Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

What is your fav objection to the MOA?

Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 4:47:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 4:40:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
...The Modal Ontological Argument?

Not heard of it.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 6:09:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 4:40:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
...The Modal Ontological Argument?

I don't have a favorite so just pick what I feel.......

1) Possibly necessary does not equal therefore necessary.

2) There is no consistency of what is and is not possibly necessary. It just get asserted that their version of God is possibly necessary but if you put forth any other thing as possibly necessary it will just get rejected as well no that thing is not possibly necessary.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 6:17:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 6:09:28 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/16/2014 4:40:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
...The Modal Ontological Argument?

I don't have a favorite so just pick what I feel.......

1) Possibly necessary does not equal therefore necessary.

Well, it actually does.

http://en.wikipedia.org...


2) There is no consistency of what is and is not possibly necessary. It just get asserted that their version of God is possibly necessary but if you put forth any other thing as possibly necessary it will just get rejected as well no that thing is not possibly necessary.

Perhaps there are good reasons for that.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 6:22:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 4:40:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
...The Modal Ontological Argument?

It confuses abstraction with reality.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 6:26:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 6:17:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/16/2014 6:09:28 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/16/2014 4:40:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
...The Modal Ontological Argument?

I don't have a favorite so just pick what I feel.......

1) Possibly necessary does not equal therefore necessary.

Well, it actually does.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Just because an axiom is stated doesn't mean we should accept it.

Axiom........It is possible necessary that everyone named rational thinker is a child rapist

Ergo, rational thinker is a child rapist.

And you know what, I just won't be lectured on axioms by a pervert.



2) There is no consistency of what is and is not possibly necessary. It just get asserted that their version of God is possibly necessary but if you put forth any other thing as possibly necessary it will just get rejected as well no that thing is not possibly necessary.

Perhaps there are good reasons for that.

Perhaps there isn't, and they are forced into special pleading for God over any other possible necessary thing.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 6:30:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 6:26:02 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/16/2014 6:17:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/16/2014 6:09:28 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/16/2014 4:40:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
...The Modal Ontological Argument?

I don't have a favorite so just pick what I feel.......

1) Possibly necessary does not equal therefore necessary.

Well, it actually does.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Just because an axiom is stated doesn't mean we should accept it.

Axiom........It is possible necessary that everyone named rational thinker is a child rapist

Ergo, rational thinker is a child rapist.

And you know what, I just won't be lectured on axioms by a pervert.

But that is not possible, as my name is rational thinker, and I am not a child rapist. Ergo, that premise is is false. You see what I mean? There are good reasons as to why certain things are not possibly necessary.






2) There is no consistency of what is and is not possibly necessary. It just get asserted that their version of God is possibly necessary but if you put forth any other thing as possibly necessary it will just get rejected as well no that thing is not possibly necessary.

Perhaps there are good reasons for that.

Perhaps there isn't, and they are forced into special pleading for God over any other possible necessary thing.

I just gave an example of a good reason above.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 6:47:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 6:30:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/16/2014 6:26:02 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/16/2014 6:17:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/16/2014 6:09:28 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/16/2014 4:40:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
...The Modal Ontological Argument?

I don't have a favorite so just pick what I feel.......

1) Possibly necessary does not equal therefore necessary.

Well, it actually does.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Just because an axiom is stated doesn't mean we should accept it.

Axiom........It is possible necessary that everyone named rational thinker is a child rapist

Ergo, rational thinker is a child rapist.

And you know what, I just won't be lectured on axioms by a pervert.

But that is not possible, as my name is rational thinker, and I am not a child rapist. Ergo, that premise is is false. You see what I mean? There are good reasons as to why certain things are not possibly necessary.

You have it back to front. Modal logic is all about if something is possibly necessary then it is necessary according to axiom 5.

It is possibly necessary that every person named rational thinker is a rapist. And according axiom 5 we should now conclude that rational thinker is a child rapist.

So whats the problem ? axiom 5 leads to false conclusions. The logic is faulty.

Remember as long as it's POSSIBLE NECESSARY it is necessary and therefore true according to this modal logical with axiom 5.

Modal logic doesn't work on the premise something is possible necessary and therefore necessary...................until you have a piece of evidence that conflicts with the conclusion and THEN you dismiss it but all the other claims of possible necessary are still in play..................until proven other wise.

It's all about "possible worlds".







2) There is no consistency of what is and is not possibly necessary. It just get asserted that their version of God is possibly necessary but if you put forth any other thing as possibly necessary it will just get rejected as well no that thing is not possibly necessary.

Perhaps there are good reasons for that.

Perhaps there isn't, and they are forced into special pleading for God over any other possible necessary thing.

I just gave an example of a good reason above.

No, I think you just gave an example of how accepting the reasoning of modal logic with A5 leads to false out comes.

Like I said, anything can be stated as an axiom, whether we should use that axiom is the question.

I have an Axiom to, and I think it is one we use all the time..........

Axiom..........If X is possible then X may or may not be true/exist.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 6:54:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 6:47:00 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/16/2014 6:30:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/16/2014 6:26:02 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/16/2014 6:17:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/16/2014 6:09:28 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/16/2014 4:40:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
...The Modal Ontological Argument?

I don't have a favorite so just pick what I feel.......

1) Possibly necessary does not equal therefore necessary.

Well, it actually does.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Just because an axiom is stated doesn't mean we should accept it.

Axiom........It is possible necessary that everyone named rational thinker is a child rapist

Ergo, rational thinker is a child rapist.

And you know what, I just won't be lectured on axioms by a pervert.

But that is not possible, as my name is rational thinker, and I am not a child rapist. Ergo, that premise is is false. You see what I mean? There are good reasons as to why certain things are not possibly necessary.

You have it back to front. Modal logic is all about if something is possibly necessary then it is necessary according to axiom 5.

It is possibly necessary that every person named rational thinker is a rapist. And according axiom 5 we should now conclude that rational thinker is a child rapist.


That's not the problem with S5 though, that's a misapplication of it.

So whats the problem ? axiom 5 leads to false conclusions. The logic is faulty.

Remember as long as it's POSSIBLE NECESSARY it is necessary and therefore true according to this modal logical with axiom 5.

Modal logic doesn't work on the premise something is possible necessary and therefore necessary...................until you have a piece of evidence that conflicts with the conclusion and THEN you dismiss it but all the other claims of possible necessary are still in play..................until proven other wise.

It's all about "possible worlds".








2) There is no consistency of what is and is not possibly necessary. It just get asserted that their version of God is possibly necessary but if you put forth any other thing as possibly necessary it will just get rejected as well no that thing is not possibly necessary.

Perhaps there are good reasons for that.

Perhaps there isn't, and they are forced into special pleading for God over any other possible necessary thing.

I just gave an example of a good reason above.

No, I think you just gave an example of how accepting the reasoning of modal logic with A5 leads to false out comes.

Like I said, anything can be stated as an axiom, whether we should use that axiom is the question.

I have an Axiom to, and I think it is one we use all the time..........

Axiom..........If X is possible then X may or may not be true/exist.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 6:54:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 4:40:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
...The Modal Ontological Argument?

The anti-MOA and Kant's objection.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 6:56:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 6:47:00 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/16/2014 6:30:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/16/2014 6:26:02 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/16/2014 6:17:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/16/2014 6:09:28 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/16/2014 4:40:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
...The Modal Ontological Argument?

I don't have a favorite so just pick what I feel.......

1) Possibly necessary does not equal therefore necessary.

Well, it actually does.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Just because an axiom is stated doesn't mean we should accept it.

Axiom........It is possible necessary that everyone named rational thinker is a child rapist

Ergo, rational thinker is a child rapist.

And you know what, I just won't be lectured on axioms by a pervert.

But that is not possible, as my name is rational thinker, and I am not a child rapist. Ergo, that premise is is false. You see what I mean? There are good reasons as to why certain things are not possibly necessary.

You have it back to front. Modal logic is all about if something is possibly necessary then it is necessary according to axiom 5.

It is possibly necessary that every person named rational thinker is a rapist.

No it is not possibly necessary that every person named rational thinker is a rapist, that is the thing you are not getting lol If it was possible, then it would be necessary. Thus, everyone named rational thinker would have to be a child rapist. Since everyone named rational thinker is NOT a child rapist, then we can deduce that the possibility claim is false.

And according axiom 5 we should now conclude that rational thinker is a child rapist.

The problem isn't with S5 the problem is with your false possibility claim!


So whats the problem ? axiom 5 leads to false conclusions. The logic is faulty.

No, the logic is fine (at least it is uncontroversial in philosophy), it is the initial premise that is false:

"it is possibly necessary that everybody named rational thinker is a child rapist"


Remember as long as it's POSSIBLE NECESSARY it is necessary and therefore true according to this modal logical with axiom 5.

Yes, but it is NOT possibly necessary that everyone named rational thinker is a child rapist. Therefore, you cannot use the argument. Again, the problem is with your premise, not S5.


Modal logic doesn't work on the premise something is possible necessary and therefore necessary...................until you have a piece of evidence that conflicts with the conclusion and THEN you dismiss it but all the other claims of possible necessary are still in play..................until proven other wise.

If a possibility claim leads to a false conclusion, then it is not actually possibly necessary.


It's all about "possible worlds".

I know Captain obvious.









2) There is no consistency of what is and is not possibly necessary. It just get asserted that their version of God is possibly necessary but if you put forth any other thing as possibly necessary it will just get rejected as well no that thing is not possibly necessary.

Perhaps there are good reasons for that.

Perhaps there isn't, and they are forced into special pleading for God over any other possible necessary thing.

I just gave an example of a good reason above.

No, I think you just gave an example of how accepting the reasoning of modal logic with A5 leads to false out comes.

No, accepting false premises leads to false outcome. The axiom is fine.


Like I said, anything can be stated as an axiom, whether we should use that axiom is the question.

Well, the axiom is necessarily true in the case of a maximally great being, because it is greater to exist in all possible worlds, than in one. Thus, if it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then it is necessary that a maximally great being exists (the MGB exists in all possible worlds).


I have an Axiom to, and I think it is one we use all the time..........

Axiom..........If X is possible then X may or may not be true/exist.

That is true for epistemic possibility.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 6:58:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 6:54:33 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/16/2014 4:40:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
...The Modal Ontological Argument?

The anti-MOA and Kant's objection.

The MOA is immune to Kant's objection, it only works on Anselm's version.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 7:33:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 6:56:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/16/2014 6:47:00 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/16/2014 6:30:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/16/2014 6:26:02 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/16/2014 6:17:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/16/2014 6:09:28 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/16/2014 4:40:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
...The Modal Ontological Argument?

I don't have a favorite so just pick what I feel.......

1) Possibly necessary does not equal therefore necessary.

Well, it actually does.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Just because an axiom is stated doesn't mean we should accept it.

Axiom........It is possible necessary that everyone named rational thinker is a child rapist

Ergo, rational thinker is a child rapist.

And you know what, I just won't be lectured on axioms by a pervert.

But that is not possible, as my name is rational thinker, and I am not a child rapist. Ergo, that premise is is false. You see what I mean? There are good reasons as to why certain things are not possibly necessary.

You have it back to front. Modal logic is all about if something is possibly necessary then it is necessary according to axiom 5.

It is possibly necessary that every person named rational thinker is a rapist.

No it is not possibly necessary that every person named rational thinker is a rapist, that is the thing you are not getting lol If it was possible, then it would be necessary. Thus, everyone named rational thinker would have to be a child rapist. Since everyone named rational thinker is NOT a child rapist, then we can deduce that the possibility claim is false.


And according axiom 5 we should now conclude that rational thinker is a child rapist.

The problem isn't with S5 the problem is with your false possibility claim!


So whats the problem ? axiom 5 leads to false conclusions. The logic is faulty.

No, the logic is fine (at least it is uncontroversial in philosophy), it is the initial premise that is false:

"it is possibly necessary that everybody named rational thinker is a child rapist"


Remember as long as it's POSSIBLE NECESSARY it is necessary and therefore true according to this modal logical with axiom 5.

Yes, but it is NOT possibly necessary that everyone named rational thinker is a child rapist. Therefore, you cannot use the argument. Again, the problem is with your premise, not S5.


Modal logic doesn't work on the premise something is possible necessary and therefore necessary...................until you have a piece of evidence that conflicts with the conclusion and THEN you dismiss it but all the other claims of possible necessary are still in play..................until proven other wise.

If a possibility claim leads to a false conclusion, then it is not actually possibly necessary.


It's all about "possible worlds".

I know Captain obvious.









2) There is no consistency of what is and is not possibly necessary. It just get asserted that their version of God is possibly necessary but if you put forth any other thing as possibly necessary it will just get rejected as well no that thing is not possibly necessary.

Perhaps there are good reasons for that.

Perhaps there isn't, and they are forced into special pleading for God over any other possible necessary thing.

I just gave an example of a good reason above.

No, I think you just gave an example of how accepting the reasoning of modal logic with A5 leads to false out comes.

No, accepting false premises leads to false outcome. The axiom is fine.


Like I said, anything can be stated as an axiom, whether we should use that axiom is the question.

Well, the axiom is necessarily true in the case of a maximally great being, because it is greater to exist in all possible worlds, than in one. Thus, if it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then it is necessary that a maximally great being exists (the MGB exists in all possible worlds).

Well, the axiom is necessarily true in the case of a maximally great being...........

No that is special pleading.

The axiom & logic is if X is possible necessary then X is necessary therefore X is true.

You don't get to pick and choose which "possibly necessary" propositions it applies too. And if you can't maintain that consistency without it getting you into conclusion you know to be false..........well I say we reject that kind of reasoning.

In modal logic ALL "possibly necessary" propositions when using A5 are necessary and thus are true.

This also reminds of an objection of how is X exists is all possible worlds then X exists in the actual world. Why ? cause it is assumed that the actual world is just one possible world.

I am suspicious of that. I think there is a fundamental difference between a possible world and an actual world, thus to say the actual world is a possible world is contradiction in terms.

Actual world = exists

Possible word = Imaginary

Having X in imagination land and trying to get that into the real world based on pure reason alone...............

That's a very big gap, maybe an infinite one.


I have an Axiom to, and I think it is one we use all the time..........

Axiom..........If X is possible then X may or may not be true/exist.

That is true for epistemic possibility.

It's not true for all possibilities ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 7:44:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 7:33:40 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/16/2014 6:56:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/16/2014 6:47:00 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/16/2014 6:30:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/16/2014 6:26:02 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/16/2014 6:17:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/16/2014 6:09:28 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/16/2014 4:40:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
...The Modal Ontological Argument?

I don't have a favorite so just pick what I feel.......

1) Possibly necessary does not equal therefore necessary.

Well, it actually does.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Just because an axiom is stated doesn't mean we should accept it.

Axiom........It is possible necessary that everyone named rational thinker is a child rapist

Ergo, rational thinker is a child rapist.

And you know what, I just won't be lectured on axioms by a pervert.

But that is not possible, as my name is rational thinker, and I am not a child rapist. Ergo, that premise is is false. You see what I mean? There are good reasons as to why certain things are not possibly necessary.

You have it back to front. Modal logic is all about if something is possibly necessary then it is necessary according to axiom 5.

It is possibly necessary that every person named rational thinker is a rapist.

No it is not possibly necessary that every person named rational thinker is a rapist, that is the thing you are not getting lol If it was possible, then it would be necessary. Thus, everyone named rational thinker would have to be a child rapist. Since everyone named rational thinker is NOT a child rapist, then we can deduce that the possibility claim is false.


And according axiom 5 we should now conclude that rational thinker is a child rapist.

The problem isn't with S5 the problem is with your false possibility claim!


So whats the problem ? axiom 5 leads to false conclusions. The logic is faulty.

No, the logic is fine (at least it is uncontroversial in philosophy), it is the initial premise that is false:

"it is possibly necessary that everybody named rational thinker is a child rapist"


Remember as long as it's POSSIBLE NECESSARY it is necessary and therefore true according to this modal logical with axiom 5.

Yes, but it is NOT possibly necessary that everyone named rational thinker is a child rapist. Therefore, you cannot use the argument. Again, the problem is with your premise, not S5.


Modal logic doesn't work on the premise something is possible necessary and therefore necessary...................until you have a piece of evidence that conflicts with the conclusion and THEN you dismiss it but all the other claims of possible necessary are still in play..................until proven other wise.

If a possibility claim leads to a false conclusion, then it is not actually possibly necessary.


It's all about "possible worlds".

I know Captain obvious.









2) There is no consistency of what is and is not possibly necessary. It just get asserted that their version of God is possibly necessary but if you put forth any other thing as possibly necessary it will just get rejected as well no that thing is not possibly necessary.

Perhaps there are good reasons for that.

Perhaps there isn't, and they are forced into special pleading for God over any other possible necessary thing.

I just gave an example of a good reason above.

No, I think you just gave an example of how accepting the reasoning of modal logic with A5 leads to false out comes.

No, accepting false premises leads to false outcome. The axiom is fine.


Like I said, anything can be stated as an axiom, whether we should use that axiom is the question.

Well, the axiom is necessarily true in the case of a maximally great being, because it is greater to exist in all possible worlds, than in one. Thus, if it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then it is necessary that a maximally great being exists (the MGB exists in all possible worlds).

Well, the axiom is necessarily true in the case of a maximally great being...........

No that is special pleading.

No, it is not special pleading in the slightest. It follows necessarily.


The axiom & logic is if X is possible necessary then X is necessary therefore X is true.

Yes.


You don't get to pick and choose which "possibly necessary" propositions it applies too.

Nobody is picking and choosing anything. Some propositions are possibly necessary, some are not possibly necessary. It is nothing to do with what chooses, it has to do with what is true or not. It is not possibly necessary that everyone named rational thinker is a child rapist.

And if you can't maintain that consistency without it getting you into conclusion you know to be false..........well I say we reject that kind of reasoning.

It is consistent.... the possibility claim just has to be ACTUALLY possible. If you run the argument with a false possibility claim, then it is no shocker that you are going to get a false conclusion. There is no reason to think the problem is with the axiom.


In modal logic ALL "possibly necessary" propositions when using A5 are necessary and thus are true.

Yes, I know that.


This also reminds of an objection of how is X exists is all possible worlds then X exists in the actual world. Why ? cause it is assumed that the actual world is just one possible world.

The actual world is obviously a possible world, because if it was not a possible world, we wouldn't exist (it would be an impossible world).


I am suspicious of that. I think there is a fundamental difference between a possible world and an actual world, thus to say the actual world is a possible world is contradiction in terms.

I think that is stupid. The actual world is obviously possible, or else it wouldn't exist. Only possible things are actual, nothing impossible can be actual.

Actual world = exists

Yes.


Possible word = Imaginary

Some possible worlds are just imaginary, yes, but the actual world is a possible world that exists.


Having X in imagination land and trying to get that into the real world based on pure reason alone..............


That's a very big gap, maybe an infinite one.


I have an Axiom to, and I think it is one we use all the time..........

Axiom..........If X is possible then X may or may not be true/exist.

That is true for epistemic possibility.

It's not true for all possibilities ?
Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 7:51:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Modal Ontological Argument

Clearly there is a distinction to be made amongst necessary, possible, and actual entities. It truly depends on one's epistemic and ontological commitments.

Thus, philosophy, at it's best, serves to clarify these commitments, and subsequently demand that an argument is consistent to such commitments.

Moreover, a theory's explanatory power (cf. Anselm) needs to be obviously balanced alongside other epistemic virtues: unity, explanatory power, coherency, etc.

It is equally clear than any other competing ontological assertions which compete for primacy are to be held to and evaluated against such epistemic virtues.

It is against this that any proposed ontological must be balanced and viewed.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 8:16:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
See here is the problem. You have had to inject of what is or isn't possible necessary.

You are forced to do that cause some possibly necessary propositions can be falsified......IN THE ACTUAL WORLD.

I don't think it's the premise is wrong. It's the actual logic that is wrong........

1) Possible necessary (in logic terms) + A5 = Sometimes get you the wrong outcome.

And this is the game that is going to be played. Every time I bring possibly necessary proposition that we know doesn't exist in the real world you will just say.........well............that wasn't possibly necesary in the first place. So it's your premise that is false, not the logic it's self.

Is this some kind of modal logic of no true scotsmen ?

"No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing").[2] It can also be used to create unnecessary requirements."
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 8:56:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 8:16:24 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
See here is the problem. You have had to inject of what is or isn't possible necessary.

You are forced to do that cause some possibly necessary propositions can be falsified......IN THE ACTUAL WORLD.

Yes, some possibly necessary claims can be falsified, meaning you cannot run the argument using them. Again, I don't see how this harms S5.


I don't think it's the premise is wrong. It's the actual logic that is wrong........

Well, that is where we disagree. I think it is the premise that is wrong, not the logic.


1) Possible necessary (in logic terms) + A5 = Sometimes get you the wrong outcome.

Yes it does, this is because certain people make possibility claims that aren't actually possible.


And this is the game that is going to be played. Every time I bring possibly necessary proposition that we know doesn't exist in the real world you will just say.........well............that wasn't possibly necesary in the first place. So it's your premise that is false, not the logic it's self.

I'm not sure how it is a game...


Is this some kind of modal logic of no true scotsmen ?

I don't see how.


"No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing").[2] It can also be used to create unnecessary requirements."

I'm not sure how that fallacy applies here. Regardless, axiom S5 is necessarily true when dealing with a maximally great being. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it has to exists in ALL of them, or else the being isn't actually maximally great (it is greater to exist in all worlds). However, the actual world is possible (it is not impossible), so if the MGB exists in all possible worlds, it exists in this one.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 9:15:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 8:16:24 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
See here is the problem. You have had to inject of what is or isn't possible necessary.

You are forced to do that cause some possibly necessary propositions can be falsified......IN THE ACTUAL WORLD.

I don't think it's the premise is wrong. It's the actual logic that is wrong........

1) Possible necessary (in logic terms) + A5 = Sometimes get you the wrong outcome.

And this is the game that is going to be played. Every time I bring possibly necessary proposition that we know doesn't exist in the real world you will just say.........well............that wasn't possibly necesary in the first place. So it's your premise that is false, not the logic it's self.

Is this some kind of modal logic of no true scotsmen ?

"No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing").[2] It can also be used to create unnecessary requirements."

You seem to be confusing a contingent object with a necessary object. If it is possible that I am a dragon pretending to be a human on the internet (no one would know) doesn't mean it is necessarily true. There needs to be something about it that makes it necessarily true.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 10:32:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 6:17:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/16/2014 6:09:28 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/16/2014 4:40:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
...The Modal Ontological Argument?

I don't have a favorite so just pick what I feel.......

1) Possibly necessary does not equal therefore necessary.

Well, it actually does.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

No, it actually does not, S5 only speaks to consistency of the propositional calculus argument, not it's ontological truth.

According to S5, you can also "prove" that God does not exist by starting with the proposition that is possible that God does not exist, if there is some possible world where God does not exist, then there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds, so according to S5 propositional logic, it is impossible that God exists.

As Ipsofacto pointed out, it all depends on one's epistemic and ontological commitments. If the S5 term has existence as an attribute of it's definition, then S5 consistency makes it's existence necessary, define unicorns as having the attributes of being pink and existing, and the same ontological argument can be made that pink unicorns necessarily exist, and S5 makes it valid.

If you really want to apply propositional calculus to the Modal Ontological Argument, you'll first have to establish a logical justification for existence being greater than non-existence, and you can't, so the argument fails on an S5 basis.


2) There is no consistency of what is and is not possibly necessary. It just get asserted that their version of God is possibly necessary but if you put forth any other thing as possibly necessary it will just get rejected as well no that thing is not possibly necessary.

Perhaps there are good reasons for that.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 7:37:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 4:40:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
...The Modal Ontological Argument?

The reverse modal ontological argument.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle