GFY.

:mask:

There's nothing you can know that isn't known
Nothing you can see that isn't shown
There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be
It's easy — John Paul George & Ringo

:death: :flower:


edit:

More troll bait :shade:

One central question relative to that existence becomes, how can the atheist make any objective statements about the non-existence of a God when he/she cannot even provide adequate explanations about the nature of their own existence? — 3017amen

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/352403 (re: a prolegomena of a prolegomena ... )

I challenge you to make your case for the non-existence of God!! — 3017amen

Why so difficult a challenge? Show us how you handle proving you do not have a purple hippopotamus sitting on your head.

As to God, there's always the problem of evil. Btw,did you ever get around to saying what you thought "God" meant, or was, or is? I do not think you did, or if you did, refresh our memory.

.. then it is contingent, that is, it can always change (even if it hasn't yet). 'Necessary - impossible to negate - facts' are subsistent constructs like round squares, fish riding unicycles, ... paradoxical figures in Escher's gallery & inconsistent objects in Meinong's Zoo because facts are causally relational, thereby change with respect to other facts changing - in flux - anywhere anywhen, and so they're 'necessarily non-necessary'. Unless there aren't any changeable, or contingent, facts at all; but that is not the case. What's impossible is a fact - node of causal relations - which is 'impossible to negate', or change; factual existence presupposes contingency - possibility of negation - insofar as facts are - at least one fact is - causally relational, unlike abstract subsistents which are not causally relational. I can easily list necessary abstractions (e.g. numbers, equations, classes / categories) but not a single 'necessary fact' - not even Witty's "world is the totality of facts" because it's an abstraction, not a fact, like the "set of all sets".

:up: Well-stated; I quite like this. A necessary existent or fact (i.e. a being who exists necessarily- whose existence is a "necessary fact") is literal non-sense. Each of the terms is perfectly meaningful on their own, but their conjunction is illicit, a category error, like Chomsky's furiously sleeping green ideas.

"there is an evident absurdity in claiming to demonstrate—or to prove by any a priori arguments—any matter of fact. Nothing is demonstrable unless its contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing that is distinctly conceivable implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. So there is no being whose non-existence implies a contradiction."
- Hume, DCNR

Are you saying that a thing cannot be factually necessary because you can conceive of it not existing? Sorry I had a hard time following the text.

not sure which quote you're referring to (Hume or 180 Proof), but yes, that's the gist of it- facts are contingent, existence claims are claims of fact, and anything that can be by the same token can not be. So as Hume says, there is an "evident absurdity" in an a priori argument purporting to establish an existence claim- a claim of fact- because such an effort is doomed to failure by its very nature. As far as logic and deductive arguments go, you can only get out what you put in, and so any argument with purely a priori or definitional premises but a factual conclusion (like that some X exists) is bound to be invalid. And so it is with e.g. the ontological argument for the existence of God.

And I suppose then that this is why Plantinga and swinburne argue for other kinds of necessity than logical? Causal and factual?

while there are other sorts of modality (so, nomological modality- pertaining to physical laws of nature, epistemic modality, and so on) and there almost certainly are arguments for the existence of God framed in those terms, from what I've seen of Plantinga specifically (i.e. his modal ontological argument) he's not arguing for a different kind of necessity in this sense, but is simply using a slightly more complicated modal logic (S5) that allows for different kinds of inferences involving combinations of the basic modal operators "it is possible that" and "it is necessary that" (so, for instance "it is possibly necessary that", or "it is necessarily possible that.."). He ultimately runs into the same problem the traditional ontological argument does, of needing to smuggle the conclusion into the premises for the conclusion to follow at all- one of the premises of Plantinga's modal ontological argument is equivalent to the proposition that God exists necessarily. Its just not obvious to the untrained eye, because of the counter-intuitive modal language of S5. But of course if you start with the premise that God exists necessarily, its hardly surprising that you're able to conclude that God exists necessarily!

So ultimately just a kind of philosophical/logical sleight of hand, and his argument ultimately fails for the same reason as the traditional ontological argument, by any reasonable measure. You can't get out more than you put in, so if you need to derive an existential statement ("there exists an X" of such-and-such nature) at some point you're going to need to introduce one into your premises.. but no one who doesn't already accept that existential claim is going to accede to such a premise. So the argument is only valid if its question-begging, and invalid when its not, and so cannot be regarded as persuasive by any means. It will only be accepted by those who already accept the conclusion, but then what's the point?

:clap:
:up:

Enai De A Lukal
155
↪DoppyTheElv not sure which quote you're referring to (Hume or 180 Proof), but yes, that's the gist of it- facts are contingent, existence claims are claims of fact, and anything that can be by the same token can not be. So as Hume says, there is an "evident absurdity" in an a priori argument purporting to establish an existence claim- a claim of fact- because such an effort is doomed to failure by its very nature. As far as logic and deductive arguments go, you can only get out what you put in, and so any argument with purely a priori or definitional premises but a factual conclusion (like that some X exists) is bound to be invalid. And so it is with e.g. the ontological argument for the existence of God. — Enai De A Lukal

I still do not understand for certain what you are saying, but it sounds a lot like: If you assert "there are no gods"...no burden of proof arises.

I doubt you would find many logicians who would agree.

If I have misunderstood your position, Enai, I apolgize.

As to God, there's always the problem of evil. Btw,did you ever get around to saying what you thought "God" meant, or was, or is? I do not think you did, or if you did, refresh our memory. — tim wood

I don't see a problem with evil; it's just a lack of perfection.

With respect to what God 'meant', you may refer to Kant's synthetic a priori knowledge relative to causation. Meaning, do all events have a cause?

Interesting. You're getting a little closer, with your definitions about metaphysical abstracts. See, you're learning LOL. Now you have to link it with states of consciousness and metaphysical phenomena. But most atheists are clueless (Daniel Dennett being one). He wrote a big thick book about consciousness and at the end of it he basically said it's still a mystery. What a buffoon and a waste of money. LOL

Do atheists consider him their God?

So the argument is only valid if its question-begging, and invalid when its not, and so cannot be regarded as persuasive by any means. It will only be accepted by those who already accept the conclusion, but then what's the point? — Enai De A Lukal

And what's your point ? There's nothing new under the sun there. The ontological argument is based on formal logic and exclusively a priori. You might want to explore a posteriori kinds of truth's and phenomena.

Otherwise, are mathematical truth's necessary?

↪3017amen
Asked and answered many months ago. Stop trolling. :yawn: — 180 Proof

I rarely pay attention to a thread that is more than 6 pages and I am not going to look for old threads before I begin one, but I can go to another forum. This one is not very friendly.

180 is just another one of those angry atheists who like to drop the F-bomb. Even Einstein saw the angst:

"The fanatical atheists are like ... who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

― Albert Einstein

Meaning, do all events have a cause? — 3017amen

Define event. Define cause. And I think that in mentioning Kant, you make clear you do not know what you're taking about. Or maybe you do. Cause, for Kant, is categorical. Do you know what that means?

I don't see a problem with evil; it's just a lack of perfection. — 3017amen

I think you're confusing sin with evil.

There's a difference between fanatical and angry. I commend to you some reflection on the difference.

Define cause. — tim wood

Cause is a metaphysical component of consciousness. It is your sense of wonder. What causes you to worry about wonder/how does that impact your self-awareness compared to lower life forms? Hint: your quality of life depends on it.

I think you're confusing sin with evil. — tim wood

How so?

There's a difference between fanatical and angry. I commend to you some reflection on the difference. — tim wood

You may want to seek guidance from Pforrest and/or 180 on that one. Forrest was once banned for his anger, and 180 likes to drop F-bombs, so not sure what to tell you there.

Cause is a metaphysical component of consciousness.

I think you're confusing sin with evil.
— tim wood — 3017amen

I do not know what a "metaphysical component of consciousness" is. What is it?

The root of (the word) sin is imperfection in achieving a goal - hitting a target - which implies a perfection that was missed. Evil, on the other hand, has no correlative perfection.

Well, recall that Einstein also said he believed in Spinoza's God. That God is hardly one to be a cause of fanatical opposition or, for that matter, fanatical support. There are other Gods believed in which inspire rigorous opposition, and these arguments are often used in support of those beliefs.

I'm rather fond of the Stoic conception of God. But I feel no more need to defend that conception in argument than I do to defend my enjoyment of Haydn's concerto for trumpet. Why do you react so strongly against atheism?

You're quite evasive. I can guess why but I wonder how you would account for it. For example, I suggest you consider the problem of evil, and you reply that it is not a problem for you. But you were not asked about your problems.

And I ask you to reflect on the difference between fanatical and angry, and you're reply is a slice of Trump. Deflection, collateral attack, misdirection. At the moment you're a seeming blend of natural psychopath and eight-year-old. Can you do any better?

Well, recall that Einstein also said he believed in Spinoza's God. That God is hardly one to be a cause of fanatical opposition or, for that matter, fanatical support. There are other Gods believed in which inspire rigorous opposition, and these arguments are often used in support of those beliefs. — Ciceronianus the White

Sure. As I've stated elsewhere, early church politics unfortunately excluded Spinoza's wisdom… . It's a shame. Another reason why I'm a Christian Existentialist.

With respect to negative emotion and/or 'fanatical opposition' viz atheism, extremism seems to be the rule rather than the exception. Again, Einstein saw what we are seeing, nothing new there nor has anything changed.

Why do you react so strongly against atheism? — Ciceronianus the White

My reaction is that I treat like cases likely, and different cases differently. Indeed, the OP has inspired your 'rigorous opposition' here.

Every organism is born from a mother or using a mother part; wouldn't this suggest that the universe was also born from a female or female part?

This means that what you call God is truly named Mother, and the Father, is not God; the opposite.

In essence, God is a "unicorn-scam" though I agree the universe was born.

I can accept the word God but with a strict definition, a theory about the birth of a universe is irrational if thought to be from a lone male(which equates to masturbation). Male and female sex resulting in female-childbirth is a rational hypothesis.

I define God as the universe's mother and father partnership, or I address it directly; perhaps addressing it directly is the smarter alternative.

Thinking God is a male only(equating to masturbation), has led to beliefs about: a superhero God, a Christian God, a pure-loving God, and more non-scientific guesses.

Thinking God is a male and female partnership, is a more scientific guess, leading to beliefs about: super computational power, existences prior to the universe, other simulations, and more scientific guesses.

Thinking of a male-only God is a logical mis-match with creativity; no child is born from a male's penis, no sperm and egg is contained in a female's vagina.

I do not know what a "metaphysical component of consciousness" is. What is it? — tim wood

Think about what it is, that causes you to wonder about causes. Put that into analytical terms. Is that exclusively a physical phenomena?

Simple example: if the physicist didn't have a sense of wonder about causation, would there be any physical discoveries? What about in other walks of life? Engineering, music, medical science, etc. etc.. Without it, what would your quality of life look like viz the human condition? Does your sense of causation and wonderment trump instinct?

The root of (the word) sin is imperfection in achieving a goal - hitting a target - which implies a perfection that was missed. Evil, on the other hand, has no correlative perfection. — tim wood

Don't agree that there is a distinction. Evil/Sin means the same thing. Both are transgressions against the human ideal of perfection. Think of it as the metaphorical tree of knowledge. We are barred from figuring things out perfectly.

I suggest you consider the problem of evil, and you reply that it is not a problem for you. But you were not asked about your problems. — tim wood

Correct, and neither were you. But you suggested it was a problem. And I said it wasn't.

And I ask you to reflect on the difference between fanatical and angry, and you're reply is a slice of Trump. Deflection, collateral attack, misdirection. At the moment you're a seeming blend of natural psychopath and eight-year-old. Can you do any better? — tim wood

Not sure hiding behind ad hominem is your best approach.
:snicker:

, I wouldn't call 180 Proof clueless.

not very friendly — Athena

I'll just suggest that 3017amen's passive-aggressive comments and general tone sets an attitude in the thread.

_{(Then there's tactically shifting the burden of proof; implicitly (i.e. in a hidden fashion) challenge others with the diallelus (or similar, other philosophical conundrums may also take the role), then go "Aha, God"; go for lengthy complex (occasionally obscure) metaphysicalizing, then go "Aha" when others don't take the bait; a bit of intimidation and loaded/exaggerated/condescending verbiage here and there can also help to give an impression of a secure position; ...)}

Sometimes commenters call for angry responses. *shrug* Nothing new I guess, just check some of the threads touching on contemporary politics for example. :)

Hey Johndoe! Aren't you the same guy who was wrong about challenging me over the fact most all domain's of philosophy invoking God?

If I recall, wasn't it you being initially adversarial... ( I'll find it and post it if you like)?

Open mouth insert foot?

3017amen, it is clear from your replies above that you do not know what a discussion or argument is or how to conduct yourself in one. I leave you to play with yourself alone.

No worries. I know it can be frustrating at times. I'll let you ponder my last post to you, and if you're so inclined to parse my comments, feel free to provide some import. Otherwise, it looks like another 'I'm crying foul' response from you. :grin:


do not know what a "metaphysical component of consciousness" is. What is it?
— tim wood

Think about what it is, that causes you to wonder about causes. Put that into analytical terms. Is that exclusively a physical phenomena?

Simple example: if the physicist didn't have a sense of wonder about causation, would there be any physical discoveries? What about in other walks of life? Engineering, music, medical science, etc. etc.. Without it, what would your quality of life look like viz the human condition? Does your sense of causation and wonderment trump instinct?



The root of (the word) sin is imperfection in achieving a goal - hitting a target - which implies a perfection that was missed. Evil, on the other hand, has no correlative perfection.
— tim wood

Don't agree that there is a distinction. Evil/Sin means the same thing. Both are transgressions against the human ideal of perfection. Think of it as the metaphorical tree of knowledge. We are barred from figuring things out perfectly.

The root of (the word) sin is imperfection in achieving a goal - hitting a target - which implies a perfection that was missed. Evil, on the other hand, has no correlative perfection.
— tim wood

Don't agree that there is a distinction. — 3017amen

The distinction is there in front of you. Denying it is crazy-making.

And you're asked a direct question that you do not answer. That's why you're alone, here.