Well Tom, there are limits but in general we are a tolerant place.  That being said, we have banned people who have been around here for a few years if they cross the line.

If you tone it down, then you can stick around.  Perhaps once we get to know who you are as a person, we will be a bit more open.  However, to do this on your first evening here is very bad form on your part.

Thereby destroying your system of logic by rendering it inconsistent. Exactly as I stated. You must choose: Inconsistent or incomplete. If you choose inconsistent, you automatically lose. The only reasonable choice is consistency (with incompleteness).

You can make your system inconsistent so long as you abandon the principle of explosion, which is what's done in paraconsistent logic.  But with it also goes a multitude of principles the rejection of which is intuitively unsatisfactory.

Formal systems are fine as long as you are careful what category of propositions you attempt to apply them to. Once you get away from simple 'atomic' propositions, and try to make arguments about the validity of arguments, you are asking for trouble.

The basic problem arises when some degree of self-reference is involved, a form of circularity.

The ultimate nonsense is of course when you try to prove God by purely logical means, with no empirical input at all, as in the OA.

You have to recognize the inherent limitations of such systems.

Software engineers such as myself know it only too well - infinite loops or stack overflows are the sort of thing that apparently valid logic can lead to under certain conditions.

Which is why properly engineered software should have checks for invalid arguments, and possibly abort an operation rather than risk an unnoticed error.

You're right, it doesn't come free. It takes a good deal of practical experience.

Okay, let me use a more salient example.  

Did you have to use empirical observation to verify your own existence?  That you came to believe, upon empirical investigation subsequent to your birth, in your own existence at a time before which you were unaware that you existed--even though you did, in fact, exist--seems implausible.

It's more plausible to assume that you knew a priori that you existed; here, you logically inferred something about reality without recourse to empirical observation.

But even if you reject this example, just saying that you can't prove the existence of a real thing by logic alone just begs the question.  To surmount the ontological argument, you have to actually pinpoint a false or vacuous premise, an invalid inference, or show that the conclusion of the argument is uninteresting for the purposes of theism.

Could I take you out for dinner?

The basic principles of empirical research is that you make the absolute minimum assumptions, which I do indeed concede includes the reality of my own existence, and then the validity of the Laws of Logic - the Law of Identity and the Law of Non-contradiction, as a minimum basis for coherent discourse. They are not so much 'facts' about what 'is', just principles of argument about what 'is'.

Beyond that, everything must be demonstrated to be the most consistent model to explain what we experience and observe. Even the Laws of Logic could be in principle up for grabs, if someone could show a more useful basis for analysing reality.

The OA does not refer to anything external, so it cannot make any assertions about anything beyond the context of the words employed in the argument. At best it can suggest that 'something' is necessary for existence, but it cannot assert anything about the actual nature of that 'something', that would be necessary to show that it corresponds to anything like the Christian, or any other God.

Sure, something may have been necessary to initiate the Big Bang, or the meta-Universe within which the Big Bang occurred, or the larger context of existence itself, but further evidence-based argument would be needed to determine whether anything more than a quantum-scale random (causeless) twitch was needed to serve as that 'cause'.

Are you talking about Ockham's Razor?  Ockham's Razor is not a principle of empirical research; it doesn't even need to involve empirical observation.  The origin of it is based on the deductive methodology with which Ockham justified his nominalism, which is a metaphysical position according to which universal categories are not real things.

What you are making is called an "ad hoc fallacy."  You imply universal statements such as "we can't know things unless we justify them in experience," and when a defeater is presented, you just repond with "we can't know things unless we justify them in experience, EXCEPT in the case of those things you've mentioned."  It's like the following case:  I claim that all horses are brown, you show me a white horse, and I just say that all horses are brown except for the one you've shown me.

The ontological argument does refer to something external--namely, God.  The whole point of the argument is to prove that God exists in concrete thought-independent reality.  

The argument does not just prove that something is necessary; Plantinga formalized it specifically with regard to a maximally great being, which is God by definition.  

[mod edit: empty ad homs deleted]

If 2 + 2 = 5, then you're really a woman trapped in a man's body.

"If it's possible that there be a being like that, it follows by virtue of a certain theorem from Modal Logic, it follows that there is a certain being." Platinga

Why would you write something in a cryptic fashion?

You must confuse knowledge for intelligence and aptitude. That's silly.

You're confusing knowledge and intelligence, again.
Articulating your thoughts in 'code' that others are unfamiliar with, is no better than talking in a foreign tongue with your mouth full of marbles.
 

Labelling others as 'stupid' because you failed to explain yourself in a manner in which your thoughts could be scrutinized, is completely ironic.

I can't think of any intelligent person who wanted to be taken seriously, that would choose to communicate their ideas in that manner.

But, is it true that you can reason away uncertainty about what is true/ not true with your methods?

Then prove that there is/isn't life on other planets. I'm sure most people would like to know the 'truth' about that. Can you with your (formal logic) answer that?

I've debated 'Logic Ninjas' before who somehow neglect admitting (or realizing) that the foundations of logic were derived from empiricism. Every single 'logician' I've ever heard uses 'natural' world examples to 'reality check' their 'logic', and to 'argue' and attempt to persuade people that their hypothesis is accurate.

Funny dat, huh?

IOW, we can't actually demonstrate that something is true, with logic, until reality (actuality) confirms it to be true. Without science, we can only assume, or hope that our theories are accurate, which is why science trumps speculation not only in simple true/not true dichotomies, but with scope of understanding.

Then you're argument for god(s) can't be all that good, obviously. Even if one were to 'accept' that a 'god' created the universe, it does nothing to prove that theists are not in error about every other aspect of their 'god' beliefs.

For example, you couldn't use that as a proof of a 'god' still currently existing, or that a 'god' has 'concern' over what it creates.

So, in the context of religions, you've not accomplished much. You're not even able to demonstrate that there aren't many 'gods', which would tremendously undermine the doctrines of Abrahamic religions, nor does it demonstrate that there is an afterlife.

So, what do you think you really know, about how the universe formed, and can prove to not be a 'false positive'?

Perhaps it escapes you that any form of a priori assumption(s) is merely an argument for what (is thought) must be true (within the context of the argument).

This is distinctly different from whether it is 'actually' true, in reality. Which my previous example with the missing puppy clearly demonstrates how you cannot possibly get ahead of yourself with unsupported assumptions.

Hindsight is an infinitely better methodology at 20/20 vision, than foresight. There can be no debate about this.

Which is where scientific methodology trumps any form of codified logic, in modeling reality.

Platinga has admitted that he would not attempt to use his argument as proof of a god, but rather, as a good reason to believe that one exists.

He does not believe philosophical arguments of these sorts, are powerful.

They probably neglect to mention that till after you've finished the philosophy courses, and you're on your way to receiving your "Would you like fries with that?" T shirt when you embark on your post education job search...

 

 

Tom,

I told you I do not write computer games, not that that would invalidate my point about writing computer software requires a solid grasp of logic.

I do not spend most of my time on this forum - I get on as a break from a large programming project.

I have pointed out many times how it is you who do not grasp Logic at a high enough level to comprehend your misunderstandings. I did it in your previous incarnation when I pointed out that to validly apply S5 modal logic to the OA as you were attempting to do required to already know that 'God' was 'possibly necessary', which would require a level of knowledge of an assumed infinite being which would be utterly beyond the comprehension of a finite mind.

Your apparent failure to grasp that 'absence of evidence' is not universally 'evidence of absence' is another indicator. You may comprehend the words in which logic concepts are defined, but you seem to interpret them in a very simplistic way, not stepping back to view it in a broader context, as demonstrated so clearly with the 'absence of evidence' thing. And with the contradiction explosion thing as well.

And now you are descending back into ad hom. What prank are you going to visit on this site to vent your frustration this time?

He was probably searching for 'paramount' but prematurely ejaculated 'paradigm' in his *ahem* enthusiasm...

 

 

He was just being obstreperous...

It must be frustrating to have spent all that time studying such an unmarketable degree, and ineffective way to persuade people to believe you know something they don't.

Way to limit yourself in the modern world...lol

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. The Golden Idol designed it.

This one???

rednef,

I found time to watch that video of Plantinga.

OMFG.

I had retained some lingering respect for him, based on his acknowledgement that the OA could not really be taken as a convincing proof of God.

But now I see why he said that. He thinks belief in God is something that can be just taken as as self-evident as belief in the reality of other people.

IOW he has succumbed to the same fundamental fallacy as the dumbest Theist, that the intuitive conviction that God is 'behind' everything we observe in the world is sufficient to justify the belief. That 'reasoning' would justify every superstition, every irrational belief, every possible religion...

And then compounds his error by claiming that according to 'naturalistic' ideas, evolution cannot guarantee in any way that our 'beliefs' are based on truth.

First, he is ignoring the fact that rationality is precisely the ability to get beyond such evolved instincts, then secondly failing to acknowledge that his own belief that God exists is based on those fallible instincts!! Despite the prompting of the interviewer that that would be a justifiable observation!

I imagine his defence would be based on the supposed impossibility that true rational intelligence could emerge naturally, ie without divine intervention. IOW that evolution could never give rise to anything beyond those instinctive behaviors.

My respect for the 'qualification' of 'Philosopher' just went down several more notches from its already low level.

Good find Rednef.

I am enjoying the video, and despite the fact that it is misleading you have to admire the Gordian Knot solution it attempts to prove.  As I watched the first video, I actually got a little excited at the way he described his argument, I wanted him to present something coherent.  Alas, it was not to be so, the turning point is when he quotes Patricia Churchland "truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost...".  He interprets that to say that natural selections doesn't care about your beliefs, which is somewhat true.  But what Churchland meant was that TRUTH is a meaningless concept due to it's relativity and subjectivity.  Truth as Plantinga understands it, as the absolute, objective TRUTH, is where the major fallacy of equivocation comes in.  The second fallacy of equivocation is on BELIEF.

At the beginning of the third video, he sets out the playing field with the assumption that because Darwin had a doubt about the validity of beliefs as if they were a monkeys, and the misstating of what Churchland meant, it follows that the probability of BELIEF being TRUE is low in an evolutionary naturalistic paradigm (hehe, I love that word).  The one major unspoken objection here is that BELIEF as an evolutionary segue for behavior will always tend to favor the relative TRUTH over relative ERROR.  

In a different video you have posted on Plantinga, he mentions the frog and fly example, where the fly's beliefs have no bearing on the outcome that it will get eaten by the frog.  That's actually wrong, consider population of flies A and flies B.  Flies A hold the belief that flying over ponds with Lily pads is bad for you, and flies B believe that Lily pads look pretty and pose no threat.  Evolution guaranties that over a few generation flies B with the erroneous belief will be wiped out, and flies A with the true belief will get to carry on their genes.  

 

 

 

                   It amazes me what any person can get away with if they can put Phd. after their name and philosopher in front of it.   How meny times did he propose A and B were different and without missing a beat decided that A and B were the same.   I'm with Rednef, this guy is a jawdropping idiot.  And if I may add;  not worth the time of day.

Well well well... if it isn't the guy who strutted on to the website like a little peacock only to reveal that he wasn't even privy to the sophisticated literature that existed on the topic--that is, until he happened upon theists who actually knew what they were talking about!  Oh how your world must have come crashing down!  Time for me to make it crash once again.

Let's see what little gems of wisdom he has to offer this time around.

Exactly.  The statement is true, because by the principle of explosion anything follows from a logical contradiction.  

Plantinga is correct.  This follows by the theorem of modal logic according to which MLp=>Lp.

I confuse nothing.  If you wish to engage in a discussion with regard to issues the understanding of which includes, at the very least, somewhat of a familiarity with formal logic, then it is your responsibility to actually do the relevant research before you try to debate the issues.  Imagine if I attempted to debate a chemistry teacher on a certain issue pertaining to chemistry; shouldn't I actually study a little chemistry before I engage in the debate, lest I fail to understand the points that s/he is going to make?

What you're guilty of is not ignorance; it's tacitly proclaiming yourself reliable on an issue which you know nothing about. 

You don't get it.  My point was that atheists should be familiar with these logical symbols.  If they aren't, then it means that they aren't ready to tackle the God arguments and capriciously proclaim them fallacious.  It means that, beneath your little facade, you only have a cursory understanding of the issues.

Again, the reason they're stupid is because they are saying "FAIL" to arguments of which they have no understanding. 

The goal was to bait atheists into responding to the post and proclaiming that the argument failed, whilst not even being able to discern the actual meanings of the symbols or the nature of the inferences.  I succeeded.

Nice try, but your philosophy is about 100 years out of date.  Logical positivism (and all similar schools of empiricism) has been universally rejected ever since it was first presented to a credible metaphysician.

I'm glad you wrote that, though.  It's only to my benefit if you undermine the integrity of your (already horrible) arguments via the advancement of, well, even worse arguments.  That you actually believe the (centuries long) debate between rationalism and empiricism can be resolved in two sentences makes my job easier. 

What's funny is that you actually think this is a knock-down argument--that you've actually devastated me!  LOL

Actually, that's false.  For example, we can demonstrate that "((p-->q) & p)=>q" is a tautology without ever once observing the behavior of the natural world.  That's why there's a notable disparity between arguments that are deductive or inductive, or principles that a priori or a posteriori, or statements that are necessary or contingent, and so forth.  If what you said was so obviously true, then logicians and epistemologists probably would have abandoned these distinctions years ago.  

Has reality ever confirmed that the statement "we can't actually demonstrate that something is true, with logic, until reality (actuality) confirms it to be true" is true?  If so, how?

Logic is not speculation, sugarbear.  We know that certain axioms and theorems are true, and at that, we know them to be true with 100% certainty.  Proof doesn't exist in science, yet it does exist in logic and mathematics; isn't that interesting?  

You don't even know what the argument is (its formalization in the OP notwithstanding); how can you say it's not any good?

You don't know that, unless you can tell me what my argument is.  Have you studied logic?

How do you know?

The evidence suggests that space, time, matter, and energy all began from an abstract point that we call the "singularity," and that it all has been continuously decompressing for the past 14 billion years.  We know this from our observations of red shifts in other galaxies (which, given what we know about the Doppler Effect, indicates that their distances from one another are growing) and  the cosmic microwave background radiation (which would have been produced if the universe was compressed as it was).

Of course, most God-believers don't seem to give a flying rip how the universe was formed; they want to know what caused it to form the way that it did.  So you can't even get right the actual issues at stake, let alone the pertinent questions. 

May I ask what credibility or expertise you have in the field of epistemology to be able to confidently proclaim, as you do, the implications of certain kinds of statements?

Except that there is a debate, which evidently you didn't even know existed (much like you weren't even aware of the sophisticated literature as it pertains to the God debate).  I would highly recommend reading up on the debates between rationalists and empiricists; I refuse to engage any further unless you properly do your research.

Plantinga recognizes that his argument will be unpersuasive, because he knows that atheists like you are idiots and will latch upon any implausible (albeit not indisputable) assumption that can serve as the "God may not exist" thread by which you can hang on.

I'll have to remind all those law school graduates with undergraduate philosophy degrees that Burger King has a position available; who needs that six figure salary?

WRONG!

For all instances of material implication, the conditional statement is false only if the antecedent is true and the consequent is false.  This means that a conditional statement is true even if it's antecedent is false; for example, "If unicorns exist, then there are one-horned horses" is a true statement, even though "Unicorns exist" is false.

Now, a conditional proof starts by assuming a premise to be true; in logic, you are allowed to assume the truth of a premise, even if that premise is actually false (including false in all cases).  Once you assume a premise to be true, you can prove the truth of a conditional via the inferred premises that fall under the scope of the assumed premise; hence, if squares are round, then Elvis is still alive!

Not that I expect you to actually get this, or anything.

No, in a philosophical discussion such as this, absence is evidence is never evidence of absence--not in any way, shape, or form.  It's a fallacy; what you're saying is like saying that an appeal to popularity of Y can definitely be evidence of Y, even though in general it is not evidence of Y.  

Using the absence of evidence as evidence of absence is known as an "ad ignorantium."  

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html

Now there are certain pragmatic considerations in, say, science or a court of law which make it okay to assume something unless the opposite is proven true.  But these are strictly methodological, similar to how in methodological naturalism it is assumed for the sake of the practice that everything is naturally explainable.  However, once you extend this beyond the scope of the methodology, such as in philosophical discussions or the like, fallacies and flimsy argumentation will ensue.

The problem, I think, is that far too many atheists construe the God issue to be something that it's not.  The question of God's existence is not a scientific question.  So it's just laughable when atheists continually regurgitate irrelevant incantations such as "We need evidence to support the hypothesis," "This doesn't explain anything in nature; it just raises more questions," etc.  

Axioms are reasonably assumed to be true; are you claiming that the law of non-contradiction might be false?

No it's not!  You are just saying that because you assume intuitively that nothing can be entailed by a contradiction, such that when I disprove that, instead of admitting your shortfall, you claim that something is wrong with logic or that there's some mysterious broader context of which everyone except for you is unaware.

Regarding Godel's incompleteness theorem, to which you consistent latch on, all he was saying is that any axiom system does not contain within itself proof of its own axioms.  He is not saying that we shouldn't trust logic; indeed, that would be a paradox, considering that he uses logic to make that very assertion.  And he is not saying that nothing in reality can be deduced from logic alone; in fact, he put forth his own version of the ontological argument.

Are you going to continue appealing to his authority, given that he was a theist?  

That's about as trivial as arguing that science only proves certain assumptions to be consistent with our perceptions; however, as idealists such as Immanuel Kant have shown, our perception may not reflect the world-in-itself.

Okay, where does Godel say that?  And how is this consistent with the fact that he endorsed the ontological argument for the existence of God?

Not all of us were smart enough to become tax preparers... was that your high school major?

Face it.  Your job is pathetic, your life is pathetic, you have no real academic education, and you'll retain your virginity into your 40's.  

Ain't life grand?

So the absence of any hint of a second sun in the sky is not evidence that there is no such thing? Can you show me a logical argument to that effect?

Goedel was not so much about the inability of a formal system to prove its own validity, but the ability to formulate within the system statements that are undecideable, that cannot be proved either way. It is related to the idea of not being able to prove the validty of the system itself, but it goes further.

I did not assert that Goedel said anything like that about God, and I knew he was a Theist - so what? I am not 'appealing to his authority' but to the facts about formal systems that he demonstrated, and that have been accepted and confirmed.

You are one appealing to authority all the time, whether it is the authority of academic philosophers who you say contradict my assertions, or the authority of some old writings from a few thousand years ago from the Middle East, or some guy whose main claim to fame is a radio show.