Friday, November 20, 2009

Discussion with Daedalus part 2

Originally Posted by daedalus2.0 View Post
We all know the Ont. argument. I won't repeat it, but something occurred to me.

The most perfect, excellent or greatest Being I can imagine would be one that would offer me all the joys of Heaven, and my family and friends, despite what I believe, since it is a given that such a great being can think on such a higher level than I, that it would be impossible for me to understand what it is and how I could come to believe in it.

This effectively disproves the Christian God.

After all, the Christian says that the greatest being they can imagine is one that tortures infidels for eternity. But since it is greater to forgive (a clear Christian doctrine), a forgiving God - despite a persons acceptance of Jesus - the Christian god MUST be forgiving to be the greatest being imaginable.

It is a clear contradiction that requires us to disbelieve that the Christian God can exist.
you are attacking the version that was going about in the middle ages. Why don't you try dealing with the modern version, the modal argument?

(1) If God exists, he must exist necessarily, if God does not exist his existence is impossible.

(2) Therefore, God is either necessary or impossible.

(3) God can be conceived without contradiction

(4) therefore, God is not impossible

(5) Since God is not impossible he must be necessary.

(6) Since god is necessary he must exist.

[QUOTE=daedalus2.0;5546783]It's word play. It doesn't define God other than an assumption that God=Necessary.[/qutoe]

Not word play. the defining thing is not an issue. you are misunderstanding the nature of definitions of God.

This argument ws revived by Norman Malchom and two major philosophers made their reputations on defending it. By the turn of the 20th century the OA was considered a thing of the past, an artifact of a by gone era in philosophy one that would never come back. But by the end of he 20th century all the major philosophers who revived it had become major based upon their defense of it (Hartshorne and Plantinga, Purtil to some extent and Maclum who was already famous and respected but the became more so).

"definition" of God is the big hairy atheists think it is. There are four or five options.

Change "God" with "Alpha-Condition". (The definition of Alpha-Condition is "the Necessary, ever-existing State of Affair that is able to create a Universe. It Necessarily exists without a God. It is a priori and non-contingent.")
that argument is reversible. it works both ways. you are just calleing God "whatever." In the end the point is it doesn't matter what you call him. There can only be one and he had to be the ground of being, so we know what we are talking about, it's just a question which tradition mediates best what he wants (if anything).

that is, the argument smuggles in the presumption that the definition of "God" includes a necessary existence, and assumes that something like that exists.
The concept "G-0-D" refers to necessary existence. That's just the definition of what "God" is. That doesn't mean the argument is defining God as "that which exists" because it's either or, god either exists necessary or is impossible."

So there's no resting premise on conclusion because there are two possible outcomes. then its' just a matter of eliminating one of them.

Then, it does a little bait and switch and plays on "Well, if it isn't impossible, it must be not only possible, but Necessary! Voila!"

what makes that a bait and switch? The bait and switch means you change one thing for another, not that that you eliminate one of two alternatives. That's process of elimination.

example of bait and switch is where reductionists say consciousness is brain function, then they go on to show that brain function is rooted in brain chemistry. But property dualist don't believe that consciousness = brian function.

The modal argument is not saying impossibility is the same as necessity. But that they are two possible alternatives and the argument is won by which ever one is not eliminated logically through process of elimination.

so, i don't see how the term "god" means anything, since it is undefined in this argument, and even if so, it can only be defined enough to make it true... defining God into existence.
God arguments don't have to supply definitions of God within the logic of the argument. All they have to do is be compatible with whatever definition one things fits the argument. you can use the model argument for standard theistic view of God.

My move is to not argue for the existence of God but for the idea that belief is ratinoally warranted. Then you are not talking proving that God exists. Thus Ground of being could be argued for this way even though Tillich nixed doing so.

And, then, the leap from if it "can be concieved without contradiction, it's possible, which means it's Necessary" isn't warranted.

the argument turns on that move, yes, but it is a valid move. Because due to the concept of necessity vs contingency there can't be a mere possibility of a necessity. Possibility becomes necessity in the sense that iff (if and only if) you are dealing necessity anyway, there are only two options, necessity or impossibility.

So, here is my argument for a Godless Universe(s):

Still convinced by the argument? I'm not. Not until one can prove the definition is accurate!
prove that tables are things to put things on?

let's say I have a table, a level surface on four "legs" or columns. I say "this is a table, it' function is to put things on.I use the term "table" to mean this."

you say "prove it's really a table."

"that's what table means it means this thing here."

"you are just defining it into existence."

"but it does exist, here it is. I'm just telling you want I call it."

"no no! it can't exist becuase you are confusing the name of it with the quality of its existing."

but actually I'm not. I'm just telling what I call something that exists.

you might say "but this is an argument." Yea but it's an argument for something the logic of the augment prove this "something" exits, and I choose to call it "God." I could call it birdy birdy nam nam if I wanted to that doesn't really matter. The fact is the logic proves it exists.

the confusion arises from the atheist failure (no offense) to grasp what necessity really implies. atheits tend to think of God in terms of contignent localized personalities. They think "the God of Christianity" they thin of a big man in the sky.

They can't see the big man and the personality as the metaphor and the reality that points to as "an aspect of being" or as "primordial being" rather than a big man.

that's why the name doesn't matter and "which big man" is not an issue. There is no big man, there is only this one aspect of relaity and anything that fits it is it.

Zaveric: "To be sure, things that make real things pop into existence require an explanation beyond "They don't require explanation".."

1 comment:

Metacrock said...

what he's really doing if you just look at it starkly is to whine and complain because the argument works. I'm he couches that in terms of exposing the flawed logic but if you look at what he says all he really says is "this arguments proves something that I can't possibly agree with so it must be flawed."