100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist

[Immanuel Can]

As for Plantinga's modal OA, it is pure drivel as I have explained.

Well, I'll let Plantinga respond to Plantinga's model. Did you contact him and offer your critique? I think that if you're certain of your ground and interested in the advancement of the truth, then that's what you should do.

[Immanuel Can]

Is it sufficient to establish the existence of something by hypothetical means
Do you not think empirical evidence is actually a much more reliable method

There's a difference between "hypothetical" and "analytic." Analytic things are conceptual-definitional and logical, not speculative. The OA is analytic, not hypothetical.

Empirical methods are, in some ways, less reliable than logic. We can know of a certainty what 2 + 2 is, even without empirical tests, and with full certainty. The limitation of empirical methods is that they can only yield high-probability results, but not certain ones for cases that have not yet been tried. Moreover, you cannot do any empirical work unless your analytic work is already established. For example, how do you know whether test 1 is relevant to test 2, unless subject 1 and subject 2 are already known to definitionally be "the same item"?

The two methods -- analytical and empirical/probabilistic -- are always involved whenever we say we "know" something in the physical world. Empirical conclusions rely on having your definitions and logic straight in the first place. To throw one out would be like throwing out one of your two hands...you might prefer the left, but you'll do much better if you use both. Use only one, and you'll be more likely to be mistaken.

[Immanuel Can]

As to whether the Supreme Being is supposed to exist in additional sense to a concept, you always forget to say.

Seriously? Of course.

Yes, if your concept of Supreme Being is coherent it will be coherent. It would then be a 'coherent concept'.

Well, the OA begins when you answer that question: is "Supreme Being" a coherent concept.

Do you regard it as such?

I'm trying to explain what the OA is. But we can't get premise 1 right, because people don't know the difference between a question about "conceptual coherence" and one about empirical existence. For that matter, I've never gotten an answer about whether or not you regard the concept itself as coherent.

But I can see we're going in circles.

The OP promises definitive proof that God does not exist, not that the OA is tenable. So maybe rather than batting around Anselm or Plantinga, we should move on. I think we've tried to sort the OA out long enough.

[uwot]

Well, I'll let Plantinga respond to Plantinga's model. Did you contact him and offer your critique?

The thing with Immanuel Can, is that his understanding of logic doesn't really extend beyond scholasticism; you may have noted the appeals to Plantinga, rather than any exposition.

I rest my case.

[uwot]

Well, the OA begins when you answer that question: is "Supreme Being" a coherent concept.

"Supreme Being" is a coherent concept.
Next.

[Immanuel Can]

So many posts in support of the OA but you never get round to explaining what the OA is or what you think it proves

Mr Can thinks it proves the existence of God but it does no such thing. As you and I have explained to him just because
something is logically coherent does not mean it actually exists. The former does not indicate the latter. That is a non
sequitur and therefore a logical fallacy which renders his argument invalid. So he needs to come up with a better one

In actual fact, this reverses the claim of the OP.

The claim the OP was that there would be offered proof for the NON-Existence of God(s).

The ensuing strategy from the Atheist set is transparent. It goes like this:


1. Reverse the question: make it, "How do we know God exists?"

2. Reduce all arguments for God to the most complex argument to understand (the OA). Pretend that no other arguments exist.

3. Refuse to understand it under any circumstances.

4. Claim that if we can't make the OA clear, then the goal of the OP has been achieved.


But when we go back to the OP, we see nothing of its promise has been achieved. Even if we grant the Atheist set their strategy, all they've managed to achieve if the complication of the most obscure of the Theistic arguments...not "100% proof" that no God(s) exist(s). Not even 50% proof, for that matter...nothing at all, in the way of what was promised.

So what do I think the OA proves? Nothing, if one doesn't even see it.

But this much we do get from the earlier conversation: that if something is not conceptually coherent, it does not exist. There are no "married bachelors," and no "square circles." So conceptual coherence remains a basic test for existence. Nothing has been done to show that the idea "Supreme Being" is not conceptually coherent, so we're good to move on.

The OP promises us a good deal more. Does anybody actually think the OP'er can pay the cheque he's written?

[uwot]

Does anybody actually think the OP'er can pay the cheque he's written?

No.
Anyway: "Supreme Being" is a coherent concept. Your move, Mr Can.

[Londoner]

Me: As to whether the Supreme Being is supposed to exist in additional sense to a concept, you always forget to say.

Seriously? Of course.

And in giving that response, yet again you seem to have forgotten to answer what must surely be a basic question.

Me: Yes, if your concept of Supreme Being is coherent it will be coherent. It would then be a 'coherent concept'.

Well, the OA begins when you answer that question: is "Supreme Being" a coherent concept.

Do you regard it as such?

I cannot tell because you won't explain it.

But - yet again - I don't care. I'm quite happy to assume it is a coherent concept.

I'm trying to explain what the OA is. But we can't get premise 1 right, because people don't know the difference between a question about "conceptual coherence" and one about empirical existence. For that matter, I've never gotten an answer about whether or not you regard the concept itself as coherent.

Never mind. Don't let my inability to guess what your concept is hold us back. To be absolutely clear: let's assume your concept is coherent.

Now get on with the OA!

But I can see we're going in circles.

The OP promises definitive proof that God does not exist, not that the OA is tenable. So maybe rather than batting around Anselm or Plantinga, we should move on. I think we've tried to sort the OA out long enough.

Battling around Anselm and Plantinga! Sort out the OA! We haven't started on the OA yet.

We don't know yet what your OA is supposed to prove about the Supreme Being, let alone what your OA is.

[Immanuel Can]

Me: As to whether the Supreme Being is supposed to exist in additional sense to a concept, you always forget to say.

Seriously? Of course.

And in giving that response, yet again you seem to have forgotten to answer what must surely be a basic question.

I just answered it...are your glasses clean?

"Of course" means, "Yes." Jawhol. Oui. Da. Si. Ja. 是.

Oy vey.

[surreptitious57]

But this much we do get from the earlier conversation : that if something is not conceptually coherent it does not exist. There are
no married bachelors and no square circles. So conceptual coherence remains a basic test for existence. Nothing has been done to
show that the idea Supreme Being is not conceptually coherent so we re good to move on

Things that exist are conceptually coherent but things that are conceptually coherent do not necessarily exist. So things that exist are therefore
a sub set of things that are conceptually coherent. If for the sake of argument we accept God is conceptually coherent it does not automatically
follow that he must exist. The test for this is empirical evidence. When I asked you before you could not offer any but instead gave me personal experience which counts for absolutely nothing. From that I conclude that while God might conceivably exist Mr Can who presumably believes in him with all his heart and mind and body and soul cannot convince a forum of sceptical atheists that he does. And that is why we are all atheists

[Immanuel Can]

If for the sake of argument we accept God is conceptually coherent it does not automatically
follow that he must exist.

The OA argues it does, based on the analytics of SB. However, since that seems an unpopular line of thought even to entertain, we can move on.

The equine we are flagellating in recirculating to the empirical seems rather...moribund.

The test for this is empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence is a test of empirical reality. It does not test for coherence of a concept. You can no more test the coherence of a concept by empirical means than you can locate the mathematical placeholder π in geographical space.

When I asked you before you could not offer any but instead gave me personal experience

I did not. We've been speaking only about conceptual coherence in regard to the OA. I did not bring in personal experience in aid of that, if for no other reasons because experience is empirical and the OA begins with the conceptual. I think you'll find I've repeatedly made that claim.

From that I conclude that while God might conceivably exist Mr Can who presumably believes in him with all his heart and mind and body and soul cannot convince a forum of sceptical atheists that he does. And that is why we are all atheists

This is what I mean by Atheists loving to rejoice too early. We have not even touched on any of the empirical evidences for the Supreme Being, and yet it seems you are excited to declare victory and depart the field.

Okay.

Well, one can always do that. It's just not the best way to arrive at the facts.

[surreptitious57]

We have not even touched on any of the empirical evidences for the Supreme Being and yet it seems you are excited to declare victory

Empirical evidence is all that matters and now that you are finally discussing it you will have no problem presenting it so away you go

[davidm]

As for Plantinga's modal OA, it is pure drivel as I have explained.

Well, I'll let Plantinga respond to Plantinga's model. Did you contact him and offer your critique? I think that if you're certain of your ground and interested in the advancement of the truth, then that's what you should do.

Why should I contact Plantinga? Why don't you respond to my deconstruction of Plantinga's OA? Do you think I'm wrong? Right? Did you notice I used his exact logic to "prove" that Goldbach's Conjecture is true? Did you notice how stupid that is? Did you want me to disprove God's existence by using Plantinga's exact logic? It's easy to do. Want to see it?

[Immanuel Can]

Why should I contact Plantinga?

For two reasons: firstly, because it's the very best possible place for you to advance a critique you think is decisive; and secondly, because you have expressed some extremely strong negative views about his person and motives. So it seems not only the most practical but also the only decent thing to do.

[Immanuel Can]

Empirical evidence is all that matters and now that you are finally discussing it you will have no problem presenting it so away you go

This work has been done many times before. I can list off the arguments for you, if you wish.

But if your interest is serious, I can't think of a better resource for you than The Blackwell Guide to Natural Theology. It has most of the major arguments articulated by the experts in each field. Plantinga's in there, for example. And it deals with everything from experiential and historical arguments up to the most complicated conceptual arguments. Anybody who genuinely wants to say they've met and addressed the Theistic challenges probably couldn't do better by way of a source.

But meanwhile, we have the OP. We were offered proofs that God does NOT exist. Not only do we not have any 100%-ers, so far as I can tell, we don't have anything at all so far.