# For Bobbles: The ontological argument

Anonymous
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
Offline
For Bobbles: The ontological argument

= (∃x) Gx = God exists

P-->Q = strict implication

P⊃Q = material implication

N(x) = It is necessary that X

~N~(x) = It is not necessary that not-X = It is possible that X

(1) G-->N(G)

(2) [G-->N(G)]⊃[~N~(G)-->G]

(3) ~N~(G)

(4) ~N~(G)-->G (1,2; MP)

::. G (3,4; MP)

Okay.  Let me have your best objection, and I'll gladly dismantle it.

TGBaker
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
Offline
BobSpence1 wrote:I detect

BobSpence1 wrote:

I detect more than a hint of Russell's Paradox:

Is the set of all sets which are not members of themselves a member of itself or not?

One simple implication: Is a being which creates reality a part of reality or not?

There are more.

EDIT:

Also just realized the fallacy of applying Lewis' axiom to the expression 'it is possible that God is necessary', as I used it. That use of the word 'possible', certainly as I used it, was an expression of incomplete knowledge of whether God was necessary or not, not of actual contingency, as would be relevant to the reduction of sequences of modal qualifiers, which is what Lewis was addressing.

It is that sort of semantic slippage which makes modal arguments so problematic.

Sorry dude I see what you were referring to the idea of limitless being only in the mind allows the idea of the limited god as real which is only an idea which and so forth I thought you were referring to my Being/Existence dichotomy which may be just as bad. I did a little Russell paradox called George back in the other thread it probably would lead to infinite regress.

You could argue that George has an  idea that  "the Perfect Being exists entailing Its Own  ideal ontological argument" in his mind but fails to exist so in reality.  This idea itself presents to George an idea of a more perfect being  than "the idea of a perfect being that exists only in his mind" which is thus  limited by being just an idea in his mind.  It presents to George the idea of a Perfect Being that exists who is not limited as an idea in George's mind whose idea of Himself entailing his Own ideal ontological argument  supervenes the the perfect being that entails the ideal ontological argument in George's mind.

A necessary proposition defines necessity as that the proposition must be true in all possible worlds. To say that if god is exits is to say that he must exit in all possible worlds which would include our own.  The ontological relationship of our world to possible worlds is still hotly debated.  We still do not have the actual proof that if god exists that it is necessary that god exists as you pointed out referencing the Russell like type paradox and I did concerning meta-logic or narrative fallacy.  This again gets to what does it mean to be a limitless being and possibly a transcendent being. We have an intuitive sense of a perfect being but then we have theodicy issues.  I think from my idea that we approach these arguments from a contingency of whether god exists or not in order to determine them means there is a real contingency in this world which allows the counter argument to be rational.  While there is no contingency in the structure of the argument apart from the subjunctives (if)...(then) there is still the apparent flaw that if it is not necessary that god does not exist then god exists.  This itself begs possible worlds where since it is not necessary that god exists he does not so since he does in some he must in all.  This is another infinite regress.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

redneF
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
Offline
TGBaker wrote:yes and I

TGBaker wrote:

yes and I think that is telling. The structure of the argument will be used to defend what you already believe. It does not give you new information.

Exactly.

Just like I said in the Bipolar thread.

It's a cheap mindfcuk.

The scam artist's best friend.

If (A) I can make this coin disappear, then (B) you will know, that (C) magic is real.

A+B=C

I have just proved to you, magic is real!

Modal logic, my a**

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

Zaq
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
Offline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:The

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

The premise is not 'God is necessary', it is 'if God exists, then God is necessary'.

Then I question the premise.  On what grounds does the existence of some thing X indicate that X is necessary?

Also, I fail to see how premise 2 is at all evident.  Maybe it's the difference between the whole "logical implication" vs "physical implication."

Also also, you claim to use modus ponens (that's MP, right?) to go from 1 and 3 to 4.  However, modus ponens is "If A then B, A, therefore B."  Since 1 is "If God then...", you can't use MP and conclude God.

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.

redneF
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
Offline
Zaq wrote:Mr_Metaphysics

Zaq wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

The premise is not 'God is necessary', it is 'if God exists, then God is necessary'.

Then I question the premise.  On what grounds does the existence of some thing X indicate that X is necessary?

The premise is retarded.

Complete non sequitur.

Completely circular reasoning. Translated it nakedly asserts, "if it exists, it's exists for a specific reason; It's needed. It's an absolute necessity. The universe would be unbalanced and would cease to function if it was absent."

Transposed "If a prime mover exists, then a prime mover is necessary"

Transposed again "If blowjobs exist, then blowjobs are necessary"

Transposed again "If diamonds exist, then diamonds are necessary"

Transposed again "If Coca-Cola exists, then Coca-Cola is necessary"

Transposed again "If malaria exists, then malaria is necessary"

Transposed again "If gum was on the bottom of my shoe, then gum on the bottom of my shoe was necessary"

WTF kind of sophisticated logic is that?

Then'll they drone on and on about a 'perfectly tuned' universe.

What perfectly tuned universe do you see?

What perfectly tuned earth do you see?

How many species have gone extinct every since the earth began?

If they existed, they were 'necessary'?

Being born is necessary, so you can get dead?

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

TGBaker
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
Offline
If possibly it is the case
1. If possibly it is the case that God exists, then God exists in all possible worlds.
2. Worlds containing both God and eliminable evils are not possible.
3. There is a possible world x containing eliminable evils. (In fact, there are infinitely many)
4. If possibly it is the case that God exists, then God exists in all possible worlds, but x is a possible world in which God cannot exist.
5. Therefore, it is not possibly the case that God exists.

And so:

1. God actualizes all worlds in which he exists (assumed for reductio).
2. If God exists in a possible world, then that world must be actual. (on the actualization rule)
3. God should not actualize any world containing eliminable evils.
4. God exists in all possible worlds (on S5).
5. There is a possible world x containing eliminable evils.
6. Therefore, God does not exist in possible world x.
7. But God must actualize all possible worlds. (from 4 and 2)
8. Therefore, x is actual and not-actual.
9. The reductio is complete, therefore it is not the case that God actualizes all worlds in which he exists.
10. But God cannot exist in worlds which he does not actualize.
11. Therefore, either S5 is wrong, the eliminability rule is wrong, the actualization rule is wrong, or it is not the case that God exists.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

TGBaker
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
Offline
If God necessarily exists,
1. If God necessarily exists, then there are no possible worlds containing eliminable evils. (from the actualization rule, the eliminability rule, and necessary existence)
2. There are possible worlds containing eliminable evils.
3. Therefore, God does not necessarily exist.

And from this we get our fourth ontological argument:

1. If God exists, then it is metaphysically necessary that he exist.
2. It is not metaphysically necessary that God exists. (from the previous 1-3)
3. Therefore, God does not exist.

The theist's least unpleasant option from all this is to discard all of the foundational premises of ontological arguments (such as necessary existence and/or modal axiom S5), or they must say that it is strictly impossible for worlds containing eliminable evils to exist (beyond being plainly untrue, since obviously there are possible worlds containing eliminable evils, this would require the theist to discard a substantial amount of Plantinga from God, Freedom, and Evil). Or the theist could just stop being a theist.

From Steven Carr

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

TGBaker
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
Offline
And so from the previous

And so from the previous post we see the rational antithetical atheistic argument to the theistic argument.  I would like to say that if there is a possible world( argument) where God exists in a possible world he must exist in all the possible worlds if it is necessary that he exists.  There is a possible world( argument) where god does not exist in a possible world. If god necessarily does not exist in that world then he necessarily does not exist in all possible worlds. So we have a possible world in which god must exist in all possible worlds and a possible world where god must not exist in all possible worlds. Again the focus becomes what makes a state necessary or not. It is the premise. The two precursory stances mean the antithetical arguments conclude as contingent. Kripke's argument that a person necessarily has the parents that he has or she would be someone else.  Thus if god is a person since we cannot assume parents we must look at  what properties do and do not make the personhood of god prior to any premise about god. Does god necessarily allow evil.  Is necessity a limiter of a limitless since it can not be otherwise even by its own choosing (self limiting) and so wiki:

In classic modal logic, a proposition is said to be

• possible if and only if it is not necessarily false (regardless of whether it is actually true or actually false);
• necessary if and only if it is not possibly false; and
• contingent if and only if it is not necessarily false and not necessarily true (i.e. possible but not necessarily true).
• Possibly P implies Necessarily Possibly p [$\Diamond p \to \Box\Diamond p$]
• Possibly Necessarily P implies Necessarily p [$\Diamond\Box p \to \Box p$]

For those with difficulty with the concept of something being possible but not true, the meaning of these terms may be made more comprehensible by thinking of multiple "possible worlds" (in the sense of Leibniz) or "alternate universes"; something "necessary" is true in all possible worlds, something "possible" is true in at least one possible world. These "possible world semantics" are formalized with Kripke semantics.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

TGBaker
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
Offline
Theodicy

1) There is a possible world of only well-being (p).

2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over  possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).

3)x necessarily would not allow  q

4)p--> not q

5) It is possible that god is x

5)q --> not p

6) Our world=q

7)not p--->not x

7)not x

8)god= not x

Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

redneF
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
Offline
Mr_Metaphysics

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

= (∃x) Gx = God exists

P-->Q = strict implication

P⊃Q = material implication

N(x) = It is necessary that X

~N~(x) = It is not necessary that not-X = It is possible that X

(1) G-->N(G)

(2) [G-->N(G)]⊃[~N~(G)-->G]

(3) ~N~(G)

(4) ~N~(G)-->G (1,2; MP)

::. G (3,4; MP)

Okay.  Let me have your best objection, and I'll gladly dismantle it.

Sure.

You don't have scientific evidence to fully support your premises.

IOW, you don't know anything for certain...

.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

TGBaker
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
Offline
I emailed Dr. James F.

I emailed Dr. James F. Sennett about Mr. Metaphysic's ontological argument. He responded:

The logic is perfectly valid by S5, although the move from (1) to (2) is a little subtle. It's easier to show if we use a possibility operator (e.g., the diamond) in the place of ~N~.

The problem with this argument, as with all versions of the Ontological Argument, is with the first premise. As stated, it's actually weaker than Anselm's premise (if possibly God exists then necessarily God exists). However, it runs into the same kinds of problems. After studying many versions of the argument, I remain convinced that it is virtually impossible to argue for this key claim without begging the question. Also, there are very good arguments against the claim, one of which I have published myself.

So, how are things going?

--James

Recently, P. J. McGrath and James F. Sennett have independently argued that the OA lacks probative force in all, and perhaps all possible, versions. Although neither denies that the argument can be validly formulated, both endorse the claim that the argument begs the question at the crucial premise that states, in effect, that God is possible. Sennett, however, advances the further claim that the crucial premise, though perhaps not demonstrably false, is such that it is more rationally rejected than accepted. Thus Sennett maintains, not only that the OA begs the question at the crucial premise, but also that the crucial premise -- There is a possible world in which unsurpassable greatness is exemplified -- ought to be rejected by a reasonable person.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

redneF
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
Offline
TGBaker wrote:The problem

TGBaker wrote:

The problem with this argument, as with all versions of the Ontological Argument, is with the first premise. As stated, it's actually weaker than Anselm's premise (if possibly God exists then necessarily God exists). However, it runs into the same kinds of problems. After studying many versions of the argument, I remain convinced that it is virtually impossible to argue for this key claim without begging the question. Also, there are very good arguments against the claim, one of which I have published myself.

Of course, the problem lies in the first premise.

Occam's Razor is nowhere to be found.

Had the formula been for a 'first cause', then, I would accept it, as a good hypothesis.

I would not bet my life on it, but, would accept that it's 1, of a number of possibilities, with a good probability. Better than a lot of other theories.

Still doesn't mean a thing, as to whether it's compatible with reality.

But, the first premise overarches (trying to kill too many birds with one stone), and reaches for the Christian god (folklore and legend, made of nothing, and with no values {measureable properties}), which is arbitrary, and desperate.

At that point, it becomes an agenda, and completely loses practicality, and workability, to model.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

Ktulu
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
Offline
I personally believe Mr

I personally believe Mr Metaphysical is a miner, he goes underground for days at the time, has no internet access, and thinks about the next 'check mate atheists!" reply.  Then he comes up every week or so, types his metaphysical inconsistent mental diarrhea and then goes back underground.  I wonder what he's mining for?...  Interesting fellow, but low oxygen environments tend to kill a lot of braincells apparently.  Too bad, he had a better vocabulary then most other hit and run theists on this website.  My guess is that his posts will degenerate into incoherency as time progresses.  Or he may develop a multiple personality disorder and come back with a different account.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc

BobSpence
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
Offline
My experience in the real

My experience in the real world of designing complex systems, both electronic circuits and software, that our ability to grasp all the implications and possibilities of even relatively simple logical structures is pretty limited.

I have so often been confronted with a design which 'obviously' should work, but stubbornly doesn't, after much real-world (AKA empirical) testing, including seeing what happens when small adjustments or alternative configurations are tried.

As you say, when the problem is finally identified, typically it will suddenly make sense, in hind-sight.

Reality is so all-but-infinitely beyond the ability of our mind to comprehend, in its complexity and implications, that I find it laughable that anyone could imagine that a few 'logical' propositions, with little or no empirical reference, can 'explain' some fundamental, ultimate aspect of reality, let alone its 'origin' and 'necessary' attributes.

When they use the word 'conceivable' I grit my teeth - it harks back to the ancient fallacy that Reason is all that is required to discover the Truth, and the dismissive attitude to 'crude empiricism'. Whereas the reverse is true, that only from a serious and methodical investigation of reality, of what is, AKA Science, do we have a chance in Hell of getting anywhere near grasping even a shadow of 'ultimate' Truth about Reality, and how it 'works'.

What aspect of Quantum Mechanics or Relativity is or was 'conceivable' a priori?? Both were formulated to explain deeply counter-intuitive experimental results.

When a specific argument, such as the OA, or a logic system, such as Modal Logic, leads to deeply counter-intuitive conclusions, I suspect the assumptions involved. It reminds me of a computer program or circuit design which does not behave as expected or intended, the most likely problem is that the assumptions on which it was designed were too simple, or actually wrong.

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

TGBaker
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
Offline
Ktulu wrote: I personally

Ktulu wrote:

I personally believe Mr Metaphysical is a miner, he goes underground for days at the time, has no internet access, and thinks about the next 'check mate atheists!" reply.  Then he comes up every week or so, types his metaphysical inconsistent mental diarrhea and then goes back underground.  I wonder what he's mining for?...  Interesting fellow, but low oxygen environments tend to kill a lot of braincells apparently.  Too bad, he had a better vocabulary then most other hit and run theists on this website.  My guess is that his posts will degenerate into incoherency as time progresses.  Or he may develop a multiple personality disorder and come back with a different account.

I think he is mining for an ontological argument that will work.  He did put a lot of effort in its construction. It ain't easy to work hard onon something that is signicant to you, become excited about the results and then not have any results with those results.  After al the argument is sound or valid though perhaps weaker than Anselm's so Dr. Sennett.  It is the premise of a god that exists and that is necessary if he does that is the problem. That is why I threw out some theodicy in an earlier post.  I weakened the premise from unlimited to a capable being which still fails since duh there is suffering and evil in the world.  The onotlogical arguments only wiork if you belive the premise and that is telling.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

Ktulu
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
Offline
TGBaker wrote:Ktulu

TGBaker wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

I personally believe Mr Metaphysical is a miner, he goes underground for days at the time, has no internet access, and thinks about the next 'check mate atheists!" reply.  Then he comes up every week or so, types his metaphysical inconsistent mental diarrhea and then goes back underground.  I wonder what he's mining for?...  Interesting fellow, but low oxygen environments tend to kill a lot of braincells apparently.  Too bad, he had a better vocabulary then most other hit and run theists on this website.  My guess is that his posts will degenerate into incoherency as time progresses.  Or he may develop a multiple personality disorder and come back with a different account.

I think he is mining for an ontological argument that will work.  He did put a lot of effort in its construction. It ain't easy to work hard onon something that is signicant to you, become excited about the results and then not have any results with those results.  After al the argument is sound or valid though perhaps weaker than Anselm's so Dr. Sennett.  It is the premise of a god that exists and that is necessary if he does that is the problem. That is why I threw out some theodicy in an earlier post.  I weakened the premise from unlimited to a capable being which still fails since duh there is suffering and evil in the world.  The onotlogical arguments only wiork if you belive the premise and that is telling.

I would have more sympathy if I believed more originality was involved.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc

Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
Offline
BobSpence1 wrote:My

BobSpence1 wrote:

My experience in the real world of designing complex systems, both electronic circuits and software, that our ability to grasp all the implications and possibilities of even relatively simple logical structures is pretty limited.

I have so often been confronted with a design which 'obviously' should work, but stubbornly doesn't, after much real-world (AKA empirical) testing, including seeing what happens when small adjustments or alternative configurations are tried.

As you say, when the problem is finally identified, typically it will suddenly make sense, in hind-sight.

Reality is so all-but-infinitely beyond the ability of our mind to comprehend, in its complexity and implications, that I find it laughable that anyone could imagine that a few 'logical' propositions, with little or no empirical reference, can 'explain' some fundamental, ultimate aspect of reality, let alone its 'origin' and 'necessary' attributes.

When they use the word 'conceivable' I grit my teeth - it harks back to the ancient fallacy that Reason is all that is required to discover the Truth, and the dismissive attitude to 'crude empiricism'. Whereas the reverse is true, that only from a serious and methodical investigation of reality, of what is, AKA Science, do we have a chance in Hell of getting anywhere near grasping even a shadow of 'ultimate' Truth about Reality, and how it 'works'.

What aspect of Quantum Mechanics or Relativity is or was 'conceivable' a priori?? Both were formulated to explain deeply counter-intuitive experimental results.

When a specific argument, such as the OA, or a logic system, such as Modal Logic, leads to deeply counter-intuitive conclusions, I suspect the assumptions involved. It reminds me of a computer program or circuit design which does not behave as expected or intended, the most likely problem is that the assumptions on which it was designed were too simple, or actually wrong.

That is part of my continued questioning...would anyone ever think of a hypothesis like this if they did not assume the existence of God beforehand?  I don't think it would ever happen, because it doesn't actually explain anything, it is just grasping at straws to support a belief that someone refuses to subject to falsification.

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

TGBaker
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
Offline

BobSpence1 wrote:

My experience in the real world of designing complex systems, both electronic circuits and software, that our ability to grasp all the implications and possibilities of even relatively simple logical structures is pretty limited.

I have so often been confronted with a design which 'obviously' should work, but stubbornly doesn't, after much real-world (AKA empirical) testing, including seeing what happens when small adjustments or alternative configurations are tried.

As you say, when the problem is finally identified, typically it will suddenly make sense, in hind-sight.

Reality is so all-but-infinitely beyond the ability of our mind to comprehend, in its complexity and implications, that I find it laughable that anyone could imagine that a few 'logical' propositions, with little or no empirical reference, can 'explain' some fundamental, ultimate aspect of reality, let alone its 'origin' and 'necessary' attributes.

When they use the word 'conceivable' I grit my teeth - it harks back to the ancient fallacy that Reason is all that is required to discover the Truth, and the dismissive attitude to 'crude empiricism'. Whereas the reverse is true, that only from a serious and methodical investigation of reality, of what is, AKA Science, do we have a chance in Hell of getting anywhere near grasping even a shadow of 'ultimate' Truth about Reality, and how it 'works'.

What aspect of Quantum Mechanics or Relativity is or was 'conceivable' a priori?? Both were formulated to explain deeply counter-intuitive experimental results.

When a specific argument, such as the OA, or a logic system, such as Modal Logic, leads to deeply counter-intuitive conclusions, I suspect the assumptions involved. It reminds me of a computer program or circuit design which does not behave as expected or intended, the most likely problem is that the assumptions on which it was designed were too simple, or actually wrong.

That is part of my continued questioning...would anyone ever think of a hypothesis like this if they did not assume the existence of God beforehand?  I don't think it would ever happen, because it doesn't actually explain anything, it is just grasping at straws to support a belief that someone refuses to subject to falsification.

I don't think anyone would think of it without someone already believing it.  A believer would formulate it with their presupposed premise. One who questions it would test it both trying to improve it and creating an antithetical. One who does not believe the premise will not accept the argument's conclusion because they are not convinced by the premise.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

Ktulu
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
Offline
TGBaker wrote:I don't think

TGBaker wrote:

I don't think anyone would think of it without someone already believing it.  A believer would formulate it with their presupposed premise. One who questions it would test it both trying to improve it and creating an antithetical. One who does not believe the premise will not accept the argument's conclusion because they are not convinced by the premise.

The major issue that I had since day one, was that he was defining god in his terms, then using said definition to form an argument to prove the definition.  It is the most basic circular reasoning... redneF's reaction seems the most sensitive in retrospect.  We all have given him too much respect.

A quote from the movie Seven comes to mind:

Quote:

William Somerset: This guy's methodical, exacting, and worst of all, patient.

David Mills: He's a nut-bag! Just because the fucker's got a library card doesn't make him Yoda!

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc

redneF
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
Offline
BobSpence1 wrote:My

BobSpence1 wrote:

My experience in the real world of designing complex systems, both electronic circuits and software, that our ability to grasp all the implications and possibilities of even relatively simple logical structures is pretty limited.

I have so often been confronted with a design which 'obviously' should work, but stubbornly doesn't, after much real-world (AKA empirical) testing, including seeing what happens when small adjustments or alternative configurations are tried.

As you say, when the problem is finally identified, typically it will suddenly make sense, in hind-sight.

Exactly.

No Modal logic is going to trump the equation of hindsight (x)= reality (20/20).

The problem is, that probably 99.xx% of the population, are not in science and hi tech systems, and does not 'see' the real world fallibility, and dismal track record, that Modal Logic, has at making accurate predictions, or ones that are compatible with the complexities of physics.

That's why I love using the "What goes up, must come down, huh?" axiom, when someone tells me they have an 'idea' that they think they know is going to work.

Most people have no idea how many complete nutbars have numerous patents, on sh1t that just does not work, at all, and mountains of White Papers, to 'back up' their claims, and references to other White Papers, that they claim are the mechanisms that make their's workable.

I personally know 2 colleagues, who are absolutely 100% convinced, that they have invented a "Perpetual Motion" machine. But, of course, will not divulge details, since they haven't patented it.

Pfffft...

BobSpence1 wrote:
Reality is so all-but-infinitely beyond the ability of our mind to comprehend, in its complexity and implications, that I find it laughable that anyone could imagine that a few 'logical' propositions, with little or no empirical reference, can 'explain' some fundamental, ultimate aspect of reality, let alone its 'origin' and 'necessary' attributes.

When they use the word 'conceivable' I grit my teeth - it harks back to the ancient fallacy that Reason is all that is required to discover the Truth, and the dismissive attitude to 'crude empiricism'. Whereas the reverse is true, that only from a serious and methodical investigation of reality, of what is, AKA Science, do we have a chance in Hell of getting anywhere near grasping even a shadow of 'ultimate' Truth about Reality, and how it 'works'.

They're still hanging on to the much abused 'There are things we'll never knoooooooooow!!!' axiom.

It's too bad scientists are too self indulgent to pay it any heed.

Physicists, scientists, and engineers often work with 'dimensionless numbers'.

They tend to work better in hindsight.

Physicists wrote papers (in the 50's IIRC) on why drag racers would never break 200 mph in the quarter mile, due to high drag coefficients, and the low coefficients of friction (traction)

Problem was, nobody told Billy Bob Racer, and his buddies that it was counter the laws of physics.

Same with fluid dynamics. PhD's argued that bumble bees should not be able to fly, because of their high 'drag' coefficients, and their wings did not generate enough (Bernoulli's principle ) 'lift' coefficient, when they ran tests, and modeled it with Reynolds number (dimensionless number) math.

They were looking at the problem the wrong way.

Nature was there in plain sight, and they missed it.

Over, and over again.

The point is......Science....didn't fail.

Humans 'failed' to 'see' how nature worked.

They were overlooking certain aspects.

Same with Jets.

The fluid dynamics of subsonic flight, and supersonic flight, are very different, and there was a sort of 'chasm', as you 'transition' from the subsonic flight 'dimension' (sic), to the supersonic flight dimension (sic).

Eventually, the TRUE 'nature' of reality, emerges, as our level of science and capabilities evolve.

EVOLUTION

Evolution is 'real'.

Deal with it...

BobSpence1 wrote:
What aspect of Quantum Mechanics or Relativity is or was 'conceivable' a priori?? Both were formulated to explain deeply counter-intuitive experimental results.

Just as "What goes up, must come down" was deeply intuitive, and completely logical *cough* philosophy AND as an analogy, to assume it as a universal (constant), ........BUT, was completely bankrupt, as a reality.

Ktulu wrote:

I personally believe Mr Metaphysical is a miner.

Oh ya.

Classic 'self professed' genius, who doesn't produce anything in reality, but knows the mechanics of 'everything'.

An SAE Armchair Quarterback.

They get eaten for breakfast  on science and tech forums, all the time.

"Too big for their britches", as the saying goes.

TGBaker wrote:

I think he is mining for an ontological argument that will work.

Oh, there's no doubt.

He blew it.

Big time.

He's embarrassed himself. Thinking that Modal Logic is actually a robust method of making accurate predictions.

After all that struttin', to be humiliated like that?

He's going to be bitter.

He wanted to 'beat' some atheists, with his 'logic', so that he could claim an intellectual victory, somewhere else.

He's only stuck his foot (Big Dick logic) in his mouth.

TGBaker wrote:

He did put a lot of effort in its construction.

A 'wing and a prayer', ain't gonna trump reality.

He can 'hope' it works, all he wants.

He can 'boast' about how Modal Logic is 'logical', all he wants.

It doesn't make it more workable.

The whole Kalam Cosmological Argument, is one the the main building blocks of Dr. William Lame Craig.

Too bad it is so bankrupt, and such a strawman.

Complete 'Snake Oil' salesman.

He's no 'Dr'.

He doesn't produce anything in a lab.

He's a complete fraud.

A poseur.

An illusionist.

A bold faced liar.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

redneF
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
Offline
You're a total fcuking loser! :-P

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

G = (∃x) Gx = God exists

P-->Q = strict implication

P⊃Q = material implication

N(x) = It is necessary that X

~N~(x) = It is not necessary that not-X = It is possible that X

(1) G-->N(G)

(2) [G-->N(G)]⊃[~N~(G)-->G]

(3) ~N~(G)

(4) ~N~(G)-->G (1,2; MP)

::. G (3,4; MP)

Okay.  Let me have your best objection, and I'll gladly dismantle it.

I hate to break your dick (I'm lying).

But you're a total fcuking moron.

Your formula isn't worth the paper it's written on.

It just dawned on me why the whole fcuking thing was cognitively dissonant to me.

The answer was soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo fcuking obvious. So easy to miss....

Let's start with some preface from you, so there's no room for ambiguity, from you.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
If I can present a deductively valid argument whose premises are true and whose conclusion is 'God exists', then you have to accept that God exists--plain and simple.  You have no choice in this matter

These statements will haunt you....

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
It *isn't* possible that God does not exist, because the mere possibility of his nonexistence contradicts what it means to be 'God'.

This statement will haunt you....

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

I think the ontological, cosmological, and transcendental arguments are all valid.

You agree with yourself, too much.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
I do not find the concept to be internally contradictory

You agree with yourself, too much.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

I guess that means there's an assumption made, or a presupposition, huh?

The reality is, that people who agree with themselves too much, make those all the time...

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
The concept of 'God' contains no prima facie contradictions

According to whom, was always my question to you.

You wouldn't answer, because you don't question yourself, enough.

You love to agree with yourself, too much.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
There is no ambiguity here; 'true' only has one meaning, and it ranges over science, history, philosophy, mathematics, sociology, and so on.

According to whom?

Lemme guess...

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
According to the requirements of logic.

So, you agree with yourself, that you are logical?

And you agree with yourself that logic is capable of distilling what's 'true' and what is not 'true'?

Let's see what logic can prove is 'true'....

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

The only metric we have for possibility is logical consistency

Since you said it, you must accept, you must agree with yourself.

That would be logically consistent...

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Materiality is a limitation

One that is inescapable.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Non sequitur.

Occam's Razor (you should get one, they're given to scientists, for free).

Translated:  Absence is not abscence.

That's not logical.

It's self refuting.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
It *isn't* possible that God does not exist, because the mere possibility of his nonexistence contradicts what it means to be 'God'.

That's what you think.

Because you think 'inside the box'.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Furthermore, 'Clearly, that cannot be' is not a legitimate objection.

That's about the most logical thing you've ever said.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
The bottom line is, in order to be build a bridge between the conceptual and the actual, you cannot include materiality in the concept

Some disambiguation  here, would be helpful to you, in your future (perhaps as an atheist ).

In order to properly test something, you need to remove everything superfluous, that could give you a false positive.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Now prove that God is logically contradictory

Sure.

You assigned superfluous 'constraints'.

You anthropomorphised.

You assigned a 'material' constraint.

You arbitrarily presupposed that the answer is 'singular' in nature.

You arbitrarily assigned a finite constraint.

You arbitrarily presupposed that 'IT'  (a material thing) could NOT be more than 1.

You lose, big shot...

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

This was quite easy to respond to.  Is that what took you days to conjure up?

Hey, that's my line, except, I would change that to "Is that what took you a lifetime to conjure up?"

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
You should care because it proves that God exists..

You should care that you've bought into a 'False Positive'

I hope your parents didn't pay a lot of money for your Philosophy degree...

So, the question is:

If I can present a deductively valid argument whose premises are true and whose conclusion is 'God does NOT exist', then you have to accept that God does NOT exist--plain and simple.  You have no choice in this matter .

So, when are you going to throw in the towel?

Should we set up a party here, or what?...

Welcome to the 'Darkside', brother.

There is no God.

It was all just a fairy tale.

Beware of *cough* 'False Prophets'.

Edit: It just occurred to me, that BobSpence1, previously pointed out the 'IT' part, when he said "That's IT!"

Credit, where credit is due.

BobSpence1 (atheist) wins

Mr_Metaphor (theist) loses

There is NO sound argument for an IMMATERIAL GOD.

IT IS A LOGICAL FALLACY.

THE DEBATE IS OVER

THE DEBATE IS OVER

THE DEBATE IS OVER

THE DEBATE IS OVER

THE DEBATE IS OVER

THE DEBATE IS OVER

THE DEBATE IS OVER

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

Ktulu
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
Offline

redneF, your posts crack me up... I mean, they're logical, and obviously intelligent, but your structure is difficult to take seriously... what prompts you to post in that unique way?  I'm actually serious and not trying to make fun of you.  I recognize the fact that you have something relevant to say, just... why this way? lol wtf do you have against paragraphs?  When I read you posts, I picture you out of breath after each line.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc

BobSpence
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
Offline
'Materiality' imposes some

'Materiality' imposes some limits on possibility, but 'immateriality' imposes even more, such as no persistent coherent structure, necessary for complexity of organization or process.

This primitive intuitive prejudice against 'mere material' entities and substance is one of the core problems of metaphysical and related areas of speculation.

The assumption that a God exists in an 'immaterial' realm is unjustified and not helpful to establishing the reality of this conceptual entity.

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

redneF
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
Offline
Ktulu wrote:redneF, your

Ktulu wrote:

redneF, your posts crack me up... I mean, they're logical, and obviously intelligent, but your structure is difficult to take seriously...

Dude, I'm a fcuking comedian.

It's dry, dry sarcasm, and mockery.

This nonsense cracks me up to no end.

If this thing had sound, you'd all be turning down the volume when I was online.

I realize how it can come off on the internet, and it cracks me up even more when people 'project' that I'm angry, or whatever, when I'm really having a hard time holding back the tears from laughing so hard.

I do get a kick out of rubbing it in.

So, sue me...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

redneF
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
Offline
BobSpence1 wrote:The

BobSpence1 wrote:

The assumption that a God exists in an 'immaterial' realm is unjustified ...

Right.

You can't suck and blow, at the same time.

You can't have it both ways.

You cannot claim immaterial, and then assign any material 'properties' or 'values' to 'an absence of any matter'.

It's a complete non sequitur.

It's not 'workable'.

Right from the 'get go'.

The concept is a logical fallacy.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

Ktulu
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
Offline
redneF wrote:Ktulu

redneF wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

redneF, your posts crack me up... I mean, they're logical, and obviously intelligent, but your structure is difficult to take seriously...

Dude, I'm a fcuking comedian.

It's dry, dry sarcasm, and mockery.

This nonsense cracks me up to no end.

If this thing had sound, you'd all be turning down the volume when I was online.

I realize how it can come off on the internet, and it cracks me up even more when people 'project' that I'm angry, or whatever, when I'm really having a hard time holding back the tears from laughing so hard.

I do get a kick out of rubbing it in.

So, sue me...

I smile most times too, I didn't mean to offend you, and ya, it all comes across differently over typed text .

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc

redneF
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
Offline
Ktulu wrote:I didn't mean to

Ktulu wrote:

I didn't mean to offend you, and ya.

Nah, dude.

None taken.

Not at all.

Ktulu wrote:
... it all comes across differently over typed text .

I know.

Over the top.

I grew up on too much David Lee Roth, from Van Halen, I think...

As far as the god thing.......I really, truly have been a complete atheist my entire life.

I never really sat down to 'reconcile' why there could not be one, because it seemed so retarded, to begin with.

I can obviously give a ton of reasons why I think it's retarded, but none more logical than the one of the logical fallacy of the BASE PREMISE.

A timeless material/immaterial male god that made time and all material.......in the absence of material and the time to do it......exists...

Fcuk is that stoopid, that anyone could even fit that square peg into the round hole in their head...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

TGBaker
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
Offline
redneF you are one of the

redneF you are one of the few people that I have watched dancing on a corpse with style.  Lude and crude and then you eat them as food.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

redneF
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
Offline
Got it from the Nuge, Baby...

Got it from the Nuge, Baby...

Take no prisoners

Go big, or go home!

TGBaker
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
Offline
redneF wrote:Got it from the

redneF wrote:

Got it from the Nuge, Baby...

Take no prisoners

Go big, or go home!

Nugent and Mark Farner ( Grand Funk Railroad ) hang out same philosophy ( other than mark went through a born again thingy).

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
Offline
Quote:Category error.It's

Quote:
Category error.

Quote:
It is definitely impossible to know whether a coherently defined entity which involves attributes inherently unobservable or immeasurable by us is possible or not, unlike an unusual configuration of an everyday physical, finite object.

Quote:
I am using 'possible' in the normal sense, which implies that a necessary thing must also be possible. The axiom you quote for S5 is controversial, and depends on particular highly counter intuitive usages of the terms necessarily and possibly.

So I will continue to formulate my arguments in basic propositional logic, which modal logic cannot supersede.

The disparity you've created between normal and non-normal uses between 'possibility' is overstated--it really does not exist anywhere in any significant way, except maybe in your own mind.  You latch onto it here for no other reason than that you do not like the implications that my understanding has for this argument. The sense in which you are using the term only applies to temporal events; for example, if your friend asks 'Did the Steelers win the Super Bowl?' and you answer 'it's possible', you are referencing a temporal event that has passed and acknowledging that you do not know what happened. I'm using it in the divided sense, in order to make an actual statement about a theoretical notion that is temporally neutral--it would make absolutely no sense under this stipulation to say that modalities are epistemic; here, Abelard's understanding of modalities 'de re' is at the forefront, for to apply modal notions to beings is to actually say something about them.

Quote:
But that simplification simply involves ignoring all but the last modal qualifier, so it only works in a special sense of the terms. It does not overturn my non-modal usage.

If you can't disprove my assertions non-modally, you do not have a case.

You, sir, are really confused.  Do you know what a 'modal' term is?  It's merely a modifier of a statement.  So, for example, if I say 'Bob is really stupid', the auxiliary term 'really' suffices as a modal term.  There are various modal systems, including epistemic systems which contradict much of what you say here.

You don't even understand what modal logic is, so why should I take you seriously here?

This is hardly a debate.  Do you have anything else?

Okay, this is just embarassing. Modal logic *is* propositional logic; the Lewis systems include axioms and theorems that are used in propositional logic. It may get a little more complicated when you get into Kripke semantics, but there is nothing in propositional logic that contradicts modal logic. Modal logic is merely the formalization of statements that are qualified, which happens to be a huge part of our discourse; the fact that you keep claiming that it's counterintuitive is laughable because Lewis formulated his systems precisely because he felt propositional logic led to counterintuitive things (see the paradox of material implication). Modal logic is merely propositional logic with the modal operators included, and different systems include special rules.

Modal epistemology does not stand or fall upon the capacity for empirical observation, and you will be hard pressed to find one metaphysician who agrees with you on this point. If, upon serious inquiry, you find no logical contradictions, then you are entirely justified in saying that something is possible; you are merely adhering to your own epistemological biases and applying them without qualification, which makes it even more difficult for me to take you seriously during this debate. If you are going to argue that the concept of God *may* be contradictory, then I will argue that the concept of a hot dog *may* be contradictory.

It's not a category error. God is defined according to his status as a maximally great being, such that God cannot be anything other than a maximally great being; otherwise, the being in question is not God. 'God' can be defined any way that we wish. If your objection is merely with the terminology, then simply let the phrase 'maximally great being' stand in for the term 'God'. This process can continue ad nauseum; it really does not amount to any valuable objection. The fact that the modal terms declaim upon the subject (see the Abelardian notion of modalities 'de re') does not preclude one from defining a being according to the attribute. At best, your objection amounts to: I don't like the consequences of defining God in this way; therefore, you cannot define God in this way.

redneF
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
Offline
Ohhh fuck, out on a day pass

Ohhh fuck, out on a day pass again, huh?

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

You, sir, are really confused.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Modal epistemology does not stand or fall upon the capacity for empirical observation, and you will be hard pressed to find one metaphysician who agrees with you on this point.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

If, upon serious inquiry, you find no logical contradictions..

Read the last dozen posts Shitforbrains...

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

God is defined according to his status as a maximally great being, such that God cannot be anything other than a maximally great being...

Not this bvllsh1t all over again.

You are certifiably insane...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

TGBaker
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
Offline
Mr_Metaphysics

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Quote:
Category error.

Quote:
It is definitely impossible to know whether a coherently defined entity which involves attributes inherently unobservable or immeasurable by us is possible or not, unlike an unusual configuration of an everyday physical, finite object.

Quote:
I am using 'possible' in the normal sense, which implies that a necessary thing must also be possible. The axiom you quote for S5 is controversial, and depends on particular highly counter intuitive usages of the terms necessarily and possibly.

So I will continue to formulate my arguments in basic propositional logic, which modal logic cannot supersede.

The disparity you've created between normal and non-normal uses between 'possibility' is overstated--it really does not exist anywhere in any significant way, except maybe in your own mind.  You latch onto it here for no other reason than that you do not like the implications that my understanding has for this argument. The sense in which you are using the term only applies to temporal events; for example, if your friend asks 'Did the Steelers win the Super Bowl?' and you answer 'it's possible', you are referencing a temporal event that has passed and acknowledging that you do not know what happened. I'm using it in the divided sense, in order to make an actual statement about a theoretical notion that is temporally neutral--it would make absolutely no sense under this stipulation to say that modalities are epistemic; here, Abelard's understanding of modalities 'de re' is at the forefront, for to apply modal notions to beings is to actually say something about them.

Quote:
But that simplification simply involves ignoring all but the last modal qualifier, so it only works in a special sense of the terms. It does not overturn my non-modal usage.

If you can't disprove my assertions non-modally, you do not have a case.

You, sir, are really confused.  Do you know what a 'modal' term is?  It's merely a modifier of a statement.  So, for example, if I say 'Bob is really stupid', the auxiliary term 'really' suffices as a modal term.  There are various modal systems, including epistemic systems which contradict much of what you say here.

You don't even understand what modal logic is, so why should I take you seriously here?

This is hardly a debate.  Do you have anything else?

Okay, this is just embarassing. Modal logic *is* propositional logic; the Lewis systems include axioms and theorems that are used in propositional logic. It may get a little more complicated when you get into Kripke semantics, but there is nothing in propositional logic that contradicts modal logic. Modal logic is merely the formalization of statements that are qualified, which happens to be a huge part of our discourse; the fact that you keep claiming that it's counterintuitive is laughable because Lewis formulated his systems precisely because he felt propositional logic led to counterintuitive things (see the paradox of material implication). Modal logic is merely propositional logic with the modal operators included, and different systems include special rules.

Modal epistemology does not stand or fall upon the capacity for empirical observation, and you will be hard pressed to find one metaphysician who agrees with you on this point. If, upon serious inquiry, you find no logical contradictions, then you are entirely justified in saying that something is possible; you are merely adhering to your own epistemological biases and applying them without qualification, which makes it even more difficult for me to take you seriously during this debate. If you are going to argue that the concept of God *may* be contradictory, then I will argue that the concept of a hot dog *may* be contradictory.

It's not a category error. God is defined according to his status as a maximally great being, such that God cannot be anything other than a maximally great being; otherwise, the being in question is not God. 'God' can be defined any way that we wish. If your objection is merely with the terminology, then simply let the phrase 'maximally great being' stand in for the term 'God'. This process can continue ad nauseum; it really does not amount to any valuable objection. The fact that the modal terms declaim upon the subject (see the Abelardian notion of modalities 'de re') does not preclude one from defining a being according to the attribute. At best, your objection amounts to: I don't like the consequences of defining God in this way; therefore, you cannot define God in this way.

I emailed Dr. James F.

I emailed Dr. James F. Sennett about Mr. Metaphysic's ontological argument. He responded:

The logic is perfectly valid by S5, although the move from (1) to (2) is a little subtle. It's easier to show if we use a possibility operator (e.g., the diamond) in the place of ~N~.

The problem with this argument, as with all versions of the Ontological Argument, is with the first premise. As stated, it's actually weaker than Anselm's premise (if possibly God exists then necessarily God exists). However, it runs into the same kinds of problems. After studying many versions of the argument, I remain convinced that it is virtually impossible to argue for this key claim without begging the question. Also, there are very good arguments against the claim, one of which I have published myself.

So, how are things going?

--James

Recently, P. J. McGrath and James F. Sennett have independently argued that the OA lacks probative force in all, and perhaps all possible, versions. Although neither denies that the argument can be validly formulated, both endorse the claim that the argument begs the question at the crucial premise that states, in effect, that God is possible. Sennett, however, advances the further claim that the crucial premise, though perhaps not demonstrably false, is such that it is more rationally rejected than accepted. Thus Sennett maintains, not only that the OA begs the question at the crucial premise, but also that the crucial premise -- There is a possible world in which unsurpassable greatness is exemplified -- ought to be rejected by a reasonable person.

Re: Your premise and the empirical :

1) There is a possible world of only well-being (p).

2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over  possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).

3)x necessarily would not allow  q

4)p--> not q

5) It is possible that god is x

5)q --> not p

6) Our world=q

7)not p--->not x

7)not x

8)god= not x

Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

redneF
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
Offline
S5 is a steaming hot pile of

S5 is a steaming hot pile of horsesh1t.

It's completely arbitrary, and begs the question "According to Whom?"

It's practically, useless. It's got nothing to do with reality. It's an idea, that is flawed in it's workability.

It does not trump Occam's Razor.

Garbage in=Garbage out

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
Offline
TGBaker wrote:Mr.

TGBaker wrote:

Mr. Metaphysics: Our modal intuitions are generally reliable; I can affirm with reasonable certainty that a six foot long hot dog is modally possible, even though I'm not sure that such a thing exists.  I don't think anyone would dispute this.  Beyond modal intuition, possibilities are not really provable, except by demonstrating actuality.  That is why the burden really is on the atheist to show that God is, in fact, impossible.

TGBaker: It IS just the opposite because of the fact that modal logic can affirm with reasonable certainty that a six foor long hotdog is possible does not mean there IS a six foot long hotdog. It is up to the hotdog-ist not the a-hotdog-ist IS.  And that is the ongoing history of the ontological argument the validity of an argument does not of necessity entail the actuality of its claim. Show me the mustard as will as the hotdog.

My point pertained strictly to the reliability of modal intuitions.  Obviously, the possibility of a contingent existing thing cannot entail its actual existence., and I've granted that.  The chasm between concepts and reality is bridged, however, when we apply this reasoning to necessary things (mind you, Lewis's formalization of system S5 had no theistic underpinnings whatsoever; hence, this is not something invented for theism).  Modal statements cannot be modally qualified without dispositioning at least one of the operators.  Thus, your question should not be whether I can empirically demonstrate that God exists, but it should be whether or not God is actually possible; given the reliability of our modal intuitions as it pertains to, say, a six foot hot dog, I would have no problem applying this to God as well.

Quote:
TGBaker: It is true that space-time is relative but it is not a mental construct ( that may be a pre-20th century idea). That time and space have an origin is assume part of your premise, God.  We can speak of its non-existence. If there is an unlimited god prior to its existence then that god's relationship is different in the creation's non-existence than its existence.  This is a contingency itself if creation is not necessary. If it is necessary then god is limited by its necessity. There is no god before there is a creation. If creation is not necessary then god was not a creator prior to the creation and lacks the perfection as creator. Again Aristotle's self absorbed god fits your bill rather than any religions deity.

Quote:
We certainly can speak of the limits of the universe (creation) temporally, 13.7 billion years. Scientifically we can admit that prior to the Big bang we do not know... but that is what you are positing as known, GOD. This question still holds in process theology and philosophy... Whitehead for example and his concepts of relativity is hardly pre-20th century.  If you posit an absolute then it is relative to something if it creates something. If there was a boundless, limitless Being then it if it creates or interacts with its creation is limited by those actions not with a specific view to time but specifically to relation and reaction.  This is a secondary aspect from something like Plantinga's theodicy argument where arguments about freewill and determinism result specifically because of the definition of god as limitless.  These factors were a basis for the positing of a process philosophy or a panentheistic god.

Again, I'm not quite following you.

Quote:
TGBaker: Actually I would say there is always a correlation between reality and concepts but not vice versa. The very purpose of modal logic is to determine this. I can say if I had taken the road to the right instead of the left I would have been right. I can therefore have a concept of taking the road to the right. But the reality and entailed in the statement is I took the road to the left.

The purpose of modal logic is to include a system for modally qualified statements which are an integral part of language.

In fact, it underlies all of logic; one of the first things that any introductory logic student is going to learn is the notion of deductive validity, according to which an argument is valid iff it is necessary that the conclusion follows from the premises.  Interestingly enough, Bob the idiot has been trying to sell us on the notion that 'normal possibility' and 'normal necessity' merely have epistemic implications; thus, it follows that conclusions must follow from the premises as far as we know--I wonder what logicians he can quote in support of this.

redneF
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
Offline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:The

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

The chasm between concepts and reality is bridged, however, when we apply this reasoning to necessary things

You have not actually bridged anything, in reality.

You have made the quantum leap of the 'desire of a monotheistic god' as being 'necessary', to the creation of the universe.

There's no evidence pointing to such a necessity. Just conjecture.

So, it's not even realistic to assume such a self contradicting idea.

Game over.

TG Baker wrote:
We certainly can speak of the limits of the universe (creation) temporally, 13.7 billion years. Scientifically we can admit that prior to the Big bang we do not know... but that is what you are positing as known, GOD.

The ontological argument arbitrarily discounts infinite regress, and causal loops, and has no knowledge of the possibility of extra dimensions.

But, science ignores them, because reality doesn't obey arbitrary man made rules.

TG Baker wrote:
This question still holds in process theology and philosophy...

Doesn't matter.

Never did, never will.

Reality is wholly independant of human thought.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
The purpose of modal logic is to include a system for modally qualified statements which are an integral part of language.

That's dishonest, and you know it.

The purpose of Modal Logic is to wave your dick around hoping to be the dominant 'dick'.

That's all you dicks ever try and do.

You clowns are not in the 'reality' game.

Your main contributions, are circular arguments.

It's a fucking 'Make Work' program, and not much more.

Philosophers are the epitome of the axiom "Those who can, do, those who cannot, teach"

You're merely 'Dick Ninjas'

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
In fact, it underlies all of logic; one of the first things that any introductory logic student is going to learn is the notion of deductive validity, according to which an argument is valid iff it is necessary that the conclusion follows from the premises.

It only works well in hindsight, you dufus.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

TGBaker
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
Offline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:TGBaker

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Quote:
TGBaker: It is true that space-time is relative but it is not a mental construct ( that may be a pre-20th century idea). That time and space have an origin is assume part of your premise, God.  We can speak of its non-existence. If there is an unlimited god prior to its existence then that god's relationship is different in the creation's non-existence than its existence.  This is a contingency itself if creation is not necessary. If it is necessary then god is limited by its necessity. There is no god before there is a creation. If creation is not necessary then god was not a creator prior to the creation and lacks the perfection as creator. Again Aristotle's self absorbed god fits your bill rather than any religions deity.

Quote:
We certainly can speak of the limits of the universe (creation) temporally, 13.7 billion years. Scientifically we can admit that prior to the Big bang we do not know... but that is what you are positing as known, GOD. This question still holds in process theology and philosophy... Whitehead for example and his concepts of relativity is hardly pre-20th century.  If you posit an absolute then it is relative to something if it creates something. If there was a boundless, limitless Being then it if it creates or interacts with its creation is limited by those actions not with a specific view to time but specifically to relation and reaction.  This is a secondary aspect from something like Plantinga's theodicy argument where arguments about freewill and determinism result specifically because of the definition of god as limitless.  These factors were a basis for the positing of a process philosophy or a panentheistic god.

Again, I'm not quite following you.

Should this not include a discussion of theodicy, does creation limit a Creator and the like? I am a guitar player. I must know how to play guitar and have a guitar to play.  There was a time when I did know how to play guitar nor have a guitar. This is contingency.  There was a god. He created. There was a creation. There was a time when there was no creation. There was a time when there was no creator. This is contingency. God is limited by his creation.

Mr. Metaphysics:  I don't think that's a strong argument, because it trades upon a pre-20th century notion of time that we know now to be false.  Time is not absolute; it is a mental construct and is relative to placement.  There was not a time when there was no creation, because time exists in the creation.

Baker:  If creation has a beginning 13.7 billion years ago then the source of that beginning is a priori to that beginning temporally or not for we can't say there was not a meta-time or something of a similar construct. If it is unlimited it certainly becomes limited in relationship to the creation.  A limitless being without a creation is not a creator.  A creation is an act. It is a change in that being from non-creator to creator.  This is contingency and no a matter of how we view time but the source of time. We can and do speak of what there was before there was time. It is that first point of time that makes us want to ask about its origins.  That is a lot of the whole god question. It is the question of the premise of the argument that must be determined before the argument can support the conclusion.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

TGBaker
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
Offline
Mr_Metaphysics

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Quote:
We certainly can speak of the limits of the universe (creation) temporally, 13.7 billion years. Scientifically we can admit that prior to the Big bang we do not know... but that is what you are positing as known, GOD. This question still holds in process theology and philosophy... Whitehead for example and his concepts of relativity is hardly pre-20th century.  If you posit an absolute then it is relative to something if it creates something. If there was a boundless, limitless Being then it if it creates or interacts with its creation is limited by those actions not with a specific view to time but specifically to relation and reaction.  This is a secondary aspect from something like Plantinga's theodicy argument where arguments about freewill and determinism result specifically because of the definition of god as limitless.  These factors were a basis for the positing of a process philosophy or a panentheistic god.

Again, I'm not quite following you.

A process god is a god that can change or respond to the universe. A limitless God is more in lime I think with Aristotle's idea of god that is not a creator but a self contemplating absolute that draws imperfection toward it like a moth to flames.  If you start with a premise of a limitless god then it really must be in some sense defined. Is a change of mind a limiting factor? Does a limitless god change or adapt to a creation that has freedom? Or the ideas of freedom and omniscience contrary to each other? Run for example as an ontological argument the idea of a capable being entailing the necessity as creator where does it go? An absolute is non-relative ( Is a limitless being absolute?) A creator god is relative to its creation or you have a deism of a one time changing god from a non-creator to creator who is non-relative/non reacting to the creation.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

redneF
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
Offline
If a god was limitless, then

If a god was limitless, then it doesn't even follow, logically, that he would not simply create other peer 'entities'.

As it stands, the notion of a Christian god, is one that is jealous and insecure, and a host of other 'mental' illnesses.

And, he's not very fcuking bright. If it weren't for our own ingenuity, we possibly would have been eradicated by plagues, and superior predators.

The more 'they elaborate' on their idea of a monotheistic god, the more nonsensical it becomes.

And then you have dicks who come in posturing and spouting 'logic'.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

redneF
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
Offline
Antigonish

Antigonish

Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
I wish, I wish he’d go away...

When I came home last night at three
The man was waiting there for me
But when I looked around the hall
I couldn’t see him there at all!
Go away, go away, don’t you come back any more!
Go away, go away, and please don’t slam the door

Last night I saw upon the stair
A little man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
Oh, how I wish he’d go away

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

ubuntuAnyone
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
Offline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:My

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

My point pertained strictly to the reliability of modal intuitions.  Obviously, the possibility of a contingent existing thing cannot entail its actual existence., and I've granted that.  The chasm between concepts and reality is bridged, however, when we apply this reasoning to necessary things (mind you, Lewis's formalization of system S5 had no theistic underpinnings whatsoever; hence, this is not something invented for theism).  Modal statements cannot be modally qualified without dispositioning at least one of the operators.  Thus, your question should not be whether I can empirically demonstrate that God exists, but it should be whether or not God is actually possible; given the reliability of our modal intuitions as it pertains to, say, a six foot hot dog, I would have no problem applying this to God as well.

I initially challenged your S5 premise as being invalid in the context of ontological arguments. You're asserting that ~N~(G). But this, as I stated, requires a priori knowledge about what is and isn't possible in the actualized world. To assert something about all possible worlds and assume that actualized world is in this set of possible results in question begging. You've done nothing except prove your initial point. What's there to prevent me from saying, "~N~¬(G) --> ¬G" ? Under S5, this is valid, and necessarily true, and therefore a valid ontological argument for nonexistence. But I cannot know that without making a naked assertion that is not grounded except in speculative possible world. If the actualized world is a part of this set, it is only accidental.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”

redneF
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
Offline
All his bvllsh1t does is go

All his bvllsh1t does is go circular in "If it has to be, it has to be".

AKA "Que sera, sera"

If he really wanted to be impressive, he would come up with a formula for the possibility/probabilty of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.

A strictly either/or dichotomy.

If no, that's no better than 50/50 odds of being correct.

If yes, then it's still 50/50 odds of being correct.

If no, then we could go further and ask whether there 'once' was intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.

If yes, he could go further, and give an estimate as to how many other planets could potentially have intelligent life.

He could post it here for posterity, for future generations as to whether or not, his Modal logic is any more reliable than a coin toss.

But, no dick wagger would.

Because there's no 'reason' to assume, either way...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

TGBaker
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
Offline
Begging the question (or

Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point) is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise. The first known definition in the West is by the Greek philosopher Aristotle around 350 BC, in his book Prior Analytics, where he classified it as a material fallacy. Begging the question is related to the circular argument, circulus in probando (Latin, "circle in proving) or circular reasoning, though these are considered absolutely different by Aristotle.[1]

Begging the question is similar to the fallacy of many questions: a fallacy of technique that results from presenting evidence in support of a conclusion that is less likely to be accepted, rather than merely asserting the conclusion. A specific form of this is reducing an assertion to an instance of a more general assertion which is no more known to be true than the more specific assertion:

* All intentional acts of killing human beings are morally wrong.
* The death penalty is an intentional act of killing a human being.
* Therefore the death penalty is wrong.

If the first premise is accepted as an axiom within some moral system or code, this reasoning is a cogent argument against the death penalty. If not, it is in fact a weaker argument than a mere assertion that the death penalty is wrong, since the first premise is stronger than the conclusion.

I don't like the S5 but it is apparently OK from asking around since this is not my forte.  It is the premise.  If this world is entailed empirical and other arguments obtain to it. I still think that the ontological argument in history was a way to ignore the theodicy problem as well as the free will vs determinism issue.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
Offline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:I

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

I initially challenged your S5 premise as being invalid in the context of ontological arguments.

Really?  Did you get this from C.I. Lewis, or did you just come up with this on your own?  I'll believe Plantinga over you.

Quote:
You're asserting that ~N~(G). But this, as I stated, requires a priori knowledge about what is and isn't possible in the actualized world.

If you are going to utilize possible worlds semantics, you need to be consistent; something is not possible in the actual world--'worlds', in this sense, are merely maximal descriptions of realities, and the actual world is the description containing only true conjuncts.  What you probably meant was that I need a priori knowledge with regard to the conjuncts included in the actual world description, or maybe that I need a priori knowledge regarding different possible worlds (to be honest, I have no idea; your statement is very unclear).

All I can tell you is that possibility premises are not empirical premises--this is accounted for in the S5 system which notes that if it is possible that p, then it is necessary that it is possible that p.  Necessity never has, and never will, be affirmed by empirical observation; it can't be (see the problem of induction).  Therefore, I will just say that I do have a priori knowledge of what's possible, and you have yet to prove otherwise.  As it happens, the argument does not require a priori knowledge of the actual world model--at best, it is synthetic a priori (see Kant).  The argument involves a heuristic whereby a bridge is built between worlds (my argument is not even using possible worlds semantics, but I will be complaisant for the sake of a response), in which case God's existence crosses from the possible to the actual.  This does not require any knowledge of the actual world per se but merely requires a limited understanding of those other logically possible worlds.  Now I can understand that you do not like this, that you find it to be counterintuitive and cannot fathom how it is logically permissible; but your job here is to address the actual premises of my argument--if they are all true, then you have to accept the conclusion.  If all of my premises are true, then it is logically permissible for this bridge to be built between the possible and actual--this precisely because we are not dealing with mere contingency.

Basically, you are doing nothing here except making arbitrary unqualified stipulations on the Lewis systems, making bald assertions that Lewis himself never made.  If you wish to repudiate the systems, then fine; however, it is just wrong to proclaim without qualification, 'You can't do this with the ontological argument... it's invalid!'.  Why is it invalid?  I've established that a priori knowledge of the actual world is not required.  So, all I can think of that you'd be left with is questioning the epistemic confidence we may place in the possibility premise.  Here, what you may be in a position to argue is that perhaps I am not in a position epistemically to affirm the possibility of God, to which I would respond that I am in a position epistemically to affirm that God is either possible or impossible; therefore, you need to account for the latter option.  Ultimately, you are doing nothing more than proclaiming that the possibility premise may be false; you need to show me what contradictions inhere in it.  If you cannot, then you are in no position to proclaim that the premise is false, and I am in a better rational position than you are.

Quote:
To assert something about all possible worlds and assume that actualized world is in this set of possible results in question begging. You've done nothing except prove your initial point. What's there to prevent me from saying, "~N~¬(G) --> ¬G" ? Under S5, this is valid, and necessarily true, and therefore a valid ontological argument for nonexistence. But I cannot know that without making a naked assertion that is not grounded except in speculative possible world. If the actualized world is a part of this set, it is only accidental.

The actual world is in a model including every possible worlds.  Again, a world is nothing more than a maximal description; you seem to be confused on this point.  'Possible world' refers to any compound sentence that consists of every conjunct included in a maximal set of conjuncts, in which each one represents a distinct fact in a singular reality-model to which they all apply.  If the conjunctive sentence is false, it is said to be a non-actual ‘possible’ world; but if the sentence is true, then it is said to be the ‘actual’ world.

Your premise is not a proper application of the axiom unique to S5.  For this, your premise would need to be 'Possibly, it is necessary that God does not exist', whereas your premise states 'It is not necessary that God exists.' Furthermore, you are not representing the entire premise properly, which would state, 'If God's existence strictly implies his necessary existence, then God's possible non-existence strictly implies he does not exist'.  This is true, and I grant that; however, God, properly understood as an unlimited being, cannot be understood as a being which can possibly not exist, because the possibility of non-existence is a limitation predicated only of contingent beings.  Your only recourse here is to show that the concept of God is contradictory--you still have yet to do this.

Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
Offline
redneF wrote:All his

redneF wrote:

All his bvllsh1t does is go circular in "If it has to be, it has to be".

AKA "Que sera, sera"

If he really wanted to be impressive, he would come up with a formula for the possibility/probabilty of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.

A strictly either/or dichotomy.

If no, that's no better than 50/50 odds of being correct.

If yes, then it's still 50/50 odds of being correct.

If no, then we could go further and ask whether there 'once' was intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.

If yes, he could go further, and give an estimate as to how many other planets could potentially have intelligent life.

He could post it here for posterity, for future generations as to whether or not, his Modal logic is any more reliable than a coin toss.

But, no dick wagger would.

Because there's no 'reason' to assume, either way...

At this point, his posts are just flooding the board.

Have you ever heard of paragraphs, dude?

Is it really necessary to post like this?

Should I degenerate to your level and start insulting?

You are a stupid!

Nyah!

Nyah!

Nyah!

There is something wrong with you.

Even other atheists on this board seem to find your behavior to be bizarre.

You don't have kids do you?

If you do, I presume that they are stuffed in your freezer.

You are not allowed to operate a motor vehicle, are you?

You do not live in the United States do you?

HE JUST FLOODS THE BOARD, and HIS POSTS MAKE NO SENSE.

You could do much better than this... seriously.

Where did you find this psycho?

redneF
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
Offline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:All I

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

At this point, his posts are just flooding the board.

Have you ever heard of paragraphs, dude?

Is it really necessary to post like this?

Should I degenerate to your level and start insulting?

Listen, Mr_Myshitdontstink, I asked you very simply "According to whom?", how many fucking times????

You don't want to play fair, so fuck you, and the 'god; you rode in on.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

All I can tell you is that possibility premises are not empirical premises

Duhh...

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
this is accounted for in the S5 system which notes that if it is possible that p, then it is necessary that it is possible that p.

We mock sh1t like that by saying "Thanks for that, Captain Obvious"

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Necessity never has, and never will, be affirmed by empirical observation

Do you really take statements like that seriously? You actually store such superfluous 'reasoning' formulas in your mind?

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Your only recourse here is to show that the concept of God is contradictory.

Maybe you missed it, but we unequivocally proved that the concept of an Abrahamic god, is a logical fallacy, that is self refuting.

I should be gracious and thank you, for being persistent enough, to make me actually give it a bit of thought, to find why it's not even a particularly clever fantasy.

In any event, the 'truth' will soon be here one way or another. It may be just around the corner, in your lifetime.

Should the LHC give strong indications of additional dimensions, you clowns are really fvcked.

Should we find strong evidence of similar, or superior lifeforms, in the universe, you clowns are totally fvcked.

Judgment day is coming, for all you clowns.

You all cannot be correct, in your assumptions.

And BTW, grow the fuck up, and stop your butthurting.

Be a man, and admit defeat.

You're not the Logic Ninja  you thought you were.

You challenged us to find the contradictions, or flaws in your premise.

You lost, fair and square.

Your 'god' is a complete logical fallacy, and we proved it unequivocally.

So, just fucking 'eat me', k?

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

TGBaker
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
Offline
Mr. Metaphysics: I've

Mr. Metaphysics:

I've established that a priori knowledge of the actual world is not required.  So, all I can think of that you'd be left with is questioning the epistemic confidence we may place in the possibility premise.  Here, what you may be in a position to argue is that perhaps I am not in a position epistemically to affirm the possibility of God, to which I would respond that I am in a position epistemically to affirm that God is either possible or impossible; therefore, you need to account for the latter option.  Ultimately, you are doing nothing more than proclaiming that the possibility premise may be false; you need to show me what contradictions inhere in it.  If you cannot, then you are in no position to proclaim that the premise is false, and I am in a better rational position than you are.

TGB: I think we would need account for either possible or impossible. You would need to account for the former.   Again I point to all the continued and unresolved discussions through out history about the premise.  I would contend that the theodicy issue makes it more plausible that it is impossible than possible. The issue is also not about just p or -p it is about the necessity. This presupposes a lot about the unfounded definition of god. It is possible that there is a capable good god that co-exists with creation that is  limited and that is more perfect than a limitless god that may well be a non-relative responsive principle rather than a person. That is to say there may be factors were limitlessness is less perfect than limitedness.  Again this gets into issues of types or constructs of gods and what satisfies goodness and freedom vs omnipotence or omniscience.

The actual world is a member of a set of all possible worlds.  A good and capable god would necessarily insure the well-being of all.  A good and capable being would not allow evil or suffering. Suffering exists in this actual world  which is a member of those possible worlds.( if you really looked at it would cause you to swear and gasp).  There is no good and capable god. What is the next candidate for god? A loving and caring god that is limited and can't stop evil because of freedom?  That is to say god's omniscience is limited to allow freedom and therefore necessitates the possibility of evil.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

lalib
Posts: 134
Joined: 2010-12-31
Offline
Mr. Metaphysics One thing

Mr. Metaphysics

One thing that several folks have pointed out (but I don't think has been addressed enough) is that you can create any number of valid arguments, but whether they are sound arguments still needs to be demonstrated.

The way you set this up is backwards. It is you who must demonstrate that your premises are true (not in the vacuous sense, but actually so) and that your logic is valid. I think the biggest issue people have is with your initial premise. If God exists then it is necessary that God exists, your entire argument rests on this premise, now whether you extract God via modal logic as the conclusion is irrelevant; you still need to demonstrate that God exists for this argument to be sound.

If unicorns exist then it is necessary that unicorns exist. Yes?

Anything I do with this premise and if I extract unicorns exist as the conclusion via modal logic does not matter unless I can demonstrate that the first premise is true (actually true, not vacuously true, see link for what I mean).

Tell me why you don't think this argument is sound and you'll know why I don't accept the soundness of your argument.

= (∃x) Ux = Unicorn exists

P-->Q = strict implication

P⊃Q = material implication

N(x) = It is necessary that X

~N~(x) = It is not necessary that not-X = It is possible that X

(1) U-->N(U)

(2) [U-->N(U)]⊃[~N~(U)-->U]

(3) ~N~(U)

(4) ~N~(U)-->U (1,2; MP)

::. U (3,4; MP)

butterbattle
Posts: 3938
Joined: 2008-09-12
Offline
I still don't completely

I still don't completely understand the argument...............

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

HE JUST FLOODS THE BOARD, and HIS POSTS MAKE NO SENSE.

You could do much better than this... seriously.

Where did you find this psycho?

Lol. This is an open forum, so anyone in the world with Internet access can get on. If redneF flames too much, then your best solution is probably to just ignore him. This forum very lenient with rudeness etc.

If you want, you could also start a conversation in the Kill 'em with Kindness sub-forum instead.

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
http://myanimelist.net/profile/butterbattle

redneF
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
Offline
butterbattle wrote:I still

butterbattle wrote:

I still don't completely understand the argument...............

Because it's so fucking convoluted, and inductive.

Because it's guilty of fundamental attribution error, and ignores Boole's Inequality Theorum. It's not even Boolean logic, because there's no actual precendent to any of it.

It's like "The Search For Spock", or "Where's Waldo?"

The salient point of his premise, is an obfuscation of the ontological argument, which nakedly asserts that infinite regress is impossible, and that causal loops are impossible, not to mention that the universe occuring could have been completely 'random', like a catastrophic failure, or 'accidental', due to some chain of events outside of this universe, or a byproduct of something else occuring.

It also nakedly assumes that there is no metaverse, or universe outside of our own.

If there is a first cause to the universe, then a first cause was necessary to have caused the universe.

Fucking Duh....

Purely circular reasoning, because it assumes the premise ( input=first cause), and outputs the premise as the only logical answer.

A formula that 'agrees with itself'.

Like saying "If zits exist, then zits are necessary"

It's pure fucking stupidity.

Oh, and, it uses a slight of hand to nakedly assert that the 'first cause', is the legend of the Abrahamic godlike figure, in order for us to 'connect the dots' in lieu of any evidence to the contrary.

IOW, acquiessence.

Pure Snake Oil salesmanship.

The odds of the universe happening exactly the way it did, are 1 out of 1.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

ubuntuAnyone
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
Offline
Mr_Metaphysics

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

I initially challenged your S5 premise as being invalid in the context of ontological arguments.

Really?  Did you get this from C.I. Lewis, or did you just come up with this on your own?  I'll believe Plantinga over you.

Plantinga makes the same mistake Anslem and Godal do. But appealing to him as an authority does not make an invalid premise valid. It just shows that you like fallacies.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Quote:
You're asserting that ~N~(G). But this, as I stated, requires a priori knowledge about what is and isn't possible in the actualized world.

If you are going to utilize possible worlds semantics, you need to be consistent; something is not possible in the actual world--'worlds', in this sense, are merely maximal descriptions of realities, and the actual world is the description containing only true conjuncts.  What you probably meant was that I need a priori knowledge with regard to the conjuncts included in the actual world description, or maybe that I need a priori knowledge regarding different possible worlds (to be honest, I have no idea; your statement is very unclear).

I'm saying that you're making claims about possible worlds a priori. In other words, you're constructing worlds that may or may not exist. If you say that these are "maximal descriptions of realities" and assume the actual world is contained within one of these realities, then you're begging the question. Every ontological argument I've ever seen has this one critical flaw. There's nothing about your possible world scenarios that garantees that the actual world is contained in these realities.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

All I can tell you is that possibility premises are not empirical premises--this is accounted for in the S5 system which notes that if it is possible that p, then it is necessary that it is possible that p.  Necessity never has, and never will, be affirmed by empirical observation; it can't be (see the problem of induction).  Therefore, I will just say that I do have a priori knowledge of what's possible, and you have yet to prove otherwise.  As it happens, the argument does not require a priori knowledge of the actual world model--at best, it is synthetic a priori (see Kant).  The argument involves a heuristic whereby a bridge is built between worlds (my argument is not even using possible worlds semantics, but I will be complaisant for the sake of a response), in which case God's existence crosses from the possible to the actual.  This does not require any knowledge of the actual world per se but merely requires a limited understanding of those other logically possible worlds.  Now I can understand that you do not like this, that you find it to be counterintuitive and cannot fathom how it is logically permissible; but your job here is to address the actual premises of my argument--if they are all true, then you have to accept the conclusion.  If all of my premises are true, then it is logically permissible for this bridge to be built between the possible and actual--this precisely because we are not dealing with mere contingency.

But how do you know it's possible a priori without merely asserting it? The truth of the matter is that you don't, such that all you have then is a naked assertion. You premise, then, is no where close to being sound. But you have otherwise more or less admitted you have such knowledge, such that I have reason to believe you are making naked assertions. It is not my job to show that you don't have a priori knowledge, but rather your job to show me that you do. As many have pointed out, if such is the case, then based on if it is possible that p, then it is necessary that it is possible that p  any number of things become possible. But this is really not the problem.... it's the possible necessities that become problematic, and as I showed you, I could as easily propose an ontological argument for non-existence which is equally valid.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Basically, you are doing nothing here except making arbitrary unqualified stipulations on the Lewis systems, making bald assertions that Lewis himself never made.  If you wish to repudiate the systems, then fine; however, it is just wrong to proclaim without qualification, 'You can't do this with the ontological argument... it's invalid!'.  Why is it invalid?  I've established that a priori knowledge of the actual world is not required.  So, all I can think of that you'd be left with is questioning the epistemic confidence we may place in the possibility premise.  Here, what you may be in a position to argue is that perhaps I am not in a position epistemically to affirm the possibility of God, to which I would respond that I am in a position epistemically to affirm that God is either possible or impossible; therefore, you need to account for the latter option.  Ultimately, you are doing nothing more than proclaiming that the possibility premise may be false; you need to show me what contradictions inhere in it.  If you cannot, then you are in no position to proclaim that the premise is false, and I am in a better rational position than you are.

My assertion was that ontological argument that assumes a possible worlds scenario and assumes the actual world is part of this set of possible world is begging the question. Of course a priori knowledge isn't required if you assume to have such knowledge, but this just shows that you are making assertions about about the acutualized world, al biet indirectly through possible world scenario, and are really just question begging. If it has any bearing whatsoever on the actual world, it is accidental...not because it was show to be so. I'm not accounting for anything..that is the impossibility or possibility of a god's existence. I'm saying that the proposed system is fundamentally flawed such that the only thing it proves is what it assumes to be true already.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Quote:
...What's there to prevent me from saying, "~N~¬(G) --> ¬G" ? Under S5, this is valid, and necessarily true, and therefore a valid ontological argument for nonexistence...But I cannot know that without making a naked assertion that is not grounded except in speculative possible world. If the actualized world is a part of this set, it is only accidental.

The actual world is in a model including every possible worlds.  Again, a world is nothing more than a maximal description; you seem to be confused on this point.  'Possible world' refers to any compound sentence that consists of every conjunct included in a maximal set of conjuncts, in which each one represents a distinct fact in a singular reality-model to which they all apply.  If the conjunctive sentence is false, it is said to be a non-actual ‘possible’ world; but if the sentence is true, then it is said to be the ‘actual’ world.

By virtue that you are doing this, you are basically admitting that your possible worlds scenarios include the actual world such that any a priori statement about the possible worlds scenario also applies to the actual world. This is merely asserting that the actual world is as you say it is. Any maximal description of reality can work in possible scenarios if I get to make up the worlds. But this isn't proving anything!

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Your premise is not a proper application of the axiom unique to S5.  For this, your premise would need to be 'Possibly, it is necessary that God does not exist', whereas your premise states 'It is not necessary that God exists.' Furthermore, you are not representing the entire premise properly, which would state, 'If God's existence strictly implies his necessary existence, then God's possible non-existence strictly implies he does not exist'.  This is true, and I grant that; however, God, properly understood as an unlimited being, cannot be understood as a being which can possibly not exist, because the possibility of non-existence is a limitation predicated only of contingent beings.  Your only recourse here is to show that the concept of God is contradictory--you still have yet to do this.

All I did was insert a ¬G where you inserted G. This is a valid substitution, such that it shows ¬G. I don't have to show that it is contradictory...only that the system you're using to prove such a concept is true is broken, which I have done so, unless you can show me how you're not begging the question, because as far as I can tell, you're assuming a whole lot and proving according to the assumptions. But as I said already, this proves only assumptions, and if it says anything about the actual world, it is merely accidental.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”