non-existence > existence. The non-existent is invulnerable, immutable, and timeless. non-existence is more perfect than existence. Therefore, by necessity, god is non-existent.
@GandolftheGreyMatter that makes no sense... you're saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, that P1) Non-existence is invulnerable, immutable, and timeless. P2) Non-existence is more perfect than existence C1) God doesn't exist..... First off, you're not at all saying that non-existence is truly "nothing," which I think is what you're trying to say. You've given characteristics (invulnerability, timelessness, etc.) to something that you claim cannot exist. "Nothing" cannot "have" anything.
@GandolftheGreyMatter And to continue my argument, by what standards do you throw the word "perfect" around? That's to say, what are you suggesting perfect is and how do you come to that conclusion. Most people would argue the meaning of "perfect" to be arbitrary in this context. You're premises do not in anyway arrive at your conclusion in a logical manner. And not only that but you'e second premise is 100% subjective. I would like to argue what you mean by invulnerable as well.
not exist" I would say that if the maximally great being did not exist then he couldn't be very good at anything because he doesn't exist. A maximally great being would be one that would have to exist of course, and by his definition (greater than anything conceived) it would be greater for him to exist in all worlds including the real one. Thanks again for your time!
@JPBuysjr "A maximally great being would be one that would have to exist of course, " really ? you sound like Craig when get gets his but kicked . Common sense and intuition
@kathleenwilson25 a property that a thing can either possess or lack. When people assert that God exists they are not saying that there is a God and he possesses the property of existence. If that were the case, then when people assert that God does not exist they would be saying that there is a God and he lacks the property of existence
Now we are getting somewhere! Thank you for the time you put into this. I find it frustrating when Christians and Atheists just yell back and forth at each other and never go anywhere. I think (and hope!) that you are different from most atheists (and Christians) who do not care for what the truth is and will shake there head no matter what is said or what evidence is provided. Now about the OA I think I disagreed with you when you stated the premise that 'possibly a maximally great being does
@JPBuysjr The ontological argument is utter nonsense. Please don't bring up the modal perfection ontological argument. Everyone knows that GMP's are incoherent
@emailpobox666 By you just asserting something doesn't mean anything. If I said " Atheism is utter nonsense" it wouldn't do much good. You need to use reason. What is unreasonable about the argument. I believe that it is sound, but not powerful.
@emailpobox666 Yeah, again your just making assertions. You just keep saying "there is no evidence for God." Yeah I get it, it's all you ever hear. If someone gives reasons for God you cannot just close your ears and yell "there is no evidence!" Apparently there is no evidence for God for you because you will always give the same answer for proposition. You have no interest in seeking truth and no respect in reason.
@emailpobox666 Again, a quick lesson in logic. When someone makes a truth claim or makes an assertion the onus is on that person to give some logic or reason to believe that assertion to be true. If you assert "there is no God" the onus is not on me to prove your assertion incorrect. In fact, I cannot do so because you have provided no reason for which to try to disprove or argue against! You make a universal affirmative statement in saying there is no god.
@emailpobox666 Also, I already know you will argue back with the semantics of "no, atheism is the lack of belief" yada yada so lets move on and get back to the O A. By definition there is no evidence for the O A argument at all because it is not an empirical argument. It is purely based on ontology and modal logic (which is widely recognized as a valid form to understand truth) I cannot give evidence for the argument because there is none. You have to (again) give reasons why the OA is not true
@JPBuysjr By definition a maximally great being is one that exists necessarily and necessarily is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good. (Premise)
Possibly a maximally great being does not exist. (Premise)
Therefore, possibly an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being that, if it exists, exists necessarily, does not exist. (By 1 and 2)
Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist.
"When people speak of god they have traditionally meant a personal being"
Gee, right out of the gate it they are spouting inaccuracies. The vast majority of people nad the amount of gods that have existed in the minds of religious people were non personal, pagan gods of the natural world. Not any monotheist one and only.
..If there is a possible wolrd in which God does exist, then according to A God exists in all possible worlds, but this woud contradict the existence of a possible world in which God does not exist, as was the premise of B.
Therefore if the premise of B is true, then the conclusion of B cannot be false and must therefore also be true. Thus B is a true proposition.
If A is true, as Platinga assumes, then B is also true and it would be sufficient to conceive of a possible world in which God does not exist from which it would follow that God doesn't exist in any possible world.
Clearly such a world is just as conceivable as the a world in which God does exist.
This shows that there is nothing gained by Platinga's argument.
Taking this thought to the extreme, the most infinitely complex and greatest thing BELIEVED to exist by the religious is God - this makes God infinitely improbable - infinitely improbable is generally considered to be the same thing as impossible.
The most you could say about any existing objects 'greatness' is that it's existence is less probable than its non-existence, by virtue of the fact that any degree of complexity or configuration of matter is automatically less probable that nothing at all. The more complexity, the less probable it is and that applies to the most complex thing claimed to exist by believers
Also, the term: 'something that doesn't' exist, is an oxymoron - you can't have 'something' without it first existing. You can however have something that once existed, or a conceptualization of a thing that could, in principle exist. If said thing exists it does not need to be greater than not existing (This is a value judgement by a mind)
'Something that exists is greater than something that doesn't exist' is the same as saying 'something is always greater than nothing' - First, the term: 'is greater...' is a value judgement by a mind, and so is dependant on the opinions and interests of said mind. For example the existence of the malaria parasite would generally be considered LESS GREAT than it's non-existence from a human standpoint.
The problem lies in the "logic concept of "Possibly"
Possibly means "it´s true in at least one possible world", it´s not the same "possibly " that we use in real life, in a way it´s much more restrictive, since it´s different that the "maybe" we attach to possibly.
So possibly god exists, means that "god exists in at least a possible world..."
So, you must still prove that "god exists in at least a possible world"...
The Ontological argument actually predates Anselm. Ibn Sina (Avicenna) developed his own Ontological argument before Anselm, so it doesn't originate with Anselm
@DeadFishFactory You're right . If you assume the possibility of god then the argument proves gods existence. It also proves gods nonexistence if you assume it's nonexistence. The first premise it the key to proving either it's existence or nonexistence
@DeadFishFactory Pretty much. There is the Maydoyle modal perfection argument ( a vairint of the OA) More difficult to refute but still refutable. The definition of Maximal greatness which he use is incoherent. It's funny people of faith try to prove something which they freely admit is beyond nature ( supernatural) . It seems to me they feel foolish just saying that it's faith hence the attempt to offer proof
@DeadFishFactory 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)
The State of modern Philosophy is rather embarrassing. hearing arguments such as this delivered by supposed experts in the field is.... either the thing exists or it doesn't, our idea of it CAN be generated independently of existence. Take the creationist idea of a croco-duck, that obviously doesn't exist but is a combination of attributes from disparate entities combined into single thing conceived by a human mind.
@swedey01 I have to agree, it seems modern philosophy has degenerated into nothing more than well hidden tautologies and clever word play. Totally useless and has no practical purpose in real life.
The best comeback you have is name calling? As a prominent debater once said, 'the second your opponent has to resort to ad hominem attacks is the second you know you have won the argument.'
@BlakeRudy And for the theist as well. I suppose it helps them sleep better at night and gives them a warm comfy feeling on the inside, but practically speaking the belief in God does not allow you to do anything which a lack of belief would prevent you from doing. You can still treat your fellow man well, you can still help the needy, you can still be genuinely happy and appreciative regardless of whether or not you believe in God.
@spammyadvertising Actually atheism is superior to theism. "You can still treat your fellow man well, you can still help the needy, you can still be genuinely happy and appreciative" Atheist act this way without reward without fear of punishment . Theists on the other hand are acting altruistic to curry favor with a god and avoid his wrath
@emailpobox666 That sounds nice, until you find yourself spending eternity shut off from G-d. Thing is, you won't admit it then either. Hell is a self-actualized situation, the door being locked from the inside. G-d doesn't put you there; you do. Or you can save yourself and share eternity with your creator. Denying your very creator and the essence of all that is good is no small offense. It is beyond arrogant. Arrogance is not an admirable quality.
@spammyadvertising The one thing the atheist or agnostic cannot do is understand that their sins are forgiven. I think too that on the atheist view, there really is no meaning to life, since it will all inevitably end in an ever-expanding frigid universe devoid of light and life.
@emailpobox666 Semantics. A sin is a transgression of a moral law. Whatever you call violating your morals is a sin. A lie, a theft, adultery, murder, rape... Of course I understand that some atheists deny the existence of any moral code. Maybe you're one of them.
@emailpobox666 So then atheists do have a moral code and thus can sin by breaking it. Just wondering though, which society's moral code would that be? Would it be the National Socialists' of Germany? The Marxist Stalinists'? The Maoists? The Taliban society's? Maybe the Iranian Mullahcracy's? Or do you follow the moral code of the bible and Jesus, treat others as you would like to be treated? Or the Bill and Ted version, "be excellent to each other." :)
@BlakeRudy The same societies moral code that you follow.You do realize that you don't follow the moral code of the bible. unless you believe uin slavery and stoning disobedient children
@emailpobox666 Which society's moral code is correct? Is the Taliban's correct? Did the Nazi's have it right? On atheism, there is no basis for any objective moral values or duties. On atheism, morality is all relative, mere consensus. Without a basis for grounding moral values and duties, they can shift with public opinion.
This is not to say that atheists cannot be moral, not at all. We are talking about whether or not a permanent foundation for objective morals exist.
@emailpobox666 How do you know that? Despite your terrible mischaracterization, why would it be wrong in a time of grave wartime peril for a society of escaped slaves to enact harsh penalties against behavior which threatens their very existence? Are you interested to learn the history in context, or do you prefer to imagine that Christians abide by Mosaic law as if we were still a society of escaped slaves wandering a desert wilderness in a state of near constant warfare?
@emailpobox666 Is it evil or murder to execute spies during wartime? By your interpretation, it is. Is it evil in a time of grave peril to wantonly put the survival of an entire society in jeopardy? By your interpretation, it isn't.
@emailpobox666 I don't run away from the old testament at all. What I do is study it earnestly to ascertain the truth of its message. In order to do that, as with all history, one must understand context, culture, situation. You conveniently refuse to do that, choosing instead to cherry pick a single verse & grossly misrepresent it. You also conveniently ignore the New Testament, specifically the teachings of Jesus Christ & his Apostles. "Christ", the basis of Christianity.
@BlakeRudy Don't you find it absurd that your claiming objective morals and then saying that they change . If they were objective they would not change,. Stoning disobedient children slavery would all be accepted. would you rather they still were?
@emailpobox666 You are confused. I've never said that objective morals change. You are concocting straw men. The circumstances of a crime are must inform adjudication of justice. You distort historical documentation pretending it is moral code. It is not. It is a record of history. If you continue to misrepresent "sons" as "children" and conveniently omit the "drunkard" aspect & the historical context, you are just deceiving, lying. That shows you've lost the honest debate.
A nation is not a person, therefore calling it "good" or "evil" is pointless.
But yes, any man that would make a law allowing the judge to issue capital punishment to a spy, is evil. Detention is still an option, you know. Capital punishment is never justifiable.
@justforflag2 Again I ask, by what basis? I'm not arguing that you are wrong. I am only asking by what basis do you arrive at your conclusion? Why would it be evil to execute a spy during wartime?
Is it evil to execute a murderer too, a mass-murderer?
Anyone who wishes to further capital punishment is evil, for it does not fix the mass-murderer no more than life in prison would, nor does it deter others. Unlike life in prison, though, it takes his life away.
A murderer, a rapist, a mass-murderer and a traitor of the worst kind should not have their right to life taken away, since doing so does not help with the problem.
@justforflag2 You've offered your personal opinion on a moral issue. You've provided zero basis for it being objectively true. Unless you are claiming that anything that "does not help with the problem" is immoral. I don't think you want to try to prove that.
@justforflag2 But how/why, on atheism (absent any moral lawgiving authority over man), is that an objective moral value? It's just your opinion. We may agree on that, but what makes it an absolute moral value against which the behavior of all of humanity must be gauged?
Oh, it's not, nothing is an objective moral value. You misunderstood me.
But it's almost always unjustifiable in cases like murder, or any crime for that matter, for the reasons I gave. However, for example in self-defense, the capital punishment delivered by the victim is certainly justifiable.
It's difficult to think of a case when "killing, when it can be avoided, is not immoral". That does not make it an absolute.
@BlakeRudy Why on theism do morals magically become "objective?" It is just God's opinion, even if he is the most powerful, and even if he did create us, it would still just be his opinion in terms of what is right and wrong morally. Our parents in a sense "created" us, does that mean that everything they say is right? If an extremely powerful person (e.g president of the United States) says something does what he say automatically become "right" just because of his power? I think not
@justforflag2 To clarify further, the point is not about the nation, but the behavior. We are talking about objectively moral behavior, not people, not nations, but whether objective moral values and duties exist. We agree that they do. I'm saying that they are of God, defined by and true to his nature, he is basis or foundation by which good is gauged. You offer only society. Society is not an unchanging basis, thus not objective.
@BlakeRudy You are incorrect. Because the moral values of a society have to maintain that society.any change would be incorporated into the society. This explains how outr morals are vastly different throughout our history. The objective moral argument assume god's existence it then uses the objective morals to prove god
@emailpobox666 LOL. You might ought to commit to a little bit of elementary scholarship concerning the bible. History is not the same as moral code. Christians like me take the teachings of Jesus Christ as our moral code. The old testament includes books of history, poetry, and prophesy. The historic books include civil law for the Israelites as well as moral codes. Civil laws are not moral codes. Compare America's history of law during wartime to a personal moral code.
@emailpobox666 So you believe that Jesus teaches genocide, rape, child abuse and murder of women, children and infants? And you believe those are the values that Christians and Jews uphold? LOL! Ignorance alone informs your view. Educate yourself. You've been misled. The joke however is that on atheism, there is no basis whatsoever for condemning any of the acts you list.
@emailpobox666 Deuteronomy 21:18-21? What would it mean to a group of escaped slaves wandering the desert wilderness faced with constant attack from vicious enemies to allow disobedience and discord among their ranks, especially instigated by their son as blatant disobedience, gluttony (eating more than his share) and drunkenness (behaving outrageously and irresponsibly)? The passage is not talking about little children. It speaks specifically of gluttonous drunkards.
@BlakeRudy The OA is a useless argument because the argument can be used to prove god's nonexistence.If your gonna bring up Maximal greatness that my friend is incoherent
"The one thing the atheist or agnostic cannot do is understand that their sins are forgiven."
My "sins" are forgiven by my loved ones and members of my inner social circle, who choose to love me anyway despite my shortcomings. The one thing that the theist cannot do is understand that you're not an inherently bad person who requires the "forgiveness" of anyone beyond those you're directly accountable to.
@xxxrokkstarrxxx Must be nice to know only folks who will always forgive you. I don't have that good fortune. Nor is it my luck to only offend those who are my friends or family. So who forgives your bad behavior when it affects those who are not your friends or family, or if even those are unwilling to forgive you?
"o who forgives your bad behavior when it affects those who are not your friends or family, or if even those are unwilling to forgive you?"
I haven't done anything to anyone that they would consider unforgivable. In my family, we have this thing called "communication" where we talk through our differences until we come to a resolution. What "bad" behavior am I guilty of committing to complete strangers? Did I cut someone off in traffic? Was I having a bad day and I was a bit rude?
@xxxrokkstarrxxx What bad behavior have you committed? You tell me. Unless you are some kind of saint, there will surely be a plethora of such behavior in your life. No regrets? No baggage? You never bullied anyone, taunted anyone, disparaged anyone? Have you been forgiven? Your behavior here is quite outrageous and insulting, exposing a willful disdain towards those with whom you disagree, referring to Christianity as a "sadistic creed" of "tales of fairy godfathers".
@xxxrokkstarrxxx You lump all theists in on bucket. I think you meant Christians. Other theists might way that we atone for our sins through our good acts and by sacrifices. Do you not believe that humans are innately sinners? Name one who has achieved adulthood who hasn't sinned.
"Do you not believe that humans are innately sinners? Name one who has achieved adulthood who hasn't sinned."
The fact that people make mistakes doesn't make them inherently bad, and certainly doesn't mean they deserve to die. Punishment should be proportionate to the nature of the offense, and most people haven't done anything severe enough to warrant paying for it with their very lives, contrary to what your sadistic creed might have taught you.
"think too that on the atheist view, there really is no meaning to life"
I've found that my life has plenty of meaning, and I've been the one responsible for providing that deeper meaning for MYSELF. For me, it's simply to be the best person I can be, and to offer the most of my humanity for the benefit of others as I possibly can. The notion of an eternal playground in the sky hardly offers any more substance or meaning to life than the notion of an enchanted forest does.
"since it will all inevitably end in an ever-expanding frigid universe devoid of light and life."
Yes, you are correct that the preponderance of the evidence seems to indicate the universe will one day "end". In 10^100 YEARS! Is that not enough time for you to find "meaning" in existence? The book I'm reading will eventually end as well, it doesn't even have 10^100 pages (only a meager 500 and something). Why is anything not "eternal" or "infinite" always dubbed as "meaningless"?
@xxxrokkstarrxxx When makes no difference to the point. Time is relative. The fact that all of existence is for naught is the issue. Absent god, life is a joke, meaning an illusion. On atheism, we are inconsequential, no more valuable than dust. It's an incredibly dark & absurd view to most folks. What meaning can life have if it's entire result is nothingness, non-existence, complete & utter annihilation? If there are no consequences, of what import is our behavior?
@BlakeRudy What if there is a God and you can have an eternal soul that can come to know and unite with God? What if out of foolishness or arrogance you shun such an opportunity? How would your life change if tomorrow through some means you discovered irrefutably that Christianity was true?
"How would your life change if tomorrow through some means you discovered irrefutably that Christianity was true?"
I've already discovered to my satisfaction that Christianity can't possibly be true. That isn't very likely to happen. I already lead a very good and humble life. So to humor you, nothing would really change, except my IQ would probably drop a few points.
@xxxrokkstarrxxx What if... just what if you've been deceived and misled? What if you are wrong? What if you are throwing away an eternity in heaven with your creator? You say you have a good life. What is "good"? You've never done anything less than admirable? Compared to pure goodness, pure love and wisdom, how does your life stack up, really? What if you have been deceived, misled down a path of utter ruin? What is the risk to investigate? Christians are happy folks.
"How would your life change if tomorrow through some means you discovered irrefutably that Christianity was true?"
I've already discovered to my satisfaction that Christianity can't possibly be true. That isn't very likely to happen. I already lead a very good and humble life. So to humor you, nothing would really change, except my IQ would probably drop a few points.
@xxxrokkstarrxxx Why not answer the question honestly? No closed-minded intolerant atheist ever will. Surely you can do so. How would your life change if tomorrow through whatever means you discovered irrefutably that Christianity was true, that you do have an immortal soul and that all you need do to enjoy eternity with all that is good is to follow G-d's will and seek salvation through Jesus Christ? It's not like Christians are miserable people. We are generally happy.
I don't believe in God, and I don't believe life is a joke. You clearly aren't satisfied with anything less than immortality and aren't capable of finding deeper meaning in a life that isn't rewarded with a big giant carnival at the end. I find that to be a completely vacant and shallow worldview. I think that our fragility and our mortality makes our lives infinitely more meaningful for precisely the reason that it WILL come to an end someday, and it's the only one we've got.
In my humble opinion, those who need immortality and an "ultimate" reward in the afterlife in order to find meaning in the life they're living right now are merely living the ultimately selfish existence. You strive to be better to achieve immortality in the afterlife and expect to be rewarded for choosing the right beliefs; I on the other hand, strive to be better with no expectation of a reward whatsoever. So who is acting selflessly and who is acting selfishly?
@xxxrokkstarrxxx Really i don't fallow any of this video(seems to not make sense) or double-talk .Maybe some Christians are living for a reward but most i think are living for others,i don't know that to be fact but that is the way i live my life anyway.I think we all do things if it helps us in some way even if that is just be be a better person.
Lastly, life has plenty of meaning if you OPEN your eyes and find it. If you can't find it without tales of fairy godfathers and expecting a big giant reward for living it the right way, then that's a shortcoming of your own. And if you think there are no consequences for the way you live your life, then you haven't been paying much attention.
@xxxrokkstarrxxx I don't think you are comprehending the utter futility and absurdity of life absent G-d and ending in total annihilation. As Nietzsche observed, absent G-d, anything is permissible and nihilism is the rule. Nothing has any meaning. How can there be any consequences if all the future holds is annihilation and death? Everyone is non-existent. Nietzsche was an atheist, but was honest enough to admit this. Then he committed suicide.
@BlakeRudy I find it quite sad and disturbing that so many people need to believe in God and the eternal reward of heaven and the eternal punishment of hell in order to do what it right. I am not against believing in God at all. If it makes one feel better psychologically then they should by all means continue to believe. But I realize that in a material sense the belief in God is meaningless. It doesn't allow you to do anything which you would not be able to do if you lacked belief.
@spammyadvertising You really ought to do yourself justice and try to better understand Christianity. It's nothing like you seem to imagine or what is presented in popular culture. Salvation is a gift. Eternity is a long time. If we refuse grace and choose instead to separate ourselves from all that is good and meaningful, that would be kinda sucky, don't you think. If I'm wrong, no big deal for me or you. If I'm right ... ?
@babkrani Both arguments are ridiculous. I only show that the assumption of the premise leads to the conclusion. If you assume that god exists god exists, if you assume god doesn't exist god doesn't exist
@emailpobox666 No you just didn't understand :), if you assume that possibly a maximally perfect being doesn't exist, then in the same time you just assumed that he possibly exists, thus it follows that he necessarily exists. So in your case saying "i don't understand" is more honest than saying "its ridiculous" ;) ...
@babkrani You logic is fallacious my friend. Either x exists or x doesn't exist. Assuming the premise that x doesn't exist does not in any way generate the counter argument that x does exist.
@babkrani You definition of possibility a is the intuitive definition not the scientific definition. It seem right to leave the possibility of god existence. this in no way helps your argument.A premise of god exists or a premise of god doesn't exist . Something defined as existing necessarily is defined into existence
@emailpobox666 In modal logic, there is 2 types of existence, contingent and necessary. The possibility of God's existence makes him existing in a possible world, a reality in which God dod exist, and by the definition, a maximally perfect being if he exists, he must exist in all the possible words. And by this we conclude that God exists in our world. So whatyou have to do is to prove that a maximally perfect being, CANNOT exist in NO possible world.
@babkrani You have to assume the possibility that he exist which is equal in value to the assumption that he doesn't exist. The choice of premise is a matter of your personal preference. Unless you have a way of differentiating the choice of premise in favor of God exists my is equivalent
@babkrani "maximally perfect being if he exists, he must exist in all the possible words he must exist in all the possible words" and if a maximally perfect being doesn't exist, he must not exist in all the possible words. Logically both have the same value
@babkrani "So whatyou have to do is to prove that a maximally perfect being, CANNOT exist in NO possible world." No all you have to assume is that a MGB doesn't exist. Like your assumption that a MGB does exist
@babkrani If, in the reasoning behind Axiom S5, when making the “Possibly G is true” (or “Possibly G exists”) premise we also assert the premise “It is impossible that G is false” (or “It is impossible that G does not exist”) then no contradiction occurs and the logic is valid.
@emailpobox666 If God's existance is merely possible then yes i assert that it is impossible for God not to exist. I already told you, there should be a proof that God cannot exist in any possibility so you can prove that God doesn't exist.
@babkrani "there should be a proof that God cannot exist in any possibility" Should there also be proof that there not an invisible dragon in my garage? I'm not the one making an assertion with a logical argument. Just know the argument fails
@emailpobox666 I really in a moment hoped, that just because you didn't understand you could come to your senses, and start inverstigating God's existence. But .... :(
@babkrani So what you choose to have faith and then wrap it in a cloak of flawed logic and I'm supposed to respect that? Admit the ontological argument fails or defend it
@babkrani You admitted that the premise of assertion of god existence is a requirement for your argument and the only way you have of making this assertion is on faith.Please explain how you reconcile this .
@emailpobox666 Ok i'll try to explain it without symbols. A MGB includes all perfection so the negation of a MGB is a being that has no perfection. It is possible for a being that has no perfection not to exist, therefore it is possible for a maximally perfect being to exist. That is my argument for the first premise.
@babkrani You haven't defined perfection." It is possible for a being that has no perfection not to exist, " This makes absolutely no sense." it is possible for a maximally perfect being to exist." ans it is also possible for a MGB not to exist
@emailpobox666 Perfection is being all powerfull, all knowing, all good, and necessarily existing in all possible worlds etc ... Thus the negation have a necessary possibility of a non-existance in some possible world. And yes of course it is possible for a MGB not to exist, but also this possibility means that he necessarily exists.
@babkrani It exists necessarily. meaning if he odes exist in a possible world he exists in all possible worlds. You back to square one. What you fail to realize that the ontological argument make a better case for gods nonexistence than it does for his existence
@babkrani continued logically contradicting, possible worlds of type w3 in which G exists and of type w4 in which G does not exist.and, because we assert the premises that possibly G exists and possibly G does not exist, the actual world cannot be like w1, so G does not exist in the actual world.
@babkrani statements of logical possibility are meaningful, together with the need to accept logically inconsistent possible worlds that it implies. The alternative would have to be such as declaring statements of logical possibility and logically inconsistent possible worlds invalid and making the term “possibly necessary” incoherent or seeking refuge in informal possibility.
@babkrani “Conceivability” seems to be a common idea in ontological arguments. I do not think it is so much about human brains and their powers of conception specifically but somehow about the “admissibility”, “coherency” or “capability of being expressed” of some description of an aspect of the world. Essentially, something is viewed as “possible” if the claim can be encoded in some way – one such way being as arrangements of neurons in human brains.
@emailpobox666 I9 I think i just recently dealt with another identical argument ot this. Now what you do is claiming that a MGB can possibly exist in a possible world W1 and not exist in another one W2. Now lets start with supposing that a MGB doesn't exist in a possible world W2 and try prove reasoning by the absurd that this world does not exist.
@babkrani " his world does not exist." it's a possible world.I'm gonna have to resume this tomorrow since I'm drinking my Sam Adams Boston Ale and my reasoning abilities are quickly fading. Have a Happy New Year
@emailpobox666 Now we also have that a MGB exists in W1, thus we conclude that a MGB necessarily exists in all the possible worlds, from this we conclude that a MGB won't make a possible world in which he cannot exist, therefore W2 cannot exist.
@emailpobox666 The existence of objective moral values and duties, which you likely endorse, is the only positive premise of the argument. It goes like this... 1. If G-d does not exist, object moral values & duties do not exist. 2. Objective moral values & duties do exist. 3. Therefore G-d exists. It merely states that on atheism, as Nietzsche recognized, without G-d, everything is permissible, meaning there is no good or bad, right or wrong; nihilism is the only rule.
@BlakeRudy No actually It's the opposite argument Craig uses. Craig says God exists there fore objective morals exist therefore god exists. Let me ask you something should we have slavery or stone disobedient children as the old testament say.
@emailpobox666 You are mistaken. That proof is taken verbatim from Dr. Craig's web site, reasonablefaith daht org. Of course he may have once employed other forms, but the one above is his currently preferred form of the moral argument for God. I think what we should have is people who actually read scripture intending to understand it rather than lie about it on the internet. Wise up.
@BlakeRudy You mean the same Dr Craig who admitted that thew cosmological argument is incoherent 15 years ago and still uses it as a proof? the same Dr. Craig who said he would ignore any evidence against Christianity . That Dr Craig?
@emailpobox666 Try to focus. I'm entirely uninterested in following your discordant meandering line of discussion. Which cosmological argument? There are many. Not all are coherent. Craig debates atheists presenting arguments against Christianity all the time. Hardly the act of someone ignoring them. Again, try to focus. I'm entirely uninterested in following your discordant meandering line of discussion.
@BlakeRudy Craig uses the Kalam Cosmiological argumet in everydebate no matter who he is debating. Funny thing is 15 years ago he admitted it was incoherent. why would Craig portray this argument as valid when he is aware that it is incoherent? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that he would IGNORE EVIDENCE against Christianity
@emailpobox666 There are numerous forms of the Kalam cosmological argument, some of which are likely incoherent. The form he presents is certainly not incoherent. Debating you is not offering anything of value to me. So long and have fun.
In the modal logic. Possible does no mean.. "it may" as on would expect in statistics adn in daily life:
.
Posibly in modal logic means
"it exists in at least one posible world"...
And that exactly what one is trying to proove... that god exists....
the problem with modal logic is that the term "posible worlds" is not intuitive.
Also, Platinga uses an axiom of modal logic that stats that "If P is posible, then P is necesary..." so it´s use is controversial.
elnauhual 2 days ago
non-existence > existence. The non-existent is invulnerable, immutable, and timeless. non-existence is more perfect than existence. Therefore, by necessity, god is non-existent.
GandolftheGreyMatter 1 week ago
@GandolftheGreyMatter that makes no sense... you're saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, that P1) Non-existence is invulnerable, immutable, and timeless. P2) Non-existence is more perfect than existence C1) God doesn't exist..... First off, you're not at all saying that non-existence is truly "nothing," which I think is what you're trying to say. You've given characteristics (invulnerability, timelessness, etc.) to something that you claim cannot exist. "Nothing" cannot "have" anything.
waterwords19 4 days ago
@GandolftheGreyMatter And to continue my argument, by what standards do you throw the word "perfect" around? That's to say, what are you suggesting perfect is and how do you come to that conclusion. Most people would argue the meaning of "perfect" to be arbitrary in this context. You're premises do not in anyway arrive at your conclusion in a logical manner. And not only that but you'e second premise is 100% subjective. I would like to argue what you mean by invulnerable as well.
waterwords19 4 days ago
not exist" I would say that if the maximally great being did not exist then he couldn't be very good at anything because he doesn't exist. A maximally great being would be one that would have to exist of course, and by his definition (greater than anything conceived) it would be greater for him to exist in all worlds including the real one. Thanks again for your time!
JPBuysjr 3 weeks ago
@JPBuysjr GMP's are incoherent. But thanks again for proving the OA a Failure.
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@JPBuysjr "A maximally great being would be one that would have to exist of course, " really ? you sound like Craig when get gets his but kicked . Common sense and intuition
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@JPBuysjr Another thing existence is not a Property. Please get your arguments strait
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@emailpobox666
Why isn't existence a property? And what isn't it a property of?
kathleenwilson25 2 weeks ago
@kathleenwilson25 a property that a thing can either possess or lack. When people assert that God exists they are not saying that there is a God and he possesses the property of existence. If that were the case, then when people assert that God does not exist they would be saying that there is a God and he lacks the property of existence
emailpobox666 2 weeks ago
Now we are getting somewhere! Thank you for the time you put into this. I find it frustrating when Christians and Atheists just yell back and forth at each other and never go anywhere. I think (and hope!) that you are different from most atheists (and Christians) who do not care for what the truth is and will shake there head no matter what is said or what evidence is provided. Now about the OA I think I disagreed with you when you stated the premise that 'possibly a maximally great being does
JPBuysjr 3 weeks ago
@JPBuysjr One suggestion . If you'd actually like me to respond please address comments to me
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
62 atheists do not understand the ontological argument
JPBuysjr 1 month ago
@JPBuysjr The ontological argument is utter nonsense. Please don't bring up the modal perfection ontological argument. Everyone knows that GMP's are incoherent
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@emailpobox666 By you just asserting something doesn't mean anything. If I said " Atheism is utter nonsense" it wouldn't do much good. You need to use reason. What is unreasonable about the argument. I believe that it is sound, but not powerful.
JPBuysjr 3 weeks ago
@JPBuysjr The utter lack of evidence for your claim justifies my belief
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@JPBuysjr Atheism is a rejection of a claim . The claim made has no proof
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@emailpobox666 Yeah, again your just making assertions. You just keep saying "there is no evidence for God." Yeah I get it, it's all you ever hear. If someone gives reasons for God you cannot just close your ears and yell "there is no evidence!" Apparently there is no evidence for God for you because you will always give the same answer for proposition. You have no interest in seeking truth and no respect in reason.
JPBuysjr 3 weeks ago
@JPBuysjr Please provide evidence if you have any. That OA has been refuted so if your using this failed argument sorry your otta luck.
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@JPBuysjr "Yeah, again your just making assertions." Prove my assertions wrong by providing evidence
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@emailpobox666 Again, a quick lesson in logic. When someone makes a truth claim or makes an assertion the onus is on that person to give some logic or reason to believe that assertion to be true. If you assert "there is no God" the onus is not on me to prove your assertion incorrect. In fact, I cannot do so because you have provided no reason for which to try to disprove or argue against! You make a universal affirmative statement in saying there is no god.
JPBuysjr 3 weeks ago
@JPBuysjr I never asserted there is no god. Just all the claims to date have failed to provide any evidence for a god
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@JPBuysjr Do you get it the only assertion I make is that you theists have FAILED to provide evidence of your claim
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@emailpobox666 Also, I already know you will argue back with the semantics of "no, atheism is the lack of belief" yada yada so lets move on and get back to the O A. By definition there is no evidence for the O A argument at all because it is not an empirical argument. It is purely based on ontology and modal logic (which is widely recognized as a valid form to understand truth) I cannot give evidence for the argument because there is none. You have to (again) give reasons why the OA is not true
JPBuysjr 3 weeks ago
@JPBuysjr By definition a maximally great being is one that exists necessarily and necessarily is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good. (Premise)
Possibly a maximally great being does not exist. (Premise)
Therefore, possibly an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being that, if it exists, exists necessarily, does not exist. (By 1 and 2)
Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist.
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@JPBuysjr Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist. (By 3 and Anti-S5)
Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist. (By 4 and since necessarily true propositions are true)
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@JPBuysjr That argument use the same logic the OA does . Both arguments are valid . One proving god existence and one proving god's nonexistence
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
@JPBuysjr Is this a reason why the OA is not true???
emailpobox666 3 weeks ago
"When people speak of god they have traditionally meant a personal being"
Gee, right out of the gate it they are spouting inaccuracies. The vast majority of people nad the amount of gods that have existed in the minds of religious people were non personal, pagan gods of the natural world. Not any monotheist one and only.
thor123422 1 month ago in playlist Ontological Argument
Ontological argument is Pointless to prove the existence of God.
It only works if you already assume that Gods already exists.
EdyMar77 1 month ago
A:"If God exists in one possible world, then he exists in all possible world."
If this is a true proposition, then also the following proposition is true:
B:"If there is one possible world in which God does not exist, then he doesn't exist in any possible world"
Proof:
Let the premise of B be true, i.e. assume there is a possible world in which God does not exist.
Towards a contradiction assume that the conclusion of B is false, i.e. there is also a possible world in which God does exist..
xknowledgeisfreex 1 month ago
@xknowledgeisfreex
..If there is a possible wolrd in which God does exist, then according to A God exists in all possible worlds, but this woud contradict the existence of a possible world in which God does not exist, as was the premise of B.
Therefore if the premise of B is true, then the conclusion of B cannot be false and must therefore also be true. Thus B is a true proposition.
If A is true, then B is also true.
xknowledgeisfreex 1 month ago
@xknowledgeisfreex
If A is true, as Platinga assumes, then B is also true and it would be sufficient to conceive of a possible world in which God does not exist from which it would follow that God doesn't exist in any possible world.
Clearly such a world is just as conceivable as the a world in which God does exist.
This shows that there is nothing gained by Platinga's argument.
xknowledgeisfreex 1 month ago
Taking this thought to the extreme, the most infinitely complex and greatest thing BELIEVED to exist by the religious is God - this makes God infinitely improbable - infinitely improbable is generally considered to be the same thing as impossible.
DevilsAvocado3 1 month ago
The most you could say about any existing objects 'greatness' is that it's existence is less probable than its non-existence, by virtue of the fact that any degree of complexity or configuration of matter is automatically less probable that nothing at all. The more complexity, the less probable it is and that applies to the most complex thing claimed to exist by believers
DevilsAvocado3 1 month ago
Also, the term: 'something that doesn't' exist, is an oxymoron - you can't have 'something' without it first existing. You can however have something that once existed, or a conceptualization of a thing that could, in principle exist. If said thing exists it does not need to be greater than not existing (This is a value judgement by a mind)
DevilsAvocado3 1 month ago
'Something that exists is greater than something that doesn't exist' is the same as saying 'something is always greater than nothing' - First, the term: 'is greater...' is a value judgement by a mind, and so is dependant on the opinions and interests of said mind. For example the existence of the malaria parasite would generally be considered LESS GREAT than it's non-existence from a human standpoint.
DevilsAvocado3 1 month ago
"But is it rational to make such a bold claim? "
The problem lies in the "logic concept of "Possibly"
Possibly means "it´s true in at least one possible world", it´s not the same "possibly " that we use in real life, in a way it´s much more restrictive, since it´s different that the "maybe" we attach to possibly.
So possibly god exists, means that "god exists in at least a possible world..."
So, you must still prove that "god exists in at least a possible world"...
elnauhual 1 month ago
The Ontological argument actually predates Anselm. Ibn Sina (Avicenna) developed his own Ontological argument before Anselm, so it doesn't originate with Anselm
bayreuth79 1 month ago
Ontological argument in a nutshell: "God exists, therefore God exists."
DeadFishFactory 1 month ago
@DeadFishFactory You're right . If you assume the possibility of god then the argument proves gods existence. It also proves gods nonexistence if you assume it's nonexistence. The first premise it the key to proving either it's existence or nonexistence
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666 So the argument is useless.
DeadFishFactory 1 month ago
@DeadFishFactory Pretty much. There is the Maydoyle modal perfection argument ( a vairint of the OA) More difficult to refute but still refutable. The definition of Maximal greatness which he use is incoherent. It's funny people of faith try to prove something which they freely admit is beyond nature ( supernatural) . It seems to me they feel foolish just saying that it's faith hence the attempt to offer proof
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@DeadFishFactory 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
@DeadFishFactory 4. Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist. (By 3 )
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
@emailpobox666 That is inaccurate.
BlakeRudy 1 month ago
The State of modern Philosophy is rather embarrassing. hearing arguments such as this delivered by supposed experts in the field is.... either the thing exists or it doesn't, our idea of it CAN be generated independently of existence. Take the creationist idea of a croco-duck, that obviously doesn't exist but is a combination of attributes from disparate entities combined into single thing conceived by a human mind.
swedey01 2 months ago
@swedey01 I have to agree, it seems modern philosophy has degenerated into nothing more than well hidden tautologies and clever word play. Totally useless and has no practical purpose in real life.
spammyadvertising 2 months ago
@spammyadvertising Derp.
tpoucat 1 month ago
@tpoucat "Derp."
The best comeback you have is name calling? As a prominent debater once said, 'the second your opponent has to resort to ad hominem attacks is the second you know you have won the argument.'
It seems like I've won this argument.
spammyadvertising 1 month ago
@spammyadvertising Only for an atheist.
BlakeRudy 1 month ago
@BlakeRudy And for the theist as well. I suppose it helps them sleep better at night and gives them a warm comfy feeling on the inside, but practically speaking the belief in God does not allow you to do anything which a lack of belief would prevent you from doing. You can still treat your fellow man well, you can still help the needy, you can still be genuinely happy and appreciative regardless of whether or not you believe in God.
spammyadvertising 1 month ago
@spammyadvertising Actually atheism is superior to theism. "You can still treat your fellow man well, you can still help the needy, you can still be genuinely happy and appreciative" Atheist act this way without reward without fear of punishment . Theists on the other hand are acting altruistic to curry favor with a god and avoid his wrath
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666 That sounds nice, until you find yourself spending eternity shut off from G-d. Thing is, you won't admit it then either. Hell is a self-actualized situation, the door being locked from the inside. G-d doesn't put you there; you do. Or you can save yourself and share eternity with your creator. Denying your very creator and the essence of all that is good is no small offense. It is beyond arrogant. Arrogance is not an admirable quality.
BlakeRudy 1 month ago
@spammyadvertising The one thing the atheist or agnostic cannot do is understand that their sins are forgiven. I think too that on the atheist view, there really is no meaning to life, since it will all inevitably end in an ever-expanding frigid universe devoid of light and life.
BlakeRudy 1 month ago
@BlakeRudy Atheists don't have sins
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666 Semantics. A sin is a transgression of a moral law. Whatever you call violating your morals is a sin. A lie, a theft, adultery, murder, rape... Of course I understand that some atheists deny the existence of any moral code. Maybe you're one of them.
BlakeRudy 1 month ago
@BlakeRudy societies moral cod yes
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666 So then atheists do have a moral code and thus can sin by breaking it. Just wondering though, which society's moral code would that be? Would it be the National Socialists' of Germany? The Marxist Stalinists'? The Maoists? The Taliban society's? Maybe the Iranian Mullahcracy's? Or do you follow the moral code of the bible and Jesus, treat others as you would like to be treated? Or the Bill and Ted version, "be excellent to each other." :)
BlakeRudy 1 month ago
@BlakeRudy The same societies moral code that you follow.You do realize that you don't follow the moral code of the bible. unless you believe uin slavery and stoning disobedient children
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666 Which society's moral code is correct? Is the Taliban's correct? Did the Nazi's have it right? On atheism, there is no basis for any objective moral values or duties. On atheism, morality is all relative, mere consensus. Without a basis for grounding moral values and duties, they can shift with public opinion.
This is not to say that atheists cannot be moral, not at all. We are talking about whether or not a permanent foundation for objective morals exist.
BlakeRudy 1 month ago
@BlakeRudy I know it most certainly not the biblical moral code of stoning disobedint children
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666 How do you know that? Despite your terrible mischaracterization, why would it be wrong in a time of grave wartime peril for a society of escaped slaves to enact harsh penalties against behavior which threatens their very existence? Are you interested to learn the history in context, or do you prefer to imagine that Christians abide by Mosaic law as if we were still a society of escaped slaves wandering a desert wilderness in a state of near constant warfare?
BlakeRudy 1 month ago
@BlakeRudy So evil acts are justified within CONTEXT. Souds subjective to me
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666 Is it evil or murder to execute spies during wartime? By your interpretation, it is. Is it evil in a time of grave peril to wantonly put the survival of an entire society in jeopardy? By your interpretation, it isn't.
BlakeRudy 1 month ago
@BlakeRudy Old Testamnet. Yahweh=jesus=holy spirit. Please try running away from the old testamnet
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666 I don't run away from the old testament at all. What I do is study it earnestly to ascertain the truth of its message. In order to do that, as with all history, one must understand context, culture, situation. You conveniently refuse to do that, choosing instead to cherry pick a single verse & grossly misrepresent it. You also conveniently ignore the New Testament, specifically the teachings of Jesus Christ & his Apostles. "Christ", the basis of Christianity.
BlakeRudy 1 month ago
@BlakeRudy Don't you find it absurd that your claiming objective morals and then saying that they change . If they were objective they would not change,. Stoning disobedient children slavery would all be accepted. would you rather they still were?
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666 You are confused. I've never said that objective morals change. You are concocting straw men. The circumstances of a crime are must inform adjudication of justice. You distort historical documentation pretending it is moral code. It is not. It is a record of history. If you continue to misrepresent "sons" as "children" and conveniently omit the "drunkard" aspect & the historical context, you are just deceiving, lying. That shows you've lost the honest debate.
BlakeRudy 1 month ago
@BlakeRudy
"Is it evil or murder to execute spies during wartime?"
-
Of course it is.
justforflag2 1 month ago
@justforflag2 By what basis? Virtually every nation on earth sentences wartime spies to death. Is every nation evil? You are a very confused person.
BlakeRudy 1 month ago
@BlakeRudy
A nation is not a person, therefore calling it "good" or "evil" is pointless.
But yes, any man that would make a law allowing the judge to issue capital punishment to a spy, is evil. Detention is still an option, you know. Capital punishment is never justifiable.
justforflag2 1 month ago
@justforflag2 Again I ask, by what basis? I'm not arguing that you are wrong. I am only asking by what basis do you arrive at your conclusion? Why would it be evil to execute a spy during wartime?
Is it evil to execute a murderer too, a mass-murderer?
BlakeRudy 1 month ago
@BlakeRudy
Sure, I'll explain.
Anyone who wishes to further capital punishment is evil, for it does not fix the mass-murderer no more than life in prison would, nor does it deter others. Unlike life in prison, though, it takes his life away.
A murderer, a rapist, a mass-murderer and a traitor of the worst kind should not have their right to life taken away, since doing so does not help with the problem.
justforflag2 1 month ago
@justforflag2 You've offered your personal opinion on a moral issue. You've provided zero basis for it being objectively true. Unless you are claiming that anything that "does not help with the problem" is immoral. I don't think you want to try to prove that.
BlakeRudy 1 month ago
@BlakeRudy
Would argue that killing, when it can be avoided, is not immoral? Because that's my point.
justforflag2 1 month ago
@justforflag2 But how/why, on atheism (absent any moral lawgiving authority over man), is that an objective moral value? It's just your opinion. We may agree on that, but what makes it an absolute moral value against which the behavior of all of humanity must be gauged?
BlakeRudy 1 month ago
@BlakeRudy
Oh, it's not, nothing is an objective moral value. You misunderstood me.
But it's almost always unjustifiable in cases like murder, or any crime for that matter, for the reasons I gave. However, for example in self-defense, the capital punishment delivered by the victim is certainly justifiable.
It's difficult to think of a case when "killing, when it can be avoided, is not immoral". That does not make it an absolute.
justforflag2 1 month ago
@BlakeRudy Why on theism do morals magically become "objective?" It is just God's opinion, even if he is the most powerful, and even if he did create us, it would still just be his opinion in terms of what is right and wrong morally. Our parents in a sense "created" us, does that mean that everything they say is right? If an extremely powerful person (e.g president of the United States) says something does what he say automatically become "right" just because of his power? I think not
spammyadvertising 1 month ago
@justforflag2 To clarify further, the point is not about the nation, but the behavior. We are talking about objectively moral behavior, not people, not nations, but whether objective moral values and duties exist. We agree that they do. I'm saying that they are of God, defined by and true to his nature, he is basis or foundation by which good is gauged. You offer only society. Society is not an unchanging basis, thus not objective.
BlakeRudy 1 month ago
@BlakeRudy You are incorrect. Because the moral values of a society have to maintain that society.any change would be incorporated into the society. This explains how outr morals are vastly different throughout our history. The objective moral argument assume god's existence it then uses the objective morals to prove god
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666 LOL. You might ought to commit to a little bit of elementary scholarship concerning the bible. History is not the same as moral code. Christians like me take the teachings of Jesus Christ as our moral code. The old testament includes books of history, poetry, and prophesy. The historic books include civil law for the Israelites as well as moral codes. Civil laws are not moral codes. Compare America's history of law during wartime to a personal moral code.
BlakeRudy 1 month ago
@BlakeRudy Let us not forget genocide slavery, rape child abuse and murder of women children and infants
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666 So you believe that Jesus teaches genocide, rape, child abuse and murder of women, children and infants? And you believe those are the values that Christians and Jews uphold? LOL! Ignorance alone informs your view. Educate yourself. You've been misled. The joke however is that on atheism, there is no basis whatsoever for condemning any of the acts you list.
BlakeRudy 1 month ago
@BlakeRudy There is a basis the moral code of our society.Which I say is morally superior to your Christian morals
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666 Deuteronomy 21:18-21? What would it mean to a group of escaped slaves wandering the desert wilderness faced with constant attack from vicious enemies to allow disobedience and discord among their ranks, especially instigated by their son as blatant disobedience, gluttony (eating more than his share) and drunkenness (behaving outrageously and irresponsibly)? The passage is not talking about little children. It speaks specifically of gluttonous drunkards.
BlakeRudy 1 month ago
@BlakeRudy The OA is a useless argument because the argument can be used to prove god's nonexistence.If your gonna bring up Maximal greatness that my friend is incoherent
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@BlakeRudy
"The one thing the atheist or agnostic cannot do is understand that their sins are forgiven."
My "sins" are forgiven by my loved ones and members of my inner social circle, who choose to love me anyway despite my shortcomings. The one thing that the theist cannot do is understand that you're not an inherently bad person who requires the "forgiveness" of anyone beyond those you're directly accountable to.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 1 month ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx Must be nice to know only folks who will always forgive you. I don't have that good fortune. Nor is it my luck to only offend those who are my friends or family. So who forgives your bad behavior when it affects those who are not your friends or family, or if even those are unwilling to forgive you?
BlakeRudy 1 month ago
@BlakeRudy
"o who forgives your bad behavior when it affects those who are not your friends or family, or if even those are unwilling to forgive you?"
I haven't done anything to anyone that they would consider unforgivable. In my family, we have this thing called "communication" where we talk through our differences until we come to a resolution. What "bad" behavior am I guilty of committing to complete strangers? Did I cut someone off in traffic? Was I having a bad day and I was a bit rude?
xxxrokkstarrxxx 1 month ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx What bad behavior have you committed? You tell me. Unless you are some kind of saint, there will surely be a plethora of such behavior in your life. No regrets? No baggage? You never bullied anyone, taunted anyone, disparaged anyone? Have you been forgiven? Your behavior here is quite outrageous and insulting, exposing a willful disdain towards those with whom you disagree, referring to Christianity as a "sadistic creed" of "tales of fairy godfathers".
BlakeRudy 1 month ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx You lump all theists in on bucket. I think you meant Christians. Other theists might way that we atone for our sins through our good acts and by sacrifices. Do you not believe that humans are innately sinners? Name one who has achieved adulthood who hasn't sinned.
BlakeRudy 1 month ago
@BlakeRudy
"Do you not believe that humans are innately sinners? Name one who has achieved adulthood who hasn't sinned."
The fact that people make mistakes doesn't make them inherently bad, and certainly doesn't mean they deserve to die. Punishment should be proportionate to the nature of the offense, and most people haven't done anything severe enough to warrant paying for it with their very lives, contrary to what your sadistic creed might have taught you.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 1 month ago
@BlakeRudy
"think too that on the atheist view, there really is no meaning to life"
I've found that my life has plenty of meaning, and I've been the one responsible for providing that deeper meaning for MYSELF. For me, it's simply to be the best person I can be, and to offer the most of my humanity for the benefit of others as I possibly can. The notion of an eternal playground in the sky hardly offers any more substance or meaning to life than the notion of an enchanted forest does.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 1 month ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx How can any endeavor have any true meaning if it is to end in oblivion? Please explain.
BlakeRudy 1 month ago
@BlakeRudy
"since it will all inevitably end in an ever-expanding frigid universe devoid of light and life."
Yes, you are correct that the preponderance of the evidence seems to indicate the universe will one day "end". In 10^100 YEARS! Is that not enough time for you to find "meaning" in existence? The book I'm reading will eventually end as well, it doesn't even have 10^100 pages (only a meager 500 and something). Why is anything not "eternal" or "infinite" always dubbed as "meaningless"?
xxxrokkstarrxxx 1 month ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx When makes no difference to the point. Time is relative. The fact that all of existence is for naught is the issue. Absent god, life is a joke, meaning an illusion. On atheism, we are inconsequential, no more valuable than dust. It's an incredibly dark & absurd view to most folks. What meaning can life have if it's entire result is nothingness, non-existence, complete & utter annihilation? If there are no consequences, of what import is our behavior?
BlakeRudy 1 month ago
@BlakeRudy What if there is a God and you can have an eternal soul that can come to know and unite with God? What if out of foolishness or arrogance you shun such an opportunity? How would your life change if tomorrow through some means you discovered irrefutably that Christianity was true?
BlakeRudy 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BlakeRudy
"How would your life change if tomorrow through some means you discovered irrefutably that Christianity was true?"
I've already discovered to my satisfaction that Christianity can't possibly be true. That isn't very likely to happen. I already lead a very good and humble life. So to humor you, nothing would really change, except my IQ would probably drop a few points.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 1 month ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx What if... just what if you've been deceived and misled? What if you are wrong? What if you are throwing away an eternity in heaven with your creator? You say you have a good life. What is "good"? You've never done anything less than admirable? Compared to pure goodness, pure love and wisdom, how does your life stack up, really? What if you have been deceived, misled down a path of utter ruin? What is the risk to investigate? Christians are happy folks.
BlakeRudy 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BlakeRudy
"How would your life change if tomorrow through some means you discovered irrefutably that Christianity was true?"
I've already discovered to my satisfaction that Christianity can't possibly be true. That isn't very likely to happen. I already lead a very good and humble life. So to humor you, nothing would really change, except my IQ would probably drop a few points.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xxxrokkstarrxxx Why not answer the question honestly? No closed-minded intolerant atheist ever will. Surely you can do so. How would your life change if tomorrow through whatever means you discovered irrefutably that Christianity was true, that you do have an immortal soul and that all you need do to enjoy eternity with all that is good is to follow G-d's will and seek salvation through Jesus Christ? It's not like Christians are miserable people. We are generally happy.
BlakeRudy 1 month ago
@BlakeRudy
I don't believe in God, and I don't believe life is a joke. You clearly aren't satisfied with anything less than immortality and aren't capable of finding deeper meaning in a life that isn't rewarded with a big giant carnival at the end. I find that to be a completely vacant and shallow worldview. I think that our fragility and our mortality makes our lives infinitely more meaningful for precisely the reason that it WILL come to an end someday, and it's the only one we've got.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 1 month ago
@BlakeRudy
In my humble opinion, those who need immortality and an "ultimate" reward in the afterlife in order to find meaning in the life they're living right now are merely living the ultimately selfish existence. You strive to be better to achieve immortality in the afterlife and expect to be rewarded for choosing the right beliefs; I on the other hand, strive to be better with no expectation of a reward whatsoever. So who is acting selflessly and who is acting selfishly?
xxxrokkstarrxxx 1 month ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx Really i don't fallow any of this video(seems to not make sense) or double-talk .Maybe some Christians are living for a reward but most i think are living for others,i don't know that to be fact but that is the way i live my life anyway.I think we all do things if it helps us in some way even if that is just be be a better person.
daplet 1 month ago
@BlakeRudy
Lastly, life has plenty of meaning if you OPEN your eyes and find it. If you can't find it without tales of fairy godfathers and expecting a big giant reward for living it the right way, then that's a shortcoming of your own. And if you think there are no consequences for the way you live your life, then you haven't been paying much attention.
xxxrokkstarrxxx 1 month ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx I don't think you are comprehending the utter futility and absurdity of life absent G-d and ending in total annihilation. As Nietzsche observed, absent G-d, anything is permissible and nihilism is the rule. Nothing has any meaning. How can there be any consequences if all the future holds is annihilation and death? Everyone is non-existent. Nietzsche was an atheist, but was honest enough to admit this. Then he committed suicide.
BlakeRudy 1 month ago
@xxxrokkstarrxxx Your disdainful insulting characterization of Christianity is revealing. G-d haters seldom seek thoughtful informative dialogue.
BlakeRudy 1 month ago
@BlakeRudy I find it quite sad and disturbing that so many people need to believe in God and the eternal reward of heaven and the eternal punishment of hell in order to do what it right. I am not against believing in God at all. If it makes one feel better psychologically then they should by all means continue to believe. But I realize that in a material sense the belief in God is meaningless. It doesn't allow you to do anything which you would not be able to do if you lacked belief.
spammyadvertising 1 month ago
@spammyadvertising You really ought to do yourself justice and try to better understand Christianity. It's nothing like you seem to imagine or what is presented in popular culture. Salvation is a gift. Eternity is a long time. If we refuse grace and choose instead to separate ourselves from all that is good and meaningful, that would be kinda sucky, don't you think. If I'm wrong, no big deal for me or you. If I'm right ... ?
BlakeRudy 1 month ago
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 2 months ago
@emailpobox666 Wooow so smart :) ... *sigh*
babkrani 2 months ago
@babkrani Both arguments are ridiculous. I only show that the assumption of the premise leads to the conclusion. If you assume that god exists god exists, if you assume god doesn't exist god doesn't exist
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666 No you just didn't understand :), if you assume that possibly a maximally perfect being doesn't exist, then in the same time you just assumed that he possibly exists, thus it follows that he necessarily exists. So in your case saying "i don't understand" is more honest than saying "its ridiculous" ;) ...
babkrani 2 months ago
@babkrani I understand it quite well my friend. You can assume that he doesn't exist and prove that he doesn't exist. Axiom S5 proves nothing
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@babkrani You logic is fallacious my friend. Either x exists or x doesn't exist. Assuming the premise that x doesn't exist does not in any way generate the counter argument that x does exist.
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666 And i still insist that you didn't understand.
A hint: notice the word "possibly".
babkrani 2 months ago
@babkrani You definition of possibility a is the intuitive definition not the scientific definition. It seem right to leave the possibility of god existence. this in no way helps your argument.A premise of god exists or a premise of god doesn't exist . Something defined as existing necessarily is defined into existence
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666 In modal logic, there is 2 types of existence, contingent and necessary. The possibility of God's existence makes him existing in a possible world, a reality in which God dod exist, and by the definition, a maximally perfect being if he exists, he must exist in all the possible words. And by this we conclude that God exists in our world. So whatyou have to do is to prove that a maximally perfect being, CANNOT exist in NO possible world.
babkrani 2 months ago
@babkrani You have to assume the possibility that he exist which is equal in value to the assumption that he doesn't exist. The choice of premise is a matter of your personal preference. Unless you have a way of differentiating the choice of premise in favor of God exists my is equivalent
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@babkrani "maximally perfect being if he exists, he must exist in all the possible words he must exist in all the possible words" and if a maximally perfect being doesn't exist, he must not exist in all the possible words. Logically both have the same value
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@babkrani "So whatyou have to do is to prove that a maximally perfect being, CANNOT exist in NO possible world." No all you have to assume is that a MGB doesn't exist. Like your assumption that a MGB does exist
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@babkrani define existence please. is it better to exist than not to exist?
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@babkrani If, in the reasoning behind Axiom S5, when making the “Possibly G is true” (or “Possibly G exists”) premise we also assert the premise “It is impossible that G is false” (or “It is impossible that G does not exist”) then no contradiction occurs and the logic is valid.
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@babkrani If you would like I can explain the modal perfection argument to you.
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@babkrani Are you asserting that it is impossible for god not to exist?
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666 If God's existance is merely possible then yes i assert that it is impossible for God not to exist. I already told you, there should be a proof that God cannot exist in any possibility so you can prove that God doesn't exist.
babkrani 2 months ago
@babkrani That assumption makes your argument trival
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@babkrani Don't despair it also makes my argument trivial
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@babkrani I knew my argument was trivial prior to making it
emailpobox666 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@babkrani "there should be a proof that God cannot exist in any possibility" Should there also be proof that there not an invisible dragon in my garage? I'm not the one making an assertion with a logical argument. Just know the argument fails
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@babkrani Did tyou understand why I said your argument is trivial? If you assume the existence of god to prove the existence of god .....
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666 I really in a moment hoped, that just because you didn't understand you could come to your senses, and start inverstigating God's existence. But .... :(
Anyways, good luck.
babkrani 2 months ago
@babkrani So what you choose to have faith and then wrap it in a cloak of flawed logic and I'm supposed to respect that? Admit the ontological argument fails or defend it
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@babkrani It is you my friend that doesn't understand the argument
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@babkrani You admitted that the premise of assertion of god existence is a requirement for your argument and the only way you have of making this assertion is on faith.Please explain how you reconcile this .
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666 Ok i'll try to explain it without symbols. A MGB includes all perfection so the negation of a MGB is a being that has no perfection. It is possible for a being that has no perfection not to exist, therefore it is possible for a maximally perfect being to exist. That is my argument for the first premise.
babkrani 2 months ago
@babkrani You haven't defined perfection." It is possible for a being that has no perfection not to exist, " This makes absolutely no sense." it is possible for a maximally perfect being to exist." ans it is also possible for a MGB not to exist
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666 Dude I have debated the modal perfection argument also so please if you are going to attempt to uae it at least use it correctly
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666 Perfection is being all powerfull, all knowing, all good, and necessarily existing in all possible worlds etc ... Thus the negation have a necessary possibility of a non-existance in some possible world. And yes of course it is possible for a MGB not to exist, but also this possibility means that he necessarily exists.
babkrani 2 months ago
@babkrani It exists necessarily. meaning if he odes exist in a possible world he exists in all possible worlds. You back to square one. What you fail to realize that the ontological argument make a better case for gods nonexistence than it does for his existence
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666 Shall I list the problems with the argument or would you rather go over each one individually
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666 Can you please explain why ?
babkrani 2 months ago
@babkrani Why what?
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666 Why the ontological argument make a better case for gods nonexistence than it does for his existence ?
babkrani 2 months ago
@babkrani Given an entity G which, if it exists, necessarily exists, then if possibly G exists and possibly G does not exist we can say:
• There is a possible world w1 in which G exists and in which G exists in all possible worlds (because G can only exist necessarily).
• There is a possible world w2 in which G does not exist and in which there are different,
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@babkrani continued logically contradicting, possible worlds of type w3 in which G exists and of type w4 in which G does not exist.and, because we assert the premises that possibly G exists and possibly G does not exist, the actual world cannot be like w1, so G does not exist in the actual world.
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@babkrani statements of logical possibility are meaningful, together with the need to accept logically inconsistent possible worlds that it implies. The alternative would have to be such as declaring statements of logical possibility and logically inconsistent possible worlds invalid and making the term “possibly necessary” incoherent or seeking refuge in informal possibility.
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@babkrani “Conceivability” seems to be a common idea in ontological arguments. I do not think it is so much about human brains and their powers of conception specifically but somehow about the “admissibility”, “coherency” or “capability of being expressed” of some description of an aspect of the world. Essentially, something is viewed as “possible” if the claim can be encoded in some way – one such way being as arrangements of neurons in human brains.
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666 I9 I think i just recently dealt with another identical argument ot this. Now what you do is claiming that a MGB can possibly exist in a possible world W1 and not exist in another one W2. Now lets start with supposing that a MGB doesn't exist in a possible world W2 and try prove reasoning by the absurd that this world does not exist.
See more ...
babkrani 2 months ago
@babkrani " his world does not exist." it's a possible world.I'm gonna have to resume this tomorrow since I'm drinking my Sam Adams Boston Ale and my reasoning abilities are quickly fading. Have a Happy New Year
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666 Happy new year brother :D
babkrani 2 months ago
@emailpobox666 Now we also have that a MGB exists in W1, thus we conclude that a MGB necessarily exists in all the possible worlds, from this we conclude that a MGB won't make a possible world in which he cannot exist, therefore W2 cannot exist.
babkrani 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@babkrani Shall I list the problems with the argument or would you rather go over each one individually
emailpobox666 2 months ago
@emailpobox666 The existence of objective moral values and duties, which you likely endorse, is the only positive premise of the argument. It goes like this... 1. If G-d does not exist, object moral values & duties do not exist. 2. Objective moral values & duties do exist. 3. Therefore G-d exists. It merely states that on atheism, as Nietzsche recognized, without G-d, everything is permissible, meaning there is no good or bad, right or wrong; nihilism is the only rule.
BlakeRudy 1 month ago
@BlakeRudy No actually It's the opposite argument Craig uses. Craig says God exists there fore objective morals exist therefore god exists. Let me ask you something should we have slavery or stone disobedient children as the old testament say.
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666 You are mistaken. That proof is taken verbatim from Dr. Craig's web site, reasonablefaith daht org. Of course he may have once employed other forms, but the one above is his currently preferred form of the moral argument for God. I think what we should have is people who actually read scripture intending to understand it rather than lie about it on the internet. Wise up.
BlakeRudy 1 month ago
@BlakeRudy You mean the same Dr Craig who admitted that thew cosmological argument is incoherent 15 years ago and still uses it as a proof? the same Dr. Craig who said he would ignore any evidence against Christianity . That Dr Craig?
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666 Try to focus. I'm entirely uninterested in following your discordant meandering line of discussion. Which cosmological argument? There are many. Not all are coherent. Craig debates atheists presenting arguments against Christianity all the time. Hardly the act of someone ignoring them. Again, try to focus. I'm entirely uninterested in following your discordant meandering line of discussion.
BlakeRudy 1 month ago
@BlakeRudy The Kalam Cosmological argument the one Craig uses in every single debate
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@BlakeRudy Craig uses the Kalam Cosmiological argumet in everydebate no matter who he is debating. Funny thing is 15 years ago he admitted it was incoherent. why would Craig portray this argument as valid when he is aware that it is incoherent? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that he would IGNORE EVIDENCE against Christianity
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666 There are numerous forms of the Kalam cosmological argument, some of which are likely incoherent. The form he presents is certainly not incoherent. Debating you is not offering anything of value to me. So long and have fun.
BlakeRudy 1 month ago