Would you agree...
Offline ... that if an argument can be presented where all the premises are true, the form is valid, and the conclusion is "God exists in the actual world," then would you agree that you have to accept the conclusion?
Would you agree that if there is no good reason for rejecting any of the premises, and the form is valid, then theism is rationally justified?
Can an atheist here present an example of an argument where all the premises are true, the form is valid, and yet the conclusion is false?
- Login to post comments
Offline Ktulu wrote:But we're talking about burden of proof, you're attempting to prove a concept through evidence. In this case you have a hypothetical internally coherent claim, and you would have us accept that as proof of an entity within our reality. Luminon, stated that in order for that to be acceptable evidence, it has to have an observable/measurable effect on reality, otherwise it is just hypothetical.
And my point is that Luminon is wrong; that something has no effect on reality has nothing to do with the veracity of its affirmative existential proposition, as with my example. Hence, if I can present a deductively valid proof for the existence of God which has true premises, then you have to accept that God exists--whether or not he affects your reality in any way.
? if by EXISTS you mean that it is part of my reality, how does that not affect my reality? You are asking me to accept something, not as logically internally consistent, but as a tangible entity. And then you are telling me that this entity is not tangible, and I must accept it. It is actually sort of silly. YES your 'proof' is internally logically consistent. NO your proof has nothing to do with reality.
I'll drop the definition thing because it's silly and I really don't care either.
I'm not sure why you're having such a difficulty with what i'm trying to get across regarding rational concepts. I'm not trying to confuse or complicate the point.
What I'm saying is that without our senses we cannot have knowledge of rational concepts. Do you agree with me? if not, show me an example of how you can gain knowledge of a rational concept without your senses.
Edit:
Or without any empirically gained concepts (via your senses).
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
- Login to post comments
Offline Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Ktulu wrote:But we're talking about burden of proof, you're attempting to prove a concept through evidence. In this case you have a hypothetical internally coherent claim, and you would have us accept that as proof of an entity within our reality. Luminon, stated that in order for that to be acceptable evidence, it has to have an observable/measurable effect on reality, otherwise it is just hypothetical.
And my point is that Luminon is wrong; that something has no effect on reality has nothing to do with the veracity of its affirmative existential proposition, as with my example. Hence, if I can present a deductively valid proof for the existence of God which has true premises, then you have to accept that God exists--whether or not he affects your reality in any way.
? if by EXISTS you mean that it is part of my reality, how does that not affect my reality? You are asking me to accept something, not as logically internally consistent, but as a tangible entity. And then you are telling me that this entity is not tangible, and I must accept it. It is actually sort of silly. YES your 'proof' is internally logically consistent. NO your proof has nothing to do with reality.
Then you must have a broader idea of "affecting reality" in mind, because what I had in mind was affecting reality so as to produce an empirically observable state of affairs wherein it is plain that the subject of the proposition exists. Surely, you are not going to tell me that everything in reality produces observable effects such that its existence is plain to you; some lady in Seattle probably has a jar of cookies in her pantry, but the truth of that produces no effects that I can actually observe.
The point is, not all truths are known empirically; you can also know them deductively without any recourse to sense experience. That's all I'm saying; this sort of empiricism is absolutely false.
I'm not sure why you're having such a difficulty with what i'm trying to get across regarding rational concepts. I'm not trying to confuse or complicate the point.What I'm saying is that without our senses we cannot have knowledge of rational concepts. Do you agree with me? if not, show me an example of how you can gain knowledge of a rational concept without your senses.
The discussion you got involved in pertained to the ontology of concepts; Vastet (or whatever his name is) claimed that everything is material--my mention of concepts was meant to serve as a defeater. We were discussing ontology; you are discussing epistemology, or the principles of knowledge.
To your question, I agree that all knowledge begins with experience; however, it does not follow that all knowledge is justified in experience, for there are certain truths--such as those of mathematics--which cannot be justified by observing nature.
- Login to post comments
Offline I define truth as prediction. To say that say that an idea is true is to say that it offers predictive power. Nothing is self evident because definitions are arbitrary, and the idea that things can be defined into existence is absurd. Based on this I wold say that premise, form and conclusion of any argument are only valid to the extent they can produce ideas(models of reality) that can make accurate predictions. What predictions can be made from the concept 'god exists'.
Edit: Spelling mistakes.
- Login to post comments
Offline It's very late here, I'm going to bed now. To be continued as soon as I can, likely tomorrow.
And I meant what I said, when I said welcome back, it's kind of rude of you not to acknowledge. Oh well, I'll get over it.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
- Login to post comments
Offline It's very late here, I'm going to bed now. To be continued as soon as I can, likely tomorrow.
And I meant what I said, when I said welcome back, it's kind of rude of you not to acknowledge. Oh well, I'll get over it.
Thank you for the welcome.
- Login to post comments
Offline Your objection is already addressed by the text I just underlined in my original post, dumbass.
Prove there is not a china teapot in orbit around Alpha Centauri. ( nods to Betrand Russell - slight change of context ).
Prove whether there is or is not an Earth-like civilization in the Andromeda Galaxy.
Your poor grammar (the comma in place of a period prior to the capital "U" ) made the statement ambiguous between a new sentence or a disjunct to the prior; hence, I wasn't sure what you meant. But you are still wrong; we can prove that something does not exist even if we cannot observe it directly. For example, if Bob Kane says outright that Batman is made up, then we have sufficient reason to believe that Batman does not exist; what observation is required? Bertrand Russell admitted that he made the teapot up.
The inclusion of 'moraly perfect' in your definition of god renders it incoherent, since morailty is not something that can ever be anything but a subjective compromise
HAW! Prove it.
Prove I am wrong.
Your claim--your burden. Prove that all morality is subjective.
You are stuck in the category error. Its non-existence is proven by the definition of 'bachelor' and the laws of logic. Base on the definition of 'bachelor', it si not actually a well-formed proposition.
You don't understand what "well-formed" means. A proposition is well-formed so long as it contains a subject, predicate, and connective; tautologies can be well-formed--both in ordinary language and formal semantics. Since you concede that nonexistence is proven, you've agreed that I am right.
So what error have I made? I said that you can prove the nonexistence of married bachelors and you've agreed to that.
We cannot know whether any particular definition of God, if any, is 'necessary'
You apparently don't know what a definition is either. A definition is merely a stipulation of what someone means when they use a certain word; obviously, a stipulation cannot be necessary, anymore than a physical tree can be deductively valid--you are misappropriating terms.
since we do not have sufficient knowledge of the ultimate nature of reality
It is not required to know the ultimate nature of reality in order to stipulate what we mean when we use a certain term. (What does "ultimate nature of reality" mean anyway? Are you presupposing that reality is inherently meaningful or teleological? If so, how do you justify that as an atheist?)
as to whether it is truly consistent with any definition we form. Therefore we cannot supply any proven premises to the OA.
That's basically denying all knowledge; we don't know the ultimate nature of reality, and therefore we cannot know if anything that we say is true. Congratulations, you are into complete epistemological nihilism.
The S5 axiom assumes that you already have sufficient knowledge of the relevant context to know that A is 'possibly necessary'
No, actually. The S5 axiom is an iterative axiom according to which possibly-p entails necessarily-possibly-p; it does not say anything about possibly-necessary. It basically states that anything which is possible is necessarily possible, the denial of which results in absurdity. The possibility premise of the ontological argument is provable via the modal logic instantiated in the model theoretic tradition, according to which the necessity of p in one state description in a model entails that p is true in every state description in that model. In essence, its no different than simply declaring the necessity of p; under most systems, saying "possibly necessary" is simply redundant.
To claim that God has to be proven necessary is like saying that we have to prove that bachelors are unmarried; your epistemology is just absurd, and you haven't a clue what you are talking about.
My guess is that you don't know what I'm talking about and you are going to do what you did last time--disappear for a few days, spending hours Google searching stuff written by other atheists until you can find some answer.
Yes, but it is not in the same category as the existence of an actual entity, that is your error.
How is it an error? I said that you can prove that married bachelors do not exist, and you agreed. How have I made an error? Can you not prove the nonexistence of married bachelors?
- Login to post comments
Offline BobSpence1 wrote:Your objection is already addressed by the text I just underlined in my original post, dumbass.
Prove there is not a china teapot in orbit around Alpha Centauri. ( nods to Betrand Russell - slight change of context ).
Prove whether there is or is not an Earth-like civilization in the Andromeda Galaxy.
Your poor grammar (the comma in place of a period prior to the capital "U" ) made the statement ambiguous between a new sentence or a disjunct to the prior; hence, I wasn't sure what you meant. But you are still wrong; we can prove that something does not exist even if we cannot observe it directly. For example, if Bob Kane says outright that Batman is made up, then we have sufficient reason to believe that Batman does not exist; what observation is required? Bertrand Russell admitted that he made the teapot up.
We cannot prove something something does not exist, assuming it is logically possible, unless it would necessarily be detectable within our context.
Since Batman is known by testimony to specifically be a creation of a man we can speak to, we can reasonablt assume he doesn't exist, although that does not constitute a logical disproof. You would have to prove that the Batman you are referring to is the one claimed by the author as his invention.
You did not address either of my examples. Russell's point still stands - you cannot logically disprove such an assertion.
Quote:The inclusion of 'moraly perfect' in your definition of god renders it incoherent, since morailty is not something that can ever be anything but a subjective compromiseHAW! Prove it.
Quote:Prove I am wrong.Your claim--your burden. Prove that all morality is subjective.
Quote:You are stuck in the category error. Its non-existence is proven by the definition of 'bachelor' and the laws of logic. Base on the definition of 'bachelor', it si not actually a well-formed proposition.You don't understand what "well-formed" means. A proposition is well-formed so long as it contains a subject, predicate, and connective; tautologies can be well-formed--both in ordinary language and formal semantics. Since you concede that nonexistence is proven, you've agreed that I am right.
So what error have I made? I said that you can prove the nonexistence of married bachelors and you've agreed to that.
All you have done with that example is the equivalent of 'proving' that mortal gods do not exist, as they are inconsistent with the definition of 'god'. It is irrelevant to any argument about the actual existence of gods.
Quote:We cannot know whether any particular definition of God, if any, is 'necessary'You apparently don't know what a definition is either. A definition is merely a stipulation of what someone means when they use a certain word; obviously, a stipulation cannot be necessary, anymore than a physical tree can be deductively valid--you are misappropriating terms.
Wrong.
Definitions are a function of our language, we create definitions for new terms, or formulate them for existing terms based on usage.
What we cannot always know is whether something corresponding to any given definition actually exists.
You are quite confused here.
Quote:since we do not have sufficient knowledge of the ultimate nature of realityIt is not required to know the ultimate nature of reality in order to stipulate what we mean when we use a certain term. (What does "ultimate nature of reality" mean anyway? Are you presupposing that reality is inherently meaningful or teleological? If so, how do you justify that as an atheist?)
In general no, and I did not say that. I said that "the S5 axiom assumes that you already have sufficient knowledge of the relevant context".
So complete knowledge of ultimate reality would only be required when applying it to a concept like God, which encompasses all of reality.
I am happy to assume that ultimate reality explains our existence, but that there is no necessity that it be sentient or purposeful.
That is another way of looking at the flaw in the OA: if there is something that necessarily exists for our universe to exist, then that indeed must exist. But you now have the obligation of demonstrating that 'whatever is necessary for our reality to exist' necessarily has any of the attributes which you assume define 'God'.
Quote:as to whether it is truly consistent with any definition we form. Therefore we cannot supply any proven premises to the OA.That's basically denying all knowledge; we don't know the ultimate nature of reality, and therefore we cannot know if anything that we say is true. Congratulations, you are into complete epistemological nihilism.
Quote:The S5 axiom assumes that you already have sufficient knowledge of the relevant context to know that A is 'possibly necessary'No, actually. The S5 axiom is an iterative axiom according to which possibly-p entails necessarily-possibly-p; it does not say anything about possibly-necessary. It basically states that anything which is possible is necessarily possible, the denial of which results in absurdity. The possibility premise of the ontological argument is provable via the modal logic instantiated in the model theoretic tradition, according to which the necessity of p in one state description in a model entails that p is true in every state description in that model. In essence, its no different than simply declaring the necessity of p; under most systems, saying "possibly necessary" is simply redundant.
To claim that God has to be proven necessary is like saying that we have to prove that bachelors are unmarried; your epistemology is just absurd, and you haven't a clue what you are talking about.
The purpose of the S5-axiom is to short-cut sequences of possibly/necessarily, and allows all but the last in the sequence to be ignored:
it has two parts, to address the two cases of what is the final term:
1. Possibly P implies Necessarily Possibly p
2. Possibly Necessarily P implies Necessarily p
I was referring to 2, which is the relevant one if you wish to claim God is ncessary.
My guess is that you don't know what I'm talking about and you are going to do what you did last time--disappear for a few days, spending hours Google searching stuff written by other atheists until you can find some answer.
Quote:Yes, but it is not in the same category as the existence of an actual entity, that is your error.How is it an error? I said that you can prove that married bachelors do not exist, and you agreed. How have I made an error? Can you not prove the nonexistence of married bachelors?
Your error is in assuming it is in any way relevant to arguments about the existence of God.
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
- Login to post comments
Offline To go a slightly different way from your Batman example, Meta, what do you say to a young child who sees an actor in the Batman costume. The child might not understand that the person is merely playing a role, be it in a movie, TV show or some kind of promotional activity. The child would be quite convinced that Batman existed, in fact they have even seen this Batman in person, shaken his hand. Now the truth is that this person took on that persona, but the child might still believe that they met the real Batman unless it was more clearly explained to them.
Now, you talk about your deity, a being that is apparently perfect in all ways, eternal omnipotent and omniscient, as well as totally morally perfect and good. The problem of course is that moral perfection could be rather subjective to the beholder. The God of the bible is a bloodthirsty monster as well as a jealous, petty and vain tyrant. Now this does not disprove the concept of God per se, but it does mean that the idea of God being a morally perfect being is flawed or that Christianity is incorrect. For that matter, how does one properly define moral perfection, an atheist can be quite moral and there are moral liberals and conservatives so if they are all moral and yet have wildly different mindsets and thoughts on issues their morality can't be said to be consistent and were you to make a morally 'perfect' version of each then they would still likely argue and disagree.
But perhaps the various religions are wrong, maybe there is some kind of divine being that does exist but the people involved were simply unable to translate what they saw, sensed, or whatever was done coherently and thus we have the divides and different religions and beliefs. This is fine but then it implies that the God in question is apathetic and thus while it may exist it is likely non interventionist and is functionally little different from no god at all. If the God truly does care and wants to contact humanity then why not simply 'create' a proper holy book. What I mean is put the book out there, have it magically form, whatever and the book, as it was made by an apparently perfect being, obviously would show clearly that it is the true work to whoever read it. Such a thing would be obvious as no mere human author could compete with it and there would be knowledge available that would be internally consistent with the universe as well as being immune to damage due to translation or at least such a book would be formed in the various necessary languages. We do not have such a book, every holy book has at least some problem with it in terms fo consistency, moral issues, or other problems that make it untenable and unlikely as a source for morality and a divine being.
The basic problem is that a deity is unnecessary for reality as we know it, morality functions both for the believers and the godless and we can give moral arguments that work without a divine sword of damoclese over our heads. The more we understand about the universe the more we know how systems work and the internal laws of reality, if you want to claim that your divine being 'Is' the universe, well that can work but it comes back to the question of how you would prove it beyond assertions.
- Login to post comments
Offline Luminon wrote:No, then I would not accept something, that does not have an effect on reality.
So even if you had a mathematical proof which concludes that "God exists in reality," you would not accept that God exists in reality simply because God has no effect on reality??????
There are mathemathically consistent theories (like my favorite String theory) which were not yet observed in reality, therefore they are not yet universally accepted. Not even their proponents claim to have evidence for them, because they would be asked to show it and prove the claim. Which is a technical problem, not logical one.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
- Login to post comments
Offline Damn this heated up while I was asleep...
Regardless of our differences of our views of reality, I must say I love your wit. Your scathing remarks make me laugh time and again, despite the fact that you're aiming them at myself and my fellow atheists.
That's true of most mentally retarded individuals; however, this only speaks of your mental state--not of the possibility of God.
... which was about the same time that your IQ stopped advancing.
Classic stuff there. And I'm not being facetious, in case you thought I was.
Anyway, back to the serious...
Vastet wrote:That was originally meant as I haven't lost a debate yet, but a quick glance at your response turns it into a double entendre.
Haw haw haw... and hot dogs look like penises!! Huh huh huh.
Do you have a deformed penis?
Are you a pimply faced high school punk?
Nope. Are you?
Don't change the subject; please address the God of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.
Don't change the subject, address your failure to recognise other peoples ability to believe something other than what you believe.
That doesn't matter.
Yes, it does. It matters significantly. It makes the difference between heaven and hell, so to speak.
The intensional definition of something only covers the essential properties, that is, the properties by which something is defined and without which this being ceases to be the kind of thing that it is. If something lacks accidental qualities, that does not modify the definition of a thing; it is merely lacking non-essentials.
Essentials that define the religion, and make the final word in whether you're worshipping a false god or not.
Are we talking about definitions or not? You said that they defined God differently, not that they differed in the secondary qualities (which I agree, they do).
I'm trying to talk about definitions, but you're stuck on the idea that all three religions gods are identical, which would make all three religions identical. But they aren't, so clearly they aren't.
I want a SOURCE or LINK.
And I want $20,000 CA to start your schooling. If I'm going to be a high school teacher, then I'm going to get paid for it.
You said perfection was subjective, and "perfection" is so defined as the above (read any natural theologian).
Theologians are people who don't know how to use a tool invented called the dictionary, and think a religious text can substitute for it. The dictionary is something that defines words. I suggest you pick one up, so to see for yourself how none of those apply to "perfection". I'll start for you:
per·fec·tion/pərˈfekSHən/Noun
1. The condition, state, or quality of being free or as free as possible from all flaws or defects.2. A person or thing perceived as the embodiment of such a condition, state, or quality"Prudence" means "making good decisions"; morality falls under that category.
Wrong.
--------
pru·dence
noun /ˈpro͞odns/
|
--------
mor·al
noun /ˈmôrəl/ /ˈmär-/
|
adjective /ˈmôrəl/ /ˈmär-/
- Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character
- - the moral dimensions of medical intervention
- - a moral judgment
- Concerned with or adhering to the code of interpersonal behavior that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society
- - an individual's ambitions may get out of step with the general moral code
- Holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct
- - he is a caring, efficient, moral man
- Derived from or based on ethical principles or a sense of these
- - the moral obligation of society to do something about the inner city's problems
- Examining the nature of ethics and the foundations of good and bad character and conduct
- - moral philosophers
Clearly, prudence and morality mean two different things. See how much a dictionary can help destroy thiest arguments? It's amazing how poorly they understand English.
Now address my original statement and stop dodging around.
But you just said that they DON'T disagree on the age of the earth; are you now saying that they do?
No, I'm not. I'm saying anyone who has bothered to get an education knows the world is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Everyone else believes otherwise, and has nothing more than a disproven book to work with. There is no argument or disagreement, because people who don't know don't have a voice in the subject.
There are people who believe the Earth is flat too, but there's no disagreement on the fact that the Earth is a slightly oval sphere.
Okay. How much does the number "7" weigh?
The number 7 (or any number for that matter) is an abstraction of an idea used to describe something. It doesn't "weigh" anything, because it doesn't exist. There can be 7 oranges, but there cannot be 7.
Try again.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline
The only thing about a god that exists is the shadow men with a desire for such cast.
Excellent and quotable !
It is the only evidence I have seen.
Religion Kills !!!
Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
- Login to post comments
Offline Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Again I offered you a process where by to do this and you stated that you did not have enough time. So you left our discussion. Again I would state that the definitions of god vary within Chistendom. the attributes differ because of theological dealings with your interest, theodicy and freewill defense.Vastet wrote:Lol. You're new to this aren't you?
The answer to the original question is yes. If a non fallacious, logical, coherent, rational explanation were given, yes.
As far as defining god, different religions define god in different ways. Is he omnipotent? Just powerful? Apathetic? Loving? Etc. I reject all of them. But to disprove yours I need to know what yours is.
Actually, I've been debating atheists for quite some time, and I dare say that you would not really be a challenge for me.
Thank you for answering my question.
And the religions that anybody cares about--that being Christianity, Judaism, and Islam--all define God the same way; the greatest conceivable being.
Can you disprove the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, immaterial, morally perfect being?
I would offer again my theodicy argument:
1) There is a possible world of only well-being (p).
2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).
3)x necessarily would not allow q
4)p--> not q
5) It is possible that god is x
6)q --> not p
7) Our world=q therefore not p
8)not p
9)not p--->not x
10)not x
11)god= not x
Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being.Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being. Also a world of limitless well being would necessarily exist in all possible worlds. Since it does not do in ours then it is not necessary and therefore is a choice of many worlds. A limitless good entity, god or such would choose the best to create. Since we do not live in that world no limitless good being/god actualized our world.
The argument at least places the question as to whether our attributes of god in conflict with themselves show that they are really in conflict with his actual properties and therefore invalid or simply relative compliments of worship that are not literal but poetic.
Again definitions become important as to perfect being, morally perfect and what have you.
It appears TG that Mr Metaphysics is not willing to respond to you in any meaningful way because he doesn't have a chance in hell. It was a direct assault on his original premise which he won't go back to.
Proof that "God exists in the actual world". He is immaterial and this is a material world. Fail.
Religion Kills !!!
Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
- Login to post comments
Offline TGBaker wrote:Mr_Metaphysics wrote:If god exits in reality but has no effect on reality god could be reality itself which is acted upon rather than acting. God could simply be an effect of reality. But then that does not go with the defintion that you do not wanna give of god it would seem to me. Math in conflict with empiricism might just loose out. Many formulas are disporven by there failure to predict an event.Luminon wrote:No, then I would not accept something, that does not have an effect on reality.
So even if you had a mathematical proof which concludes that "God exists in reality," you would not accept that God exists in reality simply because God has no effect on reality??????
You have a pretty wife.
Anyway, if God is reality itself, then I don't see how it's meaningful to say that he exists in it.
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline You can also prove that something does not exist ....(snip) ...... because it's a contradiction in terms.
Yes, such as the contradictory terms used to describe the Trinity. "They are not three gods and not three beings. They are three distinct persons; yet they are the one God"
Yes, there's absolutely no contradiction there. I can see why you earlier refused to answer me when I asked you to elaborate upon your belief. I'd be embarrassed, too.
Link found here: http://carm.org/trinity
Or how about the contradictory claim of Jesus' dual nature, ie, the hypostatic union. Jesus wasn't simply a blending of his god nature and human nature.....no, he was fully ( ie, completely ) God and also fully ( completely ) human. His dual natures were not partial measures or just diluted aspects of either category.
Is that like someone being fully female and also fully male ?
Link found here: http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/what-is-the-hypostatic-union
- Login to post comments
Offline Ktulu wrote:I'm with Luminon on this, you need to have an observable effect on reality for your internally coherent claim to have any bearing on reality.
No, that's ridiculous. What you are essential saying is that something isn't true unless it is in some way observed to be true. So, for instance, if a man is locked in a room on some remote area in Antarctica, the statement "There is a man locked in a room on some remote area in Antarctica" is false, because the truth of this proposition has no observable effect on reality; it's possible that this is true and yet nobody is around to observe the man or any effects produced by his being locked in some room in Antarctica.
What they mean is that it is actually observed, To have a claim moves from your ontological view to one of epistemology to make the claim. Obviously the locked up man has actual effects in reality as we assume it unless one wants to use the Copenhagen view of reality in which the man is in a potentiality state and has no effect on erality until observed. Then ontological and epistemological aspects are merged in a quantum physicall world then their statement is correct. Your knowledge of the man is the collapse of the wave function and you in turn spread the wave function in your communication of it so Shroedinger's Cat. Your argument is classical, Newtonian and normative but not necessarily true.
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline ProzacDeathWish wrote:Therefore Islam is theologically interchangeable with Christianity ? You are suspiciously downplaying an issue that sets Christianity apart from true monotheistic religions.
I'm not downplaying it, but it's off-topic. We're talking about the definition of God; they define it the same way.
ProzacDeathWish wrote:"They do blaspheme who says Allah is one of three in a Trinity, for there is no god except One God" ( Qur'an 5:73 ) Yes, you Christians are right on the same page with how Muslims define God....not !!!
- Login to post comments
Offline Let's examine your position a little bit:According to you, "7" is identical to a particular constitution of electrons. This implies not that there is only one "7", but rather that there are billions of distinct 7's out there--even though they are all "7." For instance, there would be the "7" of Bill, the "7" of Obama, the "7" of myself, etc. In effect, mathematic statements such as "7+7=14" would become meaningless, as we would have to stipulate whose "7" we are referring to. Furthermore, if "7" merely refers to a particular constitution of electrons, then what meaning do mathematical statements even have? What is it for a constitution of electrons to equal what I would suppose is another constitution of electrons? And how could we say that the sum of Obama's electron constitutions equal the same thing as the sum of Clinton's electron constitutions? And given the indeterminacy of activities at the Planck scale, how can you possibly believe that every person somehow contains in him or herself the same constitution of electrons such that "7"?
Also, the set of natural numbers is infinite; if what you say is true and numbers just are constitutions of electrons, then accordingly there is an actual infinitude of electron constitutions in my brain or at least the potential for an actual infinitude of electron constitutions. Yet if the latter is true, then it seems that there are abstractions apart from our material constitution; there is no other sense in which a potentiality can be said to exist. If the latter is false, then there just *is* an infinite amount of electron constitutions in our brain; how can a finite person have this?
Your last sentence conflates an ontological issue with an epistemological issue; that someone is incapable of knowing something without an adequate medium is not an argument for the materialism of that which is not known.
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline robj101 wrote:You can't prove or disprove that which does not exist. How many times do we have to go over this?
You can easily prove that something exists; for example, I can prove that I exist a priori because asserting my own non-existence presupposes my own existence.
You can also prove that something does not exist; for example, a married bachelor cannot exist, because it's a contradiction in terms.
The non-existence of something whose definition is self-contradictory is a logical truth, and logical 'truths' are ultimately tautologies.
The existence or otherwise of an actual defined entity is not a matter of logic, it is a contingent truth. A statement about God which would be equivalent to 'a married bachelor' would be something like 'a mortal god', IOW a statement contradicting the definition. And such statements as 'married bachelor' only refer to concepts, not actual entities.
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline TGBaker wrote:Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Again I offered you a process where by to do this and you stated that you did not have enough time. So you left our discussion. Again I would state that the definitions of god vary within Chistendom. the attributes differ because of theological dealings with your interest, theodicy and freewill defense.Vastet wrote:Lol. You're new to this aren't you?
The answer to the original question is yes. If a non fallacious, logical, coherent, rational explanation were given, yes.
As far as defining god, different religions define god in different ways. Is he omnipotent? Just powerful? Apathetic? Loving? Etc. I reject all of them. But to disprove yours I need to know what yours is.
Actually, I've been debating atheists for quite some time, and I dare say that you would not really be a challenge for me.
Thank you for answering my question.
And the religions that anybody cares about--that being Christianity, Judaism, and Islam--all define God the same way; the greatest conceivable being.
Can you disprove the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, immaterial, morally perfect being?
I would offer again my theodicy argument:
1) There is a possible world of only well-being (p).
2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).
3)x necessarily would not allow q
4)p--> not q
5) It is possible that god is x
6)q --> not p
7) Our world=q therefore not p
8)not p
9)not p--->not x
10)not x
11)god= not x
Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being.Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being. Also a world of limitless well being would necessarily exist in all possible worlds. Since it does not do in ours then it is not necessary and therefore is a choice of many worlds. A limitless good entity, god or such would choose the best to create. Since we do not live in that world no limitless good being/god actualized our world.
The argument at least places the question as to whether our attributes of god in conflict with themselves show that they are really in conflict with his actual properties and therefore invalid or simply relative compliments of worship that are not literal but poetic.
Again definitions become important as to perfect being, morally perfect and what have you.
It appears TG that Mr Metaphysics is not willing to respond to you in any meaningful way because he doesn't have a chance in hell. It was a direct assault on his original premise which he won't go back to.
Proof that "God exists in the actual world". He is immaterial and this is a material world. Fail.
It is written loose enough that people who are not familiar with logic or are not interested can still follow. An OA only works if you start with it rather than the definitions and you have an audience that is convinced by it ( so Plantinga) It reaffirms a theist faith but is never convincing to any one else. Thus Plantinga admitted that it warranted the argument as rational and valid but does not prove the truth of its claim. OH mine does
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline We cannot prove something something does not exist, assuming it is logically possible, unless it would necessarily be detectable within our context.
Since Batman is known by testimony to specifically be a creation of a man we can speak to, we can reasonablt assume he doesn't exist, although that does not constitute a logical disproof. You would have to prove that the Batman you are referring to is the one claimed by the author as his invention.
If you are going to adopt "logical disproofs" as your standard, then we cannot even prove that anything exists--we would just be reasonably assuming that something exists. For example, you may not be a real person; you may simply be artificial intelligence; or, better yet, our experience of other people could just be an illusion. So congratulations, we cannot prove anything!
All you have done with that example is the equivalent of 'proving' that mortal gods do not exist, as they are inconsistent with the definition of 'god'. It is irrelevant to any argument about the actual existence of gods.
Don't play dodgeball here; you said that all morality is subjective. Can you prove it? You also said that I made an error when I said that we can prove that something does not exist; are you claiming that we can prove that married bachelors exist?
Wrong.
Wait. So definitions are *not* stipulations of what we mean when we use certain terms? Then what are they?
Definitions are a function of our language, we create definitions for new terms, or formulate them for existing terms based on usage.
How is that inconsistent with what I just stated?
What we cannot always know is whether something corresponding to any given definition actually exists.
That's what we're debating. You are simply begging the question with regard to your epistemology, and you are just making assertions.
In general no, and I did not say that. I said that "the S5 axiom assumes that you already have sufficient knowledge of the relevant context".
Except that it doesn't. You didn't even get the S5 axiom right. In fact, no axioms are based on empirical knowledge of reality; they are axioms because they are self-justified. Look up the meaning of "axiom."
So complete knowledge of ultimate reality would only be required when applying it to a concept like God, which encompasses all of reality.
Umm, no. That God is a necessary being is something that is known a priori, insofar that we stipulated *ahead of time* what we mean by the term "God." You cannot special plead with certain words that axiomatic assumptions may or may not apply to them; we know a priori that axioms apply to *everything*, even God. In fact, you just said yourself that God encompasses all of reality; you can know that without complete knowledge of reality, and I can know that God is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect, and immaterial without complete knowledge of reality.
That is another way of looking at the flaw in the OA: if there is something that necessarily exists for our universe to exist, then that indeed must exist. But you now have the obligation of demonstrating that 'whatever is necessary for our reality to exist' necessarily has any of the attributes which you assume define 'God'.
That's easy, but we're not discussing that right now.
The purpose of the S5-axiom is to short-cut sequences of possibly/necessarily
No, you're wrong. That's not the purpose of the S5 axiom. The purpose of S5, as with all of the other Lewis systems, was to axiomatize Lewis's notion of strict implication, which he wished to supplant the material implication. He created several systems and S5 was just another one. S5 is his S1 system with the additional iterative axiom.
it has two parts, to address the two cases of what is the final term:1. Possibly P implies Necessarily Possibly p
2. Possibly Necessarily P implies Necessarily p
I was referring to 2, which is the relevant one if you wish to claim God is ncessary.
No! It does not have two parts. Do your research.
http://home.utah.edu/~nahaj/logic/structures/systems/s5.html
Where do you see #2? It's not even an axiom to the system.
Your error is in assuming it is in any way relevant to arguments about the existence of God.
It is relevant; if you can prove that the notion of God is inherently contradictory, then you can prove that God does not exist.
Again, where is my error?
- Login to post comments
Offline Don't change the subject, address your failure to recognise other peoples ability to believe something other than what you believe.
I do know that people believe in something other than what I believe, but the three Abrahamic religions all define God in the same way.
Yes, it does. It matters significantly. It makes the difference between heaven and hell, so to speak.
This isn't about what makes a difference in our individual lives; you claimed that the three major religions define God differently. The problem is that you have literally no conception of philosophical ontology; thus, when I state things with regard to primary and secondary attributes, you then go off on a tangent regarding Heaven and Hell. We are discussing whether the notion of God's essence (as covered by the intensional definition) between the three religions differ. If you are unfamiliar with the notion of "essence," an essence is the essential qualities that a thing possesses which makes it be the kind of thing that it is; for example, the essence of a bachelor is being unmarried and male. But unmarried males can also have secondary qualities, such as being caucasian, bald, blue-eyed, etc. The latter are secondary qualities, meaning that the bachelor can lose those qualities without ceasing to be the kind of thing that it is; however, if it loses the qualities of being unmarried or male, then it is no longer a bachelor. Where the Abrahamic religions differ is in those attributes which are not part of God's essence; but they all agree to a common essence of God.
Essentials that define the religion, and make the final word in whether you're worshipping a false god or not.
Whether we have a false understanding of God's message or of God's history is irrelevant! God is defined (we are talking about intensional definitions, which only cover essences) the same way by those three major religions!
I'm trying to talk about definitions, but you're stuck on the idea that all three religions gods are identical, which would make all three religions identical. But they aren't, so clearly they aren't.
No, you are employing a colloquial notion of "definition" when we having a metaphysical discussion of essences, substances, and accidents. But you clearly are unfamiliar with the terms that I'm using, as you probably have never even heard of an intensional definition.
And I want $20,000 CA to start your schooling. If I'm going to be a high school teacher, then I'm going to get paid for it.
Note to self: from this point forward in the discussion, we no longer have to back up what we say.
You said perfection was subjective, and "perfection" is so defined as the above (read any natural theologian).
Theologians are people who don't know how to use a tool invented called the dictionary, and think a religious text can substitute for it. The dictionary is something that defines words. I suggest you pick one up, so to see for yourself how none of those apply to "perfection". I'll start for you
No, a dictionary is a book written by lexicographers who gather sociological data indicating what people mean when they use certain terms. It is not a prescription for how terms must be understood, because meanings of words change all the time. If we are discussing philosophy, then we should stick to it:
When we say that God is infinitely perfect we mean that He has all perfections without limit. (a) God has in Himself, in an eminent degree, the perfections of all things that ever existed or will or can exist. He is the cause of all perfection in creatures. The perfections of created things are in God in an infinitely superior manner. (b) Every creature, even the highest angel, is finite for it has the limitation of dependence on the Creator for its existence. Some of the perfections of God are: God is eternal, all-good, all-knowing, all-present, and almighty.
Wrong.
LOL. It's in your first definition: "A lesson, esp. one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience"
Clearly, prudence and morality mean two different things. See how much a dictionary can help destroy thiest arguments? It's amazing how poorly they understand English.
I've already explained to you what a dictionary is. Definitions are not right or wrong; they are merely specifications of what someone means when they use certain words. You gave this generic non-definition of "prudent," and then you gave a thousand different definitions of "moral" to imply that what's prudent isn't always what's moral; that's dishonest. Can you please give an example of someone who is moral but not prudent? If you cannot, then what I said is true.
No, I'm not. I'm saying anyone who has bothered to get an education knows the world is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Everyone else believes otherwise, and has nothing more than a disproven book to work with. There is no argument or disagreement, because people who don't know don't have a voice in the subject.
Do people disagree on the age of the earth or not? If what you say is true and nobody disagrees on the age of the earth, then there should not even be ONE person who claims that it is 6,000 years old; are you saying that nobody disagrees on the age of the Earth?
The number 7 (or any number for that matter) is an abstraction of an idea used to describe something. It doesn't "weigh" anything, because it doesn't exist. There can be 7 oranges, but there cannot be 7.Try again.
LOL, so the number 7 is an abstraction, yet it doesn't exist? Yet it is an abstraction; how can something that is something else not exist? Please explain.
(Are abstractions material?)
What does the infinite set of natural numbers describe? Are you claiming that an actual infinity of entities exist in reality such that there is an infinite set of natural numbers derivable from them? If so, how is it possible for an actual infinity of objects to exist without degenerating into absurdity? Please explain.
- Login to post comments
Offline TGBaker wrote:Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Again I offered you a process where by to do this and you stated that you did not have enough time. So you left our discussion. Again I would state that the definitions of god vary within Chistendom. the attributes differ because of theological dealings with your interest, theodicy and freewill defense.Vastet wrote:Lol. You're new to this aren't you?
The answer to the original question is yes. If a non fallacious, logical, coherent, rational explanation were given, yes.
As far as defining god, different religions define god in different ways. Is he omnipotent? Just powerful? Apathetic? Loving? Etc. I reject all of them. But to disprove yours I need to know what yours is.
Actually, I've been debating atheists for quite some time, and I dare say that you would not really be a challenge for me.
Thank you for answering my question.
And the religions that anybody cares about--that being Christianity, Judaism, and Islam--all define God the same way; the greatest conceivable being.
Can you disprove the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, immaterial, morally perfect being?
I would offer again my theodicy argument:
1) There is a possible world of only well-being (p).
2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).
3)x necessarily would not allow q
4)p--> not q
5) It is possible that god is x
6)q --> not p
7) Our world=q therefore not p
8)not p
9)not p--->not x
10)not x
11)god= not x
Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being.Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being. Also a world of limitless well being would necessarily exist in all possible worlds. Since it does not do in ours then it is not necessary and therefore is a choice of many worlds. A limitless good entity, god or such would choose the best to create. Since we do not live in that world no limitless good being/god actualized our world.
The argument at least places the question as to whether our attributes of god in conflict with themselves show that they are really in conflict with his actual properties and therefore invalid or simply relative compliments of worship that are not literal but poetic.
Again definitions become important as to perfect being, morally perfect and what have you.
It appears TG that Mr Metaphysics is not willing to respond to you in any meaningful way because he doesn't have a chance in hell. It was a direct assault on his original premise which he won't go back to.
Proof that "God exists in the actual world". He is immaterial and this is a material world. Fail.
I like TGBaker. If I'm going to discuss anything with him, I don't want to do it in a thread where I'm being over the top. I know how to win a pissing match, but I'm also capable of having a civil discussion. I would only want a civil discussion with TGBaker.
- Login to post comments
Offline ex-minister wrote:TGBaker wrote:Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Again I offered you a process where by to do this and you stated that you did not have enough time. So you left our discussion. Again I would state that the definitions of god vary within Chistendom. the attributes differ because of theological dealings with your interest, theodicy and freewill defense.Vastet wrote:Lol. You're new to this aren't you?
The answer to the original question is yes. If a non fallacious, logical, coherent, rational explanation were given, yes.
As far as defining god, different religions define god in different ways. Is he omnipotent? Just powerful? Apathetic? Loving? Etc. I reject all of them. But to disprove yours I need to know what yours is.
Actually, I've been debating atheists for quite some time, and I dare say that you would not really be a challenge for me.
Thank you for answering my question.
And the religions that anybody cares about--that being Christianity, Judaism, and Islam--all define God the same way; the greatest conceivable being.
Can you disprove the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, immaterial, morally perfect being?
I would offer again my theodicy argument:
1) There is a possible world of only well-being (p).
2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).
3)x necessarily would not allow q
4)p--> not q
5) It is possible that god is x
6)q --> not p
7) Our world=q therefore not p
8)not p
9)not p--->not x
10)not x
11)god= not x
Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being.Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being. Also a world of limitless well being would necessarily exist in all possible worlds. Since it does not do in ours then it is not necessary and therefore is a choice of many worlds. A limitless good entity, god or such would choose the best to create. Since we do not live in that world no limitless good being/god actualized our world.
The argument at least places the question as to whether our attributes of god in conflict with themselves show that they are really in conflict with his actual properties and therefore invalid or simply relative compliments of worship that are not literal but poetic.
Again definitions become important as to perfect being, morally perfect and what have you.
It appears TG that Mr Metaphysics is not willing to respond to you in any meaningful way because he doesn't have a chance in hell. It was a direct assault on his original premise which he won't go back to.
Proof that "God exists in the actual world". He is immaterial and this is a material world. Fail.
I like TGBaker. If I'm going to discuss anything with him, I don't want to do it in a thread where I'm being over the top. I know how to win a pissing match, but I'm also capable of having a civil discussion. I would only want a civil discussion with TGBaker.
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline I do know that people believe in something other than what I believe, but the three Abrahamic religions all define God in the same way.
Thank you.
Then why are there three? And why do all three have multiple denominations?
This isn't about what makes a difference in our individual lives; you claimed that the three major religions define God differently. The problem is that you have literally no conception of philosophical ontology; thus, when I state things with regard to primary and secondary attributes, you then go off on a tangent regarding Heaven and Hell.
So you don't like it when I fast forward concepts to their logical conclusion. Gotcha. We'll just drop this.
We are discussing whether the notion of God's essence (as covered by the intensional definition) between the three religions differ. If you are unfamiliar with the notion of "essence," an essence is the essential qualities that a thing possesses which makes it be the kind of thing that it is; for example, the essence of a bachelor is being unmarried and male. But unmarried males can also have secondary qualities, such as being caucasian, bald, blue-eyed, etc. The latter are secondary qualities, meaning that the bachelor can lose those qualities without ceasing to be the kind of thing that it is; however, if it loses the qualities of being unmarried or male, then it is no longer a bachelor. Where the Abrahamic religions differ is in those attributes which are not part of God's essence; but they all agree to a common essence of God.
Everything that is god is of gods essential qualities, and that includes secondary qualities and attributes of god and his message. It includes everything and anything god.
As it happens, I am a bachelor. I'm also caucasian. Whether caucasian is a secondary quality to bachelor or not, it is not secondary to a description of me. Anything that is used to describe me accurately is a primary attribute of me. That includes my morality, my species, my skin and hair and eye colours, my politics, etc. If you take any of those things away from me, I am not me anymore.
The fact that there are not only multiple religions, but multiple denominations of each religion, proves beyond question that there is disagreement over gods essential qualities. Therefore the definition you gave is insufficient to define god, and you need to go further. All you really did is say "these are the qualities of god that everyone agrees on". But there are qualities that people don't agree on, and those qualities must be addressed in order to believe in any specific god.
Whether we have a false understanding of God's message or of God's history is irrelevant! God is defined (we are talking about intensional definitions, which only cover essences) the same way by those three major religions!
If that were true there would only be one religion.
No, you are employing a colloquial notion of "definition" when we having a metaphysical discussion of essences, substances, and accidents. But you clearly are unfamiliar with the terms that I'm using, as you probably have never even heard of an intensional definition.
Lol. I'll let you think so.
Define metaphysical.
Note to self: from this point forward in the discussion, we no longer have to back up what we say.
Note to self: Mr_Metaphysics is lazy and anti-intellectual.
No, a dictionary is a book written by lexicographers who gather sociological data indicating what people mean when they use certain terms. It is not a prescription for how terms must be understood, because meanings of words change all the time.
Quite the opposite. The meaning of words can and does change, certainly, but as they do so, so does the dictionary. It IS a prescription for how terminology must be understood, otherwise communication is impossible. If we both use a word, but both see it with different definitions, then there can never be a discussion. You might as well be speaking Russian.
If we are discussing philosophy, then we should stick to it:
- What do we mean when we say that God is infinitely perfect?
When we say that God is infinitely perfect we mean that He has all perfections without limit.
(a) God has in Himself, in an eminent degree, the perfections of all things that ever existed or will or can exist. He is the cause of all perfection in creatures. The perfections of created things are in God in an infinitely superior manner.
(b) Every creature, even the highest angel, is finite for it has the limitation of dependence on the Creator for its existence.
- What are some of the perfections of God?
Some of the perfections of God are: God is eternal, all-good, all-knowing, all-present, and almighty.
Ugh. That doesn't make any sense at all. Infinite is an irrational term. It doesn't mean anything. Nothing is infinite. Perfection is really the same, although in common usage of the word perfection is subjective to the person using it. But if you want to use it logically, then it's exactly the same as infinite and immaterial and supernatural and eternal. It has never been observed by anyone to any degree at all. Nothing in existence is perfect, infinite, immaterial, supernatural, or eternal. None of these terms has ever been used to describe something that can be observed.
In order to even suggest all-good, you'll have to first prove there is such a thing. It really also refutes allknowing as well. If god were all good, then god would not have created evil knowing it was evil.
Which gets fun considering there's no such thing as good and evil. Both are subjective terms.
LOL. It's in your first definition: "A lesson, esp. one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience"
Rofl. It's PART of the definition, NOT the definition. It also refers directly to being derived from a tale, not as we are using the term. Now where's that rolling eyes smiley....
I've already explained to you what a dictionary is. Definitions are not right or wrong; they are merely specifications of what someone means when they use certain words.
I already refuted this.
You gave this generic non-definition of "prudent," and then you gave a thousand different definitions of "moral" to imply that what's prudent isn't always what's moral; that's dishonest. Can you please give an example of someone who is moral but not prudent? If you cannot, then what I said is true.
I can do better than that. So much better. I'll start with a bunch of people stranded on a remote mountain after a aeroplane crash. After supplies run out, there is only one remaining source of food. In order to survive, it is prudent to utilise that source of food before it utilises you. Even though you may not find it moral.
Alternatively, you may find it moral to kill someone bad (Bill) who is about to kill four people who are good, and the only way to prevent their deaths is by killing Bill. Yet it may not be prudent to do so. If Bill can save a million people from a disease because of a natural immunity he has to that disease, then letting him kill those four people would be the prudent thing to do, even though it isn't moral to let people die when you can save them. After all, Bill is not the only way to save those people from the disease, it's just the fastest way that you know for sure will work. Therefore it is prudent to use him. But not moral.
Do people disagree on the age of the earth or not? If what you say is true and nobody disagrees on the age of the earth, then there should not even be ONE person who claims that it is 6,000 years old; are you saying that nobody disagrees on the age of the Earth?
Anyone who suggests the Earth is only 6,000 years old is either a liar or ignorant. The suggestion has been exhaustively tested and refuted. Are you saying that if someone were to pop in here and say that you and I didn't exist, their claim would have any bearing on the fact that we exist and we're having a discussion?
LOL, so the number 7 is an abstraction, yet it doesn't exist? Yet it is an abstraction; how can something that is something else not exist? Please explain.
How about you show me 7?
(Are abstractions material?)
Only as abstractions in the mind of a being that is using the abstraction. Unless you can show me 7. Not the abstraction, because it only exists in our heads. If that's what you're referring to, then I'd have to be an expert in multiple fields of science to answer your question. I don't know how much synapses weigh.
What does the infinite set of natural numbers describe?
They don't describe anything without something to describe.
Are you claiming that an actual infinity of entities exist in reality such that there is an infinite set of natural numbers derivable from them? If so, how is it possible for an actual infinity of objects to exist without degenerating into absurdity? Please explain.
No. That there is an infinite number of numbers derivable by numbers doesn't affect anything. None of those numbers exist. They are merely terminology used to describe something that does exist. The only way every number could actually exist would be if someone were to consciously hold every number in their mind at the same time. Seeing as how the brain has a storage capacity, however, it is not possible for every number to exist at the same time. Even if you get everyone to help you, there's still always more numbers. Even if you somehow use all available energy and space in the universe, there are still more numbers. Eventually you couldn't manifest more numbers, simply because manifesting more numbers would be literally impossible. There'd be no more space or energy to manifest more numbers. I have no idea what the cutoff would be, but there would be one nonetheless.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline robj101 wrote:You have been asked to prove it and you have come up lacking any evidence other than what you "want" to assert.
I've already proven that God exists. I've presented the modal ontological argument and nobody could refute it.
Your premises are false. Therefore, your argument has been refuted. I could mention retarded, but won't.
-- 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.
- Login to post comments
Offline Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Certainly any time just let me know.ex-minister wrote:TGBaker wrote:Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Again I offered you a process where by to do this and you stated that you did not have enough time. So you left our discussion. Again I would state that the definitions of god vary within Chistendom. the attributes differ because of theological dealings with your interest, theodicy and freewill defense.Vastet wrote:Lol. You're new to this aren't you?
The answer to the original question is yes. If a non fallacious, logical, coherent, rational explanation were given, yes.
As far as defining god, different religions define god in different ways. Is he omnipotent? Just powerful? Apathetic? Loving? Etc. I reject all of them. But to disprove yours I need to know what yours is.
Actually, I've been debating atheists for quite some time, and I dare say that you would not really be a challenge for me.
Thank you for answering my question.
And the religions that anybody cares about--that being Christianity, Judaism, and Islam--all define God the same way; the greatest conceivable being.
Can you disprove the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, immaterial, morally perfect being?
I would offer again my theodicy argument:
1) There is a possible world of only well-being (p).
2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).
3)x necessarily would not allow q
4)p--> not q
5) It is possible that god is x
6)q --> not p
7) Our world=q therefore not p
8)not p
9)not p--->not x
10)not x
11)god= not x
Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being.Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being. Also a world of limitless well being would necessarily exist in all possible worlds. Since it does not do in ours then it is not necessary and therefore is a choice of many worlds. A limitless good entity, god or such would choose the best to create. Since we do not live in that world no limitless good being/god actualized our world.
The argument at least places the question as to whether our attributes of god in conflict with themselves show that they are really in conflict with his actual properties and therefore invalid or simply relative compliments of worship that are not literal but poetic.
Again definitions become important as to perfect being, morally perfect and what have you.
It appears TG that Mr Metaphysics is not willing to respond to you in any meaningful way because he doesn't have a chance in hell. It was a direct assault on his original premise which he won't go back to.
Proof that "God exists in the actual world". He is immaterial and this is a material world. Fail.
I like TGBaker. If I'm going to discuss anything with him, I don't want to do it in a thread where I'm being over the top. I know how to win a pissing match, but I'm also capable of having a civil discussion. I would only want a civil discussion with TGBaker.
He's got a thread set up here:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29583
surprised he hadn't told you yet (not really)
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline Then why are there three? And why do all three have multiple denominations?
I told you. They differ in the secondary non-essential qualities.
So you don't like it when I fast forward concepts to their logical conclusion. Gotcha. We'll just drop this.
Translation: I don't understand what the hell any of this is because I've never studied it, so I would like to change the subject.
Everything that is god is of gods essential qualities, and that includes secondary qualities and attributes of god and his message. It includes everything and anything god.
LOL
Now you are just making shit up. Where do you get that from?
So God couldn't have created the world in 8 days? It was essential that it would take him 6 days???? That God creates the world in 6 days is logically necessary? You cannot conceive of God having created the world in any different timeframe?
As it happens, I am a bachelor. I'm also caucasian. Whether caucasian is a secondary quality to bachelor or not, it is not secondary to a description of me. Anything that is used to describe me accurately is a primary attribute of me. That includes my morality, my species, my skin and hair and eye colours, my politics, etc. If you take any of those things away from me, I am not me anymore.
Hahahaha, so you don't even exist. Think about it: you are constantly changing. Skin cells are constantly being terminated and created; your hair is constantly being trimmed or growing; your weight fluctuates. Since all of this is part of your essence, it follows that there is no *you* because everything is just a constant flux. So, in essence, you don't believe in the existence of *anything*; you are just a complete nihilist. You don't even believe the Earth can be 4.5 billion years old because the Earth never exists.
The fact that there are not only multiple religions, but multiple denominations of each religion, proves beyond question that there is disagreement over gods essential qualities.
Umm, no. It proves that there is disagreement among his qualities, either essential or non-essential.
Therefore the definition you gave is insufficient to define god, and you need to go further. All you really did is say "these are the qualities of god that everyone agrees on". But there are qualities that people don't agree on, and those qualities must be addressed in order to believe in any specific god.
I didn't say *everyone*; I said Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Are you literate?
If that were true there would only be one religion.
Umm, no. They can differ with respect to his non-essential qualities; how many times do I have to repeat this? Why is it that atheists just refuse to be corrected?
Define metaphysical.
"Metaphysical" pertains to the first principles of being. The term is derived from Aristotle's writings; it literally means "after the physics," denoting that Aristotle included this writing in the section following his treatise on nature. So, in metaphysics, you discuss things that precede natural science in the order of explanation, such as causation, substance, accident, change, etc.
Note to self: Mr_Metaphysics is lazy and anti-intellectual.
You're the one who refused to back up what you say, not me.
Quite the opposite. The meaning of words can and does change, certainly, but as they do so, so does the dictionary. It IS a prescription for how terminology must be understood, otherwise communication is impossible.
Please stop making this stuff up. You are deliberately just improvising at this point; dictionaries do not dictate how we must understand things. Dictionaries come out every single year because language evolves. What we say is not dictated by a single individual who happens to write a book; I could easily formulate a glossary and invent my own language right now. The Burgess novel "A Clockwork Orange" was written entirely in a fictional language (Nadsat), but the book was entirely readable.
If we both use a word, but both see it with different definitions, then there can never be a discussion. You might as well be speaking Russian.
That's why definitions are stipulated ahead of time in the discussion. For example, in an argument for the existence of God, you are apt to see something such as:
God = {df. A perfect being}
In any argument, the definition is whatever you say it is; you make something mean whatever you want it to mean; so long as you have a metalanguage, which is the prior existing language, to make those stipulations, it is entirely permissible. It's a moot point anyway because my usage of the terms "prudent," "perfect," and so on, have been in philosophical use for centuries; you are just unfamiliar with that usage because you haven't studied the issue. In a philosophical discussion, you can't just assume colloquial definitions.
Ugh. That doesn't make any sense at all
LMAO
So you refuse to be corrected even when I cite a source that proves you wrong. The rest of the paragraph is just a digression.
In order to even suggest all-good, you'll have to first prove there is such a thing. It really also refutes allknowing as well. If god were all good, then god would not have created evil knowing it was evil.Which gets fun considering there's no such thing as good and evil. Both are subjective terms.
You are working overtime for bad arguments.
Rofl. It's PART of the definition, NOT the definition.
No shit, moron. Prudence is a necessary condition for morality; at this point, you are masturbating over minutia because I happened to drop a term that you never heard.
Read Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, wherein he states that prudence is the father of all virtues:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prudence
I can do better than that. So much better. I'll start with a bunch of people stranded on a remote mountain after a aeroplane crash. After supplies run out, there is only one remaining source of food. In order to survive, it is prudent to utilise that source of food before it utilises you. Even though you may not find it moral.
How is it prudent if it's not moral? Morality consists of prescriptions for one what ought to do; if someone does something that s/he ought not to do, then how is s/he being prudent? You make no sense.
Alternatively, you may find it moral to kill someone bad (Bill) who is about to kill four people who are good, and the only way to prevent their deaths is by killing Bill. Yet it may not be prudent to do so. If Bill can save a million people from a disease because of a natural immunity he has to that disease, then letting him kill those four people would be the prudent thing to do, even though it isn't moral to let people die when you can save them. After all, Bill is not the only way to save those people from the disease, it's just the fastest way that you know for sure will work. Therefore it is prudent to use him. But not moral.
Again, the same question applies; if you are doing something which you ought not do, then how is that prudent?
Anyone who suggests the Earth is only 6,000 years old is either a liar or ignorant. The suggestion has been exhaustively tested and refuted. Are you saying that if someone were to pop in here and say that you and I didn't exist, their claim would have any bearing on the fact that we exist and we're having a discussion?
You said that nobody disagrees on the age of the Earth. The only thing needed to falsify that is to find at least ONE person who argues to the contrary.
Do you agree that at least SOME people disagree on the age of the Earth? If not, I can prove you wrong.
How about you show me 7?
It's immaterial; I can't show it to you.
Only as abstractions in the mind of a being that is using the abstraction.
You just said that 7 does not exist; now it's a material entity in the mind?
Unless you can show me 7. Not the abstraction, because it only exists in our heads.
You said that it didn't exist; now it does?
If that's what you're referring to, then I'd have to be an expert in multiple fields of science to answer your question. I don't know how much synapses weigh.
You are not really an expert in anything.
They don't describe anything without something to describe.
That wasn't my question. You said, or at least implied, that the number "7" exists only insofar as we experience objects to which the number is predicated; for example, we derive the number seven from 7 applies. Now, the set of natural numbers is frequently discussed in mathematics; do we derive that from an actual infinity of objects in sense experience?
No. That there is an infinite number of numbers derivable by numbers doesn't affect anything.
Wait, their derivable by numbers now???? What are you talking about?
None of those numbers exist.
You just said that 7 existed (after you first said that it didn't exist); now it doesn't exist again?
They are merely terminology used to describe something that does exist.
So what is it that an infinite quantity of natural numbers describes? And how could any object have within itself an infinitude of anything?
The only way every number could actually exist would be if someone were to consciously hold every number in their mind at the same time.
The set of natural numbers is frequently discussed in mathematics; infinite sets are common place. You cannot pretend that they don't exist; they do. They are integral for various systems. You said that they refer to something that actually exists; what do they refer to?
I have no idea what the cutoff would be, but there would be one nonetheless.
So the set of natural numbers is not infinite? Can you find me at least one credible mathematician who agrees with you on this?
- Login to post comments
Offline I could mention retarded
So could I: cj is mentally retarded
- Login to post comments
Offline No, a dictionary is a book written by lexicographers who gather sociological data indicating what people mean when they use certain terms. It is not a prescription for how terms must be understood, because meanings of words change all the time. If we are discussing philosophy, then we should stick to it:
- What do we mean when we say that God is infinitely perfect?
When we say that God is infinitely perfect we mean that He has all perfections without limit.
(a) God has in Himself, in an eminent degree, the perfections of all things that ever existed or will or can exist. He is the cause of all perfection in creatures. The perfections of created things are in God in an infinitely superior manner.
(b) Every creature, even the highest angel, is finite for it has the limitation of dependence on the Creator for its existence.
- What are some of the perfections of God?
Some of the perfections of God are: God is eternal, all-good, all-knowing, all-present, and almighty.
-- 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.
- Login to post comments
Offline cj wrote:I could mention retarded
So could I: cj is mentally retarded
yo mama is so short, you can see her feet in her driver's license photo
-- 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.
- Login to post comments
Offline Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Right here, your definition of god/s/dess fails. There are no perfect creatures except for more imaginary entities like "angels". There is no demonstrably perfect creature anywhere in the known world. Not one. Not humans. Not any other. No creature is "perfectly" suited for their environment nor is there any creature that is "perfectly created". There aren't any "perfect" subsystems of said creatures. Most creatures are just barely capable of surviving and reproducing which is really all they need to be capable of in order to evolve. Therefore, if there is such an entity as god/s/dess, s/he/it/they do not demonstrate their capability to create or confer perfection on any creature. A bunch of people self-justify their belief in this non-existent entity by claiming I am wrong, that there isperfection everywhere and I am blind or retarded. They live in a fantasy world, full of delusion and self-justification for ancient beliefs put forward by a bunch of bronze/iron age goat herders. And I'm supposed to be impressed?No, a dictionary is a book written by lexicographers who gather sociological data indicating what people mean when they use certain terms. It is not a prescription for how terms must be understood, because meanings of words change all the time. If we are discussing philosophy, then we should stick to it:
- What do we mean when we say that God is infinitely perfect?
When we say that God is infinitely perfect we mean that He has all perfections without limit.
(a) God has in Himself, in an eminent degree, the perfections of all things that ever existed or will or can exist. He is the cause of all perfection in creatures. The perfections of created things are in God in an infinitely superior manner.
(b) Every creature, even the highest angel, is finite for it has the limitation of dependence on the Creator for its existence.
- What are some of the perfections of God?
Some of the perfections of God are: God is eternal, all-good, all-knowing, all-present, and almighty.
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/GODA21a.htm
RETARD!
- Login to post comments
Offline cj wrote:Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Right here, your definition of god/s/dess fails. There are no perfect creatures except for more imaginary entities like "angels". There is no demonstrably perfect creature anywhere in the known world. Not one. Not humans. Not any other. No creature is "perfectly" suited for their environment nor is there any creature that is "perfectly created". There aren't any "perfect" subsystems of said creatures. Most creatures are just barely capable of surviving and reproducing which is really all they need to be capable of in order to evolve. Therefore, if there is such an entity as god/s/dess, s/he/it/they do not demonstrate their capability to create or confer perfection on any creature. A bunch of people self-justify their belief in this non-existent entity by claiming I am wrong, that there isperfection everywhere and I am blind or retarded. They live in a fantasy world, full of delusion and self-justification for ancient beliefs put forward by a bunch of bronze/iron age goat herders. And I'm supposed to be impressed?No, a dictionary is a book written by lexicographers who gather sociological data indicating what people mean when they use certain terms. It is not a prescription for how terms must be understood, because meanings of words change all the time. If we are discussing philosophy, then we should stick to it:
- What do we mean when we say that God is infinitely perfect?
When we say that God is infinitely perfect we mean that He has all perfections without limit.
(a) God has in Himself, in an eminent degree, the perfections of all things that ever existed or will or can exist. He is the cause of all perfection in creatures. The perfections of created things are in God in an infinitely superior manner.
(b) Every creature, even the highest angel, is finite for it has the limitation of dependence on the Creator for its existence.
- What are some of the perfections of God?
Some of the perfections of God are: God is eternal, all-good, all-knowing, all-present, and almighty.
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/GODA21a.htm
RETARD!
awww...
Mr. M's so cute when he concedes in all caps.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline RETARD!
Yo mama is so fat she has her own zip code.
- Login to post comments
Offline I told you. They differ in the secondary non-essential qualities.
There's no such thing as a non-essential quality of a specific individual or specific object that remains a quality of a specific individual or specific object.
Translation: I don't understand what the hell any of this is because I've never studied it, so I would like to change the subject.
You aren't very good at translating.
LOL
Now you are just making shit up. Where do you get that from?
That's not a response. Are you conceding the point?
So God couldn't have created the world in 8 days? It was essential that it would take him 6 days???? That God creates the world in 6 days is logically necessary? You cannot conceive of God having created the world in any different timeframe?
What does that have to do with defining god? Omnipotent leaves open the possibility for him to take a microsecond or a trillion millenia to create the world. Whether he takes a microsecond or a trillion millenia does nothing to describe god, it only describes an action he took.
Hell, I wasn't aware that was one of the things the three religions we're discussing had a dispute over.
Hahahaha, so you don't even exist.
Oh this will be fun.
Think about it: you are constantly changing. Skin cells are constantly being terminated and created; your hair is constantly being trimmed or growing; your weight fluctuates.
I'm well aware of all this and more.
Since all of this is part of your essence, it follows that there is no *you* because everything is just a constant flux.
Wrong again my young padawan. All it means is that part of my essence is to be in constant flux. If it were not, I would not be me.
So, in essence, you don't believe in the existence of *anything*; you are just a complete nihilist. You don't even believe the Earth can be 4.5 billion years old because the Earth never exists.
Right.
/sarcasm.
Umm, no. It proves that there is disagreement among his qualities, either essential or non-essential.
I already refuted this.
I didn't say *everyone*; I said Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Are you literate?
Semantics and smart assery doesn't help your argument. If you had any brain at all you'd have realised that by everyone, I was referring specifically to everyone in those three religions. I don't like typing more than is necessary, try to keep up. You're not dodging very well.
Umm, no. They can differ with respect to his non-essential qualities; how many times do I have to repeat this? Why is it that atheists just refuse to be corrected?
Umm, no. Any quality is an essential quality. How many times do I have to repeat this? Why do you theists simply refuse to be corrected?
"Metaphysical" pertains to the first principles of being. The term is derived from Aristotle's writings; it literally means "after the physics," denoting that Aristotle included this writing in the section following his treatise on nature. So, in metaphysics, you discuss things that precede natural science in the order of explanation, such as causation, substance, accident, change, etc.
Jibber jabber. Causation, substance, accidents, changes, all these things are part of science, they do not precede it. I doubt you even understand what first principles of being means, considering that you're presupposing a god over existence, when one isn't necessary to existence. A god certainly isn't implied or observed in any way through existence. There is no such thing as an axiom for god.
You're the one who refused to back up what you say, not me.
You're the one who refused to spend a few minutes perusing topics on this forum, not me. I've already perused them. I have no need to do so again and again and again every time a new theist pops in and thinks he has something to say that hasn't been said before.
Please stop making this stuff up. You are deliberately just improvising at this point; dictionaries do not dictate how we must understand things. Dictionaries come out every single year because language evolves. What we say is not dictated by a single individual who happens to write a book; I could easily formulate a glossary and invent my own language right now. The Burgess novel "A Clockwork Orange" was written entirely in a fictional language (Nadsat), but the book was entirely readable.
Clearly you haven't the slightest idea what I'm talking about, and I have no idea what you're talking about, proving my point in the process, making you lose the point. I love how easy you're making this.
You can deny that the dictionary authoritises the dictation of language formed by society all you like, but it doesn't make it true. Blue is blue, and if it ever changes to be described as yellow, then the dictionary will be updated within a year to reflect this. But until enough people refer to yellow as being blue for the dictionary to change the definition, the majority will continue to refer to blue as blue. That's how we all know what blue is, and can talk about blue without getting confused by yellow.
That's why definitions are stipulated ahead of time in the discussion. For example, in an argument for the existence of God, you are apt to see something such as:
God = {df. A perfect being}
In any argument, the definition is whatever you say it is; you make something mean whatever you want it to mean; so long as you have a metalanguage, which is the prior existing language, to make those stipulations, it is entirely permissible. It's a moot point anyway because my usage of the terms "prudent," "perfect," and so on, have been in philosophical use for centuries; you are just unfamiliar with that usage because you haven't studied the issue. In a philosophical discussion, you can't just assume colloquial definitions.
No, you simply haven't kept up with philosophy and science, else you'd know you haven't said anything that wasn't disproven decades or centuries ago. That's why you use words that are irrational and don't mean anything. Which is why I'm forcing you to use the dictionary.
LMAO
So you refuse to be corrected even when I cite a source that proves you wrong. The rest of the paragraph is just a digression.
*snicker*
You didn't cite a source that proves anything. You cited a religious website that merely makes the same logical fallacies and naked assertions that all religious websites and people do.
You are working overtime for bad arguments.
A dodge and a compliment at the same time. Bravo!
No shit, moron. Prudence is a necessary condition for morality; at this point, you are masturbating over minutia because I happened to drop a term that you never heard.
Rofl. Any time you want to stop playing with yourself and join the adults, feel free. I'll be waiting. Until then, recognize that prudence being a condition for morality does not make morality and prudence the same thing. In fact, it proves they are not the same thing.
How is it prudent if it's not moral? Morality consists of prescriptions for one what ought to do; if someone does something that s/he ought not to do, then how is s/he being prudent? You make no sense.
Rofl. Again you're confusing morality and prudence, when they don't mean the same thing. Until you actually start using that dictionary, this isn't going anywhere. Morality had all those definitions for a reason you know.
Again, the same question applies; if you are doing something which you ought not do, then how is that prudent?
Again you make the same mistake. Morality is more than just what you ought to do or not do. You really should use that dictionary.
You said that nobody disagrees on the age of the Earth. The only thing needed to falsify that is to find at least ONE person who argues to the contrary.
Quit dodging and answer the question.
Do you agree that at least SOME people disagree on the age of the Earth? If not, I can prove you wrong.
All you can do is show people who say they think the world is a different age than it is. But none of those people have any basis for such belief, in fact the basis they have has been proven false, and their opinions are irrelevant to the question or the answer. As demonstrated by the question I asked and you dodged.
It's immaterial; I can't show it to you.
Immaterial is nondescriptive. If it isn't material, then what is it?
You just said that 7 does not exist; now it's a material entity in the mind?
Not at all. It still doesn't exist if it's an abstraction in the mind, except as an abstraction in the mind.
You said that it didn't exist; now it does?
Not much brain power in that head of yours eh? It never exists, but an abstraction of it can exist. That abstraction certainly has weight, as it uses mass and energy to exist in a brain. But 7 itself doesn't exist.
You are not really an expert in anything.
If I wanted your irrelevant opinion I'd have asked for it, hmm? Still, at this point, anything you could possibly say about my credentials is of benefit to me, as you've proven you have absolutely none whatsoever.
That wasn't my question. You said, or at least implied, that the number "7" exists only insofar as we experience objects to which the number is predicated; for example, we derive the number seven from 7 applies. Now, the set of natural numbers is frequently discussed in mathematics; do we derive that from an actual infinity of objects in sense experience?
I think you're asking if we derived infinity by observing infinite numbers of objects, in an attempt to suggest that deriving 7 from 7 apples contradicts my statement. When in fact we invented the whole number system, including infinity, and made it to be so flexible as to never end in the first place. It streches on infinitely because we designed it to, because we needed a scale bigger than we could concieve of in order to sufficiently describe reality. 7 didn't cut it. Neither did 1 or 2 or 5000 or everything in between or all of them combined. If humanity disappeared tomorrow, the number system would go with it. As would every abtract that ever existed and was formed by humanity, including all the number systems that we don't use anymore because they were insufficient to describe reality, or too inefficient at doing so to be useful.
There's really no such thing as infinity, because the only thing that is infinite is a number system that was invented and must be abstracted in order to exist in the first place.
Wait, their derivable by numbers now???? What are you talking about?
They are in the number system. I can derive that 101 follows 100 by looking at a sequence starting at 1 and ending at 100.
What are you talking about?
You just said that 7 existed (after you first said that it didn't exist); now it doesn't exist again?
Clearly English isn't your strong suit. Neither is context. Hardly surprising, you are a theist after all, and have to twist logic around in order to justify it.
[
So what is it that an infinite quantity of natural numbers describes?
Nothing. What do you think it describes?
And how could any object have within itself an infinitude of anything?
It can't, because infinity doesn't exist. There isn't anything that infinity can describe, because nothing which exists is infinite.
The set of natural numbers is frequently discussed in mathematics; infinite sets are common place. You cannot pretend that they don't exist; they do. They are integral for various systems. You said that they refer to something that actually exists; what do they refer to?
Saying 7 doesn't make 7 exist. Numbers don't exist except as abstractions, and you can't pretend that they do.
So the set of natural numbers is not infinite? Can you find me at least one credible mathematician who agrees with you on this?
First you'll have to show me where I said that, since I didn't say that.
Oh yeah, I forgot, you have a hard time keeping things in context.
Nothing I've said refutes anything I've said. But you aren't smart enough to get that unfortunately.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline You've been sitting at your computer for about 3 hours staring at this same topic trying desperately to come up with a response and this is all you come up with? LOLOL
What does that have to do with defining god? Omnipotent leaves open the possibility for him to take a microsecond or a trillion millenia to create the world. Whether he takes a microsecond or a trillion millenia does nothing to describe god, it only describes an action he took.
You just said that the all of God's attributes, which includes *everything* said of him, including but not limited to the time it took him to create the world, are essential; I'm asking you to please justify this. You are the one who claimed that any discrepancy between the religions is a discrepancy between the essence of God; please justify this.
Wrong again my young padawan. All it means is that part of my essence is to be in constant flux. If it were not, I would not be me.
?????
*Part* of your essence is in constant flux, and yet it is still your essence? How is it still your essence if it's in constant flux, when according to you everything attributed to you is part of your essence? And which *part* of your essence is not in constant flux? And now your essence *has* to be in constant flux in order for you to be you?
Can someone please explain this to me? What sort of philosophy is this?
I already refuted this.
How? By claiming that everything attributed to you is essential to who you are, only to claim later on that part of your essence is in constant flux even though it is still nonetheless that part of your essence.. and that such a flux is essential to you such that you can't be who you are without that flux? (Yeah, I can't really follow that either.)
Semantics and smart assery doesn't help your argument. If you had any brain at all you'd have realised that by everyone, I was referring specifically to everyone in those three religions. I don't like typing more than is necessary, try to keep up. You're not dodging very well.
You also don't like doing the necessary research.
Umm, no. Any quality is an essential quality. How many times do I have to repeat this? Why do you theists simply refuse to be corrected?
I was under the impression that when I was 5 years old, I was the same person as I am now. But I guess we are completely different people, because now I'm a lot taller (and according to you height is an essential quality... or part of it.... something... I don't know.)
Jibber jabber. Causation, substance, accidents, changes, all these things are part of science, they do not precede it. I doubt you even understand what first principles of being means, considering that you're presupposing a god over existence, when one isn't necessary to existence. A god certainly isn't implied or observed in any way through existence. There is no such thing as an axiom for god.
Oh ok. They are part of science. Can you find me one college biology course where they discuss Aristotle's hylomorphism? ]
You're the one who refused to spend a few minutes perusing topics on this forum, not me. I've already perused them. I have no need to do so again and again and again every time a new theist pops in and thinks he has something to say that hasn't been said before.
If you make a claim, it is your responsibility to cite a source. Otherwise, do not bother even responding.
You can deny that the dictionary authoritises the dictation of language formed by society all you like, but it doesn't make it true.
So your argument to this is that every year, we must use words in a certain way because some man decides how words must be used and publishes a book?
Blue is blue, and if it ever changes to be described as yellow, then the dictionary will be updated within a year to reflect this.
Which is what I just said; I said that languages *evolve* and that dictionaries are put together by LEXICOGRAPHERS who gather sociological data used for determining *how* people are currently using words; it doesn't tell us that we *have* to do anything.
You, my friend, are a sad indictment on the public school system (no child left behind, indeed).
No, you simply haven't kept up with philosophy and science, else you'd know you haven't said anything that wasn't disproven decades or centuries ago. That's why you use words that are irrational and don't mean anything. Which is why I'm forcing you to use the dictionary.
LOLOL!
Some guy who admittedly only has a high school education and a few community college psychology courses under his belt is trying to tell me, someone with an actual DEGREE in philosophy, what advances in philosophy are taking place????
Hilarious, especially coming from someone who claims that all the Aristotelian/Thomistic metaphysical notions are covered in science classes.
You didn't cite a source that proves anything. You cited a religious website
Ah, the genetic fallacy; it comes from a religious website, so it must be false.
that merely makes the same logical fallacies and naked assertions that all religious websites and people do.
So what if I was to cite a non-religious website that says the same thing? would you be willing to recant your statement?
Rofl. Any time you want to stop playing with yourself and join the adults, feel free. I'll be waiting. Until then, recognize that prudence being a condition for morality does not make morality and prudence the same thing. In fact, it proves they are not the same thing.
From Wikipedia:
Prudence was considered by the ancient Greeks and later on by Christian philosophers, most notably Thomas Aquinas, as the cause, measure and form of all virtues. It is considered to be the auriga virtutum or the charioteer of the virtues.
It is the cause in the sense that the virtues, which are defined to be the “perfected ability” of man as a spiritual person (spiritual personhood in the classical western understanding means having intelligence and free will), achieve their "perfection" only when they are founded upon prudence, that is to say upon the perfected ability to make right decisions. For instance, a person can live temperance when he has acquired the habit of deciding correctly the actions to take in response to his instinctual cravings.
Prudence is considered the measure of moral virtues since it provides a model of ethically good actions. "The work of art is true and real by its correspondence with the pattern of its prototype in the mind of the artist. In similar fashion, the free activity of man is good by its correspondence with the pattern of prudence." (Josef Pieper[1]) For instance, a stock broker using his experience and all the data available to him decides that it is beneficial to sell stock A at 2PM tomorrow and buy stock B today. The content of the decision (e.g., the stock, amount, time and means) is the product of an act of prudence, while the actual carrying out of the decision may involve other virtues like fortitude (doing it in spite of fear of failure) and justice (doing his job well out of justice to his company and his family). The actual act’s “goodness” is measured against that original decision made through prudence.[2]
In Greek and Scholastic philosophy, "form" is the specific characteristic of a thing that makes it what it is. With this language, prudence confers upon other virtues the form of its inner essence; that is, its specific character as a virtue. For instance, not all acts of telling the truth are considered good, considered as done with the virtue of honesty. What makes telling the truth a virtue is whether it is done with prudence. Telling a competitor the professional secrets of your company is not prudent and therefore not considered good and virtuous.
Again you make the same mistake. Morality is more than just what you ought to do or not do. You really should use that dictionary.
I know, we should use a dictionary for all non-philosophical uses of a term when we are engaging in a philosophical discussion. I'll also use the dictionary to look up "cell" when discussing cells in biology, because it pertains to biology to know that a cell is somewhere that prisoners are held.
All you can do is show people who say they think the world is a different age than it is.
Okay. So there are people who disagree on the age of the earth. That was all you needed to say. We did not need these extra qualifiers or caveats; the only thing required for me to be right on the initial point was that at least SOME people disagree on the age of the Earth.
Immaterial is nondescriptive. If it isn't material, then what is it?
LOL, you just ripped that from what jcgadfly said. Can you not think for yourself?
And your question is irrelevant. I can't show you a number because numbers are not material objects; only material objects can be shown.
Not at all. It still doesn't exist if it's an abstraction in the mind, except as an abstraction in the mind.
So it doesn't exist, but it exists as an abstraction. So it exists and it doesn't exist. Okay.
Not much brain power in that head of yours eh? It never exists, but an abstraction of it can exist. That abstraction certainly has weight, as it uses mass and energy to exist in a brain. But 7 itself doesn't exist.
"7" *is* an abstract; nobody disagrees with that. Nobody is claiming that the *7* exists as anything other than an abstract object; you are making a distinction where a distinction does not exist. Your claim is that the #7 exists, but it is material; I'm trying to show that this is logically absurd, because it trades upon a false epistemology with regard to mathematic claims. You are assuming that we derive mathematics from the experience of natural objects, and the notion of infinite sets disproves that.
If I wanted your irrelevant opinion I'd have asked for it, hmm? Still, at this point, anything you could possibly say about my credentials is of benefit to me, as you've proven you have absolutely none whatsoever.
You've posted your credentials on your profile for everyone to see; your highest level of education is essentially high school, you work a crappy job at H&R Block, and you are 32 year old man playing video games. Do you honestly want to question my credibility?
I think you're asking if we derived infinity by observing infinite numbers of objects, in an attempt to suggest that deriving 7 from 7 apples contradicts my statement. When in fact we invented the whole number system, including infinity, and made it to be so flexible as to never end in the first place.
Yes, we invented the system! We invent the symbology, define the terms of the formal language, and we define the axioms; that has nothing to do with the ontological bases for such systems. If you are going to claim that numbers now have no existence beyond what we invent, then I can just claim that 1 + 1 = 3 and I would not be wrong; human minds often disagree, which means that there is no real truth with regard to mathematics. But that wasn't what you claimed; you claimed that mathematical truths are derived from nature, in which case you need to tell me how we derived the set of natural numbers.
There's really no such thing as infinity, because the only thing that is infinite is a number system that was invented and must be abstracted in order to exist in the first place.
Umm, no. There are lots of infinite sets besides the set of natural numbers; many axiom systems, such as many modal systems, have infinite axioms. And now you are making your claims even more confusing; numbers exist because we invented them, and they were abstracted from nature. Did we invent them or didn't we? I don't think you've thought your position through, and I think you are just throwing random things against the wall until something sticks. If you seriously believe the things you are saying, go to an actual discussion board for mathematics and present this; you will be laughed out of the room.
They are in the number system. I can derive that 101 follows 100 by looking at a sequence starting at 1 and ending at 100.
So are numbers invented or are they derived? Please make up your mind.
What are you talking about?
Nothing. What do you think it describes?
I don't think it is a descriptor for anything; I think numbers are abstractly existing things in themselves. You are the one who claims that they are descriptors, or invented, or something.... you back that up.
It can't, because infinity doesn't exist. There isn't anything that infinity can describe, because nothing which exists is infinite.
Then how are natural numbers derived from nature?
Saying 7 doesn't make 7 exist. Numbers don't exist except as abstractions, and you can't pretend that they do.
I agree that they are abstract objects, which means that they aren't material.
First you'll have to show me where I said that, since I didn't say that.
You said that there was a "cutoff point."
- Login to post comments
Offline You've been sitting at your computer for about 3 hours staring at this same topic trying desperately to come up with a response and this is all you come up with? LOLOL
No, I got bored waiting hours for your lame ass responses that a 6 year old could come up with so I started playing Final Fantasy XIII. LOLOL
You just said that the all of God's attributes, which includes *everything* said of him
LOL. I said everything god. Not everything said of gods actions. You really are a stupid one aren't you?
including but not limited to the time it took him to create the world, are essential
Your inferrence is mistaken. LOL
I'm asking you to please justify this.
And now I'll just say strawman. You justify it, since you created the dilemma in the first place.
You are the one who claimed that any discrepancy between the religions is a discrepancy between the essence of God; please justify this.
Rofl. It's really like talking to a 4 year old. So desperate to escape the logic trap that strawmen appear everywhere, and you never realising that your hole is just getting deeper.
Justify that a difference in an action is equal to a difference in a quality.
?????
Such a perfect description of your entire argument....
*Part* of your essence is in constant flux, and yet it is still your essence?
No. If I weren't constantly changing, I wouldn't be me, because it's part of the essence of me to be constantly changing. Come on kid, you can do better than this.
How is it still your essence if it's in constant flux, when according to you everything attributed to you is part of your essence? And which *part* of your essence is not in constant flux? And now your essence *has* to be in constant flux in order for you to be you?
Well what do you know, you actually got it. I think. The questions make me wonder. Time will tell I suppose.
Can someone please explain this to me? What sort of philosophy is this?
*sigh*
Clearly you didn't get it.
It isn't philosophy. It's science. The science of life. Philosophy is not relevant. Science shows that in order for something to be alive, it must constantly change. Therefore it is essential, or part of my essence as it were, to be constantly changing. If I didn't, I wouldn't be alive. And if I weren't alive, then I wouldn't be me anymore. I'd have ceased to exist.
How? By claiming that everything attributed to you is essential to who you are, only to claim later on that part of your essence is in constant flux even though it is still nonetheless that part of your essence.. and that such a flux is essential to you such that you can't be who you are without that flux? (Yeah, I can't really follow that either.)
And yet, you did at least finally sum up the reality of what it is to be me somewhat acceptably. If you think about it enough, the crosswiring in your head that religion has put into place will probably unravel, and you'll be one step closer to logic.
You also don't like doing the necessary research.
Yet another naked assertion and failure to address an argument. *yawn*
I was under the impression that when I was 5 years old, I was the same person as I am now. But I guess we are completely different people, because now I'm a lot taller (and according to you height is an essential quality... or part of it.... something... I don't know.)
Ah, you're coming closer to the truth. Because you are not the person you were when you were 5 years old. Nothing about you is the same as that person, except perhaps a few cosmetic details, but even they won't be exactly the same. The only thing remaining from that time is fragmented memory strung together by imagination and peer reinforcement.
Oh ok. They are part of science. Can you find me one college biology course where they discuss Aristotle's hylomorphism?
Aristotle is irrelevant. All of those terms are applicable to phenomenae that have been observed, tested, and repeatedly found to be true, hence they are part of the science humanity has assembled.
If you make a claim, it is your responsibility to cite a source. Otherwise, do not bother even responding.
I cited a source, you simply refused to do the reading to see it. So don't project your failures onto me.
So your argument to this is that every year, we must use words in a certain way because some man decides how words must be used and publishes a book?
No. My argument is that we use certain words a certain way, and then a few different people put all those words and those rules on using them into a book(s) so that they are transmissable and relevant across cultures and peoples. If everyone were free to use their own definitions for words at their whim, communication would be much more exasperating.
Which is what I just said; I said that languages *evolve* and that dictionaries are put together by LEXICOGRAPHERS who gather sociological data used for determining *how* people are currently using words; it doesn't tell us that we *have* to do anything.
Which is why dictionaries that are put together by said lexicographers are valid! The definitions I posted for morality are how people define morality. Your definition is not how people define morality. Hence it tells you to shut the fuck up and learn how to speak English to people who use actual definitions instead of millenia old and primitive notions that have nothing to do with anything.
You, my friend, are a sad indictment on the public school system (no child left behind, indeed).
It would've been epic if you'd only been looking in a mirror as you'd said that.
Some guy who admittedly only has a high school education and a few community college psychology courses under his belt is trying to tell me, someone with an actual DEGREE in philosophy, what advances in philosophy are taking place????
Lol, it always comes down to ad hominem when the theist has no other avenue of attack. I should tell you that the information posted there is multiple years old, but it really doesn't matter, and has nothing to do with the credibility of what I've said. Instead, you having a degree is just laughable. What religious institution did you get it from? Or did you do it online? Lololololol
Hilarious, especially coming from someone who claims that all the Aristotelian/Thomistic metaphysical notions are covered in science classes.
Yet more words that I never spoke.
Ah, the genetic fallacy; it comes from a religious website, so it must be false.
Rofl. You have problems with your reading skills, I suggest brushing up on them. Specifically context.
So what if I was to cite a non-religious website that says the same thing? would you be willing to recant your statement?
Any site you showed me that says the same thing is equally guilty of fallacy and naked assertion, and therefore equally false. It doesn't matter if it's religious or not. But I would be very surprised if you could find a non-religious site that did make all the same errors in thought.
From Wikipedia:
Prudence was considered by the ancient Greeks and later on by Christian philosophers, most notably Thomas Aquinas, as the cause, measure and form of all virtues. It is considered to be the auriga virtutum or the charioteer of the virtues.
It is the cause in the sense that the virtues, which are defined to be the “perfected ability” of man as a spiritual person (spiritual personhood in the classical western understanding means having intelligence and free will), achieve their "perfection" only when they are founded upon prudence, that is to say upon the perfected ability to make right decisions. For instance, a person can live temperance when he has acquired the habit of deciding correctly the actions to take in response to his instinctual cravings.
Prudence is considered the measure of moral virtues since it provides a model of ethically good actions. "The work of art is true and real by its correspondence with the pattern of its prototype in the mind of the artist. In similar fashion, the free activity of man is good by its correspondence with the pattern of prudence." (Josef Pieper[1]) For instance, a stock broker using his experience and all the data available to him decides that it is beneficial to sell stock A at 2PM tomorrow and buy stock B today. The content of the decision (e.g., the stock, amount, time and means) is the product of an act of prudence, while the actual carrying out of the decision may involve other virtues like fortitude (doing it in spite of fear of failure) and justice (doing his job well out of justice to his company and his family). The actual act’s “goodness” is measured against that original decision made through prudence.[2]
In Greek and Scholastic philosophy, "form" is the specific characteristic of a thing that makes it what it is. With this language, prudence confers upon other virtues the form of its inner essence; that is, its specific character as a virtue. For instance, not all acts of telling the truth are considered good, considered as done with the virtue of honesty. What makes telling the truth a virtue is whether it is done with prudence. Telling a competitor the professional secrets of your company is not prudent and therefore not considered good and virtuous.
Thanks for proving my point. Prudence and morality are not the same thing.
I know, we should use a dictionary for all non-philosophical uses of a term when we are engaging in a philosophical discussion. I'll also use the dictionary to look up "cell" when discussing cells in biology, because it pertains to biology to know that a cell is somewhere that prisoners are held.
Your sarcasm is amusing, but really just comes off as pathetic when you've been so overmatched.
Btw, there are in fact multiple definitions of cell in the dictionary, and if you'd ever bothered to look, the one you were thinking of is there too.
Okay. So there are people who disagree on the age of the earth. That was all you needed to say. We did not need these extra qualifiers or caveats; the only thing required for me to be right on the initial point was that at least SOME people disagree on the age of the Earth.
And you dodge yet again. So I'll assume I'm right in not acknowledging liars and the ignorant as having an opinion, and reassert that there is no argument about the fact that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.
As long as you want to go in circles, I can lower myself to doing the same.
LOL, you just ripped that from what jcgadfly said. Can you not think for yourself?
Actually, I haven't even looked at any of the other posts in this topic long enough to see anything more than whether there are statements directed to me or not. Our discussion is long enough as it is. Does this mean you couldn't answer him either? LOL
And your question is irrelevant.
No, it isn't.
I can't show you a number because numbers are not material objects; only material objects can be shown.
Only material objects exist.
So it doesn't exist, but it exists as an abstraction. So it exists and it doesn't exist. Okay.
Clearly you still don't get it. It doesn't exist. An abstraction of it can exist. Period. One day, maybe, your infantile mind will grasp the simple concept.
"7" *is* an abstract; nobody disagrees with that. Nobody is claiming that the *7* exists as anything other than an abstract object; you are making a distinction where a distinction does not exist.
Strawman.
Your claim is that the #7 exists, but it is material
Strawman.
I'm trying to show that this is logically absurd, because it trades upon a false epistemology with regard to mathematic claims. You are assuming that we derive mathematics from the experience of natural objects, and the notion of infinite sets disproves that.
Good for you, you busted your own strawman and gave me the argument.
You've posted your credentials on your profile for everyone to see; your highest level of education is essentially high school, you work a crappy job at H&R Block, and you are 32 year old man playing video games. Do you honestly want to question my credibility?
I suggest that you consider why I may have done that. 
And no, I don't need to question your credibility. You have none, and you've demonstrated as much quite nicely already thank you very much.
Yes, we invented the system! We invent the symbology, define the terms of the formal language, and we define the axioms; that has nothing to do with the ontological bases for such systems.
It has everything to do with it. If it had nothing to do with it, then it wouldn't be logical, and the number system would be inconsistent with reality, and wouldn't accomplish anything.
If you are going to claim that numbers now have no existence beyond what we invent, then I can just claim that 1 + 1 = 3 and I would not be wrong;
You would be wrong, because we have defined 1 and 3 and = and +, and you can find them all in the dictionary.
human minds often disagree, which means that there is no real truth with regard to mathematics. But that wasn't what you claimed; you claimed that mathematical truths are derived from nature, in which case you need to tell me how we derived the set of natural numbers.
How about our senses? Duh.
Umm, no. There are lots of infinite sets besides the set of natural numbers; many axiom systems, such as many modal systems, have infinite axioms. And now you are making your claims even more confusing; numbers exist because we invented them, and they were abstracted from nature. Did we invent them or didn't we? I don't think you've thought your position through, and I think you are just throwing random things against the wall until something sticks. If you seriously believe the things you are saying, go to an actual discussion board for mathematics and present this; you will be laughed out of the room.
Any use of the term infinite is wholly dependent on the very number system which was designed to allow infinity in the first place, because it is the only thing that can support infinity. There is no infinity outside of it. You're the one who'd be laughed out of the room. And so very quickly. But I can't expect you to understand, you think god is axiomatic.
So are numbers invented or are they derived? Please make up your mind.
They were invented and can be derived because they were invented and defined in a logical and consistent manner. Please stop making such a fool of yourself.
I don't think it is a descriptor for anything; I think numbers are abstractly existing things in themselves. You are the one who claims that they are descriptors, or invented, or something.... you back that up.
ab·stract
adjective /abˈstrakt/ /ˈabˌstrakt/
|
So in other words they don't exist unless they are being abstracted. Thanks. I'll ignore anything else you say that contradicts what you just said.
Then how are natural numbers derived from nature?
Why does the non-existence of anything infinite, other than the number system designed to be infinite, put into jeapordy the derivation of mathematics from observing nature?
I agree that they are abstract objects, which means that they aren't material.
Which means they don't exist.
Quote:First you'll have to show me where I said that, since I didn't say that.You said that there was a "cutoff point."
Ah, I see the problem. There is a "cutoff point" to abstractedly manifesting numbers simultaneously, because existence is not infinite, and therefore there is a limit to how many numbers can be simultaneously abstractedly manifested. This is not an actual limit on the number system.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline ... that if an argument can be presented where all the premises are true, the form is valid, and the conclusion is "God exists in the actual world," then would you agree that you have to accept the conclusion?
That's non sequitur. You can't prove that the premises are true. They would have to be falsifiable.
Would you agree that if there is no good reason for rejecting any of the premises, and the form is valid, then theism is rationally justified?
'No good reason' is subjective. In that context, theism then can be considered by 'some' to be rationally justified.
None of this has anything to do with whether or not gods are simply folklore, or real , much in the same way as having reasons to believe in astrology, doesn't mean that it is viable.
Can an atheist here present an example of an argument where all the premises are true, the form is valid, and yet the conclusion is false?
I've given you one, that for centuries, was a 'logical' assumption, while being a 'false' conclusion, and proves that we cannot, and should not rely on our 'intuitions'.
'What goes up, must come down'
Read Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, wherein he states that prudence is the father of all virtues:
"Metaphysical" pertains to the first principles of being. The term is derived from Aristotle's writings; it literally means "after the physics," denoting that Aristotle included this writing in the section following his treatise on nature. So, in metaphysics, you discuss things that precede natural science in the order of explanation, such as causation, substance, accident, change, etc.
Sounds like you want to have Aristotle's baby. 
Who the fuck cares about what some superstitious fool postulated?
Is that that the best you clowns can do, is point to your favorite navel gazing circle jerk, and appeal to it's authority?
I guess so.
You've obviously spent much of your life to gobbling their goo.
You have 'Daddy' issues, dude...
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
I can not conceive of an omnipotent , omniscient, eternal, immaterial, morally perfect being. There is no evidence that such a being has ever interacted with our reality. Therefore, all of your premises are false. Therefore, your entire argument fails.
You can sit in the corner and play with your belly button all day if it suits you, but there is no such being, there never was such a being, and since it does not and can not exist, it is not a necessary being.
-- 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.
No, that's ridiculous. What you are essential saying is that something isn't true unless it is in some way observed to be true. So, for instance, if a man is locked in a room on some remote area in Antarctica, the statement "There is a man locked in a room on some remote area in Antarctica" is false, because the truth of this proposition has no observable effect on reality; it's possible that this is true and yet nobody is around to observe the man or any effects produced by his being locked in some room in Antarctica.
Not interested.
Let's examine your position a little bit:
According to you, "7" is identical to a particular constitution of electrons. This implies not that there is only one "7", but rather that there are billions of distinct 7's out there--even though they are all "7." For instance, there would be the "7" of Bill, the "7" of Obama, the "7" of myself, etc. In effect, mathematic statements such as "7+7=14" would become meaningless, as we would have to stipulate whose "7" we are referring to. Furthermore, if "7" merely refers to a particular constitution of electrons, then what meaning do mathematical statements even have? What is it for a constitution of electrons to equal what I would suppose is another constitution of electrons? And how could we say that the sum of Obama's electron constitutions equal the same thing as the sum of Clinton's electron constitutions? And given the indeterminacy of activities at the Planck scale, how can you possibly believe that every person somehow contains in him or herself the same constitution of electrons such that "7"?
Also, the set of natural numbers is infinite; if what you say is true and numbers just are constitutions of electrons, then accordingly there is an actual infinitude of electron constitutions in my brain or at least the potential for an actual infinitude of electron constitutions. Yet if the latter is true, then it seems that there are abstractions apart from our material constitution; there is no other sense in which a potentiality can be said to exist. If the latter is false, then there just *is* an infinite amount of electron constitutions in our brain; how can a finite person have this?
Your last sentence conflates an ontological issue with an epistemological issue; that someone is incapable of knowing something without an adequate medium is not an argument for the materialism of that which is not known.
That's true of most mentally retarded individuals; however, this only speaks of your mental state--not of the possibility of God.
You can easily prove that something exists; for example, I can prove that I exist a priori because asserting my own non-existence presupposes my own existence.
You can also prove that something does not exist; for example, a married bachelor cannot exist, because it's a contradiction in terms.
You just said that you cannot prove it, and yet you are asserting it; so you are allowed to just assert things that are unprovable?
-- 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.
... which was about the same time that your IQ stopped advancing.
So the married bachelor exists to disprove and your god is asserting that "he" also exists? You have been asked to prove it and you have come up lacking any evidence other than what you "want" to assert.
You believe in a god therefore one exists in your own mind but it's really just your own shadow, are your thought patterns not fitting in the slots? Is this too deep?
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
But we're talking about burden of proof, you're attempting to prove a concept through evidence. In this case you have a hypothetical internally coherent claim, and you would have us accept that as proof of an entity within our reality. Luminon, stated that in order for that to be acceptable evidence, it has to have an observable/measurable effect on reality, otherwise it is just hypothetical.
You asked for different definitions of god by Christians earlier. You specifically said that, not only do all Christians believe in one fundamental god, but so do the other Abrahamic religions... I wasn't just volunteering stuff out of my ass.
Actually, that's not what I said, I specifically said the weight of number seven is roughly that of the representation of electrons. I was attempting to show that there is indeed an empirical imprint of rational concepts. I have never claimed that rational concepts are identical between individuals, or that they all exists at once. That is something that you claim. What I believe is that we create our own subjective rational concepts, from empirically gained symbols and concepts.
Again, this is something that you believe, that all rational concepts exist at once, independently of our consciousness in a platonic fashion. I see them as temporary blips of electrons on our brains, 'written' in empirically gained concepts. Much like the RAM in a computer. When the computer shuts down the electrons dissipate randomly through the path of least resistance.
Through my obtuse example I was trying attempting to imply that a rational concept cannot exist without empirical sensors. If that's the case, then it follows that it is dependent on empirical concepts.
You didn't respond to my welcome back and well wishes
I'm kind of hurt hehe.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Something has to exist in order to be proven nonexistent? What?
?
I've already proven that God exists. I've presented the modal ontological argument and nobody could refute it.
You pretend to miss the point because it does not suit you. Very childish.
You used a married bachelor as an example to refute my previous claim and in doing so have proven it out.
If you have an argument that is irrefutable for the existence of a god you need to get on cnn or maybe faux news.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Which in no way addresses the point - if something does in fact not exist, you certainly cannot prove it does, Unless it is defined as something with specific objectively observable effects within our range of observation, we also cannot prove it doesn't, unless the definition is incoherent or contradictory.
The inclusion of 'moraly perfect' in your definition of god renders it incoherent, since morailty is not something that can ever be anything but a subjective compromise, it is meaningless to apply the term 'perfect' to such a concept. 'Great' is also a subjective term when presented by itself. Omnipotent is also impossible - maximally powerful would be better. Omniscience is problematic unless you exclude knowledge of the future course of events. Complete knowledge of teh nature and history of everything would be more coherent.
So until you come up with a coherent definition of God, you do not have a demonstrably valid set of premises.
You have just made a logic 101 category error.
The non-existence of something whose definition is self-contradictory is a logical truth, and logical 'truths' are ultimately tautologies.
The existence or otherwise of an actual defined entity is not a matter of logic, it is a contingent truth. A statement about God which would be equivalent to 'a married bachelor' would be something like 'a mortal god', IOW a statement contradicting the definition. And such statements as 'married bachelor' only refer to concepts, not actual entities.
You have just demonstrated, yet again, your fundamental misunderstanding of basic concepts.
Let me put it in other terms which you may be able to get both your brain cells around: "The only thing which can be shown to exist in the domain of 'God' and related things is that it exists as a believed reality within the minds of the believers."
We can indeed assert that unprovable, undemonstarble things have no grounds for being treated as 'real'.
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
And my point is that Luminon is wrong; that something has no effect on reality has nothing to do with the veracity of its affirmative existential proposition, as with my example. Hence, if I can present a deductively valid proof for the existence of God which has true premises, then you have to accept that God exists--whether or not he affects your reality in any way.
I'm not interested in anything that comes from this site; I already know that I'm right. All misunderstandings trade upon a clear misunderstanding of intensional definitions.
So "7" is a distinct material entity that happens to weigh as much as the constitution of electrons? Then you simply run into the same problem as I've outlined, except now you've merely defined "7" as some other material thing.
That's not an interesting point at all. Obviously there will be an empirical imprint since people adapt ideas to reality all the time; take any painting and provides an abstract picture of someone else's imagination. But this says nothing about the actual ontology of conceptual realities; are they material or are they not?
Then you are off-topic. Are concepts material or are they not? Does "7" weigh something, or doesn't it?
Actually, I am not claiming that all rational concepts exist at once; I'm claiming that the set of natural numbers is potentially infinite. I'm adhering to a loose finitism according to which any notion of actual infinitudes is logically absurd, as can be demonstrated via thought experiments such as Hilbert's Hotel. Potential infinitudes are permitted by my worldview, because I don't believe that everything is material; potentiality only exists in the abstract.
Now you are back to claiming that concepts are constitutions of electrons, which falls victim to the problems that I've just outlined. The only difference is that now you are saying that the set of natural numbers does not actually exist, because numbers do not exist all at once; thus, there can be no set of natural numbers. And then you further confound the issue by claiming that it is somehow contained in the observable physical universe, making mathematical claims empirical. So, in essence, 2 + 2 = 4 only insofar as it was observed to be 4, which means the bases of mathematics only inductively true; hence, there is no proof in mathematics, by your logic.
It is easy to prove that something does not exist. For example, I can prove that my grandmother doesn't exist--she is dead, and I can prove it. You can also prove that Batman doesn't exist; Robert Kane will admit to you that Batman is a fictional character.
Your objection is already addressed by the text I just underlined in my original post, dumbass.
Prove there is not a china teapot in orbit around Alpha Centauri. ( nods to Betrand Russell - slight change of context ).
Prove whether there is or is not an Earth-like civilization in the Andromeda Galaxy.
Prove I am wrong.
Is male infant circumcision (for example) 'right' or 'wrong'? Prove your statement.
see above.
You are stuck in the category error. Its non-existence is proven by the definition of 'bachelor' and the laws of logic. Base on the definition of 'bachelor', it si not actually a well-formed proposition.
We cannot know whether any particular definition of God, if any, is 'necessary', since we do not have sufficient knowledge of the ultimate nature of reality, as to whether it is truly consistent with any definition we form. Therefore we cannot supply any proven premises to the OA.
The S5 axiom assumes that you already have sufficient knowledge of the relevant context to know that A is 'possibly necessary' - but that is pretty much what the OA is trying to prove, so it is either circular or based on an assumption.
Yes, but it is not in the same category as the existence of an actual entity, that is your error. Even if you want to posit God as a definition, as necessary, that by itself cannot prove that there is indeed a God matching that definition.
It is logically possible that all males of marriageable age are married, which would mean that the definition of 'bachelor' would be valid and sound, but did not apply to any actual entity. That is another way of looking at the point I am making.
Damn, my irritation at gratuitous nonsense posing as 'truth' stops me ignoring you as I should.