Modal Ontological Argument

Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Modal Ontological Argument

(1) If an eternal being exists, then there is no potential for this being to not exist.    

(1a) An eternal being is, by definition, without end. Any being which has the potential to stop existing is not eternal.

(2) If an eternal being does not exist, then there is no potential for this being to exist.

(2a) An eternal being is, by definition, without beginning. 

(3) An eternal being either exists or does not exist.

(3a) This disjunction is exclusive, both disjuncts cannot both be true.

(4) That which has no potential to exist is logically impossible, or has a nature which violates the law of non-contradiction.

(5) The nature of an eternal being does not violate the law of non-contradiction.

(5a) Thus, it is not the case that there is no potential for this being to exist.

(5b) If it is not the case that there is no potential for this being to exist, then it must be the case that there is no potential for this being to not exist.

(6) Therefore, an eternal being exists. 

(7) An eternal being cannot be made of anything.

(7a) Formless matter is impossible; any matter will always have some form, even if that form is chaos.

(7b) If an eternal being is made of matter, then the being would have came into existence once the matter attained its form (since the form is what this being is) which would require either the being to give form to its own matter or be shaped by some other being. 

(7c) Both options in (7b) would contradict the idea of eternity.

 

 

We can thus conclude from logic alone that an eternal immaterial being must exist.  This does not prove the God of the Bible, but it opens the door to the numinous.  This plants the seeds for the acceptance of special revelation, especially given the consistency of the Abrahamic God as being eternal and immaterial, as opposed to being an anthropomorphic super-being.

 

 


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:Then I'm

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Then I'm sorry but I do not fully understand your position.  You are obfuscating so much that it is impossible to respond to, which is what you did about a week ago when we tried having this discussion. 

 

There is no obfuscation on my part, Fortunate_Son. We're discussing the source of the parameters assumed in ordinary discourse so we're inherently at a disadvantage in communicating, it's nobody's fault or deliberate tactic.  

Moreover, your approach is to simply assert they are absolute and import a superman to hold the gap for you, I'm doing the hard stuff here and actually attempting to provide you with a complete and proper ontology.  Your complaint is a lazy cop out; just like your ontology.

If you're going to refuse to apply effort to reading and comprehending what I am saying, again, then it's pointless me sticking around to answer your questions.

 

Quote:

What is pretty clear is that you believe logic is a process that automatically emerges from natural behavior and I'm arguing that this just does not work

 

And I have answered all your objections fairly so now you're just asserting it instead?

 

Quote:

It does nothing to bridge the gap between what we know and what we perceive,

 

Your ontology doesn't provide any bridge between knowledge and perception, it's just baldly asserting the absolute existence of one so you can later call it God's Nature.

 

Quote:

and lends no justification for the principles themselves or the propositions we make which are dependent on these basic propositions. 

 

No, you are incorrect on this part. It perfectly justifies the principles underlying our propositions by ongoing accord with reality. You can know a thing* is a thing because every time you see it, it is still a thing - principle justified.

 

 

 

Quote:

It merely assumes that the gap is somehow bridged and that no real justification

 

Real justification? Like the "nature" of an invisible man in the sky who spread misogyny, killed some babies and then threatened to throw everyone who didn't kowtow to the whims of lunatics declaring themselves 'in his name' in a supernatural volcano/torture chamber  .... "real" like that you mean?

Sarcasm aside, these conditions are just plain hypocritical coming from a presuppositionalist -- regardless that I have answered every last one of them satisfactorily anyway.

 

Quote:

Quote:
If it is true that sensory data organises itself then there is no gap

No, that is false.  Just because something is, in itself, organized does not automatically entail that we can comprehend it. 

 

So.... the information in our heads being in itself, organised, does not entail that the information in our heads is organised? is that what you're saying?

 

Quote:

In fact, things can appear to be organized and not actually be organized...

 

This is not an appearance of organisation, so whatever you meant by this, it's irrelevant.

 

Quote:

Knowing is an immaterial qualitative state. 

 

Bald assertion.

I can do that too....

Knowing is a material configuration state. 

Mine sounds cooler. Sticking out tongue

 

Quote:

Order or appearances would fall under the category of things that are known, it would not be knowledge itself.

 

Order fundamentally facilitates knowledge, knowledge cannot have priority over order.

Why do we need structured language? If knowledge has priority over order I should be able to just throw words at you and let you put them together yourself.

 

Quote:

Quote:
This requirement is so to hold on to the vanity that we are eminent and intelligent in the face of the universe. It's really just a circle jerk, the universe isn't beneath us. There is no gap.

Then you are essentially saying that we do not know anything, which means that you cannot even posit the truth statements that you are giving me now.

 

Yes, but I am also saying that rationality and accord with reality will be a product of an egotistical mind - thus I can posit a statement which is relevant and realistic.  You're hung up on absolutes, though, so you are failing to see the value of that.

 

Quote:

Quote:
2. You know we have never observed that someone can derive the law of non-contradiction from sense experience how, exactly?

I've been explaining the whole time-- we have to assume it in order to be able to comprehend the things in which we receive.  That's why it's an axiom.

 

Could you rephrase this. I'm not clear on your meaning.

 

 

Quote:

Quote:

For the record, under my model the "laws" of logic aren't Laws, or hadn't you noticed?

They are rules of proper thinking and discourse.  Sounds like a law to me.

 

One could equally say they are habits of effective thinking and discourse. And that sounds like pragmatic justification to me.

 

Quote:

Quote:
Under my model the "laws" of logic are codified experiences and are relative to a mean value of data present at the locus of an "I".

But that does not make any sense.  It's a flawed model.

 

Can you make sense of it and it's "flawed", or can you not make sense of it. These seem mutually exclusive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*It is a "thing" (ie the apparition of something with a consistent rational identity) because the perceptual information where "you" are, by its definition as random statistical data, is ordered rationally when present in volumes like those provided by our multiple data collecting senses.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
I think we should end this

I think we should end this because we are clearly not getting anywhere.

Since you've admitted that your rejection of Christianity is more visceral than cerebral, I can only presume that your worldview is largely shaped by what you prefer to be the case rather than what actually is the case.  Your condescending (mis)characterization of Christinaity is also testimony to this.  Obviously, it would be difficult for you to reconcile any absolutist worldview without an eternal being which could account for the ontology of absolutes. 

There is absolutely no reason to trust our instinct.  What matters is the intellect.  Instinct often misleads you and if that is your metric for assessing the veracity of a particular worldview, then you are bound to fail.

To answer your question, does knowledge precede order? It depends on what you mean by "order".  If axiomatic principles are a necessary precondition to knowledge, then that would require a prior order so to speak.  Certainly, if our thought process had no order to begin with, knowledge would not be possible.  But that is my point.  Order is the precondition.  It is not a derivation, otherwise, there is no accounting for the bridging of the gap between the temporal stage where everything is chaotic and you don't know and that stage where everything is ordered and you do know.  Mind you, this is no problem for the presuppositionalist; order and knowledge is innate to the human condition and our a priori categories allow us to build upon what we are given in sensation. 

Natural processes are contingent factors of reality.  The modality of natural processes is that of contingency.  They may happen, or they may not.  To account for logic by natural processes, first of all, is subject to the problem of induction.  How can you be sure that everyone will have that same experience?  And if one person does not and has a completely different logical system, by what metric would you assess that s/he is wrong?  You wouldn't have one.  It would simply be a case of majority opinion.  Second of all, there is nothing rational about nature, so why would presume that we could acquire our rationality from it?  It's totally a faith statement that you are making.  You are assuming that what we get from nature is rational and it is the worst practical application of abductive reasoning.  This is not a problem for the presuppositionalist; rationality is based upon the mind of an intelligent sentient being.  This being purposefully made us in his likeness and allowed us the potentially to learn and to think.  This being is, by his nature, eternal and therefore necessary.  Thus, we have grounds for saying that axiomatic principles, which are grounded upon him, are themselves absolute.

I think I've made my position quite clear.  Logical principles are absolute.  If they were not, then the least you could do is argue with me without using them.  But you continue to do so and you've applied these same principles to build your knowledge to the point where you can make complicated scientific inquiries which are so complex that they lead you to believe that the absolutism of the statements is disproved.  You are using the principles which I am claiming are absolute.  If I claimed anything else was absolute, such as eating pizza, you could simply disprove me by showing me that you had a steak for dinner tonight.  You obviously are unable to do that with logic.

Presuppositionalism isn't about sneaking God in through the back door.  We've examined the nature of intelligibility and we've determined, by the impossibility to the contrary, that Christianity is the only worldview which can account for this.  This line of reasoning has planted the seeds for many atheists to eventually accept God (though nobody wants to pray to a logical conclusion, they all want to experience God and know him, which is understandable).  I myself have accepted God with my mind, but at this stage of my life, I still do not know him personally.  I'm waiting for that experience, I have yet to have it.

The last point that I want to make is this:  Yes, God killed babies in the Old Testament.  But if it is true that we have a nature which is oriented towards breaking God's law, then we are subject to God's righteous condemnation.  According to God's law, the entire human race should have been destroyed.  We all deserve it because our nature is against Him.  This includes babies.  Therefore, God has the right to kill any baby that he wants.  The fact that we are still here today is due to God's mercy, not because we have a right to our life.

God does not hate women.  He clearly made females necessary for the proliferation of the human race and used a woman to bring his son onto planet Earth.  But he assigned different roles to men and women.  This wasn't due to sexism.  He simply assigned roles.  What we do know is that there are observable differences between men and women, and while you can find exceptions in every case, men for the most part exhibit a certain set of characteristics which make them more conducive to certain roles and the same goes for women.

Christianity isn't about telling you things which will make you comfortable.  It's waking you up to the truth... it pierces you like a knife, but then it heals.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Wow, FS.

 

Fortunate_Son wrote:

I can only presume that your worldview is largely shaped by what you prefer to be the case rather than what actually is the case.  Your condescending (mis)characterization of Christinaity is also testimony to this.  Obviously, it would be difficult for you to reconcile any absolutist worldview without an eternal being which could account for the ontology of absolutes. 

You can't seriously deny that this charge applies even more strongly to you. The god of gaps is who you're worshipping, a weird hodge podge of myth and outright fabrication. To admit or accept that there are things that go beyond our comprehension does not automatically posit a heavenly father who made us in his image and wants to be friends, but only when we're dead. You'd need to really prefer this explanation of the existence of the universe and the presence of humanity to even remotely believe it. 

 

P.S. I love the olive branch you're stretching out to women. It reminds me of my mother's weird relationship with my father. But who'd 've thunk it? The baby machines have brains.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Eloise:  

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:You

Atheistextremist wrote:

You can't seriously deny that this charge applies even more strongly to you.

I absolutely can.  It was difficulty for me to accept that I was not a good person.  It was difficult for me to accept that for all of these years, I've merely created a God in my image and believed that this God would accept whatever I do.  Idolatry is functionally just as bad as atheism, possibly worse.

I used to argue that the God of Christianity wasn't real... that a true God never kills anybody and will let people of all beliefs into Heaven as long as they do not kill anyone.  It was difficult for me to accept that this was not true.... that many of the people closest to me (including my parents) probably won't go to Heaven. 

As a Christian, there are tremendous sacrifices that I have to make.  It is not comforting.  But I have come to accept it.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

You can't seriously deny that this charge applies even more strongly to you.

I absolutely can.  It was difficulty for me to accept that I was not a good person.  It was difficult for me to accept that for all of these years, I've merely created a God in my image and believed that this God would accept whatever I do.  Idolatry is functionally just as bad as atheism, possibly worse.

I used to argue that the God of Christianity wasn't real... that a true God never kills anybody and will let people of all beliefs into Heaven as long as they do not kill anyone.  It was difficult for me to accept that this was not true.... that many of the people closest to me (including my parents) probably won't go to Heaven. 

As a Christian, there are tremendous sacrifices that I have to make.  It is not comforting.  But I have come to accept it.

So you borrowed a God from some Middle Eastern goat herders and still got the perks that you claim you got from the God of your creation. That forgiveness option combined with that "under grace not under law" thing still allows you to do whatever you want and have God condone it.

Isn't magic wonderful?

"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


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:I

Fortunate_Son wrote:

I absolutely can.  It was difficulty for me to accept that I was not a good person.  It was difficult for me to accept that for all of these years, I've merely created a God in my image and believed that this God would accept whatever I do.  Idolatry is functionally just as bad as atheism, possibly worse.

I used to argue that the God of Christianity wasn't real... that a true God never kills anybody and will let people of all beliefs into Heaven as long as they do not kill anyone.  It was difficult for me to accept that this was not true.... that many of the people closest to me (including my parents) probably won't go to Heaven. 

As a Christian, there are tremendous sacrifices that I have to make.  It is not comforting.  But I have come to accept it.

 

It must be very traumatic to think you are so special that you get to spend an eternity in total bliss just because you profess the correct superstition, regardless of your merit as a human being or how disgusting your religious practices may be.  And it must be horrible to contemplate how everyone who does not agree with you is going to suffer for eternity.  You poor thing.

If you look up narcissism in a dictionary, you'll find the above post.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

You can't seriously deny that this charge applies even more strongly to you.

I absolutely can.  It was difficulty for me to accept that I was not a good person.  It was difficult for me to accept that for all of these years, I've merely created a God in my image and believed that this God would accept whatever I do. 

So you give credence to the Christian "God" as being not created by people in their own image to accept whatever it is they believe and do? 

I don't believe you were ever the shrewd skeptical atheist you're claiming you were. You're acting like an ignorant cheergirl, which says to me, you've been sucked in to this bullcrap while you were young and naive, or you still are really young and naive.

 

 

Quote:

Idolatry is functionally just as bad as atheism, possibly worse.

Atheism is functionally bad? Where does that come from?

And for the record, you are an idolater. You are glorifying logic and your justification is that you prefer it is absolute. This is so you can stake out intellectual and moral high ground to take and feel superior, your god is the projection of your own vanity.

 

 

Quote:

I used to argue that the God of Christianity wasn't real... that a true God never kills anybody and will let people of all beliefs into Heaven as long as they do not kill anyone. 

I still argue that people who fall over and roll around on the floor because everyone else around them is doing it, pretending that they are communing with a spiritual realm, are desperate for social acceptance.

I still argue that quote mining the "official" Holy see's compilation of ancient Jewish stories for scraps of bigoted heresay to render your own prejudices unassailable makes you a coward and a liar.

I still argue that Faith healing is a blatant sham, and that popular Christianity is a pyramid scheme con job targeting the desperate and ignorant.

But most importantly, I still argue that God can be exactly what he or she or it is, whatever...

But....

if it is as popular Christianity would have us believe, ie a murderous, unconscionable psychopath with a penchant for indulging wankers like the Phelpses in their morbid fantasies of watching whoever, they take disliking to on the day, suffer -- then I will openly and vehemently oppose it. I don't care what consequences are threatened.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:It must be

mellestad wrote:

It must be very traumatic to think you are so special that you get to spend an eternity in total bliss just because you profess the correct superstition, regardless of your merit as a human being or how disgusting your religious practices may be.  And it must be horrible to contemplate how everyone who does not agree with you is going to suffer for eternity.  You poor thing.

If you look up narcissism in a dictionary, you'll find the above post.

I specifically said in my post that while I know of God, I do not know him personally.  Until that happens, I am on my way to Hell.

It's not about agreeing with me.  I have absolutely nothing to gain if you become a Christian.  Even if I were the catalyst to your intellectual acceptance of the doctrines, that would not be enough to save me. 

Being saved is being in complete fellowship with God, knowing him and putting him first above everything else in your life.  It is the only thing left for us to do because God already made restitution for our actions, as it practically impossible for us to meet his standard on our merits.  If your metric was simply "merit as a human being", we would all be in Hell right now.  None of us are good.  We are not worthy of Heaven and the only reason that door is open to us is because God is merciful.

If you reject this, then you cannot have a relationship with God because you clearly do not trust him.  You simply project yourself in an elitist self-savior position, or in the case of atheism, a nihilist position.  Without trust, there is no fellowship.  Trust is pragmatically what defines the closeness of our relationships.  God will only save his friends.

 


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:

mellestad wrote:

It must be very traumatic to think you are so special that you get to spend an eternity in total bliss just because you profess the correct superstition, regardless of your merit as a human being or how disgusting your religious practices may be.  And it must be horrible to contemplate how everyone who does not agree with you is going to suffer for eternity.  You poor thing.

If you look up narcissism in a dictionary, you'll find the above post.

I specifically said in my post that while I know of God, I do not know him personally.  Until that happens, I am on my way to Hell.

It's not about agreeing with me.  I have absolutely nothing to gain if you become a Christian.  Even if I were the catalyst to your intellectual acceptance of the doctrines, that would not be enough to save me. 

Being saved is being in complete fellowship with God, knowing him and putting him first above everything else in your life.  It is the only thing left for us to do because God already made restitution for our actions, as it practically impossible for us to meet his standard on our merits.  If your metric was simply "merit as a human being", we would all be in Hell right now.  None of us are good.  We are not worthy of Heaven and the only reason that door is open to us is because God is merciful.

If you reject this, then you cannot have a relationship with God because you clearly do not trust him.  You simply project yourself in an elitist self-savior position, or in the case of atheism, a nihilist position.  Without trust, there is no fellowship.  Trust is pragmatically what defines the closeness of our relationships.  God will only save his friends.

 

 

Translation:  "I know the ultimate secrets of the universe.  I know exactly what the Alpha and Omega wants out of humans because He is my best friend and He whispers in my soul.  If you don't believe what I believe, my Best Friend will annihilate you over and over for eternity, because He only likes people who agree with Him (and strangely, His belief always matches mine!).  God is a swell guy.  I am not a narcissist.

 

Maybe if you make that a chant if will come true, sort of like clapping to bring Tinkerbell back to life.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
mellestad

mellestad wrote:
 

Translation:  "I know the ultimate secrets of the universe.

It's not a secret.  It's right there in scripture.

Quote:
I know exactly what the Alpha and Omega wants out of humans because He is my best friend and He whispers in my soul.

I don't even have to know him.  It's right there in scripture.

Quote:
If you don't believe what I believe, my Best Friend will annihilate you over and over for eternity, because He only likes people who agree with Him (and strangely, His belief always matches mine!).  God is a swell guy.  I am not a narcissist.

He likes everybody, even those who are not his friends.  That is why he is allowing you to live despite the fact that you constantly mock him and insult him.  But that does not mean that he is not going to punish you for your transgressions.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
I forgot the part where you

I forgot the part where you say, "We're all pathetic worms who need to be spanked."

 

I don't get the whole "Humans are scum" thing in religion, I mean, why are you so guilt ridden?  What convinced you that you are such a piece of poo?

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:To account for logic

Quote:

To account for logic by natural processes

[...]

Christianity is the only worldview which can account for this.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but pressupositionalism is the concept that you need god to justify the use of logic, correct?  If so, then:

 

 

"

(10) If something needs justification/accounting from an external source that thing is logically contingent and not logically necessary

(11) The principles of logic are logically necessary

(12) The principles of logic are not logically contingent (from 11)

(13) The principles of logic do not require justification/accounting from an external source

"

 

from here

 

 


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:I forgot the

mellestad wrote:

I forgot the part where you say, "We're all pathetic worms who need to be spanked."

I don't get the whole "Humans are scum" thing in religion, I mean, why are you so guilt ridden?  What convinced you that you are such a piece of poo?

 

I don't always do what is right.  Do you?

Why is it that "human" is always used as an excuse rather than an empowerment?   (i.e. "Hey, I'm only human!  Don't blame me!&quotEye-wink


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
I don't have anything to add

I don't have anything to add to your last two posts FS, you're doing just fine all on your own.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:

mellestad wrote:

I forgot the part where you say, "We're all pathetic worms who need to be spanked."

I don't get the whole "Humans are scum" thing in religion, I mean, why are you so guilt ridden?  What convinced you that you are such a piece of poo?

 

I don't always do what is right.  Do you?

Why is it that "human" is always used as an excuse rather than an empowerment?   (i.e. "Hey, I'm only human!  Don't blame me!&quotEye-wink

Indeed - why do Christians do that?

"I'm not perfect - just forgiven" or "I'm under grace, not under law" or "Jesus abolished the ten commandments when he died and rose again so they don't apply to me" come to mind.

I wouldn't mention them if I hadn't heard them so if they sound silly to you go find the speakers and don't say them yourself.

"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


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Indeed - why

jcgadfly wrote:

Indeed - why do Christians do that?

"I'm not perfect - just forgiven" or "I'm under grace, not under law" or "Jesus abolished the ten commandments when he died and rose again so they don't apply to me" come to mind.

I wouldn't mention them if I hadn't heard them so if they sound silly to you go find the speakers and don't say them yourself.

They do not sound silly at all.

The only thing Christians are required to do is be in complete fellowship with God.  Once this is accomplished, you are moved by God to do what is right. 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:jcgadfly

Fortunate_Son wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Indeed - why do Christians do that?

"I'm not perfect - just forgiven" or "I'm under grace, not under law" or "Jesus abolished the ten commandments when he died and rose again so they don't apply to me" come to mind.

I wouldn't mention them if I hadn't heard them so if they sound silly to you go find the speakers and don't say them yourself.

They do not sound silly at all.

The only thing Christians are required to do is be in complete fellowship with God.  Once this is accomplished, you are moved by God to do what is right. 

And since the only one who can decide what it means to be in complete fellowship with God is the individual Christian it's not hard to believe that doing what's right according to the movement of god falls right in line with what the Christian thinks is OK.

Amazing how that works, isn't it?

Just letting you in on the fact that Christians are just as excuse happy as those who say "I'm only human".

"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


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
What exactly is your

What exactly is your definition of eternal here?

By 1 and 2, you seem to be using eternal existence to mean has an infinite past AND has an infinite future.  The portion of time for which such a thing exists would be infinitely long (forming a mathematical line) on a timeline.

However, if something began existing now and continued to exist for eternity, then it would also exist for an infinite amount of time.  It would form a mathematical ray on a timeline.  Rays are infinite, but have a beginning.

Similarly, if something existed for an infinite amount of time but then stopped existing, it would have an end but no beginning.  It would form a ray in the opposite direction.

Any of these things could be considered eternal depending on your standards of eternal.  For the rays, only the statement 1 OR 2 is necessarily true.  1 AND 2 might be false.

 

If we define eternal as having no infimum in time and having no supremum in time* (if you want to incorperate space too then you need more words than just eternal), then a 1 and 2 can hold up.

 

3.  I'm fine with this.

 

4.  By logically impossible here, do you mean it is logically impossible for such a thing to exist?  In other words, a logical contradiction cannot exist.

 

5.  By non-contradiction, do you mean that an eternal being is not a self-contradiction?  Something can avoid self-contradiction while still contradicting other truths.  For instance, if it turned out that time itself had a supremum or infimum then the supposed eternal thing would contradict time, and would thus lead to a contradiction.

If you mean the latter, than this statement is unsupported.  You'd have to demonstrate that an eternal being does not contradict any logical conclusion of basic axioms, at the very least.  If you mean the former, then 5a does not follow because something can be logically impossible without being a self-contradiction.

 

5b.  Consider "it is not the case that there is no potential for this being thing** to exist."  This entails that there is potential for this thing to exist, not that there is no potential for this thing to not exist.  You didn't distribute the negation correctly.  Still, you could use the correct distribution to obtain:

 alternate 6: Thus an eternal thing can't not exist (by 2 and revised 5b) and therefore an eternal thing must exist.

 

6.  Fine if you can get to 5b and go through "can't not exist."

 

7.  Does not follow, not even from 7a and 7b.  Could not matter have had (and continue to have) a particular form for all eternity?  Is matter the only "thing?"

 

*In order for the single-astrisked statement to be possible, then time itself would have to lack both an infimum and a supremum.  So basically what you would end up proving is that if time is eternal, then something is eternal.  Hey, that something is probably time!

 

**Just as eternal is not a part of pig, nor is it a part of being.  Nor is being a part of eternal.  The concept of being has no relevence to your proof's structure.  You haven't proven the existence of a being, only the existence of a thing (if you've actually proven anything at all).  That thing could very well be time (see above).

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:jcgadfly

Fortunate_Son wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Indeed - why do Christians do that?

"I'm not perfect - just forgiven" or "I'm under grace, not under law" or "Jesus abolished the ten commandments when he died and rose again so they don't apply to me" come to mind.

I wouldn't mention them if I hadn't heard them so if they sound silly to you go find the speakers and don't say them yourself.

They do not sound silly at all.

The only thing Christians are required to do is be in complete fellowship with God.  Once this is accomplished, you are moved by God to do what is right. 

Like drown their children, fire bomb an abortion clinic, marry 50 women and use mental manipulation to keep them in a compound, molest an alter boy, burn a cross in front of a black household, gas some Jews, or beat up a homosexual.  When you know you are right, you can do anything. 

Or murder your own son, massacre a city, wipe out a civilization, rape some prime virgins, or curse them to hell.  Praise Jesus.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
That was an extremely

That was an extremely interesting discussion. Thanks, everyone.

Fortunate_Son wrote:
And if one person does not and has a completely different logical system, by what metric would you assess that s/he is wrong?  You wouldn't have one.

Sure you would. Simply apply the logical system to observable reality. If the system can be used to reach incorrect conclusions, then it is an unreliable system.

Fortunate_Son wrote:
Second of all, there is nothing rational about nature, so why would presume that we could acquire our rationality from it?

It's a bit comical that you can possess so much philosophical knowledge, yet continue to make such obvious fallacies.

Fortunate_Son wrote:
I think I've made my position quite clear.  Logical principles are absolute.  If they were not, then the least you could do is argue with me without using them. But you continue to do so and you've applied these same principles to build your knowledge to the point where you can make complicated scientific inquiries which are so complex that they lead you to believe that the absolutism of the statements is disproved.  You are using the principles which I am claiming are absolute.

Well, lol, they don't have to be absolute to be practical.

Fortunate_Son wrote:
The last point that I want to make is this:  Yes, God killed babies in the Old Testament.  But if it is true that we have a nature which is oriented towards breaking God's law, then we are subject to God's righteous condemnation.  According to God's law, the entire human race should have been destroyed.  We all deserve it because our nature is against Him.  This includes babies.  Therefore, God has the right to kill any baby that he wants.  The fact that we are still here today is due to God's mercy, not because we have a right to our life.

Christianity promotes a distorted concept of justice. In Christianity, children inherit punishments that their parents deserved. This is unjust, as the children are not guilty of any wrongdoing. Even if humans have a "nature which is oriented towards breaking God's law," any punishments employed before the human actually committed any wrong is analogous to punishing them simply for a thought crime or, even better, simply for who they are. This is unjust. Furthermore, God created humans with the disposition to rebel; thus, he is essentially putting all the blame on humans for possessing a trait that he gave to them i.e. they had no choice in the matter. This is, again, unjust.

The God of the Old Testament is certainly not merciful. He is a narcissistic tyrant, an abusive boyfriend. If God has the right to kill any baby he wants, then the only lesson this teaches is that might makes right.

Fortunate_Son wrote:
God does not hate women.  He clearly made females necessary for the proliferation of the human race and used a woman to bring his son onto planet Earth.  But he assigned different roles to men and women.  This wasn't due to sexism.  He simply assigned roles.  What we do know is that there are observable differences between men and women, and while you can find exceptions in every case, men for the most part exhibit a certain set of characteristics which make them more conducive to certain roles and the same goes for women.

From the beginning, the Bible is very clear that women are inferior to men. 

In Genesis 2, God made the male first. Then, "when no suitable helper was found (NIV)," God made Eve from one of his ribs. 

3:16. "Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you."

Leviticus 12:1-5. A woman is unclean for twice as long if she gives birth to a girl than if she gives birth to a boy. "...A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding."

Leviticus 27:2-7. God explicitly quantifies the value of human life. Women are worth less than men. "...set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel, and if it is a female, set her value at thirty shekels. If it is a person between the ages of five and twenty, set the value of a male at twenty shekels and of a female at ten shekels...."

Jeremiah 8:10. God threatens to punish men by taking away their wives and giving them to other men, like property. "Therefore I will give their wives to other men and their fields to new owners." 

1 Corinthians 11:3. "...the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God."

1 Timothy 2:11-14. "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."

1 Peter 3:1. "Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands...."

1 Peter 3:7. "Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner...."

Obviously, this is a very short list. 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son wrote:He likes

Fortunate_Son wrote:
He likes everybody, even those who are not his friends.  That is why he is allowing you to live despite the fact that you constantly mock him and insult him.

In what reality is allowing others to live even though they've insulted you a moral triumph?   

Fortunate_Son wrote:
But that does not mean that he is not going to punish you for your transgressions.

Oh right, of course. God will punish our disobedience by allowing us to be tortured us for all eternity. Wow, he's so merciful, isn't he? 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare