(May 4, 2025 at 1:33 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 4, 2025 at 1:22 pm)Angrboda Wrote: I can see both sides.  Take the example of a unicorn.  If one is going by a strict definition of a creature that has all the attributes of the mythical animal, a white, single-horned, horse-like creature that can only be captured by a virgin, then the odds of such are fairly slim.  On the other hand, if one means a single horned quadruped that is similar enough to the legend to have given rise to the legend, then the possibilities are broader.  So it really depends on whether you mean a head that is a literal plastic beach ball, or a head that only resembles a beach ball.

Right; we should be able to reason about entirely mythical things, and even rank them in terms of their biological probability, a unicorn being more likely than a mermaid. I actually remember coming across a similar conversation in the following New Yorker article:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/...ss-monster

Yes but we are talking about personal credulity thus far, and one can set as low, or high, a bar for that as one wishes. For me it would be meaningless to talk of probability, when one has no objective evidence of possibility. 

Though of course people are free to believe whatever they wish, I have spoken with flat earthers, and their arguments are not more absurd than those presented by YEC's I have encountered.

(May 4, 2025 at 2:10 pm)Sheldon Wrote:

(May 4, 2025 at 1:03 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: Square circles are possible, you just have to have faith.

One could simply presuppose they are possible, then insist they transcend mathematics, geometry and language.

Once you free yourself from facts, the universe becomes remarkably compliant.

(May 4, 2025 at 2:07 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(May 4, 2025 at 2:01 pm)Angrboda Wrote:   Otherwise it's a rather pedestrian exercise in taxonomy.

It's an exercise in the difference between conceivability and possibility.  John wants to argue for conceivability, and take that as a pass for possibility, and not just logical possibility, but actual possibility.  He would like to clear the 1 inch bar of "whatever the fuck john or the houscat can imagine" and be credited for nine feet of cold hard christ irl.

I have yet to see a rational argument for a deity, even Plantinga's modal argument, which is shaky enough, has to skip that vital step entirely, and presuppose a deity is possible. I am fine with apologists doing this, they can believe the moon is made of cheese if it makes them happy, but it's always amusing when they get all bent out of shape, when atheists won't simply do the same.

Now, for a more general statement to put a finer point on the futility of such tactics. Christians do not believe in a god limited by possibilities as we understand them. God's ability to evade or override possibility as we understand it is not just believed in, but a central plank of the christian faith and a demonstration that christ is god in the first place. So it isn't really a problem for such beliefs if x or y or z were not possible, logically or actually. It's confirmation of content and meaning. God is not bound by anything.

(May 4, 2025 at 2:18 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote:

(May 4, 2025 at 2:10 pm)Sheldon Wrote: One could simply presuppose they are possible, then insist they transcend mathematics, geometry and language.

Once you free yourself from facts, the universe becomes remarkably compliant.

I.
Kick at the rock, Sam Johnson, break your bones:
But cloudy, cloudy is the stuff of stones.

II.
We milk the cow of the world, and as we do
We whisper in her ear, 'You are not true.'

Richard Wilbur

(May 4, 2025 at 2:15 pm)Sheldon Wrote: For me it would be meaningless to talk of probability, when one has no objective evidence of possibility. 

What does objective evidence of possibility mean?

Say, for example, we erase every elephant from the planet, and all the evidence of elephants along with it. Clearly, elephants don't become impossible as a result, so what "objective evidence of possibility" do we look for for elephants?

(May 4, 2025 at 2:01 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(May 4, 2025 at 1:50 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Maybe this will move the discussion along.

From the Rules:


Boru

It was implied by the discussion that one was diverging from such already, so I don't see this quotation of the rules as relevant.  Technically speaking, whether an animal has a head that resembles a beach ball, or a head that literally is a beach ball, either way one has already departed from dictionary definitions.  Either animal or organism would be classified as a different species, and presuming the reasoning abilities of cladists has not gone on holiday, it wouldn't be an elephant.  The hypothetical only makes sense if one is already speaking in terms of an organism that only resembles an elephant in part.  Otherwise it's a rather pedestrian exercise in taxonomy.

Fair point. How about, ‘An elephant-like animal with a literal beach ball for a head’?

Boru

(May 4, 2025 at 2:24 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Fair point. How about, ‘An elephant-like animal with a literal beach ball for a head’?

Dead or alive? Because clearly we can make it happen.

So are we ever going to get one of John's many good reasons, as to why his faith in (some versions of a Christian) deity is justified?

(May 4, 2025 at 2:20 pm)Sheldon Wrote: I have yet to see a rational argument for a deity, even Plantinga's modal argument, which is shaky enough, has to skip that vital step entirely, and presuppose a deity is possible. I am fine with apologists doing this, they can believe the moon is made of cheese if it makes them happy, but it's always amusing when they get all bent out of shape, when atheists won't simply do the same.

In a strict academic sense, plantingas argument is not presuppositional.  It doesn't begin with the notion that magic book or god belief is true and proceed towards a demonstration of it's truth from there.  More accurately, it's a comment on how the modal operator works on any other truth statement, and so..principle of charity, how it ought to work on the statement "god exists".  Basically, it's telling us that if god necessarily exists in any possible world then the statement god exists is necessarily true in every possible world, even if some, most, or all but one of those possible worlds doesn't contain a god.  A bit like saying "it's raining on earth today".  If it's true anywhere the statement is true everywhere on earth you might utter it, and it's always true somewhere.  

That is both it's success..as in being a rational argument, and it's failure....as in being uncompelling.... even by plantingas own account.