icepick wrote: Hi Erin,Hmm..that first part could perhaps be debated, since we aren't sure that anything at all had to exist necessarily. However, either way this reminds me of Craig's discussion of abstract objects in his Kalam cosmological argument. He goes to show that since the universe was created, its cause must presuppose space, time, matter, and energy, since these came into being at the origins of the universe. He then argues that only abstract objects or minds can fit those criteria, but that abstract objects don't cause anything. So it may be true that the laws of logic exist necessarily, but even so they don't cause anything, so the cause of the universe must be a personal mind. Ci vediamo!Jay
Pumbelo wrote: As far as I know, the cyclic universe has been mathematically disproven, so time must have a beginning.
Pumbelo wrote: I think the objection is old. Kant used it and I think Plantinga discussed this (but didn't understand it) in his paper "The Ontological Argument".I think it boils down to this:(1) If a truth X is necessary, it's negation must contradict a necessary truth other than itself.However, I think this is false. Example:If the laws of logic aren't true, then it's possible that self-contradicting things exist. This only results in a contradiction when the laws of logic are true.
ScarletD wrote: Only one model has been mathematically disproven, and even so a cyclic universe is only one possibility out of many in which the universe would not have had a beginning of existence. (A cyclic model has since resurfaced in loop quantum gravity, by the way).It is not an assertable fact that the universe began to exist with the current data.
But you can't even make the argument "If the laws of logic aren't true..." without immediately contradicting yourself before you can even make your point. The sentence, "If the laws of logic aren't true, then it's possible that self-contradicting things exist" can't be made because the concept of "if/then" no longer works, and the word "the" is meaningless, the word "laws" is meaningless, the word "of" is meaningless (ad absurdum).Even if you tried to defend it by saying "But if logic didn't exist then my contradicting myself wouldn't have mattered" because that would again be an utter nonsense statement... and so on.-Erin
Pumbelo wrote: Then allow me to say that an infinite amount of prior universes are ad hoc and should be sliced away by Ockham's Razor.
Pumbelo wrote: "If the laws of logic arent true, your statement is meaningless" would also be a meaningless statement.However, I believe that some ignorance is permissible when it comes to supreme beings.
Pumbelo wrote: (1) A being x is omnipotent provided that in every possible world, x's free choices are collectively the ultimate explainers of the rest of contingent reality.(2) Maydole's argument for the possibility of any perfection is sound.(3) Therefore, theism is incorrigible.
bradhaggard wrote: Erin,Are you saying then that reality isn't contingent?
bradhaggard wrote: Which path are you going down to get that one? I say this because I don't think you have a good path to walk down to get to necessary existence, but maybe you have a conviction about one of the theories you proposed.
bradhaggard wrote: But I think throwing out speculations as defeaters rings a little hollow.Good thread, btw.
Pumbelo wrote: It seems that some of your points don't mix. Maydole's Modal Third Way attempts to show that something exists necessarily. You say that maybe the universe is incorrigible.Maydole's Modal Ontological Argument attempts to show that a supreme being exists necessarily. You say that maybe theism isn't incorrigible.
Pumbelo wrote: I feel that theism comes out victorious because of Pruss' account of omnipotence in combination with the Principle of Sufficient Reason.
bradhaggard wrote: Erin, let me press the point a little further.I've seen this more and more lately from atheist posters that we just "do not know" and so we can't make any claims based on our current understanding. It seems like the theories proposed are beyond our epistemic reach in any conceivable future. So are we stuck as agnostics forever?I don't think so, and mainly because we still act as if we know. It's not the same thing to say "we don't know if the universe is contingent" and then say, "there is no God, therefore." It just doesn't follow that that premise is defeated, we just have to use the data we currently have to evaluate it. And I think that philosophy and parsimony are good additives to the discussion, unless you really want to end up in Pascal's Wager, which I think you don't.
ScarletD wrote: As for the modal ontological argument, I still agree with my objection that it isn't really cognitive to say something is "supreme" in an unknowable way since we can say anything is supreme in an unknowable way.
You objected that islands have limitations, but I pointed out that everything has limitations since everything has identity, and the essence of identity is limitation. I haven't seen a response that conclusively shows why we're free to announce a being's supremacy but not an island's or, say, a square's (platonic forms).