dust1n
Zindīq
one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen... ninety nine, one hundred. Ya, I did something!
-
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!
Since everyone likes philosophical arguments for gods existence...
- Thread starter uberrobonomicon4000
- Start date
one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen... ninety nine, one hundred. Ya, I did something!
No, he's right: A, Not-A, and Null are three distinct values.
I don't care, his argument violates non-contradiction.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Not only does the argument violate non-contradiction, but it would reduce to absurdity, if it didn't. That is, the same argument would apply to any imaginary being, not just God. When Anselm, the founder of scholasticism, constructed his famous argument in favor of God's existence, he took care to make sure that the argument just applied to his definition of God--a "perfect" being. His argument that things which did not exist were less than perfect, so a perfect being like God had to exist, because he could imagine a perfect being. The argument in the OP does not depend on any of God's special attributes, so it is essentially an argument that every imaginary being exists.
Just an FYI (and one which does not, in any way, support the OP): quantum logic (the logic upon which quantum theory, quantum mathematics, and modern physics is based) violates non-contradiction. So do many-valued and fuzzy logics. Violating this does not necessarily make an argument wrong (even an ontological one, although the relationship between logics which violate this law and ontology is not agreed upon by any means).
dust1n
Zindīq
Maybe I'm wrong here, but if this is the case, wouldn't it be impossible to make the argument she is attempting to make? Any of the premises would be indistinguishably the case or not the case.
uberrobonomicon4000
Active Member
Well if I violated the rules of logic then I must be doing something right. I amaze myself sometimes.
Want to elaborate? I mean, you literally just said,"my point of view is absurd and makes no sense, that's how it should be".
uberrobonomicon4000
Active Member
I usually only have debates with people that take things seriously and since you aren’t taking anything very seriously it’s pretty much pointless to have a debate with you or anyone else.
The argument, as far as I can determine, is simply not logical. I withheld making the comment I did until I felt this was firmly established. What I said has no bearing on the argument; it is entirely a "for your information" note. I happen to enjoy (and to value as worth studying) many-valued and fuzzy logics. So I took the time to point out something which had to do with logical arguments in general, but not the OP specifically. In particular, as another thread concerns possible worlds (and therefore modal logics), I think that pointing out the differences between different logical systems is relevant. Susan Haack wrote a few interesting books on this, including Deviant Logic, Fuzzy Logic: Beyond the Formalism and her classic Philosophy of Logics.
But you are not wrong.
uberrobonomicon4000
Active Member
Take the scalpel to the argument legion. I would like to know exactly where the problem lies.
I also like to think about possible worlds, but this isn't about possible worlds nor whether or not god exists. It is just an argument as it is in its 4 part state, stating it isn't possible to either deny or argue in favor something we know little to nothing about. You are also agnostic so this should be a category you are a very familiar with.
I also like to think about possible worlds, but this isn't about possible worlds nor whether or not god exists. It is just an argument as it is in its 4 part state, stating it isn't possible to either deny or argue in favor something we know little to nothing about. You are also agnostic so this should be a category you are a very familiar with.
I take logic very seriously, hence our clashing.
The way in which you phrase your argument is so much "about possible worlds" that its structure rather depends upon it. Any arguments which depends upon inferences concerning and references to "possible states" necessarily depends upon possible worlds semantics.
The conclusion states god exists. Even if (as seems to be the case given your statement), the argument:
it does not seem that your argument follows. Willamena has, I believe, been particularly clear in pointing out the reason(s) why, but the violation of the law of non-contradiction holds even in non-classical logics (where this law does not exist in the form it does in Aristotelian logic). In modal logics, it remains true. Either god exists in all possible worlds, or god does not. God does not (and cannot) exist in some world (or state) in which god does not exist. More than a contradiction in meaning, this violates any possible logical formalism one might contrive, for if we were to develop some symbolism other than that which we have now (some existential operator different from the backwards E) that could hold for existence and non-existence, it would be useless. "There exists X such that Y" holds true in a meaningful way iff (if and only if) whatever words or symbols are used to convey this statement are (relatively) unambigious. If X exists in some state Y that involves a lack of existence/non-existence, then any existence operator or term is meaningless. Not meaningless because there can be no argument (in theory) for or against the existence of god (or something else) but because it relies (as does your argument) on a linguistic, not logical, turn. You equate possiblestates in such a way that divorces the state of an entity from the entirety of that entity's properties, such that the state of an entity can exist without the entity itself.
I'm not sure I follow.
Last edited:
skepticdas
New Member
Starting with an assumption of "If God Exists" which leads to "God Exists' is simply begging the question. It is impossible to define God (or any other object) into existence using ontological arguments.
Alceste
Vagabond
I suppose I am unable to concede that it is possible for the subjective value judgments "superior, inferior and equal" to be objective facts.
I simply can not see how that would work, unless you assume the existence of some supreme judge of quality, whose personal opinion nullifies everyone else's.
And so we are back where we started: in order to argue that God exists, we must begin by assuming God exists.
Exactly.
uberrobonomicon4000
Active Member
From Wiki:
If nothing can be contradicted then the entire point of debating is pointless. Because everyone will continue to believe whatever it is they want to believe regardless of what anyone else says or does.
If arguments can't be made to support said existence of god then arguments can't be made to disprove god either. Even that violates what everyone claims is non contradiction.wiki said:
If nothing can be contradicted then the entire point of debating is pointless. Because everyone will continue to believe whatever it is they want to believe regardless of what anyone else says or does.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
I think this is wrong. Supreme would be the very best possible, not just the very best inexistence. The supreme mountain climber would get to the top of the mountain. If, of all the climbers, the best only got three quarters of the way up, he'd be the superior climber but not a supreme climber.
The smartest, most enlightened, most powerful being who has ever lived could still be nowhere near the level of power typically attributed to God.
of course debates can be made for / against God, and of course different points of view contradict each other. The problem here is your argument itself is contradictory, it contradicts internally. People can believe whatever they want, but that does not mean it is logical. And, if you're claiming God objectively exists, your reasoning better be logical.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Atheists do not usually try to disprove the existence of God in a purely logical sense, although it is possible to argue that some versions of God are internally contradictory and therefore impossible. Usually, their arguments only try to show that gods are implausible beings. Believers take the position that it is reasonable to believe in God or gods.
Belief in a god seldom turns on a single argument. What happens in these types of debates is that some aspect of belief is strengthened or weakened. It is seldom overturned. Changing a fundamental outlook on life usually takes time and a lot of thought about several concepts that support belief or rejection of belief. It is not a question about the possibility of God, but the plausibility of God.