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
BobSpence1 wrote:Ktulu, I

BobSpence1 wrote:

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 too? 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.

I mentioned that before. Some people only think 'inside the box', and others are 'lateral thinkers'.

Those people who are in science, or technologies, do these brainstorming sessions regularly, either one on one, or among teams, and between 'cells'.

When you see logic 'fail' and intuition fail as many times, and as 'regulary' as we do, you begin to be a lot more pragmatic about 'assumptions', and 'isolate' unknowns, in order to test their validity, and reliability, before you start building complex structures, as 'form follows function'.

Simply put, you 'never count your chickens till they hatch', and you never 'Bet the Farm' on anything unproven.

This clown can 'hypothesize' all he wants, but, it's not impressive. He's got nothing invested that he's too concerned over, losing.

These axioms are generations old axioms for a reason. To remind you that just because something seems 'workable' and 'viable', means nothing, in reality.

There's an old axiom in the aviation industry that says 'When the blueprints weigh as much as the plane, then it's ready to fly'.

 

The funny thing about threads like these, is how wide of a berth people are afforded, to just sling pure rhetoric and hyperbole.

When you start inducing non sequiturs like 'limitless', and 'immaterial', it's just a way of trying to avoid saying 'I don't know'.

Am I supposed to be 'impressed' to no end, when 'limitless' is attributed to something?

It's not impressive at all, it's very problematic. It means it's 'unpredictable'. It's not linear, or logarithmic during work. It's 'chaotic', or 'volatile' if it's unpredictable.

I can't see how this is a 'positive', attribute, instead of a 'problematic' attribute, and one that makes 'modeling' a precise outcome, quite literally, impossible.

 

Mr_Knowitall can thump all he wants on his 'logic', and that his 'outcome' will be precisely as he predicts. 

I strictly don't give a sh1t.

I know better.

Too many superfluous 'non qualified values', 'dimensionless numbers', that are meant to impress, but are impractical.

Useless information.

Vapourware.

 

That's not opinion, that's reality.

There's nothing to 'model', let alone hypothesize a potential, application, or purpose.

 

His opinion does not trump mine.

Maybe in his mind, but I strictly don't give a sh1t.

He's not qualified to render that verdict, and I doubt that anyone would hire him to head any scientific, or technological team, because he thinks everyone else's shit stinks, except his.

So, his ability to 'prove' that 'nothing' exists, is not a marketable skill, or product.

Basically, worthless.

Except, it fuels his ego, and his delusion.

 

Whatevuh...

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


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote: If I'm being

Ktulu wrote:

 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. 

Yea, I can't make it past that part either.

 

Maybe if I had formal training in logic it would make sense, but he's been consistent in ignoring my question as to why I should care if his theory is internally consistent but can't be verified externally.  It doesn't seem like a useful exercise to me.  When he said he was mainly engaging in the argument because it helped support his existing belief it made me extremely dubious about it.  It seems like the argument isn't convincing even to experts who also share his belief about God in general, so if it doesn't even convince all the theists, I'm really having a hard time seeing why it is supposed to convince someone on the other side.  

I know that is an argument from authority, but the premise doesn't move me intellectually or emotionally in the slightest, so I don't know what else to look for.  Every time I see the proof I just give a mental shrug...so what?  I dunno.  Maybe I'll track down a professor and pick their brain.  Or maybe one of the other atheists can explain why this type of argument might be useful in another case, where something else that can't be externally verified has been proven and it led to something more than...this.

Someone said it is used in math...are there math ideas it is used in, where you can't verify the concepts in any way but the equation turns out useful somehow?  Is that a proper comparison?

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


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

mellestad wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

 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. 

Yea, I can't make it past that part either.

 

Maybe if I had formal training in logic it would make sense, but he's been consistent in ignoring my question as to why I should care if his theory is internally consistent but can't be verified externally.  It doesn't seem like a useful exercise to me.  When he said he was mainly engaging in the argument because it helped support his existing belief it made me extremely dubious about it.  It seems like the argument isn't convincing even to experts who also share his belief about God in general, so if it doesn't even convince all the theists, I'm really having a hard time seeing why it is supposed to convince someone on the other side.  

I know that is an argument from authority, but the premise doesn't move me intellectually or emotionally in the slightest, so I don't know what else to look for.  Every time I see the proof I just give a mental shrug...so what?  I dunno.  Maybe I'll track down a professor and pick their brain.  Or maybe one of the other atheists can explain why this type of argument might be useful in another case, where something else that can't be externally verified has been proven and it led to something more than...this.

Someone said it is used in math...are there math ideas it is used in, where you can't verify the concepts in any way but the equation turns out useful somehow?  Is that a proper comparison?

I am starting to think it is simple. No one sees the idea of the ontological argument where god is necessary as anything other than question begging. All of us here are either "jejune" or right along with the scholars who live this stuff. I contacted a professor and posted his analysis. He is one of the top scholars in the country on the ontological argument. He said that it is question begging. So the only disagreement seems to be Mr. Metaphysics who believes the premise though that is the question begging. It seems that will go nowhere.  Modal logic was created to ad modes into formula such as possibility and necessity. 

 

 

"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: I

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
I really do not see 'limitless' as some abstruse notion

It doesn't matter how you feel.

It's whether or not it's 'workable', in an equation. Unless you are just trying to create a self refuting 'everythingness'. 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
  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" ).  

You mean sort of like a Christian ebonics?

WTF place does that have in an model or theory?

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
I think the fact that the majority of people in the world worship something akin to a limitless being ...

Argumentum ad populum.

This isn't a sermon.

We're trying to be 'logical'.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
  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.  

Now, we're finally going in a certain direction.

What's needed is some disambiguation.

Please make the underlined portion, unequivocal and unambiguous in meaning.

I'm not confident that it makes any sense.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
  God, by logical necessity, is the greatest most powerful thing that can possibly exist (and, consequently, actually exists).

Ummm, no.

This is not a strong argument for a god being a logical necessity.

I see no need for a god, at all.

None.

The universe seems to be surviving without any visible outside intervention.

Or, are you claiming that a god is 'powering', or 'keeping all the constants, constant'

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 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

False.

'Limits' are fine. Those are parameters we can use to predict outcomes. But you cannot model subjective terms like 'perfect', or the 'deepest depth', or 'breathtakingly accurate'.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 --of course, you'll do this in your ignorance of the metaphysical implications of your position.  

If that's what the *cough* science of Metaphysics is about, then, I'd rather be called ignorant, TYVM.

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.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 materials have to be put together, and they are held together by natural laws.  

You mean they're not created and held together by god?

So what keeps them together indefinitely?

Or is matter disposable? Is it like plates spinning on a stick, that one day, runs out of momentum? Does a god come by and set the plates in rotation again?

And there's a god that keeps generating new matter, once the old stuff is past it's lifespan, and falls apart?

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
  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.

That's a whole lotta useless hyperbole.

Perfection is a term to project a personal seal of approval. Every heard of 'A face only a mother could love'?

"One man's garbage, is another man's treasure"

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 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.

Dude, that's fucking poetry, and a sermon.

Just the fucking facts, FFS.

 

Say what you mean, and mean WTF you say.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 Now we assert that God is infinitely perfect in the sense explained

You're impressed with your subjective opinion of what a god might constitute. I get it.

But, it's meaningless. It has no actual value that proves anything.

It's an appeal to emotions.

It's not logical to use an outpouring of emotion.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 I told you this already.  They are not in the same category ...

According to whom?

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
 .... any notion of space, time, or materiality is intrinsically limiting

So, you arbitrarily dismiss those limitations, or is there any evidence that the absence of such things to a 'being' are possible?

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
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.

Puhleeze.

They're going to clarify these concepts?

Why would that be necessary? Are you asserting that all theists believe in god because they comprehend this drivel, and atheist's don't?

Ummm, ya, nice try, pal...

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: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Ktulu

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

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.

I will check that website out.  I think you're making the same mistake most theists are when it comes to atheists.  In that, we arrive at our atheism via a common path.  Also that we are all closed minded, or that we all reject belief because we hate god... or whatever.  

What you don't seem to realize is that, I would LOVE to be proven wrong.  I really would LOVE for a heaven to exist, for angels and the whole bit.  I really would, I tried so hard for the longest time to believe in something.  But there's this nagging thing called common sense, and logic, and Occam's razor.  For me, agnostic atheism is the only logical position.  Ok that's out of the way.  I didn't like the implication of being closed minded, I'm a lot of things but that's not one of them. 

I will have to rely on plain old English as my means of understanding your argument.  So as you explain it, this said limitless being, is limitless in all that is intangible, and further more, IS limited in all that is tangible.  Is that what you are proposing? So this limitless being is omni-X where X is non material.

Ok, so we're getting somewhere now.  Your argument now is:

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

Then the answer to that premise is... wrong, it is not necessary that such a being exists, because it has limits, and the definition of 'immaterial limitless that is materially limited being' doesn't necessarily imply it's existence, by simply it being imagined.  It is not the same as imagining an unmarried bachelor.  It is the same as imagining a non existing Zeus, which I have no problem doing and I don't see as logically incoherent. 

As for "of course, you'll do this in your ignorance of the metaphysical implications of your position."

I have been very upfront with my shortcomings, I have repeatedly stated that I haven't studied logic formally.  You call my ignorance, and I agree with you but it is you who needs to show me the metaphysical implication, not preach it to me.  This is not church, I am not intimidated by your knowledge, or take you at face value because you claim to have a degree.  You have so far, failed to do so, in spite of repeated attempts.  Perhaps you are not a good teacher, I will give you that.  It doesn't make you wrong.  The other option is that I just don't get it.  I usually get stuff pretty easily, that's why I'm genuinely having a hard time letting this go.  I'm trying not to dismiss this out of stupidity.

So is my assumption about your premise wrong? and if so, why?

"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: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Mr M, lack of time or

Mr M, lack of time or spatial dimensionality or their equivalent, and of any equivalent of materiality to provide a stable and persistent substrate for complex structures and processes, is extremely limiting, to the point of being no better than a featureless void.

And of course, Metaphysics is a primitive notion - beyond physics you have just empty speculation, devoid of anything that could count as knowledge.

The 'greatest possible being' is something that would have to be empirically determined, and would be dependent on the nature of the Laws of Reality. That ultimate nature of existence would have priority in constraining such a maximal entity.

There is absolutely no logical entailment that any such entity be 'limitless' or infinite, or have any of the mental or 'moral' attributes you mention.

 

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: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I am starting

TGBaker wrote:

I am starting to think it is simple. No one sees the idea of the ontological argument where god is necessary as anything other than question begging. All of us here are either "jejune" or right along with the scholars who live this stuff. I contacted a professor and posted his analysis. He is one of the top scholars in the country on the ontological argument. He said that it is question begging. So the only disagreement seems to be Mr. Metaphysics who believes the premise though that is the question begging. It seems that will go nowhere.  Modal logic was created to ad modes into formula such as possibility and necessity. 

I have a sinking feeling that this post will start a personal obsession with metaphysics and logic.  I really do wish to comprehend why anyone would consider the OA as proof of god.  Like mellstad said, perhaps if I were better educated.  Well at least I have a relatively clear educational goal for the next few months.

It is proving very intriguing.  Every logical argument that I have encountered was consistent when translated into plain English.  Perhaps this is the exception to the rule, it is simply too complex for a layman to comprehend.  I may have to see what related courses are being offered at the campus near me.

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


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:TGBaker wrote:I

Ktulu wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I am starting to think it is simple. No one sees the idea of the ontological argument where god is necessary as anything other than question begging. All of us here are either "jejune" or right along with the scholars who live this stuff. I contacted a professor and posted his analysis. He is one of the top scholars in the country on the ontological argument. He said that it is question begging. So the only disagreement seems to be Mr. Metaphysics who believes the premise though that is the question begging. It seems that will go nowhere.  Modal logic was created to ad modes into formula such as possibility and necessity. 

I have a sinking feeling that this post will start a personal obsession with metaphysics and logic.  I really do wish to comprehend why anyone would consider the OA as proof of god.  Like mellstad said, perhaps if I were better educated.  Well at least I have a relatively clear educational goal for the next few months.

It is proving very intriguing.  Every logical argument that I have encountered was consistent when translated into plain English.  Perhaps this is the exception to the rule, it is simply too complex for a layman to comprehend.  I may have to see what related courses are being offered at the campus near me.

Yea, same here.  :/

 

The thing that worries me is I'll spend a couple quarters and find out it is just as empty as it seems to be now.  Oh well.

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


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:(3)

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

(3) Dodging questions is not allowed.

You game?

When will you stop dodging my questions?

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


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

mellestad wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

I have a sinking feeling that this post will start a personal obsession with metaphysics and logic.  I really do wish to comprehend why anyone would consider the OA as proof of god.  Like mellstad said, perhaps if I were better educated.  Well at least I have a relatively clear educational goal for the next few months.

It is proving very intriguing.  Every logical argument that I have encountered was consistent when translated into plain English.  Perhaps this is the exception to the rule, it is simply too complex for a layman to comprehend.  I may have to see what related courses are being offered at the campus near me.

Yea, same here.  :/

I dunno if it would help, but I will try and explain the modal version of the ontological argument in plain English. First I will explain the non-modal form, then extend that to the modal form. If you already understand the non-modal form, skip the next paragraph.

Non-modal ontological arguments, generally speaking, define "god" as "the greatest possible conceivable being (GPCB) ". This having been said said the argument them supposes that it is greater to exist than to not exist. In order to be "greatest" it must exist, therefore the greatest possible conceivable being who is defined as "god" exists.

Modal versions are a little more convoluted as they import a lot of jargon that isn't "plain English" but specific to the world of logicians. First, there is there is the notion of "possible worlds". "Possible worlds" is as it suggests, worlds that could possibly exist: that means there is no logical reason they couldn't exist. Then there is the "actualized world" -- this is the world in which we exist.  Once you get that, you get that which is "necessary" and that which is "possible". That which is "necessary" must exist in all possible worlds, but that which possible may exist in a given possible world but not all possible worlds.

A critical part of modal versions is a formulation called "S5", which for the purposes of the ontological argument suggests that if something that is necessary possibly exists, then it necessarily exists.

Given this the argument would sound something like this. First, proponents conject that it is possible for a  GPCB or an analog to this concept to exist because it is internally logically consistent. Then it follows the same line of thinking as the non-modal forms do in that a GPCB is a necessary being, Next proponents use S5 saying, that because there is a necessary being that possibly exists, the GPCB necessarily exists.

 

Hope this helps... there's a lot more to it than this, because there are multiple versions of the argument from different camps.

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Even if you accept that a

Even if you accept that a being which exists is greater than one which doesn't, or, in modal terms, one which 'necessarily' exists is greater than one which exists only contingently, ie 'possibly', this in no logical way implies or necessitates that such a being actually does, let alone must, exist. There is no contradiction involved if it doesn't actually exist.

There is no logical requirement that a maximally 'great' instance of anything must actually exist.

I can imagine what might be the greatest possible instance of literally anything, but that absolutely does not mean there necessarily must be anything like that in actuality.

This argument has zero merit.

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


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:There is no

BobSpence1 wrote:

There is no logical requirement that a maximally 'great' instance of anything must actually exist.

Theists define maximal greatness such that maximal greatness requires necessity. I agree, that there is no requirement otherwise that it must exist, and in part why I think the argument begs the question.

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


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Here they are in list

Here they are in list form:

Non-modal forms might say:

  1. "God" is "the greatest possible conceivable being (GPCB)"
  2. It is greater to exist than to not exist.
  3. In order to be "greatest" the GPCB must exist.
  4. Therefore the greatest possible conceivable (god) exists.

Modal forms might say:

  1. It is possible for a GPCB (or an analog to this concept) to exist in some possible world because it is internally logically consistent.
  2. The GPCB is a necessary being in some possible world.
  3. There is a necessary being that possibly exists.
  4. Therefore GPCB necessarily exists in all possible worlds. (this is s5 applied).
  5. Therefore the GPCB exists the the actualized world.

 

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


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

Ktulu wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I am starting to think it is simple. No one sees the idea of the ontological argument where god is necessary as anything other than question begging. All of us here are either "jejune" or right along with the scholars who live this stuff. I contacted a professor and posted his analysis. He is one of the top scholars in the country on the ontological argument. He said that it is question begging. So the only disagreement seems to be Mr. Metaphysics who believes the premise though that is the question begging. It seems that will go nowhere.  Modal logic was created to ad modes into formula such as possibility and necessity. 

I have a sinking feeling that this post will start a personal obsession with metaphysics and logic.  I really do wish to comprehend why anyone would consider the OA as proof of god.  Like mellstad said, perhaps if I were better educated.  Well at least I have a relatively clear educational goal for the next few months.

It is proving very intriguing.  Every logical argument that I have encountered was consistent when translated into plain English.  Perhaps this is the exception to the rule, it is simply too complex for a layman to comprehend.  I may have to see what related courses are being offered at the campus near me.

My opinion and four bucks won't leave you with change at Starbucks but I wouldn't try to dig into the (edit:  Why the hell did I type OT?  I meant "ontalogical argument...).  As I alluded to in an earlier post, it may be the closest approximation to the childrens story "The Emperor's New Clothes" that I have ever seen.  It is a non argument that was concieved at a time when the general populous was poorly educated and many people could easily be impressed by someone using confusing words and arguments that smacked of "truthiness" even though they were devoid of any meaning or merit. 

 

It speaks volumes that these arguments are seen as so valid by the religious, in light of that.

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.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The possibility of a

The possibility of a necessary being, is a problematic combination of modal operators -  S5 is one attempt to cut the Gordian knot, by blatantly ignoring the possibility operator, thus allowing this version of the OA.

A more intellectually honest approach would be to either acknowledge that this is unresolvable, in the Godelian sense, or that this version of Modal Logic is not adequate to address the idea of the possible, ie contingent, existence of a particular conceived necessary being. That sort of thing is very common in ML, and is what gives rise to all the variations, as different axioms are added to enable ML to handle different contexts.

If it cannot be established logically that a particular conceived entity is necessary, then any conclusion based on the assumption that it is necessary is still contingent. I don't think that statement can be expressed with the syntax of any variation of ML, but I could be wrong. S5 simply ignores it.

EDIT:

I think that 'possibly necessary' has to be considered irreducible - its meaning is not compatible with either single operator. I suspect this would apply to most, if not all, sequences of mixed modal operators. Application of the S5 axiom is discarding information, therefore any subsequent conclusion cannot be held as logically binding. That is where it goes off the rails.

I am glad I persevered with this. I hope Mr M comes back again so I can explain it to him...

I'm sure he will be grateful to me for resolving this little difficulty

/EDIT

Even Mr M cannot avoid this, as seen by the conditionals he incorporates in his argument.

To me, this just demonstrates that ML is a broken concept. It seems a reasonable idea, when applied to simple propositions, but the need to add all these different versions and axioms as it was applied in more complex cases should have rung alarm bells...

Bayesian analysis is the way to handle uncertainty, possibility, and probability.

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
Ktulu wrote:I will check

Ktulu wrote:

I will check that website out.  I think you're making the same mistake most theists are when it comes to atheists.  In that, we arrive at our atheism via a common path.  Also that we are all closed minded, or that we all reject belief because we hate god... or whatever.  

What you don't seem to realize is that, I would LOVE to be proven wrong.  I really would LOVE for a heaven to exist, for angels and the whole bit.  I really would, I tried so hard for the longest time to believe in something.  But there's this nagging thing called common sense, and logic, and Occam's razor.  For me, agnostic atheism is the only logical position.  Ok that's out of the way.  I didn't like the implication of being closed minded, I'm a lot of things but that's not one of them. 

I think your sentiments are feigned, and that you are merely pretending that you've approached the God issue from a position of neutrality when, in reality, you consciously chose atheism because the theistic alternative did not seem so attractive.  (Of course, if people knew that this issue for you was moral rather than rational, your argument would not seem as plausible; clearly, I can understand why you would propagate this.) I've dealt with enough atheists to know that this is the case.  'Common sense' is not a good argument for anything, since at one time common sense told us that fire involved phlogiston; common sense is only as good as the collective sentiments of people, and people are fallible (worse yet, according to the Bible, they are fallen).  Ockham's Razor has nothing to do with any of this; 'Ockham's Razor' is a phrase that philosophers subsequent to Ockham conjured up in order to describe Ockham's rejection of universals--Ockham was a nominalist, for he believed that ontological categories (such as 'dog', 'human', and so on) are mere fictions, and that we should not multiply beyond necessity the kinds of things that exist.  (Not once did Ockham state that the simple explanation is always better--in fact, this is demonstrably false.)  As far as 'logic' goes, allow me, for the purposes of this discussion, to bracket this point of yours; I will revisit it in a moment.

Quote:
I will have to rely on plain old English as my means of understanding your argument.
 

Go back to the original post and observe that the symbols in my argument were translated into English. 

Quote:
So as you explain it, this said limitless being, is limitless in all that is intangible, and further more, IS limited in all that is tangible.  Is that what you are proposing? So this limitless being is omni-X where X is non material.

No, that is not what I said.  Limitless is a negative term, which serves to negate for God anything the predication of which necessitates finitude.  To say that God is 'limitless' is to say that he is 'without limitation'--a negative phrase which actually says something positive, namely, that God is the living instantiation of the ideal of being.  He is the living embodient of being, emcompassing the full perfection of what it is to be. 

It begins with the idea that existence, in and of itself, is good; this is just self-evident, for it clearly must be better to exist than to not exist provided that whatever does not exist cannot be said to experience the perfection of non-existence.  Thus, we can say that existence, in and of itself, is a perfection.  Now, something is either limited in its perfection, or it is unlimited in perfection; what does this mean?  A limitation on x is y imposed on x by any precondition the absence of which precludes x; thus, a limitation on the perfection of being would entail that your being is on the condition of such-and-such.  Take matter, for instance: as it states in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which I highly encourage you to read, "For, though the reality that belongs to matter is, of course, a participation of existence and activity, yet the concept of it connotes the imperfections of that particular kind of existence which is composite and subject to disintegration (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02062e.htm)."  Since being itself is a properly basic category which cannot be reduced to any other category (everything shares 'being' in common), then limitless being would entail something objectively greater and more perfect than anything else.

Quote:
(1) Necessarily, if a 'immaterial limitless that is materially limited' being exists, then it is necessary that a 'immaterial limitless that is materially limited' being exists.

What is 'materially limited'?  I did not use that term; I said that materiality is intrinsically limiting, meaning that materiality is, in and of itself, a limited participation in the perfection of being--material things depend on nature.

Quote:
Then the answer to that premise is... wrong, it is not necessary that such a being exists, because it has limits, and the definition of 'immaterial limitless that is materially limited being' doesn't necessarily imply it's existence, by simply it being imagined.  It is not the same as imagining an unmarried bachelor.  It is the same as imagining a non existing Zeus, which I have no problem doing and I don't see as logically incoherent. 

To say that God is limited because he is not limited is a contradiction in terms, and therefore it cannot suffice as a serious refutation to the argument.

Quote:
I have been very upfront with my shortcomings, I have repeatedly stated that I haven't studied logic formally.

Now, it is time for me to revisit what you just said earlier:  "I really would, I tried so hard for the longest time to believe in something.  But there's this nagging thing called common sense, and logic"

So, you admit to being untrained in logic, but your position is based on it? 

I'm not a good teacher; in fact, I'm not even a teacher.  I'm a layman just like you, but I actually am open minded. 

I know how it is that you think because I used to be an atheist.


BardlishtheMagnifico
atheistScience Freak
BardlishtheMagnifico's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2011-03-01
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I know how it is that

Quote:
I know how it is that you think because I used to be an atheist

 

 

...and I know how you have a deep need to turn every kind of psychological cartwheel you can find in order to rationalize your indefensible notion that god (whatever the fuck that means) is a logically sound and verifiable entity because I was once a theist.

 

This is little better than the tired old "There must be a God because we can conceive of a god" drivel.

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
TGBaker wrote:I am starting

TGBaker wrote:

I am starting to think it is simple. No one sees the idea of the ontological argument where god is necessary as anything other than question begging. All of us here are either "jejune" or right along with the scholars who live this stuff. I contacted a professor and posted his analysis. He is one of the top scholars in the country on the ontological argument. He said that it is question begging. So the only disagreement seems to be Mr. Metaphysics who believes the premise though that is the question begging. It seems that will go nowhere.  Modal logic was created to ad modes into formula such as possibility and necessity. 

I did not say that everyone here was jejune--I only said that about Bob.  Bob has not even come close to raising a serious objection to the argument; he raised several objections, each of which was ad hoc'd after I debunked the other.  Earlier, I began to feel sorry for him, as it is clear that he is philosophically incompetent and has had little exposure to good rigorous argumentation; however, his buddies started coming to his rescue, which gave him ample time to fine tune his objections with bigger words so as to seem more sophisticated, when in the beginning he could not even get the basics down (again, I'm assuming that people are conversing with him over PM and giving him ideas).  Clearly, the ontological argument was his introduction to modal logic, which explains why he is so antipathetic towards it--modal logic was not developed for theological reasons, just to be clear. 

I am aware of the issues with the possibility premise, and I've already addressed them.  I cannot prove that God is not impossible, except that I can stand on the general reliability of our modal intuitions and say, at least, that it is rational to believe in God, because the notion contains no prima facie contradictions whereas I find prima facie contradictions in the notion that he does not exist (e.g., a being both limited and limitless).


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:TGBaker

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I am starting to think it is simple. No one sees the idea of the ontological argument where god is necessary as anything other than question begging. All of us here are either "jejune" or right along with the scholars who live this stuff. I contacted a professor and posted his analysis. He is one of the top scholars in the country on the ontological argument. He said that it is question begging. So the only disagreement seems to be Mr. Metaphysics who believes the premise though that is the question begging. It seems that will go nowhere.  Modal logic was created to ad modes into formula such as possibility and necessity. 

I did not say that everyone here was jejune--I only said that about Bob.  Bob has not even come close to raising a serious objection to the argument; he raised several objections, each of which was ad hoc'd after I debunked the other.  Earlier, I began to feel sorry for him, as it is clear that he is philosophically incompetent and has had little exposure to good rigorous argumentation; however, his buddies started coming to his rescue, which gave him ample time to fine tune his objections with bigger words so as to seem more sophisticated, when in the beginning he could not even get the basics down (again, I'm assuming that people are conversing with him over PM and giving him ideas).  Clearly, the ontological argument was his introduction to modal logic, which explains why he is so antipathetic towards it--modal logic was not developed for theological reasons, just to be clear. 

I am aware of the issues with the possibility premise, and I've already addressed them.  I cannot prove that God is not impossible, except that I can stand on the general reliability of our modal intuitions and say, at least, that it is rational to believe in God, because the notion contains no prima facie contradictions whereas I find prima facie contradictions in the notion that he does not exist (e.g., a being both limited and limitless).

and there you see the problem Mr. M. You insist the contradictions are in the atheist arguments when in fact they are issues that atheists have pointed out in the theist's position.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:TGBaker

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I am starting to think it is simple. No one sees the idea of the ontological argument where god is necessary as anything other than question begging. All of us here are either "jejune" or right along with the scholars who live this stuff. I contacted a professor and posted his analysis. He is one of the top scholars in the country on the ontological argument. He said that it is question begging. So the only disagreement seems to be Mr. Metaphysics who believes the premise though that is the question begging. It seems that will go nowhere.  Modal logic was created to ad modes into formula such as possibility and necessity. 

I did not say that everyone here was jejune--I only said that about Bob.  Bob has not even come close to raising a serious objection to the argument; he raised several objections, each of which was ad hoc'd after I debunked the other.  Earlier, I began to feel sorry for him, as it is clear that he is philosophically incompetent and has had little exposure to good rigorous argumentation; however, his buddies started coming to his rescue, which gave him ample time to fine tune his objections with bigger words so as to seem more sophisticated, when in the beginning he could not even get the basics down (again, I'm assuming that people are conversing with him over PM and giving him ideas).  Clearly, the ontological argument was his introduction to modal logic, which explains why he is so antipathetic towards it--modal logic was not developed for theological reasons, just to be clear. 

I am aware of the issues with the possibility premise, and I've already addressed them.  I cannot prove that God is not impossible, except that I can stand on the general reliability of our modal intuitions and say, at least, that it is rational to believe in God, because the notion contains no prima facie contradictions whereas I find prima facie contradictions in the notion that he does not exist (e.g., a being both limited and limitless).

S5 discards information. Therefore any argument dependent on S5 can not be considered conclusive.

Its that simple. Deal with 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


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

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Earlier, I began to feel sorry for him, as it is clear that he is philosophically incompetent and has had little exposure to good rigorous argumentation; however, his buddies started coming to his rescue, which gave him ample time to fine tune his objections with bigger words so as to seem more sophisticated, when in the beginning he could not even get the basics down (again, I'm assuming that people are conversing with him over PM and giving him ideas).  Clearly, the ontological argument was his introduction to modal logic, which explains why he is so antipathetic towards it--modal logic was not developed for theological reasons, just to be clear. 

I don't believe that anyone is giving Bob anything... this forum is pretty old and Bob's been around a while. You're not the first person to post the OA here in a modal form, and in every case Bob has made responses in one way, shape, form or fashion. Given that, I think Bob is capable of answering for himself. But writing him off because he's not "sophisticated" or "fine tuned" deals damage to your own credibility and less to his.

But given that, I've reread the thread just to make sure... I still haven't heard you deal with the objection I raised. The only thing you did was make an unwarranted statement that it was not a "strong objection" when there is reason to believe it invalidates your entire argument. So until you provide a reason as to why I'm not right, we have no reason to believe anything about the conclusions as true.


 

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


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

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I am starting to think it is simple. No one sees the idea of the ontological argument where god is necessary as anything other than question begging. All of us here are either "jejune" or right along with the scholars who live this stuff. I contacted a professor and posted his analysis. He is one of the top scholars in the country on the ontological argument. He said that it is question begging. So the only disagreement seems to be Mr. Metaphysics who believes the premise though that is the question begging. It seems that will go nowhere.  Modal logic was created to ad modes into formula such as possibility and necessity. 

I did not say that everyone here was jejune--I only said that about Bob.  Bob has not even come close to raising a serious objection to the argument; he raised several objections, each of which was ad hoc'd after I debunked the other.  Earlier, I began to feel sorry for him, as it is clear that he is philosophically incompetent and has had little exposure to good rigorous argumentation; however, his buddies started coming to his rescue, which gave him ample time to fine tune his objections with bigger words so as to seem more sophisticated, when in the beginning he could not even get the basics down (again, I'm assuming that people are conversing with him over PM and giving him ideas).  Clearly, the ontological argument was his introduction to modal logic, which explains why he is so antipathetic towards it--modal logic was not developed for theological reasons, just to be clear. 

I am aware of the issues with the possibility premise, and I've already addressed them.  I cannot prove that God is not impossible, except that I can stand on the general reliability of our modal intuitions and say, at least, that it is rational to believe in God, because the notion contains no prima facie contradictions whereas I find prima facie contradictions in the notion that he does not exist (e.g., a being both limited and limitless).

I agree with you. I think that it can be rational to believe in god. And I know that everyone kids me about bringing Zeno up from time to time. But that is avery good example of the empirical and experiential problem you get into with logic verses observation. Zeno certainly can be explained mathematically but the general application of the logic fails with experience. It also succeeds in that it gives pause that experienced stuff may not be infinitely divisible, A ball does reach the ground.  20 years as a social worker and 10 with missions prior to that gives me plenty of experiential empirical data to question and analyse a traditionally offered god. Children with cigarette burns on their genitalia is evidence that there is not an all powerful/all knowing/ all good limitless being. One as with Zeno's arguments rightfully questions the correspondence value of the argument with the data from the actual world. The notion that god does not exist simply means there is no state or entity of being that is limitless. The idea has been argued from existence precedes essence and that to speak of a being or a state is itself limiting. These echoes go all the way back to Parmenides, Zeno's teacher and lover. If being is boundless it ultimately is no thing? That certainly is the Eastern Buddhist solution as well.  Nirvana is a void from which all things arise that are limited and transitory.  I serious think that if there is a boundless or a limitless a priori to creation then it is relative and limited  by creation or response. I understand the idea of a one to one relationship of all quid in the quod type to the limitless but it does not account for time space or process. Theodicy is a deadly issue as well.

 

"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:Bob has

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Bob has not even come close to raising a serious objection to the argument

I guess it boils down to, everyone needs to take your word for it. Fortunately, the world doesn't work like that.

The problem is, that you're not thorough, at all.

You haven't answered all the criticisms. Not even close.

So, you cannot claim that your formula is uncontested, and sound.

You'd be lying through your teeth.

  

In any event, there's nothing (that I can see) in any of your premises, or equations that prevents there being more than 1 'god'.

Therefore, it's every bit as certain, that there are more than 1.

That would entirely contradict all Abrahamic religions.

Unless you want to rewrite all ancient scriptures, the hypothesis fails.

 

Plain and simple.

That is a completely valid objection.

You asked if there are any logical contradictions, and there's a blatant one.

It's inherently assumed that there is only 1.

There's NO reason to make that assumption.

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


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Children with

TGBaker wrote:

Children with cigarette burns on their genitalia is evidence that there is not an all powerful/all knowing/ all good limitless being.

 

Right here.  This is my problem.  This actualized world is so fricking imperfect, it is impossible for there to be any kind of a "limitless" or "perfect" or "maximally great" being.  And if I ever find out there was one all along, I'm going to kick his/her/its/their ass around eternity for being so fricking incompetent.  Which just goes to show how limited s/he/it/they must be.

And do NOT get me started on "its for their own good" or "said maximally great being has a 'plan'".  I'm in a mood today.

PS: And christian morals suck big time.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:TGBaker

cj wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Children with cigarette burns on their genitalia is evidence that there is not an all powerful/all knowing/ all good limitless being.

 

Right here.  This is my problem.  This actualized world is so fricking imperfect, it is impossible for there to be any kind of a "limitless" or "perfect" or "maximally great" being.  And if I ever find out there was one all along, I'm going to kick his/her/its/their ass around eternity for being so fricking incompetent.  Which just goes to show how limited s/he/it/they must be.

And do NOT get me started on "its for their own good" or "said maximally great being has a 'plan'".  I'm in a mood today.

PS: And christian morals suck big time.

Oh, be fair, cj, there might be a God. He might even be pretty damn powerful.

But it sure is utterly indefensible to claim that a possible God concerned in some way with this world is actually 'good' - ALL the evidence is against that naive assumption.

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


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:cj

BobSpence1 wrote:

cj wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Children with cigarette burns on their genitalia is evidence that there is not an all powerful/all knowing/ all good limitless being.

 

Right here.  This is my problem.  This actualized world is so fricking imperfect, it is impossible for there to be any kind of a "limitless" or "perfect" or "maximally great" being.  And if I ever find out there was one all along, I'm going to kick his/her/its/their ass around eternity for being so fricking incompetent.  Which just goes to show how limited s/he/it/they must be.

And do NOT get me started on "its for their own good" or "said maximally great being has a 'plan'".  I'm in a mood today.

PS: And christian morals suck big time.

Oh, be fair, cj, there might be a God. He might even be pretty damn powerful.

But it sure is utterly indefensible to claim that a possible God concerned in some way with this world is actually 'good' - ALL the evidence is against that naive assumption.

 

Nope, today I am not fair - or even generous.  Maybe tomorrow, but it is doubtful.  No perfect, limitless, infinite, maximally great being exists.  Because it is obvious in this world the dude is morally bankrupt and totally incompetent which makes him/her/it/them far from powerful.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


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

BobSpence1 wrote:

cj wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Children with cigarette burns on their genitalia is evidence that there is not an all powerful/all knowing/ all good limitless being.

 

Right here.  This is my problem.  This actualized world is so fricking imperfect, it is impossible for there to be any kind of a "limitless" or "perfect" or "maximally great" being.  And if I ever find out there was one all along, I'm going to kick his/her/its/their ass around eternity for being so fricking incompetent.  Which just goes to show how limited s/he/it/they must be.

And do NOT get me started on "its for their own good" or "said maximally great being has a 'plan'".  I'm in a mood today.

PS: And christian morals suck big time.

Oh, be fair, cj, there might be a God. He might even be pretty damn powerful.

But it sure is utterly indefensible to claim that a possible God concerned in some way with this world is actually 'good' - ALL the evidence is against that naive assumption.

Now Bob don't start evangelizing us with an Aristotelian god I would respond like Plato  But It is more plausible not-god.i

 

 

"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
cj wrote:TGBaker

cj wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Children with cigarette burns on their genitalia is evidence that there is not an all powerful/all knowing/ all good limitless being.

 

Right here.  This is my problem.  This actualized world is so fricking imperfect, it is impossible for there to be any kind of a "limitless" or "perfect" or "maximally great" being.  And if I ever find out there was one all along, I'm going to kick his/her/its/their ass around eternity for being so fricking incompetent.  Which just goes to show how limited s/he/it/they must be.

And do NOT get me started on "its for their own good" or "said maximally great being has a 'plan'".  I'm in a mood today.

PS: And christian morals suck big time.

 

Christian morality is ultimately evil.


 

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

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


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

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

I have a sinking feeling that this post will start a personal obsession with metaphysics and logic.  I really do wish to comprehend why anyone would consider the OA as proof of god.  Like mellstad said, perhaps if I were better educated.  Well at least I have a relatively clear educational goal for the next few months.

It is proving very intriguing.  Every logical argument that I have encountered was consistent when translated into plain English.  Perhaps this is the exception to the rule, it is simply too complex for a layman to comprehend.  I may have to see what related courses are being offered at the campus near me.

Yea, same here.  :/

I dunno if it would help, but I will try and explain the modal version of the ontological argument in plain English. First I will explain the non-modal form, then extend that to the modal form. If you already understand the non-modal form, skip the next paragraph.

Non-modal ontological arguments, generally speaking, define "god" as "the greatest possible conceivable being (GPCB) ". This having been said said the argument them supposes that it is greater to exist than to not exist. In order to be "greatest" it must exist, therefore the greatest possible conceivable being who is defined as "god" exists.

Modal versions are a little more convoluted as they import a lot of jargon that isn't "plain English" but specific to the world of logicians. First, there is there is the notion of "possible worlds". "Possible worlds" is as it suggests, worlds that could possibly exist: that means there is no logical reason they couldn't exist. Then there is the "actualized world" -- this is the world in which we exist.  Once you get that, you get that which is "necessary" and that which is "possible". That which is "necessary" must exist in all possible worlds, but that which possible may exist in a given possible world but not all possible worlds.

A critical part of modal versions is a formulation called "S5", which for the purposes of the ontological argument suggests that if something that is necessary possibly exists, then it necessarily exists.

Given this the argument would sound something like this. First, proponents conject that it is possible for a  GPCB or an analog to this concept to exist because it is internally logically consistent. Then it follows the same line of thinking as the non-modal forms do in that a GPCB is a necessary being, Next proponents use S5 saying, that because there is a necessary being that possibly exists, the GPCB necessarily exists.

 

Hope this helps... there's a lot more to it than this, because there are multiple versions of the argument from different camps.

 

Actually, that does help, thank you very much.  Christ, I'm so far behind.  I'm sure this stuff has already been brought up.

 

Why is something considered to be 'greater' for existing?  Isn't that just a preference based on our evolutionary bias towards continuation?  Or overall, how is something that is limitless considered 'greater' than something with limits?  I understand why a person would consider it to be so, but logic isn't a person, why would 'logic' consider any particular thing to be 'greater' than anything else?  Especially when applied to concepts rather than material things?  Or does the word have a non-typical meaning within logic?

 

 

Why is an immaterial being considered to be logically 'possible'?  Wouldn't you have to prove that a mind/being without matter can exist before you could consider it to be 'possible'?

 

Why is S5 considered to be "really true"?  I can understand why it works within the logical framework, but why is it considered to work outside of being internally consistent?  I can 'conceive' of a 'possible' tower made out of iron that is 'maximally great'...that is, a tower tall/wise (***Edit: Lol, Freudian slip?  'wide'  Although in this context, I guess maybe a wise tower makes as much sense?) enough that a single additional atom of iron would cause structural collapse, and because existing is 'greater' than not existing, it is 'necessary' (S5)...

So within the framework of the logic, does that mean I would be bound to acknowledge that such a tower is a real, actual thing?  I assume I'm missing something?

 

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


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

redneF wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Bob has not even come close to raising a serious objection to the argument

I guess it boils down to, everyone needs to take your word for it. Fortunately, the world doesn't work like that.

The problem is, that you're not thorough, at all.

You haven't answered all the criticisms. Not even close.

So, you cannot claim that your formula is uncontested, and sound.

You'd be lying through your teeth.

  

In any event, there's nothing (that I can see) in any of your premises, or equations that prevents there being more than 1 'god'.

Therefore, it's every bit as certain, that there are more than 1.

That would entirely contradict all Abrahamic religions.

Unless you want to rewrite all ancient scriptures, the hypothesis fails.

 

Plain and simple.

That is a completely valid objection.

You asked if there are any logical contradictions, and there's a blatant one.

It's inherently assumed that there is only 1.

There's NO reason to make that assumption.

 

 

Ahhh, I get that now.  Since something with higher quantity or fewer limitations is apparently considered 'greater' in a logical sense, a 'maximally great' deity would be repeated without limit, right?

Wouldn't the argument just be that 'limitless' precludes more than one being, since any additional beings would be encompassed by the first?

Assuming, that is, you can swallow the idea that something immaterial can have traits at all.

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


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Why is it assumed that

Why is it assumed that something 'immaterial' can be a 'being'?  The argument assumes dualism is true, right?  How do they get there?

 

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


BardlishtheMagnifico
atheistScience Freak
BardlishtheMagnifico's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2011-03-01
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Why is it

mellestad wrote:

Why is it assumed that something 'immaterial' can be a 'being'?  The argument assumes dualism is true, right?  How do they get there?

 

 

Quite telling for me is that the only presumed attributes of the immaterial being that are described with even the remotest clarity are blatantly anthropomorphic.  It must be a being because once it becomes immaterial it is an empty and nebulous concept, devoid of any meaning at all.  By dishonestly attributing "being" attributes to an immaterial entity the man behind the curtain is exposed.

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
ubuntuAnyone wrote:I don't

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

I don't believe that anyone is giving Bob anything... this forum is pretty old and Bob's been around a while. You're not the first person to post the OA here in a modal form, and in every case Bob has made responses in one way, shape, form or fashion. Given that, I think Bob is capable of answering for himself. But writing him off because he's not "sophisticated" or "fine tuned" deals damage to your own credibility and less to his.

LOL, I can give a flying rip whether you think I'm credible.   

I created this thread specifically to give Bob a chance to respond to my argument, because he was following me around on the forum attempting to hijack every one of my discussions.  He consistently obfuscated, fabricated, mocked, and insulted.  I created this thread specifically to give him the limelight that he ostensibly wanted so desperately, and I am only reacting to what he has given me.  First, existence is not a predicate; then, I am assuming a premise that is not even in the argument; then Abelard and Plantinga are idiots; then we cannot know what's possible because we are not omniscient; then modalities can only apply to axiomatic truths; then modal propositions are reducible to propositional logic; then Godel proves that all logic proves nothing; then S5 proves nothing, because, well, he says so.  How many times is he going to revise his objection before finally accepting the argument?

All the while, several different atheists decided to join in on a thread and gang up on me, and a few of them (you included) reprimanded me for not answering the questions.  Really, I'm just debating about 10 different atheists.  I'd love for any of you to face me one-on-one in a real live debate; you'll get your ass kicked.  The problem with these text debates is that you can easily respond only after you've spent a few hours Google searching or asking other people for ideas.  The only person who I've enjoyed talking with is TBaker; my experience here tells me that this place is a cesspool, so I have no idea why he wastes his time here.

Quote:
But given that, I've reread the thread just to make sure... I still haven't heard you deal with the objection I raised. The only thing you did was make an unwarranted statement that it was not a "strong objection" when there is reason to believe it invalidates your entire argument. So until you provide a reason as to why I'm not right, we have no reason to believe anything about the conclusions as true

Hahaha, you are a puppy dog desperately seeking a bone.

You made several incoherent statements.  Which one do you want me to respond to?


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

I don't believe that anyone is giving Bob anything... this forum is pretty old and Bob's been around a while. You're not the first person to post the OA here in a modal form, and in every case Bob has made responses in one way, shape, form or fashion. Given that, I think Bob is capable of answering for himself. But writing him off because he's not "sophisticated" or "fine tuned" deals damage to your own credibility and less to his.

LOL, I can give a flying rip whether you think I'm credible.   

I created this thread specifically to give Bob a chance to respond to my argument, because he was following me around on the forum attempting to hijack every one of my discussions.  He consistently obfuscated, fabricated, mocked, and insulted.  I created this thread specifically to give him the limelight that he ostensibly wanted so desperately, and I am only reacting to what he has given me.  First, existence is not a predicate; then, I am assuming a premise that is not even in the argument; then Abelard and Plantinga are idiots; then we cannot know what's possible because we are not omniscient; then modalities can only apply to axiomatic truths; then modal propositions are reducible to propositional logic; then Godel proves that all logic proves nothing; then S5 proves nothing, because, well, he says so.  How many times is he going to revise his objection before finally accepting the argument?

All the while, several different atheists decided to join in on a thread and gang up on me, and a few of them (you included) reprimanded me for not answering the questions.  Really, I'm just debating about 10 different atheists.  I'd love for any of you to face me one-on-one in a real live debate; you'll get your ass kicked.  The problem with these text debates is that you can easily respond only after you've spent a few hours Google searching or asking other people for ideas.  The only person who I've enjoyed talking with is TBaker; my experience here tells me that this place is a cesspool, so I have no idea why he wastes his time here.

Quote:
But given that, I've reread the thread just to make sure... I still haven't heard you deal with the objection I raised. The only thing you did was make an unwarranted statement that it was not a "strong objection" when there is reason to believe it invalidates your entire argument. So until you provide a reason as to why I'm not right, we have no reason to believe anything about the conclusions as true

Hahaha, you are a puppy dog desperately seeking a bone.

You made several incoherent statements.  Which one do you want me to respond to?

Even if they do spend time as much time as they need to make a rebuttal it doesnt take away from the fact that they have defeated your argument. It sounds like you are saying what you say is right so long as know one can refute you at the moment, which is silly. If someone has to spend a day or two looking up why your wrong that doesnt mean your right because you got someone stumped.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

I don't believe that anyone is giving Bob anything... this forum is pretty old and Bob's been around a while. You're not the first person to post the OA here in a modal form, and in every case Bob has made responses in one way, shape, form or fashion. Given that, I think Bob is capable of answering for himself. But writing him off because he's not "sophisticated" or "fine tuned" deals damage to your own credibility and less to his.

LOL, I can give a flying rip whether you think I'm credible.   

I created this thread specifically to give Bob a chance to respond to my argument, because he was following me around on the forum attempting to hijack every one of my discussions.  He consistently obfuscated, fabricated, mocked, and insulted.  I created this thread specifically to give him the limelight that he ostensibly wanted so desperately, and I am only reacting to what he has given me.  First, existence is not a predicate; then, I am assuming a premise that is not even in the argument; then Abelard and Plantinga are idiots; then we cannot know what's possible because we are not omniscient; then modalities can only apply to axiomatic truths; then modal propositions are reducible to propositional logic; then Godel proves that all logic proves nothing; then S5 proves nothing, because, well, he says so.  How many times is he going to revise his objection before finally accepting the argument?

All the while, several different atheists decided to join in on a thread and gang up on me, and a few of them (you included) reprimanded me for not answering the questions.  Really, I'm just debating about 10 different atheists.  I'd love for any of you to face me one-on-one in a real live debate; you'll get your ass kicked.  The problem with these text debates is that you can easily respond only after you've spent a few hours Google searching or asking other people for ideas.  The only person who I've enjoyed talking with is TBaker; my experience here tells me that this place is a cesspool, so I have no idea why he wastes his time here.

Quote:
But given that, I've reread the thread just to make sure... I still haven't heard you deal with the objection I raised. The only thing you did was make an unwarranted statement that it was not a "strong objection" when there is reason to believe it invalidates your entire argument. So until you provide a reason as to why I'm not right, we have no reason to believe anything about the conclusions as true

Hahaha, you are a puppy dog desperately seeking a bone.

You made several incoherent statements.  Which one do you want me to respond to?

Even if they do spend time as much time as they need to make a rebuttal it doesnt take away from the fact that they have defeated your argument. It sounds like you are saying what you say is right so long as know one can refute you at the moment, which is silly. If someone has to spend a day or two looking up why your wrong that doesnt mean your right because you got someone stumped.

Imagine if real people actually decided truth that way?  "You've got thirty seconds to prove the universe doesn't revolve around the Earth, go!"  LOL, indeed.

I'm beginning to think the only difference between Mr. and Red is Mr. is being serious.  Well, and smiley usage.

The reason he likes talking to TBaker is TBaker has respect for the discipline.  I can understand that, it must be aggravating to debate a concept when no-one accepts the basic premises of your argument.  But it is worse than that, because it isn't like Mr. Meta woke up one morning and thought of this stuff, he's just picked a side in an argument about metaphysics that's been going on since metaphysics existed and wants to brush off anyone who doesn't happen to agree with his prejudice....after all, his choice is 'obviously' the correct choice.  Never mind that the experts can't even agree.

 

To me this is equivalent to a bunch of cosmologists debating string theory, half say yes, half say no.  Then an amateur takes the arguments from one side (that conveniently agree with his emotional longing) and runs out to convince tell anyone who doesn't agree with him how stupid they are.

The analogy breaks down though, because the cosmologists wouldn't be passionately debating the concept for two thousand years even though no-one had ever figured out a way to test it either way.

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


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

mellestad wrote:

The reason he likes talking to TBaker is TBaker has respect for the discipline.  I can understand that, it must be aggravating to debate a concept when no-one accepts the basic premises of your argument.  But it is worse than that, because it isn't like Mr. Meta woke up one morning and thought of this stuff, he's just picked a side in an argument about metaphysics that's been going on since metaphysics existed and wants to brush off anyone who doesn't happen to agree with his prejudice....after all, his choice is 'obviously' the correct choice.  Never mind that the experts can't even agree.

 

To me this is equivalent to a bunch of cosmologists debating string theory, half say yes, half say no.  Then an amateur takes the arguments from one side (that conveniently agree with his emotional longing) and runs out to convince tell anyone who doesn't agree with him how stupid they are.

The analogy breaks down though, because the cosmologists wouldn't be passionately debating the concept for two thousand years even though no-one had ever figured out a way to test it either way.

I would say TBaker has a concern about the discipline rather than necessarily a respect. I studied Gettier and Counter Gettier arguments in the mid 80's which meant a lotta modal logic. Wiki below:

Gettier provides several examples of beliefs that are both true and justified, but that we should not intuitively call knowledge. Cases of this sort are now called "Gettier (counter-)examples." Because Gettier's criticism of the Justified True Belief model is systemic, a cottage industry has sprung up around imagining increasingly fantastical counterexamples. For example, I am watching the men's Wimbledon Final and John McEnroe is playing Jimmy Connors, it is match point, and McEnroe wins. I say to myself "John McEnroe is this year's men's champion at Wimbledon". Unbeknownst to me, however, the BBC were experiencing a broadcasting fault and so had stuck in a tape of last year's final, when McEnroe also beat Connors. I had been watching last year's Wimbledon final so I believed that McEnroe had beaten Connors. But at that same time, in real life, McEnroe was repeating last year's victory and beating Connors! So my belief that McEnroe beat Connors to become this year's Wimbledon champion is true, and I had good reason to believe so (my belief was justified) - and yet, there is a sense in which I could not really have claimed to 'know' that McEnroe had beaten Connors because I was only accidentally right that McEnroe beat Connors - my belief was not based on the right kind of justification.

Gettier inspired a great deal of work by philosophers attempting to recover a working definition of knowledge. Major responses include:

  • Gettier's use of "justification" is too broad, and only some kinds of justification count;
  • Gettier's examples do not count as justification at all, and only some kinds of evidence are justificatory;
  • Knowledge must have a fourth condition, such as "no false premises" or "indefeasibility";
  • Robert Nozick suggests knowledge must consist of justified true belief that is "truth-tracking"—belief held in such a way that if it turned out to be false it would not have been held, and vice versa;
  • Colin McGinn suggests knowledge is atomic (it is indivisible into smaller components). We have knowledge when we have knowledge, and an accurate definition of knowledge may even contain the word "knowledge."[1]

A 2001 study by Weinberg, Nichols, and Stich suggests that the impact of the Gettier problem varies by culture. In particular, individuals from Western countries appear more likely to agree with the judgments described in the story than do those from East Asia.[2]

 

I also tolerated modal logic in the early nineties to defeat Plantinga's omniscient god free will defense.

Plantinga's argument is that even though God is omnipotent, it is possible that it was not in his power to create a world containing moral good but no moral evil; therefore, there is no logical inconsistency involved when God, although wholly good, creates a world of free creatures who chose to do evil. The argument relies on the following propositions:

  1. There are possible worlds that even an omnipotent being can not actualize.
  2. A world with morally free creatures producing only moral good is such a world.

Given the ontological argument we went through this argument added to OA is like having the cake and eating it too.  Or at least a bit too much icing.

The defeater is that a god actualizing a world with full knowledge excludes meaningful freewill.  This itself is argued back and forth with possible worlds and so forth.  These reasons were why I was not a theist from the 80's on. I was a panentheist which is the Being/existence garbage I put up for fun and parody.  Given that I have been there I do have sympathy for the devil  I do not care for the arrogance and cock suredness.  But then there is a parallel between that level of research and sports such that a jock is a jock.

"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: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:BobSpence1 wrote:cj

cj wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

cj wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Children with cigarette burns on their genitalia is evidence that there is not an all powerful/all knowing/ all good limitless being.

 

Right here.  This is my problem.  This actualized world is so fricking imperfect, it is impossible for there to be any kind of a "limitless" or "perfect" or "maximally great" being.  And if I ever find out there was one all along, I'm going to kick his/her/its/their ass around eternity for being so fricking incompetent.  Which just goes to show how limited s/he/it/they must be.

And do NOT get me started on "its for their own good" or "said maximally great being has a 'plan'".  I'm in a mood today.

PS: And christian morals suck big time.

Oh, be fair, cj, there might be a God. He might even be pretty damn powerful.

But it sure is utterly indefensible to claim that a possible God concerned in some way with this world is actually 'good' - ALL the evidence is against that naive assumption.

Nope, today I am not fair - or even generous.  Maybe tomorrow, but it is doubtful.  No perfect, limitless, infinite, maximally great being exists.  Because it is obvious in this world the dude is morally bankrupt and totally incompetent which makes him/her/it/them far from powerful.

Oh, I agree, of course.

I was just adding the point that even if a 'finite', (ie 'possibleEye-wink God existed, He ain't 'good'.

And, or else, he is massively incompetent, as you say.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


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

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

  I'd love for any of you to face me one-on-one in a real live debate; you'll get your ass kicked. 

Dude, I already accepted your challenge to a debate, so stop running your mouth, like there's any reason to fear you.

Debating you, would be a pleasure among a room full of scientists and engineers. But, you'd have a difficult time getting them to attend.

Scientists and engineers can't take you clowns seriously, at all.

Because you don't actually debate, you don't produce anything workable, you posit a useless idea, and you argue with anyone who doesn't think your Snake Oil works.

 

It's that simple. No company I can think of, hires a 'philosopher'.

You're just a bunch of 'fresh air' inspectors, who argue that everyone else's sh1t stinks.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
The problem with these text debates is that you can easily respond only after you've spent a few hours Google searching or asking other people for ideas. 

Translation : Damn the information age!! 

 

Like has been previously mentioned, these ancient arguments, were for superstitious people, who were afraid of their own shadows.

Buzzwords like 'Maximally Great', and 'Limitless Being', and whatever other nonsense, sounds like a Marvel comic book hero.

I doubt you take this drivel seriously. It's just how you troll, and get a rise out of people.

I notice how completely non commital you are all the time, with your 'that's not a good enough argument'.

You're just posturing. You're not saying you are 'correct', and that others are 'incorrect', because you don't want to acknowledge the truth.

That's fine.

You can't do much with this kind of drivel, except preach.

Science and education will breed more intelligent people, as religion dies off more and more, in America. America can't afford to have massive populations of 'god fearin' good folk', any longer.

They need to get 'hi tech'. They need to catch up with Europe.

 

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat yourself here, you're clearly full of sh1t, and your motives are so transparent it's not even funny.

There are 14 yr old boys who completely demolish William Lane Craig arguments, on YouTube.

 

I can't think of a single psychologist who wouldn't 'red flag' you as a complete sociopath.

 

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I still

I still don't........completely.........get it......

Are my thoughts on this sound?

If it's just an arbitrary definition, what prevents me from saying that a being has to be non-existent to be maximally great?

Or, given that God is a necessary being, how is not equivalent for me to say that there is no contradiction in God not existing? Ergo, he "possibly" doesn't exist. Ergo, he doesn't exist in any world?

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Why is it

mellestad wrote:
Why is it assumed that something 'immaterial' can be a 'being'?  The argument assumes dualism is true, right?  How do they get there?

Oh, that's easy. I'll show you. 

P1: -Fx&Qx >> PvQ >> 42

P2: I define "beings" as immaterial. Ergo, I'm immaterial.

P3: *poof*

Conclusion: Immaterial beings exist.

 

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The S5 axiom, that"it

The S5 axiom, that

"it is possible that it is necessary that A" is to be treated as equivalent to  "it is necessary that A",

is blatantly discarding an important nuance in the first statement, in an effort to allow reducibility of mixed sequences of modal operators.

If you express it purely in terms of N, then it becomes

"it is not necessary that it is not necessary that A" which in no way can honestly be interpreted that A is necessary. No sequence of "not necessary" operations can produce 'necessary' conclusion.

It is apparent to me, after more thoroughly looking into this than I have previously, that sequences of modal operators, mixed or not, are not strictly reducible, and any rules which introduce new, alternative assumptions, AKA 'axioms', in an attempt to make them reducible in order to make ML at least superficially useful, have to ignore some of the implications of the concatenated operators. This is clearly apparent in, and is the reason for, the proliferation of variations of ML.

So any ML which adds any particular set of axioms to reduce these sequences of operators, can only generate "maybe" class conclusions, because it has almost certainly discarded or ignored part of the flow of implication.

 

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: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:I still

butterbattle wrote:

I still don't........completely.........get it......

Are my thoughts on this sound?

If it's just an arbitrary definition, what prevents me from saying that a being has to be non-existent to be maximally great?

Or, given that God is a necessary being, how is not equivalent for me to say that there is no contradiction in God not existing? Ergo, he "possibly" doesn't exist. Ergo, he doesn't exist in any world?

How about the argument that for a being 'great' enough to create a Universe, he would necessarily be even greater if he did it as a non-existent being than an existing one, so he must not exist...

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
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

I still don't........completely.........get it......

Are my thoughts on this sound?

If it's just an arbitrary definition, what prevents me from saying that a being has to be non-existent to be maximally great?

Or, given that God is a necessary being, how is not equivalent for me to say that there is no contradiction in God not existing? Ergo, he "possibly" doesn't exist. Ergo, he doesn't exist in any world?

How about the argument that for a being 'great' enough to create a Universe, he would necessarily be even greater if he did it as a non-existent being than an existing one, so he must not exist...

Hey I posted someone's fancy version of that a few posts back.  Makes sense to me.


 

"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


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

butterbattle wrote:

mellestad wrote:
Why is it assumed that something 'immaterial' can be a 'being'?  The argument assumes dualism is true, right?  How do they get there?

Oh, that's easy. I'll show you. 

P1: -Fx&Qx >> PvQ >> 42

P2: I define "beings" as immaterial. Ergo, I'm immaterial.

P3: *poof*

Conclusion: Immaterial beings exist.

 

 

Lol!  I genuinely laughed out loud.  Ahh...that's what it seems like most of the time, doesn't it?

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


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:BobSpence1

TGBaker wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

I still don't........completely.........get it......

Are my thoughts on this sound?

If it's just an arbitrary definition, what prevents me from saying that a being has to be non-existent to be maximally great?

Or, given that God is a necessary being, how is not equivalent for me to say that there is no contradiction in God not existing? Ergo, he "possibly" doesn't exist. Ergo, he doesn't exist in any world?

How about the argument that for a being 'great' enough to create a Universe, he would necessarily be even greater if he did it as a non-existent being than an existing one, so he must not exist...

Hey I posted someone's fancy version of that a few posts back.  Makes sense to me.

 

 

 

Well, that goes back to what Butter and I asked, how do you define 'great' in a logical context?  From this debate it seems totally arbitrary, but I'm sure there is some process, right?  Or is "great" *really* "what I think is great"?

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


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

It's all fucking arbitrary.

It's all a 'web' of presuppositions.

A god would 'have' to be immaterial, in order to make the 'afterlife', and where 'spirits' go, more convincing.

Immaterial, also' subconsciously makes the concept of 'perpetual', or 'infinite' being, more plausible.

It's completely 'arbitrary' to assume our universe wasn't 'caused' by something material.

It's completely 'arbitrary' to assume that our universe is all there is in reality.

It's completely 'arbitrary' to assume that there aren't other dimensions besides the 4 that we know.

 

Philosophy is just plain 'windbagging', and convoluted, sophisticated 'waxing poetic'. It's all fucking fantasy on the fringes of imagination.

These are the same clowns that were flat earth philosophers, and thought that the all matter on earth consisted of 4 elements, and that anything 'alive' was made of the same thing the stars were, aether.

Some scribbles in crayon on a piece of paper, do not= God exists.

 

Sorry, reality doesn't play by those rules. It makes the rules.

I think the theory that simply gravity could have 'made something from nothing', is infinitely more plausible than any intelligence, or consciousness of any kind.

Why is the concept of the universe simply being 'random' (sic) so dissonant? WTF?

Would people be that seriously distraught, if they discovered that?

I don't get it.

Seriously...

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

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

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


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

mellestad wrote:

Well, that goes back to what Butter and I asked, how do you define 'great' in a logical context?  From this debate it seems totally arbitrary, but I'm sure there is some process, right?  Or is "great" *really* "what I think is great"?

There's nothing 'logical' about 'great'.

You cannot put 'great' on a scale.

Great is not a 'property' of anything.

It's a 'quality', not a 'property'

Properties can still be 'arbitrary'. Like 'big' and 'small'.

But they're realtive (to the observer) in scale, or application.

There's NO practical use for them, in a formula. They are no 'workable', at all.

'Great' doesn't 'work. It's not 'workable'. You cannot model 'great'. It's rhetoric. It's arbitrary in meaning.

Is there 'great' aluminum, and 'terrible' aluminum?

You cannot 'scale' pretty. It's arbitrary.

'Perfect'?

You cannot scale that either.

WTF is 'perfect'? A diamond? Gold?

WTF, is 'near perfection'? Quartz? Platinum?

Where is the tipping point, from excellent, to 'perfect'?

You cannot write a computer program, and model 'pretty'. It's a syntax error.

 

His whole shtick is 'polishing on a turd', and being an obnoxious drone with 'that's not a strong argument', is pegging the irony meter so hard, that the needle broke.

His 'theorum' is pure drivel.

There's 'nothing' to model.

It's not a search for the beginning of the universe, and life, it's looking to self validate a presupposition.

These are the same braniacs who are still trying to figure out an easy way to turn lead into gold.

 

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The S5 'axiom' ( *cough)

The S5 'axiom' ( *cough) that Mr.M relies upon is totally illogical and arbitrary.

The most basic and justifiable rule to reduce sequences of Modal operators is to make any sequence containing even one 'possibility' reduce to 'possibility', and only sequences of purely 'necessary' operators reduce to one 'necessary'. You will still lose some nuances of meaning, but it is far more defensible than the S5 nonsense.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
All these 'braniacs' are

All these 'braniacs' are trying to do, is sound more intelligent that the most celebrated minds in the world today.

Theists build temples, and scientists build the Large Hadron Collider, which trancends all nations, and religions, and *cough* personal beliefs.

 

Here's some classic strawman bullshitting, from Professor John Lennox, who William Lane Craig 'Googles' for 'knowledge'.

Claiming that science is trying to catch up to theology.

Listen to this guy's horsesh1t, as he's trying to debunk Hawkins, as 'Alice in Wonderland' , and defending the OA, to the Christian minions.

"It seems to me, a very serious mistake. Laws do not create anything.
The laws of physics don't even cause anything.
The laws of gravity, or Newton's laws of motion never set a snooker ball going on a snooker table, in the history of the universe
So, I wonder if that makes sense?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wMyMmjPgLs&NR=1

This is obviously geared towards the brainless navel gazers who are impressed with this bullsh1t pseudo intellectualism.

This is simply a propaganda to boost the self esteem of theists.

Listening to what 'thoughts' he's lecturing, indicates very clearly, that he's talking to people with not much more brains than someone entering junior high school.

 

And where's Mr_M after I accepted his challenge for a 1 on 1 debate?

Come and hand me my ass, Mr_Logicman.

 

Bring it...

 

 

 

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:All these

redneF wrote:

All these 'braniacs' are trying to do, is sound more intelligent that the most celebrated minds in the world today.

Theists build temples, and scientists build the Large Hadron Collider, which trancends all nations, and religions, and *cough* personal beliefs.

 

Here's some classic strawman bullshitting, from Professor John Lennox, who William Lane Craig 'Googles' for 'knowledge'.

Listen to this guy's horsesh1t:

"It seems to me, a very serious mistake. Laws do not create anything.
The laws of physics don't even cause anything.
The laws of gravity, or Newton's laws of motion never set a snooker ball going on a snooker table, in the history of the universe
So, I wonder if that makes sense?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wMyMmjPgLs&NR=1

This is obviously geared towards the brainless navel gazers who are impressed with this bullsh1t pseudo intellectualism.

This is simply a propaganda to boost the self esteem of theists.

Listening to what 'thoughts' he's lecturing, indicates very clearly, that he's talking to people with not much more brains than someone entering junior high school.

 

And where's Mr_M after I accepted his challenge for a 1 on 1 debate?

Come and hand me my ass, Mr_Logicman.

 

Bring it... 

Gravity and the Laws of Nuclear Physics created the Galaxies and all that they contain from dust and gas. Is that worth considering?

Solar radiation warming the oceans creates Hurricanes, by the laws of Thermodynamics, gas laws, gravity, etc, etc/

That guy is a dumb as OReilly.

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