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
See more
See less

The Honest Atheist?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    I would consider it a category mistake regardless of whether it is a misuse of modal logic or not. My problem is that modal logic covers a rather broad ambiguous group of logic 'expressions.' I may do some checking as to how this is used.
    Yeah, what I meant is that with the category mistake, the use of modal logic was really an abuse of that use.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
      According 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.
      I don't know what you mean when you say that "possible worlds" changes meaning. It doesn't change meaning.

      Maybe this explanation and alternative formulation from here will be helpful to you:


      Source: allaboutphilosophy.org

      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.

      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.

      © Copyright Original Source

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        I don't know what you mean when you say that "possible worlds" changes meaning. It doesn't change meaning.

        Maybe this explanation and alternative formulation from here will be helpful to you:


        Source: allaboutphilosophy.org

        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.

        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.

        © Copyright Original Source

        The problem still remains:
        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.
        Last edited by JohnnyP; 11-05-2014, 08:45 PM. Reason: clarify

        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]
          #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.

          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.
            Agreed
            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 Post
              Agreed
              So 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?
              Last edited by little_monkey; 11-06-2014, 08:08 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by little_monkey View Post
                So 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?
                The 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.
                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 Post
                  The 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.
                  I get your drift. However, it took me less than an hour last night to learn the subject. There are about 5 axioms, and another 5 derived axioms. Not that complicated, but you are right, one can easily fall into that fog you've mentioned. Plantinga did fall, and it looks like few or none of his colleagues could see the wrong use of it. Otherwise a plethora of philosophers should have debunked his ontological argument in less than 5 minutes. It doesn't speak well for the community of philosophers when such an obvious plunder goes unnoticed for how many years now???

                  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.
                    https://appearedtoblogly.files.wordp...al-proof22.pdf
                    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 Post
                      Ontological Argument, from logician, mathematician Kurt Gödel reworked by C Anthony Anderson:



                      https://appearedtoblogly.files.wordp...al-proof22.pdf
                      And 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.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Ontological Argument, from logician, mathematician Kurt Gödel reworked by C Anthony Anderson:
                        It depends on existence being a property.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by little_monkey View Post
                          And 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.
                          Yes 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)
                          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 Post
                            Yes 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)
                            Yes, I see that's based on Godel's proof, which has been debunked decades ago. Get up to speed instead of embarrassing yourself.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by little_monkey View Post
                              Yes, 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 Post
                                Listen idiot - that is why I linked and posted C Anthony Anderson reworked version. Which deals with the objections.
                                You obviously did not read the very first page. Here it is:

                                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.
                                His conclusions:

                                It is hoped that the suggested changes preserve at least some of the essentials of Godel's proof.
                                A valiant attempt but hopeless.

                                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 tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                414 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X