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:Gravity and

BobSpence1 wrote:

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.

That's not what *cough* Professor John Atkins wants to 'project' when he points out that he came after Hawking at Cambridge.

He wants to posture as an 'academic' and then spew bullsh1t than any teenager who paid attention in high school, could debunk.

 

He's another semantic 'Ninja' who butchers the english language to build a strawman.

He uses the term 'laws' of physics, instead of saying 'the behaviours of particles and matter', in his strawman that 'matter' cannot crystallize into some kind of 'order' and 'symmetry', or 'beauty', or 'usefulness'.

Which is utter bunk, and he knows it. It's just 'chemistry 101', Mr Professoroflyingthroughyourteeth

What a bunch of fucking liars.

I'd be upset, if I didn't know that they're been 'expelled' from indoctrinating young, malleable minds with that bullsh1t, in government schools, in America.

Thanks the forefathers of America, for that one, and many more.

Christian nation, huh?

Only in your dreams...

 

What's truly ironic,  is that, the 'mysteries' of how the universe behaves, and how the predictable ways that particles are guided into complexity, frightens them to their core, so they'll invent the most mysterious and UNPREDICTABLE explanation possible, anthropomorphize it, into the most sadistic, egocentric, bigoted, homophobic, misogynistic and homicidal sociopath imaginable, and want to be 'slaves to their Master'.

Now, THAT, is not only fucking Alice in Wonderland, it's fucking insane...

And they want to 'project' that 'most biblical scholars, historians, and philosophers will agree that, the atheists are simply illogical, and that atheism is 'false', and Christianity is 'true'.

 

Puhhleeeze...

 

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

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

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


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

redneF wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

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.

That's not what *cough* Professor John Atkins wants to 'project' when he points out that he came after Hawking at Cambridge.

He wants to posture as an 'academic' and then spew bullsh1t than any teenager who paid attention in high school, could debunk.

 

He's another semantic 'Ninja' who butchers the english language to build a strawman.

He uses the term 'laws' of physics, instead of saying 'the behaviours of particles and matter', in his strawman that 'matter' cannot crystallize into some kind of 'order' and 'symmetry', or 'beauty', or 'usefulness'.

Which is utter bunk, and he knows it. It's just 'chemistry 101', Mr Professoroflyingthroughyourteeth

What a bunch of fucking liars.

I'd be upset, if I didn't know that they're been 'expelled' from indoctrinating young, malleable minds with that bullsh1t, in government schools, in America.

Thanks the forefathers of America, for that one, and many more.

Christian nation, huh?

Only in your dreams...

 

What's truly ironic,  is that, the 'mysteries' of how the universe behaves, and how the predictable ways that particles are guided into complexity, frightens them to their core, so they'll invent the most mysterious and UNPREDICTABLE explanation possible, anthropomorphize it, into the most sadistic, egocentric, bigoted, homophobic, misogynistic and homicidal sociopath imaginable, and want to be 'slaves to their Master'.

Now, THAT, is not only fucking Alice in Wonderland, it's fucking insane...

And they want to 'project' that 'most biblical scholars, historians, and philosophers will agree that, the atheists are simply illogical, and that atheism is 'false', and Christianity is 'true'.

 

Puhhleeeze...

 

Actually most biblical scholars think that the bible is not historical and that Christianity is mythological... It only the fundies that claim to have scholars that defend the bible. Ehrman, Crossan, et.; are biblical scholars.

 

 

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

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


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Where to begin... let me

Smiling Where to begin... let me begin with your checkmate! statement regarding logic.  You'll note that I was putting forth that I did not study logic formally, meaning, as a discipline.  I've never said that I do not poses logic, or that I don't employ logic... here's a definition of logic:

Quote:
 

1. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.

2.

   a. A system of reasoning: Aristotle's logic.

   b. A mode of reasoning: By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow.

   c. The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science.

3. Valid reasoning: Your paper lacks the logic to prove your thesis.

4. The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events: There's a certain logic to the motion of rush-hour traffic.

5. Computer Science  

a. The nonarithmetic operations performed by a computer, such as sorting, comparing, and matching, that involve yes-   no decisions.

   b. Computer circuitry.

   c. Graphic representation of computer circuitry.

Ok, now on with the psychoanalysis: 

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

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). 

Well, I assure you my sentiments are genuine... this isn't an argument, it's an opinion, and I'm entitled to my own, you saying I don't feel a certain way is plain stupid.  You know nothing about me... I've never mentioned neutrality when it came to God, I used to be a believer.  As for theistic alternative not seeming attractive? wtf? Of course it is more attractive to feel oneself the center of the universe, and that an all powerful, all loving guardian watching over me and listening to my prayers.  It is a LOT more attractive then reality.  Unfortunately it is not reality.  As for this issue being moral? Where do you come up with this stuff? lol, seriously, you're trying to pull a Hannibal Lecter on me and it's making you seem silly.  Are you implying that I'm an atheist so that I have the moral freedom to sin? My moral frame of reference is completely irrelevant with my being an atheist.  Actually, I have a better moral compass now since I have nobody to hold accountable but myself, and nobody to forgive me for my misdeeds other then those that I've wronged.  That whole paragraph just made you seem petty, bigoted and insecure.

Common sense I meant only in as much as it is logically consistent, your comment about people being fallen is again... silly for lack of a better word (stupid comes to mind also) 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

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.

I've never said I understood Occam's razor as the simplest explanation is correct, that's silly.  The way I understood it is: the explanation that has the fewest assumptions, all other parameters being equal, is "better" (as you put it) , or more logically consistent.  In the cosmological argument, for example, implying that something that has a mind and omni-x attributes, caused the universe, makes more assumptions then a mindless chicken that's big and likes to pluck big bangs... It makes no economical sense, you're just complicating your argument by adding too many variables. 

The logic thing we've already addressed.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

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. 

You meant limitless as infinite the way I understood it... every time you reword your original argument, it works against it.  You need for the word LIMITLESS to mean INFINITE in order for it to imply that it is necessary by definition.  Much as the word bachelor implies unmarried.  This is your whole argument.  For every additional correction that you make to LIMITLESS you fail your ultimate goal.  As for perfection, that's a purely subjective attribute, simply because you cannot think of a way to improve on something it doesn't make it perfect, it just means you lack imagination. 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

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.

materially limited comes from you saying that he is not limitless in a material dimension, hence he is limited... why are you confused by that?  a truly infinite/limitless being would have no such boundaries, one of us is being obtuse here, I hope it's me because I'm the layman and you're the expert.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

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.

 

see above... 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

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.

I'm not sure you understand what 'open minded' means, you disregard other people opinions and ideas out of hand, and stick to your guns.  You are not willing to entertain other perspectives, how are you being open minded?

As for the last sentence... I doubt that you were ever a true atheist, you may have been confused, but you were never an atheist.  

 

 

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


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

Ktulu wrote:

Smiling Where to begin... let me begin with your checkmate! statement regarding logic.  You'll note that I was putting forth that I did not study logic formally, meaning, as a discipline.  I've never said that I do not poses logic, or that I don't employ logic... here's a definition of logic:

Quote:
 

1. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.

2.

   a. A system of reasoning: Aristotle's logic.

   b. A mode of reasoning: By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow.

   c. The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science.

3. Valid reasoning: Your paper lacks the logic to prove your thesis.

4. The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events: There's a certain logic to the motion of rush-hour traffic.

5. Computer Science  

a. The nonarithmetic operations performed by a computer, such as sorting, comparing, and matching, that involve yes-   no decisions.

   b. Computer circuitry.

   c. Graphic representation of computer circuitry.

Ok, now on with the psychoanalysis: 

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

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). 

Well, I assure you my sentiments are genuine... this isn't an argument, it's an opinion, and I'm entitled to my own, you saying I don't feel a certain way is plain stupid.  You know nothing about me... I've never mentioned neutrality when it came to God, I used to be a believer.  As for theistic alternative not seeming attractive? wtf? Of course it is more attractive to feel oneself the center of the universe, and that an all powerful, all loving guardian watching over me and listening to my prayers.  It is a LOT more attractive then reality.  Unfortunately it is not reality.  As for this issue being moral? Where do you come up with this stuff? lol, seriously, you're trying to pull a Hannibal Lecter on me and it's making you seem silly.  Are you implying that I'm an atheist so that I have the moral freedom to sin? My moral frame of reference is completely irrelevant with my being an atheist.  Actually, I have a better moral compass now since I have nobody to hold accountable but myself, and nobody to forgive me for my misdeeds other then those that I've wronged.  That whole paragraph just made you seem petty, bigoted and insecure.

Common sense I meant only in as much as it is logically consistent, your comment about people being fallen is again... silly for lack of a better word (stupid comes to mind also) 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

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.

I've never said I understood Occam's razor as the simplest explanation is correct, that's silly.  The way I understood it is: the explanation that has the fewest assumptions, all other parameters being equal, is "better" (as you put it) , or more logically consistent.  In the cosmological argument, for example, implying that something that has a mind and omni-x attributes, caused the universe, makes more assumptions then a mindless chicken that's big and likes to pluck big bangs... It makes no economical sense, you're just complicating your argument by adding too many variables. 

The logic thing we've already addressed.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

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. 

You meant limitless as infinite the way I understood it... every time you reword your original argument, it works against it.  You need for the word LIMITLESS to mean INFINITE in order for it to imply that it is necessary by definition.  Much as the word bachelor implies unmarried.  This is your whole argument.  For every additional correction that you make to LIMITLESS you fail your ultimate goal.  As for perfection, that's a purely subjective attribute, simply because you cannot think of a way to improve on something it doesn't make it perfect, it just means you lack imagination. 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

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.

materially limited comes from you saying that he is not limitless in a material dimension, hence he is limited... why are you confused by that?  a truly infinite/limitless being would have no such boundaries, one of us is being obtuse here, I hope it's me because I'm the layman and you're the expert.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

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.

 

see above... 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

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.

I'm not sure you understand what 'open minded' means, you disregard other people opinions and ideas out of hand, and stick to your guns.  You are not willing to entertain other perspectives, how are you being open minded?

As for the last sentence... I doubt that you were ever a true atheist, you may have been confused, but you were never an atheist.  

 

 

You should not have wasted such fine arguments here. This is but a cesspool if I remember correctly.


 

"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


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

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

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

Then why should I care about what you have to say about bob or your god, or anything else? Why not read Dr. Seuss for theology instead?

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

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?

His objections are warranted...rather well I must say. Even if I don't agree with him or you. It seems your only answer to any of his arguments was criticizing him as not knowing what he is talking about without any substantiation. If this was intended to be a debate, then there is an obvious winner, and it isn't you.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

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.

Um... no. I don't need to spend hours searching the internet to respond to arguments that have been posted here time and time again. Believe me, you're not the first theist who comes here and posts some argument for the existence of a deity. The posters on this forum have experience dealing with practically every version of every argument there is. That being said, I think your accusations aren't warranted here either. And if you wanted to debate live, by all means, go ahead. But I think such venues are a waste of time for the most part. I've seen to many of these "debates". About the only I cared to watch was Hitchens-Craig debate were Craig ripped Hitchens a new one and the McGrath-Dennett debate where McGrath ripped Dennett a new one. (Yes... I think the theist won.)

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

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?

I've made one objection, worded differently, which contends that your OA makes assumptions about the actualized world that are not grounded in the actualized world. For this reason you are only proving you assumptions, which is question begging.

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


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone wrote:I've made

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

I've made one objection, worded differently, which contends that your OA makes assumptions about the actualized world that are not grounded in the actualized world. For this reason you are only proving you assumptions, which is question begging.

Since all of the premises are true, and the form of the argument is valid, the conclusion must be true--this maintains whether or not my inferences are grounded in the actual world.

If the form of an argument is valid, and the premises are true, then you have to accept the conclusion.  Therefore, your objection fails.

Do you have anything else?


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:You should not

TGBaker wrote:

You should not have wasted such fine arguments here. This is but a cesspool if I remember correctly.

Smiling

I don't understand why he's still posting if those are his true feelings.  I personally enjoy the argument as a mental exercise, much like I enjoy 'what's wrong with this picture' games.  The problem is, we point out what's wrong, and he calls us closed minded, while he keeps insisting there's nothing wrong and thus he is open minded in his opinion.

And what's with his attacks on Bob?  How is Bob being anything make his argument stronger?  It's so petty and immature. 

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


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

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

I've made one objection, worded differently, which contends that your OA makes assumptions about the actualized world that are not grounded in the actualized world. For this reason you are only proving you assumptions, which is question begging.

Since all of the premises are true, and the form of the argument is valid, the conclusion must be true--this maintains whether or not my inferences are grounded in the actual world.

If the form of an argument is valid, and the premises are true, then you have to accept the conclusion.  Therefore, your objection fails.

Do you have anything else?

What grounds the truth? Nothing other than wishful thinking, so I have no reason to believe it's true...that's the point. The premises may be cohesive, but do not necessarily correspond to anything in reality.

Take Anselms argument. He says it is greater to exist than not to exist. A Buddhist would reject this premise. But there's no way of knowing whether Anselm or the Buddhist is correct a priori. The same applies to your OA. Just because the system is cohesive does not mean it is maps onto reality. You can insist all day long the premises are true, but insofar as you keep doing that, you are only entrenching yourself further into your logical loop.

If you're familiar with the grounding objection to Molinism, it is at the root the same sort of objection being made there...

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


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

Ktulu wrote:

Smiling Where to begin... let me begin with your checkmate! statement regarding logic.  You'll note that I was putting forth that I did not study logic formally, meaning, as a discipline.  I've never said that I do not poses logic, or that I don't employ logic...

Well, I have studied logic formally.  So clearly, my logic must be more trustworthy than yours, no?

Quote:
Well, I assure you my sentiments are genuine... this isn't an argument, it's an opinion, and I'm entitled to my own, you saying I don't feel a certain way is plain stupid.  You know nothing about me... I've never mentioned neutrality when it came to God, I used to be a believer.  As for theistic alternative not seeming attractive? wtf? Of course it is more attractive to feel oneself the center of the universe, and that an all powerful, all loving guardian watching over me and listening to my prayers.  It is a LOT more attractive then reality.  Unfortunately it is not reality.  As for this issue being moral? Where do you come up with this stuff? lol, seriously, you're trying to pull a Hannibal Lecter on me and it's making you seem silly.  Are you implying that I'm an atheist so that I have the moral freedom to sin? My moral frame of reference is completely irrelevant with my being an atheist.  Actually, I have a better moral compass now since I have nobody to hold accountable but myself, and nobody to forgive me for my misdeeds other then those that I've wronged.  That whole paragraph just made you seem petty, bigoted and insecure.

Um, no.  If God exists, and Christianity is true, then you are no longer allowed to have sex out of wedlock, jerk yourself off to internet porn, kill babies, violate other men up the fart-box, and so forth.  Obviously, this has a lot of implications beyond mere rational sensibilities; otherwise, you wouldn't be here attacking any argument presented for the existence of God with such fervor.. why not focus on the people who believe that Elvis is still alive?  

Quote:
Common sense I meant only in as much as it is logically consistent, your comment about people being fallen is again... silly for lack of a better word (stupid comes to mind also)

Um, phlogiston theory, flat earth, spontaneous generation, and the like were all logically consistent; they were just false.  When you make an error, it is better to just acknowledge it rather than nonsensically trying to polish it.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

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've never said I understood Occam's razor as the simplest explanation is correct, that's silly.  The way I understood it is: the explanation that has the fewest assumptions, all other parameters being equal, is "better" (as you put it) , or more logically consistent.

Um, no.  Ockham never said that.  His Razor was merely a reference to his nominalism.  When he said that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity, he was talking about the human tendency to over-categorize existing things; it's an issue of ontology, not of argumentation.  It is demonstrably false that the argument with the fewest assumptions is always better.  You have been led astray by internet atheists force feeding you this garbage--they never studied philosophy, and they have no idea about Ockham's Razor.  More than likely, you got that from Sapient during his horrible debate with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.  (Ockham was a theist, by the way.)

Quote:
In the cosmological argument, for example, implying that something that has a mind and omni-x attributes, caused the universe, makes more assumptions then a mindless chicken that's big and likes to pluck big bangs... It makes no economical sense, you're just complicating your argument by adding too many variables.

Actually, there are far less variables, especially when you come to understand issues involving the critical density of matter and the quantum indeterminacy of the singularity.  Your assumptions here are trading on non-understandings of cosmology.

The logic thing we've already addressed.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

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. 

Quote:
You meant limitless as infinite the way I understood it... every time you reword your original argument, it works against it.  You need for the word LIMITLESS to mean INFINITE in order for it to imply that it is necessary by definition.

Um, that is what it means.

Quote:
Much as the word bachelor implies unmarried.  This is your whole argument.  For every additional correction that you make to LIMITLESS you fail your ultimate goal.  As for perfection, that's a purely subjective attribute, simply because you cannot think of a way to improve on something it doesn't make it perfect, it just means you lack imagination.

Do you have anything besides assertions?  Like, is there an actual argument, or do you simply declare that I cannot do this and that?

I specifically cited a web site explaining notions of limitless or infinitude; did you make a serious effort at reading it and understanding it?

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

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:
materially limited comes from you saying that he is not limitless in a material dimension

I never said that.  You are adding words.  

Quote:
hence he is limited...

??????

He is limited because he is not limited?  

Quote:
why are you confused by that?  a truly infinite/limitless being would have no such boundaries, one of us is being obtuse here, I hope it's me because I'm the layman and you're the expert.

I smell a paradox of omnipotence.  Are you seriously going to degenerate to this level?  Have you any clue how easy those arguments are to address?

Quote:
see above...

Wow.  This is the paradox of omnipotence.  I cannot believe I let myself take the bait.   

Quote:
I'm not sure you understand what 'open minded' means, you disregard other people opinions and ideas out of hand, and stick to your guns.  You are not willing to entertain other perspectives, how are you being open minded?

As for the last sentence... I doubt that you were ever a true atheist, you may have been confused, but you were never an atheist.  

No.  I used to constant deny that God existed, and I would frequent different newsgroups and mailing lists furnishing the same garbage that you are.  I remember when I first heard the paradox of omnipotence, and I thought it was just devastating.  In fact, I used to be a huge fan of Slayer, and I wore tons of shirts to school with an inverted cross; people asked me if I worshipped the devil, but I told them that I didn't believe in any of that stuff and that I thought inverted crosses were cool.

But what do I know?  I guess you know my life history better than me.


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

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

I've made one objection, worded differently, which contends that your OA makes assumptions about the actualized world that are not grounded in the actualized world. For this reason you are only proving you assumptions, which is question begging.

Since all of the premises are true, and the form of the argument is valid, the conclusion must be true--this maintains whether or not my inferences are grounded in the actual world.

If the form of an argument is valid, and the premises are true, then you have to accept the conclusion.  Therefore, your objection fails.

Do you have anything else?

What grounds the truth? Nothing other than wishful thinking, so I have no reason to believe it's true...that's the point. The premises may be cohesive, but do not necessarily correspond to anything in reality.

Okay.  Which premise is not true, and why do you not believe it is?

 


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

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Okay.  Which premise is not true, and why do you not believe it is?

This one: God Exists, therefore God Exists.

That's what your argument is doing. It's circular...

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


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

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Okay.  Which premise is not true, and why do you not believe it is?

This one: God Exists, therefore God Exists.

That's what your argument is doing. It's circular...

EDIT:  That's not a premise in the argument.  It couldn't be a premise, because inferences are not contained in a single premise.  

Since that is not a premise in the argument, and since that is the only one you are citing to be false, I will presume that my argument proves that God exists, because the premises are all true and the form is valid.


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

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

That's not a premise in the argument; if it was, however, it would be true.  If God exists, then he exists--tautologies are axiomatic.

However, since that is not a premise in the argument, and since that is the only one you are citing to be false, I will presume that my argument proves that GOd exists, because the premises are all true and the form is valid.

I wasn't critiquing any one premise, but the approach you're using. You keep on insisting that I go for a premise... But that assumes I adopt your imported epistemology, and I'm rejecting that. What is not mentioned here is that you are supposing that there is some necessary being that exist in some possible world that you defined the parameters for. Then you assume that the actual world operates in the same manner as this made up world. All you've done here then is prove that your god can exist in your made up world and that it exists in the actualized world only because you assume it to be the case. But in the end, you've said nothing meaningful about the actual world.

In other words, your entire epistemological frame work is broken. I'm asking you to ground your assumptions. But if you do that, then you will essentially admit you are begging the question.

 

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


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

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

That's not a premise in the argument; if it was, however, it would be true.  If God exists, then he exists--tautologies are axiomatic.

However, since that is not a premise in the argument, and since that is the only one you are citing to be false, I will presume that my argument proves that GOd exists, because the premises are all true and the form is valid.

I wasn't critiquing the premise, but the approach you're using.

Okay.  So I'll assume that you are addressing the form of the argument.

Can you show how the form is such that it is possible for the premises to be true but the conclusion false?

Quote:
You keep on insisting that I go for a premise... But that assumes I adopt your imported epistemology, and I'm rejecting that.

So an argument can have a valid form and true premises, but *still* be false?!

Quote:
What is not mentioned here is that you are supposing that there is some necessary being that exist in some possible world that you defined the parameters for. Then you assume that the actual world operates in the same manner as this made up world. All you've done here then is prove that your god can exist in your made up world and that it exists in the actualized world only because you assume it to be the case. But in the end, you've said nothing meaningful about the actual world.

Again, which premise does this objection address?  If it is not addressing any of them, then you have to accept my conclusion, whether you like it or not.  If it does not address any premises in my argument, then I have proven that my approach is permissible, and it can produce truth.

Quote:
In other words, your entire epistemological frame work is broken. I'm asking you to ground your assumptions. But if you do that, then you will essentially admit you are begging the question.

My assumption is that if an argument has true premises and a valid form, then the conclusion must follow.  If you concede that both of these factors are in place, then you have to accept my conclusion.


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

Ktulu wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

You should not have wasted such fine arguments here. This is but a cesspool if I remember correctly.

Smiling

I don't understand why he's still posting if those are his true feelings.  I personally enjoy the argument as a mental exercise, much like I enjoy 'what's wrong with this picture' games.  The problem is, we point out what's wrong, and he calls us closed minded, while he keeps insisting there's nothing wrong and thus he is open minded in his opinion.

And what's with his attacks on Bob?  How is Bob being anything make his argument stronger?  It's so petty and immature. 

I think there is a need to have responses to something you believe or want to believe is valid. A valid OA would be important to a theist. I do not care much for modal logic as I mentioned earlier. I'd rather it be in non-coded language.  But it does have its precision.  I think that Bob presented a very logical mind. I am always amazed how personalities interact even through only written word!!!! I just wanted to discuss the premise but that is the weakness. So the argument protects the premise from attack by validating it as rational.

Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world—e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists.  Bertrand Russell observed, it is much easier to be persuaded that ontological arguments are no good than it is to say exactly what is wrong with them. This helps to explain why ontological arguments have fascinated philosophers for almost a thousand years.

If we take the idea of an unlimited being or a perfect being:

It is possible that that God exists. God is not a contingent being, i.e., either it is not possible that God exists, or it is necessary that God exists. Hence, it is necessary that God exists. Hence, God exists.

But there are other possible worlds where god could have actualized instead of this one. If god actualized a different world from this his will would have been different thus contingency. Are all beings in this world necessary ( no free will) or did he actualize a world of free will.  If all creatures in this world are not necessary then god is contingent. If all creatures in this possible world are necessary then they are so in all possible worlds and so all possible worlds are the same. If this world is necessary then god must actualize it and is therefore limited by its necessity... and on and on

 

"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


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

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Okay.  So I'll assume that you are addressing the form of the argument.

Can you show how the form is such that it is possible for the premises to be true but the conclusion false?

Replace your god with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Congratulations! You've just proved the existence of a god that is known to be the work of fiction.

There's no grounding for anything of what your saying... The premises are only true because you say they are true, but that's not sufficient reason to believe they are.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Quote:
You keep on insisting that I go for a premise... But that assumes I adopt your imported epistemology, and I'm rejecting that.

So an argument can have a valid form and true premises, but *still* be false?!

The point I'm making is that there's no way to guarantee that anything you are saying is true (or false for that matter).

The premises may be true under the assumed epistemology. But the assumed epistemology does not have a way to ground the truth other than you saying "It's true" or something to that effect, so I think your enterprise doesn't even get off the ground.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Again, which premise does this objection address?  If it is not addressing any of them, then you have to accept my conclusion, whether you like it or not.  If it does not address any premises in my argument, then I have proven that my approach is permissible, and it can produce truth.

How do I know that the actual world is part of your set of possible worlds? You can insist that it is all day long, the argument does not provide a way of knowing this a priori without assuming it is so. You keep dodging this for some reason.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

My assumption is that if an argument has true premises and a valid form, then the conclusion must follow.  If you concede that both of these factors are in place, then you have to accept my conclusion.

Your assumption does not take into account how you are grounding what you are claiming to true premises 'true". You're merely assuming them to be true a priori and that the actual world lines up with your assumptions. Is this not the case? Or am I wrong about your assumption about the actual world? Because if you admit that you are assuming that the actual world does line up with your assumptions about possible worlds a priori, then you are begging the question.

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


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

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Okay.  So I'll assume that you are addressing the form of the argument.

Can you show how the form is such that it is possible for the premises to be true but the conclusion false?

Replace your god with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Congratulations! You've just proved the existence of a god that is known to be the work of fiction.

If the FSM Monster exists, it does not follow that it is necessary that the FSM exists, because material things are contingent.  Therefore, the FSM would render the first premise false; but again, this does not actually address the premise.

Is the first premise true or false?

Quote:
There's no grounding for anything of what your saying... The premises are only true because you say they are true, but that's not sufficient reason to believe they are.

So the premises are true, but there is no reason to believe that they are true?  Wait, what?  

Okay.  Then, I hear with my eyes that when I'm sitting and standing at the time, a porcupine walks more soundly than any premise in an argument feels for chocolate vanilla pizza.

Quote:
The premises may be true under the assumed epistemology. But the assumed epistemology does not have a way to ground the truth other than you saying "It's true" or something to that effect, so I think your enterprise doesn't even get off the ground.

So the premises are true?  Then the conclusion necessarily follows, and my assumed epistemology is vindicated.  

Wow.  This is the first time I've debated with someone who grants that my argument is false even though it is true.

Quote:
How do I know that the actual world is part of your set of possible worlds? You can insist that it is all day long, the argument does not provide a way of knowing this a priori without assuming it is so. You keep dodging this for some reason.

You didn't answer the question; which premise is this objection addressing?  Then again, you've already acknowledged that the premises are true, so I presume that the conclusion is true as well.

Quote:
Your assumption does not take into account how you are grounding what you are claiming to true premises 'true". You're merely assuming them to be true a priori and that the actual world lines up with your assumptions.

Okay.  So the premises are *not* true?  Why are they false, or how could they be false?

Quote:
Is this not the case? Or am I wrong about your assumption about the actual world? Because if you admit that you are assuming that the actual world does line up with your assumptions about possible worlds a priori, then you are begging the question.

My only assumption about the actual world is whatever I instantiate in the premises of my argument, which you will not even address.  

(Mind you, my argument is not even using possible worlds semantics, so this is not even relevant.)

Is this for you what passes as sophisticated argumentation?  Or is this some big joke?  Am I falling victim to some prank, or is your argumentation really that awful?  Bob kept changing his rebuttal, but at least he was logically coherent (most of the time); you, on the other hand... just wow.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Well, I

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Well, I have studied logic formally.  So clearly, my logic must be more trustworthy than yours, no?

You obviously do not understand the definition of the word logic, it is more then just a discipline.  If you mean that you have more knowledge of the discipline of logic, then yes, of course you do, I have never contested that.  If you mean that you think more logically (or critically, or objectively) then I do, then no, clearly you do not from all that you have said above and the fact that you believe in the GoB.  

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Um, no.  If God exists, and Christianity is true, then you are no longer allowed to have sex out of wedlock, jerk yourself off to internet porn, kill babies, violate other men up the fart-box, and so forth.  Obviously, this has a lot of implications beyond mere rational sensibilities; otherwise, you wouldn't be here attacking any argument presented for the existence of God with such fervor.. why not focus on the people who believe that Elvis is still alive?  

hmmm, You assume that I do all those things, here's a quick checklist.  I am married with three small kids, I have a demanding job in a telecom company, I am working on my master's and am involved in the community.  I donate blood and volunteer my time with new immigrants to Canada.  The only reason I frequent this site as much as I do is because I can do it at work in between doing stuff.  It really is my only means of entertainment, I only wish I had time to jerk off to internet porn ( though I don't know of any commandments against that ).  As for the other stuff you mention, I am not gay, and if I were I wouldn't violate any men, I would probably wine and dine them the same as I did my wife.  Killing babies....   wtf?  I do not smoke or take drugs anymore.  I drink once or twice a month and then only wine and cut myself off at 2 glasses.  Actually I live a 'holier' life then all my theist friends that 'sin' on regular basis and then ask for forgiveness.  I don't 'sin' because I love and respect my wife, and I love and respect my children.  I don't hurt other people because I wouldn't want others to hurt me, and I don't think it practical or get any enjoyment out of it.  

The reason I am attacking any argument presented for the existence of God is the same reason as given above.  Because I think critically and objectively.  I honestly do want you to prove me wrong.  You're going to have to do a hell of a lot better then this though.  You think I wouldn't choose eternal life over this? However, if you think that I will waste my life over a fairytale, as so many clearly are, without any logic or proof... then I'm sorry, I will have to say no.

And Elvis is still alive.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Quote:
Common sense I meant only in as much as it is logically consistent, your comment about people being fallen is again... silly for lack of a better word (stupid comes to mind also)

Um, phlogiston theory, flat earth, spontaneous generation, and the like were all logically consistent; they were just false.  When you make an error, it is better to just acknowledge it rather than nonsensically trying to polish it.

Aren't you trying to prove that OA is logically consistent? lol, I mean, isn't this your whole freaking point? wtf? talk about refuting yourself....  what's that about making an error?

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Quote:
I've never said I understood Occam's razor as the simplest explanation is correct, that's silly.  The way I understood it is: the explanation that has the fewest assumptions, all other parameters being equal, is "better" (as you put it) , or more logically consistent.

Um, no.  Ockham never said that.  His Razor was merely a reference to his nominalism.  When he said that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity, he was talking about the human tendency to over-categorize existing things; it's an issue of ontology, not of argumentation.  It is demonstrably false that the argument with the fewest assumptions is always better.  You have been led astray by internet atheists force feeding you this garbage--they never studied philosophy, and they have no idea about Ockham's Razor.  More than likely, you got that from Sapient during his horrible debate with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.  (Ockham was a theist, by the way.)

I'm glad Ockham was a theist, I hope he was happy and lived a good life... aside from your argument from authority...  show me two otherwise equal arguments, one of which has more assumptions then the other, and is also correct.  I've skimmed wiki and a few other sources and what I gather is that 'Occam's razor' I am referring to is as it is used in science.  I've actually gone in detail to explain what I understood by it.  Call it Joe Blow's razor if you want then.  Take my understanding of the principle and prove me wrong. 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Quote:
In the cosmological argument, for example, implying that something that has a mind and omni-x attributes, caused the universe, makes more assumptions then a mindless chicken that's big and likes to pluck big bangs... It makes no economical sense, you're just complicating your argument by adding too many variables.

Actually, there are far less variables, especially when you come to understand issues involving the critical density of matter and the quantum indeterminacy of the singularity.  Your assumptions here are trading on non-understandings of cosmology.

Smiling hello, here come the big guns Smiling hehe.  I doubt that you understand what those terms mean, and I'm not going to get side tracked on a discussion that has nothing to do with the argument at hand.  You imply that by understanding issues regarding critical density of matter as it pertains to the expansion of the universe, it will validate your rebuttal of my Joe Blow's razor? do you mean dark matter and dark energy? You've made a very vague statement... and what about quantum indeterminacy? how is that related to understanding cosmology? what was the point of what you just typed.  Did you just want to throw some big words at me? I know some big words too. 

I'm going to stop here because I hate LONG drawn out posts and I personally tend to skip them.  Part 2 to follow

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


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I think there

TGBaker wrote:

I think there is a need to have responses to something you believe or want to believe is valid. A valid OA would be important to a theist. I do not care much for modal logic as I mentioned earlier. I'd rather it be in non-coded language.  But it does have its precision.  I think that Bob presented a very logical mind. I am always amazed how personalities interact even through only written word!!!! I just wanted to discuss the premise but that is the weakness. So the argument protects the premise from attack by validating it as rational.

Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world—e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists.  Bertrand Russell observed, it is much easier to be persuaded that ontological arguments are no good than it is to say exactly what is wrong with them. This helps to explain why ontological arguments have fascinated philosophers for almost a thousand years.

If we take the idea of an unlimited being or a perfect being:

It is possible that that God exists. God is not a contingent being, i.e., either it is not possible that God exists, or it is necessary that God exists. Hence, it is necessary that God exists. Hence, God exists.

But there are other possible worlds where god could have actualized instead of this one. If god actualized a different world from this his will would have been different thus contingency. Are all beings in this world necessary ( no free will) or did he actualize a world of free will.  If all creatures in this world are not necessary then god is contingent. If all creatures in this possible world are necessary then they are so in all possible worlds and so all possible worlds are the same. If this world is necessary then god must actualize it and is therefore limited by its necessity... and on and on

Thank you for your clarification, and I see and respect what Bob is trying to do.  I like the mental gymnastics and so I try to understand where the argument fails.  It has to translate to plain english, otherwise, what's the use of proving god exists if you can't convince the unwashed masses? Smiling

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


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

Ktulu wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I think there is a need to have responses to something you believe or want to believe is valid. A valid OA would be important to a theist. I do not care much for modal logic as I mentioned earlier. I'd rather it be in non-coded language.  But it does have its precision.  I think that Bob presented a very logical mind. I am always amazed how personalities interact even through only written word!!!! I just wanted to discuss the premise but that is the weakness. So the argument protects the premise from attack by validating it as rational.

Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world—e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists.  Bertrand Russell observed, it is much easier to be persuaded that ontological arguments are no good than it is to say exactly what is wrong with them. This helps to explain why ontological arguments have fascinated philosophers for almost a thousand years.

If we take the idea of an unlimited being or a perfect being:

It is possible that that God exists. God is not a contingent being, i.e., either it is not possible that God exists, or it is necessary that God exists. Hence, it is necessary that God exists. Hence, God exists.

But there are other possible worlds where god could have actualized instead of this one. If god actualized a different world from this his will would have been different thus contingency. Are all beings in this world necessary ( no free will) or did he actualize a world of free will.  If all creatures in this world are not necessary then god is contingent. If all creatures in this possible world are necessary then they are so in all possible worlds and so all possible worlds are the same. If this world is necessary then god must actualize it and is therefore limited by its necessity... and on and on

Thank you for your clarification, and I see and respect what Bob is trying to do.  I like the mental gymnastics and so I try to understand where the argument fails.  It has to translate to plain english, otherwise, what's the use of proving god exists if you can't convince the unwashed masses? Smiling

Well here's a kicker from Stanford for you...well all of us:

Modal arguments: These are arguments with premises which concern modal claims about God, i.e., claims about the possibility or necessity of God's attributes and existence. Suppose that we agree to think about possibility and necessity in terms of possible worlds: a claim is possibly true just in case it is true in at least one possible world; a claim is necessarily true just in case it is true in every possible world; and a claim is contingent just in case it is true in some possible worlds and false in others. Some theists hold that God is a necessarily existent being, i.e., that God exists in every possible world. Non-theists do not accept the claim that God exists in the actual world. Plainly enough, non-theists and necessitarian theists disagree about the layout of logical space, i.e., the space of possible worlds. The sample argument consists, in effect, of two premises: one which says that God exists in at least one possible world; and one which says that God exists in all possible worlds if God exists in any. It is perfectly obvious that no non-theist can accept this pair of premises. Of course, a non-theist can allow—if they wish—that there are possible worlds in which there are contingent Gods. However, it is quite clear that no rational, reflective, etc. non-theist will accept the pair of premises in the sample argument.

In other words back to premise, agreement about possible worlds( logical space) . The proof is in the pudding and not the mixer.

 

 

"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:Okay.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Okay.  Which premise is not true, and why do you not believe it is?

The whole enchilada.

 

Stop being obtuse. Seriously.

You clowns never want to discuss anything, you just start off under the guise of 'dialogue', while all you want to do is spout sermons and lectures.

STFU, with your bullsh1t.

Theism is 'true'?

Since fucking when did religion want to 'hear' the truth about how the universe functioned?

Since when?

You're equivocating, and being dishonest. And you know it.

 

You fucks just don't have the balls to say that all you cling to, is conjecture. Legends. Folklore.

Ones that appeal to your dispositions of bigotry, misogyny, sexual repression, homophobia, superstitions, control issues, egocentricity, and emotional inabilities to cope with death

That's the 'black and white' of it.

 

Stop being butthurt that the forefathers of America were secularists, and stripped your cult of any power. If you don't like it, piss off, and go to you holy land, wherever the fuck that is.

You do not, nor will your cult ever, rule America.

Deal with it.

You're a regressive cult. WTF are you doing here in the "land of the free", anyways?

You don't like it that your neighbour's wife begs to get fucked in the ass because it gets her off?

Why?

Afraid she'll tell your wife how it drives her wild, and she'll start thinking that you might have some Madonna/Whore complex issues?

Well, I would be afraid, if I were you. Women love to talk about how 'good' they 'get it', and how great it is to have uncrossed their legs, and become libertines.

Studies show up to 55% of marriages end in divorce, and some studies show up to 75% are initiated by women. Wanna know what one of the top, if not 'top' reasons, they want out?

Sex.

Women want sex. They love sex. They love fucking. They love to lick, suck, and fuck.

I've never met a woman, who didn't love getting her brains completely fucked out.

You have a problem with that?

Don't care.

Eat me.

Mind your own fucking business, asshole. And put that bible away before you get sent walking to the proctologist, real funny.

We're animals.

Real advanced, and sophisticated, but animals, nonetheless. And humans aren't 'special, as far as the universe, or even earth is concerned. If it weren't for own ingenuity, we wouldn't be at the top of the food chain.

That's not good enough for you? That's your problem. Go see a therapist. But stop wagging your self righteous finger of disapproval at everyone else for not conforming to the doctrines of your cult.

Morals? Like as in 'sexual morals'? Stop spouting about sh1t  you don't even know about, and travel the world a little, or open a fucking book, and learn about how ancient the origins of heavy kink are.

 

Christianity is 'true'?

You mean, Christianity is right, and everyone else is wrong?

Go flying fuck yourselves...

 

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
TGBaker wrote:Well here's a

TGBaker wrote:

Well here's a kicker from Stanford for you...well all of us:

Modal arguments: These are arguments with premises which concern modal claims about God, i.e., claims about the possibility or necessity of God's attributes and existence. Suppose that we agree to think about possibility and necessity in terms of possible worlds: a claim is possibly true just in case it is true in at least one possible world; a claim is necessarily true just in case it is true in every possible world; and a claim is contingent just in case it is true in some possible worlds and false in others. Some theists hold that God is a necessarily existent being, i.e., that God exists in every possible world. Non-theists do not accept the claim that God exists in the actual world. Plainly enough, non-theists and necessitarian theists disagree about the layout of logical space, i.e., the space of possible worlds. The sample argument consists, in effect, of two premises: one which says that God exists in at least one possible world; and one which says that God exists in all possible worlds if God exists in any. It is perfectly obvious that no non-theist can accept this pair of premises. Of course, a non-theist can allow—if they wish—that there are possible worlds in which there are contingent Gods. However, it is quite clear that no rational, reflective, etc. non-theist will accept the pair of premises in the sample argument.

In other words back to premise, agreement about possible worlds( logical space) . The proof is in the pudding and not the mixer.

Smiling that's exemplified in the argument at hand, but I feel there is so much more wrong with it.  Perhaps because I am a layperson.  I am definitely looking into some related courses I can claim credit for.  The version of the argument that Mr. M. presented is fractaly wrong.  The first premise fails from every angle I look at it.  It can't seem that wrong and be right.  Then again, I have been wrong before, unlike Mr. M., he's never been wrong. Smiling

I like butter's reaction to all this.  He's sitting around wondering why everyone is entertaining Mr. M.  He's genuinely confused asking stuff like " wtf is everyone arguing about? this thing is useless"  To him this seems so idiotic that he's amazed people are typing so much into it.  I just picture him looking at a bunch of mentally challenged individuals (us) butting heads and being confused.  That mental image cracks me up for some reason. 

 

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


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

redneF wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Okay.  Which premise is not true, and why do you not believe it is?

The whole enchilada.

 

Stop being obtuse. Seriously.

You clowns never want to discuss anything, you just start off under the guise of 'dialogue', while all you want to do is spout sermons and lectures.

STFU, with your bullsh1t.

Theism is 'true'?

Since fucking when did religion want to 'hear' the truth about how the universe functioned?

Since when?

You're equivocating, and being dishonest. And you know it.

 

You fucks just don't have the balls to say that all you cling to, is conjecture. Legends. Folklore.

Ones that appeal to your dispositions of bigotry, misogyny, sexual repression, homophobia, superstitions, control issues, egocentricity, and emotional inabilities to cope with death

That's the 'black and white' of it.

 

Stop being butthurt that the forefathers of America were secularists, and stripped your cult of any power. If you don't like it, piss off, and go to you holy land, wherever the fuck that is.

You do not, nor will your cult ever, rule America.

Deal with it.

You're a regressive cult. WTF are you doing here in the "land of the free", anyways?

You don't like it that your neighbour's wife begs to get fucked in the ass because it gets her off?

Why?

Afraid she'll tell your wife how it drives her wild, and she'll start thinking that you might have some Madonna/Whore complex issues?

Well, I would be afraid, if I were you. Women love to talk about how 'good' they 'get it', and how great it is to have uncrossed their legs, and become libertines.

Studies show up to 55% of marriages end in divorce, and some studies show up to 75% are initiated by women. Wanna know what one of the top, if not 'top' reasons, they want out?

Sex.

Women want sex. They love sex. They love fucking. They love to lick, suck, and fuck.

I've never met a woman, who didn't love getting her brains completely fucked out.

You have a problem with that?

Don't care.

Eat me.

Mind your own fucking business, asshole. And put that bible away before you get sent walking to the proctologist, real funny.

We're animals.

Real advanced, and sophisticated, but animals, nonetheless. And humans aren't 'special, as far as the universe, or even earth is concerned. If it weren't for own ingenuity, we wouldn't be at the top of the food chain.

That's not good enough for you? That's your problem. Go see a therapist. But stop wagging your self righteous finger of disapproval at everyone else for not conforming to the doctrines of your cult.

Morals? Like as in 'sexual morals'? Stop spouting about sh1t  you don't even know about, and travel the world a little, or open a fucking book, and learn about how ancient the origins of heavy kink are.

 

Christianity is 'true'?

You mean, Christianity is right, and everyone else is wrong?

Go flying fuck yourselves...

 

You have successfully distinguished the actual world from all possible worlds (at least for 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


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 ubuntuAnyone (what sort of

 ubuntuAnyone (what sort of name is that?)

Why is it taking you so long to respond?

Is this issue really so complicated that you have to take close to a half hour with one response?

All you have to do is address either the premises of my argument or its deductive validity; you should be able to do this in a few sentences.

.. that is, unless you plan on pedantry and obfuscation in order to score points in the debate.

LOL

On these grounds, I think I can declare victory.  

ubuntu, uranEpicFail.


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

Ktulu wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Quote:
Common sense I meant only in as much as it is logically consistent, your comment about people being fallen is again... silly for lack of a better word (stupid comes to mind also)

Um, phlogiston theory, flat earth, spontaneous generation, and the like were all logically consistent; they were just false.  When you make an error, it is better to just acknowledge it rather than nonsensically trying to polish it.

Aren't you trying to prove that OA is logically consistent? lol, I mean, isn't this your whole freaking point? wtf? talk about refuting yourself....  what's that about making an error?

Not sure if anyone read this since it was in the middle of my verbal diarrhea... Just wanted to point it out.

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


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
For some reason you can't

For some reason you can't think out side of a black and white world. I'm not granting that your premises are true but I'm not saying there false either. I'm saying that the assumed epistemology does not have a way to know they are indeed true or false, and this is my contention. But you want me to concede they are true or say they are false.

Now... on to the line by line.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

If the FSM Monster exists, it does not follow that it is necessary that the FSM exists, because material things are contingent.  Therefore, the FSM would render the first premise false; but again, this does not actually address the premise.

Is the first premise true or false?

You method of proving truth can be invalidated such that it can be used to prove the existence of entities that are known to be false. I can make up any god I want to and use your argument to prove that it exists. That's the point. Many have used this same line of thinking to show that OA's are not useful for proving anything. Gaunilo Island (albiet, I think this particular objection is flawed) is one example. Using the FSM or other fictional gods can be show Gaunilo's point without making the same sort of mistake he did.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Quote:
There's no grounding for anything of what your saying... The premises are only true because you say they are true, but that's not sufficient reason to believe they are.

So the premises are true, but there is no reason to believe that they are true?  Wait, what?  

Okay.  Then, I hear with my eyes that when I'm sitting and standing at the time, a porcupine walks more soundly than any premise in an argument feels for chocolate vanilla pizza.

See the initial remark.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

So the premises are true?  Then the conclusion necessarily follows, and my assumed epistemology is vindicated.  

Wow.  This is the first time I've debated with someone who grants that my argument is false even though it is true.

Vindicating your own epistemology by saying the premises are true proves you are begging the question. You're saying your premises are true therefore your epistemology must work. And my logic is bad?

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

You didn't answer the question; which premise is this objection addressing?  Then again, you've already acknowledged that the premises are true, so I presume that the conclusion is true as well.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Okay.  So the premises are *not* true?  Why are they false, or how could they be false?

Quote:
Is this not the case? Or am I wrong about your assumption about the actual world? Because if you admit that you are assuming that the actual world does line up with your assumptions about possible worlds a priori, then you are begging the question.

My only assumption about the actual world is whatever I instantiate in the premises of my argument, which you will not even address.  

(Mind you, my argument is not even using possible worlds semantics, so this is not even relevant.)

Is this for you what passes as sophisticated argumentation?  Or is this some big joke?  Am I falling victim to some prank, or is your argumentation really that awful?  Bob kept changing his rebuttal, but at least he was logically coherent (most of the time); you, on the other hand... just wow.

I'm not addressing any premise in particular but the method employed here for proving things. I have no way of knowing if any of them are true or false. You want me to say one or the other, and I can't do that. What seems to be the case here is that you can't see the forest for all the trees. You want it to be true or false of which I think can prove neither. You want to pigeon hole me and now it seems you are trying to play your high-browed philosopher card that you played on Bob on me. If you want to compare brain pans, go ahead.

 

“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
Mr_Metaphysics

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

 ubuntuAnyone (what sort of name is that?)

Why is it taking you so long to respond?

Is this issue really so complicated that you have to take close to a half hour with one response?

All you have to do is address either the premises of my argument or its deductive validity; you should be able to do this in a few sentences.

.. that is, unless you plan on pedantry and obfuscation in order to score points in the debate.

LOL

On these grounds, I think I can declare victory.  

ubuntu, uranEpicFail.

Maybe because I'm not drooling, waiting to answer you...

I'm not addressing your deductive validity, but your epistemology. You failed yet to address the objection made here...you just keep insisting I address one of your premises. I've given you a few cases were I think your approach does work... a made-up god and a general critique of Anselm's OA concerning the Buddhist worldview.

If you must know, Ubuntu is a Linux distro, a free, easy to use operating system. ubuntuAnyone is simply part of my Linux evangelism campaign.

 

“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
Ktulu wrote:TGBaker

Ktulu wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Well here's a kicker from Stanford for you...well all of us:

Modal arguments: These are arguments with premises which concern modal claims about God, i.e., claims about the possibility or necessity of God's attributes and existence. Suppose that we agree to think about possibility and necessity in terms of possible worlds: a claim is possibly true just in case it is true in at least one possible world; a claim is necessarily true just in case it is true in every possible world; and a claim is contingent just in case it is true in some possible worlds and false in others. Some theists hold that God is a necessarily existent being, i.e., that God exists in every possible world. Non-theists do not accept the claim that God exists in the actual world. Plainly enough, non-theists and necessitarian theists disagree about the layout of logical space, i.e., the space of possible worlds. The sample argument consists, in effect, of two premises: one which says that God exists in at least one possible world; and one which says that God exists in all possible worlds if God exists in any. It is perfectly obvious that no non-theist can accept this pair of premises. Of course, a non-theist can allow—if they wish—that there are possible worlds in which there are contingent Gods. However, it is quite clear that no rational, reflective, etc. non-theist will accept the pair of premises in the sample argument.

In other words back to premise, agreement about possible worlds( logical space) . The proof is in the pudding and not the mixer.

Smiling that's exemplified in the argument at hand, but I feel there is so much more wrong with it.  Perhaps because I am a layperson.  I am definitely looking into some related courses I can claim credit for.  The version of the argument that Mr. M. presented is fractaly wrong.  The first premise fails from every angle I look at it.  It can't seem that wrong and be right.  Then again, I have been wrong before, unlike Mr. M., he's never been wrong. Smiling

I like butter's reaction to all this.  He's sitting around wondering why everyone is entertaining Mr. M.  He's genuinely confused asking stuff like " wtf is everyone arguing about? this thing is useless"  To him this seems so idiotic that he's amazed people are typing so much into it.  I just picture him looking at a bunch of mentally challenged individuals (us) butting heads and being confused.  That mental image cracks me up for some reason. 

 

It is really a psychological litmus test. Theist will say YEAH that's it. non-theists will say WTF.  I would just get some books if you want but classes???  All OA come out with the same feel... and probably all would be question begging to the non-theist.   Premise.....anyone....


 

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

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


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

TGBaker wrote:

You have successfully distinguished the actual world from all possible worlds (at least for me. )

I'll never understand why religions are all so freaked about sex.

WTF?

What's with all the fucking hangups about who, what, where, when, why, and how 'others' are doing 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


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

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

For some reason you can't think out side of a black and white world. I'm not granting that your premises are true but I'm not saying there false either. I'm saying that the assumed epistemology does not have a way to know they are indeed true or false, and this is my contention. But you want me to concede they are true or say they are false.

All you had to say was 'you have not proven that your premises are true'.  Why such obfuscatory tactics?

So, how is it possible that my premises are false? (I'm not asking if they are false; I'm asking how it is possible that they are false.)

Quote:
method of proving truth can be invalidated such that it can be used to prove the existence of entities that are known to be false.

No it cannot be.  The FSM's existence does not entail its necessary existence.

Quote:
I can make up any god I want to and use your argument to prove that it exists. That's the point.

I don't care which omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent being you prove the existence of; if the argument proves the existence of such a being, it is successful.  

Quote:
Many have used this same line of thinking to show that OA's are not useful for proving anything. Gaunilo Island (albiet, I think this particular objection is flawed) is one example. Using the FSM or other fictional gods can be show Gaunilo's point without making the same sort of mistake he did.

No.  They cannot, because such entities are contingent.  God is not a contingent being.

Quote:
See the initial remark.

Your remark was:  

The premises are only true because you say they are true, but that's not sufficient reason to believe they are.

Quote:
Vindicating your own epistemology by saying the premises are true proves you are begging the question. You're saying your premises are true therefore your epistemology must work. I think I'm going to have to start referring to the wheels on my car as Mr. M....

I said that if my premises are true and the form of my argument is valid, then the conclusion must follow... so obviously, this would vindicate my epistemology inasmuch I know my conclusion is true.

Quote:
I'm not addressing any premise in particular but the method employed here for proving things. I have no way of knowing if any of them are true or false.

Okay.  So you are saying that I have not proven the premises true.

Now, can you explain how it is possible that they are false?


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:It is really a

TGBaker wrote:

It is really a psychological litmus test. Theist will say YEAH that's it. non-theists will say WTF.  I would just get some books if you want but classes???  All OA come out with the same feel... and probably all would be question begging to the non-theist.   Premise.....anyone....

lol, I meant more among the lines of logic/philosophy.  I would probably have to pay for it myself, my work pays for all my work related courses. 

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


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:TGBaker

redneF wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

You have successfully distinguished the actual world from all possible worlds (at least for me. )

I'll never understand why religions are all so freaked about sex.

WTF?

What's with all the fucking hangups about who, what, where, when, why, and how 'others' are doing it?

 

It's their way of watching porn.  Since they're not actually doing it, they keep imaging other people doing it and get pissed off. 

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


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

redneF wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

You have successfully distinguished the actual world from all possible worlds (at least for me. )

I'll never understand why religions are all so freaked about sex.

WTF?

What's with all the fucking hangups about who, what, where, when, why, and how 'others' are doing it? 

Christianity is not freaked about sex.  God told Adam and Even to be fruitful and multiply.

Christianity is freaked about guys like yourself going out to bars and attempting to use some gal merely for the purposes of getting your sexual rocks off; it also freaks out about placing your penis inside someone else's anal cavity so as to encourage the spread of STD's.  

Didn't you say you were from England?  Christianity freaks out about people like Pete Burns or Boy George trying to get their penises dirty, and trying to normalize such disgusting behavior.


Mr_Metaphysics (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 uranEpicFail,you have 10

 uranEpicFail,

you have 10 minutes to post a response.  Otherwise, I am leaving.  

My reply after your next response will be my last one; you were quite easy to defeat.


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

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Christianity is not freaked about sex.  God told Adam and Even to be fruitful and multiply.

Christianity is freaked about guys like yourself going out to bars and attempting to use some gal merely for the purposes of getting your sexual rocks off; it also freaks out about placing your penis inside someone else's anal cavity so as to encourage the spread of STD's.  

Didn't you say you were from England?  Christianity freaks out about people like Pete Burns or Boy George trying to get their penises dirty, and trying to normalize such disgusting behavior.

Lol, you really should just stick to the OA, it is at least interesting intellectually.  Any other subject just makes you seem as though you have a low I.Q., if I didn't know otherwise I would have drawn such conclusion from your above comment.  

What makes you think that said gal won't enjoy redneF's penis (though small, strong as steel, lol I joke)... you have serious sexual inhibition that you need to address.  And I'm guessing by your anal cavity comment that you speak from experience.  

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


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

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

All you had to say was 'you have not proven that your premises are true'.  Why such obfuscatory tactics?

Obfuscatory? You failed to see the point, that's all. I can't help that.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

So, how is it possible that my premises are false? (I'm not asking if they are false; I'm asking how it is possible that they are false.)

Any premise that assumes anything about the actual world could possibly be true or false. There's no way to know that though. Assuming that any of your premises map onto the actualized world results in question begging though. So you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

No it cannot be.  The FSM's existence does not entail its necessary existence.

Why not? If I say that FSM entails necessary existence, then it necessarily does. There's nothing about the epistemology assumed in your OA that prevents me from doing tihs.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

I don't care which omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent being you prove the existence of; if they argument proves the existence of such a being, it is successful.  

So you granting that I could use the same argument to prove the existence of a dierty that is known to be a work of fiction. You've just invalidated your whole argument then.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

No.  They cannot, because such entities are contingent.  God is not a contingent being.

Okay. The FSM is not a contingent being because I said he isn't.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Quote:
See the initial remark.

Your remark was:  

The premises are only true because you say they are true, but that's not sufficient reason to believe they are.

This remark : I'm not granting that your premises are true but I'm not saying there false either.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

I said that if my premises are true and the form of my argument is valid, then the conclusion must follow... so obviously, this would vindicate my epistemology inasmuch I know my conclusion is true.

That's begging the question concerning your epistemology, and gives me reason to believe that you are begging the question concerning your OA.  You assume your epistemology is true, you derive truth from it, then use this truth to vindicate your epistemology. Perhaps you're too dizzy from your logical loops to see this...

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Okay.  So you are saying that I have not proven the premises true.

Now, can you explain how it is possible that they are false?

What if something about the actualized world creates a contradictory state of affairs for your god? If this is the case, the actualized world is an impossible world, which is a contradictory state of affairs. But this cannot be because the actualized world is the only possible world that we know exists. The problem with your argument is that you cannot know if there is something about the actualized world that is contradictory. All you can do is assume things about the actualized world, and any one of these assumptions may be false. So what you're left with is only assumptions on which your conclusions are based. So you're begging the question.

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


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

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

All you had to say was 'you have not proven that your premises are true'.  Why such obfuscatory tactics?

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
So, how is it possible that my premises are false?

They're supported entirely on conjecture, duhh...

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
(I'm not asking if they are false; I'm asking how it is possible that they are false.)

They're supported entirely on conjecture, duhh...

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
No it cannot be.  The FSM's existence does not entail its necessary existence.

How many times have I asked you "According to whom???????" is a monotheistic god anything more than a legend?

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
No.  They cannot, because such entities are contingent.  God is not a contingent being.

Your whole 'logic' is based on conjecture?

You don't have 'logic', all you have is an idea. A fantasy. A wish. A hope. A desperate personal need.

But, you do not have 'logic'. It's not even 'common sense' that you have.

 

It's not 'logical' to assume a string of assumptions, and expect that you'll overcome Boole's Inequality Theorum.

On any single 'assumption, you have no better than 50/50 odds of being either correct/incorrect.

To claim you know the 'truth', when you have 1 (or more) assumptions, you are unequivocally lying.

 

Lying to yourself, is a personal thing, and it's well understood in psychology, and by most laymen.

There's nothing special about you, or your 'theory'.

Too bad, so sad...

 

And you really are a sad cult. All that angst.

You really need to get laid more...

 

 

 

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

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

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


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

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

 uranEpicFail,

you have 10 minutes to post a response.  Otherwise, I am leaving.  

My reply after your next response will be my last one; you were quite easy to defeat.

You like making up the things as you go. That consistent with your argument.

A you're perpetuating your delusions be insisting you "defeated" me and others.

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


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
ubuntuAnyone

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

 uranEpicFail,

you have 10 minutes to post a response.  Otherwise, I am leaving.  

My reply after your next response will be my last one; you were quite easy to defeat.

You like making up the things as you go. That consistent with your argument.

A you're perpetuating your delusions be insisting you "defeated" me and others.

I believe defeat is defined as in 'I don't want to talk to you anymore'.

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


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

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Christianity is not freaked about sex.  

According to whom?

Lemme guess.

I'll default to my judgment of what's real/not real, TYVM.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
God told Adam and Even to be fruitful and multiply.

This is in the same comic book about Noah's Ark right?

Ya, I'll still stick with my 'verdict', on what's real/not real.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Christianity is freaked about guys like yourself going out to bars and attempting to use some gal merely for the purposes of getting your sexual rocks off

You mean, you've never been hit on by a woman, who wanted to fuck your brains out?

Sorry about your luck, pal. I network around several hundreds of women a month, and there's plenty that hit on me.

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
it also freaks out about placing your penis inside someone else's anal cavity so as to encourage the spread of STD's.

You don't know much about STD's, do you? 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Didn't you say you were from England? 

No. I never mentioned my background.

My background is European, but I've lived in the States and Canada, and have business interests in all 3. 

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
Christianity freaks out about people like Pete Burns or Boy George trying to get their penises dirty, and trying to normalize such disgusting behavior.

Well, then it's got to be about homophobia, because you don't understand much about STD's.

What about lesbians?

Got an issue with them?

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

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

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


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

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

So, how is it possible that my premises are false? (I'm not asking if they are false; I'm asking how it is possible that they are false.)

Any premise that assumes anything about the actual world could possible be true or false. There's no way to know that though. Assuming that any of your premises map onto the actualized world results in question begging though. So you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Which premise assumes something about the actual world?  Moreover, how is it possible that the premise is false?

In other words, if I said 'If the inflationary theory of the universe is true, then matter is not eternal', you could address it by saying 'that's not true, because the universe may have experienced an infinite series of big crunches'... you would provide an example of how the premise could be false.  

Quote:
Why not? If I say that FSM entails necessary existence, then it necessarily does. There's about the epistemology assumed in your OA that prevents me from doing tihs.

Then whatever you mean by "FSM" is not what everyone else means, because it normally refers to a material being.  Firstly, materials do not necessary exist (it is easy to logically conceive of a world consisting only of abstract objects); secondly, material beings do not necessary exist, because their essence is in their composition, and the idea of self-composition is logically incoherent.  

Quote:
So you granting that I could use the same argument to prove the existence of a dierty that is known to be a work of fiction. You've just invalidated your whole argument then.

You didn't use it to prove a deity that is known to be a work of fiction; you used the FSM as an example, and I debunked it.  The FSM, if understood properly, is not omniscient, omnipotent, etc.

Quote:
Okay. The FSM is not a contingent being because I said he isn't.

Then he is really God and you are just calling him 'FSM'.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCUE10dY3Rc

Quote:
This remark : I'm not granting that your premises are true but I'm not saying there false either.

You did grant that they were true, then you pulled a 180 and did not grant it.

You said, and I quote, "The premises are only true because you say they are true, but that's not sufficient reason to believe they are."

Quote:
That's begging the question concerning your epistemology, and gives me reason to believe that you are begging the question concerning your OA.  You assume your epistemology is true, you derive truth from it, then use this truth to vindicate your epistemology. Perhaps you're too dizzy from your logical loops to see this...
 No, it's based on the universally accepted truth that a conclusion must follow from true premises and a deductively valid form.  It has nothing to do with my epistemology; this very point supersedes any epistemology such that if your epistemology contradicts it, then you have to reject this epistemology because it is wrong. 

Quote:
What if something about the actualized world creates a contradictory state of affairs for your god? If this is the case, the actualized world is an impossible world, which is a contradictory state of affairs. But this cannot be because the actualized world is the only possible world that we know exists. The problem with your argument is that you cannot know if there is something about the actualized world that is contradictory. All you can do is assume things about the actualized world, and any one of these assumptions may be false. So what you're left with is only assumptions on which your conclusions are based. So you're begging the question.

Okay, this is at least an attempt at a real objection.  But you still did not address any of the premises in my argument.

Take, for example, the first premise.  The first premise is 'Necessarily, if God exists, then it is necessary that God exists', which is not a claim about the actual world; it's merely a claim about what *would* be true in the actual world *if* God happened to be in it.  So even if the actualized world does create a contradictory state of affairs, the first premise is still true, for if it was the case that God existed, then that would strictly imply that God could not possibly not exist.

Now, the second premise is also a conditional; again, it makes no claim with regard to the actual world.  All it states is that if the first premise is true, then the mere possibility of God entails that he actually exists.  Remember, material conditionals are such that any proposition is implied by any false proposition, even if the consequent is itself a false proposition; so you have to grant that the premise is true.

So really, what you are doing here is focusing on the possibility premise, which means that the rest of your argument has been entirely superfluous; there was no need to discuss epistemology, possible worlds, or all of those other things.  All you had to say was 'God may not actually be logically possible'.  The fact that this sailed right over your head tells me that you have not studied this issue in any real depth.

To address your objection--I'm assuming that it is an attack on the possibility premise; if it's not then you have no serious objection--the burden is on you to show that the idea of God entails a contradiction, for I am standing on the notion that the non-existence of God posits a contradiction, because it confers to his nature the possibility of non-existence (which means that God would be both limited and unlimited--an explicit contradiction).  Although I cannot conclusively prove that the concept of God is not logically contradictory, I will at least say that I am in a better rational position to believe that he is not.

So, allow me to recapitulate:  You started out by saying that the argument is circular, inferring the existence of God from the existence of God; that is not a good objection, because that is not a premise in my argument.  Then you said that my argument is trading on a particular epistemology which is flawed; I pointed out that the argument merely trades upon its soundness, and I stated tacitly that an argument such as this one can serve to inform us about epistemology, namely, that there is a bridge from concepts to reality because the conclusion of the argument, inferred without recourse to sensation, is true by logical necessity.  Then you questioned the possibility premise (I think), which I've just addressed.  

This was hardly even a contest.  

 


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

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

The first premise is 'Necessarily, if God exists, then it is necessary that God exists'

You keep going in circles hoping for a different reaction.

That's what's popularly known as the definition of 'insanity'.

You accuse others of obfuscating, when your whole premise has completely superfluous modifiers.

Let's start from the top, and 'qualify'.

Occams' Razor: 'If God exists'

There is no god in the universe that I'm aware of.

Until I can verify/falsify that one exists, I am undecided.

That is 'fair' of me. Completely logical of me to do so.

I even openly stated this, in the other thread, for the record.

You may/may not believe I'm sincere, but, I don't lie to myself.

I don't have sufficient basis to CLAIM that it's absolutely certain that there is no God, in the entire cosmos. Because I don't have absolute knowledge of everything in the cosmos.

No human does.

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
No, it's based on the universally accepted truth that a conclusion must follow from true premises and a deductively valid form.

It only works flawlessly in hindsight.

But, then it becomes 'moot'.

 

And stop jabbering about 'truth'. You duck and weave anytime you run into an obstacle that you cannot overcome.

If you are using the bible as 'data' or a verdict that the premises in it are 100% accurate and correct, then you have lost the debate by default, and your 'argument' is just that, an 'argument'. It's not sound, nor is it a 'proof' of the existence of a god.

It simply isn't, and just saying it is, will never change that.

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
This was hardly even a contest.  

Oh fuck, give it a rest.

You haven't won any contest. All you have is a pile of sermons, mixed in with some algebra.

Pointing to a piece of paper, and saying 'Look, see? ....I told you he was real!' ain't gonna win you a Nobel Prize.

 

Seriously? Are you serious that you think that any form of logical assumptions can trump 50/50 odds, with 100% reliability?

Be honest.

 

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

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

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


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

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Which premise assumes something about the actual world? 

If you're not assuming anything about the actual world, then your set of possible worlds is entirely make believe. So you have to assume something about the actual world in order for your god to actually exist. You do this when you say something is necessary...by virtue that it is necessary, it is true in all possible worlds, of which the actual world should be included. If you don't get this, then your argument is only proving fantasies.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Moreover, how is it possible that the premise is false?

In other words, if I said 'If the inflationary theory of the universe is true, then matter is not eternal', you could address it by saying 'that's not true, because the universe may have experienced an infinite series of big crunches'... you would provide an example of how the premise could be false.

But if I assume the model is true without any sort of a posteriori grounding for it, then it's only as good as the assumption. If you are using your epistemology that you are using in your OA and this is indeed true, it is only because you got lucky, not because you were right. You assumed it was tried and low and behold, looky there.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Then whatever you mean by "FSM" is not what everyone else means, because it normally refers to a material being and materials do not necessary exist--further, material beings do not necessary exist, because their essence is in their composition and the idea of self-composition is logically incoherent.  

So what? If I am just making it up as I go, it does not matter what anyone else thinks about it. I have my OA for the existence of the FSM to prove it actually exists even though I know it is purely BS. In other words, your OA can prove "truth" that is known to be false. That's not a very good system if you ask me.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

You didn't use it to prove a deity that is known to be a work of fiction; you used the FSM as an example, and I debunked it.  The FSM, if understood properly, is not omniscient, omnipotent, etc.

Like I said, I was making the FSM up as I went, and there's nothing in your assumed epistemology that prevents me from doing this. If I want the FSM to be omni* in all regards, then I can. Then I wave my OA magic wand, and *poof*, he exists necessarily. But even here, the FSM doesn't even have to be omni* only necessary according to the argument to actually exist.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Then he is really God and you are just calling him 'FSM'.  

The FSM though is purely a work of fiction and I know this. So I can use your argument to prove the existence of works of fiction. How do I know your god is any different?

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

You did grant that they were true, then you pulled a 180 and did not grant it.

You said, and I quote, "The premises are only true because you say they are true, but that's not sufficient reason to believe they are."

Now you're quote mining. I said that in the context of your epistemology. And I think it is quite evident from the rest of what I'm saying that I don't believe they are true.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

No, it's based on the universally accepted truth that a conclusion must follow from true premises and a deductively valid form.  It has nothing to do with my epistemology; this very point supersedes any epistemology such that if your epistemology contradicts it, then you have to reject this epistemology because it is wrong.

Supersedes any epistemology on what ground?

You're assuming things are true about the actual world without grounding them in the actual world. If anything, that is a violation of epistemology

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Okay, this is at least an attempt at a real objection.  But you still did not address any of the premises in my argument.

It doesn't have to address any particular premise. But it is addressing any premise that makes claims to necessary entities.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Take, for example, the first premise.  The first premise is 'Necessarily, if God exists, then it is necessary that God exists', which is not a claim about the actual world; it's merely a claim about what *would* be true in the actual world *if* God happened to be in it.  So even if the actualized world does create a contradictory state of affairs, the first premise is still true, for if it was the case that God existed, then that would strictly imply that God could not possibly not exist.

But this is a claim about the actual world... You're claiming necessary existence, which entails the actual world.... one of many supposed other possible worlds. This may not be explicit, but it's built into the concept of necessity. Even if is completely hypothetical at this point, you're making claims about the actual world by means of necessary entities. Eventually you apply S5 and step into the actual world

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Now, the second premise is also a conditional; again, it makes no claim with regard to the actual world.  All it states is that if the first premise is true, then the mere possibility of God entails that he actually exists.  Remember, material conditionals are such that any proposition is implied by any false proposition, even if the consequent is itself a false proposition; so you have to grant that the premise is true.

I don't care about this premise if by virtue of what you're doing in the first premise results in begging the question later in the argument.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

So really, what you are doing here is focusing on the possibility premise, which means that the rest of your argument has been entirely superfluous; there was no need to discuss epistemology, possible worlds, or all of those other things.  All you had to say was 'God may not actually be logically possible'.  The fact that this sailed right over your head tells me that you have not studied this issue in any real depth.

What it really shows is that you fail to see the fatal flaw in the argument. While you're argument may seem more sophisticated that Anselm's, the objection shows the same mistake he makes and it is the same one that all other OA make...I'm just showing it to you in your modal version.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

To address your objection--I'm assuming that it is an attack on the possibility premise; if it's not then you have no serious objection--the burden is on you to show that the idea of God entails a contradiction, for I am standing on the notion that the non-existence of God posits a contradiction, because it confers to his nature the possibility of non-existence (which means that God would be both limited and unlimited--an explicit contradiction).  Although I cannot conclusively prove that the concept of God is not logically contradictory, I will at least say that I am in a better rational position to believe that he is not.

No...you want me to get bogged down in the details of showing a contradiction. I don't need to go there because the problem occurs before that point. All I'm showing you is that you're begging the question. I don't care about the content of your god. You could say anything you want to about it. But that's the point... you're making it all up then insisting that it is necessarily true because of the content of your imagination says it is necessarily true. But cohesive assumptions don't necessarily map onto reality, and for this reason it cannot guarantee that its conclusions are indeed true epistemically.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

So, allow me to recapitulate:  You started out by saying that the argument is circular, inferring the existence of God from the existence of God; that is not a good objection, because that is not a premise in my argument.  Then you said that my argument is trading on a particular epistemology which is flawed; I pointed out that the argument merely trades upon its soundness, and I stated tacitly that argument such as this one serve to inform us about epistemology, namely, that there is a bridge from concepts to reality because the conclusion of the argument, inferred without recourse to sensation, is true by logical necessity.  Then you questioned the possibility premise (I think), which I've just addressed.  

I was simplifying your argument for you.

You say that you're not assuming anything about the actual world, but I beg to differ. I think you need to go back and review the concept of necessity in modal logic as it applies to all possible worlds and the relationship of the actual world to possible worlds. Maybe you were sleeping in class that day or were out sick, I dunno.

In any case, I've shown that I can make up a deity that I know is the work of pure imagination  then use your argument to prove its actual existence. This creates a contradictory state of affairs (a fictional being that actually exists) such that it invalidates the argument. It also shows that you really are begging the question because you're just proving your assumptions.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

This was hardly even a contest.  

Wow...presumptuous....at least you're consistent. Your OA allows for delusions...and now this.

 

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

 uranEpicFail,

you have 10 minutes to post a response.  Otherwise, I am leaving. 

Lol. I wish I had that much free time.

Well, I do have a lot of free time recently, but not that much.

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: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Either Mr M has decided I am

Either Mr M has decided I am not worth responding to, or he has no counter to my points.

1.

In case he missed my main points, and/or has not time to back a page, I will repeat them here:

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.

2.

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.

3.

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 when it preceded the necessity 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. 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'm sure he will be grateful to me for resolving this little difficulty

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, especially since it explicitly addresses degrees of possibility, which makes it infinitely more useful for addressing the realities of assessing the relative plausibility of different propositions, unlike the pointless wank-fest that is ML.

4.

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.

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.

===========

It is sad he regularly displays failed comprehension of pretty straightforward statements, such as many from ubuntuAnyone, and then comes on all condescending about how we don't understand his 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


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

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

 uranEpicFail,

you have 10 minutes to post a response.  Otherwise, I am leaving.  

My reply after your next response will be my last one; you were quite easy to defeat.

 

Why is it that OA guys consistently have meltdowns like this?

 

Some people come in crazy, some people stay stubborn but decent, but OA posters show up reasonable and gradually degrade into this.  Odd.

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


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
mellestad

mellestad wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

 uranEpicFail,

you have 10 minutes to post a response.  Otherwise, I am leaving.  

My reply after your next response will be my last one; you were quite easy to defeat.

 

Why is it that OA guys consistently have meltdowns like this?

 

Some people come in crazy, some people stay stubborn but decent, but OA posters show up reasonable and gradually degrade into this.  Odd.

I think it is a necessity inherent in the definition of OA poster.  Such as that if it is possibly necessary an OA poster will degrade into an asshole, then it is necessary that an OA poster will degrade into an asshole. 

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


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

mellestad wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

 uranEpicFail,

you have 10 minutes to post a response.  Otherwise, I am leaving.  

My reply after your next response will be my last one; you were quite easy to defeat.

Why is it that OA guys consistently have meltdowns like this?

 

Some people come in crazy, some people stay stubborn but decent, but OA posters show up reasonable and gradually degrade into this.  Odd.

 

Having seen one or two myself, I would say they have more invested in their beliefs.  Here they searched and searched and finally found something that seems irrefutable.  So they can invest their entire belief structure on this argument.  When it is shot down - and it is not especially difficult to do so - they either have to change their entire belief structure or they have to attempt to tear down the opposition.

It must be even harder for the guy in that we aren't particularly sympathetic.  Some of us have gone through this exact process and changed our entire belief system.  So to us, hanging onto to something like OA is - irrational - unnecessary - silly.  Which just hits the guys hot buttons even harder.

Melt down is inevitable.

 

-- 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.


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

TGBaker wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Well here's a kicker from Stanford for you...well all of us:

Modal arguments: These are arguments with premises which concern modal claims about God, i.e., claims about the possibility or necessity of God's attributes and existence. Suppose that we agree to think about possibility and necessity in terms of possible worlds: a claim is possibly true just in case it is true in at least one possible world; a claim is necessarily true just in case it is true in every possible world; and a claim is contingent just in case it is true in some possible worlds and false in others. Some theists hold that God is a necessarily existent being, i.e., that God exists in every possible world. Non-theists do not accept the claim that God exists in the actual world. Plainly enough, non-theists and necessitarian theists disagree about the layout of logical space, i.e., the space of possible worlds. The sample argument consists, in effect, of two premises: one which says that God exists in at least one possible world; and one which says that God exists in all possible worlds if God exists in any. It is perfectly obvious that no non-theist can accept this pair of premises. Of course, a non-theist can allow—if they wish—that there are possible worlds in which there are contingent Gods. However, it is quite clear that no rational, reflective, etc. non-theist will accept the pair of premises in the sample argument.

In other words back to premise, agreement about possible worlds( logical space) . The proof is in the pudding and not the mixer.

Smiling that's exemplified in the argument at hand, but I feel there is so much more wrong with it.  Perhaps because I am a layperson.  I am definitely looking into some related courses I can claim credit for.  The version of the argument that Mr. M. presented is fractaly wrong.  The first premise fails from every angle I look at it.  It can't seem that wrong and be right.  Then again, I have been wrong before, unlike Mr. M., he's never been wrong. Smiling

I like butter's reaction to all this.  He's sitting around wondering why everyone is entertaining Mr. M.  He's genuinely confused asking stuff like " wtf is everyone arguing about? this thing is useless"  To him this seems so idiotic that he's amazed people are typing so much into it.  I just picture him looking at a bunch of mentally challenged individuals (us) butting heads and being confused.  That mental image cracks me up for some reason. 

 

It is really a psychological litmus test. Theist will say YEAH that's it. non-theists will say WTF.  I would just get some books if you want but classes???  All OA come out with the same feel... and probably all would be question begging to the non-theist.   Premise.....anyone....

 

 

 

That does seem to be the root of the problem.  

Question:  Is it a difference in ways of thinking, or is it just that both sides have a vested interest in the outcome and so there is dissonance reduction involved in either accepting or rejecting the axioms needed for either side?

 

Also, I had a post above about a maximally great tower.  Quickly, if you take any particular 'possible' object and define it as the 'greatest' possible example, are you bound to accept it as a real thing?  http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/28929?page=3#comment-333851

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
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:You

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

You didn't use it to prove a deity that is known to be a work of fiction; you used the FSM as an example, and I debunked it.  The FSM, if understood properly, is not omniscient, omnipotent, etc.

 

BWAHHH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha haa ha...    -snicker-

 

You have made my day.  That may be the most absurdly entertaining statement I have ever heard in any of the many debates I have seen! 

...understood properly...

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.