When you accept something to be true, you are obligated to force the whole universe to conform to it, and then you end up with idiotic conversations like the one in this video.
By the way, if Plantiga was an atheist everyone would have leapt on the fact beetles are insects and have 6 legs, not 8 as Plantiga said. Why does no one mention this? Because it is completely unrelated to the argument. Perhaps this shows atheists have a better understanding of logic than theists.
All this mistake proves is that Plantiga does not study beetles.
"if its really true that its possible that I exist when b (the body) doesn't, from that it just follows I would say as the night and day that b and I are not the same thing".
What total gibberish. I can't believe there are people who take this man seriously. His argument is the very definition of circular reasoning.
@CowLunch this post supports the claim I make in my previous post that you do not understand philosophical argument. re: 1) We can conceive of an infinite universe, but Big Bang cosmology refutes this claim. re: 2) Yes, we can conceive of life on other planets. re: 3) this is in no way a fact. you equivocate infinite spacially, with infinite temporally. This is fallacious. Re: 4) does not follow from the premises; 1) & 2) are speculations on possibilities, not facts; 3) is fallacious
@theantihero420 This was an example of false logic using premises that are not accepted facts, just like Plantiga uses.
I did not claim atheists have a better understanding of logic, I merely speculated that because I have seen mistakes like Plantiga's beetle leapt on by theists who don't see it is irrelevant. I was noting the fact that no atheist had leapt on the mistake.
I displayed that it is plausible that atheists have better logic, so it's true right? :P
@CowLunch where you are wrong, like I previously stated, is that this is not the type of logic that Plantinga is using. You are setting up unequivocal arguments, equating them, then claiming that this somehow shows that Plantinga is using false logic.
@CowLunch No, no, NO! You keep trying to introduce the idea of a soul into the argument, but it is an unwarranted move. You have no reason to be using the word soul, because it is not a part of your opponents argument. There is no reason to assume or believe that a star, let alone anything that has a "live" & "dead" state of existence, has a "soul." The Modal argument does not assume the existence of a soul. This is something you continue to fallaciously introduce into the argument.
@CowLunch The Modal argument does not introduce any such controversial aspects (such as stars having souls, let alone any such aspect as a soul itself) as you try to insert. It takes a person & a person's body, and asks if these two things are identical (Law of Identity, A=A). If there is any possibility that A has a property that B does not have, then A and B are not equal or identical in every way, and therefore it necessarily follows that A and B are not in fact not identical.
@theantihero420 It's nothing more than semantics, soul has no added meaning to "a being existing independent of a body". I am just using soul as a label because it is clearer than saying "the star" which implies the whole star, just like "I" implies the whole person, but I want to make it clear that I am differentiating between the physical and spiritual.
If not a soul, how would you describe "I" in Plantiga's argument?
@CowLunch this is in no way analogous to the Modal argument that Plantinga proposes, as I have shown in both of my previous posts. And on your beetle comment, he clearly states that he doesn't know how many legs a beetle has, and merely speculates that it is eight. As you say, this is unrelated to the arguments, but how does this perhaps "shows atheists have a better understanding of logic than theists"?
@cowlunch first, you are using a loaded term not included in this argument. Second, the argument shows (it does not assume) that it is possible by way of a thought experiment. Third, you now bring your own loaded beliefs and assumptions of what a soul is and what it is capable of into the argument and impose them onto your opponents. This is fallacious. Fourth, what is your evidence to support your final three sentences?
@theantihero420 I was merely trying to eliminate the impossible interpretations of what a soul could be; I have no beliefs regarding souls. Back to the original argument: it is based on circular logic; he starts off by saying "it seems plausible that I could exist without my body", he's using that as a premise when it is not a fact. This makes his entire argument logically flawed. He is using the premise that the soul is independent from the body and concluding the same thing.
@CowLunch 1st, you keep using the term "soul" which is nowhere found in the argument. 2nd, you CLEARLY do not understand logic or philosophical argument. He is not stating that a person IS different from their body in the first premise, he is stating that it is plausible to conceive of a person existing without their body. If a person can imagine a plausible (key word plausible) case where they exist without their body, then they are not, in fact, identical to their body.
@theantihero420 1st Stop being facetious, a person independent of their body is a soul, spirit, essence, whatever you want to call it, soul was a perfectly good term for that. 2nd You make a snotty remark about my logic and then state that something is true if you can conceive it!?
What exactly makes life beyond your body plausible? I don't think it's plausible at all.
@CowLunch I am not being facetious. I am saying that you are introducing terms into your opponents argument that he did not use, and that have their own set of baggage. It is unnecessary to talk of a soul in this argument. Simply refer to the person, rather than the person's soul. I am not saying that something is true because you can conceive of it. The Modal argument states that if it is possible for A to have properties that B doesn't then they cannot be identical to one another.
What a jibbering idiot. This isn't logic, you can't assume something and then state it as fact. His body could be transported to heaven when he dies, why is that less likely than his soul? Because of this stupid assumption that a soul is a sort of gas like substance that would float up to heaven, well guess what there's nothing up there! So if there is a heaven its in another dimension which makes your soul and body equally likely to transcend to.
@CowLunch You are obviously not a philosopher, and do not understand the argument as it is presented here. What he is saying is if A and B have all the same properties, and neither can have a property the other doesn't, then they are identical. If it is possible that A has properties that B does not, then A and B cannot be identical. this is a law of Logic, and it follows that if I(A) can possibly exist without my body(B), then I(A) and my body(B) are not identical. simple deduction
@theantihero420 I understood perfectly! Where is the evidence that a soul can live independently of a body or that it even exists? He is backing up his claim of the soul being independent of the body with the assumption that the soul is independent of the body! A soul is the manifestation of consciousness. It cannot exist independently of a body, it exists BECAUSE of the body. If it existed independently why are we confined to our bodies?
@mbelma6329 logic and belief in god are completely exclusive, are you saying there are people who believe in god for LOGICAL reasons? Don't make me laugh. Logic is exactly HOW we as human beings DO answer things! How exactly can you answer something without logic?
I think Plantinga's argument is lacking a little something here. A materialist wouldn't say (except in a kind of shorthand way) that their consciousness IS their brain or their body, they would say their consciousness is a process that arises or is emergent from their brain or their body. But I agree that saying something like "thoughts are just physical processes in the brain" is erroneous.
perhaps it is possible to download ones thoughts, emotions, and etc to something else. But that something else would need to have similar properties to read said information (i.e., a brain). A thought experiment was done to refute Descartes mind-body postulate using the morning star/evening star example. It showed that we can _think_ of two things as separate when, in fact, they are the same.
@gnomefro I agree with that line of reasoning. I also think you can prove the contrary with modal logic; say I think my body is what's doing the imagining. Then my body (B) can imagine a state of events in which it still exists but the abstract concept (A) of mind is destroyed. Now A can conceive of a state in which B is gone and B can conceive of a state in which A is gone, so that can't be the property that distinguishes them.
The first time I heard this I thought he was barking mad. Then I took a minute, figured out the argument he was actually making.......and I still think he's barking mad. It's incredible the types of argument that people will accept if it happens to back up their belief systems.
Well because it's a ludicrous argument. Combining that with the fact that I've heard him come up with a lot of other nonsense, I've concluded that he's just not too bright. I mean the fact that you can imagine something differently just shows that you've got 2 different concepts in your mind. I recommend watching the yale lecture series where shelley kagan shows the stupidity of this argument quite sufficiently.
Well I remain shocked that someone could ask that. Ok so before we knew stars were actually far-off balls of gas, people thought they were 2D images "painted" on the sky. The first time someone came along and said they're actually suns, you could've said "well I can imagine great balls of gas in the sky, but i can also imagine 2D bright spots painted on the sky- therefore they're different." The answer is quite simply YOU WEREN'T IMAGINING THEM RIGHT.
@GodTheHypothesis Modal ontological arguments follow, usually, these steps:
1- It is possible an infinite, necessary being does exist.
2- if an infinite necessary being can possibly exist, then it *must* exist.
what the hell do cartoon stars or imagining cartoons stars have to do with the ontological argument?
You cannot grasp the argument and instead of acknowledging your ignorance you try bluff your way out and soothe your ego by calling the Notre Dame PHD the idiot instead... disgusting.
Well thanks for presenting a different argument than the one in the video- what was the point of that?
I'm not interested in the ontological argument, I don't think it's ever persuaded anyone. So returning to the actual argument in the video. Please explain why my example of someone who could imagine stars as 2D images on the sky is any different than his example of imagining the mind as separate from the body. Well done for redefining "strawman".
" (you presented) a different argument than the one in the video- what was the point?"
Part one
Apologies for my mistake. it said modal argument at the title so I thought it refereed to the modal ontological argument by Plantinga. I answered before listening to the video.
"ontological argument, I don't think it's ever persuaded anyone." Descartes, Leibniz, Godel and Wulff among others disagree.
so you can imagine stars being 2D and it does not follow they are cartoonish. guess what? Plantnga would agree with you. The argument is irrelevant to the *modal* claims he made:
1-if you *can* imagine persisting without your body, then:
2- it *must* be true that you're not your body.
the moment you concede 1 , 2 *must* follow.
you can imagine star being cartoonish or gaseous, it does not follow it *must* be so. your argument is trivially true and irrelevant.
before you argue argue in a circle and say that you can imagine living without a body, and that it does follow that you're different from your body, think of what you're saying.
if you're your body, you CANNOT say that you can conceive yourself without a body,
To admit you can imagine yourself without a body is to admit you're not identical to your body.
To say that you're a body and can imagine yourself without a body is a contradiction.
Well I did say PERSUADED anyone. i.e was a non-believer then heard the ontological argument and became a believer. The fact that they accepted the arguments where they agreed with the conclusions is just something humans tend to do without being too sceptical. I think you're missing the point of the star analogy- Kagan actually has a better example (closer analogy) so I'll use his instead and see if you get it. For a long time we've known of the "morning star"...
@GodTheHypothesis "I did say PERSUADED anyone. i.e was a non-believer then heard the ontological argument and became a believer."
not according Godel or so I have heard.
" they accepted the arguments where they agreed with the conclusions is just something humans tend to do without being too sceptical." like your belief that a mind needs a brain?
You can disbelieve conclusion and still see the persuasiveness of the ontological argument,ask atheist philosopher William Rowe for instance.
and the "evening star" as 2 different stars in the sky. Modern astronomy revealed that they were both actually the same thing (Venus). Someone a bit too philosophical could've said "if they are the same thing, all of the properties of each should be identical" HOWEVER, I can imagine the morning star in the morning. I can't imagine the evening star in the morning, therefore they don't share the same properties and are in fact distinct."
The conclusion that people SHOULD draw from this is that all the argument shows is that our concept of the morning star and evening star are distinct. It does nothing to show that our concepts are actually correct representations. Likewise, if the mind IS just a product of the brain (and that's the only way to get a mind), you CAN'T imagine the mind without the body and you just thought you could because your concept of the mind was wrong.
Well no, an argument doesn't demonstrate anything. I just showed why his argument relies on dualism and is therefore circular and you've failed to respond.
Congratulations for using the most common tactic that theists ever use- trying to shifting the burden of proof. I'm not the one making an argument!!!!! I never claimed that the mind is just a product of the brain- I have no idea! I was just showing that he has the burden of proof here. Maybe google the concept!
"his argument relies on dualism and is therefore circular and you've failed to respond.” ‘course I responded, first I said that conceiving oneself persisting without a body entails we’re not identical to our bodies. Second, I said that you beg the question against dualism. You might complain that I did not respond to your Venus analogy, why should I? It is irrelevant; you equivocate when you say the morning star and evening star are identical.
@GodTheHypothesis “Congratulations for using the most common tactic that theists ever use- trying to shifting the burden of proof”
Quit whining; this is not a court case. We discussed a *metaphysical* argument, and it either is sound or not. Onus probandy is irrelevant to what was said so far.
“I'm not the one making an argument!!!”
ROFL, so all that talk about the morning star and evening star is to show off what you learned in history class? Who’re you trying to fool?
I'd actually add- assuming you made it through the last 3 messages. If you didn't have a correct concept of a square and a circle, you could very possibly claim to be able to imagine a square circle. The correct response to this by someone who's not too philosophical would be "YOU WEREN'T REALLY IMAGINING IT". Until someone demonstrates that a mind can exist without a brain, the same is likely true of Plantinga.
My articles of faith? I'm having faith that they weren't correctly imagining a square circle? So you think they were?
You're asking where the contradiction is in a person not being identical with the body- once again, if we don't know what the mind is, how on earth could we know the answer to that? This is just another case of religious people being unable to say "we don't know".
1-"I'm having faith that they weren't correctly imagining a square circle?"
don't waste my time with this, we know where your talk of square circles leads: a person being different to his body is like trying to imagine a square circle. judging from your comments, yes, this is an article of faith for you.
"We don't know what the mind is,” seems someone is trying to pretend the modal argument does not exist. ;-)
Ok well I think perhaps I'll leave it here. You failed to respond to the morning star evening star analogy, which clearly shows the flaw in the argument and have resorted to claiming I have faith in things, tried shifting the burden of proof etc etc. Classic symptons of denial. Enjoy it!
"You failed to respond to the morning star evening star analogy"
Don't lie, everyone can still see my comment: ' It is irrelevant; you equivocate when you say the morning star and evening star are identical.' ( they are the same planet, but are not identical; morning star appears in the morning, evening star in the evening. was that too hard to get?)
"have resorted to claiming I have faith in things"
like your belief that the mind needs a brain? sure.
@GodTheHypothesis "they are the same planet, but are not identical; morning star appears in the morning," First stars are stars not planets . Second they are the same . You just see them at different times. If I see you in the morning and then see you at night. Are you two different people?
Did I say they were actually stars? NO, I just said they were called stars- which they are/were because people didn't realise "they" were Venus. So thanks for the pointless correction.
You've also missed the point completely. Obviously once you know they're the same thing, it's clear the person was mistaken. But for the people who thought they were 2 different things, the argument would've been convincing and analogous to the brain/mind argument.
@GodTheHypothesis 1. By definition a maximally great being is one that exists necessarily and necessarily is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good. (Premise)
2. Possibly a maximally great being does not exist. (Premise)
3. Therefore, possibly an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being that, if it exists, exists necessarily, does not exist. (By 1 and 2)
@GodTheHypothesis Sorry i rarely watch these videos. The last one i watched ( a new one 0 the guy started with 5 premises no conclusion and had the incorrect definition of necessary
2-“this is just another case of religious people being unable to say "we don't know".” your prejudices come loud and clear; ‘dualism is a position of religious folk too proud to admit ignorance. ‘
First, many dualist are atheists.
Second, it shows you’re clueless as to what the arguments for dualism are for, otherwise you wouldn’t ignorantly assert they are arguments from ignorance. Get an introduction to philosophy of the mind before you embarrass yourself further.
@bump11of11 -It's not logically possible for something to both simultaneously exist and not exist at the same time in the same respect. Would it make any sense to conceive of something both existing and not existing simultaneously in the same way? Of course not! But if the physical body or brain were numerically identical with the mind, then to imagine something true of one but not true of the other, would be to imagine something both true and not true of the same thing! That's a contradiction.
@bump11of11 -No it doesn't rely on the assumption that 'possibility' means 'conceivable'. It relies on the much weaker claim that if something can be conceived of, it's logically possible (& if something is logically impossible, it cannot be conceived of). You say you can conceive of the impossible. But you're conflating "physical possibility" with "logical possibility". Sure the physically impossible can be imagined. But can the logically impossible be conceived? Can you imagine a round-square?
@LetReasonPrevail1 -Ironically the one calling the argument stupid is the same person who doesn't even understand the argument to begin with! Plantinga never claimed that an imagined attribute is the same as an actual attribute. They're called modal attributes. It must be hard to misrepresent others. And where is this apparent "pure equivocation"? Perhaps you should try to understand the argument before you try to criticize it since you obviously don't even know what you're criticizing...
I already identified the equivocation, but I understand that from a theistic vantage point, the obvious is often not clear, understood or recognized, so for you I'll reiterate
Plantinga equivocates an IMAGINED attribute with an ACTUAL attribute. They are not the same, but his argument requires that we accept that they are. He says since he can imagine A is seperate from B then A is different from B
Hence, I imagine I am the fastest man in the world, therefore, I am!
@LetReasonPrevail1 -There's no equivocation. The only assumption is that it's not possible to imagine something logically impossible. Can u imagine a round-square or something both existing & not existing at the same time in the same way? Of course not! But if the physical brain were numerically identical with the mind, then to imagine something true of one but not true of the other, would be to imagine something both true & not true of the same thing! Contradiction! =>The mind isn't the brain!
@soultorment27@fl35h Thank you for writing the assumption Soultorment, it has helped me understand modal logic more. I have a questions tho and maybe one of you can be so kind to answer- i can conceive of my body flying without anything attached to it but does that mean that it is possible for my body to fly? it doesn't seem tho :/ Maybe my line of thinking has gone wrong somewhere..
@CettoTheCesco There are many different conceptions of possibility. Two important conceptions include logical possibility and physical possibility. Flying is logically possible but not physically possible since flying is wholly consistent with the laws of logic, but inconsistent with the laws of physics. Physical possibility is a subset of logical possibility. Thus logical possible is much broader than physical possibility. Just about anything conceivable is logically possible...
@soultorment27 "The only assumption is that it's not possible to imagine something logically impossible."
That's a false assumption in one very important sense though. You can be mistaken about what you think you are imagining. I could answer, yes, I am now imagining a round square, in the same way Plantinga claims to be able to imagine himself in a beetle body. I'd be wrong, just as Plantinga is, but nothing would prevent me from making the claim.
@soultorment27 The problem is that Plantinga uses words like "me" and "I", which actually refer to his physical brain and its historical relationship with his bodily sensors. These facts are part of the logical structure of his reasoning. They are not merely physical possibility. Everything we know about the brain suggests that if we damage parts, the personality changes. Change all of it to a beetle brain and there is no Plantinga, "me" or "I" left, so he can't conceive of what he claims to.
@Gnomefro It's quite possible that he only thinks he can imagine his mind without his body. But he wouldn't be the only one who thought such. Most find it quite easy to imagine themselves without a physical body. Do most find it easy to imagine a round square? Doubtful. Nonetheless even if many thought they were imagining themselves without a body, they could certainly be mistaken.
There's an arrogance about this type of argument which seems absolutely ridiculous to me. You've certainly hit the nail on the head here- how the hell does he know he's imagining it correctly if he doesn't know what it is in the first place? It was pretty easy for lots of people in history to imagine the earth as flat.....I'm almost struggling to believe people take this seriously. More science needed.
@soultorment27 That is, unless he already presupposes his conclusion and ignores what should be his premise in such an argument - the current state of neuroscience.
@LetReasonPrevail1 - So among the properties a person has are what are called modal properties. These are just properties which are true just in case something is possible for whatever has them. So rocks, say, have the modal property of being able to be located differently from where they are. Plantinga's argument here (and this trades on conceivability being a good guide to possibility) is that I have the modal property "possibly existing without my body."
Continued: But my body cannot have that modal property since that would be a contradiction. By Leibniz' law - if I have a property (in this case a modal one) that my body does not and cannot have then I cannot be identical with my body. In order for two things to be identical they must share all their properties - I and my body do not so we are not identical.
In an irrelevant sense, Plantinga is right. I am not my body, but only in the same sense as a computer program is not a computer. When the computer turns off, the program ceases to exist. I am not my body, but I die with it, unless there's some cosmic backup of me waiting to boot up when I die. I hate to be insulting, but is Plantinga really this boneheaded, or is he just amazingly good at keeping a straight face?
@RupertVonSchnauzer -Plantinga was only trying to argue against materialism or physicalism. Whether the mind ceases to exist when the body or brain is destroyed is a further question. As long as the mind is not identical with the physical body or brain, it's at least possible for the mind to survive bodily death. But insofar as the mind just is the physical body or brain, then to destroy one is to necessarily destroy the other. But all he was arguing for here was the falsity of materialism.
I can conceive of Jesus not being the Son of God. Therefore, it is possible Jesus is not the Son of God. Therefore, it is possible for the Son of God to exist when Jesus does not exist. Therefore, there is not an identity between Jesus and the Son of God. Therefore, Jesus is not the Son of God. I just disproved Christianity!!!
If human beings can exist outside of their own bodies, then the mind and the body are two different things..... Fine, but he still doesn't explain how that could be possible or give any evidence for it! He first assumes that this is possible, then he assumes that it is true!
@PeterVesuwalla I'm also ashamed you have a philosophy degree. This is a good argument. If you don't think it is, offer an argument please, rather than making yourself look like a fool.
"What's your point? Plantinga is trying to prove God with logic. I'm not trying to prove anything about Dawkins. I just shared an opinion. "
Even worse, now you admit that Plantinga uses logic to support his positions while your comical fantasy of Dawkins as a lovable, big hearted, non-bigoted man (now, that is blind faith in the teeth of evidence) shows you have not read anything by him.
@DrHowbeit right, and if i were to ask why he fails you will not even to tell me a reason, I'll take your silence as concession on that point. ;-)
Dawkins is same guy that compares teaching religion with child abuse.It's arrogant enough to write on subjects he's clueless about, calls genes and by extension our behavior selfish, and of course favors aborticide,
if you think the above marks him as a lovable, big hearted, nonbigoted fella, then i'll say that you're deluded.
Saw some of your “arguments,” ontological arguments start with opinions and we cannot trust our senses. We can conclude you’ve said nothing worth refuting.
Scientology: Irrelevant, If you’ve read the god delusion you would know which religions he equates with child abuse.
You’re Irresponsible to defend his use of the word selfish. Imagine someone called family love, “incestuous love” or “pedophilic attraction”, what would it say of the speaker? That he’s morally obtuse.
I've listened to interviews with Plantinga. What's curious to me is that he himself doesn't really consider his logical arguments to be very strong proofs, christianity is actually something emotional. Then why should we listen to the man or read his books?
@DrHowbeit So when Christians don't fit the radical and fundamentalist stereotype, then they should be ignored on this basis. What, so that idiotic people can claim all Christians are radical and fundamentalist?
Because Plantinga is highly intelligent and thoroughly logical, he is very clear about the limitations of proofs for and against God's existence. I'd much rather spend my time with a mind like this then have it wasted on the bigoted and dogmatic assertions of someone like Dawkins.
@bushfingers I'm for freedom of religion. But if there's no evidence it should be a private matter. It should not influence politics or other people's lives. Alvin seems to be a nice enough guy, but as indicated earlier I can't see him as "thoroughly logical". In general his first statements is not based on logic, they're based on emotion. If I was religious perhaps I would despise Dawkins too. Nah, I'd still love him. He's got heart. He's not bigoted. Trusting one source as the truth is.
@DrHowbeit I can't see him as "thoroughly logical". In general his first statements is not based on logic, they're based on emotion....Nah, I'd still love him (Dawkins). He's got heart. He's not bigoted."
@WilliamofWare What's your point? Plantinga is trying to prove God with logic. I'm not trying to prove anything about Dawkins. I just shared an opinion.
@DrHowbeit There's a difference in Plantinga's mind between emotion and what one has warrant to believe. He's said before that it is impossible to give a proof for the existence of other people's minds or for the existence of a past. They seem to be true, but we can't prove it. That doesn't prove that God exists, but it's what Plantinga uses as leverage to make belief in God have warrant. You can decide whether you buy it or not, but I think it's an intelligent rabbit hole regardless.
@HoldOnToThatFeeling I can't see any logic in that. We can't completely trust our senses. We can't know anything for certain. If that opens a window for Yahweh it also opens a window for any other good or abstract idea ever aroused.
@DrHowbeit That's not really a logical response, it's just a slippery slope fallacy. You probably would need to actually read his works on warrant. Looking for a completely accurate and intensely brief cliff notes that you can then refute in entirety is rather far fetched.
@HoldOnToThatFeeling It must be convenient to yell "fallacy", "straw man" or "red herring when someone has a different viewpoint, but it doesn't make you sound smart.
@HoldOnToThatFeeling So I should read up on Plantinga? Off course you would say that. Does it end there? No, far from it. Every query has got tons and tons of literature written about it. There a hundreds or thousands of queries in every field whether it's history, archeology, biblical studies, logic, philosophy, cosmology or whatever.
And there are 21 major religious. Don't even suggest that you've made sufficient studies of the religions you simply disregard as false.
@DrHowbeit I didn't even remotely imply that I've made sufficient studies. I merely suggested you read up because you misunderstand the viewpoint, not because he's correct. Also, if you have a problem with the use of fallacies in debate then you are in the extreme minority. If you want to write a paper on why they're insufficient, then by all means send it to me, but don't try to disprove such a long philosophical tradition by saying it doesn't make me sound smart. Who really cares?
@HoldOnToThatFeeling So I should read up on Plantinga? Off course you would say that. Does it end there? No, far from it. Every query has got tons and tons of literature written about it. There a hundreds or thousands of queries in every field whether it's history, archeology, biblical studies, logic, philosophy, cosmology or whatever. And there are 21 major religious. Don't even suggest that you've made sufficient studies of the religions you simply disregard as false.
@HoldOnToThatFeeling So I should read up on Plantinga? Off course you would say that. Does it end there? No, far from it. Every query has got tons and tons of literature. There are hundreds or thousands of queries in every field whether it's history, archeology, biblical studies, logic, philosophy, cosmology or whatever. And there are 21 major religious. Don't even suggest that you've made sufficient studies of the religions you simply disregard as false.
@surroundix Yes unfortunately it is, and it has being defended as an argument by David Chalmers (a dualist again). About the transplants, I guess they would still be implemented by hardware, right?
With all the respect, he does not argue that the distinction is *possible*. He claims that it is merely *conceivable* and thereby possible. For me this is an entirely unconvincing step and it is a surprise that analytic philosophers use it, at all. It is a straightforward allowance to our imagination to judge metaphysical issues. This, I think, is the weakest aspect of the argument.
I think Plantinga conflates the IDEA of the body with the actual body itself; if materialism is true, he is using a faculty of his brain to create an idea of himself without a body. His argument does not at all contradict a materialist perspective.
Also the argument seems circular as the possibility of existing without your body is contingent upon substance dualism; the two are in this context interchangeable, so the possibility of one IS the possibility of the other.
I can imagine a world where Clark Kent is not superman in fact all people of metropolis does this on a daily basis. Therefore superman is not Clark Kent.... its a notoriously bad argument.
@nospacesallowed The key aspect of this argument is the concept of necessity. Clark Kent and Superman have no properties that pertain to "all possible worlds". That doesn't make it a good argument, I just don't think your response is relevant to how it's structured.
His argument is essentially that because he can imagine something is possible for A but not for B, A, he concludes, cannot be identical with B. But all his argument really amounts to is the hypothetical that if something is possible for A but not for B, then A is not identical with B. However, the possibility he refers to (the self being able to inhabit different bodies) relies on an intution which presupposes dualism. His version of the ontological argument is flawed in a similar way.
@bushfingers A "mind" could not be "transferred" into just any computer, even on a materialist perspective. A functionalist might argues that the computer would have to have the same functional capacities as a biological brain in order for any "transfer" to occur. But even then, one should take a sceptical stance toward such mind transfer talk. Any talk of transfer requires an account of its causal mechanisms. The dualist view which invokes a separate substance is just a non-answer.
This is a good point. His argument does seem to rely on an intuition that leads to dualism necessarily. But isn't the rejection that it is possible that A can exists distinct/apart from B rely on the belief that the ego is just the material body? Doesn't the rejection necessarily lead to materialism (of persons at least)? I guess I wonder how, since we are speaking strictly of modalities and not empirical things, one can reject this argument without actually embracing materialism.
Dude doesn't even know how many legs an insect has? And this is a great Christian mind? He just makes shit up and declares victory. William Lane Craig must love this fool.
@disrxt And I but you think you are a genius because you do know how many legs and insect has. Why don't you tell us a little about your academic achievements?
@bushfingers So you're an elitest who thinks a sheep skin from a group of clergy saying you have studied a book of lies and internalized a ridiculous set of apologetics makes you immune from criticism? You're a fucking douche bag fool. BTW, I'm a graduate of the School of Hard Knocks, sorry but I never got to attend the Ivory Tower Institute for Theist Fools.
@disrxt All I'm saying is that you need to evaluate his arguments properly. Picking up on some INSIGNIFICANT inaccuracy or slip and then making out that the person is an idiot is dishonest and lacks integrity. (The same does not apply for significant mistakes - they'd need to be evaluated more carefully.)
Contemporary apologetics is hilarious, but forces you to take it seriously in the mode we encounter it. They're selling metaphysics as proof of God, but selling an intrinsically western inquiry at the same time. I kind of applaud them, and yet can't wait for the conservatism they trumpet to cave in the movement soon. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in a WIlliam Lane Craig/Plantiga conference when the moment of truth really arrives and they crumble. Secularism is their product, tax free! HA!
"It seems to be I could exist while my body doesn't." This sounds suspiciously like Descartes, and seems to ignore functionalist arguments of materialism.
If it is logically possible for your mind to exist independent of your body then your mind and body are not the same thing. Dr. Plantinga has postulated a world, which contains no obvious logical contradictions, where your mind exists independent of your body.
However..
To make his case Dr. Plantinga must demonstrate that this hypothetical world is, in fact, logically possible. That we cannot demonstrate the opposite is of no consequence.
@studentofsmith The modal argument shows that not only is it logically possible that they are not the same, it is logically impossible that they are the same...
@DazedSpy2 Not at all. My first exposure to it was when I looked it up on Wikipedia after reading your comment so if I have somehow misrepresented the axiom I apologize and invite you to correct me. Otherwise I have a wonderful reductio ad absurdum that will completely disprove it:
It is possible flowers grow only with the assistance of magic fairies. (You can't disprove it.)
Flowers grow.
Therefore it is possible magic fairies necessarily exist.
@studentofsmith Hm...your "reductio ad absurdum" troubles me a bit. This is a bit of a straw man argument since it's not dealing with what Plantinga is trying to show. Your example shows the absurdity in thinking that if something is necessarily true than it must be true. But his argument is only claiming that the self and the body are different insofar as they have different possibilities associated with them. If we applied that to your example it would mean that you are showing that
@studentofsmith flowers and the source that makes them grow are different things. Now what that source is (whether it be fairies) is not addressed by this and isn't part of this concept.
@studentofsmith Are you asking because you want to see if I know or because you actually don't know yourself? To be necessarily true means that there is a truth because of the necessity that relies on that truth being a truth. A little circular of a description, I know, but that's what it is.
@XxVINCEROxX I'm asking because my understanding of what that means seemed to be different from yours and the first rule of debate is to define your terms. I must confess I don't fully grasp your explaination. Could you give an example?
@studentofsmith To be honest, I was a little flawed in claiming that your flower example deals with necessary truth, it doesn't really. But anyways, necessary truth means that if its possible for something to be true, and that thing being true is necessary for a whole chain of other truths, than that first thing must in fact be true. The relevant example would be: It is possible for there to be a being in which there is no greater. However, for it to be true that there couldn't be a greater
@studentofsmith being, that "greatest" being must be omnipotent, infinite, and wholly good. Now if this such being existed, than it would have had to be the starting point/source for everything that is inferior (i.e. everything in the natural world). Therefore the existence of everything in the natural world relies on the fact that there be this being. And the natural world does exist, so this greatest being must also exist because it is a necessary truth. Now of course with philosophy, these
@studentofsmith theorems don't, in fact, ultimately "prove" god and there are certainly counter arguments, but it is an interesting and provoking way of thought. It's deep, but the idea that it is even remotely "possible" for there to be such being, and everything in existence would have to follow from this greatest being, than it is almost impossible for there not to be this being.
@XxVINCEROxX I'm a little confused. First you say my example "shows the absurdity in thinking that if something is necessarily true then it must be true" then you say "necessary truth means that if it's possible for something to be true, and that thing being true is necessary for a whole chain of other truths, then that first thing must in fact be true".
When you accept something to be true, you are obligated to force the whole universe to conform to it, and then you end up with idiotic conversations like the one in this video.
cupwithhandles 1 day ago
Wow this is dumb.
drjharri 2 days ago
By the way, if Plantiga was an atheist everyone would have leapt on the fact beetles are insects and have 6 legs, not 8 as Plantiga said. Why does no one mention this? Because it is completely unrelated to the argument. Perhaps this shows atheists have a better understanding of logic than theists.
All this mistake proves is that Plantiga does not study beetles.
CowLunch 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"if its really true that its possible that I exist when b (the body) doesn't, from that it just follows I would say as the night and day that b and I are not the same thing".
What total gibberish. I can't believe there are people who take this man seriously. His argument is the very definition of circular reasoning.
kainedamo 3 weeks ago
@kainedamo Not spam!! Suppressing the truth doesn't work any more Christians!
Here is another example using the same false logic as the Modal Argument:
1. We can conceive that the universe may be infinite.
2. We can also conceive that intelligent alien life may exist on other planets.
3. In an infinite universe all possible life forms must exist, this is a fact.
4. Therefore intelligent aliens exist.
CowLunch 2 days ago
@CowLunch this post supports the claim I make in my previous post that you do not understand philosophical argument. re: 1) We can conceive of an infinite universe, but Big Bang cosmology refutes this claim. re: 2) Yes, we can conceive of life on other planets. re: 3) this is in no way a fact. you equivocate infinite spacially, with infinite temporally. This is fallacious. Re: 4) does not follow from the premises; 1) & 2) are speculations on possibilities, not facts; 3) is fallacious
theantihero420 2 days ago
@theantihero420 This was an example of false logic using premises that are not accepted facts, just like Plantiga uses.
I did not claim atheists have a better understanding of logic, I merely speculated that because I have seen mistakes like Plantiga's beetle leapt on by theists who don't see it is irrelevant. I was noting the fact that no atheist had leapt on the mistake.
I displayed that it is plausible that atheists have better logic, so it's true right? :P
CowLunch 2 days ago
@CowLunch where you are wrong, like I previously stated, is that this is not the type of logic that Plantinga is using. You are setting up unequivocal arguments, equating them, then claiming that this somehow shows that Plantinga is using false logic.
theantihero420 2 days ago
@theantihero420 I admit it was a convoluted example and the whole argument was not analogous with Plantiga's argument. I will try again:
Let's say that stars have souls, and when a star dies its soul lives on. Therefore the star's body and soul are independent.
That is the same argument. Using this argument anything that has a "live" and "dead" state can be attributed a soul.
CowLunch 2 days ago
@CowLunch No, no, NO! You keep trying to introduce the idea of a soul into the argument, but it is an unwarranted move. You have no reason to be using the word soul, because it is not a part of your opponents argument. There is no reason to assume or believe that a star, let alone anything that has a "live" & "dead" state of existence, has a "soul." The Modal argument does not assume the existence of a soul. This is something you continue to fallaciously introduce into the argument.
theantihero420 2 days ago
@CowLunch The Modal argument does not introduce any such controversial aspects (such as stars having souls, let alone any such aspect as a soul itself) as you try to insert. It takes a person & a person's body, and asks if these two things are identical (Law of Identity, A=A). If there is any possibility that A has a property that B does not have, then A and B are not equal or identical in every way, and therefore it necessarily follows that A and B are not in fact not identical.
theantihero420 2 days ago
@theantihero420 It's nothing more than semantics, soul has no added meaning to "a being existing independent of a body". I am just using soul as a label because it is clearer than saying "the star" which implies the whole star, just like "I" implies the whole person, but I want to make it clear that I am differentiating between the physical and spiritual.
If not a soul, how would you describe "I" in Plantiga's argument?
CowLunch 2 days ago
@CowLunch this is in no way analogous to the Modal argument that Plantinga proposes, as I have shown in both of my previous posts. And on your beetle comment, he clearly states that he doesn't know how many legs a beetle has, and merely speculates that it is eight. As you say, this is unrelated to the arguments, but how does this perhaps "shows atheists have a better understanding of logic than theists"?
theantihero420 2 days ago
@CowLunch What does logic tell you about how the universe came to be? What about time and space? Matter and energy?
Please enlighten me as to how logic answers these questions with certainty
mbelma6329 3 weeks ago
@cowlunch first, you are using a loaded term not included in this argument. Second, the argument shows (it does not assume) that it is possible by way of a thought experiment. Third, you now bring your own loaded beliefs and assumptions of what a soul is and what it is capable of into the argument and impose them onto your opponents. This is fallacious. Fourth, what is your evidence to support your final three sentences?
theantihero420 1 month ago
@theantihero420 I was merely trying to eliminate the impossible interpretations of what a soul could be; I have no beliefs regarding souls. Back to the original argument: it is based on circular logic; he starts off by saying "it seems plausible that I could exist without my body", he's using that as a premise when it is not a fact. This makes his entire argument logically flawed. He is using the premise that the soul is independent from the body and concluding the same thing.
CowLunch 2 days ago
@CowLunch 1st, you keep using the term "soul" which is nowhere found in the argument. 2nd, you CLEARLY do not understand logic or philosophical argument. He is not stating that a person IS different from their body in the first premise, he is stating that it is plausible to conceive of a person existing without their body. If a person can imagine a plausible (key word plausible) case where they exist without their body, then they are not, in fact, identical to their body.
theantihero420 2 days ago
@theantihero420 1st Stop being facetious, a person independent of their body is a soul, spirit, essence, whatever you want to call it, soul was a perfectly good term for that. 2nd You make a snotty remark about my logic and then state that something is true if you can conceive it!?
What exactly makes life beyond your body plausible? I don't think it's plausible at all.
CowLunch 2 days ago
@CowLunch I am not being facetious. I am saying that you are introducing terms into your opponents argument that he did not use, and that have their own set of baggage. It is unnecessary to talk of a soul in this argument. Simply refer to the person, rather than the person's soul. I am not saying that something is true because you can conceive of it. The Modal argument states that if it is possible for A to have properties that B doesn't then they cannot be identical to one another.
theantihero420 2 days ago
What a jibbering idiot. This isn't logic, you can't assume something and then state it as fact. His body could be transported to heaven when he dies, why is that less likely than his soul? Because of this stupid assumption that a soul is a sort of gas like substance that would float up to heaven, well guess what there's nothing up there! So if there is a heaven its in another dimension which makes your soul and body equally likely to transcend to.
CowLunch 1 month ago
@CowLunch You are obviously not a philosopher, and do not understand the argument as it is presented here. What he is saying is if A and B have all the same properties, and neither can have a property the other doesn't, then they are identical. If it is possible that A has properties that B does not, then A and B cannot be identical. this is a law of Logic, and it follows that if I(A) can possibly exist without my body(B), then I(A) and my body(B) are not identical. simple deduction
theantihero420 1 month ago
@theantihero420 I understood perfectly! Where is the evidence that a soul can live independently of a body or that it even exists? He is backing up his claim of the soul being independent of the body with the assumption that the soul is independent of the body! A soul is the manifestation of consciousness. It cannot exist independently of a body, it exists BECAUSE of the body. If it existed independently why are we confined to our bodies?
CowLunch 1 month ago
@CowLunch I refuse to believe that my perception is bound to the formation of the matter I inhabit.
veer0nic 2 days ago
@veer0nic You have every right to do so, but that doesn't mean you're right.
CowLunch 2 days ago
@CowLunch As if logic and believing in God are mutually exclusive. Logic doesn't answer everything
mbelma6329 1 month ago
@mbelma6329 logic and belief in god are completely exclusive, are you saying there are people who believe in god for LOGICAL reasons? Don't make me laugh. Logic is exactly HOW we as human beings DO answer things! How exactly can you answer something without logic?
CowLunch 3 weeks ago
I = Brain. If he wakes up in a beetle's body, he's simply had a brain transplant (however his brain would've shrunken immensely).
StygianDysnomia 1 month ago
I think Plantinga's argument is lacking a little something here. A materialist wouldn't say (except in a kind of shorthand way) that their consciousness IS their brain or their body, they would say their consciousness is a process that arises or is emergent from their brain or their body. But I agree that saying something like "thoughts are just physical processes in the brain" is erroneous.
stallion4life 2 months ago
perhaps it is possible to download ones thoughts, emotions, and etc to something else. But that something else would need to have similar properties to read said information (i.e., a brain). A thought experiment was done to refute Descartes mind-body postulate using the morning star/evening star example. It showed that we can _think_ of two things as separate when, in fact, they are the same.
patheally 2 months ago
@gnomefro I agree with that line of reasoning. I also think you can prove the contrary with modal logic; say I think my body is what's doing the imagining. Then my body (B) can imagine a state of events in which it still exists but the abstract concept (A) of mind is destroyed. Now A can conceive of a state in which B is gone and B can conceive of a state in which A is gone, so that can't be the property that distinguishes them.
wfpylori69 2 months ago
The first time I heard this I thought he was barking mad. Then I took a minute, figured out the argument he was actually making.......and I still think he's barking mad. It's incredible the types of argument that people will accept if it happens to back up their belief systems.
GodTheHypothesis 2 months ago
@GodTheHypothesis Do you care to explain how he is barking mad?
afluffymango 2 months ago
@afluffymango
Well because it's a ludicrous argument. Combining that with the fact that I've heard him come up with a lot of other nonsense, I've concluded that he's just not too bright. I mean the fact that you can imagine something differently just shows that you've got 2 different concepts in your mind. I recommend watching the yale lecture series where shelley kagan shows the stupidity of this argument quite sufficiently.
GodTheHypothesis 1 month ago
@GodTheHypothesis
"Well because it's a ludicrous argument."
And plantinga's modal argument is ludicrous because?
WilliamofWare 1 month ago
@WilliamofWare
Well I remain shocked that someone could ask that. Ok so before we knew stars were actually far-off balls of gas, people thought they were 2D images "painted" on the sky. The first time someone came along and said they're actually suns, you could've said "well I can imagine great balls of gas in the sky, but i can also imagine 2D bright spots painted on the sky- therefore they're different." The answer is quite simply YOU WEREN'T IMAGINING THEM RIGHT.
GodTheHypothesis 1 month ago
Comment removed
WilliamofWare 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GodTheHypothesis Modal ontological arguments follow, usually, these steps:
1- It is possible an infinite, necessary being does exist.
2- if an infinite necessary being can possibly exist, then it *must* exist.
what the hell do cartoon stars or imagining cartoons stars have to do with the ontological argument?
You cannot grasp the argument and instead of acknowledging your ignorance you try bluff your way out and soothe your ego by calling the Notre Dame PHD the idiot instead... disgusting.
WilliamofWare 1 month ago
@WilliamofWare
Well thanks for presenting a different argument than the one in the video- what was the point of that?
I'm not interested in the ontological argument, I don't think it's ever persuaded anyone. So returning to the actual argument in the video. Please explain why my example of someone who could imagine stars as 2D images on the sky is any different than his example of imagining the mind as separate from the body. Well done for redefining "strawman".
GodTheHypothesis 1 month ago
@GodTheHypothesis
" (you presented) a different argument than the one in the video- what was the point?"
Part one
Apologies for my mistake. it said modal argument at the title so I thought it refereed to the modal ontological argument by Plantinga. I answered before listening to the video.
"ontological argument, I don't think it's ever persuaded anyone." Descartes, Leibniz, Godel and Wulff among others disagree.
WilliamofWare 1 month ago
@GodTheHypothesis
so you can imagine stars being 2D and it does not follow they are cartoonish. guess what? Plantnga would agree with you. The argument is irrelevant to the *modal* claims he made:
1-if you *can* imagine persisting without your body, then:
2- it *must* be true that you're not your body.
the moment you concede 1 , 2 *must* follow.
you can imagine star being cartoonish or gaseous, it does not follow it *must* be so. your argument is trivially true and irrelevant.
WilliamofWare 1 month ago
@GodTheHypothesis part 3
before you argue argue in a circle and say that you can imagine living without a body, and that it does follow that you're different from your body, think of what you're saying.
if you're your body, you CANNOT say that you can conceive yourself without a body,
To admit you can imagine yourself without a body is to admit you're not identical to your body.
To say that you're a body and can imagine yourself without a body is a contradiction.
WilliamofWare 1 month ago
@WilliamofWare
Well I did say PERSUADED anyone. i.e was a non-believer then heard the ontological argument and became a believer. The fact that they accepted the arguments where they agreed with the conclusions is just something humans tend to do without being too sceptical. I think you're missing the point of the star analogy- Kagan actually has a better example (closer analogy) so I'll use his instead and see if you get it. For a long time we've known of the "morning star"...
GodTheHypothesis 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GodTheHypothesis "I did say PERSUADED anyone. i.e was a non-believer then heard the ontological argument and became a believer."
not according Godel or so I have heard.
" they accepted the arguments where they agreed with the conclusions is just something humans tend to do without being too sceptical." like your belief that a mind needs a brain?
You can disbelieve conclusion and still see the persuasiveness of the ontological argument,ask atheist philosopher William Rowe for instance.
WilliamofWare 1 month ago
@WilliamofWare
and the "evening star" as 2 different stars in the sky. Modern astronomy revealed that they were both actually the same thing (Venus). Someone a bit too philosophical could've said "if they are the same thing, all of the properties of each should be identical" HOWEVER, I can imagine the morning star in the morning. I can't imagine the evening star in the morning, therefore they don't share the same properties and are in fact distinct."
GodTheHypothesis 1 month ago
@WilliamofWare
The conclusion that people SHOULD draw from this is that all the argument shows is that our concept of the morning star and evening star are distinct. It does nothing to show that our concepts are actually correct representations. Likewise, if the mind IS just a product of the brain (and that's the only way to get a mind), you CAN'T imagine the mind without the body and you just thought you could because your concept of the mind was wrong.
GodTheHypothesis 1 month ago
@GodTheHypothesis “Until someone demonstrates that a mind can exist without a brain…”
Demonstration? Isn’t that the whole point of the modal argument?
“IF the mind IS just a product of the brain..."
Of course, IF it’s a product of the brain , something you’re not even bothering to show evidence or proof for.
" brain(and that's the only way to get a mind)"
Another article of faith.
WilliamofWare 1 month ago
@WilliamofWare
Well no, an argument doesn't demonstrate anything. I just showed why his argument relies on dualism and is therefore circular and you've failed to respond.
Congratulations for using the most common tactic that theists ever use- trying to shifting the burden of proof. I'm not the one making an argument!!!!! I never claimed that the mind is just a product of the brain- I have no idea! I was just showing that he has the burden of proof here. Maybe google the concept!
GodTheHypothesis 1 month ago
@GodTheHypothesis part 3
"his argument relies on dualism and is therefore circular and you've failed to respond.” ‘course I responded, first I said that conceiving oneself persisting without a body entails we’re not identical to our bodies. Second, I said that you beg the question against dualism. You might complain that I did not respond to your Venus analogy, why should I? It is irrelevant; you equivocate when you say the morning star and evening star are identical.
WilliamofWare 1 month ago
Comment removed
WilliamofWare 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GodTheHypothesis “Congratulations for using the most common tactic that theists ever use- trying to shifting the burden of proof”
Quit whining; this is not a court case. We discussed a *metaphysical* argument, and it either is sound or not. Onus probandy is irrelevant to what was said so far.
“I'm not the one making an argument!!!”
ROFL, so all that talk about the morning star and evening star is to show off what you learned in history class? Who’re you trying to fool?
WilliamofWare 1 month ago
@WilliamofWare
I'd actually add- assuming you made it through the last 3 messages. If you didn't have a correct concept of a square and a circle, you could very possibly claim to be able to imagine a square circle. The correct response to this by someone who's not too philosophical would be "YOU WEREN'T REALLY IMAGINING IT". Until someone demonstrates that a mind can exist without a brain, the same is likely true of Plantinga.
GodTheHypothesis 1 month ago
@GodTheHypothesis
part one
“If you didn't have a correct concept of a square and a circle, you could very possibly claim to be able to imagine a square circle.”
Begging the question, where is or might be the contradiction in a person not being identical with a body? Why is the opposite claim stronger?
“The correct response to this by someone who's not too philosophical would be "YOU WEREN'T REALLY IMAGINING IT".
I am not interested in your articles of faith.
WilliamofWare 1 month ago
@WilliamofWare
My articles of faith? I'm having faith that they weren't correctly imagining a square circle? So you think they were?
You're asking where the contradiction is in a person not being identical with the body- once again, if we don't know what the mind is, how on earth could we know the answer to that? This is just another case of religious people being unable to say "we don't know".
GodTheHypothesis 1 month ago
@GodTheHypothesis
part 1
1-"I'm having faith that they weren't correctly imagining a square circle?"
don't waste my time with this, we know where your talk of square circles leads: a person being different to his body is like trying to imagine a square circle. judging from your comments, yes, this is an article of faith for you.
"We don't know what the mind is,” seems someone is trying to pretend the modal argument does not exist. ;-)
WilliamofWare 1 month ago
@WilliamofWare
Ok well I think perhaps I'll leave it here. You failed to respond to the morning star evening star analogy, which clearly shows the flaw in the argument and have resorted to claiming I have faith in things, tried shifting the burden of proof etc etc. Classic symptons of denial. Enjoy it!
GodTheHypothesis 1 month ago
@GodTheHypothesis
"You failed to respond to the morning star evening star analogy"
Don't lie, everyone can still see my comment: ' It is irrelevant; you equivocate when you say the morning star and evening star are identical.' ( they are the same planet, but are not identical; morning star appears in the morning, evening star in the evening. was that too hard to get?)
"have resorted to claiming I have faith in things"
like your belief that the mind needs a brain? sure.
WilliamofWare 1 month ago
@GodTheHypothesis "tried shifting the burden of proof" there's no such fallacy in philosophy.
"Classic symptons of denial. "
there's a certain irony to that ;-)
fun talking to you.
WilliamofWare 1 month ago
@GodTheHypothesis "they are the same planet, but are not identical; morning star appears in the morning," First stars are stars not planets . Second they are the same . You just see them at different times. If I see you in the morning and then see you at night. Are you two different people?
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
Did I say they were actually stars? NO, I just said they were called stars- which they are/were because people didn't realise "they" were Venus. So thanks for the pointless correction.
You've also missed the point completely. Obviously once you know they're the same thing, it's clear the person was mistaken. But for the people who thought they were 2 different things, the argument would've been convincing and analogous to the brain/mind argument.
GodTheHypothesis 1 month ago
@GodTheHypothesis Mind brain argument ?
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
Yes the mind/brain argument in the video above!
GodTheHypothesis 1 month ago
@GodTheHypothesis 1. By definition a maximally great being is one that exists necessarily and necessarily is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good. (Premise)
2. Possibly a maximally great being does not exist. (Premise)
3. Therefore, possibly an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being that, if it exists, exists necessarily, does not exist. (By 1 and 2)
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@GodTheHypothesis 4. Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist.
5. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist. (By 4 and since necessarily true propositions are true)
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@GodTheHypothesis Do you believe in the Ontological Argument?
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666
Believe in it? Do I accept it as a valid argument you mean? No, not at all. I don't think there are any valid arguments for God.
GodTheHypothesis 1 month ago
@GodTheHypothesis Sorry i rarely watch these videos. The last one i watched ( a new one 0 the guy started with 5 premises no conclusion and had the incorrect definition of necessary
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@GodTheHypothesis part 2
2-“this is just another case of religious people being unable to say "we don't know".” your prejudices come loud and clear; ‘dualism is a position of religious folk too proud to admit ignorance. ‘
First, many dualist are atheists.
Second, it shows you’re clueless as to what the arguments for dualism are for, otherwise you wouldn’t ignorantly assert they are arguments from ignorance. Get an introduction to philosophy of the mind before you embarrass yourself further.
WilliamofWare 1 month ago
The kids at Notre Dame are being charged too much.
batbawls 2 months ago
@batbawls
Yeah, you'd probably prefer Pen State.
mcfearlessme 2 months ago
Mixing Christianity and modal logic is a dangerous path to walk down Herr Plantinga...You might end up with polytheism, oh my gosh!
hermeschbird 3 months ago
@bump11of11 -It's not logically possible for something to both simultaneously exist and not exist at the same time in the same respect. Would it make any sense to conceive of something both existing and not existing simultaneously in the same way? Of course not! But if the physical body or brain were numerically identical with the mind, then to imagine something true of one but not true of the other, would be to imagine something both true and not true of the same thing! That's a contradiction.
soultorment27 4 months ago
@bump11of11 -No it doesn't rely on the assumption that 'possibility' means 'conceivable'. It relies on the much weaker claim that if something can be conceived of, it's logically possible (& if something is logically impossible, it cannot be conceived of). You say you can conceive of the impossible. But you're conflating "physical possibility" with "logical possibility". Sure the physically impossible can be imagined. But can the logically impossible be conceived? Can you imagine a round-square?
soultorment27 4 months ago
Comment removed
soultorment27 4 months ago
Per Plantinga:
An IMAGINED attribute is the same as an ACTUAL attribute.
This is pure equivocation and utter bullshit.
His argument is chock full of "If" statements that are nothing more than bald assertions.
He proves NOTHING.
And he his the pinnacle of theistic thinking? That's pathetic.
The stupid, it hurts...
LetReasonPrevail1 4 months ago
Comment removed
soultorment27 4 months ago
@LetReasonPrevail1 -Ironically the one calling the argument stupid is the same person who doesn't even understand the argument to begin with! Plantinga never claimed that an imagined attribute is the same as an actual attribute. They're called modal attributes. It must be hard to misrepresent others. And where is this apparent "pure equivocation"? Perhaps you should try to understand the argument before you try to criticize it since you obviously don't even know what you're criticizing...
soultorment27 4 months ago
I already identified the equivocation, but I understand that from a theistic vantage point, the obvious is often not clear, understood or recognized, so for you I'll reiterate
Plantinga equivocates an IMAGINED attribute with an ACTUAL attribute. They are not the same, but his argument requires that we accept that they are. He says since he can imagine A is seperate from B then A is different from B
Hence, I imagine I am the fastest man in the world, therefore, I am!
Voila!
Bullshit for sale
LetReasonPrevail1 4 months ago
@LetReasonPrevail1 -There's no equivocation. The only assumption is that it's not possible to imagine something logically impossible. Can u imagine a round-square or something both existing & not existing at the same time in the same way? Of course not! But if the physical brain were numerically identical with the mind, then to imagine something true of one but not true of the other, would be to imagine something both true & not true of the same thing! Contradiction! =>The mind isn't the brain!
soultorment27 4 months ago
@soultorment27 @fl35h Thank you for writing the assumption Soultorment, it has helped me understand modal logic more. I have a questions tho and maybe one of you can be so kind to answer- i can conceive of my body flying without anything attached to it but does that mean that it is possible for my body to fly? it doesn't seem tho :/ Maybe my line of thinking has gone wrong somewhere..
CettoTheCesco 3 months ago
@CettoTheCesco There are many different conceptions of possibility. Two important conceptions include logical possibility and physical possibility. Flying is logically possible but not physically possible since flying is wholly consistent with the laws of logic, but inconsistent with the laws of physics. Physical possibility is a subset of logical possibility. Thus logical possible is much broader than physical possibility. Just about anything conceivable is logically possible...
soultorment27 3 months ago
@soultorment27 "The only assumption is that it's not possible to imagine something logically impossible."
That's a false assumption in one very important sense though. You can be mistaken about what you think you are imagining. I could answer, yes, I am now imagining a round square, in the same way Plantinga claims to be able to imagine himself in a beetle body. I'd be wrong, just as Plantinga is, but nothing would prevent me from making the claim.
Gnomefro 3 months ago
@soultorment27 The problem is that Plantinga uses words like "me" and "I", which actually refer to his physical brain and its historical relationship with his bodily sensors. These facts are part of the logical structure of his reasoning. They are not merely physical possibility. Everything we know about the brain suggests that if we damage parts, the personality changes. Change all of it to a beetle brain and there is no Plantinga, "me" or "I" left, so he can't conceive of what he claims to.
Gnomefro 3 months ago
@Gnomefro It's quite possible that he only thinks he can imagine his mind without his body. But he wouldn't be the only one who thought such. Most find it quite easy to imagine themselves without a physical body. Do most find it easy to imagine a round square? Doubtful. Nonetheless even if many thought they were imagining themselves without a body, they could certainly be mistaken.
soultorment27 3 months ago
@soultorment27
There's an arrogance about this type of argument which seems absolutely ridiculous to me. You've certainly hit the nail on the head here- how the hell does he know he's imagining it correctly if he doesn't know what it is in the first place? It was pretty easy for lots of people in history to imagine the earth as flat.....I'm almost struggling to believe people take this seriously. More science needed.
GodTheHypothesis 1 month ago
@soultorment27 That is, unless he already presupposes his conclusion and ignores what should be his premise in such an argument - the current state of neuroscience.
Gnomefro 3 months ago
@LetReasonPrevail1 - So among the properties a person has are what are called modal properties. These are just properties which are true just in case something is possible for whatever has them. So rocks, say, have the modal property of being able to be located differently from where they are. Plantinga's argument here (and this trades on conceivability being a good guide to possibility) is that I have the modal property "possibly existing without my body."
fl35h 4 months ago
Continued: But my body cannot have that modal property since that would be a contradiction. By Leibniz' law - if I have a property (in this case a modal one) that my body does not and cannot have then I cannot be identical with my body. In order for two things to be identical they must share all their properties - I and my body do not so we are not identical.
fl35h 4 months ago
Alvin Plantinga = MASTER BULLSHIT ARTIST
LetReasonPrevail1 4 months ago
Plantinga, rationalist among reductionist. Keep on philosophizing, my friend!
jlke45 4 months ago
In an irrelevant sense, Plantinga is right. I am not my body, but only in the same sense as a computer program is not a computer. When the computer turns off, the program ceases to exist. I am not my body, but I die with it, unless there's some cosmic backup of me waiting to boot up when I die. I hate to be insulting, but is Plantinga really this boneheaded, or is he just amazingly good at keeping a straight face?
RupertVonSchnauzer 5 months ago
@RupertVonSchnauzer -Plantinga was only trying to argue against materialism or physicalism. Whether the mind ceases to exist when the body or brain is destroyed is a further question. As long as the mind is not identical with the physical body or brain, it's at least possible for the mind to survive bodily death. But insofar as the mind just is the physical body or brain, then to destroy one is to necessarily destroy the other. But all he was arguing for here was the falsity of materialism.
soultorment27 4 months ago
I can conceive of Jesus not being the Son of God. Therefore, it is possible Jesus is not the Son of God. Therefore, it is possible for the Son of God to exist when Jesus does not exist. Therefore, there is not an identity between Jesus and the Son of God. Therefore, Jesus is not the Son of God. I just disproved Christianity!!!
silenus21 5 months ago
Is he really saying that his evidence for body being separate from mind is because he can imagine it?
seriously?
Hufflewaffle 5 months ago
@Hufflewaffle I fucking know, right?
Zimnyification 5 months ago
THANKS, lORD JESUS, FOR THIS ALVIN PLANTINGA.
mkamoski1 5 months ago
If human beings can exist outside of their own bodies, then the mind and the body are two different things..... Fine, but he still doesn't explain how that could be possible or give any evidence for it! He first assumes that this is possible, then he assumes that it is true!
KamasutraButterfly 6 months ago
This video makes me ashamed to have a philosophy degree.
PeterVesuwalla 6 months ago
@PeterVesuwalla I'm ashamed you have a philosophy degree as well.
tha1ne 4 months ago
@PeterVesuwalla I'm also ashamed you have a philosophy degree. This is a good argument. If you don't think it is, offer an argument please, rather than making yourself look like a fool.
TelosQualia 4 months ago
This gus is a mug... B and I are inseparable there is no B and I. There is just I therefore you can not distingish between the two. nuf said.
shanecox704 6 months ago
A lot of crap comes out in the name of philosophy.
jessemaurais 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"What's your point? Plantinga is trying to prove God with logic. I'm not trying to prove anything about Dawkins. I just shared an opinion. "
Even worse, now you admit that Plantinga uses logic to support his positions while your comical fantasy of Dawkins as a lovable, big hearted, non-bigoted man (now, that is blind faith in the teeth of evidence) shows you have not read anything by him.
Sad.
WilliamofWare 6 months ago
@WilliamofWare I didn't see this cause it was flagged as spam.
Plantinga attempts to use logic to prove something but fails. I don't have to prove anything about Dawkins. Why do you think Dawkins is corrupt?
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@DrHowbeit right, and if i were to ask why he fails you will not even to tell me a reason, I'll take your silence as concession on that point. ;-)
Dawkins is same guy that compares teaching religion with child abuse.It's arrogant enough to write on subjects he's clueless about, calls genes and by extension our behavior selfish, and of course favors aborticide,
if you think the above marks him as a lovable, big hearted, nonbigoted fella, then i'll say that you're deluded.
WilliamofWare 6 months ago
@WilliamofWare "why he fails" You can look at my previous posts to get the idea.
"teaching religion with child abuse" Is it ok to raise a child to be a Scientologist?
"behavior selfish" You're hung up on the word "selfish". A selfish gene does not mean selfish humans. It actually points to the opposite – altruism.
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@DrHowbeit
Saw some of your “arguments,” ontological arguments start with opinions and we cannot trust our senses. We can conclude you’ve said nothing worth refuting.
Scientology: Irrelevant, If you’ve read the god delusion you would know which religions he equates with child abuse.
You’re Irresponsible to defend his use of the word selfish. Imagine someone called family love, “incestuous love” or “pedophilic attraction”, what would it say of the speaker? That he’s morally obtuse.
WilliamofWare 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WilliamofWare "cannot trust our senses" Not my argument in the first place.
"ontological arguments start with opinions" Plantinga himself agrees that his logic proofs aren't very strong.
"If you’ve read the god delusion" Yes, Dawkins says that all religions are child abuse.
"the word selfish" Seriously, if you don't even try to understand why do you write comments at all?
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
In which the cream of Christian intellectuals elevates wishful thinking to the status of proof.
stuartadrianbrown 6 months ago
I've listened to interviews with Plantinga. What's curious to me is that he himself doesn't really consider his logical arguments to be very strong proofs, christianity is actually something emotional. Then why should we listen to the man or read his books?
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@DrHowbeit So when Christians don't fit the radical and fundamentalist stereotype, then they should be ignored on this basis. What, so that idiotic people can claim all Christians are radical and fundamentalist?
Because Plantinga is highly intelligent and thoroughly logical, he is very clear about the limitations of proofs for and against God's existence. I'd much rather spend my time with a mind like this then have it wasted on the bigoted and dogmatic assertions of someone like Dawkins.
bushfingers 6 months ago
@bushfingers I'm for freedom of religion. But if there's no evidence it should be a private matter. It should not influence politics or other people's lives. Alvin seems to be a nice enough guy, but as indicated earlier I can't see him as "thoroughly logical". In general his first statements is not based on logic, they're based on emotion. If I was religious perhaps I would despise Dawkins too. Nah, I'd still love him. He's got heart. He's not bigoted. Trusting one source as the truth is.
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@DrHowbeit I can't see him as "thoroughly logical". In general his first statements is not based on logic, they're based on emotion....Nah, I'd still love him (Dawkins). He's got heart. He's not bigoted."
whose opinions were based on emotion, again?
WilliamofWare 6 months ago
@WilliamofWare What's your point? Plantinga is trying to prove God with logic. I'm not trying to prove anything about Dawkins. I just shared an opinion.
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@DrHowbeit There's a difference in Plantinga's mind between emotion and what one has warrant to believe. He's said before that it is impossible to give a proof for the existence of other people's minds or for the existence of a past. They seem to be true, but we can't prove it. That doesn't prove that God exists, but it's what Plantinga uses as leverage to make belief in God have warrant. You can decide whether you buy it or not, but I think it's an intelligent rabbit hole regardless.
HoldOnToThatFeeling 6 months ago
@HoldOnToThatFeeling I can't see any logic in that. We can't completely trust our senses. We can't know anything for certain. If that opens a window for Yahweh it also opens a window for any other good or abstract idea ever aroused.
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@DrHowbeit That's not really a logical response, it's just a slippery slope fallacy. You probably would need to actually read his works on warrant. Looking for a completely accurate and intensely brief cliff notes that you can then refute in entirety is rather far fetched.
HoldOnToThatFeeling 6 months ago
@HoldOnToThatFeeling It must be convenient to yell "fallacy", "straw man" or "red herring when someone has a different viewpoint, but it doesn't make you sound smart.
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@HoldOnToThatFeeling So I should read up on Plantinga? Off course you would say that. Does it end there? No, far from it. Every query has got tons and tons of literature written about it. There a hundreds or thousands of queries in every field whether it's history, archeology, biblical studies, logic, philosophy, cosmology or whatever.
And there are 21 major religious. Don't even suggest that you've made sufficient studies of the religions you simply disregard as false.
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@DrHowbeit I didn't even remotely imply that I've made sufficient studies. I merely suggested you read up because you misunderstand the viewpoint, not because he's correct. Also, if you have a problem with the use of fallacies in debate then you are in the extreme minority. If you want to write a paper on why they're insufficient, then by all means send it to me, but don't try to disprove such a long philosophical tradition by saying it doesn't make me sound smart. Who really cares?
HoldOnToThatFeeling 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HoldOnToThatFeeling So I should read up on Plantinga? Off course you would say that. Does it end there? No, far from it. Every query has got tons and tons of literature written about it. There a hundreds or thousands of queries in every field whether it's history, archeology, biblical studies, logic, philosophy, cosmology or whatever. And there are 21 major religious. Don't even suggest that you've made sufficient studies of the religions you simply disregard as false.
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@HoldOnToThatFeeling So I should read up on Plantinga? Off course you would say that. Does it end there? No, far from it. Every query has got tons and tons of literature. There are hundreds or thousands of queries in every field whether it's history, archeology, biblical studies, logic, philosophy, cosmology or whatever. And there are 21 major religious. Don't even suggest that you've made sufficient studies of the religions you simply disregard as false.
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
I don't get apologetics. Take a look at the ontological argument for instance:
Anselm: "1. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived"
Leibniz: "1. God is a being that has all perfections."
Plantinga: "1. God is a maximally great being."
If you start with an opinion what use is the logical step-by-step process that follows? You still have the problem of explaining the first statement.
DrHowbeit 6 months ago
@surroundix Yes unfortunately it is, and it has being defended as an argument by David Chalmers (a dualist again). About the transplants, I guess they would still be implemented by hardware, right?
orestispal 6 months ago
So if brain transplants ever become possible, would that give credence to the idea of dualism???
Surroundx 6 months ago
With all the respect, he does not argue that the distinction is *possible*. He claims that it is merely *conceivable* and thereby possible. For me this is an entirely unconvincing step and it is a surprise that analytic philosophers use it, at all. It is a straightforward allowance to our imagination to judge metaphysical issues. This, I think, is the weakest aspect of the argument.
orestispal 6 months ago
@orestispal This is exactly the same argument that Descartes expounded in Meditations. I didn't realise it was still being employed...
Surroundx 6 months ago
I think Plantinga conflates the IDEA of the body with the actual body itself; if materialism is true, he is using a faculty of his brain to create an idea of himself without a body. His argument does not at all contradict a materialist perspective.
Also the argument seems circular as the possibility of existing without your body is contingent upon substance dualism; the two are in this context interchangeable, so the possibility of one IS the possibility of the other.
SkepticsClaw 7 months ago
I can imagine a world where Clark Kent is not superman in fact all people of metropolis does this on a daily basis. Therefore superman is not Clark Kent.... its a notoriously bad argument.
nospacesallowed 7 months ago
@nospacesallowed The key aspect of this argument is the concept of necessity. Clark Kent and Superman have no properties that pertain to "all possible worlds". That doesn't make it a good argument, I just don't think your response is relevant to how it's structured.
HoldOnToThatFeeling 6 months ago
He makes no sense... "if it's possible for" blah blah blah... what is the basis for him to think that it is possible...
oliviernovel 7 months ago
His argument is essentially that because he can imagine something is possible for A but not for B, A, he concludes, cannot be identical with B. But all his argument really amounts to is the hypothetical that if something is possible for A but not for B, then A is not identical with B. However, the possibility he refers to (the self being able to inhabit different bodies) relies on an intution which presupposes dualism. His version of the ontological argument is flawed in a similar way.
7mak1 7 months ago
@7mak1 Actually you are wrong. Consider having your mind trasferred to computer - a possibility consider by many materialists.
But at least you have something intelligent to say (unlike the majority of people on youtube).
bushfingers 7 months ago
@bushfingers A "mind" could not be "transferred" into just any computer, even on a materialist perspective. A functionalist might argues that the computer would have to have the same functional capacities as a biological brain in order for any "transfer" to occur. But even then, one should take a sceptical stance toward such mind transfer talk. Any talk of transfer requires an account of its causal mechanisms. The dualist view which invokes a separate substance is just a non-answer.
7mak1 6 months ago
@7mak1
This is a good point. His argument does seem to rely on an intuition that leads to dualism necessarily. But isn't the rejection that it is possible that A can exists distinct/apart from B rely on the belief that the ego is just the material body? Doesn't the rejection necessarily lead to materialism (of persons at least)? I guess I wonder how, since we are speaking strictly of modalities and not empirical things, one can reject this argument without actually embracing materialism.
DrMarkBird 7 months ago
Dude doesn't even know how many legs an insect has? And this is a great Christian mind? He just makes shit up and declares victory. William Lane Craig must love this fool.
disrxt 7 months ago
@disrxt And I but you think you are a genius because you do know how many legs and insect has. Why don't you tell us a little about your academic achievements?
bushfingers 7 months ago
@bushfingers So you're an elitest who thinks a sheep skin from a group of clergy saying you have studied a book of lies and internalized a ridiculous set of apologetics makes you immune from criticism? You're a fucking douche bag fool. BTW, I'm a graduate of the School of Hard Knocks, sorry but I never got to attend the Ivory Tower Institute for Theist Fools.
disrxt 7 months ago
@disrxt All I'm saying is that you need to evaluate his arguments properly. Picking up on some INSIGNIFICANT inaccuracy or slip and then making out that the person is an idiot is dishonest and lacks integrity. (The same does not apply for significant mistakes - they'd need to be evaluated more carefully.)
bushfingers 7 months ago
Contemporary apologetics is hilarious, but forces you to take it seriously in the mode we encounter it. They're selling metaphysics as proof of God, but selling an intrinsically western inquiry at the same time. I kind of applaud them, and yet can't wait for the conservatism they trumpet to cave in the movement soon. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in a WIlliam Lane Craig/Plantiga conference when the moment of truth really arrives and they crumble. Secularism is their product, tax free! HA!
kern0099 7 months ago
@kern0099 It almost seems that you have something to say. But it's probably just the babblings of an idiot.
bushfingers 7 months ago
@bushfingers "Probably?" Almost sounds like a jibe, but then you're just fapping here eh? I'm sure Almost is your life's story.
kern0099 7 months ago
@kern0099 Oh it is
bushfingers 7 months ago
@bushfingers Well, then hope you got your nut.
kern0099 7 months ago
@kern0099 :-)
bushfingers 7 months ago
"It seems to be I could exist while my body doesn't." This sounds suspiciously like Descartes, and seems to ignore functionalist arguments of materialism.
templar19 8 months ago
Comment removed
chapstickman34 9 months ago
If it is logically possible for your mind to exist independent of your body then your mind and body are not the same thing. Dr. Plantinga has postulated a world, which contains no obvious logical contradictions, where your mind exists independent of your body.
However..
To make his case Dr. Plantinga must demonstrate that this hypothetical world is, in fact, logically possible. That we cannot demonstrate the opposite is of no consequence.
studentofsmith 9 months ago
@studentofsmith The modal argument shows that not only is it logically possible that they are not the same, it is logically impossible that they are the same...
DazedSpy2 8 months ago
@DazedSpy2 Axiom S5 states that if it is possible that something is necessarily true then that implies that it *is* necessarily true.
This is nonsense.
studentofsmith 8 months ago
@studentofsmith Yes, I'm sure your well versed in modal logic /sarcasm.
DazedSpy2 8 months ago
@DazedSpy2 Not at all. My first exposure to it was when I looked it up on Wikipedia after reading your comment so if I have somehow misrepresented the axiom I apologize and invite you to correct me. Otherwise I have a wonderful reductio ad absurdum that will completely disprove it:
It is possible flowers grow only with the assistance of magic fairies. (You can't disprove it.)
Flowers grow.
Therefore it is possible magic fairies necessarily exist.
Apply Axiom S5
Magic fairies probably exist.
studentofsmith 8 months ago
@studentofsmith Hm...your "reductio ad absurdum" troubles me a bit. This is a bit of a straw man argument since it's not dealing with what Plantinga is trying to show. Your example shows the absurdity in thinking that if something is necessarily true than it must be true. But his argument is only claiming that the self and the body are different insofar as they have different possibilities associated with them. If we applied that to your example it would mean that you are showing that
XxVINCEROxX 8 months ago
@studentofsmith flowers and the source that makes them grow are different things. Now what that source is (whether it be fairies) is not addressed by this and isn't part of this concept.
XxVINCEROxX 8 months ago
@XxVINCEROxX What does it mean to say something is necessarily true?
studentofsmith 8 months ago
@studentofsmith Are you asking because you want to see if I know or because you actually don't know yourself? To be necessarily true means that there is a truth because of the necessity that relies on that truth being a truth. A little circular of a description, I know, but that's what it is.
XxVINCEROxX 8 months ago
@XxVINCEROxX I'm asking because my understanding of what that means seemed to be different from yours and the first rule of debate is to define your terms. I must confess I don't fully grasp your explaination. Could you give an example?
studentofsmith 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@studentofsmith To be honest, I was a little flawed in claiming that your flower example deals with necessary truth, it doesn't really. But anyways, necessary truth means that if its possible for something to be true, and that thing being true is necessary for a whole chain of other truths, than that first thing must in fact be true. The relevant example would be: It is possible for there to be a being in which there is no greater. However, for it to be true that there couldn't be a greater
XxVINCEROxX 8 months ago
@studentofsmith being, that "greatest" being must be omnipotent, infinite, and wholly good. Now if this such being existed, than it would have had to be the starting point/source for everything that is inferior (i.e. everything in the natural world). Therefore the existence of everything in the natural world relies on the fact that there be this being. And the natural world does exist, so this greatest being must also exist because it is a necessary truth. Now of course with philosophy, these
XxVINCEROxX 8 months ago
@studentofsmith theorems don't, in fact, ultimately "prove" god and there are certainly counter arguments, but it is an interesting and provoking way of thought. It's deep, but the idea that it is even remotely "possible" for there to be such being, and everything in existence would have to follow from this greatest being, than it is almost impossible for there not to be this being.
XxVINCEROxX 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XxVINCEROxX I'm a little confused. First you say my example "shows the absurdity in thinking that if something is necessarily true then it must be true" then you say "necessary truth means that if it's possible for something to be true, and that thing being true is necessary for a whole chain of other truths, then that first thing must in fact be true".
With all due respect, which is it?
studentofsmith 8 months ago