Posts: 67175
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Modal ontological argument
February 2, 2022 at 4:51 pm
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2022 at 4:52 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
While it's hot - I want to point out that the god botherers are no longer insisting that we take things on faith. They think there are arguments and observations. Their faith has been wholly subsumed by scientism.
GJ fellas! Railing against it, but at the same time dependent upon it. Awesome.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 7259
Threads: 506
Joined: December 12, 2015
Reputation:
22
RE: Modal ontological argument
February 2, 2022 at 5:15 pm
(February 2, 2022 at 4:13 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: (February 2, 2022 at 4:01 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: I have studied logic more seriously than you who is still using logical fallacies.
The bullshit premise is bullshit no matter who studied it. The logical fallacy that I should read all possible books about it, especially from sound names, is like saying that you should read books on alchemy by Newton, Paracelsius, Jean Baptista Van Helmont, etc.
Godel's variant doesn't contain logical fallacies, the argument is valid in structure. I am currently reading bits of Graham Oppy's Arguing about Gods and he concedes this. The premises of the argument are controversial, OFC.
Read Dr. James A. Lindsay's book. Everyone agrees that Godel's logic is sound; you like to pound on open doors.
Posts: 1101
Threads: 15
Joined: November 29, 2019
Reputation:
2
RE: Modal ontological argument
February 2, 2022 at 5:24 pm
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2022 at 5:24 pm by R00tKiT.)
(February 2, 2022 at 4:42 pm)Angrboda Wrote: (February 2, 2022 at 2:58 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Your argument is invalid because premise 1 is false. A world that simultaneously exists and doesn't exist is an impossible world. (P and non-P) is never true,
That's not how possible world semantics works. And it's trivially easy to reformulate the same argument without the possible world semantics, so you're doubly wrong besides being ninja'd.
Asked and answered.
I am not sure I follow. possible world semantics..?? Maybe there are correct formulations of your argument, I just think the one you presented is plainly false. In one sentence you say that there exists a world where nothing exists i.e. there exists a possible world which doesn't exist. That's impossible by definition.
Anyway, I am not a proponent of ontological arguments. Just a tiny remark.
(February 2, 2022 at 5:15 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Read Dr. James A. Lindsay's book. Everyone agrees that Godel's logic is sound; you like to pound on open doors.
Fake Messiah dismissed all variants (including Godel's, then) because he thinks they contain fallacies.. so no, not everyone thinks Godel's logic is sound.
Posts: 67175
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Modal ontological argument
February 2, 2022 at 5:25 pm
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2022 at 5:26 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(February 2, 2022 at 5:24 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: (February 2, 2022 at 4:42 pm)Angrboda Wrote: That's not how possible world semantics works. And it's trivially easy to reformulate the same argument without the possible world semantics, so you're doubly wrong besides being ninja'd.
Asked and answered.
I am not sure I follow. possible world semantics..?? Maybe there are correct formulations of your argument, I just think the one you presented is plainly false. In one sentence you say that there exists a world where nothing exists i.e. there exists a possible world which doesn't exist. That's impossible by definition. Not in possible world semantics. There is a possible world which is empty. The world exists..... but nothing exists in it.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 1101
Threads: 15
Joined: November 29, 2019
Reputation:
2
RE: Modal ontological argument
February 2, 2022 at 5:26 pm
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2022 at 5:26 pm by R00tKiT.)
(February 2, 2022 at 4:51 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: While it's hot - I want to point out that the god botherers are no longer insisting that we take things on faith. They think there are arguments and observations. Their faith has been wholly subsumed by scientism.
It was always about arguments and observation. The Qur'an recounts Abraham's quest the truth, Abraham observed the Moon and thought it was God, then turned to the Sun, before embracing monotheism. Islam doesn't forbid rational investigation.
Posts: 67175
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Modal ontological argument
February 2, 2022 at 5:27 pm
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2022 at 5:29 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Then why do you avoid it? I mean, I agree...it doesn't forbid it. I'm just noticing that none of you have the time or patience for it - and just as soon as some x strongly suggests your stupid religion is full of shit, you pretend you don't believe in x and it's irrational to believe in x.
What gives?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 1101
Threads: 15
Joined: November 29, 2019
Reputation:
2
RE: Modal ontological argument
February 2, 2022 at 5:28 pm
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2022 at 5:28 pm by R00tKiT.)
(February 2, 2022 at 5:25 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: (February 2, 2022 at 5:24 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: I am not sure I follow. possible world semantics..?? Maybe there are correct formulations of your argument, I just think the one you presented is plainly false. In one sentence you say that there exists a world where nothing exists i.e. there exists a possible world which doesn't exist. That's impossible by definition. Not in possible world semantics. There is a possible world which is empty. The world exists..... but nothing exists in it.
The world exists in what sense?? If you think of it as an empty container, then a container exists, the possible world is then a big fat container out there.. not the nothing Angrboda is using in her argument
Posts: 67175
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Modal ontological argument
February 2, 2022 at 5:31 pm
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2022 at 5:31 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
In the sense of possible worlds semantics you numpty. ...what the fuck...?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 7259
Threads: 506
Joined: December 12, 2015
Reputation:
22
RE: Modal ontological argument
February 2, 2022 at 5:31 pm
(February 2, 2022 at 5:24 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: (February 2, 2022 at 5:15 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Read Dr. James A. Lindsay's book. Everyone agrees that Godel's logic is sound; you like to pound on open doors.
Fake Messiah dismissed all variants (including Godel's, then) because he thinks they contain fallacies.. so no, not everyone thinks Godel's logic is sound.
Where does he say that?
Posts: 2412
Threads: 5
Joined: January 3, 2018
Reputation:
22
RE: Modal ontological argument
February 2, 2022 at 5:32 pm
(February 2, 2022 at 5:28 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: (February 2, 2022 at 5:25 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Not in possible world semantics. There is a possible world which is empty. The world exists..... but nothing exists in it.
The world exists in what sense?? If you think of it as an empty container, then a container exists, the possible world is then a big fat container out there.. not the nothing Angrboda is using in her argument
No, the container is not in the world defined by the container.
|
