Total Posts:72|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Argument Against Perfect Being Theology

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 12:18:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
William Lane Craig argues that the world cannot be a simulation if God exists because God is perfect, and thus, is not a deceiver; he wouldn't make us think we live in a concrete material reality if we didn't.

If this is true, then we have a pretty good argument against the existence of a perfect being:

P1: If a perfect being exists, then the world is not deceptive
P2: The world is deceptive
C: Therefore, a perfect being does not exist

Take solid objects for example, they certainly don't seem mostly empty and hollow. However, we know that atoms are over 99% empty space. It certainly seems as if we touch people and objects, but we know that the outer electrons repel each other and no two physical objects actually touch. It certainly seems as if objects have definite physical properties even when no observation is being made but Quantum Mechanics shows that's not true. I could go on but you get the point; reality is deceptive.

So according to William Lane Craig's own reasoning (a perfect being wouldn't create a deceptive world); a perfect being does not exist.
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 3:36:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2017 12:18:19 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
William Lane Craig argues that the world cannot be a simulation if God exists because God is perfect, and thus, is not a deceiver; he wouldn't make us think we live in a concrete material reality if we didn't.

If this is true, then we have a pretty good argument against the existence of a perfect being:

P1: If a perfect being exists, then the world is not deceptive
P2: The world is deceptive
C: Therefore, a perfect being does not exist

Take solid objects for example, they certainly don't seem mostly empty and hollow. However, we know that atoms are over 99% empty space. It certainly seems as if we touch people and objects, but we know that the outer electrons repel each other and no two physical objects actually touch. It certainly seems as if objects have definite physical properties even when no observation is being made but Quantum Mechanics shows that's not true. I could go on but you get the point; reality is deceptive.

So according to William Lane Craig's own reasoning (a perfect being wouldn't create a deceptive world); a perfect being does not exist.

If we don't perceive reality with 100% accuracy does this make the world deceptive? I would say counter-intuitive. But the very realization that reality isn't as it appears is a revelation of truth. Maybe God intended to reveal the true nature of reality only to those who seek it. People who think themselves wise will have misunderstood everything about reality. The physicalists, atheists, Marxists, nihilists, etc.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 3:47:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2017 3:36:51 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/26/2017 12:18:19 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
William Lane Craig argues that the world cannot be a simulation if God exists because God is perfect, and thus, is not a deceiver; he wouldn't make us think we live in a concrete material reality if we didn't.

If this is true, then we have a pretty good argument against the existence of a perfect being:

P1: If a perfect being exists, then the world is not deceptive
P2: The world is deceptive
C: Therefore, a perfect being does not exist

Take solid objects for example, they certainly don't seem mostly empty and hollow. However, we know that atoms are over 99% empty space. It certainly seems as if we touch people and objects, but we know that the outer electrons repel each other and no two physical objects actually touch. It certainly seems as if objects have definite physical properties even when no observation is being made but Quantum Mechanics shows that's not true. I could go on but you get the point; reality is deceptive.

So according to William Lane Craig's own reasoning (a perfect being wouldn't create a deceptive world); a perfect being does not exist.

If we don't perceive reality with 100% accuracy does this make the world deceptive? I would say counter-intuitive. But the very realization that reality isn't as it appears is a revelation of truth. Maybe God intended to reveal the true nature of reality only to those who seek it. People who think themselves wise will have misunderstood everything about reality. The physicalists, atheists, Marxists, nihilists, etc.

Well if this is true then Dr. Craig's argument against a simulated universe (assuming perfect being theology) is flawed.

If you read the OP, I only said it's a good argument if we go with Dr. Craig's logic that if the world isn't as it appears then God is being deceptive (which was his argument against our universe being simulated). If you don't buy that logic, then I have no problem with that...
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 4:14:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2017 3:47:31 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/26/2017 3:36:51 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/26/2017 12:18:19 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
William Lane Craig argues that the world cannot be a simulation if God exists because God is perfect, and thus, is not a deceiver; he wouldn't make us think we live in a concrete material reality if we didn't.

If this is true, then we have a pretty good argument against the existence of a perfect being:

P1: If a perfect being exists, then the world is not deceptive
P2: The world is deceptive
C: Therefore, a perfect being does not exist

Take solid objects for example, they certainly don't seem mostly empty and hollow. However, we know that atoms are over 99% empty space. It certainly seems as if we touch people and objects, but we know that the outer electrons repel each other and no two physical objects actually touch. It certainly seems as if objects have definite physical properties even when no observation is being made but Quantum Mechanics shows that's not true. I could go on but you get the point; reality is deceptive.

So according to William Lane Craig's own reasoning (a perfect being wouldn't create a deceptive world); a perfect being does not exist.

If we don't perceive reality with 100% accuracy does this make the world deceptive? I would say counter-intuitive. But the very realization that reality isn't as it appears is a revelation of truth. Maybe God intended to reveal the true nature of reality only to those who seek it. People who think themselves wise will have misunderstood everything about reality. The physicalists, atheists, Marxists, nihilists, etc.

Well if this is true then Dr. Craig's argument against a simulated universe (assuming perfect being theology) is flawed.

If you read the OP, I only said it's a good argument if we go with Dr. Craig's logic that if the world isn't as it appears then God is being deceptive (which was his argument against our universe being simulated). If you don't buy that logic, then I have no problem with that...

Yeah I don't buy his logic. He's invested in the idea of reality being non-illusory. He uses our 'properly basic' beliefs (such as the reality of reality) to lend support to the notion that our moral intuitions are reliably representing objective moral truths.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 4:58:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2017 4:14:14 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/26/2017 3:47:31 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/26/2017 3:36:51 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/26/2017 12:18:19 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
William Lane Craig argues that the world cannot be a simulation if God exists because God is perfect, and thus, is not a deceiver; he wouldn't make us think we live in a concrete material reality if we didn't.

If this is true, then we have a pretty good argument against the existence of a perfect being:

P1: If a perfect being exists, then the world is not deceptive
P2: The world is deceptive
C: Therefore, a perfect being does not exist

Take solid objects for example, they certainly don't seem mostly empty and hollow. However, we know that atoms are over 99% empty space. It certainly seems as if we touch people and objects, but we know that the outer electrons repel each other and no two physical objects actually touch. It certainly seems as if objects have definite physical properties even when no observation is being made but Quantum Mechanics shows that's not true. I could go on but you get the point; reality is deceptive.

So according to William Lane Craig's own reasoning (a perfect being wouldn't create a deceptive world); a perfect being does not exist.

If we don't perceive reality with 100% accuracy does this make the world deceptive? I would say counter-intuitive. But the very realization that reality isn't as it appears is a revelation of truth. Maybe God intended to reveal the true nature of reality only to those who seek it. People who think themselves wise will have misunderstood everything about reality. The physicalists, atheists, Marxists, nihilists, etc.

Well if this is true then Dr. Craig's argument against a simulated universe (assuming perfect being theology) is flawed.

If you read the OP, I only said it's a good argument if we go with Dr. Craig's logic that if the world isn't as it appears then God is being deceptive (which was his argument against our universe being simulated). If you don't buy that logic, then I have no problem with that...

Yeah I don't buy his logic. He's invested in the idea of reality being non-illusory. He uses our 'properly basic' beliefs (such as the reality of reality) to lend support to the notion that our moral intuitions are reliably representing objective moral truths.

Very true.
Perussi
Posts: 3,687
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 5:41:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2017 12:18:19 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
William Lane Craig argues that the world cannot be a simulation if God exists because God is perfect, and thus, is not a deceiver; he wouldn't make us think we live in a concrete material reality if we didn't.

If this is true, then we have a pretty good argument against the existence of a perfect being:

P1: If a perfect being exists, then the world is not deceptive
P2: The world is deceptive
C: Therefore, a perfect being does not exist

Take solid objects for example, they certainly don't seem mostly empty and hollow. However, we know that atoms are over 99% empty space. It certainly seems as if we touch people and objects, but we know that the outer electrons repel each other and no two physical objects actually touch. It certainly seems as if objects have definite physical properties even when no observation is being made but Quantum Mechanics shows that's not true. I could go on but you get the point; reality is deceptive.

So according to William Lane Craig's own reasoning (a perfect being wouldn't create a deceptive world); a perfect being does not exist.

You thinking the world is deceptive is an opinion.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 6:14:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2017 5:41:59 AM, Perussi wrote:
At 1/26/2017 12:18:19 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
William Lane Craig argues that the world cannot be a simulation if God exists because God is perfect, and thus, is not a deceiver; he wouldn't make us think we live in a concrete material reality if we didn't.

If this is true, then we have a pretty good argument against the existence of a perfect being:

P1: If a perfect being exists, then the world is not deceptive
P2: The world is deceptive
C: Therefore, a perfect being does not exist

Take solid objects for example, they certainly don't seem mostly empty and hollow. However, we know that atoms are over 99% empty space. It certainly seems as if we touch people and objects, but we know that the outer electrons repel each other and no two physical objects actually touch. It certainly seems as if objects have definite physical properties even when no observation is being made but Quantum Mechanics shows that's not true. I could go on but you get the point; reality is deceptive.

So according to William Lane Craig's own reasoning (a perfect being wouldn't create a deceptive world); a perfect being does not exist.

You thinking the world is deceptive is an opinion

It's deceptive according to Dr. Craig's standards (as he believes the universe cannot be a simulation because a perfect being wouldn't make us think it was one way and not another). All I was trying to show is if William Lane Craig believes that the world not being what it seems is deceptive then he has to give up the idea of a perfect being.

This argument was really an attack on William Lane Craig's theology.
keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 6:30:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2017 12:18:19 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If this is true, then we have a pretty good argument against the existence of a perfect being:

I think we may have a pretty good argument that it serves God's purpose that our senses are not perfect.

If that means that god is not 'perfect', well so be it. Why does God have to be perfect anyway? What is required is that God creates and sustains the universe and (optionally) rewards virtue and punishes sin. Absolute Perfection - or any infinite attribute - is not necessary for godhood.

I think an entity that can create a universe in 6 days, destroy the entire world with a magical flood, turn women into pillars of salt and so on counts as a god regardless of whether that entity is 'perfect' or 'infinitely powerful' or literally 'omnipresent'.

It is a trivial exercise in word-play to show that an entity with some infinite attribute or other is either is logically necessary or alternatively logically impossible according to taste, but I don't think it matters if god can make a stone he cannot lift.

What matters is 'Does an entity with any interest in the affairs of mankind exist or is the universe just the playing out of physical laws?'

Just in case anyone doesn't already know or it's not quite clear, I am of the latter opinion.
Smithereens
Posts: 8,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 6:38:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I really don't think your and his argument have much in common.
"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

Debate challenge 'Solipsism is false:' http://www.debate.org...
If God were real... http://www.debate.org...
Perussi
Posts: 3,687
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 11:24:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2017 6:14:47 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/26/2017 5:41:59 AM, Perussi wrote:
At 1/26/2017 12:18:19 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
William Lane Craig argues that the world cannot be a simulation if God exists because God is perfect, and thus, is not a deceiver; he wouldn't make us think we live in a concrete material reality if we didn't.

If this is true, then we have a pretty good argument against the existence of a perfect being:

P1: If a perfect being exists, then the world is not deceptive
P2: The world is deceptive
C: Therefore, a perfect being does not exist

Take solid objects for example, they certainly don't seem mostly empty and hollow. However, we know that atoms are over 99% empty space. It certainly seems as if we touch people and objects, but we know that the outer electrons repel each other and no two physical objects actually touch. It certainly seems as if objects have definite physical properties even when no observation is being made but Quantum Mechanics shows that's not true. I could go on but you get the point; reality is deceptive.

So according to William Lane Craig's own reasoning (a perfect being wouldn't create a deceptive world); a perfect being does not exist.

You thinking the world is deceptive is an opinion

It's deceptive according to Dr. Craig's standards (as he believes the universe cannot be a simulation because a perfect being wouldn't make us think it was one way and not another). All I was trying to show is if William Lane Craig believes that the world not being what it seems is deceptive then he has to give up the idea of a perfect being.

This argument was really an attack on William Lane Craig's theology.

My argument against reality is two words: "seems legit".
keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 12:39:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2017 6:38:40 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I really don't think your and his argument have much in common.

Was that aimed at my post? I can only say that I was not trying to have anything in common with any of the variations of the so-called "Ontological argument' about god's existence or otherwise. I think they are pointless word games that miss the point of what divides believers and non-believers.
NHN
Posts: 1,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 4:10:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2017 12:18:19 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
William Lane Craig argues that the world cannot be a simulation if God exists because God is perfect, and thus, is not a deceiver; he wouldn't make us think we live in a concrete material reality if we didn't.
How many of these identical threads have you created by now? Seriously, go back to basics: embrace Descartes and throw aside anything ever written by WLC.

The superfluous, improvable condition A (world as simulation) and the superfluous, improvable condition B (world as divine creation) are, like any brain-in-a-vat theory, completely isolated, solipsistic accounts from which no logical implication can be drawn. As they occur out of thin air, brought forth by an unmoved mover (simulation device or deity), both are based on the same logical fallacy (infinite regress).
I am fascinated by the idea that our civilization is like a thin layer of ice upon a deep ocean of chaos and darkness.
--Werner Herzog
v3nesl
Posts: 6,821
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 5:34:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2017 6:30:37 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 1/26/2017 12:18:19 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If this is true, then we have a pretty good argument against the existence of a perfect being:

I think we may have a pretty good argument that it serves God's purpose that our senses are not perfect.

If that means that god is not 'perfect', well so be it. Why does God have to be perfect anyway? What is required is that God creates and sustains the universe and (optionally) rewards virtue and punishes sin. Absolute Perfection - or any infinite attribute - is not necessary for godhood.

I think an entity that can create a universe in 6 days, destroy the entire world with a magical flood, turn women into pillars of salt and so on counts as a god regardless of whether that entity is 'perfect' or 'infinitely powerful' or literally 'omnipresent'.

It is a trivial exercise in word-play to show that an entity with some infinite attribute or other is either is logically necessary or alternatively logically impossible according to taste, but I don't think it matters if god can make a stone he cannot lift.

What matters is 'Does an entity with any interest in the affairs of mankind exist or is the universe just the playing out of physical laws?'

Just in case anyone doesn't already know or it's not quite clear, I am of the latter opinion.

Good post. I should find opportunity to agree with you sometimes :-)

But - are you sure that "playing out of physical law" and "interest in the affairs of man" are mutually exclusive? C.S. Lewis would say no, and argued that mind intervention happens all the time (with humans), and the cosmos, like a lake absorbing the ripples from a dropped pebble, seems quite happy with the perturbations of intelligence (he didn't put it quite like that - He was a genius, I am not). One could argue that it seems exactly what the cosmos was designed for, like a guitar that begs to be strummed. "The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed"
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 6,821
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 5:35:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2017 12:18:19 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
William Lane Craig argues that the world cannot be a simulation

A simulation of what, would be my first question. What is the real world Craig alludes to?
This space for rent.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 6:14:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2017 4:10:52 PM, NHN wrote:
At 1/26/2017 12:18:19 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
William Lane Craig argues that the world cannot be a simulation if God exists because God is perfect, and thus, is not a deceiver; he wouldn't make us think we live in a concrete material reality if we didn't.
How many of these identical threads have you created by now? Seriously, go back to basics: embrace Descartes and throw aside anything ever written by WLC.

This is the first thread I've made on this particular subject.


The superfluous, improvable condition A (world as simulation) and the superfluous, improvable condition B (world as divine creation) are, like any brain-in-a-vat theory, completely isolated, solipsistic accounts from which no logical implication can be drawn.

They are not Solipsistic, where do you get that from? What is superfluous is the notion of a non-mental reality.

As they occur out of thin air, brought forth by an unmoved mover (simulation device or deity), both are based on the same logical fallacy (infinite regress).

You clearly missed the point of the thread.
keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 8:17:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2017 5:34:15 PM, v3nesl wrote:
But - are you sure that "playing out of physical law" and "interest in the affairs of man" are mutually exclusive? C.S. Lewis would say no, and argued that mind intervention happens all the time (with humans), and the cosmos, like a lake absorbing the ripples from a dropped pebble, seems quite happy with the perturbations of intelligence (he didn't put it quite like that - He was a genius, I am not). One could argue that it seems exactly what the cosmos was designed for, like a guitar that begs to be strummed. "The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed"

Perhaps it isn't all that easy to put my attitude into words. May be "I don't believe in any teleological principle." would be better. I think we are just bags of chemicals with delusions of grandeur. I think that for bags of chemicals we are pretty amazing, but in the end we are a temporary glitch in the universe's inexorable slide into ever increasing entropy. It's only really Doctor Who back on TV that makes life was worth living.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 8:40:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2017 8:17:12 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 1/26/2017 5:34:15 PM, v3nesl wrote:
But - are you sure that "playing out of physical law" and "interest in the affairs of man" are mutually exclusive? C.S. Lewis would say no, and argued that mind intervention happens all the time (with humans), and the cosmos, like a lake absorbing the ripples from a dropped pebble, seems quite happy with the perturbations of intelligence (he didn't put it quite like that - He was a genius, I am not). One could argue that it seems exactly what the cosmos was designed for, like a guitar that begs to be strummed. "The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed"

Perhaps it isn't all that easy to put my attitude into words. May be "I don't believe in any teleological principle." would be better. I think we are just bags of chemicals with delusions of grandeur. I think that for bags of chemicals we are pretty amazing, but in the end we are a temporary glitch in the universe's inexorable slide into ever increasing entropy. It's only really Doctor Who back on TV that makes life was worth living.

We aren't just bags of chemicals, we have this thing called consciousness.
keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 9:16:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2017 8:40:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
We aren't just bags of chemicals, we have this thing called consciousness.

We also have stomachs - for much the same reason. Conscious bags of chemicals are more efficient makers of baby bags of chemicals than they would be if they were unconscious.

But I admit that is the negative way of looking at it! Consciousness is something special because it brings meaning and values into existence. If morality exists or if destiny exists then they exists only by virtue of consciousness. However consciousness is not something that exists like some kind universal element. Consciousness is what an individual functioning brain produces. What can appear as (or gets portrayed as) a cosmic abstraction ('Consciousness') is in reality made up of countless individual consciousnesses, each locked up inside a brain. It resembles 'life' - there is no such thing as life, there are only living things.
NHN
Posts: 1,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 10:25:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2017 6:14:21 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/26/2017 4:10:52 PM, NHN wrote:
At 1/26/2017 12:18:19 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
William Lane Craig argues that the world cannot be a simulation if God exists because God is perfect, and thus, is not a deceiver; he wouldn't make us think we live in a concrete material reality if we didn't.
How many of these identical threads have you created by now? Seriously, go back to basics: embrace Descartes and throw aside anything ever written by WLC.
This is the first thread I've made on this particular subject.
You're having a laugh.

The superfluous, improvable condition A (world as simulation) and the superfluous, improvable condition B (world as divine creation) are, like any brain-in-a-vat theory, completely isolated, solipsistic accounts from which no logical implication can be drawn.
They are not Solipsistic, where do you get that from?
Only a solipsistic Weltanschauung would allow leaps of the kind you make in the OP.

What is superfluous is the notion of a non-mental reality.
You don't seem to understand that the adjective superfluous accrues to that which adds nothing to an explication. In formal logic, the claim that "God exists, therefore X" is as superfluous as the claim that "God wears pink ribbons, elastic bunny ears, and wags his finger to smite heathens, therefore Y." Two such errors are introduced in the OP, one being the implication of the world created by a divinity, the other through a simulation. Either one can be used in separate thought experiments--re: Bostrom's simulation hypothesis--but you cannot introduce them under the banner of formal logic and then draw conclusions.

As they occur out of thin air, brought forth by an unmoved mover (simulation device or deity), both are based on the same logical fallacy (infinite regress).
You clearly missed the point of the thread.
No. My point, rather, is that you seem to confuse philosophy with theology.
I am fascinated by the idea that our civilization is like a thin layer of ice upon a deep ocean of chaos and darkness.
--Werner Herzog
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 2,695
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 10:37:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2017 12:18:19 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
William Lane Craig argues that the world cannot be a simulation if God exists because God is perfect, and thus, is not a deceiver; he wouldn't make us think we live in a concrete material reality if we didn't.

If this is true, then we have a pretty good argument against the existence of a perfect being:

P1: If a perfect being exists, then the world is not deceptive
P2: The world is deceptive
C: Therefore, a perfect being does not exist
Personal opinion fallacy.
How many times do you people have to be told modus ponens are about acknowledged truths. It's what the phrase in Latin means. To affirm {affirm a truth by definition) by affirming. Besides, just because a being is perfect doesn't mean that being cannot display imperfection.
Besides, if you claim the world is deceptive it is self defeating because in logic that would entail the world deceiving you to believe it is deceptive.
Take solid objects for example, they certainly don't seem mostly empty and hollow. However, we know that atoms are over 99% empty space. It certainly seems as if we touch people and objects, but we know that the outer electrons repel each other and no two physical objects actually touch. It certainly seems as if objects have definite physical properties even when no observation is being made but Quantum Mechanics shows that's not true. I could go on but you get the point; reality is deceptive.

So according to William Lane Craig's own reasoning (a perfect being wouldn't create a deceptive world); a perfect being does not exist.
this site is dead. It doesn't even correctly post replies..
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 11:12:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2017 9:16:46 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 1/26/2017 8:40:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
We aren't just bags of chemicals, we have this thing called consciousness.

We also have stomachs - for much the same reason. Conscious bags of chemicals are more efficient makers of baby bags of chemicals than they would be if they were unconscious.

From a Materialistic standpoint, it's hard to see how consciousness would benefit humans. All you would need is the neural activity that the consciousness correlates with to get the same results. Essentially, if we were all P-Zombies we would have the same fitness function, so consciousness doesn't seem to increase fitness or make us more efficient baby makers at all.


But I admit that is the negative way of looking at it! Consciousness is something special because it brings meaning and values into existence. If morality exists or if destiny exists then they exists only by virtue of consciousness. However consciousness is not something that exists like some kind universal element.

Well, if Idealism is true, which I believe, then consciousness is all that really exists.

Consciousness is what an individual functioning brain produces.

There is no good reason to believe this though. It wouldn't matter how tight the correlation between brain states and mental states get it would never give you epistemic justification for claiming brain states produce conscious states. In my view, it's likely that certain brain states are just what an aspect of localization of consciousness looks like from a third-person perspective. So, of course they correlate very well, but this doesn't mean brain states cause the correlating mental states.

What can appear as (or gets portrayed as) a cosmic abstraction ('Consciousness') is in reality made up of countless individual consciousnesses, each locked up inside a brain. It resembles 'life' - there is no such thing as life, there are only living things.

Why think anything exists outside of consciousness in the first place?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 11:16:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2017 10:37:58 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/26/2017 12:18:19 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
William Lane Craig argues that the world cannot be a simulation if God exists because God is perfect, and thus, is not a deceiver; he wouldn't make us think we live in a concrete material reality if we didn't.

If this is true, then we have a pretty good argument against the existence of a perfect being:

P1: If a perfect being exists, then the world is not deceptive
P2: The world is deceptive
C: Therefore, a perfect being does not exist
Personal opinion fallacy.

Bare-assertion fallacy.

How many times do you people have to be told modus ponens are about acknowledged truths. It's what the phrase in Latin means. To affirm {affirm a truth by definition) by affirming. Besides, just because a being is perfect doesn't mean that being cannot display imperfection.

The argument is Modus Tollens by the way....

And I'm going off of Dr. Craig's logic to show his view is flawed.

Besides, if you claim the world is deceptive it is self defeating because in logic that would entail the world deceiving you to believe it is deceptive.

I never said meant it was deceptive, just deceptive according to Dr. Craig's standard.

Take solid objects for example, they certainly don't seem mostly empty and hollow. However, we know that atoms are over 99% empty space. It certainly seems as if we touch people and objects, but we know that the outer electrons repel each other and no two physical objects actually touch. It certainly seems as if objects have definite physical properties even when no observation is being made but Quantum Mechanics shows that's not true. I could go on but you get the point; reality is deceptive.

So according to William Lane Craig's own reasoning (a perfect being wouldn't create a deceptive world); a perfect being does not exist.
Smithereens
Posts: 8,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 11:42:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2017 12:39:47 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 1/26/2017 6:38:40 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I really don't think your and his argument have much in common.

Was that aimed at my post? I can only say that I was not trying to have anything in common with any of the variations of the so-called "Ontological argument' about god's existence or otherwise. I think they are pointless word games that miss the point of what divides believers and non-believers.

It was aimed at the OP.
"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

Debate challenge 'Solipsism is false:' http://www.debate.org...
If God were real... http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2017 11:50:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2017 10:25:01 PM, NHN wrote:
At 1/26/2017 6:14:21 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/26/2017 4:10:52 PM, NHN wrote:
At 1/26/2017 12:18:19 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
William Lane Craig argues that the world cannot be a simulation if God exists because God is perfect, and thus, is not a deceiver; he wouldn't make us think we live in a concrete material reality if we didn't.
How many of these identical threads have you created by now? Seriously, go back to basics: embrace Descartes and throw aside anything ever written by WLC.
This is the first thread I've made on this particular subject.
You're having a laugh.

Show me another thread I made about Dr. Craig's argument against a simulated universe from perfect being theology.


The superfluous, improvable condition A (world as simulation) and the superfluous, improvable condition B (world as divine creation) are, like any brain-in-a-vat theory, completely isolated, solipsistic accounts from which no logical implication can be drawn.
They are not Solipsistic, where do you get that from?
Only a solipsistic Weltanschauung would allow leaps of the kind you make in the OP.

What is superfluous is the notion of a non-mental reality.
You don't seem to understand that the adjective superfluous accrues to that which adds nothing to an explication.

Superfluous just means unnecessary.

In formal logic, the claim that "God exists, therefore X" is as superfluous as the claim that "God wears pink ribbons, elastic bunny ears, and wags his finger to smite heathens, therefore Y."

In formal logic you need more than one premise to reach a conclusion, your examples only have one premise before the conclusion so whatever argument you are mocking it isn't mine.

Two such errors are introduced in the OP, one being the implication of the world created by a divinity, the other through a simulation.

I never claimed either one of those was true, so where is my error exactly?

Either one can be used in separate thought experiments--re: Bostrom's simulation hypothesis--but you cannot introduce them under the banner of formal logic and then draw conclusions.

Sure you can; any subject can be under the banner of formal logic. Are you trolling or being serious?


As they occur out of thin air, brought forth by an unmoved mover (simulation device or deity), both are based on the same logical fallacy (infinite regress).
You clearly missed the point of the thread.
No. My point, rather, is that you seem to confuse philosophy with theology.

It's the philosophy of theology... Wow.
NHN
Posts: 1,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2017 12:11:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2017 11:50:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/26/2017 10:25:01 PM, NHN wrote:
At 1/26/2017 6:14:21 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/26/2017 4:10:52 PM, NHN wrote:
At 1/26/2017 12:18:19 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
William Lane Craig argues that the world cannot be a simulation if God exists because God is perfect, and thus, is not a deceiver; he wouldn't make us think we live in a concrete material reality if we didn't.
How many of these identical threads have you created by now? Seriously, go back to basics: embrace Descartes and throw aside anything ever written by WLC.
This is the first thread I've made on this particular subject.
You're having a laugh.
Show me another thread I made about Dr. Craig's argument against a simulated universe from perfect being theology.
The number of threads in which you pick out a statement by WLC and then argue against it are countless.

The superfluous, improvable condition A (world as simulation) and the superfluous, improvable condition B (world as divine creation) are, like any brain-in-a-vat theory, completely isolated, solipsistic accounts from which no logical implication can be drawn.
They are not Solipsistic, where do you get that from?
Only a solipsistic Weltanschauung would allow leaps of the kind you make in the OP.
...
As you stated above, "Why think anything exists outside of consciousness in the first place?" This is a perfect example of how you maintain a solipsistic position--i.e., extreme idealism--without realizing it.

What is superfluous is the notion of a non-mental reality.
You don't seem to understand that the adjective superfluous accrues to that which adds nothing to an explication.
Superfluous just means unnecessary.
Not in philosophy. Superfluous is the element that adds nothing to the explication.

In formal logic, the claim that "God exists, therefore X" is as superfluous as the claim that "God wears pink ribbons, elastic bunny ears, and wags his finger to smite heathens, therefore Y."
In formal logic you need more than one premise to reach a conclusion, your examples only have one premise before the conclusion so whatever argument you are mocking it isn't mine.
You are referring to the use of defunct Aristotelian syllogisms. It didn't work for Anselm and it doesn't work for you.

Two such errors are introduced in the OP, one being the implication of the world created by a divinity, the other through a simulation.
I never claimed either one of those was true, so where is my error exactly?
Quoth he, "the world cannot be a simulation if God exists because God is perfect." These assumptions regarding simulated reality and a perfect divinity are both out of bounds and do not allow you to take the logical step, concluding that therefore God doesn't exist.

Either one can be used in separate thought experiments--re: Bostrom's simulation hypothesis--but you cannot introduce them under the banner of formal logic and then draw conclusions.
Sure you can; any subject can be under the banner of formal logic. Are you trolling or being serious?
You are not separating thought experiments from hypotheses from logical proofs. These are distinct categories.

As they occur out of thin air, brought forth by an unmoved mover (simulation device or deity), both are based on the same logical fallacy (infinite regress).
You clearly missed the point of the thread.
No. My point, rather, is that you seem to confuse philosophy with theology.
It's the philosophy of theology... Wow.
Philosophy of religion, dear interlocutor. Theology is the study of the divine and of revelation. What you are doing, however, is not philosophy but theology wrapped in philosophical lingo.

It is not the object of philosophy to prove or disprove the existence of God.
I am fascinated by the idea that our civilization is like a thin layer of ice upon a deep ocean of chaos and darkness.
--Werner Herzog
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2017 12:42:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2017 12:11:32 AM, NHN wrote:
At 1/26/2017 11:50:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/26/2017 10:25:01 PM, NHN wrote:
At 1/26/2017 6:14:21 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/26/2017 4:10:52 PM, NHN wrote:
At 1/26/2017 12:18:19 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
William Lane Craig argues that the world cannot be a simulation if God exists because God is perfect, and thus, is not a deceiver; he wouldn't make us think we live in a concrete material reality if we didn't.
How many of these identical threads have you created by now? Seriously, go back to basics: embrace Descartes and throw aside anything ever written by WLC.
This is the first thread I've made on this particular subject.
You're having a laugh.
Show me another thread I made about Dr. Craig's argument against a simulated universe from perfect being theology.
The number of threads in which you pick out a statement by WLC and then argue against it are countless.

Well they are different arguments by WLC, so they aren't specifically the same thread topics. Either way you felt it interesting enough to respond so, there's that.


The superfluous, improvable condition A (world as simulation) and the superfluous, improvable condition B (world as divine creation) are, like any brain-in-a-vat theory, completely isolated, solipsistic accounts from which no logical implication can be drawn.
They are not Solipsistic, where do you get that from?
Only a solipsistic Weltanschauung would allow leaps of the kind you make in the OP.
...
As you stated above, "Why think anything exists outside of consciousness in the first place?" This is a perfect example of how you maintain a solipsistic position--i.e., extreme idealism--without realizing it.

Not even close. Just because there is nothing outside of consciousness in general doesn't mean there is nothing outside of MY consciousness.


What is superfluous is the notion of a non-mental reality.
You don't seem to understand that the adjective superfluous accrues to that which adds nothing to an explication.
Superfluous just means unnecessary.
Not in philosophy. Superfluous is the element that adds nothing to the explication.

Either way, the difference is minuscule.


In formal logic, the claim that "God exists, therefore X" is as superfluous as the claim that "God wears pink ribbons, elastic bunny ears, and wags his finger to smite heathens, therefore Y."
In formal logic you need more than one premise to reach a conclusion, your examples only have one premise before the conclusion so whatever argument you are mocking it isn't mine.
You are referring to the use of defunct Aristotelian syllogisms. It didn't work for Anselm and it doesn't work for you.

If you think logic is defunct then you don't even have the foundation to argue with me because you would need logic to do so.


Two such errors are introduced in the OP, one being the implication of the world created by a divinity, the other through a simulation.
I never claimed either one of those was true, so where is my error exactly?
Quoth he, "the world cannot be a simulation if God exists because God is perfect." These assumptions regarding simulated reality and a perfect divinity are both out of bounds and do not allow you to take the logical step, concluding that therefore God doesn't exist.

That's Dr. Craig's reasoning, not mine. All I did was prove that his reasoning leads to the non-existence of God.


Either one can be used in separate thought experiments--re: Bostrom's simulation hypothesis--but you cannot introduce them under the banner of formal logic and then draw conclusions.
Sure you can; any subject can be under the banner of formal logic. Are you trolling or being serious?
You are not separating thought experiments from hypotheses from logical proofs. These are distinct categories.

The logical proof only holds under certain assumptions (the one WLC makes), that doesn't mean I agree with his assumptions.


As they occur out of thin air, brought forth by an unmoved mover (simulation device or deity), both are based on the same logical fallacy (infinite regress).
You clearly missed the point of the thread.
No. My point, rather, is that you seem to confuse philosophy with theology.
It's the philosophy of theology... Wow.
Philosophy of religion, dear interlocutor. Theology is the study of the divine and of revelation. What you are doing, however, is not philosophy but theology wrapped in philosophical lingo.

It is not the object of philosophy to prove or disprove the existence of God.

The philosophy of religion, but more specifically; natural theology.

And philosophy can be about anything, who are you to say people can't philosophize about god?
Philosophy101
Posts: 2,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2017 12:50:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2017 6:14:21 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/26/2017 4:10:52 PM, NHN wrote:
At 1/26/2017 12:18:19 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
William Lane Craig argues that the world cannot be a simulation if God exists because God is perfect, and thus, is not a deceiver; he wouldn't make us think we live in a concrete material reality if we didn't.
How many of these identical threads have you created by now? Seriously, go back to basics: embrace Descartes and throw aside anything ever written by WLC.

This is the first thread I've made on this particular subject.


The superfluous, improvable condition A (world as simulation) and the superfluous, improvable condition B (world as divine creation) are, like any brain-in-a-vat theory, completely isolated, solipsistic accounts from which no logical implication can be drawn.

They are not Solipsistic, where do you get that from? What is superfluous is the notion of a non-mental reality.

I don't think a non mental reality is superfluous. It explains a lot about the stability and predictability of the world. For instance if there was no nonmemtal reality we could walk out our front door and never find our way back. Physical reality is determined such that things that were there stay there; in other words it is pretty solid. Thus, reality is a useful term and not at all superfluous.

As they occur out of thin air, brought forth by an unmoved mover (simulation device or deity), both are based on the same logical fallacy (infinite regress).

You clearly missed the point of the thread.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2017 1:04:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2017 12:50:56 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 1/26/2017 6:14:21 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/26/2017 4:10:52 PM, NHN wrote:
At 1/26/2017 12:18:19 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
William Lane Craig argues that the world cannot be a simulation if God exists because God is perfect, and thus, is not a deceiver; he wouldn't make us think we live in a concrete material reality if we didn't.
How many of these identical threads have you created by now? Seriously, go back to basics: embrace Descartes and throw aside anything ever written by WLC.

This is the first thread I've made on this particular subject.


The superfluous, improvable condition A (world as simulation) and the superfluous, improvable condition B (world as divine creation) are, like any brain-in-a-vat theory, completely isolated, solipsistic accounts from which no logical implication can be drawn.

They are not Solipsistic, where do you get that from? What is superfluous is the notion of a non-mental reality.

I don't think a non mental reality is superfluous. It explains a lot about the stability and predictability of the world. For instance if there was no nonmemtal reality we could walk out our front door and never find our way back. Physical reality is determined such that things that were there stay there; in other words it is pretty solid. Thus, reality is a useful term and not at all superfluous.

As they occur out of thin air, brought forth by an unmoved mover (simulation device or deity), both are based on the same logical fallacy (infinite regress).

You clearly missed the point of the thread.

Just because reality is consistent doesn't make it non-mental. It could just as easily be a consistent mental reality. So, assuming a non-mental reality is still superfluous.
NHN
Posts: 1,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2017 2:03:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2017 12:42:41 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/27/2017 12:11:32 AM, NHN wrote:
At 1/26/2017 11:50:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/26/2017 10:25:01 PM, NHN wrote:
At 1/26/2017 6:14:21 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/26/2017 4:10:52 PM, NHN wrote:
At 1/26/2017 12:18:19 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
William Lane Craig argues that the world cannot be a simulation if God exists because God is perfect, and thus, is not a deceiver; he wouldn't make us think we live in a concrete material reality if we didn't.
How many of these identical threads have you created by now? Seriously, go back to basics: embrace Descartes and throw aside anything ever written by WLC.
This is the first thread I've made on this particular subject.
You're having a laugh.
Show me another thread I made about Dr. Craig's argument against a simulated universe from perfect being theology.
The number of threads in which you pick out a statement by WLC and then argue against it are countless.
Well they are different arguments by WLC, so they aren't specifically the same thread topics.
They are, though. Like the passing of the seasons, every argument begins with (my) consciousness permeates all of existence and ends with therefore God does not exist.

Either way you felt it interesting enough to respond so, there's that.
Peculiar, I'd say. Much like communicating with a man who keeps whacking his hammer in the air, expecting to eventually hit that one nail that may come his way.

The superfluous, improvable condition A (world as simulation) and the superfluous, improvable condition B (world as divine creation) are, like any brain-in-a-vat theory, completely isolated, solipsistic accounts from which no logical implication can be drawn.
They are not Solipsistic, where do you get that from?
Only a solipsistic Weltanschauung would allow leaps of the kind you make in the OP.
...
As you stated above, "Why think anything exists outside of consciousness in the first place?" This is a perfect example of how you maintain a solipsistic position--i.e., extreme idealism--without realizing it.
Not even close. Just because there is nothing outside of consciousness in general doesn't mean there is nothing outside of MY consciousness.
How do you define consciousness, let alone separate and demarcate outside from inside, i.e., "my consciousness" from "all of consciousness"?

What is superfluous is the notion of a non-mental reality.
You don't seem to understand that the adjective superfluous accrues to that which adds nothing to an explication.
Superfluous just means unnecessary.
Not in philosophy. Superfluous is the element that adds nothing to the explication.
Either way, the difference is minuscule.
If you could see what it meant, you would avoid the superfluous element in the first place.

In formal logic, the claim that "God exists, therefore X" is as superfluous as the claim that "God wears pink ribbons, elastic bunny ears, and wags his finger to smite heathens, therefore Y."
In formal logic you need more than one premise to reach a conclusion, your examples only have one premise before the conclusion so whatever argument you are mocking it isn't mine.
You are referring to the use of defunct Aristotelian syllogisms. It didn't work for Anselm and it doesn't work for you.
If you think logic is defunct then you don't even have the foundation to argue with me because you would need logic to do so.
Logic isn't defunct. What I am referring to is the way in which Aristotle short-circuited that which cannot be said in a philosophical context, i.e., concepts without a stable definition (God, omnipotence, omniscience), or fallacies (most commonly infinite regress and begging the question).

Two such errors are introduced in the OP, one being the implication of the world created by a divinity, the other through a simulation.
I never claimed either one of those was true, so where is my error exactly?
Quoth he, "the world cannot be a simulation if God exists because God is perfect." These assumptions regarding simulated reality and a perfect divinity are both out of bounds and do not allow you to take the logical step, concluding that therefore God doesn't exist.
That's Dr. Craig's reasoning, not mine. All I did was prove that his reasoning leads to the non-existence of God.
You proved no such thing. One cannot disprove solipsism, only discard it as a superfluous explanation. What you did wrong--and continue to do wrong--is to make logical deductions out of superfluous positions, thus expanding the error.

Either one can be used in separate thought experiments--re: Bostrom's simulation hypothesis--but you cannot introduce them under the banner of formal logic and then draw conclusions.
Sure you can; any subject can be under the banner of formal logic. Are you trolling or being serious?
You are not separating thought experiments from hypotheses from logical proofs. These are distinct categories.
The logical proof only holds under certain assumptions (the one WLC makes), that doesn't mean I agree with his assumptions.
I get the feeling that you're not properly representing his argument.

As they occur out of thin air, brought forth by an unmoved mover (simulation device or deity), both are based on the same logical fallacy (infinite regress).
You clearly missed the point of the thread.
No. My point, rather, is that you seem to confuse philosophy with theology.
It's the philosophy of theology... Wow.
Philosophy of religion, dear interlocutor. Theology is the study of the divine and of revelation. What you are doing, however, is not philosophy but theology wrapped in philosophical lingo.

It is not the object of philosophy to prove or disprove the existence of God.
The philosophy of religion, but more specifically; natural theology.
No, it isn't. The object of the philosophy of religion "is the philosophical examination of the central themes and concepts involved in religious traditions" (https://plato.stanford.edu...). Reread that quote a few times: the examination of central themes and concepts, not the goal of proving (or disproving) God's existence.

And philosophy can be about anything, who are you to say people can't philosophize about god?
Knowledge is to philosophy what revelation is to theology. As such, the two hold radically different goals and cannot be conjoined. You will have to choose one and ditch the other.
I am fascinated by the idea that our civilization is like a thin layer of ice upon a deep ocean of chaos and darkness.
--Werner Herzog
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2017 2:16:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2017 2:03:13 AM, NHN wrote:
At 1/27/2017 12:42:41 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/27/2017 12:11:32 AM, NHN wrote:
At 1/26/2017 11:50:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/26/2017 10:25:01 PM, NHN wrote:
At 1/26/2017 6:14:21 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/26/2017 4:10:52 PM, NHN wrote:
At 1/26/2017 12:18:19 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
William Lane Craig argues that the world cannot be a simulation if God exists because God is perfect, and thus, is not a deceiver; he wouldn't make us think we live in a concrete material reality if we didn't.
How many of these identical threads have you created by now? Seriously, go back to basics: embrace Descartes and throw aside anything ever written by WLC.
This is the first thread I've made on this particular subject.
You're having a laugh.
Show me another thread I made about Dr. Craig's argument against a simulated universe from perfect being theology.
The number of threads in which you pick out a statement by WLC and then argue against it are countless.
Well they are different arguments by WLC, so they aren't specifically the same thread topics.
They are, though. Like the passing of the seasons, every argument begins with (my) consciousness permeates all of existence and ends with therefore God does not exist.

No they don't, where do you come up with these straw-men?


Either way you felt it interesting enough to respond so, there's that.
Peculiar, I'd say. Much like communicating with a man who keeps whacking his hammer in the air, expecting to eventually hit that one nail that may come his way.

The superfluous, improvable condition A (world as simulation) and the superfluous, improvable condition B (world as divine creation) are, like any brain-in-a-vat theory, completely isolated, solipsistic accounts from which no logical implication can be drawn.
They are not Solipsistic, where do you get that from?
Only a solipsistic Weltanschauung would allow leaps of the kind you make in the OP.
...
As you stated above, "Why think anything exists outside of consciousness in the first place?" This is a perfect example of how you maintain a solipsistic position--i.e., extreme idealism--without realizing it.
Not even close. Just because there is nothing outside of consciousness in general doesn't mean there is nothing outside of MY consciousness.
How do you define consciousness, let alone separate and demarcate outside from inside, i.e., "my consciousness" from "all of consciousness"?

What is superfluous is the notion of a non-mental reality.
You don't seem to understand that the adjective superfluous accrues to that which adds nothing to an explication.
Superfluous just means unnecessary.
Not in philosophy. Superfluous is the element that adds nothing to the explication.
Either way, the difference is minuscule.
If you could see what it meant, you would avoid the superfluous element in the first place.

In formal logic, the claim that "God exists, therefore X" is as superfluous as the claim that "God wears pink ribbons, elastic bunny ears, and wags his finger to smite heathens, therefore Y."
In formal logic you need more than one premise to reach a conclusion, your examples only have one premise before the conclusion so whatever argument you are mocking it isn't mine.
You are referring to the use of defunct Aristotelian syllogisms. It didn't work for Anselm and it doesn't work for you.
If you think logic is defunct then you don't even have the foundation to argue with me because you would need logic to do so.
Logic isn't defunct. What I am referring to is the way in which Aristotle short-circuited that which cannot be said in a philosophical context, i.e., concepts without a stable definition (God, omnipotence, omniscience), or fallacies (most commonly infinite regress and begging the question).

A valid logical syllogism is a valid syllogism regardless of Aristotle's metaphysics.


Two such errors are introduced in the OP, one being the implication of the world created by a divinity, the other through a simulation.
I never claimed either one of those was true, so where is my error exactly?
Quoth he, "the world cannot be a simulation if God exists because God is perfect." These assumptions regarding simulated reality and a perfect divinity are both out of bounds and do not allow you to take the logical step, concluding that therefore God doesn't exist.
That's Dr. Craig's reasoning, not mine. All I did was prove that his reasoning leads to the non-existence of God.
You proved no such thing. One cannot disprove solipsism, only discard it as a superfluous explanation. What you did wrong--and continue to do wrong--is to make logical deductions out of superfluous positions, thus expanding the error.

The OP has nothing to do with Solipsism. This proves you are trolling.


Either one can be used in separate thought experiments--re: Bostrom's simulation hypothesis--but you cannot introduce them under the banner of formal logic and then draw conclusions.
Sure you can; any subject can be under the banner of formal logic. Are you trolling or being serious?
You are not separating thought experiments from hypotheses from logical proofs. These are distinct categories.
The logical proof only holds under certain assumptions (the one WLC makes), that doesn't mean I agree with his assumptions.
I get the feeling that you're not properly representing his argument.

Well I am, your feelings are irrelevant (no offense).


As they occur out of thin air, brought forth by an unmoved mover (simulation device or deity), both are based on the same logical fallacy (infinite regress).
You clearly missed the point of the thread.
No. My point, rather, is that you seem to confuse philosophy with theology.
It's the philosophy of theology... Wow.
Philosophy of religion, dear interlocutor. Theology is the study of the divine and of revelation. What you are doing, however, is not philosophy but theology wrapped in philosophical lingo.

It is not the object of philosophy to prove or disprove the existence of God.
The philosophy of religion, but more specifically; natural theology.
No, it isn't. The object of the philosophy of religion "is the philosophical examination of the central themes and concepts involved in religious traditions" (https://plato.stanford.edu...). Reread that quote a few times: the examination of central themes and concepts, not the goal of proving (or disproving) God's existence.

Well a central theme in religious traditions is that God exists lol So clearly debating God's existence falls in that category.


And philosophy can be about anything, who are you to say people can't philosophize about god?
Knowledge is to philosophy what revelation is to theology. As such, the two hold radically different goals and cannot be conjoined. You will have to choose one and ditch the other.

Natural theology isn't about revelation though...

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.