Hartshorne's Modal Argument.

Argument:
(1) If God exists, he must exist necessarily, if God does not exist his existence is impossible.

(2) Therefore, God is either necessary or impossible.

(3) God can be conceived without contradiction

(4) therefore, God is not impossible

(5) Since God is not impossible he must be necessary.

(6) Since god is necessary he must exist.

The assumption that God cannot be contingent is implicit in the concept of God itself.Therefore God cannot exist contingently.


A. The logic of the 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 shcoalstic ones in the middle ages is not that great. The scholastics 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.

Maybe there is a begin like the one we talk about but he's not eternal or the creator of all things, but that means he's not the God we are talking about.

A. The logic of the argument: This argument is analytical, it proceeds from the basis in logic to argue that the concept of God is such that if we understood the meaning of the terms we would have to conclude that God must exist. Naturally that is a very controversial position. Many Christians and other theists reject the ontological argument on the grounds knowledge must be somewhat empirical. Nevertheless the argument has been used for a long time, and despite its many apparent deaths, it keeps returning in one form or another. Perhaps the best book on the subject is The Many Faced Argument by John Hick. Somehow the ontological argument just wont die. I feel that this is not so much because the argument itself is true as a proof, but because it gets at something deeper than proof, something to do with the way to think about God, and it strikes a deep cord in our consciousness, even though as a proof it may fail. For this reason alone it is important to know, if only to know the concept itself. This argument is analytical, it proceeds from the basis in loigc to argue that the concept of God is such that if we understood the meaning of the terms we would have to conclude that God must exist. Naturally that is a very controversial position. Many Christians and other theists reject the ontological argument on the grounds knowledge must be somewhat empirical. Nevertheless the argument has been used for a long time, and despite its many apparent deaths, it keeps returning in one form or another. Perhaps the best book on the subject is The Many Faced Argument by John Hick. Somehow the ontological argument just wont die. I feel that this is not so much becuase the argument itself is true as a proof, but because it gets at something deeper than proof, something to do with the way to think about God, and it strikes a deep cord in our consciousness, eventhough as a proof it may fail. For this reason alone it is important to know, if only to know the concept itself.


Comments

Anonymous said…
As previously I am going to put "necessary" in italics to indicate when I mean not contingent, and in plain text otherwise.

(1) If God exists, he must exist necessarily, if God does not exist his existence is impossible.
(2) Therefore, God is either necessary or impossible.
(3) God can be conceived without contradiction
(4) therefore, God is not impossible
(5) Since God is not impossible he must be necessary.
(6) Since god is necessary he must exist.

Number (1) assumes a definition of God as a being that is - among other things - necessary. That is fine, and is made clear in the text. I have no issue with that.

So we jump to (3) - that is where the problem lies.

Is it true that if we can if a thing can be "conceived without contradiction" then it must necessarily be possible? I can conceive a rock that floats. Does that make it possible? No. But we need to go a little deeper. Can I conceive a rock that floats without contradiction? Perhaps not, it depends what we mean exactly. Given the laws of nature, a floating rock does have a contradiction, it is subject to gravity and considerably more dense than air.

What exactly does Joe mean by "conceived without contradiction"?

To a casual glance, of course we can imagine God. But that is not what (3) is claiming. What it really says is; the concept of a necessary God is consistent with the laws of nature.

It is worth noting that this is NOT saying; the concept of a necessary God is consistent with our understanding of the laws of nature. That would imply that the existence of God could depend on human knowledge, and we can imagine a hypothetical situation whereby as cosmologologists learn more about the laws of he universe they reach a point where it is apparent the concept of God is not consistent with how we understand the universe, and at that moment God no longer exists and indeed never did. To illustrate this another way, the floating rock is impossible even before the discovery of gravity.

So is (3) true or false? Is the concept of a necessary God consistent with the laws of nature?

Joe blithely assures us that it is, but offers no reason to suppose that that is true. It might be. But it might not. And to be frank, I do not think our understanding of the laws of nature are good enough to say either way.

Remember, if Joe's argument is good, then (3) has to be true. If he says (3) might be true, then that follows though to (6) might be true. God might exist. But that is not what Joe is claiming. He is offering this as proof that "he must exist". To do that, he has to show that (3) must be true.

Pix
Anonymous said…
What exactly does Joe mean by "conceived without contradiction"?

I want to emphasise this question, as the argument very much hinges on it; this is - I contend - where the trickery is used to make a flawed argument appear to be good.

Is Joe posting in good faith? If so, he will be happy to clarify exactly what he means here.

Or is Joe posting an argument he knows to be flawed? If so, he obfuscate and prevaricate.

Given his posting history, I am confident predicting the latter. I hope I am wrong.

Pix
Anonymous said…
A different way to think about this is with possible worlds. First a couple of examples to illustrate.

Is it possible to conceive of a world where rocks float? Yes, of course it is. I can think of two video games that feature floating rocks, so of course we can conceive it. But is this just about what we can imagine? I think not.

Is it possible to conceive of a world where rocks float without contradiction? Rocks float in those games because the laws of nature are very different to the real world. In any world we can hypothesise, rocks will fall towards the centre of gravity.


Is it possible to conceive of a world where the Nazis won WW2? Yes, of course it is. I can think of several TV shows and video games that explore that possibility.

Is it possible to conceive of a world where rocks float without contradiction? Again, yes. If the events had gone different (for example, Britain not entering the war in 1939, or the US not entering the war in 1941), then it is all too easy to imagine the Nazis winning. Nothing in the laws of nature forces the Nazi defeat, so this scenario can be conceived without contradiction.


Is it possible to conceive of a world where God exist? Yes, of course it is. Plenty of people believe it is so.

Is it possible to conceive of a world where a necessary God exists without contradiction? This is the big question that Joe needs to address - and doubtless will not.

Pix
Hey Pix. Yes you are right, possible worlds are a good way to illustrate modal logic. I can of possible worlds without video games or tv shows to tell me they are possible.

Plantinga has a possible world version of Hartshorne's modal argument. it is possible that God would be in some possible world. To be be the God Christians talk about God must be in all possible worlds. That is where we get the necessary or impossible we see in H's argument.

Is it possible to conceive of a world where a necessary God exists without contradiction? This is the big question that Joe needs to address - and doubtless will not.

You will have a harder time showing a contradiction in the God concept than I will conceiving of God in the world
a better version of the argument,


1) God can be analytically conceived without contradiction.
2) Therefore God is not impossible.
3) By definition God cannot be contingent.
4) Therefore God is either necessary or impossible.
5) God is not impossible (from 2) therefore, God is necessary.
6) Whatever is necessary must necessarily exist.
Anonymous said…
Joe: Plantinga has a possible world version of Hartshorne's modal argument. it is possible that God would be in some possible world. To be be the God Christians talk about God must be in all possible worlds. That is where we get the necessary or impossible we see in H's argument.

So your challenge is to prove such a world is possible.

Joe: You will have a harder time showing a contradiction in the God concept than I will conceiving of God in the world

Is this an elaborate shifting of the burden of proof?

Your argument is founded on there being no contradiction between reality and a necessary God. If you cannot show that that is true, your argument if founded on mere unsupported opinion.

Pix: What exactly does Joe mean by "conceived without contradiction"?

Joe: 1) God can be analytically conceived without contradiction.

So now the question is: What exactly does Joe mean by "analytically conceived without contradiction"? I have no idea what "analytically" adds here, and I am certain you will not make it any more clear.

Given (2) follows from this claim, it has to be implicit that anything that can be "analytically conceived without contradiction" is possible. So again, your challenge is to prove God is possible.

What about a necessary unicorn? Can that be "analytically conceived without contradiction"? Prove it cannot! Therefore, a necessary unicorn must exist.

Or how about a whole herd of necessary unicorns? Or necessary fairies, or necessary...

Pix
If anyone would like to see why there is a contradiction in saying that God exists necessarily Scott Clifton made a good video about it on his youtube channel. The video is titled Betting on Necessity: The Modal Ontological Argument (https://youtu.be/AFI9N768njk)
Anonymous said...
Joe: Plantinga has a possible world version of Hartshorne's modal argument. it is possible that God would be in some possible world. To be be the God Christians talk about God must be in all possible worlds. That is where we get the necessary or impossible we see in H's argument.

PX:So your challenge is to prove such a world is possible.


No that's no challenge. we know that by the terms of the argument. God must be either necessary or impossible. If he is not impossible he he has to be,


Joe: You will have a harder time showing a contradiction in the God concept than I will conceiving of God in the world

PX:Is this an elaborate shifting of the burden of proof?

No the argument meets it's prima facie burden thus it is your turn you now have the Burden of proof.


PX: Your argument is founded on there being no contradiction between reality and a necessary God. If you cannot show that that is true, your argument if founded on mere unsupported opinion.

I argued that there is no contradiction in God my proof is you can't show one,

Pix: What exactly does Joe mean by "conceived without contradiction"?

Joe: 1) God can be analytically conceived without contradiction.

So now the question is: What exactly does Joe mean by "analytically conceived without contradiction"? I have no idea what "analytically" adds here, and I am certain you will not make it any more clear.

I have a Concept of God that has no contradictions. simple

Given (2) follows from this claim, it has to be implicit that anything that can be "analytically conceived without contradiction" is possible. So again, your challenge is to prove God is possible.

No not the way it works. A thing is possible if it's not impossible. I see no reason why God is impossible, if you think he is then you must show a reason,

PX: What about a necessary unicorn? Can that be "analytically conceived without contradiction"? Prove it cannot! Therefore, a necessary unicorn must exist.

That argument was defeated in the middle ages. for anything to be perfect in the sense in witch we say God is perfect it would have to contain the attributes of God, eternal, necessary, ground of being, that makes it God. you are just calling God unicorn

Or how about a whole herd of necessary unicorns? Or necessary fairies, or necessary...

Atheists are so confused. you think more than one God disrobes Gd.It disproes atheism more

finite Possibilities said...
If anyone would like to see why there is a contradiction in saying that God exists necessarily Scott Clifton made a good video about it on his youtube channel. The video is titled Betting on Necessity: The Modal Ontological Argument (https://youtu.be/AFI9N768njk)

Hi Darren glad you could make it welcome to the CADRE blog.

After listening to Clifton's argument I think my initial analysis is really true his argument rests upon the idea that there is no reason to think God is necessary in every possible world, He does not show that God is not in every world he only questions it he give no reason why cant be so.

I think God as being itself answers everything he said, It explains why God would be necessary in all possible worlds.

His assertion that it is not logically contradictory to say God desont exisnoem possoble world is wrong it contributory since being has to be,
He does not show that God is not in every world he only questions it he give no reason why cant be so.

He shows that god not existing is logically possible. which means there exists at least one possible world where god doesn't exist, which means it is not possible for a necessary god to exist.

I think God as being itself answers everything he said, It explains why God would be necessary in all possible worlds.

How does you making up a definition of god show that he is incorrect in his assessment?

His assertion that it is not logically contradictory to say God desont exisnoem possoble world is wrong it contributory since being has to be,

And when did you demonstrate that your claims about god are correct? If you are wrong, then god is not being itself. And since it is logically possible that you are wrong, then that means there is at least one possible world where you are wrong and god is not being itself.
Infinite Possibilities said...
JoeHe does not show that God is not in every world he only questions it he give no reason why cant be so.

Darren: He shows that god not existing is logically possible. which means there exists at least one possible world where god doesn't exist, which means it is not possible for a necessary god to exist.

No he does not show it. He only asserts it based upon his false assumption that if he doesn't understand then it must not be logical. He bases everything on his inability to understand why God is necessary

JoeI think God as being itself answers everything he said, It explains why God would be necessary in all possible worlds.

How does you making up a definition of god show that he is incorrect in his assessment?

I didn't make it up it's coming out of fourth century Platonic Christianity, it's the answer to questions Scottt was asking. that's how it changes things,

JoeHis assertion that it is not logically contradictory to say God doesn't exist in some possible world is wrong it contributory since being has to be,

DR: And when did you demonstrate that your claims about god are correct?

On Rauser I argued 2 things (1) the Tillich issue on the nature of God,and (2)evokes the sense of the nuncios, Those are demonstration,

If you are wrong, then god is not being itself. And since it is logically possible that you are wrong, then that means there is at least one possible world where you are wrong and god is not being itself.

that's extremely foolish, Gods nature is axiomatic you don't asl how can God be maximal.
link to arguments for beingitsef


http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2009/01/tillichs-being-itself-argument.html
that's extremely foolish, Gods nature is axiomatic you don't asl how can God be maximal.

I think this is a great demonstration of why No one should take you seriously. You are just trying to define god into existence, not produce a real argument.

No he does not show it.

Yes he did. But it is nice that you demonstrated that you don't actually understand logical possibility.

I didn't make it up it's coming out of fourth century Platonic Christianity,

Ok, then how does you parroting a fourth century Platonic Christianity definition of god, which itself just made it up, show that he is incorrect in his assessment?

On Rauser I argued 2 things...

Ok, and how does you parroting something Tillich made up demonstrate that you are correct?
Infinite Possibilities said...
Joethat's extremely foolish, Gods nature is axiomatic you don't asl how can God be maximal.

DarI think this is a great demonstration of why No one should take you seriously. You are just trying to define god into existence, not produce a real argument.

No, that little hackney expression also marked ignorance of the user, no God argument does that. Get it through your little unread head Being itself is Heideggarian, it's big stuff in Europe. It's embraced by great thinkers from Tillich to Vatican II. It's a major idea.

You don't ask Christian apologists to demonstrate truth of God being maximally great why do you accept that idea of God and not this one?


JoeNo he does not show it.

Yes he did. But it is nice that you demonstrated that you don't actually understand logical possibility.

No he never proves it. untangle the line of argument it is predicated entirely upon what he feels is lack of proof and vegness of the God idea not some logical fallacy in the idea oh God


JoeI didn't make it up it's coming out of fourth century Platonic Christianity,

DarOk, then how does you parroting a fourth century Platonic Christianity definition of god, which itself just made it up, show that he is incorrect in his assessment?

obviously because it explains what I mean by the term G-o-d, and it answers the questions upon which Scott predicates his argument,

JoeOn Rauser I argued 2 things...

Ok, and how does you parroting something Tillich made up demonstrate that you are correct?

I just answered that. how does parroting some high school dropout who never went to graduate school mouthing his half understood swiss cheese notions gleaned from other atheists on websites help you?
btw Darren you have not said anything about my link ai'm sure you didmnt read it I demonstrate being itself.

Lin here

Argument:
(1) We recognize the same primary ontological qualities in being itsel that we recognize in God: necessary, Reity, Eternal.

(2)We can grasp this association Phenomenologically (we can experience it).

(3) Since we find a virtual synonamy between God and Being, we can assume that Being is indicative of God.

(4) Therefore, God is the a priori, the ontological necessity implied in the nature of Being Itself: we know that being is, thus we know God is.
Anonymous said…
I posted about this on my own blog.

Joe: No that's no challenge. we know that by the terms of the argument. God must be either necessary or impossible. If he is not impossible he he has to be,

Okay. So you have to show he is not impossible.

Pix: Is this an elaborate shifting of the burden of proof?

Joe: No the argument meets it's prima facie burden thus it is your turn you now have the Burden of proof.

Great way to contradict yourself. Start the sentence saying this is not shifting of the burden of proof, and end it by saying I now have the burden of proof. Do you ever think before you post?

As you say "God must be either necessary or impossible". We do not know which it is. Until we do, your proof fails because your (3) cannot be established.

Joe: I argued that there is no contradiction in God my proof is you can't show one,

No, you assert it. There is no argument for it.

Joe: I have a Concept of God that has no contradictions. simple

For your proof to work you have to show that your definition of a necessary God is not in any way contradictory to the laws of nature. Given we do not fully know the laws of nature, that cannot be done.

This is where the trickery comes in. The meaning of number (3) has to change part way though the argument. To fit with (1) and (2), your definition of a necessary God is not in any way contradictory to the laws of nature. But to fit with (4) onwards, you set the bar much lower; you just have a concept of God, attach the word necessary, and you are done.

Joe: That argument was defeated in the middle ages. for anything to be perfect in the sense in witch we say God is perfect it would have to contain the attributes of God, eternal, necessary, ground of being, that makes it God. you are just calling God unicorn

But there is nothing about "perfect" in your argument!

All we are concerned with is the property necessary. If something is necessary, then your argument is valid - or invalid - whatever that something is. Let me show you. Remember, this herd of unicorns is necessary, but not perfect.

Argument:
(1) If herd of unicorns exists, he must exist necessarily, if herd of unicorns does not exist his existence is impossible.
(2) Therefore, herd of unicorns is either necessary or impossible.
(3) herd of unicorns can be conceived without contradiction
(4) therefore, herd of unicorns is not impossible
(5) Since herd of unicorns is not impossible he must be necessary.
(6) Since herd of unicorns is necessary he must exist.

Is that argument right? If not, why not?

Pix
Anonymous Anonymous said...
I posted about this on my own blog.

Joe: No that's no challenge. we know that by the terms of the argument. God must be either necessary or impossible. If he is not impossible he he has to be,

Okay. So you have to show he is not impossible.

yes and my argument is that since you can't show me a contradiction the hes not contradictory thus not impossible

Pix: Is this an elaborate shifting of the burden of proof?

Joe: No the argument meets it's prima facie burden thus it is your turn you now have the Burden of proof.

Great way to contradict yourself. Start the sentence saying this is not shifting of the burden of proof, and end it by saying I now have the burden of proof. Do you ever think before you post?


I Met the burden so how you have a burden, I think of shafting as unfair this is not unfair,

PX:As you say "God must be either necessary or impossible". We do not know which it is. Until we do, your proof fails because your (3) cannot be established.

We know God us not impossible because there is no contradiction in the concept


Joe: I argued that there is no contradiction in God my proof is you can't show one,

No, you assert it. There is no argument for it.

I can't think of one, you don't hae one


Joe: I have a Concept of God that has no contradictions. simple

For your proof to work you have to show that your definition of a necessary God is not in any way contradictory to the laws of nature. Given we do not fully know the laws of nature, that cannot be done.

I was an atheist so there was a time when i really wanted to prove there could not be a God I never found a contradiction,

This is where the trickery comes in. The meaning of number (3) has to change part way though the argument. To fit with (1) and (2), your definition of a necessary God is not in any way contradictory to the laws of nature. But to fit with (4) onwards, you set the bar much lower; you just have a concept of God, attach the word necessary, and you are done.

No. ignorant! my view of God is far more complex than anything you now about. you are trying to make my rhetorical appeal into my full theology. For argument I keep it simple

Joe: That argument was defeated in the middle ages. for anything to be perfect in the sense in witch we say God is perfect it would have to contain the attributes of God, eternal, necessary, ground of being, that makes it God. you are just calling God unicorn

But there is nothing about "perfect" in your argument!
Doesn't have t be. you are confusing different versions of the OA. There are hundreds of versions, they don't all use perfection,

All we are concerned with is the property necessary. If something is necessary, then your argument is valid - or invalid - whatever that something is. Let me show you. Remember, this herd of unicorns is necessary, but not perfect.

Necessary means the antithesis would be a contradiction,

Argument:
(1) If herd of unicorns exists, he must exist necessarily, if herd of unicorns does not exist his existence is impossible.
(2) Therefore, herd of unicorns is either necessary or impossible.
(3) herd of unicorns can be conceived without contradiction
(4) therefore, herd of unicorns is not impossible
(5) Since herd of unicorns is not impossible he must be necessary.
(6) Since herd of unicorns is necessary he must exist.

Is that argument right? If not, why not?

Pathetic. with no background in the thinking that led to these arguments you really have no idea what they are about. You really think this is just arbitrarily labeling ideas but that is so ignorant.

We assume words have meaning, God is more than a unicorn, Unicorns are contingent creatures God is neither contingent nor a creature, God can be necessary but unicorns can't be
Anonymous said…
Shifting the Burden of Proof

Joe: yes and my argument is that since you can't show me a contradiction the hes not contradictory thus not impossible

So your argument is founded on: If even the great Pixie cannot show there is a contradiction between supposing a necessary God and the laws of nature then clearly there cannot be one, because The Pixie is a genius who knows everything.

I appreciate the thought, Joe, but modesty requires me to point out that I am not all-knowing and I am fallible.

Joe: I Met the burden so how you have a burden, I think of shafting as unfair this is not unfair,

It is your proof. You are the one claiming a necessary God is not contradicted by the laws of nature. The onus is on you to prove that.

My position is that we do not know one way or the other.


I am not All-knowing

Joe: We know God us not impossible because there is no contradiction in the concept

So prove it. Your unsupported opinion does not cut it.

Joe: I can't think of one, you don't hae one

As I said before, I am not all-knowing and I am fallible.

It is curious that you think the existence of God is determined by whether the two of us can see a contradiction. The reality, of course, is that whether there is a contradiction determines the existence of God, not whether either of us can find it.

Joe: I was an atheist so there was a time when i really wanted to prove there could not be a God I never found a contradiction,

And if NEITHER of us can find a contradiction, then surely there can be done! No, but seriously, Joe, neither of us are all-knowing or infallible.


The Herd Of Unicorns

Joe: Doesn't have t be. you are confusing different versions of the OA. There are hundreds of versions, they don't all use perfection,

Yes, there really does. If you are saying you argument only applies to things that are "perfect", then that has to be apparent in the argument. Why does the logic work for things that are "perfect" and not for things that are not? To me iy looks arbitrary - you want it to work for God, so you pretend it does; you do not want it to work for anything else, so you declare it does not apply.

Joe: Necessary means the antithesis would be a contradiction,

Right. And this hypothetical herd of unicorns is necessary, because that is how I defined them. They are a necessary herd of unicorns; the antithesis would be a contradiction.

Joe: Pathetic. with no background in the thinking that led to these arguments you really have no idea what they are about. You really think this is just arbitrarily labeling ideas but that is so ignorant.

None of that supposed background thinking is in the argument.

Go read it again. There is nothing about "perfect" in there, for example.

At best you are admitting that the argument fails because it is incomplete. There are things you have omitted, and without those things it fails. We know that because in the absence of those things it proves the necessary herd of unicorns exists. We both agree the necessary herd of unicorns does not exist, so it MUST be the case that the argument is wrong - even if it is wrong because it is incomplete.

Joe: We assume words have meaning, God is more than a unicorn, Unicorns are contingent creatures God is neither contingent nor a creature, God can be necessary but unicorns can't be

This herd is special. It is a necessary herd of unicorns, and therefore they are not contingent.

You may be of the opinion that all unicorns are contingent, but unless you can PROVE that the concept of necessary herd of unicorns is a contradiction, the argument stands.

Pix
Anonymous said...
Shifting the Burden of Proof

Joe: yes and my argument is that since you can't show me a contradiction the hes not contradictory thus not impossible

So your argument is founded on: If even the great Pixie cannot show there is a contradiction between supposing a necessary God and the laws of nature then clearly there cannot be one, because The Pixie is a genius who knows everything.

I appreciate the thought, Joe, but modesty requires me to point out that I am not all-knowing and I am fallible.

Joe: I Met the burden so how you have a burden, I think of shafting as unfair this is not unfair,

It is your proof. You are the one claiming a necessary God is not contradicted by the laws of nature. The onus is on you to prove that.

My position is that we do not know one way or the other.


I am not All-knowing

Joe: We know God us not impossible because there is no contradiction in the concept

So prove it. Your unsupported opinion does not cut it.

Joe: I can't think of one, you don't hae one

As I said before, I am not all-knowing and I am fallible.

It is curious that you think the existence of God is determined by whether the two of us can see a contradiction. The reality, of course, is that whether there is a contradiction determines the existence of God, not whether either of us can find it.

Joe: I was an atheist so there was a time when i really wanted to prove there could not be a God I never found a contradiction,

And if NEITHER of us can find a contradiction, then surely there can be done! No, but seriously, Joe, neither of us are all-knowing or infallible.


The Herd Of Unicorns

Joe: Doesn't have t be. you are confusing different versions of the OA. There are hundreds of versions, they don't all use perfection,

Yes, there really does. If you are saying you argument only applies to things that are "perfect", then that has to be apparent in the argument. Why does the logic work for things that are "perfect" and not for things that are not? To me iy looks arbitrary - you want it to work for God, so you pretend it does; you do not want it to work for anything else, so you declare it does not apply.

Joe: Necessary means the antithesis would be a contradiction,

Right. And this hypothetical herd of unicorns is necessary, because that is how I defined them. They are a necessary herd of unicorns; the antithesis would be a contradiction.

Joe: Pathetic. with no background in the thinking that led to these arguments you really have no idea what they are about. You really think this is just arbitrarily labeling ideas but that is so ignorant.

None of that supposed background thinking is in the argument.

Go read it again. There is nothing about "perfect" in there, for example.

At best you are admitting that the argument fails because it is incomplete. There are things you have omitted, and without those things it fails. We know that because in the absence of those things it proves the necessary herd of unicorns exists. We both agree the necessary herd of unicorns does not exist, so it MUST be the case that the argument is wrong - even if it is wrong because it is incomplete.

Joe: We assume words have meaning, God is more than a unicorn, Unicorns are contingent creatures God is neither contingent nor a creature, God can be necessary but unicorns can't be

Pix: This herd is special. It is a necessary herd of unicorns, and therefore they are not contingent.

you are just displaying your ignorance, I have reasons for believing as I do you don't understand those reasons because you don't want to know

You may be of the opinion that all unicorns are contingent, but unless you can PROVE that the concept of necessary herd of unicorns is a contradiction, the argument stands.

Pix

U just did. Either you are merely calling God "herd of unicorns" or you are discussing an idea of creatures, creatures cannot be anything but cotinte3nt,
Get it through your little unread head Being itself is Heideggarian, it's big stuff in Europe. It's embraced by great thinkers from Tillich to Vatican II. It's a major idea.

Sorry, I am just not impressed by argument from authority or popularity fallacies. I don't care what people believe, I care what people can demonstrate to be accurate.

You don't ask Christian apologists to demonstrate truth of God being maximally great why do you accept that idea of God and not this one?

Why are you assuming that I would accept a baseless claim that god is a maximally great being?

No he never proves it.

He spends a good portion of the video proving the phrase ~god does not exist~ is logically possible and then spends half the video defending it and going through the objections.

obviously because it explains what I mean by the term G-o-d,

I already know what you mean by the term god. That wasn't what I asked. I asked how does it demonstrate that you are correct to define god in that way. How does it verify that you are correct and that is in fact an accurate description of reality?

I just answered that.

No, you didn't.

how does parroting some high school dropout who never went to graduate school mouthing his half understood swiss cheese notions gleaned from other atheists on websites help you?

Because I understand how logical possibility works and how it interacts with modal logic.

But thanks for highlighting, yet again, that you don't understand either. All you can do is just parrot what the philosophers are saying with no real understanding of how the argument actually works.
btw Darren you have not said anything about my link ai'm sure you didmnt read it I demonstrate being itself.

No, I read it. I was wholly unimpressed with his baseless claims. Did you notice that he makes a lot of claims about what gods attributes are, but he never demonstrates that any of his claims about god having those attributes are accurate?

Though he did make one statement that I think you should take more seriously.
- "If God and Being itself share the same unique qualities then they must be identical. Of course this is not to beg the question and assume that God exists."
Infinite Possibilities said...
Joe: Get it through your little unread head Being itself is Heideggarian, it's big stuff in Europe. It's embraced by great thinkers from Tillich to Vatican II. It's a major idea.

DAR: Sorry, I am just not impressed by argument from authority or popularity fallacies. I don't care what people believe, I care what people can demonstrate to be accurate.

That is your fallacy to mistake indication of a great serious idea for polarity, major thinkers don't cluster around popularity. You don't know that Paul Tillich and Karen Armstrong are major serious thinkers you clearly know nothing.


Joe: You don't ask Christian apologists to demonstrate truth of God being maximally great why do you accept that idea of God and not this one?

DAR: Why are you assuming that I would accept a baseless claim that god is a maximally great being?

Focus, distinction between the truth of an idea and the vanity of an idea. A valid idea can be untrue, you accept the validity of one set of ideas when you fail to question the meaning of it terms, what I;m saying is you accept the validity of one set of ideas and reject the other, you are doing pait by numbers.


Joe: No he never proves it.[Scott never proves modal logic rules out God]

He spends a good portion of the video proving the phrase ~god does not exist~ is logically possible and then spends half the video defending it and going through the objections.

He does nothing of the kind, he merely asserts his own ignorance as a baseline of fact then asserts anything that does not match that is wrong,

Joe: obviously because it explains what I mean by the term G-o-d,

Dar:I already know what you mean by the term god.

Obviously you don't since you don't get being itself.

Dar: That wasn't what I asked. I asked how does it demonstrate that you are correct to define god in that way. How does it verify that you are correct and that is in fact an accurate description of reality?

Joe: I just answered that.
read the essay I lined to man

DAR: No, you didn't.

???
/03/2020 07:39:00 AM Delete

Joe: how does parroting some high school dropout who never went to graduate school mouthing his half understood swiss cheese notions gleaned from other atheists on websites help you?

DAR:Because I understand how logical possibility works and how it interacts with modal logic.

No you do not, The things you say the things you don't answer show me you don't really understand the issues involved,

But thanks for highlighting, yet again, that you don't understand either. All you can do is just parrot what the philosophers are saying with no real understanding of how the argument actually works.

Obviously I'm not parroting because Im not saying conventional things, you cant know that. No one else combines Tillich with modal logic, that's original with me. my thing, you have no idea, Clearly you are parroting when the issues get involved you retrenched into insinuation.

11/03/2020 07:28:00 AM Delete
Blogger Infinite Possibilities said...
btw Darren you have not said anything about my link ai'm sure you didmnt read it I demonstrate being itself.

No, I read it. I was wholly unimpressed with his baseless claims.

Obviously you don't understand it, you don't the first thing about the issues I;m discussing,



Did you notice that he makes a lot of claims about what gods attributes are, but he never demonstrates that any of his claims about god having those attributes are accurate?


The so called "Claims" I am making are accepted notions in theological circles and have ,long histories of being discussed, Im simply saving time by not goimg imnt ot, But they are standard theological assumptions



Though he did make one statement that I think you should take more seriously.
- "If God and Being itself share the same unique qualities then they must be identical. Of course this is not to beg the question and assume that God exists."

You don;t know what that means do you?


That is your fallacy to mistake indication of a great serious idea for polarity, major thinkers don't cluster around popularity. You don't know that Paul Tillich and Karen Armstrong are major serious thinkers you clearly know nothing.

Well, since about 86% of philosophers are not theists, and therefore don't find your "major thinker" to be all that impressive, I guess I am in good company. https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
Infinite Possibilities said...
Joe:That is your fallacy to mistake indication of a great serious idea for polarity, major thinkers don't cluster around popularity. You don't know that Paul Tillich and Karen Armstrong are major serious thinkers you clearly know nothing.

Darren:Well, since about 86% of philosophers are not theists, and therefore don't find your "major thinker" to be all that impressive, I guess I am in good company. https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
11/03/2020 09:32:00 AM

the fallacious thinking in your understanding of things, is showing! You assert that majority of philosophers don't think Tillich is a great thinker just because they are not theists, That does not follow. Non theists can admit a given theist is a great thinker without becoming theists, Tillich is considered a major thinker

"Paul Johannes Tillich (August 20, 1886 – October 22, 1965) was a German-American Christian existentialist philosopher and Lutheran Protestant theologian who is widely regarded as one of the most influential theologians of the twentieth century."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich#:~:text=Paul%20Johannes%20Tillich%20(August%2020,theologians%20of%20the%20twentieth%20century.

Paul Tillich, (born Aug. 20, 1886, Starzeddel, Brandenburg, Ger. —died Oct. 22, 1965, Chicago), German-born U.S. theologian and philosopher whose discussions of God and faith illuminated and bound together the realms of traditional Christianity and modern culture.Oct 18, 2020
Britannica

"German-American philosopher and theologian Paul Johannes Tillich (1886-1965)[1] undoubtedly has his place among the most significant 20th-century religious thinkers.[2] His influence is immense, especially in the United States of America, where he emigrated in 1933 after Hitler came to power. Historians of contemporary religious thought hold him to be one of the most significant Protestant authors of the second half of the 20th century."[3]

Cf. e.g. H. Zahrnt, Die Sache mit Gott. Die pro­tes­tan­tis­che Theo­lo­gie im 20. Jahr­hun­dert, M√ľnchen, 1966, espe­cia­lly pp. 382-​467.
Anonymous said…
Joe: you are just displaying your ignorance, I have reasons for believing as I do you don't understand those reasons because you don't want to know

As long as we are clear that Hartshorne's Modal Argument is not one of them, fine.

Joe: U just did. Either you are merely calling God "herd of unicorns" or you are discussing an idea of creatures, creatures cannot be anything but cotinte3nt,

And you are discussing the idea of an imaginary god. Imaginary gods cannot be anything but contingent.

Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: you are just displaying your ignorance, I have reasons for believing as I do you don't understand those reasons because you don't want to know

PXAs long as we are clear that Hartshorne's Modal Argument is not one of them, fine.

you have not touched the argument,


Joe: U just did. Either you are merely calling God "herd of unicorns" or you are discussing an idea of creatures, creatures cannot be anything but cotinte3nt,

PX:And you are discussing the idea of an imaginary god. Imaginary gods cannot be anything but contingent.

An imaginary God can't change your life, you said nothing to disprove the
argument,
you never showed a contradiction in God. Calling God imaginary doesn't make him go away,
Anonymous said…
Joe: you have not touched the argument,

I pointed out that number (3) is just your unsupported opinion. You seem to have no reply besides trying to shift the burden of proof.

It is apologetics, so I guess that is fine. You are not really trying to prove something, just to reassure yourself that you are right. You think (3) is right because you believe God exists, and that is good enough for you to prove that God exists.

Joe: An imaginary God can't change your life, you said nothing to disprove the argument,

But your argument makes no mention of an entity that changes your life!

You are tacitly admitting here that your argument fails as you have to fall back to other arguments to support it. Here is the actual argument, with this background knowledge included:

(a) God causes changes in my life
(b) Therefore God is not imaginery, i.e., God exists
(1) If God exists, he must exist necessarily, if God does not exist his existence is impossible.
(2) Therefore, God is either necessary or impossible.
(3) God can be conceived without contradiction from (b)
(4) Therefore, God is not impossible
(5) Since God is not impossible he must be necessary.
(6) Since god is necessary he must exist.

But states (1) to (6) are now irrelevant; you already decided God exists in (b)!

As usual, apologetics is founded on the assumption of what it seeks to prove. You argument here is trying to prove God exists, but requires that one believes God exists before hand. If the argument was valid, it would stand on its own. The fact is that you need to assume the conclusion is try before hand.

Pix
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: you have not touched the argument,

I pointed out that number (3) is just your unsupported opinion. You seem to have no reply besides trying to shift the burden of proof.

you mean: "(3) God can be conceived without contradiction"? show me the contradiction

It is apologetics, so I guess that is fine. You are not really trying to prove something, just to reassure yourself that you are right. You think (3) is right because you believe God exists, and that is good enough for you to prove that God exists.

You seem to think that I'm just not trying hard enough to find a contradiction. That's why I asked you for one. I don't see one, You must want to believe in God too.

Joe: An imaginary God can't change your life, you said nothing to disprove the argument,

Px: But your argument makes no mention of an entity that changes your life!

sure it does it mentions God.

PX:You are tacitly admitting here that your argument fails as you have to fall back to other arguments to support it. Here is the actual argument, with this background knowledge included:

(a) God causes changes in my life
(b) Therefore God is not imaginery, i.e., God exists
(1) If God exists, he must exist necessarily, if God does not exist his existence is impossible.
(2) Therefore, God is either necessary or impossible.
(3) God can be conceived without contradiction from (b)
(4) Therefore, God is not impossible
(5) Since God is not impossible he must be necessary.
(6) Since god is necessary he must exist.

But states (1) to (6) are now irrelevant; you already decided God exists in (b)!

there is nothing wrong wit the argument, All arguments have backgrounds, That is not a problem it does not have to be included

As usual, apologetics is founded on the assumption of what it seeks to prove. You argument here is trying to prove God exists, but requires that one believes God exists before hand. If the argument was valid, it would stand on its own. The fact is that you need to assume the conclusion is try before hand.

You start in the head with the background to the argument so you are confusing epistemology with logic, none of that matters in presenting a modal argument. The personal thought process one goes through in forming belief is irrelevant to the presentation of an argument,
Anonymous said…
Joe: you mean: "(3) God can be conceived without contradiction"? show me the contradiction

YOU are making the claim. YOU need to show there is no contradiction.

Joe: You seem to think that I'm just not trying hard enough to find a contradiction. That's why I asked you for one. I don't see one, You must want to believe in God too.

I think you are making zero effort to show point(3), all I see you trying to shift the burden of proof.

Joe: An imaginary God can't change your life, you said nothing to disprove the argument,

Pix: But your argument makes no mention of an entity that changes your life!

Joe: sure it does it mentions God.

I have to assuming you are just PLAYING dumb, and not actually this dumb.

Joe: there is nothing wrong wit the argument, All arguments have backgrounds, That is not a problem it does not have to be included

All arguments have background. But in a good argument, the conclusion is not part of that background.

Joe: You start in the head with the background to the argument so you are confusing epistemology with logic, none of that matters in presenting a modal argument. The personal thought process one goes through in forming belief is irrelevant to the presentation of an argument,

So we start with the supposed background knowledge that God exists, and from you you successful show that... God exists. Brilliant argument Joe.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: you mean: "(3) God can be conceived without contradiction"? show me the contradiction

YOU are making the claim. YOU need to show there is no contradiction.

Joe: You seem to think that I'm just not trying hard enough to find a contradiction. That's why I asked you for one. I don't see one, You must want to believe in God too.

I think you are making zero effort to show point(3), all I see you trying to shift the burden of proof.

No I told you my proof is that you have no contradiction. It is no good pretending that there is one but I just refuse to tell you when you can't say what it is.



Joe: An imaginary God can't change your life, you said nothing to disprove the argument,

Pix: But your argument makes no mention of an entity that changes your life!

Joe: sure it does it mentions God.

PX: I have to assuming you are just PLAYING dumb, and not actually this dumb.

The concept of God is complex. It's not just a big man in the sky, it includes redemption, it includes healing, it includes a concept of salvation that begins with renovation of lives. All of these things are built into the concept

Joe: there is nothing wrong wit the argument, All arguments have backgrounds, That is not a problem it does not have to be included

Px:All arguments have background. But in a good argument, the conclusion is not part of that background.

You are right it's not. You are trying to pretend that it is but that doesn't make it so

Joe: You start in the head with the background to the argument so you are confusing epistemology with logic, none of that matters in presenting a modal argument. The personal thought process one goes through in forming belief is irrelevant to the presentation of an argument,

So we start with the supposed background knowledge that God exists, and from you you successful show that... God exists. Brilliant argument Joe.


The argument has all it needs in the original presentation at he beginning of my essay. you have not given a real criticism,
Anonymous said…
Joe: No I told you my proof is that you have no contradiction. It is no good pretending that there is one but I just refuse to tell you when you can't say what it is.

I remember you tell me that. That does not make it true.

Your proof rests on there being no contradictions, not me having no contradictions. I am not all-knowing.

Consider the situation where there is a contradiction, but I have not thought of it yet. If you are right, that would mean God exists. However, if I later realised there was in fact a contradiction, at that moment God would fail to exist!

Joe: The concept of God is complex. It's not just a big man in the sky, it includes redemption, it includes healing, it includes a concept of salvation that begins with renovation of lives. All of these things are built into the concept

Where is that in your argument? At which point, (1) to (6) does the idea that redeams or heals a factor? Where does salvation impact your argument?

Nowhere.

Your background concept of God includes the claim that he exists, and you are using thast to prove God exists. It is the standard circular argument of apologetics.

Pix: All arguments have background. But in a good argument, the conclusion is not part of that background.

Joe: You are right it's not. You are trying to pretend that it is but that doesn't make it so

So then spell out the background as required for your argument to work. Include redemption and healing and salvation, if these are relevant to the argument.

Joe: The argument has all it needs in the original presentation at he beginning of my essay. you have not given a real criticism,

So in fact your BS about redemption and healing and salvation was completely irrelevant, as I suspected. Thanks for making that clear.

Pix
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: No I told you my proof is that you have no contradiction. It is no good pretending that there is one but I just refuse to tell you when you can't say what it is.

Px:I remember you tell me that. That does not make it true.

what is true and cannot be denied is that we have no contradiction so tere is no reason to assume there is one,


Px:Your proof rests on there being no contradictions, not me having no contradictions. I am not all-knowing.

until someone produces a contradiction the point stands

Consider the situation where there is a contradiction, but I have not thought of it yet. If you are right, that would mean God exists. However, if I later realised there was in fact a contradiction, at that moment God would fail to exist!

Only if its a valid contradiction. What you are really saying is you have faith there is no God, despite the evidence that there is,

Joe: The concept of God is complex. It's not just a big man in the sky, it includes redemption, it includes healing, it includes a concept of salvation that begins with renovation of lives. All of these things are built into the concept

Px:Where is that in your argument? At which point, (1) to (6) does the idea that redeams or heals a factor? Where does salvation impact your argument?

It does not have to be in the argument, It's an argument for the existence of God not a proof of the validity of all my theology,

Nowhere.

Implied in what mean by the term God

Your background concept of God includes the claim that he exists, and you are using thast to prove God exists. It is the standard circular argument of apologetics.

BS! that is the background to the concept I argue for it's not part of the proof,

Pix: All arguments have background. But in a good argument, the conclusion is not part of that background.

Obviously its not in this one either

Joe: You are right it's not. You are trying to pretend that it is but that doesn't make it so

Px: So then spell out the background as required for your argument to work. Include redemption and healing and salvation, if these are relevant to the argument.

You are confessed about the nature of logic, Modal logic does not require a background, it requires that the premises be true so far this one is.

Joe: The argument has all it needs in the original presentation at he beginning of my essay. you have not given a real criticism,

Px:So in fact your BS about redemption and healing and salvation was completely irrelevant, as I suspected. Thanks for making that clear.

focus professor, you were confusing the dictates of modal logic with epistemic bacround,
off topic:

Trump says the world is laughing at us over the election, as a Brit are you laughing at our election or at Trump himself? he says we are cheating by counting the votes,
Anonymous said…
We do not know!

Joe: what is true and cannot be denied is that we have no contradiction so tere is no reason to assume there is one,

We have no contradiction, but we cannot assume that there is none. We are not all-knowing. There may be one and there may not. The only honest position to take is that we do not know.

Joe: until someone produces a contradiction the point stands

No it does not. Until someone proves it one way or the other "We do not know" stands.

Joe: Only if its a valid contradiction.

Duh!

Joe: What you are really saying is you have faith there is no God, despite the evidence that there is,

No, what I am saying is we do not know.


It is about the background knowledge.... Except when it is not

Joe: It does not have to be in the argument, It's an argument for the existence of God not a proof of the validity of all my theology,

And yet earlier you were saying this background knowledge was vital to your argument.

Joe: BS! that is the background to the concept I argue for it's not part of the proof,

So your argument depends on it... but it does depend on it.

Joe: You are confessed about the nature of logic, Modal logic does not require a background, it requires that the premises be true so far this one is.

Of course not! Except when you want it to, right?

"Pathetic. with no background in the thinking that led to these arguments you really have no idea what they are about."

"The so called "Claims" I am making are accepted notions in theological circles and have ,long histories of being discussed, Im simply saving time by not goimg imnt ot, But they are standard theological assumptions"

"there is nothing wrong wit the argument, All arguments have backgrounds,"

Pix
Anonymous said…
We do not know!

Joe: what is true and cannot be denied is that we have no contradiction so tere is no reason to assume there is one,

We have no contradiction, but we cannot assume that there is none. We are not all-knowing. There may be one and there may not. The only honest position to take is that we do not know.

we sure as hell can assume there is non you can't me a reason to assume there is.


Joe: until someone produces a contradiction the point stands

Px it does not. Until someone proves it one way or the other "We do not know" stands.

No sorry this is not a European court. as long as it meets a prima face burden

Joe: Only if its a valid contradiction.

Duh!

Joe: What you are really saying is you have faith there is no God, despite the evidence that there is,

Px No, what I am saying is we do not know.

we know now because the argument tells us so, rather it tells us there is good reason to think so.


Px It is about the background knowledge.... Except when it is not

no arguments are not about the background


Joe: It does not have to be in the argument, It's an argument for the existence of God not a proof of the validity of all my theology,

px And yet earlier you were saying this background knowledge was vital to your argument.

where? quote it

Joe: BS! that is the background to the concept I argue for it's not part of the proof,

Px: So your argument depends on it... but it does depend on it.

Never said that

Joe: You are confessed about the nature of logic, Modal logic does not require a background, it requires that the premises be true so far this one is.

Px: Of course not! Except when you want it to, right?


"Pathetic. with no background in the thinking that led to these arguments you really have no idea what they are about."

Yes child the background can become important when the opponent is such an ignorant cluck that he tries to make an issue of something unimportant, that does not mean the background has to be in the presentation,



"The so called "Claims" I am making are accepted notions in theological circles and have ,long histories of being discussed, Im simply saving time by not goimg imnt ot, But they are standard theological assumptions"

"there is nothing wrong wit the argument, All arguments have backgrounds,"

that doesn't mean the background has to be presented in the argument

Popular posts from this blog

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

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

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Why Christian Theism Is Almost Certainly True: A Reply to Cale Nearing

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

The Genre of the Gospel of John (Part 1)

Luke, the Census, and Quirinius: A Matter of Translation

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark

The Meaning of the Manger

Scientifically Documented Miracles