Caveat Lector

Page 10 of 12 [ 188 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

15 Dec 2010, 8:23 am

91 wrote:

I wish I could agree with you, just to find some middle ground and I think I do see where you are coming from. However the mere possibility of God not existing is not enough to fulfill the ontological argument simply due to the fact that if it is possible for him to exist, then he does. When you run the possibility of God not existing that is a logically legitimate statement. However, when you then make the case that therefore he does not exist in some possible world you break the rules of logic, since if God does exist, he exists in all possible worlds (which is kind of the point of the argument). When dealing with maximal greatness one thing cannot be true in one world and not true in another. When arguing the positive ontological argument this reality is factored into the modal logic, when arguing the negative it becomes a issue that disqualifies the argument.

Well, the problem is that the mere possibility of God not existing is sufficient to rebut the ontological argument. Because if it is possible for God not to exist, then he doesn't.

Actually..... it is not illegitimate. Possible worlds are merely logically possible worlds. So, if it is logically possible that God does not exist, then God does not exist in some possible world. If God does not exist in some possible world, and God, if he exists, must exist in all possible worlds, then God must not exist. I think you fail to recognize that this is just turning your modus ponens into a modus tollens.

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Plantinga, however, is usually associated with the strongest criticisms of divine simplicity and I have never seen him lumped together with believers of divine simplicity.

.

Plantinga’s form of divine simplicity is often referred to as being in opposition to the subject. This is not the case when it is viewed from the outside. Plantinga did distinguish between essence and existence but held that the essence is simple but there was no reason to think that the existence must also be such. The classical view of divine simplicity has been attacked by modern Christian philosophy but it has been replaced by the concept of devine personhood or depending on where you read it, as weak divine simplicity.[/quote]
Right, and the concept of simple existence but complex essence is lost on me. I really have a difficult time separating the two concepts in the manner that would legitimize your position.

91
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

15 Dec 2010, 8:39 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

I think we have reached an impasse in regards to this argument, since I do not expect you to be any less stubborn on the matter than myself. We have both made our case on the matter many times. I am prepared to leave it at this, and stand on my previous statement, that the negative cannot be extrapolated in the way you are suggesting, since it is overridden by the positive.

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Right, and the concept of simple existence but complex essence is lost on me. I really have a difficult time separating the two concepts in the manner that would legitimize your position.

Well its not so difficult. Take the value of divine moral perfection for example. If we take that God in his nature is as such then we can work from there. For the purpose of this illustration I will discuss the matter as if it is a given. Now suppose God chose to act on that value, he would do so in highly complicated ways, in any given situation the perfect moral response is such that it may require mercy or justice, to varying degrees (this also applies to Sand's statement about contradictory properties). The outcome may be highly complex, Gods actions within the world may be complex. This is what is meant by God's existence being complex in this way. No matter how convoluted the action, the essence remains simple.

The same is true in relation to how God manifests his mind, and through all the divine attributes. Plantinga made a valid point when he conjectured that God should logically exist in this way, since he posited that if God simply was his nature he would simply be a property rather than a being. The problem with being simply a property is that it is essentially non-causal. Mathematics as a concept exists in this way, it is objectively true but cannot cause anything.

_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

Last edited by 91 on 15 Dec 2010, 8:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

15 Dec 2010, 8:54 am

91 wrote:

Sand wrote:

Maximally great is a meaningless term.

What you don't believe that things have properties and that such properties exist to a greater or lesser extent?

Actually, to be fair, I don't. At least, I don't think of "properties" in such an essentialistic manner. So, the scaling of properties up to that extent just seems bizarre. It's the reason why Aquinas's argument from degree makes little sense to me.

That being said, I am not committed to the possibility of maximality in many cases, especially not a combination of all maximal qualities. Don't have time to go into any posting depth at the moment, so I just gave this short one on this issue.

01001011
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

15 Dec 2010, 9:34 am

91 wrote:

The only way you can get through the argument from chance is by putting forward a position that is dependent multiverse theory.

As to the issue of necessity, not even Richard Dawkins will go anywhere near that.

You are simply ignoring my point. What you are saying is just:
1) We can conceive explanation E1 .. En for some observation O
2) E1 .. En-1 are not satisfactory
3) Therefore En must be right, whatever it is.

I demonstrated that your design hypothesis is worse than the other two. There is no need to come up with a good explanation.

91
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

15 Dec 2010, 9:44 am

01001011 wrote:

I demonstrated that your design hypothesis is worse than the other two. There is no need to come up with a good explanation.

Please do so again I may have missed the point of your contention.

_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

01001011
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

15 Dec 2010, 11:28 am

Let's see how good the design hypothesis is.

The basic premise of the design hypothesis is that:

God picked a particular universe to create for some purpose P. 91 claims P is 'to create beings capable of free will and worship god'. Here, we run into 2 problems:
1) Why god comes up with P?
2) If there are many ways for god to fulfill P, then why god chooses such a particular implementation? (The hypothesis is clearly true in our context e.g the heaven ).

For 1), the common theist answer is by god's nature. That doesn't work because we can easily conceive different types of gods (more than the types of universes). So the problem just becomes why the nature of god is so fine tuned.

For 2), the common theist answer is along the line of our universe being 'the best'. However, that doesn't make sense unless one can define a measure of the greatness on all universes _god_ can conceive.

These issues point to the major weakness of the design 'hypothesis'. Namely, the hypothesis proposing NOTHING concrete - we don't know HOW god fine tune these parameter, etc., while the multi-universe is expressed in rigorous mathematics and might at least give some testable predictions.

91
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

15 Dec 2010, 12:32 pm

01001011 wrote:

we don't know HOW god fine tune these parameter, etc.

Well we don’t really need to know how God did something in order to see his hand. One need not know how the universe was started in order to establish that it had a beginning point. This sort of logic does not point to a weakness in the hypothesis but only in your own argument: it is called infinite regress. The invocation of infinite regress results in the arguing in circles. For example in order to establish a scientific discovery one needs to presuppose the validity of science asking for the latter to be justified first results in an explanatory circle in which everything must be explained and in which nothing is explained.

01001011 wrote:

multi-universe is expressed in rigorous mathematics and might at least give some testable predictions.

Well your presupposing that the teleological argument is not based in rigorous mathematics. This is not the case when one starts to look at the components of the argument. The teleological argument is simply based upon cosmological discoveries relating to the characteristics of our universe. Those cosmological values were not plucked from the sky by a theologian or philosopher but established through the peer review system of scientific journals and now represent the academic consensus of the nature of our universe. The teleological argument's components are fully testable in a mathematic sense and have verified by observation. Multiverse theory on the other hand, still represents a theoretical position and while it may play out in discovery at a later date does not have any impact on the exact variables that have been observed in our universe (they also form the basis of the Anthropic principle).

Now the variables as they exist can only be explained by one of three possibilities; necessity, chance or design. Since a universe can exist with different variables, it is not due to necessity, I have argued previously that it cannot be due to chance (these arguments are available the previous pages of this thread and within the ‘taking the fight to the real issue’ thread) and that therefore it is due to design.

01001011 wrote:

God picked a particular universe to create for some purpose P. 91 claims P is 'to create beings capable of free will and worship god'. Here, we run into 2 problems:
1) Why god comes up with P?
2) If there are many ways for god to fulfill P, then why god chooses such a particular implementation? (The hypothesis is clearly true in our context e.g the heaven ).

Well this is simply not the case. The basic theist response is that the variables exist in a way that is due to design. One need not establish the design plan in order to prove this. If one removes the other two possibilities all that is left is design and it therefore becomes logical to imply such. Requiring the explanation of the reason and the nature as you do in your post is once again invoking infinite regress and does nothing to discard the evidence that the universe exists in a way that is vastly contrary to that of probability.

01001011 wrote:

AG, IMO the best way to debate an apologist id to blast the sloppy definition in their arguments.

I would be cautious on commenting on the way that AG takes on the debate, he has shown a large degree of familiarity with the subject matter. He does not make the mistake of assuming that the other side's contentions are unfounded, he just concludes that they are wrong.

The arguments I am putting forward have been subject to the peer-review process attacking the underlying definitions is a risky proposition since you are assuming they cannot be justified. I once watched a chap from the Jesus seminar be taken down manuscript by manuscript, verse by verse (in the original Greek) in a debate on the resurrection. Never be so uncharitable as to assume the other side's argument has no merit.

_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

waltur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 May 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 924
Location: california

15 Dec 2010, 4:22 pm

i'm still waiting for my maximally great pizza.

i'm sure i ordered it more than 30 minutes ago.

i see no reason why a maximally great pizza delivery man would not be able to deliver a maximally great pizza in 30 minutes (max).

if a maximally great pizza delivery man exists in any universe, he must exist in all universes.

no pizza = no maximally great pizza delivery man.

that, or he got in a maximally great car crash on his way over here.....

if that's the case, i sure hope he's got maximally great insurance.

hmm... maybe i shouldn't have told you guys about this maximally great pizza delivery man who can deliver maximally great pizzas in 30 minutes (max). maybe i should have set up a church of pizzatology and charged members to tell them each level of secret toppings...

_________________
Waltur the Walrus Slayer,
Militant Asantist.
"BLASPHEMER!! !! !! !!" (according to AngelRho)

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

15 Dec 2010, 4:43 pm

Christianity is neither Reiki nor Freemasonry.

91
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

15 Dec 2010, 6:22 pm

@ Waltur

I dealt with the maximally great pizza on page six... whoever thought I would have to say that... :oops:

As an extra by Dr Craig:

Obviously, defining X as something like an all-surpassingly great island doesn’t work, since, as you and others rightly point out, islands are, amongst other things, inherently material (and are therefore contingent on the existence of space and time); moreover, it’s far from clear as to what properties make an island great (for some it might involve plenty of palm trees; for others, it might involve no palm trees at all). So defining X in such a way doesn’t seem to work.

_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

waltur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 May 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 924
Location: california

15 Dec 2010, 7:23 pm

91 wrote:

@ Waltur

I dealt with the maximally great pizza on page six... whoever thought I would have to say that... :oops:

As an extra by Dr Craig:

Obviously, defining X as something like an all-surpassingly great island doesn’t work, since, as you and others rightly point out, islands are, amongst other things, inherently material (and are therefore contingent on the existence of space and time); moreover, it’s far from clear as to what properties make an island great (for some it might involve plenty of palm trees; for others, it might involve no palm trees at all). So defining X in such a way doesn’t seem to work.

ah, yes. page 6.

waltur wrote:

91 wrote:

Ok, I will respond.

I have stated that the universe has a reason for its existence. That purpose is to being people into a relationship with God for salvation. The fine tuning of the universe must only exist up to the point at which it brings human life into existence. The universe clearly is fine tuned to that extent.

As to the use of the word optimal. The problem is, optimal to what? How can you possibly show that God cannot have reasons for the universe exists as it does. The universe could exist in a different way, but it does not necessarily follow therefore that it could do so in a better way. How can you possibly show that if the universe or world was designed in a different way that more souls would come to know God? I have asked this question repeatedly and so far you have given me nothing other than the presupposition that he could do better, how can you know that? . It does not seem to follow that if God has sufficient reasons for the universe existing the way it does, then he should have designed it differently. I am not sure we are in any position to tell what an omnipotent being could or should do when he do not have any grasp of many of the reasons such a being would have. What your argument does wrong is that it presupposes to know what both what God is like and what his intentions are.

As to your use of the word, imperfect. Imperfect in relation to what? To sin, then the Christian is with you since this is a fallen world and this is caused by our own nature and our free will. In relation to physics or geology, the question then follows again, based on what and how could you demonstrate better? Backing yourself behind a massive burden of proof (since you would have to make the same case that you do in relation to optimal) does not validate the argument you are making, in fact it makes it less possible that your view could be valid, since for it to be so the presupposition must be granted and there is no reason to do this.

As to your argument in relation to free will. The simple fact is that it is self-refuting. If you believe that all actions are determined by vague laws then I have no reason to derive truth from anything you say or believe. Those same laws could cause you to believe any number of impossible things regardless of truth or fact. Stating that free will does not exist, is self contradictory (since if it is correct, then it would require you to be able to choose to believe it and that such a belief could possibly be objectively correct) in and of itself and I see no reason to place any validity in your statement.

You state that anything that is logically sufficient may be possible. As I have repeatedly indicated to you, all that is required to prove God exists from the possible is the ontological argument.

1. It is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. (By S5)
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

It is in relation to this argument that you have demonstrated the least understanding. You have claimed that it can disprove God and some have claimed it could prove a maximally great pizza. The problem is that the argument logically collapses when the object you place into the formula is not maximally great or an objective certainty. For the example of the maximally great pizza, it may exist possibly, but a maximally great pizza would not exist in every possible world, if it existed in any. As to the disproof of God, I have already explained that the ontological argument can only disprove God when that argument is based on a certainty. Since if it is not argued as certainty it is still possible and the negative feedback from this possibility cancels out the argument. Since you have as good as admitted to the posibility I can say that the ontological argument therefore proves the existence of God. It is not just you who does not understand this argument, but the vast majority of atheists; this is why Christian apologists have been using it a great deal more in the last few years.

You also stated ‘ Just the fact that there is ongoing academic dispute seems sufficient.’ This is the same argument that people who put forward intelligent design use, ‘teach the controversy’. Despite this, the Penrose position does not represent anything other than an attempt to reintroduce an infinite universe and considering that I can pick holes in it, I cannot wait for Dr. Craig’s response.

in what universe was your maximally great being created?

who/what created it?

if your maximally great being == the creator, and needs no creator, how is this less difficult to prove than the position that reality lacks a beginning point?

do you even care about these questions?

i'd accuse you of intellectual dishonesty, but i think keet really said it best when he said:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

I think that intellectual dishonesty is unintentional. I think that somehow mental barriers are built to make it so that what is already accepted remains protected, subconsciously, and all things to the contrary are then perceived as necessarily false.

that was a good page. i liked the part where you said "The problem is that the argument logically collapses when the object you place into the formula is not maximally great or an objective certainty. For the example of the maximally great pizza, it may exist possibly, but a maximally great pizza would not exist in every possible world, if it existed in any." i don't see why a maximally great pizza doesn't qualify as a "maximally great" "object."

I propose that a pizza has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W.

this is, of course, a ridiculous proposition and is, rightly, ridiculed. replace "pizza" with "being" and suddenly, it becomes less ridiculous? i don't think so. tell me about this world you call "W." are there lesser beings there? is your "maximally great being" descended from them? created by them? did he always exist?

no. i'm sorry. you have not "dealt with the maximally great pizza." there's no need to worry about this as omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent pizzas don't exist.

nor have you dealt with my questions from page 6.

feel free to just ignore them again. you can probably make up the points in the essay section.

_________________
Waltur the Walrus Slayer,
Militant Asantist.
"BLASPHEMER!! !! !! !!" (according to AngelRho)

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

15 Dec 2010, 7:31 pm

The basic divide between religious and non-religious people is not in outward facts but in inward desires. Religious people are afraid to face the possibilities of a universe that is without concern over the values living things hold as valuable. Aside from the obvious social function of established religion as an institution of control over the population functioning at the behest of those in political power the roots of religion are deep in the human desire to not feel totally ignored by the obviously not conscious basic forces of the universe. The mere size of the universe alone is pretty horrifying compared to even our total planet which is less than a bit of dust in the furious theater of the dynamic energies of the stars. That we simply do not register in all this violent activity is taken as some sort of personal insult to the hubris of much of humanity so religion keeps trying to re-arrange this unmanageable diffidence into some kind of direct loving concern and even a reasonable glance at reality indicates pretty absolutely the insignificance of humanity and all its efforts and accomplishments.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

15 Dec 2010, 7:49 pm

91 wrote:

Well, honestly, I am not sure we really get anywhere.

1) We can't know God's nature, as even though we can say "God says X", we don't have direct knowledge. We also lack inferential knowledge, because we can't understand why the world is the way it is. I mean, I would think your point about worse worlds would tend to fall prey to the same logic that you used to hamper the notion of better worlds, in that we can't really know that these worlds are worse at achieving God's objectives. (perhaps random things popping into existence, furthers our recognition of our epistemic limitations, and furthers our absolute dependence upon Him).
2) If justice and mercy are traded off, but both are relatively absolute ideals, then how can we say that any trade off is more moral than any other trade-off? Wouldn't there be a bit of ad hocness that prevents us from calling such a being maximally great, or even morally perfect in either case. After all, failing to uphold justice is an injustice, even if the failure is chosen. If a judge just arbitrarily suspends the moral rules to forgive someone, then we have an injustice to other members of the system, who do not receive these favors. If a judge just dispenses justice without concern though, then such a judge is hard-hearted. Finally, if a judge dispenses mercy to everybody, then justice goes out the window. The problem is that all of these lines are morally questionable, if not flawed, there does not seem to be an objectively right choice, but at the same time, the tension between justice and mercy is necessary for satisfaction atonement theology, for without that tension, there is no need for a satisfaction, and no need for atonement.

I think that similar problems with morality tend to abound, and to a degree where if we accept God as morally perfect, we have to also accept that we are very significantly lacking in moral knowledge. The same point ends up existing for Hanna's logical problem of evil, because moral luck is in part a result of our intuitions, but God cannot be morally perfect in regard to moral luck unless this is the best of all logically possible worlds. (which it really does not seem to be to an obvious extent, as the non-existence of hell is clearly imaginable) The same point emerges in terms of global scale behavior and trade-offs, as theistic ethics are often deontological, but global scale planning of outcomes tends to have to be utilitarian, especially with uncreated persons and with many theological defenses... and the possibilities seem to go on.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

15 Dec 2010, 7:54 pm

Honestly, I'd have to agree with Waltur about the pizza and the island. The logic works just as well if we insert both categories of objects. This point was made earliest by Gaunillo and has persisted for all the time the ontological argument has persisted.

Even further, I am not sure that "maximally great island" is worse than "maximally great being", as many of the attributes of God can be questioned on maximal greatness. After all, God is not the prettiest being, as God, being a spirit, has no physical form to evaluate as pretty. God is not the tastiest being, because without physical form, there is no flavor. God is not the happiest being, because emotions, being cognitive processes, demand temporally based cognition. And well... the list goes on of things that God cannot do or is not, and many of these things that God cannot do or is not are incompatible with other properties.

91
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

16 Dec 2010, 12:08 am

@ Waltur

Waltur wrote:

I propose that a pizza has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W.

Well you just described God, you just gave it another name. The only way the argument really works is if you grant additional properties to the item being described such as omnipotence, omniscient and moral perfection. Thankyou for making my point though.

@ AG

As to your trade-off argument; essentially justice and mercy are rooted in the same value, that of moral perfection. What your are describing is a moot point if God in his moral perfect, can choose the optimal option. This is the essence of divine simplicity that you are not really grasping. That God in his nature is simple, he is morality perfect, his actions may manifest as just or merciful but they essentially draw from the same point. This point can be proven true by simply looking at the chair you are sitting on: God could manifest creation in that chair but he did not make a car. Saying that a car and a chair are two different things is simply stating the obvious and proves nothing in relation to the root creative power. God's moral choices become essentially true because objective morality is grounded in his being, his decision need not be both car and chair it is simply required that it is true and correct.

AG wrote:

God is not the happiest being, because emotions, being cognitive processes, demand temporally based cognition

This position is based on the assumption that emotion requires temporal cognition. Now I would agree that we have no evidence of emotion existing anywhere other than with a brain but it does not follow that this is the only way that it can occur. For example, we only have examples of complex life existing on this planet, this fact is not enough for us to therefor conclude that it cannot exist elsewhere.

_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

Last edited by 91 on 16 Dec 2010, 12:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

16 Dec 2010, 12:15 am

91 wrote:

@ Waltur

Waltur wrote:

I propose that a pizza has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W.

True and correct are again cloudy nonsense. Again and again there is this eagerness to spread generalities over concepts like some glutinous goop to mystify a situation. True and correct are words applicable to specifics, not broad generalities.

Page 10 of 12 [ 188 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Next

Jump to:

Caveat Lector Post Reply New Topic

Caveat Lector