Anselm's Second Ontological Argument

[Paulomycin]

A tip for you: Don't get your ideas about atheism from religious propganda.

I'm arguing from 10+ years of personal experience with atheists online and IRL. Proof is objective. Persuasion is subjective.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Because you're not building any literal bridges you can drive a car across.

I'm not a civil engineer, nor do I play one on TV, so you are correct.

So you reject logic.

For the third time, I reject your fake, cartoon version of what logic is.

You have no evidence to support your claim of "reality."

What claim would that be? That logic is a manmade tool for describing reality? Any standard logic textboook on earth says that.

For anyone reading along, here is the text of Copi & Cohen 14th Edition, online for free,

https://dorshon.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Introduction-to-Logic.pdf

This is not a logical claim.

I can see how you would think that, if you are under the impression that the laws of classical, Aristotelean logic act as magic spells that bind reality together, necessitating the existence of an all-encompassing, disembodied mind called Yahweh.

You are welcome to think that, of course. But no one is obligated to provide an account for your apprehension of what logic is. It would be exactly the same if you came to me claiming that illnesses are cured by standing on one foot. I say no, they're cured by antibiotics, rest, rehab etc...and you say "so, you reject medicine then."

You really might as well be a presuppositionalist. I've had this exact conversation with them numerous times.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

The argument for a perfect chess piece as a necessary piece in every chess set can be put formally:

1. An Emporer is defined as a maximally great or Perfect white chess piece.

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

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

4. Therefore (a) a Perfect white chess piece is necessary.

5. Therefore (b) a Perfect white chess piece exists on every chess board.

Ok, let's play chess. What? You say I can have white? Thank you.

I move my emporer. Since the emporer is a maximally great chess piece, it puts your king in check wherever I put it, and there is nothing you can do to stop it. I win.

Checkmate.

A Maximally Great Cookie must necessarily exist both in imagination, and in my mouth.

Funny...I don't taste anything.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

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.

I have told you many times that logic exists and has been demonstrated to be hold true for every circumstance I have encountered or heard of. So I do not reject logic. I reject your premise that logic must have a logician that created it. That has not been demonstrated. What if I proposed this as an argument:

P → Q, P infers Q

or

p→q
p
∴ q

p = natural occurring universal logic *
q = natural cause

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.

Natural occurring Logic Exists

Now I am not asserting this is true but it follows your argument exactly. If I must accept your argument you must accept mine.

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.

Where did I ever assert this? All I have ever said was that you have not provided convincing evidence that a logician exists.

"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.

Sigh. Do you understand that no one chooses their beliefs? If I am provided convincing evidence of something I have no choice but to believe it. I cannot choose to believe that my car is green when it is actually red just because I don't want it to be red.

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

I agree.

 

[Paulomycin]

For the third time, I reject your fake, cartoon version of what logic is.

Is that even a logical statement?

What claim would that be?

You keep throwing around this claim called "reality," but since you're a professing atheist, you're either stealing it from a Westernized Judeo-Christian Ontology, or you're accounting for it some other way. What exactly is this atheistic "reality" you speak of without evidence?

That logic is a manmade tool for describing reality? Any standard logic textboook on earth says that.

So you take it on faith because a book told you so. Wow. You never once bothered questioning the assertion.

I can see how you would think that, if you are under the impression that the laws of classical, Aristotelean logic act as magic spells that bind reality together, necessitating the existence of an all-encompassing, disembodied mind called Yahweh.

Otherwise, you can't justify your existence. As-in "at all." You prove this fact the more you respond.

You are welcome to think that, of course. But no one is obligated to provide an account for your apprehension of what logic is.

Yet you're failing to account for it on your side. At best, all you have is pure question-begging and argument from authority. So can we conclude you're an existential absurdist or something equivalent?

You really might as well be a presuppositionalist. I've had this exact conversation with them numerous times.

Let me explain to you again, I don't presuppose Special Revelation over and above General Revelation. Maybe more than one group is noticing a real problem here that you're just not willing to accept.

 

[Paulomycin]

I have told you many times that logic exists and has been demonstrated to be hold true for every circumstance I have encountered or heard of. So I do not reject logic. I reject your premise that logic must have a logician that created it. That has not been demonstrated.

PSR demonstrates it. It's a PSR inside of a Modus Ponens.

What if I proposed this as an argument:

For one thing, it's circular reasoning.

Now I am not asserting this is true but it follows your argument exactly.

1. Your lack of commitment means I have nothing to worry about.
2. "Logic" and "Logician" are still separate things. That's where PSR comes in.
3. "natural occurring universal logic" cannot account for itself.
4. Nature does not account for logic. Logic is math-based. You're making a simple category error.

^ If you choose to defend this further, you might as well assert that it's true. Your behavior will demonstrate your asserted truth claim.

Where did I ever assert this? All I have ever said was that you have not provided convincing evidence that a logician exists.

You can either admit "convincing" or "evidence," but you can't mash them together as such. Again, evidence is objective. Persuasion is subjective. Please pick a lane.

Sigh. Do you understand that no one chooses their beliefs? If I am provided convincing evidence of something I have no choice but to believe it. I cannot choose to believe that my car is green when it is actually red just because I don't want it to be red.

This is where I always point to flat-earthers. They argue that if they are provided convincing evidence of something, then they have no choice but to believe it. But for them, believers in a "round earth" have not provided convincing evidence that the earth is an oblate spheroid, therefore they don't believe it. Same thing.

You can't provide an alternative strawman argument that you're not even willing to commit to. Modus Ponens and PSR don't magically change on account of your subjective incredulity alone. PSR = "reason requires a reasoner." If you reject this, then I can simply say that you're asserting you're incapable of reason. That's why I'm concluding you reject logic.

I agree.

You sure? Because "laws of nature" must necessarily be both deductive as well as inductive.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

PSR demonstrates it. It's a PSR inside of a Modus Ponens.

So what. You still need to demonstrate your premise.

For one thing, it's circular reasoning.

So is your argument.

1. Your lack of commitment means I have nothing to worry about.
2. "Logic" and "Logician" are still separate things. That's where PSR comes in.
3. "natural occurring universal logic" cannot account for itself.
4. Nature does not account for logic. Logic is math-based. You're making a simple category error.

So? Just because a logician can account for logic does not mean it is so. You must demonstrate that.

^ If you choose to defend this further, you might as well assert that it's true. Your behavior will demonstrate your asserted truth claim.

Please stop telling me what I must do or think. You do this all the time it is not a good arguing tactic.

You can either admit "convincing" or "evidence," but you can't mash them together as such. Again, evidence is objective. Persuasion is subjective. Please pick a lane.

Oh boy. This is another discussion.

This is where I always point to flat-earthers. They argue that if they are provided convincing evidence of something, then they have no choice but to believe it. But for them, believers in a "round earth" have not provided convincing evidence that the earth is an oblate spheroid, therefore they don't believe it. Same thing.

You again are confusing what convinces us with what is true. All of what we believe to be true are based on our evaluation of the evidence. That is subjective. A flat earther thinks the evidence is convince. I don't. That has nothing to do with what is actually true. You assert a logician based on evidence. I am not convinced by that same evidence. Notice we are not determining what is actually true, we are determining what we believe to be true.

You can't provide an alternative strawman argument that you're not even willing to commit to. Modus Ponens and PSR don't magically change on account of your subjective incredulity alone. PSR = "reason requires a reasoner." If you reject this, then I can simply say that you're asserting you're incapable of reason. That's why I'm concluding you reject logic.

I have NEVER NEVER NEVER said a logician does not exist. I do not believe it exists based on the evidence.

You sure? Because "laws of nature" must necessarily be both deductive as well as inductive.

Yeah, I am sure.

 

[Paulomycin]

So what. You still need to demonstrate your premise.

It's demonstrated via a combination of PSR and Modus Ponens.

So is your argument.

No. It goes from logic as a premise ---> to a logician. One direction. From the laws of nature ---> to the legislator.

So? Just because a logician can account for logic does not mean it is so. You must demonstrate that.

You're rejecting PSR and Modus Ponens as that very demonstration, "Because you said so." Again, your will is not evidence to the contrary.

Please stop telling me what I must do or think. You do this all the time it is not a good arguing tactic.

It was based entirely on your statement, "Now I am not asserting this is true. . ." I'm just asking you to be consistent.

Oh boy. This is another discussion.

We having fun yet?

You again are confusing what convinces us with what is true. All of what we believe to be true are based on our evaluation of the evidence. That is subjective.

Yes. Your will is essentially the final say on the evidence. It has nothing to do with the nature of the evidence itself.

A flat earther thinks the evidence is convince. I don't.

^ Typo? A flat-earther thinks the evidence of a round earth is not convincing. Same as your reaction to the evidence of God as "not convincing." You have no objective argument to the contrary. All you're doing is fronting nothing more than pure subjectivity. Same as the flat-earther.

That has nothing to do with what is actually true.

What is actually true is objective; not subjective.

You assert a logician based on evidence.

Based on PSR + MP. You can't evade it. The evidence is completely separate and based on the simulation argument. That's not the proof I presented here. Don't you know the difference between proof vs. evidence?

I have NEVER NEVER NEVER said a logician does not exist. I do not believe it exists based on the evidence.

You have zero evidence to the contrary. You're literally saying you don't believe God exists based on the evidence against God. In which case, you're in an even worse fix because you claim to have "evidence to disprove" God, but you and I know you both can't do it. That's why atheists never claim evidence to the contrary.

Logic is math-based. Therefore, proof. Not mere evidence, but deductively absolute proof.

Yeah, I am sure.

Then I have deductively proven an omnipotent being. Thank me.

 

[Kylie]

I'm arguing from 10+ years of personal experience with atheists online and IRL. Proof is objective. Persuasion is subjective.

Arguing from personal experience is not a good way to get the facts.

 

[Paulomycin]

Arguing from personal experience is not a good way to get the facts.

Agreed. But the fact remains that proof is objective and persuasion is subjective. "Convincing" is not a convincing form of currency. "Convincing" is not acceptable to open a line of credit.

Edit: Show me how you exist outside of the alleged "propaganda profile." Actually specifying the alleged "propaganda" in-particular would be nice too.

 

[Kylie]

Agreed. But the fact remains that proof is objective and persuasion is subjective. "Convincing" is not a convincing form of currency. "Convincing" is not acceptable to open a line of credit.

Edit: Show me how you exist outside of the alleged "propaganda profile." Actually specifying the alleged "propaganda" in-particular would be nice too.

You claim that my belief is about forcing my will against any and all evidence. That simply isn't true. Would you care to demonstrate that I have done so? What you are using is a strawman of atheism.

 

[Paulomycin]

You claim that my belief is about forcing my will against any and all evidence. That simply isn't true. Would you care to demonstrate that I have done so? What you are using is a strawman of atheism.

No-no. It's "convincing" evidence, remember? That's the keyword. Thus, it really is about one's will instead of evidence. Because it's really about evidence you prefer, instead of evidence you don't prefer. You want control. You want to call the shots and dictate what is acceptable evidence vs. what isn't. As an atheist, you get to move the goalposts and then gaslight your opponent. I mean, because why not? Amirite? There's been 700+ years of proof and at least one form of empirical evidence that I've seen. And all I had to do was look. But if I were the incredulous type, and wanted to force my magic "nuh-uh" onto a thing, then I can just make it all disappear! *poof* Because "my will" and my atheism must be maintained by any means necessary.

 

[Kylie]

No-no. It's "convincing" evidence, remember? That's the keyword. Thus, it really is about one's will instead of evidence. Because it's really about evidence you prefer, instead of evidence you don't prefer. You want control. You want to call the shots and dictate what is acceptable evidence vs. what isn't. As an atheist, you get to move the goalposts and then gaslight your opponent. I mean, because why not? Amirite? There's been 700+ years of proof and at least one form of empirical evidence that I've seen. And all I had to do was look. But if I were the incredulous type, and wanted to force my magic "nuh-uh" onto a thing, then I can just make it all disappear! *poof* Because "my will" and my atheism must be maintained by any means necessary.

Convincing doesn't mean true.

Also, you don't seem to have any idea what you are talking about, yet your arrogance in claiming that you understand my belief system better than I do myself is plain for all to see.

 

[Paulomycin]

Convincing doesn't mean true.

Correct. That's my point. Problem?

Also, you don't seem to have any idea what you are talking about, yet your arrogance in claiming that you understand my belief system better than I do myself is plain for all to see.

It'll happen. Just wait. Oh, FYI, it's not a belief system because atheism isn't even a positive claim. There's nothing even remotely systematic about it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I know, logically, it doesn't make sense. But I've not seen any argument that indicates that God would be bound by logic.

I keep wading through these arguments, and I keep seeing you pop this up, and Paulomycin kindly enough not shoving it in your face. I haven't seen where you and Paulo agreed on the meaning of the word, God, so I don't know how to butt in to your argument, but this needs dealt with, in my opinion:

It is really pretty simple. If God is God, i.e. (Omnipotent, First Cause), you are right, he can't be bound by anything. That does not mean he does not operate in accord with his own nature. If something such as logic or math is absolute, at least for any existence we can imagine, then it "came from" God, not "governs" God.

But this does not mean God is therefore 'ungoverned' as we would conceive of the notion --that is, God does not therefore do, for eg, irrational nor impetuous, because they are not only something he has no reason to do, but also because he behaves according to his nature, from where his 'invention' of logic --(indeed his ordering of reality and fact, even to include the fact of existence)-- proceeds.

You may have heard this before, but from what I'm hearing you say about God, if he exists, this should be palatable to you: "God does not do good things because they are good things to do and he is good --no, good is what it is, because God is good." Likewise, truth is what it is because God is truth.

So, God is logical, not because he is bound by it, but because logic is what he does. If you wish to say he is bound by his nature, I can relent, but even that is anthropomorphic to say. He does what he does. How he behaves is comes from within him, not from outside himself.

We might be tempted to say he is subject to the principle of existence, but that is our POV. Existence is what he does. It is defined by him, and not he by it.

 

[Kylie]

Correct. That's my point. Problem?

Not at all. Humans have often been fooled by things which seem convincing yet were wrong. Look how long people believed that a heavy object would fall faster than a light object, for example.

The thing is that we must turn to the evidence. Controlled, scientific evidence. Only that way can we be sure of getting accurate information without our own biases interfering with our conclusions.

It'll happen. Just wait.

There's that arrogance again, claiming you know it better than I do.

Oh, FYI, it's not a belief system because atheism isn't even a positive claim. There's nothing even remotely systematic about it.

I've found that when someone is reduced to quibbling over words, they have no legitimate argument. It happened with you quite quickly.

 

[Kylie]

I keep wading through these arguments, and I keep seeing you pop this up, and Paulomycin kindly enough not shoving it in your face. I haven't seen where you and Paulo agreed on the meaning of the word, God, so I don't know how to butt in to your argument, but this needs dealt with, in my opinion:

It is really pretty simple. If God is God, i.e. (Omnipotent, First Cause), you are right, he can't be bound by anything. That does not mean he does not operate in accord with his own nature. If something such as logic or math is absolute, at least for any existence we can imagine, then it "came from" God, not "governs" God.

But this does not mean God is therefore 'ungoverned' as we would conceive of the notion --that is, God does not therefore do, for eg, irrational nor impetuous, because they are not only something he has no reason to do, but also because he behaves according to his nature, from where his 'invention' of logic --(indeed his ordering of reality and fact, even to include the fact of existence)-- proceeds.

You may have heard this before, but from what I'm hearing you say about God, if he exists, this should be palatable to you: "God does not do good things because they are good things to do and he is good --no, good is what it is, because God is good." Likewise, truth is what it is because God is truth.

So, God is logical, not because he is bound by it, but because logic is what he does. If you wish to say he is bound by his nature, I can relent, but even that is anthropomorphic to say. He does what he does. How he behaves is comes from within him, not from outside himself.

We might be tempted to say he is subject to the principle of existence, but that is our POV. Existence is what he does. It is defined by him, and not he by it.

Then the word "good" becomes meaningless. If God did something that we would consider bad - kicking the dog, for example - then that action automatically becomes good. Thus, good has no clear definition.

I also wonder at how you figure that God is not bound, but he isn't ungoverned. The difference here seems very vague. Could you provide clear definitions for each, specifically how they relate to this discussion?

 

[Paulomycin]

Not at all. Humans have often been fooled by things which seem convincing yet were wrong.

Wow. So not even "convincing evidence" would be good enough for you.

The thing is that we must turn to the evidence. Controlled, scientific evidence. Only that way can we be sure of getting accurate information without our own biases interfering with our conclusions.

Which is also inductively reasoned. <-- But you knew that. . .right? So it's never truly "accurate," but merely an approximation of accuracy at best, and always-always subject to further doubt. That's how science actually works. We have to leave room for new innovation and falsification. At least those are the "rules of science" as they currently stand. Some even doubt there are any rules of science. But I'm sure we'll get into that later.

Also, "God" is not a scientific claim. Nor is He necessarily an empirical claim. Not every claim necessarily has to be a scientific claim either.

Science = only 1 part of reality; not the whole.

And science, while very useful, cannot be the sum-total explanation of reality, due to the greater fact that:

- You cannot scientifically demonstrate logic.
- You cannot scientifically demonstrate math.
- You cannot scientifically demonstrate morals.
- You cannot scientifically demonstrate ethics.
- You cannot scientifically demonstrate metaphysics*
- You cannot scientifically demonstrate aesthetics.
- You cannot scientifically demonstrate science itself.
- You cannot scientifically demonstrate uniformitarianism.

Empiricism itself being very limited:

1. Empiricism cannot resolve Is/Ought dilemma.
2. Empiricism reduces law of causality to a question-begging fallacy.
3. Empiricism cannot be accounted for empirically.
4. Empiricism cannot resolve Problem of Induction.

* Such as the metaphysical claim known as "scientism."

These (brute) facts are irrefutable.

Thus, we need to think outside the box for a change.

There's that arrogance again, claiming you know it better than I do.

Hanlon's Razor: Let's assume you already knew what I just posted right here. If that's so, then you were maliciously omitting key information in-order to deceive me.

HOWEVER. . .

If you were honestly misinformed instead, or maybe "forgot" what you learned a long time ago in college (or weren't paying attention in class, or maybe you simply had bad professors), then at best I just gave you a quick lesson review on the limitations of science. And at the worst, I schooled you. I hope our collective egos can recover.

I've found that when someone is reduced to quibbling over words, they have no legitimate argument. It happened with you quite quickly.

In the end, words are all we have. Your very life can and will depend someday on quibbling over "mere words," whether in a court of law or in an ER. Not only that, but atheists are typically equivocation addicts. So think of this as a loving intervention.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

It's demonstrated via a combination of PSR and Modus Ponens.

I think you are confusing validity and soundness. An argument is valid when: IF all the premises were true the conclusion would have to be true. Soundness has to do with the premises. An argument is sound if it is valid and the premises are true.

Your argument is valid but you have not shown that is is sound. Your premise has not been demonstrated to be true.

No. It goes from logic as a premise ---> to a logician. One direction. From the laws of nature ---> to the legislator.

See above.

You're rejecting PSR and Modus Ponens as that very demonstration, "Because you said so." Again, your will is not evidence to the contrary.

No, I have stated many times that I reject your argument because you cannot show that your premise is true.

Yes. Your will is essentially the final say on the evidence. It has nothing to do with the nature of the evidence itself.

Nope. The nature of the evidence is what will convince me or not. I have a dog. I cannot convince myself trough an act of will that he does not exist. The evidence is overwhelming that he does exist. Your assertion that people can choose what they believe is false. Demonstrate that our premise is true and I will have no choice but to believe.

^ Typo? A flat-earther thinks the evidence of a round earth is not convincing. Same as your reaction to the evidence of God as "not convincing." You have no objective argument to the contrary. All you're doing is fronting nothing more than pure subjectivity. Same as the flat-earther.

No typo. Flat earthers believe the evidence for a flat earth is convincing. I find the evidence for a spherical earth convincing enough for belief, I do not fins the evidence for a flat earth convincing enough for belief. Notice, I have not said whether the earth is actually flat or spherical. Same with a god. I am not convinced by the evidence I have seen so far. I am not saying gods do not exist.

Based on PSR + MP. You can't evade it. The evidence is completely separate and based on the simulation argument. That's not the proof I presented here. Don't you know the difference between proof vs. evidence?

You give no evidence that your premise is true.

You have zero evidence to the contrary. You're literally saying you don't believe God exists based on the evidence against God. In which case, you're in an even worse fix because you claim to have "evidence to disprove" God, but you and I know you both can't do it. That's why atheists never claim evidence to the contrary.

Nope. I am not saying god does not exist. Please don't say that I have. Do you understand the difference between these two statements?

1. I do not believe gods exist.
2. I believe no gods exist.

1. is a lack of belief, it says nothing about if a god actually does or does not exist. 2. is a positive statement that requires convincing evidence.

I want to be clear that I am not saying gods don't exist. I don't believe they do because I have not seen any evidence that convinces me.

Logic is math-based. Therefore, proof. Not mere evidence, but deductively absolute proof.

Again you confuse validity and soundness.

Then I have deductively proven an omnipotent being. Thank me.

Good, then go out and convince the world.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Then the word "good" becomes meaningless. If God did something that we would consider bad - kicking the dog, for example - then that action automatically becomes good. Thus, good has no clear definition.

The meaning of 'good' is no less meaningless if we depend on ourselves for its meaning. Fact does not depend on us. We are students, not masters. Our use of words is child's prattle.

I also wonder at how you figure that God is not bound, but he isn't ungoverned. The difference here seems very vague. Could you provide clear definitions for each, specifically how they relate to this discussion?

You have a point --I wish I knew how to express myself better. But try to understand that God simply behaves according to his own nature. To call that 'governance' is our attempt to describe his reliability or something, and does not do the job to describe anything about him --in fact, to say he is governed, is misleading. If I was to say that he is governed by his nature, you would have logical reason to pick at me about that.

I wish to get a concept across --that God is not subject to our thinking nor terminology. Certainly, even as you have said, he is not bound by external causes. But even to say that he is self-governed implies a need for governance that is not there. It makes no more sense to say he is self-governed than to say he is self-created.