For Bobbles: The ontological argument

Anonymous
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
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.

 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
His premise is flawed,

His premise is flawed, because it's a naked assertion.

"If a, then b" is not logical.

In no sense of the word, is it logical to assume anything as a 'fixed given', unless it's a universal constant.

 

A legend of a god, does not even approach that category.

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

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

Using Occam's Razor, if you take away the if/then, you are left with:

 

"(a)God exists, (b)God is necessary"

Both (a) and (b) are naked assertions.

An atheist does not 'accept' either (a) or (b).

 

How the fuck could you assert that as 'logic', to begin with?

 

The ONLY thing he's done, is prove the 'concept' of a god, exists.

Well, fuckin' duhhh....

 

 

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
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

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.

AS I posted earlier I contacted a friend of mine who was mentored by Plantinga and is a major author about Plantinga. He concludes the same as you that it IS question begging. But then we have pointed that out in various ways.

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 pers

 

"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

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
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.

Clearly you do not have an actual understanding of logic, merely of the terms.

The normal use of 'possible' allows its application to something may actually be necessary, which is explicitly excluded within Modal Logic. It is in the definition.

Temporal consideration are NOT by any means the only things that may contribute to our inability to determine the 'possibility' of something. Simple physical inaccessibilty - the necessarily information to resolve it may be in the heart of the Sun, somewhere in the earth's core, or on a planet in the Andromeda Galaxy. Applying modal notions to 'beings', or anything beyond theorems of logic is questionable. The axioms of logic, ie the LNC and LoI, are clearly necessary, since without them no logic could be constructed. And any theorems following from those axioms are similarly necessary. Any 'necessarily' true proposition must follow from some prior 'necessary' proposition or set of such.

Quote:

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?

A is 'necessary' if ~A leads to a contradiction.

A is modally possible if neither A or ~A  entail a contradiction;

These definitions necessarily do NOT use modal logic. The same MUST apply to any other axioms introduced.

Therefore in any Modal argument, the operators can be replaced by constructs of propositional logic.

Unless a qualifier can be defined in strict logical terms, not using the term itself or a synonym of the term, it has no place in a strict logical argument, just as intuition has no such place.

You don't even understand propositional logic in any deep sense.

Quote:

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.

Now you are contradicting yourself, and agreeing with me that Modal Logic can be expressed or 'reduced' to propositional logic.

Modal logic says that 'necessary' things cannot be encompassed by the term 'possible' which IS counter-intuitive. If something is not 'possible' in ordinary usage, it is impossible, and therefore the opposite of necessary. Which makes the usage about as counter-intuitive as you can get.

Quote:

 

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.

"Maximally Great' is not a coherent definition in itself. According to what metric? Until you provide a metric, an external standard, 'Great' or 'Perfect" are empty terms, as is the rest of your argument. You have not provided a logically coherent definition of what you are trying to prove.

Thus it is possible that it will rain today if and only if it is not necessary that it will not rain today;
and it is necessary that it will rain today if and only if it is not possible that it will not rain today.

The proper, rigorous way to handle uncertainty, contingency, as exemplified in the above statements, taken from the Wikipedia article on Modal Logic, is via Bayesian Analysis. Modal logic fails to manage the uncertainty attached to virtually every assertion about reality that is not tautological or definitional. It does not allow us to distinguish between degrees of uncertainty - it only allows for 100% or 'less than 100%', which is far too crude to capture the indefinitely complex nature of reality.

You, and Aberlard, Platinga, et al, are a waste of space. Take your Modal Logic and its proponents and shove it all where the sun don't shine.

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


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The normal use of

Quote:
The normal use of 'possible' allows its application to something may actually be necessary, which is explicitly excluded within Modal Logic. It is in the definition.

First of all, what do you mean 'Modal Logic'?  Modal Logic is not some singular monolithic agreed-upon system; there are probably a hundred different systems of modal logic, many of which are formalized by a single individual.  For example, Lewis formalized at least five different systems.  You also have temporal logic, epistemic logic, deontic logic, provability logic, and so forth.  Again, you have no understanding of what modal logic is--you've obviously never studied it formally.

Furthermore, what you said just is not true.  In Kripke semantics, for example, necessity would encompass possibility.  Here, it would be said that a necessary being is in every possible world; that is, a being is both possible and necessary.  If you looked at the actual structure of the argument (and this is also true of Plantinga and Malcolm's formulations), you would have observed that there is a possibility premise (i.e., '~N~G').  The whole thrust of the ontological argument is that God is both possible and necessary--it's interesting that atheists are willing to grant that God is logically possible until they realize the implications of this, at which point they will, as you are doing right now, throw random things against the wall until something sticks.

Worlds are included a model, and what is necessary will be included in *every* world within the model; it's possible, but it is necessary inasmuch that it is affirmed in every complete description contained in the model.

Let M = {W1, W2, W3, W4...}

Let the lower case letters represent any proposition.

W1 = a & b & c & d.....

W2 = a & b & c & ~d....

W3 = a & b & ~c & d....

And so forth.

'a' is necessary insofar as it is affirmed in every world within M; it is possible insofar as W1, W2, etc. are possible worlds.

The actual world is also a possible world (if it's actual, then clearly it is logically possible), and all I have to do is stipulate that it is included in my model.

Quote:
Applying modal notions to 'beings', or anything beyond theorems of logic is questionable. The axioms of logic, ie the LNC and LoI, are clearly necessary, since without them no logic could be constructed. And any theorems following from those axioms are similarly necessary. Any 'necessarily' true proposition must follow from some prior 'necessary' proposition or set of such.

Again, you are simply throwing stuff against the wall until something sticks.  First, you said that I was assuming existence is a predicate; I corrected you, and pointed out that neither I nor Anselm was assuming that existence was a predicate.  Then you said that I was assuming in my argument that God was necessary; I corrected you by pointing out that this was not a premise in my argment.  Then you said that 'possible' only refers to epistemic possibility; now you are saying that it does not apply to epistemic possibility only with regard to axioms of logic.  How many times are you going to modify your rebuttal?  At least be consistent with your objections; obviously, your intent here is not to learn anything but to defeat the argument, and you are willing to do anything in order to achieve that.  Now, applying modalities to beings is 'questionable', Plantinga and Abelard are idiots, blah blah blah.  Are you going to also claim that every logician that has ever existed is an idiot, except for those who agree with you?

Quote:
A is 'necessary' if ~A leads to a contradiction.

A is modally possible if neither A or ~A  entail a contradiction;

These definitions necessarily do NOT use modal logic. The same MUST apply to any other axioms introduced.

All axioms use modal logic, because axioms are predicated on the fact that they are necessarily true, or at least necessarily true in the model that we are using.  Are you claiming that something may be an axiom to a system but possibly false in that system?  You make no sense.

If you are going to claim that a statement such as 'A is necessary if and only if ~A is contradictory' has no modal implications, then the statement is merely vacuous; for all we know, it is not necessary that A is necessary iff ~A is contradictory--this is an implication of your illogic.

Any introductory logic student will tell you that the most important aspect of propositional logic is that an argument is valid if and only if it is necessary that the conclusion follows from the premises, and also that an argument is invalid if it is possible that the premises are true and the conclusion false; one of the principle motivations of modal logic in the 20th century was to develop a system dealing with this important fact, because it is not covered in basic First Order Logic.

In fact, the very reason modal logic came to prominence in the 20th century was precisely that proposition logic led to counterintuitive affirmations; again, I invite you to research C.I. Lewis and the paradox of material implication... or are you just going to hand wave and call him an 'idiot'?

Quote:
Therefore in any Modal argument, the operators can be replaced by constructs of propositional logic.

Haha, ok.  Do me a favor and represent 'It is necessary that 2 + 2 = 4' in basic propositional logic.  Hint: You won't be able to do it.

Quote:
Now you are contradicting yourself, and agreeing with me that Modal Logic can be expressed or 'reduced' to propositional logic.

You seem to think there is some deep chasm between different systems of logic; what you don't seem to understand is that they overlap.  For example, predicate logic implements the basic rules of propositional logic, and you can even use the rules of predicate logic in systems of modal logic.  In fact, the very argument that I've presented implements notions from all three systems.  They do not 'reduce' to one another; they compliment one another.  For example, in the system S1, Lewis includes the axioms '(p & q) strictly implies (q & p)', and '(p & q) strictly implies (p)'; these also apply in the propositional logic--in fact, I think they are from propositional logic.

Quote:
Modal logic says that 'necessary' things cannot be encompassed by the term 'possible' which IS counter-intuitive. If something is not 'possible' in ordinary usage, is impossible, and therefore the opposite of necessary. Which makes the usage about as counter-intuitive as you can get.

Again, what do you mean by 'Modal Logic'?  And no, nobody says that 'possible' and 'necessary' are mutually exclusive--not Plantinga, Hartshorne, Malcolm, Lewis, Kripke, or anyone else.

Quote:
"Maximally Great' is not a coherent definition in itself. According to what metric? Until you provide a metric, an external standard, 'Great' or 'Perfect" are empty terms, as is the rest of your argument. You have not provided a logically coherent definition of what you are trying to prove.

You, and Aberlard, Platinga, et al, are a waste of space.

'Maximally great' refers to limitlessness; it's metric is limitation.  Here is the most exhaustive account of 'maximal greatness' that you can find on the net:

[Omnipotence]: For any entity S, S is omnipotent at an ontological index or time t in possible world W, if and only if, for any state of affairs p and world-type-for-S, Ls such that p is not a member of Ls, if there is a world W* such that:

(a) Ls is true in both W and W*

(b) W* has the same history with W at t

(c) at t in W* someone actualizes p

(d)  p is such that it was not already actualized (weakly or strongly) in W* and such that it can never be actualized again (weakly or strongly) in W*[4]

then…

(e) S has the power at an ontological index or time t in W to actualize p.

(1) The above understanding of omnipotence is stated in terms of actualizing states of affairs and and so does not assume that an omnipotent being would have to strongly actualize every state of affairs it brings about; (i.e., it leaves a place for weak actualization).

(2) The inability of an omnipotent being to actualize necessarily unactualizable states of affairs is admitted by (c).

(3) The inability of an omnipotent being S to change the past is accounted for by (b) and (c) in conjunction.

(4) This analysis requires that S be an agent at an index or time t in W which has the power to actualize any state of affairs (other than a member of or like Ls) which any agent actualizes at t in any world satisfying conditions (a) and (b). This analysis also entails that there cannot be two omnipotent entities.[5]

[Omniscience]: For any cognizer S, S is omniscient if and only if for any superdefinitely true proposition p that can possibly be known by a singular knowing subject, S knows a priori that p to a degree that affords epistemic certainty.

[Omnibenovolent]: Being morally good is a function of fulfilling one’s moral duties[6]. Whenever God performs an act that is not morally indifferent (and that is possible on my view), God performs an act that is in accord with metaphysically necessary and universal moral principles (such as truth-telling; promise-keeping, and the like).[7] God satisfies his moral duties perfectly, and moreover God is this way in all metaphysically possible worlds. This view of omnibenolovence is consistent with though not necessarily committed to property-identity divine command theory as discussed by Michael Almeida.[8]

[Non-Physical]: For any entity x, x is non-physical just in case x is a substance and x is not ontologically dependent upon a corporeal body in any way.[9]

[Omnipresence]: For any entity x, x is omnipresent just in case x is able to act intentionally at any location without intermediary (i.e., the agent in question can act directly on the world in the way that we can act directly on our brains) and is such that it knows what is happening at every location without intermediary (i.e., x just knows what is happening at any place in a way similar to how we know the contents of our visual field).[10]

[A Being Worthy of Worship]: For any entity x, x is worthy of worship just in case x possesses inherent moral perfection, and merits worship as unqualified adoration, love, trust, and obedience.


http://christophergweaver.typepad.com/scientia-et-veritas/philosophy-of-religion/

 


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Quote:
The normal use of 'possible' allows its application to something may actually be necessary, which is explicitly excluded within Modal Logic. It is in the definition.

First of all, what do you mean 'Modal Logic'?  Modal Logic is not some singular monolithic agreed-upon system; there are probably a hundred different systems of modal logic, many of which are formalized by a single individual.  For example, Lewis formalized at least five different systems.  You also have temporal logic, epistemic logic, deontic logic, provability logic, and so forth.  Again, you have no understanding of what modal logic is--you've obviously never studied it formally.

If modal logic is so pervasive and illusive, then what confidence is it to begin with. But that's not the point. I think Bob and others has aptly demonstrated there understanding of Modal Logic but yet you come saying they have no idea what there talking about, which is simple not true.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Furthermore, what you said just is not true.  In Kripke semantics, for example, necessity would encompass possibility.  Here, it would be said that a necessary being is in every possible world; that is, a being is both possible and necessary.  If you looked at the actual structure of the argument (and this is also true of Plantinga and Malcolm's formulations), you would have observed that there is a possibility premise (i.e., '~N~G').  The whole thrust of the ontological argument is that God is both possible and necessary--it's interesting that atheists are willing to grant that God is logically possible until they realize the implications of this, at which point they will, as you are doing right now, throw random things against the wall until something sticks.

Why is there a necessary being in every possible world? That's only true because you want it to be true, and why many have as I have pointed out that you're begging the question.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Worlds are included a model, and what is necessary will be included in *every* world within the model; it's possible, but it is necessary inasmuch that it is affirmed in every complete description contained in the model.

But what if the model doesn't map onto an actualized reality. Then the model is no simply false. You cannot know that it maps on to any actualized world a priori, or else you beg the question in your ontological argument. If the model does map on, it's only my accident. Why can't you see that?

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


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:AS I posted

TGBaker wrote:

AS I posted earlier I contacted a friend of mine who was mentored by Plantinga and is a major author about Plantinga. He concludes the same as you that it IS question begging. But then we have pointed that out in various ways.

I'd actually love to have some correspondence with Dr. Sennett; would he be willing to have this discussion with me over e-mail?

What actual scholars conclude is far removed from the things ubuntu said, for most of what he says makes no sense.  If all he said was that the possibility premise may be denied, then you could say that actual scholars in agreement with him.  However, he did not say that, but rather he made all sorts of illogical statements about 'sound premises', 'a priori knowledge of possible worlds', etc. (Much of what he says is like saying 'I hear with my nose and see with my ears'--I really do not think I can respond to it because 90% of my response will be hand holding.)  I'll be charitable and presume that he is just unfamiliar with the terminology, but you are not doing him any favors if you are going to claim that he is on the same page with credible philosophers.


lalib
atheist
lalib's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
So, Mr. Metaphysics, you

So, Mr. Metaphysics, you only reply to objections that you wish to reply to? Or did you not see my objection?

As you should know, the first thing one learns in logic is the difference between a valid and a sound argument. Please demonstrate that your argument is sound.


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
lalib wrote:So, Mr.

lalib wrote:

So, Mr. Metaphysics, you only reply to objections that you wish to reply to? Or did you not see my objection?

As you should know, the first thing one learns in logic is the difference between a valid and a sound argument. Please demonstrate that your argument is sound.

I cannot possibly respond to everybody, because then I would sitting at my computer for 24 straight hours addressing everyone's objections.  A common atheist tactic seems to be ganging up on any theist who comes along to defend his or her theism.  I specifically noted in the subject line that this post was for Bob Spence, but I think it is pretty clear by now that all of his objections are jejune.  I would not be surprised if other posters are e-mailing him or messaging him giving him ideas, because his objections have been revised several times over since I've first presented the argument a week or so ago.

Anyway, your argument is that the first premise is false, for God may exist and not be necessary.  But that's quite easy to respond to:  If God exists and he is not necessary, then to call this being 'God' is a misnomer because any being that does not necessarily exist cannot be God.  The first premise is that God's existence strictly implies his necessary existence; this is not true of a unicorn, because unicorns are contingent material things.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I just want to endorse what

I just want to endorse what ubuntuAnyone said, that there is a clear logical slip in the assumption that the actual world maps to any of your conceptually 'possible' worlds.

No conceptually defined 'world' is necessarily possible in the real Universe. That would require the "conceptualizer" to have provably complete knowledge of physical possiblity.

So 'possible worlds' arguments do NOT necessarily apply to reality. You are playing word games. No conclusion based on such an argument necessarily applies to reality.

The Modal Logic I referred to is known as a"classical modal logic", for your information, since you appear to not recognize it.

 

 

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


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:The Modal

BobSpence1 wrote:

The Modal Logic I referred to is known as a"classical modal logic", for your information, since you appear to not recognize it.

Then you are still wrong, because none of the schemata involved in basic modal systems (such as the distribution axiom K nor the necessitation rule N) entail a mutual exclusivity between possibility and necessity.  The weakest of systems will define possibility of p in terms of the non-necessity of not-p, but that has nothing to do with the (false) claim that you've made.  In fact, in system D, another weak system, the axiom is that 'necessarily p entails possibly p'.

See:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic#Axiomatic_systems

Now in a moment of desperation, you are latching onto other people who are coming to your rescue.  Can you not fight for yourself?  Those silly atheists!  LOL


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"'Maximally great' refers to

"'Maximally great' refers to limitlessness; it's metric is limitation."

That is not a metric. It is a negative, 'without limit'.

You haven't defined any of the set of qualities or attributes that are considered to be 'unlimited'.

If God is merciful, is his mercy unlimited? Or is his Justice unlimited?

It is a well known aspect of mathematical arguments, that once you allow potentially infinite or unbounded quantities in, you can 'prove' anything.

 

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
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:TGBaker

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

AS I posted earlier I contacted a friend of mine who was mentored by Plantinga and is a major author about Plantinga. He concludes the same as you that it IS question begging. But then we have pointed that out in various ways.

I'd actually love to have some correspondence with Dr. Sennett; would he be willing to have this discussion with me over e-mail?

What actual scholars conclude is far removed from the things ubuntu said, for most of what he says makes no sense.  If all he said was that the possibility premise may be denied, then you could say that actual scholars in agreement with him.  However, he did not say that, but rather he made all sorts of illogical statements about 'sound premises', 'a priori knowledge of possible worlds', etc. (Much of what he says is like saying 'I hear with my nose and see with my ears'--I really do not think I can respond to it because 90% of my response will be hand holding.)  I'll be charitable and presume that he is just unfamiliar with the terminology, but you are not doing him any favors if you are going to claim that he is on the same page with credible philosophers.

I think that it is pretty much assumed tha while the OA presents rationality all known forms are criticized as question begging. It falls back to the premise. James might be a little fussy about the topic. He is trying to publish a book called the Reluctant Disciple. These things are a bit of an irritant I think. You ought to read a bit of his stuff.  It varies as to what positions he takes depending on period of time. I've been meaning to read his argument on faith without belief.


 

"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

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I just want

BobSpence1 wrote:

I just want to endorse what ubuntuAnyone said, that there is a clear logical slip in the assumption that the actual world maps to any of your conceptually 'possible' worlds.

The actual world is a logically possible world; it is included in the model.  All you are claiming here (or what I think you are trying to claim) is that knowledge of its content is not accessible from pure logic.  Essentially, you are talking past me with epistemological biases, claiming that I cannot know what propositions are true in the actual world unless I empirically observe the actual world--basically, it amounts to the baseless assertion that 'you can't prove God using the ontological argument'. 

Obviously, 'possible worlds' do not necessarily apply to reality--we've already defined them as 'possible', duh.  Obviously, if something is merely 'possible', then it does not apply to reality by definition (David Lewis would dispute this, however; but this is another topic). 

Anyway, I've already made the point that 'you can't do that' is not a strong objection to the argument.  It does not address the form of the argument, nor does it address any of the premises.  The argument is sound, so obvious I can do that--can you tell me which premise is wrong?


BardlishtheMagnifico
atheistScience Freak
BardlishtheMagnifico's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2011-03-01
User is offlineOffline
Amusing stuff

This conversation, Mr_Metatarsal in particular, reminds me of reading Gulliver's Travels.  I can't remember the name of the place but one of his stops must have been an ancestor of the Ontological family.  In it, they had this great regard for math and philosophy and when it came time to get a new outfit for ole Gulliver, they went to measuring him.  Rather than measure the actual arm or inseam or such, they used complicated formulas of measuring the little finger, nose length, etc. and got the clothing sizes from the results of the formulas. 

Of course the clothes did not fit even remotely well but all the people wore them just the same because the formulas were more reliable than objective reality (sic)!

 

 

 

Wisdom lies not in thinking outside the box. Wisdom is the realization that there is no box. Truth and reality extend as far as the eye can see and infinitely further.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:lalib

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

lalib wrote:

So, Mr. Metaphysics, you only reply to objections that you wish to reply to? Or did you not see my objection?

As you should know, the first thing one learns in logic is the difference between a valid and a sound argument. Please demonstrate that your argument is sound.

I cannot possibly respond to everybody, because then I would sitting at my computer for 24 straight hours addressing everyone's objections.  A common atheist tactic seems to be ganging up on any theist who comes along to defend his or her theism.  I specifically noted in the subject line that this post was for Bob Spence, but I think it is pretty clear by now that all of his objections are jejune.  I would not be surprised if other posters are e-mailing him or messaging him giving him ideas, because his objections have been revised several times over since I've first presented the argument a week or so ago.

Anyway, your argument is that the first premise is false, for God may exist and not be necessary.  But that's quite easy to respond to:  If God exists and he is not necessary, then to call this being 'God' is a misnomer because any being that does not necessarily exist cannot be God.  The first premise is that God's existence strictly implies his necessary existence; this is not true of a unicorn, because unicorns are contingent material things.

I don't think you understand what the problem with the premise is.  The argument is QUITE sound if and only if you define god as LIMITLESS.  In order for you to define god this way, you need to have prior knowledge of said god.  And then you go from there to prove that god exists.  Hence the circularity of your argument. 

Even if we let this go, which I logically can't, redneF made a good point when he said that you extrapolate from your OA to GoB.  And in doing so you say ONE god, placing a limitation, or assuming that you can define a limitless being.

You assume that when an atheists says that god is logically possible, we automatically imply limitless god as the definition.  But the Greeks had gods that were not limitless, actually the only reason I can see for anyone to use the ambiguous limitless is to dodge every objection thrown at it.  Not to mention that 'limitless', raises more questions then it answers, and technically implies us as being part of it.  Thou art god, a truly limitless being would be EVERYTHING, including us.  It makes no sense.

As I've commented previously, I, as an atheist, do think that god is possible (or at least a cause beyond our natural world).  Occam's razor dictates that it is unlikely that the universe was started by a being, or it is not a self contained multi-verse, but with some mental gymnastics I can imagine a creator.  As I've said before, why not a chicken? or a pendulum?  Any omni-x attribute that you add on to a creator simply makes such a creator much less likely.  

I will be the first to admit that I have not studied logic formally, but you  cannot convince a layman to move past your first premise, what chance does your argument have?

I still think that you're attacking Bob personally, and I don't respect that.  Your argument should stand on it's own without discrediting the person presenting the counter argument. 

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:You, and

BobSpence1 wrote:

You, and Aberlard, Platinga, et al, are a waste of space. Take your Modal Logic and its proponents and shove it all where the sun don't shine.

+1

 

Let me explain what your fucking issue is, Mr_Megadumbdick.

You are not God.

Get it, dickwad?

 

Agreeing with yourself, and being dismissive of others, doesn't 'prove squat', to anyone but yourself.

So, you are your own number 1 fan, but remain uncompelling by other standards.

 

You don't make the rules, in any way, shape, or form.

Reality does.

 

The bottom line is you don't know.

You don't know (via Boole's Inequality Theorum) if any single one of your claims, or premises, is compatible with reality.

Not a single one.

You have NOT produced on single damn thing that is 'workable', or 'practical' in modeling, or 'usage'.

 

1- You don't know that a god exists.

Let me explain why.

Because whatever 'proof' you had, would falsify any, and every single possible alternate theory, including the possibility, that there are more than 1 god.

 

Simply saying 'Ya, but I don't agee that other god's could exist', is not an acceptable answer, as you yourself have expressly stated.

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

 

Your list of pure BS attributes like 'maximally great' and other such nonsense, are not 'workable', or 'practical', and describe nothing. Because they are meant to 'contrast' something.

It's like saying 'best', or 'bestest'.

That is a material attribute. It means 'exceedingly' good. It has to have a (material) property or attribute to 'exceed', and by some 'margin' than we can measure, which would be a 'metric'.

'Bestest' is exceeds 'exceedingly good', without a 'scale'.

It's a vacuous term.

It has no function. Either in a logarithmic, or linear taper.

It's a hyperbolic device that humans 'imagine' as being 'real'.

You have no 'yield', or 'strength', or 'power', or 'force'.

Basically, you have 'words', and nothing else.

 

Rhetoric and hypebole, are not practical, or workable.

 

We use vacuous terms like 'solid', when technically, we are simply describing something of a certain density.

Much like saying something is 'watertight'.

Watertight, does not mean that it is 'leakproof'. It simply means that water, or some liquid of similar surface tension, will not permeate it. But, and gas, may, and an acid might permeate it.

 

Saying that an immaterial, is maximally great, and limitless, is not only superfluous, it's rhetorical, hyperbolic and nonsensical.

Purely unscientific.

You cannot 'model' rhetoeric and hyperbole. They are NOT values. You cannot measure, or extrapolate anything from those 'terms'.

 

And just to prove you are possibly wrong, it is entirely possible that the whole human race were descendants of an infinitely inferior species that was put here millions of years ago, as some kind of secret experiment by an advanced life form, doing some independant research, from another galaxy, and long forgotten, or the records destroyed.

If you can falsify that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, then you might have something worth contemplating.

But, as such, you don't.

You simply don't.

Because, the alternate theory I just gave, is quite possible.

If you simply answer "Clearly, that cannot be", then by your own standards, you will have failed to give any falsification worthy of consideration.

 

Falsify that.

 

Good luck.

 

Two can play that game...

 

If you fail to answer the challenge, I win again, by default, because I have provided a legitimate possibility that your theory is 100% false.

 

 

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
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:lalib

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

lalib wrote:

So, Mr. Metaphysics, you only reply to objections that you wish to reply to? Or did you not see my objection?

As you should know, the first thing one learns in logic is the difference between a valid and a sound argument. Please demonstrate that your argument is sound.

I cannot possibly respond to everybody, because then I would sitting at my computer for 24 straight hours addressing everyone's objections.  A common atheist tactic seems to be ganging up on any theist who comes along to defend his or her theism.  I specifically noted in the subject line that this post was for Bob Spence, but I think it is pretty clear by now that all of his objections are jejune.  I would not be surprised if other posters are e-mailing him or messaging him giving him ideas, because his objections have been revised several times over since I've first presented the argument a week or so ago.

Anyway, your argument is that the first premise is false, for God may exist and not be necessary.  But that's quite easy to respond to:  If God exists and he is not necessary, then to call this being 'God' is a misnomer because any being that does not necessarily exist cannot be God.  The first premise is that God's existence strictly implies his necessary existence; this is not true of a unicorn, because unicorns are contingent material things.

Again this to do with premise.  What does the term god mean. How do we know that God necessarily exists as God. Again if god entails creator then he did not exit as creator prior to a creation so he was not god by that definition. God may exit without necessity depending on the definition. There is a possible world where necessarily god does NOT exist. Let's call this Hell.  God exists in all possible worlds but this one. Therefore god is limited by this scenario.


 

"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

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote: lalib

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

lalib wrote:

So, Mr. Metaphysics, you only reply to objections that you wish to reply to? Or did you not see my objection?

As you should know, the first thing one learns in logic is the difference between a valid and a sound argument. Please demonstrate that your argument is sound.

I cannot possibly respond to everybody, because then I would sitting at my computer for 24 straight hours addressing everyone's objections.  A common atheist tactic seems to be ganging up on any theist who comes along to defend his or her theism.  I specifically noted in the subject line that this post was for Bob Spence, but I think it is pretty clear by now that all of his objections are jejune.  I would not be surprised if other posters are e-mailing him or messaging him giving him ideas, because his objections have been revised several times over since I've first presented the argument a week or so ago.

Anyway, your argument is that the first premise is false, for God may exist and not be necessary.  But that's quite easy to respond to:  If God exists and he is not necessary, then to call this being 'God' is a misnomer because any being that does not necessarily exist cannot be God.  The first premise is that God's existence strictly implies his necessary existence; this is not true of a unicorn, because unicorns are contingent material things.

Again this to do with premise.  What does the term god mean. How do we know that God necessarily exists as God. Again if god entails creator then he did not exit as creator prior to a creation so he was not god by that definition. God may exit without necessity depending on the definition. There is a possible world where necessarily god does NOT exist. Let's call this Hell.  God exists in all possible worlds but this one. Therefore god is limited by this scenario.

 I think that Bob's objections are on point in several areas. If the actual world is one of the possible worlds and its actuality is subject to empirical study then that goes to the premise.  I hardly call any of the responses jejune nor your defense. But I think it is time to analyse the premise or premises utilized in ontological arguments. God by the way may be material and contingent. Premise please....

 

"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

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote: Again this to

TGBaker wrote:

Again this to do with premise.  What does the term god mean.

That's easy.

Research the contested white paper for the 'data'

 

It appears our 'mad' scientist, has put the cart before the horse, and gotten waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay ahead of himself.

He hasn't actually established his first premise.

His first premise is NOT 'written in stone'.

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
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
 Saying it twice makes it

 Saying it twice makes it right Smiling lol


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Basically, he's arguing that

Basically, he's arguing that nothing can bend spoons...... and that spoons can be bent by nothing.

 

He can show you a formula that 'proves' it.

 

But provide him with a spoon, and he can't demonstrate it to work...... because 'nothing' has a mind of it's own....

 

 

Pffft....

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
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Basically, he's

redneF wrote:

Basically, he's arguing that nothing can bend spoons...... and that spoons can be bent by nothing.

 

He can show you a formula that 'proves' it.

 

But provide him with a spoon, and he can't demonstate it to work...

Matrix:

Quote:

Spoon boy: Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth. 

Neo: What truth? 

Spoon boy: There is no spoon. 

Neo: There is no spoon? 

Spoon boy: Then you'll see, that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. 

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


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote: Saying it

Ktulu wrote:

 Saying it twice makes it right Smiling lol

Some how another I musta hit post instead of preview.  They're in two different possible worlds anyway. One is more right and necessary than the other. In one Bobspense exits in the other he is absent. redneF forms the foundation in every possible world,  Hades. And you and I ...quite obviously are in purgatory. Mr. metaphysics seems a good candidate for Yahweh or Baal.  Of course ya'll could really just be a dream while I sleep in my High School logics class.


 

"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

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Basically, he's

redneF wrote:

Basically, he's arguing that nothing can bend spoons...... and that spoons can be bent by nothing.

 

He can show you a formula that 'proves' it.

 

But provide him with a spoon, and he can't demonstrate it to work...... because 'nothing' has a mind of it's own....

 

 

Pffft....

Now that is heavy. I use to argue that god does not exist because he is Real Being and being is no-thing . So being and nothing are the same.  Being in self reference becomes an infinite regress (consciousness as boundless ) and the big bang as a non-durative actuality that becomes relativized to the boundless  Being as existence. But I got better (Monte Python). So nothing could bend the spoon. But the spoon is bent, . The spoon is bent by nothing. So nothing is an active agent in existence. She did turn me into a newt.

 

 

"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

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Ktulu

TGBaker wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

 Saying it twice makes it right Smiling lol

Some how another I musta hit post instead of preview.  They're in two different possible worlds anyway. One is more right and necessary than the other. In one Bobspense exits in the other he is absent. redneF forms the foundation in every possible world,  Hades. And you and I ...quite obviously are in purgatory. Mr. metaphysics seems a good candidate for Yahweh or Baal.  Of course ya'll could really just be a dream while I sleep in my High School logics class.

I joke because I love... or at least not hate, lol.  

Smiling that's the problem with the Limitless, there is technically no difference between limitless and nothing, or limitless and everything, it can be thought out in the same way as solipsism.  If got is limitless, god is everything, if god is everything I am god, if I am god and I am everything, I could just as well be a brain in a jar... it is senseless.  And this is what the first premise is based on by Mr. M.  From there, it is nothing more then a slippery slope argument, and completely irrelevant since you haven't gotten past (1).  

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


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:I don't think

Ktulu wrote:

I don't think you understand what the problem with the premise is.  The argument is QUITE sound if and only if you define god as LIMITLESS.  In order for you to define god this way, you need to have prior knowledge of said god.  And then you go from there to prove that god exists.  Hence the circularity of your argument. 

Okay.  Then I no longer believe in God; I only believe in the existence of a limitless being, whom I shall worship as my heavenly father.

Limitless being = (df.) A being unlimited in power, wisdom, and moral goodness.

(1) Necessarily, if a limitless being exists, then it is necessary that a limitless being exists.

(2) If the existence of a limitless being strictly implies its necessary existence, then the possibility of a limitless being strictly implies its actual existence.

(3) It is possible that a limitless being exists.

::. A limitless being exists.

 
Will you now object and say that I require prior knowledge of an unlimited being in order to know that s/he/it is unlimited?


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Ktulu

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

I don't think you understand what the problem with the premise is.  The argument is QUITE sound if and only if you define god as LIMITLESS.  In order for you to define god this way, you need to have prior knowledge of said god.  And then you go from there to prove that god exists.  Hence the circularity of your argument. 

Okay.  Then I no longer believe in God; I only believe in the existence of a limitless being, whom I shall worship as my heavenly father.

Limitless being = (df.) A being unlimited in power, wisdom, and moral goodness.

(1) Necessarily, if a limitless being exists, then it is necessary that a limitless being exists.

(2) If the existence of a limitless being strictly implies its necessary existence, then the possibility of a limitless being strictly implies its actual existence.

(3) It is possible that a limitless being exists.

::. A limitless being exists.

 
Will you now object and say that I require prior knowledge of an unlimited being in order to know that s/he/it is unlimited?

I still think you place limits on your limitless being.  Why are you not a part of this limitless being?

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


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
 The problem I have with

 The problem I have with the whole thing IS the limitless, that's not something that you can define.  If this being is not limitless spatially, or dimensionally, then he/she/it is not truly limitless.  If they (as in plural) are not truly limitless then why should they be limitless in power, wisdom and moral goodness?  

 

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
It's all just a

It's all just a 'mirage'.

Just a bunch of 'words', 'terms', ideas, vacuous idioms and axioms, that require the 'listener', to bridge the gaps, themselves.

 

He's barfing words, and saying 'nothing', other that 'I agree with myself'.

None of his puke is workable.

There is no 'workable' end 'product'.

It has no application.

It's not 'practical'.

 

IOW, a 'con'.

He's full of steaming hot sh1t.

 

He loses by default.

 

The End

 

 

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
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Mr_Metaphysics

Ktulu wrote:

I still think you place limits on your limitless being.  Why are you not a part of this limitless being?

I'm not self-existent; my existence depends on external factors like food, water, oxygen, heat, materials, and so on.  Also, I began to exist, since I would not exist right now unless I was conceived by my parents, and I'm going to die someday.  My existence is limited by factors not under my control.

Furthermore, I'm not omnipotent.  I cannot create anything except from preexisting matter; I do not have the ability to create universes; I cannot play basketball like Michael Jordan; I cannot wiggle my fingers and control the weather.  I am limited in my abilities.

I'm also not omniscient; I could not tell you anything about neuroscience, because I do not know anything about neuroscience. 

 


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Ktulu

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

I still think you place limits on your limitless being.  Why are you not a part of this limitless being?

I'm not self-existent; my existence depends on external factors like food, water, oxygen, heat, materials, and so on.  Also, I began to exist, since I would not exist right now unless I was conceived by my parents, and I'm going to die someday.  My existence is limited by factors not under my control.

Furthermore, I'm not omnipotent.  I cannot create anything except from preexisting matter; I do not have the ability to create universes; I cannot play basketball like Michael Jordan; I cannot wiggle my fingers and control the weather.  I am limited in my abilities.

I'm also not omniscient; I could not tell you anything about neuroscience, because I do not know anything about neuroscience. 

 

I will give you that Smiling, but if your being is limited by not including you.  Why call your being limitless?

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


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Mr_Metaphysics

Ktulu wrote:

I will give you that Smiling, but if your being is limited by not including you.  Why call your being limitless?

I'm not sure what you mean by a limitless being 'including' me.  Are you advocating some sort of monism where the limitless being is the sum total of everything that is?


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:BobSpence1

redneF wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

You, and Aberlard, Platinga, et al, are a waste of space. Take your Modal Logic and its proponents and shove it all where the sun don't shine.

+1

 

Let me explain what your fucking issue is, Mr_Megadumbdick.

You are not God.

Get it, dickwad?

 

Agreeing with yourself, and being dismissive of others, doesn't 'prove squat', to anyone but yourself.

So, you are your own number 1 fan, but remain uncompelling by other standards.

 

You don't make the rules, in any way, shape, or form.

Reality does.

 

The bottom line is you don't know.

You don't know (via Boole's Inequality Theorum) if any single one of your claims, or premises, is compatible with reality.

Not a single one.

You have NOT produced on single damn thing that is 'workable', or 'practical' in modeling, or 'usage'.

 

1- You don't know that a god exists.

Let me explain why.

Because whatever 'proof' you had, would falsify any, and every single possible alternate theory, including the possibility, that there are more than 1 god.

 

Simply saying 'Ya, but I don't agee that other god's could exist', is not an acceptable answer, as you yourself have expressly stated.

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

 

Your list of pure BS attributes like 'maximally great' and other such nonsense, are not 'workable', or 'practical', and describe nothing. Because they are meant to 'contrast' something.

It's like saying 'best', or 'bestest'.

That is a material attribute. It means 'exceedingly' good. It has to have a (material) property or attribute to 'exceed', and by some 'margin' than we can measure, which would be a 'metric'.

'Bestest' is exceeds 'exceedingly good', without a 'scale'.

It's a vacuous term.

It has no function. Either in a logarithmic, or linear taper.

It's a hyperbolic device that humans 'imagine' as being 'real'.

You have no 'yield', or 'strength', or 'power', or 'force'.

Basically, you have 'words', and nothing else.

 

Rhetoric and hypebole, are not practical, or workable.

 

We use vacuous terms like 'solid', when technically, we are simply describing something of a certain density.

Much like saying something is 'watertight'.

Watertight, does not mean that it is 'leakproof'. It simply means that water, or some liquid of similar surface tension, will not permeate it. But, and gas, may, and an acid might permeate it.

 

Saying that an immaterial, is maximally great, and limitless, is not only superfluous, it's rhetorical, hyperbolic and nonsensical.

Purely unscientific.

You cannot 'model' rhetoeric and hyperbole. They are NOT values. You cannot measure, or extrapolate anything from those 'terms'.

 

And just to prove you are possibly wrong, it is entirely possible that the whole human race were descendants of an infinitely inferior species that was put here millions of years ago, as some kind of secret experiment by an advanced life form, doing some independant research, from another galaxy, and long forgotten, or the records destroyed.

If you can falsify that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, then you might have something worth contemplating.

But, as such, you don't.

You simply don't.

Because, the alternate theory I just gave, is quite possible.

If you simply answer "Clearly, that cannot be", then by your own standards, you will have failed to give any falsification worthy of consideration.

 

Falsify that.

 

Good luck.

 

Two can play that game...

 

If you fail to answer the challenge, I win again, by default, because I have provided a legitimate possibility that your theory is 100% false.

 

 

Did anyone read past the first line of this as if the post had a point?

Seriously, mods; BAN HIM.  I don't care that he is insulting me, but he is FLOODING the board. 

 


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Ktulu

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

I will give you that Smiling, but if your being is limited by not including you.  Why call your being limitless?

I'm not sure what you mean by a limitless being 'including' me.  Are you advocating some sort of monism where the limitless being is the sum total of everything that is?

I'm trying to show you how meaningless the definition of limitless, as you are using it, is.  Everything I am extrapolating from that is logically consistent.  

If your being is limitless, then your being is omni-X, where X = everything, including space, time, dimensions, number of quarks... you think of anything and put it instead of X and that defines limitless.  So the conclusion is that YOU are god... I can't see it any other way... which is nonsense... or you are a buddhist... or it is nonsense... 

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Did

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Did anyone read past the first line of this as if the post had a point?

I've logically debunked your bullsh1t so many ways, it's not even funny.

 

I'll ask you once again "According to whom, is ANY of what you assert, compatible with reality?"

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Seriously, mods; BAN HIM.  I don't care that he is insulting me, but he is FLOODING the board. 

Fuck you, you limp dick.

You are completely out of touch with 'reality'.

You're clearly insane, if you want people to 'blindly' accept your premises, based on your word alone, or on THINKING, alone.

 

Go jerk off on your bible, and leave the rest of us, who speak in practical, realistic terms, the fuck alone.

 

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


BardlishtheMagnifico
atheistScience Freak
BardlishtheMagnifico's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2011-03-01
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Ktulu

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

I don't think you understand what the problem with the premise is.  The argument is QUITE sound if and only if you define god as LIMITLESS.  In order for you to define god this way, you need to have prior knowledge of said god.  And then you go from there to prove that god exists.  Hence the circularity of your argument. 

Okay.  Then I no longer believe in God; I only believe in the existence of a limitless being, whom I shall worship as my heavenly father.

Limitless being = (df.) A being unlimited in power, wisdom, and moral goodness.

(1) Necessarily, if a limitless being exists, then it is necessary that a limitless being exists.

(2) If the existence of a limitless being strictly implies its necessary existence, then the possibility of a limitless being strictly implies its actual existence.

(3) It is possible that a limitless being exists.

::. A limitless being exists.

 
Will you now object and say that I require prior knowledge of an unlimited being in order to know that s/he/it is unlimited?

 

Oh for fuck's sake.  Ordinarily I am able to contain my distaste for pseudo-intellectualism and "baffle them with bullshit" theology longer than the few days I have been on this forum but you are just being obtuse.

You are icing a piss cake with bullshit.  Do you get dizzy trying to justify your theism by running in such tight circles?  Most of the folks trying to foist this turd on other unfortunate souls try to at least cover it will a little more finesse before offloading it. 

To defend your premise you say

1) If I have a glorbastle, it is necessary that I have a glorbastle

2)If it is necessary that I have a glorbastle, then the fact that it is possible for me to have a glorbastle means that I invariably do have a glorbastle.

3)It is possible that I have a glorbastle

ergo-I have a glorbastle.

 

It does nothing to demonstrate what a glorbastle is, what makes it up or how one quantifies it.  Describe it as a perfect glorbastle all you want but without some empirical metric by which to judge its perfection there is no basis by which to gauge how perfect it is. The entire argument is nothing more than an attempt to use mathiness and logiciness to explain the the Emperor really does have on new clothes!  Your ilk will call a fucking horse a circle if it makes your math work.

 

Wisdom lies not in thinking outside the box. Wisdom is the realization that there is no box. Truth and reality extend as far as the eye can see and infinitely further.


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:I'm trying to

Ktulu wrote:

I'm trying to show you how meaningless the definition of limitless, as you are using it, is.  Everything I am extrapolating from that is logically consistent.  

I know what you are trying to do.  I'm asking you to clarify what it is that you are saying in order for you to justify that your claims are not vacuous; what is it for a limitless being to 'include' me?  If you cannot tell me, then you cannot tell me that what you say is logically consistent, anymore than saying 'your eyes smell better than your hair feels' is logically consistent. 

Quote:
If your being is limitless, then your being is omni-X, where X = everything, including space, time, dimensions, number of quarks... you think of anything and put it instead of X and that defines limitless.  So the conclusion is that YOU are god... I can't see it any other way... which is nonsense... or you are a buddhist... or it is nonsense...

Again, you need to justify that your premises here are not vacuous.  'Omnispatial', 'omnitemporal', 'omnimaterial'--if it is, as you claim, logically coherent that a limitless being has all of these things, are you able to explain what they mean?  If 'unlimited in spatiality', for example, is taken to mean that God is limitlessly tall and limitlessly wide, then your notions are logically incoherent, because spatial extensions have no intrinsic maximums (if you conceive of something 6' tall, then I'll just conceive of something that is 6'1); thus, you run into the issue of actual quantitative infinities, which, as Hilbert's Hotel demonstrates, are logically impossible. 


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Mr_Metaphysics

redneF wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Did anyone read past the first line of this as if the post had a point?

I've logically debunked your bullsh1t so many ways, it's not even funny.

 

I'll ask you once again "According to whom, is ANY of what you assert, compatible with reality?"

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Seriously, mods; BAN HIM.  I don't care that he is insulting me, but he is FLOODING the board. 

Fuck you, you limp dick.

You are completely out of touch with 'reality'.

You're clearly insane, if you want people to 'blindly' accept your premises, based on your word alone, or on THINKING, alone.

 

Go jerk off on your bible, and leave the rest of us, who speak in practical, realistic terms, the fuck alone.

 

Listen, if you really want to debate me, then the moderators here can set something up on the debate forum.  Only with the following stipulations will I do this:

(1) Posts are limited to 500 words.

(2) No pejoratives are allowed.

(3) Dodging questions is not allowed.

You game?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

I just want to endorse what ubuntuAnyone said, that there is a clear logical slip in the assumption that the actual world maps to any of your conceptually 'possible' worlds.

The actual world is a logically possible world; it is included in the model.  All you are claiming here (or what I think you are trying to claim) is that knowledge of its content is not accessible from pure logic.  Essentially, you are talking past me with epistemological biases, claiming that I cannot know what propositions are true in the actual world unless I empirically observe the actual world--basically, it amounts to the baseless assertion that 'you can't prove God using the ontological argument'. 

Obviously, 'possible worlds' do not necessarily apply to reality--we've already defined them as 'possible', duh.  Obviously, if something is merely 'possible', then it does not apply to reality by definition (David Lewis would dispute this, however; but this is another topic). 

Anyway, I've already made the point that 'you can't do that' is not a strong objection to the argument.  It does not address the form of the argument, nor does it address any of the premises.  The argument is sound, so obvious I can do that--can you tell me which premise is wrong?

You may have included it in your model, as a specific assumption, but that does not make it necessarily logically consistent with those worlds defined to be part of the set of possible by the logical expression you have chosen, ie the set of APW in which the expression holds. It is purely an assumption, unless accompanied by provably complete knowledge of the actual world, accompanied by an exhaustive analysis of the the expression in terms of that knowledge. If the proposition you are trying to establish does not have any implications to anything beyond an atomically defined set of entities within a PW, then it is probably OK to include the actual world in the set, if the proposition clearly applies here. This provision clearly does not apply to your God proposition.

I may have to back-track on the counter-intuitiveness of classical model logics, but the Lewis axiom is definitely counter-intuitive, and widely acknowledged as such, as are many of the other variants. Any version which does not allow that Necessary implies Possible is quite explicitly so. I was basing my assertion more on my initial encounter with Modal Logic, well before this current discussions.

Applying the idea of 'necessity' as a property, independent of an established chain of logic tying it back as a necessary conclusion following from the basic axioms of logic is begging the question. If it is a logical argument that a particular statement is necessarily true based on some later axiom, that makes it actually contingent in the wider sense, since any axioms introduced beyond the LNC and LoI are NOT necessary, as is demonstrated by all the variety of Modal Logic systems you refer to.

So any argument based on any particular axiom introduced to resolve the problems raised once you start stringing different modal operators together IS contingent, in the wider sense. It is also a fact, formally established by Kurt Godel, that valid logical constructs in any given formal system do not necessarily produce decidable conclusions.

Taking all these factors into account, the idea that either your or Platinga's version of the OA unambiguously establishes the existence of God is false. At least Platinga is honest enough to acknowledge this.

You consistently display a lack of a broader understanding of nature of logic, and formal systems in general, their strengths and limitations.

Logic of any variety cannot prove a proposition not flowing explicitly and exclusively from the fundamental Laws of Logic. It can only show whether some set of propositions or assumptions is, or is not, consistent with another. It may not even be able to do that in all cases, if a Godelian undecidable is slipped in somewhere. Later axioms and definitions are part of the input.

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"If the existence of a

"If the existence of a limitless being strictly implies its necessary existence,"

There you go again with a naked conditional.

Your conclusion is still dependent on such unproven assumptions. You are still making the basic category error of including contingency as a limiting 'attribute'.

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


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:redneF

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

redneF wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Did anyone read past the first line of this as if the post had a point?

I've logically debunked your bullsh1t so many ways, it's not even funny.

 

I'll ask you once again "According to whom, is ANY of what you assert, compatible with reality?"

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Seriously, mods; BAN HIM.  I don't care that he is insulting me, but he is FLOODING the board. 

Fuck you, you limp dick.

You are completely out of touch with 'reality'.

You're clearly insane, if you want people to 'blindly' accept your premises, based on your word alone, or on THINKING, alone.

 

Go jerk off on your bible, and leave the rest of us, who speak in practical, realistic terms, the fuck alone.

 

Listen, if you really want to debate me, then the moderators here can set something up on the debate forum.  Only with the following stipulations will I do this:

(1) Posts are limited to 500 words.

(2) No pejoratives are allowed.

(3) Dodging questions is not allowed.

You game?

Or you could just, ignore him.  You ignore posts from people asking genuine questions because you claim to not have enough time, but you keep responding to his baiting.  Why?

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


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

I just want to endorse what ubuntuAnyone said, that there is a clear logical slip in the assumption that the actual world maps to any of your conceptually 'possible' worlds.

The actual world is a logically possible world; it is included in the model.  All you are claiming here (or what I think you are trying to claim) is that knowledge of its content is not accessible from pure logic.  Essentially, you are talking past me with epistemological biases, claiming that I cannot know what propositions are true in the actual world unless I empirically observe the actual world--basically, it amounts to the baseless assertion that 'you can't prove God using the ontological argument'. 

Obviously, 'possible worlds' do not necessarily apply to reality--we've already defined them as 'possible', duh.  Obviously, if something is merely 'possible', then it does not apply to reality by definition (David Lewis would dispute this, however; but this is another topic). 

Anyway, I've already made the point that 'you can't do that' is not a strong objection to the argument.  It does not address the form of the argument, nor does it address any of the premises.  The argument is sound, so obvious I can do that--can you tell me which premise is wrong?

You may have included it in your model, as a specific assumption, but that does not make it necessarily logically consistent with those worlds defined to be part of the set of possible by the logical expression you have chosen, ie the set of APW in which the expression holds. It is purely an assumption, unless accompanied by provably complete knowledge of the actual world, accompanied by an exhaustive analysis of the the expression in terms of that knowledge. If the proposition you are trying to establish does not have any implications to anything beyond an atomically defined set of entities within a PW, then it is probably OK to include the actual world in the set, if the proposition clearly applies here. This provision clearly does not apply to your God proposition.

I may have to back-track on the counter-intuitiveness of classical model logics, but the Lewis axiom is definitely counter-intuitive, and widely acknowledged as such, as are many of the other variants. Any version which does not allow that Necessary implies Possible is quite explicitly so. I was basing my assertion more on my initial encounter with Modal Logic, well before this current discussions.

Applying the idea of 'necessity' as a property, independent of an established chain of logic tying it back as a necessary conclusion following from the basic axioms of logic is begging the question. If it is a logical argument that a particular statement is necessarily true based on some later axiom, that makes it actually contingent in the wider sense, since any axioms introduced beyond the LNC and LoI are NOT necessary, as is demonstrated by all the variety of Modal Logic systems you refer to.

So any argument based on any particular axiom introduced to resolve the problems raised once you start stringing different modal operators together IS contingent, in the wider sense. It is also a fact, formally established by Kurt Godel, that valid logical constructs in any given formal system do not necessarily produce decidable conclusions.

Taking all these factors into account, the idea that either your or Platinga's version of the OA unambiguously establishes the existence of God is false. At least Platinga is honest enough to acknowledge this.

You consistently display a lack of a broader understanding of nature of logic, and formal systems in general, their strengths and limitations.

Logic of any variety cannot prove a proposition not flowing explicitly and exclusively from the fundamental Laws of Logic. It can only show whether some set of propositions or assumptions is, or is not, consistent with another. It may not even be able to do that in all cases, if a Godelian undecidable is slipped in somewhere. Later axioms and definitions are part of the input.

Thanks Bob. I wish I could have expressed it that eloquently.  You took some time to get it that tight.  I guess I'm lazy.  Since Goedel is the father of the important incompleteness theory he was careful to design his ontological argument as precisely as possible. He has still failed with his "completeness theory".

 

non-existence is perfection. Nothingness is boundless. It is spoiled and limited by something coming into existence.

Another rationale is attributed to Melbourne philosopher Douglas Gasking (1911–1994),[25] one component of his proof of the nonexistence of God:

  1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
  2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
  3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
  4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
  5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
  6. Therefore, God does not exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Necessary_nonexistence

 My point is this is not a new debate. It has been going on for years. greater minds than ours (or yours at any rate just jokin')have pulled this carcass evey direction and it is still dead. I am more and more convinced that philosophy continues to be a dialogue between Aristotle and Plato that just won't quit. I guess some people do live forever.

"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

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Listen,

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Listen, if you really want to debate me, then the moderators here can set something up on the debate forum.  Only with the following stipulations will I do this:

(1) Posts are limited to 500 words.

(2) No pejoratives are allowed.

(3) Dodging questions is not allowed.

You game?

Absolutely

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


lalib
atheist
lalib's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:It [Logic]

BobSpence1 wrote:

It [Logic] can only show whether some set of propositions or assumptions is, or is not, consistent with another. 

This is what am asking you, Mr. Metaphysics. Unless you show (empirically) that your premises are true, then your argument is at best valid (ie, self consistent). 

 

 

 


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Ktulu

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

I'm trying to show you how meaningless the definition of limitless, as you are using it, is.  Everything I am extrapolating from that is logically consistent.  

I know what you are trying to do.  I'm asking you to clarify what it is that you are saying in order for you to justify that your claims are not vacuous; what is it for a limitless being to 'include' me?  If you cannot tell me, then you cannot tell me that what you say is logically consistent, anymore than saying 'your eyes smell better than your hair feels' is logically consistent. 

Quote:
If your being is limitless, then your being is omni-X, where X = everything, including space, time, dimensions, number of quarks... you think of anything and put it instead of X and that defines limitless.  So the conclusion is that YOU are god... I can't see it any other way... which is nonsense... or you are a buddhist... or it is nonsense...

Again, you need to justify that your premises here are not vacuous.  'Omnispatial', 'omnitemporal', 'omnimaterial'--if it is, as you claim, logically coherent that a limitless being has all of these things, are you able to explain what they mean?  If 'unlimited in spatiality', for example, is taken to mean that God is limitlessly tall and limitlessly wide, then your notions are logically incoherent, because spatial extensions have no intrinsic maximums (if you conceive of something 6' tall, then I'll just conceive of something that is 6'1); thus, you run into the issue of actual quantitative infinities, which, as Hilbert's Hotel demonstrates, are logically impossible. 

The beauty of all this is that I am not making any premise, I don't have an argument.  I am simply looking at your argument, as a layman. You're presenting a logical argument: 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

(1) Necessarily, if a limitless being exists, then it is necessary that a limitless being exists.

Now, I cannot get past that, and so we stall.  You removed the word God, which carries a lot of baggage, and that's good.  It simplifies it.  Now let's define limitless, here are a few definitions that I've picked up from the web:

Quote:

limitless

- boundless in amount, number, degree, or especially extent.

- without limit;  boundless: limitless ambition; limitless space.

the negative of LIMIT

- something that bounds, restrains, or confines

Based on that, a truly limitless being, as you imply it, is limitless in EVERY way in order for your argument to continue to make sense.  You are basing your whole argument on the definition of the word limitless, which I'm assuming you mean infinite.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  The way I'm reading that first premise, in plain English is:  'If you can think of something that is limitless, then it is necessary, from the definition of the term limitless, that something limitless exists.'

And I am taking that a step further, and saying that if a being is truly limitless, and you choose to attribute the limitless attribute to, wisdom, power, sexual prowess; then you must also apply the same attribute to mass, temperature, gravity, space, etc.

As for me explaining what omniteporal, omnispatial and omnimaterial mean... they are the in the same category as omnipotency, omnipresence, they are attributes that a truly LIMITLESS being has?  I don't understand what you mean for me to define them.  I'm asking you to define them since you are the one postulating the Limitless Being, and I'm showing you how silly it is for you to do that, and what that sort of terminology leads to.  I'm not sure how those are logically incoherent attributes, and the ones that you postulate are logically coherent?

 I see them ALL as logically incoherent, that's my whole point.

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


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
 If I'm being stupid or my

 If I'm being stupid or my questioning is flawed or unwarranted I want the atheists to let me know also, perhaps I'm just being obtuse and not getting it.  I would love to get past that part of the argument so I can move on.  This is no attempt at levity, I'm serious. 

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu, I fully agree, and

Ktulu, I fully agree, and that was sort of what I was trying to point out to Mr M.

He says "without limit". But what attributes is he applying that to? It doesn't mean anything unless it describes some or all attributes or properties. Does it mean this entity has all possible attributes? Brown hair, black hair, blond, etc, in unlimited amounts? Or perhaps just the capability of possessing or doing literally anything?

Once you start trying to pin down just what 'unlimited' actually implies in this context, it becomes problematic.

At the very least he needs to be more specific.

His responses to many of our question seem to suggest he has never looked at these arguments from a broader perspective.

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


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
 Thank you Bob, I was

 Thank you Bob, I was beginning to doubt my logic.  I'm obviously no expert, but I do understand common sense and this doesn't pass.  Mr. M. obviously is versed in logic as a discipline, but that doesn't make him any more right.  It may intimidate some into agreeing with him, and I'm sure he's had success in the past, but you have to be able to explain ANY argument in plain English, otherwise it is completely useless.  

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


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

I just want to endorse what ubuntuAnyone said, that there is a clear logical slip in the assumption that the actual world maps to any of your conceptually 'possible' worlds.

The actual world is a logically possible world; it is included in the model.  All you are claiming here (or what I think you are trying to claim) is that knowledge of its content is not accessible from pure logic.  Essentially, you are talking past me with epistemological biases, claiming that I cannot know what propositions are true in the actual world unless I empirically observe the actual world--basically, it amounts to the baseless assertion that 'you can't prove God using the ontological argument'. 

Obviously, 'possible worlds' do not necessarily apply to reality--we've already defined them as 'possible', duh.  Obviously, if something is merely 'possible', then it does not apply to reality by definition (David Lewis would dispute this, however; but this is another topic).

The actualized world's possibility is obvious because it is actualized, but there is still not reason to think it exist in an a priori model. The objection is not an epistemological bias, but an epistemological barrier that is imposed by a priori knowledge. We're simply pointing this out. Ontological arguments erect this barrier such that you cannot have about anything in the actual world unless you assume it is so. But if this is the case, then you're only proving your assumptions, which is question begging.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Anyway, I've already made the point that 'you can't do that' is not a strong objection to the argument.  It does not address the form of the argument, nor does it address any of the premises.  The argument is sound, so obvious I can do that--can you tell me which premise is wrong?

Not a strong objection? Suggesting it as such does not really deal with the issue and there's no warrant to the claim. And just because you are doing what you are doing does not mean it is right.

But I think that the objection is not only a strong objection, but a defeater--not because it attacks the soundness of the argument, but rather the validity of the argument. You're creating a priori logical loops that may or may not have anything to do with the actual world. So long as this is the case, your argument may as well be for the FSM, Pink Unicorns, or other fantasies...because insofar as I can tell, that's all it is.

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


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:The beauty of

Ktulu wrote:

The beauty of all this is that I am not making any premise, I don't have an argument.  I am simply looking at your argument, as a layman. You're presenting a logical argument:

You said, at least implicitly, that the notion of a 'limitless being' leads to absurdities, and you gave examples for this.  Since you did not explain specifically where the notion goes astray, the only thing left for me to do is focus on your examples.  

I really do not see 'limitless' as some abstruse notion; I think you, as an atheist, are intentionally confounding it in order to spuriously present it as being some arcane idea restricted to the worldviews of sophists or theological pedants--this way, you can further create a gap between theism and common sense, such that you are better able to vindicate your atheism to the uninformed neutral onlooker.  The term is obviously part of our discourse, as you can observe people using it at least hyperbolically to describe, say, their favorite football player (e.g., "His ability to run is without limit" ).  I think the fact that the majority of people in the world worship something akin to a limitless being (whether it be Brahma, Samsara, Yahweh, Allah, or the God of Spinoza) is testimony to the fact that the notion is not as you are trying to represent it.

The whole point is that things do not exist equally:  Some things die easier than others; some things require more preconditions for their existences; some things do not exist except when they are thought; some things have greater ability to affect other things; and so on.  The idea here is that a being such as God, a limitless being, embodies existence to its absolute maximum.  God, by logical necessity, is the greatest most powerful thing that can possibly exist (and, consequently, actually exists).

My guess is that you are going to reject this under the banner of some postmodernistic woo-woo, where it is taboo and even repugnant to even speak of 'great-making', 'limits', and so on--of course, you'll do this in your ignorance of the metaphysical implications of your position.  

Quote:
And I am taking that a step further, and saying that if a being is truly limitless, and you choose to attribute the limitless attribute to, wisdom, power, sexual prowess; then you must also apply the same attribute to mass, temperature, gravity, space, etc.

You are wrong because sexual prowess, mass, temperature, gravity, and space all involve materiality, which is an ontological limitation; materials have to be put together, and they are held together by natural laws.  It would follow that God is ontologically dependent upon nature in order to exist; hence, he is limited by the natural world insofar that his existence stands or falls upon what nature necessitates. Further, it would entail that the sufficient reason for God's existence is in something else, and another good definition of 'limited' is that which applies to anything whose sufficient reason for being is not in itself.

When we say that God is infinite, we mean that He is unlimited in every kind of perfection or that every conceivable perfection belongs to Him in the highest conceivable way. In a different sense we sometimes speak, for instance, of infinite time or space, meaning thereby time of such indefinite duration or space of such indefinite extension that we cannot assign any fixed limit to one or the other. Care should be taken not to confound these two essentially different meanings of the term. Time and space, being made up of parts in duration or extension, are essentially finite by comparison with God's infinity. Now we assert that God is infinitely perfect in the sense explained, and that His infinity is deducible from His self-existence. For a self-existent being, if limited at all, could be limited only by itself; to be limited by another would imply causal dependence on that other, which the very notion of self-existence excludes. But the self-existing cannot be conceived as limiting itself, in the sense of curtailing its perfection of being, without ceasing to be self-existing. Whatever it is, it is necessarily; its own essence is the sole reason or explanation of its existence, so that its manner of existence must be as unchangeable as its essence, and to suggest the possibility of an increase or diminution of perfection would be to suggest the absurdity of a changeable essence. It only remains, then, to say that whatever perfection is compatible with its essence is actually realized in a self-existing being; but as there is no conceivable perfection as such — that is, no expression of positive being as such — that is not compatible with the essence of the self-existent, it follows that the self-existent must be infinite in all perfection. For self-existence itself is absolute positive being and positive being cannot contradict, and cannot therefore limit, positive being.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm

Quote:
As for me explaining what omniteporal, omnispatial and omnimaterial mean... they are the in the same category as omnipotency, omnipresence, they are attributes that a truly LIMITLESS being has?  I don't understand what you mean for me to define them.  I'm asking you to define them since you are the one postulating the Limitless Being, and I'm showing you how silly it is for you to do that, and what that sort of terminology leads to.  I'm not sure how those are logically incoherent attributes, and the ones that you postulate are logically coherent?

I told you this already.  They are not in the same category because any notion of space, time, or materiality is intrinsically limiting, for the reasons stated above; whereas notions of potency and intellect are not intrinsically limiting.

Rather than recapitulating everything that I've already stated, perhaps you should take a trip down to Newadvent.org and read about this.  If it is still too recondite for you, then I know some good professors you can e-mail; that is, if you are genuinely interested in understanding the position.  If this is merely an inquisition, then there is no point to me sitting here trying to explain my position.