Thursday, September 15, 2022

Hartshorne's Modal Argument for God' Existence


Charles Hartshorne 1897-2000


What follows is one of the most challenging subjects you will ever hear about. It is the best way to get a head ache, but I think it proves the existence of God. The problem is it requires a very specialized background to understand it. First you have to understand modal logic.

Modal Logic is so called because it turns upon the use of so called "modal operators." It's called "modal" because it is the logic of modes of being. "modes" as in what type of existence something exits in, weather it is dependent upon other things, weather it can cease or fail to exist and so forth. The modal operators are "necessity," "contingency" "impossibly," "possibility."

Necessity and contingency lie at the base of our modern understanding of cause and effect. They come from scholastic notions of logic, but the distinction between the notion our modern notions of c/e and the scholastic ones in the middle ages is not that great. The scholastic had more levels of cause, efficient cause, final cause and several others. But one could everything we have done in modern science using the scholastic ideas of c/e.

Necessity doesn't mean has to exist. It doesn't mean God is necessary to the existence of the world (except in so far as if God exists then of closure God is necessary to the world as creator--without God there would be no world).The modal argument does not begin with the assumption that God has to exist. It begins with the assumption that there is a valid distinction between necessity and contingency, which there must be.It proceeds along the lines of hypothetical consequence that obtain from different scenarios of God's existence. It concludes that is necessary. But by "necessary" it means not contingent, or not dependent upon something else for its' existence.[1]

This is often misconstrued by atheists and taken to mean the argument proceeds from God's existence as an assumed first premise. This is not the case, the first premise is either/or. Either God's existence is necessary or it is impossible. This allows for the possibility that there is no God. So the argument does not begin by "defining God into existence."

Necessity essentially not contingent, it also coneys the idea of he can;'t cease or fail to exist, stemming from his eternal nature.

Contingent means the opposite: that a thing is dependent upon a prior thing for existence, or that it could cease or fail to exist.

Impossible means logically impossible, something in the structure of the idea contradictions, such as square circles.

one of the sore spots that atheists get stuck on is the idea that God cannot be contingent. They will always leap to the conclusion that this is defining God into existence, because they don't understand the concept of God. God, by the nature of the concept, carriers certain parameters just as the existence of any human assumes humanity, or the existence of any tree assumes that the tree in question is a plant. To have to define that God is not contingent should not even come into it. The idea of God is that of eternal creator of all things. Thus God cannot cease to exits and cannot be dependent upon anything (or he wouldn't be the creator of all things). Atheists usually assume that all knowledge has to be empirical. they will argue this is defining God into existence. maybe God is contingent.

Argument:

Close to Hartshorne's version

1. God is either necessary or impossible.
2. God can be conceived without contradiction.
3. Whatever can be conceived without contradiction is not impossible.
4. God is not impossible.
5. God's existence is a necessity (from 1-4, not contingent or impossible means necessary)
6. If God is necessary, then God exists.
7. Belief in God's existence is warranted



About Hartshorne

Hartshorne Lived to be 103, at the time of his death in the Fall of 2000, he was known as "the greatest living Metaphysician." Hartshorne was one of the major forces in the "back to God" movement in Philosophy (a term coined by Christianity Today in a 1979 article. His first and greatest calim to fame is as the second most influential voice in process philosophy, along with Alfred North Whtiehead, but he is also credited as the man who brought the Ontological argument back from ignominious defeat by Kant almost two centuries earlier. Hartshorne was also a recognized authority on birdsong, and an authority on bycicles, having never driven a car a single time in his centogenerian lifespan. Hartshorne devoted the last years of life to waging a letter's to the editor campaign to advocate social issues such as medical care.

Answering the argumet that God need mot be necessary

Logic of the modal argumemt.

Fun with the Modal argumemt


Notes

[1] Most of the time philosphers define Necessity as "necessity, in logic and metaphysics, a modal property of a true proposition whereby it is not possible for the proposition to be false and of a false proposition whereby it is not possible for the proposition to be true." According to Google. There is anothersese ofnecessity menaing indepemdet existence. Hartshorne argued these senses are really one. The reason something could not cease or fail to exist is because it does dependd for existence upon anything else.

42 comments:

Anonymous said...

I want to start by focusing on number 3., and trying to determine exactly what it must mean.

3. Whatever can be conceived without contradiction is not impossible.

We can conceive magic-wielding wizards. Is there a contradiction in that idea? Not obviously, so it must be possible, right?

To be clear, I will note that magic-wielding wizards are not necessary, so this is not analogous to God. I am just exploring what the words mean. However, if magic-wielding wizards are possible, then that would necessarily imply that magic is real; it has to be, otherwise magic-wielding wizards are not possible.

So at this point we perhaps need to reconsider the "without contradiction" bit. It would seem more reasonable to suppose that we cannot conceive magic-wielding wizards without contradiction, and that is because magic-wielding wizards contradict the nature of the universe.

So it seems to me that 3. is actually saying:

3. Whatever can be conceived without contradicting the nature of the cosmos is not impossible.

And that is perfectly reasonable. if that is your intention here, Joe, then I have no problem with that claim.

By the way, I say cosmos here to include every that ever was or will be, whether in the universe or not, so as to encompass God too.

Pix

Anonymous said...

Okay, so now let's look at number 4.

4. God is not impossible.

What is the logic behind that? Remember, this God is necessarily necessary. Is a necessary God compatible with the nature of the cosmos? Or does it give us a contradiction? If the latter, then 4. is false.

And I do not believe we have any way to tell either way.

Now I fully expect you, Joe, at this point to insist that it is up to me to prove it is not consistent, but that is not the case. This is your argument, you are claiming proof. It is incumbent on you to prove that your point 4. is true, to prove that a necessary God does not contradict the nature of the cosmos.

So good luck with that.

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous said...
I want to start by focusing on number 3., and trying to determine exactly what it must mean.

3. Whatever can be conceived without contradiction is not impossible.

We can conceive magic-wielding wizards. Is there a contradiction in that idea? Not obviously, so it must be possible, right?

In modal logic the term "impossible" has a specific meaning, you probably think magic is impossible because it isn't found in reality, That is a matter of empirical knowledge not logic. Impossible as a modal operator means the thing is impossible logically and conceptually. Magic isn't impossible conceptually nor are wizards. they not found in reality but That's empirical.

To be clear, I will note that magic-wielding wizards are not necessary, so this is not analogous to God. I am just exploring what the words mean. However, if magic-wielding wizards are possible, then that would necessarily imply that magic is real; it has to be, otherwise magic-wielding wizards are not possible.

Wrong. They are possible bit not existent. Possible is not a necessity thus wizards are possible but since they don't exist they are not existent. They are not impossible. You might think they are impossible by the rules of natural law but remember modernists think laws of physics are not prescriptive. They are just a record of how things tends to be.

So at this point we perhaps need to reconsider the "without contradiction" bit. It would seem more reasonable to suppose that we cannot conceive magic-wielding wizards without contradiction, and that is because magic-wielding wizards contradict the nature of the universe.

Where is the logical contradiction?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

So it seems to me that 3. is actually saying:

3. Whatever can be conceived without contradicting the nature of the cosmos is not impossible.

Impossibilities don't exist. The cosmos is possible. It's not necessary because it could be different, or even non existent.

And that is perfectly reasonable. if that is your intention here, Joe, then I have no problem with that claim.

OK

By the way, I say cosmos here to include every that ever was or will be, whether in the universe or not, so as to encompass God too.

Pix

Nope this is the key to atheist's problem. God is not part of the Cosmos. Cosmos is God's creation he can't be part of his own creation,

4:26 AM
Anonymous said...
Okay, so now let's look at number 4.

4. God is not impossible.

What is the logic behind that? Remember, this God is necessarily necessary. Is a necessary God compatible with the nature of the cosmos? Or does it give us a contradiction? If the latter, then 4. is false.

say you draw plans for your own house? are you pat of the house literally? If the house is torn down do you die? God is not a possibility God is a necessity. If God des not exist he is impossible not a possibility that didn't pan out.

And I do not believe we have any way to tell either way.

Yes we do, Logic. You have to understand the terms and you don't.

Now I fully expect you, Joe, at this point to insist that it is up to me to prove it is not consistent, but that is not the case. This is your argument, you are claiming proof. It is incumbent on you to prove that your point 4. is true, to prove that a necessary God does not contradict the nature of the cosmos.

So good luck with that.

I did prove it but to see that you must use the terms correctly. God is not part of his own creation. God is not limited to possibility he is necessary.

Anonymous said...

Joe: In modal logic the term "impossible" has a specific meaning, you probably think magic is impossible because it isn't found in reality, That is a matter of empirical knowledge not logic. Impossible as a modal operator means the thing is impossible logically and conceptually. Magic isn't impossible conceptually nor are wizards. they not found in reality but That's empirical.

So then number 3 is saying that anything that is not logically possible must be possible. As you say, magic-wielding wizards are not logically impossible, so we have to conclude that magic-wielding wizards are possible. That has to follow from your number 3.

Joe: Wrong. They are possible bit not existent.

Ah, okay, you even concede that magic-wielding wizards.

Therefore magic must actually work.

Joe: Possible is not a necessity thus wizards are possible but since they don't exist they are not existent. They are not impossible. You might think they are impossible by the rules of natural law but remember modernists think laws of physics are not prescriptive. They are just a record of how things tends to be.

And again, the implication is that magic must actually work. Think this through, Joe. If you admit magic-wielding wizards are possible, then magic must be possible.

Joe: Nope this is the key to atheist's problem. God is not part of the Cosmos. Cosmos is God's creation he can't be part of his own creation,

I am defining cosmos to include God. If you have a better word for everything including God I will use that, but until you do, cosmos includes God. You do not get to define God out of everything.

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous said...
Joe: In modal logic the term "impossible" has a specific meaning, you probably think magic is impossible because it isn't found in reality, That is a matter of empirical knowledge not logic. Impossible as a modal operator means the thing is impossible logically and conceptually. Magic isn't impossible conceptually nor are wizards. they not found in reality but That's empirical.

Pix: So then number 3 is saying that anything that is not logically possible must be possible. As you say, magic-wielding wizards are not logically impossible, so we have to conclude that magic-wielding
wizards are possible. That has to follow from your number 3.

So you mean anything no logically possible is impossible? that would be the case you said possible rather than impossible. If so than Yes.

Joe: Wrong. They are possible bit not existent.

Ah, okay, you even concede that magic-wielding wizards.

Therefore magic must actually work.

O how does that follow? It means it might work given some set of conditions. Since those conditions do not obtain it doesn't work,

Joe: Possible is not a necessity thus wizards are possible but since they don't exist they are not existent. They are not impossible. You might think they are impossible by the rules of natural law but remember modernists think laws of physics are not prescriptive. They are just a record of how things tends to be.

And again, the implication is that magic must actually work. Think this through, Joe. If you admit magic-wielding wizards are possible, then magic must be possible.

are you even listening? Trying to shame my argument by sticking it with silly superstitious beliefs will not work. You can only maintain that by pretending you don't don't understand the concepts I am putting forth,

Joe: Nope this is the key to atheist's problem. God is not part of the Cosmos. Cosmos is God's creation he can't be part of his own creation,

I am defining cosmos to include God.

You can pretend there's a being who is not God in the sense I believe and you can say it's god and refuse to believe in it that does not touch my belief, you cannot assert that the creator of all things is part of his own creation, that is logically impossible.

If you have a better word for everything including God I will use that, but until you do, cosmos includes God. You do not get to define God out of everything.

everything does not include God. Being includes God as the ground of being and all else that is besides God. That doesn't change my argument,

Anonymous said...

Joe: O how does that follow? It means it might work given some set of conditions. Since those conditions do not obtain it doesn't work,

You previously said "Possible is not a necessity thus wizards are possible but since they don't exist they are not existent. They are not impossible." If wizards are possible, then magic is real. It is as simple as that.

Joe: are you even listening? Trying to shame my argument by sticking it with silly superstitious beliefs will not work. You can only maintain that by pretending you don't don't understand the concepts I am putting forth,

If you are right, wizards are possible. You said it yourself!

As for myself, I reject that silly superstition. I think magic is not real, and wizards are not possible.

Joe: everything does not include God. Being includes God as the ground of being and all else that is besides God. That doesn't change my argument,

Then you are just playing word games. If you are not prepared to consider a collection that comprises all that exist - including God - then you are just engaged in rhetorical trickery.

Pix

Kristen said...

A few thoughts, if I may interject them:

Joe has given a term that he will accept that means "God and everything else." The word is "being." Pix, if you will substitute "being" or "all of being" for "cosmos," then I think you have a common ground for discusssion.

As far as "if God is not impossible, He must be necessary": this is true given the definition of the terms, but of course it leaves the definition of "God" in the air. This argument doesn't reach, nor attempt to reach, any description of the nature of Necessary Being. Joe's arguments about fine tuning and about the organizational principles of the universe do point to an intelligence-- but this modal argument only defines God as Necessary Being and leaves it at that. Some religions believe the universe is necessary being and that the universe is god (pantheism).

Joe, it is true that God cannot be part of the creation, but it doesn't follow that the creation can't be part of God. In fact, it makes sense to think that God, having nothing else to create the universe from, created it from Godself: that God permeates the creation and that the creation is part of God (panentheism). I subscribe to this view myself. I think I have heard you say that you do too.

Anonymous said...

Kristen: Joe has given a term that he will accept that means "God and everything else." The word is "being." Pix, if you will substitute "being" or "all of being" for "cosmos," then I think you have a common ground for discussion.

Thanks.

Kristen: As far as "if God is not impossible, He must be necessary": this is true given the definition of the terms, but of course it leaves the definition of "God" in the air. ...

I agree it is true. It is the "if" at the start that is contentious. And yes to the rest.

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Kristen, I appreciate your comments. But I disagree with saying the universe is part of God. Even though no atheist has been able to tell me where the energy for the big bang came from. God does not have a body so he create something out of himself. I think that problem is solved in the idea that God creates the universe by imagining it. We are a thought in the mind of God.

Perhaps we can say we are part of God in the sense that we are ideas in his mind. Every idea has a problem. O well.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous said...
Joe: Laws of physics and nature are not logical. Not that they are illogical but are not true because fit some logical formula of deduction but because they are empirically the case. Wizardry does contradict those rule but it's not a logical contradiction. It's an empirical one.

The laws of physics (F=ma, etc) model the laws of nature. The laws of physics are empirical. All the evidence indicates the laws of nature are mathematical at base - they are logical, they are true.


False. not how it works. Logic can be applied to anything but that does not mean they are true besew they fit rules of logic. They are true because they fit the way things work. You work out laws of physics not now known and do so in a room with paper and pen no references to the world. see what scientists say about that.

Magic contradicts the laws of nature - pretty much by definition.

Joe: Ok I admit I was wrong. You don't understand the concepts. OOps I gave you credit for being real smart. I wont make that mistake again.

You said "Possible is not a necessity thus wizards are possible but since they don't exist they are not existent. They are not impossible." What have I misunderstood? Do you think wizards are possible or not?

Here go muddling the issues again issues issues again here we go middle the issues again so early in the debate.

Joe: where's the law that makes them not possible? The law of non contradiction? the law excluded middle? which?

Ah, I see what you are doing. When you say:

3. Whatever can be conceived without contradiction is not impossible.

What you mean is anything that does not contradict specifically the laws of logic is possible, even if it contradicts the laws of nature.

No law of nature says there is no God or that God can't work miracles Where is that law written?

That is quite a leap. Can you support that claim?

the idea that God can be concaved with no contradiction? yes I have some so many a thousand times. Show me the contradiction.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

I said before that I accept number 3, but I realise now you are using quite a different meaning, and so now I reject it. You will need to prove it.

"Whatever can be conceived without contradiction is not impossible" obviously I meant logical contradiction. I have must say here you understand what I'm saying you are trying to create muddle because you can't answer the argument. That premise is saying that impossibilities stem from logical contradictions. do you disagree?

Pix: Then you are just playing word games. If you are not prepared to consider a collection that comprises all that exist - including God - then you are just engaged in rhetorical trickery.

The cosmos is not all that exists. your original point said cosmos. There are other cosmoi so our cosmos is not all that exists. God is not part of the cosmos. You are the one doing the tricks because I clearly said we can God and everything is being. So we can God is part of Being. But we cant say he's par of the cosmos. you are trying to fuck the argumemt. why is it so important to say God is part of the cosmos but not that he's part of being?

Joe: the cosmos is not all that exists. It's all physical or naturalistic things that exist. God is not part of that. God is not a thing he did not come to exist. He is Being itself all physical world is a tangential product of the ground of being ie God.

As you cannot accept a collection that includes God, I am going to assume this is indeed just rhetorical trickery.
I guess you caught me. using that old trick of saying things right to communicate specific concepts.

We can all play that game. It goes like this. I want to prove X caused the universe.

Everything in the set A has a beginning
X is not in the set A (because I declare it is not, or define A as everything except X or whatever)
Therefore X did not have a beginning and must be eternal



I guess it needs a bit of work, but you get the idea. Of course you do, you are doing it right now!

I get the idea that you are intimidated by modal logic and you can't admit you can't answer the argument by terms of real logic so you have to muddle.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

I really didn't think you were the kid of person who ignores logic because he doesn't know about. You think deduction is just word games.

http://www.eskimo.net/~cwj2/atheism/onto.html Hartshorne's ontological argument is based on Anselm's second argument and claims that God's existence is logically necessary. Hartshorne's argument is given here, where "N(A)" means "it is logically necessary that A," "~A" means "it is not the case that A," "-->" is strict implication, "v" means "or," and "g" means "God exists":

g --> N(g)
N(g) v ~N(g)
~N(g) --> N(~N(g))
N(g) v N(~N(g))
N(~N(g)) --> N(~g)
N(g) v N(~g)
~N(~g)
N(g)
N(g) --> g
g



Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Read my essay "The Logic of the Modal Argument."


http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-logic-of-modal-argument.html

Anonymous said...

Joe: False. not how it works. Logic can be applied to anything but that does not mean they are true besew they fit rules of logic. They are true because they fit the way things work. You work out laws of physics not now known and do so in a room with paper and pen no references to the world. see what scientists say about that.

I am not sure what you are trying to say.

Again, the laws of physics are empirical; they are modelling the real laws. To say they have no reference to the world is just utter nonsense. They are accepted specifically because they make good predictions about the world.

Pix: You said "Possible is not a necessity thus wizards are possible but since they don't exist they are not existent. They are not impossible." What have I misunderstood? Do you think wizards are possible or not?

Joe: Here go muddling the issues again issues issues again here we go middle the issues again so early in the debate.

I asked you to explain what I have got muddled, and clearly you cannot. Why am I not surprised?

Joe: No law of nature says there is no God or that God can't work miracles Where is that law written?

You think the laws of nature are written down somewhere? If that is your position, you are so detached from reality that it is no wonder we cannot debate this.

This question is whether the laws of nature allow for a necessary God. We do not fully know the laws of nature - we only have models that we know are flawed - so we cannot say one way or the other.

Joe: the idea that God can be concaved with no contradiction? yes I have some so many a thousand times. Show me the contradiction.

It took a while, but there it is. I will remind you of what I said at the start:

Now I fully expect you, Joe, at this point to insist that it is up to me to prove it is not consistent, but that is not the case. This is your argument, you are claiming proof. It is incumbent on you to prove that your point 4. is true, to prove that a necessary God does not contradict the nature of the cosmos.

Turns out it was all an exercise in shifting the burden of proof.

Pix

Anonymous said...

Joe: "Whatever can be conceived without contradiction is not impossible" obviously I meant logical contradiction. I have must say here you understand what I'm saying you are trying to create muddle because you can't answer the argument. That premise is saying that impossibilities stem from logical contradictions. do you disagree?

If that is what you meant, then your claim 3. is nonsense. Magic-wielding wizards do not contradict the laws of logic, and yet they are impossible, because magic is not real. The claim:

Whatever can be conceived without contradiction is not impossible.

... is proven wrong because I have one example of something that contravenes the claim.

Pix

Anonymous said...

Joe: The cosmos is not all that exists. your original point said cosmos. There are other cosmoi so our cosmos is not all that exists. God is not part of the cosmos. You are the one doing the tricks because I clearly said we can God and everything is being. So we can God is part of Being. But we cant say he's par of the cosmos. you are trying to fuck the argumemt. why is it so important to say God is part of the cosmos but not that he's part of being?

So then give me a word that encompasses all including God. Or I will continue to assume that this is just a word game.

Joe: I guess you caught me. using that old trick of saying things right to communicate specific concepts.

No, Joe, I caught you avoiding doing that. Again, give me a word for the collection that includes God, and we can move on. Or keep evading, and let everyone see how you are obliged to play word games to hide the flaws in your logic.

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: False. not how it works. Logic can be applied to anything but that does not mean they are true besew they fit rules of logic. They are true because they fit the way things work. You work out laws of physics not now known and do so in a room with paper and pen no references to the world. see what scientists say about that.

Pix: I am not sure what you are trying to say.

Some things are true and things are false. Got it? Of those things that are true there are two basic reasons for being true. Either they stack up to the way the world really is (empirical truth) or they stack up to logic. Example of empirical truth (stack up to the way things are): All Cats have whiskers. Example of logical truth: A cannot be non A in the same place/time/sense. Get it?



Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Again, the laws of physics are empirical; they are modelling the real laws. To say they have no reference to the world is just utter nonsense. They are accepted specifically because they make good predictions about the world.

Pix: You said "Possible is not a necessity thus wizards are possible but since they don't exist they are not existent. They are not impossible." What have I misunderstood? Do you think wizards are possible or not?

They are not logically impossible. In modern thought (you have told me
this) ,laws if physics are not prescriptive but descriptive. Thus saying wizards violate the laws of physics would be saying laws of physics are prescriptive. If they are then where do these laws come from? That's a side bar. The point is the distinction between possible and necessary, God can't be merely possible.


Joe: Here go muddling the issues again issues issues again here we go middle the issues again so early in the debate.


Pix: I asked you to explain what I have got muddled, and clearly you cannot. Why am I not surprised?

Joe: No law of nature says there is no God or that God can't work miracles Where is that law written?

You think the laws of nature are written down somewhere? If that is your position, you are so detached from reality that it is no wonder we cannot debate this.

Apparently you think they are written down. When I distinguish between logical truth and empirical troth I'm making room for you to say laws are descriptive they are not written down. If you assert wizards are logically impossible then you must accept there are laws of the universe that are registered with a law giver.

This question is whether the laws of nature allow for a necessary God. We do not fully know the laws of nature - we only have models that we know are flawed - so we cannot say one way or the other.

NONONONPNNPNO!!! you have totally misconstrued the issue. It is not up to the laws of nature to make room for God. He created them they do not create him. God makes room for the laws; God is the law maker the laws deo not make God. I was making room for the idea that laws of nature are just descriptions of what nature gets up to. But the materialists side has a problem. Now do you agree laws of physics are only descriptive?

Joe: the idea that God can be conceived with no contradiction? yes I have said so many a thousand times. Show me the contradiction.

It took a while, but there it is. I will remind you of what I said at the start:

Now I fully expect you, Joe, at this point to insist that it is up to me to prove it is not consistent, but that is not the case. This is your argument, you are claiming proof. It is incumbent on you to prove that your point 4. is true, to prove that a necessary God does not contradict the nature of the cosmos.

No I told you already that is not what I was going to say. This argumemt turns of the distinction between necessary and possible it has nothing to do with who has the BOP.

Turns out it was all an exercise in shifting the burden of proof.

Pix

No apparently it's exercise in you refussing to listen


Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

p3 whatever can be conceived without contradiction is not impossible. That does not prove God exists. It proves he is not excluded from existence. The argumemt turns on the idea that either God exists or he is impossible. No middle.


12:19 AM Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: "Whatever can be conceived without contradiction is not impossible" obviously I meant logical contradiction. I have must say here you understand what I'm saying you are trying to create muddle because you can't answer the argument. That premise is saying that impossibilities stem from logical contradictions. do you disagree?

If that is what you meant, then your claim 3. is nonsense. Magic-wielding wizards do not contradict the laws of logic, and yet they are impossible, because magic is not real. The claim:

I already answered that: They are not really impossible. they could exist if the rules of nature were different. If there's no law governing nature in a real sense it's all just descriptive then the description could be different. There could be a universe parallel to ours where they do exist. But there can't be any universe where logical contradictions exist.

Whatever can be conceived without contradiction is not impossible.

... is proven wrong because I have one example of something that contravenes the claim.

No you don't understand the basic terms, so you think you have an example.

12:20 AM Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: The cosmos is not all that exists. your original point said cosmos. There are other cosmoi so our cosmos is not all that exists. God is not part of the cosmos. You are the one doing the tricks because I clearly said we can God and everything is being. So we can God is part of Being. But we cant say he's par of the cosmos. you are trying to fuck the argumemt. why is it so important to say God is part of the cosmos but not that he's part of being?

Px: So then give me a word that encompasses all including God. Or I will continue to assume that this is just a word game.

Being. I just said it: BEING!

Joe: I guess you caught me. using that old trick of saying things right to communicate specific concepts.

No, Joe, I caught you avoiding doing that. Again, give me a word for the collection that includes God, and we can move on. Or keep evading, and let everyone see how you are obliged to play word games to hide the flaws in your logic.

see directly above.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

God cannot be a mere passivity but must be either necessary or impossible.

God is not impossible.

Therefore God is necessary and therefore must exist.

Kristen said...

Pix, I must point out that I already said "being" was the word Joe was using that you wanted, and you thanked me, but then ignored it while continuing to argue with Joe about not giving you a word he had already given you.

Joe, as far as whether the universe is part of God-- I'm sure you will agree that everything we say when we talk about God is analogy anyway. We have to use our own experience to try to describe the indescribable. The universe as "thoughts in God's mind" may be closer, or further away, to the way God understands it to be, than "created out of Godself." How we understand it to be is limited by our finite nature.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

hey Kristen I'm not lining up the heresy trial or collecting wood--yet.
;-)

I agree with you.

Kristen said...

Whew! I'm spared! Lol

Anonymous said...

Joe: Some things are true and things are false. Got it? Of those things that are true there are two basic reasons for being true. Either they stack up to the way the world really is (empirical truth) or they stack up to logic. Example of empirical truth (stack up to the way things are): All Cats have whiskers. Example of logical truth: A cannot be non A in the same place/time/sense. Get it?

Okay, but what is your point?

Joe: They are not logically impossible.

Right. So your claim "Whatever can be conceived without contradiction is not impossible." is shown to be wrong. Magic-wielding wizards can be conceived without contradiction, but they are nevertheless impossible.

Joe: In modern thought (you have told me
this) ,laws if physics are not prescriptive but descriptive. Thus saying wizards violate the laws of physics would be saying laws of physics are prescriptive. If they are then where do these laws come from? That's a side bar. The point is the distinction between possible and necessary, God can't be merely possible.


The laws of physics model the laws of nature - as I keep pointing out. The laws of physics are descriptive. The laws of nature are prescriptive. We do not know where they come from, but they are surely there, because everything follows them.

Magic-wielding wizards are not possible because magic contravenes the laws of nature; that is what we mean by magic. But they can be conceived without contradiction, so your number 3. is wrong.

Joe: Apparently you think they are written down.

No, Joe that was you: "No law of nature says there is no God or that God can't work miracles Where is that law written?"

Joe: When I distinguish between logical truth and empirical troth I'm making room for you to say laws are descriptive they are not written down. If you assert wizards are logically impossible then you must accept there are laws of the universe that are registered with a law giver.

What a load of nonsense you spout!

There are laws that nature observes, but not in the legal sense. There is no cosmic cop who is going to arrest a lump of metal that fails to observed the law of conservation of energy; no judge is going to sentence a comet that fails to adhere to relativity.

The laws of nature are fundamentally different to the laws of man. Hence, there is no reason to suppose they are written down anywhere, or registered anywhere or required a law giver.

Pix

Anonymous said...

Joe: NONONONPNNPNO!!! you have totally misconstrued the issue. It is not up to the laws of nature to make room for God. He created them they do not create him. God makes room for the laws; God is the law maker the laws deo not make God. I was making room for the idea that laws of nature are just descriptions of what nature gets up to. But the materialists side has a problem. Now do you agree laws of physics are only descriptive?

I keep saying the laws of physics model the laws of nature, so yes, the laws of physics are descriptive. The laws of nature, however, are prescriptive.

Joe: No I told you already that is not what I was going to say. This argumemt turns of the distinction between necessary and possible it has nothing to do with who has the BOP.

But you just said: "Show me the contradiction." The burden is on you to show there is no contradiction, not on me to show that there is one!

Joe: I already answered that: They are not really impossible. they could exist if the rules of nature were different.

But they are not different; they are what they are. Magic-wielding wizards are impossible. And that exception refutes your claim 3.

Joe: If there's no law governing nature in a real sense it's all just descriptive then the description could be different. There could be a universe parallel to ours where they do exist. But there can't be any universe where logical contradictions exist.

There is a law governing nature; we know that because nature is regular and consistent.

Joe: No you don't understand the basic terms, so you think you have an example.

Then you need to be clearer about those basic terms. When in your blog post have you defined those terms? You have not. Why not? So you can modify them as the argument proceeds!

Pix

Kristen said...

Pix, you don't think it's possible that there could be a universe in the multiverse where the physical world could be manipulated by the mind or by a spell?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Excellent point Kristen. Modern Philosophers, atheists, academics at places like Cambridge, have forged this idea that given infinite universes everything will come to pass. That has to be in order to beat the Anthropic argument.

Anonymous said...

Joe: Excellent point Kristen. Modern Philosophers, atheists, academics at places like Cambridge, have forged this idea that given infinite universes everything will come to pass. That has to be in order to beat the Anthropic argument.

That is wrong. The idea is that different values of fundamental constants will "defeat" the apparent fine-tuning. I very much doubt any scientist is suggesting that anything is possible.

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...


That is wrong. The idea is that different values of fundamental constants will "defeat" the apparent fine-tuning. I very much doubt any scientist is suggesting that anything is possible.

no this has nothing to do with fT. That argument is BS but has nothing to do with it.

https://iai.tv/articles/infinite-possibilities-infinite-worlds-david-k-lewis-auid-1788

The idea of an infinite number of worlds - each containing all the possibilities presented in our own world - might initially seem bizarre. Certainly David K. Lewis had a hard time convincing his fellow philosophers of his theory. But its application to theories of possibility - and its undeniable similarity to how we already think about time - means that we must make sense of its extraordinary claims, writes Daniel Nolan.



David Lewis (1941-2001) was an influential American philosopher of the second half of the twentieth century. His biggest impact in philosophy has been in the field of metaphysics.

One of his views, above all else, struck many of his fellow philosophers as fantastic and hard to believe. Lewis held that, as well as our concrete universe, there also existed infinitely many variations, cut off from our "world" each in their own space and time. These "possible worlds" were not just variants with our fundamental laws of nature but different parameters, they included every way of reassembling the kinds of objects and properties found in our world, plus endless kinds objects and properties not even dreamt of by our physicists.

Each ordinary object is found in only one such possible world, but similar worlds are filled with similar objects. Other worlds thus contain "counterparts" of each one of us, living out their lives in parallel spacetimes. What happens to those counterparts are all the things that are possible for us: since I could have had an older sister (but do not), I have a counterpart with an older sister. Since I could have lived in a castle of gold casting magical spells (in a very generous sense of "could have"), I have a counterpart in another universe living on a golden mountain casting magical spells.

Lewis convinced relatively few other philosophers, but some took his theory very seriously. Lewis's postulation of "concrete" possible worlds, a theory known as "modal realism", provided a clear and straightforward account of how we talk about possibilities and provided an easily understandable background for a number of important applications.

Our ordinary talk seems engaged in talking about merely possible outcomes as well as about actual ones. For example, when we are choosing between actions, the actions that are not eventually performed are in our set of options alongside the ones we eventually choose. Thinking about the possible circumstances captured or excluded by a sentence or belief is fruitful in everyday life and in philosophising. And possible worlds have been fruitful for modelling all sorts of relationships in the theory of knowledge, in ethics, and in the rest of metaphysics.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

your discussion about laws is a smoke screen. Saying they are differed is irrelevant because it does not change the distinction between necessary and cotangent,

If you say laws are prescriptive you affirm the God argument I just put up.
If that is true then laws imply a law giver.

Anonymous said...

Please do not do the laws need a law giver argument.

It only shows you do not understand what laws are in science. As I said before:

There are laws that nature observes, but not in the legal sense. There is no cosmic cop who is going to arrest a lump of metal that fails to observed the law of conservation of energy; no judge is going to sentence a comet that fails to adhere to relativity.

The laws of nature are fundamentally different to the laws of man. Hence, there is no reason to suppose they are written down anywhere, or registered anywhere or required a law giver.

Pix

Cuttlebones said...

Blogger Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...
Necessity doesn't mean has to exist.

Then goes on to say 6. If God is necessary, then God exists.

Conceptually God would not be contingent so, if not impossible, he would be necessary.
Fair enough.
How do we get from there to God exists?
Am I confusing necessity and necessary?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

CB says: Blogger Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...
Necessity doesn't mean has to exist.

Then goes on to say 6. If God is necessary, then God exists.

Conceptually God would not be contingent so, if not impossible, he would be necessary.
Fair enough.
How do we get from there to God exists?
Am I confusing necessity and necessary?


"X exists" is not the official definition of necessity, But it is a consequence of it given the other factors, that it is not impossible and no cotangent.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Definition necessary: "a modal property of a true proposition whereby it is not possible for the proposition to be false and of a false proposition whereby it is not possible for the proposition to be true."

In philosophy and logic, contingency is the status of propositions that are neither true under every possible valuation (i.e. tautologies) nor false under every possible valuation (i.e. contradictions). A contingent proposition is neither necessarily true nor necessarily false.


https://www.google.com/search?q=In+philosophy+definition+of+Necessity&rlz=1C1JZAP_enUS957US969&oq=In+philosophy+definition+of+Necessity&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i15i22i30j0i390l3.14850j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

The binary opposition to necessary is impossible If God is not impossible then he must exist since he can't be contiingent.

Cuttlebones said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cuttlebones said...

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...
The binary opposition to necessary is impossible If God is not impossible then he must exist since he can't be contingent.

Why must God exist?
It seems to me that this argument is based purely on the internal logic of Modalism.
Were God to exist he would have to be necessary, but being defined within this logic as "necessary" doesn't mean he exists in reality.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

I don't know what you are calling modalism but modal logic is a valid for of logic. Modal logic is not circular. Modal logic refers to the use of modal operators, such as necessary and contingent. It's not Modalism I think that was a third century heresy. The binary term of necessary is impossible. If God is necessary he must exist.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Take the odal argument. God is either necessary or impossible. There is a possibility God does not exist, so it its not circular, But you have to show why God us impossible.

Cuttlebones said...

Blogger Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...
Take the Modal argument. God is either necessary or impossible. There is a possibility God does not exist, so it its not circular, But you have to show why God us impossible.

Yes, sorry I meant Modal logic. As you say, There is a possibility God does not exist. So what is the point of this argument? Are you saying the only way for God not to exist is to be impossible? Does Modal logic suppose that everything that is possible must exist?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Most things that exist are contingent, but that means their existnece depends upon something else. By definition God does not depend for existence upon anything. God cannot be contingent, He can only be necessary or im-possible.

Most things are contingent. God cannot be contingent or he's not God.

Cuttlebones said...

Blogger Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...
By definition God does not depend for existence upon anything. God cannot be contingent, He can only be necessary or im-possible.

Sure. In this context God would have to be necessary or im-possible. So what? It seems to be purely mental gymnastics. I don't understand why you think this has any value as an argument.