The battle of evolution vs creationism

[Enai de a lukal]

It doesn't even get passed 2 because it isn't necessarily even possible that a MGB exists. We have no proof that the supernatural is even possible.

That's not what the argument is asking though; it is asking whether it is logically possible (i.e. not contradictory) that a MGB exists. Intuitively, we might think yes, its possible, but not likely or probably- but that is mistaken;

2 is false since a MGB entails contradictory attributes; there is no possible world such that a MGB, defined along these lines, exists. Certain maximal properties exclude certain others (trivially, maximal hotness and maximal coldness), and maximal virtues no less (maximal justice and maximal forgiveness, maximal courage and maximal prudence, etc etc); no one entity could logically possess them all..

 

[Enai de a lukal]

No one entity needs to possess them all.

Then they cannot, by definition, by maximally great, since they would be even better if they had the maximal attribute they happen to lack.

First of all, those virtues have nothing to do with at least three of the four omni's.

The "omni" attributes you mention are clearly not the only attributes of a maximally great being- a maximally great being is one that is maximal in every possible positive respect. That means that, by definition, a maximally great being has every virtue, to a maximal degree- if they lack even one, then they are not a maximally great being.

If anyone wants to see enaidealukal (amongst others) get intellectually whooped on this argument, just go to the Ontological Argument thread I created a few months back.

You're actually directing people to go look at a thread in which you demonstrate that you are unfamiliar with the basics of modal logic, which is the form of logic your own argument utilizes? Um, ok... Are you going to post your most embarassing baby pictures as well? I'm not sure anyone wants to see you with your pants around your ankles, CotW, and that is basically what happened on that thread- caught with your pants down.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Then they cannot, by definition, by maximally great, since they would be even better if they had the maximal attribute they happen to lack.

Yeah but the attributes can't be contradictory either. You can't be maximally forgiving and maximally unforgiving at the same time, which sounds like what you were alluding to when you said maximal justice and maximally forgiving. Those are contradictory attributes and to be omnibenevolent means you will lend justice when needed and also forgiving when needed, but since no one can know the criteria at which an OMB would/should forgive and when an OMB lends disciple, then one shouldn't speak on the matter.

Then
The "omni" attributes you mention are clearly not the only attributes of a maximally great being- a maximally great being is one that is maximal in every possible positive respect.

Every positive respect like what? You certainly can't be talking about anything involving knowledge, power, or presence. So the only thing left is benevolence...so what is there to be said? So then it becomes a debate about benevolence, and exactly what does benevolence entail...so then we get into moral values and things like that. Whatever the case may be, bring it on.

That means that, by definition, a maximally great being has every virtue, to a maximal degree- if they lack even one, then they are not a maximally great being.

Every virtue like what?

You're actually directing people to go look at a thread in which you demonstrate that you are unfamiliar with the basics of modal logic, which is the form of logic your own argument utilizes? Um, ok... Are you going to post your most embarassing baby pictures as well? I'm not sure anyone wants to see you with your pants around your ankles, CotW, and that is basically what happened on that thread- caught with your pants down.

People, go to the thread.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Not really.
It's a common argument that you cannot be held accountable for your actions because you were pre-programed to do them, but the thing is you still did them, and the people holding you accountable are pre-programmed to do so as well.

Wait a minute, so if a mad scientist found out a way to program your brain to do whatever it is that he desired, and you ended up getting in a car and start madly running over people GTA style, you would deserve to go to prison??

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That's not what the argument is asking though; it is asking whether it is logically possible (i.e. not contradictory) that a MGB exists. Intuitively, we might think yes, its possible, but not likely or probably- but that is mistaken;

Its funny how you quoted your own post as if what you stated refuted the argument. Ha.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Yeah but the attributes can't be contradictory either.

Well, a truly maximally great being would have every virtue or positive attribute to a maximal degree, regardless of whether these are contradictory or not. A being that is maximally courageous but not maximally prudent could not be maximally great since some other being that was both would be greater than the first being. Of course, this just goes to show that a MGB is incoherent.

Every positive respect like what?

Anything. If a being is maximally great, then it is maximal in every respect that could be considered good/valuable/positive- so every virtue, or every property that is a good property. Prudence? Maximal. Wisdom? Maximal. Courage? Maximal. Justice? Maximal. And so on.

People, go to the thread.

Ironic that you don't actually link the thread.

Here's one, in which you flail about and eventually disappear.

Same thing here.

Oh, and once again here.

Now, the fact that you've essentially conceded my refutation (by failing to reply at all, or failing to provide an adequate and substantive rebuttal) on every single thread in which we've broached the subject would be pretty damning. But considering how far over your head you are in here, and that you're basically just parroting some stuff you've read but don't understand well enough to defend makes this victory pretty worthless.

In any case, if anyone is actually interested in learning something about Plantinga, modal logic, and/or the philosophy of religion, there is a very good thread on another forum where we discuss this argument in some detail, with some very good points by some very philosophically literate posters. You can view it here-

The Modal Ontological Argument: Philosophy Forums

 

[adi2d]

Is there a possible world where a MGB does NOT exist?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Its funny how you quoted your own post as if what you stated refuted the argument. Ha.

That's exactly what I did.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Is there a possible world where a MGB does NOT exist?

Yes. Every possible world. A MGB is contradictory, and does not exist in ANY possible world.

But you have a good point; if there is at least one logical possible world in which a MGB does not exist, then an MGB does not exist necessarily, and the argument fails. But the non-existence of a MGB is NOT contradictory, so there is at least one possible world such that no MGB exists. But then, it is NOT possibly necesssary that a MGB exists, and the argument fails.

Its humorous how bad Plantinga's argument is, especially for someone of his philosophical acumen- there must be at least 3 or 4 absolutely fatal flaws in it.

 

[idav]

Is there a possible world where a MGB does NOT exist?

Yes, in a world where contradictions don't allow such a thing.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Wait a minute, so if a mad scientist found out a way to program your brain to do whatever it is that he desired, and you ended up getting in a car and start madly running over people GTA style, you would deserve to go to prison??

Do you not know how to make proper analogies? How can you have free will under God? In what way can you have Free will under an omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent being?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Well, a truly maximally great being would have every virtue or positive attribute to a maximal degree, regardless of whether these are contradictory or not.

Wait a minute, so a MGB, if such a being exists, would have to have contradictory attributes which define its being??? That is like saying "if God is all powerful, he should be able to exist and not exist at the same time". Fallacious thinking.

A being that is maximally courageous but not maximally prudent could not be maximally great since some other being that was both would be greater than the first being.

God is maximally courageous in the sense that he isn't fearful of anything. Second, i still don't know what maximally prudent means.

Of course, this just goes to show that a MGB is incoherent.

No it doesn't. What it shows is your ignorance of what is meant by "great making properties".

Anything. If a being is maximally great, then it is maximal in every respect that could be considered good/valuable/positive- so every virtue, or every property that is a good property. Prudence? Maximal. Wisdom? Maximal. Courage? Maximal. Justice? Maximal. And so on.

I still don't know what maximal prudence or justice entails. Please enlighten me on what would it mean to be maximally prudence and have have maximal justice.

Ironic that you don't actually link the thread.

Here's one, in which you flail about and eventually disappear.

Same thing here.

Oh, and once again here.

And as is evident in those links, we can all draw the conclusion that losing debates doesn't seem to bother lukal. He accepts losing debates with content and enthusiasm.

Now, the fact that you've essentially conceded my refutation (by failing to reply at all, or failing to provide an adequate and substantive rebuttal) on every single thread in which we've broached the subject would be pretty damning. But considering how far over your head you are in here, and that you're basically just parroting some stuff you've read but don't understand well enough to defend makes this victory pretty worthless.

You really think that those worthless refutations that you've made mean anything? Have you ever thought to yourself, "Hmm, no philosopher has ever refuted the argument by offering the same refutations that I've made, so I guess my position is one of ignorance."

In any case, if anyone is actually interested in learning something about Plantinga, modal logic, and/or the philosophy of religion, there is a very good thread on another forum where we discuss this argument in some detail, with some very good points by some very philosophically literate posters. You can view it here-

The Modal Ontological Argument: Philosophy Forums

Yeah, you can go to some philosophy forum and read good points by some "very philosophically literate posters", or you can listen to an actual philosopher, who has used this very argument in public debates and is ready to defend the validity and soundness of the argument against anyone. Your pick.

[youtube]D1-ySbzmrEI[/youtube]
The Ontological Argument - Part 1 - William Lane Craig - YouTube

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Do you not know how to make proper analogies?

What are you talking about? You said that a person is still accountable for his/her actions DESPITE only committing an act based on chemical interaction in the brain. My point was we are not free if our actions are solely dependent upon chemicals in our brain. Wasn't that what we were talking about??? Then you proceeded to say that DESPITE that being the case, a person would still be accountable because that person still commits the act, REGARDLESS.

Now isn't that the point?? Then I said if a mad scientist controlled your brain to commit horrible acts, would you still go to freakin prison?? Its the same thing, because in each case you are not commiting an act based on your own free will, frankie.

That is what we discussed, so how am I making a bad analogy when I made it based on YOUR logic and reasoning. If the analogy is bad, then your logic and reasoning is bad and need to be questioned, not the analogy.

How can you have free will under God? In what way can you have Free will under an omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent being?

What does the attributes of God have to do with you freely choicing to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, or not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior??

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

What are you talking about? You said that a person is still accountable for his/her actions DESPITE only committing an act based on chemical interaction in the brain. My point was we are not free if our actions are solely dependent upon chemicals in our brain. Wasn't that what we were talking about??? Then you proceeded to say that DESPITE that being the case, a person would still be accountable because that person still commits the act, REGARDLESS.

Now isn't that the point?? Then I said if a mad scientist controlled your brain to commit horrible acts, would you still go to freakin prison?? Its the same thing, because in each case you are not commiting an act based on your own free will, frankie.

That is what we discussed, so how am I making a bad analogy when I made it based on YOUR logic and reasoning. If the analogy is bad, then your logic and reasoning is bad and need to be questioned, not the analogy.



What does the attributes of God have to do with you freely choicing to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, or not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior??

Not at all, I asked how do you know that we have free will, not just one individual, not just a scientist who could control your thoughts, all humans, you took it and tried to limit it to one individual. In my scenario all humans do not have free will, in yours only one doesn't.

It's a bad analogy.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Not at all, I asked how do you know that we have free will, not just one individual, not just a scientist who could control your thoughts, all humans, you took it and tried to limit it to one individual. In my scenario all humans do not have free will, in yours only one doesn't.

It's a bad analogy.

Look, I was talking to someone regarding mind/body dualism. This person holds the position that things like happiness and sadness are the result of chemical reactions in the brain. My point was if all of our actions/thoughts/feelings are a result of chemical reactions in the brain, then how can we be held accountable for our actions. This is in a general sense, not just one individual..so where you got that from, I don't know, but that certainly was never said nor implied by me.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Look, I was talking to someone regarding mind/body dualism. This person holds the position that things like happiness and sadness are the result of chemical reactions in the brain. My point was if all of our actions/thoughts/feelings are a result of chemical reactions in the brain, then how can we be held accountable for our actions. This is in a general sense, not just one individual..so where you got that from, I don't know, but that certainly was never said nor implied by me.

I'm talking about your analogy about a scientist messing with your brain.

There is no certainty of free will, would you say a dog has free will? I've told a dog to sit before it looked at me and ignored me, and then it's owner told it to sit and it listened. So does the dog have free will?

 

[adi2d]

Is there a possible world where a MGB does NOT exist?

Call of the wild
Before you get too far in a new argument could you answer this question?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Wait a minute, so a MGB, if such a being exists, would have to have contradictory attributes which define its being???

Well, if being maximally great entails properties which happen to contradict- as it appears to- then I guess so, wouldn't it?

That is like saying "if God is all powerful, he should be able to exist and not exist at the same time".

Not really; omnipotence is generally defined as the ability to enact any logically possible state of affairs. A maximally great being would need a similar restriction- but then, that would be ad hoc and arbitrary, and wouldn't represent a truly maximally great being. One cannot simultaneously be maximally great, the very notion is itself incoherent, just as intrinsic or inherent perfection (since being perfect for X entails being imperfect for ~X).

God is maximally courageous in the sense that he isn't fearful of anything. Second, i still don't know what maximally prudent means.

pru·dence
ˈpro͞odns/
noun
1.the quality of being prudent; cautiousness.

No it doesn't. What it shows is your ignorance of what is meant by "great making properties".

This is the RF equivalent of saying "I know you are but what am I?".

I still don't know what maximal prudence or justice entails. Please enlighten me on what would it mean to be maximally prudence and have have maximal justice.

Probably because the concept of maximal greatness is itself unintelligible. These properties do not appear to have an upper limit, or at the very least, that there would be cases that would not be decidable.

And as is evident in those links, we can all draw the conclusion that losing debates doesn't seem to bother lukal. He accepts losing debates with content and enthusiasm.

You're all talk, man. You're trying to say that you are "winning" "debates" (since they are not even debates), despite not understanding the basic terminology of the subject matter, failing to respond to ANY pertinent criticisms, and ALWAYS running away leaving objections on the table?

I suppose according to your definition of "winning", the Broncos won the Super Bowl this year.

You really think that those worthless refutations that you've made mean anything?

Yep.

Yeah, you can go to some philosophy forum and read good points by some "very philosophically literate posters", or you can listen to an actual philosopher

Actually, some of those posters are "actual philosophers", if by that you mean professional academics in the field of philosophy. Doh!

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Well, if being maximally great entails properties which happen to contradict- as it appears to- then I guess so, wouldn't it?

But they don't, as those properties that you mention are not great making properties.

Not really; omnipotence is generally defined as the ability to enact any logically possible state of affairs.

Or the ability to do anything that is LOGICALLY possible.

A maximally great being would need a similar restriction- but then, that would be ad hoc and arbitrary, and wouldn't represent a truly maximally great being. One cannot simultaneously be maximally great, the very notion is itself incoherent, just as intrinsic or inherent perfection (since being perfect for X entails being imperfect for ~X).

Well being imperfect for what? Give an example.

pru·dence
ˈpro͞odns/
noun
1.the quality of being prudent; cautiousness.

Excuse, pardon the french, but why the HELL would a MGB need to be maximally cautious?? That just make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Probably because the concept of maximal greatness is itself unintelligible. These properties do not appear to have an upper limit, or at the very least, that there would be cases that would not be decidable.

I just want proper definitions of the terms. What the heck is maximal justice and maximal prudence? Those are not even great making properties. If you are a comic book fan, what superhero or villian had the power of prudence or justice? Seriously, is that the best you have?

You're all talk, man. You're trying to say that you are "winning" "debates" (since they are not even debates), despite not understanding the basic terminology of the subject matter, failing to respond to ANY pertinent criticisms, and ALWAYS running away leaving objections on the table?

We had a day after day, week after week discussion of this very subject at which we went back and forth, yet I "fail to respond to criticism", and I "always runs away leaving objections on the table". Makes no sense.

Actually, some of those posters are "actual philosophers", if by that you mean professional academics in the field of philosophy. Doh!

So name me one philosopher that actually has a DEGREE in this kind of stuff...name me one that offers the same refutations to the argument that you do. They are just silly.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I'm talking about your analogy about a scientist messing with your brain.

Right, and that is the same thing as chemical reactions in your brain. In each scenario, you are not freely making the choice for any action that you commit.

There is no certainty of free will, would you say a dog has free will? I've told a dog to sit before it looked at me and ignored me, and then it's owner told it to sit and it listened. So does the dog have free will?

I mean, that is worthy of discussion. I would like to think so, but I don't believe that animals necessarily have souls, and I base the argument based on mind/body dualism. But it would seem as if animals do have free will...but then is that the same case with insects? *shrugs*