Anselm's Second Ontological Argument

[Mark Quayle]

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

I hope our collective egos can recover.

Perhaps Kylie has not noticed the times and ways she comes across as arrogant, though I doubt nobody has accused her of it.

As we are some of us aware, being sure of oneself comes across as arrogant, and comprehension of the truth does have the occasional effect of making debaters sure of themselves.

Expression of the truth, of course, is a little bit harder, but arrogance can at least impress the arrogant with the hope of convincing the opposition, haha. Nevertheless, there is all sorts of force in being right. And it is hard to take when the confidence is on the opposing side.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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.

Ah so if we lived in a universe where the God of that universe said murder is good, then we should put our reason on hold and start murdering?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ah so if we lived in a universe where the God of that universe said murder is good, then we should put our reason on hold and start murdering?

You may as well ask if God can make a rock too big for him to pick up. Nonsense. What Omnipotent would have any use for such truck? We aren't talking about some superhuman god, here, but about First Cause.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Note: Not original with me. (Satire on Plantinga's version)

P1: It is possible that God doesn't exist.
P2: If it is possible that God doesn't exist, then there are some possible worlds wherein God doesn't exist.
P3: If God does not exist in some possible world, then God does not exist in any possible world.
P4: If God does not exist in any possible world, then God does not exist in the actual world.
P5: If God does not exist in the actual world, then God does not exist.
Conclusion: Therefore God does not exist.

Demonstrate P1. You can't, therefore, the conclusion is inconclusive.

 

[Paulomycin]

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.

This modus ponens is both valid and sound. Why? Because the fact that logic is universal. Logic has prescriptive force. PSR dictates that logic necessarily require a logician, regardless of any time, place, situation, or environment. Denying it on will alone (without evidence to the contrary) just proves me more right.

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

Then you reject universal logic. It's really that simple.

Nope. The nature of the evidence is what will convince me or not.

The only nature of "convincing" evidence is whether or not it is objective. It has nothing to do with how overwhelmed you "feel" about it. Most people cannot emotionally handle objective evidence that crashes so hard against their old paradigm. It's entirely possible that you might be experiencing a cognitive dissonance. This is a worldview shift that cannot be casually accepted. For many it will result in a crisis.

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.

And here you are forcing your will against it--by simply asserting it wasn't demonstrated as true, or demonstrated enough to overwhelm your feelings. You already have no choice but to believe. You are without excuse.

Flat earthers believe the evidence for a flat earth is convincing.

- Which is an argument to feelings (personal will) instead of facts. Feelings should only follow from the facts. Not the other way around.

- Flat earthers are "flat earthers" based on their foundational incredulity of the overwhelming evidence of a round earth. And yet they are not "overwhelmed" by it. Their belief in evidence for a flat earth is solely built upon their prior confirmation bias of a flat earth to begin with.

If people behaved the way you claim they do, then flat earthers would not exist at all, because they would be overwhelmed by the evidence of a round earth. Flat earthers are not overwhelmed, therefore you are wrong.

Do you understand the difference between these two statements?

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

- I do not believe playing games with semantics will get you out of this.
- I believe no semantics games will get you out of this.

is a lack of belief, it says nothing about if a god actually does or does not exist.

"Lack" is deliberately vague (therefore fallacious). I was hoping you'd go there. For at least 12 years, you people were coasting on the "lack of belief" meme, and it never worked then just like it doesn't now. Because "lack" implies a ratio of belief-to-non-belief. But you'd never outright admit the percentage of how much you believe vs. how much you don't. Why? Because it would be an admission of at least some belief. Thus, the ambiguity is exposed as deliberate. I can go 10 whole pages of one thread on your deliberate "lack" of clarity here. I absolutely love this one. Try me.

Good, then go out and convince the world.

It's old news. The world just forgot is all. We've slipped into a new dark ages. We're little more than techno-barbarians; incoherently banging keys instead of rocks.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Your assertion that people can choose what they believe is false.

Have you never watched a volleyball game, when the ball landing on the line is declared out?

 

[doubtingmerle]

You may as well ask if God can make a rock too big for him to pick up. Nonsense. What Omnipotent would have any use for such truck? We aren't talking about some superhuman god, here, but about First Cause.

Ok what if you were living in a world were First Cause sanctioned murder. Would you murder?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ok what if you were living in a world were First Cause sanctioned murder. Would you murder?

You're asking me to repeat myself?

IF??? A valid hypothetical has to at least propose a valid presupposition to merit serious consideration. Suppose you both wrote that and did not write that --would I have answered and not answered? You're suggesting the ludicrous.

First Cause does not murder.

 

[Kylie]

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

Nope.

TESTABLE evidence, on the other hand, something that I can put to the test and make sure it isn't wrong, that would certainly be good enough for me.

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.

So? The scientific method has shown itself to be the best - in fact the only - tool by which we can find out useful information about how the universe works. Your efforts to discredit it by showing that it doesn't work in some areas where it was never designed to work aren't going to work.

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.

Nirvana fallacy. "If it isn't 100% effective, then we shouldn't bother with it."

I freely admit that there are some things which the scientific method doesn't work with. I can't use the scientific method to show that my husband loves me. But that's okay, because the scientific method was never designed to do that kind of thing. To claim it must work in that is like saying that we shouldn't wear seatbelts because they can't disinfect your hands, so how can you trust them to keep you safe.

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.

I see no love in anything you have said.

 

[Kylie]

Perhaps Kylie has not noticed the times and ways she comes across as arrogant, though I doubt nobody has accused her of it.

I have a low tolerance for people who claim to know me better than I know myself. If you want to call that arrogance, go right ahead.

 

[Kylie]

You may as well ask if God can make a rock too big for him to pick up. Nonsense. What Omnipotent would have any use for such truck? We aren't talking about some superhuman god, here, but about First Cause.

Why can't we say that God can make a rock too heavy for him to lift, but he can lift it anyway? Why do you limit God to what is logically possible?

 

[Paulomycin]

TESTABLE evidence, on the other hand, something that I can put to the test and make sure it isn't wrong, that would certainly be good enough for me.

That's why I said "Problem of Induction."

So? The scientific method has shown itself to be the best - in fact the only - tool by which we can find out useful information about how the universe works. Your efforts to discredit it by showing that it doesn't work in some areas where it was never designed to work aren't going to work.

There is no such thing as "The scientific method." Probably the worst middle-school textbook fraud that was ever perpetuated on schoolkids. Evidently, we're still suffering fallout from it.

Myths of the nature of science — Science Learning Hub

Also, the following was published in Skeptic magazine, as well as at least 3 other sites I can find. . .

Myth #3: A General and Universal Scientific Method Exists​

The notion that a common series of steps is followed by all research scientists must be among the most pervasive myths of science given the appearance of such a list in the introductory chapters of many precollege science texts. This myth has been part of the folklore of school science ever since its proposal by statistician Karl Pearson (1937). The steps listed for the scientific method vary from text to text but usually include, a) define the problem, b) gather background information, c) form a hypothesis, d) make observations, e) test the hypothesis, and f) draw conclusions. Some texts conclude their list of the steps of the scientific method by listing communication of results as the final ingredient.​

One of the reasons for the widespread belief in a general scientific method may be the way in which results are presented for publication in research journals. The standardized style makes it appear that scientists follow a standard research plan. Medawar (1990) reacted to the common style exhibited by research papers by calling the scientific paper a fraud since the final journal report rarely outlines the actual way in which the problem was investigated.​

Philosophers of science who have studied scientists at work have shown that no research method is applied universally (Carey, 1994; Gibbs & Lawson, 1992; Chalmers, 1990; Gjertsen, 1989). The notion of a single scientific method is so pervasive it seems certain that many students must be disappointed when they discover that scientists do not have a framed copy of the steps of the scientific method posted high above each laboratory workbench.​

Close inspection will reveal that scientists approach and solve problems with imagination, creativity, prior knowledge and perseverance. These, of course, are the same methods used by all problem-solvers. The lesson to be learned is that science is no different from other human endeavors when puzzles are investigated. Fortunately, this is one myth that may eventually be displaced since many newer texts are abandoning or augmenting the list in favor of discussions of methods of science.​

Source: McComas, William, Ten myths of science: Reexamining what we think we know...., Vol. 96, School Science & Mathematics, 01-01-1996, pp 10.

Link: SCIENCE HOBBYIST: Misconceptions Page (amasci.com)

Nirvana fallacy. "If it isn't 100% effective, then we shouldn't bother with it."

I am fully aware of the limits of of science and never even implied that we "shouldn't bother with it." Science is very useful within its own limits. I wasn't the one literally claiming, ". . .the best - in fact the only - tool by which we can find out useful information about how the universe works." <-- That's an epistemic claim; not a scientific one. Sorry.

I see no love in anything you have said.

You can't call it hate, when I'm just giving it to you straight.

Again, "God" is not a scientific claim. It's not an "anti-scientific" claim either.

 

[Paulomycin]

I have a low tolerance for people who claim to know me better than I know myself.

I'm just saying someone lied to you, is all. Then I pretty much demonstrated it via the myth of "the scientific method." And that's just one red flag out of many others that might pop up in future discussion. I admit that I really don't know just how far this rabbit hole goes, but I'm not optimistic about it.

Why can't we say that God can make a rock too heavy for him to lift, but he can lift it anyway? Why do you limit God to what is logically possible?

1. Because it's always a human error to ever attempt to rationally propose absurdities.
2. An omnipotent being cannot lie (Titus 1:2).

Not all paradoxes are contradictions, but many are. Contradictions within a paradox are sometimes not immediately obvious and often well-hidden. Like in the case of the omnipotence paradox. The hidden contradiction is in, "Can an omnipotent being make a rock so big that omnipotence cannot. . .?" <-- *logic crash*

Therefore, the only rational answer is: "No, because the question is floating an absurdism as-if it were rational." That's why the omnipotence paradox is sophomoric. This was settled centuries ago, but it keeps coming up, because students keep thinking they can slide this one by.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Nope.

TESTABLE evidence, on the other hand, something that I can put to the test and make sure it isn't wrong, that would certainly be good enough for me.

I wouldn't advise stepping off that curb if I was you --at least not without thinking it through.... In fact, you may as well just stay in bed.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I have a low tolerance for people who claim to know me better than I know myself. If you want to call that arrogance, go right ahead.

I didn't call that, nor you, arrogance/ arrogant. I only expect some have called you that, as most people with a line of reasoning they are pretty sure of been called that. Don't take it personally.

As a matter of fact, when Paulo told me he was debating you on this thread I told him I rather like you. You are not like many Atheists I run into. Most, I don't remember. You I do.

I take for example the fact you were willing to go with the fact that God, if he is real, has certain characteristics --most atheists immediately begin to erect fences and make the Theist fight for every inch they think to do, instead of actually dealing with conceptions common to both parties. \

You're ok. I like you.

 

[Paulomycin]

I didn't call that, nor you, arrogance/ arrogant. I only expect some have called you that, as most people with a line of reasoning they are pretty sure of been called that. Don't take it personally.

As a matter of fact, when Paulo told me he was debating you on this thread I told him I rather like you. You are not like many Atheists I run into. Most, I don't remember. You I do.

I take for example the fact you were willing to go with the fact that God, if he is real, has certain characteristics --most atheists immediately begin to erect fences and make the Theist fight for every inch they think to do, instead of actually dealing with conceptions common to both parties. \

You're ok. I like you.

Mark. Thanks for this. You were here long before me, so I'll take your warm recommendation here under advisement.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Why can't we say that God can make a rock too heavy for him to lift, but he can lift it anyway? Why do you limit God to what is logically possible?

I suppose I could get poetic and say he did exactly that when he allowed for sin, then defeated it at the Cross. But that is poetry, not exactly valid.

The fact is, that God does what he purposes. He does not experiment nor test his limits. A valid concept of God doesn't allow for him to experiment or to learn. First cause would have no purpose in doing self-contradictory things, but more to the point, we humans have nothing to gain in pursuing the irrational, unless you just want to be silly and know it is just silly.

 

[Kylie]

I'm just saying someone lied to you, is all. Then I pretty much demonstrated it via the myth of "the scientific method." And that's just one red flag out of many others that might pop up in future discussion. I admit that I really don't know just how far this rabbit hole goes, but I'm not optimistic about it.

Someone lied to me? About what? About what my own views are on atheism? What in the world do you call this logic?

 

[Paulomycin]

Someone lied to me? About what? About what my own views are on atheism? What in the world do you call this logic?

I'll be charitable and just wait for you to finish reading posts #192 and #193 in their entirety.

 

[Kylie]

I wouldn't advise stepping off that curb if I was you --at least not without thinking it through.... In fact, you may as well just stay in bed.

Perhaps you could give me a reason why I should accept any claim about how the world works if there is no testable evidence, no way to verify it?