Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Modal Ontological Parody: Does it work?

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 10:20:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
let me define some terms:

Bio-Materialistic Necessity: X has bio-materialistic necessity if it exists in every possible world with a material universe with animal/ plant life.

Modified S5 Axiom:

Possibly bio-materialisticly necessary, entails bio-materalistically necessary

Realacorn:

A unicorn with bio-materialistic necessity

P1: It is possible that a realacorn exists
P2: If it is possible that a realacorn exists, then a realacorn exists in some possible world
P3: If a realacorn exists in some possible world, a realacorn exists in every bio-materialistic world (via modified S5)
P4: If a realacorn exists in every bio-materialistic world, then a realacorn exists in the actual world (assuming that Idealism is false for the sake of argument, and that the actual world is a bio-materialistic world which most people believe is true)
C: A realacorn exists in the actual world.

---

So, the only difference between "necessary" and "bio-materialisticially necessary", is that if X is necessary, it exists in every possible world. However, if it is bio-materialistically necessary, then it exists in every possible world with a material universe with animal life and what not.

Most parodies trying to prove necessary unicorns fail, because unicorns are contingent (only existing in some possible worlds). But, this may get around that with a loop-hole.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 1:31:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 10:20:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
let me define some terms:

Bio-Materialistic Necessity: X has bio-materialistic necessity if it exists in every possible world with a material universe with animal/ plant life.

Modified S5 Axiom:

Possibly bio-materialisticly necessary, entails bio-materalistically necessary

Realacorn:

A unicorn with bio-materialistic necessity

P1: It is possible that a realacorn exists
P2: If it is possible that a realacorn exists, then a realacorn exists in some possible world
P3: If a realacorn exists in some possible world, a realacorn exists in every bio-materialistic world (via modified S5)
P4: If a realacorn exists in every bio-materialistic world, then a realacorn exists in the actual world (assuming that Idealism is false for the sake of argument, and that the actual world is a bio-materialistic world which most people believe is true)
C: A realacorn exists in the actual world.

---

So, the only difference between "necessary" and "bio-materialisticially necessary", is that if X is necessary, it exists in every possible world. However, if it is bio-materialistically necessary, then it exists in every possible world with a material universe with animal life and what not.

Most parodies trying to prove necessary unicorns fail, because unicorns are contingent (only existing in some possible worlds). But, this may get around that with a loop-hole.

Who says there is no such thing or possible thing as a necessary unicorn ? You ?
"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
5/5/2014 1:33:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 1:31:27 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/4/2014 10:20:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
let me define some terms:

Bio-Materialistic Necessity: X has bio-materialistic necessity if it exists in every possible world with a material universe with animal/ plant life.

Modified S5 Axiom:

Possibly bio-materialisticly necessary, entails bio-materalistically necessary

Realacorn:

A unicorn with bio-materialistic necessity

P1: It is possible that a realacorn exists
P2: If it is possible that a realacorn exists, then a realacorn exists in some possible world
P3: If a realacorn exists in some possible world, a realacorn exists in every bio-materialistic world (via modified S5)
P4: If a realacorn exists in every bio-materialistic world, then a realacorn exists in the actual world (assuming that Idealism is false for the sake of argument, and that the actual world is a bio-materialistic world which most people believe is true)
C: A realacorn exists in the actual world.

---

So, the only difference between "necessary" and "bio-materialisticially necessary", is that if X is necessary, it exists in every possible world. However, if it is bio-materialistically necessary, then it exists in every possible world with a material universe with animal life and what not.

Most parodies trying to prove necessary unicorns fail, because unicorns are contingent (only existing in some possible worlds). But, this may get around that with a loop-hole.

Who says there is no such thing or possible thing as a necessary unicorn ? You ?

Well, unicorns are material, and material things seem to be contingent. Even if this is false, and unicorns can be necessary, that just shows the absurdity of the MOA even further.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 1:37:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 1:33:03 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 1:31:27 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/4/2014 10:20:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
let me define some terms:

Bio-Materialistic Necessity: X has bio-materialistic necessity if it exists in every possible world with a material universe with animal/ plant life.

Modified S5 Axiom:

Possibly bio-materialisticly necessary, entails bio-materalistically necessary

Realacorn:

A unicorn with bio-materialistic necessity

P1: It is possible that a realacorn exists
P2: If it is possible that a realacorn exists, then a realacorn exists in some possible world
P3: If a realacorn exists in some possible world, a realacorn exists in every bio-materialistic world (via modified S5)
P4: If a realacorn exists in every bio-materialistic world, then a realacorn exists in the actual world (assuming that Idealism is false for the sake of argument, and that the actual world is a bio-materialistic world which most people believe is true)
C: A realacorn exists in the actual world.

---

So, the only difference between "necessary" and "bio-materialisticially necessary", is that if X is necessary, it exists in every possible world. However, if it is bio-materialistically necessary, then it exists in every possible world with a material universe with animal life and what not.

Most parodies trying to prove necessary unicorns fail, because unicorns are contingent (only existing in some possible worlds). But, this may get around that with a loop-hole.

Who says there is no such thing or possible thing as a necessary unicorn ? You ?

Well, unicorns are material, and material things seem to be contingent. Even if this is false, and unicorns can be necessary, that just shows the absurdity of the MOA even further.

How do you know they are material ? have you ever seen a material one ? maybe you haven't because they are immaterial...................and they exist in all possible worlds.
"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
5/5/2014 1:38:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 1:37:02 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/5/2014 1:33:03 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 1:31:27 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/4/2014 10:20:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
let me define some terms:

Bio-Materialistic Necessity: X has bio-materialistic necessity if it exists in every possible world with a material universe with animal/ plant life.

Modified S5 Axiom:

Possibly bio-materialisticly necessary, entails bio-materalistically necessary

Realacorn:

A unicorn with bio-materialistic necessity

P1: It is possible that a realacorn exists
P2: If it is possible that a realacorn exists, then a realacorn exists in some possible world
P3: If a realacorn exists in some possible world, a realacorn exists in every bio-materialistic world (via modified S5)
P4: If a realacorn exists in every bio-materialistic world, then a realacorn exists in the actual world (assuming that Idealism is false for the sake of argument, and that the actual world is a bio-materialistic world which most people believe is true)
C: A realacorn exists in the actual world.

---

So, the only difference between "necessary" and "bio-materialisticially necessary", is that if X is necessary, it exists in every possible world. However, if it is bio-materialistically necessary, then it exists in every possible world with a material universe with animal life and what not.

Most parodies trying to prove necessary unicorns fail, because unicorns are contingent (only existing in some possible worlds). But, this may get around that with a loop-hole.

Who says there is no such thing or possible thing as a necessary unicorn ? You ?

Well, unicorns are material, and material things seem to be contingent. Even if this is false, and unicorns can be necessary, that just shows the absurdity of the MOA even further.

How do you know they are material ? have you ever seen a material one ? maybe you haven't because they are immaterial...................and they exist in all possible worlds.

Who knows dude?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 1:39:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 1:38:03 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 1:37:02 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/5/2014 1:33:03 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 1:31:27 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/4/2014 10:20:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
let me define some terms:

Bio-Materialistic Necessity: X has bio-materialistic necessity if it exists in every possible world with a material universe with animal/ plant life.

Modified S5 Axiom:

Possibly bio-materialisticly necessary, entails bio-materalistically necessary

Realacorn:

A unicorn with bio-materialistic necessity

P1: It is possible that a realacorn exists
P2: If it is possible that a realacorn exists, then a realacorn exists in some possible world
P3: If a realacorn exists in some possible world, a realacorn exists in every bio-materialistic world (via modified S5)
P4: If a realacorn exists in every bio-materialistic world, then a realacorn exists in the actual world (assuming that Idealism is false for the sake of argument, and that the actual world is a bio-materialistic world which most people believe is true)
C: A realacorn exists in the actual world.

---

So, the only difference between "necessary" and "bio-materialisticially necessary", is that if X is necessary, it exists in every possible world. However, if it is bio-materialistically necessary, then it exists in every possible world with a material universe with animal life and what not.

Most parodies trying to prove necessary unicorns fail, because unicorns are contingent (only existing in some possible worlds). But, this may get around that with a loop-hole.

Who says there is no such thing or possible thing as a necessary unicorn ? You ?

Well, unicorns are material, and material things seem to be contingent. Even if this is false, and unicorns can be necessary, that just shows the absurdity of the MOA even further.

How do you know they are material ? have you ever seen a material one ? maybe you haven't because they are immaterial...................and they exist in all possible worlds.

Who knows dude?

The same people who claim that such a God exists, yet an such a unicorn does not.
"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
5/5/2014 2:04:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think this is a better way to put the parody:

A maximal-world-occupying unicorn, AKA, a "Realacorn"

A maximally-world-occupying unicorn is a unicorn that exists in most amount of worlds that allow for its existence. Since unicorns are material and a variation of a biological animal, then this means that there would only be a unicorn in possible worlds with a material reality with animal life (which would be the most amount of worlds that allow for its existence necessarily).

---

P1: A maximal-world-occupying unicorn is possible (On the face of it, there is nothing logically or metaphysically absurd with the idea)

P2: If a maximal-world-occupying unicorn is possible, then a maximal-world-occupying unicorn exists in some possible world with a material reality with animal life (true by definition)

P3: If a maximal-world-occupying unicorn exists in some possible world with a material reality and animal life, then a maximal-world-occupying unicorn exists in every possible world with a material reality and animal life (or else it wouldn't be a maximal-world-occupying unicorn, as there could be a unicorn more maximal-world-occupying; one that existed in all possible worlds with a material reality and animal life)

P4: If a maximal-world-occupying unicorn exists in every possible world with a material reality and animal life, then a maximal-world-occupying unicorn exists in the actual world (the actual world is a possible world with a material reality and animal life, of course, if we assume Idealism is false like most people do)

C: A maximal-world-occupying unicorn exists in the actual world (this simply follows if we grant all the premises as true)
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 3:29:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Technically, there could be a pluralism of maximally-occupied worlds without a unicorn. So assume I have a desk - the desk must necessarily have a colour. But that colour could be green, red, blue, etc.

Similarly, it may be possible that the universe exists, but it just so happens that no world accommodates it. Assuming there are a finite number of worlds (and an unfathomable number of worlds seems to cause a hissy fit for modal logic), it seems possible that, while the unicorn could exist, it in actual fact does not, due to external factors (the worlds already being occupied, for example).

I feel I have made a mistake somewhere with my assessment of the use of modal logic and the ontological argument, but that may be because I just don't see the two as compatible rather than anything specific with this parody.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...