Total Posts:86|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ontological argument Refutation?

Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 5:30:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I quote the website:
"From the latest edition of Philosophia Christi, Keith Yandell construes Plantinga's version of the ontological argument like so:

1. If it is possible that Necessarily, God exists, then Necessarily, God exists.

2. It is possible that Necessarily, God exists.

3. Therefore, Necessarily, God exists.

Likewise with propositions,

1. If it is possible that Necessarily, propositions exist, then Necessarily, propositions exist.

2. It is possible that Necessarily, propositions exist.

3. Therefore, Necessarily, propositions exist.

If theists are inclined to think the first argument is sound, then why not the second? Good question."
http://thebiconditionalblog.wordpress.com...

My personal question:
How is this nothing more than a grammatical error?

God by definition fits the criteria of possibly necessary.

The Ontological argument for propositions posed by Keith Yandell just supposes 'all' propositions rather than using the definite article 'a/an' thus making a proposition singular and specific. By Definition not all possible propositions are necessary.

It would be valid to read the following:
1. If it is possible that Necessarily, an undefined proposition is true, then Necessarily, the undefined proposition is true.

2. It is possible that Necessarily, this proposition is true.

3. Therefore, Necessarily, this proposition is true.

This would be a corrected version that is grammatically accurate.

Why would such an informed person post such an obvious grammatical error to refute the ontological?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 6:13:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
possible just mean who don't know it there is a contradiction...

necessary mean that is must be the case....

it end up meaning that we don't know if it is necessary..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 6:18:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
And there is no critira of what god is..

it doesn't say what god is.. a set of conditions.. is a set of conditions.. .

not that it matter... before the positives became unpopular.. they would jsut deny logic... they are only using it ..for the case if it works for them.. if is does not.. they will just go back to saying. what makes logic true... either way..
its not really much use.. they are only trying to capitialize.. but you have to remember this is only in the United States.. most of the world is done with that..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 8:27:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 5:30:05 PM, Gileandos wrote:
My personal question:
How is this nothing more than a grammatical error?

God by definition fits the criteria of possibly necessary.

The Ontological argument for propositions posed by Keith Yandell just supposes 'all' propositions rather than using the definite article 'a/an' thus making a proposition singular and specific. By Definition not all possible propositions are necessary.

It would be valid to read the following:
1. If it is possible that Necessarily, an undefined proposition is true, then Necessarily, the undefined proposition is true.

2. It is possible that Necessarily, this proposition is true.

3. Therefore, Necessarily, this proposition is true.

This would be a corrected version that is grammatically accurate.

Why would such an informed person post such an obvious grammatical error to refute the ontological?

By definition, many propositions, even contradictory ones, can be necessary. You can always create a scenario where the proposition is necessary. Therefore this ontological argument fails.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 8:36:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 8:27:47 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/31/2012 5:30:05 PM, Gileandos wrote:
My personal question:
How is this nothing more than a grammatical error?

God by definition fits the criteria of possibly necessary.

The Ontological argument for propositions posed by Keith Yandell just supposes 'all' propositions rather than using the definite article 'a/an' thus making a proposition singular and specific. By Definition not all possible propositions are necessary.

It would be valid to read the following:
1. If it is possible that Necessarily, an undefined proposition is true, then Necessarily, the undefined proposition is true.

2. It is possible that Necessarily, this proposition is true.

3. Therefore, Necessarily, this proposition is true.

This would be a corrected version that is grammatically accurate.

Why would such an informed person post such an obvious grammatical error to refute the ontological?

By definition, many propositions, even contradictory ones, can be necessary. You can always create a scenario where the proposition is necessary. Therefore this ontological argument fails.

God is by definition necessary.
A contradictory event is not necessary. Can you give an example of a inherently contradictory necessary event or being?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 10:02:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 8:36:53 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/31/2012 8:27:47 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/31/2012 5:30:05 PM, Gileandos wrote:
My personal question:
How is this nothing more than a grammatical error?

God by definition fits the criteria of possibly necessary.

The Ontological argument for propositions posed by Keith Yandell just supposes 'all' propositions rather than using the definite article 'a/an' thus making a proposition singular and specific. By Definition not all possible propositions are necessary.

It would be valid to read the following:
1. If it is possible that Necessarily, an undefined proposition is true, then Necessarily, the undefined proposition is true.

2. It is possible that Necessarily, this proposition is true.

3. Therefore, Necessarily, this proposition is true.

This would be a corrected version that is grammatically accurate.

Why would such an informed person post such an obvious grammatical error to refute the ontological?

By definition, many propositions, even contradictory ones, can be necessary. You can always create a scenario where the proposition is necessary. Therefore this ontological argument fails.

God is by definition necessary.
A contradictory event is not necessary. Can you give an example of a inherently contradictory necessary event or being?

Im talking about sets of individual propositions, which, by themselves, are not contradictory, but together, are.

For Example, the Christian God that is true to the bible, and the Muslim Allah that is true to the Quran. They can both be necessary, and individually, you can use the argument to validate their existance. But clearly they cant both exist. This is where the contradiction applies.
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 10:24:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 10:02:36 PM, tkubok wrote:
For Example, the Christian God that is true to the bible, and the Muslim Allah that is true to the Quran. They can both be necessary, and individually, you can use the argument to validate their existance. But clearly they cant both exist. This is where the contradiction applies.

Allah is the name of God in Arabic

Christains and Muslims may disagree about lots of details - but there is no dispute about existence of God.
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 11:23:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 10:24:36 PM, baggins wrote:

Christains and Muslims may disagree about lots of details - but there is no dispute about existence of God.
Atheists for one legitimately disagree!
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 11:27:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 11:23:31 PM, Composer wrote:
At 1/31/2012 10:24:36 PM, baggins wrote:

Christains and Muslims may disagree about lots of details - but there is no dispute about existence of God.
Atheists for one legitimately disagree!

I will close my eyes and breathe...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 1:27:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 8:36:53 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/31/2012 8:27:47 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/31/2012 5:30:05 PM, Gileandos wrote:
My personal question:
How is this nothing more than a grammatical error?

God by definition fits the criteria of possibly necessary.

The Ontological argument for propositions posed by Keith Yandell just supposes 'all' propositions rather than using the definite article 'a/an' thus making a proposition singular and specific. By Definition not all possible propositions are necessary.

Strange variant of the Ontological argument:

1. If it is possible that Necessarily, God exists, then Necessarily, God exists.

2. It is possible that Necessarily, God exists.

3. Therefore, Necessarily, God exists.

Island:

1. God is omnipresent.

2. If God exists somewhere (A), then he exists everywhere (B) (therefore A is a conditional subset of B)

3. Likewise, if God does not exist somewhere (A'), then he does not exist everywhere (B')
(therefore A is a conditional subset of B)
4. If it is possible that X exists, then it is possible that X does not exist.

5. Therefore, It is necessary that God exists and does not exist.

6. Therefore, God breaks the rules of logic.

7. ???

8. Profit.

But the point is you can use "God" for both the positive and the negative. This means A and A' are true, which breaks the law of non-contradiction.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 9:12:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 10:02:36 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/31/2012 8:36:53 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/31/2012 8:27:47 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/31/2012 5:30:05 PM, Gileandos wrote:
My personal question:
How is this nothing more than a grammatical error?

God by definition fits the criteria of possibly necessary.

The Ontological argument for propositions posed by Keith Yandell just supposes 'all' propositions rather than using the definite article 'a/an' thus making a proposition singular and specific. By Definition not all possible propositions are necessary.

It would be valid to read the following:
1. If it is possible that Necessarily, an undefined proposition is true, then Necessarily, the undefined proposition is true.

2. It is possible that Necessarily, this proposition is true.

3. Therefore, Necessarily, this proposition is true.

This would be a corrected version that is grammatically accurate.

Why would such an informed person post such an obvious grammatical error to refute the ontological?

By definition, many propositions, even contradictory ones, can be necessary. You can always create a scenario where the proposition is necessary. Therefore this ontological argument fails.

God is by definition necessary.
A contradictory event is not necessary. Can you give an example of a inherently contradictory necessary event or being?

Im talking about sets of individual propositions, which, by themselves, are not contradictory, but together, are.

For Example, the Christian God that is true to the bible, and the Muslim Allah that is true to the Quran. They can both be necessary, and individually, you can use the argument to validate their existance. But clearly they cant both exist. This is where the contradiction applies.

That would be an example of apparent contradiction. Apparent contradictions are resolved with more information. Remember I asked for an inherent contradictory example of a necessary entity.

1) Stone A is small. Stone A is Big. This is an inherent Contradiction.
2) Stone A is small to a human. Stone A is Big to an Ant. More information resolves a contradiction rendering it as only an apparent contradiction.

The Christian God and the Muslim concept of God are near identical. Any discrepancy would likely be resolved with more information. Any quality or difference in interaction would again be resolved with more information.

So you are saying you do not have an Inherently contradictory proposition that is necessary?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 9:38:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/1/2012 1:27:12 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 1/31/2012 8:36:53 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/31/2012 8:27:47 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/31/2012 5:30:05 PM, Gileandos wrote:
My personal question:
How is this nothing more than a grammatical error?

God by definition fits the criteria of possibly necessary.

The Ontological argument for propositions posed by Keith Yandell just supposes 'all' propositions rather than using the definite article 'a/an' thus making a proposition singular and specific. By Definition not all possible propositions are necessary.

Strange variant of the Ontological argument:

1. If it is possible that Necessarily, God exists, then Necessarily, God exists.

2. It is possible that Necessarily, God exists.

3. Therefore, Necessarily, God exists.

Island:

1. God is omnipresent.

2. If God exists somewhere (A), then he exists everywhere (B) (therefore A is a conditional subset of B)

3. Likewise, if God does not exist somewhere (A'), then he does not exist everywhere (B')
(therefore A is a conditional subset of B)
4. If it is possible that X exists, then it is possible that X does not exist.

5. Therefore, It is necessary that God exists and does not exist.

6. Therefore, God breaks the rules of logic.

7. ???

8. Profit.

But the point is you can use "God" for both the positive and the negative. This means A and A' are true, which breaks the law of non-contradiction.

You seem to be rewording the possible worlds argument.
http://www.doxa.ws...

Your above statement argument does not allow for 4 and 5 to follow:

2. If God exists somewhere (A), then he exists everywhere (B) (therefore A is a conditional subset of B)

3. Likewise, if God does not exist somewhere (A'), then he does not exist everywhere (B')
(therefore A is a conditional subset of B)
4. If it is possible that X exists, then it is possible that X does not exist.

4 Is not accurate. 2 & 3 describe a converse situation.
It is more accurately stated:
4: If it is possible God exists somewhere then He exists everywhere but if God does not exist somewhere then He does not exist anywhere.

The Possible worlds argument would be a better structure and allow for the more full explanation.
An ontological is known to be a fallacy when reversed. Many have tried it and as this OP suggests another failure at it. This one a grammatical issue.

To quote this article addressing the attempts to reverse the ontological:

"Michael Tooley try's to reverse Plantinga's argument by saying that a statement that is not self contradictory is true in some possible world. So to to say "there is no maximally great being"is true in some possible world. The statement "there may be a unicorn" must be true in some possible world because it could be true. But reversing Plantinga's logic, the talk about a maximally great being must apply to all possible worlds and so there cannot be a maximally great being! [this is in Dr. Baird's notes]"

"The reversal of an ontological argument, which many have attempted, goes back to he work of J.N. Findly in his classic argument with Hartshorne. Hartshorne convenced Findlay that the argument of reversal always leads to a ready inversion, so the OA is on again. I suggest that the principle of ontology always works toward reversing its oppossite but doesn't work work the other way around. In other words, anytime the OA is reversed it leads back to inversion. But if one reverses Findly or Tooley it does not. This is illustrated as follows:"

Nothing of what you stated though seemed to address Keith Yandell's direct proposal though. Your thoughts on Keith Yandell's attempt to turn the Ontological Argument on itself?
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 1:39:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 5:30:05 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I quote the website:
"From the latest edition of Philosophia Christi, Keith Yandell construes Plantinga's version of the ontological argument like so:

1. If it is possible that Necessarily, God exists, then Necessarily, God exists.

2. It is possible that Necessarily, God exists.

3. Therefore, Necessarily, God exists.

P1: If it is possible that god necessarily does not exist, then god necessarily does not exist.
P2: It is possible that god necessarily does not exist.
C: Therefore, god necessarily does not exist.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 1:44:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/1/2012 1:39:42 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 1/31/2012 5:30:05 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I quote the website:
"From the latest edition of Philosophia Christi, Keith Yandell construes Plantinga's version of the ontological argument like so:

1. If it is possible that Necessarily, God exists, then Necessarily, God exists.

2. It is possible that Necessarily, God exists.

3. Therefore, Necessarily, God exists.

P1: If it is possible that god necessarily does not exist, then god necessarily does not exist.
P2: It is possible that god necessarily does not exist.
C: Therefore, god necessarily does not exist.

Thank you for joining the discussion sir!

That retort misses the definition of necessary. Necessary = self existent or exists by necessity of their own nature.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

The converse syllogism is not possible, and fails, as God does not necessarily NOT exist as a part of His own nature.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 4:34:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/1/2012 1:44:52 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 2/1/2012 1:39:42 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 1/31/2012 5:30:05 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I quote the website:
"From the latest edition of Philosophia Christi, Keith Yandell construes Plantinga's version of the ontological argument like so:

1. If it is possible that Necessarily, God exists, then Necessarily, God exists.

2. It is possible that Necessarily, God exists.

3. Therefore, Necessarily, God exists.

P1: If it is possible that god necessarily does not exist, then god necessarily does not exist.
P2: It is possible that god necessarily does not exist.
C: Therefore, god necessarily does not exist.

Thank you for joining the discussion sir!

That retort misses the definition of necessary. Necessary = self existent or exists by necessity of their own nature.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

The converse syllogism is not possible, and fails, as God does not necessarily NOT exist as a part of His own nature.

Interesting...
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 2:02:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 11:27:37 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/31/2012 11:23:31 PM, Composer wrote:
At 1/31/2012 10:24:36 PM, baggins wrote:

Christains and Muslims may disagree about lots of details - but there is no dispute about existence of God.
Atheists for one legitimately disagree!

I will close my eyes and breathe...

You can open your eyes now...
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 8:03:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
1. If it is possible that Necessarily, God exists, then Necessarily, God exists.

We can stop right here. If it is possible that God's existence is necessary then it is also possible that God's existence is not necessary. Otherwise, why use the word "possible" in the first place?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 9:03:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/1/2012 9:12:39 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/31/2012 10:02:36 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/31/2012 8:36:53 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/31/2012 8:27:47 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/31/2012 5:30:05 PM, Gileandos wrote:
My personal question:
How is this nothing more than a grammatical error?

God by definition fits the criteria of possibly necessary.

The Ontological argument for propositions posed by Keith Yandell just supposes 'all' propositions rather than using the definite article 'a/an' thus making a proposition singular and specific. By Definition not all possible propositions are necessary.

It would be valid to read the following:
1. If it is possible that Necessarily, an undefined proposition is true, then Necessarily, the undefined proposition is true.

2. It is possible that Necessarily, this proposition is true.

3. Therefore, Necessarily, this proposition is true.

This would be a corrected version that is grammatically accurate.

Why would such an informed person post such an obvious grammatical error to refute the ontological?

By definition, many propositions, even contradictory ones, can be necessary. You can always create a scenario where the proposition is necessary. Therefore this ontological argument fails.

God is by definition necessary.
A contradictory event is not necessary. Can you give an example of a inherently contradictory necessary event or being?

Im talking about sets of individual propositions, which, by themselves, are not contradictory, but together, are.

For Example, the Christian God that is true to the bible, and the Muslim Allah that is true to the Quran. They can both be necessary, and individually, you can use the argument to validate their existance. But clearly they cant both exist. This is where the contradiction applies.

That would be an example of apparent contradiction. Apparent contradictions are resolved with more information. Remember I asked for an inherent contradictory example of a necessary entity.

1) Stone A is small. Stone A is Big. This is an inherent Contradiction.
2) Stone A is small to a human. Stone A is Big to an Ant. More information resolves a contradiction rendering it as only an apparent contradiction.

The Christian God and the Muslim concept of God are near identical. Any discrepancy would likely be resolved with more information. Any quality or difference in interaction would again be resolved with more information.

Which is why i prefixed my proposition with "Which is true to the bible/Quran". The quran states that Jesus was not God but was merely a prophet. The Bible, speciifcially the Pauline epistles, claim that Jesus was God. This is a clear contradiction.

So you are saying you do not have an Inherently contradictory proposition that is necessary?

Both the Quran God and the Biblical God can be necessary, but contradictory.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 9:16:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 8:03:15 AM, Floid wrote:
1. If it is possible that Necessarily, God exists, then Necessarily, God exists.

We can stop right here. If it is possible that God's existence is necessary then it is also possible that God's existence is not necessary. Otherwise, why use the word "possible" in the first place?

Wiploc pointed to this a few posts up as well.

The definition of Necessary = self existent, exists by necessity of its own nature.
This is the opposite of contingent = caused or existence dependent upon something else.

Not existing is NOT a part of the nature of God.

Like metaphysical numbers exist necessarily. They exist in and of themselves and are not contingent on anything else existing.
Numbers are self existent. You cannot say that NOT existing is a part of a numbers nature.

So 1: is affirmed.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 9:18:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 9:16:02 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 2/2/2012 8:03:15 AM, Floid wrote:
1. If it is possible that Necessarily, God exists, then Necessarily, God exists.

We can stop right here. If it is possible that God's existence is necessary then it is also possible that God's existence is not necessary. Otherwise, why use the word "possible" in the first place?

Wiploc pointed to this a few posts up as well.

The definition of Necessary = self existent, exists by necessity of its own nature.
This is the opposite of contingent = caused or existence dependent upon something else.

Not existing is NOT a part of the nature of God.:

But you are inventing these rules out of thin air. You presuppose all these alleged necessities and attributes to God, all of which you cannot know empirically, let alone prove.

In essense, it's conjecture, which leaves you right back at square one.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 9:35:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 9:03:39 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 2/1/2012 9:12:39 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/31/2012 10:02:36 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/31/2012 8:36:53 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/31/2012 8:27:47 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/31/2012 5:30:05 PM, Gileandos wrote:
My personal question:
How is this nothing more than a grammatical error?

God by definition fits the criteria of possibly necessary.

The Ontological argument for propositions posed by Keith Yandell just supposes 'all' propositions rather than using the definite article 'a/an' thus making a proposition singular and specific. By Definition not all possible propositions are necessary.

It would be valid to read the following:
1. If it is possible that Necessarily, an undefined proposition is true, then Necessarily, the undefined proposition is true.

2. It is possible that Necessarily, this proposition is true.

3. Therefore, Necessarily, this proposition is true.

This would be a corrected version that is grammatically accurate.

Why would such an informed person post such an obvious grammatical error to refute the ontological?

By definition, many propositions, even contradictory ones, can be necessary. You can always create a scenario where the proposition is necessary. Therefore this ontological argument fails.

God is by definition necessary.
A contradictory event is not necessary. Can you give an example of a inherently contradictory necessary event or being?

Im talking about sets of individual propositions, which, by themselves, are not contradictory, but together, are.

For Example, the Christian God that is true to the bible, and the Muslim Allah that is true to the Quran. They can both be necessary, and individually, you can use the argument to validate their existance. But clearly they cant both exist. This is where the contradiction applies.

That would be an example of apparent contradiction. Apparent contradictions are resolved with more information. Remember I asked for an inherent contradictory example of a necessary entity.

1) Stone A is small. Stone A is Big. This is an inherent Contradiction.
2) Stone A is small to a human. Stone A is Big to an Ant. More information resolves a contradiction rendering it as only an apparent contradiction.

The Christian God and the Muslim concept of God are near identical. Any discrepancy would likely be resolved with more information. Any quality or difference in interaction would again be resolved with more information.

Which is why i prefixed my proposition with "Which is true to the bible/Quran". The quran states that Jesus was not God but was merely a prophet. The Bible, speciifcially the Pauline epistles, claim that Jesus was God. This is a clear contradiction.

So you are saying you do not have an Inherently contradictory proposition that is necessary?

Both the Quran God and the Biblical God can be necessary, but contradictory.

Again, that is not how 'subjects' are approached. It is only apparently contradictory. If the Quran is inaccurate for example there is no inherent contradiction.

To make such a claim based upon a limited deduction is fallacious.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 9:58:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 9:18:24 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 2/2/2012 9:16:02 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 2/2/2012 8:03:15 AM, Floid wrote:
1. If it is possible that Necessarily, God exists, then Necessarily, God exists.

We can stop right here. If it is possible that God's existence is necessary then it is also possible that God's existence is not necessary. Otherwise, why use the word "possible" in the first place?

Wiploc pointed to this a few posts up as well.

The definition of Necessary = self existent, exists by necessity of its own nature.
This is the opposite of contingent = caused or existence dependent upon something else.

Not existing is NOT a part of the nature of God.:

But you are inventing these rules out of thin air. You presuppose all these alleged necessities and attributes to God, all of which you cannot know empirically, let alone prove.

In essense, it's conjecture, which leaves you right back at square one.

Did I invent self existent metaphysical numbers? You give me much credit!

Did I create out of thin air the definition of a metaphysical self existent God? You give me way too much credit!

Like numbers whose existence are not contingent upon any other action or 'thing' so is God defined. He is a metaphysical self existent mind. His existence is not contingent upon a creator.
Numbers are a 'real' world example of self existent. It is not just made up.

- clear evidence for a Metaphysical God:
We see metaphysical objects exist.
We see metaphysical minds exist.
We see a process of communication and interaction between minds that is not physical in nature.

Given that we have strong evidence for this Premise we can definitely conclude it is valid.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 12:12:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Not existing is NOT a part of the nature of God.

How do you know this?

It seems to me the whole ontological argument is a play one words. The support of it defines God as having to exist and then says "See he has to exist!". Not very convincing, especially since if you can insert any vague, metaphysical idea for the word "God" in the argument and then claim you have proved it true.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 12:33:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 12:12:42 PM, Floid wrote:
Not existing is NOT a part of the nature of God.

How do you know this?

It seems to me the whole ontological argument is a play one words. The support of it defines God as having to exist and then says "See he has to exist!". Not very convincing, especially since if you can insert any vague, metaphysical idea for the word "God" in the argument and then claim you have proved it true.

And that would be a presupposition on your part. The premises are defined rigidly as a process of philosophy. A persons unfamiliarity with the rigidity of Philosophy should never act as a deterrent for an argument.

We look to real objects like numbers to see what metaphysical necessary objects function like. There is actual evidence. It is not as you claim merely "defining God as self existent". You could never say it is in the nature of a number NOT to be caused. They are not contingent upon any other thing. We have evidence of uncaused real world metaphysical objects to support this principle.

When we view God we see the metaphysical nature of numbers can be applied to him.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 1:09:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 9:35:11 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 2/2/2012 9:03:39 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 2/1/2012 9:12:39 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/31/2012 10:02:36 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/31/2012 8:36:53 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/31/2012 8:27:47 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/31/2012 5:30:05 PM, Gileandos wrote:
My personal question:
How is this nothing more than a grammatical error?

God by definition fits the criteria of possibly necessary.

The Ontological argument for propositions posed by Keith Yandell just supposes 'all' propositions rather than using the definite article 'a/an' thus making a proposition singular and specific. By Definition not all possible propositions are necessary.

It would be valid to read the following:
1. If it is possible that Necessarily, an undefined proposition is true, then Necessarily, the undefined proposition is true.

2. It is possible that Necessarily, this proposition is true.

3. Therefore, Necessarily, this proposition is true.

This would be a corrected version that is grammatically accurate.

Why would such an informed person post such an obvious grammatical error to refute the ontological?

By definition, many propositions, even contradictory ones, can be necessary. You can always create a scenario where the proposition is necessary. Therefore this ontological argument fails.

God is by definition necessary.
A contradictory event is not necessary. Can you give an example of a inherently contradictory necessary event or being?

Im talking about sets of individual propositions, which, by themselves, are not contradictory, but together, are.

For Example, the Christian God that is true to the bible, and the Muslim Allah that is true to the Quran. They can both be necessary, and individually, you can use the argument to validate their existance. But clearly they cant both exist. This is where the contradiction applies.

That would be an example of apparent contradiction. Apparent contradictions are resolved with more information. Remember I asked for an inherent contradictory example of a necessary entity.

1) Stone A is small. Stone A is Big. This is an inherent Contradiction.
2) Stone A is small to a human. Stone A is Big to an Ant. More information resolves a contradiction rendering it as only an apparent contradiction.

The Christian God and the Muslim concept of God are near identical. Any discrepancy would likely be resolved with more information. Any quality or difference in interaction would again be resolved with more information.

Which is why i prefixed my proposition with "Which is true to the bible/Quran". The quran states that Jesus was not God but was merely a prophet. The Bible, speciifcially the Pauline epistles, claim that Jesus was God. This is a clear contradiction.

So you are saying you do not have an Inherently contradictory proposition that is necessary?

Both the Quran God and the Biblical God can be necessary, but contradictory.

Again, that is not how 'subjects' are approached. It is only apparently contradictory. If the Quran is inaccurate for example there is no inherent contradiction.

Yes, and if the bible is innaccurate, for example, there is also no inherent contradiction. The problem here is that you cannot show how one is innacurate and the other accurate, without someone else showing you how the opposite is true. Muslims can show how the quran is accurate and the bible is innaccurate and christians can show how the bible is accurate and the quran is not. They are both right and both wrong, since neither the Quran or Bible is completely accurate which necessitates interpretation. But until this is solved, unless you can show conclusively how one is accurate and the other is not, then your objection is invalid.

To make such a claim based upon a limited deduction is fallacious.

nope, the evidence is clear. Both the Quran and Bible have accurate and innacurate properties that force their believers to interpret the passages. Therefore neither has the upper hand, and since both Gods are necessary for each religion, this argument produces contradiction.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 1:13:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 1:09:32 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 2/2/2012 9:35:11 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 2/2/2012 9:03:39 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 2/1/2012 9:12:39 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/31/2012 10:02:36 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/31/2012 8:36:53 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/31/2012 8:27:47 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/31/2012 5:30:05 PM, Gileandos wrote:
My personal question:
How is this nothing more than a grammatical error?

God by definition fits the criteria of possibly necessary.

The Ontological argument for propositions posed by Keith Yandell just supposes 'all' propositions rather than using the definite article 'a/an' thus making a proposition singular and specific. By Definition not all possible propositions are necessary.

It would be valid to read the following:
1. If it is possible that Necessarily, an undefined proposition is true, then Necessarily, the undefined proposition is true.

2. It is possible that Necessarily, this proposition is true.

3. Therefore, Necessarily, this proposition is true.

This would be a corrected version that is grammatically accurate.

Why would such an informed person post such an obvious grammatical error to refute the ontological?

By definition, many propositions, even contradictory ones, can be necessary. You can always create a scenario where the proposition is necessary. Therefore this ontological argument fails.

God is by definition necessary.
A contradictory event is not necessary. Can you give an example of a inherently contradictory necessary event or being?

Im talking about sets of individual propositions, which, by themselves, are not contradictory, but together, are.

For Example, the Christian God that is true to the bible, and the Muslim Allah that is true to the Quran. They can both be necessary, and individually, you can use the argument to validate their existance. But clearly they cant both exist. This is where the contradiction applies.

That would be an example of apparent contradiction. Apparent contradictions are resolved with more information. Remember I asked for an inherent contradictory example of a necessary entity.

1) Stone A is small. Stone A is Big. This is an inherent Contradiction.
2) Stone A is small to a human. Stone A is Big to an Ant. More information resolves a contradiction rendering it as only an apparent contradiction.

The Christian God and the Muslim concept of God are near identical. Any discrepancy would likely be resolved with more information. Any quality or difference in interaction would again be resolved with more information.

Which is why i prefixed my proposition with "Which is true to the bible/Quran". The quran states that Jesus was not God but was merely a prophet. The Bible, speciifcially the Pauline epistles, claim that Jesus was God. This is a clear contradiction.

So you are saying you do not have an Inherently contradictory proposition that is necessary?

Both the Quran God and the Biblical God can be necessary, but contradictory.

Again, that is not how 'subjects' are approached. It is only apparently contradictory. If the Quran is inaccurate for example there is no inherent contradiction.

Yes, and if the bible is innaccurate, for example, there is also no inherent contradiction. The problem here is that you cannot show how one is innacurate and the other accurate, without someone else showing you how the opposite is true. Muslims can show how the quran is accurate and the bible is innaccurate and christians can show how the bible is accurate and the quran is not. They are both right and both wrong, since neither the Quran or Bible is completely accurate which necessitates interpretation. But until this is solved, unless you can show conclusively how one is accurate and the other is not, then your objection is invalid.

Research, study, deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning and analysis will allow you to determine the validity of any claim.


To make such a claim based upon a limited deduction is fallacious.

nope, the evidence is clear. Both the Quran and Bible have accurate and innacurate properties that force their believers to interpret the passages. Therefore neither has the upper hand, and since both Gods are necessary for each religion, this argument produces contradiction.

That is not a legitimate definition of contradiction. It is a subjective "as you see it" contradiction. That =/= legitimate contradiction.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 3:10:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 1:13:47 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 2/2/2012 1:09:32 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 2/2/2012 9:35:11 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 2/2/2012 9:03:39 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 2/1/2012 9:12:39 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/31/2012 10:02:36 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/31/2012 8:36:53 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/31/2012 8:27:47 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/31/2012 5:30:05 PM, Gileandos wrote:
My personal question:
How is this nothing more than a grammatical error?

God by definition fits the criteria of possibly necessary.

The Ontological argument for propositions posed by Keith Yandell just supposes 'all' propositions rather than using the definite article 'a/an' thus making a proposition singular and specific. By Definition not all possible propositions are necessary.

It would be valid to read the following:
1. If it is possible that Necessarily, an undefined proposition is true, then Necessarily, the undefined proposition is true.

2. It is possible that Necessarily, this proposition is true.

3. Therefore, Necessarily, this proposition is true.

This would be a corrected version that is grammatically accurate.

Why would such an informed person post such an obvious grammatical error to refute the ontological?

By definition, many propositions, even contradictory ones, can be necessary. You can always create a scenario where the proposition is necessary. Therefore this ontological argument fails.

God is by definition necessary.
A contradictory event is not necessary. Can you give an example of a inherently contradictory necessary event or being?

Im talking about sets of individual propositions, which, by themselves, are not contradictory, but together, are.

For Example, the Christian God that is true to the bible, and the Muslim Allah that is true to the Quran. They can both be necessary, and individually, you can use the argument to validate their existance. But clearly they cant both exist. This is where the contradiction applies.

That would be an example of apparent contradiction. Apparent contradictions are resolved with more information. Remember I asked for an inherent contradictory example of a necessary entity.

1) Stone A is small. Stone A is Big. This is an inherent Contradiction.
2) Stone A is small to a human. Stone A is Big to an Ant. More information resolves a contradiction rendering it as only an apparent contradiction.

The Christian God and the Muslim concept of God are near identical. Any discrepancy would likely be resolved with more information. Any quality or difference in interaction would again be resolved with more information.

Which is why i prefixed my proposition with "Which is true to the bible/Quran". The quran states that Jesus was not God but was merely a prophet. The Bible, speciifcially the Pauline epistles, claim that Jesus was God. This is a clear contradiction.

So you are saying you do not have an Inherently contradictory proposition that is necessary?

Both the Quran God and the Biblical God can be necessary, but contradictory.

Again, that is not how 'subjects' are approached. It is only apparently contradictory. If the Quran is inaccurate for example there is no inherent contradiction.

Yes, and if the bible is innaccurate, for example, there is also no inherent contradiction. The problem here is that you cannot show how one is innacurate and the other accurate, without someone else showing you how the opposite is true. Muslims can show how the quran is accurate and the bible is innaccurate and christians can show how the bible is accurate and the quran is not. They are both right and both wrong, since neither the Quran or Bible is completely accurate which necessitates interpretation. But until this is solved, unless you can show conclusively how one is accurate and the other is not, then your objection is invalid.

Research, study, deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning and analysis will allow you to determine the validity of any claim.
What does any of that have to do with the fact that both the bible and the quran contain correct and incorrect aspects?

To make such a claim based upon a limited deduction is fallacious.

nope, the evidence is clear. Both the Quran and Bible have accurate and innacurate properties that force their believers to interpret the passages. Therefore neither has the upper hand, and since both Gods are necessary for each religion, this argument produces contradiction.

That is not a legitimate definition of contradiction. It is a subjective "as you see it" contradiction. That =/= legitimate contradiction.

I never said that that was why it contradicts. I wrote that as a response to your objection, which was that if one is wrong and the other is right, then there is no contradiction. Yet, you cannot show how one is wrong and the other is right. So they are either both wrong, or both right. Since they cannot be both right, but they can be both wrong, this argument supports the claim that they are both wrong.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 4:10:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm curious. Could there be such a thing as a "maximal tomato" where the term is defined as a necessary entity which, when time-space considerations allow it, takes the corporeal form of fruit?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 5:19:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 4:10:31 PM, Wnope wrote:
I'm curious. Could there be such a thing as a "maximal tomato" where the term is defined as a necessary entity which, when time-space considerations allow it, takes the corporeal form of fruit?

If you do not mind committing a redefine fallacy.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 5:26:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 5:19:36 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 2/2/2012 4:10:31 PM, Wnope wrote:
I'm curious. Could there be such a thing as a "maximal tomato" where the term is defined as a necessary entity which, when time-space considerations allow it, takes the corporeal form of fruit?

If you do not mind committing a redefine fallacy.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org...

Snobbery at its best....
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau