(May 10, 2014 at 9:58 pm)Chas Wrote: Except that it is not valid.

"Premise 3: If the MGB exists in some possible world, then the MGB exists in all possible worlds"

This is an invalid flip from 'there exists' to 'for all'. Logic fail.

And if you looked into Maydole's argument, you'd know that a Maximally Great Being possesses the property of necessary existence. And things that are necessarily the case are such in all possible worlds. You in fact accept this yourself. That is, unless you're going to say that there are possible worlds where 2+2 =/=4?

It's not a logic fail, as it is a deductively valid argument in axiom S5 of modal logic.

You see, MFM, if someone knows what they are talking about they don't cut and paste and present the results as their argument. You're dealing with clowns.

I notice my challenge to one such bozo to name one thing a person can know apart from reason applied to experience went unanswered.

(May 11, 2014 at 12:59 am)ChadWooters Wrote: You see, MFM, if someone knows what they are talking about they don't cut and paste and present the results as their argument. You're dealing with clowns.

I notice my challenge to one such bozo to name one thing a person can know apart from reason applied to experience went unanswered.

That pain hurts?

Just throwing this out there, I'm not a philosopher by any means so please avoid overly dense use of jargon since I'll have to look up too many words in succession to make the back and forth enjoyable.

(May 11, 2014 at 12:59 am)ChadWooters Wrote: You see, MFM, if someone knows what they are talking about they don't cut and paste and present the results as their argument. You're dealing with clowns.

I notice my challenge to one such bozo to name one thing a person can know apart from reason applied to experience went unanswered.

This from the idiot supporting an argument as conclusive when the argument was presented as inconclusive without presumption.

Which leads me to believe you and MFM are cribbing from sources without having read the original argument, otherwise you'd know this, and simply failing to provide the sources, and pass it off as your own original thought.

If you want to discuss an argument which hasn't been historically knocked down and curb-stomped by multiple sources, present something new and original instead of copy-pasting arguments that you haven't bothered to investigate yourself.

(May 10, 2014 at 10:38 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote:

(May 10, 2014 at 9:58 pm)Chas Wrote: Except that it is not valid.

"Premise 3: If the MGB exists in some possible world, then the MGB exists in all possible worlds"

This is an invalid flip from 'there exists' to 'for all'. Logic fail.

And if you looked into Maydole's argument, you'd know that a Maximally Great Being possesses the property of necessary existence. And things that are necessarily the case are such in all possible worlds. You in fact accept this yourself. That is, unless you're going to say that there are possible worlds where 2+2 =/=4?

It's not a logic fail, as it is a deductively valid argument in axiom S5 of modal logic.

I don't accept possible worlds as having existence. They are hypothetical.

So the argument from 'necessary existence' is completely ludicrous.

(May 8, 2014 at 3:33 am)Kitanetos Wrote: Something I have noticed with the regular theists who post here is that their main concern of evidence for god's existence is that he is necessary.

That is not evidence, because god is absolutely not necessary.

If god was a veritable necessity, people would be unable to live normal lives without god.

Considering that atheists are quite capable of living perfectly normal lives without god, the necessity of god is negated.

Necessity, after all, is the oxygen we breath. Without it, we would die. We are perfectly capable of not dying without god.

God is merely the crutch to which theists cling because they have deluded (yes, there is that apt word again) themselves into thinking life is meaningless without the ruling delusion.

What the mean by necessary is that God created all, and thus has to exist since all other thing rely on God's existence and creation of all other things.

I posted a thread called super-omnipotence a few months back you may want to
search for. Super-omnipotence goes like this. Anselm stated God is that that is so great, nothing greater can be imagined.

Descartes and William of Okham stated God creates the laws, rules, metaphysical necessities of the Universe, the very logic of the Universe. God could make 2 + 2 = 5 id he so desired or any other state of affairs God desires. This then is the greatest thing imaginable.

God is dogmatically stated to be good and to have creayed all

God is morally perfect, perfectly good, God has a good nature, and God has free will. God freely of his own free will never does moral evil. A perfectly moral and good God would naturally eliminate all moral evil if possible.

To do so is trivial, God would create man with a God-like good nature and a god-like free will. Anything that might possibly prevent that, God could eliminate since God makes the rules and laws of the Universe. Any reason a theist offers to explain why God tolerates moral evil is not possibly true.

But we do not live in this world free of moral evil, this God does not exist. Either God is not as defined, perfectly moral good, or all powerful in the sense of being super-omnipotent.

If the latter, if to save appearances, the theist drops super-omnipotence, then it is admitted that naturalism, the rules, laws, the logic of the Universe are not created by God. These things are outside and beyond God's control and creation, and are transcedent to any possible perfectly good, creator God.

Naturalism must exist, that is, naturalism must logically be necessary in the technical metaphysical sense of that term. We cannot avoid naturalism, but we don't need God at all, naturalism can account for all existence with no need for Gods, fairies, or supernaturalism.

So much for presuppositionalism, TAG, Plantinga's claims naturalism is impossible, Kalam and more.

Nomism is the scientific study of why the physical Universe has the laws it does,
the study of naturalism if you will.

---

(May 10, 2014 at 9:58 pm)Chas Wrote: Except that it is not valid.

"Premise 3: If the MGB exists in some possible world, then the MGB exists in all possible worlds"

This is an invalid flip from 'there exists' to 'for all'. Logic fail.

The problem is that hypothetical maximal Gods have problems with self-contradictions. The problems of free will vs omniscience, problem of evil and much more. Thus such Gods cannot be said to exist in this world or any possible worlds.

Modal logic is beside the point when we think about God in this manner.

The only way out for theists is to start abandoning these troublesome attributes that create these contradictions but we end up with a God that no longer has the attributes claimed for God in the Bible or Quran. A god nobody wants, believes in or finds worth worshiping. And goodbye Christianity, Islam et al.

(May 11, 2014 at 1:58 am)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: This from the idiot supporting an argument as conclusive when the argument was presented as inconclusive without presumption.

I'm fairly certain Chad doesn't accept ontological arguments as conclusive. He's given me that impression in other threads at least.

Quote:Which leads me to believe you and MFM are cribbing from sources without having read the original argument, otherwise you'd know this, and simply failing to provide the sources, and pass it off as your own original thought.

I've read the argument, which is why I've defended the argument from poor understandings, and often misrepresentations of it. Nor have I once said or implied everything I post is my own original thought. However, when one actually has some understanding of a topic, I fail to see it necessary to source absolutely every statement made, especially when they explain what they're talking about.

Quote:If you want to discuss an argument which hasn't been historically knocked down and curb-stomped by multiple sources, present something new and original instead of copy-pasting arguments that you haven't bothered to investigate yourself.

I haven't bothered to investigate this argument? Hah, that's rich. I have done so, which is why I reject it it. However, when people post here made claims analogous to a Creationist talking about evolution, I find it imperative to swat that down because otherwise these bad responses just persist. I certainly haven't copy-pasted the argument, I just don't accept Ray Comfort like responses to the argument by my fellow atheists.

Given I have "Naturalist" as my religious views, I clearly don't accept the argument, something I've stated in this thread alone like 5 times.

(May 11, 2014 at 2:19 pm)Chas Wrote: I don't accept possible worlds as having existence. They are hypothetical.

I agree. That's one reason why I reject Plantinga's argument. But I likewise realize that some do in fact accept possible worlds as actual things, so it's important to recognize that about the argument, especially when the topic of the ontology of possible worlds is both obscure and complex.

(May 11, 2014 at 5:51 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote:

(May 11, 2014 at 1:58 am)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: This from the idiot supporting an argument as conclusive when the argument was presented as inconclusive without presumption.

I'm fairly certain Chad doesn't accept ontological arguments as conclusive. He's given me that impression in other threads at least.

Then he's right, and it would do you well not to sign up for the same circle-jerk.

(May 11, 2014 at 5:51 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Which leads me to believe you and MFM are cribbing from sources without having read the original argument, otherwise you'd know this, and simply failing to provide the sources, and pass it off as your own original thought.

I've read the argument, which is why I've defended the argument from poor understandings, and often misrepresentations of it. [/quote]

So you're backpedaling, noted.

(May 11, 2014 at 5:51 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Nor have I once said or implied everything I post is my own original thought.

So I only had to demonstrate to you 3-4 times the error in your logic, culminating in a tacit threat, and then back by consensus why you were wrong with from a reputable source, before the whining started.

(May 11, 2014 at 5:51 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: However, when one actually has some understanding of a topic, I fail to see it necessary to source absolutely every statement made, especially when they explain what they're talking about.

You're channeling Kant here, so I don't
know if you're talking about the this-Thisness, or the this Thisness of This, or Thisness of Thisness.[/quote]

(May 11, 2014 at 5:51 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: If you want to discuss an argument which hasn't been historically knocked down and curb-stomped by multiple sources, present something new and original instead of copy-pasting arguments that you haven't bothered to investigate yourself.

I haven't bothered to investigate this argument? Hah, that's rich. I have done so, which is why I reject it it. [/quote]

That's odd. You seemed to support said argument insofar as it proved me wrong. But OK.

(May 11, 2014 at 5:51 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: However, when people post here made claims analogous to a Creationist talking about evolution, I find it imperative to swat that down because otherwise these bad responses just persist. I certainly haven't copy-pasted the argument, I just don't accept Ray Comfort like responses to the argument by my fellow atheists.

Or something. But you were perfectly content to support a failed argument when it suited your needs.

(May 11, 2014 at 5:51 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Given I have "Naturalist" as my religious views, I clearly don't accept the argument, something I've stated in this thread alone like 5 times.

And I've stated, like 5 times, the objections to your argument, and it took an an outside authoritative source to show you how silly your objections were.

quote='MindForgedManacle' pid='668689' dateline='1399845078']

(May 11, 2014 at 2:19 pm)Chas Wrote: I don't accept possible worlds as having existence. They are hypothetical.

[/quote]
I agree. That's one reason why I reject Plantinga's argument. But I likewise realize that some do in fact accept possible worlds as actual things, so it's important to recognize that about the argument, especially when the topic of the ontology of possible worlds is both obscure and complex.

It's only obscure because you are unwilling to admit you are fundamentally wrong in your characterization of the argument presented. If you have a better argument to present, present it. Otherwise, stop pretending

(May 12, 2014 at 4:50 am)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Then he's right, and it would do you well not to sign up for the same circle-jerk.

I haven't. You have to be very dense if you think I have once supported the argument as either conclusive or persuasive. The fact that I recently made the following thread is demonstrative that I do not accept it at all: Ontological Arguments - A Comprehensive Refutation

Quote:So you're backpedaling, noted.

If you're going to say something so fucking stupid, at least show where I backpedaled (which I haven't).

Quote:So I only had to demonstrate to you 3-4 times the error in your logic, culminating in a tacit threat, and then back by consensus why you were wrong with from a reputable source, before the whining started.

Whining? Where? Again, I demonstrated why YOU didn't know what you were talking about, to which you resorted to quoting SEP in ways that didn't even contradict me. After all, the only relevant thing the SEP quotes you posted said was that the arguments are't convincing. Given that I'm an atheist and actually have some understanding of these arguments, clearly I don't think they're persuasive. Otherwise, I wouldn't be an atheist. I really didn't think I had to ppoint out something THAT obvious.

And yet again, did not make a threat, tacit or otherwise. Or did you just decide to ignore my response to your last assertion of that by means of a non sequitur?:

MFM Wrote:Plantinga's ontological argument is not circular unless you consider ALL deductive arguments to be circular. And I very much doubt you want to get into a debate regarding the nature of argumentation.

Since it seems I must - yet again point this out - Plantinga's ontological argument is logically VALID. Like I said before, to claim Plantinga's argument is circular implies ALL deductive arguments are circular, since Plantinga's is no more circular than they.

Quote:You're channeling Kant here, so I don't
know if you're talking about the this-Thisness, or the this Thisness of This, or Thisness of Thisness.

-sigh- NO. I don't even resemble Kant here. What I said was that I don't source absolutely everything I say on an internet forum, most especially when I actually have some understanding of the topic, and even more so when I actually explain it.

Quote:That's odd. You seemed to support said argument insofar as it proved me wrong. But OK.

No, you are paying poor attention. I rejected misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the argument, I didn't once support the argument as if it worked and I challenge you to show me where I did. Why would I want bad responses to the argument to be given?

Quote:Or something. But you were perfectly content to support a failed argument when it suited your needs.

No I didn't. Showing how someone else is wrong about a topic or argument does not even imply that I support that topic or argument. That's just absurd. I've defended theists on this forum a good number of times, but each of those theists are quite aware that I emphatically do not agree with them on any number of topics, including the existence of gods.

Quote:And I've stated, like 5 times, the objections to your argument, and it took an an outside authoritative source to show you how silly your objections were.

MY argument? At best, you posted responses to ontological arguments, but you haven't responded to my rebuttals to bad understandings of it. And in fact, as I pointed out earlier in this post, I didn't see anything in what you quoted from SEP that contradicted anything I said, and you don't seemed to have made clear where I was contradicted by the SEP.

Oh, and I like how, in the above quote, you completely fail to recognize that I don't, nor have claimed, to accept the argument.

Quote:It's only obscure because you are unwilling to admit you are fundamentally wrong in your characterization of the argument presented. If you have a better argument to present, present it. Otherwise, stop pretending

How was I wrong in my characterization of the argument? I especially doubt that, given you don't even seem to grasp what the argument is saying. In fact, in one of your quotes from SEP, you completely mischaracterize what is said:

Your SEP quote said this:

SEP Wrote:Plainly enough, non-theists and necessitarian theists disagree about the layout of logical space, i.e., the space of possible worlds. The sample argument consists, in effect, of two premises: one which says that God exists in at least one possible world; and one which says that God exists in all possible worlds if God exists in any. It is perfectly obvious that no non-theist can accept this pair of premises. Of course, a non-theist can allow—if they wish—that there are possible worlds in which there are contingent Gods. However, it is quite clear that no rational, reflective, etc. non-theist will accept the pair of premises in the sample argument.

and you said this:

Rampant.A.I. Wrote:Presupposing: <it is possible God Exists>
To conclude: Therefore <God Exists>
By Plantinga's own admission.

Or, more directly stated: If we presuppose: <God Exists>
We can reasonably conclude: <God Exists>

You REALLY don't understand what is being said by SEP there. SEP is, as I said, talking about the ontology of possible worlds/the metaphysics of modality with respect to the modal ontological argument, as I underlined above. And if you don't know, the ontology of possible worlds is an obscure area of philosophy, and that was what I was referring to in my previous post.

So when you characterize Plantinga's argument as just presupposing God exists to conclude God exists, you are bullshitting in the extreme. The argument is using axiom S5 in modal logic and possible worlds semantics to try and reasonably establish "God exists" as either true or reasonably acceptable, by making asserting the premise that God's existence is at least possible. Plantinga's "admission" is nothing new, he's saying the argument does not establish "God exists" as conclusive, just that it's reasonable to accept if you think God could exist. Worse for you, Plantinga fully accepts that atheists can reject his argument, and here is what I earlier was talking about in regards to the validity of his argument and other deductive arguments:

Alvin Plantinga Wrote:Once you see how the argument works, you may think that asserting or believing the conclusion; the canny atheist will say that he does not believe it is possible that there be a maximally great being. But would not a similar criticism hold of any valid argument? Take any valid argument: once you see how it works, you may think that asserting or believing the premise is tantamount to asserting or believing the conclusion.

If they would mean that it is necessary to have a "god" to:

1, keep people in line.
2, make people give you money.
3, force a big group of people to do "good"
4, keep the power to yourself (catholic church for example)

Then yes, I understand it is a necessity for them to have people believe there is a deity. Whether they believe that themselves or not.
However, if they mean that god is necessary for the world to exist in the first place, that is just a big pile of cow poo poo.