Conceivability-Possibility

Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Conceivability-Possibility

(x) (Cx == <>x)

Anything which is logically conceivable is modally possible.

Can anyone name one thing which is not logically conceivable but modally possible, or vice versa?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:(x) (Cx ==

Fortunate_S wrote:

(x) (Cx == <>x)

Anything which is logically conceivable is modally possible.

Can anyone name one thing which is not logically conceivable but modally possible, or vice versa?

Amounts to a simple tautology, IOW trivially true but having no implication to understanding. 'Bachelors are not married'. D'uh.

Different ways of expressing the same idea.

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


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for agreeing.  Now I

Thanks for agreeing.  Now I know that God exists.

(1) g <--> ~g
(2) g-->~<>~g
(3) ~g-->~<>g
(4) (x)(Cx == <>x)
(5) ~(~Cg)
(6) Cg   AP
(7) Cg--><>g  4; UI,Equiv,Simp
(8 ) <>g   6,7; MP
(9) ~(~<>g)  8; DN
(10) ~(~g)  3,9; MT
(11) g   10; DN
(12) Cg-->g  6-11; CP
(13) C~g  AP
(14) C~g--><>~g  4; UI,Equiv,Simp
(15) <>~g  13,14; MP
(16) ~(~<>~g)  15; DN
(17) ~g   2,16; MT
(18) C~g-->~g  13-17; CP
(19) g-->~C~g  18; Contra
(20) ~g-->~Cg  12; Contra
(21) ~Cg <--> ~C~g 1,19,20; CD
(22) ~C~g  5,21; DS
(23) <>~g-->C~g  4; UI,Equiv,Simp
(24) ~(<>~g)  22,23; MT
(25) []g  24; Modal Equivng to the premise. 


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Yes, that's right FS, you genius.

 

And using your incisive argument we can also now prove the existence of every other non-existent god who can't be proved not to exist as well. Brilliant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, if something is not

Yeah, if something is not logically impossible, then it possibly could exist.

IOW, if you can't prove that something could not or does not exist, then it may exist.

Like Russell's Teapot.

So?

Now, how do you prove God actually does exist???

Humor us. We are not machines, spell it out in human words.

 

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


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Me

I was conceived not conceived logically, or in good conscience.

Also, I think Answers in Gene Simmons is my dad, but if that's true, he's got shit tastes in women!!!

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Yeah, if

BobSpence1 wrote:

Yeah, if something is not logically impossible, then it possibly could exist.

IOW, if you can't prove that something could not or does not exist, then it may exist.

Like Russell's Teapot.

So?

Now, how do you prove God actually does exist???

Humor us. We are not machines, spell it out in human words.

 

 

I think you may be a machine, but I digress.

If God exists, then God exists in every possible world.  That would include this actual world that we live in.

Therefore, if God does not exist in this world, he does not exist in any possible world, since existence in one possible world would entail existence in every world.

But you have just agreed that if something is not in any possible world, then it is logically inconceivable.  Since God is not logically inconceivable, there must be at least one possible world that he exists in.  But wait a minute, it would then follow that God exists in every possible world.

Therefore, God exists.

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:If God

Fortunate_S wrote:

If God exists, then God exists in every possible world.  That would include this actual world that we live in.

Therefore, if God does not exist in this world, he does not exist in any possible world, since existence in one possible world would entail existence in every world.

But you have just agreed that if something is not in any possible world, then it is logically inconceivable.  Since God is not logically inconceivable, there must be at least one possible world that he exists in.  But wait a minute, it would then follow that God exists in every possible world.

Therefore, God exists.

 

This is the same bullpucky you have come up with before.

Pink unicorns are logically conceivable, therefore, they exist in every possible world including this one.

How many times and how many different mythical critters do we have to come up with for you to get it?  This argument is bogus and proves nothing - except that you are one persistent sob.

-- 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.


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Fortunate_S

cj wrote:

Fortunate_S wrote:

If God exists, then God exists in every possible world.  That would include this actual world that we live in.

Therefore, if God does not exist in this world, he does not exist in any possible world, since existence in one possible world would entail existence in every world.

But you have just agreed that if something is not in any possible world, then it is logically inconceivable.  Since God is not logically inconceivable, there must be at least one possible world that he exists in.  But wait a minute, it would then follow that God exists in every possible world.

Therefore, God exists.

 

This is the same bullpucky you have come up with before.

Pink unicorns are logically conceivable, therefore, they exist in every possible world including this one.

How many times and how many different mythical critters do we have to come up with for you to get it?  This argument is bogus and proves nothing - except that you are one persistent sob.

I've already debunked this objection.

The existence of unicorns in one possible world does not entail their existence in every possible world.  This is true of God, not of pink unicorns.

There, let us never use that crappy objection again.  It didn't work against Anselm and it is not going to work here.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:BobSpence1

Fortunate_S wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Yeah, if something is not logically impossible, then it possibly could exist.

IOW, if you can't prove that something could not or does not exist, then it may exist.

Like Russell's Teapot.

So?

Now, how do you prove God actually does exist???

Humor us. We are not machines, spell it out in human words.

I think you may be a machine, but I digress.

If God exists, then God exists in every possible world.  That would include this actual world that we live in.

This simply does not follow. It is a non-sequiter. Possible existence does not equate to necessary existence.

Quote:

Therefore, if God does not exist in this world, he does not exist in any possible world, since existence in one possible world would entail existence in every world.

But you have just agreed that if something is not in any possible world, then it is logically inconceivable.

Existence in at least one possible world is simply another way of saying not absolutely impossible. Similarly, 'logically inconceivable' is another way of saying logically impossible in the broadest sense.

Quote:

Since God is not logically inconceivable, there must be at least one possible world that he exists in.  But wait a minute, it would then follow that God exists in every possible world.

Therefore, God exists.

Going from 'at least one' to 'all', from 'possible' to 'necessary', simply does not follow without a specific chain of valid logical reasoning, showing that the existence of the proposed entity, along with a proposed set of attributes which minimally define the entity as 'God', is essential to the existence of any 'world'.

You may at most be able to prove that something sufficient to 'cause' a world to come into existence is necessary for any world to exist, but until you can prove that a 'first cause' also must necessarily possess a minimum set of attributes that would allow us to identify such an entity as 'God', you have not proved the existence of 'God'.

I am pretty sure we've gone over this ground before.

And of course that still wouldn't prove any particular 'God' or religious doctrine.

'Necessity' is something which needs to be specifically argued for, based on the attributes of the assumed entity and our knowledge of the irreducible attributes of reality, which is 'necessarily' incomplete and imperfect. IOW there is ultimately no way to prove this without complete knowledge of the ultimate nature of reality.

So you are on a fool's errand, on several counts.

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


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I think you

BobSpence1 wrote:

This simply does not follow. It is a non-sequiter. Possible existence does not equate to necessary existence.

For God, it does.  The reason is that any existence which is simply possible is sustained by contingent states of affairs.  Therefore, by claiming that God's existence is possible and not necessary, you are essentially claiming that God has to be caused.  But this would contradict the entire idea of God as being an eternal being who maintains an essential nature of maximal excellence in every possible world (i.e. without any preconditions).  

You are making the mistake of conflating the existence of God with the existence of other things which are not in the same category.  God does not share the same modality of existence as protons, stars, ice cream cones, etc.  It is true that the possibility of a particular flavor of ice cream does not entail its existence in this world.  But to thrust that same modality onto God is a category mistake on your part and it is a typical mistake that atheists make, particularly ones who do not make a concerted effort to understand just exactly what it is that apologists are endorsing. 

Quote:
Existence in at least one possible world is simply another way of saying not absolutely impossible. Similarly, 'logically inconceivable' is another way of saying logically impossible in the broadest sense.

I'm actually in agreement with you here, but this is by no means a closed case in many academic circles.  There are constant debates going on about the ontological status of possible worlds, particularly actualism vs. possibilism. 

Quote:
Going from 'at least one' to 'all', from 'possible' to 'necessary', simply does not follow without a specific chain of valid logical reasoning, showing that the existence of the proposed entity, along with a proposed set of attributes which minimally define the entity as 'God', is essential to the existence of any 'world'.

You can make that logical leap if you acknowledge that conceptually God is an eternal being who is omniscient, omnipotent, wholly good in all possible worlds.  In other words, if God exists, then he would not only exist without any preconditions (i.e. uncaused), but he would also maintain his nature without any preconditions.  Hence, there would be no physical events helping him maintain his omniscience or his omnipotence.  According to axiom S5 in modal logic, which is a generally accepted axiom, if it is possible that something exists in all possible worlds, then that something exists in all possible worlds.

You are overlooking the axioms of modal logic and also appear to not accept the apologist understanding of "God".  Let's put it this way:  you would probably grant that matter is eternal, which some atheists feel is a necessary implication of the law of conservation of energy.  This means that matter itself is uncaused and is not dependent upon contingent states of affairs for its being.  This would mean that matter exists in all possible worlds.  Keep in mind that I do not believe this at all, I'm just trying to help you understand how modal logic works. 

Quote:
You may at most be able to prove that something sufficient to 'cause' a world to come into existence is necessary for any world to exist, but until you can prove that a 'first cause' also must necessarily possess a minimum set of attributes that would allow us to identify such an entity as 'God', you have not proved the existence of 'God'.

This is not the cosmological argument and in fact I do not believe the principle of sufficient reason is reducible to the law of non-contradiction, which therefore would not permit us to grant that it is the case in all possible worlds that the universe required a cause.  I would grant, however, that it is the case in all possible worlds that nothing can cause itself to exist.

Quote:
And of course that still wouldn't prove any particular 'God' or religious doctrine.

It does not have to.  Nevertheless, it would still defeat atheism, since atheism itself makes no provisions whereby it strictly denies the Christian God.  Atheism denies the existence of all Gods.

Quote:
'Necessity' is something which needs to be specifically argued for, based on the attributes of the assumed entity and our knowledge of the irreducible attributes of reality, which is 'necessarily' incomplete and imperfect. IOW there is ultimately no way to prove this without complete knowledge of the ultimate nature of reality.

We know that eternal things are in all possible worlds.  Otherwise, there would be a possible world where an eternal thing stopped existing, or a possible world where an eternal thing never began to exist, which is impossible given that eternal things cannot begin to exist and that there is some possible world where an eternal thing does exist.  Therefore, eternal things are either necessary or logically inconceivable.  Exclusive disjunction.

Appealing to our ignorance is a cheap tactic which can be employed to disprove anything.  I will argue that there is no way to prove that any scientific law is true unless we have a complete knowledge of reality, and therefore, there is no reason to trust science.  This is a functionally use form of reason and you can't pick and choose which areas you want to apply it to.

We do not have to know everything about the nature of God or the essential nature of reality to understand modalities, just as I do not need a complete understanding of how my computer works in order to continue using it.


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:For God,

Fortunate_S wrote:
For God, it does.

I wish to thank you for your explicit special pleading here. It puts the rest of your post in the right context.


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote:Fortunate_S

KSMB wrote:

Fortunate_S wrote:
For God, it does.

I wish to thank you for your explicit special pleading here. It puts the rest of your post in the right context.

It's not special pleading because in the very same paragraph, I explained how the modality of God differs from that of other objects.  It's only fallacious if God shares the same category of existence as other things.

 


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:Now I know

Fortunate_S wrote:

Now I know that God exists.

 

Splendid. So what?


chndlrjhnsn
chndlrjhnsn's picture
Posts: 159
Joined: 2010-03-28
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:...by

Fortunate_S wrote:

...by claiming that God's existence is possible and not necessary, you are essentially claiming that God has to be caused.  But this would contradict the entire idea of God as being an eternal being who maintains an essential nature of maximal excellence in every possible world (i.e. without any preconditions).  

The fact that you include causelessness in God's definition, does not make him "necessary or impossible". Claiming that God is possible does not entail that God must be caused.

Your disjunction fails because: in order for the existence of God to be necessary it must also be possible!

I hope I have put this extremely fucking dull argument to rest.


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:KSMB

Fortunate_S wrote:
KSMB wrote:
Fortunate_S wrote:
For God, it does.

I wish to thank you for your explicit special pleading here. It puts the rest of your post in the right context.

It's not special pleading because in the very same paragraph, I explained how the modality of God differs from that of other objects.  It's only fallacious if God shares the same category of existence as other things.

Of course it isn't. Because your god is in a special category.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Wow... an entire thread

 Wow... an entire thread devoted to the logical proof that knowing how to use symbolic logic in no way equates to thinking logically.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:(x) (Cx ==

Fortunate_S wrote:

(x) (Cx == <>x)

Anything which is logically conceivable is modally possible.

Can anyone name one thing which is not logically conceivable but modally possible, or vice versa?

FS, I already explained this to you at least twice. Modal possibility is not the same as being able to imagine something as 'possible'.

Modal logic requires a model. You consistently -- every single time -- fail to specify your model.

As such, you make ridiculous claims like your argument that god exists because you can imagine him.

Here your statement is simply defining Cx as being logically equivalent to <>x. The symbol Cx has no connection to 'conceivability' as you hope and pretend it does.

Cx is still bound by the logical model under consideration. And since you've still failed to define your logical model, it still does not prove what you want it to prove.

The basic facts remain: You do not understand modal logic. You would fail a modal logic course. You could never convince a recognized expert in modal logic that your 'conceivability' argument is anything more than a lame joke.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:FS, I already

natural wrote:

FS, I already explained this to you at least twice. Modal possibility is not the same as being able to imagine something as 'possible'.

Modal logic requires a model. You consistently -- every single time -- fail to specify your model.

As such, you make ridiculous claims like your argument that god exists because you can imagine him.

Here your statement is simply defining Cx as being logically equivalent to <>x. The symbol Cx has no connection to 'conceivability' as you hope and pretend it does.

Cx is still bound by the logical model under consideration. And since you've still failed to define your logical model, it still does not prove what you want it to prove.

The basic facts remain: You do not understand modal logic. You would fail a modal logic course. You could never convince a recognized expert in modal logic that your 'conceivability' argument is anything more than a lame joke.

Alvin Plantinga, Charles Hartshorne, and Kurt Godel are/were recognized experts in modal logic and they all would agree that my conceivability argument is correct.

Bob Spence agrees with me as well.  Are you telling me that he is wrong?

"Yeah, if something is not logically impossible, then it possibly could exist."  --Bob


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:natural

Fortunate_S wrote:

natural wrote:

FS, I already explained this to you at least twice. Modal possibility is not the same as being able to imagine something as 'possible'.

Modal logic requires a model. You consistently -- every single time -- fail to specify your model.

As such, you make ridiculous claims like your argument that god exists because you can imagine him.

Here your statement is simply defining Cx as being logically equivalent to <>x. The symbol Cx has no connection to 'conceivability' as you hope and pretend it does.

Cx is still bound by the logical model under consideration. And since you've still failed to define your logical model, it still does not prove what you want it to prove.

The basic facts remain: You do not understand modal logic. You would fail a modal logic course. You could never convince a recognized expert in modal logic that your 'conceivability' argument is anything more than a lame joke.

Alvin Plantinga, Charles Hartshorne, and Kurt Godel are/were recognized experts in modal logic and they all would agree that my conceivability argument is correct.

Bob Spence agrees with me as well.  Are you telling me that he is wrong?

"Yeah, if something is not logically impossible, then it possibly could exist.  IOW, if you can't prove that something could not or does not exist, then it may exist."  --Bob

The problem arises because the words 'possible' and 'conceivable' in modal logic are not being used in their ordinary sense - 'possible' excludes anything which is known/assumed to be 'necessary', and 'conceivable' applies to what we would normally call 'possible'.

What Natural is reacting to is actually a problem with at least some models of 'modal logic' itself. I can see what they are trying to do with it, but once you get away from simple 'true/false' propositions, it all starts to get messy.

Best to go straight to probability calculus, Bayesian analysis, etc, within a framework of empiricism.

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


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
chndlrjhnsn wrote:The fact

chndlrjhnsn wrote:

The fact that you include causelessness in God's definition, does not make him "necessary or impossible". Claiming that God is possible does not entail that God must be caused.

Assume that something exists in one possible world but not some other.  According to the law of sufficient reason, there would have be an account for why this thing exists in W1 and not W2 and, as such, you would have to state that in W2, the causal states of affairs which would necessitate the manifestation of this thing did not take effect.  Therefore, if God is in W1 but not W2, then God had to be caused to be in W1.  Otherwise, he would exist in W2 as well.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S

Fortunate_S wrote:

chndlrjhnsn wrote:

The fact that you include causelessness in God's definition, does not make him "necessary or impossible". Claiming that God is possible does not entail that God must be caused.

Assume that something exists in one possible world but not some other.  According to the law of sufficient reason, there would have be an account for why this thing exists in W1 and not W2 and, as such, you would have to state that in W2, the causal states of affairs which would necessitate the manifestation of this thing did not take effect.  Therefore, if God is in W1 but not W2, then God had to be caused to be in W1.  Otherwise, he would exist in W2 as well. 

The 'Law of Sufficient Reason' is an incoherent, outmoded idea.

Quantum Mechanics and Chaos Theory show that there is no 'sufficient' reason - the ultimate 'cause' of something may be literally infinitesimal. 'Random' is a very real aspect of reality. There are conditions, states of the environment, which collectively determine the probability of a particular state becoming manifest, described by its 'wave function'.

The actual resultant state and its timing have an intrinsic but calculable level of uncertainty. In an infinite number of possible 'worlds', that probability calculation will determine in what proportion of those worlds something will exist in a particular state.

This is not that different to the real world, where there are many factors which influence the probability, of, say, a hurricane forming at a particular time and place. It is naive to think there must be an identifiable proximate cause for everything.

 

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


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:The 'Law of

BobSpence1 wrote:
The 'Law of Sufficient Reason' is an incoherent, outmoded idea.

Oh, okay.

Then guess what?  God exists.  I do not have to justify this in any way.  God just is.  I do not have to present any evidence because the principle of sufficient reason is an incoherent, outmoded idea.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:BobSpence1

Fortunate_S wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
The 'Law of Sufficient Reason' is an incoherent, outmoded idea.

Oh, okay.

Then guess what?  God exists.  I do not have to justify this in any way.  God just is.  I do not have to present any evidence because the principle of sufficient reason is an incoherent, outmoded idea.

It does not deny the principle of 'sufficient evidence'....

If God is not self-contradictory, then of course, He may exist. Now your task is to show why God is more likely to exist than, say, the FSM.

You are conflating the use of the word 'reason', when referring to the logical arguments justifying the belief in a concept, and its use in referring to the conditions which contribute to increasing the likelihood of the subject of the belief actually manifesting. Quantum theory seems to show that even unlikely events may still come to be, just at a very low rate, and that highly 'likely' things may occasionally not happen. This uncertainty becomes more apparent at the scale of sub-atomic particles, but may still apply to macro-scale events, depending on the exact balance of influences. Certain classes of feedback systems can greatly magnify the effects of tiny variations in certain parameters. This is informally referred to as 'The Butterfly Effect'.

When we allow for lesser 'causes' contributing to larger effects, we can have literally infinite 'chains' of cause-effect contained within a finite scale of time and space. This consequence follows from the mathematics of the summation of infinite geometric series:

eg the sum (1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... + 1/2r + 1/2r+1 ...  where r -> infinity) = 2.0.

One implication of my position is that God has no greater intrinsic probability of existing than the Universe itself, probably much less, all things considered.

IOW, God no longer gets a free pass as being the only thing not needing a 'cause' of some kind. The magnitude of ultimate 'causes' has no simple relationship to the magnitude of the effect - it is highly sensitive to the mechanism, the path of linkages, by which any given influence contributes to the likelihood of the final 'effect' actually occurring.

Anyone using the "Law of Sufficient Reason" in a serious argument is terminally ignorant.

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I define my pink magical

I define my pink magical unicorn, Sparkles, as existing in every possible world. Ergo, if Sparkles exists in a world, he exists in every possible world. If he doesn't exist in a world, then he doesn't exist in any world. Something must be logically impossible to not exist in any world. My unicorn, Sparkles, is not logically impossible. Therefore, there is a world that Sparkles can exist in. Therefore, Sparkles exists in every possible world, per the definition of Sparkles. Ergo, my pink magical unicorn Sparkles exists in this world. QED. 

Or, even better. I define my pink magical unicorn, Sparkles, as something that necessarily exists. Something that necessarily exists must exist. Therefore, Sparkles must exist. Therefore, it exists.  

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Any argument based purely on

Any argument based purely on a priori arguments and logic is insufficient to reveal with certainty any truths about the Universe beyond the implications of its own presuppositions. IOW, if we define the entities '1' and '2' in the normal way, and the meaning of the operation '+', and the symbol '=', then we can confidently, with 100% certainty, state that 

1 + 1 = 2.

By making other definitions, typically designed to encapsulate some significant abstraction about the nature of observed reality, and we can then go on to develop the vast and useful edifice of Mathematics. It is useful to the extent that its axioms and laws match attributes and laws derived by empirical investigation of reality, and it can then be usefully applied to assist that very study of reality.

The axioms of mathematics are kept as simple and elemental as possible, so they can be precisely defined.

If we start with assumptions about the nature of the Universe, or of wider Reality, we can make also many deductions about what those assumptions imply, but unless we can prove that those assumptions accurately encapsulate all relevant aspects of reality, we cannot legitimately make more than speculations. The broader nature of the necessary assumptions in this case makes it very difficult or impossible to define them rigorously and exhaustively. This means that any long chain of reasoning based on such assumptions is inevitably going to drift further away from reality.

Which is why the Scientific method was introduced, to continually provide reality checks. It is the only approach to knowledge which allows us to come to conclusions about reality with any quantifiable degree of confidence.

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:This is

Fortunate_S wrote:
This is true of God, not of pink unicorns.

Why is this true of God, but not pink unicorns? Because you've defined it to be part of God's character or some b*******?

Ha! Well I define it to be part of unicorns' characters. The existence of unicorns in one possible world entails their existence in every possible world, per my definition of unicorns.

 

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_S wrote:It didn't

Fortunate_S wrote:
It didn't work against Anselm and it is not going to work here.

You actually find Anselm's ontological arguments respectable? Lol, he wrote some of the funniest stuff I've ever read in my entire life. God is defined as the greatest thing possible. Existence makes him greater. Therefore, he exists? Hahaha, hilarious.

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:BobSpence1

Fortunate_S wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

This simply does not follow. It is a non-sequiter. Possible existence does not equate to necessary existence.

For God, it does.  The reason is that any existence which is simply possible is sustained by contingent states of affairs.  Therefore, by claiming that God's existence is possible and not necessary, you are essentially claiming that God has to be caused.  But this would contradict the entire idea of God as being an eternal being who maintains an essential nature of maximal excellence in every possible world (i.e. without any preconditions).  

But you haven't established that the 'idea of God' describes any actually existing being having those attributes. The only area of conflict is 'eternal' vs. 'caused'. Attributes such as 'maximal excellence' have not been established as remotely necessary attributes of any eternal entity, even if you could define them coherently.

There may well be 'eternal' entities or aspects of reality, and some of them may be necessary precursors of our known Universe, and possibly other 'universes' within a wider 'Metaverse'. But there is no logical necessity that they correspond in any way to a God - no 'goodness', sentience of any form, whatever. Just some 'raw' potentiality, a quantum energy field, or something of that nature.

Quote:

You are making the mistake of conflating the existence of God with the existence of other things which are not in the same category.  God does not share the same modality of existence as protons, stars, ice cream cones, etc.  It is true that the possibility of a particular flavor of ice cream does not entail its existence in this world.  But to thrust that same modality onto God is a category mistake on your part and it is a typical mistake that atheists make, particularly ones who do not make a concerted effort to understand just exactly what it is that apologists are endorsing. 

You are still assuming that this special category corresponds to any actual existing entity. You have not established that it applies to anything that actually exists.

Quote:

We know that eternal things are in all possible worlds.  Otherwise, there would be a possible world where an eternal thing stopped existing, or a possible world where an eternal thing never began to exist, which is impossible given that eternal things cannot begin to exist and that there is some possible world where an eternal thing does exist.  Therefore, eternal things are either necessary or logically inconceivable.  Exclusive disjunction.

'Eternal' does not entail necessary existence.

Your argument does not follow. A world where a thing defined as 'eternal' ceased to exist would entail a logical contradiction, therefore it is not a 'possible' world.

Alternatively, if the entity ceased to exist under some possible conditions, that just means it is only conditionally eternal. IOW it can only exist as an eternal entity in worlds where certain conditions never arise. It can still be eternal in other worlds.

Quote:

Appealing to our ignorance is a cheap tactic which can be employed to disprove anything.  I will argue that there is no way to prove that any scientific law is true unless we have a complete knowledge of reality, and therefore, there is no reason to trust science.  This is a functionally use form of reason and you can't pick and choose which areas you want to apply it to.

We do not have to know everything about the nature of God or the essential nature of reality to understand modalities, just as I do not need a complete understanding of how my computer works in order to continue using it.

We do not require proof 100% that any scientific theory is true. Laws are simply formulations described observed regularities in the behaviour and relationships of entities and processes, they are are true to the extent that they accurately describe observations. This only requires access to, knowledge of, a subset of reality relevant to the particular discipline. Theories are held to be provisionally true to the extent that they appear to accurately model reality.

Trust in science is conditional and justified to the extent that it makes confirmed predictions of what will be observed in novel places and situations. It earns what conditional trust we give it.

We would apply such trust to any methodology to the extent that its concepts pass similar tests of correspondence to reality.

'Knowledge of God' is not grounded in anything independently verifiable/testable, so it has zero ontological status.

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


chndlrjhnsn
chndlrjhnsn's picture
Posts: 159
Joined: 2010-03-28
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S

Fortunate_S wrote:

chndlrjhnsn wrote:

The fact that you include causelessness in God's definition, does not make him "necessary or impossible". Claiming that God is possible does not entail that God must be caused.

Assume that something exists in one possible world but not some other.  According to the law of sufficient reason, there would have be an account for why this thing exists in W1 and not W2 and, as such, you would have to state that in W2, the causal states of affairs which would necessitate the manifestation of this thing did not take effect.  Therefore, if God is in W1 but not W2, then God had to be caused to be in W1.  Otherwise, he would exist in W2 as well.

It is still possible that something eternal by definition might not exist. Take, for example, any fictional eternal being.  

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
FS,I'd have more respect for

FS,

I'd have more respect for you if:

1. You didn't steal much of your work from Godel.

2. You didn't get it wrong.

"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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Of course it is a simple

Of course it is a simple tautology that something that is 'necessarily' true must exist in all possible worlds. The 'possible worlds' bit adds nothing but a distraction to this trivial observation. It is irrelevant to the argument.

You still have to prove that God is necessary - that is the whole point of the argument, you can't just assume it or define it to be so.

And you have to do it without committing Anselm's fundamental category error of including 'existence' in with the sum of attributes which contribute to assessing 'greatness'.

 

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


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:But you

BobSpence1 wrote:

But you haven't established that the 'idea of God' describes any actually existing being having those attributes. The only area of conflict is 'eternal' vs. 'caused'. Attributes such as 'maximal excellence' have not been established as remotely necessary attributes of any eternal entity, even if you could define them coherently.

I have established that the concept of God refers to a real thing because by your own admission, something which is conceivable is possible.  Since God is possible, he has to exist.  Otherwise, you are claiming that an eternal being's existence is dictated by some contingent states of affairs, which is a non-sequitur.

Quote:
There may well be 'eternal' entities or aspects of reality, and some of them may be necessary precursors of our known Universe, and possibly other 'universes' within a wider 'Metaverse'. But there is no logical necessity that they correspond in any way to a God - no 'goodness', sentience of any form, whatever. Just some 'raw' potentiality, a quantum energy field, or something of that nature.

There is no may to it.  I know that an eternal aspect of reality exists and is a necessary precursor to our universe.  Now let's examine the nature of such an entity:

An eternal substance is distinct from an eternal attribute.  Eternal attributes are themselves without beginning and without end, but are ontologically dependent upon subjects to which they are attributed. Eternal attributes cannot exist without an eternal substance.

Since we've established that an eternal substance must exist by logical necessity, it follows that such a being X cannot be sustained by contingent states of affairs Y.  This would be unintelligible because it would be saying that there are no possible worlds where ~X although there are possible worlds where ~Y. 

Anything substantial which exists by logical necessity, as an eternal substance does, has an existence which cannot be accounted for by anything external to itself.  It cannot be caused by a separate being, unless it is the case that it was logically necessary for such action to take place.  But since it is not a contradiction for any separate being to not cause, this clearly is not the case.  An eternal substance cannot be the instrument for its own creation because action requires existence as a precondition, thus the whole idea is a logical contradiction.  Further, in both cases, eternity would be violated because the substance, in order to be eternal, must be without origin or beginning. 

One may object that an eternal substance is made necessary by necessary states of affairs which are ontologically prior to the eternal substance itself.  But this argument is moot because states of affairs are made real by the objects which sustain them, not vice versa.  Therefore, the necessary states of affairs would exist in necessary beings themselves, which would imply either an eternal substance or eternal attributes which require an eternal substance.  Reality itself is what Aristotle defined as a "secondary substance", which constitutes a set of beings which share properties in common.  Secondary substances thus do not exist on their own accord.  Therefore, one cannot separate an eternal substance from necessary states of affairs.

Corporeal substances have a twofold structure of form and matter.  Form is the universal category, matter is the material. As matter manifests in a particular arrangement, it becomes an individual substance which is of a particular form.  Different arrangements of matter beget different forms.  Formless matter is logically impossible, even when matter is chaotic.  Matter itself does not manifest into particular forms by logical necessity, therefore it cannot be said with any logical backing that an eternal being is material since an eternal substance cannot be sustained by contingent states of affairs, which would be the case if an eternal substance consisted of one particular arrangement of matter and not some other.  Furthermore, material arrangements (corporeal substances) do not constitute their own sufficient reason for being; for example, your computer, which is a particular arrangement of matter, did not arrange itself.  Therefore, while the possibility of formless matter is precluded, matterless form is conceivable and would be applicable to an eternal substance.

Matter constitutes potentiality and form constitutes actuality. Matter itself is not actualized until it manifests in some form. Insofar that particular manifestations of matter, in addition to maintaining determinable attributes, are always spatially individuated from others, we will always experience matter in conjunction with form.  Thus, matter is actualized when it is arranged in a particular way.  Take a bronze statue; the statue is the actualization of the bronze, while the bronze itself is potentially something other than a statue, such as a dish or a spear.  Since potentiality exists in matter, it can be said that an eternal substance is pure actuality, given that the substance is at once both eternal and immaterial.  (Theoretically, angels, who occupy a mode of existence known as "aeviternity", are immaterial as well, but they are not eternal.  They are actualized to the maximal value that can be maintained by a finite entity which is not self-existent and sustained by contingent states of affairs.  Thus, the same inferences cannot be made about them.  "Aeviternity differs from time, and from eternity, as the mean between them both. This difference is explained by some to consist in the fact that eternity has neither beginning nor end, aeviternity, a beginning but no end, and time both beginning and end." -Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q. X)

As form/matter conglomerates, corporeal substances also have a twofold structure of actuality and potentiality.  The motion from potentiality to actuality is called "change", thus it is said that anything which moves acquires something by its movement which it did not possess previously.  What follows is that anything which changes is in some way in potentiality.  But an eternal substance is pure actuality and therefore cannot change.

If every conceivable potentiality is actualized in an eternal susbtance, then such attributes cannot be possessed in any greater sense than they are already possessed.  We occupy a universe full of actualities with potentialities not yet realized.  This is due to the material constitution of the universe, under which we will never be able to maximize our actuality.  Imagine the basic structure of our existence as being formalized into a set of numerical values.  We have an intellect, potency, lifespan, and presence. Each one of these attributes have a finite value.  Yet in an eternal subsance of pure actuality, these attributes are of infinite value.  Infinitude is that value than which no other value could be greater.  It is in this sense than an eternal substance does not lack anything.  Most of us have an intelligence quotient, but none of us have omniscience.  Most of us have special talents and abilities, but none of us have omnipotence. All of us are born and then we die someday, none of us are eternal (The offer of "eternal life" is a Christian colloquialism and not part of this domain of discourse).  All of us have height, width, depth, mass, volume.  None of us are omnipresent.  We are existent beings not fully actualized.  An eternal substance is.

One may object that an eternal substance may be both impossible and not contradictory on the following grounds:  It may be the case that given the progression of events as they've occurred,  an eternal being does not exist and in actuality can never exist.  But it still could have been true that the axis of progression included an entity which never began to exist and continues to exist.  Ostensibly, this appears to be a valid objection but it trades on a notion of time that gained currency centuries ago yet has no philosophical tenability today.  Newton's idea of time treats it as an independent force moving on its own.  Thus people have a conception of time as some singular entity which is constantly moving forward where events arbtrarily get placed within it.  Yet barring any corporeal objects, there is no adequate account of exactly *what* this motion consists of.  The only tenable position is that time does not exist in itself at all, but is a product of non-temporal motions between the twofold structures of real being(potentiality/actuality or form/matter) and our capacity to retain events in our memory.  Time is thus our mental ordering of events according to our memory of potentialities which are now actualities. What is thus required for the aforementioned objection to maintain its footing is for an eternal substance to be a potentiality not realized into actuality. But this is impossible for the reasons previously specified.  If one argues that an eternal substance was a potentiality but is now an impossibility, s/he is making the claim that an eternal substance, if existent, is sustained by contingent states of affairs.  This cannot be the case because if an eternal substance exists, then there can be no possibility for it to not exist, an axiom which is violated if it is the case that eternity is sustained by contingency.

Any form/matter conglomerate, by virtue of it not being fully actualized, has an additional twofold structure of substance/accidents.  A substance is the irreducible "I", the protagonist in one's own personal narrative.  The attributes constitute the narrative, or the things which are said of the substance.  Yet in a being fully actualized, which would be true of a being which is at once immaterial and eternal, nothing could be attributed to such a being which is not already contained in its nature, or form.  What follows is that, unlike finite beings, an eternal substance is not the sum of its parts, or the net result of everything which is said about it; rather, an eternal substance is uncomposed, existing irreducibly as the "I".  Therefore, while the aforementioned eternal attributes ostensibly exist from outside the substance which sits atop of the ontological hierarchy, in reality eternal attributes are a partial image of fully formed entity without parts.  

 

Quote:
You are still assuming that this special category corresponds to any actual existing entity. You have not established that it applies to anything that actually exists.

Yes I have.  If God is logically conceivable, then he *has* to exist.  There is no way around this.

Quote:
'Eternal' does not entail necessary existence.

Then it would entail a contingent existence.  So what would a being without beginning and without end be contingent upon?  Some non-eternal phenomena? 

Quote:
Alternatively, if the entity ceased to exist under some possible conditions, that just means it is only conditionally eternal. IOW it can only exist as an eternal entity in worlds where certain conditions never arise. It can still be eternal in other worlds.

LOL.  Conditionally eternal?  So something can be without beginning and without end provided that certain conditions are in place?  If it requires certain conditions, then it means that in the absence of such conditions, it would stop existing which means that it is not eternal, since anything which has the potential to stop existing cannot be eternal, by the law of non-contradiction.  Any potential to end means that the being is not eternal.  You make no sense.

Quote:
We do not require proof 100% that any scientific theory is true. Laws are simply formulations described observed regularities in the behaviour and relationships of entities and processes, they are are true to the extent that they accurately describe observations.

Correct.  Science tells us absolutely nothing about the essential nature of reality.

Quote:
'Knowledge of God' is not grounded in anything independently verifiable/testable, so it has zero ontological status.

 

I just gave a proof of God without even presupposing from the outset that God existed.  So you clearly are wrong.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Oh for the sweet submissive

Oh for the sweet submissive love of Shiva!

Does it even matter to you what other people *believe* or not???

If you truly love God, then you should be faithful to your path, and serve your Lord as best you can.

Just spare us all this stupid gobbeldygook.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Something can be eternal yet

Something can be eternal yet be contingent, as long as what it is contingent upon are fixed attributes of some 'possible world'. 

Such fixed attributes could be the particular combination of the 'laws of physics'.

For there to be actual variety of 'possible worlds', ie not just one possible world, each must have some fixed, permanent, attributes, to distinguish it from other possible worlds, otherwise they will eventually blur into one.

An 'eternal' entity may only be able to exist in 'worlds' with certain attributes. Since we are talking about fixed, distinguishing attributes of each world,  we are not talking about things which could change and thereby cause the assumed 'eternal' entity to cease to exist.

So a 'possible', ie 'conceivable' eternal entity is not 'necessary'.

Please feel free to try again.

I may address some of your other points if I can find time and motivation....

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


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Ignoring for a moment the lack of truth to the statement...

Fortunate_S wrote:
Yes I have. If God is logically conceivable, then he *has* to exist. There is no way around this.

Are you sure god is logically conceivable?

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


chndlrjhnsn
chndlrjhnsn's picture
Posts: 159
Joined: 2010-03-28
User is offlineOffline
I'm glad Fortunate_S

I'm glad Fortunate_S believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. So do I.


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Something

BobSpence1 wrote:

Something can be eternal yet be contingent, as long as what it is contingent upon are fixed attributes of some 'possible world'. 

If attributes are restricted to one possible world and not all, then by definition, they are not necessary attributes.  If something is not necessary, then it is contingent.  If something is contingent, then it can possibly not apply, which means that you are claiming nothing more than that an eternal being could possibly stop existing.  The only way you can posit such "fixed attributes" is if you grant that such attributes are applicable in every possible world, not just one.  Otherwise, they cannot be fixed. 

You would be saying that conditions could be necessary in one possible world, but not some other, which is a non-sequitur.  "Necessary" means ALL possible worlds.

Quote:
For there to be actual variety of 'possible worlds', ie not just one possible world, each must have some fixed, permanent, attributes, to distinguish it from other possible worlds, otherwise they will eventually blur into one.

Possible worlds do not require permanent attributes to be distinct from one another anymore than I require permanent attributes in order to be distinct from another person.  If I pass away, then all of my attributes cease to exist.  They are by no means fixed, simply because I am distinct.  The only thing required is distinct attributes, not permanent attributes. 

Quote:
An 'eternal' entity may only be able to exist in 'worlds' with certain attributes. Since we are talking about fixed, distinguishing attributes of each world,  we are not talking about things which could change and thereby cause the assumed 'eternal' entity to cease to exist.

Then you are claiming that an eternal entity is permitted to be eternal by some non-eternal state of affairs within the context of a possible world.  If conditions in a possible world are immutable, then they would not be restricted to just one possible world because the very existence of possible worlds without such conditions substantiates that such conditions are not immutable, as they can change provided that certain conditions are in place. 

You cannot relativize things like eternity or immutability.  It does not work and shows off your philosophical incompetence when you try to do so.


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius wrote:Fortunate_S

Sinphanius wrote:

Fortunate_S wrote:
Yes I have. If God is logically conceivable, then he *has* to exist. There is no way around this.

Are you sure god is logically conceivable?

Yes.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
God is not logically conceivable.

 

You can't use logic to prove the existence of god. Nor have you adequately defined the god your logic is seeking to prove. Your current definition of god could scarcely be any more sprawling. An eternal substance. An undefined being who, if he is logically conceivable, must exist. That's it? Wow. When does evening worship start?

There is nothing logically conceivable about the human god concept. A magical being that can re-write the laws of nature with a snap of its fingers that has always existed. Nothing could be more unlikely, more impossible.

And you insist you know there is this god. I would not deny you believe such a god exists but you do not, cannot and never will know with absolute certainty that this version of god is real unless you decide to believe it for whatever private reasons you might have.

 

 

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


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

Fortunate_S wrote:

Sinphanius wrote:

Fortunate_S wrote:
Yes I have. If God is logically conceivable, then he *has* to exist. There is no way around this.

Are you sure god is logically conceivable?

Yes.

Only because you have to posit what you're proving?

"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


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
OBJECTION!

Quote:
Yes.

Describe god. 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:BobSpence1

Fortunate_S wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Something can be eternal yet be contingent, as long as what it is contingent upon are fixed attributes of some 'possible world'. 

If attributes are restricted to one possible world and not all, then by definition, they are not necessary attributes.  If something is not necessary, then it is contingent.  If something is contingent, then it can possibly not apply, which means that you are claiming nothing more than that an eternal being could possibly stop existing.  The only way you can posit such "fixed attributes" is if you grant that such attributes are applicable in every possible world, not just one.  Otherwise, they cannot be fixed. 

 

'Fixed' describes the permanent distinguishing attributes of a particular set of possible 'worlds'. That different possible worlds will have different such attributes, that there can be more than one possible value for such a property, does not imply that the value or strength or specific nature of a given property within the context of any given possible world is not fixed or constant. As I said before, without such fixed attributes that can still have different values in different worlds, there would be no scope for 'different' worlds. It is as if the size of a planet was not subject to change in any individual case, but that there could be more than one exact size possible. 

Any given being might exist forever in one set of worlds, not be able or likely to exist at all in another, and possibly last only a finite time in another. Also, an 'uncaused' being, one that 'automatically' comes with a particular set of possible worlds, may still be vulnerable to something that exists in some of those worlds. All of these scenarios are logically conceivable.

There is nothing 'inconceivable' about an otherwise eternal being ceasing to exist if it encounters some particular version of kryptonite. Something can have the potential to exist forever but still have some  "Achilles' heel ". You have not demonstrated that there actually is such a thing as a 'necessary' being. There may be necessary attributes of the fabric of reality such that it can support something which we would recognize as a 'world' capable of persisting, and supporting life, but beyond something like that, you are just speculating.

Quote:

You would be saying that conditions could be necessary in one possible world, but not some other, which is a non-sequitur.  "Necessary" means ALL possible worlds.

There may well be 'necessary' attributes that only apply for a particular possible world.

Quote:

Quote:
For there to be actual variety of 'possible worlds', ie not just one possible world, each must have some fixed, permanent, attributes, to distinguish it from other possible worlds, otherwise they will eventually blur into one.

Possible worlds do not require permanent attributes to be distinct from one another anymore than I require permanent attributes in order to be distinct from another person.  If I pass away, then all of my attributes cease to exist.  They are by no means fixed, simply because I am distinct.  The only thing required is distinct attributes, not permanent attributes. 

]The distinguishing attributes are fixed for the duration of the world's existence as a distinct entity. If the world only has a finite existence, then it cannot contain eternal entities.

Quote:

Quote:
An 'eternal' entity may only be able to exist in 'worlds' with certain attributes. Since we are talking about fixed, distinguishing attributes of each world,  we are not talking about things which could change and thereby cause the assumed 'eternal' entity to cease to exist.

Then you are claiming that an eternal entity is permitted to be eternal by some non-eternal state of affairs within the context of a possible world.  If conditions in a possible world are immutable, then they would not be restricted to just one possible world because the very existence of possible worlds without such conditions substantiates that such conditions are not immutable, as they can change provided that certain conditions are in place. 

You cannot relativize things like eternity or immutability.  It does not work and shows off your philosophical incompetence when you try to do so.

I explicitly claimed that the attributes of a world which might conceivably permanently block the existence within that world of some specific eternal entity, were assumed themselves to be eternal, immutable, within that world. I did not require that anything need could change, only that there could be more that one possible instance of any eternal thing of any given category, and that they could each manifest with different but still unchanging attributes. Some might be more powerful than others. That does not necessitate that the power of any particular instance could change.

You keep assuming that the existence of more than one eternal object with different attributes necessitates that that attribute could actually change. The possibility of more than one version of an object of a particular category, which surely is not inconceivable, does not require that one object can acquire the attributes of another. It may still be possible, but not necessary.

Individual objects within a set of permanent, unchanging, eternal entities, might still have, say, different colors, while the color of each one would still be unchangeable.

Do you finally get it?

immutable: "unchanging over time or unable to be changed".

This does not preclude the existence of variants of an immutable object. Interestingly there are such concepts as variants of immutable objects defined with computer programming languages.

 

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


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:

Fortunate_S wrote:

Sinphanius wrote:

Are you sure god is logically conceivable?

Yes.

"Objection, your honor; hearsay! We ask that it be stricken from the record." -See? Like that.

Laze around all day while watching Law & Order reruns,

and you too can be an armchair prosecutor!

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius

Sinphanius wrote:

Quote:
Yes.

Describe god. 

Singular existing being who is sentient and intelligent, capable of action and agency.  This being has free will and exists eternally.  This being has attributes which are purely actualized and the attributes themselves are contained in the essential nature of this being.  This being has revealed himself to not only exist as a singular being, but as a category of existence in himself, such that other people are able to identify with his nature while maintaining their distinct personhood. 


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

Fortunate_S wrote:

Sinphanius wrote:

Quote:
Yes.

Describe god. 

Singular existing being who is sentient and intelligent, capable of action and agency.  This being has free will and exists eternally.  This being has attributes which are purely actualized and the attributes themselves are contained in the essential nature of this being.  This being has revealed himself to not only exist as a singular being, but as a category of existence in himself, such that other people are able to identify with his nature while maintaining their distinct personhood. 

That's what you have to posit before you can start your proof? Well, that does make the proof easier...

"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


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Moving on...

Quote:
exists eternally

Describe Eternity. 


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius

Sinphanius wrote:

Quote:
exists eternally

Describe Eternity. 



Existing, without beginning and without end.


chndlrjhnsn
chndlrjhnsn's picture
Posts: 159
Joined: 2010-03-28
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:Sinphanius

Fortunate_S wrote:

Sinphanius wrote:

Describe Eternity. 



Existing, without beginning and without end.

Ooo, I am impressed.


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:'Fixed'

BobSpence1 wrote:

'Fixed' describes the permanent distinguishing attributes of a particular set of possible 'worlds'.

The "permanent" attributes of each possible world would actually be attributes in every possible world.  Anything which cannot be otherwise than it is does not restrict itself to one possible world.  You clearly have not grasped the idea of modal necessity and contingency. 

What you are arguing is this:  It is possible that certain attributes of a given possible world, Wx, are necessary within the context of that possible world.  In other words, within possible world x, there are no possible worlds where attribute Y cannot be the case.  All you've done in this case is changed the domain of discourse, but say nothing in the higher order language that is actually relevant, namely, the language of modal logic.  Something is either contingent or necessary.  This is an exclusive disjunction.  You cannot have it both ways. 

What you've done is restrict the eternal being to this lower level language, but failed to address the issue in an objective non-relativistic sense.  If an eternal being exists, then it cannot stop existing.  Therefore, there are no possible worlds where such a being does not exist (this is logically equivalent to the statement "cannot stop existing&quotEye-wink.  If an eternal being does not exist, then there are no possible worlds where such a being could exist, since it would have to begin existing.  But the only things that cannot exist in any possible world are logically inconceivable things, therefore, an eternal being has to exist. 

I'll give you the last word.  Until you actually study logic, there is no way I can have meaningful discourse with you on this topic.


chndlrjhnsn
chndlrjhnsn's picture
Posts: 159
Joined: 2010-03-28
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:BobSpence1

Fortunate_S wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

'Fixed' describes the permanent distinguishing attributes of a particular set of possible 'worlds'.

The "permanent" attributes of each possible world would actually be attributes in every possible world.  Anything which cannot be otherwise than it is does not restrict itself to one possible world.  You clearly have not grasped the idea of modal necessity and contingency. 

What you are arguing is this:  It is possible that certain attributes of a given possible world, Wx, are necessary within the context of that possible world.  In other words, within possible world x, there are no possible worlds where attribute Y cannot be the case.  All you've done in this case is changed the domain of discourse, but say nothing in the higher order language that is actually relevant, namely, the language of modal logic.  Something is either contingent or necessary.  This is an exclusive disjunction.  You cannot have it both ways. 

What you've done is restrict the eternal being to this lower level language, but failed to address the issue in an objective non-relativistic sense.  If an eternal being exists, then it cannot stop existing.  Therefore, there are no possible worlds where such a being does not exist (this is logically equivalent to the statement "cannot stop existing&quotEye-wink.  If an eternal being does not exist, then there are no possible worlds where such a being could exist, since it would have to begin existing.  But the only things that cannot exist in any possible world are logically inconceivable things, therefore, an eternal being has to exist. 

I'll give you the last word.  Until you actually study logic, there is no way I can have meaningful discourse with you on this topic.

Well I am learning a lot about modal logic from you and BobSpence and searching the internet. But it didn't take any research to see that if what you are saying is true, then it would be true for any being defined as eternal.