Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(March 18, 2017 at 12:36 am)MysticKnight Wrote: If all existence is not necessary, then they are not necessary to exist and possibly could not have existed. If things are not necessary, the question, is why do they exist?
No. You said necessary being. Don't change the subject. Show that a necessary being is at all possible.
(March 18, 2017 at 12:36 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Everything is possible.
No. I'll just stop you there. Not everything is possible.
All of this has been covered in this thread at least 10 times now. Did you just skip to the end without reading anything?
Sorry I mean to say everything that exists is possible, but not necessary.
But there has to be an existence that is necessary.
(March 18, 2017 at 12:21 am)MysticKnight Wrote: You guys don't find it odd, that if a Necessary being is possible, then it definitely exists?
Again, only under the S5 axiom set, which has very specific areas of applicability. Under other axiom sets, this does not hold.
"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
March 18, 2017 at 12:59 am (This post was last modified: March 18, 2017 at 12:59 am by Nonpareil.)
(March 18, 2017 at 12:36 am)MysticKnight Wrote: If all existence is not necessary, then they are not necessary to exist and possibly could not have existed. If things are not necessary, the question, is why do they exist?
Why not?
(March 18, 2017 at 12:36 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Everything is possible.
No.
(March 18, 2017 at 12:36 am)MysticKnight Wrote: I believe if you think about the teleological argument, then it further confirms why there must a necessary being.
Teleology is incoherent nonsense.
(March 18, 2017 at 12:36 am)MysticKnight Wrote: That is because everything requires an explanation of why it's here
Within the universe, yes.
Within the universe, it is not necessary for this cause to be a god. Outside the universe, it cannot be shown that the requirement for causality is even coherent, let alone holds.
(March 18, 2017 at 12:36 am)MysticKnight Wrote: God is necessary as well for morality which is part of reason and life.
Objective morality does not exist.
(March 18, 2017 at 12:36 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Without God, there is no morality.
Demonstrably false.
(March 18, 2017 at 12:36 am)MysticKnight Wrote: With God, there is no purpose.
And united in this void of purpose, fear, or duty, we shall, at long last, be free!
"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
(March 18, 2017 at 12:27 am)Jesster Wrote: I find it odd that you consider any being necessary.
Existence is Existence. It necessarily must exist. That is a simple proof that the Necessary being is the REAL existence by which all things exist.
That is a fallacious conclusion to derive from the postulation that existence must exist. If we are to assume some logically necessary entity is required to ground all existence, then you have just undermined the assumption that existence must exist. Anything dependent upon a necessary entity can be said to be contingent upon its ability to arbitrate things to existence, but this makes the assumption that the constantly changing reality we live in now need not be necessary, so existence could not exist.
One of two things can be brought from this:
-Existence is contingent and therefore your postulation is false.
-Existence is necessary, but existing things can be contingent, so it is all reducible to one necessary entity. This necessary entity must be God (Necessary mind).
The first one takes down your point. The second one brings us back to square one, how do we know this necessary entity is a unembodied free personal mind? How do we know that this being would have any relation to existence? You are the one pointing out that existence is necessary, so I could keep the quality of existence and logically separate it from a cognitive being.
March 18, 2017 at 2:18 am (This post was last modified: March 18, 2017 at 2:18 am by masterofpuppets.)
The ontological argument simply defines god as the "greatest possible being" and then presupposes that this definition is equivalent to that of a deity, when it isn't. It hasn't been demonstrated what the greatest possible being is or could be. The greatest possible "being" could just be the Universe, for example. In other words, the argument fails from the first premise.
"Faith is the excuse people give when they have no evidence." - Matt Dillahunty.
March 18, 2017 at 4:51 am (This post was last modified: March 18, 2017 at 4:53 am by Cyberman.)
(March 18, 2017 at 12:53 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Sorry I mean to say everything that exists is possible, but not necessary.
But there has to be an existence that is necessary.
And that is pure doublethink, in the truest Orwellian sense. Two diametrically opposed statements, both simultaneously held as true.
In layman's terms, insane.
Why must there be "an existence that is necessary"? To make your argument work?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Perhaps it is a result of when I grew up, and some of the changes I have seen and always hearing quotes like those below, but from my view of the semantics in modal logic, I think that possible is the more neutral and default term. It is possible, if and only if; it is not necessarily false. This is independant of whether it is actually true or false. It is saying, that the claimant doesn't find any reason to find it logically impossible. How would you go about showing that something is possible in this sense?
By showing that it is a logically coherent definition with parameters that can actually be fulfilled.
It is quite possible, for example, to challenge the coherence (and, therefore, possibility) of a definition that is "omniscient, omnipotent, and 'wholly good'", as none of these concepts are particularly well-defined and the latter is completely nonsensical, as "goodness" is a value judgment and has no objective standard.
Even if you could demonstrate this, though, you would still have to demonstrate that it is possible for an entity with these characteristics to exist. You would, in fact, have to be able to show that the universe is logically compatible with the existence of a maximally excellent entity - but you don't know enough about the universe's characteristics to be able to argue that.
I'm afraid, that if you do not understand what "all knowing" or "all powerful" is, then I don't believe I can simplify those any more for you. As for goodness, that is an entirely different subject, and of much philosophical debate, so I'm not going to get into it and off topic (I think that most people in the end, act as if it is objective). But if you are saying that nothing is objectively greater than anything else, then I disagree and find it absurd. You are saying that knowledge is not greater than ignorance, and wisdom is not greater than foolishness. That these are incoherent statements correct? That these are just value judgements?
Quote:
(March 17, 2017 at 8:01 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: From this, at best, I think that the best that you can say is that you cannot comment on it, because you do not know what it means.
Even if that were the case, it wouldn't actually help the ontological argument. It would just mean that we don't know enough to know if its definition is any good - which is precisely the issue that we have anyway.
(March 17, 2017 at 8:01 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: In one view, this may make it a bad argument because people may come at it with different views. Christians certainly have a longstanding view of what constitutes greatness concerning God, and I don't think that most of it would be considered controversial. However; I don't think that most would argue that nothing is greater in an objective sense. Is Love and self sacrifice greater than hate and self serving? Is greater potential in power greater than weakness? Even if different people disagree on what is considered greatness. They can be incorrect, and it doesn't make it subjective.
No. The fact that a measure of "greatness" is a judgment of value, and therefore by definition subjective, makes it subjective.
(March 17, 2017 at 8:01 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Would you agree, that apart from simply not taking a view on the argument (which is equivalent to pleading ignorance on the topic); that the argument makes the concept of God either impossible or necessary?
That is how the argument defines "God", so yes. If it weren't necessary, the argument would not recognize it as God.
(March 17, 2017 at 8:01 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: That God is either possible, or logically incoherent.
No. Again, even if the definition of "God" can be shown to be logically incoherent, it can only be shown to be so with respect to itself. It is not a matter of whether or not the definition is coherent; it is a matter of whether or not it is compatible with the definition of "universe".
This is where we get into the issue of S5 not necessarily being the appropriate set of axioms for Plantinga to use. It is the only axiom set which allows him to move from "possibly necessary" to "necessary", but the specific axiom set that you use is dependent on exactly what sense in which you mean "possible" or "necessary".
The two ways in which these can be used, for purposes of this argument are the epistemic and the metaphysical. Epistemic possibility has to do with whether the thing is actually possible in our world, while metaphysical possibility only cares about whether or not there is a logically coherent abstract world in which it could be true. S5 is a set of axioms specifically designed for use with epistemic statements, but Plantinga is asserting the metaphysical possibility of his necessary entity. Again, modal logic is not my particular area of expertise, but it is entirely possible that S5 does not apply, and that Plantinga should instead be working under, say, S4, which does not allow for the leap from "possibly necessary" to "necessary" - and if he is working under S5, then he still needs to establish that it is actually epistemically possible for this being to exist.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be saying here, that under the axioms of S5, that it must be shown epistemically possible in the actual world. Now I'm just learning this stuff myself, but nothing I see, in the descriptions of S5 state this. Why have the semantics of other possible worlds at all, if this where true. Now in S5, the worlds must be relational, to my understanding means, that you cannot just apply another set of logically consistent but totally different set of physics. Now as discussed the argument does leave open the possibility that God is not logically possible. However as I stated; I tend to default to possible rather than impossible, if I do not find a reason to do so. Frankly, I think you are confusing metaphysical possibility with epistemic possibility with your last statement. This is showing that we can know through logic, without empirical evidence.
