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!
Current time: May 20, 2024, 3:28 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Modal Ontological Argument - Without Modal Logic
#38
RE: The Modal Ontological Argument - Without Modal Logic
(February 15, 2014 at 3:02 am)Darkstar Wrote: The immaterial mind is produced by the material brain. No mind has ever been known to exist sans brain.
lets see... first you're making an assumption that the mind is produced by the brain, i would argue it is the other way around and i can give some evidence but that involves different arguments including the introspective argument and the implications of modern quantum mechanics such as the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. such things are off topic of this thread but i will address them in the future. second, you're making an argument from ignorance fallacy in an attempt to support your assumption. just because no one has ever seen a mind function independent of the brain doesn't mean that can't be the case, there are many things that we haven't seen before that turn out to be true. lack of evidence has nothing to do with the truth of the statement.

Quote:In what sense? Colors, sounds, etc. are the result of energy (either directly or indirectly) and while they certainly exist, this does not lead to them being sentient.
i never suggested they were sentient, i simply stated they exist and can't be broken down to matter. as such, the mind can't be broken down to matter either. even Sam Harris agrees with this.

Quote:Not really. The mind, as a concept, is indeed immaterial; however, the existence of the mind is inherently contingent on the physical brain. Or does a magical omnipotent mind not need a brain? I still fail to see why an omnipotent being must exist; I would still hold to the first objection.
again, you're making baseless assumptions. from what we can observe, there is a clear connection between mind and brain. we can also clearly observe that the functional capabilities of the brain can determine how well the mind can interact with the brain. but none of that clearly shows that the mind is dependent upon the brain. there is nothing you have said that shows a necessity of a brain dependent mind. even if you indeed showed that our minds are brain dependent, that doesn't mean it's impossible to have one that isn't.

Quote:I would posit that necessary truths, if they exist, cannot be known to us for certain. Solipsism cannot be disproven, so "necessary truths" are really more akin to things, such as gravity, that seem absolute, but can we really know for sure? There should, one would think, be a final layer, so to speak. That is, something that is not contingent upon another thing, but only the laws of physics come to mind. And the laws of physics are not sentient.
i don't think you realize that by admitting necessary truths can exist, you have also admitted the possibility that something's existence can be necessary in and of itself. if something can be true because it is necessary for it to be true, then it can be true that something exists simply because it is necessarily true that it exists. the rest is irrelevant since the argument is ontological so it doesn't rely on our physical senses. the only way to refute the argument is to show P1 is wrong or to deny logic itself (which would have to be a baseless assertion BTW).

Quote:So it follows that literally everything that is possible is also true?
no, it follows that anything that is metaphysically possible but not metaphysically contingent is metaphysically necessary and anything that is metaphysically necessarily is also true.

Quote:It is metaphysically possible for their to be no god, then? I can certainly imagine a universe without one.
when you analyze the coherence of the statement in conjunction to the validity of the MOA, you can see that it is not. if it were possible for there to be no God, then this would mean it is impossible for God to exist, or God's existence is contingent. but upon further inspection, necessary existence is a necessary part of the property of omnipotence, and omnipotence is a necessary property of God. therefore, it is only metaphysically possible for there to be no God if it is metaphysically impossible for God to exist. so given the MOA is sound, it is not possible for there to be no God.
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.
-Galileo
Reply



Messages In This Thread
RE: The Modal Ontological Argument - Without Modal Logic - by Rational AKD - February 15, 2014 at 3:58 am

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Belief without Verification or Certainty vulcanlogician 40 3431 May 11, 2022 at 4:50 pm
Last Post: vulcanlogician
  The evolution of logic ignoramus 3 937 October 7, 2019 at 7:34 am
Last Post: onlinebiker
  Ontological Disproof of God negatio 1042 84793 September 14, 2018 at 4:05 pm
Last Post: LadyForCamus
  My own moral + ontological argument. Mystic 37 11236 April 17, 2018 at 12:50 pm
Last Post: FatAndFaithless
  Let us go back to "cold" hard logic."Time" Mystic 75 11516 November 10, 2017 at 6:29 pm
Last Post: bennyboy
  Logic Fallacies: A Quiz to Test Your Knowledge, A Cheat Sheet to Refresh It Rhondazvous 0 999 March 6, 2017 at 6:48 pm
Last Post: Rhondazvous
  Ontological Limericks chimp3 12 3297 December 22, 2016 at 3:22 am
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  On Anselm's 2nd Formulation of the Ontological Argument FallentoReason 7 3169 November 21, 2016 at 10:57 am
Last Post: FallentoReason
  On Logic and Alternate Universes FallentoReason 328 40235 November 17, 2016 at 11:19 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Formal logic for Dummies? LadyForCamus 48 8900 February 6, 2016 at 8:35 am
Last Post: robvalue



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)