Hartshorne's Modal Argument (for God)

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, whether it is dependent upon other things, whether 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 essentially not contingent, it also conveys the idea of he can't cease or fail to exist, stemming from his eternal nature.

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, carries 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 exist 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.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Apart from some very light editing this is the same as you posted 7/Sep/20 and 30/Sep/19 (and on Metacrock too). Last year's post prompted me to write the following, and given you have not addressed that issue in your latest re-post, it still stands.

http://oncreationism.blogspot.com/2020/11/hartshornes-modal-argument.html

In summary, the argument falls down at (3). Is it saying "We can imagine a necessary God"? Or rather, is it saying "the concept of a necessary God is consistent with the laws of nature"?

Given the context of the argument, it has to be the latter. The ability to imagine something cannot dictate what is true!

And if (3) is really saying "the concept of a necessary God is consistent with the laws of nature" then it is incumbent on the person making the argument to prove that that is the case.

Of course, this is where you will shift the burden of proof. You will, without a doubt, insist that your statement stands until someone can prove it is not true. Because that is how apologetics - as opposed to reasoning - works. You get to make dubious statements, and can assume they are true until someone proves otherwise, because really apologetics is about preaching to the choir.

However, outside of apologetics, the argument becomes:

(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) the concept of a necessary God may or may not be consistent with the laws of nature
(4) therefore, God may or may not be not impossible
etc

Pix
Anonymous said…
Apart from some very light editing this is the same as you posted 7/Sep/20 and 30/Sep/19 (and on Metacrock too). Last year's post prompted me to write the following, and given you have not addressed that issue in your latest re-post, it still stands.

It's a golden oldie


http://oncreationism.blogspot.com/2020/11/hartshornes-modal-argument.html

In summary, the argument falls down at (3). Is it saying "We can imagine a necessary God"? Or rather, is it saying "the concept of a necessary God is consistent with the laws of nature"?

It has nothing to do with being able to imagine it,

Given the context of the argument, it has to be the latter. The ability to imagine something cannot dictate what is true!

And if (3) is really saying "the concept of a necessary God is consistent with the laws of nature" then it is incumbent on the person making the argument to prove that that is the case.

Nature cannot determine God's existence since God is being itself he created nature,

Of course, this is where you will shift the burden of proof. You will, without a doubt, insist that your statement stands until someone can prove it is not true. Because that is how apologetics -

You say tat because you don't bother to follow the argument. I've already nixed that pathway


as opposed to reasoning - works. You get to make dubious statements, and can assume they are true until someone proves otherwise, because really apologetics is about preaching to the choir.

You say that because You don't know modal logic you have not studied the background of the arguments and you don't follow the arguments,

However, outside of apologetics, the argument becomes:

(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) the concept of a necessary God may or may not be consistent with the laws of nature
(4) therefore, God may or may not be not impossible
etc

God does not have to come into line with nature to exist; he created nature thus nature is in line with God.
Anonymous said…
Pix: And if (3) is really saying "the concept of a necessary God is consistent with the laws of nature" then it is incumbent on the person making the argument to prove that that is the case.

Joe: Nature cannot determine God's existence since God is being itself he created nature,

Okay, I have say I was less than clear before. By laws of nature, I was meaning the character of entirety of existence - the universe, multiverse, God, the whole lot. That is deep and more encompassing than "laws of nature" is generally understood.

How does that relate to what I said?

The issue is whether we can determine that god exists from the character of entirety of existence (CEE); you argument assumes that is so (but not in a circular sense for once!).

If the existence of a necessary God is consistent with the CEE (and it has to be for such a god to exist, as the CEE includes any god), then it logically follows that God exists.

Joe: You say tat because you don't bother to follow the argument. I've already nixed that pathway

So it would be easy for you to copy-and-paste the relevant paragraph into your reply.

Prediction: You will fail to copy-and-paste the relevant paragraph into your reply.

Joe: God does not have to come into line with nature to exist; he created nature thus nature is in line with God.

CEE and God have to be consistent; that (on its own) is not to say either caused the other.

Your argument (3) is based on them being consistent. Otherwise "can be conceived without contradiction" is meaningless.

Pix
BK said…
Personally, I found it fascinating how Pix could take premise 3 as written by Joe, ("Whatever can be conceived without contradiction is not impossible") and turn it into "the concept of a necessary God is consistent with the laws of nature." Now, I can certainly be wrong, but I think that these two premises say something very different. Joe’s is basically a definitional statement. Pix’s rewrite somehow requires us to read “whatever” as “the concept of a necessary God” and also to read “conceived without contradiction” as “consistent with the laws of nature.”

Pix’s rewrite changes Joe's argument significantly so in no way does it represent a flaw in the Modal Argument Joe presents in his post. Rather, at best, it is a refutation of a different Modal Argument that is not being discussed.
--Pix’s rewrite changes Joe's argument significantly so in no way does it represent a flaw in the Modal Argument Joe presents in his post. Rather, at best, it is a refutation of a different Modal Argument that is not being discussed.
1/18/2021 03:44:00 PM

good point BK
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Pix: And if (3) is really saying "the concept of a necessary God is consistent with the laws of nature" then it is incumbent on the person making the argument to prove that that is the case.

Joe: Nature cannot determine God's existence since God is being itself he created nature,

Okay, I have say I was less than clear before. By laws of nature, I was meaning the character of entirety of existence - the universe, multiverse, God, the whole lot. That is deep and more encompassing than "laws of nature" is generally understood.

No It is actually more confusing, none of those things are seperate from God. and none of them determine anything about God.

How does that relate to what I said?

The issue is whether we can determine that god exists from the character of entirety of existence (CEE); you argument assumes that is so (but not in a circular sense for once!).

Hu? sorry man I can't even tell what you are trying to say

If the existence of a necessary God is consistent with the CEE (and it has to be for such a god to exist, as the CEE includes any god), then it logically follows that God exists.

hat the what? did you make up a mythological figure? who the hell has ever heard of the CEE? How do you figure that is some pre-existing thing that determines God? Sorry God is not dependent upon anything, and eternal existence is part of God.




Joe: you took my statement out of context, I said that to this"


You said: Of course, this is where you will shift the burden of proof. You will, without a doubt, insist that your statement stands until someone can prove it is not true. Because that is how apologetics -

I answered: You say that because you don't bother to follow the argument. I've already nixed that pathway




Px:So it would be easy for you to copy-and-paste the relevant paragraph into your reply.

Prediction: You will fail to copy-and-paste the relevant paragraph into your reply.


right because it's bull shit. You don't understand. Ive already showed that is otlogical.


Joe: God does not have to come into line with nature to exist; he created nature thus nature is in line with God.

Px:CEE and God have to be consistent; that (on its own) is not to say either caused the other.

CEE--which you made up- no philosopher talks about this is dependent upon God not vice versa



Px:Your argument (3) is based on them being consistent.


3 says "Whatever can be conceived without contradiction is not impossible" where do you get the idea it means being consistent?


Otherwise "can be conceived without contradiction" is meaningless.

Not at all. It simply means I can think of stuff about God without contradicting,

Anonymous said…
BK: Personally, I found it fascinating how Pix could take premise 3 as written by Joe, ("Whatever can be conceived without contradiction is not impossible") and turn it into "the concept of a necessary God is consistent with the laws of nature." Now, I can certainly be wrong, but I think that these two premises say something very different. Joe’s is basically a definitional statement. Pix’s rewrite somehow requires us to read “whatever” as “the concept of a necessary God” and also to read “conceived without contradiction” as “consistent with the laws of nature.”

In a sense I agree with you - my version is quite different to Joe's.

The problem is that Joe's version does not work. Here it is again for reference.

"3. Whatever can be conceived without contradiction is not impossible."

I can conceive of a rock that floats in air. Is that a "contradiction"? If not, then rocks floating in air are possible!

Now, can you tell me what is wrong with that reasoning? Clearly it must be wrong, because the conclusion is wrong - it is not possible for rocks to not float in air.

You might want to say that there is a contradiction, but how; in what sense? This is where I started from, and when I thought about what contradiction meant in this context, I came up with my version, which, as you say, is significantly different.

Unfortunately, I feel pretty certain saying you will not address this issue, because, well, that is apologetics. You want the result to be true, so you ignore the details ("you" here being Christians in general, I would love to discover that you specifically do not do that).

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: No It is actually more confusing, none of those things are seperate from God. and none of them determine anything about God.

Okay, so let us try a different tack. In my view, the argument hangs on (3).

"3. Whatever can be conceived without contradiction is not impossible."

What exactly does that mean; in particular what does "contradiction" mean in this context?

As an aid to establishing that, please answer these two question (remembering that we are talking about contradictions in the same sense as you mean it in premise 3):

(1) Can you give an example of something that can be conceived with a contradiction?

(2) Think about a rock floating in the air. I can certainly conceive it. Is there a contradiction there? If so, what is that contradiction?

This is a premise you have posted several times across two blogs, so you must know exactly what you mean, so this should be trivial for you to answer. I guess it will come down to whether you want people to understand what you mean or not (and my suspicion is the latter).

Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: No It is actually more confusing, none of those things are seperate from God. and none of them determine anything about God.

Okay, so let us try a different tack. In my view, the argument hangs on (3).

"3. Whatever can be conceived without contradiction is not impossible."

What exactly does that mean; in particular what does "contradiction" mean in this context?

It means I define impossible as contradictory in a logical sense,



As an aid to establishing that, please answer these two question (remembering that we are talking about contradictions in the same sense as you mean it in premise 3):

(1) Can you give an example of something that can be conceived with a contradiction?


No because if its contradictory you can't conceive of it. you can think of the words but can't think of it working, like a grand father who is younger than his grand son. With God you might think the Christian God has to be everywhere and nowhere that; a contradiction. But we realize the sense of nowhere is different than everywhere it's not.



(2) Think about a rock floating in the air. I can certainly conceive it. Is there a contradiction there? If so, what is that contradiction?


If we include our convectional understanding of gravity it would be.

This is a premise you have posted several times across two blogs, so you must know exactly what you mean, so this should be trivial for you to answer. I guess it will come down to whether you want people to understand what you mean or not (and my suspicion is the latter).


It is trivial that's why I must than about the answer,
BK said…
Pix, you say, "I can conceive of a rock that floats in air. Is that a "contradiction"? If not, then rocks floating in air are possible!"

I don't know how to tell you this, but unless the definition of rock is that it is something that does not float on air, then rocks floating on air are possible. Certainly, rocks floating on water is possible and has happened.

Does that mean we are going to find any rocks floating in the air on Earth? Using inductive reasoning, the answer would be no because in thousands of years of observation, no one has ever come across a rock floating in the air. But the argument posted by Joe is not looking at inductive reasoning. It simply asks if it is possible that a rock could float (to use your example). It is one of impossible versus possible. For all you know, while it is extremely unlikely and would seem to violate the law of gravity, tomorrow you could come across a floating rock because it is not an impossibility.

Pix adds, "Unfortunately, I feel pretty certain saying you will not address this issue, because, well, that is apologetics. You want the result to be true, so you ignore the details ("you" here being Christians in general, I would love to discover that you specifically do not do that)."

What a very passive-aggressive way to end your comment. But I will respond that it has been addressed. You want to jump to ground where you are more comfortable which is fine, but your re-writing of his argument to have it say something that it does not in no way refutes his argument.
Anonymous said…
Joe: No because if its contradictory you can't conceive of it. you can think of the words but can't think of it working, like a grand father who is younger than his grand son. With God you might think the Christian God has to be everywhere and nowhere that; a contradiction. But we realize the sense of nowhere is different than everywhere it's not.

Okay, so we can define anything we want into existence by saying it is necessary.

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

I could say that X is the necessary laws of nature. The argument works just as well (or not) as it does for a necessary God.


Joe: If we include our convectional understanding of gravity it would be.

Wow, you flipped just in one post. Just a moment ago you said "No because if its contradictory you can't conceive of it." Now you are saying something that I have conceived is a contradiction!

Clearly you have no clear what you are talking about, Joe.

Pix
Anonymous said…
BK: I don't know how to tell you this, but unless the definition of rock is that it is something that does not float on air, then rocks floating on air are possible. Certainly, rocks floating on water is possible and has happened.

Really? You think it possible for a rock to float in the air?

BK: Does that mean we are going to find any rocks floating in the air on Earth? Using inductive reasoning, the answer would be no because in thousands of years of observation, no one has ever come across a rock floating in the air. But the argument posted by Joe is not looking at inductive reasoning. It simply asks if it is possible that a rock could float (to use your example). It is one of impossible versus possible. For all you know, while it is extremely unlikely and would seem to violate the law of gravity, tomorrow you could come across a floating rock because it is not an impossibility.

Rocks do not float in air. Sure, we can use inductive reasoning, but we can also look at why things float. Something will float it its density is equal to or less than that of the medium. We can measure the density of rocks and we can measure the density of air. The lightest rocks, pumice (which as you say floats in water) has a density around 1 g/ml. Air has a density around 0.001 g/ml. The lighest rocks are a thousand times denser than air, therefore rocks do not float.

I have to accept that my argument will not mean anything to someone who thinks it possible for rocks to float in air, so I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: No because if its contradictory you can't conceive of it. you can think of the words but can't think of it working, like a grand father who is younger than his grand son. With God you might think the Christian God has to be everywhere and nowhere that; a contradiction. But we realize the sense of nowhere is different than everywhere it's not.

Okay, so we can define anything we want into existence by saying it is necessary.

I've already nixed that and ive shown why it doesn't work,.

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

2-4 cannot be known w/o knowing what X is. You can't connive of X qt all if you don;t know what it is.

I could say that X is the necessary laws of nature. The argument works just as well (or not) as it does for a necessary God.

laws of nature are not necessary, part of the problem is you refuse to learn the terminology; physics is not logic.


Joe: If we include our convectional understanding of gravity it would be.

Wow, you flipped just in one post. Just a moment ago you said "No because if its contradictory you can't conceive of it." Now you are saying something that I have conceived is a contradiction!

same deal you don't understand the terms. You can say the word, but you can;t really conceive of it if you do not understand what it means,

Clearly you have no clear what you are talking about, Joe.

I am going to answer but you just focus, pay attention now think. Here is the exchange to which you refer:

You: (2) Think about a rock floating in the air. I can certainly conceive it. Is there a contradiction there? If so, what is that contradiction?


Me: If we include our convectional understanding of gravity it would be.
why? what did I mean? You cant conceive of rock floating in air if we underside gravity the way we now it now It would contradict our understanding, That means contradiction impossible. given the circumstances of that issues, that is just what I said before that you cont conceive of a contradiction working,


you are trying to make a minor issue pay big dividends because you have nothing,


Pix

1/20/2021 12:04:00 AM Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
BK: I don't know how to tell you this, but unless the definition of rock is that it is something that does not float on air, then rocks floating on air are possible. Certainly, rocks floating on water is possible and has happened.

Of course that is bull shit, you are trying describe a rock traveling through air as though it is resting in one spot in air or on air which we know cannot be done,



Really? You think it possible for a rock to float in the air?

BK: Does that mean we are going to find any rocks floating in the air on Earth? Using inductive reasoning, the answer would be no because in thousands of years of observation, no one has ever come across a rock floating in the air. But the argument posted by Joe is not looking at inductive reasoning. It simply asks if it is possible that a rock could float (to use your example). It is one of impossible versus possible. For all you know, while it is extremely unlikely and would seem to violate the law of gravity, tomorrow you could come across a floating rock because it is not an impossibility.

Rocks do not float in air. Sure, we can use inductive reasoning, but we can also look at why things float. Something will float it its density is equal to or less than that of the medium. We can measure the density of rocks and we can measure the density of air. The lightest rocks, pumice (which as you say floats in water) has a density around 1 g/ml. Air has a density around 0.001 g/ml. The lighest rocks are a thousand times denser than air, therefore rocks do not float.

I have to accept that my argument will not mean anything to someone who thinks it possible for rocks to float in air, so I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

Pix

go back to the original exchange:

You Px: (2) Think about a rock floating in the air. I can certainly conceive it. Is there a contradiction there? If so, what is that contradiction?


Me: If we include our convectional understanding of gravity it would be.

I took you to be saying a roc could float in air (you can conceive of it) I said NOT given our understanding of gravity a roc could not float in air you can conceive of it doing that but yo have to concieve oit violating.

there is a deeper kind if contradiction, Im talking about logical contradiction that should be obvious since we are dealing with a deceptive argument, notice my example was a conceptual example, od being everywhere and nowhere, contradictions in terms.
Pix you are a nut, you argue dishonestly you lie about what your opponent says, when you are clearly losing you become totally dishonest.




Anonymous said…
Joe: I've already nixed that and ive shown why it doesn't work,.

But obviously you cannot copy-and-paste it here or point me to where you did that because...

It does not really exist.

Joe: 2-4 cannot be known w/o knowing what X is. You can't connive of X qt all if you don;t know what it is.

Why? As long as we define X to be necessary, then as far as I can see, 2 to 4 hold true.

Or, put another way, what quality of God makes them true for God? And why is that quality not part of your argument?

Joe: laws of nature are not necessary, part of the problem is you refuse to learn the terminology; physics is not logic.

I am not talking about the ordinary laws of nature, I am talking about the necessary laws of nature. By definition, the necessary laws of nature are necessary.

That is simple logic Joe.


With regards to the floating rocks, it looks like we understand "conceive" a little differently, and hence the misunderstanding. I can conceive a rock that floats, even though it is impossible; I can even picture it in my mind. You take the view that we can only conceive something if it is possible.

Consider these two statements:

i. Whatever can be conceived without contradiction is not impossible.

ii. Whatever can be conceived is not impossible.

Would you say they have the same meaning? I would have guessed not, but that does seem to be your position.

How about this third one?

iii. Whatever can be proposed or imagined and does not contradicting the logic of reality is not impossible.

Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: I've already nixed that and ive shown why it doesn't work,.

But obviously you cannot copy-and-paste it here or point me to where you did that because...

It does not really exist.

More of your bull shit, I don't want to waste my time combing the archives to see what we ere talking about you were careful not to include the context

I assert this is meaningless if you think it beats my argument you show me now.



Joe: 2-4 cannot be known w/o knowing what X is. You can't connive of X qt all if you don;t know what it is.

Why? As long as we define X to be necessary, then as far as I can see, 2 to 4 hold true.


don't be daft. the argument said conceived without contradiction that means you have to connive it but calling it X mean you don't concave it.

Px Or, put another way, what quality of God makes them true for God? And why is that quality not part of your argument?

we now you do not know how logic works, you don't understand the argument, we can't take your word, we have to know what you think you are taking about,



Joe: laws of nature are not necessary, part of the problem is you refuse to learn the terminology; physics is not logic.

px I am not talking about the ordinary laws of nature, I am talking about the necessary laws of nature. By definition, the necessary laws of nature are necessary.

If god created them they are not necessary they are cotangent, you have to prove they are not created. you asre still not dealing with logic but with physics

That is simple logic Joe.

no it;s not laws physics are not laws of logic it just high lights your igorance,


With regards to the floating rocks, it looks like we understand "conceive" a little differently, and hence the misunderstanding. I can conceive a rock that floats, even though it is impossible; I can even picture it in my mind. You take the view that we can only conceive something if it is possible.

that is not what is meant by conceited without contradiction these are contradictions of lock not of empirical fact. The kind of contradiction i mean would be like referring to married bachelor

Consider these two statements:

i. Whatever can be conceived without contradiction is not impossible.

ii. Whatever can be conceived is not impossible.

show me a contrition in my view of God. That is the only way to beat the argument,

Would you say they have the same meaning? I would have guessed not, but that does seem to be your position.

How about this third one?

logical contradictors cannot exist. There are no contradictions in ,y view of God unless yo show that it does not beat my argument,

iii. Whatever can be proposed or imagined and does not contradicting the logic of reality is not impossible.

you do notnow jac shit aboutloogic, that phrase is just a way of saying Ihere are no contradiction in view of God unless you show I do my arguments stands,
Anonymous said…
Joe: More of your bull shit, I don't want to waste my time combing the archives to see what we ere talking about you were careful not to include the context

By "combing the archives" you mean looking at comments higher up the discussion than the one you just replied to? Well, okay, that is fine. It helps to re-inforce my claim that it is all just a fantasy in your head.

Joe: don't be daft. the argument said conceived without contradiction that means you have to connive it but calling it X mean you don't concave it.

X is just a placeholder. I could insert anything into the argument as X - and then your objection disappears. For example, the necessary laws of nature. I can conceive that without contradiction, therefore your (2) to (4) hold true for it.

Pix: Or, put another way, what quality of God makes them true for God? And why is that quality not part of your argument?

Joe: we now you do not know how logic works, you don't understand the argument, we can't take your word, we have to know what you think you are taking about,

That is right Joe, I do not understand it. Hence, I asked a question, inviting you to clarify. You then have the opportunity to help me to understand by clarifying, or to dance around the subject to ensure it stays obscured.

Naturally you chose the latter.

Hence, I once again conclude that you do not want people to understand your argument, and I assume that is because you know that if people understand it they see the holes in the logic.

Joe: If god created them they are not necessary they are cotangent, you have to prove they are not created. you asre still not dealing with logic but with physics

God did not create the necessary laws of nature, Joe, they are necessary. They musty be, because that is how they are defined.

I do not have to prove they are not created, I am defining them to be necessary. Hence the name "necessary laws of nature".

Joe: no it;s not laws physics are not laws of logic it just high lights your igorance,

What has that to do with anything? I was talking about the necessary laws of nature, and you have chosen to twist that to mean the laws of physics. The laws of physics are a model of the necessary laws of nature. You are confusing the map with the territory.

Even if you meant to say no it's no;t the necessary laws of nature are not laws of logic you still have is wrong! Your necessary God is also not the laws of logic, so the fact that my necessary laws of nature are not not the laws of logic is not a problem.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: that is not what is meant by conceited without contradiction these are contradictions of lock not of empirical fact. The kind of contradiction i mean would be like referring to married bachelor

So your contradictions are contradictions arising from the definition of the words?

Great, so my necessary laws of nature MUST exist; there is no contradiction in the definition of the words. Therefore they are possible. Therefore they must exist.

Pix: Consider these two statements:
i. Whatever can be conceived without contradiction is not impossible.
ii. Whatever can be conceived is not impossible.
Would you say they have the same meaning? I would have guessed not, but that does seem to be your position.


Joe: show me a contrition in my view of God. That is the only way to beat the argument,

Why can you not answer the question, Joe?

Oh, right. Because the last thing you want is for someone to actually understand your argument.

Joe: show me a contrition in my view of God. That is the only way to beat the argument,

This is just you shifting the burden of proof. You made the claim that there is no contradiction. It is incumbent on you to prove it. And to make clear what you mean by contradiction in this context.

Joe: logical contradictors cannot exist. There are no contradictions in ,y view of God unless yo show that it does not beat my argument,

And there are no contradictions in my view of the necessary laws of nature; unless you show one you cannot beat my argument that the necessary laws of nature exist.

That is how the game works, right?

Pix: How about this third one?
iii. Whatever can be proposed or imagined and does not contradicting the logic of reality is not impossible.


Joe: you do notnow jac shit aboutloogic, that phrase is just a way of saying Ihere are no contradiction in view of God unless you show I do my arguments stands,

Okay, well ignoring the insults, I am taking that as a yes - you do think that means the same as your (3), so again, that is a bit more progress.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: that is not what is meant by conceited without contradiction these are contradictions of lock not of empirical fact. The kind of contradiction i mean would be like referring to married bachelor

So your contradictions are contradictions arising from the definition of the words?

Logical contradictions not contradictions of fact. think about my example God is everywhere and nowhere not a contradiction if you8derstandthe4sneses of the words,

Great, so my necessary laws of nature MUST exist; there is no contradiction in the definition of the words. Therefore they are possible. Therefore they must exist.

Pix: Consider these two statements:
i. Whatever can be conceived without contradiction is not impossible.
ii. Whatever can be conceived is not impossible.
Would you say they have the same meaning? I would have guessed not, but that does seem to be your position.

the phrase without contradiction makes a difference

Joe: show me a contrition in my view of God. That is the only way to beat the argument,

Why can you not answer the question, Joe?

Oh, right. Because the last thing you want is for someone to actually understand your argument.

i wish you could



Joe: show me a contrition in my view of God. That is the only way to beat the argument,

This is just you shifting the burden of proof. You made the claim that there is no contradiction. It is incumbent on you to prove it. And to make clear what you mean by contradiction in this context.


I said God can be conceived without contradiction ii thin not then it is your BOP

my argument is not about that point; that phrase is used in logic as a matter of course so you are attacking the folder the work comes in because you can' deal with the ideas therein



Joe: logical contradictors cannot exist. There are no contradictions in my view of God unless you show that it does not beat my argument,

Px:And there are no contradictions in my view of the necessary laws of nature; unless you show one you cannot beat my argument that the necessary laws of nature exist.

There is the fact you are using the wrong meaning of "necessary" you don't know sit about philosophy. you have no contradiction in yor view that does not win you the argument.

Px That is how the game works, right?

wrong. go read some philosophy

Pix: How about this third one?
iii. Whatever can be proposed or imagined and does not contradicting the logic of reality is not impossible.

no impact on the argument, I think you have tonally forgotten the argument.

Joe: you do not know jack shit about logic, that phrase is just a way of saying Ihere are no contradiction in view of God unless you show I do my arguments stands,

Okay, well ignoring the insults, I am taking that as a yes - you do think that means the same as your (3), so again, that is a bit more progress.

no it does nothing, you can have non contradictory necessary laws of nature. But they are not ontologically necessary because God had to create them. That does nothing to my argument.

my argument stands God has to be real you have no argument,
Anonymous said…
Joe: More of your bull shit, I don't want to waste my time combing the archives to see what we ere talking about you were careful not to include the context

By "combing the archives" you mean looking at comments higher up the discussion than the one you just replied to? Well, okay, that is fine. It helps to re-inforce my claim that it is all just a fantasy in your head.


of course you set that up by making roadblocks of tiresome stupidity and ignorance that I have to fight my way through to get to some minor pot that doesn;t effect my argument,,

Joe: don't be daft. the argument said conceived without contradiction that means you have to connive it but calling it X mean you don't concave it.

X is just a placeholder. I could insert anything into the argument as X - and then your objection disappears. For example, the necessary laws of nature. I can conceive that without contradiction, therefore your (2) to (4) hold true for it.

sure but you can only demonstrate its lack of contradiction when we know what it says,

Pix: Or, put another way, what quality of God makes them true for God? And why is that quality not part of your argument?


what is "them" how does that touch my argument??


Joe: we now you do not know how logic works, you don't understand the argument, we can't take your word, we have to know what you think you are taking about,

That is right Joe, I do not understand it. Hence, I asked a question, inviting you to clarify. You then have the opportunity to help me to understand by clarifying, or to dance around the subject to ensure it stays obscured.

Naturally you chose the latter.

O I'm sorry I know you are so sincere what was your question? I know really want an answer

Hence, I once again conclude that you do not want people to understand your argument, and I assume that is because you know that if people understand it they see the holes in the logic.

and after you have given it such a fair hearing

Joe: If god created them they are not necessary they are cotangent, you have to prove they are not created. you asre still not dealing with logic but with physics

God did not create the necessary laws of nature, Joe, they are necessary. They musty be, because that is how they are defined.


that is bullshit, if God exists then God created the natural law because God created all things, you can't demonstrate laws coming into existence for no reason

I do not have to prove they are not created, I am defining them to be necessary. Hence the name "necessary laws of nature".


what you are saying is you have your God i have mine. You have not demonstrated there can be laws apart from minds, the idea of law implies it must be understood by a mind, That implies a mind created it,



Joe: no it;s not laws physics are not laws of logic it just high lights your ignorance,

PXL What has that to do with anything? I was talking about the necessary laws of nature, and you have chosen to twist that to mean the laws of physics. The laws of physics are a model of the necessary laws of nature. You are confusing the map with the territory.

You have no proof that there are necessary laws of nature. that is a man made concept. There is no logical reason to put them above God since God buy definition is the creator of all things. That in itself does not prove he exists but if he does the laws of nature are his creation.



Even if you meant to say no it's no;t the necessary laws of nature are not laws of logic you still have is wrong! Your necessary God is also not the laws of logic, so the fact that my necessary laws of nature are not not the laws of logic is not a problem.

Wrong the ontological argent proves God is law of logic in a sense. This is a logical argument: God is either necessary or impossible. God is not impossible therefore God is necessary, if God is necessary he must exist,

Popular posts from this blog

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

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

Exodus 22:18 - Are Followers of God to Kill Witches?

The Bogus Gandhi Quote

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

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

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

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

Scientifically Documented Miracles

Extraordinary Claims, Ordinary Fallacies, and Evolution