Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
No, there is no possible world at which a MGB doesn't exist.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The battle of evolution vs creationism
- Thread starter bobhikes
- Start date
No, there is no possible world at which a MGB doesn't exist.
adi2d
Active Member
So your argument is
God exists therefore God exists
Concise but more a statement than an argument
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
Yeah actually, that's pretty much it- he assumes that it is possibly necessary that God exists, in order to conclude that God exists. However, in modal logic, "X possibly exists" is equivalent to "X necessarily exists"- so one of his premises is essentially "God necessarily exists"... Well, if you need to assume that God necessarily exists to prove that God in fact exists, what's the point of that?
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
How does that work? An entity that has all the properties your MGB has, but has one more- whichever one of the maximal virtues I've mentioned which your MGB lacks- would pretty clearly be slightly greater than your MGB. But then, your MGB would not be the greatest being- a contradiction.
That's. The. Exact. Same. Thing.
If X is perfect, then X is perfect for something; today is a perfect day for ice fishing, but a terrible day for swimming, this is a perfect tackhammer, but a terrible sledgehammer, etc. Perfection for X excludes perfection for not-X, and saying X is just perfect, but not for anything in particular, is incoherent just like saying "I am to the right of." (as in, to the right of, but not to the right of anything)
Because a maximally cautious or wise being would be greater than one that was not.
So we aren't talking about virtues, or positive/valuable attributes, but magical superpowers? Lol! Ok, well my MGB has the power of flight and farts fireballs the size of Escalades!
Your memory is very poor. Usually we exchange a few posts, with you failing to address the handful of salient points, before you disappear. The unfortunate part for you here is that these threads are on the internet, which means they are a matter of public record. Oops...
For one thing, OBVIOUSLY, arguments are not decided by comparing credentials. For another, I have a degree in philosophy, albeit a bachelors. For yet another, I'm not going to give out people's names or give any information that could lead to their identity becoming disclosed, so yeah, not going to go there. The handful of posters who are OK with that have personal information posted on their profile, but I'm afraid you'll have to look for yourself. Or, you can worry about dealing with their arguments, rather than trying to advance an ad hominem (which, I guess I should remind you, is fallacious). Or, you could even worry about addressing the handful of criticisms I've offered here- that the argument is question-begging, that one of the premises is false, and that the argument is invalid in most systems of modal logic anyways; you have to walk before you can run, after all.
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
Yeah actually, that's pretty much it- he assumes that it is possibly necessary that God exists, in order to conclude that God exists. However, in modal logic, "X possibly exists" is equivalent to "X necessarily exists"- so one of his premises is essentially "God necessarily exists"... Well, if you need to assume that God necessarily exists to prove that God in fact exists, what's the point of that?
See that's exactly what I'm talking about. Its easy to agree with your unbelieving buddies and cheer-lead each others posts, but from the looks of things it is hard to make a claim that is based on truth value.
Since you are the Modal logic guy, I would expect you to already know that the argument does not assume that God exists necessarily. The conclusion is based on the fact that it is possible for God to exist, and if it is possible for God to exist as a MGB, then it follows that God necessarily exist. See the way that works?
adi2d
Active Member
I am only speaking for myself Wild.
You said it was not possible for an MGB to not exist in a possible
So you are not saying God is possible you say He exists
See the difference?
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
So basically you are saying if a being had more of a sense of humor than the God that I defined, that would make that being greater? That is ridiculous. So if there are 100 sports in the world, your being enjoys 95 of those sports, and my being only enjoys 30 of the sports, that makes your being greater? Ridiculous. Those are personal preferences and has nothing to do with maximal greatness. Not to mention the fact that those are not even great making properties that you mention anyway, and I am still waiting on what the heck does maximal justice and maximal prudence...what DOES THAT MEAN?
That's. The. Exact. Same. Thing.
I actually like my definition better.
You are using "perfect" in a subjective sense. Suppose I like to go swimming in the ice water? Maybe it is perfect for swimming based on my preference? You ever think about that? The four omni's that define God are INTRINSIC maximums, meaning his attributes are MAXED OUT. When you watch any competition in sports, or read anything regarding superheros, everyone is judged based on their knowledge, their power, or their presence, and sometimes their character. God has ever single one of those attributes to the max, which is light years ahead of any contingent being. It doesn't get any better or greater than that.
Are you crazy? Why would an ominipotent being need to be cautious about anything? If God is maximally great and in sovereign control of everything, what does he need to be cautious about? And omniscience would IMPLY maximal "wiseness". Cmon now.
Yet I am the one that referred people to the thread...hmmm
Good stuff.
I actually want a voice chat/discussion with you over this subject or any other subject you want to discuss. Now lets see who is running and who is ready to intellectually fight.
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
The argument is very radical, because it is basically stating that even if it is POSSIBLE for God to exist, then God must exist, because all truths that are POSSIBLY necessarily true must be actually true.
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
I know how the argument works (more than we can say of you). Plantinga has stipulated that an MGB must, by definition, have maximally great properties in every possible world- in other words, he has already assumed that, if a MGB exists, it does so necessarily. But then, assuming that it IS possible that a MGB exist is tantamount to assuming that a MGB necessarily exists, since "it is possibly necessary that X" and "necessarily X" are equivalent. So adi2d's paraphrase was ironically accurate.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
There really is no battle between creationism and evolution. Evolution is both a fact and a working scientific theory.
Creationism of course is a belief. Even if there is a "God" said God used evolution. There is no science to do here, because there of course is nothing to test or observe. Each person or persons, who believes in a specific organized religion then places THEIR God at the top of the food chain. We have millions of Gods people believe in on Earth. Even that should tell you something. Religions have evolved even and we know that based on human history.
The deniers of evolution aren't denying it based on the facts of course, there are literally billions of facts that support evolution. They deny it based on their personal beliefs, cultures and organized religion.
Evolutionists can point out evolution happening right now, the fossils are there, plate tectonics supports evolution, chemistry, biology, DNA, you can basically name the science.
The debate would start at the Bang not evolution.
If, pick whatever God you would like, seeded this planet that said God, did it with bacteria and very simple celled organisms.
Scientists are even starting to figure that out as well. How the first cell walls evolved for example.
Creationism of course is a belief. Even if there is a "God" said God used evolution. There is no science to do here, because there of course is nothing to test or observe. Each person or persons, who believes in a specific organized religion then places THEIR God at the top of the food chain. We have millions of Gods people believe in on Earth. Even that should tell you something. Religions have evolved even and we know that based on human history.
The deniers of evolution aren't denying it based on the facts of course, there are literally billions of facts that support evolution. They deny it based on their personal beliefs, cultures and organized religion.
Evolutionists can point out evolution happening right now, the fossils are there, plate tectonics supports evolution, chemistry, biology, DNA, you can basically name the science.
The debate would start at the Bang not evolution.
If, pick whatever God you would like, seeded this planet that said God, did it with bacteria and very simple celled organisms.
Scientists are even starting to figure that out as well. How the first cell walls evolved for example.
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
I believe the word you were looking for was "obvious", not "ridiculous". If two entities are the same in every respect, except one has some positive/valuable/good property (or virtue) to a maximal degree while the other one does not, that entity is pretty clearly greater than the other. In other words, a MGB must, to actually be a MGB, possess every good or valuable property to a maximal degree. Which is incoherent.
Do you understand English? Which part don't you understand, "maximal" or "justice"? Since we've already given you a definition of "prudence", it must be one of these.
That's cool. They're exactly the same.
That isn't really true, and it isn't relevant anyways. If there is no ice, my preference is not part of it- its just a bad day for ice fishing. Perfection consists in suitability for a given task or function; but this entails that being perfect for one task or function will make something imperfect for a task or function that is sufficiently different. And being just plain perfect, without respect to anything else, is nonsense.
Oh dear. I'm afraid you're missing the point. As above-
"If two entities are the same in every respect, except one has some positive/valuable/good property (or virtue) to a maximal degree while the other one does not, that entity is pretty clearly greater than the other. In other words, a MGB must, to actually be a MGB, possess every good or valuable property to a maximal degree. Which is incoherent."
Which is, as I already noted, sort of funny; apparently you like people seeing you with your pants around your ankles. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.
Well, since every thread we broach the subject in ends with your running away, we know there's no worry there. But what I said before holds true- I'm more than willing to do whatever you like here on this forum, but I'm not going to download instant messaging software just so you can change the venue. If you like, sign up for a one-on-one debate on the debate section of this forum, I'd be happy to oblige.
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
Let's also just note, for the record, that you are apparently far more confident in the Modal Ontological Argument than even Plantinga is. As he himself says-
Our verdict on these reformulated versions of St. Anselm's argument must be as follows. They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion. But since it is rational to accept their central premise, they do show that it is rational to accept that conclusion (1974).
The MOA doesn't successfully prove or establish its conclusion- even Plantinga grants as much. Of course, he follows this up by weasel language and backpedaling, as Craig is wont to do, about how it makes the concluysion "reasonable"- although how an unsound and poor argument makes its conclusion "rational" is beyond me.
Our verdict on these reformulated versions of St. Anselm's argument must be as follows. They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion. But since it is rational to accept their central premise, they do show that it is rational to accept that conclusion (1974).
The MOA doesn't successfully prove or establish its conclusion- even Plantinga grants as much. Of course, he follows this up by weasel language and backpedaling, as Craig is wont to do, about how it makes the concluysion "reasonable"- although how an unsound and poor argument makes its conclusion "rational" is beyond me.
adi2d
Active Member
Nice to see someone thinks I'm accurate. Not sure what's ironic but that's probably my pea brain not seeing the big picture
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
The ironic part is you, either through insight or luck, saw through a load of technical jargon and basically struck to the heart of the issue. The argument is valid in some systems of modal logic, but trivially so, because it basically assumes the truth of the conclusion; it is question-begging, and therefore pointless, even if its validity is granted (which it need not be, since the modal axiom required for its validity is far from intuitively obvious).
Looncall
Well-Known Member
This "if something is possible, then it is necessary" bit looks like nonsense to me.
For example, it is possible that some radioactive atom is decaying just now, but it happens not to be.
By intrinsic I mean essentially indifferent. And I say essentially because if there is a creator then there is indisputably an indifference to evil and suffering in the world. In my view it is difficult, though not impossible, to refute the deist position, but Christian theism has a soft underbelly, and The Problem of Evil is the one and only argument that demonstrates conclusively that the God of Classical theism is logically impossible.
So if Plantingas argument is sound, and that inductive premise of my argument is true and follows validly to its conclusion, then we have an impasse, a reductio ad absurdum basically, where the one being cancels out the other. Alternatively, Plantingas formulation is just plain wrong due to his premise that the Maximally Great Being is omnibenevolent. For if Plantinga is positing a creator that causes or allows no evil and suffering then he must account for the fact that there is evil and suffering in the world. And that he cannot do without admitting a contradiction. So we either have no Supreme Being or we have a deist God, the latter at least provisionally.
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
This is like saying "it is possible that the victim has multiple gunshot wounds" is equivalent to saying "it is possible the victim was shot more than one time". It doesn't matter what is being said, the question is whether or not the premises are true. If the premises are true then the conclusion follows whether you like it or not. You are right, they are equivalent, but if it is true then it is true based on reality, not based how we phrase it.
If I say "adi2d's existence is possibly necessary", that is equivalent to "adi2d's existence is necessary"....the only problem is, both statements are FALSE and it is false because the statements do not reflect reality.
I've seen you make the same case before as if that is a defeater of the argument, which is rather dubious, because it isn't.
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
The only problem is outside of knowledge, power, presence, and benevolence, there are no more great making properties. What you did was point out a few attributes that are of personal preference, and some are just flat out ridiculous.
Well, its been already explained to that prudence has no barren on a MGB, so why you continue to use it, I don't know. My question is, what does it mean to have maximal justice? Give me an example of maximal justice.
Nice back-track. You originally said "it is a perfect day for ice fishing; but terrible day for swimming"...and all I did was point out how SUBJECTIVE the example is, as I may like swimming in ice water for all you know, so it isn't a terrible day for swimming to me. Now you are giving a scenario at which there is no ice at all, so of course it is a bad day for ice fishing.
No one can do anything that is contrary to their nature. Anything that God can't do will fall under the realm of contradicting his nature/character, or it will fall under the realm of logical impossibilities. I guarantee that anything that you claim that God is not perfect in regards too will fall under these two categories.
Yeah, I expect a MGB do be veryyyyy cautious with his creations...his creations may suddenly surprise him with something, despite the fact that he is omniscient. His creations may hide from him, despite him being omnipresent. Yeah, he should be veryyy cautious. Very prudent.
Forget about it then. Open challenge to anyone else then.
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
The argument is if something is possibly NECESSARY, then it is NECESSARILY true.