(December 25, 2015 at 4:32 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(December 25, 2015 at 6:56 am)Brian37 Wrote: And again, this elaborate tripe still would not point to one god claim over another in any case.

I don't believe this is accurate.  As stated, it identifies exclusively those gods that are omnipotent and modally necessary.

A god that is modally necessary, yes, but I'm not sure about omnipotence.

(December 12, 2015 at 5:29 pm)athrock Wrote: Yahweh, Allah, Baha'u'llah, Zeus, Osiris...the name changes, but the being behind the name is the same. Provided that all the "omni" characteristics are present in that being.

You keep talking about these legendary beings as if they were simply different names applied to the same concept. For example, zeus and osiris, unlike the other three, were never considered to be omni-anything, the fact was they were in competition (well according to Greek and Egyptian religious fantasies) with other gods for power and worshipers.

Well the above statement has not always been true. yhwh was originally a minor war god within the Canaanite pantheon (as evidenced by many passages in the old testament, including the second commandment 'I am the lord thy god, thou shalt not have strange gods before me' explicitly acknowledging that other gods exist {erroneously, as none of the gods including yhwh ever existed}), thus showing that the monotheistic faiths grew up out of the same kind of roots as the Greek and Egyptian pantheons, but were subsequently radically altered by a different breed of snake oil salesmen.

______________________________________

(December 12, 2015 at 5:56 pm)athrock Wrote: My point is that the common tactic used by folks who want to undermine the strength of this argument is to parody it by substituting something like "leprechauns" for "maximally great being".

And that does not indicate to you that your argument is a bad one easily defeated? If we can point to creatures universally regarded as fantasy and validly substitute them into your argument, then your argument has no validity of itself. You should not get angry at us for easily debunking the thoughts drummed into your head, you should instead get angry at those who instilled such wrongheaded notions in you.

(December 15, 2015 at 6:25 pm)Delicate Wrote:

(December 15, 2015 at 6:08 pm)Jenny A Wrote:  Oh goody! 

Seriously, if there is a better formulation, let see it.  Please provide definitions for any words not used in a colloquial way.

Actually it is a little technical because it relies on modal logic concepts like possibility and necessity, as well as the S5 axiom.

Here are the two definitions Plantinga starts with

[*]A being is maximally excellent in a world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect in W; and
[*]A being is maximally great in a world W if and only if it is maximally excellent in every possible world.

Given these two definitions, the argument is constructed:

1. The concept of a maximally great being is self-consistent.
2. If 1, then there is at least one logically possible world in which a maximally great being exists.
3. Therefore, there is at least one logically possible world in which a maximally great being exists.
4. If a maximally great being exists in one logically possible world, it exists in every logically possible world.
5. Therefore, a maximally great being (that is, God) exists in every logically possible world.

From a formal-logical analysis, everything is consistent. There aren't any "holes" in the argument.

Instead, most atheists who have a problem with it question P4 because it reliexs on the S5 modal axiom. Which, oddly enough, is something atheist philosophers are quite comfortable with outside this context.

So from what you wrote, I can safely conclude that the stronger form of a valueless argument is the same valueless argument, with a number of baseless assumptions presumed to be fact before going through the argument?

(December 24, 2015 at 10:35 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(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.


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.

Chad, I think you forget that as aTheist the burden of proof is on you. When you insist something exists and that people should believe in it, it's up to you to demonstrate good reason why we should. You haven't even come close so far as I can tell. So let me ask YOU:

1. Using philosophy, Prove to ME this knowledge you have gained that lies outside of empirical science. It is your claim that such knowledge exists, so prove it to me beyond reasonable doubt so that I may be thoroughly convinced.

2. Prove to ME that natural science CAN'T and never can be able to explain why anything exists at all.

3. Please provide me with a definition of "meaning of reality," and prove it is the only correct and true definition.

(You certainly can't. How narcissistic of you if you were to even try)

4. I am an absurdist; I don't believe there is an absolute, objective "meaning" of reality.

Can you please use your tools of philosophy to prove that there is?

By the way, I did myself the favor of looking up mutability versus immutability, and guess what? I still don't believe in God.

---

(December 24, 2015 at 10:35 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(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.


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.

Chad, I think you forget that as aTheist the burden of proof is on you. When you insist something exists and that people should believe in it, it's up to you to demonstrate good reason why we should. You haven't even come close so far as I can tell. So let me ask YOU:

1. Using philosophy, Prove to ME this knowledge you have gained that lies outside of empirical science. It is your claim that such knowledge exists, so prove it to me beyond reasonable doubt so that I may be thoroughly convinced.

2. Prove to ME that natural science CAN'T and never can be able to explain why anything exists at all.

3. Please provide me with a definition of "meaning of reality," and prove it is the only correct and true definition.

(You certainly can't. How narcissistic of you if you were to even try)

4. I am an absurdist; I don't believe there is an absolute, objective "meaning" of reality.

Can you please use your tools of philosophy to prove that there is?

By the way, I did myself the favor of looking up mutability versus immutability, and guess what? I still don't believe in God.

Absurdism kicks ass. It actually makes a lot of sense.

Apologies for the double post!

---

(December 26, 2015 at 10:49 am)Evie Wrote: Absurdism kicks ass. It actually makes a lot of sense.

I think so too . It is a nice feeling to just live in the world without a driving need to try and untangle some impossible, burdensome immortal knot.

(December 26, 2015 at 10:48 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(December 24, 2015 at 10:35 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Q: By means of empirical science, prove that empirical science is the only valid means for gaining knowledge?

A1: You cannot.


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.


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.


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.

Chad, I think you forget that as aTheist the burden of proof is on you.  When you insist something exists and that people should believe in it, it's up to you to demonstrate good reason why we should.  You haven't even come close so far as I can tell.  So let me ask YOU:

1. Using philosophy, Prove to ME this knowledge you have gained that lies outside of empirical science.  It is your claim that such knowledge exists, so prove it to me beyond reasonable doubt so that I may be thoroughly convinced.

2. Prove to ME that natural science CAN'T and never can be able to explain why anything exists at all.  

3. Please provide me with a definition of "meaning of reality," and prove it is the only correct and true definition.  

(You certainly can't.  How narcissistic of you if you were to even try)

4. I am an absurdist; I don't believe there is an absolute, objective "meaning" of reality.  

Can you please use your tools of philosophy to prove that there is?

By the way, I did myself the favor of looking up mutability versus immutability, and guess what?  I still don't believe in God.

That's the thing though with theists they go and say their belief and evidence is outside of reality and use "magic"
to say that god{s)  exist. The thing is science deals with the natural  world so something like evidence chad is talking about
was merely created by man in the bronze age. Even if there was some sort of truth to it there would be evidence in the natural world
to support his position but there is none.

Exactly! Especially if we are expected to believe anything out of the Bible where angels flew around and seas were being parted. There certainly should be some empirical evidence of that!

---

Chad, I want to ask you a sincere question. All sarcasm and dickheadedness aside for a minute:

Why are you here on this forum? Why does it bother you so much that there are people in this world who don't believe in god? What motivates you to spend so much time here trying to convince atheists that they are ignorant and wrong?

I honestly want to know, because I have called myself an atheist for only a short 6 months or so, and never once did I feel compelled to register to a Christian message board in an attempt to tear everyone down. My first instinct was to connect with a community of people who share a world view. It felt natural.

It would feel unnatural (flowery words for an atheist, I know), to spend my time and energy trying to make a group of people with specific beliefs abandon those beliefs. What satisfaction would I get from that? I can't believe your motive is innocent; that you are genuinely worried for my immortal soul.

So, I wonder how much of a humanist you really are if you would get more of an emotional payoff from proving atheists wrong (which you will never do), than by forming lasting relationships with people who share your values and world view.

Absurdism! I've not heard that before. I like it.

Lately I have found that what is "real" to be pretty much impossible to define. Even if I came up with the perfect definition, it would still only be relevant to this "reality" and solipsism neatly shoots it in the head from the top of a nearby building.

The best definition I have is that things are as real to any particular observer as they appear to be.

(December 26, 2015 at 11:28 am)robvalue Wrote: The best definition I have is that things are as real to any particular observer as they appear to be.

I like this! I think trying to glean any truth about reality beyond what you stated above is hopeless, but not in a depressing way.

For anyone who has never heard of him (assuming you are interested at all) check out the Albert Camus Wikipedia page. He was an atheist and absurdist to the bone, and the nature of his untimely death is as fascinating (to me, at least) as his life was. But you guys probably already got that from my user name