Anselm's Second Ontological Argument

[Paulomycin]

Please point to the question I am not answering.

Post #63.

Nope. Words have meaning we as humans give them and the meaning and usage changes over time. How can that be objective? What objective standard are you referring to?

Truth itself. It's a social contract. Do you think it's fair to give words meaning one way and then re-define them at whim? You're a human. Isn't that license to equivocate? How can I even trust you without a clear, consistent, and objective standard of communication?

Do you mean ultimately objective of just objective?

Just objective. Either the accusation is real or not. I can't be accused of something I am allowed to (merely) subjectively re-interpret at whim. That accusation has to be real, and ultimately backed by absolute truth. Or else you can't honestly accuse me of "dishonesty."

If the goal is to communicate the truth then I can objectively compare statements against reality to see if the statements are true or not.

What "reality?" Atheists have no consistent nor objective standard of ontological reality.

Deductive reasoning only yields certitude if the premises are true.

And that's the dilemma of the atheist, "If I accept that the premises of deductive reasoning are true, then he can prove God. I can't have that, so I can choose to force doubt upon the premises instead. But if I do that, then I'm implicitly rejecting reason."

Atheists claim to value reason. But can they value it under pressure?

What are these truths?

The fundamental laws of logic + Principle of Sufficient Reason (Leibniz).

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Post #63.

You said I was not required to answer any of these. Do you want me to answer these now?

Truth itself. It's a social contract. Do you think it's fair to give words meaning one way and then re-define them at whim? You're a human. Isn't that license to equivocate? How can I even trust you without a clear, consistent, and objective standard of communication?

Again, I never said any of this. All I said was the words do not have objective meaning. I agree that as a society we generally agree on what words mean at any point in time. This is how we can communicate. But words change over time. This is why the KJV is not a good translation to use today. It was good for its time but many words have changed meaning such as unicorn.

Just objective. Either the accusation is real or not. I can't be accused of something I am allowed to (merely) subjectively re-interpret at whim. That accusation has to be real, and ultimately backed by absolute truth. Or else you can't honestly accuse me of "dishonesty."

Again we can know things without absolute certainty. Also, what I meant by dishonest was dishonest arguing tactic. I did not mean you did it intentionally but you did remove part of my quote and respond to only part of it.

What "reality?" Atheists have no consistent nor objective standard of ontological reality.

Can you back up this claim?

And that's the dilemma of the atheist, "If I accept that the premises of deductive reasoning are true, then he can prove God. I can't have that, so I can choose to force doubt upon the premises instead. But if I do that, then I'm implicitly rejecting reason."

Atheists claim to value reason. But can they value it under pressure?

Well then provide a deductive argument for gods existence and show me how the premises are true. Then we can discuss.

The fundamental laws of logic + Principle of Sufficient Reason (Leibniz).

How do these provide good evidence for a gods existence?

 

[Paulomycin]

You said I was not required to answer any of these. Do you want me to answer these now?

You skipped the sentence following that. It's not about what I "want" you to do. It is that you are currently in a position in your life where you can't answer them. It wasn't meant to anger you, or troll you, it was meant for you to check yourself on the big epistemology map, "You are here." Really. Yes. The questions I cited lead to some very brutal realizations that many atheists just aren't prepared to emotionally deal with. I get that.

Again, I never said any of this.

I never said you did. They were questions. I ask 3 straight questions and get, "I never said any of this." That looks incredibly evasive.

All I said was the words do not have objective meaning.

That is a self-refuting argument. Because in order to be consistent, one must necessarily behave as-if the words they chose to communicate really did have objective meaning. If you really believe your words do not have objective meaning, then everything you say is 100% meaningless. Why is it that I appear to value your words more than you do yourself?

I agree that as a society we generally agree on what words mean at any point in time. This is how we can communicate. But words change over time. This is why the KJV is not a good translation to use today. It was good for its time but many words have changed meaning such as unicorn.

1. I'm not a KJV-onlyist. I rarely ever cite the KJV.
2. This is a very vague accusation. "Unicorn" doesn't have any effect on the overall narrative. It's like you're implying that one archaic word would change the gospel itself, which there is no specific case to speak of.

Again we can know things without absolute certainty.

Yes. As a matter of fact, I agree so much with this that I'm being very careful to show the type of knowledge being referred to. In this case, your statement refers to things that are known inductively, instead of deductively. This is a necessary distinction to make. Most of what we know is inductive, but that doesn't mean we cannot know anything outside of induction.

Also, what I meant by dishonest was dishonest arguing tactic. I did not mean you did it intentionally but you did remove part of my quote and respond to only part of it.

I'm addressing the implicit presuppositions you're trying to sneak past the reader. Because if I don't, then you just might assume your presuppositions have been accepted and treated as factual.

Can you back up this claim?

a.) Atheists claim an atheistic reality, an ontology where God does not exist, or is not necessary, aka: "ontological naturalism."

b.) “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” - Christopher Hitchens

c.) Atheists have no evidence to support ontological naturalism (or any other atheist ontology, for that matter).

d.) Therefore, the positive claim of an atheist ontology is dismissed without evidence.

(Protip: There is no evidence to support the atheist claim of reality in any case, because at best you would be arguing in a circle, i.e. you cannot rely on empirical evidence to account for belief in empiricism itself. You cannot rely on nature to account for naturalism itself.)

Well then provide a deductive argument for gods existence and show me how the premises are true. Then we can discuss.

I can, but first you have to consistently value logic or concede that logic is objectively real. And that's the problem. If words such as "logic" have no objective meaning, then we cannot have a fair or rational discussion to begin with. This is the social contract itself. We're trying to make a deal here. You want to buy the horse, but pay as little as possible. I'm selling the horse for a minimum of "objective logic" dollars. I need to see some honest currency before getting into some real horse trading here.

But atheists typically want an escape hatch to bail out of every little thing, and other mixed metaphors. I simply need to know if I can trust you or not.

How do these provide good evidence for a gods existence?

Because they're tautologies; therefore absolute. It's not just "good evidence." It's irrefutable proof on the level of, "If you reject it, then you literally have a flat-earth mentality." Centuries of forced skepticism will do this to a religion. We're playing for keeps here.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

You skipped the sentence following that. It's not about what I "want" you to do. It is that you are currently in a position in your life where you can't answer them. It wasn't meant to anger you, or troll you, it was meant for you to check yourself on the big epistemology map, "You are here." Really. Yes. The questions I cited lead to some very brutal realizations that many atheists just aren't prepared to emotionally deal with. I get that.

So do you want me to answer them or not?

I never said you did. They were questions. I ask 3 straight questions and get, "I never said any of this." That looks incredibly evasive.

Ok, here is what you asked.

Truth itself. It's a social contract. Do you think it's fair to give words meaning one way and then re-define them at whim?

No. I am not advocating this at all.

You're a human. Isn't that license to equivocate?

No, this is why we need to define terms and come to agreement on definitions.

How can I even trust you without a clear, consistent, and objective standard of communication?

Because we can agree on what words mean. You do understand these words I am typing correct? You must because you have been responding to them for a while now.

That is a self-refuting argument. Because in order to be consistent, one must necessarily behave as-if the words they chose to communicate really did have objective meaning. If you really believe your words do not have objective meaning, then everything you say is 100% meaningless. Why is it that I appear to value your words more than you do yourself?

You are stuck in a paradigm that unless we have ultimate objective standard we cannot communicate. This is not the case as is demonstrate everyday by almost everyone. They have objective meaning as in we have all agreed what certain words mean. But all words are ultimately made up and have no objective meaning other than what we have agreed they mean.

1. I'm not a KJV-onlyist. I rarely ever cite the KJV.

I never said you were.

2. This is a very vague accusation. "Unicorn" doesn't have any effect on the overall narrative. It's like you're implying that one archaic word would change the gospel itself, which there is no specific case to speak of.

You have totally missed my point. My point is that the word unicorn 300 years ago meant a one horned animal. Today most people think of a magical horse with one horn. I said nothing about the gospel at all.

Yes. As a matter of fact, I agree so much with this that I'm being very careful to show the type of knowledge being referred to. In this case, your statement refers to things that are known inductively, instead of deductively. This is a necessary distinction to make. Most of what we know is inductive, but that doesn't mean we cannot know anything outside of induction.

deductive arguments are only true if all the premises can be shown to be true. This is all I am saying, nothing more.

I'm addressing the implicit presuppositions you're trying to sneak past the reader. Because if I don't, then you just might assume your presuppositions have been accepted and treated as factual.

a.) Atheists claim an atheistic reality, an ontology where God does not exist, or is not necessary, aka: "ontological naturalism."

So here is a problem. You are lumping all atheists into one definition. Here is the definition of atheist:

a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods

Definition of ATHEIST

Notice no where in this definition does it say atheists say god does not exist (some do, most don't). My position is that if God does exist then we should be able to know such a thing if the god wants us to. I neither claim god does or does not exist. My position is I don't know. I don't believe a god exists. This is different than saying god does not exist.

b.) “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” - Christopher Hitchens

I am not making a claim either way. I do not need any evidence. You claim a god exists. You need to provide the evidence.

c.) Atheists have no evidence to support ontological naturalism (or any other atheist ontology, for that matter).

We don't need to. That is the default position right? If the burden of proof has not been met by theists then naturalism is what is left. I do not claim that naturalism is correct. I have no good evidence that the supernatural exists, until then the default position is naturalism. I am not claiming it is true.

d.) Therefore, the positive claim of an atheist ontology is dismissed without evidence.

(Protip: There is no evidence to support the atheist claim of reality in any case, because at best you would be arguing in a circle, i.e. you cannot rely on empirical evidence to account for belief in empiricism itself. You cannot rely on nature to account for naturalism itself.)

I am not making a positive claim of "atheist ontology". I am not making any claim about gods.

I can, but first you have to consistently value logic or concede that logic is objectively real. And that's the problem. If words such as "logic" have no objective meaning, then we cannot have a fair or rational discussion to begin with. This is the social contract itself. We're trying to make a deal here. You want to buy the horse, but pay as little as possible. I'm selling the horse for a minimum of "objective logic" dollars. I need to see some honest currency before getting into some real horse trading here.

I have stated this many times. I agree that we as a society agree on what words mean. I have actually said those words. But words do not have ultimate objective meanings.

But atheists typically want an escape hatch to bail out of every little thing, and other mixed metaphors. I simply need to know if I can trust you or not.

So are you going to lay out your deductive argument for a gods existence or not?

Because they're tautologies; therefore absolute. It's not just "good evidence." It's irrefutable proof on the level of, "If you reject it, then you literally have a flat-earth mentality." Centuries of forced skepticism will do this to a religion. We're playing for keeps here.

How is "The fundamental laws of logic + Principle of Sufficient Reason (Leibniz)" a tautology? The laws of logic are reliable because they have been shown to be reliable. The Principle of sufficient reason has never been shown to be true.

 

[Paulomycin]

So do you want me to answer them or not?

I literally said that you can't. That's my point.

Because we can agree on what words mean. You do understand these words I am typing correct? You must because you have been responding to them for a while now.

"We" haven't really gotten into the words that atheists prefer to re-define in order to maintain their atheism. Like faith, for example. <-- Can you at least agree that this word has two definitions?

You are stuck in a paradigm that unless we have ultimate objective standard we cannot communicate.

There are some ultimately objective standards.

This is not the case as is demonstrate everyday by almost everyone. They have objective meaning as in we have all agreed what certain words mean. But all words are ultimately made up and have no objective meaning other than what we have agreed they mean.

This isn't everyday speech we're dealing with here. This is similar to the stuff you have to deal with say, in court. . .or on an medical record with your name on it. Words matter sometimes. You can't dismiss these events in your life as having "no objective meaning," because those words are suddenly very real.

You have totally missed my point. My point is that the word unicorn 300 years ago meant a one horned animal. Today most people think of a magical horse with one horn. I said nothing about the gospel at all.

But it is often used as an excuse to throw out the baby with the bathwater, isn't it.

deductive arguments are only true if all the premises can be shown to be true. This is all I am saying, nothing more.

So you doubt the laws of logic (tautologies)?

a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods

For no reason? <-- My point.

My position is I don't know.

For no reason?

I don't believe a god exists.

For no reason.

I am not making a claim either way. I do not need any evidence. You claim a god exists. You need to provide the evidence.

And by "evidence," you mean empirical evidence. Correct? The problem is that "God" is not an empirical claim.

We don't need to. That is the default position right?

So you never even questioned why it's the "default position."

If the burden of proof has not been met by theists then naturalism is what is left.

Without evidence. Therefore, you believe in a merely assumed "default position" without evidence, that's arbitrarily labeled "the default position." There's a lot of history behind that assumption, you know.

I do not claim that naturalism is correct. I have no good evidence that the supernatural exists, until then the default position is naturalism. I am not claiming it is true.

- Claiming something is "the default" is itself a truth claim.

- Nature is dependent on math/logic. Logic is math-based. All measurable testable evidence is math/logic-dependent. Math is not empirically testable. Math is unfalsifiable. Therefore, math is rationally supernatural. <-- There's your "good evidence." It's undeniable. All anyone can do is hate the facts.

I am not making a positive claim of "atheist ontology". I am not making any claim about gods.

You clearly stated "default position," which is a claim in-itself. Please don't try to sneak it in.

So are you going to lay out your deductive argument for a gods existence or not?

You're still insisting that words have no objective meaning, so you've already framed the narrative to reject any words that I use from here on out. The game is fixed before I even make a deductive argument.

How is "The fundamental laws of logic + Principle of Sufficient Reason (Leibniz)" a tautology?

Because if anyone doubts them, then they're either a misologist, an absurdist, or insane. You have to accept logic in-order to at least appear reasonable.[/quote]

The Principle of sufficient reason has never been shown to be true.

Then you reject reason. We can't go any further. Because on the one hand, you're asking if I'm going to present a deductive argument, while at the same time already presuppositionally prepared and pre-determined to reject it out of hand.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I literally said that you can't. That's my point.

No, this is what you literally said:

^ These are not meant to "get you." They are just very real questions that I don't believe you've ever taken time to seriously consider, and you are not required to answer any of these. I'd strongly suggest doing yourself a favor, walking away, and not debating any further. Metaphorically speaking, Br'er Rabbit has already punched way too deep into the proverbial tar baby by now.

You said I am not required to answer these, you even underlined the sentence.

"We" haven't really gotten into the words that atheists prefer to re-define in order to maintain their atheism. Like faith, for example. <-- Can you at least agree that this word has two definitions?

Yes.

There are some ultimately objective standards.

Like what?

So you doubt the laws of logic (tautologies)?

No, I said the laws of logic are reliable because they have been demonstrated to be reliable.

For no reason? <-- My point.

For no reason?

For no reason.

I have stated here many times to you that I am not convinced by the evidence that god exists. That is my reason for not believing. For any claim there are two realities. It is either true or not true. For any claim there are three positions, to believe it is true, to believe it is not true or to not be convinced by either claim. The reason for the "I don't know" position is because neither claim is supported by convincing evidence to you.

And by "evidence," you mean empirical evidence. Correct? The problem is that "God" is not an empirical claim.

No, evidence that convinces does not need to be empirical.

Without evidence. Therefore, you believe in a merely assumed "default position" without evidence, that's arbitrarily labeled "the default position." There's a lot of history behind that assumption, you know.

What is another position I should have then? If I don't believe God exists?

- Claiming something is "the default" is itself a truth claim.

Sure, what other options are there. Either God exists or he does not exist. These are the only two options. If I don't believe god exists then I kind of default to naturalism right? I am willing to have my mind changed here.

- Nature is dependent on math/logic. Logic is math-based. All measurable testable evidence is math/logic-dependent. Math is not empirically testable. Math is unfalsifiable. Therefore, math is rationally supernatural. <-- There's your "good evidence." It's undeniable. All anyone can do is hate the facts.

Your first statement must be demonstrated and not just asserted. Can you show nature is dependent on math? Math describes the nature of the universe it does not control that nature, just like physics or thermodynamics. Math is a language of sorts to communicate abstract concepts to each other.

You're still insisting that words have no objective meaning, so you've already framed the narrative to reject any words that I use from here on out. The game is fixed before I even make a deductive argument.

No, You keep confusing objective and ultimately objective. There is not reason that the word car should be defined to mean what it does. We generally agree as a society to what the word car refers to. That can be objective in that context.

Because if anyone doubts them, then they're either a misologist, an absurdist, or insane. You have to accept logic in-order to at least appear reasonable.

I do accept logic as I have already stated because it has been shown to be true, I do not accept the principle of sufficient reason as an assertion, I need more evidence, I am not saying it is not true. But even if it was true it does not give sufficient reason to believe a god exists.

Then you reject reason. We can't go any further. Because on the one hand, you're asking if I'm going to present a deductive argument, while at the same time already presuppositionally prepared and pre-determined to reject it out of hand.

Nope, I have stated above I accept words as objective (not ultimately objective) and logic as reasonable. So how am I predisposed to dismiss it offhand? You keep asserting things I believe that I do not and have not said in this conversation. You seem to want to direct the conversation to areas you are comfortable with and ignore other things I have said.

I would like for you to give your deductive reason for gods existence. I will even grant that the principle of sufficient reason is true. If you choose not to please do not blame me.

 

[Paulomycin]

You said I am not required to answer these, you even underlined the sentence.

Because. . .you can't. Are we clear now? You're even proving it through your constant stalling. Pick a lane already.

Like what?

Deductive logic has force. This is usually felt when you experience cognitive dissonance.

No, I said the laws of logic are reliable because they have been demonstrated to be reliable.

It's an objective demonstration, because those laws are not inductively measured or valued as such. The demonstrations are not merely reliable, but absolutely reliable.

I have stated here many times to you that I am not convinced by the evidence that god exists.

This isn't about your will. Flat-earthers are "not convinced" that a round earth exists. It's nobody's job to convince them of what is so patently proven that all they're doing is throwing forced ignorance upon it at every opportunity.

Evidence is objective. Persuasion is subjective. The boundaries are clear.

That is my reason for not believing.

Force of Will ≠ Force of Reason

No, evidence that convinces does not need to be empirical.

So you're being deliberately vague.

What is another position I should have then? If I don't believe God exists?

What one merely believes or merely doesn't believe never matters at all. Only justification matters.

Sure, what other options are there. Either God exists or he does not exist. These are the only two options. If I don't believe god exists then I kind of default to naturalism right? I am willing to have my mind changed here.

The problem is your selective skepticism. You never questioned naturalism. "But what other option do I have?" There's no excuse not to question literally everything.

And no, you're not willing to have your mind changed at all, because you just demanded "convincing" evidence. That's how the scam works. "Convincing" means that you demand that I provide something that forces itself through your will. It's such a fun game, isn't it? It's like the old TV show, "Make Me Laugh," and atheists try to be Frank Zappa. Anyone with enough willpower can gainsay anything that exists. Atheists have no objective moral absolute that says they can't lie.

Your first statement must be demonstrated and not just asserted. Can you show nature is dependent on math?

^ This question has just placed doubt upon all measurable testable evidence. See, this is proof that there really is no length you won't go to retain total incredulity.

Math describes the nature of the universe it does not control that nature, just like physics or thermodynamics. Math is a language of sorts to communicate abstract concepts to each other.

Awesome. You just claimed math is not prescriptive. Now, if you really believe that, then build a bridge out of it and drive your car across it.

No, You keep confusing objective and ultimately objective. There is not reason that the word car should be defined to mean what it does. We generally agree as a society to what the word car refers to. That can be objective in that context.

But atheists are inconsistent about it. "There is no reason. . ." except when they need to reason. And then, whenever they can take advantage of it, they sabotage language for everyone else.

I do accept logic as I have already stated because it has been shown to be true, I do not accept the principle of sufficient reason as an assertion, I need more evidence, I am not saying it is not true. But even if it was true it does not give sufficient reason to believe a god exists.

Then you are literally saying that you need "more evidence" that you yourself are a reasoning being. <-- That, or you're pushing a double-standard.

So how am I predisposed to dismiss it offhand?

Because you can infinitely move the goalpost and claim "it's not convincing enough."

I would like for you to give your deductive reason for gods existence. I will even grant that the principle of sufficient reason is true. If you choose not to please do not blame me.

No problem. Here goes. . .

P → Q, P infers Q

or

p→q
p
∴ q

p = universal logic *
q = universal logician

Modus ponens is a basic first-order inference in propositional calculus (logic).

* Literally "of the universe."

^ See, it's extraordinary evidence due to its extraordinary parsimony. Extraordinary evidence that's also compatible with Occam's Razor.

Axioms of logic cannot be dismissed. I put an axiom inside a modus ponens.

Meaning you only have two options.

1. Accept it for the proof it is.

2. Reject logic.

That's how the logic trap works.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

No problem. Here goes. . .

P → Q, P infers Q

or

p→q
p
∴ q

p = universal logic *
q = universal logician

Modus ponens is a basic first-order inference in propositional calculus (logic).

* Literally "of the universe."

^ See, it's extraordinary evidence due to its extraordinary parsimony. Extraordinary evidence that's also compatible with Occam's Razor.

Axioms of logic cannot be dismissed. I put an axiom inside a modus ponens.

How have you ruled out other inferences? If universal logic infers a logician (what is your definition of logician) how have you ruled out other causes? How can you even know what other causes could be? Your premise is flawed. I think you have affirmed the consequent which is a fallacy.

Meaning you only have two options.

1. Accept it for the proof it is.

2. Reject logic.

That's how the logic trap works.

Nope, see above.

If you think this proves a god exists, then go get a Nobel prize. Convince more than me, just some guy on the internet. The world has been waiting for proof for a long time.

 

[Paulomycin]

How have you ruled out other inferences?

Modus ponens doesn't require any. Moreover, none are proposed. You cannot force an empty set for "other inferences" if you don't have any to speak of. There is no "set in stone" rule that says I have to, either. PSR doesn't require speculative hand-waving "other inferences" either.

I think you have affirmed the consequent which is a fallacy.

Prove it. How is modus ponens affirming the consequent?

If you think this proves a god exists, then go get a Nobel prize.

No. Alfred Nobel was very late to the party. Our secular public schooling simply led us to assume that nobody proved God. The truth is that proof of God has existed for 700+ years, and no one ever disproved it. It's old news. So old in fact, that society in general simply forgot about it. I posted a thread on this, which made atheists very uncomfortable, but no objective refutation of any of the classical arguments was given.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Modus ponens doesn't require any. Moreover, none are proposed. You cannot force an empty set for "other inferences" if you don't have any to speak of. There is no "set in stone" rule that says I have to, either. PSR doesn't require speculative hand-waving "other inferences" either.

I am not speculating. Your premise does not follow. What you are saying is

If Universal Logic implies a Logician and universal logic is true then the Logician is true (or exists). Notice the form is If P implies Q. This is where I have a problem. P can imply Q but it doesn't have to imply Q. It can imply other things as well. How do you justify that P implies Q or Universal Logic implies a Logician while ruling out other possibilities?

Here is what I think you are doing as another example:

1. My car is either red or green.
2. If my car is either red or green and my car is not red, my car must be green.
3. Therefore, if my car is not red my car must be green.

This is logically sound but true only if premise one is true. If my car is yellow then it leads to a false conclusion. The problem is the first premise. What is the justification for my car being red or green? What is your justification for a logician must be the cause of logic over other causes? You are just defining a logician into existence with no justification for it. Just like I defined my car to be green without justification. Your argument follows logically but your premise has not been substantiated.

Prove it. How is modus ponens affirming the consequent?

So I went back to review affirming the consequent. I do not believe you have done this. Although it is a common mistake in modus ponens.

No. Alfred Nobel was very late to the party. Our secular public schooling simply led us to assume that nobody proved God. The truth is that proof of God has existed for 700+ years, and no one ever disproved it. It's old news. So old in fact, that society in general simply forgot about it. I posted a thread on this, which made atheists very uncomfortable, but no objective refutation of any of the classical arguments was given.

Well it does not make me uncomfortable for reasons I stated above. Arguments can be logically true but lead to false conclusions.

In the end, if you did prove god here then now what? How does proving a logician affect me in any way? What god is it and how do we know that, and does it want anything from me?

 

[Paulomycin]

If Universal Logic implies a Logician and universal logic is true then the Logician is true (or exists). Notice the form is If P implies Q. This is where I have a problem. P can imply Q but it doesn't have to imply Q.

In modus ponens it does.

It can imply other things as well.

Not in modus ponens.

How do you justify that P implies Q or Universal Logic implies a Logician while ruling out other possibilities?

- Modus ponens doesn't allow you to create additional (ambiguous) variables at whim.
- This is a deductive framework that doesn't allow for inductive possibilities.
- I don't have to "justify" anything. Modus ponens does it, because the premises are true. Therefore the argument is sound.

Here is what I think you are doing as another example:

But I'm really not, because your example is in the form of a traditional syllogism. Modus ponens is not a traditional 3-statement syllogistic structure.

Well it does not make me uncomfortable for reasons I stated above. Arguments can be logically true but lead to false conclusions.

Really wanting the conclusion to be false doesn't necessarily make it false. Please check your next response for confirmation bias.

In the end, if you did prove god here then now what?

Then atheism is falsified. The proof is extraordinary due to its extraordinary parsimony. If "universal logician," then omnipotent by default. <-- Because this logician is not contingent to the "omni" of our origin. God was "hiding in plan sight" all along.

How does proving a logician affect me in any way?

If you can work through and then overcome the cognitive dissonance (which for many can be very stressful), then it becomes a paradigm shift on your entire perspective. It's a change from the atheist worldview to something else entirely. Much more potential. Much more hopeful.

What god is it and how do we know that, and does it want anything from me?

I can answer that, but my next statement is very easy to overreact to, okay? You've earned my respect. You've been very open-minded, and I commend your tenacity. Thank you. I admit I'm not easy to tolerate. But the few atheists who even get to this point don't even consider this next statement fully. So please, give me just a little more patience, and please read it carefully:

The apostle Paul says in the book of Romans that God's existence, eternal being, power, and Godhead are so clearly understood by the things that are made from nature, that they are without excuse. <-- Nature. Not the Bible! This means the apostle is pointing outside of the Bible to nature and nature's laws thereof. What that means is this God was equal to the God of Deism, or "General Revelation," prior to giving "Special Revelation" of Himself.

Now please, stay with me here. . .a purely Deistic Concept Who created the universe is more likely to interact with it further than to walk away from it for no reason. Omnipotence means omnipresence, which means imminence. <-- Literally, The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. It is literally before you. Yes, you personally.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

The argument for God as a necessary being can be put formally:

1. God is defined as a maximally great or Perfect Being.

2. The existence of a Perfect Being is either impossible or necessary (since it cannot be contingent).

3. The concept of a Perfect Being is not impossible, since it is neither nonsensical nor self-contradictory.

4. Therefore (a) a Perfect Being is necessary.

5. Therefore (b) a Perfect Being exists.

I'm conceiving of a being that does not necessitate the invention and practice of apologetics to prove its existence.

There. I just conceived of a being greater than God.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

The apostle Paul says in the book of Romans that God's existence, eternal being, power, and Godhead are so clearly understood by the things that are made from nature, that they are without excuse.

I am aware of at least one person for whom that claim is false - me. Any atheist can prove this to themselves using the same intrapersonal means, as each individual person is the only authority on the content of their own thoughts.

So the best case scenario for you is that you are misreading Romans 1. The worst case is that you're reading it correctly, and the Bible itself is wrong. I happen to think it's the latter.

 

[Amoranemix]

You forgot to answer my question.
A problem is that nonsensical was not defined. It seems to be a matter of opinion. A non-contingent unicorn could be qualified as non-sensical as its existence does not depend on anything else and yet it does not exist.
In that case, in order to know whether an MGB is nonsensical, one would have to establish whether one exists. If one does, then one can conclude it is possible for one to exist and then the conclusion of Anselm's argument would be true. So a prerequite for proving the
possibility of God's existence is to demonstrate the existence of an MGB. So far no one has been able to do that.

Sorry.
I think "non-contingent unicorn" is probably self contradictory?
Since all finite objects are contingent and a unicorn is a finite object?

What is contradictory about a non-contingent unicorn ? Well, the idea of a unicorn is sufficiently well defined to presume its contingence. Hence the non-contingent version would be inconsistent. However, we cannot say for sure, so a non-contingent unicorn might be necessary and thus exist.
However, we don't know enough about an MGB to establish whether it is contingent. It could be and if it is it would be both contingent and non-contingent and thus inconsistent and therefore impossible.
Hence, the fans of the argument should demonstrate that an MGB is consistent, otherwise the argument is not sound.

Well those examples whatever they are would have to be the opposite of contingent things. Contingent things are things which are dependent for their existence on other things. So by its definition a MGB would have to be the opposite of contingent.
I actually don't think there are any examples of that kind of non-contingent thing except a MGB. I.e. something which was dependent only upon itself for its own existence.

Aha. So we have a good reason to believe an MGB is contingent : any being or object we know of is contingent and lack good reason to believe an MGB is an exception. So we have a good reason to believe an MGB is impossible.
You failed to mention what kind of necessity an MGB is supposed to be.

An eternal anything is non-contingent. That thing need not have omnipotence, omniscience, omni-benevolence or even a mind.

Indeed. I suspect there are plenty of eternal things that don't exist. Defining those things as non-contingent would make them impossible.

So far no one has been able to demonstrate a maximally great being (MGB) is rationally cogent.

The point was that clear and consistent definitions must necessarily be made before demonstration.

It is up to the proponents of Anselm's second ontological argument to provide those definitions, not its critics.

2. A rational proposition is possible, but not probable without some demonstration of it (proof or evidence).

Can you prove that ?

Been proven for over 700 years, actually. I don't have to re-invent the wheel. Just because we were raised in mostly secular schools doesn't mean that proof never existed to begin with. It's a gross assumption that we tend to make as Westerners.

Great. Then you should have no difficulty providing such proof. Go ahead.

It would be too easy too make one's argument sound by declaring premises one can't prove axiomatic. Otherwise, one could prove anything.

No one declares the basic Aristotelian laws of thought and other axioms of logic "axioms" arbitrariliy (such as Leibniz's PSR).[1] The point at which doubt becomes irrational is proof that this handful of logical axioms are true.[2]

[1] So? I have not claimed otherwise.
[2] What are you talking about ?
You appear to be suggesting that '2. A rational proposition is possible, but not probable without some demonstration of it (proof or evidence).' is
A. an Aristotelian axiom and that
B. Aristotelian axioms are true.
It should however been clear to you that I did not know that and I still don't.

That would be merely epistemic possibility, meaning : “It is possible, as far as I know”. However, Anselm's argument is invalid with epistemic (im)possibility.

How? By magically declaring it so? By pretending you know something the rest of us don't and hiding it? Please show your work.

I'll try to reformulate the argument with epistemic possibility :

1. God is defined as a Maximally Great Being or MGB.
2. The existence of an MGB is either impossible or necessary (since it cannot be contingent).
3. The concept of an MGB is not impossible, since it is neither nonsensical nor self-contradictory.
4. Therefore (a) an MGB is necessary.
5. Therefore (b) an MGB exists.

In (2) impossible means that an unspecified mind or set of minds, perhaps the one making the argument, knows of no reason as to why it would be impossible. (2) relies on the principle that if someone is ignorant enough about a non-contingent thing X, it follows that X is necessary. That principle is false, as the necessity of X does not depend on someone's knowledge about it.

Science is in the business of modelling reality and demonstrating or refuting statements, not in demonstrating substantives.

And yet, ironically, science cannot demonstrate the reality claim of ontological naturalism.[3]
Science is limited to empirical substance (either directly or indirectly). Math and logic are in the business of modelling reality and demonstrating or refuting statements. Science depends upon what is measurable. Science cannot demonstrate measurement itself. This is such a mind-blowing revelation that it contradicts all secular dogma. The general atheist reaction to it is usually some form of cognitive dissonance. They usually can't even deal with the topic for more than 5 minutes.[4]
^ These details cannot be blithely dismissed.[5] Attempts at ad hoc facile rationalization won't cut it either.

[3] Maybe. So what ?
[4] So science has limitations and atheists are in general imperfect. Relevance ?
[5] I dismiss them as off topic.

These claims can however be disputed, therefore they are not facts.

Who taught you that?[6]
- Your statement is self-refuting, because I can simply apply the same principle to your statement. If your claim can be disputed, then it's not a fact either. But if it doesn't apply to your claim, then it doesn't necessarily apply to other claims either.[7]
- Just because something can be disputed doesn't make the disputation itself valid or sound.[8]
- A mere claim of disputation without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.[9]
- Pretending they can be disputed without actual objective disputation does't somehow magically make them "non-facts."[10]
- Subjective doubt alone never does anything substantial.

[6] It was someone correcting George W. Bush.
[7] You are mistaken, for I did not call my claim a fact. You called your criticisms facts.
[8] Agreed. Fact is a grey term as it not clear how indisputable something has to be. Branding something a fact does place on it a high standard of support though. You have not provided any support. However, I don't think you should since it appears off topic.
[9] Anything can be dismissed without evidence, including your 'facts'.
[10] That seems to be merely a rephrasing of your previous points.

That science and empiricism have limitations (just like everything else) seems to be off topic, as most of the discussion since post 54.

It's not off-topic, because it curbs the general urge among secularists to elevate science as-if it were a prescriptive dogma that applies to every-single category of reality.

When explaining how something is relevant, you are supposed to explain a relation to the topic, not to something else that is also off topic.

That is a definition more than a claim.

If so, then Clizby is trying to define it into existence.

How so ?
Is the existence of science disputed ?

Circular reasoning is not necessarily fallacious.

It always is when theists do it.[11] I'm just asking for a little intellectual consistency here.[12]

[11] I am confident there are exceptions.
[12] You got it.

You are too harsh.

I don't see you helping.

I don't see you helping either.

Returning back to the topic. For the argument to provide rational warrant for the belief in an MGB, rational warrant for the belief in the possibility of an MGB must exist.

Except for rationality (reason) itself.[13] Logic is math-based. Every argument for the existence of God for the past 700+ years can be more or less boiled down to logical notation. Deductive logic is bivalent algebra.
So no "trickery" necessary.[14] "Word games" and "trickery" is just a sign that one fails to recognize the implicit math within a given argument.[15]

[13] Stop talking in riddles, please. To which of what I have claimed is rationality supposed to be an exception ?
[14] I don't see how that is supposed to follow from what you have previously stated, which also seems off topic, but I agree trickery is contingent, just like any know behaviour or thing.
[15] Indeed. If they understood the intricacies of the argument, they would know it to be trickery, which would not be conducive to God-belief.

I don’t know about having a mind but various perfections can be attributed to an eternal thing if we are prepared to concede that eternity in this sense is somehow a more perfect or fuller or more complete order of being than one that is contingent. Ie pure actuality means absolute perfection as opposed to something that is in potentiality to at least some degree. Eg existing in matter.

So whether something is a perfection is a matter of opinion. So what is an MGB is a matter of opinion. That makes an MGB contingent. So it is contingent and non-contingent. So an MGB is impossible.

I'd be interested to see someone make a deductive connection between being eternal and having a mind.

We have, but you just gainsay it to death.

Not in this thread.

The first part of Aquinas’ Summa is pretty limited in terms of what we can deduce about God. Ie if we concede that there is a non-contingent thing the items we can deduce about it are fundamental but limited. Ie simplicity, unity, goodness, infinity etc.

How can we deduce all that ?

Look, most of what we're experiencing cannot be known with 100% certainty, because it's inductively reasoned. Okay? But the logic that the classical arguments for God utilize is deductive, meaning that it is in-fact based on 100% certainty. Only deduction yields certitude.[16]

Some absolute truths exist and can be demonstrated. And it's on that handful of certainty that we can further demonstrate the existence of an omnipotent being from nature and nature's laws thereof.[17]

[16] Deduction yields certainty only if the premises are certain (which is not the same as true).
[17] That would explain why we have never done that.

What "reality?" Atheists have no consistent nor objective standard of ontological reality.

Do Christians have a consistent or objective standard of ontological reality ?

Deductive reasoning only yields certitude if the premises are true.

And that's the dilemma of the atheist, "If I accept that the premises of deductive reasoning are true, then he can prove God. I can't have that, so I can choose to force doubt upon the premises instead. But if I do that, then I'm implicitly rejecting reason."[18]
Atheists claim to value reason. But can they value it under pressure?[19]

[18]You are committing a combination of fallacies :

1. The hasty generalization : that some atheists dismiss premises for wrong reasons, does not imply all do.
2. The appeal to motive : that premises are rejected for dubious motives does not support those premises.
3. The straw man : Clizby WampusCat does not reject the premises for that reason. (If he does, then this fallacy does not apply.)

Know that rejecting a premise based on a conclusion is not necessarily fallacious. Even mathematicians do that sometimes.
[19] That would depend on the atheist and on the pressure.

You skipped the sentence following that. It's not about what I "want" you to do. It is that you are currently in a position in your life where you can't answer them. It wasn't meant to anger you, or troll you, it was meant for you to check yourself on the big epistemology map, "You are here." Really. Yes. The questions I cited lead to some very brutal realizations that many atheists just aren't prepared to emotionally deal with. I get that.

I doubt that is the problem. More likely is that most atheists are too lazy to deal with those questions.

All I said was the words do not have objective meaning.

That is a self-refuting argument. Because in order to be consistent, one must necessarily behave as-if the words they chose to communicate really did have objective meaning. If you really believe your words do not have objective meaning, then everything you say is 100% meaningless. Why is it that I appear to value your words more than you do yourself?

Objectivity and subjectivity come in ways and degrees. To what extent and what way 'something' is objective depends on what it is referring to. Varying that, it can be both objective and subjective.

How do these [the fundamental laws of logic + Principle of Sufficient Reason] provide good evidence for a gods existence?

Because they're tautologies; therefore absolute. It's not just "good evidence." It's irrefutable proof on the level of, "If you reject it, then you literally have a flat-earth mentality." Centuries of forced skepticism will do this to a religion. We're playing for keeps here.

I don't see how that is supposed to follow, but that also seems off topic. I suggest you start a thread, where you present your case.

Because we can agree on what words mean. You do understand these words I am typing correct? You must because you have been responding to them for a while now.

"We" haven't really gotten into the words that atheists prefer to re-define in order to maintain their atheism. Like faith, for example. <-- Can you at least agree that this word has two definitions?

We haven't gotten into that because that would have been off topic. We haven't gotten into how Christians prefer to redefine words in order to maintain their faith, because they have barely tried defending the argument of the OP.

If the burden of proof has not been met by theists then naturalism is what is left.

Without evidence. Therefore, you believe in a merely assumed "default position" without evidence, that's arbitrarily labeled "the default position." There's a lot of history behind that assumption, you know.

This is again off topic, but that is the only kind of stuff being discussed here.
Obviously there is evidence for naturalism.

- Claiming something is "the default" is itself a truth claim.

Sure, what other options are there. Either God exists or he does not exist. These are the only two options. If I don't believe god exists then I kind of default to naturalism right? I am willing to have my mind changed here.

Given that God is ill-defined, there are in fact many options.

Sure, what other options are there. Either God exists or he does not exist. These are the only two options. If I don't believe god exists then I kind of default to naturalism right? I am willing to have my mind changed here.

The problem is your selective skepticism. You never questioned naturalism.[22] "But what other option do I have?" There's no excuse not to question literally everything.[23]

[23] How do you know Clizby WampusCat never questioned naturalism ?
[23] Yes, there is. Contrary to your god's, humans' time is limited.

Your first statement must be demonstrated and not just asserted. Can you show nature is dependent on math?

^ This question has just placed doubt upon all measurable testable evidence. See, this is proof that there really is no length you won't go to retain total incredulity.

More likely there is confusion. You both probably interpret 'dependent on' differently.

The character limit error is misleading.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

- Modus ponens doesn't allow you to create additional (ambiguous) variables at whim.
- This is a deductive framework that doesn't allow for inductive possibilities.
- I don't have to "justify" anything. Modus ponens does it, because the premises are true. Therefore the argument is sound.

This is my issue which you have not addressed. You have not shown that your premise is true. You have not shown that because there is logic there must be a logician. So you argument fails.

But I'm really not, because your example is in the form of a traditional syllogism. Modus ponens is not a traditional 3-statement syllogistic structure.

Really wanting the conclusion to be false doesn't necessarily make it false. Please check your next response for confirmation bias.

Then atheism is falsified. The proof is extraordinary due to its extraordinary parsimony. If "universal logician," then omnipotent by default. <-- Because this logician is not contingent to the "omni" of our origin. God was "hiding in plan sight" all along.

If you can work through and then overcome the cognitive dissonance (which for many can be very stressful), then it becomes a paradigm shift on your entire perspective. It's a change from the atheist worldview to something else entirely. Much more potential. Much more hopeful.

Please justify your premise. This has nothing to do with me wanting it to be false or any cognitive dissonance.

I can answer that, but my next statement is very easy to overreact to, okay? You've earned my respect. You've been very open-minded, and I commend your tenacity. Thank you. I admit I'm not easy to tolerate. But the few atheists who even get to this point don't even consider this next statement fully. So please, give me just a little more patience, and please read it carefully:

The apostle Paul says in the book of Romans that God's existence, eternal being, power, and Godhead are so clearly understood by the things that are made from nature, that they are without excuse. <-- Nature. Not the Bible! This means the apostle is pointing outside of the Bible to nature and nature's laws thereof. What that means is this God was equal to the God of Deism, or "General Revelation," prior to giving "Special Revelation" of Himself.

Now please, stay with me here. . .a purely Deistic Concept Who created the universe is more likely to interact with it further than to walk away from it for no reason. Omnipotence means omnipresence, which means imminence. <-- Literally, The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. It is literally before you. Yes, you personally.

Really? Your answer is look at nature? This is your problem. The bible points to nature as proof of god but it never gives evidence that is convincing. It just wants you to believe. I believed for many years because of this verse. But eventually realized there is not any convincing evidence that God created everything.

 

[Kylie]

The argument for God as a necessary being can be put formally:

1. God is defined as a maximally great or Perfect Being.

2. The existence of a Perfect Being is either impossible or necessary (since it cannot be contingent).

3. The concept of a Perfect Being is not impossible, since it is neither nonsensical nor self-contradictory.

4. Therefore (a) a Perfect Being is necessary.

5. Therefore (b) a Perfect Being exists.

1. God is defined as a maximally great being.
2. If a being accomplishes a thing, then the accomplishment is greater if the being had to overcome a handicap in order to accomplish it.
3. The greater the handicap, the greater the accomplishment.
4. God, being the greatest possible being, must be faced with the greatest possible handicap.
5. The greatest possible handicap is non-existence.
6. Therefore God does not exist.

 

[Paulomycin]

I am aware of at least one person for whom that claim is false - me. Any atheist can prove this to themselves using the same intrapersonal means, as each individual person is the only authority on the content of their own thoughts.

What, by merely asserting "me!," and then expecting everyone to take your word alone for it? Screaming, "me" isn't proof of anything. Forcing your subjective and incredulous will isn't "counts as" evidence to the contrary.

Where do you even get this so-called "rule" where "each individual person is the only authority on the content of their own thoughts." You're literally implying that no one is ever capable of objective error in their own thought process.

So the best case scenario for you is that you are misreading Romans 1. The worst case is that you're reading it correctly, and the Bible itself is wrong. I happen to think it's the latter.

^ False dilemma. I've just provided other options.

 

[Paulomycin]

[2] What are you talking about ?

I'll just wait for you to catch up.

 

[Paulomycin]

This is my issue which you have not addressed. You have not shown that your premise is true.

That's the trap, though. In-order to make that demand, one must necessarily force doubt upon PSR and universal logic itself. <-- And you are more than welcome to abandon logic. Existentialist atheists do it all the time.

You have not shown that because there is logic there must be a logician. So you argument fails.

No, it means you're trying to saw off the very limb you're sitting on. You're more than welcome to embarrass yourself and assert that logic doesn't need a logician.

Really? Your answer is look at nature? This is your problem. The bible points to nature as proof of god but it never gives evidence that is convincing.

"Convincing" is the flat-earther excuse. Which means it's not much of an excuse to begin with. "Convincing" is an appeal to your persuasive will. The truth is that proof is objective and persuasion is subjective. Sure you can just "nuh-uh" it to death, but that's never a rational argument to the contrary. This isn't about you. It's about the proof you're currently flat-earthing to death.

It just wants you to believe. I believed for many years because of this verse. But eventually realized there is not any convincing evidence that God created everything.

"Nature" includes the laws of nature. It's a package deal.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

What, by merely asserting "me!," and then expecting everyone to take your word alone for it?

Since neither you nor Paul possess magic mind-reading powers, yes, frankly. That's exactly how this works. I tell you "I hold such and such a belief", and absent any means of reading my mind, you take my word for it. Same goes for you when you tell me what it is that you believe. I am in no position to tell you no, you don't actually believe that. It might be nice if we could read each other's minds, but we're stuck with reality

And I don't need to prove it to you. As I already said, all I need to disprove to assertion for myself is to be aware of at least one person for whom it is false. Which I am - me. Any atheist can use this same intrapersonal means prove it to themselves.

Where do you even get this so-called "rule" where "each individual person is the only authority on the content of their own thoughts."

From the fact that neither you nor Paul possess magic mind-reading powers. Nor does anyone.

If this basic, banal fact of reality is inconvenient for your apologetic, I suggest you abandon it and find a new one.

You're literally implying that no one is ever capable of objective error in their own thought process.

Nope. We're not talking about errors in thought process, whereby you can arrive at an incorrect conclusion by some linear process. We're talking about the actual content of my thoughts - what I consciously hold in my head - which I cannot be wrong about. My thoughts are, in fact, inescapable.

Even if it were possible to be "wrong" about the content of my own thoughts, that would be an excuse. Paul says I am "without excuse". So, even bringing it up is irrelevant.

^ False dilemma. I've just provided other options.

You sure tried to, but you failed.

Paul is wrong. As such, scripture cannot be "god-breathed", as he claims in 2 Timothy.

It is extremely unwise to predicate an assertion on information you have no access to, such as, the thought content of another person. In the future, I recommend you abstain from doing it.