None of which addresses the (simple) deductive argument, . :)
There's not even any reference thereto or mention thereof, instead you run seem to with a script that you could have posted as a response to more or less anything.
In fact, it follows logically that your (relatively) lengthier commentary has errors, I'll just say non-sequiturs (take it as an exercise to spot them).

With all due respect, is that your way of saying you cannot answer those questions concerning the nature of your own existence?

For example you're trying to use deductive logic which is basically arithmetic. We don't even understand the nature of arithmetic and its Platonic and timeless characteristics (nor do we know if it's a human invention or has an independent existence), so how how are you supposed to prove anything through that means and method?

Sounds to me like another metaphysical question with no answer. Which begs yet another question, how does the atheist square that circle? Isn't it paradoxical?

Maybe go back to my list that I made for Frank and pick some other concept to parse, that might be easier for you. (Some of those relate to a posteriori types of phenomenon/experiences rather than a priori and deduction.)

is that your way of saying [...] — 3017amen

Nope.
It's observing that you didn't address the argument in that comment; heck, you didn't really respond to it, just went off on your own. The argument pertains to some number of claims of yours.
_{(I suppose it's understandable that you'd rather just reiterate your own narrative, but this is a discussion, and not just anything goes, especially bare assertions shown to not hold water.)}
Furthermore, this isn't about me (at all), it's about the propositions. Not about you or me, but about the statements. (Hit the bar if you want to get down and personal. :wink:) Hence, please address what it's about.

Honestly I'm confused, could you spell out your questions and concepts in plain English? I'd be more than happy to parse them.

Then maybe you can return the favor and answer mine, if you're even able to... LOL

By Jove, , you brought up necessary (possible worlds, modal logic, the usual).
If you know what you're commenting about, then you ought to be able to understand the argument in that comment.
This comment lists some of the claims it applies to.
If you're still confused, then maybe read up on it?

Oh okay got it

Here's my response:

Consciousness is logically necessary to perceive existence and by extension is metaphysically necessary. And that's because the physical laws (mathematical timeless, abstract truths) describing existence transcend physics itself. And that in turn transcends the rational concept of possible worlds, as we know them.

In other words, because we neither have a theory of everything nor an adequate theory of conscious existence, we can infer something else about human rationality and it's purpose and existence. This is one reason why Multiverse theories even exist in human consciousness. Because it's logically possible. It's paradoxical...but so is time and consciousness itself, among other things.

So the question to you is, if our concept of rational explanation derives from observations of the physical world, and from evolutionary inheritance, does it provide for adequate guidance when we are tangling with ultimate questions about existence? Meaning, is our understanding of the nature of existence and its properties lie outside the usual categories of rational human thought?

Can you show me how we can come to exist and be conscious in this world without its being created by a God? — Punshhh

You have not given a coherent definition of the word "God".

You can't diminish the existential considerations of our origins, as an artistic flourish. — Punshhh

I am pointing out that all discussions of a supernatural god are poetic in nature and have no semantic content.

Again - I am not dismissing your faith. But faith is irrational and illogical.

Here. I'll use a poetic simile. Using logic to prove "God exists" is like using an octopus to fly to the moon.

OK. I'll concede that it's not great poetry. You got me there. . . .

1) Consciousness is logically necessary to perceive existence and by extension is metaphysically necessary.
2) And that's because the physical laws (mathematical timeless, abstract truths) describing existence transcend physics itself.
3) And that in turn transcends the rational concept of possible worlds, as we know them. — 3017amen

In ordinary conversation I might suppose I knew what these meant. In this context I do not. I'll go further:

#1 Does not mean anything. Word salad. What is "logically necessary"? How does it differ from necessary? What does it mean to perceive "existence"? Is existence something perceived? And back to necessity: what is metaphysical necessity? What is, and what makes such a thing necessary?

#2) I am pretty sure there are zero "mathematical, timeless, abstract truths" that describe existence. And if there were - whatever they might be - why would they "transcend physics"? What does transcend physics mean? Does it mean that physics is immanent and laws transcendent? How would that work?

#3 More nonsense.

Could be sense, but the sense has to be blown in. All of these words are terms of art, the art of them not allowing of independent bending, cutting, and shaping. Go back to your drawing board, 3017. If you want it to work, make it work.

Consciousness is not necessary in general because there's a (simple) possible world without — that's the (simple) logic.

I presume you have noted that I am not making an assertion, but rather critiquing the positive assertion that consciousness is not necessary for existence.
All I need to do to achieve this is to remind you of the philosophy of idealism, in which it is considered that consciousness (mind) is primary and the physical world we find ourselves in is some kind of mental projection, is contingent on the mind and consciousness of the beings who experience it. I know this is a big ask and it's not my personal philosophy. But The cogito accepts this possibility.

I think, therefore there is something.

The something cannot to divorced from the being doing the thinking. The whole natural world described by science is in a sense a nursery rhythm, narrative, or poetical flourish in the way this mind experiences this something.

JerseyFlight
63
↪Frank Apisa

Are you a Christian? — JerseyFlight

No.

3017amen
2.3k
The "historical" account of Jesus...is NOT an historical account of Jesus
— Frank Apisa

I don't understand why you would deny that it's a historical account. What title or concept would you categorize or give to it? — 3017amen

I cannot understand how anyone can consider it to be an historical account. It does have some history in it, I concede that. It mentions ancient Egypt and ancient Rome...and we know those places existed. It mentions a Pharaoh and an Emperor as leaders of those places...and we know they were ruled by a Pharaoh and an Emperor. But Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventures also mention those places...and no one with any intelligence would consider that to be an historical account.

My best guess about the Bible is that it is pseudo-history (a mythology, if you will) of the early Hebrew people...a relatively unsophisticated, relatively unknowledgeable, superstitious people who had many enemies in the areas where they lived. Their enemies worshiped barbarous, vengeful, wrathful, unforgiving, demanding, murderous, petty gods. And to protect themselves from those gods, they invented an especially barbarous, vengeful, wrathful, unforgiving, demanding, murderous, petty god...and worshiped it. The New Testament followed in that tradition.

For you to suggest the Bible proves in any way that at least one god exists...is totally illogical.

Perhaps you ought to try you second best proof, because your "best proof" fails totally.

3017amen
2.3k
Are you a Christian?
— JerseyFlight

Frank's an Agnostic — 3017amen

I prefer to think of myself as agnostic...rather than as "an Agnostic." I know I sometimes use the Agnostic shortcut, but I will attempt to be more careful in the future.

All I need to do to achieve this is to remind you of the philosophy of idealism, in which it is considered that consciousness (mind) is primary and the physical world we find ourselves in is some kind of mental projection, is contingent on the mind and consciousness of the beings who experience it. I know this is a big ask and it's not my personal philosophy. But The cogito accepts this possibility.

I think, therefore there is something.

The something cannot to divorced from the being doing the thinking. — Punshhh

Excellent point Punshhh. Likewise, I wasn't going to go there either with jorndoe because it's not my personal philosophy. Instead, I was going to save that Metaphysical argument (see concept-subjective v. objective truth- Metaphysics) if and when someone wanted to parse any one of those concepts from my so-called master list. George Berkeley of course championed that theory arguing only mental activity exists.

Similarly, as a footnote 'I think therefore I am' (as you alluded) is the old Metaphysical problem of dualism where the paradox of Being and becoming rears its head. And that's a good discussion point as well.

Thanks!

Does not mean anything. Word salad. What is "logically necessary"? How does it differ from necessary? — tim wood

Tim!

Not sure your previous ad hominem comments to me deserve a sincere response, especially since you prefer dropping F-bombs and seemingly have an axe to grind, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt one last time, otherwise you'll be relegated to my ignore list. (Actually, I'm not sure why you're even participating in this thread... .)

So, to answer your concern consider the statement: "There exists at least one true proposition". Call that proposition A. Is A necessarily true? Suppose I contend that A is false. Call this proposition B. "A is false."

But if A is false, so is B because B is a proposition. And if A is false there are no true propositions. So A must be true. It is therefore logically impossible for there to exist no true propositions.

Though not a huge fan of the ontological argument (because it's based on a priori logic---as I've argued with Jorndoe---and the resulting contradictions for Atheism/ their exclusive trust in using logic) the point is, if there exists necessary propositions, then the notion of a necessary Being is not obviously absurd. (And, exclusively using modal a priori logic, is logically possible--not necessarily false.)

I am pretty sure there are zero "mathematical, timeless, abstract truths" that describe existence. And if there were - whatever they might be - why would they "transcend physics"? What does transcend physics mean? Does it mean that physics is immanent and laws transcendent? How would that work?

#3 More nonsense. — tim wood

They transcend physics because they are mathematical truth's. Mathematical truth's are a priori, abstract, Platonic entities. And more importantly, the are considered Metaphysical. A Metaphysical language (kind of like Music). There are abstract mathematical objects whose existence seems independent of us and our language, thought, and practices. Just as electrons and planets exist independently of us, so do numbers and sets.

As an example, again, I can size a structural beam using abstract mathematical calculations that describe the beams existence ( when I design the structure). And I can also abstractly calculate the unseen laws of gravity using same. But existentially, we don't need either to build something or dodge some thing/falling objects. And finally, (although less analogous) I can write music that describes time signatures, chord progressions, rhythm, cadence, etc. that represents an abstract language known as the phenomena of music.

For you to suggest the Bible proves in any way that at least one god exists...is totally illogical.

Perhaps you ought to try you second best proof, because your "best proof" fails totally. — Frank Apisa

Frank! With all due respect, using that reasoning, you would have to prove that all historical accounts are either; true, false, half-true or half-false ad nauseum.

As a side note, what does it mean, in this context, to be illogical?

3017amen
2.3k
For you to suggest the Bible proves in any way that at least one god exists...is totally illogical.

Perhaps you ought to try you second best proof, because your "best proof" fails totally.
— Frank Apisa

Frank! With all due respect, using that reasoning, you would have to prove that all historical accounts are either; true, false, half-true or half-false ad nauseum.

As a side note, what does it mean, in this context, to be illogical? — 3017amen

Here is you "conclusion" Amen.

Therefore there is a God.

With that as a C...please give me the P1 and P2 (that includes "the Bible says so) that gets you to that C.

When you realize that it cannot be done...

...you will have shown yourself why it is illogical.

I'll refer you to the Anselm's ontological argument. Goggle it and get back to me. Or, see my response to Tim.

3017amen
2.3k
↪Frank Apisa

I'll refer you to the Anselm's ontological argument. Goggle it and get back to me. Or, see my response to Tim. — 3017amen

If you have a reply to me...give it.

If you want to send me on a treasure hunt of some sort...I decline.

Sorry dude, you gotta do some homework. This isn't remedial philosophy class. If you're arguing EOG, you gotta come to the table with the basic's. Sorry, do the necessary training (or read my response to Tim).

3017amen
2.3k
↪Frank Apisa

Sorry dude, you gotta do some homework. This isn't remedial philosophy class. If you're arguing EOG, you gotta come to the table with the basic's. Sorry, do the necessary training (or read my response to Tim). — 3017amen

Give me the P1 and P2 that arrive at a C of "Therefore there is a god."

HINT: You can no mare do that than the people who assert "There are no gods" can come up with a P1 and P2 that arrives at a C of "Therefore there are no gods."

It cannot be done.

If one of those other guys want to play your game...good for you.

I don't.

Okay, I'm bored, so you'll get the benefit of same :snicker: I'll babysit you if you want. Let's have some fun with deductive reasoning. Now, we don't seem to agree that Jesus existed in the Christian Bible (you haven't proved to me that the historical accounting of Jesus from the Bible is false), so I'm not sure what else to tell you on that. Your argument about historical figures was apples and oranges, thinking that JFK's existence was germane all because there was proof in movies and pictures. C'mon Frank, you can do better than that dude! Maybe argue about proof of primates or something from the same or similar time in history LOL.

Nevertheless, instead of Anselm's ontological argument (I don't buy into the Omni-x3 stuff) let's play around with the same kind of logic using logically necessary truth's and deductive reasoning, and oh BTW, that'll be 100 bucks. Here have at it:

I'm not a big 'morals/ethics' person, but here's the classic approach to the moral argument for God’s existence. Stated as a syllogism, it looks like this:

•If there is no God, then there is no objective morality (no lawmaker, then no laws).
•But there is objective morality (evidenced by the problem of evil).
•Therefore, there is a God.

The form of the syllogism is valid (modus tollens), and the premises are true. Therefore, the argument is sound.

Another example is a version of the cosmological argument that simply posits causation itself.

Here’s the basic idea.
•First, for anything that came into existence, there must have been something that caused it to come into existence. Clearly, effects have causes. Pretty basic, and entirely consistent with our common-sense experience of the world.
•Second, the material universe (the cosmos) came into existence sometime in the past. Virtually everyone affirms this point because of the widespread and, I think, justified belief in the Big Bang.
•Therefore, the material universe must have had a cause.

Put most simply, “a Big Bang needs a big Banger.” The bang didn’t bang itself. Note, by the way, that this line of thinking puts the cause of the cosmos outside of the material universe. So the cause would have to be super-natural, timeless (like the speed of light and existing outside of time) immaterial/metaphysical and abstract (because of what we know about the nature of mathematics viz physical theories) etc. etc..

And so Frank, if you want to invoke God into the cosmological argument you can, by virtue of his/its a priori description. But what would that prove? Isn't the concept of God more than a priori logic?

So, to answer your concern consider the statement: "There exists at least one true proposition". Call that proposition A. Is A necessarily true? Suppose I contend that A is false. Call this proposition B. "A is false."

But if A is false, so is B because B is a proposition. And if A is false there are no true propositions. So A must be true. It is therefore logically impossible for there to exist no true propositions. — 3017amen

Thus in your usage "logically necessary" means necessary at/in logic, and "logically impossible" means impossible in logic. This is not standard or ordinary usage. More significantly, having constrained the logic to itself, you now have the task of refuting the "So what." That is, granted in logic, but what does that say about anything else? Granted logic is useful, can be useful, wrt the world, but your claim is much more substantive, and you have not yet made the case - or any case.

What does it mean to perceive "existence"? Is existence something perceived? And back to necessity: what is metaphysical necessity? What is, and what makes such a thing necessary? — tim wood

Same business with these. Your claims are substantial. To stand they need substantive support.

#2) I am pretty sure there are zero "mathematical, timeless, abstract truths" that describe existence. And if there were - whatever they might be - why would they "transcend physics"? What does transcend physics mean? Does it mean that physics is immanent and laws transcendent? How would that work? — tim wood

They transcend physics because they are mathematical truth's. Mathematical truth's are a priori, abstract, Platonic entities. And more importantly, the are considered Metaphysical. A Metaphysical language (kind of like Music). There are abstract mathematical objects whose existence seems independent of us and our language, thought, and practices. Just as electrons and planets exist independently of us, so do numbers and sets. — 3017amen

"Mathematical truths are a priori, abstract." I grant it (not sure others will.)

"Platonic entities." I'm thinking you have no idea what that means. And the claim, even if meaningful, needs support.

"That describe existence." You need to tell us a) what "existence" is, b) and how "transcendent truths" are descriptors of it.

"considered Metaphysical." Please tell us what you say metaphysical is. You may have noticed a recent thread in which the number of different understandings of the term was close to the number of people posting to the thread; that is, it seems everyone has his own.

"There are abstract mathematical objects whose existence seems independent of us and our language, thought, and practices." I'm just the other way: no mind, no objects in perception. A fortiori, if abstract (a matter of mind) and no mind, then not at all.

"Just as electrons and planets exist independently of us, so do numbers and sets." Please demonstrate. I hold you're categorically wrong.

"As an example, again, I can size a structural beam using abstract mathematical calculations that describe the beams existence ( when I design the structure). And I can also abstractly calculate the unseen laws of gravity using same. But existentially, we don't need either to build something or dodge some thing/falling objects. And finally, (although less analogous) I can write music that describes time signatures, chord progressions, rhythm, cadence, etc. that represents an abstract language known as the phenomena of music." The math and logic here both used and applied are tools used for modelling - and for the most part the tools are adequate and more than adequate. Being tools, they are prt of this world, nothing transcendent about them. And the world still waits the law of gravity. What there are, are pretty good descriptions, but no laws, notwithstanding what they're called. And finally, you don't write music. Nor can there be "an abstract language" as the phenomenon of music. What would that be?

----------------------

These objections of mine would be tedious and contentious directed to most others, But your usage is so equivocal, your arguments so presumptive, that to rehabilitate them - if even possible - would be a lot of work. I suppose you "buy" what you write and think it so. It isn't, and the real victim of your usages and the homiletics you build on them is you.

You mention Anselm above. It's clear you do not understand his proof. But I commend to you the reply he gave to a critic of his, I don't care." Which he could do because he understood his own proof. And you could say you don't care as well, but the distinction would be that yours don't make sense at all.

If you wanted to start, you'd take your own words and learn what each meant, and then think about their use. Yours is use without requisite meaning or thought. A boy, really, playing with grown-up tools as toys.





.

TTP:

Okay, I'm bored, so you'll get the benefit of same :snicker: I'll babysit you if you want. Let's have some fun with deductive reasoning. Now, we don't seem to agree that Jesus existed in the Christian Bible (you haven't proved to me that the historical accounting of Jesus from the Bible is false), so I'm not sure what else to tell you on that. Your argument about historical figures was apples and oranges, thinking that JFK's existence was germane all because there was proof in movies and pictures. C'mon Frank, you can do better than that dude! Maybe argue about proof of primates or something from the same or similar time in history LOL.

Nevertheless, instead of Anselm's ontological argument (I don't buy into the Omni-x3 stuff) let's play around with the same kind of logic using logically necessary truth's and deductive reasoning, and oh BTW, that'll be 100 bucks. Here have at it:

I'm not a big 'morals/ethics' person, but here's the classic approach to the moral argument for God’s existence. Stated as a syllogism, it looks like this:

•If there is no God, then there is no objective morality (no lawmaker, then no laws).
•But there is objective morality (evidenced by the problem of evil).
•Therefore, there is a God.

The form of the syllogism is valid (modus tollens), and the premises are true. Therefore, the argument is sound.

Another example is a version of the cosmological argument that simply posits causation itself.

Here’s the basic idea.
•First, for anything that came into existence, there must have been something that caused it to come into existence. Clearly, effects have causes. Pretty basic, and entirely consistent with our common-sense experience of the world.
•Second, the material universe (the cosmos) came into existence sometime in the past. Virtually everyone affirms this point because of the widespread and, I think, justified belief in the Big Bang.
•Therefore, the material universe must have had a cause.

Put most simply, “a Big Bang needs a big Banger.” The bang didn’t bang itself. Note, by the way, that this line of thinking puts the cause of the cosmos outside of the material universe. So the cause would have to be super-natural, timeless (like the speed of light and existing outside of time) immaterial/metaphysical and abstract (because of what we know about the nature of mathematics viz physical theories) etc. etc..

And so Frank, if you want to invoke God into the cosmological argument you can, by virtue of his/its a priori description. But what would that prove? Isn't the concept of God more than a priori logic?

I'm not a big 'morals/ethics' person, but here's the classic approach to the moral argument for God’s existence. Stated as a syllogism, it looks like this:

•If there is no God, then there is no objective morality (no lawmaker, then no laws).
•But there is objective morality (evidenced by the problem of evil).
•Therefore, there is a God. — 3017amen

That is without a doubt the WORST attempt at a syllogism EVER.

The form of the syllogism is valid (modus tollens), and the premises are true. Therefore, the argument is sound. — Amen

The premises...are a laugh.

At best...at very best...the P1 is false. (Actually, it is a gratuitous piece of nonsense.)

I did not suppose you were going to be absurd.

C'mon, get serious. If you just want to kid around...find something less serious to kick around.

No wonder these others have been laughing at you!

•If there is no God, then there is no objective morality (no lawmaker, then no laws).
•But there is objective morality (evidenced by the problem of evil).
•Therefore, there is a God. — 3017amen

Valid but no truth from this.

Really? I don't understand. Okay must be my bad again. Well, can you make them sound for me? I mean, you seem to be an expert. I'll anxiously await your correction, thanks!

1.If there is no God, then there is no objective morality (no lawmaker, then no laws).
2. But there is objective morality (evidenced by the problem of evil).
3. Therefore, there is a God.

•First, for anything that came into existence, there must have been something that caused it to come into existence. Clearly, effects have causes. Pretty basic, and entirely consistent with our common-sense experience of the world.
•Second, the material universe (the cosmos) came into existence sometime in the past. Virtually everyone affirms this point because of the widespread and, I think, justified belief in the Big Bang.
•Therefore, the material universe must have had a cause.

As an alternative (just trying to help) maybe go back to my list that I made for you and pick some other concept to parse, that might be easier (for you). (Some of those relate to a posteriori types of phenomenon/experiences rather than a priori and deduction.)

3017amen
2.3k
↪Frank Apisa

Really? I don't understand. Okay must be my bad again. Well, can you make them sound for me? I mean, you seem to be an expert. I'll anxiously await your correction, thanks!

1.If there is no God, then there is no objective morality (no lawmaker, then no laws).
2. But there is objective morality (evidenced by the problem of evil).
3. Therefore, there is a God.

•First, for anything that came into existence, there must have been something that caused it to come into existence. Clearly, effects have causes. Pretty basic, and entirely consistent with our common-sense experience of the world.
•Second, the material universe (the cosmos) came into existence sometime in the past. Virtually everyone affirms this point because of the widespread and, I think, justified belief in the Big Bang.
•Therefore, the material universe must have had a cause.

As an alternative (just trying to help) maybe go back to my list that I made for you and pick some other concept to parse, that might be easier (for you). (Some of those relate to a posteriori types of phenomenon/experiences rather than a priori and deduction.) — 3017amen

Amen...save the nonsense for someone willing to deal with it.

Contact a logician at a local university...and ask him/her to comment on your "syllogism."

You won't like the answer.

Peace!

Amen...save the nonsense for someone willing to deal with it.

Contact a logician at a local university...and ask him/her to comment on your "syllogism."

You won't like the answer. — Frank Apisa

Is that another way of saying you lost and are throwing in the towel? Gee Frank, what a sore loser. I thought you had more integrity. Oh well, Karma is a mysterious thing. I think I understand now why the moderators closed that other thread that you did...it was indeed just another rant of sorts LOL

Be well my friend!

3017amen
2.3k
Amen...save the nonsense for someone willing to deal with it.

Contact a logician at a local university...and ask him/her to comment on your "syllogism."

You won't like the answer.
— Frank Apisa

Is that another way of saying you lost and are throwing in the towel? Gee Frank, what a sore loser. I thought you had more integrity. Oh well, Karma is a mysterious thing. I think I understand now why the moderators closed that other thread that you did...it was indeed just another rant of sorts LOL

Be well my friend! — 3017amen

If it makes you feel better about yourself to suppose that pathetic excuse for a syllogism was a mortal blow of some sort...go for it. I want everyone to feel good about themselves.

But you really out to put the "syllogism" to a logician...and see what he/she says. :wink:

But you really out to put the "syllogism" to a logician...and see what he/she says. — Frank Apisa

I'm not following that Frank. Take a deep breath and think about what you just said. You critiqued the syllogism by ranting. In other words, you claimed foul, then suggested that you're not even knowledgeable enough to understand that which you disapproved. Frank, I'm starting to get worried brother...sorry, but how old are you again?