Total Posts:60|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Objections to ontological arguments

emospongebob527
Posts: 790
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 5:40:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I need some brief objections to modal logic and ontological arguments. I am looking for any counter-apologists to help me out, this is for a PP I am in the process of making.

Here are a few models;

Anselm's;

1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2. The idea of God exists in the mind.
3. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being"that which exists in reality.
5. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
6. Therefore, God exists.

Sadra's;

1. There is existence
2. Existence is a perfection above which no perfection may be conceived
3. God is perfection and perfection in existence
4. Existence is a singular and simple reality; there is no metaphysical pluralism
5. That singular reality is graded in intensity in a scale of perfection (that is, a denial of a pure monism).
6. That scale must have a limit point, a point of greatest intensity and of greatest existence.
7. Hence God exists.

Godel's;

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive.
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B.
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified.
Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.
Axiom 2: Any property entailed by"i.e., strictly implied by"a positive property is positive.
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive.
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive.
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive.
Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive.
Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.

Plantinga's;

1.A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is 2. omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
3. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
4. It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
5. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
6. Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
7. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
"not to toot my own horn (it aint need no tooin if u know what im saying), but my writings on "viciousness: the one true viture (fancy spelling for virtue)" and my poem "A poem I wrote about DDO" put me in a class of my damn own. im just an UNRECONGIZED geniuse" -bananafana
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 5:46:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm not an expert, but I could have a go at a few. What kind of rebuttals are you looking for?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
emospongebob527
Posts: 790
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 5:49:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 5:46:13 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
I'm not an expert, but I could have a go at a few. What kind of rebuttals are you looking for?

Sound ones, lol.
"not to toot my own horn (it aint need no tooin if u know what im saying), but my writings on "viciousness: the one true viture (fancy spelling for virtue)" and my poem "A poem I wrote about DDO" put me in a class of my damn own. im just an UNRECONGIZED geniuse" -bananafana
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 5:59:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 5:40:57 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
I need some brief objections to modal logic and ontological arguments. I am looking for any counter-apologists to help me out, this is for a PP I am in the process of making.

What's a PP? If I provide any good points, source me? ;)


Here are a few models;

Anselm's;

1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.

Fair enough.

2. The idea of God exists in the mind.

It does.

3. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.

So if the idea of Allah exists in the mind, and the idea of Hitler exists in the mind and in reality, then Hitler is greater than Allah?

4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being"that which exists in reality.

This is supposed to follow from 3, correct? This means that if the God of the mind also exists in reality, it would be the greatest, but if it doesn't exist in reality, then some lesser being, which is to say, it would be lesser if the God of the mind existed in reality also, should be called God? What properties would entail this being? I guess it wouldn't necessarily be a creator of anything, or necessarily transcendent. A few of the things which people assign to the being called "God".

5. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.

Wait. So we could imagine any kind of being, a creator, a transcendent being, but any being we imagine, which isn't also real, would be less great than any real being we can imagine? This also doesn't really explain what God is.

6. Therefore, God exists.


Which is practically meaningless here. It says; the greatest being you can think of, whom also exists, happens to exist. If you think of the Christian God, and it doesn't exist, then that god is not called God, and supposedly according to [3], Hitler is a greater being.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 6:09:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 5:40:57 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:

1. There is existence

There is.

2. Existence is a perfection above which no perfection may be conceived

A what now? What is perfection? How can you claim existence is perfection? Isn't perfection subjective?

3. God is perfection and perfection in existence

Is God also conscious?

4. Existence is a singular and simple reality; there is no metaphysical pluralism

I agree, but I've heard others question this.

5. That singular reality is graded in intensity in a scale of perfection (that is, a denial of a pure monism).

Needs support.

6. That scale must have a limit point, a point of greatest intensity and of greatest existence.

Must it have a limit point? If it has a limit point, and that is God, does that mean God is limited? Can a limited being be perfect?

7. Hence God exists.

And all "God" is is some perfection of perfection. This hasn't show that "God" is conscious, transcendent or a creator of the universe. Why can such a thing "God"?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 6:10:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Before I answer any more, what is a PP?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 6:28:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Plantinga's is the only one worth responding to. My rebuttal would be to argue that being agnostic on the third premise is the most reasonable response. There is a difference between epistemic possibility, and the modal possibility in question. In everyday language, if we say "x" is possible, what were are really saying is:

(i) "x" could be possible, it could be impossible; we just do not know

However, with the modal possibility in question, if one says "x" is possible what they are really doing is making positive claims that:

(ii) "x" is possible, and "x" is not impossible

Therefore, in order for the theist to meet their burden of proof they would have to show that a maximally great being is not impossible. How would the theist go about showing that a maximally great being is not impossible? First, by ruling out things that as make God impossible, by showing those things as impossible themselves. Only then can we say that God is not impossible, and thus possible. What things would make a maximally great being (who exists necessarily) impossible? Non-sentient worlds would be a good example. Unless the theist can rule out non-sentient worlds as impossible (without begging the question by assuming God exists in every possible world already), then we have no reason to accept that the third premise of the Modal Ontological Argument is true. Thus, being agnostic on the premise is the most reasonable conclusion (unless someone comes along with an argument that shows a maximally great being is impossible).
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 6:37:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 5:40:57 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
I need some brief objections to modal logic and ontological arguments. I am looking for any counter-apologists to help me out, this is for a PP I am in the process of making.

Here are a few models;

Anselm's;

1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2. The idea of God exists in the mind.

Well, I don't think our idea of God is anything like what God actually is. So we really don't have an accurate idea of God in our heads.

3. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.

True

4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being"that which exists in reality.

How can you conceive of a greater being that actually exists in reality if that being may not actually exist in reality? So maybe God that actually exists in reality is not one of the conceivable beings. The best you can do is in your world of imagination imagine that this being exists in reality. But that does not make it exist in reality. Plus this argument is trying to add real-world traits to a concept that is purely in the imagination. I am not sure that is valid philosophically.

5. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
6. Therefore, God exists.

For example here is a good counter-argument.

Our understanding of SuperClown is a non-omni-max being who has traits consistent with clowns, and is the greatest clown imaginable.
The idea of SuperClown exists in the mind.
A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
We cannot be imagining a non-omni-max clown that is greater than SuperClown.
Therefore, SuperClown exists.

Sadra's;

1. There is existence

True.

2. Existence is a perfection above which no perfection may be conceived

A happy existence is such a perfection, not necessarily existence itself. Plus, how are we defining perfection? We can call existence great, but I wouldn't call it perfect.

3. God is perfection and perfection in existence

Yes, the idea of God is. That doesn't mean this God exists.

4. Existence is a singular and simple reality; there is no metaphysical pluralism

True.

5. That singular reality is graded in intensity in a scale of perfection (that is, a denial of a pure monism).

True, although perfection is partially defined by the way we feel about things which is subjective.

6. That scale must have a limit point, a point of greatest intensity and of greatest existence.

What if the scale is infinite? Maybe there is no top point. Just because the idea of God is defined to be perfect and we can mentally conceive of a maximum perfection doesn't mean that God must then exists. How do we know perfection even exists? And just because something is perfect in one way doesn't mean it is perfect in any way.

7. Hence God exists.

Bad conclusion.

Godel's;

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive.
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B.
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified.
Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.
Axiom 2: Any property entailed by"i.e., strictly implied by"a positive property is positive.
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive.
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive.
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive.
Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive.
Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.

I am not going to true to muddle through this one. Put it is simpler terms. I bet it is like the other "proof" just more complicated.

Plantinga's;

1.A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is 2. omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and

Well, according to determinism there is only one effect from one cause, so from the beginning of the universe there was only one possible result from this beginning. So there is only one possible universe.

3. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
4. It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)

What is the definition of possible world here? I though a possible world is one that could be produced from a real one. Just because it is possible there is a being of maximal greatness does not mean it could be produced from a real world (exist in a possible world). We are only saying this being is possible because we haven't disproven it yet. But that doesn't mean that this being could be produced from a real world. For all we know, there is no way of producing God.

5. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
6. Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
7. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

Yes, since God exists in possible world, and since the conception of him means he exists in all possible worlds, then he must exist in a possible world. Here are a counter-argument.

1.A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is 2. omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
3. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
4. It is possible that there is not a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
5. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being does not exists.
6. Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exists.
7. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist.

The argument for God's existence noted that this being is defined as existing in all possible worlds. Therefore if this being exist, it exists in all possible worlds, and if it doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist in any world because existing in only some possible worlds contradicts its definition. Since God exists in a possible world, God cannot not exist, therefore he exists.

My counter-argument notes that it is possible that God does not exist, therefore there is a possible world where God does not exist. Since if God exists, he exists in all possible worlds, then God must exist. So we can use this argument to prove God does and does not exist. We can also prove that a whole bunch of other things we define to exist in all possible worlds must necessarily exist. For example, a talking dog that exists in all possible worlds.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 6:38:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Plantinga's;

1.A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is 2. omnipotent, omniscient and wholly bad in W; and
3. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
4. It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
5. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly bad being exists.
6. Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly bad being exists.
7. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly bad being exists.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
emospongebob527
Posts: 790
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 8:37:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 6:10:59 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Before I answer any more, what is a PP?

A power point.
"not to toot my own horn (it aint need no tooin if u know what im saying), but my writings on "viciousness: the one true viture (fancy spelling for virtue)" and my poem "A poem I wrote about DDO" put me in a class of my damn own. im just an UNRECONGIZED geniuse" -bananafana
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 9:26:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 5:40:57 PM, emospongebob527 wrote:
I need some brief objections to modal logic and ontological arguments. I am looking for any counter-apologists to help me out, this is for a PP I am in the process of making.

Here are a few models;

Anselm's;

1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2. The idea of God exists in the mind.
3. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being"that which exists in reality.
5. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
6. Therefore, God exists.


Non-sequitur. Imagining something does not prove God exists. Begs the question in P1, in that it is not our "understanding of God", it is our "idea of God is..." P5 is unsupported, simply asserting that we can't imagine something greater, only on the basis that our idea is that it's the greatest. It's akin to saying that you can't have fifty dollars, because I have the idea of "all the monies" in my mind. Reality does not conform to what we have thought.

Anselm's was alwas weak sauce. "I thought of it, so it must be real, because I defined it as real when I thought of it!"

Godel's and Sadra's are hot messes, do you really need help picking them apart?


Plantinga's;

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

Premise 4 is unsupported for the following reason:

1. Under possible world framework, the requirements for a possible world are only that it be self-consistent.
2. A world without a God can be self-consistent.
C. Therefore there are possible worlds without Gods.

Under C1, Plantinga's Premise 4 is impossible. If there are possible worlds without a God, then there cannot be a being which exists whose definitional requirements are that he exist in all possible worlds.

--------

All Ontological arguments try to bridge the gap between "because I thought of X" to "X is real". You cannot simply get from idea to reality, there must be some grounds for that reality.

The concept of Maximal greatness as generally defined is not possible under the "possible worlds" framework, because it begs its own question, and makes worlds impossible on purely definitional grounds, as opposed to logical ones.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 10:44:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Here's a blog post I did about it. Hope you find it useful.

http://doubtingdave.com...
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 11:25:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hi Dan, Emospongebob,

I can't wrap my head around modal logic although I do understand the Laws of Logic - the Law of Identity, Contradiction and Middle Exclusion. I would however like to add my two cents to the pot. I think the ontological argument makes sense from the point that making sense of anything requires necessary being. I would argue that neither you nor I are necessary beings. I believe our being is dependent on that of a greater being for a number of reasons, one of them being that chance has no being and therefore cannot be behind things that are. After all, either this universe is here because of Being or it is here because of chance.

There is no reason why a universe can come into existence by chance - none, let alone sustain itself. That would be to borrow from Van Til's Uniformity of Nature argument. If there is no intent behind the universe there is no reason why things would be sustainable or there be such a thing as a law (something that is constant/consistent).

If you take a dice and throw it 1 million times expecting the same result (same numbers to appear every time) without certain fixed variables and intention, well, that is mildly insane. But it is reasonable to believe that if a dice can be thrown consistently, with intent, with the same rotation and force, and all the other variables needed, then it would be possible. But as soon as we even talk about throwing a dice we have supposed intent anyway. Dice do not throw themselves, let alone repeatedly for there is no intent involved and certainly this 'throwing' does not happen without reason. I think it shows the necessity of being, just as the universe shows the same, but of a greater being than ourselves for the very fact that we have a beginning. The very numbers on the dice show the necessity of being. Without mind what do snake eyes mean, a pair of ones?

The very fact that we are even arguing over this shows the necessity of being.

Peter
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 11:49:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 11:25:48 PM, PGA wrote:
Hi Dan, Emospongebob,

I can't wrap my head around modal logic although I do understand the Laws of Logic - the Law of Identity, Contradiction and Middle Exclusion. I would however like to add my two cents to the pot. I think the ontological argument makes sense from the point that making sense of anything requires necessary being.

This is a logically self-refuting argument. A necessary being is "something", so if anything requires a necessary being, then a necessary being would require a necessary being, as a necessary being belongs to the set of "anything". This entails a logical contradiction, because a necessary being cannot be contingent in this context. Regardless, do you mean logically necessary or factually necessary? As Theistic philosopher Richard Swinburne argues; there is a difference. Either way, there are no good reasons to believe this necessary entity has to be conscious or sentient. Thus, this does nothing to establish the existence of God in anyway.

I would argue that neither you nor I are necessary beings. I believe our being is dependent on that of a greater being for a number of reasons, one of them being that chance has no being and therefore cannot be behind things that are. After all, either this universe is here because of Being or it is here because of chance.

What reason have you given to believe the bolded is a true-dichotomy? It is in no way obvious.


There is no reason why a universe can come into existence by chance - none, let alone sustain itself.

Why can't a universe come into being by chance? There is no inconsistency with the universe having some form of probabalistic cause. Also, I see no problems with a self-sustaining universe either.

That would be to borrow from Van Til's Uniformity of Nature argument. If there is no intent behind the universe there is no reason why things would be sustainable or there be such a thing as a law (something that is constant/consistent).

This argument makes no sense I'm afraid. There simply is no reason to believe that intent is required for the universe to be sustained. This is just a bare-assertion from you without any warrant of justification.


If you take a dice and throw it 1 million times expecting the same result (same numbers to appear every time) without certain fixed variables and intention, well, that is mildly insane. But it is reasonable to believe that if a dice can be thrown consistently, with intent, with the same rotation and force, and all the other variables needed, then it would be possible.

There could be a mechanism which achieves the same result without intent. Beings with intent can pull matter together for example. However, gravity pulls matter together as well, but gravity is not intelligent. Most order in the universe is due to non-intelligent forces. Intelligence is rather small in the universe. Also, a lot of the time, "chance" is just a term used to describe our ignorance to determining factors. There is no reason to assume reality has to conform to human knowledge in such a way.

But as soon as we even talk about throwing a dice we have supposed intent anyway. Dice do not throw themselves, let alone repeatedly for there is no intent involved and certainly this 'throwing' does not happen without reason. I think it shows the necessity of being, just as the universe shows the same, but of a greater being than ourselves for the very fact that we have a beginning. The very numbers on the dice show the necessity of being. Without mind what do snake eyes mean, a pair of ones?

You have not shown how this analogy even ties in to the resolution you are trying to affirm. That makes this whole section from you rather trivial.


The very fact that we are even arguing over this shows the necessity of being.

The above is bare-assertion. You have given absolutely no reason to believe that a conscious being has to create and sustain the universe, or that the universe cannot be self-sustained. These contrived conclusions seem to be based on erroneous presuppositions.


Peter
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 7:56:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Bro, I'll go at Godel's in a bit, ;). Modal confusion. :P
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 8:14:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 11:25:48 PM, PGA wrote:
Hi Dan, Emospongebob,

I can't wrap my head around modal logic although I do understand the Laws of Logic - the Law of Identity, Contradiction and Middle Exclusion. I would however like to add my two cents to the pot. I think the ontological argument makes sense from the point that making sense of anything requires necessary being. I would argue that neither you nor I are necessary beings. I believe our being is dependent on that of a greater being for a number of reasons, one of them being that chance has no being and therefore cannot be behind things that are. After all, either this universe is here because of Being or it is here because of chance.

There is no reason why a universe can come into existence by chance - none, let alone sustain itself. That would be to borrow from Van Til's Uniformity of Nature argument. If there is no intent behind the universe there is no reason why things would be sustainable or there be such a thing as a law (something that is constant/consistent).

If you take a dice and throw it 1 million times expecting the same result (same numbers to appear every time) without certain fixed variables and intention, well, that is mildly insane. But it is reasonable to believe that if a dice can be thrown consistently, with intent, with the same rotation and force, and all the other variables needed, then it would be possible. But as soon as we even talk about throwing a dice we have supposed intent anyway. Dice do not throw themselves, let alone repeatedly for there is no intent involved and certainly this 'throwing' does not happen without reason. I think it shows the necessity of being, just as the universe shows the same, but of a greater being than ourselves for the very fact that we have a beginning. The very numbers on the dice show the necessity of being. Without mind what do snake eyes mean, a pair of ones?

The very fact that we are even arguing over this shows the necessity of being.

Peter

Yes, if you threw a dice 100 times it is highly unlikely it would come up heads. However what if you threw it 1 trillion times? Now the probability of heads is very high. That is what our universe is. 99.999% non-complexity and .001% complexity. This can easily be explained by chance.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 8:41:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 8:14:53 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 6/9/2013 11:25:48 PM, PGA wrote:
Hi Dan, Emospongebob,

I can't wrap my head around modal logic although I do understand the Laws of Logic - the Law of Identity, Contradiction and Middle Exclusion. I would however like to add my two cents to the pot. I think the ontological argument makes sense from the point that making sense of anything requires necessary being. I would argue that neither you nor I are necessary beings. I believe our being is dependent on that of a greater being for a number of reasons, one of them being that chance has no being and therefore cannot be behind things that are. After all, either this universe is here because of Being or it is here because of chance.

There is no reason why a universe can come into existence by chance - none, let alone sustain itself. That would be to borrow from Van Til's Uniformity of Nature argument. If there is no intent behind the universe there is no reason why things would be sustainable or there be such a thing as a law (something that is constant/consistent).

If you take a dice and throw it 1 million times expecting the same result (same numbers to appear every time) without certain fixed variables and intention, well, that is mildly insane. But it is reasonable to believe that if a dice can be thrown consistently, with intent, with the same rotation and force, and all the other variables needed, then it would be possible. But as soon as we even talk about throwing a dice we have supposed intent anyway. Dice do not throw themselves, let alone repeatedly for there is no intent involved and certainly this 'throwing' does not happen without reason. I think it shows the necessity of being, just as the universe shows the same, but of a greater being than ourselves for the very fact that we have a beginning. The very numbers on the dice show the necessity of being. Without mind what do snake eyes mean, a pair of ones?

The very fact that we are even arguing over this shows the necessity of being.

Peter

Yes, if you threw a dice 100 times it is highly unlikely it would come up heads. However what if you threw it 1 trillion times? Now the probability of heads is very high. That is what our universe is. 99.999% non-complexity and .001% complexity. This can easily be explained by chance.

Dice can come up heads?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 8:44:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 8:41:00 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 6/10/2013 8:14:53 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 6/9/2013 11:25:48 PM, PGA wrote:
Hi Dan, Emospongebob,

I can't wrap my head around modal logic although I do understand the Laws of Logic - the Law of Identity, Contradiction and Middle Exclusion. I would however like to add my two cents to the pot. I think the ontological argument makes sense from the point that making sense of anything requires necessary being. I would argue that neither you nor I are necessary beings. I believe our being is dependent on that of a greater being for a number of reasons, one of them being that chance has no being and therefore cannot be behind things that are. After all, either this universe is here because of Being or it is here because of chance.

There is no reason why a universe can come into existence by chance - none, let alone sustain itself. That would be to borrow from Van Til's Uniformity of Nature argument. If there is no intent behind the universe there is no reason why things would be sustainable or there be such a thing as a law (something that is constant/consistent).

If you take a dice and throw it 1 million times expecting the same result (same numbers to appear every time) without certain fixed variables and intention, well, that is mildly insane. But it is reasonable to believe that if a dice can be thrown consistently, with intent, with the same rotation and force, and all the other variables needed, then it would be possible. But as soon as we even talk about throwing a dice we have supposed intent anyway. Dice do not throw themselves, let alone repeatedly for there is no intent involved and certainly this 'throwing' does not happen without reason. I think it shows the necessity of being, just as the universe shows the same, but of a greater being than ourselves for the very fact that we have a beginning. The very numbers on the dice show the necessity of being. Without mind what do snake eyes mean, a pair of ones?

The very fact that we are even arguing over this shows the necessity of being.

Peter

Yes, if you threw a dice 100 times it is highly unlikely it would come up heads. However what if you threw it 1 trillion times? Now the probability of heads is very high. That is what our universe is. 99.999% non-complexity and .001% complexity. This can easily be explained by chance.

Dice can come up heads?

In an alternate universe, maybe.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 8:49:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 8:14:53 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 6/9/2013 11:25:48 PM, PGA wrote:
Hi Dan, Emospongebob,

I can't wrap my head around modal logic although I do understand the Laws of Logic - the Law of Identity, Contradiction and Middle Exclusion. I would however like to add my two cents to the pot. I think the ontological argument makes sense from the point that making sense of anything requires necessary being. I would argue that neither you nor I are necessary beings. I believe our being is dependent on that of a greater being for a number of reasons, one of them being that chance has no being and therefore cannot be behind things that are. After all, either this universe is here because of Being or it is here because of chance.

There is no reason why a universe can come into existence by chance - none, let alone sustain itself. That would be to borrow from Van Til's Uniformity of Nature argument. If there is no intent behind the universe there is no reason why things would be sustainable or there be such a thing as a law (something that is constant/consistent).

If you take a dice and throw it 1 million times expecting the same result (same numbers to appear every time) without certain fixed variables and intention, well, that is mildly insane. But it is reasonable to believe that if a dice can be thrown consistently, with intent, with the same rotation and force, and all the other variables needed, then it would be possible. But as soon as we even talk about throwing a dice we have supposed intent anyway. Dice do not throw themselves, let alone repeatedly for there is no intent involved and certainly this 'throwing' does not happen without reason. I think it shows the necessity of being, just as the universe shows the same, but of a greater being than ourselves for the very fact that we have a beginning. The very numbers on the dice show the necessity of being. Without mind what do snake eyes mean, a pair of ones?

The very fact that we are even arguing over this shows the necessity of being.

Peter

Yes, if you threw a dice 100 times it is highly unlikely it would come up heads. However what if you threw it 1 trillion times? Now the probability of heads is very high. That is what our universe is. 99.999% non-complexity and .001% complexity. This can easily be explained by chance.

What kind of dice are you using bro!
Harbinger
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 8:54:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 8:14:53 AM, Dan4reason wrote:

Yes, if you threw a dice 100 times it is highly unlikely it would come up heads. However what if you threw it 1 trillion times? Now the probability of heads is very high. That is what our universe is. 99.999% non-complexity and .001% complexity. This can easily be explained by chance.

Dice have heads and tails? It would never, never throw heads and tails. You would have to show there are a trillion universes and then ours is probable under that scenario. Since we can only look at ours then it is only logical to conclude just ours. Then your scenario is backwards, .001% non-complexity and 99.999% complexity.
Psalm 118:8, "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 9:09:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 8:54:28 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/10/2013 8:14:53 AM, Dan4reason wrote:

Yes, if you threw a dice 100 times it is highly unlikely it would come up heads. However what if you threw it 1 trillion times? Now the probability of heads is very high. That is what our universe is. 99.999% non-complexity and .001% complexity. This can easily be explained by chance.

Dice have heads and tails? It would never, never throw heads and tails. You would have to show there are a trillion universes and then ours is probable under that scenario. Since we can only look at ours then it is only logical to conclude just ours. Then your scenario is backwards, .001% non-complexity and 99.999% complexity.

"You would have to show there are a trillion universes and then ours is probable under that scenario"

Our universe is possible even without a multiverse.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 9:10:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 8:54:28 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/10/2013 8:14:53 AM, Dan4reason wrote:

Yes, if you threw a dice 100 times it is highly unlikely it would come up heads. However what if you threw it 1 trillion times? Now the probability of heads is very high. That is what our universe is. 99.999% non-complexity and .001% complexity. This can easily be explained by chance.

Dice have heads and tails? It would never, never throw heads and tails. You would have to show there are a trillion universes and then ours is probable under that scenario. Since we can only look at ours then it is only logical to conclude just ours. Then your scenario is backwards, .001% non-complexity and 99.999% complexity.

Start a debate on the fine-tuning argument with me. I will show that you do not even need to posit any other multiverses to refute it.
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 1:28:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hi Rational Thinker,

At 6/9/2013 11:49:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/9/2013 11:25:48 PM, PGA wrote:
Hi Dan, Emospongebob,

I can't wrap my head around modal logic although I do understand the Laws of Logic - the Law of Identity, Contradiction and Middle Exclusion. I would however like to add my two cents to the pot. I think the ontological argument makes sense from the point that making sense of anything requires necessary being.

This is a logically self-refuting argument. A necessary being is "something", so if anything requires a necessary being, then a necessary being would require a necessary being, as a necessary being belongs to the set of "anything". This entails a logical contradiction, because a necessary being cannot be contingent in this context. Regardless, do you mean logically necessary or factually necessary? As Theistic philosopher Richard Swinburne argues; there is a difference. Either way, there are no good reasons to believe this necessary entity has to be conscious or sentient. Thus, this does nothing to establish the existence of God in anyway.

My fault, I should have qualified this statement a bit more.

"I think the ontological argument makes sense from the point that making sense of anything [that begins to have being] requires necessary being [someone/thing that is self existent]."

In this way necessary being is not part of the subset of anything that has a beginning.

I think there is very good reason to believe that necessary being has to be conscious for the very reason that it is irrational to believe that something without consciousness has intent. Chance is not an entity, therefore it has no power to do anything.You have to establish that nothing, for that is what chance is - no thing - can bring things into being.

Either we are here because of chance or because of being. Give me another alternative.

When we strip away all the nuts and bolts of why this universe exists, either it is self-created or came from something self-created [a self-refuting notion], thus by fluke, chance, random happenstance, or it came about by intent, that had intelligent self-existent being behind it.

You can't have it both ways to my knowledge. If you want to persist in the theory of a chance universe then you need to jettison intelligence, reason and logic. There is no reason and logic behind it. In such a case why are you trying to make sense of it?


I would argue that neither you nor I are necessary beings. I believe our being is dependent on that of a greater being for a number of reasons, one of them being that chance has no being and therefore cannot be behind things that are. After all, either this universe is here because of Being or it is here because of chance.

What reason have you given to believe the bolded is a true-dichotomy? It is in no way obvious.


Maybe not to you. When you start dealing with philosophic possible worlds I think you tend to blur reality or what is real/true, even what is necessary for truth in the first place. To my mind, and maybe you can correct my thinking, although we can have the concept of infinity, in the actual world, if the universe was infinite we would never arrive at the present. So something caused this universe to come into being.

So my reason is, as I stated, chance is not being, it is no thing (nothing). Without necessary being how does anything come into being. Maybe you can step outside of your philosophical wanderings and show me what is necessary in order to understand any of this.


There is no reason why a universe can come into existence by chance - none, let alone sustain itself.

Why can't a universe come into being by chance? There is no inconsistency with the universe having some form of probabalistic cause. Also, I see no problems with a self-sustaining universe either.

Why? Because nothing comes from nothing. Chance is nothing. You need to show (in order to make sense of) how the universe can self-create itself or spontaneously generate itself and then by chance, before you support such nonsense. It is easy to say that nothing is responsible for our being here but an entirely different matter to support your claims.


That would be to borrow from Van Til's Uniformity of Nature argument. If there is no intent behind the universe there is no reason why things would be sustainable or there be such a thing as a law (something that is constant/consistent).

This argument makes no sense I'm afraid. There simply is no reason to believe that intent is required for the universe to be sustained. This is just a bare-assertion from you without any warrant of justification.


It is an assertion based on logic, just as yours apparently is not and can make no rational justification for itself once the core of your worldview is exposed. Since you use the coin flip analogy, it is unreasonable to assume that the greater number of times a coin is flipped (for no reason at all) the greater 'chance' there is of producing 100 or 1,000,000 head tosses.

Establish your reason why first if you want to be taken seriously.

In the case of the universe you have a time factor to consider for all these things to miraculously come about also.


If you take a dice and throw it 1 million times expecting the same result (same numbers to appear every time) without certain fixed variables and intention, well, that is mildly insane. But it is reasonable to believe that if a dice can be thrown consistently, with intent, with the same rotation and force, and all the other variables needed, then it would be possible.

There could be a mechanism which achieves the same result without intent. Beings with intent can pull matter together for example. However, gravity pulls matter together as well, but gravity is not intelligent. Most order in the universe is due to non-intelligent forces. Intelligence is rather small in the universe. Also, a lot of the time, "chance" is just a term used to describe our ignorance to determining factors. There is no reason to assume reality has to conform to human knowledge in such a way.


As soon as you speculate on a mechanism you add complication to your chaotic random beginning for no reason, meaning or purpose. Yet you insist on giving it reason, meaning and purpose.

But as soon as we even talk about throwing a dice we have supposed intent anyway. Dice do not throw themselves, let alone repeatedly for there is no intent involved and certainly this 'throwing' does not happen without reason. I think it shows the necessity of being, just as the universe shows the same, but of a greater being than ourselves for the very fact that we have a beginning. The very numbers on the dice show the necessity of being. Without mind what do snake eyes mean, a pair of ones?

You have not shown how this analogy even ties in to the resolution you are trying to affirm. That makes this whole section from you rather trivial.

To flip a coin with the constant, consistent result of heads ever time various intentions have to be apparent, like the weight of the toss, the weight of the coin, the height flipped, the number of rotations, where the coin lands of is caught, what side of the coin the flip originated from. These, and I'm sure other factors, have to be sustained in order to get the same result repeatedly. To assume that the result would come about without anything/one directing the coin - no guidance, no purpose, no reason, no intelligence - is extremely far fetched and unreasonable. Hey, if you want to live in that 'possible world' then you are welcome to it. But to my mind, don't call it intelligent, reasonable or logical.You haven't given any reason for it to be so.

I assert God is the sufficient and necessary reason for you to understand this or ultimately make sense of any
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 1:42:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 9:10:19 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/10/2013 8:54:28 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/10/2013 8:14:53 AM, Dan4reason wrote:

Yes, if you threw a dice 100 times it is highly unlikely it would come up heads. However what if you threw it 1 trillion times? Now the probability of heads is very high. That is what our universe is. 99.999% non-complexity and .001% complexity. This can easily be explained by chance.

Dice have heads and tails? It would never, never throw heads and tails. You would have to show there are a trillion universes and then ours is probable under that scenario. Since we can only look at ours then it is only logical to conclude just ours. Then your scenario is backwards, .001% non-complexity and 99.999% complexity.

Start a debate on the fine-tuning argument with me. I will show that you do not even need to posit any other multiverses to refute it.

It's the only way WLC can support his Cosmological argument God... I think. So if you can take out Fine-Tuning, that's a huge blow.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 9:06:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 8:54:28 AM, Harbinger wrote:
At 6/10/2013 8:14:53 AM, Dan4reason wrote:

Yes, if you threw a dice 100 times it is highly unlikely it would come up heads. However what if you threw it 1 trillion times? Now the probability of heads is very high. That is what our universe is. 99.999% non-complexity and .001% complexity. This can easily be explained by chance.

Dice have heads and tails? It would never, never throw heads and tails. You would have to show there are a trillion universes and then ours is probable under that scenario. Since we can only look at ours then it is only logical to conclude just ours. Then your scenario is backwards, .001% non-complexity and 99.999% complexity.

I am using these dice:
http://bensrpgpile.com...

What I am saying here is that given enough chances we will see high levels of complexity. Since our universe is large and has a large number of different interacting forces and diverse environments then there is good reason to think that complexity will form.

I don't know why we need multiple universes.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 9:35:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
@PGA

Everything you said was just regurgitated nonsense from William Lane Craig. Also, don't speak to me in that condescending tone like I am unfamiliar with Modal logic or S5 operators. The fact that you are engaged in arguments that have been refuted time and time again in philosophical literature proves that there is a good chance that maybe you could learn something from me (not the other way around). It seems that you are more into the arguing the cosmological argument, than the ontological argument. With this in mind, would you care to engage in a three round debate on the cosmological argument? I feel that it would be a waste of time to respond to what you said, without at least landing a win on my record.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 9:44:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I will debate the fine-tuning argument, or the ontological argument with you as well PGA. However, you seem to push the cosmological argument the most so I opened with that option.
emospongebob527
Posts: 790
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 12:37:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2013 10:12:02 PM, wiploc wrote:
They're all stupid. Which one are you having trouble with?

Godel's.
"not to toot my own horn (it aint need no tooin if u know what im saying), but my writings on "viciousness: the one true viture (fancy spelling for virtue)" and my poem "A poem I wrote about DDO" put me in a class of my damn own. im just an UNRECONGIZED geniuse" -bananafana
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 1:10:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 12:37:12 AM, emospongebob527 wrote:
At 6/9/2013 10:12:02 PM, wiploc wrote:
They're all stupid. Which one are you having trouble with?

Godel's.

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive.

This part's...okay....

Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B.

This makes no sense. A is an essence of X if for every property B X had B if A entails B?

This "definition" says nothing about A.

Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified.

Not true. Essences of X can be exemplified in multiple forms, they don't add up on 1 thing necessarily.

Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.

Okay...

Axiom 2: Any property entailed by"i.e., strictly implied by"a positive property is positive.

Not necessarily true. But neither is it really necessary to the rest of the argument.

Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive.
True definitionally, since being God-like is to exemplify all positive properties.

Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive.
Unsupported. A thing can be situationally positive, or subjectively positive.

Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive.
Unsupported.

Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive.
Unsupported but, I suppose, trivial.

Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
Not necessarily true, and not true if the Axioms are accepted.

Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Unsupported.

Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.

Definitionally true.

Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.
Unsupported after objections.

Fundamentally, it is a restatement of Plantinga's, using different words. It's trying to get from "God is possible" through "God is necessary" to "God exists". But you can't get from "possible" to "necessary" by fiat.

A better analysis can be found here:
http://www.infidels.org...

In the end, this argument also boils down to "X is God-like iff it is all-powerful and exists. X is consistent, therefore X might exist. Therefore X exists." It's yet another attempt to say "I thought of this, and it's the best thing ever. It wouldn't be the best thing ever if it didn't exist. Therefore, it must exist."
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!