited being exists.
Which premise is false?
I could give a flying rip whether or not you are persuaded; which premise is false?
Yours. You only have a vacuous truth at best - this is no real practical truth.
And I could give a rip about your impractical premise.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.