tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post891254116401417585..comments2024-03-29T01:14:19.030-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Hartshorne's Modal Argument for God' ExistenceJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-73309543203242924732022-09-29T00:19:45.643-07:002022-09-29T00:19:45.643-07:00Blogger Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...
By defin...Blogger Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...<br />By definition God does not depend for existence upon anything. God cannot be contingent, He can only be necessary or im-possible.<br /><br /><b> 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.</b>Cuttleboneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06022203266007803962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-63012388360354938792022-09-28T22:52:26.628-07:002022-09-28T22:52:26.628-07:00Most things that exist are contingent, but that me...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.<br /><br />Most things are contingent. God cannot be contingent or he's not God.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-57263938941620116082022-09-28T21:32:00.282-07:002022-09-28T21:32:00.282-07:00Blogger Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...
Take the...Blogger Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...<br />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.<br /><br /><b> 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?</b> Cuttleboneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06022203266007803962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-47323123039036294492022-09-28T20:44:03.085-07:002022-09-28T20:44:03.085-07:00Take the odal argument. God is either necessary or...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.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-2759795255976353462022-09-28T20:36:32.928-07:002022-09-28T20:36:32.928-07:00I don't know what you are calling modalism but...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)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-6409212256668374422022-09-26T23:16:10.050-07:002022-09-26T23:16:10.050-07:00Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...
The binary oppos...Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...<br />The binary opposition to necessary is impossible If God is not impossible then he must exist since he can't be contingent.<br /><br /><b> Why must God exist?<br />It seems to me that this argument is based purely on the internal logic of Modalism.<br />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.</b>Cuttleboneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06022203266007803962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-16338463580617745392022-09-26T23:13:56.466-07:002022-09-26T23:13:56.466-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Cuttleboneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06022203266007803962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-30350525927416458602022-09-22T01:06:00.805-07:002022-09-22T01:06:00.805-07:00Definition necessary: "a modal property of a ...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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br />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<br /><br />The binary opposition to necessary is impossible If God is not impossible then he must exist since he can't be contiingent.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-60473989569284065552022-09-22T00:56:06.094-07:002022-09-22T00:56:06.094-07:00CB says: Blogger Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said......CB says: Blogger Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...<br />Necessity doesn't mean has to exist.<br /><br />Then goes on to say 6. If God is necessary, then God exists.<br /><br />Conceptually God would not be contingent so, if not impossible, he would be necessary.<br />Fair enough.<br />How do we get from there to God exists?<br />Am I confusing necessity and necessary?<br /><br /><br /><b>"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.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-45370051120378275142022-09-19T23:47:33.345-07:002022-09-19T23:47:33.345-07:00Blogger Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...
Necessit...Blogger Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...<br />Necessity doesn't mean has to exist.<br /><br />Then goes on to say 6. If God is necessary, then God exists.<br /><br /><b>Conceptually God would not be contingent so, if not impossible, he would be necessary.<br />Fair enough. <br />How do we get from there to God exists?<br />Am I confusing necessity and necessary?<br /> </b>Cuttleboneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06022203266007803962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-64051647950219721552022-09-19T14:28:57.398-07:002022-09-19T14:28:57.398-07:00Please do not do the laws need a law giver argumen...Please do not do the laws need a law giver argument.<br /><br />It only shows you do not understand what laws are in science. As I said before:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />PixAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-49378462314912320912022-09-19T12:01:00.924-07:002022-09-19T12:01:00.924-07:00your discussion about laws is a smoke screen. Sayi...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,<br /><br />If you say laws are prescriptive you affirm the God argument I just put up.<br />If that is true then laws imply a law giver.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-44694519595130037552022-09-19T11:53:02.115-07:002022-09-19T11:53:02.115-07:00That is wrong. The idea is that different values o...<br />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.<br /><br /><b>no this has nothing to do with fT. That argument is BS but has nothing to do with it.</b><br /><br />https://iai.tv/articles/infinite-possibilities-infinite-worlds-david-k-lewis-auid-1788<br /><br />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.<br /><br /> <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-54315796292953989592022-09-19T11:22:57.440-07:002022-09-19T11:22:57.440-07:00Joe: Excellent point Kristen. Modern Philosophers,...Joe: <i>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.</i><br /><br />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 <i>anything</i> is possible.<br /><br />PixAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-80068152810117682382022-09-19T08:55:54.907-07:002022-09-19T08:55:54.907-07:00Excellent point Kristen. Modern Philosophers, athe...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.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-31001112249402455802022-09-19T07:21:10.748-07:002022-09-19T07:21:10.748-07:00Pix, you don't think it's possible that th...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?Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-30551049298875925982022-09-19T00:05:19.496-07:002022-09-19T00:05:19.496-07:00Joe: NONONONPNNPNO!!! you have totally misconstrue...Joe: <i>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><br /><br />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.<br /><br />Joe: <i>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.</i><br /><br />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!<br /><br />Joe: <i>I already answered that: They are not really impossible. they could exist if the rules of nature were different.</i><br /><br />But they are not different; they are what they are. Magic-wielding wizards are impossible. And that exception refutes your claim 3.<br /><br />Joe: <i>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.</i><br /><br />There is a law governing nature; we know that because nature is regular and consistent.<br /><br />Joe: <i>No you don't understand the basic terms, so you think you have an example.</i><br /><br />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!<br /><br />PixAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-79645417368989993892022-09-19T00:04:09.822-07:002022-09-19T00:04:09.822-07:00Joe: Some things are true and things are false. Go...Joe: <i>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?</i><br /><br />Okay, but what is your point?<br /><br />Joe: <i>They are not logically impossible. </i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />Joe: <i>In modern thought (you have told me<br />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.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Joe: <i>Apparently you think they are written down.</i><br /><br />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?"<br /><br />Joe: <i>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.</i><br /><br />What a load of nonsense you spout!<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />PixAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-20489718856528508592022-09-18T18:32:36.501-07:002022-09-18T18:32:36.501-07:00Whew! I'm spared! LolWhew! I'm spared! LolKristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-83200899796417172752022-09-18T16:54:22.887-07:002022-09-18T16:54:22.887-07:00hey Kristen I'm not lining up the heresy trial...hey Kristen I'm not lining up the heresy trial or collecting wood--yet.<br />;-)<br /><br />I agree with you.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-13611030057876681562022-09-18T12:25:18.365-07:002022-09-18T12:25:18.365-07:00Pix, I must point out that I already said "be...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.<br /> <br />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. Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-83217278270428534602022-09-18T07:21:04.001-07:002022-09-18T07:21:04.001-07:00God cannot be a mere passivity but must be either ...God cannot be a mere passivity but must be either necessary or impossible.<br /><br />God is not impossible.<br /><br />Therefore God is necessary and therefore must exist.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-43772585195911877232022-09-18T07:16:54.734-07:002022-09-18T07:16:54.734-07:00p3 whatever can be conceived without contradiction...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.<br /><br /><br />12:19 AM Delete<br />Anonymous Anonymous said...<br />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?<br /><br />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:<br /><br /><b>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.</b><br /><br />Whatever can be conceived without contradiction is not impossible.<br /><br />... is proven wrong because I have one example of something that contravenes the claim.<br /><br /><b>No you don't understand the basic terms, so you think you have an example.</b><br /><br />12:20 AM Delete<br />Anonymous Anonymous said...<br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><b>Being. I just said it: BEING!</b><br /><br />Joe: I guess you caught me. using that old trick of saying things right to communicate specific concepts.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><b>see directly above.</b><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-65333001589346536142022-09-18T06:50:11.597-07:002022-09-18T06:50:11.597-07:00Again, the laws of physics are empirical; they are...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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br /><b>They are not logically impossible. In modern thought (you have told me <br /> 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.</b><br /><br />Joe: Here go muddling the issues again issues issues again here we go middle the issues again so early in the debate.<br /><br /><br />Pix: I asked you to explain what I have got muddled, and clearly you cannot. Why am I not surprised?<br /><br />Joe: No law of nature says there is no God or that God can't work miracles Where is that law written?<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><b>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.</b><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><b>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? </b><br /><br />Joe: the idea that God can be conceived with no contradiction? yes I have said so many a thousand times. Show me the contradiction.<br /><br />It took a while, but there it is. I will remind you of what I said at the start:<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><b>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.</b><br /><br />Turns out it was all an exercise in shifting the burden of proof.<br /><br />Pix<br /><br /><b>No apparently it's exercise in you refussing to listen</b><br /><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-34028442341199876272022-09-18T05:50:52.700-07:002022-09-18T05:50:52.700-07:00Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: False. not how it...Anonymous Anonymous said...<br />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.<br /><br />Pix: I am not sure what you are trying to say.<br /><br /><b>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?</b><br /><br /><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com