now for something completely different: Hartshorne' s modal argument
Charles Hartshorne 1897-2000
Modern Champion of the modal argument
What follows is one of the most challenging subjects you will ever hear about. It is the best way to get a head ache, but I think it proves the existence of God. The problem is it requires a very specialized background to understand it. First you have to understand modal logic.
Modal Logic is so called because it turns upon the use of so called "modal operators." It's called "modal" because it is the logic of modes of being. "modes" as in what type of existence something exits in, weather it is dependent upon other things, weather it can cease or fail to exist and so forth. The modal operators are "necessity," "contingency" "impossibly," "possibility."
Necessity and contingency lie at the base of our modern understanding of cause and effect. They come from scholastic notions of logic, but the distinction between the notion our modern notions of c/e and the scholastic ones in the middle ages is not that great. The scholastic had more levels of cause, efficient cause, final cause and several others. But one could everything we have done in modern science using the scholastic ideas of c/e.
Necessity doesn't mean has to exist. It doesn't mean God is necessary to the existence of the world (except in so far as if God exists then of closure God is necessary to the world as creator--without God there would be no world).The modal argument does not begin with the assumption that God has to exist. It begins with the assumption that there is a valid distinction between necessity and contingency, which there must be.It proceeds along the lines of hypothetical consequence that obtain from different scenarios of God's existence. It concludes that is necessary. But by "necessary" it means not contingent, or not dependent upon something else for its' existence.
This is often misconstrued by atheists and taken to mean the argument proceeds from God's existence as an assumed first premise. This is not the case, the first premise is either/or. Either God's existence is necessary or it is impossible. This allows for the possibility that there is no God. So the argument does not begin by "defining God into existence."
Necessity means either non dependent or cannot cease or fail. By "fail" I mean there could not not be a God. That is the conclusion of the argument, not the premise.
Contingent means the opposite: that a thing is dependent upon a prior thing for existence, or that it could cease or fail to exist.
Impossible means logically impossible, something in the structure of the idea contradictions, such as square circles.
one of the sore spots that atheists get stuck on is the idea that God cannot be contingent. They will always leap to the conclusion that this is defining God into existence, because they don't understand the concept of God. God, by the nature of the concept, carriers certain parameters just as the existence of any human assumes humanity, or the existence of any tree assumes that the tree in question is a plant. To have to define that God is not contingent should not even come into it. The idea of God is that of eternal creator of all things. Thus God cannot cease to exits and cannot be dependent upon anything (or he wouldn't be the creator of all things). Atheists usually assume that all knowledge has to be empirical. they will argue this is defining God into existence. maybe God is contingent.
Argument:
Close to Hartshorne's version
1. God is either necessary or impossible.
2. God can be conceived without contradiction.
3. Whatever can be conceived without contradiction is not impossible.
4. God is not impossible.
5. God's existence is a necessity (from 1-4, not contingent or impossible means necessary)
6. If God is necessary, then God exists.
7. Belief in God's existence is warranted
About Hartshorne
Hartshorne Lived to be 103, at the time of his death in the Fall of 2000, he was known as "the greatest living Metaphysician." Hartshorne was one of the major forces in the "back to God" movement in Philosophy (a term coined by Christianity Today in a 1979 article. His first and greatest calim to fame is as the second most influential voice in process philosophy, along with Alfred North Whtiehead, but he is also credited as the man who brought the Ontological argument back from ignominious defeat by Kant almost two centuries earlier. Hartshorne was also a recognized authority on birdsong, and an authority on bycicles, having never driven a car a single time in his centogenerian lifespan. Hartshorne devoted the last years of life to waging a letter's to the editor campaign to advocate social issues such as medical care.
Supporting Material *links:
Fun with the nodal argument
The Logic of The Modal Argumemt
Terms of The Modal Argument
Answering Argument That God Need not Exist as necessity
Comments
The first problem is that you fail to define exactly what you mean by "God". Could God be a quantum fluctuate that created the universe? From the above, you seem to define God as the first clause, but then smuggling in all the other aspects of God, such as intelligence and purpose.
What is your basis for saying God cannot cease to exist?
Joe: 1. God is either necessary or impossible.
Okay, but let us recall that necessity means either non dependent or cannot cease or fail, so we have three possibilities: (1) God is non-dependent; (2) God cannot cease of fail; or (3) God is impossible.
Joe: 2. God can be conceived without contradiction.
But only because your definition of God is so vague. Keep any concept vague enough and you can claim it can be conceived without contradiction.
Joe: 5. God's existence is a necessity (from 1-4, not contingent or impossible means necessary)
6. If God is necessary, then God exists.
Not so. You have forgotten that there are two meanings on necessary: (1) God is non-dependent; and (2) God cannot cease of fail. If God is non-dependent, then it does not follow that he must exist. This is the big hole in your argument.
Necessary means cannot cease or fail; there could not not be.
Non-dependent means not dependent on a prior thing
Necessary means cannot cease or fail; there could not not be.
Non-dependent means not dependent on a prior thing
No I am not conflating anything,I'm using the term in relation to God the way theologians and philosophers have done since Anselm.
yes that's true but you would be surprised how many atheists have tried to deny that
The idea of God is that of eternal creator of all things. Thus God cannot cease to exits and cannot be dependent upon anything (or he wouldn't be the creator of all things).
The first problem is that you fail to define exactly what you mean by "God". Could God be a quantum fluctuate that created the universe? From the above, you seem to define God as the first clause, but then smuggling in all the other aspects of God, such as intelligence and purpose.
I think there is no problem with evoking the Christian tradition I should not have to stipulate that. working in the christian tradition that plugs in the term that many chritian philosophers have used. I think that is obvious by the concept of this as a Christian apologetic website.
What is your basis for saying God cannot cease to exist?
that's what we mean when we say God is eternal.
Joe: 1. God is either necessary or impossible.
Okay, but let us recall that necessity means either non dependent or cannot cease or fail, so we have three possibilities: (1) God is non-dependent; (2) God cannot cease of fail; or (3) God is impossible.
right and 1 and 2 are compatible
Joe: 2. God can be conceived without contradiction.
But only because your definition of God is so vague. Keep any concept vague enough and you can claim it can be conceived without contradiction.
how is it veg? its been established by the greatest minds in philosophy and worked over for a thousand years,
Joe: 5. God's existence is a necessity (from 1-4, not contingent or impossible means necessary)
6. If God is necessary, then God exists.
Not so. You have forgotten that there are two meanings on necessary: (1) God is non-dependent; and (2) God cannot cease of fail. If God is non-dependent, then it does not follow that he must exist. This is the big hole in your argument.
You missed the point. where it says (from 1-4, not contingent or impossible means necessary) that means since there are only three choices God is either necessary, contingent or impossible, since he can't be impossible or contingent he has to be necessary. There are not two versions of necessary because I stipulated what I mean.
your two versions argument has no impact because they are not mutually exclusive
Necessity means either non dependent or cannot cease or fail. By "fail" I mean there could not not be a God. That is the conclusion of the argument, not the premise.
It clearly has TWO meanings built in to it.
1. non dependent
2. cannot cease or fail
That you cannot express your argument without those two definitions built into a key term tells us your are conflating the two definitions. This is just equivocation, nothing more and nothing less.
Pix
Your stated definition for necessity is:
Necessity means either non dependent or cannot cease or fail. By "fail" I mean there could not not be a God. That is the conclusion of the argument, not the premise.
the definition as to the kind of being we are talking about is can't fail to exist,the argument aims at showing that is the case that it exits. Or that rational reasons exists for thinking so.
It clearly has TWO meanings built in to it.
1. non dependent
2. cannot cease or fail
That you cannot express your argument without those two definitions built into a key term tells us your are conflating the two definitions. This is just equivocation, nothing more and nothing less.
building the concept into the claim does not mean building the conclusion into the argument
impeachment of the Represented of the US is justified" then I went on to define President as chief executive of the US government elected to head third branch of government that would not be be begging the question but defining it.
The point is that your argument is based on equivocation of that definition.
Pix: That you cannot express your argument without those two definitions built into a key term tells us your are conflating the two definitions. This is just equivocation, nothing more and nothing less.
Joe: building the concept into the claim does not mean building the conclusion into the argument
I am pointing out equivocation, not circular reasoning.
Joe: If I made the statement
impeachment of the Represented of the US is justified" then I went on to define President as chief executive of the US government elected to head third branch of government that would not be be begging the question but defining it.
I am pointing out equivocation, not circular reasoning.
kind of being we are talking about is can't fail to exist,the argument aims at showing that is the case that it exits. Or that rational reasons exists for thinking so.
The point is that your argument is based on equivocation of that definition.
No don't clutch at straws. It's only logical that to make an argument one must define what one seeks to prove.
Pix: That you cannot express your argument without those two definitions built into a key term tells us your are conflating the two definitions. This is just equivocation, nothing more and nothing less.
Of course. it's called "meaning," nothing illogical or question begging about that.
Joe: building the concept into the claim does not mean building the conclusion into the argument
I am pointing out equivocation, not circular reasoning.
You are equivocating. you are saying that to define the concept is to beg the question that is foolish,if I didn't you would be saying:you can;t define what you mean by 'God.'"
Joe: If I made the statement
impeachment of the Represented of the US is justified" then I went on to define President as chief executive of the US government elected to head third branch of government that would not be be begging the question but defining it.
I am pointing out equivocation, not circular reasoning.
defining terms is not equivocation.It should prevent it.
Of course.
But what you have done is give TWO definitions. That is anything but logical. That is so you can swap between when convenient. Equivocation.
Joe: Of course. it's called "meaning,"
No, it is TWO meanings. TWO definitions, so you can swap between them.
Joe: ...nothing illogical or question begging about that.
As I pointed out several times now, this is about equivocation, not question begging.
Joe: You are equivocating. you are saying that to define the concept is to beg the question that is foolish,if I didn't you would be saying:you can;t define what you mean by 'God.'"
And now you are just pretending I am accusing you of question begging to create a straw man. Read what I post. This is about equivocation, not question begging.
How many times do I need to say that before it penetrates, Joe?
Here it is again:
I am accusing you of equivocation. I am not accusing you of question begging.
Joe: defining terms is not equivocation.It should prevent it.
But what you did was define one term to have TWO meanings. Far from preventing equivocation, you are engineering it.
Pix
The problem is you are conflating two meanings of necessity. To make that clear, try using these definitions, and see if it still works:
Necessary means cannot cease or fail; there could not not be.
Non-dependent means not dependent on a prior thing
It is telling that you are unable or unwilling to rephrase your argument using a single definition of necessary. I strongly suspect you know exactly what you are doing here, and all this "question begging" nonsense is just an atempt to distract from the real issue here.
Pix
Joe: No don't clutch at straws. It's only logical that to make an argument one must define what one seeks to prove.
Of course.
But what you have done is give TWO definitions. That is anything but logical. That is so you can swap between when convenient. Equivocation.
No I didn't. I said: "Necessity means either non dependent or cannot cease or fail. By "fail" I mean there could not not be a God. That is the conclusion of the argument, not the premise."That is one meaning, both are the case,I should have said "both: not either, that was a mistake.
Joe: Of course. it's called "meaning,"
No, it is TWO meanings. TWO definitions, so you can swap between them.
no both ideas are included in the term
Joe: ...nothing illogical or question begging about that.
As I pointed out several times now, this is about equivocation, not question begging.
equivocation is prevented by defining terms,I already pointed that out.
Joe: You are equivocating. you are saying that to define the concept is to beg the question that is foolish,if I didn't you would be saying:you can;t define what you mean by 'God.'"
And now you are just pretending I am accusing you of question begging to create a straw man. Read what I post. This is about equivocation, not question begging.
How many times do I need to say that before it penetrates, Joe?
Ok Ok it's still wrong, It;s not equivocation.
Here it is again:
I am accusing you of equivocation. I am not accusing you of question begging.
Joe: defining terms is not equivocation.It should prevent it.
But what you did was define one term to have TWO meanings. Far from preventing equivocation, you are engineering it.
that was just poor wording,Necessity means both non dependent and cannot cease or fail. By "fail" I mean there could not not be a God. That is the conclusion of the argument, not the premise.
Pix
10/01/2019 08:36:00 AM
Anonymous said…
In my second post I said this:
The problem is you are conflating two meanings of necessity. To make that clear, try using these definitions, and see if it still works:
Necessary means cannot cease or fail; there could not not be.
Non-dependent means not dependent on a prior thing
It is telling that you are unable or unwilling to rephrase your argument using a single definition of necessary. I strongly suspect you know exactly what you are doing here, and all this "question begging" nonsense is just an attempt to distract from the real issue here.
No both are wrapped in the same concept. It is because is eternal and un-created that he is not dependent upon a higher god nor can he cease or fail, both stem from his eternity.
TWO meaning. Count them:
(1) non dependent
(2) cannot cease or fail
Which bit of "means either" do you not understand?
Joe: no both ideas are included in the term
And hence the equivocation.
See if you can write the argument with just one meaning. If you cannot, then it fails.
Joe: that was just poor wording,Necessity means both non dependent and cannot cease or fail. By "fail" I mean there could not not be a God. That is the conclusion of the argument, not the premise.
Okay, so I guess that explains which bit of "means either" you do not understand.
1. God is either necessary or impossible.
Really? I am going to define "original quantum stuff" (or OQSF for short) to mean a quantum whatever that is non-dependent, and that cannot cease or fail, and that initiated the Big Bang, thus creating the universe.
Now I am sure you will agree that.
1. OQS is either necessary or impossible.
2. OQS can be conceived without contradiction.
3. Whatever can be conceived without contradiction is not impossible.
4. OQS is not impossible.
5. OQS's existence is a necessity (from 1-4, not contingent or impossible means necessary)
6. If OQS is necessary, then OQS exists.
Agreed?
See if you can poke a hole in my argument that is not also a hole in yours.
1. God is either necessary or impossible.
Really? I am going to define "original quantum stuff" (or OQSF for short) to mean a quantum whatever that is non-dependent, and that cannot cease or fail, and that initiated the Big Bang, thus creating the universe.
Now I am sure you will agree that.
1. OQS is either necessary or impossible.
2. OQS can be conceived without contradiction.
3. Whatever can be conceived without contradiction is not impossible.
4. OQS is not impossible.
5. OQS's existence is a necessity (from 1-4, not contingent or impossible means necessary)
6. If OQS is necessary, then OQS exists.
Agreed?
See if you can poke a hole in my argument that is not also a hole in yours.
That argument was tried a thousand years ago by a contrary of Anselm named Gaunilo of Marmoutier Abbey. The perfect Island argument, The answer given by Christian philosophers through the ages you have proven that there must be an eternal necessary being but you can call it by a different name,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaunilo_of_Marmoutiers
"Gaunilo or Gaunillon[1] (fl. 11th century) was a Benedictine monk of Marmoutier Abbey in Tours, France. He is best known for his contemporary criticism of the ontological argument for the existence of God which appeared in St Anselm's Proslogion. In his work In Behalf of the Fool,[4] Gaunilo contends that St Anselm's ontological argument fails because logic of the same kind would force one to conclude many things exist which certainly do not.[5] An empiricist, Gaunilo thought that the human intellect is only able to comprehend information provided by the senses.[6]"
TWO meaning. Count them:
(1) non dependent
(2) cannot cease or fail
Which bit of "means either" do you not understand?
I just expunged the term "either" can't you read English? Say don't you live in England?
Joe: no both ideas are included in the term
And hence the equivocation.
hence a complex concept
See if you can write the argument with just one meaning. If you cannot, then it fails.
that is bull shit. you are equivocating by trying to prodice a flaw in a clearly logical idea.
Joe: that was just poor wording,Necessity means both non dependent and cannot cease or fail. By "fail" I mean there could not not be a God. That is the conclusion of the argument, not the premise.
Okay, so I guess that explains which bit of "means either" you do not understand.
read English,I said it was bad wording,take out "means either" and put in means both,
10/01/2019 11:52:00 PM
necessary = not contingent = eternal = cannot cease or fail.
So if your argument is valid, what you have proven is something is necessary (I see you are trying to smuggle eternal in there too). You have chosen to label that something "God", and declare that you have proved God. But we could label it anything we want, and so prove anything exists - as long as it fits with being necessary
Pix: So if your argument is valid, what you have proven is something is necessary (I see you are trying to smuggle eternal in there too). You have chosen to label that something "God", and declare that you have proved God. But we could label it anything we want, and so prove anything exists - as long as it fits with being necessary
There is an X such that X is an eternal, non contingent, creator. Call it what you will.
God being eternal is an intrinsic part of the concept,that you don't know that merely means you need to learn theology before you argue about God.
Yes, "an intrinsic part of". Not the totality of it.
This is like saying, "It is yellow, therefore it must be a banana".
If your argument is valid, you have shown the existence of something necessary. That is part of the concept of God, but is also part of the concept of the OQS. We have no way to tell between those two or something even more fantastic neither of us have imagined.
Pix
Joe: God being eternal is an intrinsic part of the concept,that you don't know that merely means you need to learn theology before you argue about God.
Yes, "an intrinsic part of". Not the totality of it.
Obviously I didn't say it was the totality. you were complaining that i had more than one concept,
This is like saying, "It is yellow, therefore it must be a banana".
how? It's more like saying if we Knox God is necessary we can deduce other things as well.
If your argument is valid, you have shown the existence of something necessary. That is part of the concept of God, but is also part of the concept of the OQS. We have no way to tell between those two or something even more fantastic neither of us have imagined.
you are trying to work the argument backward;we are not starting from one attribute then deducing all the attributes from God's existence. We have a fully formed concept the reality of which we deuce from the logic of the case.Since God cannot be contingent he can;t be a maybe. He must either be impossible or necessary.
Since God is not impossible then he is necessary. That means he must exist. Necessary= can't fail to exist
Pix
The point is that if you argument is valid, at best you have proved one aspect of God; you have just proved something is necessary, you have no proved that that thing is what you consider God.
Joe: how? It's more like saying if we Knox God is necessary we can deduce other things as well.
You are saying something is necessary, and given necessary is an attribute of your concept of God, you are insisting that that something is God.
This is like saying something is yellow, and given yellow is an attribute of your concept of banana, you are insisting that that something is a banana.
Joe: you are trying to work the argument backward;we are not starting from one attribute then deducing all the attributes from God's existence. We have a fully formed concept the reality of which we deuce from the logic of the case.Since God cannot be contingent he can;t be a maybe. He must either be impossible or necessary.
Since God is not impossible then he is necessary. That means he must exist. Necessary= can't fail to exist
Just like the OQS. The OQS cannot be contingent. It must either be impossible or necessary. Since it is not impossible, it must be necessary.
The fake pixie is this moronic guy called"ohwow" I just barely remember him. He was a carm atheist who is still trying to get even with me for besting him 20 year ago. "Between 1999 and 2002, I posted regularly at CARM. I was using the alias "ohwow". The one Christian that I battled with the most was "Metacrock" and all of his stupid trifling "you-can't-refute-the-studies" bullshit."
That's a long time to steam did he ever read jack shit in that period to learn the things he was wrong about? of course not.
why are you impersonating pixie?
show me an empirical basis for anything else that is necessary in that same sense?
no that's not the way it works we don't need to assume that no one knows anything but this argument and it's supposed to prove God all by itself. We can use things from other arguments.
This is like saying something is yellow, and given yellow is an attribute of your concept of banana, you are insisting that that something is a banana.
No its more like saying the attributes of God are such that belief in God is warranted. like saying the attributes of first cause are such that belief in first cause is warranted.
Since God is not impossible then he is necessary. That means he must exist. Necessary= can't fail to exist
Just like the OQS. The OQS cannot be contingent. It must either be impossible or necessary. Since it is not impossible, it must be necessary.
you are just calling God by another name,There is an X such that X is eternal necessary being
Show me an empirical basis for God.
Surely you must have expected me to say that?
Joe: no that's not the way it works we don't need to assume that no one knows anything but this argument and it's supposed to prove God all by itself. We can use things from other arguments.
So what are you using from other arguments?
The argument as presented, if valid, shows something is necessary. You are making a big leap from that something to God.
Joe: No its more like saying the attributes of God are such that belief in God is warranted. like saying the attributes of first cause are such that belief in first cause is warranted.
No, it is more likely you have decided what you want to believe, and are looking for anything that might help rationalise that belief.
Joe: you are just calling God by another name,There is an X such that X is eternal necessary being
The argument as presented, if valid, shows something is necessary. You are choosing to call that something "God", I am choosing to call it by another name. Both are equally valid (or invalid). You have failed to give any reason why your label is better than mine besides vague allusions to arguments elsewhere and wishful thinking.
Show me an empirical basis for God.
No you are the one who claims that only empirical things can exists. I am saying there are thing we judge to be foundation, real and true that can't be proven empirically such as anything empirical can only be judged so by extrapolation because we can't observe it eternally
Surely you must have expected me to say that?
yes I did because it's wrong,
Joe: no that's not the way it works we don't need to assume that no one knows anything but this argument and it's supposed to prove God all by itself. We can use things from other arguments.
So what are you using from other arguments?
the assumptions about reality
PX:The argument as presented, if valid, shows something is necessary. You are making a big leap from that something to God.
Joe: No its more like saying the attributes of God are such that belief in God is warranted. like saying the attributes of first cause are such that belief in first cause is warranted.
PX:No, it is more likely you have decided what you want to believe, and are looking for anything that might help rationalise that belief.
It seem that way to you because you don't know logic and you are not using logic.
Joe: you are just calling God by another name,There is an X such that X is eternal necessary being
Px: The argument as presented, if valid, shows something is necessary. You are choosing to call that something "God", I am choosing to call it by another name. Both are equally valid (or invalid). You have failed to give any reason why your label is better than mine besides vague allusions to arguments elsewhere and wishful thinking.
Listen carefully this time ok? to be necessary it has to be eternal, it can't cease or fail to exist,it has to have created all things, that thing we give the term God so we can designate it Anything that fits that is God, There can't be two of them. you can call it something else but its still there,
we know it created because it precedes all the other stuff since it's eternal. One might asert there could be two eternal things but that violates Ocum's razor.
When did I say that? Empirical evidence (in a general sense) is certainly far more reliable, but it is certainly possible for something to exist for which we have no empirical evidence. Neutrinos, for example, existed before we had empirical evoidence for them.
Joe: yes I did because it's wrong,
Why? Because of your mistaken claim that I claim that only empirical things can exists? Even if that was true, how would that make me wrong?
Joe: the assumptions about reality
Right! You are assuming god exists, and can therefore conclude...
Joe: Listen carefully this time ok? to be necessary it has to be eternal, it can't cease or fail to exist,it has to have created all things, that thing we give the term God so we can designate it Anything that fits that is God, There can't be two of them. you can call it something else but its still there,
Okay, so my OQS is eternal. It certainly created all things, I said that from the start.
The concept of God implies, among other things, intelligence and purpose. Nothing in your argument suggests the necessary something has those attributes.
Joe: Besides as a thought experiment let's assume there's more than one God, What is the basis for being an atheist if there is more than one God?
Or there might be one thing with the attributes of necessary, eternal and originator of the universe, but is not intelligent and does not have purpose. Thus, zero gods.
When did I say that? Empirical evidence (in a general sense) is certainly far more reliable, but it is certainly possible for something to exist for which we have no empirical evidence. Neutrinos, for example, existed before we had empirical evoidence for them.
or God
Joe: yes I did because it's wrong,
Why? Because of your mistaken claim that I claim that only empirical things can exists? Even if that was true, how would that make me wrong?
I think you did intimate that
Joe: the assumptions about reality
Right! You are assuming god exists, and can therefore conclude...
so? what's rpm with my reasons for that assumption? you have no evidence to the contrary
Joe: Listen carefully this time ok? to be necessary it has to be eternal, it can't cease or fail to exist,it has to have created all things, that thing we give the term God so we can designate it Anything that fits that is God, There can't be two of them. you can call it something else but its still there,
Okay, so my OQS is eternal. It certainly created all things, I said that from the start.
did it die on the cross for your sins? since there can only be one creator then you are merely calling God by another name
The concept of God implies, among other things, intelligence and purpose. Nothing in your argument suggests the necessary something has those attributes.
It doesn't have to, we can make a second argument,
Joe: Besides as a thought experiment let's assume there's more than one God, What is the basis for being an atheist if there is more than one God?
Or there might be one thing with the attributes of necessary, eternal and originator of the universe, but is not intelligent and does not have purpose. Thus, zero gods.
I am not sure it has to be so to call it"God" bit I will take this up as a challenge for monday.
42 God arguments
Hilarious.
"I am worried they have hacked my account."
Hilarious.
"but can see no other signs, and it seems a bit lame to hack an account just to post here."
Absolutely hilarious.
C'mon silly, let's talk on AOL!