Total Posts:148|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What do you guys think of

m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 10:01:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Plantinga modal ontological argument? I'm mostly asking J.Kenyon because he's the big time guy on all this stuff, but if anyone has any input to throw out there, please feel welcome.

(1) If God exists then he has necessary existence.
(2) Either God has necessary existence, or he doesn't.
(3) If God doesn't have necessary existence, then he necessarily doesn't.
Therefore:
(4) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn't. (from 2 and 3)
(5) If God necessarily doesn't have necessary existence, then God necessarily doesn't exist. (from 1)
Therefore:
(6) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn't exist. (from 4 and 5)
(7) It is not the case that God necessarily doesn't exist.
Therefore:
(8) God has necessary existence. (from 6 and 7)
(9) If God has necessary existence, then God exists.
Therefore:
(10) God exists. (from 8 and 9)
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 10:02:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/5/2011 10:01:39 AM, m93samman wrote:
Plantinga's modal ontological argument? I'm mostly asking J.Kenyon because he's the big time guy on all this stuff, but if anyone has any input to throw out there, please feel welcome.

(1) If God exists then he has necessary existence.
(2) Either God has necessary existence, or he doesn't.
(3) If God doesn't have necessary existence, then he necessarily doesn't.
Therefore:
(4) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn't. (from 2 and 3)
(5) If God necessarily doesn't have necessary existence, then God necessarily doesn't exist. (from 1)
Therefore:
(6) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn't exist. (from 4 and 5)
(7) It is not the case that God necessarily doesn't exist.
Therefore:
(8) God has necessary existence. (from 6 and 7)
(9) If God has necessary existence, then God exists.
Therefore:
(10) God exists. (from 8 and 9)

fix'd
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 10:15:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
If God's existence is a necessary force then nothing can exist without god.

Therefore God's existence begets the existence of everything else.

Therefore God's existence allows the existence of the laws of physics, nature, and everything else.

Therore God's existence also breaks these laws because these laws state that equilim can only be reached with two or more opposing forces.

Therefore God's existence directly contradict the laws that exist because he exists]

Therefore there are no laws of physics, nature, or anything else.

Therefore if you jump out your window, you can fly.

Or

Therefore, as a necessary existence, the laws of physics and nature directly contradict the existence of god, therefore, one of them must cease to exist for the other to exist

Therefore, because we have laws of physics and nature, and we know and can prove they exist, and yet we cannot prove that god exists, it follows your logic that god does not exist.

Therefore, god does not exist.
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
tigg13
Posts: 302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 11:45:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/5/2011 10:01:39 AM, m93samman wrote:
Plantinga modal ontological argument? I'm mostly asking J.Kenyon because he's the big time guy on all this stuff, but if anyone has any input to throw out there, please feel welcome.

(1) If God exists then he has necessary existence.
(2) Either God has necessary existence, or he doesn't.
(3) If God doesn't have necessary existence, then he necessarily doesn't.
Therefore:
(4) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn't. (from 2 and 3)
(5) If God necessarily doesn't have necessary existence, then God necessarily doesn't exist. (from 1)
Therefore:
(6) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn't exist. (from 4 and 5)
(7) It is not the case that God necessarily doesn't exist.
Therefore:
(8) God has necessary existence. (from 6 and 7)
(9) If God has necessary existence, then God exists.
Therefore:
(10) God exists. (from 8 and 9)

(1) If God exists then he has necessary existence.
Why?

Isn't it possible for God to exist and yet still be completely unnecessary. This would be a deist type of God who had absolutely nothing to do with our universe's origin and couldn't care less about what we think or do.

(2) Either God has necessary existence or he doesn't.
Ok.

(3) If God doesn't have necessary existence, then he necessarily doesn't.
Why?

Even if God's existence wasn't necessary why would that mean that he couldn't have necessary existence? You are creating a false dichotomy.

(4) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn't
This is your false dichotomy. Why isn't it possible that God may have necessary existence or He may not? The God from my earlier example would fit this description.

(5) If God necessarily doesn't have necessary existence, then God necessarily doesn't exist. (from 1)
I've already shown that it is possible for God to exist even if His existence isn't necessary.

(6) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn't exist. (from 4 and 5)
Since both 4 and 5 are logically flawed, this statement has no value.

(7) It is not the case that God necessarily doesn't exist.
Why?

Just because we can imagine God doesn't make His existence a possibility. For example, it has been suggested that God must exist outside of space and time - but if nothing can exist outside of space and time, then it is necessary that God does not exist.

All you are really doing is asserting a God of the gaps. But, by the same reasoning that makes it impossible for non-believers to say 'there can't possibly be a God' you can't say 'God can't be impossible'.

(8) God has necessary existence. (from 6 and 7)
(9) If God has necessary existence, then God exists.
(10) God exists.

Bad premises lead to bad conclusions.
The argument fails.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 11:50:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Poorly written semantic crap.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 12:02:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's not mine, it's Alvin Plantinga's version of the ontological argument.
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 12:11:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/5/2011 11:45:55 AM, tigg13 wrote:
At 3/5/2011 10:01:39 AM, m93samman wrote:
Plantinga modal ontological argument? I'm mostly asking J.Kenyon because he's the big time guy on all this stuff, but if anyone has any input to throw out there, please feel welcome.

(1) If God exists then he has necessary existence.
(2) Either God has necessary existence, or he doesn't.
(3) If God doesn't have necessary existence, then he necessarily doesn't.
Therefore:
(4) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn't. (from 2 and 3)
(5) If God necessarily doesn't have necessary existence, then God necessarily doesn't exist. (from 1)
Therefore:
(6) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn't exist. (from 4 and 5)
(7) It is not the case that God necessarily doesn't exist.
Therefore:
(8) God has necessary existence. (from 6 and 7)
(9) If God has necessary existence, then God exists.
Therefore:
(10) God exists. (from 8 and 9)

(1) If God exists then he has necessary existence.
Why?

Isn't it possible for God to exist and yet still be completely unnecessary. This would be a deist type of God who had absolutely nothing to do with our universe's origin and couldn't care less about what we think or do.

Being omnipotent, omnipresent, etc.

The definition of God according to a given religion X makes God necessary.

(2) Either God has necessary existence or he doesn't.
Ok.

(3) If God doesn't have necessary existence, then he necessarily doesn't.
Why?

Even if God's existence wasn't necessary why would that mean that he couldn't have necessary existence? You are creating a false dichotomy.

It's the law of the excluded middle. This is NOT a false dichotomy

(4) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn't
This is your false dichotomy. Why isn't it possible that God may have necessary existence or He may not? The God from my earlier example would fit this description.

You're negating the "false dichotomy" by asking why God can't fit either one prong or the other prong of the SAME dichotomy.

(5) If God necessarily doesn't have necessary existence, then God necessarily doesn't exist. (from 1)
I've already shown that it is possible for God to exist even if His existence isn't necessary.

Not really. You aren't very well-versed in philosophy is all you've proven.

(6) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn't exist. (from 4 and 5)
Since both 4 and 5 are logically flawed, this statement has no value.

See above.

(7) It is not the case that God necessarily doesn't exist.
Why?


Because we don't know for a fact that God does or does not exist...

(8) God has necessary existence. (from 6 and 7)
(9) If God has necessary existence, then God exists.
(10) God exists.

Bad premises lead to bad conclusions.
The argument fails.

Learn2logic
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 12:37:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/5/2011 12:28:25 PM, Floid wrote:
Sounds like someone felt like seeing how many times they could fit necessarily into an argument to me...

Sounds like you don't understand the argument either, just like tigg
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 12:45:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
my understanding of modal logic is not the best, but this seems to depend on the axiom that if something is possibly necessary then it is necessary which just seems like a whole lot of hooey to me. no doubt "possibly" and "necessarily" have very specific meanings in modal logic, but it seems like any coherent meaning of the terms would lead to absurdity. i am open to correction however. i've yet to find a good "intro to modal logic" source anywhere... probably cause its not something people generally study just for fun lolz
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 1:23:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/5/2011 12:45:53 PM, belle wrote:
my understanding of modal logic is not the best, but this seems to depend on the axiom that if something is possibly necessary then it is necessary which just seems like a whole lot of hooey to me. no doubt "possibly" and "necessarily" have very specific meanings in modal logic, but it seems like any coherent meaning of the terms would lead to absurdity. i am open to correction however. i've yet to find a good "intro to modal logic" source anywhere... probably cause its not something people generally study just for fun lolz

It's axiom s5 that the argument is based on - what's wrong with it?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 1:31:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/5/2011 11:45:55 AM, tigg13 wrote:

(1) If God exists then he has necessary existence.
Why?

Isn't it possible for God to exist and yet still be completely unnecessary. This would be a deist type of God who had absolutely nothing to do with our universe's origin and couldn't care less about what we think or do.


...yeah, you're not understanding the sense of necessary here. He means it in a modal sense such that God exists out of metaphysical necessity. Things

(2) Either God has necessary existence or he doesn't.
Ok.

(3) If God doesn't have necessary existence, then he necessarily doesn't.
Why?


...Because something can't have necessary existence in one possible world while lacking it in another. Necessary truths hold across all possible worlds.

Even if God's existence wasn't necessary why would that mean that he couldn't have necessary existence? You are creating a false dichotomy.


...Not even close.

(4) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn't
This is your false dichotomy. Why isn't it possible that God may have necessary existence or He may not? The God from my earlier example would fit this description.


Again based on a misunderstanding.

(5) If God necessarily doesn't have necessary existence, then God necessarily doesn't exist. (from 1)
I've already shown that it is possible for God to exist even if His existence isn't necessary.


No, you haven't.

(6) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn't exist. (from 4 and 5)
Since both 4 and 5 are logically flawed, this statement has no value.


No, your criticisms are logically flawed.

(7) It is not the case that God necessarily doesn't exist.
Why?


Just because we can imagine God doesn't make His existence a possibility. For example, it has been suggested that God must exist outside of space and time - but if nothing can exist outside of space and time, then it is necessary that God does not exist.

So, you can imagine something that is a logical/metpahysical possibility?


All you are really doing is asserting a God of the gaps. But, by the same reasoning that makes it impossible for non-believers to say 'there can't possibly be a God' you can't say 'God can't be impossible'.


...Ontological arguments are least valid targets out of any arguments for God that could be accused of "god of the gaps" reasoning.

(8) God has necessary existence. (from 6 and 7)
(9) If God has necessary existence, then God exists.
(10) God exists.

Bad premises lead to bad conclusions.
The argument fails.

If it does, you're not even close to showing it.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 1:31:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/5/2011 12:37:29 PM, m93samman wrote:
At 3/5/2011 12:28:25 PM, Floid wrote:
Sounds like someone felt like seeing how many times they could fit necessarily into an argument to me...

Sounds like you don't understand the argument either, just like tigg

This.

So far the people who tried to refute it completely missed the point and failed badly.

If you understand the argument, you must accept all the premises except Premise 7. That is the only that can be challenged and of course, I do.

Now that I think of it, this could make for a good argument for Strong Atheism. Read and you'll see what I mean.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 1:31:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/5/2011 10:01:39 AM, m93samman wrote:
Plantinga modal ontological argument? I'm mostly asking J.Kenyon because he's the big time guy on all this stuff

Lol. How does his **** taste? If there's someone to ask about religious arguments, it should probably ask the person who dedicates their time to studying (legit) religious arguments in particular.
President of DDO
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 1:43:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/5/2011 1:31:40 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/5/2011 11:45:55 AM, tigg13 wrote:

(1) If God exists then he has necessary existence.
Why?

Isn't it possible for God to exist and yet still be completely unnecessary. This would be a deist type of God who had absolutely nothing to do with our universe's origin and couldn't care less about what we think or do.


...yeah, you're not understanding the sense of necessary here. He means it in a modal sense such that God exists out of metaphysical necessity.

(2) Either God has necessary existence or he doesn't.
Ok.

(3) If God doesn't have necessary existence, then he necessarily doesn't.
Why?


...Because something can't have necessary existence in one possible world while lacking it in another. Necessary truths hold across all possible worlds.

Even if God's existence wasn't necessary why would that mean that he couldn't have necessary existence? You are creating a false dichotomy.


...Not even close.

(4) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn't
This is your false dichotomy. Why isn't it possible that God may have necessary existence or He may not? The God from my earlier example would fit this description.


Again based on a misunderstanding.

(5) If God necessarily doesn't have necessary existence, then God necessarily doesn't exist. (from 1)
I've already shown that it is possible for God to exist even if His existence isn't necessary.


No, you haven't.

(6) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn't exist. (from 4 and 5)
Since both 4 and 5 are logically flawed, this statement has no value.


No, your criticisms are logically flawed.

(7) It is not the case that God necessarily doesn't exist.
Why?


Just because we can imagine God doesn't make His existence a possibility. For example, it has been suggested that God must exist outside of space and time - but if nothing can exist outside of space and time, then it is necessary that God does not exist.

So, you can imagine something that is NOT a logical/metaphysical possibility?


All you are really doing is asserting a God of the gaps. But, by the same reasoning that makes it impossible for non-believers to say 'there can't possibly be a God' you can't say 'God can't be impossible'.


...Ontological arguments are least valid targets out of any arguments for God that could be accused of "god of the gaps" reasoning.

(8) God has necessary existence. (from 6 and 7)
(9) If God has necessary existence, then God exists.
(10) God exists.

Bad premises lead to bad conclusions.
The argument fails.

If it does, you're not even close to showing it.

Fixed.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 4:36:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/5/2011 1:31:56 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 3/5/2011 10:01:39 AM, m93samman wrote:
Plantinga modal ontological argument? I'm mostly asking J.Kenyon because he's the big time guy on all this stuff

Lol. How does his **** taste? If there's someone to ask about religious arguments, it should probably ask the person who dedicates their time to studying (legit) religious arguments in particular.

Ouch. Sorry I respect him because of the time and effort he puts into his debates, and how much I've learned from reading them about philosophy and metaphysics.
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
tigg13
Posts: 302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 5:15:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/5/2011 12:11:07 PM, m93samman wrote:
At 3/5/2011 11:45:55 AM, tigg13 wrote:
At 3/5/2011 10:01:39 AM, m93samman wrote:
Plantinga modal ontological argument? I'm mostly asking J.Kenyon because he's the big time guy on all this stuff, but if anyone has any input to throw out there, please feel welcome.

(1) If God exists then he has necessary existence.
(2) Either God has necessary existence, or he doesn't.
(3) If God doesn't have necessary existence, then he necessarily doesn't.
Therefore:
(4) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn't. (from 2 and 3)
(5) If God necessarily doesn't have necessary existence, then God necessarily doesn't exist. (from 1)
Therefore:
(6) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn't exist. (from 4 and 5)
(7) It is not the case that God necessarily doesn't exist.
Therefore:
(8) God has necessary existence. (from 6 and 7)
(9) If God has necessary existence, then God exists.
Therefore:
(10) God exists. (from 8 and 9)

(1) If God exists then he has necessary existence.
Why?

Isn't it possible for God to exist and yet still be completely unnecessary. This would be a deist type of God who had absolutely nothing to do with our universe's origin and couldn't care less about what we think or do.

Being omnipotent, omnipresent, etc.

The definition of God according to a given religion X makes God necessary.

(2) Either God has necessary existence or he doesn't.
Ok.

(3) If God doesn't have necessary existence, then he necessarily doesn't.
Why?

Even if God's existence wasn't necessary why would that mean that he couldn't have necessary existence? You are creating a false dichotomy.

It's the law of the excluded middle. This is NOT a false dichotomy

(4) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn't
This is your false dichotomy. Why isn't it possible that God may have necessary existence or He may not? The God from my earlier example would fit this description.

You're negating the "false dichotomy" by asking why God can't fit either one prong or the other prong of the SAME dichotomy.

(5) If God necessarily doesn't have necessary existence, then God necessarily doesn't exist. (from 1)
I've already shown that it is possible for God to exist even if His existence isn't necessary.

Not really. You aren't very well-versed in philosophy is all you've proven.

(6) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn't exist. (from 4 and 5)
Since both 4 and 5 are logically flawed, this statement has no value.

See above.

(7) It is not the case that God necessarily doesn't exist.
Why?


Because we don't know for a fact that God does or does not exist...

(8) God has necessary existence. (from 6 and 7)
(9) If God has necessary existence, then God exists.
(10) God exists.

Bad premises lead to bad conclusions.
The argument fails.


Learn2logic

Ok, let me get this straight. You are beginning with a definition of God that excludes all Gods that don't necessarily exist so that God, by definition necessarily exists and then you're surprised when you conclude that God necessarily exists?

Could you explain to me how you can even presume that God doesn't exist if, by definition, His existence is necessary?

How does being being omnipotent, onmipresent and etc. make Him necessary?
(I'm beginning to get the feeling that there's more to Plantinga's argument than what you've presented { like maximal things being necessary and stuff} .

"(7) It is not the case that God necessarily doesn't exist.
Why?

Because we don't know for a fact that God does or does not exist... "

But you can say for a fact that either God's existence is absolutely necessary or it absolutely isn't?

You're right that I haven't received any formal training in modal logic, but I still know bullsh!t when I see it. And if there really isn't any flaws in your logic, then I can only conclude that modal logic is a big waste of time.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 5:27:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/5/2011 1:31:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/5/2011 12:37:29 PM, m93samman wrote:
At 3/5/2011 12:28:25 PM, Floid wrote:
So far the people who tried to refute it completely missed the point and failed badly.

If you understand the argument, you must accept all the premises except Premise 7. That is the only that can be challenged and of course, I do.

This.

I do have one question though -- why is (3) even part of the argument? The Law of No Contradiction is in effect (of course) so you can logically assume (3) from (1) or (2). Am I missing something -- does it actually contribute something to the argument or is it simply there for clarity?
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 5:38:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Why is this argument unique to God? Couldn't it be used to demonstrate the existence of anything that has necessary existence if it exists? Why is (1) assumed to be true?
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 5:49:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/5/2011 5:38:27 PM, Grape wrote:
Why is this argument unique to God? Couldn't it be used to demonstrate the existence of anything that has necessary existence if it exists? Why is (1) assumed to be true?

Necessary, as opposed to contingent.
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 5:52:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/5/2011 5:15:48 PM, tigg13 wrote:
Ok, let me get this straight. You are beginning with a definition of God that excludes all Gods that don't necessarily exist so that God, by definition necessarily exists and then you're surprised when you conclude that God necessarily exists?

lolwut


Could you explain to me how you can even presume that God doesn't exist if, by definition, His existence is necessary?

Why would you presume that God doesn't exist? The premise of the argument stems from the fact that IF God exists, he necessarily exists.


How does being being omnipotent, onmipresent and etc. make Him necessary?
(I'm beginning to get the feeling that there's more to Plantinga's argument than what you've presented { like maximal things being necessary and stuff} .

Necessary, as opposed to contingent. Use a dictionary.

"(7) It is not the case that God necessarily doesn't exist.
Why?

Because we don't know for a fact that God does or does not exist... "

But you can say for a fact that either God's existence is absolutely necessary or it absolutely isn't?

You aren't reading it right. The premise is *IF* God exists, *THEN* he exists necessarily.

You're right that I haven't received any formal training in modal logic, but I still know bullsh!t when I see it. And if there really isn't any flaws in your logic, then I can only conclude that modal logic is a big waste of time.

1) It's Alvin Plantinga's argument, not mine. You're calling bullsh!t on a prestigious philosopher after admitting you incompetence in the subject.

2) It's "bullsh!t", yet "there really isn't any flaws in [my] logic", so "modal logic is a big waste of time"... Dude. What?
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 5:55:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/5/2011 5:38:27 PM, Grape wrote:
Why is this argument unique to God? Couldn't it be used to demonstrate the existence of anything that has necessary existence if it exists? Why is (1) assumed to be true?

This particular argument could be but so what? There is more to his argument though.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 5:58:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/5/2011 5:27:14 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/5/2011 1:31:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/5/2011 12:37:29 PM, m93samman wrote:
At 3/5/2011 12:28:25 PM, Floid wrote:
So far the people who tried to refute it completely missed the point and failed badly.

If you understand the argument, you must accept all the premises except Premise 7. That is the only that can be challenged and of course, I do.

This.

I do have one question though -- why is (3) even part of the argument? The Law of No Contradiction is in effect (of course) so you can logically assume (3) from (1) or (2). Am I missing something -- does it actually contribute something to the argument or is it simply there for clarity?

*cough*
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 5:59:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/5/2011 10:01:39 AM, m93samman wrote:
Plantinga modal ontological argument? I'm mostly asking J.Kenyon because he's the big time guy on all this stuff, but if anyone has any input to throw out there, please feel welcome.

(1) If God exists then he has necessary existence.
(2) Either God has necessary existence, or he doesn't.
(3) If God doesn't have necessary existence, then he necessarily doesn't.
Therefore:
(4) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn't. (from 2 and 3)
(5) If God necessarily doesn't have necessary existence, then God necessarily doesn't exist. (from 1)
Therefore:
(6) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn't exist. (from 4 and 5)
(7) It is not the case that God necessarily doesn't exist.
Therefore:
(8) God has necessary existence. (from 6 and 7)
(9) If God has necessary existence, then God exists.
Therefore:
(10) God exists. (from 8 and 9)

BTW that's not really how Plantinga's argument goes.

"1) It is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2) It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3) Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4) Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
5) Therefore (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
6) Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists."
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 6:02:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/5/2011 5:58:04 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/5/2011 5:27:14 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/5/2011 1:31:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/5/2011 12:37:29 PM, m93samman wrote:
At 3/5/2011 12:28:25 PM, Floid wrote:
So far the people who tried to refute it completely missed the point and failed badly.

If you understand the argument, you must accept all the premises except Premise 7. That is the only that can be challenged and of course, I do.

This.

I do have one question though -- why is (3) even part of the argument? The Law of No Contradiction is in effect (of course) so you can logically assume (3) from (1) or (2). Am I missing something -- does it actually contribute something to the argument or is it simply there for clarity?

*cough*

Sorry. It's not exactly an important premise, but it helps to spell out why (4) is true.
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 6:03:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/5/2011 5:59:42 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/5/2011 10:01:39 AM, m93samman wrote:
Plantinga modal ontological argument? I'm mostly asking J.Kenyon because he's the big time guy on all this stuff, but if anyone has any input to throw out there, please feel welcome.

(1) If God exists then he has necessary existence.
(2) Either God has necessary existence, or he doesn't.
(3) If God doesn't have necessary existence, then he necessarily doesn't.
Therefore:
(4) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn't. (from 2 and 3)
(5) If God necessarily doesn't have necessary existence, then God necessarily doesn't exist. (from 1)
Therefore:
(6) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn't exist. (from 4 and 5)
(7) It is not the case that God necessarily doesn't exist.
Therefore:
(8) God has necessary existence. (from 6 and 7)
(9) If God has necessary existence, then God exists.
Therefore:
(10) God exists. (from 8 and 9)

BTW that's not really how Plantinga's argument goes.

"1) It is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2) It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3) Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4) Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
5) Therefore (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
6) Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists."

What is axiom S5?
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 6:12:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/5/2011 5:59:42 PM, popculturepooka wrote:

"1) It is proposed that an island has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipleasant, omnifun and wholly awesome in W; and
2) It is proposed that an island has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3) Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be an island that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4) Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omnipleasant, omnifun and perfectly awesome island exists.
5) Therefore (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omnipleasant, omnifun and perfectly awsome island exists.
6) Therefore, an omnipleasant, omnifun and perfectly awesome island exists."

Guanilo's overload argument.