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.

 


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

mellestad wrote:

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

That is hard to tell. I would simply go with the way of thinking because of a whole structural view entailed by accepted presuppositions that may or may not be valid.  There is also the emotive drive  with the vested interest.


 

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

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5879
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
BardlishtheMagnifico

BardlishtheMagnifico wrote:

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...

It's odd, isn't it this thought process. In a rational context, or applied to anything but a person's pet God, defining something with 'omni-attributes' would make it less likely to actually exist...

But Mr.M has to be a troll, or psychologically/intellectually impaired, after seeing his argument about Matt Slick...

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

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

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

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Why is it

mellestad wrote:

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.

Lmfao! Hey, maybe, in the next few days, he'll start a thread with the sole purpose of insulting BobSpence's facial hair or something. That seems to be a common occurrence, eventually. 

 

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


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
 Bob could use a shave...

 Bob could use a shave... OA aside.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5879
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote: Bob could use

Ktulu wrote:

 Bob could use a shave... OA aside.

That reminds me, I am way overdue to update my avatar picture, I have trimmed my facial hair significantly.

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
butterbattle wrote:mellestad

butterbattle wrote:

mellestad wrote:

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.

Lmfao! Hey, maybe, in the next few days, he'll start a thread with the sole purpose of insulting BobSpence's facial hair or something. That seems to be a common occurrence, eventually. 

 

 

Actually, after his mentioning Kelly's porn stuff I'm wondering if he isn't one of the professional RRS stalkers.

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5879
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:butterbattle

mellestad wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

mellestad wrote:

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.

Lmfao! Hey, maybe, in the next few days, he'll start a thread with the sole purpose of insulting BobSpence's facial hair or something. That seems to be a common occurrence, eventually.

Actually, after his mentioning Kelly's porn stuff I'm wondering if he isn't one of the professional RRS stalkers.

I have been suspecting that for a while. His 'obsession' with myself, his early presentation of a symbolic expression of the OA, remind very much pf a poster who exploded by posting many multiple threads within insults directed at myself and some others in the RRS.

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

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

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

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5879
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FWIW, a final(?) statement

FWIW, a final(?) statement on the OA.

Without essentially complete knowledge of Reality, it is impossible for us to establish even the possibility of the defined 'God' in this Reality, let alone prove his existence.

No amount of logical obfuscation can counter this.

Even if there occurred what purported to be a manifestation of this being, there is no way we could verify any unlimited or infinite attributes. and anything of sufficient finite power could easily deceive us utterly and undetectably, so no such manifestation could constitute proof of the actual God as defined.

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

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

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

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


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

BobSpence1 wrote:

FWIW, a final(?) statement on the OA.

Without essentially complete knowledge of Reality, it is impossible for us to establish even the possibility of the defined 'God' in this Reality, let alone prove his existence.

As a final statement, I will argue that since we do not have complete knowledge of reality, we cannot know whether it is possible for a six foot long hot dog to exist.  In fact, we cannot even know whether arguments are sound, because soundness is predicated on the idea that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises; so we really cannot know anything, because we do not have complete knowledge of reality.

Oh wait, this doesn't apply to those other things; it only applies to God, because, well, Bob says it does.

So apparently, it's possible that it is impossible that God exists, but it's not *really* possible that it is impossible that God exists because S5 is stupid, and what people really mean by 'possible' is... I don't know, whatever Bob claims people really mean.  What do credible philosopher logicians like Lewis know?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5879
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

FWIW, a final(?) statement on the OA.

Without essentially complete knowledge of Reality, it is impossible for us to establish even the possibility of the defined 'God' in this Reality, let alone prove his existence.

As a final statement, I will argue that since we do not have complete knowledge of reality, we cannot know whether it is possible for a six foot long hot dog to exist.  In fact, we cannot even know whether arguments are sound, because soundness is predicated on the idea that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises; so we really cannot know anything, because we do not have complete knowledge of reality.

Oh wait, this doesn't apply to those other things; it only applies to God, because, well, Bob says it does.

So apparently, it's possible that it is impossible that God exists, but it's not *really* possible that it is impossible that God exists because S5 is stupid, and what people really mean by 'possible' is... I don't know, whatever Bob claims people really mean.  What do credible philosopher logicians like Lewis know?

We can establish whether an argument is valid, given we accept the primary Laws of Logic, but we cannot know in general whether its conclusions are true - that is dependent on its premises being true.

We do not have certain knowledge of anything, apart from the logical implications of a set of well-defined premises. But as long as contingent information has an associated reasonably based estimate of what confidence we can attach to it, that constitutes knowledge - "A is probably true with a confidence of approximately 60%" - is knowledge. Given the minimal assumption, the LoI and the LNC, the only certainly necessary propositions are those derived by well-formed arguments purely from those primary Laws.

S5 is an assumption, so any argument based on it is not universally valid. "credible" philosopher is a personal assessment. An argument from authority is a fallacy.

Philosophers deal only in ideas, including possible ways to try and ascertain the truth, but not actual certifiable truth.

If you have a plain language or logical refutation of my stated position, let's hear it.

Without complete knowledge of Reality we cannot know whether or not there is some contradiction of your defined God with some aspect of actual reality, therefore we cannot know if it is possible. Unless that can be established, any further argument is pointless. I suspect Lewis is not as dumb as your claims would suggest -  you have consistently shown poor comprehension of other peoples positions.

So there it is. I certainly do not give a Flying Fuck whether you accept it or not, you have amply demonstrated enough instances of flawed reasoning and understanding of logical implication, that your opinion on this, or anything else, counts for virtually nothing.

I do appreciate you finally responding to me. It is a small thing, but deserves some acknowledgment.

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

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

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

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:We can

BobSpence1 wrote:
We can establish whether an argument is sound, given we accept the primary Laws of Logic, but we cannot know in general whether its conclusions are true - that is dependent on its premises being true.

I believe that a valid argument is defined as one where the structure of the argument follows the laws of logic. A sound argument would be one that is valid and has true premises. I suppose you mean that we can establish whether the structure of the argument is sound?

Mr_M could put this in his signature as an example of an atheist contradicting himself.

 

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: 5879
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
We can establish whether an argument is sound, given we accept the primary Laws of Logic, but we cannot know in general whether its conclusions are true - that is dependent on its premises being true.

I believe that a valid argument is defined as one where the structure of the argument follows the laws of logic. A sound argument would be one that is valid and has true premises. I suppose you mean that we can establish whether the structure of the argument is sound?

Mr_M could put this in his signature as an example of an atheist contradicting himself.

Yeah, I keep getting those mixed up for some reason.

Probably because I prefer to think in terms of the premises as being part of the argument, and that a 'good' argument can only show that the conclusion is consistent with the premises, not that the conclusions are true, rather than in terms of 'valid' and 'sound'.

And to me, the words 'valid' and 'sound' both feel like they are referring to the same thing, that the argument is 'good'. I understand the distinction, but which word applies to which just doesn't seem intuitive from my normal understanding of their general usage.

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

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

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

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


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

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

As a final statement, I will argue that since we do not have complete knowledge of reality, we cannot know whether it is possible for a six foot long hot dog to exist.  

Don't need a complete knowledge of reality, stoopid. 

You just need something to test, empirically.

That little girl, in the picture, doesn't have the foggiest notion of the OA, or Modal Logic, and she's able to trump any 'proof' you can conjure up, that you would need to have complete knowledge of reality to be certain that 6 ft long hot dogs could possibly exist.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
In fact, we cannot even know whether arguments are sound

Speak for yourself.

I can. And plenty of others are 100% certain, of what is sound, and what is fatally flawed reasoning, and how 'false positives' occur all the time, when modeling> forward, without sufficient attributes. 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
because soundness is predicated on the idea that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises; so we really cannot know anything, because we do not have complete knowledge of reality.

Patently false.

We can come across them by pure random chance.

AKA: Accident

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
So apparently, it's possible that it is impossible that God exists

No.

That's patently false, as well.

It's possible that a god (in the context of a 'first cause', or deist, pantheist, or Spinoza's god) exists.

But, not the one you have faith in, because that one logically contradicts itself.

Looks like you have to 'focus' your faith, with a little more 'logical' and sound 'reasoning'...

 

In that sense, I have little issue with deism, pantheism, or Spinoza's God. Because it's not relevant.

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:As a

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

As a final statement, I will argue that since we do not have complete knowledge of reality, we cannot know whether it is possible for a six foot long hot dog to exist.  In fact, we cannot even know whether arguments are sound, because soundness is predicated on the idea that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises; so we really cannot know anything, because we do not have complete knowledge of reality.

I don't think anyone here is arguing for solopsism.

But a priori, you can't guarantee that hot dogs actually exist in any possible world much less the actualized world.

On the same token, you can dream up a possible world where some necessary entity exists, but that does not mean that world maps onto the actualized world, and you can't know that it does a priori.

It's really questionable as to whether or not a hot dog really has any meaning apart from actual existence, but that's another discussion altogether.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

 

Oh wait, this doesn't apply to those other things; it only applies to God, because, well, Bob says it does.

A posteriori, we can know that a six foot hot dog exists. I can at least guarantee the possibility of such things in a possible world. That's more than I can say for a priori formulations of a god. Not only are six foot hog dogs logically consistent, they actually exist.

“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

uranEpicFail wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

As a final statement, I will argue that since we do not have complete knowledge of reality, we cannot know whether it is possible for a six foot long hot dog to exist.  In fact, we cannot even know whether arguments are sound, because soundness is predicated on the idea that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises; so we really cannot know anything, because we do not have complete knowledge of reality.

I don't think anyone here is arguing for solopsism.

LOLOL

"Solopsism"?  What is that?

Did you mean 'Solipsism'?

Solipsism is the belief that only one mind exists and everything else only exists in that mind.

Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. The term comes from Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self). Solipsism is an epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside one's own specific mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist. In the history of philosophy, solipsism has served as a skeptical hypothesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

How does that have anything to do with what I just said?  Solipsism is not the belief that we need absolute knowledge of reality in order to know a thing's modal characteristics, or that we cannot know anything; it's the belief that reality is in one mind, and that everything we know is restricted to the confines of the mind.  My guess is that you are going to give me this long cockamamie response trying to justify the error that you just made.  This was obviously your attempt to drop some esoteric 'ism' in order to make it appear to everyone that you actually know what you are talking about. 

Quote:
But a priori, you can't guarantee that hot dogs actually exist in any possible world much less the actualized world.

Yes you can, actually.  According to the Lewis system, all possibility premises are necessary de dicto, meaning that if something is possible then it is necessarily the case that it is possible.

"S5 adds to S1 the iterative axiom: 

◊p-->□◊p"

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lewis-ci/#OveConPra

Since logically necessary facts are not justified via empirical observation, it follows that possibility premises (including those of hot dogs) are a priori.  Or is your knowledge of epistemology (specifically with regard to the term 'a priori') on par with your knowledge of "solopsism"?

 

 


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

Bob-makesno-Sence1 wrote:

We can establish whether an argument is valid, given we accept the primary Laws of Logic, but we cannot know in general whether its conclusions are true - that is dependent on its premises being true.

You said that without complete knowledge of reality, we cannot establish the modal characteristics of God; do we also require complete knowledge of reality to establish that given a deductively valid argument, it is impossible that the conclusion will be false if the premises are true?

Quote:
We do not have certain knowledge of anything, apart from the logical implications of a set of well-defined premises.

Okay, so we are 100% absolutely certain that true premises and a valid form will produce a true conclusion, which means that we do have certain knowledge of something.

Quote:
S5 is an assumption, so any argument based on it is not universally valid. "credible" philosopher is a personal assessment.

Again, can you back this up?  Are you saying that it is not necessary that something is possible, which is saying that it is merely possible that something is possible?  So if I say, 'it is possible that a six foot hot dog exists', it is not necessarily possible but merely possibly possible?  If S5 is false, then that is what you are arguing.

Quote:
Philosophers deal only in ideas, including possible ways to try and ascertain the truth, but not actual certifiable truth.

Actually, you are wrong.  Philosophers attempt to establish the first principles underlying the sciences, and their goal is to establish a metaphysical base which holds everything together--so as to justify what is merely presupposed in everyday discourse.  This requires focusing on that which we know with 100% certainty.

Quote:
If you have a plain language or logical refutation of my stated position, let's hear it.

"Plain language"?  In other words, you want me to dumb it down?

Quote:
Without complete knowledge of Reality we cannot know whether or not there is some contradiction of your defined God with some aspect of actual reality

You don't need complete knowledge of reality; for example, many people attempt to argue that God is contradictory via the paradox of omnipotence, and others have attempted to show that omniscience is logically incoherent via Cantor's mathematics.  So obviously, being omniscient is not required of proving that something is impossible.

Quote:
therefore we cannot know if it is possible.

And we can't know if six foot hot dogs are possible, I guess.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
 *singingThis is the song

 *singing

This is the song that never ends, 

It just goes on and on my friends...

Your argument has been shut down from every angle possible, look up the term fractally wrong.  You're arguing against the people here now, or potential misinterpretations, or misunderstandings.  Even if you are right on every account moving forward, it doesn't change the fact that you have nothing to stand on regarding the originally proposed OA.

 

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


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

Ktulu wrote:

 *singing

This is the song that never ends, 

It just goes on and on my friends...

Your argument has been shut down from every angle possible, look up the term fractally wrong.  You're arguing against the people here now, or potential misinterpretations, or misunderstandings.  Even if you are right on every account moving forward, it doesn't change the fact that you have nothing to stand on regarding the originally proposed OA.

Just saying 'your argument has been shut down' does not make it true; it's merely a fantasy that you will continue propagating until it ultimately becomes true in your own mind.  According to you, God is limited because he is unlimited; what credibility do you have to say that the argument is shut down?
 

 


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

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

But a priori, you can't guarantee that hot dogs actually exist in any possible world much less the actualized world.

Yes you can, actually.  

According to whom?

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
According to the Lewis system

See?

See how easy that was? I asked 'According to whom?", and you answered.

You filled in the gap you left.

Now let's move on to see what this Lewis guy babbles on about...

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
all possibility premises are necessary de dicto, meaning that ...

Before you go any further, it needs to be emphasized that, not all imagined possibilities, are possible, nor even probable.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
..if something is possible then it is necessarily the case that it is possible.

Busted.

Logical Fallacy.

Like they say on Mythbusters:  "See?...There's your problem..."

What you just stated is an equivocation.

It is an intellectually dishonest statement. It's a 'naked assertion'.

Here's what it is TRYING to nakedly assert:

Quote:
if something is imagined possible then it is necessarily the case that it is possible.

Which is patently false.

 

That wasn't very bright.

 

You logicians don't really try and actually 'build' anything, do you?...

 

 

 

 

 

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
 lol, dude, I admire your

 lol, dude, I admire your blinders, I really do.  You have some focus on you.  I think I even linked a video of Mr. Slick mentioning that your version of the OA begs the question, while this is an appeal to authority, we have all been saying the same thing since the beginning.  

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


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

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Just saying 'your argument has been shut down' does not make it true 

When your *cough* theory, is not practical in application, it is not even workable.

It's merely an 'argument', which is a euphemism for a 'desperate attempt to pretend you have something rather that nothing'.

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
The End

This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end
Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end
No safety or surprise, the end
I'll never look into your eyes...again
Can you picture what will be
So limitless and free
Desperately in need...of some...stranger's hand
In a...desperate land
Lost in a Roman...wilderness of pain
And all the children are insane
All the children are insane
Waiting for the summer rain, yeah
There's danger on the edge of town
Ride the King's highway, baby
Weird scenes inside the gold mine
Ride the highway west, baby
Ride the snake, ride the snake
To the lake, the ancient lake, baby
The snake is long, seven miles
Ride the snake...he's old, and his skin is cold
The west is the best
The west is the best
Get here, and we'll do the rest
The blue bus is callin' us
The blue bus is callin' us
Driver, where you taken' us
The killer awoke before dawn, he put his boots on
He took a face from the ancient gallery
And he walked on down the hall
He went into the room where his sister lived, and...then he
Paid a visit to his brother, and then he
He walked on down the hall, and
And he came to a door...and he looked inside
Father, yes son, I want to kill you
Mother...I want to...WAAAAAA
C'mon baby,--------- No "take a chance with us"
C'mon baby, take a chance with us
C'mon baby, take a chance with us
And meet me at the back of the blue bus
Doin' a blue rock
On a blue bus
Doin' a blue rock
C'mon, yeah
Kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill
This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end
It hurts to set you free
But you'll never follow me
The end of laughter and soft lies
The end of nights we tried to die
This is the end


More lyrics: http://www.lyricsfreak.com/d/doors/#share

 

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

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5879
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Mr_Metaphysics

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Bob-makesno-Sence1 wrote:

We can establish whether an argument is valid, given we accept the primary Laws of Logic, but we cannot know in general whether its conclusions are true - that is dependent on its premises being true.

You said that without complete knowledge of reality, we cannot establish the modal characteristics of God; do we also require complete knowledge of reality to establish that given a deductively valid argument, it is impossible that the conclusion will be false if the premises are true?

Without complete knowledge of reality, we cannot know whether something that is, by its definition, impinges upon the whole of reality, can possibly exist, or whether reality is contingent upon its existence.

This assumes, of course, that the definition is coherent and consistent.

Quote:

Quote:
We do not have certain knowledge of anything, apart from the logical implications of a set of well-defined premises.

Okay, so we are 100% absolutely certain that true premises and a valid form will produce a true conclusion, which means that we do have certain knowledge of something.

In the absence of any known coherent alternative to the primary Laws of Logic, the LoI and the LoNC, we have to take those as essential axioms. Anything flowing by direct logical implication therefore is presumed be of equivalent epistemological status.

Any argument that is in accord with the LoL and any theorems derived from them has similar status, ie IF p THEN c can be taken as valid.

Quote:

Quote:
S5 is an assumption, so any argument based on it is not universally valid. "credible" philosopher is a personal assessment.

Again, can you back this up?  Are you saying that it is not necessary that something is possible, which is saying that it is merely possible that something is possible?  So if I say, 'it is possible that a six foot hot dog exists', it is not necessarily possible but merely possibly possible?  If S5 is false, then that is what you are arguing.

If something is possible, then that does not entail that it is necessary.

"It is not necessary that something is possible" does not make sense by itself.  Did you mean "IF it is not necessary that something is possible"?

If so, then, yes, it is merely possible that something is possible, which captures the implications of incomplete knowledge. That proposition does not really apply to the idea of the existence of "a six foot hot dog", which we know can exist. If we had insufficient knowledge to be able to prove that "a six foot hot dog" is possible, then that entails we must fall back to "it is possible that it is possible". S5 assumes that 'possibly' is meant in the ML sense, not in the 'incomplete knowledge' sense, IOW if something does follow from the LOL, or is necessary for the existence of its world, then that would be known, hence S5.

But note that it only follows, in the case of being a prior requirement for a given world, on the assumption that we already have sufficient knowledge to 'know' that.

IOW, being 'possibly necessary' can only be based on incomplete knowledge of both 'something' and its 'world', since if something is necessary in the sense of following directly from the LOL, it would be known with certainty that it is necessary, not just 'possibly'. If we are not dealing with 'possibly' in the sense of 'insufficient knowledge' then S5 is OK.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy wrote:

S5: 00…□ = □ and 00…◊ = ◊, where each 0 is either □ or ◊

(B)  A→□◊A

It is interesting to note that S5 can be formulated equivalently by adding (B) to S4. The axiom (B) raises an important point about the interpretation of modal formulas. (B) says that if A is the case, then A is necessarily possible. One might argue that (B) should always be adopted in any modal logic, for surely if A is the case, then it is necessary that A is possible. However, there is a problem with this claim that can be exposed by noting that ◊□AA is provable from (B). So ◊□AA should be acceptable if (B) is. However, ◊□AA says that if A is possibly necessary, then A is the case, and this is far from obvious. Why does (B) seem obvious, while one of the things it entails seems not obvious at all? The answer is that there is a dangerous ambiguity in the English interpretation of A→□◊A. We often use the expression ‘If A then necessarily B’ to express that the conditional ‘if A then B’ is necessary. This interpretation corresponds to □(AB). On other occasions, we mean that if A, then B is necessary: A→□B. In English, ‘necessarily’ is an adverb, and since adverbs are usually placed near verbs, we have no natural way to indicate whether the modal operator applies to the whole conditional, or to its consequent. For these reasons, there is a tendency to confuse (B): A→□◊A with □(A→◊A). But □(A→◊A) is not the same as (B), for □(A→◊A) is already a theorem of M, and (B) is not. One must take special care that our positive reaction to □(A→◊A) does not infect our evaluation of (B). One simple way to protect ourselves is to formulate B in an equivalent way using the axiom: ◊□AA, where these ambiguities of scope do not arise.

That quote captures a lot of what troubles me.

Quote:

Quote:
Philosophers deal only in ideas, including possible ways to try and ascertain the truth, but not actual certifiable truth.

Actually, you are wrong.  Philosophers attempt to establish the first principles underlying the sciences, and their goal is to establish a metaphysical base which holds everything together--so as to justify what is merely presupposed in everyday discourse.  This requires focusing on that which we know with 100% certainty.

We know nothing with 100% certainty, apart from 'cogito ergo sum', and, assumed by necessity,  the LoL, but 100% certainty is not necessary for what I really meant by 'certifiable' - I should have said something like 'justifiable with sufficient certainty for the purpose', which is all we need.

Philosophy argues about principles, reality adopts what 'works'. The classical philosophical definition of knowledge as 'justified true belief' is a fallacy, since by incorporating the word 'true' in there they are begging the question. That is the sort of thing that discredits philosophy in my view.

In its random exploration of the world of ideas, it does indeed come up, from time to time, with genuinely useful ones, but it is the empirical world which has to evaluate them by putting them up against reality, or whatever we can best determine corresponds to Reality, by employing the ideas which seem to have the best 'track record'.

Quote:

Quote:
If you have a plain language or logical refutation of my stated position, let's hear it.

"Plain language"?  In other words, you want me to dumb it down?

No, rephrase it in more basic terms. That may imply the very opposite from 'dumbing it down' since the ML terms and arguments will need to be expanded into their definitional form.

I don't personally need that so much now, as I have gathered an even clearer understanding of the 'problem' with S5, and the problem with any argument employing it, since our previous 'discussions'.

Quote:

Quote:
Without complete knowledge of Reality we cannot know whether or not there is some contradiction of your defined God with some aspect of actual reality

You don't need complete knowledge of reality; for example, many people attempt to argue that God is contradictory via the paradox of omnipotence, and others have attempted to show that omniscience is logically incoherent via Cantor's mathematics.  So obviously, being omniscient is not required of proving that something is impossible.

Quote:
therefore we cannot know if it is possible.

And we can't know if six foot hot dogs are possible, I guess.

We do need complete knowledge of all relevant reality, otherwise S5 does not apply. Since God encompasses all reality, by definition, that means we need complete knowledge of ALL reality.

So your OA may be true, but we cannot know until we attain that magical state of perfect knowledge. But if we ever reach that state, we will already know whether or not God exists, so it may be 'unnecessary'...

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

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

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

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


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Blind faith Utopian Realism

 My first encounter with modal logic was with Gettier problems. There is a failure even on an epistemological level for logic to obtain to existence. 

A

Gettier problem

is a problem in modern

epistemology

issuing from

counter-examples

to the definition of knowledge as

justified true belief

(JTB). The problem owes its name to a three-page paper published in 1963, by

Edmund Gettier

, called

"Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?"

, in which Gettier argues that this is not necessarily the case. The basic issue is one that everyone is able to relate to: what conditions must be satisfied for a belief to become knowledge? For a proposition to count as knowledge it must (a) be believed, (b) it must be true, and (c) the believer must have good reason for their belief. Indeed, the definition of what counts as a 'reason' is itself complicated, as we feel the reason must be 'relevant', and itself based on 'facts' not merely irrational beliefs. One of the clearer scenarios, known as

The Cow in the Field

, illustrates the situation when the reasoning held for a belief turns out 'in fact' to be faulty.

Farmer Franco is concerned about his prize cow, Daisy. In fact, he is so concerned that when his dairyman tells him that Daisy is in the field, happily grazing, he says he needs to know for certain. He doesn't want merely to have a 99 percent probability that Daisy is safe, he wants to be able to say that he knows Daisy is safe.

Farmer Franco goes out to the field and standing by the gate sees in the distance, behind some trees, a white and black shape that he recognizes as his favorite cow. He goes back to the dairy and tells his friend that he knows Daisy is in the field.

Yet, at this point, does Farmer Franco really know it?

The dairyman says he will check too, and goes to the field. There he finds Daisy, having a nap in a hollow, behind a bush, well out of sight of the gate. He also spots a large piece of black and white paper that has got caught in a tree.

Daisy is in the field, as Farmer Franco thought.

But was he right to say that he knew she was?

The philosopher, Martin Cohen, who described this scenario originally [1], says that in this case the farmer:

    * believed the cow was safe;
    * had evidence that this was so (his belief was justified);
    * and it was true that his cow was safe.

However, we might still feel that the farmer did not really know it; his justified true belief was actually operating independent of the truth. Herein lies the core of the problem of 'knowledge as justified true belief'.
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem

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

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5879
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Just to clarify my current

Just to clarify my current assessment of S5:

It applies within any context where we do have sufficiently complete knowledge, to be able to determine that something is indeed 'possibly necessary' in the Modal sense, and may indeed be useful.

A friend, who I quite respect for his intelligence and knowledge, who is studying or has studied Philosophy academically, assures me that ML does have application. He is in our local Atheist Meetup Group - not sure what that signifies, but there it is.

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

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

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

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


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

BobSpence1 wrote:

Just to clarify my current assessment of S5:

It applies within any context where we do have sufficiently complete knowledge, to be able to determine that something is indeed 'possibly necessary' in the Modal sense, and may indeed be useful.

A friend, who I quite respect for his intelligence and knowledge, who is studying or has studied Philosophy academically, assures me that ML does have application. He is in our local Atheist Meetup Group - not sure what that signifies, but there it is.

ML has many applications. It is interesting though that areas like Justified True Belief, OA, Plantinga's Freewill defence,  cosmological arguments, teleological arguments all spin their wheels and get nowhere even with logic.  The failures seem to be in the inability to make meaningful definitions of terms like unlimited, perfect, justified true belief that accommodate logic. There is an aspect of fuzziness in language that tends to capture the fuzziness of the physical world better than within the refined lens of logic.

 

 EDIT: Yes and my friend who is a published philosopher on this very topic assures me that S5 is sound though I have read several articles by authors who believe the contrary.  We again are into language, definition and its function. How S% is understood and utilized. ... how the premises processed are defined

"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
BobSpence1 wrote:Just to

BobSpence1 wrote:

Just to clarify my current assessment of S5:

It applies within any context where we do have sufficiently complete knowledge, to be able to determine that something is indeed 'possibly necessary' in the Modal sense, and may indeed be useful.

A friend, who I quite respect for his intelligence and knowledge, who is studying or has studied Philosophy academically, assures me that ML does have application. He is in our local Atheist Meetup Group - not sure what that signifies, but there it is.

Of course it does. That's undeniable.

So does Bolean Logic, and so does Fuzzy Logic. But those are merely 'strategies' to attempt to mitigate the waste of time/resources, in the absence of empirical knowledge. Like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

As the expression goes "Even a blind squirrel finds a nut, once in a while".

They're useful to the extent, that in order to 'model' something, we need to move from (a).

We can move away from (a), but moving away(?), is not saying much: it's using a number of different 'strategies', while not actually having much of an idea of what (?) is/might turn out to be, 'in the final analysis'.

Like looking for a lost puppy.

Do these philosophers think they can locate a lost puppy on a map, when no one has seen it, using ML?

 

Baaaaaaahaaaaaaaa....

 

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

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

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5879
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
My current summary of Mr.M's

My current summary of Mr.M's OA:

If we know enough about reality to determine whether or not God is necessary ( S5), then he necessarily exists.

So we would have to know that we know enough to determine that... hmm, another problem, how do we know that there is no further bit of information which will confound our conclusion? How could we know when we had sufficiently complete knowledge to confidently know that we have sufficiently complete knowledge to determine that God is possibly necessary?

Anyone else see some problems here?

I know Mr.M will respond "Yes, there are problems in your 'logic' "...

But anyone else?

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

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

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

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


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

BobSpence1 wrote:

My current summary of Mr.M's OA:

If we know enough about reality to determine whether or not God is necessary ( S5), then he necessarily exists.

So we would have to know that we know enough to determine that... hmm, another problem, how do we know that there is no further bit of information which will confound our conclusion? How could we know when we had sufficiently complete knowledge to confidently know that we have sufficiently complete knowledge to determine that God is possibly necessary?

Anyone else see some problems here?

I know Mr.M will respond "Yes, there are problems in your 'logic' "...

But anyone else?

I think that you can not know whether there will be no further defeating information coming. The JTB  ( justified true belief) stuff that I went through in the 80's as mentioned above concluded that we have justified true beliefs about a number of things and humanklind will move more and more toward those JTB. The dilemma  is that we will have no way of knowing when we have achieved JTB.  How could we have known that Newtonian physics would be superseded. Or that Einstein would be trumped by quantum mechanics. Certainty apart from the cogito is existential and subjective in matters of the material world. HIndsight is 20/20. Today's science will be tomorrow's superstitions or myths.


 

"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
BobSpence1 wrote:My current

BobSpence1 wrote:

My current summary of Mr.M's OA:

If we know enough about reality to determine whether or not God is necessary ( S5), then he necessarily exists.

So we would have to know that we know enough to determine that... hmm, another problem, how do we know that there is no further bit of information which will confound our conclusion? How could we know when we had sufficiently complete knowledge to confidently know that we have sufficiently complete knowledge to determine that God is possibly necessary?

Anyone else see some problems here?

I know Mr.M will respond "Yes, there are problems in your 'logic' "...

But anyone else?

The problems are obvious.

1- "If we know enough" 
The obvious problem with #1 is that it's an assumption, and it's begging the question of 'what is enough knowledge'.

2- "about reality"

The obvious problem with #2, is that a priori, there is no information, or attributes known about what lies beyond our 'understanding'. Intuition, is based on 'past' events. Logic is based on 'intuition'.

3- "to determine whether or not God is necessary "

In this instance, you will only have the sufficient knowledge to make that absolute determination, in hindsight, because you will have falsified every other alternate theory/possibility.

At that point, you will have sufficient practical 'understanding' of the constant attributes, and it will become 'workable'.

You will be able to see it 'at work'.

You will be able to make accurate predictions, based on the constants.

That's 'empirical'.

Then, it will become 'law'.

Then it will become 'objective'.

Then it will be written in stone.

Then some of us can get on with our lives, the way we see fit, and go straight to hell, because... the life we led was worth every minute of 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


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
We can assume that there is

We can assume that there is no god simply in the basis that it is not plausible that there is a god.  Plausibility includes the possibility of something meeting acceptance but being deceptive and wrong.  This has a close analogy by the way to th OA rational validity.   To say that god is implausible means that there is simply nothing convincing that does not violate the laws of science or the understanding of the world as such.  We are dealing with weltanshauung. It is much like Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions.  A paradigm of averaged out theism holds sway to a goodly portion of people. The idea of god is plausible for them.  The several hundred year old paradigm of science (with its underpinning of enlightenment) is replacing sociologically and anthropologically the older paradigm.  Within this paradigm there is no plausibility structure to make meaningful a proposition of god. The presuppositions of each paradigm are largely mutually exclusive. Immaterial vs  physical ... dualism vs monism.  Theists speak a language that is not meaningful to non-theists. It is true in reverse.  There are common crossover concepts but those concepts taken out of their context mean something different when placed in another. Ask yourself how could I construct a plausible god in my worldview.  A theist cannot conceive of removing the raison d'etre of their world. Why does god have not plausibility to us. The other paradigm's language has no reference to our worldview. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausibility_structure 

In sociology and especially the sociological study of religion, plausibility structures are the sociocultural contexts (or bases) of systems of meaning, action, or beliefs which are basic to and tend to remain unquestioned by individuals in a given society. The term seems to have been coined by Peter L. Berger, who says he draws his meaning of it from the ideas of Karl Marx, G. H. Mead, and Alfred Schutz (The Sacred Canopy, 1967. 45, 192). For Berger, the relation between plausibility structure and social "world" is dialectical, the one supporting the other which, in turn, can react back upon the first. Social arrangements may help, say, a certain religious world appear self-evident. This religious outlook may then help to shape the arrangements that contributed to its rise.

 

Within the social scientific study of religion, the problem of plausibility usually revolves around the question of why and how individuals regard their beliefs as real or true. Although some psychological explanations have interpreted plausibility as an almost purely subjective phenomenon, many social scientists focus not only on the content of meaning systems but also on the dialectical relationship between meanings and the broader sociocultural context within which these meanings "make sense" or are plausible.

 

Any beliefs held by individuals and groups are sustained through sociocultural institutions and processes. But the metaempirical or transcendent nature of religious beliefs makes their plausibility especially problematic. Believers require social support, usually in the form of a religious community or congregation, to authenticate and reaffirm the typically extraordinary truth claims of their faith. Members of the community will likely use a somewhat specialized language and participate in sacred rituals as important means for expressing, sharing, and internalizing their beliefs. For the religion to survive beyond the current generation, believers also must develop appropriate socialization processes to ensure that new and future members accept their faith as plausible.

 

Some sociologists refer to the concept of "plausibility structure" when describing the sociocultural context or "base" for meaning systems. Societywide structures were likely the norm in earlier historical periods. But in a modern, pluralistic society characterized by rapid social change, many diverse groups, each with its own somewhat distinctive plausibility structure, are forced to coexist. For religious groups especially, the very presence of other denominations, sects, and cults carries with it the implication that alternative truth claims are now available to members. As the relativization of meaning systems continues, each group's confidence in the plausibility or certainty of its shared beliefs may become weakened.

Sociological research into this phenomenon, particularly among scholars interested in the development and career stages of new religious movements, has examined the factors influencing the strength or relative "firmness" of a given religious plausibility structure. Some studies have directed attention to the strategies employed by specific religions in protecting the plausibility of their meaning system from the effects of pluralism and social change. Researchers also have applied the concept to theory construction regarding conversion and defection dynamics as well as the process by which some defectors from religious communities become reintegrated within other groups.

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

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5879
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
That was a nice and

That was a nice and informative account, TG.

I found a strong resonance in there, with an idea I have long held, that where possible, when opening a dialogue with someone, especially if I already know or suspect they do have a very different world-view to mine, it is important to query them on just what are their criteria for assessing possibility, plausibility, etc of any proposition presented to them, or that they come across on their own.

If these is fundamentally at odds with my criteria, any further discussion on substantive issues is unlikely to go anywhere useful or interesting, to either party.

I distinctly remember an interview on a radio program here, which addresses issues of personal beliefs, including religious issues, but not restricted to such. The interviewee was clearly a believer in God, but what struck me when queried about why he believed, what was his personal justification, he was obviously somewhat at a loss. His belief had clearly become such a fundamental part of his world-view that he could not conceive of it as a contingent belief, any more than he could conceive of himself not existing.

To him, God just was part of reality, like day and night.

He sounded perfectly coherent and intelligent otherwise, and good-natured, just unable to conceive of a reality without God.

 

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

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

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

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


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

BobSpence1 wrote:

That was a nice and informative account, TG.

I found a strong resonance in there, with an idea I have long held, that where possible, when opening a dialogue with someone, especially if I already know or suspect they do have a very different world-view to mine, it is important to query them on just what are their criteria for assessing possibility, plausibility, etc of any proposition presented to them, or that they come across on their own.

If these is fundamentally at odds with my criteria, any further discussion on substantive issues is unlikely to go anywhere useful or interesting, to either party.

I distinctly remember an interview on a radio program here, which addresses issues of personal beliefs, including religious issues, but not restricted to such. The interviewee was clearly a believer in God, but what struck me when queried about why he believed, what was his personal justification, he was obviously somewhat at a loss. His belief had clearly become such a fundamental part of his world-view that he could not conceive of it as a contingent belief, any more than he could conceive of himself not existing.

To him, God just was part of reality, like day and night.

He sounded perfectly coherent and intelligent otherwise, and good-natured, just unable to conceive of a reality without God.

 

Thanks,  I do think you can move from one paradigm to the other.  Looking at my on experience it was the slow analysis of each presupposition that I held that caused me to assume a necessity of god. One is a dualism where a very ancient idea about a transcendent or immaterial/ non-physical  assumes a spirit   and/or soul. We saw the heavy clinging to this idea in the recent posting.  Even after one moves to a monism one still effects within typical philosophic structures a functional dualism being/existence, being/nothingness. While philosophy is the source of science it also is the source of a lot of presuppositions that cause endless debate within the physics community. Philosophy itself is much like religion. It has some very advanced ideas from a thousand years of reasoning. However many of those things once brought into the paradigm of science are not plausible. What is plausible.  Science has moved us forward. Religion and philosophy have not.  The propositions of Science correspond to reality in a way that theism and philosophy simply do not. The reason is empirical knowledge obtains to the actual world in ways that logical worlds do not. This is not to negate logic. But language is context specific  and logic is ultimately a language. As to how to move one from a theistic or pantheistic view to a scientific world view:  I assume that most belief is underpinned by scriptural authority. I attempt to demonstrate through historical means the non-factual and ahistorical elements in those writings as well as the intent and fabrication of them along the lines of propaganda.  Religion is really easier to deconstruct than philosophy.  Science is another element. For example hey does it make sense that god created plants a day before he created the sun in Genesis? What was the world revolving around?  yada yada yada.  The idea of science first seldom works because they have a caveat of god 's intrusion into the natural order and disrupting it with miracles (heilsgeschichte) When I was a probation officer and got pulled over for speeding I flashed my badge.  No ticket. Causality can be disrupted.  So you go back to the source.  You get nowhere arguing DNA or cosmology when there are parentheticals where god has snuck in. Explanatory gaps.... pre-big bang, consciousness from NCC (neuroscience). and even with evolution and Darwin the creation of life and a life force ( spirit/soul).  The jugular vein is not even god...it is a holy book from which they revision a god for each new culture and era.  Literary criticism of all things holds the future of our civilization.


 

"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
Very eloquently worded ideas

Very eloquently worded ideas Mr. Baker Smiling The fact that we don't share paradigms in this regard is self evident, but I ask, short of a handful of OAs how much logic does the religious paradigm really employ?  I'm not going to claim our paradigm is superior (it is, but I will not claim that ) , however, as an example, and to touch on what Bob said, let's take the recent 'debate'.  To begin with, us, as atheists are willing to at least entertain the idea that we are wrong.  Conversely, all theists are not even willing to consider that.  The majority or argumentation that goes into those debates, is for the audience, and the hope that someone will see reason.  I'm not going to say that this is inherent from the paradigm, but without this willingness to think dynamically, scientific method is all but unattainable.  

Also, I'm not sure if most people think about this as deeply as you obviously have.  The majority of our paradigms overlap, socially, politically, even morally to a degree.  So it's really a big gray area with a bit of black and white butting heads in the center.  The majority of people don't have a need for logic to back up their religious faith, in fact, the majority of OAs are very complex concepts.  If they had to rely on this to believe churches would go bankrupt.  It's only a small percentage of theists that are willing to call on OAs as pillars of their faith.  My guess is that there are other psychological reasons why they arrive at such a conclusion, they should be able to reason otherwise judging from their mental capacity to comprehend.  The vast majority of theists argue from said  authority, where as us, as atheists stand as islands in our world view.  I'm not sure why that makes me feel superior.  I am very realistic regarding my overall banality, but in this one respect, I can feel superior. 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:Very eloquently

Ktulu wrote:

Very eloquently worded ideas Mr. Baker Smiling The fact that we don't share paradigms in this regard is self evident, but I ask, short of a handful of OAs how much logic does the religious paradigm really employ?  I'm not going to claim our paradigm is superior (it is, but I will not claim that ) , however, as an example, and to touch on what Bob said, let's take the recent 'debate'.  To begin with, us, as atheists are willing to at least entertain the idea that we are wrong.  Conversely, all theists are not even willing to consider that.  The majority or argumentation that goes into those debates, is for the audience, and the hope that someone will see reason.  I'm not going to say that this is inherent from the paradigm, but without this willingness to think dynamically, scientific method is all but unattainable.  

Also, I'm not sure if most people think about this as deeply as you obviously have.  The majority of our paradigms overlap, socially, politically, even morally to a degree.  So it's really a big gray area with a bit of black and white butting heads in the center.  The majority of people don't have a need for logic to back up their religious faith, in fact, the majority of OAs are very complex concepts.  If they had to rely on this to believe churches would go bankrupt.  It's only a small percentage of theists that are willing to call on OAs as pillars of their faith.  My guess is that there are other psychological reasons why they arrive at such a conclusion, they should be able to reason otherwise judging from their mental capacity to comprehend.  The vast majority of theists argue from said  authority, where as us, as atheists stand as islands in our world view.  I'm not sure why that makes me feel superior.  I am very realistic regarding my overall banality, but in this one respect, I can feel superior. Smiling

Thanks mucho.  I think there is a very primitive ontology that has evolved over several thousand years.  When you look linguistically at our statements such things as spirit, soul, being, is are tied to their original meaning breath. The whole underpinning of theistic dualism is the idea of wind, breath and spirit being invisible. The Hebrew texts God breaths his breath(spirit) into man and he becomes a living soul (life principle).  This is refined by Hellenism and its four elements of which air is one.  We do not often grasp the significance of Greek philosophy and its effect on how we speak and see things.  This one thing is a primary separating factor of the two said paradigms. We need not concede we are wrong because we are the new shift ( we're only a few hundred years old) in paradigms.  We are correct obviously because we know that air is material and that there is not such thing as spirits/ And we can articulate how the primitive idea arose and continues. Our paradims overlap almost 100%. But the idea of Kuhn's paradigm shifts is that one or two bits of new data or facts are introduced within a context (established paradigm) They cannot be interpreted from the established paradigm (system). They are incorporated by a dissolution the previous structure and a holistic new structure (interpretation/ weltanshauung/world view). The continued individual information is shared but interpreted through entirely different structures/ hermeneutics.  So I see a fossil for example ....I interpret it one way. The old paradim fits it into their structure. DNA is CODE therefore language therefore spoken from god.  It is a code for us whereby heredity continues... and so on.  As my last post suggests. The best way to rupture the theistic view is to demonstrate the ahistorical and false elements of scripture on which it grounds its authoritative justifications. Science can confirm things like Genesis is false. But first you have to show them things like plants are created a day before the sun in the story. If there was just Adam and Eve where did Cain get a wife? Then the unhinging of the authoritative justification gives opening to scientific interpretation. Oh and call me TG or Tom, or Tommy not Mr.


 

"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
Ktulu wrote: but I ask,

Ktulu wrote:

 but I ask, short of a handful of OAs how much logic does the religious paradigm really employ?  

That's easy to answer.

Not much.

And it's not difficult to clearly demonstrate why their 'logic' is actually terribly weak, and unreliable. Their 'logic' is based on their *cough* intuitions in a steady state vacuum. Remember the same ones that asserted "What goes up, must come down"??

 

Like I've said a million times, people who work in the fields of science and technology know ALL TOO WELL, that 'intuition' and 'logic' can be an atrocious impediment, to targeting 'objectives'.

One of the most easily demonstrable areas of science where we've seen this constantly is in fluid dynamics, which used to be generically known as 'Aerodynamics', till the paradigm view was more accurately described as the current name.

That science was virtually impossible to 'predict', and model, in advance. A priori assumptions were useless.

It was often called a 'Black Art', because it was so illogical, and attributes where highly contingent on some of the widest arrays of 'variables'.

 

Electrical engineering, circuit design, transmission line theory, etc, etc... have also been counterintuitive to a high degree, and in some areas, still continue to be.

Reality was never logical to the uninitiated.

I don't know how many axioms you have to pound  into the thick skulls of some of these automatons, before they finally grow a brain, and clue in to "Don't count your chickens till they've hatched!!"

 

One only needs to crack open a history book to read the volumes upon volumes upon volumes where the church fought and argued science, tooth and nail, and had to eat crow.

Nothing has changed.

It's much easier to ignore them now. We don't need them to live, or do our work, which will ultimately make them extinct.

 

Ktulu wrote:
I'm not going to claim our paradigm is superior (it is, but I will not claim that )

Because modern scientific 'understanding' is based on 'hindsight', it is of course, the exponentially better method, of arriving to firm conclusions.

There is no debate, possible, in this regard.

Ktulu wrote:
  I'm not sure why that makes me feel superior.  I am very realistic regarding my overall banality, but in this one respect, I can feel superior. Smiling

If you want to be successful in science and technology, you need to let go, of everything you 'think' is a given, when 'speculating'.

That's why philosophers aren't employed by science and technology...

 

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 wrote:

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

As a final statement, I will argue that since we do not have complete knowledge of reality, we cannot know whether it is possible for a six foot long hot dog to exist.  In fact, we cannot even know whether arguments are sound, because soundness is predicated on the idea that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises; so we really cannot know anything, because we do not have complete knowledge of reality.

I don't think anyone here is arguing for solopsism.

LOLOL

"Solopsism"?  What is that?

Did you mean 'Solipsism'?

Solipsism is the belief that only one mind exists and everything else only exists in that mind.

How does that have anything to do with what I just said? 

Here's how: "...so we really cannot know anything, because we do not have complete knowledge of reality." If I follow what you are saying to it's logical conclusion, it collapses into solipsism... "I can't be certain of anything". That's besides the point though. No one is committing to this. Most empiricists are willing to admit they aren't 100% sure about things, but by way of inference, they can be 99.99999999999999999% certain on some things...

 

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Quote:
But a priori, you can't guarantee that hot dogs actually exist in any possible world much less the actualized world.

Yes you can, actually.  According to the Lewis system, all possibility premises are necessary de dicto, meaning that if something is possible then it is necessarily the case that it is possible.

"S5 adds to S1 the iterative axiom: 

◊p-->□◊p"

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lewis-ci/#OveConPra

Since logically necessary facts are not justified via empirical observation, it follows that possibility premises (including those of hot dogs) are a priori.  Or is your knowledge of epistemology (specifically with regard to the term 'a priori') on par with your knowledge of "solopsism"?

The objection is epistemic and you're confusing categories. You're abusing Lewis' formulations rather than using them... A priori, you know nothing about the content of the actual world. Also, any a priori possible world is merely that -- a priori. Just because some possible world exists in my head, does not entail that the world is actually possible in reality, and a priori  I cannot guarantee they are possible either.

In relation to solopsism, your apparent disparity about not having complete knowledge could drive one to solipsism, but it's begging the question if you suggest that a priori "knowledge" about the actual world is indeed true and/or complete.

I think Mr. Metaphysics would  do well to go study under Dr. Epistemology first, because for some reason you can't see your obvious mistakes...

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