Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If it's meaningless, it isn't true or false.So, you'll notice that they're not only self-refuting (i.e. illogical), but they're also hypocritical. Therefore the assertion, "There is no objective definition of any word," would also be meaningless, since there would be no objective definition of any word in the very same statement. It cancels itself out.
So far no one has been able to demonstrate a maximally great being (MGB) is rationally cogent.Paulomycin 48 to Clizby WampusCat said:My point is that it has to be a rationally cogent proposition to begin with before demonstrating it.
Can you prove that ?Paulomycin 50 to Clizby WampusCat said:2. A rational proposition is possible, but not probable without some demonstration of it (proof or evidence).
Great. Then please do provide some examples of necessary things.Yes logical necessity is easy to define but metaphysical necessity is difficult not just to prove but even to conceive.Amoranemix said:Can you give some examples of necessary things ? I can only think of abstract concepts like numbers and the laws of logic. God would seem to be out of place in that list.
You forgot to answer my question.PuerAzaelis said:[no response]Amoranemix 46 said:Is a non-contingent unicorn nonsensical or self-contradictory ?
I thought so.PuerAzaelis said:[no response]Amoranemix 46 said:If you think you can design a maximally great being without encountering contradictions, then please do. Explain for example how that being breaks the laws of physics.
It would be too easy too make one's argument sound by declaring premises one can't prove axiomatic. Otherwise, one could prove anything.PuerAzaelis 52 said:I can no more prove it than I can prove Aristotle's principle of non-contradiction is a valid first principle - for the same reason. It's a first principle and axiomatic principles can't themselves be proved. They're either self-evident or they're not.Amoranemix 46 said:Can you prove that ? [If something is neither nonsensical nor self-contradictory, it is possible.]
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.Paulomycin 55 to Clizby CampusCat said:All rational propositions are possible prior to "showing" (or better, demonstrating) that they're probable. No need for "Katy bar the door" at mere possibility, because that's nothing to worry about. Which is why I learned it from an atheist. It's a very "Dana Scully, Season 1," mindset.
Science is in the business of modelling reality and demonstrating or refuting statements, not in demonstrating substantives.Paulomycin 55 said:2. 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:
- We cannot scientifically demonstrate logic.
[more substantives science cannot demonstrate]
These claims can however be disputed, therefore they are not facts.Paulomycin 55 said:[Criticism of empiricism]
These facts are simply irrefutable.
That is a definition more than a claim.Paulomycin 63 said:Okay. That's fine, but it's full of implicit assumptions that I don't believe you've taken the time to really get into:Clizby WampusCat said:Science is [ . . . ]
1. This is a claim without evidence. Is there scientific evidence for science? No, because that would be circular reasoning. What is the "best method" of determining the claim of science itself? Doesn't that mean science exists without evidence, or is a belief based on blind faith?
You are too harsh.Paulomycin 65 said:Then in all honesty, it's a trainwreck of a definition. Nothing personal here, I'm sorry, but it's a real mess.Clizb WampusCat said:In your reply to this answer you did not quote the part where I said that this was a starting point.
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.
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.Great. Then please do provide some examples of necessary things.
What kind of necessity is an MGB supposed to be ?
So far we have good reason to believe that maximally great beings are either not necessary, or impossible.
An eternal anything is non-contingent. That thing need not have omnipotence, omniscience, omni-benevolence or even a mind.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.
An eternal anything is non-contingent.
So far no one has been able to demonstrate a maximally great being (MGB) is rationally cogent.
Can you prove that ?
It would be too easy too make one's argument sound by declaring premises one can't prove axiomatic. Otherwise, one could prove anything.
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.
Science is in the business of modelling reality and demonstrating or refuting statements, not in demonstrating substantives.
These claims can however be disputed, therefore they are not facts.
That science and empiricism have limitations (just like everything else) seems to be off topic, as most of the discussion since post 54.
That is a definition more than a claim.
One has to start with improvable assumptions, presupposition. In mathematics, these are axioms and in sciency postulates. You accept them because they appear to work and the only alternatives would be to choose different presuppositions or to cease to function.
Circular reasoning is not necessarily fallacious.
You are too harsh.
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.
Hmm... I dunno. Maybe. If it's eternal it's uncaused, that's what I was getting at. It didn't need something else to cause it to exist. Now maybe there are two things that are eternal coexisting, and maybe one of those things can cause the other to stop existing or one of those things requires something from the other to continue existing... But does that really work?A thing can be eternal yet still be dependent for its existence on something else.
In that case I agree with you under that definition of eternal something would be uncaused or would be it’s own cause. I also agree that it would be impossible for that kind of eternal thing to begin or end.Hmm... I dunno. Maybe. If it's eternal it's uncaused, that's what I was getting at. It didn't need something else to cause it to exist. Now maybe there are two things that are eternal coexisting, and maybe one of those things can cause the other to stop existing or one of those things requires something from the other to continue existing... But does that really work?
Something eternal, in my mind at least, is outside of time and therefore has no beginning or end. Is it possible for an eternal thing to stop existing, wouldn't that mean it has an end, and wouldn't that mean it was never eternal to begin with?
I'd be interested to see someone make a deductive connection between being eternal and having a mind.So now what you’re saying is that something that is eternal in that sense doesn’t need to be a MGB.
Not at my desk right now but according to Aquinas if we admit the existence of something eternal in the sense you mean then we can also deduce several properties that it would have to have.
I’ll try to refresh my recollection of the articles he wrote about it ...
I'd be interested to see someone make a deductive connection between being eternal and having a mind.
No you gainsay things to death. Nyah Nyah!We have, but you just gainsay it to death.
No that is exactly mind reading. What other people think has no bearing on what I think. If you want to know what I think ask me.It's not mind-reading when you have already experienced the same pattern of response with other people. That's why I posted those questions. If you could answer them directly and without pressure, then you would have shown me you knew the subject. That's why I didn't twist your arm about it.
Again, mind reading huh. Where did I ever say my words have objective meaning while other peoples do not?^ Except your words, of course. Doubles-standard much?
There is no objective definition of science. If so, then tell me what it is?I care far less about your (subjective) definition of science than I do the (objective) definition of science.
That is why I said it was a starting point. What do you disagree with? What is your definition?Then in all honesty, it's a trainwreck of a definition. Nothing personal here, I'm sorry, but it's a real mess.
Nope. But if you are unwilling to give up the idea that we cannot know anything if we cannot know with 100% certainty, then we will never agree. You don't live your life with 100% certainty of what you believe anyway.Sorry, but like I already asked, you're going to need objective evidence of a standard of truth in-order to even make the credible accusation of "dishonesty" to begin with. I didn't write the rules. So don't hate the player.
No that is exactly mind reading. What other people think has no bearing on what I think. If you want to know what I think ask me.
Again, mind reading huh. Where did I ever say my words have objective meaning while other peoples do not?
There is no objective definition of science. If so, then tell me what it is?
That is why I said it was a starting point. What do you disagree with? What is your definition?
Nope.
But if you are unwilling to give up the idea that we cannot know anything if we cannot know with 100% certainty, then we will never agree. You don't live your life with 100% certainty of what you believe anyway.
Please point to the question I am not answering.And yet. . .you're not answering the questions. See, what you're not saying speaks volumes here. No mind reading necessary.
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?If you really believed that words did not have objective meaning, then you wouldn't be trying to communicate relevant info. So, you either believe words have objective meaning, or you believe it only applies to you.
Do you mean ultimately objective of just objective? 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."Nope," what? You need an objective standard of truth by which to accuse someone of dishonesty. You're making an objective accusation here. If you're making a purely subjective accusation, then it is of no real concern to anyone else.
Deductive reasoning only yields certitude if the premises are true.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.
What are these truths?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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?