Forums

Reasons for Joy; In Gentleness, and Respect.

Profile of ParaclitosLogos

Show Posts

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - ParaclitosLogos

1
Ontologicalme raises a couple of issues in his reply post. He writes:


AP3  begs the question against necessary truths, or/and it is a non sequitur, since it is true that   possible worlds can be formed by the negation of different conjuncts in a maximal description, but this does not imply that it must be the negation of each and every conjunct, some conjuncts staty the same, while others are negated.

There is a possible world where 2+2=4 , but, possible worlds can be formed by the negation of different conjuncts in a maximal description, so  it is possible that it is not the case that 2+2=4 .

What reasons are there to accept that it is possible that it is not the case that 2+2=4?


  AP3 reads: "IIf a maximally excellent being exists in some possible world and since possible worlds can be formed by the negation of different conjuncts in a maximal description, then a maximally excellent being does not exist in some (other) possible world." I do not see why AP3 begs the question against necessary truths because, in the first place, the ontological argument concerns itself with concrete entities, and not with abstract entities (e.g., numbers) and their logical or mathematical relations. Moreover, while it is verbally possible to assert that the proposition that 2+2=4 is false in some logically possible worlds, Plantinga, Craig, and your truly would maintain that because this assertion is a negation of a logically necessary truth it is, therefore, logically necessarily false. Next, the notion of a maximally excellent being is patently logically coherent and is analytically prior to the notion of a maximally great being. The RF video fails to mention that Craig in his writings defines a maximally great being in terms of a maximally excellent being (i.e., that a maximally great being is a maximally excellent being that exists in all possible worlds). Finally, AP3 conforms to the definitions and basic rules pertaining to possible worlds semantics (as expounded by Plantinga and Craig), as the reader of my essay ("A Critique of the Plantinga Version of the Modal Ontological Argument" [available at http://infidels.org/library/modern/arnold_guminski/]).

Plantinga gives two final versions of the argument in one of them maximal greatness is not given in terms of maximally excellence , and the later is a necessary implication of the former, Maximal greatness entails necessary maximal excellence.

In the final version, they are taken as equivalent, but, this is not to couch maximal greatness in terms of necessary maximal excellence, they are logically equivalent, nothing more follows from it.

Furthermore, Maximal greatness in the MOA is a universal property, meaning if it is not co-exemplified it is necessary that it is not, and, if it is co-exemplified it is necessary that it is, It is this that is most fundamental when it comes to these concepts, the universality of the essential propery of maximal greatness,  thus, my comment on AP3 begging the question against necessary metaphysical or broadly logical truths.

2
Apologetics and Theology / Re: .
« on: November 27, 2016, 07:06:55 pm »
Can people really not disagree without claiming that their opponents' parents didn't love them?

Way to go with the christian love and tolerance, OM.  I'm guessing that is the OT coming out in you, right?


1st of all, it´s true. That idiot has issues with his parents, and, he takes it on others, cowardly behind the screen, for the heck of it.

2nd. it´s not a disagreement, he insulted me, without provocation.

3rd who the hell made you referee in this? go take  care of your own problems.

4th If Christianity´s OT worries you, check out atheistic goverments (Stalin, Mao). OT, pft, we all know the hell atheists have in store for everyone, it´s uncontroversially evidenced.

3
Apologetics and Theology / Re: .
« on: November 27, 2016, 06:54:19 pm »

Quote
I didn´t call you dumb, nor said anything mean to you. So what´s your problem with me?

I find you quite obnoxious, but that's just my opinion.

Quote
Why are you attacking me?
why are you calling me dumb.


I didn't call you dumb, I said I think it was a dumb thing you do, not that you are dumb.

Quote
What is it up to you, what I do or not do?

You can do as you want, someone simply asked and I gave my opinion.

Quote
Or is it that you like to be an asshole for no reason?

Sometimes I do, but this is not the case.

What I do or not is obviously not your business.

You are right, I am quite obnoxious, specially, when people get on my wrong side, for no reason.

That your father and mother hate your guts does not give you the right to misstreat people that havent done anything to you.

4
This is not the place to argue if there can be a mutual understanding between theists and non theists, or how we can be more open, or Christian, or what not.

This thread assumes the obvious conclusion that intolerance will continue to grow among each group, each ascribing  the other  irrationality, bigotry and lastly (given enough time): unhumanness.

What should we Christians as a social block should be doing?

This is sometimes my approach, which I find useful in other scenarios, but especially when confronted with someone who begins to show signs of being extremely biased in his position, whether theist or atheist. Once I feel I've presented my case clearly and have a pretty good idea there aren't any misunderstanding involved on my side, as gracefully as possible I bow out of the conversation by saying something like, "That's how you see it and you're welcome to you're own opinion. Personally I don't see it that way and don't find what you're saying convincing. Thanks anyhow for the exchange." I don't see any obligation as a Christian to do otherwise. In my opinion it's better the trust the Lord to take care of things that are beyond my capacity. He's got a lot better resources than I do. :-)

Hey. T, I like you, but, this is not the topic of this thread : )

Oh. OK. What I was trying to say in a round about way is, besides how I approach it on a personal level, the only other measure I see is in order is to put it in the Lord's hands and let Him take care of it. There's not much else I see can be done whether individually or as a social block. But maybe I'm still not getting the gist of the kind of comment you're looking for?

Don´t worry about it, thanks for your answer.

5
Apologetics and Theology / Re: .
« on: November 27, 2016, 05:51:42 pm »
.

To address the op:

?

He usually does the same dumb thing of making a thread about something and then completely deleting the  op and title and replacing it with dots or stuff like that.

¿why? Because his ego demands it probably. At least that's my theory.

I didn´t call you dumb, nor said anything mean to you. So what´s your problem with me?

Why are you attacking me?
why are you calling me dumb.

What is it up to you, what I do or not do?

Or is it that you like to be an asshole for no reason?




6
Apologetics and Theology / Re: .
« on: November 27, 2016, 05:47:20 pm »
That´s because you are both morons and ill intended.

The OP explicitly asks about Christians as a social block should be doing, not as an army or anything like that?

Organizing themselves politically, to push for certain kinds of laws, vote for certain candidates, protect their way  of life as a whole society,etc...

Yes, I talk about violence, because, violence is part of our reality, and any society incapable of it, at least, to defend itself is most probably doomed to disappear.

The picture is a picture of a crusader, those who defended occident against  the land grabbing and religious abuses of a more intolerant Islam, that it was known, before the time.

7
Love your neighbor, then ask yourself what behavior that love is supposed to prescribe.

I explicitely said this was not the topic of this thread.

No, you're right, "loving your neighbor" is something that Jesus intended to be compartmentalized into behavioral obscurity. Come on brother. We're better than that.

PM me if you disagree.

PM's aren't the topic of this thread!

Nor ahteist's posts. But, you already knew that.


8
Love your neighbor, then ask yourself what behavior that love is supposed to prescribe.

I explicitely said this was not the topic of this thread.

No, you're right, "loving your neighbor" is something that Jesus intended to be compartmentalized into behavioral obscurity. Come on brother. We're better than that.

PM me if you disagree.

I disagree that "loving your neighbor" is something that Jesus intended to be compartmentalized into behavioral obscurity.

I disagree that I am better than that.

But, this is still not the topic of the OP, since, I was asking for social measures, as a social group.

9
This is not the place to argue if there can be a mutual understanding between theists and non theists, or how we can be more open, or Christian, or what not.

This thread assumes the obvious conclusion that intolerance will continue to grow among each group, each ascribing  the other  irrationality, bigotry and lastly (given enough time): unhumanness.

What should we Christians as a social block should be doing?

This is sometimes my approach, which I find useful in other scenarios, but especially when confronted with someone who begins to show signs of being extremely biased in his position, whether theist or atheist. Once I feel I've presented my case clearly and have a pretty good idea there aren't any misunderstanding involved on my side, as gracefully as possible I bow out of the conversation by saying something like, "That's how you see it and you're welcome to you're own opinion. Personally I don't see it that way and don't find what you're saying convincing. Thanks anyhow for the exchange." I don't see any obligation as a Christian to do otherwise. In my opinion it's better the trust the Lord to take care of things that are beyond my capacity. He's got a lot better resources than I do. :-)

Hey. T, I like you, but, this is not the topic of this thread : )

10
Love your neighbor, then ask yourself what behavior that love is supposed to prescribe.

I explicitely said this was not the topic of this thread.

11

What should we Christians as a social block should be doing?
I guess it depends on what your goal is in posting here. My goal here is to gain understanding to be used elsewhere with people I interact with on a daily basis.

This is not related to the topic of the OP.

12
You know, it doesn't matter how deep you hide it, if your argument starts with "god exists" and finish on "therefore god exists" It's not a good argument and no amount of logic will change it. You can formulate it in 10000 different ways, but the core remains. You can't escape it because MOA isn't evidence based argument. It's poor analytic argument which tries to tinker with definitions in order to influence real world. Your premises aren't based on any evidential or inductive reasoning, so how can they possibly lead to meaningful conclusion?

"Possibly, Maximal greatness is exemplified" is just even more complex way of saying that it's possible that Maximally great being exists, which is a complicated way of saying "god exists".

Quote
Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a being that has maximal greatness.
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Genealogy to Iqbal volume 4 page 89
http://tinyurl.com/God-Exists-God-Exists

Author of this book also thinks there is nothing wrong with accepting this premise of MOA. In other words you just have to redefine phrase "god exists" which is hard to accept as a premise, into something more friendly and voila it's working!

As I said earlier we can make similar trick:

Earth is spherical <=> god exists

P1. Earth is spherical
P2. If earth is spherical then god exists
C. God exists.

P1. Intuition, metaphysics, physics, all these things tell us it's true
P2. Follows logically from our definitions.

You're using completely unnatural and out of touch with reality concept of possibility. Why should anyone accept your premises? Because they sound good? You can't give any other reason than that. Later in your post you're arguing how natural your concept is, why then you use double standard and don't apply it to your semantics? Who on earth use word possible as equivalent of "There is some possible world, where X"? For 99.999 of population possible means practically nothing.

When I say X is possible I mean I don't see any logical or physical constraints, for it to happen in future or in the past, it does not mean however that I believe it ever happend, or will happen, or even can actually happen. Possibility lacks any meaning. But proponents of MOA try to cheat others, they want them to accept that it's possible god exists (it doesn't matter how you formulate it) and people often fall for it, after all who doesn't want to be open minded and accept at least possible existence of god?

Nothing regarding actual world was ever proven using your method. There was never a person armored only in his reason, devoid of any scientific or evidence based knowledge, who sat in a chair, in an empty room, and who came up with real discovery concerning real world, only as a result of hard thinking and reasoning.

So given your standard of argumentation ("my concept is older, and more people worked on it and it's more natural, so it's better than yours") I can now safely say that your method of gathering knowledge is completely ineffective and lacks any justification. For thousands of years, your way of reaching truth regarding actual world, had effectivness equal zero.

Quote
You admitted making up concepts (in ad-hoc manner), which I have not done.

Well, you repeat it second time, as if it somehow supports your case. It doesn't, I explain later.

Quote
No, it´s not historicity I appealed to, I appealed to the naturalness and common use of the concept, which enables good  inductive inferences (e.g. to take it that the concept does imply certain conclusions, reliably, like exemplification in all possible worlds).

Appeal to naturalness? What does it even mean? Well I know, "It's such an old tradition to say that MGB exists necessarily, we would feel uncomfortable if we did otherwise". You can't be serious about this defence.

And with regard to ad-hocness of my concept...

Quote
Ad-hocness in this context is when there are no independent reasons to think that the concept implies necessity, it´s just your definition as you admit, not like Maximal greatness that is argued and thought naturally and in common use to imply necessary existence, you need to give reasons, as Plantinga does, which you haven´t done, and provide evidence that the concept is at least relatively natural ( in the Lewisian sense) -- it has entrenchment by virtue of it being properly projectible-- and, that it is in common use , namely that, it has been in common-use over a great period of time, by a great number of users a number of whom were of high intelligence and to whom the concept was of great intellectual importance.

You basically admit my point. Your whole argument is: Oh, it's such and old concept, and we're so used to it, and many people spent time working on it, and many more know and have known it for long periods of time so it certainly count as sound justification. Your definition of ad-hoc is so deprived of any meaning that I don't mind, you can claim mine is ad-hoc and yours isn't if you wish, you can also say that my concept is green and yours is blue so yours is the better one, no difference in significance.

And by the way, for hundreds of years Europe was totally christian continent. So it's obvious people got accustomed to concept of god, plus it's obvious christian thinkers were working on them. You must be kidding if you suggest it adds any credibility to it.

Plus I gave reasons why it makes sense for maximal diabolic being to be necessary.

Quote
From your answers, we have one attempt to give a reason, which is at least an step forward, though a failed one:
Quote
1. Being X is diabolic if and only if it's omnipotent and evil
2. Being X is totally diabolic if and only if it's diabolic and it exists in every possible worlds.
3. You're more diabolic if you cause evil in more than one world.

For this to have a chance to work, let’s take evil to be something like Omni malevolent, or maximal evilness

The problem is that you have couched diabolicness/ maximal evilness/Omni malevolence in terms of causing evil.

And we can observe that in the actual world, that even though there are huge amounts of evil, there is not really all the evil that can broadly logically be caused in a world, and thus, your being does not exist necessarily.

Again, are you serious? You're basically saying: "Look, there is evil in our world, but certainly there are not as much evil as possible, but well, we have at least maximal amount of good, isn't that great?"

Since lack of maximal amount of evil disprove my concept, lack of maximal good disproves christian god too. Or maybe you want to argue that that we live in a world with maximal possible amount of good? I'm sure you would have great evidence for it.

Quote
I gave, a-priori,  expansive and inductive reasons, for thinking that maximal greatness is possibly exemplified , the concept is not incoherent, while it is understood determinately, it is not an ad-hoc concept, it is a more natural concept (in the Lewisian sense), and in common use (in the sense described above).

Yeah, your reasons:

It's an old concept
It's concept many people use
Many people spend time working on it
It somehow feels natural to say that god is necessary.
Etc.

Seriously, you think reality cares whether you like some concepts, or whether they sound natural to you or that reality change its structure depending on how long concept X is being used? You're completely confusing evidence with a kind of fuzzy feeling inside you which suggests that your imaginary concept is somehow objectively better than mine.

And to be honest I prefer magical ball of energy more than my totally diabolic being. I have good justification why it should exist necessary, its power is so great, it simply must exist in more than one world, it sounds much better to me, oh and give me few hundred years, power over half the world (that's what power church wielded when popularizing their concepts) and I'm sure I'll be able make it natural and common.

Quote
I have responded to plenty, even though there is nothing much to respond to.

Still the same old appeals to popularity, historicity, etc. 100 lame excuses don't give you one good. I think  you have something to respond to, namely why should I accept your premise that god can possibly exist and what prevents me from applaying the same logic to other concepts. Your whole defence on why MOA specifically proves the christian god can be summarized in one sentence:

It's an old tradition.

Obviously you try to make it sound more spohisticated and justified but to be honest those are failed attempts.

And your rebutall to why I should even accept your first premise... Well I didn't see any, only accusations of confusion and lack of understanding. I think the problem isn't my lack of understanding but the fact I understand it well enough, to know what the real meanings of your words is, and even if I don't understand all of them I understand the key points.

Quote
There are some models based on string theory that present no contradiction to the MOA nor vice versa, are you referring to some specific string theory model? why is this even relevant to the argument?

I'm asking what if scientists came up with physical model which doesn't requires god at any step. What then? For example what if scientists tell us one day "Ok, guys these strings were floating for eternity interacting with each other in such and such manner".  According to you it can't be the case, strings and theory describing them must be contingent right? God has to have a power to change them doesn't he?

You´d have to not be able to read correctly to think that the MOA  starts with "god exists" (the main premise can be Maximal greatness is exemplified) and if the argument finishes on "therefore god exists" , it´s because the premises entail that conclusion, that´s what a valid argument is suppose to do.

To know that the argument does not start with "God exists" one just needs to read the premises
1. Possibly, maximal greatness is exemplified
2. Necessarily, if maximal greatness is exemplified  then maximal excellence is exemplified in all worlds.
3 if (Possibly, maximal greatness is exemplified , and,  Necessarily, if maximal greatness is exemplified, then,    maximal  excellence is exemplified in all worlds), then, actually, maximal excellence is s exemplified in all worlds.

If you want to say that 1 means God exists, you are just mistaken, for that to follow 2 and 3 are needed.

So, I won´t be answering to your assertions that the argument starts with God exists, anymore, it just does not deserve attention.

The MOA possibility premise is based on the evidence from intuition, other arguments conclusions and the evidence from the naturalness and common use , which are  based on inductive reasoning and observation.

The 2nd premise is based on a conceptual analysis of the concept of Maximal greatness.

And the 3rd premise is based on advanced logic (modal logic S5 system (5) axiom)

It´s confused to think that statements that are not based on any evidential or inductive reasoning (read Bealer, Chalmers), cannot lead to meaningful conclusions?  Many   mathematical proofs are not based on evidential nor inductive reasoning, and yet lead to meaninful conclusions.

But, this is irrelevant, since, as I explained the MOA has an evidential base, that I have provided.

The explanation given in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Genealogy to Iqbal is irrelevant to the point  I made. As I said, popularly it´s ok, to do this, but, when it comes to considerations of reference, it is important to do it in the manner explained (read Plantinga, stalnaker, on essences and haecceitism)

And your following example, makes me doubt I should spend any more time in this exchange, it is just irrelevant and not a serious attempt to understand the argument:


Quote
Earth is spherical <=> god exists  ...

This is not a definition it´s a bi-conditional truth claim, and, under common understanding of what the terms mean there is no reason to think it is true.

If you define earth is spherical =(def)  God exists, then, it is true, but, then what is the support for the 1st premise? not what you stated, on the support for P1.


The concepts you mention here are related to common use, not to naturalness:
Quote
It's an old concept
It's concept many people use
Many people spend time working on it
It somehow feels natural to say that god is necessary. (this one is just your own ignorance speaking)
Etc.

The point is that, probabilistically, that these are true is better explained by the hypothesis that the concept is the concept of a possible thing,  It´s and inductive argument, quite an old method.  (Read Liebniz, Pruss) 

Naturalness has nothing to do with liking the concept, but, with projectibility (inductive reasoning), and, entrenchment of the predicate in question. (Read, Quine, Goodman)

These are a very poor arguments, and it just shows we are nowhere near the level needed to understand much less criticize the argument.

Furthermore, I´m no expert, I can certainly be wrong, but, the way you address me as if I am trying to trick you or deceive you, and I´m just deluded or something: I´m just sick of it. I don´t know you and I don´t have to accept that kind of treatment.

 It´s all the same to me, you think I´m a liar, and, full of myself, with no connection to reality, and, I think you are just an ignorant cretin, let´s not waste our time, further.

You are ignorant of the literature, have no epistemic humility, and, you are not here to learn anything but tell us how it is. Have a good life.
 
I´m done with this exchange.





13
Apologetics and Theology / .
« on: November 27, 2016, 12:16:31 pm »
.



This is not the place to argue if there can be a mutual understanding between theists and non theists, or how we can be more open, or Christian, or what not.

This thread assumes the obvious conclusion that intolerance will continue to grow among each group, each ascribing  the other  irrationality, bigotry and lastly (given enough time): unhumanness.

What should we Christians as a social block should be doing?

14
I don't see the benefit of posting the same post twice, albeit this time with a quote. This is coming close to spamming, OM.

In any case, see my last post for my response, where I also ask you a question you've not addressed in your last.

And yet, no apology.



Like I said, I don't currently see a reason to provide one.

That doesnt speak well about you.

15
I don't see the benefit of posting the same post twice, albeit this time with a quote. This is coming close to spamming, OM.

In any case, see my last post for my response, where I also ask you a question you've not addressed in your last.

And yet, no apology.

Pages : [1] 2 3 ... 327