Conceivability-Possibility

Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Conceivability-Possibility

(x) (Cx == <>x)

Anything which is logically conceivable is modally possible.

Can anyone name one thing which is not logically conceivable but modally possible, or vice versa?


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
OBJECTION!

Quote:
Existing, without beginning and without end.

You cannot meaningfully describe something in withouts and other negatives.  You are describing what eternity is not, you are not, describing what eternity is.

 

It is as describing blue by saying that it is not red, the statement may be true, however it does not actually describe blue, and is, in the end, of little use.

 

This is why I would assert that you can not conceive of god, as all of god's most striking and fundamental attributes are exclusively described in negatives.  god is 'endless', god is 'limitless' god is 'causeless'.  These are not descriptions of what god is, they are descriptions of what god is not, and this is indicative of an inability to truly form the conception you so cherish.  Instead you clothe your naked assertions in fancy sounding, lofty pseudo-philosophical terms which do not, actually, describe any entity, but merely obfuscate your lack of understanding of the nature of the entity you yourself claim to know, personally, and fundamentally.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius

Sinphanius wrote:

Quote:
Existing, without beginning and without end.

You cannot meaningfully describe something in withouts and other negatives.  You are describing what eternity is not, you are not, describing what eternity is.

It is as describing blue by saying that it is not red, the statement may be true, however it does not actually describe blue, and is, in the end, of little use.

This is why I would assert that you can not conceive of god, as all of god's most striking and fundamental attributes are exclusively described in negatives.  god is 'endless', god is 'limitless' god is 'causeless'. These are not descriptions of what god is, they are descriptions of what god is not, and this is indicative of an inability to truly form the conception you so cherish.  Instead you clothe your naked assertions in fancy sounding, lofty pseudo-philosophical terms which do not, actually, describe any entity, but merely obfuscate your lack of understanding of the nature of the entity you yourself claim to know, personally, and fundamentally.

On the contrary, there is not a single attribute of God that is negative.  God is pure actuality, or if you want to follow Godel's model, he possesses nothing but positive predicates.  There is nothing that God is not because God has no potentialities.  At a more fundamental level, God does not even possess predicates since God exists as an irreducible whole, but that's a deeper topic.  My point is, negatives only exist where God does not.  The world is distinct from God only by its negatives; a human is potentially smarter, a cheetah is potentially faster, a dog is potentially trained, etc.  In effect, the fact that God lacks our attributes is essentially a double negative because our attributes are imperfect.  Therefore, your objection is based on a false understanding of the nature of being, namely, that you've fooled yourself into thinking that what we possess are haves contained in their fullness.  Of course God is not finite.  That would mean that God could potentially stop existing, which means he is limited by his own nature and subject to laws outside of him and therefore subordinated to whatever sentient (if any) accounts for such laws.

Take what positive attributes we do have (presence, potency, intelligence, morality) and magnify them to their maximal degree to the point where finite numbers have no real meaning.  That is the nature of God.  We cannot fully grasp it, but we do not need to in order to know that such a being exists.


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Pwned.

You, Post #52 wrote:
My point is, negatives only exist where God does not. The world is distinct from God only by its negatives; a human is potentially smarter, a cheetah is potentially faster, a dog is potentially trained, etc.

You, Post #6 wrote:
Therefore, if God does not exist in this world, he does not exist in any possible world, since existence in one possible world would entail existence in every world.


P1: "Negatives only exist where god does not"
P2: "The world is distinct form God only by its negatives"
C1: This world has Negatives
C2: According to P1, negatives can only exist where god does not
C3: God does not exist in this world
P3: "Therefore, if God does not exist in this world, he does not exist in any possible world, since existence in one possible world would entail existence in every world."
C4: According to P3, when taken with C3, God does not exist in any world.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.


Bitch.
 

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius wrote:You, Post

Sinphanius wrote:

You, Post #52 wrote:
My point is, negatives only exist where God does not. The world is distinct from God only by its negatives; a human is potentially smarter, a cheetah is potentially faster, a dog is potentially trained, etc.

You, Post #6 wrote:
Therefore, if God does not exist in this world, he does not exist in any possible world, since existence in one possible world would entail existence in every world.


P1: "Negatives only exist where god does not"
P2: "The world is distinct form God only by its negatives"

This clearly has gone over your head and I'll admit that I did not phrase what I meant quite properly, so I'll take the blame. 

What it means is that distinctions between entities is dictated strictly by distinct attributes (Leibniz's law of identity).  God, having all positive predicates, is therefore distinct from other beings by the fact that other beings do not share those qualities, i.e. they lack certain predicates.  "Negatives only exist where God does not" means precisely this, but since I can understand why the sentence would be misunderstood, allow me to modify it:  "Negative properties only exist in those which are not God".  In order for God to create a distinct world (and by "world", I do not mean a "possible world" as in modal logic, but rather a community of distinct entities) the world must by logical necessity by ungodlike.


 


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
How Nice

Your quaint little backpedaling is hardly of any use or interest.

You have still admitted to an area where gods influence and nature does not fully permeate.  If god is infinite and all encompassing, then he must permeate through and be an aspect of everything, anything less and he is not infinite.  

If god permeates through everything and is the ultimate expression of existence, an absolute nature, then he must override the natures of all that he permeates, anything less and he is in essence weaker than that which her permeates, which has demonstrated itself to be able to override his nature.  

This thus makes god a limited entity and either not 'proven' by your little argument, or directly dis-proven by it.

 

I'm sorry if you are upset that I have dismantled your argument with your own argument, but your blind inability to admit this truth is of little consequence to me.

 

P.S. You still haven't described Eternity.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius wrote:Your quaint

Sinphanius wrote:

Your quaint little backpedaling is hardly of any use or interest.

It's not backpeddling.  It's called a "clarification". 

Quote:
You have still admitted to an area where gods influence and nature does not fully permeate.  If god is infinite and all encompassing, then he must permeate through and be an aspect of everything, anything less and he is not infinite.  

Now you are just pulling things out of left field.  What do you mean "he must permeate through and be an aspect of everything"?

Quote:
If god permeates through everything and is the ultimate expression of existence, an absolute nature, then he must override the natures of all that he permeates, anything less and he is in essence weaker than that which her permeates, which has demonstrated itself to be able to override his nature.  

What do you mean "override the natures"? 

Quote:
I'm sorry if you are upset that I have dismantled your argument with your own argument, but your blind inability to admit this truth is of little consequence to me.

You haven't dismantled my argument at all and therefore you could not have dismantled it using any previous arguments that I've made.

Quote:
P.S. You still haven't described Eternity.


 
Yes I did.  Something that is eternal exists and has no potential to stop existing and has never begun to exist.  Relative to our perception of the world, "eternity" can be defined as "existing at all times".  "Eternity", in effect, is a description of a being.  So essentially, you are asking me to describe a description, which is silly.  It's like asking me to describe a person who is 7 feet tall.  The only description I would be able to give is, "He is greater than and not equal to 6'9, but less than and not equal to 7'1".  Other than that, you could just give superficial subjective explanations such as, "It is really intimidating.. it is like looking up at a building... it makes me look small", but I don't guess that these are the kinds of answers you were seeking when you asked me the question.

 

 


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
But, what if god IS a pink

But, what if god IS a pink unicorn? One horn to rule them all..yes yes it all makes sense now!


chndlrjhnsn
chndlrjhnsn's picture
Posts: 159
Joined: 2010-03-28
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:But, what if

robj101 wrote:

But, what if god IS a pink unicorn? One horn to rule them all..yes yes it all makes sense now!

You blaspheme the Flying Spaghetti Monster!


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:Sinphanius

Fortunate_S wrote:

Sinphanius wrote:

 

Quote:
P.S. You still haven't described Eternity.


 
Yes I did.  Something that is eternal exists and has no potential to stop existing and has never begun to exist.  Relative to our perception of the world, "eternity" can be defined as "existing at all times".  "Eternity", in effect, is a description of a being.  So essentially, you are asking me to describe a description, which is silly.  It's like asking me to describe a person who is 7 feet tall.  The only description I would be able to give is, "He is greater than and not equal to 6'9, but less than and not equal to 7'1".  Other than that, you could just give superficial subjective explanations such as, "It is really intimidating.. it is like looking up at a building... it makes me look small", but I don't guess that these are the kinds of answers you were seeking when you asked me the question.

 

 

So, in your view, "Eternal" means "existing in eternity" and "Eternity" means "where eternal things exist".

I'm glad you didn't come with a superficial explanation.

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
We can never have any

We can never have any verifiable indication that any entity is really 'eternal'.

The only things which could conceivable be 'eternal' would be the truly fundamental 'laws' of existence, the underpinnings of the laws of Physics. Such would be the essential precursors of any complex structure capable of manifesting anything sort of behaviour that could be meaningful be ascribed to an 'entity'.

The only conceivable path to life and other complex entities is from simple to progressively more complex. This allows conceptually infinite chains of linkage from 'lesser' to 'greater', which may easily be accommodated in finite time, thus resolving the First Cause argument.

Of course, Time may in fact bend back on itself, maybe even in an extra dimension, so it well be finite but with no beginning or end, just like the surface of the Earth, in at least the topological sense.

The really weird thing is that at the Quantum level, Time, in the sense we think of it, seems to 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


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:Otherwise,

Fortunate_S wrote:

Otherwise, you are claiming that an eternal being's existence is dictated by some contingent states of affairs, which is a non-sequitur.

What? Don't be daft. God being possible but not necessarily extant does not imply contingence, just likelihood.

God being possible iff some such or other, is contingence, but that was not Bob's claim. The contingence implied in Bob's claim is purely epistemic.

ie I can say God may not exist because my knowing god exists is contingent on evidence. I'm not saying God is contingent, I'm just saying the likelihood of God existing lacks the evidentiary support upon which it is contingent.

 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:Since

Fortunate_S wrote:

Since we've established that an eternal substance must exist by logical necessity,

a. Where did you establish this?

b. regardless of what you purport establishes it the fact is it is dependent on a very tricky assumption about the nature of time which I would propose you have no epistemic right to make or go forward with, anyhow. Time, it is evident, does not conform to this concept of eternity that you are appraising since it appears to have come into existence itself at some coordinate of reality. Thus eternity is incoherent in the sense that you are using it.

 

 

 

Fortunate_Son wrote:

 The only tenable position is that time does not exist in itself at all, but is a product of non-temporal motions between the twofold structures of real being(potentiality/actuality or form/matter) and our capacity to retain events in our memory.  Time is thus our mental ordering of events according to our memory of potentialities which are now actualities.

You're ad hoc'ing the memory bit, it is unnecessary for one, and secondly it's inconsistent anyway, a coherent memory set is contingent on independent time which we have just ruled out.

We can say, simply, time as a function of interactions/information exchange is a complete description, full stop.

Then we have a characteristic function relating to psychological ordering (ie psychological time), the psychological ordering does not happen "in time" therefore memory and retention are redundant notions. There is no past to look back on as the means by which ordering is achieved, there is simply ordered data in some coordinate frame. Potentiality and actuality are, then, relationships between the elements of data in the coordinate frame. They may or may not be fundamentally necessary relationships for reality; we just know they are the relationships that characterise the order of our psychological experience.  

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:BobSpence1

Fortunate_S wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

'Fixed' describes the permanent distinguishing attributes of a particular set of possible 'worlds'.

The "permanent" attributes of each possible world would actually be attributes in every possible world.  Anything which cannot be otherwise than it is does not restrict itself to one possible world.  You clearly have not grasped the idea of modal necessity and contingency. 

What you are arguing is this:  It is possible that certain attributes of a given possible world, Wx, are necessary within the context of that possible world.  In other words, within possible world x, there are no possible worlds where attribute Y cannot be the case.  All you've done in this case is changed the domain of discourse, but say nothing in the higher order language that is actually relevant, namely, the language of modal logic.  Something is either contingent or necessary.  This is an exclusive disjunction.  You cannot have it both ways. 

What you've done is restrict the eternal being to this lower level language, but failed to address the issue in an objective non-relativistic sense.  If an eternal being exists, then it cannot stop existing.  Therefore, there are no possible worlds where such a being does not exist (this is logically equivalent to the statement "cannot stop existing&quotEye-wink.  If an eternal being does not exist, then there are no possible worlds where such a being could exist, since it would have to begin existing.  But the only things that cannot exist in any possible world are logically inconceivable things, therefore, an eternal being has to exist. 

I'll give you the last word.  Until you actually study logic, there is no way I can have meaningful discourse with you on this topic.

I have indeed changed the 'domain of discourse', to something more comprehensive and useful than yours.

I am not trying to use the concepts of modal logic, which are not necessarily useful here.

I am still employing logic.

A 'permanent', fixed attribute of a specific 'possible' world is not necessarily an attribute which 'cannot be otherwise'. That is an arbitrary restriction you have imposed on the definition of 'fixed/permanent''. I am referring to attributes which cannot change with time, so are permanent, unchanging, unchangeable, within any specific 'world'.

There is no logical reason why a useful concept of 'possible world' cannot have such attributes, with each possible world having different sets of of such attributes. 

You have arbitrarily excluded this possibility from your set of 'possible worlds', which dramatically reduces the utility of the 'possible worlds' scenario.

This prevents us from considering different possible worlds in which, say, the laws of physics, or the Universal constants, are different.

You obviously don't wish to include such an option, since it destroys your pathetic excuse for an 'argument'.

You are still making the same fundamental error: get it thru your faith-befuddled brain that the concept of a fixed, unchangeable, entity or attribute does not logically require that that entity or attribute cannot be different in another possible world. It does not imply that it be capable of change, in itself.

Until you acknowledge this, it is indeed pointless to continue this discussion.

EDIT: To repeat, rephrase, for clarity and emphasis: the concept of an unchangeable, fixed thing is distinct from the concept of something which could not be otherwise.

'Contingent' refers to things which could have been different if the course of events, of history, within a specific world, a particular universal context, had followed a different path.

'Fixed' refers to things which are intrinsic, fundamental attributes of a specific 'possible world', which could be considered to define that world. Other 'possible  worlds' are those where there is a different set of such fixed attributes.

'Necessary' refers to attributes, laws, etc which logically must apply universally.

To justify asserting that some specific thing is 'necessary', using the 'possible worlds' argument, you have to assume, for the argument, that it is merely 'fixed', and then show that any 'world' in which it either does not exist, or differs in any way from one specific set of attributes, is intrinsically impossible, internally inconsistent.

The alternative approach is show that it logically follows from something like the LOI/LNC, as with any other logical absolute.

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


chndlrjhnsn
chndlrjhnsn's picture
Posts: 159
Joined: 2010-03-28
User is offlineOffline
If any eternal being must

If any eternal being must exist with necessity (in every possible world), then the eternal pink unicorn must exist, but not necessarily the temporal blue unicorn.


TruthbringerOfT...
TruthbringerOfTrueTruthiness's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2010-04-26
User is offlineOffline
chndlrjhnsn wrote:If any

chndlrjhnsn wrote:

If any eternal being must exist with necessity (in every possible world), then the eternal pink unicorn must exist, but not necessarily the temporal blue unicorn.

So very true.  If only more people understood this vital fact.  To many people today fall for the false teachings of the blue temporal unicorn while ignoring the True spiritual teachings of the one True pink unicorn!  Jesus must be crying up in heaven because we are ignoring his favorite mount.  Some day Jesus will come back riding on his majestic pink unicorn of TRUTH and all those blue unicorn heretics will KNOW BETTER!!!


chndlrjhnsn
chndlrjhnsn's picture
Posts: 159
Joined: 2010-03-28
User is offlineOffline
...and burn in Blue Unicorn

...and burn in Blue Unicorn Hell.


Godchild (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
chndlrjhnsn wrote:If any

chndlrjhnsn wrote:

If any eternal being must exist with necessity (in every possible world), then the eternal pink unicorn must exist, but not necessarily the temporal blue unicorn.

Gaunilo already attempted this with his greatest conceivable island argument.

Any material thing, such as a unicorn, island, hot dog, etc., is incomplete by its very nature.  The force of the ontological argument is the fact that by virtue of God's ontological plenitude, it is self-contradictory to assert that he does not exist.

A unicorn is defined as being a horse with a horn on its head.  The very fact that it is a unicorn when it could have been, say, a zebra shows that it is ontologically incomplete.  After all, a unicorn would be composed of the same elementary particles as a zebra.  Why a unicorn instead of a zebra?

Unlike a material thing, God is defined as an ontologically complete being, from which it follows that he is the all encompassing source of being itself.  As such, it is not self-contradictory to say that God exists by logically necessity because to assert otherwise would substantiate that there is a reality and it cannot be accounted for.  Moreover, it would assert that there are sufficient conditions which would satisfy the non-existence of an ontologically complete being.

Even if you were to play games with semantics and say that an immaterial ontologically complete unicorn must exist, you would still arrive at a dead end because the moment you say that such a being is immaterial, there is no real reason to call such a being a unicorn

Sorry, but brilliant minds like Anselm, Plantinga, Hartshorne, and Goedel deserve a little more credit.  Come up with something better.

 


Godchild (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:ie I can say

Eloise wrote:

ie I can say God may not exist because my knowing god exists is contingent on evidence. I'm not saying God is contingent, I'm just saying the likelihood of God existing lacks the evidentiary support upon which it is contingent.

Saying, "We cannot know God exists unless there is sufficient evidence to justify it", is not different from saying, "According to the evidence we have so far, God may or may not exist", which still requires the acknowledgement that there are possible conditions which would make true the statement, "There is no God."  

Therefore, by this line of reasoning, you are already contradicting yourself.  An ontologically complete being, by its very nature, cannot be non-existent. 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Godchild, have you tried

Godchild, have you tried actually studying logic?

It does not consist of a sequence of non-sequiturs and naked assertions, as you have just written.

 

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


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Godchild wrote:  An

Godchild wrote:
  An ontologically complete being, by its very nature, cannot be non-existent. 

WTF are you talking about. Things cannot be ontologically complete, ontology is a framework for conception not a unit of existence.

An ontology can be 'complete' (insofar as epistemic completeness demands in an circumstance) for a thing but such completeness is not a feature or property of the entity, its a property of an interactive relationship; for example between the human psychological experience and an entity.

Ontological completeness, then, is simply a level of clarity extant in the interaction between a personal identity and it's environment and ontologically complete frameworks enhance the degree of interaction between objects, not the possibility of existence of objects.

Basically, I believe your argument attempts to co-opt an area of philosophy and make it something it is not. Ontological completeness applies, most precisely, to an interactive relationship between things, not to the things themselves.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:Thanks for

Fortunate_S wrote:

Thanks for agreeing.  Now I know that God exists.

(1) g <--> ~g
(2) g-->~<>~g
(3) ~g-->~<>g
(4) (x)(Cx == <>x)
(5) ~(~Cg)
(6) Cg   AP
(7) Cg--><>g  4; UI,Equiv,Simp
(8 ) <>g   6,7; MP
(9) ~(~<>g)  8; DN
(10) ~(~g)  3,9; MT
(11) g   10; DN
(12) Cg-->g  6-11; CP
(13) C~g  AP
(14) C~g--><>~g  4; UI,Equiv,Simp
(15) <>~g  13,14; MP
(16) ~(~<>~g)  15; DN
(17) ~g   2,16; MT
(18) C~g-->~g  13-17; CP
(19) g-->~C~g  18; Contra
(20) ~g-->~Cg  12; Contra
(21) ~Cg <--> ~C~g 1,19,20; CD
(22) ~C~g  5,21; DS
(23) <>~g-->C~g  4; UI,Equiv,Simp
(24) ~(<>~g)  22,23; MT
(25) []g  24; Modal Equivng to the premise. 

Two major holes in this argument that I see are that,

1. God, being necessary, must necessarily exist in all possible (conceivable) worlds. -- is question begging.

If God is a necessarily true proposition then why construct any more argument? The very act of constructing the convoluted pile of sophist nonsense that follows is equivalent to open concession that this supporting proposition cannot be agreed on its own merit.  The MOA by it's very existence admits the fault of its own leading proposition and hence is just a big pile of smelly affirming the precedent.

and 2. The other main anchor of this argument -- if God is conceivable then God is possible -- which launches the determination that God is therefore possible. Is nothing more than handwaving over the conceivability of a deity. MOA rushes to assuming the agreement of the conceptual viability of a deity without pause to reflect on whether or how this is ever actually accomplished.

When he MOA asks, and presently furthermore, assumes, that God is agreed to be conceivable, is the tongue firmly in the cheek, F_Son? I mean, it might be that most people can conceive of a set of charateristics they might label "God" but is any one of them actually conceiving of God? what is it the MAO is actually entering into possibility via this assumed concession, anyway? Would anyone ever actually conceive of what truly could be God, or would they conceive primarily of what sits pleasantly with their personal religious sensibilities.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
This is a good point

 

Eloise wrote:

When he MOA asks, and presently furthermore, assumes, that God is agreed to be conceivable, is the tongue firmly in the cheek, F_Son? I mean, it might be that most people can conceive of a set of charateristics they might label "God" but is any one of them actually conceiving of God? what is it the MAO is actually entering into possibility via this assumed concession, anyway? Would anyone ever actually conceive of what truly could be God, or would they conceive primarily of what sits pleasantly with their personal religious sensibilities.

 

A man could not conceive of the creator of the universe he cannot conceive of. God thoughts are subjective, anthropomorphic and possess no characteristics capable of measurement or even consistent definition.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
God is "conceivable", in the

God is "conceivable", in the standard usage of that term, but we have no way to determine if any form of God is "possible". Some versions do seem to imply contradictions, so would appear to not be possible.

To construct a valid logical argument that God must exist would require demonstrating that the assumption that God does not exist leads to a contradiction.

If you define 'God' as 'that which is an essential precondition for the existence of our Universe' then that entity must exist. Or, more strictly, that at least one 'thing' in the category of "things capable of serving as a pre-condition for our universe" must exist.

However, that tells us nothing about the nature or attributes of "that which is necessary for the existence of our universe". It is just playing semantics. You have just invented another word or phrase for the "First Cause".

We do not have remotely enough knowledge to define any necessary, specific attributes of things in that category.

It doesn't even establish that there is only one possible 'cause'.

Demonstrating that "what 'caused' the Universe" must necessarily be sentient, benevolent, all-powerful, all-knowing, etc, ie, has any attributes other than "whatever is necessary to serve as a precondition for creating our universe" is the actual problem which is not addressed by any of the classic arguments. Of course, theologians have then gone on and attempted to show how those attributes are necessary, but those are the arguments that need to be examined - these FC and OA ideas are pointless by themselves.

The whole 'argument' amounts to the assertion that IF our universe could not simply appear from nothing, then 'something' must have 'caused' it, therefore that 'something' must have existed, since our universe exists.

Even if one denies that no 'something' can come from what is truly nothing, then that entails that 'something' must always have existed, but again, implies nothing about specific, necessary attributes of an eternal 'something'.

For example, a 'quantum foam' could certainly persist indefinitely, and trigger one or more 'Big Bang' events, without necessarily violating any established Laws of Physics.

But there is no logical problem with 'something' simply 'beginning to exist'. We ourselves have conceptual problems with that, but Quantum Mechanics demonstrates that our our ability to conceive of something is a poor guide as what actually is possible.

 

 

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


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:If you

BobSpence1 wrote:

If you define 'God' as 'that which is an essential precondition for the existence of our Universe' then that entity must exist.

Assuming, of course, that a precondition for the existence of the universe is necessary, which, as you've noted later is definitely an uncertain claim.

BobSpence wrote:

However, that tells us nothing about the nature or attributes of "that which is necessary for the existence of our universe". It is just playing semantics. You have just invented another word or phrase for the "First Cause".

Right. And so if this is what the MOA is entering into possibility then the argument is certainly not establishing the existence of any specific deity.

BobSpence wrote:


Demonstrating that "what 'caused' the Universe" must necessarily be sentient, benevolent, all-powerful, all-knowing, etc, ie, has any attributes other than "whatever is necessary to serve as a precondition for creating our universe" is the actual problem which is not addressed by any of the classic arguments.

Exactly, Kalaam, OA, these are arguments that affront rigour by using it only as a costume for empty propositions. A properly rigorous ontological argument for God would include an ontology of God stated in the premise, otherwise any agreement reached is simply hollow and intangible.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Godchild (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:WTF are you

Eloise wrote:

WTF are you talking about. Things cannot be ontologically complete, ontology is a framework for conception not a unit of existence.

No, ontology is the study of categories of being and does make reference to the qualitative aspects of individual things.  "Ontologically incomplete" refers to the having of some potentiality which, in turn, refers to individual beings in their particular mode of actuality.  I am actually a conglomeration of elementary particles arranged in one way and not some other.  This is not relative to someone's conception, unless you want to endorse untenable worldviews such as solipsism or transcendental idealism.

Quote:
An ontology can be 'complete' (insofar as epistemic completeness demands in an circumstance) for a thing but such completeness is not a feature or property of the entity, its a property of an interactive relationship; for example between the human psychological experience and an entity.

Ontological completeness, then, is simply a level of clarity extant in the interaction between a personal identity and it's environment and ontologically complete frameworks enhance the degree of interaction between objects, not the possibility of existence of objects.

Since this all trades on your misunderstanding of what it means to have an ontological plenitude, your premises can be disregarded.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Godchild wrote: No,

Godchild wrote:

 

No, ontology is the study of categories of being and does make reference to the qualitative aspects of individual things.

Your education in logic has been presided over solely by Platinga, I see.

As you've said, but clearly not understood, ontology is a study of being, it is not being itself. You can't just conjure up fictional ontology, propose it sound and tell us it supports the existence of your invisible man. Just saying something has "ontological status" does not establish by any means that it does and it most certainly does not establish that a thing exists. Establish a rigourous definite ontological necessity or stop abusing philosophical terms to advance empty claims. 

Godchild wrote:

 "Ontologically incomplete" refers to the having of some potentiality which, in turn, refers to individual beings in their particular mode of actuality.  I am actually a conglomeration of elementary particles arranged in one way and not some other.  

You also have actuality as an individual among individuals, and equally as a cooperative system of biological entities. There are any number of validating ontological descriptions for you, the difference between those and this ontological plenitude you claim for your god is that they do not rely solely on the authority of some apologetic "logical principle" in order to be known, they are tangible descriptions with merit outside of religious proof frameworks, your "ontological completeness" claim is not, its empty, it is not even ontology at all.    

 

Godchild wrote:

This is not relative to someone's conception, unless you want to endorse untenable worldviews such as solipsism or transcendental idealism.

Yes it is, I have just demonstrated, your existence can be classified numerous valid ways, each one relative to a conceptual framework, no solipsism or transcendental idealism need be appealed to. 

Godchild wrote:

Since this all trades on your misunderstanding of what it means to have an ontological plenitude, your premises can be disregarded.

I suggest that it is you who has misunderstood the currency of ontological plenitude. You're trying to sell it for what it is not.

Ontology is a study, it is an abstract framework, it has no material currency of its own order, you should reconsider using it that way, it is misleading.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Godchild (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Your education

Eloise wrote:

Your education in logic has been presided over solely by Platinga, I see.

No.  I've studied logic formally as an undergrad and implemented it in many other philosophy classes before I received my degree.  In the meantime, I study it on my own.

Quote:
As you've said, but clearly not understood, ontology is a study of being, it is not being itself. You can't just conjure up fictional ontology, propose it sound and tell us it supports the existence of your invisible man. Just saying something has "ontological status" does not establish by any means that it does and it most certainly does not establish that a thing exists. Establish a rigourous definite ontological necessity or stop abusing philosophical terms to advance empty claims. 

It is the study of being itself.  It is an elucidation of our understanding of being, which is not based on anything invented by us, but based upon an understanding of reality which is internal to the thought process.  In other words, these are a priori concepts which not only supersede experience, but also supersede our subjective imaginations.  Aristotle did not simply make up the idea that things have quantity, quality, relation, placement, temporality.  He formalized it on the basis of how being really is

Anything that exists has an ontological status, by definition. 

Quote:
You also have actuality as an individual among individuals, and equally as a cooperative system of biological entities. There are any number of validating ontological descriptions for you, the difference between those and this ontological plenitude you claim for your god is that they do not rely solely on the authority of some apologetic "logical principle" in order to be known, they are tangible descriptions with merit outside of religious proof frameworks, your "ontological completeness" claim is not, its empty, it is not even ontology at all.    

I'm assuming the validity of the definition of God, which, if properly understood, would necessitate a contradiction if you were to deny that such a being exists.  All you've done is declared it to be meaningless based on your own standards of what is meaningful and what is not.  You've decided arbitrarily that the only valid ontological descriptions are those which are not under the logic employed in Christian apologetics. 

Why is "ontologically complete" meaningless?  Can you please point out what law of logic is violated by this idea?

Quote:
Yes it is, I have just demonstrated, your existence can be classified numerous valid ways, each one relative to a conceptual framework, no solipsism or transcendental idealism need be appealed to. 

You did not demonstrate it.  Tangible descriptions are based on observation and come from the senses.  This is not relative to any conceptual framework.  It comes from outside of us.

Quote:
I suggest that it is you who has misunderstood the currency of ontological plenitude. You're trying to sell it for what it is not.

Ontology is a study, it is an abstract framework, it has no material currency of its own order, you should reconsider using it that way, it is misleading.

I know what it is because I have studied it (along with the entire body of contemporary Thomistic metaphysics) for the past 6 years.  An ontological plenitude means that something exists with no imperfections.  All of its attributes are fully actualized and, as such, it needs nothing.  It does not need its existence sustained by air, food, water, blood, etc.  It simply exists with no preconditions.  This is also known as an "infinite being".  We do not need to even experience it in order to know that it is real.  We can simply look to the innate dynamism of the intellect and realize that everything which exists must be accounted for in some way and a reality which consists only of beings ontologically incomplete cannot be accounted for unless an infinite being exists.  Moreover, once we come to understand the nature of being itself, as well as the nature of an infinite being in theory, we realize that the existence of such a being cannot be denied without contradiction.

You can have at it if you want.  How can an infinite being possibly not exist?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:'m assuming the

Quote:

'm assuming the validity of the definition of God, which, if properly understood, would necessitate a contradiction if you were to deny that such a being exists.  

proves that the definition is invalid.

 

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


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Godchild wrote:Eloise

Godchild wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Your education in logic has been presided over solely by Platinga, I see.

No.  I've studied logic formally as an undergrad and implemented it in many other philosophy classes before I received my degree.  In the meantime, I study it on my own.

It's disappointing, in light of that, you then have come to consider these ontological arguments worth repeating to atheists and agnostics, to whom they can never offer anything more than naked blanket assertions.

Quote:

It is the study of being itself.  It is an elucidation of our understanding of being, which is not based on anything invented by us, but based upon an understanding of reality which is internal to the thought process. In other words, these are a priori concepts which not only supersede experience, but also supersede our subjective imaginations. Aristotle did not simply make up the idea that things have quantity, quality, relation, placement, temporality.  He formalized it on the basis of how being really is.

So now you're advancing Solipsism, are you? What's internal to our thought processes dictates what is and can be-- "how being really is"?

As I originally said, the most logical precise interpretation of this definition of ontology is that what is internal and essential to our thought processes dictates the level of our psychological interaction with it.  Do you see now why I said that?

Godchild wrote:

Anything that exists has an ontological status, by definition.

 

Not relevant, until you establish a convincing ontological necessity for this being you're granting status to. You can assume its status all you like based on your fictions of what might be ontologically valid in the universe, but you cannot convince someone else of it until you demonstrate those things have validity beyond mere proposition.

 

GodChild wrote:

I'm assuming the validity of the definition of God, which, if properly understood, would necessitate a contradiction if you were to deny that such a being exists.  All you've done is declared it to be meaningless based on your own standards of what is meaningful and what is not.  You've decided arbitrarily that the only valid ontological descriptions are those which are not under the logic employed in Christian apologetics. 

No, Christian apologetics employs the same logic that any logician uses, but as is to be expected from diehard religiosity, it has not stopped at employment of logic but gone on to worship and idolise it. In your ontological argument Ontology is just another golden statue we are asked to bow before as almighty dictatorial perfection; excuse the non-religious if they ask for just a little more reason than that, in fields employing logic that are not christian apologetics (like science for instance) it's accepted and even encouraged for the sake of enlightenment.

 

GodChild wrote:

Why is "ontologically complete" meaningless?  Can you please point out what law of logic is violated by this idea?

Case in point. ^

 

Godchild, it lacks meaning not because of some internal logical issue, but because it stretches the authority of logic to idol status to umbrella numerous confusing and uncertain terms like infinite and absolute all at once. Until we have a better handle on the empirical reality of those terms no self respecting non-believer is going to agree on the meaningfulness of them.

 

GodChild wrote:
An ontological plenitude means that something exists with no imperfections.  All of its attributes are fully actualized and, as such, it needs nothing.  It does not need its existence sustained by air, food, water, blood, etc.  It simply exists with no preconditions.  This is also known as an "infinite being".  We do not need to even experience it in order to know that it is real.  We can simply look to the innate dynamism of the intellect and realize that everything which exists must be accounted for in some way and a reality which consists only of beings ontologically incomplete cannot be accounted for unless an infinite being exists.  Moreover, once we come to understand the nature of being itself, as well as the nature of an infinite being in theory, we realize that the existence of such a being cannot be denied without contradiction.

You can have at it if you want.  How can an infinite being possibly not exist?

Your question is loaded with the implication that any arbitrarily designated "Ontology" (as in the abstract study of categories of being) is sufficient to grant an ontological status. It's not.

Your ascribing the "innate dynamism of the intellect" the authority of what is and can be is solipsism.

Your whole argument is circular whilesoever it lacks actual descriptive ontology of this "infinite being" a lack which will persist as long as infinity is in any sense beyond the scope of our psychological interaction with the universe.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Godchild (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Eloise the stupid bitch

Eloise the stupid bitch wrote:

It's disappointing, in light of that, you then have come to consider these ontological arguments worth repeating to atheists and agnostics, whom can never offer anything more than naked blanket assertions.

I agree.  Atheists and agnostics can never offer anything more than naked blanket assertions.

Quote:
So now you're advancing Solipsism, are you? What's internal to our thought processes dictates what is and can be-- "how being really is"?

???

Are you an idiot?  Do you know how to read?

I said that our understanding of reality supersedes sense experience, such that when someone like Aristotle puts forth an ontological framework, it is based on our internal thought process which makes empirical observation possible.

Quote:
As I originally said, the most logical precise interpretation of this definition of ontology is that what is internal and essential to our thought processes dictates the level of our psychological interaction with it.  Do you see now why I said that?

You said that because you are stupid.

There is no interpretation here.  There is what ontology is and what it is not.  I do not even think you've ever studied this.  You've just assumed that whatever preexisting knowledge you had in some given field has just mapped its way onto this discussion.  We cannot "psychologically interact" with the means of psychological interaction, which is what ontology is dealing with.  That is just circular.

Quote:
Not relevant, until you establish a convincing ontological necessity for this being you're granting status to. You can assume its status all you like based on your fictions of what might be ontologically valid in the universe, but you cannot convince someone else of it until you demonstrate those things have validity beyond mere proposition.

It is relevant because you are redefining terms so that they will not make sense or be useful in any conversation. 

I'm not talking about what is valid "in the universe".  I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean, nor do I understand what you mean by "establish a convincing ontological necessity".

All you appear to be doing is finding quasi-intellectual ways of saying, "You need to prove that some being can be infinite".  I've already done that.

Quote:
apologetics employs the same logic that any logician uses, but as is to be expected from diehard religiosity, it has not stopped at employment of logic but gone on to worship and idolise it. In your ontological argument Ontology is just another golden statue we are asked to bow before as almighty dictatorial perfection; excuse the non-religious if they ask for just a little more reason than that, in fields employing logic that are not christian apologetics (like science for instance) it's accepted and even encouraged for the sake of enlightenment.

I doubt you know anything about Christian apologetics much like you know absolutely nothing about philosophy. 

Quote:
Godchild, it lacks meaning not because of some internal logical issue, but because it stretches the authority of logic to idol status to umbrella numerous confusing and uncertain terms like infinite and absolute all at once. Until we have a better handle on the empirical reality of those terms no self respecting non-believer is going to agree on the meaningfulness of them.

Infinite is not an uncertain term.  It has a clear meaning, which I've already defined.  The fact that you demand that we learn more about the term from empirical reality proves that you have no grasp of it.  A non-believer is not going to agree to the term because the non-believer is endorsing a flawed epistemology, assuming that empirical reality dictates whether or not something is meaningful. 

Quote:
Your question is loaded with the implication that any arbitrarily designated "Ontology" (as in the abstract study of categories of being) is sufficient to grant an ontological status. It's not.

Answer the question.

Assume that some being is ontologically infinite (eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, etc.)  How can that being not exist?

Quote:
Your ascribing the "innate dynamism of the intellect" the authority of what is and can be is solipsism.

You do not even know what that means.

Quote:
Your whole argument is circular whilesoever it lacks actual descriptive ontology of this "infinite being" a lack which will persist as long as infinity is in any sense beyond the scope of our psychological interaction with the universe.

Now we are back to empirical observation and psychological interaction.

The interesting thing is, the ontological argument is deductively valid.  The only tactic atheists (and yes, you are an atheist) have is to plead ignorance on all of the terms.

I'm sick of you.


You are ugly (which is why you no longer have a picture for an avatar).

You are stupid.

Your life is useless.

Your pussy is hairy.

Your ass is flat.

You like to have sex with your kitty cat.

Fuck you.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Godchild wrote:I said that

Godchild wrote:

I said that our understanding of reality supersedes sense experience, such that when someone like Aristotle puts forth an ontological framework, it is based on our internal thought process which makes empirical observation possible.

And? that in turn makes being possible? What's a priori to our senses is a priori to existence, right? isn't that what you're getting at here:

GodChild wrote:

In other words, these are a priori concepts which not only supersede experience, but also supersede our subjective imaginations.  Aristotle did not simply make up the idea that things have quantity, quality, relation, placement, temporality.  He formalized it on the basis of how being really is.

 

Quote:
We cannot "psychologically interact" with the means of psychological interaction,

OOps, yep that's my bad that one, the right antecendent was there in my head when I read it back but I ust have been projecting. "it" refers to the thing having ontological status, which you will see is true in my original post:

Eloise wrote:

An ontology can be 'complete' (insofar as epistemic completeness demands in an circumstance) for a thing but such completeness is not a feature or property of the entity, its a property of an interactive relationship; for example between the human psychological experience and an entity.

I'm not sure how that sentence ended up looking like that, I even looked back to see if you have fucked with it because I was sure it read right when I posted.

For clarity what is internal and essential to our thought processes [regarding any x extant thing] dictates the level of our psychological interaction with it.

 

Quote:

All you appear to be doing is finding quasi-intellectual ways of saying, "You need to prove that some being can be infinite".  I've already done that.

1. No you've overextended the reach of processes of logical proving to arbitrarily cover all extraordinary and inconceivable extremities, this is not proof it's parochial sophistry.

and 2. I do not know how I can make this more clear to your idolising nature which persistently wants only to curl back into it's little sophist nook and pretend nothing exists beyond it's golden statue of Ontological "truth" but I will try again -- I did not say your argument lacks logical proof, I said it lacks reasonableness and tangibility. Move beyond the internal logics of your assumptions and look at the ludicrous leaps you're asking people of reason to take into your temple of Ontology long before, said, logic comes into play.

 

Quote:

Infinite is not an uncertain term.  It has a clear meaning, which I've already defined. 

It does not have clear meaning and moreover it does not have clear existence. As a mathematician it is my business to know the nature of what might be infinity by how numbers behave in that order, and they do not behave in that order like any category of being we have been privy to studying.

When an order of magnitude goes infinite forget logic because it is brazenly defied. Categories of being are untenable where one can add a valid entity and return the same value as though nothing was added, infinity +1 = infinity, heck, infinity + infinity = infinity so how does this preserve any such ideas as relation, placement, quantity..... ? well it just doesn't end of story.

Aristotle be damned (well not really, but the poor guy has been run over by reality here) his principles are powerless to describe what you're trying to prove with them, k?

GodChild wrote:
 

A non-believer is not going to agree to the term because the non-believer is endorsing a flawed epistemology, assuming that empirical reality dictates whether or not something is meaningful. 

That is a strawman for the majority of rational non-believers who would tell you empirical reality does not dictate what is meaningful in any absolute sense, it is just the domain of what can be considered meaningful by them.

And while we're on the subject, all these declarations of absolute dictation by logic are not rational, dude, lighten up, move outside the church-think for a second.

GodChild wrote:

Quote:
Your question is loaded with the implication that any arbitrarily designated "Ontology" (as in the abstract study of categories of being) is sufficient to grant an ontological status. It's not.

Answer the question.

LMAO, typical defense of someone who knows that their argument can't work until someone falls for their handwavy bullshit first.

 

GodChild wrote:


The interesting thing is, the ontological argument is deductively valid.  The only tactic atheists (and yes, you are an atheist) have is to plead ignorance on all of the terms.

Get it straight, I'm not pleading ignorance, I'm calling you out on your bluff that you know what your argument requires me to believe you know. Unload the question and see if you still have a leg to stand on in proving anything to me or anyone here.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com