Total Posts:191|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Hi, I wanted to try out this argument for God

Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 11:36:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
on you guys.

It's based on modal logic and it goes like this

1. it is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists
2. if it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then it exists in some possible world
3. in order for the maximally great being to be maximally great, it must necessarily exist in all possible worlds
4. if it exists in all possible worlds, then it exists in the actual world
5. if a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then it is necessarily existent
6. therefore, there is a necessarily existent maximally great being
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 12:00:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 11:36:23 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
on you guys.

It's based on modal logic and it goes like this

1. it is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists
2. if it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then it exists in some possible world
3. in order for the maximally great being to be maximally great, it must necessarily exist in all possible worlds
4. if it exists in all possible worlds, then it exists in the actual world
5. if a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then it is necessarily existent
6. therefore, there is a necessarily existent maximally great being

I agree. Which is why I keep asking Atheist to show how God is impossible. Instead they have a materialistic ideology that presupposes spirit and god are impossible. An assumption.

More so the materialistic ideology is flawed because reality is shown not to be materialistic or physical or even even natural at all.

Naturalist think there is a cause for every effect. Till that cause must be god like. It is not the reasoning that leads to an unacceptable of God. it is the conclusion is unaccepted because it has the entity God in it.

But I'll help you out Installgentoo. Contention is with premise one. A disembodied mind is impossible.

One brains are composed of matter and mind is from the brain ( that will be the Atheist thinking )

God is spirit so there is a substance that could compose a mind. But now you would have to prove the substance exists.

You could say even a disembodied mind is possible. and play off the work of http://en.wikipedia.org.... In fact a eternal universe or eternal multiverse make the Boltzmann-brains even more possible.

Then just follow an argument from the drake equation for life in the milky way. Extrapolate to being given even a small chance, the time and physics are make it inevitable god exists. and if it exists God exist in this universe.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 12:11:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 11:36:23 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
on you guys.

It's based on modal logic and it goes like this

1. it is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists
2. if it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then it exists in some possible world
3. in order for the maximally great being to be maximally great, it must necessarily exist in all possible worlds
4. if it exists in all possible worlds, then it exists in the actual world
5. if a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then it is necessarily existent
6. therefore, there is a necessarily existent maximally great being

Is it possible you're stuck in a maximally deceived world?
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 12:18:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 11:36:23 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
on you guys.

It's based on modal logic and it goes like this

1. it is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists
2. if it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then it exists in some possible world
3. in order for the maximally great being to be maximally great, it must necessarily exist in all possible worlds
4. if it exists in all possible worlds, then it exists in the actual world
5. if a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then it is necessarily existent
6. therefore, there is a necessarily existent maximally great being

It's just another ontological argument, so suffers from the same problem as all the others; you can't simply define something into non-abstract existence.
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 12:24:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 11:36:23 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
on you guys.

It's based on modal logic and it goes like this

1. it is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists
2. if it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then it exists in some possible world
3. in order for the maximally great being to be maximally great, it must necessarily exist in all possible worlds
4. if it exists in all possible worlds, then it exists in the actual world
5. if a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then it is necessarily existent
6. therefore, there is a necessarily existent maximally great being

1: It is possible that a maximally great hat exists.
2: if it is possible that a maximally great hat exists, then it exists in some possible world
3: in order for the maximally great hat to be maximally great, it must necessarily exist in all possible worlds
4: if it exists in all possible worlds, then it exists in the actual world
5: if a maximally great hat exists in the actual world, then it is necessarily existent
6: therefore, there is a necessarily existent maximally great hat

I am a theist but the argument is horrible.

The big problem for me, is what "maximally great". A maximally great being can exist, but that doesn't equate to God. Maximally doesn't mean 'all'. Something maximal is still constrained to laws, so "maximally great being", in no way leads to God.

" if it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then it exists in some possible world"

So now the argument treats maximally as 'all'. Ofcourse a maximally great being can exist, but because maximally is still constrained by law, this does not necessitate that it does exist. You can make a maximally great hat, using all the parts which could possibly be used that exist (maximal), it doesn't necessitate the hat is present in every universe.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 12:59:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 12:00:47 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/16/2014 11:36:23 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
on you guys.

It's based on modal logic and it goes like this

1. it is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists
2. if it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then it exists in some possible world
3. in order for the maximally great being to be maximally great, it must necessarily exist in all possible worlds
4. if it exists in all possible worlds, then it exists in the actual world
5. if a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then it is necessarily existent
6. therefore, there is a necessarily existent maximally great being

I agree. Which is why I keep asking Atheist to show how God is impossible. Instead they have a materialistic ideology that presupposes spirit and god are impossible. An assumption.

No need, just swap P2 for 'it it possible that God doesn't exist' and it will work just as well against god's existance, if not better.

More so the materialistic ideology is flawed because reality is shown not to be materialistic or physical or even even natural at all.

Naturalist think there is a cause for every effect. Till that cause must be god like. It is not the reasoning that leads to an unacceptable of God. it is the conclusion is unaccepted because it has the entity God in it.

But I'll help you out Installgentoo. Contention is with premise one. A disembodied mind is impossible.

One brains are composed of matter and mind is from the brain ( that will be the Atheist thinking )

God is spirit so there is a substance that could compose a mind. But now you would have to prove the substance exists.

You could say even a disembodied mind is possible. and play off the work of http://en.wikipedia.org.... In fact a eternal universe or eternal multiverse make the Boltzmann-brains even more possible.

Then just follow an argument from the drake equation for life in the milky way. Extrapolate to being given even a small chance, the time and physics are make it inevitable god exists. and if it exists God exist in this universe.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 1:15:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 11:36:23 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
on you guys.

It's based on modal logic and it goes like this

1. it is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists
2. if it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then it exists in some possible world
3. in order for the maximally great being to be maximally great, it must necessarily exist in all possible worlds
4. if it exists in all possible worlds, then it exists in the actual world
5. if a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then it is necessarily existent
6. therefore, there is a necessarily existent maximally great being

All this type of argument proves is that there exists some truth that is necessary unless all necessary truths are inherently contradictory.

All you're doing is slapping a "god" label on that. That's not logic.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 1:19:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
How would you differentiate it from this argument:

1. it is possible that a maximally great being (God) does not exist
2. if it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then it does not exist in some possible world
3. in order for the maximally great being to be maximally great, it must necessarily exist in all possible worlds
4. if it does not exist in all possible worlds, then it does not exist in any world
5. if a maximally great being does not exist in any, then it is necessarily non-existent
6. therefore, there a maximally great being is necessarily non-existent
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 1:28:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 1:19:19 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
How would you differentiate it from this argument:

1. it is possible that a maximally great being (God) does not exist
2. if it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then it does not exist in some possible world
3. in order for the maximally great being to be maximally great, it must necessarily exist in all possible worlds
4. if it does not exist in all possible worlds, then it does not exist in any world
5. if a maximally great being does not exist in any, then it is necessarily non-existent
6. therefore, there a maximally great being is necessarily non-existent

" if it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then it does not exist in some possible world"

non sequitur. If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, it doesn't mean that a maximally great being does not exist, and that being could well exist in every possible world.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 1:34:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 1:28:35 PM, andymcstab wrote:
At 6/16/2014 1:19:19 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
How would you differentiate it from this argument:

1. it is possible that a maximally great being (God) does not exist
2. if it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then it does not exist in some possible world
3. in order for the maximally great being to be maximally great, it must necessarily exist in all possible worlds
4. if it does not exist in all possible worlds, then it does not exist in any world
5. if a maximally great being does not exist in any, then it is necessarily non-existent
6. therefore, there a maximally great being is necessarily non-existent

" if it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then it does not exist in some possible world"

non sequitur. If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, it doesn't mean that a maximally great being does not exist, and that being could well exist in every possible world.

Actually, no, it's not a non-sequitur, it's definitional. If it's possible for the MGB to not exist, then it definitionally does not exist.

P3 defines MGB. "in order for the maximally great being to be maximally great, it must necessarily exist in all possible worlds"--and I didn't change that one whatsoever.

P2 might be better reworded as "" if it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then in some possible world it does not exist", though. The point is that you can't assert the possibility of the MGB, definitionally, until you've already proven that the MGB exists, because BY DEFINITION if the MGB Is possible, it exists.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 2:02:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 1:34:37 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/16/2014 1:28:35 PM, andymcstab wrote:
At 6/16/2014 1:19:19 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
How would you differentiate it from this argument:

1. it is possible that a maximally great being (God) does not exist
2. if it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then it does not exist in some possible world
3. in order for the maximally great being to be maximally great, it must necessarily exist in all possible worlds
4. if it does not exist in all possible worlds, then it does not exist in any world
5. if a maximally great being does not exist in any, then it is necessarily non-existent
6. therefore, there a maximally great being is necessarily non-existent

" if it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then it does not exist in some possible world"

non sequitur. If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, it doesn't mean that a maximally great being does not exist, and that being could well exist in every possible world.

Actually, no, it's not a non-sequitur, it's definitional. If it's possible for the MGB to not exist, then it definitionally does not exist.

P3 defines MGB. "in order for the maximally great being to be maximally great, it must necessarily exist in all possible worlds"--and I didn't change that one whatsoever.

P2 might be better reworded as "" if it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then in some possible world it does not exist", though. The point is that you can't assert the possibility of the MGB, definitionally, until you've already proven that the MGB exists, because BY DEFINITION if the MGB Is possible, it exists.

If it is possible for a MGB to exist then it necessarily exists, but if it is possible that an MGB does not exist, it doesn't necessarily not exist.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 2:11:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 2:02:33 PM, andymcstab wrote:
At 6/16/2014 1:34:37 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/16/2014 1:28:35 PM, andymcstab wrote:
At 6/16/2014 1:19:19 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
How would you differentiate it from this argument:

1. it is possible that a maximally great being (God) does not exist
2. if it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then it does not exist in some possible world
3. in order for the maximally great being to be maximally great, it must necessarily exist in all possible worlds
4. if it does not exist in all possible worlds, then it does not exist in any world
5. if a maximally great being does not exist in any, then it is necessarily non-existent
6. therefore, there a maximally great being is necessarily non-existent

" if it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then it does not exist in some possible world"

non sequitur. If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, it doesn't mean that a maximally great being does not exist, and that being could well exist in every possible world.

Actually, no, it's not a non-sequitur, it's definitional. If it's possible for the MGB to not exist, then it definitionally does not exist.

P3 defines MGB. "in order for the maximally great being to be maximally great, it must necessarily exist in all possible worlds"--and I didn't change that one whatsoever.

P2 might be better reworded as "" if it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then in some possible world it does not exist", though. The point is that you can't assert the possibility of the MGB, definitionally, until you've already proven that the MGB exists, because BY DEFINITION if the MGB Is possible, it exists.

If it is possible for a MGB to exist then it necessarily exists, but if it is possible that an MGB does not exist, it doesn't necessarily not exist.

Yes it is. Definitionally, if MGB is possible to exist, it necessarily exists. But if it is possible that it doesn't exist, then it can't necessarily exist, as it doesn't meet the criteria (there is a possible world in which it doesn't exist) and therefore, necessarily does not exist by definition.

You could change the definition of MGB so that it's not necessary to exist in all possible worlds, but if you do that the entire argument immediately falls apart.

The point is that the MGB must exist in all possible worlds. Therefore there cannot be a possible world in which the MGB does not exist--if there is such a world, than the being cannot be the MGB definitionally.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 2:13:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 12:18:18 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 6/16/2014 11:36:23 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
on you guys.

It's based on modal logic and it goes like this

1. it is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists
2. if it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then it exists in some possible world
3. in order for the maximally great being to be maximally great, it must necessarily exist in all possible worlds
4. if it exists in all possible worlds, then it exists in the actual world
5. if a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then it is necessarily existent
6. therefore, there is a necessarily existent maximally great being

It's just another ontological argument, so suffers from the same problem as all the others; you can't simply define something into non-abstract existence.

No, but something's "non-abstract existence" can be deduced from its definition. God - a being bound by nothing but itself - exists, since to deny the existence of something is to imply that said something is bounded. But God isn't bounded from the outside, so he must exist in order to be bound. Therefore, denying the existence of God is a contradiction.
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 2:14:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 2:11:27 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/16/2014 2:02:33 PM, andymcstab wrote:
At 6/16/2014 1:34:37 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/16/2014 1:28:35 PM, andymcstab wrote:
At 6/16/2014 1:19:19 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
How would you differentiate it from this argument:

1. it is possible that a maximally great being (God) does not exist
2. if it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then it does not exist in some possible world
3. in order for the maximally great being to be maximally great, it must necessarily exist in all possible worlds
4. if it does not exist in all possible worlds, then it does not exist in any world
5. if a maximally great being does not exist in any, then it is necessarily non-existent
6. therefore, there a maximally great being is necessarily non-existent

" if it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then it does not exist in some possible world"

non sequitur. If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, it doesn't mean that a maximally great being does not exist, and that being could well exist in every possible world.

Actually, no, it's not a non-sequitur, it's definitional. If it's possible for the MGB to not exist, then it definitionally does not exist.

P3 defines MGB. "in order for the maximally great being to be maximally great, it must necessarily exist in all possible worlds"--and I didn't change that one whatsoever.

P2 might be better reworded as "" if it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then in some possible world it does not exist", though. The point is that you can't assert the possibility of the MGB, definitionally, until you've already proven that the MGB exists, because BY DEFINITION if the MGB Is possible, it exists.

If it is possible for a MGB to exist then it necessarily exists, but if it is possible that an MGB does not exist, it doesn't necessarily not exist.

Yes it is. Definitionally, if MGB is possible to exist, it necessarily exists. But if it is possible that it doesn't exist, then it can't necessarily exist, as it doesn't meet the criteria (there is a possible world in which it doesn't exist) and therefore, necessarily does not exist by definition.

You could change the definition of MGB so that it's not necessary to exist in all possible worlds, but if you do that the entire argument immediately falls apart.

The point is that the MGB must exist in all possible worlds. Therefore there cannot be a possible world in which the MGB does not exist--if there is such a world, than the being cannot be the MGB definitionally.
Just because its possible that a world exists without an MGB, doesn't mean that such a world does exist, and hence that an MGB doesn't exist in all worlds.
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 2:15:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You have to show it is IMpossible for a world to exist with an MGB, when you are properly mirroring the argument.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 2:19:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 2:14:24 PM, andymcstab wrote:
At 6/16/2014 2:11:27 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

The point is that the MGB must exist in all possible worlds. Therefore there cannot be a possible world in which the MGB does not exist--if there is such a world, than the being cannot be the MGB definitionally.
Just because its possible that a world exists without an MGB, doesn't mean that such a world does exist, and hence that an MGB doesn't exist in all worlds.

You seem to not understand how modal logic works.

Possible world framework in modal logic assumes that all possible worlds exist in some sense...as in "if X is possible, there exists a world in which X is true" it's a conceit to help us conceptualize possibility.

Necessity is a strict form of possibility, that asserts the IMPOSSBILITY of its inverse.

If X is necessary, there is NO world, NO possibility of it not being true.

Thus, if the MGB is necessary by definition, then there being a possible world in which the MGB does not exist means, by definition, the MGB does not exist--because it cannot, by definition, be necessary if it is possible to not exist.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 3:02:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 1:19:19 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
How would you differentiate it from this argument:

1. it is possible that a maximally great being (God) does not exist
2. if it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then it does not exist in some possible world
3. in order for the maximally great being to be maximally great, it must necessarily exist in all possible worlds
4. if it does not exist in all possible worlds, then it does not exist in any world
5. if a maximally great being does not exist in any, then it is necessarily non-existent
6. therefore, there a maximally great being is necessarily non-existent

It is impossible for a maximally great being to not exist.
mrsatan
Posts: 417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 3:06:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 11:36:23 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
on you guys.

It's based on modal logic and it goes like this

1. it is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists
2. if it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then it exists in some possible world
3. in order for the maximally great being to be maximally great, it must necessarily exist in all possible worlds
4. if it exists in all possible worlds, then it exists in the actual world
5. if a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then it is necessarily existent
6. therefore, there is a necessarily existent maximally great being

1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then it exists in some possible world.
3. In order for the maximally great being to be maximally great, it must necessarily exist in all possible worlds.
4. If the maximally great being does not exist in all possible worlds, then it does not exist in the actual world.
5. If one can conceive a world in which the maximally great being does not exist, then it does not exist in all possible worlds.
6. One can conceive of a world in which the maximally great being does not exist.
C. Therefore, the maximally great being does not exist in the actual world.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 3:54:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 3:02:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/16/2014 1:19:19 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
How would you differentiate it from this argument:

1. it is possible that a maximally great being (God) does not exist
2. if it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then it does not exist in some possible world
3. in order for the maximally great being to be maximally great, it must necessarily exist in all possible worlds
4. if it does not exist in all possible worlds, then it does not exist in any world
5. if a maximally great being does not exist in any, then it is necessarily non-existent
6. therefore, there a maximally great being is necessarily non-existent

It is impossible for a maximally great being to not exist.

You'd have to prove that. In which case, of course, the argument is still not particularly useful, but that's besides the point. Prove that a MGB MUST exist.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 3:55:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 3:54:01 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/16/2014 3:02:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/16/2014 1:19:19 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
How would you differentiate it from this argument:

1. it is possible that a maximally great being (God) does not exist
2. if it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then it does not exist in some possible world
3. in order for the maximally great being to be maximally great, it must necessarily exist in all possible worlds
4. if it does not exist in all possible worlds, then it does not exist in any world
5. if a maximally great being does not exist in any, then it is necessarily non-existent
6. therefore, there a maximally great being is necessarily non-existent

It is impossible for a maximally great being to not exist.

You'd have to prove that. In which case, of course, the argument is still not particularly useful, but that's besides the point. Prove that a MGB MUST exist.

Stating it is impossible for a maximally great being not to exist is synonymous with saying that a maximally great being must exist.

He is just restating his conclusion.... Circular argument.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 3:58:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 3:55:59 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/16/2014 3:54:01 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/16/2014 3:02:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/16/2014 1:19:19 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
How would you differentiate it from this argument:

1. it is possible that a maximally great being (God) does not exist
2. if it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then it does not exist in some possible world
3. in order for the maximally great being to be maximally great, it must necessarily exist in all possible worlds
4. if it does not exist in all possible worlds, then it does not exist in any world
5. if a maximally great being does not exist in any, then it is necessarily non-existent
6. therefore, there a maximally great being is necessarily non-existent

It is impossible for a maximally great being to not exist.

You'd have to prove that. In which case, of course, the argument is still not particularly useful, but that's besides the point. Prove that a MGB MUST exist.

Stating it is impossible for a maximally great being not to exist is synonymous with saying that a maximally great being must exist.

He is just restating his conclusion.... Circular argument.

True--in reference to the OPs argument. But if he's got some other argument he'd like to present as a syllogism, he can feel free to do so. It's a bit off topic, but whatevs.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 3:58:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 3:54:01 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/16/2014 3:02:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/16/2014 1:19:19 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
How would you differentiate it from this argument:

1. it is possible that a maximally great being (God) does not exist
2. if it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then it does not exist in some possible world
3. in order for the maximally great being to be maximally great, it must necessarily exist in all possible worlds
4. if it does not exist in all possible worlds, then it does not exist in any world
5. if a maximally great being does not exist in any, then it is necessarily non-existent
6. therefore, there a maximally great being is necessarily non-existent

It is impossible for a maximally great being to not exist.

You'd have to prove that. In which case, of course, the argument is still not particularly useful, but that's besides the point. Prove that a MGB MUST exist.

Um I do not have to prove a MGB MUST exist. I made a negative claim, so My position is the default position.

You have the burden of proof to prove "it is possible for a MGB to not exist".
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 4:00:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 3:58:30 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/16/2014 3:54:01 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/16/2014 3:02:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/16/2014 1:19:19 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
How would you differentiate it from this argument:

1. it is possible that a maximally great being (God) does not exist
2. if it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then it does not exist in some possible world
3. in order for the maximally great being to be maximally great, it must necessarily exist in all possible worlds
4. if it does not exist in all possible worlds, then it does not exist in any world
5. if a maximally great being does not exist in any, then it is necessarily non-existent
6. therefore, there a maximally great being is necessarily non-existent

It is impossible for a maximally great being to not exist.

You'd have to prove that. In which case, of course, the argument is still not particularly useful, but that's besides the point. Prove that a MGB MUST exist.

Um I do not have to prove a MGB MUST exist. I made a negative claim, so My position is the default position.

You have the burden of proof to prove "it is possible for a MGB to not exist".

No, you didn't. You asserted that it was impossible for a MGB to not exist. "It is impossible for a maximally great being to not exist" is a positive claim. YOU have the burden of that contention.

Further, possibility is generally assumed in Modal logic unless it can be demonstrated to be impossible--it's the ENTIRE grounds for the assertion of possibility in the MOA, which of course leads to the problems of the MOA.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 4:02:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Mykhiel, are you actually familiar with Modal logic?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 4:08:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 4:00:47 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/16/2014 3:58:30 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/16/2014 3:54:01 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/16/2014 3:02:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/16/2014 1:19:19 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
How would you differentiate it from this argument:

1. it is possible that a maximally great being (God) does not exist
2. if it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then it does not exist in some possible world
3. in order for the maximally great being to be maximally great, it must necessarily exist in all possible worlds
4. if it does not exist in all possible worlds, then it does not exist in any world
5. if a maximally great being does not exist in any, then it is necessarily non-existent
6. therefore, there a maximally great being is necessarily non-existent

It is impossible for a maximally great being to not exist.

You'd have to prove that. In which case, of course, the argument is still not particularly useful, but that's besides the point. Prove that a MGB MUST exist.

Um I do not have to prove a MGB MUST exist. I made a negative claim, so My position is the default position.

You have the burden of proof to prove "it is possible for a MGB to not exist".

No, you didn't. You asserted that it was impossible for a MGB to not exist. "It is impossible for a maximally great being to not exist" is a positive claim. YOU have the burden of that contention.


Impossible: defined as NOT able to occur

MGB to NOT exist.

It is not a double negative because the negative adverbs refer to 2 different verbs.

So my statement was a negative statement. And using your own Atheist illogical system I have no BOP.

I await your arguments for "it is possible for a MGB to not exist"

Further, possibility is generally assumed in Modal logic unless it can be demonstrated to be impossible--it's the ENTIRE grounds for the assertion of possibility in the MOA, which of course leads to the problems of the MOA.

So you confirm you must argue it is impossible first.

So you admit your argument was not in accordance with Modal Logic. Yes I know Atheist arguments are illogical. Whether they be modal or else wise. That's why I am attempting to reason with you using your own illogical system of "logic" and BOP.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 4:10:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Possibility in modal logic is not the same as possibility in the colloquial sense.

Why do people attempt to use arguments that they themselves don't understand?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 4:11:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 4:08:53 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/16/2014 4:00:47 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/16/2014 3:58:30 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/16/2014 3:54:01 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/16/2014 3:02:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/16/2014 1:19:19 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
How would you differentiate it from this argument:

1. it is possible that a maximally great being (God) does not exist
2. if it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then it does not exist in some possible world
3. in order for the maximally great being to be maximally great, it must necessarily exist in all possible worlds
4. if it does not exist in all possible worlds, then it does not exist in any world
5. if a maximally great being does not exist in any, then it is necessarily non-existent
6. therefore, there a maximally great being is necessarily non-existent

It is impossible for a maximally great being to not exist.

You'd have to prove that. In which case, of course, the argument is still not particularly useful, but that's besides the point. Prove that a MGB MUST exist.

Um I do not have to prove a MGB MUST exist. I made a negative claim, so My position is the default position.

You have the burden of proof to prove "it is possible for a MGB to not exist".

No, you didn't. You asserted that it was impossible for a MGB to not exist. "It is impossible for a maximally great being to not exist" is a positive claim. YOU have the burden of that contention.


Impossible: defined as NOT able to occur

MGB to NOT exist.

It is not a double negative because the negative adverbs refer to 2 different verbs.

So my statement was a negative statement. And using your own Atheist illogical system I have no BOP.

I await your arguments for "it is possible for a MGB to not exist"

Further, possibility is generally assumed in Modal logic unless it can be demonstrated to be impossible--it's the ENTIRE grounds for the assertion of possibility in the MOA, which of course leads to the problems of the MOA.

So you confirm you must argue it is impossible first.

So you admit your argument was not in accordance with Modal Logic. Yes I know Atheist arguments are illogical. Whether they be modal or else wise. That's why I am attempting to reason with you using your own illogical system of "logic" and BOP.

Lol.

Send me the debate challenge. I want to see you try and defend this.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2014 4:15:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/16/2014 4:11:57 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/16/2014 4:08:53 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/16/2014 4:00:47 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/16/2014 3:58:30 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/16/2014 3:54:01 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/16/2014 3:02:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/16/2014 1:19:19 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
How would you differentiate it from this argument:

1. it is possible that a maximally great being (God) does not exist
2. if it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then it does not exist in some possible world
3. in order for the maximally great being to be maximally great, it must necessarily exist in all possible worlds
4. if it does not exist in all possible worlds, then it does not exist in any world
5. if a maximally great being does not exist in any, then it is necessarily non-existent
6. therefore, there a maximally great being is necessarily non-existent

It is impossible for a maximally great being to not exist.

You'd have to prove that. In which case, of course, the argument is still not particularly useful, but that's besides the point. Prove that a MGB MUST exist.

Um I do not have to prove a MGB MUST exist. I made a negative claim, so My position is the default position.

You have the burden of proof to prove "it is possible for a MGB to not exist".

No, you didn't. You asserted that it was impossible for a MGB to not exist. "It is impossible for a maximally great being to not exist" is a positive claim. YOU have the burden of that contention.


Impossible: defined as NOT able to occur

MGB to NOT exist.

It is not a double negative because the negative adverbs refer to 2 different verbs.

So my statement was a negative statement. And using your own Atheist illogical system I have no BOP.

I await your arguments for "it is possible for a MGB to not exist"

Further, possibility is generally assumed in Modal logic unless it can be demonstrated to be impossible--it's the ENTIRE grounds for the assertion of possibility in the MOA, which of course leads to the problems of the MOA.

So you confirm you must argue it is impossible first.

So you admit your argument was not in accordance with Modal Logic. Yes I know Atheist arguments are illogical. Whether they be modal or else wise. That's why I am attempting to reason with you using your own illogical system of "logic" and BOP.

Lol.

Send me the debate challenge. I want to see you try and defend this.

I don't have to defend anything. It is a negative claim and default. So you have BOP.

I await you to prove "It is possible for a Maximally Great Being to NOT exist".