Anonymous comes back on the discussion on the modal argument. This argument really totally unnerves some people they become livid and have to disprove it even if they don't undersatnd it.
It is clear from this conversation who has "studied this stuff" and who has not.
That is most uncool. If you are so uncertain of your self worth that you are desperate to crunch the other guy's ego in an argument then you are not in a position to evaluate the arguments fairly or to particulate in a meeting of the minds. One of the primary requirements for such a meeting is good well, not a desperate need to prove one is superior. I admit I am not an expert on modal logic, I never claimed to be. I think I understand the gist of the argument pretty well and I'm discussing because I enjoy discussing such things. My aim is not run you down or prove I'm better than you. I'm sorry you are not mature enough to understand an adult approach to thought.
Here's a source that documetns a kind of logic called Propostion and it is not modal:
Internet encyclopedia of Philosophy
Propositional logic, also known as sentential logic and statement logic, is the branch of logic that studies ways of joining and/or modifying entire propositions, statements or sentences to form more complicated propositions, statements or sentences, as well as the logical relationships and properties that are derived from these methods of combining or altering statements. In propositional logic, the simplest statements are considered as indivisible units, and hence, propositional logic does not study those logical properties and relations that depend upon parts of statements that are not themselves statements on their own, such as the subject and predicate of a statement. The most thoroughly researched branch of propositional logic is classical truth-functional propositional logic, which studies logical operators and connectives that are used to produce complex statements whose truth-value depends entirely on the truth-values of the simpler statements making them up, and in which it is assumed that every statement is either true or false and not both. However, there are other forms of propositional logic in which other truth-values are considered, or in which there is consideration of connectives that are used to produce statements whose truth-values depend not simply on the truth-values of the parts, but additional things such as their necessity, possibility or relatedness to one another.A normal person, she/he sees someone communicated wrongly say "O it's a mistake ok that's fine. Let's fix it." It's the little desperate fool who can't live with himself until he feels better than other, hating himself, who has scream about being superior whenever a mistake is made. why can't you relay and explore the world of thought? you are not in it to learn you are in it to prove to yourself that you are worthy. Just take it easy.
Of course in that last paragraph when I said "propositional logic," I was referring to propositional modal logic.Ok I'll put on my mind reading hat next time.
Your claim that Hartshorne's argument isn't trying to prove that God exists seems clearly false--the conclusion of the argument is 'g', which, interpreted, means "God exists."You really don't know this stuff at all. Have you read anything by Hartshorne? The man himself said that his argument doesn't prove the existence of God becasue that's not the goal. The modal argument is part of a larger argument called "deep empiricism." It fills the bill on one aspect it's no mean to be an absolute proof in its own right. Plantinga also says that he does not argue that the argument proves the existence of God but that it demonstrates the rationality of belief. I've seen many references to that.
You may not think there is any such thing as metaphysical necessity, but it's not a "made up concept" if by that you mean I made it up. It's a philosophical concept that is used quite often.I'm not particularly concerned with weather or not you made up the term. You can't probably find someone somewhere who says it. I don't really find the people are knowing for wring about the modal argument referring to it in connection with the argument. I suspect there's another term for it. I often find that I'm out of touch with the modern terms. It is the case that are two types of necessity involved in Hartshorne's thinking.
How Firm a Possible Foundation?
Modality and Hartshorne’s Dipolar Theism
Donald Wayne Viney
Hartshorne’s theory involves two concepts of necessity—necessity as what isMeanwhile anonymous goes on:
common to every possible worldstate
and necessity as it pertains to the
unalterability of the past. Richards also uncritically accepts the concept of
possible worlds as a basis for his critique, but Hartshorne’s arguments cast doubt
on the coherence of this idea. While questions remain about Hartshorne’s modal
theory, Richards’ arguments against it are unsuccessful.
Hartshorne's proof attempts to show that God exists, using just the tools of modal propositional logic. I have explained why that can't be done, and Plantinga, as quoted by you, agrees with me. (By the way, you should have simply asked me for a copy of his email to me, as I invited you to do--the one he sent you turns out to be almost identical in wording to the one he sent me.) He agrees that you can not derive a contradiction from "God does not exist" using just the tools of propositional logic. This, in turn, means that Hartshorne's proof fails if it is meant to be a proof that God exists--and I don't see how it can be interpreted otherwise.This shows the true state of your confusion. I told you that netiher guy (Hartshorne or Plantinga) believes that this argument proves the existence of God alone by itself as an absolute proof, but that it does some kind f duty in a larger argument structure and ultimately should be argued as rational warrant for belief. You say "O no, they do too, you don't know anything." O you say that about Hartshorne. Here you try to say that Plantigna doesn't bleieve the believe the argument proves God, as though he really thinks it's stupid and useless and does use it. why doesn't it occur to you that you are just observing what I told you he says; that doesn't believe it as a proof he doesn't use it as a proof? He uses it as a rational warrant. Therefore, it's it more liley that Hartsnorne felt the same since most of what Plentinga does comes from Hatrshorne anyway? That makes perfect sense, but you are trying to spin it into a disproof of the argument than make hay on insulting me and running down my knowledge, when in fact I told you that to begin with!
Using Hartshorne's argument, by the way, one could just as easily prove "-g" in exactly the same way.No, because he doesn't say it's proof. he says it's a warrant for belief in a larger scheme of deep empiricism.
One could also prove both that the Goldbach conjecture is true and that it is false.Then make an argument. Muttering about "one could prove" would could pull his head out of his ass too. That's not a proof.
(BTW I'm bothered by this--it looks like we can prove a contradiction from true premises using propositional modal logic. That's odd!)you are just like so many atheists, you are trying to twist the meaning not content with truth. You can't prove any of that. the modal argument cannot be reversed and I've proved that. It makes no sense to prove the contrary because possiblity minus contingency has to result in necessity. The reserve of that would be the impossibly of God. There is no such argument nor can one be made. No atheist even attempts it. Not based upon the concept of God itself apart from doctrinal qualifications.
The assertion that an argument can prove something considered unprovable as a disproof of that argument is a dicey prostitution at best and usually entails a fallacy. It's not proof of anyting to say that however so let's see it.
The argument form simply doesn't work if we try to interpret "g" as involving concepts like existence and truth. Some other logical system needs to be used, if any will work.
Again, main points:
God's necessity isn't provable using propositional modal logic.
Of cousre your only proof of that is to demonstrate your lack of understanding about the nature of the argument. My answer was that there are two necessities in the argument. I proved that above with the quote and your argument is not even aware of the two concepts. You are totally talking past any direct clash because you don't undersatnd anything I've said and you are jut flat out ignorant of little things like the purpose of the argument in H's thinking (little stuff like that). You can't seriously claim that you have proved anything about God's necessity if you don't even know the two types at work in the argument.
But Hartshorne's proof is an attempt to prove God's necessity using propositional modal logic.Since you don't understand the way the argument functions in his overall scheme and since you are ignorant of the two types of necessity, then you really don't have a clear idea at all of what you say.
Therefore, Hartshorne's proof doesn't work.
And God's necessity must be cashed out in some sense other than "necessary according to propositional modal logic."which is neither here nor there. since you don't what the two types of necessity are you can't really say anything.
I suggest no logic will get you God's necessity. You'll have to look at something like "metaphysical" or "absolute" necessity. Plantinga suggests you could prove god's necessity in second-order logic, but I don't know how that's supposed to work.typical little atheist ignorance, revues to read to theology and don't listen to what religious thinkers say. You need so desperately to prove that you are really superior after all.You don't understand what Plantinga wrote to you either. Your argument doesn't even apply you have the totally wrong idea of what he said. you think his strategy of not arguing absolute proof is a denunciation of the argument.
Here you introduce the term "abolute necessity" with no doucments about it's use by H no thought as to what it might mean or change in meaning in relation to H's over all project. You know H has process theology right? That means he thought God is diploar and one of those polls is in fulx. So that means it's going have a totally different notion of possible in relation to the over all meaning, thus necessity is going to be changed in connotation isn't it? you have not even begun to think about this stuff. While you are dropping terms to prove you took a logic class or that you have a math background why don't you read some Hartshorne?
God has to be necessary. Anyone who doesn't understand that just get the basic Christian concept of God. The fact that you don't seem to understand the relationship of the terms necessity, impossibility, actuality, contingency demonstrates that you really don't really understand any of this. God can be proved necessary in several different ways.