Paulomycin 107 said:
Clizby WampusCat said:
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.
Your fallacy of choice is the hasty generalization.
No problem. Here goes. . .
[alleged proof of God]
Go present your 'proof' where that is on topic.
In this thread, the fans of Anselm's second ontological argument are supposed to defend it.
Paulomycin 103 said:
Clizby WampusCat said:
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.[20] 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.[21]
[20] Of course you can, als long as there is agreement on the meaning of words. Also, logic can be used without using the word logic.
[21] You are being evasive. Presenting a case does not require trust. It requires a case.
Paulomycin said:
Amoranemix 113 said:
Great. Then you should have no difficulty providing such proof. Go ahead.
[no response]
I thought so.
Paulomycin 118 said:
Amoranemix 113 said:
[1] So? I have not claimed otherwise.
[2] What are you talking about ?
I'll just wait for you to catch up.
I have rarely seen so cheap a copout.
Paulomycin 118 said:
Clizby WampusCat said:
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.
What seems to escape you is that debating is not merely about who is right, but also about convincing debate opponents. Why else would one debate? One can be right without debating anyone. One can be right all alone on the top of a mountain.
When engaging flat-earthers, what may convince them matters. When writing holy scriptures, what may convince the audience matters.
Paulomycin 123 said:
Eight Foot Manchild 12 said:
And I don't need to prove it to you.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” - Christopher Hitchens
That allowed Christopher Hitchens to dismiss many Christian and biblical claims.
Paulomycin 123 said:
Eight Foot Manchild said:
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.
- 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.[22]
- It's not an objective rule, in any case.
[22] It does not make it any less factual either and neither is it meant to. It is meant to help you comprehend what you failed to the first time.
Paulomycin 123 said:
Eight Foot Manchild said:
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.
Agreed. But in this case, you're claiming you're never wrong.
I am sure you would have liked him to claim that.
Paulomycin 128 said:
Eight Foot Manchild said:
You're confused. Your apologetic is the one predicated on a vacuous naked assertion.
You have no objective nor specific demonstration of this.
He has : your posts
Paulomycin 129 to Kylie said:
Thanks. Appreciated.
Non-existence ≠ "the greatest handicap," because a person must necessarily exist in-order to suffer a handicap.
No one is denying that ontological arguments are crap. What one can 'prove' with bad arguments is limited only by one's imagination.
Paulomycin 129 to Kylie said:
[argument see post 116]
Non-existence ≠ "the greatest handicap," because a person must necessarily exist in-order to suffer a handicap.[23]
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.[24]
[23] That is a non-sequitur.
[24] So an MGB isn't that great after all. Perhaps something could be greater than the greatest possible, in which case the greatest possible would be impossible.
Paulomycin 123 said:
Eight Foot Manchild said:
For the third time, I am claiming only that I can't be wrong about the content of my own thoughts.
Wow. That is some serious hubris.
No, it is not.
Paulomycin 135 said:
Kylie said:
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.
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.
So that non-existent child would be doing something impossible. The greatness of such achievement would incommensurable! Your god's greatness is puny in comparison.
Kylie 137 to Paulomycin said:
Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about here.
When
I said that, I provided him with he copout he needed.
Paulomycin 139 said:
Kylie said:
And never being able to do anything is a pretty big handicap, wouldn't you say?
Handicaps only apply to extant beings.
Says the guy who blamed Eight Foot Manchild for not supporting his claims.
Paulomycin 139 said:
Kylie said:
So why shouldn't this greatest possible being (GPB) be capable of overcoming any handicap?
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.[25]
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.[26]
[25] Aha. So the greatest possible being has a handicap and the GPB does not have a handicap. Therefore, the GPB is impossible.
I always suspect there was something fishy about the GPB.
[26] No one is defending the OA.
Paulomycin 139 said:
Kylie said:
Not if the Christian worldview is correct.
An unwarrented supposition if the Christian worldview is false.
Paulomycin 140 said:
Kylie said:
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.
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.
People have built bridges with very little math, like rope bridges of precolumbian civilizations.
Paulomycin 139 said:
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.
Then why are you doing so here?
That hardly qualifies as trying.
Paulomycin 146 said:
Kylie said:
My position is the same as that of Eight Foot Manchild - that the mathematics DESCRIBES the bridge. Mathematics is DESCRIPTIVE.
Which is an arbitrary rule that you and 8FM will try to "
proof by repeated assertion" to death until I give up. Right? Because you're completely contradicting yourself and dismissing the very math that holds your own chair up as "merely descriptive." Why? To support your confirmation bias; nothing more.
You appear to be quite experienced at proving by repeated assertion. Eight Foot Manchild gave up first. Kylie followed.
Paulomycin 140 said:
Kylie said:
This link says that, "the God angle is somewhat of a red herring," "the real news isn't about a Supreme Being," "the formalization of Gödel's ontological proof is unlikely to win over many atheists," and that true believers "might argue the idea of a higher power is one that defies logic by definition," something which you have repeatedly denied.
And yet it works![27]
See, atheism isn't about evidence at all.[28] It's about forcing one's will against any and all evidence.[29] Flat-earthers do it all the time. It's a problem of extreme incredulity assuming that everyone else is an idiot.
[27] Whether Gödel's modal logic works as a tool for computer aided theorem proving is off topic.
[28] Indeed.
[29] You are mistaken. It is about (lack of) belief in a deity.
PauloMycin 119 said:
"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?[30] 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.
[30] I think that if he understood that, he would be wrong.
PauloMycin 166 said:
Clizyby WampusCat said:
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.
How is that supposed to follow ?
You lack commitment and supposedly that would mean I have nothing to worry about. But what if you didn't lack commitment ? What if you had a case and were eager to present it ? What would I have to worry about ?
PauloMycin 166 to Clizby WampusCat said:
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."[30] 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.
[30]Reason is homonym, i.e. the word has more than one meaning. Hence, reason does not necessarily require a reasoner.
Clizby WampusCat 167 to Paulomycin said:
So? Just because a logician can account for logic does not mean it is so. You must demonstrate that.
How can a logician account for logic ?
Paulomycin 174 said:
Kylie said:
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.
I have seen Christians argue that it is a belief system arguing against atheists that it isn't. The purpose is usually to give the other one the burden of proof.
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.
If you think you have a case, you may present it here :
www.christianforums.com/threads/euthyphro-dilemma-easily-solved.8200277
PauloMycin 178 to Kylie said:
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.
God is a personal opinion.
PauloMycin 178 to Kylie said:
[Repetition of off topic stuff]
Repeating something off topic does not make it relevant.
PauloMycin 178 to Kylie said:
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.
You are confusing atheists with Christians.
Clizy WampusCat 179 to Paulomycin said:
You give no evidence that your premise is true.
The premise is that logic exists. Do you doubt that ?
Mark Quayle 184 said:
Tinker Grey 4 said:
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.
The original argument in the OP argues the possibility of God's existence based on the assumption that God is not nonsensical and not inconsistent.
Likewise, the lack of God's existence is not nonsensical and not inconsistent. Therefore, the lack of God's existence is possible.
Paulomycin 185 said:
Clizby WampusCat 179 said:
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.
The problem is that you have failed to explain how, nor proven that the PSR makes the argument sound, even under the assumption that the PSR is true. Asserting that people disagreeing with you proves you right, that such people reject logic and don't want to believe, are all bad arguments and bad explanations.
Paulomycin 185 said:
Clizby WampusCat 179 said:
1. 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.
You have merely claimed, not demonstrated, a fallacy. Vagueness is not necessarily fallacious.
Paulomycin 192 said:
Kylie said:
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. [ . . . ]
Then you must have brought it up again to distract from the fact that you don't have a case.
Paulomycin 204 to Kylie said:
BTW, Problem of Induction is also closely related to Black Swan Theory. That's also relevant to the discussion.
I don't know what that is, but it sounds like something off topic.
Paulomycin 215 said:
doubtingmerle 153 to OP said:
The argument for a perfect chess piece as a necessary piece in every chess set can be put formally:
[ . . . ]
Strawman. We're not arguing for a necessary chess piece, but rather a necessary game designer.
You are mistaken. Cleary the argument is unsound, but your objection is not the reason.
Paulomycin 217 said:
Kylie said:
I was referring to your rudeness.
With all due respect: Truth and logic are often rude awakenings. Wake up sleepyhead, we got some logic to pound out here! Facts don't care about feelings, etc. etc.
Most atheists were already aware that truth and logic could not salvage Anselm's second ontological argument. No awakening was required.