Causal Necessity/Contingency is a Marker for Broadly Logical N/c
what we learned from the last discussion of the cosmological argument last week.
There seem to be two definitions of N/c: (1) based upon the dependence of an existent upon some prior condition or cause, or (2) N = That which cannot cease or fail to exist, c=that which case cease or fail.I am arguing these are the same one is a maker for the other,
There are different types of necessity and contingency,
Truth itself can be either necessary or contingent:
Distinction between kinds of truth. Necessary truth is a feature of any statement that it would be contradictory to deny. (Contradictions themselves are necessarily false.) Contingent truths (or falsehoods) happen to be true (or false), but might have been otherwise. Thus, for example: "Squares have four sides." is necessary. "Stop signs are hexagonal." is contingent. "Pentagons are round." is contradictory. This distinction was traditionally associated (before Kant and Kripke) with the distinctions between a priori and a posteriori knowledge and the distinction between analytic and synthetic judgment. Necessity may also be defined de dicto in terms of the formal logical property of tautology. Recommended Reading: Jules Vuillemin, Necessity or Contingency? (C S L I, 1995); Colin McGinn, Logical Properties (Oxford, 2001); Alvin Plantinga, The Nature of Necessity (Clarendon, 1989); and Margaret Dauler Wilson, Leibniz' Doctrine of Necessary Truth (Harvard, 1984).[1]
There are many different notions of necessity. There are different kinds of necessity they are not contradictions or different opinions they apply in different ways, For example logical necessity is not the same as metaphysical necessity, metaphysical or broadly logical necessity deals with the nature of existence.
...Something is “necessary” if it could not possibly have failed to exist. The laws of mathematics are often thought to be necessary. It is plausible to say that mathematical truths such as two and two making four hold irrespective of the way that the world is. Even if the world were radically different, it seems, two and two would still make four. God, too, is often thought to be a necessary being, i.e. a being that logically could not have failed to exist.
Something is “contingent” if it is not necessary, i.e. if it could have failed to exist. Most things seem to exist contingently. All of the human artefacts around us might not have existed; for each one of them, whoever made it might have decided not to do so. Their existence, therefore, is contingent. You and I, too, might not have existed; our respective parents might never have met, or might have decided not to have children, or might have decided to have children at a different time. Our existence, therefore, is contingent. Even the world around us seems to be contingent; the universe might have developed in such a way that none of the observable stars and planets existed at all.[3]This is true in the cosmological argument.
The modal cosmological argument or “argument from contingency” is the argument from the contingency of the world or universe to the existence of God. The argument from contingency is the most prominent form of cosmological argument historically. The classical statements of the cosmological argument in the works of Plato, of Aquinas, and of Leibniz are generally statements of the modal form of the argument.[4]The Universe itself is contingent and everything produced in nature is as well.
Karl Popper tells us :"Empirical facts are facts which might not have been. Everything that belongs to space time is a contingent truth because it could have been otherwise, it is dependent upon the existence of something else for its' existence going all the way back to the Big Bang, which is itself contingent upon something."[5] Contingent beings are those whose existence is caused or explained, "A contingent being (a being such that if it exists, it could have not-existed or could cease to exist) exists. This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence. ... Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being".[6]
Necessity/contingency boradly logical and caually related
This seems to create a dichotomy for some atheists in that they try to juxtapose two kinds of contingency against one another; There are Types of necessity and contingency but the distinction between broadly logical or "Metaphysical" necessity and the causal type reflected in my CA is not one of them, These two types were shown by Hartshorne to be united,. The causal form of contingency is a marker for the broadly logical or metaphysical. This is my own idea.
Necessity is that which cannot cease or fail to exist; that for which one could contradict to speak of such things. Thus contingency is that which can cease or fail to exist.But it seems that ceasing and failing are bound up with causes and circumstances of existence in the natural world, Thus we can think of causality an an ontological marker spellimg out for us the nature of contingency in the natural world,. After all anything that depends for its existence upon a prior condition (even an ontologically prior condition that is not temporally prior) is contingent because it could cease or fail to exist, thus it;s contingency is marked by it;s causality.
Sources
[1]Garth Kemerling,"Necessary/Contingent," Philosophical Pages. 1997/2011
http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/n.htm#nec (accessed 3/4/19 )
[2]Matthew Davidson,"God and Other Necessary Beings", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/god-necessary-being/>. (accessed 3/4/19 )
[3] Tim Holt, "Argument from Contingency," Philosophy of Religion, 2008
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-cosmological-argument/the-argument-from-contingency/
(accessed 3/4/19 )
[4] Ibid
[5] Carol Popper quoted in Antony Flew, Philosophical Dictionary, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1979, 242.
[6] Bruce Reichenbach, , "Cosmological Argument", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(Spring 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/cosmological-argument/>.
(accessed 3/4/19 )
B Reichenbach originally Jul 13, 2004
Comments
First of all, you should be aware (as any student of philosophy is) that logic and ontology are two very different areas of philosophy. They both happen to use the term 'necessary', but in very different ways that often don't refer to the same thing. This can be a source of confusion for some. When we talk about necessary existence (which is an ontological matter) we are not talking about necessary truth of propositions (which is a logical matter). You might get really confused when you make a statement that contains elements of both. For example, one might say "It is not necessarily true (a logical expression) that something exists necessarily (an ontological proposition)." More often, a statement will be made that contains one of those elements, but incorrectly understood to mean the other.
When we speak of modes of existence, we are talking about ontological or existential matters, not logical matters. We can say that things exist necessarily or contingently. We might define modes of existence as "necessity, impossibility, contingency, and fiction". These are not logical categories. They are ontological or metaphysical categories. There are many ways to define modes of existence. Yours is certainly not the only one.
When we speak of modal logic, we are making statements about necessary truth or possible truth of propositions. We can also make a distinction between logical necessity/possibility and metaphysical necessity/possibility. In this case, metaphysical truth is a logical matter, but conditioned on a particular understanding of ontological reality. (Read about the distinction between logical and metaphysical necessity here.) Logical necessity is a subset metaphysical necessity, and logical possibility is a superset of metaphysical possibility. In other words, some things can be logically possible but not metaphysically possible, and some things can be metaphysically necessary but not logically necessary. The classic example of this is Kripke's statement that "water is H2O" is metaphysically necessary, but not logically necessary. This illustrates the real distinction between these two concepts.
So when you say "necessity, impossibility, contingency, and fiction" are the only logically possible modes of existence, that is not correct. What you really mean is that they are the only metaphysically possible modes of existence, provided one accepts your understanding of metaphysics. Of course, if one has a different understanding of metaphysical reality, there are other ways to categorize modes of existence. In particular, the existence of something that is neither necessary nor dependent for its existence upon another thing is a logical possibility, even though you don't consider it to be a metaphysical possibility. And this mirrors Kripke's example of the logical possibility of water being something other than H2O.
I hope you can understand this, Joe. I've tried and tried to get this concept across to you.
wrong. Those for categorizes are valid under any system.
how about something either exists or it does not.Now is that not Valid under any system? You don't have to agree with any other aspect of my view to accept that. That could be true under almost any system. under any system, either something exists or it does not.
If something exist how does it exist? the most basic question would be is it caused or uncased? That takes in a lot of territory,I don't know of any system that would preclude that basic truth.
With that much you have all the basics you need to establish the four categories. If something exists and is uncased it's necessary. If it's not necessary then it can only be either impossible or caused. That gives you the chart.
the 2 on your chart was impossible because it was two words for necessary.
- Joe, this isn't rocket science. Consider a proposition A. The only logical possibilities are A or NOT-A. Consider proposition B. The logical possibilities are B or NOT-B. Now consider the conjunction of A and B. There are four logical possibilities: 1) A and B, 2) A and NOT-B, 3) NOT-A and B, and 4) NOT-a and NOT-B. Now you might have a metaphysical reason for saying that one or more of those logical possibilities is not metaphysically possible. But that does not change the fact that the four logical possibilities exist.
You say that your four categories are valid under any system. But you are talking about modes of existence. That is an ontological statement. Its validity is entirely dependent on your metaphysical view. You are talking about metaphysical possibilities, not logical possibilities. And it's YOUR metaphysical view. in MY metaphysical view, things exist without a cause. They are not necessary, and they are not dependent on something else for their existence. I understand that you can't fathom the idea of it, because my metaphysical view doesn't include a God that is the cause of all things. Nevertheless, it is just as valid as yours, and there is no contradiction in it. The contradiction you see is only because of your own metaphysical assumptions, but I don't make the same assumptions you do.
- Joe, this isn't rocket science. Consider a proposition A. The only logical possibilities are A or NOT-A. Consider proposition B. The logical possibilities are B or NOT-B. Now consider the conjunction of A and B. There are four logical possibilities: 1) A and B, 2) A and NOT-B, 3) NOT-A and B, and 4) NOT-a and NOT-B. Now you might have a metaphysical reason for saying that one or more of those logical possibilities is not metaphysically possible. But that does not change the fact that the four logical possibilities exist.
You don;t understand the basic terms. "impossible" is the only logical alternative to necessary because if God is not contingent (he's not by definition) then he must be necessary or impossible because cam't be a mere possibility.
You say that your four categories are valid under any system. But you are talking about modes of existence. That is an ontological statement. Its validity is entirely dependent on your metaphysical view.
fallacious. An ontological truth could be such that it is true under any system, the only way to disprove that is to show a system where it's not true. Metaphysical reality is not something that only functions if you believe in it, for example science makes plntey of metaphysical assumptions,
You are talking about metaphysical possibilities, not logical possibilities.
I don't think you know what either of those things are. Materialism is a metaphysical assumption,while most materialists would say they make no metaphysical assumptions.
And it's YOUR metaphysical view. in MY metaphysical view, things exist without a cause.
That is not proven but I can allow for things that are caused but nothing is both or neither necessary and continent. Continent doesn't mean caused (although in nature most continent thugs are caused--a;l caused things are contingent).
those uncased things can still be continent, they cease to exist, or if they could have failed to exist,
They are not necessary, and they are not dependent on something else for their existence.
subatomic particles do depend upon ontological prior conditions to exist. I.e. time, Other particles(Vacuum flux) and laws of physics.
I understand that you can't fathom the idea of it, because my metaphysical view doesn't include a God that is the cause of all things.
Joe We intelligent people can imagine stuff even if we don't believe in it. I can imagine superman even though I don't believe he exists. Also I was an atheist in high school and college.
Nevertheless, it is just as valid as yours, and there is no contradiction in it.The contradiction you see is only because of your own metaphysical assumptions, but I don't make the same assumptions you do.
Another thing we intelligent people do you might try: listening to what other people say even if you think you know what they believe,
Your no 2 consisted of two terms that mean the sane thing,that makes it a contradiction.they can;t be separate categories,
The first possibility is what all philosophers acknowledge as valod necessity and contingency are the two possibilities, no philosopher I've heard of says that;s not a valid dichotomy. You say it;s illogical but don't show how.
No 2 you accept as possible but it's a logical contradiction, "necessary and not contingent," anything necessary is not contingent so those are not alternatives they are the same thing, like saying the two alternatives for height are tall and not short,
- You don't understand logic. The only logical alternative to 'necessary' is 'not necessary'. And that is not the same thing as 'impossible'. This is simple, basic logic, and you clearly do NOT understand it.
fallacious. An ontological truth could be such that it is true under any system, the only way to disprove that is to show a system where it's not true. Metaphysical reality is not something that only functions if you believe in it, for example science makes plntey of metaphysical assumptions
- We all make metaphysical assumptions. Some if us assume that God exists. Some don't. IF you assume God, then you can construct a metaphysical view where where God exists necessarily and everything else depends on God for its existence. But that is not the only logical possibility. IF you don't assume God, you can construct a metaphysical view where everything exists accidentally or is caused by something that exists accidentally. There is no contradiction in that metaphysical view.
- That's not true. We all make metaphysical assumptions. The thing we don't all assume is God.
That is not proven but I can allow for things that are caused but nothing is both or neither necessary and continent. Continent doesn't mean caused (although in nature most continent thugs are caused--a;l caused things are contingent).
- Your view is not proven, either, so what's your point? My metaphysical assumptions are no less possible than yours.
those uncased things can still be continent, they cease to exist, or if they could have failed to exist
- You are switching definitions again. Earlier, you said you define contingency in terms of causation. Now, you have apparently abandoned that definition. This is precisely why I suggested dropping the use of that word altogether. Say 'necessary' or 'not necessary when you are talking about necessity, and say 'caused' or 'not caused' when you are talking about causation. That would eliminate a lot of confusion (and equivocation) in your argument.
- Virtual particles don't depend on time, space, other particles, or anything at all. They just happen. There are no ontological conditions.
We intelligent people can imagine stuff even if we don't believe in it.
- You can't imagine a world without your God. You continue to claim that it is the one and only logical possibility.
Another thing we intelligent people do you might try: listening to what other people say even if you think you know what they believe
- You say you listen, but you don't hear a word.
The first possibility is what all philosophers acknowledge as valod necessity and contingency are the two possibilities, no philosopher I've heard of says that;s not a valid dichotomy. You say it;s illogical but don't show how.
- It isn't about contingency. It is simply the fact that 'necessary being' is a logical contradiction with 'not being'. That's why we rule out that category. It's simple logic.
No 2 you accept as possible but it's a logical contradiction, "necessary and not contingent," anything necessary is not contingent so those are not alternatives they are the same thing, like saying the two alternatives for height are tall and not short
- In my 4 logical possibilities, those things are not alternatives. They are a conjunction. Do you understand what a conjunction is? But it is important to realize that the two terms are not the same thing, nor are they logical opposites. In that particular argument, we had defined 'contingent' in terms of causation. In other words. 'contingent' means 'caused' in that discussion. But you already have admitted that not everything in nature is caused ("in nature most continent thugs are caused") Therefore, I presume that you would agree that virtual particles are neither necessary nor caused.
- You don't understand logic. The only logical alternative to 'necessary' is 'not necessary'. And that is not the same thing as 'impossible'. This is simple, basic logic, and you clearly do NOT understand it.
No that is not right it's ignorance. Hartshorne shows us that since God can;t be Continent if he is not necessary he can only be impossible. It;s not just:not necessary that would imply that he might exits,if God exists he cannot be not necessary becusae he would not be God. God = necessary being. Thus if God does not exist it;s because it;s impossible that he exists,
this is very basic that yoy haven;t heard it before is a tribute to your ignorance,
JH:fallacious. An ontological truth could be such that it is true under any system, the only way to disprove that is to show a system where it's not true. Metaphysical reality is not something that only functions if you believe in it, for example science makes plntey of metaphysical assumptions
JH:That is not proven but I can allow for things that are caused but nothing is both or neither necessary and continent. Continent doesn't mean caused (although in nature most continent thugs are caused--a;l caused things are contingent).
- Your view is not proven, either, so what's your point? My metaphysical assumptions are no less possible than yours.
es it proven you don;t think logically and you dont listen,you missed the logical proof,
JH:those uncased things can still be continent, they cease to exist, or if they could have failed to exist
- You are switching definitions again. Earlier, you said you define contingency in terms of causation.
You have continually taken that stament out of context totally,the whole point of the post where I examine poetesses of necessity/connectivity was to show that the two types are one, that show the thin thiat;s exactly what otsays,
I said the causal is an incinerator of the other one, read this and learn it read it and leearn it, reade it and learne it you pretender.thisis theconcolusion of the poston themarier
This seems to create a dichotomy for some atheists in that they try to juxtapose two kinds of contingency against one another; There are Types of necessity and contingency but the distinction between broadly logical or "Metaphysical" necessity and the causal type reflected in my CA is not one of them, These two types were shown by Hartshorne to be united,. The causal form of contingency is a marker for the broadly logical or metaphysical. This is my own idea.
Necessity is that which cannot cease or fail to exist; that for which one could contradict to speak of such things. Thus contingency is that which can cease or fail to exist.But it seems that ceasing and failing are bound up with causes and circumstances of existence in the natural world, Thus we can think of causality an an ontological marker spellimg out for us the nature of contingency in the natural world,. After all anything that depends for its existence upon a prior condition (even an ontologically prior condition that is not temporally prior) is contingent because it could cease or fail to exist, thus it;s contingency is marked by it;s causality.
Now, you have apparently abandoned that definition. This is precisely why I suggested dropping the use of that word altogether. Say 'necessary' or 'not necessary when you are talking about necessity, and say 'caused' or 'not caused' when you are talking about causation. That would eliminate a lot of confusion (and equivocation) in your argument.
ok know nothing here it is again"
Necessity/contingency broadly logical and causally related
This seems to create a dichotomy for some atheists in that they try to juxtapose two kinds of contingency against one another; There are Types of necessity and contingency but the distinction between broadly logical or "Metaphysical" necessity and the causal type reflected in my CA is not one of them, These two types were shown by Hartshorne to be united,. The causal form of contingency is a marker for the broadly logical or metaphysical. This is my own idea.
Necessity is that which cannot cease or fail to exist; that for which one could contradict to speak of such things. Thus contingency is that which can cease or fail to exist.But it seems that ceasing and failing are bound up with causes and circumstances of existence in the natural world, Thus we can think of causality an an ontological marker spellimg out for us the nature of contingency in the natural world,. After all anything that depends for its existence upon a prior condition (even an ontologically prior condition that is not temporally prior) is contingent because it could cease or fail to exist, thus it;s contingency is marked by it;s causality.
did you see where it says the two definitions are integrated? get it through your head
SKP- Virtual particles don't depend on time, space, other particles, or anything at all. They just happen. There are no ontological conditions.
Yes of course they do, They are not out side of time, they would be eternal and never out of existence, certainly they depend upon Vacuum flux that;so the parietals and laws of physics, all major physicists such as Hawking say they depend upon laws of physics,(see Grand design)
In other words. 'contingent' means 'caused' in that discussion. But you already have admitted that not everything in nature is caused ("in nature most continent thugs are caused") Therefore, I presume that you would agree that virtual particles are neither necessary nor caused.
Necessity/contingency boradly logical and caually related
This seems to create a dichotomy for some atheists in that they try to juxtapose two kinds of contingency against one another; There are Types of necessity and contingency but the distinction between broadly logical or "Metaphysical" necessity and the causal type reflected in my CA is not one of them, These two types were shown by Hartshorne to be united,. The causal form of contingency is a marker for the broadly logical or metaphysical. This is my own idea.
Necessity is that which cannot cease or fail to exist; that for which one could contradict to speak of such things. Thus contingency is that which can cease or fail to exist.But it seems that ceasing and failing are bound up with causes and circumstances of existence in the natural world, Thus we can think of causality an an ontological marker spellimg out for us the nature of contingency in the natural world,. After all anything that depends for its existence upon a prior condition (even an ontologically prior condition that is not temporally prior) is contingent because it could cease or fail to exist, thus it;s contingency is marked by it;s causality.
JLWe intelligent people can imagine stuff even if we don't believe in it.
- You can't imagine a world without your God. You continue to claim that it is the one and only logical possibility.
not knowing what I know about it but since I did when I was an atheist I remember the concept,atheism is a no brainer
JLAnother thing we intelligent people do you might try: listening to what other people say even if you think you know what they believe
- You say you listen, but you don't hear a word.
How would you know? you don;t read half of what i write
JL The first possibility is what all philosophers acknowledge as valid necessity and contingency are the two possibilities, no philosopher I've heard of says that;s not a valid dichotomy. You say it;s illogical but don't show how.
that's rather stupid, I bashed HRG over the head with that for years he never got it. Atheists don;t think they just refuse to conditioner ideas that might lead them to God so they refuse to know ideas,well some of them
No 2 you accept as possible but it's a logical contradiction, "necessary and not contingent,"
same thing, the idea is to make the categories out of ideas that comp lent suite as necessary and contingent or warm and cold, or up and down, not down and down,
JL anything necessary is not contingent so those are not alternatives they are the same thing, like saying the two alternatives for height are tall and not short
- In my 4 logical possibilities, those things are not alternatives. They are a conjunction.
yea and you actually think utps sart donm;t you? qow
Do you understand what a conjunction is?
You don;t understand the point of the categories; it's modes of being, your categories are not modes of being,
But it is important to realize that the two terms are not the same thing, nor are they logical opposites.
anything not continent is necessary,they are the same your are so ignorant you don;t accept what even though what all philosophers think
In that particular argument, we had defined 'contingent' in terms of causation.
here we go again here is the post where I explain my position whatever you saw else where is out of context this is the testament defines what I meant meant, i explained this before,
Necessity/contingency boradly logical and caually related
This seems to create a dichotomy for some atheists in that they try to juxtapose two kinds of contingency against one another; There are Types of necessity and contingency but the distinction between broadly logical or "Metaphysical" necessity and the causal type reflected in my CA is not one of them, These two types were shown by Hartshorne to be united,. The causal form of contingency is a marker for the broadly logical or metaphysical. This is my own idea.
Necessity is that which cannot cease or fail to exist; that for which one could contradict to speak of such things. Thus contingency is that which can cease or fail to exist.But it seems that ceasing and failing are bound up with causes and circumstances of existence in the natural world, Thus we can think of causality an an ontological marker spellimg out for us the nature of contingency in the natural world,. After all anything that depends for its existence upon a prior condition (even an ontologically prior condition that is not temporally prior) is contingent because it could cease or fail to exist, thus it;s contingency is marked by it;s causality.
- He derives his position from the starting point of his assumed religious metaphysical stance. He is not expressing logical necessity. It metaphysical necessity. And you don't understand the difference.
this is very basic that yoy haven;t heard it before is a tribute to your ignorance
- Yes, I've heard that. It's theology, not basic logic. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
es it proven you don;t think logically and you dont listen,you missed the logical proof
- Joe, most philosophers agree that the existence of God CANNOT be proven. Did you ever ask yourself why? You can only prove God if you make certain metaphysical assumptions. If you do, then the existence of of can logically follow from them. But it is not necessary to make those assumptions. Therefore, the existence of God cannot be proven. This is what philosophers understand, but you completely fail to understand.
That is not proven but I can allow for things that are caused but nothing is both or neither necessary and continent. Continent doesn't mean caused (although in nature most continent thugs are caused--a;l caused things are contingent).
- Your view is not proven, either, so what's your point? My metaphysical assumptions are no less possible than yours.
I said the causal is an incinerator of the other one, read this and learn it read it and leearn it, reade it and learne it you pretender.thisis theconcolusion of the poston themarier
- Your conclusions are based on your metaphysical assumptions. One of those assumptions is that whatever is not necessary must be caused. What you call logical necessity is NOT logical necessity. And no matter how much I try to explain the concept of logical vs. metaphysical necessity, YOU JUST DON'T GET IT.
Necessity is that which cannot cease or fail to exist; that for which one could contradict to speak of such things. Thus contingency is that which can cease or fail to exist.But it seems that ceasing and failing are bound up with causes and circumstances of existence in the natural world
- Wrong. Something can exist without being necessary and without being caused. You even admitted it yourself. But if that's the case, then your whole thesis goes out the window.
This seems to create a dichotomy for some atheists in that they try to juxtapose two kinds of contingency against one another
- The dichotomy exists because you use one word to express two different concepts, and then pretend that they are the same thing.
- That is meaningless word salad. What exactly is an "ontological marker"? And why can't you use ordinary language instead of weasel wording? The answer is that you are trying to cover up the fact that you can't make straight-forward logical conclusions that are valid.
Yes of course they do, They are not out side of time, they would be eternal and never out of existence, certainly they depend upon Vacuum flux that;so the parietals and laws of physics, all major physicists such as Hawking say they depend upon laws of physics,(see Grand design)
- Again. you are wrong. Physicists generally agree that the creation of the universe itself came from a quantum event. But that was necessarily outside of time, because time itself is an aspect of the universe. Also, If you had actually read Grand design instead of merely quote-mining, you would realize that Hawking (like many other physicists) talks about the grand design based on string theory, in which the laws of physics unfold as the universe is created, but it could unfold in different ways, producing different physical realities. i know what he says because I actually read the book.
not knowing what I know about it but since I did when I was an atheist I remember the concept,atheism is a no brainer
- You can't fathom a world without God. You even admitted that you always had that element of belief inside you.
that's rather stupid, I bashed HRG over the head with that for years he never got it. Atheists don;t think they just refuse to conditioner ideas that might lead them to God so they refuse to know ideas,well some of them
- I have no idea who HRG is, and I don't care. The fact is that your mind has only one channel. You told yourself you were an atheist, but you could never turn off the God channel. It is narrow and one-dimensional.
This discussion has become stale. You will never understand the difference between logical and physical necessity or possibility. That's what started this whole thing. There are plenty of articles and discussion about it (Here is another one.) It's not a matter of controversy in philosophy. But you just don't get it. You will never get it. You are impervious. This is a waste of energy, when you stubbornly refuse to listen.
- That is meaningless word salad. What exactly is an "ontological marker"? And why can't you use ordinary language instead of weasel wording? The answer is that you are trying to cover up the fact that you can't make straight-forward logical conclusions that are valid.
this is nothing more than atheist anti-intellectualism. It's real obvious that I think at a higher level of intellectual acumen than do you. That's why I have then use them big high tone words that's what people do when they are educated. That means I read stuff where people talk that way, dumbass, You don't and seeing it reminds you of how uneducated you are and thatmakes you angry
No that is not right it's ignorance. Hartshorne shows ...
- He derives his position from the starting point of his assumed religious metaphysical stance. He is not expressing logical necessity. It metaphysical necessity. And you don't understand the difference.
Hartshorne's modal argument is not talking about logical necessity but metaphysical with is also called "broadly logical Necessity." you are are still thrown off by that term.. It's real ignorant to try and dismiss Hartshorne as some kind of biased Christian,He was not a Christian, He was one of the greatest experts on model logic.
JLHthis is very basic that yoy haven;t heard it before is a tribute to your ignorance
- Yes, I've heard that. It's theology, not basic logic. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
Hey I sound like a real jerk saying things like that,I just get it a habit.
- Joe, most philosophers agree that the existence of God CANNOT be proven.
I never argue that I'm proving the existence of God. I have said this many times so I expect everyone to know but I should say it more: I don't argue to prove God I argue to provide rational warrant for belief,
Did you ever ask yourself why? You can only prove God if you make certain metaphysical assumptions. If you do, then the existence of of can logically follow from them. But it is not necessary to make those assumptions. Therefore, the existence of God cannot be proven. This is what philosophers understand, but you completely fail to understand.
The same situation adheres to doubting the existence of God,or to simply not believe in,I;s all dependent upon your metaphysical assumptions,not less true for atheism. I've written quoit about why the existence of God can't be proven,
That is not proven but I can allow for things that are caused but nothing is both or neither necessary and continent. Continent doesn't mean caused (although in nature most continent thugs are caused--a;l caused things are contingent).
- Your view is not proven, either, so what's your point? My metaphysical assumptions are no less possible than yours.
that does not answer the argument I just made,I was criticizing your modal possibilities, your chart?
I said the causal is an incinerator of the other one, read this and learn it read it and learn it, read it and learn it you pretender.this is the conclusion of the piston the martter.
- Your conclusions are based on your metaphysical assumptions. One of those assumptions is that whatever is not necessary must be caused. What you call logical necessity is NOT logical necessity. And no matter how much I try to explain the concept of logical vs. metaphysical necessity, YOU JUST DON'T GET IT.
your conclusions are also based upon metaphysical assumptions that is not a disproof of my arguments,
Your assumption about logical necessity you have never understood that I made a distinction between two different ideas that both use the same term:logical necessity, you say "What you call logical necessity" that is because you keep goring the fact that I put the word broadly in font of it, that;s a different thing than logical necessity, BROADLY LN is different than N, get it through your head,B:N is a term Palantinga uses for Metaphysical necessity,
- Wrong. Something can exist without being necessary and without being caused. You even admitted it yourself. But if that's the case, then your whole thesis goes out the window.
Not what I said Skep. Still have not given example of something uncased, I have disprove the notion that pertains to sub atomic particles,you have no evidence they are uncased,
This seems to create a dichotomy for some atheists in that they try to juxtapose two kinds of contingency against one another
- The dichotomy exists because you use one word to express two different concepts, and then pretend that they are the same thing.
You just don't get what I;m saying do you? I proved it again above, the whole of my pontoon then armature of necessity was to show that the two types of N/c collapse into one.. You have not answered/ you have not dealt with the argument,
your attempts to go around my God arguments are just foolish because do nothing you can;t escape by saying it;s the wrong kind of contingency because they are the same.
- Then prove it, Joe. Give us a sample of your "higher level of intellectual acumen". Tell is exactly what an "ontological marker" is (with references, of course). And tell us hoe you determine how something qualifies as an ontological marker.
Hartshorne's modal argument is not talking about logical necessity but metaphysical with is also called "broadly logical Necessity." you are are still thrown off by that term. It's real ignorant to try and dismiss Hartshorne as some kind of biased Christian,He was not a Christian, He was one of the greatest experts on model logic.
- You clearly didn't listen to what I said. First I was telling YOU that Hartshorne is making an argument from metaphysical necessity, not from logical necessity. And YOU don't know the difference. Second, I didn't say anything at all about Hartshorne being wrong, or being Christian. I did not dismiss his argument. I was only trying to point out the difference between metaphysical and logical. But you are incapable of comprehending what I say to you.
I never argue that I'm proving the existence of God. I have said this many times so I expect everyone to know but I should say it more: I don't argue to prove God I argue to provide rational warrant for belief
- Then why do you keep trying to tell me that you have proof? I quote you: "you missed the logical proof". You are calling your argument a "proof" of God. You are always making claims like "I proved this", "you didn't prove that", and on and on.
The same situation adheres to doubting the existence of God,or to simply not believe in,I;s all dependent upon your metaphysical assumptions,not less true for atheism. I've written quoit about why the existence of God can't be proven
- Joe, you are a liar. You make arguments that end with "Therefore God exists." This purports to be a logical proof, and you even said it was. Have you ever once heard me make an argument that ends with "Therefore God does not exist"? No, you haven't.
- Anyone who knows the first thing about logic will agree with me. if you have two independent variables, A and B, there are four logical possibilities: A and B, A and not-B, not-A and B, Not-A and not-B. I don't care how many "charts" you devise with your metaphysical assumptions. THIS is simple, basic logic, and YOU don't understand it.
your conclusions are also based upon metaphysical assumptions that is not a disproof of my arguments
- This is not based on metaphysical assumptions. It is simple, basic logic, and YOU don't understand it.
Your assumption about logical necessity you have never understood that I made a distinction between two different ideas that both use the same term:logical necessity
- The term "broadly logical necessity" is a euphemism for "metaphysical necessity". It is NOT THE SAME as "logical necessity", but it has you totally confused.
Not what I said Skep. Still have not given example of something uncased, I have disprove the notion that pertains to sub atomic particles,you have no evidence they are uncased
- Virtual particles occur when there's nothing there to make it happen. What more evidence do you require?
your attempts to go around my God arguments are just foolish because do nothing you can;t escape by saying it;s the wrong kind of contingency because they are the same.
- Your argument is based on using two different meanings of the same word. That's equivocation. If you think I'm wrong, then try making the same argument without using the word "contingent". If your argument is valid, that should not be a problem.
- Then prove it, Joe. Give us a sample of your "higher level of intellectual acumen". Tell is exactly what an "ontological marker" is (with references, of course). And tell us hoe you determine how something qualifies as an ontological marker.
You are so afraid to think, that's a term I coined.It's not an official term that doesn't mean it's wrong.It refers to the way that causality marks a existent as continent even tough being caused is not definitive of contingency anything caused is contingent,,
JLH modal argument is not talking about logical necessity but metaphysical with is also called "broadly logical Necessity." you are are still thrown off by that term. It's real ignorant to try and dismiss Hartshorne as some kind of biased Christian,He was not a Christian, He was one of the greatest experts on model logic.
- You clearly didn't listen to what I said. First I was telling YOU that Hartshorne is making an argument from metaphysical necessity, not from logical necessity
right it is from Broadly logical necessity because that is another term for metaphysical necessity. do you understand?
- And YOU don't know the difference.
I told you the difference
Second, I didn't say anything at all about Hartshorne being wrong, or being Christian. I did not dismiss his argument. I was only trying to point out the difference between metaphysical and logical. But you are incapable of comprehending what I say to you.
ok show me the passage where I GET iT WRONG, QUOTE IT? you assume I don't know because w your ego wont let you accept that I know more than you do.
JLHI never argue that I'm proving the existence of God. I have said this many times so I expect everyone to know but I should say it more: I don't argue to prove God I argue to provide rational warrant for belief
- Then why do you keep trying to tell me that you have proof? I quote you: "you missed the logical proof". You are calling your argument a "proof" of God. You are always making claims like "I proved this", "you didn't prove that", and on and on.
It's easier to use "proof" as a slag term than to spell out the whole distinction, If you were paying attention you would have heard me say that
JLH The same situation adheres to doubting the existence of God,or to simply not believe in,I;s all dependent upon your metaphysical assumptions,not less true for atheism. I've written quit a lot about why the existence of God can't be proven
- Joe, you are a liar. You make arguments that end with "Therefore God exists." This purports to be a logical proof, and you even said it was. Have you ever once heard me make an argument that ends with "Therefore God does not exist"? No, you haven't.
I;ve made a huge major thing out of the rational warrant deal.I'm well known for that,I kept discussion about it going on carm for years, You don't knkow that because you don;t pay attention,
I suppose my langue is misleading if you don't understand the caveats
3/10/2019 10:51:00 AM Delete
- Anyone who knows the first thing about logic will agree with me. if you have two independent variables, A and B, there are four logical possibilities: A and B, A and not-B, not-A and B, Not-A and not-B. I don't care how many "charts" you devise with your metaphysical assumptions. THIS is simple, basic logic, and YOU don't understand it.
I didn't quibble with your having four categories I have four categories,I took issue with the one;s you have,. I think we mean two different purposes for our charts so they don;t necessarily contradict,
JLHyour conclusions are also based upon metaphysical assumptions that is not a disproof of my arguments
- This is not based on metaphysical assumptions. It is simple, basic logic, and YOU don't understand it.
ahahahahaahahahahha how naive, of course you don;t understand that makes perfect since,
JLHYour assumption about logical necessity you have never understood that I made a distinction between two different ideas that both use the same term:logical necessity
- The term "broadly logical necessity" is a euphemism for "metaphysical necessity". It is NOT THE SAME as "logical necessity", but it has you totally confused.
that's what I've been trying to tell you prince of ignorance, extremely childish face saving bull shit,
JLHNot what I said Skep. Still have not given example of something uncased, I have disprove the notion that pertains to sub atomic particles,you have no evidence they are uncased
- Virtual particles occur when there's nothing there to make it happen. What more evidence do you require?
wrong! totally wrong, there;s vacuum flux and physical law,you don't know, that guy came by and interviewed said you don; winnow,
JLHyour attempts to go around my God arguments are just foolish because do nothing you can;t escape by saying it;s the wrong kind of contingency because they are the same.
- Your argument is based on using two different meanings of the same word.
It's Hartshorne who said they come together. supreme ignorance
That's equivocation. If you think I'm wrong, then try making the same argument without using the word "contingent". If your argument is valid, that should not be a problem.
I did that already in this post:the CA using dependence rather than contingency
That is what is explained by the spot you yourself said was fine, you are supremely ignorant, i wont waste my time on you any more,the post on Causal Necessity/Contingency is a Marker for Broadly Logical N/
this is closed
3/10/2019 10:52:00 AM
- I spelled out 4 logical possibilities based on two variables: contingency and existential necessity.
me: MY argument is based on four logical possibilities conditioned on contingency and necessity: 1: necessary and contingent, 2: necessary and not contingent, 3: not necessary and contingent, and 4: not necessary and not contingent. Those are the four logical possibilities, and it doesn't matter how you define your modes of existence.
you: (1)you got them wrong
Your modes of existence are NOT the only logical possibilities, and you obviously don't grasp the concept of logical possibility.
I didn't quibble with your having four categories I have four categories,I took issue with the one;s you have,. I think we mean two different purposes for our charts so they don;t necessarily contradict
- You didn't quibble. You flat-out said I was wrong. Do I now detect a faint glimmer of comprehension creeping in?
It's easier to use "proof" as a slag term than to spell out the whole distinction, If you were paying attention you would have heard me say that
- When you present your argument as a syllogism, you state premises, and you conclude "therefore, God exists", you are making an argument in the form of a formal proof. This is not slang.
I suppose my langue is misleading if you don't understand the caveats
- The caveat being that you constantly equivocate.
wrong! totally wrong, there;s vacuum flux and physical law,you don't know, that guy came by and interviewed said you don; winnow
- Do you know what vacuum flux actually is? The word vacuum refers to nothingness or emptiness. The word flux refers to change or perturbation. Vacuum flux is a perturbation in the nothingness (ie. the creation of virtual particles). Vacuum flux does not refer to a substance or medium. Also, according to string theory, physical laws are dependent on the way space unfolds AFTER the initial quantum event.
I did that already in this post:the CA using dependence rather than contingency
- You presented a different argument. I'm saying that to eliminate equivocation, you should make the same argument, but substitute a different word or phrase that is clearly understood in place of 'contingent'. If the argument is valid, it will still follow the same logical progression to the conclusion. If the argument was based on equivocation, that will typically become apparent with the new wording.