now for something completely different: Hartshorne' s modal argument

Image result for Charles Hartshorne the Philosopher
Charles Hartshorne 1897-2000
Modern Champion of the modal argument


What follows is one of the most challenging subjects you will ever hear about. It is the best way to get a head ache, but I think it proves the existence of God. The problem is it requires a very specialized background to understand it. First you have to understand modal logic.

Modal Logic is so called because it turns upon the use of so called "modal operators." It's called "modal" because it is the logic of modes of being. "modes" as in what type of existence something exits in, weather it is dependent upon other things, weather it can cease or fail to exist and so forth. The modal operators are "necessity," "contingency" "impossibly," "possibility."

Necessity and contingency lie at the base of our modern understanding of cause and effect. They come from scholastic notions of logic, but the distinction between the notion our modern notions of c/e and the scholastic ones in the middle ages is not that great. The  scholastic had more levels of cause, efficient cause, final cause and several others. But one could everything we have done in modern science using the scholastic ideas of c/e.

Necessity doesn't mean has to exist. It doesn't mean God is necessary to the existence of the world (except in so far as if God exists then of closure God is necessary to the world as creator--without God there would be no world).The modal argument does not begin with the assumption that God has to exist. It begins with the assumption that there is a valid distinction between necessity and contingency, which there must be.It proceeds along the lines of hypothetical consequence that obtain from different scenarios of God's existence. It concludes that is necessary. But by "necessary" it means not contingent, or not dependent upon something else for its' existence.

This is often misconstrued by atheists and taken to mean the argument proceeds from God's existence as an assumed first premise. This is not the case, the first premise is either/or. Either God's existence is necessary or it is impossible. This allows for the possibility that there is no God. So the argument does not begin by "defining God into existence."

Necessity means either non dependent or cannot cease or fail. By "fail" I mean there could not not be a God. That is the conclusion of the argument, not the premise.

Contingent means the opposite: that a thing is dependent upon a prior thing for existence, or that it could cease or fail to exist.

Impossible means logically impossible, something in the structure of the idea contradictions, such as square circles.

one of the sore spots that atheists get stuck on is the idea that God cannot be contingent. They will always leap to the conclusion that this is defining God into existence, because they don't understand the concept of God. God, by the nature of the concept, carriers certain parameters just as the existence of any human assumes humanity, or the existence of any tree assumes that the tree in question is a plant. To have to define that God is not contingent should not even come into it. The idea of God is that of eternal creator of all things. Thus God cannot cease to exits and cannot be dependent upon anything (or he wouldn't be the creator of all things). Atheists usually assume that all knowledge has to be empirical. they will argue this is defining God into existence. maybe God is contingent.

Argument:


Close to Hartshorne's version

1. God is either necessary or impossible.
2. God can be conceived without contradiction.
3. Whatever can be conceived without contradiction is not impossible.
4. God is not impossible.
5. God's existence is a necessity (from 1-4, not contingent or impossible means necessary)
6. If God is necessary, then God exists.
7. Belief in God's existence is warranted




About Hartshorne


Hartshorne Lived to be 103, at the time of his death in the Fall of 2000, he was known as "the greatest living Metaphysician." Hartshorne was one of the major forces in the "back to God" movement in Philosophy (a term coined by  Christianity Today in a 1979 article. His first and greatest calim to fame is as the second most influential voice in process philosophy, along with Alfred North Whtiehead, but he is also credited as the man who brought the Ontological argument back from ignominious defeat by Kant almost two centuries earlier. Hartshorne was also a recognized authority on birdsong, and an authority on bycicles, having never driven a car a single time in his centogenerian lifespan. Hartshorne devoted the last years of life to waging a letter's to the editor campaign to advocate social issues such as medical care.


Supporting Material *links:

Fun with the nodal argument

The Logic of The Modal Argumemt

Terms of The Modal Argument

Answering Argument That God Need not 
Exist as necessity

Comments

The Pixie said…
Joe: God, by the nature of the concept, carriers certain parameters just as the existence of any human assumes humanity, or the existence of any tree assumes that the tree in question is a plant. To have to define that God is not contingent should not even come into it. The idea of God is that of eternal creator of all things. Thus God cannot cease to exits and cannot be dependent upon anything (or he wouldn't be the creator of all things).

The first problem is that you fail to define exactly what you mean by "God". Could God be a quantum fluctuate that created the universe? From the above, you seem to define God as the first clause, but then smuggling in all the other aspects of God, such as intelligence and purpose.

What is your basis for saying God cannot cease to exist?

Joe: 1. God is either necessary or impossible.

Okay, but let us recall that necessity means either non dependent or cannot cease or fail, so we have three possibilities: (1) God is non-dependent; (2) God cannot cease of fail; or (3) God is impossible.

Joe: 2. God can be conceived without contradiction.

But only because your definition of God is so vague. Keep any concept vague enough and you can claim it can be conceived without contradiction.

Joe: 5. God's existence is a necessity (from 1-4, not contingent or impossible means necessary)
6. If God is necessary, then God exists.


Not so. You have forgotten that there are two meanings on necessary: (1) God is non-dependent; and (2) God cannot cease of fail. If God is non-dependent, then it does not follow that he must exist. This is the big hole in your argument.
The Pixie said…
The problem is you are conflating two meanings of necessity. To make that clear, try using these definitions, and see if it still works:

Necessary means cannot cease or fail; there could not not be.

Non-dependent means not dependent on a prior thing
The problem is you are conflating two meanings of necessity. To make that clear, try using these definitions, and see if it still works:

Necessary means cannot cease or fail; there could not not be.

Non-dependent means not dependent on a prior thing

No I am not conflating anything,I'm using the term in relation to God the way theologians and philosophers have done since Anselm.
he has never actually read any philosophers on God arguments so he has no idea of the terminology.
Joe: God, by the nature of the concept, carriers certain parameters just as the existence of any human assumes humanity, or the existence of any tree assumes that the tree in question is a plant. To have to define that God is not contingent should not even come into it.

yes that's true but you would be surprised how many atheists have tried to deny that

The idea of God is that of eternal creator of all things. Thus God cannot cease to exits and cannot be dependent upon anything (or he wouldn't be the creator of all things).

The first problem is that you fail to define exactly what you mean by "God". Could God be a quantum fluctuate that created the universe? From the above, you seem to define God as the first clause, but then smuggling in all the other aspects of God, such as intelligence and purpose.

I think there is no problem with evoking the Christian tradition I should not have to stipulate that. working in the christian tradition that plugs in the term that many chritian philosophers have used. I think that is obvious by the concept of this as a Christian apologetic website.

What is your basis for saying God cannot cease to exist?

that's what we mean when we say God is eternal.

Joe: 1. God is either necessary or impossible.

Okay, but let us recall that necessity means either non dependent or cannot cease or fail, so we have three possibilities: (1) God is non-dependent; (2) God cannot cease of fail; or (3) God is impossible.

right and 1 and 2 are compatible

Joe: 2. God can be conceived without contradiction.

But only because your definition of God is so vague. Keep any concept vague enough and you can claim it can be conceived without contradiction.

how is it veg? its been established by the greatest minds in philosophy and worked over for a thousand years,

Joe: 5. God's existence is a necessity (from 1-4, not contingent or impossible means necessary)

6. If God is necessary, then God exists.



Not so. You have forgotten that there are two meanings on necessary: (1) God is non-dependent; and (2) God cannot cease of fail. If God is non-dependent, then it does not follow that he must exist. This is the big hole in your argument.

You missed the point. where it says (from 1-4, not contingent or impossible means necessary) that means since there are only three choices God is either necessary, contingent or impossible, since he can't be impossible or contingent he has to be necessary. There are not two versions of necessary because I stipulated what I mean.

your two versions argument has no impact because they are not mutually exclusive
Anonymous said…
Your stated definition for necessity is:

Necessity means either non dependent or cannot cease or fail. By "fail" I mean there could not not be a God. That is the conclusion of the argument, not the premise.

It clearly has TWO meanings built in to it.

1. non dependent
2. cannot cease or fail

That you cannot express your argument without those two definitions built into a key term tells us your are conflating the two definitions. This is just equivocation, nothing more and nothing less.

Pix
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Your stated definition for necessity is:

Necessity means either non dependent or cannot cease or fail. By "fail" I mean there could not not be a God. That is the conclusion of the argument, not the premise.


the definition as to the kind of being we are talking about is can't fail to exist,the argument aims at showing that is the case that it exits. Or that rational reasons exists for thinking so.

It clearly has TWO meanings built in to it.

1. non dependent
2. cannot cease or fail

That you cannot express your argument without those two definitions built into a key term tells us your are conflating the two definitions. This is just equivocation, nothing more and nothing less.

building the concept into the claim does not mean building the conclusion into the argument
If I made the statement
impeachment of the Represented of the US is justified" then I went on to define President as chief executive of the US government elected to head third branch of government that would not be be begging the question but defining it.
The Pixie said…
Joe: the definition as to the kind of being we are talking about is can't fail to exist,the argument aims at showing that is the case that it exits. Or that rational reasons exists for thinking so.

The point is that your argument is based on equivocation of that definition.

Pix: That you cannot express your argument without those two definitions built into a key term tells us your are conflating the two definitions. This is just equivocation, nothing more and nothing less.

Joe: building the concept into the claim does not mean building the conclusion into the argument

I am pointing out equivocation, not circular reasoning.

Joe: If I made the statement
impeachment of the Represented of the US is justified" then I went on to define President as chief executive of the US government elected to head third branch of government that would not be be begging the question but defining it.


I am pointing out equivocation, not circular reasoning.
Joe: the definition as to
kind of being we are talking about is can't fail to exist,the argument aims at showing that is the case that it exits. Or that rational reasons exists for thinking so.

The point is that your argument is based on equivocation of that definition.

No don't clutch at straws. It's only logical that to make an argument one must define what one seeks to prove.

Pix: That you cannot express your argument without those two definitions built into a key term tells us your are conflating the two definitions. This is just equivocation, nothing more and nothing less.

Of course. it's called "meaning," nothing illogical or question begging about that.

Joe: building the concept into the claim does not mean building the conclusion into the argument

I am pointing out equivocation, not circular reasoning.

You are equivocating. you are saying that to define the concept is to beg the question that is foolish,if I didn't you would be saying:you can;t define what you mean by 'God.'"

Joe: If I made the statement
impeachment of the Represented of the US is justified" then I went on to define President as chief executive of the US government elected to head third branch of government that would not be be begging the question but defining it.

I am pointing out equivocation, not circular reasoning.

defining terms is not equivocation.It should prevent it.
Anonymous said…
Joe: No don't clutch at straws. It's only logical that to make an argument one must define what one seeks to prove.

Of course.

But what you have done is give TWO definitions. That is anything but logical. That is so you can swap between when convenient. Equivocation.

Joe: Of course. it's called "meaning,"

No, it is TWO meanings. TWO definitions, so you can swap between them.

Joe: ...nothing illogical or question begging about that.

As I pointed out several times now, this is about equivocation, not question begging.

Joe: You are equivocating. you are saying that to define the concept is to beg the question that is foolish,if I didn't you would be saying:you can;t define what you mean by 'God.'"

And now you are just pretending I am accusing you of question begging to create a straw man. Read what I post. This is about equivocation, not question begging.

How many times do I need to say that before it penetrates, Joe?

Here it is again:

I am accusing you of equivocation. I am not accusing you of question begging.

Joe: defining terms is not equivocation.It should prevent it.

But what you did was define one term to have TWO meanings. Far from preventing equivocation, you are engineering it.

Pix
Anonymous said…
In my second post I said this:

The problem is you are conflating two meanings of necessity. To make that clear, try using these definitions, and see if it still works:

Necessary means cannot cease or fail; there could not not be.

Non-dependent means not dependent on a prior thing


It is telling that you are unable or unwilling to rephrase your argument using a single definition of necessary. I strongly suspect you know exactly what you are doing here, and all this "question begging" nonsense is just an atempt to distract from the real issue here.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: No don't clutch at straws. It's only logical that to make an argument one must define what one seeks to prove.

Of course.

But what you have done is give TWO definitions. That is anything but logical. That is so you can swap between when convenient. Equivocation.


No I didn't. I said: "Necessity means either non dependent or cannot cease or fail. By "fail" I mean there could not not be a God. That is the conclusion of the argument, not the premise."That is one meaning, both are the case,I should have said "both: not either, that was a mistake.

Joe: Of course. it's called "meaning,"

No, it is TWO meanings. TWO definitions, so you can swap between them.

no both ideas are included in the term

Joe: ...nothing illogical or question begging about that.

As I pointed out several times now, this is about equivocation, not question begging.

equivocation is prevented by defining terms,I already pointed that out.

Joe: You are equivocating. you are saying that to define the concept is to beg the question that is foolish,if I didn't you would be saying:you can;t define what you mean by 'God.'"

And now you are just pretending I am accusing you of question begging to create a straw man. Read what I post. This is about equivocation, not question begging.

How many times do I need to say that before it penetrates, Joe?

Ok Ok it's still wrong, It;s not equivocation.

Here it is again:

I am accusing you of equivocation. I am not accusing you of question begging.

Joe: defining terms is not equivocation.It should prevent it.

But what you did was define one term to have TWO meanings. Far from preventing equivocation, you are engineering it.


that was just poor wording,Necessity means both non dependent and cannot cease or fail. By "fail" I mean there could not not be a God. That is the conclusion of the argument, not the premise.

Pix
10/01/2019 08:36:00 AM

Anonymous said…
In my second post I said this:

The problem is you are conflating two meanings of necessity. To make that clear, try using these definitions, and see if it still works:

Necessary means cannot cease or fail; there could not not be.

Non-dependent means not dependent on a prior thing

It is telling that you are unable or unwilling to rephrase your argument using a single definition of necessary. I strongly suspect you know exactly what you are doing here, and all this "question begging" nonsense is just an attempt to distract from the real issue here.

No both are wrapped in the same concept. It is because is eternal and un-created that he is not dependent upon a higher god nor can he cease or fail, both stem from his eternity.
The Pixie said…
Joe: No I didn't. I said: "Necessity means either non dependent or cannot cease or fail. By "fail" I mean there could not not be a God. That is the conclusion of the argument, not the premise."That is one meaning, both are the case,I should have said "both: not either, that was a mistake.

TWO meaning. Count them:

(1) non dependent
(2) cannot cease or fail

Which bit of "means either" do you not understand?

Joe: no both ideas are included in the term

And hence the equivocation.

See if you can write the argument with just one meaning. If you cannot, then it fails.

Joe: that was just poor wording,Necessity means both non dependent and cannot cease or fail. By "fail" I mean there could not not be a God. That is the conclusion of the argument, not the premise.

Okay, so I guess that explains which bit of "means either" you do not understand.
The Pixie said…
So now we have established "Necessity" means both non dependent and cannot cease or fail, where are we?

1. God is either necessary or impossible.

Really? I am going to define "original quantum stuff" (or OQSF for short) to mean a quantum whatever that is non-dependent, and that cannot cease or fail, and that initiated the Big Bang, thus creating the universe.

Now I am sure you will agree that.

1. OQS is either necessary or impossible.
2. OQS can be conceived without contradiction.
3. Whatever can be conceived without contradiction is not impossible.
4. OQS is not impossible.
5. OQS's existence is a necessity (from 1-4, not contingent or impossible means necessary)
6. If OQS is necessary, then OQS exists.

Agreed?

See if you can poke a hole in my argument that is not also a hole in yours.
So now we have established "Necessity" means both non dependent and cannot cease or fail, where are we?

1. God is either necessary or impossible.

Really? I am going to define "original quantum stuff" (or OQSF for short) to mean a quantum whatever that is non-dependent, and that cannot cease or fail, and that initiated the Big Bang, thus creating the universe.

Now I am sure you will agree that.

1. OQS is either necessary or impossible.
2. OQS can be conceived without contradiction.
3. Whatever can be conceived without contradiction is not impossible.
4. OQS is not impossible.
5. OQS's existence is a necessity (from 1-4, not contingent or impossible means necessary)
6. If OQS is necessary, then OQS exists.

Agreed?

See if you can poke a hole in my argument that is not also a hole in yours.


That argument was tried a thousand years ago by a contrary of Anselm named Gaunilo of Marmoutier Abbey. The perfect Island argument, The answer given by Christian philosophers through the ages you have proven that there must be an eternal necessary being but you can call it by a different name,


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaunilo_of_Marmoutiers

"Gaunilo or Gaunillon[1] (fl. 11th century) was a Benedictine monk of Marmoutier Abbey in Tours, France. He is best known for his contemporary criticism of the ontological argument for the existence of God which appeared in St Anselm's Proslogion. In his work In Behalf of the Fool,[4] Gaunilo contends that St Anselm's ontological argument fails because logic of the same kind would force one to conclude many things exist which certainly do not.[5] An empiricist, Gaunilo thought that the human intellect is only able to comprehend information provided by the senses.[6]"
Joe: No I didn't. I said: "Necessity means either non dependent or cannot cease or fail. By "fail" I mean there could not not be a God. That is the conclusion of the argument, not the premise."That is one meaning, both are the case,I should have said "both: not either, that was a mistake.

TWO meaning. Count them:

(1) non dependent
(2) cannot cease or fail

Which bit of "means either" do you not understand?

I just expunged the term "either" can't you read English? Say don't you live in England?

Joe: no both ideas are included in the term

And hence the equivocation.

hence a complex concept

See if you can write the argument with just one meaning. If you cannot, then it fails.


that is bull shit. you are equivocating by trying to prodice a flaw in a clearly logical idea.

Joe: that was just poor wording,Necessity means both non dependent and cannot cease or fail. By "fail" I mean there could not not be a God. That is the conclusion of the argument, not the premise.

Okay, so I guess that explains which bit of "means either" you do not understand.

read English,I said it was bad wording,take out "means either" and put in means both,

10/01/2019 11:52:00 PM
put it another way by necessity I mean God is not contingent. Thus there are two aspect that result from being non contingent: God is eternal and thus not pendent upon anything else that is (1) and(2) as a result can't cease or fail.

necessary = not contingent = eternal = cannot cease or fail.
The Pixie said…
Joe: That argument was tried a thousand years ago by a contrary of Anselm named Gaunilo of Marmoutier Abbey. The perfect Island argument, The answer given by Christian philosophers through the ages you have proven that there must be an eternal necessary being but you can call it by a different name,

So if your argument is valid, what you have proven is something is necessary (I see you are trying to smuggle eternal in there too). You have chosen to label that something "God", and declare that you have proved God. But we could label it anything we want, and so prove anything exists - as long as it fits with being necessary
Joe: That argument was tried a thousand years ago by a contrary of Anselm named Gaunilo of Marmoutier Abbey. The perfect Island argument, The answer given by Christian philosophers through the ages you have proven that there must be an eternal necessary being but you can call it by a different name,

Pix: So if your argument is valid, what you have proven is something is necessary (I see you are trying to smuggle eternal in there too). You have chosen to label that something "God", and declare that you have proved God. But we could label it anything we want, and so prove anything exists - as long as it fits with being necessary


There is an X such that X is an eternal, non contingent, creator. Call it what you will.

God being eternal is an intrinsic part of the concept,that you don't know that merely means you need to learn theology before you argue about God.
G-O-D = eternal, necessary, ground of being. I have used that same definition for 20 years I've discussed it on message broads all over the net.
Anonymous said…
Joe: God being eternal is an intrinsic part of the concept,that you don't know that merely means you need to learn theology before you argue about God.

Yes, "an intrinsic part of". Not the totality of it.

This is like saying, "It is yellow, therefore it must be a banana".

If your argument is valid, you have shown the existence of something necessary. That is part of the concept of God, but is also part of the concept of the OQS. We have no way to tell between those two or something even more fantastic neither of us have imagined.

Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: God being eternal is an intrinsic part of the concept,that you don't know that merely means you need to learn theology before you argue about God.

Yes, "an intrinsic part of". Not the totality of it.

Obviously I didn't say it was the totality. you were complaining that i had more than one concept,

This is like saying, "It is yellow, therefore it must be a banana".

how? It's more like saying if we Knox God is necessary we can deduce other things as well.

If your argument is valid, you have shown the existence of something necessary. That is part of the concept of God, but is also part of the concept of the OQS. We have no way to tell between those two or something even more fantastic neither of us have imagined.

you are trying to work the argument backward;we are not starting from one attribute then deducing all the attributes from God's existence. We have a fully formed concept the reality of which we deuce from the logic of the case.Since God cannot be contingent he can;t be a maybe. He must either be impossible or necessary.

Since God is not impossible then he is necessary. That means he must exist. Necessary= can't fail to exist
Anonymous said…
https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2019/09/metacrock-isnt-saying-anything-very.html

Pix
The Pixie said…
The post above is not by me, despite being signed "Pix", and the site linked to is not mine.
The Pixie said…
Joe: Obviously I didn't say it was the totality. you were complaining that i had more than one concept,

The point is that if you argument is valid, at best you have proved one aspect of God; you have just proved something is necessary, you have no proved that that thing is what you consider God.

Joe: how? It's more like saying if we Knox God is necessary we can deduce other things as well.

You are saying something is necessary, and given necessary is an attribute of your concept of God, you are insisting that that something is God.

This is like saying something is yellow, and given yellow is an attribute of your concept of banana, you are insisting that that something is a banana.

Joe: you are trying to work the argument backward;we are not starting from one attribute then deducing all the attributes from God's existence. We have a fully formed concept the reality of which we deuce from the logic of the case.Since God cannot be contingent he can;t be a maybe. He must either be impossible or necessary.

Since God is not impossible then he is necessary. That means he must exist. Necessary= can't fail to exist


Just like the OQS. The OQS cannot be contingent. It must either be impossible or necessary. Since it is not impossible, it must be necessary.
can't tell pixies without a program



The fake pixie is this moronic guy called"ohwow" I just barely remember him. He was a carm atheist who is still trying to get even with me for besting him 20 year ago. "Between 1999 and 2002, I posted regularly at CARM. I was using the alias "ohwow". The one Christian that I battled with the most was "Metacrock" and all of his stupid trifling "you-can't-refute-the-studies" bullshit."

That's a long time to steam did he ever read jack shit in that period to learn the things he was wrong about? of course not.

why are you impersonating pixie?
oh wow: "If your argument is valid, you have shown the existence of something necessary. That is part of the concept of God, but is also part of the concept of the OQS. We have no way to tell between those two or something even more fantastic neither of us have imagined."

show me an empirical basis for anything else that is necessary in that same sense?
You are saying something is necessary, and given necessary is an attribute of your concept of God, you are insisting that that something is God.


no that's not the way it works we don't need to assume that no one knows anything but this argument and it's supposed to prove God all by itself. We can use things from other arguments.

This is like saying something is yellow, and given yellow is an attribute of your concept of banana, you are insisting that that something is a banana.

No its more like saying the attributes of God are such that belief in God is warranted. like saying the attributes of first cause are such that belief in first cause is warranted.

Since God is not impossible then he is necessary. That means he must exist. Necessary= can't fail to exist

Just like the OQS. The OQS cannot be contingent. It must either be impossible or necessary. Since it is not impossible, it must be necessary.

you are just calling God by another name,There is an X such that X is eternal necessary being
The Pixie said…
Joe: show me an empirical basis for anything else that is necessary in that same sense?

Show me an empirical basis for God.

Surely you must have expected me to say that?

Joe: no that's not the way it works we don't need to assume that no one knows anything but this argument and it's supposed to prove God all by itself. We can use things from other arguments.

So what are you using from other arguments?

The argument as presented, if valid, shows something is necessary. You are making a big leap from that something to God.

Joe: No its more like saying the attributes of God are such that belief in God is warranted. like saying the attributes of first cause are such that belief in first cause is warranted.

No, it is more likely you have decided what you want to believe, and are looking for anything that might help rationalise that belief.

Joe: you are just calling God by another name,There is an X such that X is eternal necessary being

The argument as presented, if valid, shows something is necessary. You are choosing to call that something "God", I am choosing to call it by another name. Both are equally valid (or invalid). You have failed to give any reason why your label is better than mine besides vague allusions to arguments elsewhere and wishful thinking.
Joe: show me an empirical basis for anything else that is necessary in that same sense?

Show me an empirical basis for God.

No you are the one who claims that only empirical things can exists. I am saying there are thing we judge to be foundation, real and true that can't be proven empirically such as anything empirical can only be judged so by extrapolation because we can't observe it eternally

Surely you must have expected me to say that?

yes I did because it's wrong,

Joe: no that's not the way it works we don't need to assume that no one knows anything but this argument and it's supposed to prove God all by itself. We can use things from other arguments.

So what are you using from other arguments?

the assumptions about reality


PX:The argument as presented, if valid, shows something is necessary. You are making a big leap from that something to God.

Joe: No its more like saying the attributes of God are such that belief in God is warranted. like saying the attributes of first cause are such that belief in first cause is warranted.

PX:No, it is more likely you have decided what you want to believe, and are looking for anything that might help rationalise that belief.

It seem that way to you because you don't know logic and you are not using logic.

Joe: you are just calling God by another name,There is an X such that X is eternal necessary being

Px: The argument as presented, if valid, shows something is necessary. You are choosing to call that something "God", I am choosing to call it by another name. Both are equally valid (or invalid). You have failed to give any reason why your label is better than mine besides vague allusions to arguments elsewhere and wishful thinking.

Listen carefully this time ok? to be necessary it has to be eternal, it can't cease or fail to exist,it has to have created all things, that thing we give the term God so we can designate it Anything that fits that is God, There can't be two of them. you can call it something else but its still there,

we know it created because it precedes all the other stuff since it's eternal. One might asert there could be two eternal things but that violates Ocum's razor.
Besides as a thought experiment let's assume there's more than one God, What is the basis for being an atheist if there is more than one God?
Anonymous said…
Joe: No you are the one who claims that only empirical things can exists.

When did I say that? Empirical evidence (in a general sense) is certainly far more reliable, but it is certainly possible for something to exist for which we have no empirical evidence. Neutrinos, for example, existed before we had empirical evoidence for them.

Joe: yes I did because it's wrong,

Why? Because of your mistaken claim that I claim that only empirical things can exists? Even if that was true, how would that make me wrong?

Joe: the assumptions about reality

Right! You are assuming god exists, and can therefore conclude...

Joe: Listen carefully this time ok? to be necessary it has to be eternal, it can't cease or fail to exist,it has to have created all things, that thing we give the term God so we can designate it Anything that fits that is God, There can't be two of them. you can call it something else but its still there,

Okay, so my OQS is eternal. It certainly created all things, I said that from the start.

The concept of God implies, among other things, intelligence and purpose. Nothing in your argument suggests the necessary something has those attributes.

Joe: Besides as a thought experiment let's assume there's more than one God, What is the basis for being an atheist if there is more than one God?

Or there might be one thing with the attributes of necessary, eternal and originator of the universe, but is not intelligent and does not have purpose. Thus, zero gods.
Joe: No you are the one who claims that only empirical things can exists.

When did I say that? Empirical evidence (in a general sense) is certainly far more reliable, but it is certainly possible for something to exist for which we have no empirical evidence. Neutrinos, for example, existed before we had empirical evoidence for them.

or God

Joe: yes I did because it's wrong,

Why? Because of your mistaken claim that I claim that only empirical things can exists? Even if that was true, how would that make me wrong?

I think you did intimate that

Joe: the assumptions about reality

Right! You are assuming god exists, and can therefore conclude...

so? what's rpm with my reasons for that assumption? you have no evidence to the contrary

Joe: Listen carefully this time ok? to be necessary it has to be eternal, it can't cease or fail to exist,it has to have created all things, that thing we give the term God so we can designate it Anything that fits that is God, There can't be two of them. you can call it something else but its still there,

Okay, so my OQS is eternal. It certainly created all things, I said that from the start.

did it die on the cross for your sins? since there can only be one creator then you are merely calling God by another name

The concept of God implies, among other things, intelligence and purpose. Nothing in your argument suggests the necessary something has those attributes.

It doesn't have to, we can make a second argument,



Joe: Besides as a thought experiment let's assume there's more than one God, What is the basis for being an atheist if there is more than one God?

Or there might be one thing with the attributes of necessary, eternal and originator of the universe, but is not intelligent and does not have purpose. Thus, zero gods.

I am not sure it has to be so to call it"God" bit I will take this up as a challenge for monday.
as to your charge U;m assuming God exists, not as the premise for this argument.I assume that as the basis of my motivation for arguing but not in the logic of this argument,
The Pixie said…
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2018/10/top-20-most-damning-bible-contradictions/
The Pixie said…
https://quillette.com/2019/07/17/why-we-shouldnt-bet-on-having-free-will-a-reply-to-william-edwards/
The Pixie said…
That last post that is supposedly from me was not. I do not know how they got my name on it; I am worried they have hacked my account, but can see no other signs, and it seems a bit lame to hack an account just to post here.
I don't know what to tell you
The Pixie said…
"That last post that is supposedly from me was not."

Hilarious.

"I am worried they have hacked my account."

Hilarious.

"but can see no other signs, and it seems a bit lame to hack an account just to post here."

Absolutely hilarious.

C'mon silly, let's talk on AOL!

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

More evidence for the Historical Truth of David and Goliath

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

A Simple Illustration of the Trinity

Bread and Butter apologetics

Do God's Omniscience and Omnipotence Contradict?

The Meaning of the Manger

The Genre of the Gospel of John (Part 1)