Paulomycin
Well-Known Member
Wow. Please, you've got to tell me the author of this one. Is that Michael Shermer?
Upvote
0
Anselm's Second Ontological Argument
- Thread starter PuerAzaelis
- Start date
- Status
Wow. Please, you've got to tell me the author of this one. Is that Michael Shermer?
Eight Foot Manchild
His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
- Sep 9, 2010
- 2,389
- 1,605
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
It isn't. Neither is logic. Neither are the laws of science. These are descriptive. They have no causal relationship to reality.
A=A does not cause a thing to be itself. E=MC squared does not cause matter and energy to be interchangeable. These aren't magic spells that bind reality together. They are descriptions of reality. The descriptions could disappear tomorrow, and reality would continue to operate exactly as it does.
None of this necessitates the existence of a god. If you think your understanding of such things is illuminated by belief in Yahweh, you're welcome to it, but no atheist is obligated to account for your understanding.
Upvote
0
Paulomycin
Well-Known Member
No double-standards please. If you can force the same trust issues with my beliefs, and don't have to take my word for it, then fair is fair; I don't have to either.
And that's how you get around it. By asserting an atheist "reality" that you cannot prove.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” - Christopher Hitchens
Last I checked, that includes the positive claim of "atheist reality."
- Which is circular reasoning.
- Which is a purely subjectivist standard you won't grant your opponents.
- Repeating it doesn't make it any less arbitrary or absurd.
- It's not an objective rule, in any case.
You've demonstrated no difference between asserting perfect non-error in the actual content of your thoughts, vs. never being capable of objective error in one's own thought process.
Agreed. But in this case, you're claiming you're never wrong.
Because you believe forced "proof by assertions" are magic.
I don't have to read minds when subjectivism isn't a rule-in-itself. "Me" assertions are nothing more than "because I said so," explanations.
Upvote
0
Kylie
Defeater of Illogic
I can't remember where I first heard it, sorry.
EDIT: A quick Google search shows it was written by Douglas Gasking. Ontological argument - Wikipedia
Upvote
0
Eight Foot Manchild
His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
- Sep 9, 2010
- 2,389
- 1,605
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Your reading comprehension is quite poor. I suggest you work on that.
What a bizarre thing to say. I literally just said I have to take your word for it when you tell me what it is that you believe. I have no other choice.
I asserted no such thing. All I said, in regard to reality, is that neither you nor Paul possess magic mind-reading powers.
Which is true. I know that's an inconvenient fact for your apologetic, but that's your problem.
No, I'm really sorry, but it is in fact the case - objectively - that neither you nor Paul possess magic mind-reading powers.
As such, there is only one authority on the content of my thoughts - not the truth value of any beliefs I hold, but the actual content of my thoughts. That person is me.
I did, actually. One is arrived at through a linear process. The other - the content of my own thoughts - is something I am simply incapable of not knowing. No one can escape their own thoughts.
About the content of my own thoughts, yes. To claim otherwise would be to assert that it is possible to both consciously hold a thought, and not hold it simultaneously. Which is absurd.
You're confused. Your apologetic is the one predicated on a vacuous naked assertion.
When you're predicating an assertion on the content of another person's thoughts, yes, you do.
What a bizarre thing to say. I literally just said I have to take your word for it when you tell me what it is that you believe. I have no other choice.
I asserted no such thing. All I said, in regard to reality, is that neither you nor Paul possess magic mind-reading powers.
Which is true. I know that's an inconvenient fact for your apologetic, but that's your problem.
No, I'm really sorry, but it is in fact the case - objectively - that neither you nor Paul possess magic mind-reading powers.
As such, there is only one authority on the content of my thoughts - not the truth value of any beliefs I hold, but the actual content of my thoughts. That person is me.
I did, actually. One is arrived at through a linear process. The other - the content of my own thoughts - is something I am simply incapable of not knowing. No one can escape their own thoughts.
About the content of my own thoughts, yes. To claim otherwise would be to assert that it is possible to both consciously hold a thought, and not hold it simultaneously. Which is absurd.
You're confused. Your apologetic is the one predicated on a vacuous naked assertion.
When you're predicating an assertion on the content of another person's thoughts, yes, you do.
Upvote
0
Paulomycin
Well-Known Member
Awesome. Prove it. Build a bridge without math or logic, and then drive a car over it.
So you believe in an atheist "reality" with no relationship to rational logic. Go on.
I see you're doubting a law of logic. That just makes one a misologist, an absurdist, or insane. Take your pick.
You haven't demonstrated evidence of your "atheist reality" yet. Are you stalling for time?
So you reject logic. *shrug* I admit that I can't do anything about that.
Upvote
0
Eight Foot Manchild
His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
- Sep 9, 2010
- 2,389
- 1,605
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
What a bizarre non-sequitor.
Man, you are not very good at this.
No, I reject your apprehension of what logic is, and base mine on what I find in standard logic textbooks. I'm sorry your worldview doesn't distinguish between reality and descriptions of reality. Again, that's your problem.
Your profile says you're not a presuppositionalist. Are you sure about that? Because you argue an awful lot like one. That is, aiming for internal critique, and missing by about a mile.
Upvote
0
Paulomycin
Well-Known Member
You're missing any specifics, so I guess I can take an unspecified personal insult.
It's not a rule, though. And you don't take my word for it anyway. Hello?
You're asserting a "reality" all over the place that I can only assume comes from you, an admitted atheist. With no evidence of such. So yeah. You even double-down on it. . .
. . .right here. Even though you have nothing to support your careless truth-claims.
And I don't need mind-reading powers to observe:
- Your circular reasoning.
- A purely subjectivist standard.
- Proof by repeated assertion fallacy.
You're stating this as an absolute.
You're not giving any external citation where this arbitrary rule comes from.
You're substituting your (merely subjective) authority as-if it were an objective argument to the contrary.
What "linear process?" How can you sit there claiming your thoughts are never capable of being wrong?
You have no objective nor specific demonstration of this.
Please calm down. I'm just working with the statements here. No "mind-reading" necessary.
Upvote
0
Paulomycin
Well-Known Member
Thanks. Appreciated.
Non-existence ≠ "the greatest handicap," because a person must necessarily exist in-order to suffer a handicap.
Apart from Graham Oppy's critique of Gasking's argument (which was never intended to be serious to begin with), anything done by a maximally great being is never an accomplishment. Omnipotence never risks anything. Omnipotence never endeavors anything, nor learns anything new. Therefore, creation wasn't even trying.
Upvote
0
Eight Foot Manchild
His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
- Sep 9, 2010
- 2,389
- 1,605
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
You're repeating yourself, so I think we're done here. One more time, though,
For the third time, I am claiming only that I can't be wrong about the content of my own thoughts.
I know - with 100%, inescapable certainty - that I do not consciously believe any gods exist. Therefor, I know that Paul's assertion is false. Even if it were possible to be "wrong" about what my own conscious thoughts are, that would be an excuse, which Paul says I don't have.
So, scripture cannot possibly be "god-breathed". Thanks for playing.
For the third time, I am claiming only that I can't be wrong about the content of my own thoughts.
I know - with 100%, inescapable certainty - that I do not consciously believe any gods exist. Therefor, I know that Paul's assertion is false. Even if it were possible to be "wrong" about what my own conscious thoughts are, that would be an excuse, which Paul says I don't have.
So, scripture cannot possibly be "god-breathed". Thanks for playing.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Paulomycin
Well-Known Member
Close. It was a reductio ad absurdum. If you don't accept it, then logic is prescriptive. "Logic is descriptive" is a pseudo-maxim that you cannot apply in real life without risking life and limb.
If there is no direct (objective) relationship between reality and what reality depends on to make sense of it, then you cannot claim reality even exists in any rationally coherent manner.
Atheists typically wish I was a presuppositionalist.
Because you magically asserted, because you think the thoughts in your head are never wrong, I get that.
Upvote
0
Paulomycin
Well-Known Member
I called you on repetition first. But I'm patient like that.
Wow. That is some serious hubris.
You have nothing objective outside of your own circular reasoning to be certain with.
Either way, what's the difference?
Upvote
0
Eight Foot Manchild
His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
- Sep 9, 2010
- 2,389
- 1,605
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
I do it every day, actually. It's quite easy.
That's because my worldview distinguishes between reality itself, and descriptions that follow after reality. Yours, apparently, does not.
Again, you have it backwards. Reality does not "depend on" logic. A=A is not a magic spell that binds reality together, causing things to be themselves. Things are themselves, and A=A is a description of that fact. You are confusing the map for the territory.
Upvote
0
Kylie
Defeater of Illogic
I dunno, I'd say that if my second child (whom I will never have) managed to do something, I'd say they managed to overcome a pretty big handicap.
Your own criticism would tend to invalidate Oppy's criticism.
Oppy said that there is no reason to assume that a non-existent creator would be a greater being. He continued by arguing that there is no reason to view the creation of the world as "the most marvellous achievement imaginable". Finally, he stated that it may be inconceivable for a non-existent being to create anything at all.
Leaving aside the fact that we cannot use what we can conceive of to describe what an omnipotent being (whether it exists or not) is capable of, his second point suggests that the world may not be the most marvelous achievement imaginable. But your counterargument would suggest that there was no difference to God whether he created the most marvelous world or a less-than-most marvelous world. If the two are indistinguishable to God, then how can they be distinguished as such by us mere mortals?
Upvote
0
Paulomycin
Well-Known Member
In which case, you're contradicting a non-existent child as-if it were capable of doing something. Non-existent persons can never do anything. Potential ≠ non-potential.
Then one of the outfielders caught the ball, in any case.
Where does your editorial end and his argument begin? A non-existent creator would simply not exist. Did he really use the words "non-existent creator" in a positive sense? Seriously?
And if the literal potential of the "omni," then omnipotent by default. That's the greatest possible being.
What did he imagine as an example? Since we're talking purely imaginary terms, what imaginary examples did he give, if any?
Great. I'm fine with that. In which case, there is nothing "more marvellous" that we can imagine.
Moreover, the assumption that "this world alone" is final is not a Christian POV, in any case. It could very well be that this world is a work-in-progress.
In either case, Leibnize would be right in that this is the best of all possible worlds.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Paulomycin
Well-Known Member
Because you're not building any literal bridges you can drive a car across.
So you reject logic.
You have no evidence to support your claim of "reality."
This is not a logical claim.
Upvote
0
Kylie
Defeater of Illogic
And never being able to do anything is a pretty big handicap, wouldn't you say? Why, it would take an omnipotent being to overcome that!
And I certainly hope you aren't trying to apply logic to what God is capable and incapable of doing. God, if he created everything, created logic. Why would he be bound by something he created?
Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about here.
Is that the best criticism you can come up with, the fact that understanding the written word leaves some thing open to interpretation?
So why shouldn't this greatest possible being (GPB) be capable of overcoming any handicap?
I dunno. I was cut 'n' pasting from the Wikipedia article which I linked to. Perhaps you should have read it.
Then it would seem God is limited by human imagination.
Supposition.
Upvote
0
Kylie
Defeater of Illogic
Of course, it should be noted that it is not the math that renders the bridge safe to drive across.
Rather, it is the bridge being built solidly that renders it safe to drive across, and the mathematics is merely used to describe how strong the bridge is so we can determine what it is safe to drive across.
This is exactly what Eight Foot Manchild said in post 122. The mathematics doesn't change the reality of the bridge. Changing the bridge changes the mathematics. And we build the bridge in such a way that the results of the mathematics show that it is safe to drive across.
Upvote
0
Paulomycin
Well-Known Member
Handicaps only apply to extant beings.
Because He is the Logos, i.e. the universal logician Himself. The Primium Movens. If God created logic, then one is proposing an absurdist god of chaos that couldn't possibly exist in any clear or rational sense. There are some professing theists out there that believe "God can do the absurd," like make squared circles and married bachelors, but that's a complete lie. They're either scamming their audience or they bought into the belief that one can float irrational claims as-if they were rational.
I'm not picky about who gets to criticize Gasking.
I'm sorry. My bad. You got to Oppy before I did. Wow. I can't believe he actually said that.
*digging to source*
I guess that's why it's a parody, because rationally proposing "a non-existent being" and then running with it is like something straight out of The Onion.
It's a contradiction in-itself, because the GPB would not possess any handicap to begin with. Debility does not equal ability. And we're only talking maximally great ability here.
But this is why I don't normally try to defend the OA, because GPB is more ambiguous than simply defining God according to omnipotence.
If the atheist cannot imagine any better, then his argument is defeated. Let's not confuse the accuser with the Accused.
Not if the Christian worldview is correct.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Paulomycin
Well-Known Member
Without that "mere description," there are no real standards, nor specs. This means the engineering blueprint of the bridge is more real than the bridge itself. Thus, mathematical platonism is justified. I don't know what you even call the opposition to it.
So you're flip-flopping. Here, you're admitting you need the math to make the bridge safe to drive across. Not just any math, but such math that you can bet your life on.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
