Retired Boards (Archived)
Ontological Argument
Posted by: Dogbyte
« on: January 04, 2017, 03:58:21 PM »Well, I don't know what would it take to convince me that MOA is a good argument. Its first premise states that MGB exist in some possible world. But where is a proof for it?
It may just be a misunderstanding of what is being argued. In what way are you using the word "proof"? I am not particularly qualified to, or necessarily capable of sufficiently going over each part, but in regards to needing proof for a premise that something is logically possible (ie. a counterfactual)...are you sure such a premise requires the type of "proof" that you mention?
Wait, you say "logically possible"? The last time I checked when something was logicaly possible it didn't follow there exist some real world where it does happen, it was a mere concept.
If proponents of MOA want to claim that their god is just a concept then alright I don't argue against it, but if their goal is to prove that god actually exist than I'm waiting for a proof that such world inhabited by god actually exists that is it's not a mere concept in our minds.
I would just offer what i said in post #53, so that when someone incorporates modal logic or possible worlds, you will know what is being claimed.
Posted by: UnreasonableFaith
« on: January 01, 2017, 05:33:03 AM »Well, I don't know what would it take to convince me that MOA is a good argument. Its first premise states that MGB exist in some possible world. But where is a proof for it?
It may just be a misunderstanding of what is being argued. In what way are you using the word "proof"? I am not particularly qualified to, or necessarily capable of sufficiently going over each part, but in regards to needing proof for a premise that something is logically possible (ie. a counterfactual)...are you sure such a premise requires the type of "proof" that you mention?
Wait, you say "logically possible"? The last time I checked when something was logicaly possible it didn't follow there exist some real world where it does happen, it was a mere concept.
If proponents of MOA want to claim that their god is just a concept then alright I don't argue against it, but if their goal is to prove that god actually exist than I'm waiting for a proof that such world inhabited by god actually exists that is it's not a mere concept in our minds.
Posted by: Dogbyte
« on: December 13, 2016, 11:06:37 AM »I am surely no insider, not by a long shot, but the premise "It is possible that there is a Being that has Maximal Greatness" is based on an understanding of what philosophers mean by a possible world. That may be a good place to start when considering whether or not this premise is logically coherent.
Posted by: Dogbyte
« on: December 13, 2016, 11:02:46 AM »Well, I don't know what would it take to convince me that MOA is a good argument. Its first premise states that MGB exist in some possible world. But where is a proof for it?
It may just be a misunderstanding of what is being argued. In what way are you using the word "proof"? I am not particularly qualified to, or necessarily capable of sufficiently going over each part, but in regards to needing proof for a premise that something is logically possible (ie. a counterfactual)...are you sure such a premise requires the type of "proof" that you mention?
Posted by: igr
« on: December 13, 2016, 04:07:53 AM »The PMOA (Plantinga's MOA) seems to generate heat, but that should not be the case. Given that almost all of us are not members of the Philosophy In-Crowd, it is incumbent on the Insiders to be patient and more especially, helpful to us Outsiders. That includes explaining in every-day English any Modal Logic construct that is used in an argument.
This leads me to the premise of the argument (the PMOA). This is, "It is possible that there is a Being that has Maximal Greatness". In every-day understanding, the following seems reasonable:
1. The premise of the argument REQUIRES the existence of the Being of Maximal Greatness.
2. A Being of Maximal Greatness REQUIRES Maximal Excellence in all possible worlds.
3. The expression "all possible worlds" INCLUDES the actual world we inhabit.
4. A Being of Maximal Excellence in all possible worlds REQUIRES Maximal Excellence in the world we inhabit.
5. A Being of Maximal Excellence in the world we inhabit REQUIRES omnipotence, onmiscience and perfect goodness in the world we inhabit.
6. How has this been proven?
In response to this, Insiders do not express their disagreement in every-day English. But that is what we require.
A Premise by its nature is a "statement of truth". That means that it has been verified as true and correct. If that is not the case, the basis for the assertion is required, expressed in every-day English. I am not aware of a useful explanation of this for the PMOA premise, but maybe I have missed it, so a (re-)statement by an Insider would be useful. Without such explanation it is not possible to accept the premise and the PMOA thus fails.
And keep in mind, regardless of the "logic" or constructs of Modal Logic, normal logic is not over-ridden, so my list above will apply regardless. In any case, Modal Logic is a model which to be useful, must use rules and constructs that apply with equal veracity in actuality, otherwise any conclusion of Modal Logic cannot be applied to actuality.
So it is over to an Insider to assist. thanks.
This leads me to the premise of the argument (the PMOA). This is, "It is possible that there is a Being that has Maximal Greatness". In every-day understanding, the following seems reasonable:
1. The premise of the argument REQUIRES the existence of the Being of Maximal Greatness.
2. A Being of Maximal Greatness REQUIRES Maximal Excellence in all possible worlds.
3. The expression "all possible worlds" INCLUDES the actual world we inhabit.
4. A Being of Maximal Excellence in all possible worlds REQUIRES Maximal Excellence in the world we inhabit.
5. A Being of Maximal Excellence in the world we inhabit REQUIRES omnipotence, onmiscience and perfect goodness in the world we inhabit.
6. How has this been proven?
In response to this, Insiders do not express their disagreement in every-day English. But that is what we require.
A Premise by its nature is a "statement of truth". That means that it has been verified as true and correct. If that is not the case, the basis for the assertion is required, expressed in every-day English. I am not aware of a useful explanation of this for the PMOA premise, but maybe I have missed it, so a (re-)statement by an Insider would be useful. Without such explanation it is not possible to accept the premise and the PMOA thus fails.
And keep in mind, regardless of the "logic" or constructs of Modal Logic, normal logic is not over-ridden, so my list above will apply regardless. In any case, Modal Logic is a model which to be useful, must use rules and constructs that apply with equal veracity in actuality, otherwise any conclusion of Modal Logic cannot be applied to actuality.
So it is over to an Insider to assist. thanks.
Posted by: UnreasonableFaith
« on: December 04, 2016, 07:29:35 AM »So I'm still waiting for someone to convince me.
I am curious if you could quickly summarize a scenario that indeed would convince you?
Well, I don't know what would it take to convince me that MOA is a good argument. Its first premise states that MGB exist in some possible world. But where is a proof for it? Where is the evidence that god exists in any possible world? We're contained in our world, therefore we can only prove the existence of god here. But obviously it shows how ridiculous MOA is, to establish its first premise we have to firstly prove its conclusion...
I just wonder, where is a single thing that MOA adds to the case? For example, I think KCA with its conclusion about disembodied mind is a very weak argument too, however there is at least something, an attempt to make belief in god just slightly more justified. The same goes for ressurection of Jesus, I think it's terrible argument as well, but at least it tries to add something.
But in case of MOA? It's just superfluously convoluted way of conveying what's already obvious to everyone. If there are enough good reasons to believe in god, then it's reasonable to believe in god.
Posted by: Dogbyte
« on: December 03, 2016, 10:41:14 PM »So I'm still waiting for someone to convince me.
I am curious if you could quickly summarize a scenario that indeed would convince you?
Posted by: UnreasonableFaith
« on: November 27, 2016, 06:57:14 PM »Quote
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.
Oh, no one is saing that god exists because god exists. They're just saying that god, which exists in all possible worlds including ours, exists in some possible world. So to be more precise first premise is more like an indefinite list of premises, namely:
P0. God exists in our world
P1. God exists in world 1
P2. God exists in world 2
.
.
.
Pi. God exists in world i
.
.
.
Pn. God exists in world n
But to be honest it doesn't make much difference to me, whether it's one premise or 20, the point is none of them is evidence based, it's easy to make a logical chain which will lead to a certain conclusion, I already gave you one simple example. I continue comment on this later.
Quote
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.
Evidence from intution - my intuition tells me there isn't god, are you sure about this part? But I wouldn't be surprised if intuition meant something completely different here.
Other arguments conclusions - you admit my point once again, MOA itself adds nothing to the case it's just a complex way of saying that if there are sufficient reasons to believe in god, then it's reasonable to believe in god. First premise already tells us whether god exists or not, so to establish it we need some evidence for the existence of god. I can only wonder why would anyone call it modal ontological argument and present it as independent argument for anything.
naturalness - I wasn't able to find any informations on what being properly projectable means in this context, but again, you refer to philosophy, instead of science so it's extremaly unlikely to add any substance to your premise.
common use- ad populum, why you keep using it as a justification of any sort?
Quote
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.
Math is made up. Axioms can be intuitive and make sense to us, or we can make them super exotic and create our own universe when nothing is intuitive. We can choose our axioms quite freely, the point is whether we make them somewhat connected to what we observe in real world has influence on whether our conclusions are going to make sense.
Quote
But, this is irrelevant, since, as I explained the MOA has an evidential base, that I have provided.
No, you didn't? That's the point. Why should I accept pure reasoning as evidence if I know it never led us to any actual discovery? Or let's say it did once or twice, who knows, it still doesn't change the fact this standard of evidence simply doesn't work.
You have to prove that god exists in some posible world. By "prove" I don't mean 100% certainty, just beyond any reasonable doubt. Given that we have only access to our world you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that god exists in our world. I think it shows quite decisively why MOA fails.
Quote
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:QuoteEarth 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.
I still ask why I should accept that god is possible. If I accept that god is possible than it logically follows he exists. So for all purposes when you ask me to accept the possibility of god you ask me to accept the existence of god.
If say we were arguing whether earth is spherical then you could make a following argument:
1. Sphere is the only shape which always casts a round shade
2. Earth always casts a round shade on the moon
3. Earth is spherical
Here both our premises are grounded in observations. So I wouldn't ask why should I accept them knowing where they lead. However in case of MOA nothing is based on any kind of evidence, instead we have definitions, axioms and wordplays. The same is true for my example. I don't provide any justification for my premise, all I do is I manipulatre words in such a way that it seems reasonable to accept my premise. You claim you have justification for your premise, just disagree, to establish your first premise that god exists in some possible world you have to prove his existence in this world. Given that we have access only to our world you have to prove that god actually exists in our world or at least that it's very likely. But it's another way of showing that MOA itself is just complicated wordplay.
That's the difference between evidence based argument and MOA. It doesn't matter how many excellent axioms you use, or how brilliant your definitions are, there is no evidence whatsoever anywhere in your argument, so since it's all made up you could just very well reduce it to "if god exists, then god exists".
When you say that there are other arguments whose conclusions help MOA, you're basically saying, that "if there are good arguments for the existence of god, than it's reasonable to accept that god exists"
Quote
These are a very poor arguments, and it just shows we are nowhere near the level needed to understand much less criticize the argument.
Well from my point of view our discussion may be compared to the following one:
1. You have a very complex equation and you somehow managed to get the answer - god
2. I point out that you made a very simple error, you put 2 and 2 together, and your result is 5.
3. I try to convince you that if you mend your mistake the answer is actually zero.
4. You argue that I don't know calculus, topology, modal logic, etc. And you give me a lot of books.
That's basically how our discussion looks like.
And speaking of books, I'd highly suggests you to read more of scientific ones. Maybe it would change your way of thinking a bit. I'm sorry to break it to you, but all these illustriuous philosophers, work of which you want me to study, know nothing more of god, than you or me. They didn't see him, they didn't make observations, they didn't carry any experiments. Philosophers are like supercomputers which lack any data to process. I think it's quite obvious, otherwise they'd be scientists.
Quote
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.
Well, you know, before you say that someone insults you and before you call this person a cretin make sure you are indeed the first one who is actually being offended. I think it doesn't require any further comment. Anyway, "I'm insulted" is not a winning argument.
Quote
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 can only wonder what do you mean by epistemic humility, I'm not humble because I point out no one ever make any significatn breakthrough just by sitting and thinking very hard, without basing their process of thought on evidence and observation?
And you didn't address any of my counterexamples. I can still only guess why my evil being can't exist, the last rebuttal to it you gave was that we surely don't observe maximal level of evil in our world. I responded that we also don't observe maximal good too...
And let me stress this again, because given how long this topic is, it probably wasn't highlighted enough:
1. To support your first premise you need to prove god exists in at least one possible world
2. The only world we can work with is our own
3. Therefore to support first premise of MOA you have to prove that god exists in our world.
4. Therefore if you prove that god exists in our world, then you can use MOA to argue that god exists in our world.
Good luck.
Posted by: ParaclitosLogos
« on: November 27, 2016, 01:53:22 PM »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".QuoteMaximal 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.QuoteYou 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.QuoteNo, 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...QuoteAd-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.QuoteFrom 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.QuoteI 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.QuoteI 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.QuoteThere 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.
Posted by: UnreasonableFaith
« on: November 27, 2016, 12:46:28 PM »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".
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.
Well, you repeat it second time, as if it somehow supports your case. It doesn't, I explain later.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
"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?
Posted by: ParaclitosLogos
« on: November 24, 2016, 08:40:08 PM »QuoteI know informally and colloquially the argument is put on terms as you are using here:
"it's possible that god exists" instead of "God who exists in all worlds including ours, exists in some possible world"
But, that´s not how stated the argument.
The argument as I stated is not about a being who exists in all worlds including ours, exists in some possible world, which is what you are attacking, but about a property that is possibly exemplified.
so you are attacking an strawman.
When you say that property X is exemplified it means there is a possible world, in which object with property X exists.
When you say it's possible object Y exists, you mean there is a possible world in which we find object Y.
Maximall greatness include a necessary existence in all possible world.
To be honest I don't understand why you wrote "possibly, maximal greatness is exemplified", exemplified or possibly alone would be enough.QuoteDon´t second read me. Look, only people with mental and cognitive problems, honestly and truely, think that evil is an excellent thing to be, and they belong behind white walls or bars, away from society. So, that´s just a nonsensical question, and, as I said questions are not objections, so, I have no clue what you are asking or trying to say with such a question.
If not for all these quite formally written posts of yours that I saw, I could indeed believe you have had a problem with a concept of maximally excellent being whose property is omnimanevolence instead of omnibenevolence. But I saw them so to be honest I don't buy your excuse here.QuoteWhat about this argument?
1. Object is X if it's mystical, eternal ball of energy capable of creating universes
2. Object is Y if it's X in all possible worlds
The concept of God as a supreme and wholly perfect being was not made by me, it´s the concept of God Christians (and the other great monotheists religions) have developed for centuries.
It doesn't matter who created it, nor how long it took, now that it's already here. I hope you're not suggesting otherwise.QuoteI did not just made this today so I can score rethorical points in our exchange, like you are doing, with ethernal balls and necessarily existing diabolic beings, namely, these are ad-hoc, unnatural, and not in common use concepts you are making up just (as you yourself admit) for the sake of sustaining your position.
It doesn't matter whether concept is 1000 eyars old, or 10 hours long. MGB is made up too, and it's unnatural as well. Even if it wasn't what does it change? The fact it's common concept is an argument ad populum - useless. It's ad-hoc as well. However I still don't understand what does ad-hoc means in this context. nontheless given full analogy between our concepts it must be true that if mine is ad-hoc yours is too. Age doesn't affect it.
Generally speaking by your logic I just need to popularize my concepts for long enough, and then suddenly they become natural, and common, therefore more valuable that's your answer. It's total ad populum and "ad history". Or maybe you hope there are some laws of logic or nature which somehow prevent evil god from existence?QuoteOn the later concept of a totally diabolic being that exists in every possible world, why think total diabolicness requires exemplification in all possible worlds, what is the history of the concept? (barely any exists, if at all) has it survived scrutiny for centuries? (not , it hasn´t)
Again, historicity adds plausibility or credibility? Since when? And what kind of scrutiny do you mean? It's definition, and if it's coherent so what fault do you wish to find here? Or maybe you suggest there must be some independent evidence to support the existence of my defined object? That would count as admision of my point.
I don't have to explain why I think total diabolicness requires exemplification in all possible worlds, thats my definition. But if you wish, here is quick response - I think you're more diabolic if you cause evil in more than one world.QuoteThis type of manichaean view of evil is not favored today, by philosophers that study the subject. So, why think it is possible? (answer, there is no reason)
So you mean laws of logic or nature care whether your made up being is maximally good or maximally evil? That's interesting. Why do you think maximally good being is possible? Historicity, long time of development, tradition, popularity, etc. Aren't good answers here.QuoteThese are no good objections, they missconstrue the argument with respect to modal epistemic matters.
Well you still didn't respond to anything.
And you also didn't addres my hypothetical String theory example. Let's say strings always existed, and they are fundamental, let's say we have scientific proof for it. What then? Are you then going to call them god? Or are you going to claim that still, there must be something beyond them? Or maybe MOA proves that it's never going to be a case?
You again misunderstand, you say "When you say that property X is exemplified it means there is a possible world, in which object with property X exists."
Where did I say Maximal greatness is exemplified? what I said is "possibly, maximal greatness is exemplified"
There is a subtle but important difference in formal modal logical arguments. I am referring to a property, that does not presume that there is any being or anything that has it, when I argue "possibly, maximal greatness is exemplified", by referring to the property, the statement can turn out to be false without contradiction.
When one states it in terms of a being or a thing having the property, for example: in the marred manner that you have done , then yes, by referring to an x that has such and such property on w, to say that it is false that x exists in w is self referentially contradictory, since you have already referred to x in w.
Furthermore to equate exemplified to possibly is just incoherent and completely ignores formal modal logic requirements, and, actualists modal views
So it is completely incorrect to think , as you have stated, that
"possibly, maximal greatness is exemplified", can just be stated as exemplified or possibly and that this would be enough.
I think you are confused, there are attempts at arguments using Omni malevolence, but your question was as follows : " What if being evil contributes to maximal excellence"
Indeed, arguments using Omni malevolence are tried out, but, not as an excellence, which is roughly the quality of being outstanding or extremely good. Which is nonsensical, at the very least.
Why would I give you excuses when it is so much easier to show the question is nonsensical? no reason to do that.
You admitted making up concepts (in ad-hoc manner), which I have not done.
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).
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.
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.
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).
I have responded to plenty, even though there is nothing much to respond to.
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?
Posted by: UnreasonableFaith
« on: November 24, 2016, 07:42:41 PM »Quote
I know informally and colloquially the argument is put on terms as you are using here:
"it's possible that god exists" instead of "God who exists in all worlds including ours, exists in some possible world"
But, that´s not how stated the argument.
The argument as I stated is not about a being who exists in all worlds including ours, exists in some possible world, which is what you are attacking, but about a property that is possibly exemplified.
so you are attacking an strawman.
When you say that property X is exemplified it means there is a possible world, in which object with property X exists.
When you say it's possible object Y exists, you mean there is a possible world in which we find object Y.
Maximall greatness include a necessary existence in all possible world.
To be honest I don't understand why you wrote "possibly, maximal greatness is exemplified", exemplified or possibly alone would be enough.
Quote
Don´t second read me. Look, only people with mental and cognitive problems, honestly and truely, think that evil is an excellent thing to be, and they belong behind white walls or bars, away from society. So, that´s just a nonsensical question, and, as I said questions are not objections, so, I have no clue what you are asking or trying to say with such a question.
If not for all these quite formally written posts of yours that I saw, I could indeed believe you have had a problem with a concept of maximally excellent being whose property is omnimanevolence instead of omnibenevolence. But I saw them so to be honest I don't buy your excuse here.
Quote
What about this argument?
1. Object is X if it's mystical, eternal ball of energy capable of creating universes
2. Object is Y if it's X in all possible worlds
The concept of God as a supreme and wholly perfect being was not made by me, it´s the concept of God Christians (and the other great monotheists religions) have developed for centuries.
It doesn't matter who created it, nor how long it took, now that it's already here. I hope you're not suggesting otherwise.
Quote
I did not just made this today so I can score rethorical points in our exchange, like you are doing, with ethernal balls and necessarily existing diabolic beings, namely, these are ad-hoc, unnatural, and not in common use concepts you are making up just (as you yourself admit) for the sake of sustaining your position.
It doesn't matter whether concept is 1000 eyars old, or 10 hours long. MGB is made up too, and it's unnatural as well. Even if it wasn't what does it change? The fact it's common concept is an argument ad populum - useless. It's ad-hoc as well. However I still don't understand what does ad-hoc means in this context. nontheless given full analogy between our concepts it must be true that if mine is ad-hoc yours is too. Age doesn't affect it.
Generally speaking by your logic I just need to popularize my concepts for long enough, and then suddenly they become natural, and common, therefore more valuable that's your answer. It's total ad populum and "ad history". Or maybe you hope there are some laws of logic or nature which somehow prevent evil god from existence?
Quote
On the later concept of a totally diabolic being that exists in every possible world, why think total diabolicness requires exemplification in all possible worlds, what is the history of the concept? (barely any exists, if at all) has it survived scrutiny for centuries? (not , it hasn´t)
Again, historicity adds plausibility or credibility? Since when? And what kind of scrutiny do you mean? It's definition, and if it's coherent so what fault do you wish to find here? Or maybe you suggest there must be some independent evidence to support the existence of my defined object? That would count as admision of my point.
I don't have to explain why I think total diabolicness requires exemplification in all possible worlds, thats my definition. But if you wish, here is quick response - I think you're more diabolic if you cause evil in more than one world.
Quote
This type of manichaean view of evil is not favored today, by philosophers that study the subject. So, why think it is possible? (answer, there is no reason)
So you mean laws of logic or nature care whether your made up being is maximally good or maximally evil? That's interesting. Why do you think maximally good being is possible? Historicity, long time of development, tradition, popularity, etc. Aren't good answers here.
Quote
These are no good objections, they missconstrue the argument with respect to modal epistemic matters.
Well you still didn't respond to anything.
And you also didn't addres my hypothetical String theory example. Let's say strings always existed, and they are fundamental, let's say we have scientific proof for it. What then? Are you then going to call them god? Or are you going to claim that still, there must be something beyond them? Or maybe MOA proves that it's never going to be a case?
Posted by: ParaclitosLogos
« on: November 24, 2016, 06:11:26 PM »QuoteWhat is intuition not going to help with?
It´s not wordplay, it is related to analytic philosophy jargon.
I think it's sophisticated wordplay to say "it's possible that god exists" instead of "God who exists in all worlds including ours, exists in some possible world"
Or
"It's possible Maximal greatness is exemplified" instead of "Maximally excellent being which also happen to exists in all possible worlds including ours, exists in some possible world"QuoteWhat if evil doesn´t contribute to maximal excelence? questions are not objections nor defeaters.
Don't pretend you don't know what I meant.QuoteIt´s generally understood that a supreme , all perfect being, worthy of worship (as the Christian God is understood to be) is omniscient and morally perfect, and eternal balls do not fit that description very well, rather it is implausible that they do, aside from it being somewhat an ad-hoc concept, with no common use nor any hint of being a natural concept (in the Lewisian sense).
Seriously? Ok, then if it helps you, you can put X instead of maximal excellence, and Y instead of maximal greatness. All other things stay the same. I suppose laws of logics don't mind what word we use. Can you now respond? Is my belief in mystical ball of energy which creates universes justified now?
And I have no idea by what criteria you judge my concept as ad hoc. I don't even know what it means in this context. We're totally making things up, why my concept is more ad hoc than yours? From what I get it's because your is older with more rich tradition, but I hope it's not your explanation.
I can give another example:
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.
Rest goes the same.
Does it make belief in an evil god more rational? If MOA has any value at all, than what I just wrote itself should add some credibility to my belief, if not then it's completely irrelevant and the same goes for attempts to use MOA as justification for belief in other gods.
I know informally and colloquially the argument is put on terms as you are using here:
"it's possible that god exists" instead of "God who exists in all worlds including ours, exists in some possible world"
But, that´s not how stated the argument.
The argument as I stated is not about a being who exists in all worlds including ours, exists in some possible world, which is what you are attacking, but about a property that is possibly exemplified.
so you are attacking an strawman.
Don´t second read me. Look, only people with mental and cognitive problems, honestly and truely, think that evil is an excellent thing to be, and they belong behind white walls or bars, away from society. So, that´s just a nonsensical question, and, as I said questions are not objections, so, I have no clue what you are asking or trying to say with such a question.
What about this argument?
1. Object is X if it's mystical, eternal ball of energy capable of creating universes
2. Object is Y if it's X in all possible worlds
The concept of God as a supreme and wholly perfect being was not made by me, it´s the concept of God Christians (and the other great monotheists religions) have developed for centuries.
I did not just made this today so I can score rethorical points in our exchange, like you are doing, with ethernal balls and necessarily existing diabolic beings, namely, these are ad-hoc, unnatural, and not in common use concepts you are making up just (as you yourself admit) for the sake of sustaining your position.
On the later concept of a totally diabolic being that exists in every possible world, why think total diabolicness requires exemplification in all possible worlds, what is the history of the concept? (barely any exists, if at all) has it survived scrutiny for centuries? (not , it hasn´t)
This type of manichaean view of evil is not favored today, by philosophers that study the subject. So, why think it is possible? (answer, there is no reason)
These are no good objections, they missconstrue the argument with respect to modal epistemic matters.
Posted by: UnreasonableFaith
« on: November 24, 2016, 05:29:49 PM »Quote
What is intuition not going to help with?
It´s not wordplay, it is related to analytic philosophy jargon.
I think it's sophisticated wordplay to say "it's possible that god exists" instead of "God who exists in all worlds including ours, exists in some possible world"
Or
"It's possible Maximal greatness is exemplified" instead of "Maximally excellent being which also happen to exists in all possible worlds including ours, exists in some possible world"
Quote
What if evil doesn´t contribute to maximal excelence? questions are not objections nor defeaters.
Don't pretend you don't know what I meant.
Quote
It´s generally understood that a supreme , all perfect being, worthy of worship (as the Christian God is understood to be) is omniscient and morally perfect, and eternal balls do not fit that description very well, rather it is implausible that they do, aside from it being somewhat an ad-hoc concept, with no common use nor any hint of being a natural concept (in the Lewisian sense).
Seriously? Ok, then if it helps you, you can put X instead of maximal excellence, and Y instead of maximal greatness. All other things stay the same. I suppose laws of logics don't mind what word we use. Can you now respond? Is my belief in mystical ball of energy which creates universes justified now?
And I have no idea by what criteria you judge my concept as ad hoc. I don't even know what it means in this context. We're totally making things up, why my concept is more ad hoc than yours? From what I get it's because your is older with more rich tradition, but I hope it's not your explanation.
I can give another example:
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.
Rest goes the same.
Does it make belief in an evil god more rational? If MOA has any value at all, than what I just wrote itself should add some credibility to my belief, if not then MOA itself is completely irrelevant, it's nothing more than complicated way of saying that if there are good reasons to believe in X, then you're justified in belief in X
Posted by: ParaclitosLogos
« on: November 24, 2016, 03:58:32 PM »QuoteThis does not refute any of the premises, and, it´s mere hand waving, and, does nothing to defeat the argument.
It shows how absurd first premise is. Seriously, what counts as defeating here? You just want me to accept that being which exists in all possible worlds including ours also exists in some possible world. No amount of metaphysical intuition is going to help here.QuoteSuch attitude deserve no attention
Well, I'm sorry for not being impressed by these sophisticated wordplays.
You still didn't explain why MOA suggests christian god. What if being evil contributes to maximal excelence?
And why any personal being at all?
1. Object is maximally excellent if it's mystical, eternal ball of energy capable of creating universes
2. Object is maximally great if it's excellent in all possible worlds
And the rest goes on.
What is intuition not going to help with?
It´s not wordplay, it is related to analytic philosophy jargon.
What if evil doesn´t contribute to maximal excelence? questions are not objections nor defeaters.
It´s generally understood that a supreme , all perfect being, worthy of worship (as the Christian God is understood to be) is omniscient and morally perfect, and eternal balls do not fit that description very well, rather it is implausible that they do, aside from it being somewhat an ad-hoc concept, with no common use nor any hint of being a natural concept (in the Lewisian sense).
And the rest of your objections don´t go either. These puported objections your throw to the wall to see if they stick are all over the place and betray a lack of understanding of the subject.
So, forgive me if I am not impressed by so much sophistry and uninformed dismissiveness.