PuerAzaelis 83 said:
Amoranemix82 said:
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.
Sorry.
I think "non-contingent unicorn" is probably self contradictory?
Since all finite objects are contingent and a unicorn is a finite object?
What is contradictory about a non-contingent unicorn ? Well, the idea of a unicorn is sufficiently well defined to presume its contingence. Hence the non-contingent version would be inconsistent. However, we cannot say for sure, so a non-contingent unicorn might be necessary and thus exist.
However, we don't know enough about an MGB to establish whether it is contingent. It could be and if it is it would be both contingent and non-contingent and thus inconsistent and therefore impossible.
Hence, the fans of the argument should demonstrate that an MGB is consistent, otherwise the argument is not sound.
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.
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.
Aha. So we have a good reason to believe an MGB is contingent : any being or object we know of is contingent and lack good reason to believe an MGB is an exception. So we have a good reason to believe an MGB is impossible.
You failed to mention what kind of necessity an MGB is supposed to be.
Moral Orel 85 to PuerAzaelis said:
An eternal anything is non-contingent. That thing need not have omnipotence, omniscience, omni-benevolence or even a mind.
Indeed. I suspect there are plenty of eternal things that don't exist. Defining those things as non-contingent would make them impossible.
Paulomycin 87 said:
Amoranemix 82 said:
So far no one has been able to demonstrate a maximally great being (MGB) is rationally cogent.
The point was that clear and consistent definitions must necessarily be made before demonstration.
It is up to the proponents of Anselm's second ontological argument to provide those definitions, not its critics.
Paulomycin 87 said:
Amoranemix 82 said:
Paulomycin 50 said:
2. A rational proposition is possible, but not probable without some demonstration of it (proof or evidence).
Can you prove that ?
Been proven for over 700 years, actually. I don't have to re-invent the wheel. Just because we were raised in mostly secular schools doesn't mean that proof never existed to begin with. It's a gross assumption that we tend to make as Westerners.
Great. Then you should have no difficulty providing such proof. Go ahead.
Amoranemix 82 said:
It would be too easy too make one's argument sound by declaring premises one can't prove axiomatic. Otherwise, one could prove anything.
No one declares the basic Aristotelian laws of thought and other axioms of logic "axioms" arbitrariliy (such as Leibniz's PSR).[1] The point at which doubt becomes irrational is proof that this handful of logical axioms are true.[2]
[1] So? I have not claimed otherwise.
[2] What are you talking about ?
You appear to be suggesting that '
2. A rational proposition is possible, but not probable without some demonstration of it (proof or evidence).' is
A. an Aristotelian axiom and that
B. Aristotelian axioms are true.
It should however been clear to you that I did not know that and I still don't.
Paulomycin 87 said:
Amoranemix 82 said:
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.
How? By magically declaring it so? By pretending you know something the rest of us don't and hiding it? Please show your work.
I'll try to reformulate the argument with epistemic possibility :
1. God is defined as a Maximally Great Being or MGB.
2. The existence of an MGB is either impossible or necessary (since it cannot be contingent).
3. The concept of an MGB is not impossible, since it is neither nonsensical nor self-contradictory.
4. Therefore (a) an MGB is necessary.
5. Therefore (b) an MGB exists.
In (2) impossible means that an unspecified mind or set of minds, perhaps the one making the argument, knows of no reason as to why it would be impossible. (2) relies on the principle that if someone is ignorant enough about a non-contingent thing X, it follows that X is necessary. That principle is false, as the necessity of X does not depend on someone's knowledge about it.
Paulomycin 87 said:
Amoranemix 82 said:
Science is in the business of modelling reality and demonstrating or refuting statements, not in demonstrating substantives.
And yet, ironically, science cannot demonstrate the reality claim of ontological naturalism.[3]
Science is limited to empirical substance (either directly or indirectly). Math and logic are in the business of modelling reality and demonstrating or refuting statements. Science depends upon
what is measurable. Science cannot demonstrate measurement itself. This is such a mind-blowing revelation that it contradicts all secular dogma. The general atheist reaction to it is usually some form of cognitive dissonance. They usually can't even deal with the topic for more than 5 minutes.[4]
^ These details cannot be blithely dismissed.[5] Attempts at ad hoc facile rationalization won't cut it either.
[3] Maybe. So what ?
[4] So science has limitations and atheists are in general imperfect. Relevance ?
[5] I dismiss them as off topic.
Paulomycin 87 said:
Amoranemix 82 said:
These claims can however be disputed, therefore they are not facts.
Who taught you that?[6]
- Your statement is self-refuting, because I can simply apply the same principle to your statement. If your claim can be disputed, then it's not a fact either. But if it doesn't apply to your claim, then it doesn't necessarily apply to other claims either.[7]
- Just because something can be disputed doesn't make the disputation itself valid or sound.[8]
- A mere claim of disputation without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.[9]
- Pretending they can be disputed without
actual objective disputation does't somehow magically make them "non-facts."[10]
- Subjective doubt alone never does anything substantial.
[6] It was someone correcting George W. Bush.
[7] You are mistaken, for I did not call my claim a fact. You called your criticisms facts.
[8] Agreed. Fact is a grey term as it not clear how indisputable something has to be. Branding something a fact does place on it a high standard of support though. You have not provided any support. However, I don't think you should since it appears off topic.
[9] Anything can be dismissed without evidence, including your 'facts'.
[10] That seems to be merely a rephrasing of your previous points.
Paulomycin 87 said:
Amoranemix 82 said:
That science and empiricism have limitations (just like everything else) seems to be off topic, as most of the discussion since post 54.
It's not off-topic, because it curbs the general urge among secularists to elevate science as-if it were a prescriptive dogma that applies to every-single category of reality.
When explaining how something is relevant, you are supposed to explain a relation to the topic, not to something else that is also off topic.
Paulomycin 87 said:
Amoranemix 82 said:
That is a definition more than a claim.
If so, then Clizby is trying to define it into existence.
How so ?
Is the existence of science disputed ?
Paulomycin 87 said:
Amoranemix 82 said:
Circular reasoning is not necessarily fallacious.
It always is when theists do it.[11] I'm just asking for a little intellectual consistency here.[12]
[11] I am confident there are exceptions.
[12] You got it.
Paulomycin 87 said:
Amoranemix 82 said:
I don't see you helping.
I don't see you helping either.
Paulomycin 87 said:
Amoranemix 82 said:
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.
Except for rationality (reason) itself.[13] Logic is math-based. Every argument for the existence of God for the past 700+ years can be more or less boiled down to logical notation. Deductive logic is bivalent algebra.
So no "trickery" necessary.[14] "Word games" and "trickery" is just a sign that one fails to recognize the implicit math within a given argument.[15]
[13] Stop talking in riddles, please. To which of what I have claimed is rationality supposed to be an exception ?
[14] I don't see how that is supposed to follow from what you have previously stated, which also seems off topic, but I agree trickery is contingent, just like any know behaviour or thing.
[15] Indeed. If they understood the intricacies of the argument, they would know it to be trickery, which would not be conducive to God-belief.
PuerAzaelis 92 to Moral Orel said:
I don’t know about having a mind but various perfections can be attributed to an eternal thing if we are prepared to concede that eternity in this sense is somehow a more perfect or fuller or more complete order of being than one that is contingent. Ie pure actuality means absolute perfection as opposed to something that is in potentiality to at least some degree. Eg existing in matter.
So whether something is a perfection is a matter of opinion. So what is an MGB is a matter of opinion. That makes an MGB contingent. So it is contingent and non-contingent. So an MGB is impossible.
Paulomycin 93 said:
Moral Orel 91 said:
I'd be interested to see someone make a deductive connection between being eternal and having a mind.
We have, but you just gainsay it to death.
Not in this thread.
PuerAzaelis 95 said:
The first part of Aquinas’ Summa is pretty limited in terms of what we can deduce about God. Ie if we concede that there is a non-contingent thing the items we can deduce about it are fundamental but limited. Ie simplicity, unity, goodness, infinity etc.
How can we deduce all that ?
Paulomycin 99 to Clizby WampusCat said:
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.[16]
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.[17]
[16] Deduction yields certainty only if the premises are certain (which is not the same as true).
[17] That would explain why we have never done that.
Paulomycin 102 to Clizby WampusCat said:
What "reality?" Atheists have no consistent nor objective standard of ontological reality.
Do Christians have a consistent or objective standard of ontological reality ?
Paulomycin 102 said:
Clizby WampusCat 100 said:
Deductive reasoning only yields certitude if the premises are true.
And that's the dilemma of the atheist, "If I accept that the premises of deductive reasoning are true, then he can prove God. I can't have that, so I can choose to force doubt upon the premises instead. But if I do that, then I'm implicitly rejecting reason."[18]
Atheists claim to value reason. But can they value it under pressure?[19]
[18]You are committing a combination of fallacies :
- The hasty generalization : that some atheists dismiss premises for wrong reasons, does not imply all do.
- The appeal to motive : that premises are rejected for dubious motives does not support those premises.
- The straw man : Clizby WampusCat does not reject the premises for that reason. (If he does, then this fallacy does not apply.)
Know that rejecting a premise based on a conclusion is not necessarily fallacious. Even mathematicians do that sometimes.
[19] That would depend on the atheist and on the pressure.
Paulomycin 103 to Clizby WampusCat said:
You skipped the sentence following that. It's not about what I "want" you to do. It is that you are currently in a position in your life where you can't answer them. It wasn't meant to anger you, or troll you, it was meant for you to check yourself on the big epistemology map, "You are here." Really. Yes. The questions I cited lead to some very brutal realizations that many atheists just aren't prepared to emotionally deal with. I get that.
I doubt that is the problem. More likely is that most atheists are too lazy to deal with those questions.
Paulomycin 103 said:
Clizby WampusCat said:
All I said was the words do not have objective meaning.
That is a self-refuting argument. Because in order to be consistent, one must necessarily behave as-if the words they chose to communicate really did have objective meaning. If you really believe your words do not have objective meaning, then everything you say is 100% meaningless. Why is it that I appear to value your words more than you do yourself?
Objectivity and subjectivity come in ways and degrees. To what extent and what way 'something' is objective depends on what it is referring to. Varying that, it can be both objective and subjective.
Paulomycin 103 said:
Clizby WampusCat said:
How do these [the fundamental laws of logic + Principle of Sufficient Reason] provide good evidence for a gods existence?
Because they're tautologies; therefore absolute. It's not just "good evidence." It's irrefutable proof on the level of, "
If you reject it, then you literally have a flat-earth mentality." Centuries of forced skepticism will do this to a religion. We're playing for keeps here.
I don't see how that is supposed to follow, but that also seems off topic. I suggest you start a thread, where you present your case.
Paulomycin 105 said:
Clizby WampusCat said:
Because we can agree on what words mean. You do understand these words I am typing correct? You must because you have been responding to them for a while now.
"We" haven't really gotten into the words that atheists prefer to re-define in order to maintain their atheism. Like faith, for example. <-- Can you at least agree that this word has two definitions?
We haven't gotten into that because that would have been off topic. We haven't gotten into how Christians prefer to redefine words in order to maintain their faith, because they have barely tried defending the argument of the OP.
Paulomycin 105 said:
Clizby WampusCat said:
If the burden of proof has not been met by theists then naturalism is what is left.
Without evidence. Therefore, you believe in a merely assumed "default position" without evidence, that's arbitrarily labeled "the default position." There's a lot of history behind that assumption, you know.
This is again off topic, but that is the only kind of stuff being discussed here.
Obviously there is evidence for naturalism.
Clizby WampusCat 106 said:
Paulomycin 105 said:
- Claiming something is "the default" is itself a truth claim.
Sure, what other options are there. Either God exists or he does not exist. These are the only two options. If I don't believe god exists then I kind of default to naturalism right? I am willing to have my mind changed here.
Given that God is ill-defined, there are in fact many options.
Paulomycin 107 said:
Clizby WampusCat said:
Sure, what other options are there. Either God exists or he does not exist. These are the only two options. If I don't believe god exists then I kind of default to naturalism right? I am willing to have my mind changed here.
The problem is your selective skepticism. You never questioned naturalism.[22] "But what other option do I have?" There's no excuse not to question literally everything.[23]
[23] How do you know Clizby WampusCat never questioned naturalism ?
[23] Yes, there is. Contrary to your god's, humans' time is limited.
Paulomycin 107 said:
Clizby WampusCat said:
Your first statement must be demonstrated and not just asserted. Can you show nature is dependent on math?
^ This question has just placed doubt upon all measurable testable evidence. See, this is proof that there really is no length you won't go to retain total incredulity.
More likely there is confusion. You both probably interpret 'dependent on' differently.
The character limit error is misleading.