Originally posted by shunyadragon
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
The Honest Atheist?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by JohnnyP View PostAccording to the argument, how do the qualities of something do anything to qualify it to be in every possible world -- assuming "possible worlds" doesn't change meaning toward the conclusion which it does as shown -- or in the actual world? It could be of Minimal Excellence and it wouldn't do anything to change the argument. Supposing it was a valid argument to start with.
Maybe this explanation and alternative formulation from here will be helpful to you:
Comment
-
The conclusion of the ontological argument, as formulated by Alvin Plantinga and others, depends on a form of modal axiom S5 (which contends that if the truth of a proposition is possible, then it is possible in all worlds). This axiom also contends that, if it is possible that a proposition is necessarily true (that is to say, it is necessarily true in some possible world), then it is necessarily true in all possible worlds. -Ontological Argument
The reality is still that the truth (of the proposition) is possible in all worlds, even the actual world, but it's still only a possibility no matter how many ways you word this argument. You can't just leap from possibilities to realities without showing why.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View Post
This logic of the ontological argument is formally summarised by philosopher Alvin Plantinga as follows:
1. 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. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. It is possible that there is 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, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.[/cite]
◊p→□◊p
Under axiom S5, if X is possibly then X is necessarily possibly true.
You cannot remove the word "possibly" from the statement, which Plantinga does, if this is his arguments.
Comment
-
Originally posted by little_monkey View Post#5 is wrong.
◊p→□◊p
Under axiom S5, if X is possibly then X is necessarily possibly true.
You cannot remove the word "possibly" from the statement, which Plantinga does, if this is his arguments.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by little_monkey View Post#5 is wrong.
◊p→□◊p
Under axiom S5, if X is possibly then X is necessarily possibly true.
You cannot remove the word "possibly" from the statement, which Plantinga does, if this is his arguments.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostAgreed
Did Plantinga make these two mistakes on sloppiness or was he driven by his delusions that made him overlook such blatant mistakes?Last edited by little_monkey; 11-06-2014, 08:08 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by little_monkey View PostSo not only do we have a category mistake, but also a misuse of modal logic.
Did Plantinga make these two mistakes on sloppiness or was he driven by his delusions that made him overlook such blatant mistakes?
I agree that this a category mistake that on second thought questions the validity of Plantinga's argument.
My view of the Philosophy of Logic is that it is best used and developed as a skeptical tool to question 'thinking,' and not as many philosophers, like Plantinga, use logic to build a fortress to justify their own beliefs or worldview.Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-06-2014, 08:36 AM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe problem is I do not like the concept of modal logic up front, because of its high fog index. It fits the 'blue smoke and mirrors' high academic logic of Plantinga.
I agree that this a category mistake that on second thought questions the validity of Plantinga's argument.
My view of the Philosophy of Logic is that it is best used and developed as a skeptical tool to question 'thinking,' and not as many philosophers, like Plantinga, use logic to build a fortress to justify their own beliefs or worldview.
Comment
-
Ontological Argument, from logician, mathematician Kurt Gödel reworked by C Anthony Anderson:
Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.
Axiom 2: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive
Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive.
Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostOntological Argument, from logician, mathematician Kurt Gödel reworked by C Anthony Anderson:
https://appearedtoblogly.files.wordp...al-proof22.pdf
Seer, you haven't changed since the last time I engaged with you, as clueless as ever. LOL.
Comment
-
Originally posted by little_monkey View PostAnd where does it say that God exist?
Seer, you haven't changed since the last time I engaged with you, as clueless as ever. LOL.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostYes LM, and you are still an ass. But that is all fleshed out in the link (see "proof" at the end of page 293, and the beginning of 294)
Comment
-
Originally posted by little_monkey View PostYes, I see that's based on Godel's proof, which has been debunked decades ago. Get up to speed instead of embarrassing yourself.
Listen idiot - that is why I linked and posted C Anthony Anderson reworked version. Which deals with the objections.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostListen idiot - that is why I linked and posted C Anthony Anderson reworked version. Which deals with the objections.
Kurt Godel's version of the ontological argument was shown by J. Howard Sobel to be defective, but some plausible modifications in the argument result
in a version which is immune to Sobel's objection. A definition is suggested which permits the proof of some of Godel's axioms.
It is hoped that the suggested changes preserve at least some of the essentials of Godel's proof.
Godel's proof can be resumed as such:"being real is better than not being real and since God is God-like he must be real"
It's circular reasoning.
But hey, you're free to believe in that crap. It's a free country.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
|
14 responses
44 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Today, 03:30 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
|
21 responses
129 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-21-2024, 12:15 PM | ||
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
|
78 responses
414 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 10:50 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
|
45 responses
303 views
1 like
|
Last Post 03-17-2024, 07:19 AM |
Comment