Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Dylan's & Fkizze's Childish Internet Fight

Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2015 4:54:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
1.
I mean seriously, you defend circular reasoning. I pointed out that you committed a formal logical fallacy, refuting your argument. Basics of argumentation, GG.

You did not actually show in what way it was circular, you merely asserted that it was circular.
F: "Then you are in effect defining God into existence and the argument begs the question."
Do you remember your reply?
D: "So what"
You apparently accept it.

Again, I'll ask: how is it circular to define God such that his existence is actually implied?
I referred you to the SEP article on ontological arguments showing exactly why your argument begs the question.
An obvious problem is that claims involving that vocabulary cannot then be non-question-beggingly detached from the scope of that definition. (The inference from "By definition, God is an existent being" to "God exists" is patently invalid- SEP
>>>>>Obvious Problem<<<<<

2.
In your Proof of Idealism I referred you to the causal theory of reference and rigid designators, which render your argument moot.


Refresh my memory please.
You said "Reality is equivalent to its definition" which is quite simply not true. Ever since Kripke came along rigid designators and the causal theory of reference are the way to go, not descriptions.

3.
In Definition of Mental you said:

A. that abstracta are what is non-physical, but according to idealists there is just the non-physical and everything would be abstract.

I believe in the physical/concrete, I just think that the physical cannot be separated from mind (is an aspect of mind). Secondly, this assumes that "ideas" (in regard to idealism) are only abstract, which I made quite clear that I don't believe. I obviously meant to associate the "physical" side of reality with the "content" of ideas.
What then is the non-physical if not the mental? Other ideas?

You then continued by claiming that some objects are partly abstract, partly concrete, which on its own is so ridiculous a claim that I shouldn't even have to point it out.

No, I claimed that some definitions are partly abstract and partly concrete in the sense that something exists or behaves in a certain way. That is, some definitions have both abstract and concrete aspects (although all definitions have an abstract aspect).
Unintelligible. The abstract/concrete distinction has nothing to do with how something behaves or whether it exists.

In light of your definition however it makes even less sense, since there cannot be concrete-abstract objects (whatever that is), because there are no concrete objects.

There can be no concrete objects absent of an abstract component i.e., the rules inherent in their interpretation.
That doesn't make any sense, not even a platonist thinks reality can't exist apart from abstract objects. There needs not be an interpreter, make an argument for this ridiculous claim.
I'm a nominalist anyway, so here's your chance to persuade me.

B. "You can't just appeal to the dichotomy to describe the difference. You have to specify what about them allows the distinction to be made in the first place.", demonstrating that you don't understand Cartesian dualism.


Cartesian dualism is just the notion that "mind" and "material" exist in two separate dimensions. So appealing to the dichotomy doesn't help us if we want to know what "mind" means to begin with. What's so hard about that to understand?
There's nothing hard to understand about this, it's just a complete strawman.

If there's an example of you making a clear argument free from sophistry, then feel free to post it.
Waiting.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2015 10:19:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/28/2015 4:54:02 AM, Fkkize wrote:
1.
I mean seriously, you defend circular reasoning. I pointed out that you committed a formal logical fallacy, refuting your argument. Basics of argumentation, GG.

You did not actually show in what way it was circular, you merely asserted that it was circular.
F: "Then you are in effect defining God into existence and the argument begs the question."
Do you remember your reply?
D: "So what"
You apparently accept it.

I only accepted that I am "defining God into existence". I don't accept your conclusion that doing so is unjustifiably circular (to my mind, it's no more circular than the statement X=X, given the properties of God).

Again, I'll ask: how is it circular to define God such that his existence is actually implied?
I referred you to the SEP article on ontological arguments showing exactly why your argument begs the question.
An obvious problem is that claims involving that vocabulary cannot then be non-question-beggingly detached from the scope of that definition.

It only begs the question if it's not, in fact, the case, that God exists by definition. I explained why it's inadequate to merely attach "existence" to the definition of God, which is why I don't do that. For example, defining the FSM such that it exists by definition begs the question, because it is presumes that it's actually the case that the FSM exists by definition, and not merely "assumed" by the definition. If the definition of an FSM cannot back it up, it's just an unjustified assertion. I spent quite a bit of time explaining what sets God apart from entities like the FSM in this respect.

(The inference from "By definition, God is an existent being" to "God exists" is patently invalid- SEP
>>>>>Obvious Problem<<<<<

2.
In your Proof of Idealism I referred you to the causal theory of reference and rigid designators, which render your argument moot.


Refresh my memory please.
You said "Reality is equivalent to its definition" which is quite simply not true. Ever since Kripke came along rigid designators and the causal theory of reference are the way to go, not descriptions.

3.
In Definition of Mental you said:

A. that abstracta are what is non-physical, but according to idealists there is just the non-physical and everything would be abstract.

I believe in the physical/concrete, I just think that the physical cannot be separated from mind (is an aspect of mind). Secondly, this assumes that "ideas" (in regard to idealism) are only abstract, which I made quite clear that I don't believe. I obviously meant to associate the "physical" side of reality with the "content" of ideas.
What then is the non-physical if not the mental? Other ideas?

It's an aspect of the mental.


You then continued by claiming that some objects are partly abstract, partly concrete, which on its own is so ridiculous a claim that I shouldn't even have to point it out.

No, I claimed that some definitions are partly abstract and partly concrete in the sense that something exists or behaves in a certain way. That is, some definitions have both abstract and concrete aspects (although all definitions have an abstract aspect).
Unintelligible. The abstract/concrete distinction has nothing to do with how something behaves or whether it exists.

You can think of it this way: ideas are like pieces of clothing. They consist both of syntax (the thread holding together the clothing) and their content (the fabric to which the thread is applied). Since clothing consists of thread and fabric, it is "thread-like" and "fabric-like" in nature, even though thread and fabric are mutually exclusive concepts.


In light of your definition however it makes even less sense, since there cannot be concrete-abstract objects (whatever that is), because there are no concrete objects.

There can be no concrete objects absent of an abstract component i.e., the rules inherent in their interpretation.
That doesn't make any sense, not even a platonist thinks reality can't exist apart from abstract objects. There needs not be an interpreter, make an argument for this ridiculous claim.

It makes perfect sense. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's incoherent. "Concrete objects" are not meaningful apart from their descriptions, and descriptions have a syntactic component which supports and defines the structure of the description.

I'm a nominalist anyway, so here's your chance to persuade me.

B. "You can't just appeal to the dichotomy to describe the difference. You have to specify what about them allows the distinction to be made in the first place.", demonstrating that you don't understand Cartesian dualism.


Cartesian dualism is just the notion that "mind" and "material" exist in two separate dimensions. So appealing to the dichotomy doesn't help us if we want to know what "mind" means to begin with. What's so hard about that to understand?
There's nothing hard to understand about this, it's just a complete strawman.

If there's an example of you making a clear argument free from sophistry, then feel free to post it.
Waiting.
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2015 10:34:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/28/2015 10:19:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 4:54:02 AM, Fkkize wrote:
1.
I mean seriously, you defend circular reasoning. I pointed out that you committed a formal logical fallacy, refuting your argument. Basics of argumentation, GG.

You did not actually show in what way it was circular, you merely asserted that it was circular.
F: "Then you are in effect defining God into existence and the argument begs the question."
Do you remember your reply?
D: "So what"
You apparently accept it.

I only accepted that I am "defining God into existence". I don't accept your conclusion that doing so is unjustifiably circular (to my mind, it's no more circular than the statement X=X, given the properties of God).

What do you mean by, "given the properties of god". How do you know existence is one of it's properties?
Are you working from the idea that god is a "maximally great being" which, you believe, entails existence? Since "non-existence" isn't great?

I would hate to think your just saying "it exists" therefore it exists.

I'v seen you guys go back and forth on this a bit. Very amusing.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2015 10:46:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/28/2015 10:34:25 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:19:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 4:54:02 AM, Fkkize wrote:
1.
I mean seriously, you defend circular reasoning. I pointed out that you committed a formal logical fallacy, refuting your argument. Basics of argumentation, GG.

You did not actually show in what way it was circular, you merely asserted that it was circular.
F: "Then you are in effect defining God into existence and the argument begs the question."
Do you remember your reply?
D: "So what"
You apparently accept it.

I only accepted that I am "defining God into existence". I don't accept your conclusion that doing so is unjustifiably circular (to my mind, it's no more circular than the statement X=X, given the properties of God).


What do you mean by, "given the properties of god". How do you know existence is one of it's properties?
Are you working from the idea that god is a "maximally great being" which, you believe, entails existence? Since "non-existence" isn't great?

I would hate to think your just saying "it exists" therefore it exists.

I'v seen you guys go back and forth on this a bit. Very amusing.

Basically, my argument is that non-existence implies the possibility of external constraint, and God's properties don't make sense if he could, in principle, be subject to external constraint. That is, if the concept of God can be subject to external constraint, then the concept of God would not actually be omnipotent, omnipresent, etc., which is false by definition.
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2015 11:23:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/28/2015 10:46:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:34:25 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:19:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 4:54:02 AM, Fkkize wrote:
1.
I mean seriously, you defend circular reasoning. I pointed out that you committed a formal logical fallacy, refuting your argument. Basics of argumentation, GG.

You did not actually show in what way it was circular, you merely asserted that it was circular.
F: "Then you are in effect defining God into existence and the argument begs the question."
Do you remember your reply?
D: "So what"
You apparently accept it.

I only accepted that I am "defining God into existence". I don't accept your conclusion that doing so is unjustifiably circular (to my mind, it's no more circular than the statement X=X, given the properties of God).


What do you mean by, "given the properties of god". How do you know existence is one of it's properties?
Are you working from the idea that god is a "maximally great being" which, you believe, entails existence? Since "non-existence" isn't great?

I would hate to think your just saying "it exists" therefore it exists.

I'v seen you guys go back and forth on this a bit. Very amusing.

Basically, my argument is that non-existence implies the possibility of external constraint, and God's properties don't make sense if he could, in principle, be subject to external constraint. That is, if the concept of God can be subject to external constraint, then the concept of God would not actually be omnipotent, omnipresent, etc., which is false by definition.

Sounds interesting.

What is an "external constraint"?
Are these constraints only possible and not necessary?
Does omnipotence entail overcoming the laws of logic?
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2015 11:34:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/28/2015 10:46:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:34:25 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:19:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 4:54:02 AM, Fkkize wrote:
1.
I mean seriously, you defend circular reasoning. I pointed out that you committed a formal logical fallacy, refuting your argument. Basics of argumentation, GG.

You did not actually show in what way it was circular, you merely asserted that it was circular.
F: "Then you are in effect defining God into existence and the argument begs the question."
Do you remember your reply?
D: "So what"
You apparently accept it.

I only accepted that I am "defining God into existence". I don't accept your conclusion that doing so is unjustifiably circular (to my mind, it's no more circular than the statement X=X, given the properties of God).


What do you mean by, "given the properties of god". How do you know existence is one of it's properties?
Are you working from the idea that god is a "maximally great being" which, you believe, entails existence? Since "non-existence" isn't great?

I would hate to think your just saying "it exists" therefore it exists.

I'v seen you guys go back and forth on this a bit. Very amusing.

Basically, my argument is that non-existence implies the possibility of external constraint, and God's properties don't make sense if he could, in principle, be subject to external constraint. That is, if the concept of God can be subject to external constraint, then the concept of God would not actually be omnipotent, omnipresent, etc., which is false by definition.

Is this essentially arguing that for something to not exist, there must be an explanation for its nonexistence?
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 12:27:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/28/2015 11:34:44 PM, n7 wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:46:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:34:25 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:19:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 4:54:02 AM, Fkkize wrote:
1.
I mean seriously, you defend circular reasoning. I pointed out that you committed a formal logical fallacy, refuting your argument. Basics of argumentation, GG.

You did not actually show in what way it was circular, you merely asserted that it was circular.
F: "Then you are in effect defining God into existence and the argument begs the question."
Do you remember your reply?
D: "So what"
You apparently accept it.

I only accepted that I am "defining God into existence". I don't accept your conclusion that doing so is unjustifiably circular (to my mind, it's no more circular than the statement X=X, given the properties of God).


What do you mean by, "given the properties of god". How do you know existence is one of it's properties?
Are you working from the idea that god is a "maximally great being" which, you believe, entails existence? Since "non-existence" isn't great?

I would hate to think your just saying "it exists" therefore it exists.

I'v seen you guys go back and forth on this a bit. Very amusing.

Basically, my argument is that non-existence implies the possibility of external constraint, and God's properties don't make sense if he could, in principle, be subject to external constraint. That is, if the concept of God can be subject to external constraint, then the concept of God would not actually be omnipotent, omnipresent, etc., which is false by definition.

Is this essentially arguing that for something to not exist, there must be an explanation for its nonexistence?

Pretty much seems like it.
It is the question, "Why doesn't god exist?" and if there is any reason given then Dylan will reply with that being a constraint, and thus (due to omnipotence) what you are saying doesn't exist is not god.

It is ridiculous.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 12:55:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/28/2015 11:34:44 PM, n7 wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:46:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:34:25 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:19:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 4:54:02 AM, Fkkize wrote:
1.
I mean seriously, you defend circular reasoning. I pointed out that you committed a formal logical fallacy, refuting your argument. Basics of argumentation, GG.

You did not actually show in what way it was circular, you merely asserted that it was circular.
F: "Then you are in effect defining God into existence and the argument begs the question."
Do you remember your reply?
D: "So what"
You apparently accept it.

I only accepted that I am "defining God into existence". I don't accept your conclusion that doing so is unjustifiably circular (to my mind, it's no more circular than the statement X=X, given the properties of God).


What do you mean by, "given the properties of god". How do you know existence is one of it's properties?
Are you working from the idea that god is a "maximally great being" which, you believe, entails existence? Since "non-existence" isn't great?

I would hate to think your just saying "it exists" therefore it exists.

I'v seen you guys go back and forth on this a bit. Very amusing.

Basically, my argument is that non-existence implies the possibility of external constraint, and God's properties don't make sense if he could, in principle, be subject to external constraint. That is, if the concept of God can be subject to external constraint, then the concept of God would not actually be omnipotent, omnipresent, etc., which is false by definition.

Is this essentially arguing that for something to not exist, there must be an explanation for its nonexistence?

I didn't say that (although I certainly believe that). The only way for it to be true as opposed to false that something doesn't exist is if there exists constraint. Without constraint, nothing need be a certain way by definition.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 12:57:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 12:27:03 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 7/28/2015 11:34:44 PM, n7 wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:46:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:34:25 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:19:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 4:54:02 AM, Fkkize wrote:
1.
I mean seriously, you defend circular reasoning. I pointed out that you committed a formal logical fallacy, refuting your argument. Basics of argumentation, GG.

You did not actually show in what way it was circular, you merely asserted that it was circular.
F: "Then you are in effect defining God into existence and the argument begs the question."
Do you remember your reply?
D: "So what"
You apparently accept it.

I only accepted that I am "defining God into existence". I don't accept your conclusion that doing so is unjustifiably circular (to my mind, it's no more circular than the statement X=X, given the properties of God).


What do you mean by, "given the properties of god". How do you know existence is one of it's properties?
Are you working from the idea that god is a "maximally great being" which, you believe, entails existence? Since "non-existence" isn't great?

I would hate to think your just saying "it exists" therefore it exists.

I'v seen you guys go back and forth on this a bit. Very amusing.

Basically, my argument is that non-existence implies the possibility of external constraint, and God's properties don't make sense if he could, in principle, be subject to external constraint. That is, if the concept of God can be subject to external constraint, then the concept of God would not actually be omnipotent, omnipresent, etc., which is false by definition.

Is this essentially arguing that for something to not exist, there must be an explanation for its nonexistence?

Pretty much seems like it.
It is the question, "Why doesn't god exist?" and if there is any reason given then Dylan will reply with that being a constraint, and thus (due to omnipotence) what you are saying doesn't exist is not god.

It is ridiculous.

It's inconvenient for atheism, but how exactly is it ridiculous?
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 1:09:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 12:57:59 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/29/2015 12:27:03 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 7/28/2015 11:34:44 PM, n7 wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:46:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:34:25 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:19:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 4:54:02 AM, Fkkize wrote:
1.
I mean seriously, you defend circular reasoning. I pointed out that you committed a formal logical fallacy, refuting your argument. Basics of argumentation, GG.

You did not actually show in what way it was circular, you merely asserted that it was circular.
F: "Then you are in effect defining God into existence and the argument begs the question."
Do you remember your reply?
D: "So what"
You apparently accept it.

I only accepted that I am "defining God into existence". I don't accept your conclusion that doing so is unjustifiably circular (to my mind, it's no more circular than the statement X=X, given the properties of God).


What do you mean by, "given the properties of god". How do you know existence is one of it's properties?
Are you working from the idea that god is a "maximally great being" which, you believe, entails existence? Since "non-existence" isn't great?

I would hate to think your just saying "it exists" therefore it exists.

I'v seen you guys go back and forth on this a bit. Very amusing.

Basically, my argument is that non-existence implies the possibility of external constraint, and God's properties don't make sense if he could, in principle, be subject to external constraint. That is, if the concept of God can be subject to external constraint, then the concept of God would not actually be omnipotent, omnipresent, etc., which is false by definition.

Is this essentially arguing that for something to not exist, there must be an explanation for its nonexistence?

Pretty much seems like it.
It is the question, "Why doesn't god exist?" and if there is any reason given then Dylan will reply with that being a constraint, and thus (due to omnipotence) what you are saying doesn't exist is not god.

It is ridiculous.

It's inconvenient for atheism, but how exactly is it ridiculous?

Because the version of omnipotence you are using is paradoxical, so much so that the rock paradox actually applies.
In fact, can god be contingent? No, because then there is a constraint against god being able to be necessary.
Can god be necessary? No, because then god is constrained from being contingent.

The only way you can defend this is question-begging. If not question-begging of the definition of god, then question-begging of omnipotence.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 1:40:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 12:55:59 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 11:34:44 PM, n7 wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:46:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:34:25 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:19:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 4:54:02 AM, Fkkize wrote:
1.
I mean seriously, you defend circular reasoning. I pointed out that you committed a formal logical fallacy, refuting your argument. Basics of argumentation, GG.

You did not actually show in what way it was circular, you merely asserted that it was circular.
F: "Then you are in effect defining God into existence and the argument begs the question."
Do you remember your reply?
D: "So what"
You apparently accept it.

I only accepted that I am "defining God into existence". I don't accept your conclusion that doing so is unjustifiably circular (to my mind, it's no more circular than the statement X=X, given the properties of God).


What do you mean by, "given the properties of god". How do you know existence is one of it's properties?
Are you working from the idea that god is a "maximally great being" which, you believe, entails existence? Since "non-existence" isn't great?

I would hate to think your just saying "it exists" therefore it exists.

I'v seen you guys go back and forth on this a bit. Very amusing.

Basically, my argument is that non-existence implies the possibility of external constraint, and God's properties don't make sense if he could, in principle, be subject to external constraint. That is, if the concept of God can be subject to external constraint, then the concept of God would not actually be omnipotent, omnipresent, etc., which is false by definition.

Is this essentially arguing that for something to not exist, there must be an explanation for its nonexistence?

I didn't say that (although I certainly believe that). The only way for it to be true as opposed to false that something doesn't exist is if there exists constraint. Without constraint, nothing need be a certain way by definition.

I know you didn't say that, I was asking if that was a core assumption.

Also, if a nonexistent entity doesn't exist because of a constraint, doesn't that mean nonexistence is being affected by another entity?
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 4:52:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 1:09:40 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 7/29/2015 12:57:59 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/29/2015 12:27:03 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 7/28/2015 11:34:44 PM, n7 wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:46:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:34:25 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:19:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 4:54:02 AM, Fkkize wrote:
1.
I mean seriously, you defend circular reasoning. I pointed out that you committed a formal logical fallacy, refuting your argument. Basics of argumentation, GG.

You did not actually show in what way it was circular, you merely asserted that it was circular.
F: "Then you are in effect defining God into existence and the argument begs the question."
Do you remember your reply?
D: "So what"
You apparently accept it.

I only accepted that I am "defining God into existence". I don't accept your conclusion that doing so is unjustifiably circular (to my mind, it's no more circular than the statement X=X, given the properties of God).


What do you mean by, "given the properties of god". How do you know existence is one of it's properties?
Are you working from the idea that god is a "maximally great being" which, you believe, entails existence? Since "non-existence" isn't great?

I would hate to think your just saying "it exists" therefore it exists.

I'v seen you guys go back and forth on this a bit. Very amusing.

Basically, my argument is that non-existence implies the possibility of external constraint, and God's properties don't make sense if he could, in principle, be subject to external constraint. That is, if the concept of God can be subject to external constraint, then the concept of God would not actually be omnipotent, omnipresent, etc., which is false by definition.

Is this essentially arguing that for something to not exist, there must be an explanation for its nonexistence?

Pretty much seems like it.
It is the question, "Why doesn't god exist?" and if there is any reason given then Dylan will reply with that being a constraint, and thus (due to omnipotence) what you are saying doesn't exist is not god.

It is ridiculous.

It's inconvenient for atheism, but how exactly is it ridiculous?

Because the version of omnipotence you are using is paradoxical, so much so that the rock paradox actually applies.

The notion of a "rock so heavy even God cannot lift it" is only meaningful under the assumption that God is limited. Otherwise, it just amounts to "an object that cannot exist by definition".

In fact, can god be contingent? No, because then there is a constraint against god being able to be necessary.
Can god be necessary? No, because then god is constrained from being contingent.


The notion of a contingent God is paradoxical, and I never claimed that omnipotence implies the ability to violate logic.

The only way you can defend this is question-begging. If not question-begging of the definition of god, then question-begging of omnipotence.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 5:03:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 1:40:02 AM, n7 wrote:
At 7/29/2015 12:55:59 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 11:34:44 PM, n7 wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:46:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:34:25 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:19:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 4:54:02 AM, Fkkize wrote:
1.
I mean seriously, you defend circular reasoning. I pointed out that you committed a formal logical fallacy, refuting your argument. Basics of argumentation, GG.

You did not actually show in what way it was circular, you merely asserted that it was circular.
F: "Then you are in effect defining God into existence and the argument begs the question."
Do you remember your reply?
D: "So what"
You apparently accept it.

I only accepted that I am "defining God into existence". I don't accept your conclusion that doing so is unjustifiably circular (to my mind, it's no more circular than the statement X=X, given the properties of God).


What do you mean by, "given the properties of god". How do you know existence is one of it's properties?
Are you working from the idea that god is a "maximally great being" which, you believe, entails existence? Since "non-existence" isn't great?

I would hate to think your just saying "it exists" therefore it exists.

I'v seen you guys go back and forth on this a bit. Very amusing.

Basically, my argument is that non-existence implies the possibility of external constraint, and God's properties don't make sense if he could, in principle, be subject to external constraint. That is, if the concept of God can be subject to external constraint, then the concept of God would not actually be omnipotent, omnipresent, etc., which is false by definition.

Is this essentially arguing that for something to not exist, there must be an explanation for its nonexistence?

I didn't say that (although I certainly believe that). The only way for it to be true as opposed to false that something doesn't exist is if there exists constraint. Without constraint, nothing need be a certain way by definition.

I know you didn't say that, I was asking if that was a core assumption.

Also, if a nonexistent entity doesn't exist because of a constraint, doesn't that mean nonexistence is being affected by another entity?

That's a strange way of looking at it. I wouldn't say that the constraint is applied to a non-existent entity, but rather that it is applied to the potential of the entity so that it is non-existent. In other words, the constraint constrains (refines) the definition of reality such that the entity in question is not part of "reality".
derailed
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 5:17:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 4:52:07 AM, dylancatlow wrote:

The notion of a contingent God is paradoxical, and I never claimed that omnipotence implies the ability to violate logic.

But if I follow your argument, it basically goes like this:
God, by definition, is an unlimited being, not susceptible to external constraint.

Isn't logic an external constraint? I thought the existence of God was made necessary by the logic of its definition? Isn't that definition itself a constraint? (For something to be defined, it must not be something else. God can't be non-God. Therefore, God has a limitation.)

I'm not saying these paradoxes preclude God's existence, just this apparent argument for existence from definition.
What they call talent is nothing but the capacity for doing continuous work in the right way. --Winslow Homer
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 5:26:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 5:17:43 AM, derailed wrote:
At 7/29/2015 4:52:07 AM, dylancatlow wrote:

The notion of a contingent God is paradoxical, and I never claimed that omnipotence implies the ability to violate logic.

But if I follow your argument, it basically goes like this:
God, by definition, is an unlimited being, not susceptible to external constraint.

Isn't logic an external constraint? I thought the existence of God was made necessary by the logic of its definition? Isn't that definition itself a constraint? (For something to be defined, it must not be something else. God can't be non-God. Therefore, God has a limitation.)

No. If logic is real, then it is internal to reality and thus not external to God. I never said that God is unconstrained. He is self-constraining, which doesn't mean he can violate logic. Violating logic is not even a meaningful prospect.


I'm not saying these paradoxes preclude God's existence, just this apparent argument for existence from definition.
derailed
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 5:36:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 5:26:53 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
No. If logic is real, then it is internal to reality and thus not external to God. I never said that God is unconstrained.

But, you said: "The notion of a "rock so heavy even God cannot lift it" is only meaningful under the assumption that God is limited."

Am I wrong in making a simple assumption that you're saying here that God is unlimited? Does unlimited mean something different than unconstrained?

He is self-constraining, which doesn't mean he can violate logic. Violating logic is not even a meaningful prospect.

Not sure I get how something can be "self-constraining?" Couldn't a godless universe also be potentially infinite and have all the qualities you're saying God has? Can't a godless universe also be self-constraining? How does this quality relate to your argument's claim of God's necessity by definition (which I'm very confused about now)?
What they call talent is nothing but the capacity for doing continuous work in the right way. --Winslow Homer
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 7:12:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/28/2015 10:19:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 4:54:02 AM, Fkkize wrote:
1.
I mean seriously, you defend circular reasoning. I pointed out that you committed a formal logical fallacy, refuting your argument. Basics of argumentation, GG.

You did not actually show in what way it was circular, you merely asserted that it was circular.
F: "Then you are in effect defining God into existence and the argument begs the question."
Do you remember your reply?
D: "So what"
You apparently accept it.

I only accepted that I am "defining God into existence". I don't accept your conclusion that doing so is unjustifiably circular (to my mind, it's no more circular than the statement X=X, given the properties of God).
Which is exactly what makes it circular.

Again, I'll ask: how is it circular to define God such that his existence is actually implied?
I referred you to the SEP article on ontological arguments showing exactly why your argument begs the question.
An obvious problem is that claims involving that vocabulary cannot then be non-question-beggingly detached from the scope of that definition.

It only begs the question if it's not, in fact, the case, that God exists by definition. I explained why it's inadequate to merely attach "existence" to the definition of God, which is why I don't do that. For example, defining the FSM such that it exists by definition begs the question, because it is presumes that it's actually the case that the FSM exists by definition, and not merely "assumed" by the definition. If the definition of an FSM cannot back it up, it's just an unjustified assertion. I spent quite a bit of time explaining what sets God apart from entities like the FSM in this respect.
I can only repeat myself, circular reasoning remains circular no matter how sophisticated. Ex falso quodlibet.

(The inference from "By definition, God is an existent being" to "God exists" is patently invalid- SEP
>>>>>Obvious Problem<<<<<

3.
In Definition of Mental you said:

A. that abstracta are what is non-physical, but according to idealists there is just the non-physical and everything would be abstract.

I believe in the physical/concrete, I just think that the physical cannot be separated from mind (is an aspect of mind). Secondly, this assumes that "ideas" (in regard to idealism) are only abstract, which I made quite clear that I don't believe. I obviously meant to associate the "physical" side of reality with the "content" of ideas.
What then is the non-physical if not the mental? Other ideas?

It's an aspect of the mental.
So you're a conceptualist?


You then continued by claiming that some objects are partly abstract, partly concrete, which on its own is so ridiculous a claim that I shouldn't even have to point it out.

No, I claimed that some definitions are partly abstract and partly concrete in the sense that something exists or behaves in a certain way. That is, some definitions have both abstract and concrete aspects (although all definitions have an abstract aspect).
Unintelligible. The abstract/concrete distinction has nothing to do with how something behaves or whether it exists.

You can think of it this way: ideas are like pieces of clothing. They consist both of syntax (the thread holding together the clothing) and their content (the fabric to which the thread is applied). Since clothing consists of thread and fabric, it is "thread-like" and "fabric-like" in nature, even though thread and fabric are mutually exclusive concepts.
ok

In light of your definition however it makes even less sense, since there cannot be concrete-abstract objects (whatever that is), because there are no concrete objects.

There can be no concrete objects absent of an abstract component i.e., the rules inherent in their interpretation.
That doesn't make any sense, not even a platonist thinks reality can't exist apart from abstract objects. There needs not be an interpreter, make an argument for this ridiculous claim.

It makes perfect sense. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's incoherent. "Concrete objects" are not meaningful apart from their descriptions, and descriptions have a syntactic component which supports and defines the structure of the description.
Even if definitions were abstract, then they would be a seperate object, not part of the concrete one. I can only, again, referr you to other theories of reference.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 4:00:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 12:55:59 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 11:34:44 PM, n7 wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:46:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:34:25 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:19:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 4:54:02 AM, Fkkize wrote:
1.
I mean seriously, you defend circular reasoning. I pointed out that you committed a formal logical fallacy, refuting your argument. Basics of argumentation, GG.

You did not actually show in what way it was circular, you merely asserted that it was circular.
F: "Then you are in effect defining God into existence and the argument begs the question."
Do you remember your reply?
D: "So what"
You apparently accept it.

I only accepted that I am "defining God into existence". I don't accept your conclusion that doing so is unjustifiably circular (to my mind, it's no more circular than the statement X=X, given the properties of God).


What do you mean by, "given the properties of god". How do you know existence is one of it's properties?
Are you working from the idea that god is a "maximally great being" which, you believe, entails existence? Since "non-existence" isn't great?

I would hate to think your just saying "it exists" therefore it exists.

I'v seen you guys go back and forth on this a bit. Very amusing.

Basically, my argument is that non-existence implies the possibility of external constraint, and God's properties don't make sense if he could, in principle, be subject to external constraint. That is, if the concept of God can be subject to external constraint, then the concept of God would not actually be omnipotent, omnipresent, etc., which is false by definition.

Is this essentially arguing that for something to not exist, there must be an explanation for its nonexistence?

I didn't say that (although I certainly believe that). The only way for it to be true as opposed to false that something doesn't exist is if there exists constraint. Without constraint, nothing need be a certain way by definition.

Whats stopping me from affirming something ridiculous like dragons then? I don't know of any "external constraints" that would serve to prove their non-existence.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 5:18:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 4:00:35 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 7/29/2015 12:55:59 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 11:34:44 PM, n7 wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:46:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:34:25 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:19:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 4:54:02 AM, Fkkize wrote:
1.
I mean seriously, you defend circular reasoning. I pointed out that you committed a formal logical fallacy, refuting your argument. Basics of argumentation, GG.

You did not actually show in what way it was circular, you merely asserted that it was circular.
F: "Then you are in effect defining God into existence and the argument begs the question."
Do you remember your reply?
D: "So what"
You apparently accept it.

I only accepted that I am "defining God into existence". I don't accept your conclusion that doing so is unjustifiably circular (to my mind, it's no more circular than the statement X=X, given the properties of God).


What do you mean by, "given the properties of god". How do you know existence is one of it's properties?
Are you working from the idea that god is a "maximally great being" which, you believe, entails existence? Since "non-existence" isn't great?

I would hate to think your just saying "it exists" therefore it exists.

I'v seen you guys go back and forth on this a bit. Very amusing.

Basically, my argument is that non-existence implies the possibility of external constraint, and God's properties don't make sense if he could, in principle, be subject to external constraint. That is, if the concept of God can be subject to external constraint, then the concept of God would not actually be omnipotent, omnipresent, etc., which is false by definition.

Is this essentially arguing that for something to not exist, there must be an explanation for its nonexistence?

I didn't say that (although I certainly believe that). The only way for it to be true as opposed to false that something doesn't exist is if there exists constraint. Without constraint, nothing need be a certain way by definition.

Whats stopping me from affirming something ridiculous like dragons then? I don't know of any "external constraints" that would serve to prove their non-existence.

If the entity in question is actually self-constraining, you have no business assigning it unnecessary properties like "being a dragon". They only serve to undermine its self-constraining nature. If the entity is actually self-constraining, it need not be a dragon, which means you cannot say that it is a dragon with any measure of certainty. Doing so just begs the question, and in fact contradicts itself.
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 5:34:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 5:18:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/29/2015 4:00:35 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 7/29/2015 12:55:59 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 11:34:44 PM, n7 wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:46:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:34:25 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:19:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 4:54:02 AM, Fkkize wrote:
1.
I mean seriously, you defend circular reasoning. I pointed out that you committed a formal logical fallacy, refuting your argument. Basics of argumentation, GG.

You did not actually show in what way it was circular, you merely asserted that it was circular.
F: "Then you are in effect defining God into existence and the argument begs the question."
Do you remember your reply?
D: "So what"
You apparently accept it.

I only accepted that I am "defining God into existence". I don't accept your conclusion that doing so is unjustifiably circular (to my mind, it's no more circular than the statement X=X, given the properties of God).


What do you mean by, "given the properties of god". How do you know existence is one of it's properties?
Are you working from the idea that god is a "maximally great being" which, you believe, entails existence? Since "non-existence" isn't great?

I would hate to think your just saying "it exists" therefore it exists.

I'v seen you guys go back and forth on this a bit. Very amusing.

Basically, my argument is that non-existence implies the possibility of external constraint, and God's properties don't make sense if he could, in principle, be subject to external constraint. That is, if the concept of God can be subject to external constraint, then the concept of God would not actually be omnipotent, omnipresent, etc., which is false by definition.

Is this essentially arguing that for something to not exist, there must be an explanation for its nonexistence?

I didn't say that (although I certainly believe that). The only way for it to be true as opposed to false that something doesn't exist is if there exists constraint. Without constraint, nothing need be a certain way by definition.

Whats stopping me from affirming something ridiculous like dragons then? I don't know of any "external constraints" that would serve to prove their non-existence.

If the entity in question is actually self-constraining, you have no business assigning it unnecessary properties like "being a dragon". They only serve to undermine its self-constraining nature. If the entity is actually self-constraining, it need not be a dragon, which means you cannot say that it is a dragon with any measure of certainty. Doing so just begs the question, and in fact contradicts itself.

Maybe an example would make your answer more clear for me.

I tell you I read about a dragon in a book. I believe that book to be fact. What external restraint would invalidate my claim that the dragon is real?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 3:52:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 5:34:51 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 7/29/2015 5:18:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/29/2015 4:00:35 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 7/29/2015 12:55:59 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 11:34:44 PM, n7 wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:46:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:34:25 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:19:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 4:54:02 AM, Fkkize wrote:
1.
I mean seriously, you defend circular reasoning. I pointed out that you committed a formal logical fallacy, refuting your argument. Basics of argumentation, GG.

You did not actually show in what way it was circular, you merely asserted that it was circular.
F: "Then you are in effect defining God into existence and the argument begs the question."
Do you remember your reply?
D: "So what"
You apparently accept it.

I only accepted that I am "defining God into existence". I don't accept your conclusion that doing so is unjustifiably circular (to my mind, it's no more circular than the statement X=X, given the properties of God).


What do you mean by, "given the properties of god". How do you know existence is one of it's properties?
Are you working from the idea that god is a "maximally great being" which, you believe, entails existence? Since "non-existence" isn't great?

I would hate to think your just saying "it exists" therefore it exists.

I'v seen you guys go back and forth on this a bit. Very amusing.

Basically, my argument is that non-existence implies the possibility of external constraint, and God's properties don't make sense if he could, in principle, be subject to external constraint. That is, if the concept of God can be subject to external constraint, then the concept of God would not actually be omnipotent, omnipresent, etc., which is false by definition.

Is this essentially arguing that for something to not exist, there must be an explanation for its nonexistence?

I didn't say that (although I certainly believe that). The only way for it to be true as opposed to false that something doesn't exist is if there exists constraint. Without constraint, nothing need be a certain way by definition.

Whats stopping me from affirming something ridiculous like dragons then? I don't know of any "external constraints" that would serve to prove their non-existence.

If the entity in question is actually self-constraining, you have no business assigning it unnecessary properties like "being a dragon". They only serve to undermine its self-constraining nature. If the entity is actually self-constraining, it need not be a dragon, which means you cannot say that it is a dragon with any measure of certainty. Doing so just begs the question, and in fact contradicts itself.

Maybe an example would make your answer more clear for me.

I tell you I read about a dragon in a book. I believe that book to be fact. What external restraint would invalidate my claim that the dragon is real?

I didn't claim that it's definitely not true that a dragon exists. My problem is with the notion of a necessary dragon. Ultimately, it's a contradictory concept.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 4:14:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 5:36:19 AM, derailed wrote:
At 7/29/2015 5:26:53 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
No. If logic is real, then it is internal to reality and thus not external to God. I never said that God is unconstrained.

But, you said: "The notion of a "rock so heavy even God cannot lift it" is only meaningful under the assumption that God is limited."

Am I wrong in making a simple assumption that you're saying here that God is unlimited? Does unlimited mean something different than unconstrained?

He is self-constraining, which doesn't mean he can violate logic. Violating logic is not even a meaningful prospect.

Not sure I get how something can be "self-constraining?" Couldn't a godless universe also be potentially infinite and have all the qualities you're saying God has? Can't a godless universe also be self-constraining? How does this quality relate to your argument's claim of God's necessity by definition (which I'm very confused about now)?

If the universe were self-constraining, that would just mean that it is omnipotent. Omnipotence implies the arbitrary ability to define and remove constraint. If it's self-constraining, all constraint relevant to its structure would come from within, and would have to be decided by itself, because there's nothing else to do the job. Since the universe must be a coherent system, it requires a single self-configuring imperative which, for essentially logical reasons, must be self-distributed, self-processing, and self-justifying, which respectively correspond to omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
derailed
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 4:36:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 4:14:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/29/2015 5:36:19 AM, derailed wrote:
At 7/29/2015 5:26:53 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
No. If logic is real, then it is internal to reality and thus not external to God. I never said that God is unconstrained.

But, you said: "The notion of a "rock so heavy even God cannot lift it" is only meaningful under the assumption that God is limited."

Am I wrong in making a simple assumption that you're saying here that God is unlimited? Does unlimited mean something different than unconstrained?

He is self-constraining, which doesn't mean he can violate logic. Violating logic is not even a meaningful prospect.

Not sure I get how something can be "self-constraining?" Couldn't a godless universe also be potentially infinite and have all the qualities you're saying God has? Can't a godless universe also be self-constraining? How does this quality relate to your argument's claim of God's necessity by definition (which I'm very confused about now)?

If the universe were self-constraining, that would just mean that it is omnipotent. Omnipotence implies the arbitrary ability to define and remove constraint. If it's self-constraining, all constraint relevant to its structure would come from within, and would have to be decided by itself, because there's nothing else to do the job. Since the universe must be a coherent system, it requires a single self-configuring imperative which, for essentially logical reasons, must be self-distributed, self-processing, and self-justifying, which respectively correspond to omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

I'm confused by this - and also there are a lot of "musts" that are written as self-evident that don't necessarily sound self-evident to me. And I still don't quite understand how/why something is self-constraining...what that means, or why it is equal to omnipotence (seem like totally different concepts to me).

My understanding of what you wrote is that the universe=God. If that's the case, why not just call it the universe and not God?

I've never understood how we can claim to speak about "the universe" as a totality that "must" have certain properties (a closed system, whatever). The universe isn't a "thing," a discrete or concrete object, it's a collection of everything. We're not capable of observing or understanding it in its totality, so how can we presume to know what properties it "must" have?
What they call talent is nothing but the capacity for doing continuous work in the right way. --Winslow Homer
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 4:54:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 4:36:01 PM, derailed wrote:
At 7/30/2015 4:14:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/29/2015 5:36:19 AM, derailed wrote:
At 7/29/2015 5:26:53 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
No. If logic is real, then it is internal to reality and thus not external to God. I never said that God is unconstrained.

But, you said: "The notion of a "rock so heavy even God cannot lift it" is only meaningful under the assumption that God is limited."

Am I wrong in making a simple assumption that you're saying here that God is unlimited? Does unlimited mean something different than unconstrained?

He is self-constraining, which doesn't mean he can violate logic. Violating logic is not even a meaningful prospect.

Not sure I get how something can be "self-constraining?" Couldn't a godless universe also be potentially infinite and have all the qualities you're saying God has? Can't a godless universe also be self-constraining? How does this quality relate to your argument's claim of God's necessity by definition (which I'm very confused about now)?

If the universe were self-constraining, that would just mean that it is omnipotent. Omnipotence implies the arbitrary ability to define and remove constraint. If it's self-constraining, all constraint relevant to its structure would come from within, and would have to be decided by itself, because there's nothing else to do the job. Since the universe must be a coherent system, it requires a single self-configuring imperative which, for essentially logical reasons, must be self-distributed, self-processing, and self-justifying, which respectively correspond to omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

I'm confused by this - and also there are a lot of "musts" that are written as self-evident that don't necessarily sound self-evident to me. And I still don't quite understand how/why something is self-constraining...what that means, or why it is equal to omnipotence (seem like totally different concepts to me).

Self-constraining means that the constraint relevant to X is determined by X.


My understanding of what you wrote is that the universe=God. If that's the case, why not just call it the universe and not God?


Because it is entirely indistinguishable from the God concept.

I've never understood how we can claim to speak about "the universe" as a totality that "must" have certain properties (a closed system, whatever). The universe isn't a "thing," a discrete or concrete object, it's a collection of everything. We're not capable of observing or understanding it in its totality, so how can we presume to know what properties it "must" have?

This amounts to an absolute distinction between "set" and "thing", which is completely absurd. A "chair" refers to the set of atoms which comprise it. It's still a "thing". Wikipedia defines set as: "In mathematics, a set is a collection of distinct objects, considered as an object in its own right." We are not capable of observing the universe in its entirety, but we are capable of referring to in its entirety i.e., in a comprehensive (although not necessarily complete) way. If the universe is a meaningful concept, then it has closed informational boundaries distinguishing what it is from what it is not, and that means it conforms to two-valued logic. So the universe must possess all properties implied by its logical structure.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 5:09:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/28/2015 10:46:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:34:25 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:19:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 4:54:02 AM, Fkkize wrote:
1.
I mean seriously, you defend circular reasoning. I pointed out that you committed a formal logical fallacy, refuting your argument. Basics of argumentation, GG.

You did not actually show in what way it was circular, you merely asserted that it was circular.
F: "Then you are in effect defining God into existence and the argument begs the question."
Do you remember your reply?
D: "So what"
You apparently accept it.

I only accepted that I am "defining God into existence". I don't accept your conclusion that doing so is unjustifiably circular (to my mind, it's no more circular than the statement X=X, given the properties of God).


What do you mean by, "given the properties of god". How do you know existence is one of it's properties?
Are you working from the idea that god is a "maximally great being" which, you believe, entails existence? Since "non-existence" isn't great?

I would hate to think your just saying "it exists" therefore it exists.

I'v seen you guys go back and forth on this a bit. Very amusing.

Basically, my argument is that non-existence implies the possibility of external constraint, and God's properties don't make sense if he could, in principle, be subject to external constraint. That is, if the concept of God can be subject to external constraint, then the concept of God would not actually be omnipotent, omnipresent, etc., which is false by definition.

This is literally exactly the same as Spinozian argument. It's essentially paraphrased straight from him.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz

"No aspect of your facial structure suggests Filipino descent."
~ YYW
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 5:35:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 5:09:10 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:46:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:34:25 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:19:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 4:54:02 AM, Fkkize wrote:
1.
I mean seriously, you defend circular reasoning. I pointed out that you committed a formal logical fallacy, refuting your argument. Basics of argumentation, GG.

You did not actually show in what way it was circular, you merely asserted that it was circular.
F: "Then you are in effect defining God into existence and the argument begs the question."
Do you remember your reply?
D: "So what"
You apparently accept it.

I only accepted that I am "defining God into existence". I don't accept your conclusion that doing so is unjustifiably circular (to my mind, it's no more circular than the statement X=X, given the properties of God).


What do you mean by, "given the properties of god". How do you know existence is one of it's properties?
Are you working from the idea that god is a "maximally great being" which, you believe, entails existence? Since "non-existence" isn't great?

I would hate to think your just saying "it exists" therefore it exists.

I'v seen you guys go back and forth on this a bit. Very amusing.

Basically, my argument is that non-existence implies the possibility of external constraint, and God's properties don't make sense if he could, in principle, be subject to external constraint. That is, if the concept of God can be subject to external constraint, then the concept of God would not actually be omnipotent, omnipresent, etc., which is false by definition.

This is literally exactly the same as Spinozian argument. It's essentially paraphrased straight from him.

From what I've read, Spinoza's argument is a little different. He claims that "God" basically embodies all possible states of affairs, so that nothing could exist which "makes it so" that God doesn't exist, because it would necessarily be part of God. My argument, on the other hand, does not assume that God embodies all possible states of affairs, but rather that he cannot be subject to external constraint.
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 5:36:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 3:52:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/29/2015 5:34:51 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 7/29/2015 5:18:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/29/2015 4:00:35 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 7/29/2015 12:55:59 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 11:34:44 PM, n7 wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:46:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:34:25 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:19:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 4:54:02 AM, Fkkize wrote:
1.
I mean seriously, you defend circular reasoning. I pointed out that you committed a formal logical fallacy, refuting your argument. Basics of argumentation, GG.

You did not actually show in what way it was circular, you merely asserted that it was circular.
F: "Then you are in effect defining God into existence and the argument begs the question."
Do you remember your reply?
D: "So what"
You apparently accept it.

I only accepted that I am "defining God into existence". I don't accept your conclusion that doing so is unjustifiably circular (to my mind, it's no more circular than the statement X=X, given the properties of God).


What do you mean by, "given the properties of god". How do you know existence is one of it's properties?
Are you working from the idea that god is a "maximally great being" which, you believe, entails existence? Since "non-existence" isn't great?

I would hate to think your just saying "it exists" therefore it exists.

I'v seen you guys go back and forth on this a bit. Very amusing.

Basically, my argument is that non-existence implies the possibility of external constraint, and God's properties don't make sense if he could, in principle, be subject to external constraint. That is, if the concept of God can be subject to external constraint, then the concept of God would not actually be omnipotent, omnipresent, etc., which is false by definition.

Is this essentially arguing that for something to not exist, there must be an explanation for its nonexistence?

I didn't say that (although I certainly believe that). The only way for it to be true as opposed to false that something doesn't exist is if there exists constraint. Without constraint, nothing need be a certain way by definition.

Whats stopping me from affirming something ridiculous like dragons then? I don't know of any "external constraints" that would serve to prove their non-existence.

If the entity in question is actually self-constraining, you have no business assigning it unnecessary properties like "being a dragon". They only serve to undermine its self-constraining nature. If the entity is actually self-constraining, it need not be a dragon, which means you cannot say that it is a dragon with any measure of certainty. Doing so just begs the question, and in fact contradicts itself.

Maybe an example would make your answer more clear for me.

I tell you I read about a dragon in a book. I believe that book to be fact. What external restraint would invalidate my claim that the dragon is real?

I didn't claim that it's definitely not true that a dragon exists. My problem is with the notion of a necessary dragon. Ultimately, it's a contradictory concept.

So I can affirm dragons?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 5:38:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 5:36:23 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 7/30/2015 3:52:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/29/2015 5:34:51 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 7/29/2015 5:18:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/29/2015 4:00:35 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 7/29/2015 12:55:59 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 11:34:44 PM, n7 wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:46:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:34:25 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:19:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 4:54:02 AM, Fkkize wrote:
1.
I mean seriously, you defend circular reasoning. I pointed out that you committed a formal logical fallacy, refuting your argument. Basics of argumentation, GG.

You did not actually show in what way it was circular, you merely asserted that it was circular.
F: "Then you are in effect defining God into existence and the argument begs the question."
Do you remember your reply?
D: "So what"
You apparently accept it.

I only accepted that I am "defining God into existence". I don't accept your conclusion that doing so is unjustifiably circular (to my mind, it's no more circular than the statement X=X, given the properties of God).


What do you mean by, "given the properties of god". How do you know existence is one of it's properties?
Are you working from the idea that god is a "maximally great being" which, you believe, entails existence? Since "non-existence" isn't great?

I would hate to think your just saying "it exists" therefore it exists.

I'v seen you guys go back and forth on this a bit. Very amusing.

Basically, my argument is that non-existence implies the possibility of external constraint, and God's properties don't make sense if he could, in principle, be subject to external constraint. That is, if the concept of God can be subject to external constraint, then the concept of God would not actually be omnipotent, omnipresent, etc., which is false by definition.

Is this essentially arguing that for something to not exist, there must be an explanation for its nonexistence?

I didn't say that (although I certainly believe that). The only way for it to be true as opposed to false that something doesn't exist is if there exists constraint. Without constraint, nothing need be a certain way by definition.

Whats stopping me from affirming something ridiculous like dragons then? I don't know of any "external constraints" that would serve to prove their non-existence.

If the entity in question is actually self-constraining, you have no business assigning it unnecessary properties like "being a dragon". They only serve to undermine its self-constraining nature. If the entity is actually self-constraining, it need not be a dragon, which means you cannot say that it is a dragon with any measure of certainty. Doing so just begs the question, and in fact contradicts itself.

Maybe an example would make your answer more clear for me.

I tell you I read about a dragon in a book. I believe that book to be fact. What external restraint would invalidate my claim that the dragon is real?

I didn't claim that it's definitely not true that a dragon exists. My problem is with the notion of a necessary dragon. Ultimately, it's a contradictory concept.

So I can affirm dragons?

Yes? But just because you can affirm their existence does not provide us with any reason to suppose that they actually do.
derailed
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 5:44:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 4:54:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/30/2015 4:36:01 PM, derailed wrote:
At 7/30/2015 4:14:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/29/2015 5:36:19 AM, derailed wrote:
At 7/29/2015 5:26:53 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
No. If logic is real, then it is internal to reality and thus not external to God. I never said that God is unconstrained.

But, you said: "The notion of a "rock so heavy even God cannot lift it" is only meaningful under the assumption that God is limited."

Am I wrong in making a simple assumption that you're saying here that God is unlimited? Does unlimited mean something different than unconstrained?

He is self-constraining, which doesn't mean he can violate logic. Violating logic is not even a meaningful prospect.

Not sure I get how something can be "self-constraining?" Couldn't a godless universe also be potentially infinite and have all the qualities you're saying God has? Can't a godless universe also be self-constraining? How does this quality relate to your argument's claim of God's necessity by definition (which I'm very confused about now)?

If the universe were self-constraining, that would just mean that it is omnipotent. Omnipotence implies the arbitrary ability to define and remove constraint. If it's self-constraining, all constraint relevant to its structure would come from within, and would have to be decided by itself, because there's nothing else to do the job. Since the universe must be a coherent system, it requires a single self-configuring imperative which, for essentially logical reasons, must be self-distributed, self-processing, and self-justifying, which respectively correspond to omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

I'm confused by this - and also there are a lot of "musts" that are written as self-evident that don't necessarily sound self-evident to me. And I still don't quite understand how/why something is self-constraining...what that means, or why it is equal to omnipotence (seem like totally different concepts to me).

Self-constraining means that the constraint relevant to X is determined by X.


My understanding of what you wrote is that the universe=God. If that's the case, why not just call it the universe and not God?


Because it is entirely indistinguishable from the God concept.

What you've described amounts to something with infinite properties. That could be simply an infinite amount of matter and energy, or a sentient/conscious being that directs all that matter and energy. Not the same concepts at all.


I've never understood how we can claim to speak about "the universe" as a totality that "must" have certain properties (a closed system, whatever). The universe isn't a "thing," a discrete or concrete object, it's a collection of everything. We're not capable of observing or understanding it in its totality, so how can we presume to know what properties it "must" have?

This amounts to an absolute distinction between "set" and "thing", which is completely absurd. A "chair" refers to the set of atoms which comprise it. It's still a "thing". Wikipedia defines set as: "In mathematics, a set is a collection of distinct objects, considered as an object in its own right." We are not capable of observing the universe in its entirety, but we are capable of referring to in its entirety i.e., in a comprehensive (although not necessarily complete) way. If the universe is a meaningful concept, then it has closed informational boundaries distinguishing what it is from what it is not, and that means it conforms to two-valued logic. So the universe must possess all properties implied by its logical structure.

No. First, I may have to disagree with Wikipedia. Second, I'm not sure Wikipedia there refers to "objects" in the sense I meant. Sets and objects mean different things in mathematics, because sets can be shown to have definite properties, whereas sets of abstract things (like all dogs or non-dogs) do not have definite properties.

A chair may be a "set" of atoms, but it is an observable thing. The more we can directly observe something, the better we can know it and its properties. The collection of all chairs that exist as a "set" can be referred to meaningfully, but not some set of properties that would be "necessary" for it to have, because chairs differ too much. We cannot directly observe every chair that ever existed, exists, or will exist, even though we can say some vague things about them. In general, they're pieces of furniture that serve the function of sitting--usually for human comfort. But there's the electric "chair," and some chairs are used for purposes other than sitting (decoration, standing on, fun things to break, etc.). So, some "sets" are more knowable than others.

The universe is an even further remove from something so supposedly near to us as chairs. The universe in its totality, as you admit, is not an observable thing. We can refer to concepts like the universe for sake of convenience, but what we can actually "know" about it seems like pure speculation. Even if its true that the universe "must" have informational boundaries (this does not sound self-evident to me), I doubt we could know what those are, or even approximate anything close, at least as mortal, fallible beings.
What they call talent is nothing but the capacity for doing continuous work in the right way. --Winslow Homer
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 5:46:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 5:38:26 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/30/2015 5:36:23 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 7/30/2015 3:52:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/29/2015 5:34:51 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 7/29/2015 5:18:58 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/29/2015 4:00:35 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 7/29/2015 12:55:59 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 11:34:44 PM, n7 wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:46:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:34:25 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 7/28/2015 10:19:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/28/2015 4:54:02 AM, Fkkize wrote:
1.
I mean seriously, you defend circular reasoning. I pointed out that you committed a formal logical fallacy, refuting your argument. Basics of argumentation, GG.

You did not actually show in what way it was circular, you merely asserted that it was circular.
F: "Then you are in effect defining God into existence and the argument begs the question."
Do you remember your reply?
D: "So what"
You apparently accept it.

I only accepted that I am "defining God into existence". I don't accept your conclusion that doing so is unjustifiably circular (to my mind, it's no more circular than the statement X=X, given the properties of God).


What do you mean by, "given the properties of god". How do you know existence is one of it's properties?
Are you working from the idea that god is a "maximally great being" which, you believe, entails existence? Since "non-existence" isn't great?

I would hate to think your just saying "it exists" therefore it exists.

I'v seen you guys go back and forth on this a bit. Very amusing.

Basically, my argument is that non-existence implies the possibility of external constraint, and God's properties don't make sense if he could, in principle, be subject to external constraint. That is, if the concept of God can be subject to external constraint, then the concept of God would not actually be omnipotent, omnipresent, etc., which is false by definition.

Is this essentially arguing that for something to not exist, there must be an explanation for its nonexistence?

I didn't say that (although I certainly believe that). The only way for it to be true as opposed to false that something doesn't exist is if there exists constraint. Without constraint, nothing need be a certain way by definition.

Whats stopping me from affirming something ridiculous like dragons then? I don't know of any "external constraints" that would serve to prove their non-existence.

If the entity in question is actually self-constraining, you have no business assigning it unnecessary properties like "being a dragon". They only serve to undermine its self-constraining nature. If the entity is actually self-constraining, it need not be a dragon, which means you cannot say that it is a dragon with any measure of certainty. Doing so just begs the question, and in fact contradicts itself.

Maybe an example would make your answer more clear for me.

I tell you I read about a dragon in a book. I believe that book to be fact. What external restraint would invalidate my claim that the dragon is real?

I didn't claim that it's definitely not true that a dragon exists. My problem is with the notion of a necessary dragon. Ultimately, it's a contradictory concept.

So I can affirm dragons?

Yes? But just because you can affirm their existence does not provide us with any reason to suppose that they actually do.

Doesn't sound like a very practical theory then.