(December 24, 2015 at 5:54 am)robvalue Wrote: My position feels pretty solid, because the existence of God is, to me, a non issue. I couldn't care less either way, except out of the obvious scientific curiosity.

However, it appears some people wouldn't be able to function without God "being real" because they've built their whole house on it.

If such people do ever escape, they will probably find that what they built their house on was themselves, being labelled as god. God is a mirror. Where else could something live that a person knows so much about but can't demonstrate the merest existence of but in their mind?

This is probably why they dislike atheists more than they hate other theists. With other theists they can play the my god is bigger than your god card but with atheists there is nothing to swing against. Often you see their arguments that try to bring us down to their level, with nonsense statements like "atheism is a religion too".

(December 24, 2015 at 12:12 am)Delicate Wrote: I don't think real progress can be made with a mind so closed.

Says the person who has been immediately dismissive and insulting without merit every time someone simply disagrees and offers reasons why. We might be witnessing someone's first stroll outside the echo chamber.

(December 11, 2015 at 3:52 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Questions about being itself cannot be approached in the same way as questions about particular beings. Metaphysical questions are about what people can know about anything that is, regardless of what it is? For example, what do acorns, people, electrons, oil paintings, and numbers have in common with each other

(December 12, 2015 at 12:04 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: You can't on one hand declare god and metaphysics outside the reaches of empirical science, but then on the other accuse me of not doing my due diligence in investigating the "true nature of being and reality… if the scientific method is an incorrect investigative tool for such metaphysical matters, how DO you propose we gather this knowledge? Just by thinking really, really hard about it? That is called day dreaming.

Q: By means of empirical science, prove that empirical science is the only valid means for gaining knowledge?

A1: You cannot. Period.

A2: It’s called philosophy. Philosophical inquiries complement those of natural science and other areas knowledge. They do so, generally, by applying reason to observations, but not just any kind of observations - universal experiences and general principles that apply universally. Natural science focuses on particulars. Biology studies a particular type of beings, living things, and principles specific to living things. Linguistics also studies a particular kind of beings, verbal and written, sign systems and the principles specific to communication. Mathematics studies immaterial formal beings. Economics studies the exchange of goods and services and the principles specific to trade.

A3: Natural science deals with how things that exist change into other existing things from things that existed previous. Natural science cannot deal with why anything exists at all or how it is possible for existing things to change.

A4: Natural science talks about beings, but cannot explain what is common to all beings.

(December 12, 2015 at 12:04 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: God is either knowable or unknowable. He is either in the same category as reality or outside of reality (which is utterly meaningless, in any case).

By means of empirical investigation define the meaning of reality and provide empirical evidence that your definition is true.

[quote='LadyForCamus' pid='1139972' dateline='1449936298']The only fallacy here is yours in thinking there is any substantial difference between your God and my leprechaun.

Do yourself a favor and learn the difference between mutability and immutability. You also do not seem to understand the distinction between universals and particulars.

(December 12, 2015 at 12:04 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Oh, and by the way, screw you. I am a human being; I experience the human condition as richly as you do. But thanks for your Christian spirit in dismissing the sum and total of my humanity. Shame on you; What Would Jesus Do???

Of course you experience the human condition, its joys and pains. My point was not personal. Simply this: materialism lacks the ability to meaningfully address the basic questions of human existence.

(December 23, 2015 at 12:58 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: Chad, the problem with Plantinga's ontology is that it tries to use a non-sequitor mathematical principle of probability.

If, as you say, he is using it mathematically then I suppose you are right. Maybe there is a distinction being made of which I am ignorant. To me at least, Plantinga seems to be using 'probable' in a way similar to previous uses of the word 'possible'. I must admit that my focus on Scholastic nomenclature sometimes gets in the way of understand modern uses of the same or similar terms.

(December 24, 2015 at 5:54 am)robvalue Wrote: My position feels pretty solid, because the existence of God is, to me, a non issue. I couldn't care less either way, except out of the obvious scientific curiosity.

To questions of metaphysics are vitally important. Without them, there is no way to speak intelligently about issues of morality, freedom, or meaning. Science must forever remain silent on those issues.

(December 24, 2015 at 10:44 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(December 23, 2015 at 12:58 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: Chad, the problem with Plantinga's ontology is that it tries to use a non-sequitor mathematical principle of probability.

If, as you say, he is using it mathematically then I suppose you are right. Maybe there is a distinction being made of which I am ignorant. To me at least, Plantinga seems to be using 'probable' in a way similar to previous uses of the word 'possible'. I must admit that my focus on Scholastic nomenclature sometimes gets in the way of understand modern uses of the same or similar terms.

Plantinga's arguments don't prove a damned thing, Christianity is not the only religion with it's apologists. This is yet another reason I hate the word "philosophy", it is a loaded word it is nothing more than something religious people use to make word salad sound lagit.

O Crappy of Farts News likes to claim that "Catholic" is not a religion but a "philosophy" and so do many Buddhists.

It is all crap to me. There was no written religion 200,000 years ago much less 4 billion years ago. Dinosaurs didn't pray to a dead man on a stick, bacteria didn't build mosques and cockroaches didn't build fat statues to pray to. Humans make up religions but religion itself was never a requirement for evolution to occur. Religion is merely an excuse to claim to be the gatekeeper on knowledge, and only one tool that is best suited to gain knowledge is scientific method.

Elaborate crap to defend a old book of myth only means one has a vivid imagination.

(December 24, 2015 at 10:44 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(December 23, 2015 at 12:58 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: Chad, the problem with Plantinga's ontology is that it tries to use a non-sequitor mathematical principle of probability.

If, as you say, he is using it mathematically then I suppose you are right. Maybe there is a distinction being made of which I am ignorant. To me at least, Plantinga seems to be using 'probable' in a way similar to previous uses of the word 'possible'. I must admit that my focus on Scholastic nomenclature sometimes gets in the way of understand modern uses of the same or similar terms.

Yes, that's pretty much what I'm seeing it as. It's been a long time since I've been in any school, and my career never called for much math application, so perhaps I may have worded it wrong. Anyway, I think it's a non-sequitor mashup of probability with scientific possibility.

I gazed at Plantinga's ontology for the first time, and the first thing I said was "WTF, nobody would try and say that the possibility of pink nicorns roaming a remote planet somewhere in our galaxy makes it a certain truth, so he can't really be saying that of any Earth deity". I thought about it for hours, and then it hit me that he must be suggesting (deviously, as a hidden diversion from the possibility logic which he had established in his first ontology statement) the logic which is used in a random-sample probability solution. Either that or he presumes the universe is infinite (which is false), or the multiverse (not proven, therefore should not be presumed) is infinite (probably false anyway). I can't see how such a contextual difference between scientific possibility and mathematical probability can be easily confused, therefore I believe Plantinga has been more than devious in his fallacious argument.

As noted by Brian, Plantinga's ontology is crap.

(December 24, 2015 at 9:19 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(December 24, 2015 at 10:44 am)ChadWooters Wrote: If, as you say, he is using it mathematically then I suppose you are right. Maybe there is a distinction being made of which I am ignorant. To me at least, Plantinga seems to be using 'probable' in a way similar to previous uses of the word 'possible'. I must admit that my focus on Scholastic nomenclature sometimes gets in the way of understand modern uses of the same or similar terms.

Yes, that's pretty much what I'm seeing it as. It's been a long time since I've been in any school, and my career never called for much math application, so perhaps I may have worded it wrong.

I gazed at Plantinga's ontology for the first time, and the first thing I said was "WTF, nobody would try and say that the possibility of pink nicorns roaming a remote planet somewhere in our galaxy makes it a certain truth, so he can't really be saying that of any Earth deity". I thought about it for hours, and then it hit me that he must be suggesting (deviously, as a hidden diversion from the possibility logic which he had established in his first ontology statement) the logic which is used in a random-sample probability solution. Either that or he presumes the universe is infinite (which is false), or the multiverse (not proven, therefore should not be presumed) is infinite (probably false anyway). I can't see how such a contextual difference between scientific possibility and mathematical probability can be easily confused, therefore I believe Plantinga has been more than devious in his fallacious argument.

As noted by Brian, Plantinga's ontology is crap.

Well if we pretend for argument's sake it was valid, there would still be the problem of all the countless god claims in our species, and what would Plantinga do if other people co opted his argument to point to a different god and different holy book? Like I said, other religions have their apologists too. 

Where religion fails is that the buyer never considers that "all this" isn't caused by a being, but is simply a giant weather pattern in which we are a mere finite blip. When you have Hawking saying "A god is not required", your probability issues are solved by Occam's Razor and the best data we have so far is that humans make up gods and science is pointing away for the need for one.

Quote:Begging the question

Richard M. Gale, a metaphysician from the University of Pittsburgh, claims that the possibility premise begs the question. Basically, one is not justified in an epistemic sense to accept the possibility premise unless one also understands the nested modal operators in system S5. Within the modal system S5, “possibly necessary” means the same as “necessarily”. Since the concept of a being with “maximal excellence” entails this being’s necessary existence in a possible world, the possibility premise (3) contains nested modal operator “possibly necessary”. Since “possibly necessary” is equivalent to “necessarily” (within the system S5 that Plantinga needs for his argument to even get off the ground), the argument begs the question in the possibility premise (3), since the premise contains the conclusion within itself.

Metaphysical vs epistemic possibility

The modal ontological argument, in some presentations, relies on an equivocation between metaphysical and epistemic possibility. It may very well be that the existence of a maximally great being is epistemically possible (i.e. we don't know that it's false) but not metaphysically possible (i.e. non-contradictory). If the concept of a maximally great being is not self-consistent, then it is not metaphysically possible for such a being to exist. Compare: we don't know whether the twin prime conjecture is true or not. Suppose it is false but we don't yet know it; it follows that it is (metaphysically) necessarily false. We might nevertheless agree that it might be true because we don't know its truth value.

The issue with the metaphysical possibility as it relates to the first three premises can be clearly shown with a competing version of the 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 there is some possible world where a maximally great being does not exist.
   
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
   
4. A maximally great being does not exist in every possible world (from 2).
   
5. Therefore, a maximally great being (God) does not exist.
   

This further highlights that the argument has two likely sources of error: with the construction of the argument in general (in which case the argument is not useful for proving anything) or a problem specific to the first premise (in which case the possibility of the existence or non-existence of the character God must be defended with further arguments). Of course it is also entirely possibly the problem lies in both areas, and it is neither possible to prove an actuality from a mere possibility or accept a possibility without supporting empirical evidence.

RationalWiki | Ontological argument

(December 24, 2015 at 9:34 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(December 24, 2015 at 9:19 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: Yes, that's pretty much what I'm seeing it as. It's been a long time since I've been in any school, and my career never called for much math application, so perhaps I may have worded it wrong.

I gazed at Plantinga's ontology for the first time, and the first thing I said was "WTF, nobody would try and say that the possibility of pink nicorns roaming a remote planet somewhere in our galaxy makes it a certain truth, so he can't really be saying that of any Earth deity". I thought about it for hours, and then it hit me that he must be suggesting (deviously, as a hidden diversion from the possibility logic which he had established in his first ontology statement) the logic which is used in a random-sample probability solution. Either that or he presumes the universe is infinite (which is false), or the multiverse (not proven, therefore should not be presumed) is infinite (probably false anyway). I can't see how such a contextual difference between scientific possibility and mathematical probability can be easily confused, therefore I believe Plantinga has been more than devious in his fallacious argument.

As noted by Brian, Plantinga's ontology is crap.

Well if we pretend for argument's sake it was valid, there would still be the problem of all the countless god claims in our species, and what would Plantinga do if other people co opted his argument to point to a different god and different holy book? Like I said, other religions have their apologists too. 

Where religion fails is that the buyer never considers that "all this" isn't caused by a being, but is simply a giant weather pattern in which we are a mere finite blip. When you have Hawking saying "A god is not required", your probability issues are solved by Occam's Razor and the best data we have so far is that humans make up gods and science is pointing away for the need for one.

All true, and all are issues which I've visited years before, but somehow or another I had not seen Plantinga's argument before. I just could not fucking believe that such an insult to logic ever got past his peers in his time, much less any teacher of science or math today.

Oh, wait - Google threw me off! Should have googled "plantinga", not "ontological for god" with it. The bastard is actually recent, still around? Goddammit, it's just scary how mercilessly the god-botherers are butchering everything intellectual, and people are just lining up to be dumbed down by it!