Cheers

Thanks, I will check that out! Sounds like an interesting guy.

I am quite fascinated by the problem of solipsism, and if it could ever be overcome. It seems utterly impossible to do so.

(December 26, 2015 at 3:08 am)Pizza Wrote:

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

According to this article about the proof, it is the omnipotence which generates the quality of being modally necessary -- you can't have one without the other.

Quote:Notice that Malcolm's version of the argument does not turn on the claim that necessary existence is a great-making property. Rather, as we saw above, Malcolm attempts to argue that there are only two possibilities with respect to the existence of an unlimited being: either it is necessary or it is impossible.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/

Chad seems convinced that God is modally necessary in a way that a leprichaun could not be. What that way is, specifically, seems to point toward the characteristics that a god must have in order for the modal ontological argument to apply. He can't simply be modally necessary as an accidental property of his being or else the leprichaun objection holds.

I'm tired of the category error argument. The error is placing God in the category of real things that actually exist.

---

(December 26, 2015 at 1:00 pm)robvalue Wrote: Cheers

Thanks, I will check that out! Sounds like an interesting guy.

I am quite fascinated by the problem of solipsism, and if it could ever be overcome. It seems utterly impossible to do so.

I would agree with you, but then again, I might not even really exist. [emoji12]

Someone who called into the atheist experience said they were "a solipsist". This was after about half an hour's discussion. Matt D immediately cut him off following this comment, and told solipsists never to call!

How weird that this guy wanted to convince what he believes is a figment of his imagination that it is actually a figment of his imagination.

I might do a video ramble about this subject... Solipsism that is.

(December 27, 2015 at 2:07 am)robvalue Wrote: Someone who called into the atheist experience said they were "a solipsist". This was after about half an hour's discussion. Matt D immediately cut him off following this comment, and told solipsists never to call!

How weird that this guy wanted to convince what he believes is a figment of his imagination that it is actually a figment of his imagination.

I might do a video ramble about this subject... Solipsism that is.

That's rich! I had not heard of this show before; I'll have to check them out on YouTube. I have been thinking about solipsism since you mentioned it, actually. I came across this little article online if you can get past the author's hostile tone:

https://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy...ode43.html

It is short but dense (and I am no logicist, or even a person with a Master's degree) so I had to google my little ass off for much of the terminology, but I THINK what the author means is:

even though solipsism cannot logically be disproven, in order for the premise to be true, multiple other premises with their own complex explanations must be inserted to reconcile it. How can we be separately both the artist and the audience of our own reality? So, sure, you can never prove solipsism to be false, but it would be a leap to believe it is surely true! Anyway, I was curious of your thoughts.

Apologies in advance for my caveman-like interpretations of an article that is highly intellectual, and maybe one you have already come across forever ago, since this is your area of interest! Feel free to say "quit rambling, Lady!" any point. [emoji57]

Lady, it won't let me do it from my phone, but as soon as I'm back on the PC, I'm up-Repping you. Sorry I didn't get to it before.

You've been posting solid contributions since you got here. Glad you're with us!

Edit to Add: I'm traveling to Florida to pack up parts of the old bike shop to move up to KCMO, in mid-January, and won't return to Missouri and my current shop until the 4th, so it'll be a while yet. Perhaps others can Rep you in my stead.

(December 12, 2015 at 1:49 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote: "It is possible that a maximally great being exists."
No.

Proof?
No

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

(December 27, 2015 at 10:32 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: even though solipsism cannot logically be disproven, in order for the premise to be true, multiple other premises with their own complex explanations must be inserted to reconcile it.  How can we be separately both the artist and the audience of our own reality?  So, sure, you can never prove solipsism to be false, but it would be a leap to believe it is surely true!  

The arguments in favor of solipsism I've encountered were more along the lines of "we can't be sure we aren't brains in a vat, ergo we can't be sure of anything".

Fair enough, yeah. Hey, that's some useful worldview you have there., Mr. Brain-in-a-vat. /sarcasm

On the other hand, taking as axiomatic that solipsism is false is *useful*, and allows us to do useful things - like hanging up on solipsists.

(December 28, 2015 at 1:13 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: On the other hand, taking as axiomatic that solipsism is false is *useful*, and allows us to do useful things - like hanging up on solipsists.

(December 26, 2015 at 3:40 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Chad seems convinced that God is modally necessary in  a way that a leprichaun could not be.  What that way is, specifically, seems to point toward the characteristics that a god must have in order for the modal ontological argument to apply.  He can't simply be modally necessary as an accidental property of his being or else the leprichaun objection holds.

You have provided a fair summary of my position. Thank you. It's nice to feel understood for a change.