Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Modal Logic for God?

SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 1:53:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I have yet to see a Modal argument for God existing that cannot be flipped to show that god does not exist.

Example 1:
1) I have an idea of God as the greatest conceivable being.
2) A being can exist merely as an idea or as an idea and in reality.
3) It is greater to exist in reality too rather than just as an idea.
4) If I think of this greatest conceivable being as existing merely as an idea, then I can think of a greater being, i.e. a being that exists in reality too.
5) This greatest conceivable being must exist in reality too, i.e. God exists.

Reversed/parody:
1) The creation of the universe is the greatest achievement imaginable.
2) The merit of an achievement consists of its intrinsic greatness and the ability of its creator.
3) The greater the handicap to the creator, the greater the achievement (would you be more impressed by Turner painting a beautiful landscape or a blind one-armed dwarf?)
4) The biggest handicap to a creator would be non-existence
5) Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the creation of an existing creator, we can conceive a greater being " namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6) Therefore, God does not exist.

Example 2:
P(1): It is possible that God exists.
P(2): If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds.
P(3): If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4): If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world.
P(5): If God exists in the actual world, then God exists.
C(1): Therefore, God exists.

Reverse Argument:
P(1) It is possible that God does not exist, i.e. there is some possible world where God does not exist.
P(2) God is defined as a necessary being, i.e. exists in all possible worlds.
P(3) If there is one possible world where God does not exist, then there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4) If there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds, then it is impossible that God exists.
C(1) It is impossible that God exists.

***

So, is there a single Modal argument for a god existing that cannot be reversed/countered with a Modal argument?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 2:24:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I have seen a few, one is in my argument vs Toviyah:

Definitions:
CCF - Is a conjunct of all contingent facts in the world

1) It is possible that a world exists where the CCF has an explanation, and that explanation is q
2) Explanation q must be a necessary being
3) It is possible a necessary being exists (from 1 & 2)
4) If it is possible a necessary being exists, then a necessary being exists (via. axiom s5)
C) A necessary being exists

It cannot be reversed because a necessary being does not necessarily entail a possible world with CCF having an explanation (since it has free will). And since the possibility premise from 3 is derived from 1 & 2, one or both those premises need to be attacked to invalidate/possibly flip the argument.

http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 2:31:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 1:53:42 PM, SNP1 wrote:

Example 2:
P(1): It is possible that God exists.
P(2): If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds.
P(3): If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4): If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world.
P(5): If God exists in the actual world, then God exists.
C(1): Therefore, God exists.

Reverse Argument:
P(1) It is possible that God does not exist, i.e. there is some possible world where God does not exist.
P(2) God is defined as a necessary being, i.e. exists in all possible worlds.
P(3) If there is one possible world where God does not exist, then there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4) If there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds, then it is impossible that God exists.
C(1) It is impossible that God exists.

I used to think it could be reversed as well, however I have since come to realize that it can only be reversed in the following way:

It is possible that God exists, thus he exists; it is impossible that God exists, thus he doesn't exist.

These are the only two options.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 3:03:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
5) Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the creation of an existing creator, we can conceive a greater being " namely, one who created everything while not existing.

How can a being do something if it doesn't exist?

Example 2:
P(1): It is possible that God exists.
P(2): If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds.
P(3): If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4): If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world.
P(5): If God exists in the actual world, then God exists.
C(1): Therefore, God exists.

P(1) It is possible that God does not exist, i.e. there is some possible world where God does not exist.
P(2) God is defined as a necessary being, i.e. exists in all possible worlds.

If God is defined as existing in all possible worlds; then, it is not possible for God to not exist in a world. You're first premise can be reworded as such: "it is possible that a being which, by definition, would exist in all possible worlds (and as such some possible world) to not exist in some possible world." See the problem?
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 6:30:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 1:53:42 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I have yet to see a Modal argument for God existing that cannot be flipped to show that god does not exist.

Example 1:
1) I have an idea of God as the greatest conceivable being.
2) A being can exist merely as an idea or as an idea and in reality.
3) It is greater to exist in reality too rather than just as an idea.
4) If I think of this greatest conceivable being as existing merely as an idea, then I can think of a greater being, i.e. a being that exists in reality too.
5) This greatest conceivable being must exist in reality too, i.e. God exists.

Reversed/parody:
1) The creation of the universe is the greatest achievement imaginable.
2) The merit of an achievement consists of its intrinsic greatness and the ability of its creator.
3) The greater the handicap to the creator, the greater the achievement (would you be more impressed by Turner painting a beautiful landscape or a blind one-armed dwarf?)
4) The biggest handicap to a creator would be non-existence
5) Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the creation of an existing creator, we can conceive a greater being " namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6) Therefore, God does not exist.

There is nothing greater than being the greatest being

Example 2:
P(1): It is possible that God exists.
P(2): If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds.
P(3): If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4): If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world.
P(5): If God exists in the actual world, then God exists.
C(1): Therefore, God exists.

Reverse Argument:
P(1) It is possible that God does not exist, i.e. there is some possible world where God does not exist.

This needs major defense. This premise must prove not only that there is not a necessary cause, but that also such a necessary first cause is not possible in all worlds (Because if there were even one world where a necessary being could exist, then by default it must exist in all worlds lest there be contradiction).

P(2) God is defined as a necessary being, i.e. exists in all possible worlds.
P(3) If there is one possible world where God does not exist, then there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds.

A possible world that contains all possible worlds... lol.

P(4) If there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds, then it is impossible that God exists.
C(1) It is impossible that God exists.

***

So, is there a single Modal argument for a god existing that cannot be reversed/countered with a Modal argument?
Nolite Timere
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 6:31:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 2:31:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/30/2014 1:53:42 PM, SNP1 wrote:

Example 2:
P(1): It is possible that God exists.
P(2): If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds.
P(3): If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4): If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world.
P(5): If God exists in the actual world, then God exists.
C(1): Therefore, God exists.

Reverse Argument:
P(1) It is possible that God does not exist, i.e. there is some possible world where God does not exist.
P(2) God is defined as a necessary being, i.e. exists in all possible worlds.
P(3) If there is one possible world where God does not exist, then there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4) If there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds, then it is impossible that God exists.
C(1) It is impossible that God exists.


I used to think it could be reversed as well, however I have since come to realize that it can only be reversed in the following way:

It is possible that God exists, thus he exists; it is impossible that God exists, thus he doesn't exist.

So he either exists in all possible worlds or no possible worlds?

These are the only two options.
Nolite Timere
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 6:35:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 6:31:40 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 10/30/2014 2:31:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/30/2014 1:53:42 PM, SNP1 wrote:

Example 2:
P(1): It is possible that God exists.
P(2): If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds.
P(3): If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4): If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world.
P(5): If God exists in the actual world, then God exists.
C(1): Therefore, God exists.

Reverse Argument:
P(1) It is possible that God does not exist, i.e. there is some possible world where God does not exist.
P(2) God is defined as a necessary being, i.e. exists in all possible worlds.
P(3) If there is one possible world where God does not exist, then there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4) If there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds, then it is impossible that God exists.
C(1) It is impossible that God exists.


I used to think it could be reversed as well, however I have since come to realize that it can only be reversed in the following way:

It is possible that God exists, thus he exists; it is impossible that God exists, thus he doesn't exist.

So he either exists in all possible worlds or no possible worlds?

If God is defined as a necessary being (which is mandatory for the MOA to work), then that is the dichotomy yes, either he exists in all or none. Note that proving the reverse argument true doesn't rule out a God that isn't a necessary being

These are the only two options.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 6:39:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 6:30:54 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 10/30/2014 1:53:42 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I have yet to see a Modal argument for God existing that cannot be flipped to show that god does not exist.

Example 1:
1) I have an idea of God as the greatest conceivable being.
2) A being can exist merely as an idea or as an idea and in reality.
3) It is greater to exist in reality too rather than just as an idea.
4) If I think of this greatest conceivable being as existing merely as an idea, then I can think of a greater being, i.e. a being that exists in reality too.
5) This greatest conceivable being must exist in reality too, i.e. God exists.

Reversed/parody:
1) The creation of the universe is the greatest achievement imaginable.
2) The merit of an achievement consists of its intrinsic greatness and the ability of its creator.
3) The greater the handicap to the creator, the greater the achievement (would you be more impressed by Turner painting a beautiful landscape or a blind one-armed dwarf?)
4) The biggest handicap to a creator would be non-existence
5) Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the creation of an existing creator, we can conceive a greater being " namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6) Therefore, God does not exist.

There is nothing greater than being the greatest being

Example 2:
P(1): It is possible that God exists.
P(2): If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds.
P(3): If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4): If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world.
P(5): If God exists in the actual world, then God exists.
C(1): Therefore, God exists.

Reverse Argument:
P(1) It is possible that God does not exist, i.e. there is some possible world where God does not exist.

This needs major defense. This premise must prove not only that there is not a necessary cause, but that also such a necessary first cause is not possible in all worlds (Because if there were even one world where a necessary being could exist, then by default it must exist in all worlds lest there be contradiction).

Both the positive premise (it is possible God exists) and the reverse carry a burden of proof. Hence if the theist has actually given reasons to accept the possibility premise, then either equal or better reasons to accept the reverse premise are required to rebut it.

Typically virtually zero effort is typically given by theists I come across in defending the possibility premise so the reverse argument is pretty effective there. Even for theists that do give reasons to accept it, more often than now I can just reword the justification to fit the reverse premise. That's where it is useful.


P(2) God is defined as a necessary being, i.e. exists in all possible worlds.
P(3) If there is one possible world where God does not exist, then there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds.

A possible world that contains all possible worlds... lol.

P(4) If there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds, then it is impossible that God exists.
C(1) It is impossible that God exists.

***

So, is there a single Modal argument for a god existing that cannot be reversed/countered with a Modal argument?
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 6:43:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 6:39:00 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/30/2014 6:30:54 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 10/30/2014 1:53:42 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I have yet to see a Modal argument for God existing that cannot be flipped to show that god does not exist.

Example 1:
1) I have an idea of God as the greatest conceivable being.
2) A being can exist merely as an idea or as an idea and in reality.
3) It is greater to exist in reality too rather than just as an idea.
4) If I think of this greatest conceivable being as existing merely as an idea, then I can think of a greater being, i.e. a being that exists in reality too.
5) This greatest conceivable being must exist in reality too, i.e. God exists.

Reversed/parody:
1) The creation of the universe is the greatest achievement imaginable.
2) The merit of an achievement consists of its intrinsic greatness and the ability of its creator.
3) The greater the handicap to the creator, the greater the achievement (would you be more impressed by Turner painting a beautiful landscape or a blind one-armed dwarf?)
4) The biggest handicap to a creator would be non-existence
5) Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the creation of an existing creator, we can conceive a greater being " namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6) Therefore, God does not exist.

There is nothing greater than being the greatest being

Example 2:
P(1): It is possible that God exists.
P(2): If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds.
P(3): If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4): If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world.
P(5): If God exists in the actual world, then God exists.
C(1): Therefore, God exists.

Reverse Argument:
P(1) It is possible that God does not exist, i.e. there is some possible world where God does not exist.

This needs major defense. This premise must prove not only that there is not a necessary cause, but that also such a necessary first cause is not possible in all worlds (Because if there were even one world where a necessary being could exist, then by default it must exist in all worlds lest there be contradiction).

Both the positive premise (it is possible God exists) and the reverse carry a burden of proof.

I simply think it is far easier to argue God does exist than that God doesn't exist. Most of the time Atheists have the advantage of not having the BOP, but in this case the BOP makes this premise extremely difficult to successfully defend.

Hence if the theist has actually given reasons to accept the possibility premise, then either equal or better reasons to accept the reverse premise are required to rebut it.

Typically virtually zero effort is typically given by theists I come across in defending the possibility premise so the reverse argument is pretty effective there. Even for theists that do give reasons to accept it, more often than now I can just reword the justification to fit the reverse premise. That's where it is useful.


P(2) God is defined as a necessary being, i.e. exists in all possible worlds.
P(3) If there is one possible world where God does not exist, then there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds.

A possible world that contains all possible worlds... lol.

P(4) If there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds, then it is impossible that God exists.
C(1) It is impossible that God exists.

***

So, is there a single Modal argument for a god existing that cannot be reversed/countered with a Modal argument?
Nolite Timere
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 6:54:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 6:31:40 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 10/30/2014 2:31:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/30/2014 1:53:42 PM, SNP1 wrote:

Example 2:
P(1): It is possible that God exists.
P(2): If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds.
P(3): If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4): If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world.
P(5): If God exists in the actual world, then God exists.
C(1): Therefore, God exists.

Reverse Argument:
P(1) It is possible that God does not exist, i.e. there is some possible world where God does not exist.
P(2) God is defined as a necessary being, i.e. exists in all possible worlds.
P(3) If there is one possible world where God does not exist, then there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4) If there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds, then it is impossible that God exists.
C(1) It is impossible that God exists.


I used to think it could be reversed as well, however I have since come to realize that it can only be reversed in the following way:

It is possible that God exists, thus he exists; it is impossible that God exists, thus he doesn't exist.

So he either exists in all possible worlds or no possible worlds?

These are the only two options.

Yes, exactly.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 6:56:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 6:43:26 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 10/30/2014 6:39:00 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/30/2014 6:30:54 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 10/30/2014 1:53:42 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I have yet to see a Modal argument for God existing that cannot be flipped to show that god does not exist.

Example 1:
1) I have an idea of God as the greatest conceivable being.
2) A being can exist merely as an idea or as an idea and in reality.
3) It is greater to exist in reality too rather than just as an idea.
4) If I think of this greatest conceivable being as existing merely as an idea, then I can think of a greater being, i.e. a being that exists in reality too.
5) This greatest conceivable being must exist in reality too, i.e. God exists.

Reversed/parody:
1) The creation of the universe is the greatest achievement imaginable.
2) The merit of an achievement consists of its intrinsic greatness and the ability of its creator.
3) The greater the handicap to the creator, the greater the achievement (would you be more impressed by Turner painting a beautiful landscape or a blind one-armed dwarf?)
4) The biggest handicap to a creator would be non-existence
5) Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the creation of an existing creator, we can conceive a greater being " namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6) Therefore, God does not exist.

There is nothing greater than being the greatest being

Example 2:
P(1): It is possible that God exists.
P(2): If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds.
P(3): If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4): If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world.
P(5): If God exists in the actual world, then God exists.
C(1): Therefore, God exists.

Reverse Argument:
P(1) It is possible that God does not exist, i.e. there is some possible world where God does not exist.

This needs major defense. This premise must prove not only that there is not a necessary cause, but that also such a necessary first cause is not possible in all worlds (Because if there were even one world where a necessary being could exist, then by default it must exist in all worlds lest there be contradiction).

Both the positive premise (it is possible God exists) and the reverse carry a burden of proof.

I simply think it is far easier to argue God does exist than that God doesn't exist. Most of the time Atheists have the advantage of not having the BOP, but in this case the BOP makes this premise extremely difficult to successfully defend.

I couldn't disagree more, want to debate it?

Hence if the theist has actually given reasons to accept the possibility premise, then either equal or better reasons to accept the reverse premise are required to rebut it.

Typically virtually zero effort is typically given by theists I come across in defending the possibility premise so the reverse argument is pretty effective there. Even for theists that do give reasons to accept it, more often than now I can just reword the justification to fit the reverse premise. That's where it is useful.


P(2) God is defined as a necessary being, i.e. exists in all possible worlds.
P(3) If there is one possible world where God does not exist, then there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds.

A possible world that contains all possible worlds... lol.

P(4) If there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds, then it is impossible that God exists.
C(1) It is impossible that God exists.

***

So, is there a single Modal argument for a god existing that cannot be reversed/countered with a Modal argument?
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 7:51:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 6:56:02 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/30/2014 6:43:26 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 10/30/2014 6:39:00 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/30/2014 6:30:54 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 10/30/2014 1:53:42 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I have yet to see a Modal argument for God existing that cannot be flipped to show that god does not exist.

Example 1:
1) I have an idea of God as the greatest conceivable being.
2) A being can exist merely as an idea or as an idea and in reality.
3) It is greater to exist in reality too rather than just as an idea.
4) If I think of this greatest conceivable being as existing merely as an idea, then I can think of a greater being, i.e. a being that exists in reality too.
5) This greatest conceivable being must exist in reality too, i.e. God exists.

Reversed/parody:
1) The creation of the universe is the greatest achievement imaginable.
2) The merit of an achievement consists of its intrinsic greatness and the ability of its creator.
3) The greater the handicap to the creator, the greater the achievement (would you be more impressed by Turner painting a beautiful landscape or a blind one-armed dwarf?)
4) The biggest handicap to a creator would be non-existence
5) Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the creation of an existing creator, we can conceive a greater being " namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6) Therefore, God does not exist.

There is nothing greater than being the greatest being

Example 2:
P(1): It is possible that God exists.
P(2): If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds.
P(3): If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4): If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world.
P(5): If God exists in the actual world, then God exists.
C(1): Therefore, God exists.

Reverse Argument:
P(1) It is possible that God does not exist, i.e. there is some possible world where God does not exist.

This needs major defense. This premise must prove not only that there is not a necessary cause, but that also such a necessary first cause is not possible in all worlds (Because if there were even one world where a necessary being could exist, then by default it must exist in all worlds lest there be contradiction).

Both the positive premise (it is possible God exists) and the reverse carry a burden of proof.

I simply think it is far easier to argue God does exist than that God doesn't exist. Most of the time Atheists have the advantage of not having the BOP, but in this case the BOP makes this premise extremely difficult to successfully defend.

I couldn't disagree more, want to debate it?

No thanks, I'd rather just discuss it. Why do you disagree? Isn't it harder to prove something's inexistence than its existence?

Hence if the theist has actually given reasons to accept the possibility premise, then either equal or better reasons to accept the reverse premise are required to rebut it.

Typically virtually zero effort is typically given by theists I come across in defending the possibility premise so the reverse argument is pretty effective there. Even for theists that do give reasons to accept it, more often than now I can just reword the justification to fit the reverse premise. That's where it is useful.


P(2) God is defined as a necessary being, i.e. exists in all possible worlds.
P(3) If there is one possible world where God does not exist, then there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds.

A possible world that contains all possible worlds... lol.

P(4) If there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds, then it is impossible that God exists.
C(1) It is impossible that God exists.

***

So, is there a single Modal argument for a god existing that cannot be reversed/countered with a Modal argument?
Nolite Timere
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 10:53:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 7:51:46 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 10/30/2014 6:56:02 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/30/2014 6:43:26 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 10/30/2014 6:39:00 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/30/2014 6:30:54 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 10/30/2014 1:53:42 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I have yet to see a Modal argument for God existing that cannot be flipped to show that god does not exist.

Example 1:
1) I have an idea of God as the greatest conceivable being.
2) A being can exist merely as an idea or as an idea and in reality.
3) It is greater to exist in reality too rather than just as an idea.
4) If I think of this greatest conceivable being as existing merely as an idea, then I can think of a greater being, i.e. a being that exists in reality too.
5) This greatest conceivable being must exist in reality too, i.e. God exists.

Reversed/parody:
1) The creation of the universe is the greatest achievement imaginable.
2) The merit of an achievement consists of its intrinsic greatness and the ability of its creator.
3) The greater the handicap to the creator, the greater the achievement (would you be more impressed by Turner painting a beautiful landscape or a blind one-armed dwarf?)
4) The biggest handicap to a creator would be non-existence
5) Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the creation of an existing creator, we can conceive a greater being " namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6) Therefore, God does not exist.

There is nothing greater than being the greatest being

Example 2:
P(1): It is possible that God exists.
P(2): If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds.
P(3): If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4): If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world.
P(5): If God exists in the actual world, then God exists.
C(1): Therefore, God exists.

Reverse Argument:
P(1) It is possible that God does not exist, i.e. there is some possible world where God does not exist.

This needs major defense. This premise must prove not only that there is not a necessary cause, but that also such a necessary first cause is not possible in all worlds (Because if there were even one world where a necessary being could exist, then by default it must exist in all worlds lest there be contradiction).

Both the positive premise (it is possible God exists) and the reverse carry a burden of proof.

I simply think it is far easier to argue God does exist than that God doesn't exist. Most of the time Atheists have the advantage of not having the BOP, but in this case the BOP makes this premise extremely difficult to successfully defend.

I couldn't disagree more, want to debate it?

No thanks, I'd rather just discuss it. Why do you disagree? Isn't it harder to prove something's inexistence than its existence?

We are trying to prove there is a metaphysically possible world where God doesn't exist.

Such a world is easy to demonstrate to be metaphysically possible. However to show a world with God in it as metaphysically possible, you need to show the entire concept of God to be logically consistent and coherent.

So basically, the theist needs to make extra justifications to demonstrate a possible world where a MGB exists.

My favorite example for the former is to just propose a 1 particle universe that is self-contained. Which pretty trivially satisfies the reverse premise.

Hence if the theist has actually given reasons to accept the possibility premise, then either equal or better reasons to accept the reverse premise are required to rebut it.

Typically virtually zero effort is typically given by theists I come across in defending the possibility premise so the reverse argument is pretty effective there. Even for theists that do give reasons to accept it, more often than now I can just reword the justification to fit the reverse premise. That's where it is useful.


P(2) God is defined as a necessary being, i.e. exists in all possible worlds.
P(3) If there is one possible world where God does not exist, then there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds.

A possible world that contains all possible worlds... lol.

P(4) If there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds, then it is impossible that God exists.
C(1) It is impossible that God exists.

***

So, is there a single Modal argument for a god existing that cannot be reversed/countered with a Modal argument?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 11:35:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 10:53:25 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/30/2014 7:51:46 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:


We are trying to prove there is a metaphysically possible world where God doesn't exist.

Such a world is easy to demonstrate to be metaphysically possible. However to show a world with God in it as metaphysically possible, you need to show the entire concept of God to be logically consistent and coherent.


In order to demonstrate that such a world is metaphysically possible, you must prove that the concept of God is metaphysically impossible, otherwise God inevitably spoils it.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 11:40:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 11:35:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/30/2014 10:53:25 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/30/2014 7:51:46 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:


We are trying to prove there is a metaphysically possible world where God doesn't exist.

Such a world is easy to demonstrate to be metaphysically possible. However to show a world with God in it as metaphysically possible, you need to show the entire concept of God to be logically consistent and coherent.


In order to demonstrate that such a world is metaphysically possible, you must prove that the concept of God is metaphysically impossible, otherwise God inevitably spoils it.

That's for the theist to prove (since thats a separate claim). If a world can be shown where God doesn't exist then it would automatically demonstrate that the concept of a god (as defined as a necessary being) is impossible.

Otherwise one could just do the inverse, and require that in order for such a wold where God exists to be possible they would also have to demonstrate that no God is metaphysically impossible, otherwise no God spoils it.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2014 11:52:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 11:40:53 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/30/2014 11:35:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/30/2014 10:53:25 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/30/2014 7:51:46 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:


We are trying to prove there is a metaphysically possible world where God doesn't exist.

Such a world is easy to demonstrate to be metaphysically possible. However to show a world with God in it as metaphysically possible, you need to show the entire concept of God to be logically consistent and coherent.


In order to demonstrate that such a world is metaphysically possible, you must prove that the concept of God is metaphysically impossible, otherwise God inevitably spoils it.

That's for the theist to prove (since thats a separate claim). If a world can be shown where God doesn't exist then it would automatically demonstrate that the concept of a god (as defined as a necessary being) is impossible.

Otherwise one could just do the inverse, and require that in order for such a wold where God exists to be possible they would also have to demonstrate that no God is metaphysically impossible, otherwise no God spoils it.

The point is that trying to imagine a world in which God does not exist is a useless exercise, because it doesn't address the issue of whether the world you are imaging is actually metaphysically possible, or if it just appears to be metaphysically possible. Let's assume that God does exist necessarily. It would still be possible to think of a world in which God does not exist on a level of "possibility" which doesn't take into account the wider perspective, and which thus only appears to be possible.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 11:59:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 2:24:34 PM, Envisage wrote:
I have seen a few, one is in my argument vs Toviyah:

Definitions:
CCF - Is a conjunct of all contingent facts in the world

1) It is possible that a world exists where the CCF has an explanation, and that explanation is q
2) Explanation q must be a necessary being
3) It is possible a necessary being exists (from 1 & 2)
4) If it is possible a necessary being exists, then a necessary being exists (via. axiom s5)
C) A necessary being exists

It cannot be reversed because a necessary being does not necessarily entail a possible world with CCF having an explanation (since it has free will). And since the possibility premise from 3 is derived from 1 & 2, one or both those premises need to be attacked to invalidate/possibly flip the argument.

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

This is a really interesting argument. I think if instead, you changed it to Aquinas' arguments being a real possibility then it would be stronger, since Aquinas' metaphysics really demonstrate how the necessary being would be God.
"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."
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 4:07:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 10:53:25 PM, Envisage wrote:
So basically, the theist needs to make extra justifications to demonstrate a possible world where a MGB exists. My favorite example for the former is to just propose a 1 particle universe that is self-contained. Which pretty trivially satisfies the reverse premise.

How could there exist a self contained universe?
Nolite Timere
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 7:27:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 4:07:13 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 10/30/2014 10:53:25 PM, Envisage wrote:
So basically, the theist needs to make extra justifications to demonstrate a possible world where a MGB exists. My favorite example for the former is to just propose a 1 particle universe that is self-contained. Which pretty trivially satisfies the reverse premise.

How could there exist a self contained universe?

It doesn't matter.

What matters is that it is logically consistent. Which for a world with one particle is much easier to defend than a world + God. Which is pretty easy defeater to the MOA. I don't particularly think it demonstrates God doesn't exist, only that assuming it is metaphysically possible for God to exist is unwarranted as it stands.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 7:32:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't regard either of these "arguments" as actual arguments. As the former simply a convoluted way of burying existence into God's definition, which would apply to anything.

The second argument has only one premise with any information, the rest is just modal logic axioms, so the argument is literally just a restatement of the first premise, like converting lbs to kilos for example. Or meters to inches. Nothing new is generated.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 8:32:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 7:32:16 PM, Envisage wrote:
I don't regard either of these "arguments" as actual arguments. As the former simply a convoluted way of burying existence into God's definition, which would apply to anything.

If something's definition includes existence, then it necessarily exists. That is, the context in which it exists encompasses all possible contexts, including the actual context (reality). If something is logically incapable of enforcing this absolutely, then it is a contradictory concept.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 8:45:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here is a copy paste of a reply to the OP in an other topic.


Hey, mind if I provide a defense for the ontological argument?

To understand the heck Anslem's ontological argument is saying in plain English, here are a couple of conversations:

Person A: "The highest mountain is Mount Rushmore. "

Person B: "But there is a higher mountain: Mount Everest."

Person A: "True, but there is no mountain higher mountain than Mount Rushmore."

Person B: "That is an illogical statement. If there is a higher mountain than Mount Rushmore, then Mount Rushmore is not the highest mountain. Mount Rushmore can't be the highest and yet not the highest mountain at the same time. Since your statement that Mount Rushmore is the highest mountain is incoherent, then it is false.

-

Atheist: "The greatest conceivable being only exists as a concept."

Theist: "Actually, there is a conceivably greater being: A being that exists both as a concept and in reality."

Atheist: "True, but the greatest conceivable being only exists as a concept."

Theist: "That is an illogical statement. If there is a conceivable being greater than the one that exists only as a concept, then the being that exists only as a concept is not the greatest conceivable being. The greatest conceivable being cannot be the greatest and yet not the greatest at the same time. Since your statement that the greatest conceivable being only exists as a concept is incoherent, then it is false.

You asked why is existence greater. God is a necessary being (first & last, eternal, etc.). If he wasn't and he was a mere possibility, then his existence is contingent on the existence of something else, and so forth until we reach an existence that necessarily exists and is not dependent on the existence of something else, that thing is greater. Basically, you are changing the definition of God into not-God.

Arguments don't beg the question, people beg the question. If there is a controversial or a questionable assumption or premise that you don't agree with, then simply state it and I shall provide support.

I am not sure why you are posting parodies and calling it a day. What do they have to do with argument? At best, this is an association fallacy:

1- Conservation of nature and eugenics had something in common: They were supported by the Nazis!
2- We reject eugenics.
3- We might as well reject everything the Nazis supported (especially the conservation of nature).
C: Therefore, we must reject conservation of nature and pollute as much as we want.

1- The ontological argument for God and the parody have something in common: They use modal logic!
2- We reject the parody.
3- We might as well reject all modal logic arguments (especially the one about God).
C: Therefore, we must reject the ontological argument for God.

This is not a logical rebuttal. You must point what exactly is wrong with the Anslem's argument. I can easily refute the parodies for instance:

Hogwarts is the greatest place on earth. Is incoherent. We can always get a greater Hogwart by having a larger building, more Quidditch arenas, better equipment, etc. However, the characteristics of God are not infinite, power and knowledge are simply maximized in which it is impossible of conceive of greater power or greater knowledge.
Furthermore, Hogwart, a magical education institution, is not necessary for the existence of the world. We can have a world that doesn't have Hogwart and the world will exist just fine.

The second parody is even more hilarious. I can point multiple problems replicated in the previous parody, it also includes fallacious appeal to common sense (Does a poor country winning the world cup make the achievement instinctively greater? I would like to see logical proof/man can invent a wooden cube or a space ship, does this mean that the wooden cube somehow represents the greatest achievement possible for humans?), but I'll settle with this glaring incoherence:

"We can conceive a greater being"namely, one who created everything while not existing".

Lol. :)
This actually reinforces the ontological argument. It is impossible to have a non-existent being which creates the world.

The ontological argument doesn't actually prove God exists, it takes permanent/willing Agnosticism, "God is imaginary", "Well, there is a chance that God might exist, but he doesn't" out of the question since these positions are incoherent. God is the first cause, and if the first cause happens to be something else then God is impossible. Meaning that our only options are "God must exist" and "God is impossible to exist". End of the story.
Essentially, it turns the God debate into Theism vs strong Atheism, and strong Atheism isn't strong community (and dare I say, argument) wise.

Here is an ontological argument inspired by Platinga's version. GL refuting it.

1- If God exists, then he has necessary existence.
1a- Either God has necessary existence or he doesn't.
1b- If God doesn't have necessary existence, then he necessarily doesn't.

2- Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn't.
2a- If God doesn't have necessary existence, then he necessarily doesn't.
2b- If God necessarily doesn't have necessary existence, then God necessarily doesn't exist.

3- Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn't exist.

4- It is not the case that God necessarily doesn't exist.

5- Therefore God has necessary existence
5a- If God has necessary existence, then God exists.

C: Therefore God exists.

As for your second example reversal, the argument simply states that, by definition, saying "God is possible to exist" is that same as saying "God must exist", and saying "God is possible to not exist" is the same as saying "God is impossible to exist".
I would love to see you provide support for the first premise.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 4:20:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 8:45:53 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
Here is a copy paste of a reply to the OP in an other topic.



Hey, mind if I provide a defense for the ontological argument?

To understand the heck Anslem's ontological argument is saying in plain English, here are a couple of conversations:

Person A: "The highest mountain is Mount Rushmore. "

Person B: "But there is a higher mountain: Mount Everest."

Person A: "True, but there is no mountain higher mountain than Mount Rushmore."

Person B: "That is an illogical statement. If there is a higher mountain than Mount Rushmore, then Mount Rushmore is not the highest mountain. Mount Rushmore can't be the highest and yet not the highest mountain at the same time. Since your statement that Mount Rushmore is the highest mountain is incoherent, then it is false.

-

Atheist: "The greatest conceivable being only exists as a concept."

Theist: "Actually, there is a conceivably greater being: A being that exists both as a concept and in reality."

Atheist: "True, but the greatest conceivable being only exists as a concept."

Theist: "That is an illogical statement. If there is a conceivable being greater than the one that exists only as a concept, then the being that exists only as a concept is not the greatest conceivable being. The greatest conceivable being cannot be the greatest and yet not the greatest at the same time. Since your statement that the greatest conceivable being only exists as a concept is incoherent, then it is false.

You asked why is existence greater. God is a necessary being (first & last, eternal, etc.). If he wasn't and he was a mere possibility, then his existence is contingent on the existence of something else, and so forth until we reach an existence that necessarily exists and is not dependent on the existence of something else, that thing is greater. Basically, you are changing the definition of God into not-God.

Arguments don't beg the question, people beg the question. If there is a controversial or a questionable assumption or premise that you don't agree with, then simply state it and I shall provide support.

I am not sure why you are posting parodies and calling it a day. What do they have to do with argument? At best, this is an association fallacy:

1- Conservation of nature and eugenics had something in common: They were supported by the Nazis!
2- We reject eugenics.
3- We might as well reject everything the Nazis supported (especially the conservation of nature).
C: Therefore, we must reject conservation of nature and pollute as much as we want.

1- The ontological argument for God and the parody have something in common: They use modal logic!
2- We reject the parody.
3- We might as well reject all modal logic arguments (especially the one about God).
C: Therefore, we must reject the ontological argument for God.

This is not a logical rebuttal. You must point what exactly is wrong with the Anslem's argument. I can easily refute the parodies for instance:

Hogwarts is the greatest place on earth. Is incoherent. We can always get a greater Hogwart by having a larger building, more Quidditch arenas, better equipment, etc. However, the characteristics of God are not infinite, power and knowledge are simply maximized in which it is impossible of conceive of greater power or greater knowledge.
Furthermore, Hogwart, a magical education institution, is not necessary for the existence of the world. We can have a world that doesn't have Hogwart and the world will exist just fine.

The second parody is even more hilarious. I can point multiple problems replicated in the previous parody, it also includes fallacious appeal to common sense (Does a poor country winning the world cup make the achievement instinctively greater? I would like to see logical proof/man can invent a wooden cube or a space ship, does this mean that the wooden cube somehow represents the greatest achievement possible for humans?), but I'll settle with this glaring incoherence:

"We can conceive a greater being"namely, one who created everything while not existing".

Lol. :)
This actually reinforces the ontological argument. It is impossible to have a non-existent being which creates the world.

The ontological argument doesn't actually prove God exists, it takes permanent/willing Agnosticism, "God is imaginary", "Well, there is a chance that God might exist, but he doesn't" out of the question since these positions are incoherent. God is the first cause, and if the first cause happens to be something else then God is impossible. Meaning that our only options are "God must exist" and "God is impossible to exist". End of the story.
Essentially, it turns the God debate into Theism vs strong Atheism, and strong Atheism isn't strong community (and dare I say, argument) wise.

Here is an ontological argument inspired by Platinga's version. GL refuting it.

1- If God exists, then he has necessary existence.
1a- Either God has necessary existence or he doesn't.
1b- If God doesn't have necessary existence, then he necessarily doesn't.

2- Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn't.
2a- If God doesn't have necessary existence, then he necessarily doesn't.
2b- If God necessarily doesn't have necessary existence, then God necessarily doesn't exist.

3- Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn't exist.

4- It is not the case that God necessarily doesn't exist.

5- Therefore God has necessary existence
5a- If God has necessary existence, then God exists.

C: Therefore God exists.

As for your second example reversal, the argument simply states that, by definition, saying "God is possible to exist" is that same as saying "God must exist", and saying "God is possible to not exist" is the same as saying "God is impossible to exist".
I would love to see you provide support for the first premise.

Really? Because I have not yet addressed your comment (which I have been planning to get to, but have other things that take priority), you decide to post it here? Honestly, learn when it is appropriate to say something or not. This is not the place for you to be bringing something like that up.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 4:40:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/30/2014 11:52:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Modal logic, from what I have seen, is pure nonsense. 'Possibility' is a concept based solely on limited empirical evidence regarding situations that are not 'impossible', i.e. self-contradictory. The sense modal logic seems to use it is 'reality could possibly be different from what it is', which is meaningless. Reality is reality, and nothing could possibly act on reality to alter it, as it would by definition be unreal.

'God's existence is metaphysically possible' is just the statement that God does not contradict himself, which I don't even need to comment on for the purpose of this argument. We still have no idea whether God actually exists or not.

In order to demonstrate that such a world is metaphysically possible, you must prove that the concept of God is metaphysically impossible,

Reality cannot be contingent upon God. He is either identical to it or a part of it. Therefore, God is in no way special and cannot make such demands, and must be investigated like any other phenomenon, if it is the case that he is not self-contradictory. It is the logical equivalent of saying that in order to prove that a world without Dylan is not self-contradictory, you must prove that Dylan is self-contradictory.

If something's definition includes existence, then it necessarily exists. That is, the context in which it exists encompasses all possible contexts, including the actual context (reality)

There is no possible context other than reality, because the 'other contexts' must be self-contradictory. What you really mean by 'context' is the various empirical theories or conceptions we can have about reality. Therefore, what you're saying is that this thing that exists by definition must be a feature of all empirical conceptions of reality that are not self-contradictory. The only possible candidate for this is reality itself.

It seems, then, that you have defined reality as God. This is the logical equivalent of any other empirical understanding of reality, and so my conclusion is: where is your empirical evidence for God, if he is simply an empirical hypothesis?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 11:44:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 4:40:01 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/30/2014 11:52:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Modal logic, from what I have seen, is pure nonsense. 'Possibility' is a concept based solely on limited empirical evidence regarding situations that are not 'impossible', i.e. self-contradictory. The sense modal logic seems to use it is 'reality could possibly be different from what it is', which is meaningless. Reality is reality, and nothing could possibly act on reality to alter it, as it would by definition be unreal.

"Possibility" refers to ways that reality could be, but isn't. It does not imply that conflicting possibilities can both be actualized at once. It just means that another possibility could have been actualized prior to actualization, but wasn't.


'God's existence is metaphysically possible' is just the statement that God does not contradict himself, which I don't even need to comment on for the purpose of this argument. We still have no idea whether God actually exists or not.


If God does not exist, then he necessarily doesn't exist, since he is not contingent upon anything by definition and therefore couldn't exist if he didn't necessarily exist. Thus, if God is in fact metaphysically possible, then it follows that he must exist.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 11:54:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 7:27:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/31/2014 4:07:13 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 10/30/2014 10:53:25 PM, Envisage wrote:
So basically, the theist needs to make extra justifications to demonstrate a possible world where a MGB exists. My favorite example for the former is to just propose a 1 particle universe that is self-contained. Which pretty trivially satisfies the reverse premise.

How could there exist a self contained universe?

It doesn't matter.

What matters is that it is logically consistent.

Well if you can't show that a self-contained universe is possible, then you can't successfully defend such a possible world.
Nolite Timere
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 12:01:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 11:44:45 AM, dylancatlow wrote:

Hey, you wanna debate this? Shouldn't take too long.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 12:03:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 12:01:56 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 11/2/2014 11:44:45 AM, dylancatlow wrote:

Hey, you wanna debate this? Shouldn't take too long.

Debate what? That the modal ontological argument is valid?
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 12:21:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 12:03:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 12:01:56 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 11/2/2014 11:44:45 AM, dylancatlow wrote:

Hey, you wanna debate this? Shouldn't take too long.

Debate what? That the modal ontological argument is valid?

That it soundly demonstrates God's existence, yes.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 12:59:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 12:21:49 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 11/2/2014 12:03:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/2/2014 12:01:56 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 11/2/2014 11:44:45 AM, dylancatlow wrote:

Hey, you wanna debate this? Shouldn't take too long.

Debate what? That the modal ontological argument is valid?

That it soundly demonstrates God's existence, yes.

I'd like to hear your arguments first.