Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Need Logic Junkies

Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 9:32:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Existance of God debate with two unusual arguments for god, an epistemological and weak-PSR cosmological argument:

http://www.debate.org...
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 9:36:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also interested in seeing the cosmological argument discussed here, which I am guiltlessly plagiarising from Toviyah:

'Conjunctive Contingent Fact' ('CCF'): the totality of contingent propositions that would be true of any possible world, were it actualized

1) There is a possible world in which there exists an explanation of its CCF
2) Such an explanation must be a necessary being
3) By virtue of S5, if there possibly exists a necessary being, then there necessarily exists a necessary being
4) Therefore, there exists a necessary being in the actual world

P1 is defended by the weak-PSR holding true, and P2 is true by definition of the CCF.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 9:44:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/8/2014 9:32:08 AM, Envisage wrote:
Existance of God debate with two unusual arguments for god, an epistemological and weak-PSR cosmological argument:

http://www.debate.org...

"Epistemological Argument

1) If it is impossible to know that 'X', then 'X' is necessarily false
2) 'X' is the proposition that 'God does not exist'
3) It is impossible to know that God does not exist
C1) The proposition that 'God does not exist' is necessarily false
4) If 'X' is necessarily false, then the negation of 'X' must entail
5) The negation of the proposition 'God does not exist' is that God exists
C2) Therefore, God exist"

According to the problem of induction, It's impossible to know that anything doesn't exist. We can't know for certain that there are no fairies on earth, but does that mean the statement "there are no fairies on earth" is necessarily false, and therefore that there are fairies on earth (the only alternative)? No.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 9:49:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's impossible to know that the sun has just now exploded, and it's impossible to know that the sun has not just now exploded. Both cannot be true, yet the argument would have us believe that both are. Ergo, the argument is false.
Toviyah
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 10:02:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/8/2014 9:44:55 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/8/2014 9:32:08 AM, Envisage wrote:
Existance of God debate with two unusual arguments for god, an epistemological and weak-PSR cosmological argument:

http://www.debate.org...

"Epistemological Argument

1) If it is impossible to know that 'X', then 'X' is necessarily false
2) 'X' is the proposition that 'God does not exist'
3) It is impossible to know that God does not exist
C1) The proposition that 'God does not exist' is necessarily false
4) If 'X' is necessarily false, then the negation of 'X' must entail
5) The negation of the proposition 'God does not exist' is that God exists
C2) Therefore, God exist"

According to the problem of induction, It's impossible to know that anything doesn't exist. We can't know for certain that there are no fairies on earth, but does that mean the statement "there are no fairies on earth" is necessarily false, and therefore that there are fairies on earth (the only alternative)? No.
It is, IMO, definitely *possible* to know that something doesn't exist. Maybe not in accordance to our own senses in a finite time span, but certainly in accordance to possible cognition in an infinite time span.
The argument isn't to give an absolute proof, just an inductive proof.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 10:07:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/8/2014 10:02:43 AM, Toviyah wrote:
At 7/8/2014 9:44:55 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/8/2014 9:32:08 AM, Envisage wrote:
Existance of God debate with two unusual arguments for god, an epistemological and weak-PSR cosmological argument:

http://www.debate.org...

"Epistemological Argument

1) If it is impossible to know that 'X', then 'X' is necessarily false
2) 'X' is the proposition that 'God does not exist'
3) It is impossible to know that God does not exist
C1) The proposition that 'God does not exist' is necessarily false
4) If 'X' is necessarily false, then the negation of 'X' must entail
5) The negation of the proposition 'God does not exist' is that God exists
C2) Therefore, God exist"

According to the problem of induction, It's impossible to know that anything doesn't exist. We can't know for certain that there are no fairies on earth, but does that mean the statement "there are no fairies on earth" is necessarily false, and therefore that there are fairies on earth (the only alternative)? No.
It is, IMO, definitely *possible* to know that something doesn't exist. Maybe not in accordance to our own senses in a finite time span, but certainly in accordance to possible cognition in an infinite time span.
The argument isn't to give an absolute proof, just an inductive proof.

No, it's not. To know that something doesn't exist, it must either be logically impossible, or you must be God (and if you're God, then you would already know that you are God...if you ask the question, you are obviously not omnipotent). Why? Because truth is a mathematical concept. There is no way to know for certain that you have access to all of reality at once. There is simply no way to justify such a statement absolutely.
Toviyah
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 10:13:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/8/2014 10:07:37 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/8/2014 10:02:43 AM, Toviyah wrote:
At 7/8/2014 9:44:55 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/8/2014 9:32:08 AM, Envisage wrote:
Existance of God debate with two unusual arguments for god, an epistemological and weak-PSR cosmological argument:

http://www.debate.org...

"Epistemological Argument

1) If it is impossible to know that 'X', then 'X' is necessarily false
2) 'X' is the proposition that 'God does not exist'
3) It is impossible to know that God does not exist
C1) The proposition that 'God does not exist' is necessarily false
4) If 'X' is necessarily false, then the negation of 'X' must entail
5) The negation of the proposition 'God does not exist' is that God exists
C2) Therefore, God exist"

According to the problem of induction, It's impossible to know that anything doesn't exist. We can't know for certain that there are no fairies on earth, but does that mean the statement "there are no fairies on earth" is necessarily false, and therefore that there are fairies on earth (the only alternative)? No.
It is, IMO, definitely *possible* to know that something doesn't exist. Maybe not in accordance to our own senses in a finite time span, but certainly in accordance to possible cognition in an infinite time span.
The argument isn't to give an absolute proof, just an inductive proof.

No, it's not. To know that something doesn't exist, it must either be logically impossible, or you must be God (and if you're God, then you would already know that you are God...if you ask the question, you are obviously not omnipotent). Why? Because truth is a mathematical concept. There is no way to know for certain that you have access to all of reality at once. There is simply no way to justify such a statement absolutely.
You're assuming some sort of radical skepticism, or it at least entails by the accusation that "to know that something doesn't exist,it must either be logically impossible, or you must be God", which leads to the idea that nothing is knowable. But this definitely seems false.
It is fair to say that, in accordance to the knowability thesis, that all truths are possibly knowable. That is to say, that this is a modal argument. In turn, if something is not possibly knowable, then it isn't a truth.
Read this: http://www.gjerutten.nl...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 10:21:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/8/2014 10:13:25 AM, Toviyah wrote:
At 7/8/2014 10:07:37 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/8/2014 10:02:43 AM, Toviyah wrote:
At 7/8/2014 9:44:55 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/8/2014 9:32:08 AM, Envisage wrote:
Existance of God debate with two unusual arguments for god, an epistemological and weak-PSR cosmological argument:

http://www.debate.org...

"Epistemological Argument

1) If it is impossible to know that 'X', then 'X' is necessarily false
2) 'X' is the proposition that 'God does not exist'
3) It is impossible to know that God does not exist
C1) The proposition that 'God does not exist' is necessarily false
4) If 'X' is necessarily false, then the negation of 'X' must entail
5) The negation of the proposition 'God does not exist' is that God exists
C2) Therefore, God exist"

According to the problem of induction, It's impossible to know that anything doesn't exist. We can't know for certain that there are no fairies on earth, but does that mean the statement "there are no fairies on earth" is necessarily false, and therefore that there are fairies on earth (the only alternative)? No.
It is, IMO, definitely *possible* to know that something doesn't exist. Maybe not in accordance to our own senses in a finite time span, but certainly in accordance to possible cognition in an infinite time span.
The argument isn't to give an absolute proof, just an inductive proof.

No, it's not. To know that something doesn't exist, it must either be logically impossible, or you must be God (and if you're God, then you would already know that you are God...if you ask the question, you are obviously not omnipotent). Why? Because truth is a mathematical concept. There is no way to know for certain that you have access to all of reality at once. There is simply no way to justify such a statement absolutely.
You're assuming some sort of radical skepticism, or it at least entails by the accusation that "to know that something doesn't exist,it must either be logically impossible, or you must be God", which leads to the idea that nothing is knowable. But this definitely seems false.

Hardly. It just implies that truth (as opposed to mere empirical confirmation) can be known only through logical reasoning. In normal circumstance, this distinction can be ignored, but with respect to your argument, it is crucial.

It is fair to say that, in accordance to the knowability thesis, that all truths are possibly knowable.

Sure, but anything which is not tautologically true cannot be known with certainty, and therefore is not a "truth", it is just a theory.

That is to say, that this is a modal argument. In turn, if something is not possibly knowable, then it isn't a truth.

Read this: http://www.gjerutten.nl...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 10:36:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Essentially, it matters why you cannot know something. You cannot deny the existence of God, since if you deny the existence of "God", you are denying the existence of something that is externally bounded...which doesn't fit the definition of God. So God's existence cannot be denied even in principle. To claim that God doesn't necessarily exists implies that it is possible that God doesn't exist. Such a possibility requires the coherency of the negation (which is incoherent). Therefore, God necessarily exists.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 12:01:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why do you both conflate the ability to know with the ability to know with certainty.

They are not equivalent....
Toviyah
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 12:03:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/8/2014 12:01:33 PM, Envisage wrote:
Why do you both conflate the ability to know with the ability to know with certainty.

They are not equivalent....
Just cause
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 12:06:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/8/2014 12:01:33 PM, Envisage wrote:
Why do you both conflate the ability to know with the ability to know with certainty.

They are not equivalent....

When did I conflate the two?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 12:07:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I mean I would make the claim that I know that Toviyah exists as person, but it would not claim I know it with certainty.

I would have raised that reducio in the debate but it appeared the argument was valid enough the first premise innocent enough to work with the basic definition of know. Since as Dylancatlow's put, if certainty is a requirement for knowledge, then virtually anything can be proven, since it's impossible to know anything a posteriori for certain on induction.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 12:07:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This may be informative:

Because the truth-Truth distinction is just one of certainty, i.e. probability, everybody who claims "truth" (t) implicitly claims some measure of "Truth" (T), or the attribute denoting inclusion in a formal system or recognizable class of facts or perceptions mutually related by an inferential schema or "scientific theory" (which is required to exhibit logical consistency and thus to tacitly incorporate the formal system of logic). That is, scientific truth t is just the assignment of a subunary, usually subjective probability to logical truth T; if t does not come down to a probabilistic stab at T and thus devolve to generative logical inference, then it is meaningless.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 12:08:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/8/2014 12:06:42 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/8/2014 12:01:33 PM, Envisage wrote:
Why do you both conflate the ability to know with the ability to know with certainty.

They are not equivalent....

When did I conflate the two?

"
According to the problem of induction, It's impossible to know that anything doesn't exist. We can't know for certain that there are no fairies on earth, but does that mean the statement "there are no fairies on earth" is necessarily false, and therefore that there are fairies on earth (the only alternative)? No."

In bold
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 12:10:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/8/2014 12:08:22 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/8/2014 12:06:42 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/8/2014 12:01:33 PM, Envisage wrote:
Why do you both conflate the ability to know with the ability to know with certainty.

They are not equivalent....

When did I conflate the two?

"
According to the problem of induction, It's impossible to know that anything doesn't exist. We can't know for certain that there are no fairies on earth, but does that mean the statement "there are no fairies on earth" is necessarily false, and therefore that there are fairies on earth (the only alternative)? No."

In bold

I probably should have italicized "know".
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 12:12:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/8/2014 12:11:09 PM, Toviyah wrote:
Anyone wanna discuss the second argument? I prefer that one...

No point... I have realised I know nothing now -.-

My exams were a damn lie.
Toviyah
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 12:16:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/8/2014 12:07:17 PM, Envisage wrote:
I mean I would make the claim that I know that Toviyah exists as person, but it would not claim I know it with certainty.

I would have raised that reducio in the debate but it appeared the argument was valid enough the first premise innocent enough to work with the basic definition of know. Since as Dylancatlow's put, if certainty is a requirement for knowledge, then virtually anything can be proven, since it's impossible to know anything a posteriori for certain on induction.
And I like to show the consequences of such a view - namely, that it results in radical skepticism - that we can't know anything.
Regardless, even if we don't know something w/ certainty, I don't think it matters. The argument doesn't rest on that.
Toviyah
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 12:17:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/8/2014 12:12:43 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/8/2014 12:11:09 PM, Toviyah wrote:
Anyone wanna discuss the second argument? I prefer that one...

No point... I have realised I know nothing now -.-

My exams were a damn lie.
Fair enough
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 12:20:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/8/2014 12:16:32 PM, Toviyah wrote:
At 7/8/2014 12:07:17 PM, Envisage wrote:
I mean I would make the claim that I know that Toviyah exists as person, but it would not claim I know it with certainty.

I would have raised that reducio in the debate but it appeared the argument was valid enough the first premise innocent enough to work with the basic definition of know. Since as Dylancatlow's put, if certainty is a requirement for knowledge, then virtually anything can be proven, since it's impossible to know anything a posteriori for certain on induction.
And I like to show the consequences of such a view - namely, that it results in radical skepticism - that we can't know anything.
Regardless, even if we don't know something w/ certainty, I don't think it matters. The argument doesn't rest on that.

Exactly my point. Hence the reasoning behind half the objections I made in the debate, lol.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 12:23:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/8/2014 12:11:09 PM, Toviyah wrote:
Anyone wanna discuss the second argument? I prefer that one...

It can be reduced to the last two premises, since the first premise - "there is a possible world in which there exists an explanation of its CCF" and the second premise - "such an explanation must be a necessary being is predicated on the possibility" imply that the possibility of a world in which there exists an explanation of its CCF relies on the possibility of a necessary being. Otherwise, it looks fine.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 12:24:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/8/2014 12:23:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/8/2014 12:11:09 PM, Toviyah wrote:
Anyone wanna discuss the second argument? I prefer that one...

It can be reduced to the last two premises, since the first premise - "there is a possible world in which there exists an explanation of its CCF" and the second premise - "such an explanation must be a necessary being" imply that the possibility of a world in which there exists an explanation of its CCF relies on the possibility of a necessary being. Otherwise, it looks fine.

Fixed
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 12:31:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Essentially, in order for the first premise to work, a necessary being must be possible (as implied by the second premise). So you can just change premise 3 to "if there possibly exists a necessary being, then there necessarily exists a necessary being" and change premise 4 to "there possibly exists a necessary being" and add premise 5 "a necessary being exists".
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 12:47:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't see how 3) in the epistemological argument would be persuasive to any atheist who endorses incompatability arguments.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 12:56:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If it's impossible to know that God doesn't exist, we have three options: either god is logically incoherent, God necessarily exists, or God's existence can only be induced from our observations (cannot be logically proven). But the third option can be ruled out, since if God cannot be proven rationally, then he doesn't necessarily exist. So if it's impossible to know that God doesn't exist, the atheist must maintain that God is logically incoherent.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 1:00:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/8/2014 12:56:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
If it's impossible to know that God doesn't exist, we have two options: God necessarily exists, or God's existence can only be induced from our observations (cannot be logically proven). But the third option can be ruled out, since if God cannot be proven rationally, then he doesn't necessarily exist. So the atheist must maintain that God is logically incoherent.

Fixed.
Toviyah
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2014 1:15:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/8/2014 12:47:27 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I don't see how 3) in the epistemological argument would be persuasive to any atheist who endorses incompatability arguments.

Because the premises in the incompatibility arguments can't be epistemically known in any possible world.