Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:46 am

tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:58 amYou should allow for the possibility that it does make sense, but that you don't understand.

I allowed for it, examined it, and rejected it in this case.

Here again is what you don't think makes sense:

tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:58 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:21 pmAnyone who did not know they were in a "simulation" would never think to call it a "simulation." Anyone who knew it was a "simulation" would also have to believe there was something "real" that the "simulation" was "simulating."

The point I was making is that if the ontological argument has any merit, it is because the greatest thing conceivable has to be the most real thing. That is the rationale behind Plato's theory of Forms and the premise on which Kalam, Anselm and Descartes constructed their arguments. If the world is not a simulation, there is no logical proof of God.

The argument that Kalam, Anselm, Descartes and Plantinga all make rests on necessary existence being conceptually greater than contingent existence. Since you cite the Bible telling us we are made in God's image; as contingent beings, we are ontologically subordinate to the necessary being of God. We are imperfect simulations of a perfect reality. Which bit doesn't make sense?

tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:40 am The argument that Kalam, Anselm, Descartes and Plantinga all make rests on necessary existence being conceptually greater than contingent existence.

Is there any reason you ignored the contemporary ontological argument?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... ical_proof

The subtle point in Gödel's argument is that it relies on having some prior notion of decidability.

God exists as a concept (in minds). The existence of such a God is decidable.
God's existence as a necessary ontological entity is presently undecided and perhaps undecidable.

But the possibility of such existence is sufficient for a proof by contradiction.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:13 pm I'm denying your claim that there is no evidence for God.

Immanuel - You can only claim evidence for your own personal God. You cannot deny what someone else claims. Is that clear to you?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:40 amIs there any reason you ignored the contemporary ontological argument?

The same as I ignored all the other versions. For all the subtlety, all ontological arguments fail for the same reason. My own view is that while logic might suggest where to dig, it won't provide any evidence.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:26 am all ontological arguments fail for the same reason.

This one doesn't fail for any of the reasons you think it fails.

It succeeds BECAUSE our (current) logic systems allow for proof-by-contradiction.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:26 am My own view is that while logic might suggest where to dig, it won't provide any evidence.

Logic does nothing of that sort. Logic itself is empirical. To arrive at logic you require evidence.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:37 amThis one doesn't fail for any of the reasons you think it fails.

Great. So show me God.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:41 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:37 amThis one doesn't fail for any of the reasons you think it fails.

Great. So show me God.

It's proven to exist IF one accepts Classical logic as a valid proof-system.

What you interpret as being God. Well - that's entirely up to you

To explain it simply. We can prove that happiness, compassion, empathy, morality etc exist by using proof-by-contradiction/reductio ad absurdum when we assume their non-existence. So we conclude they exist.

Now show me love, happiness, compassion, empathy, morality etc.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:40 am The argument that Kalam, Anselm, Descartes and Plantinga all make

"The Kalam" argument is an argument, not a person. There was no guy named "Kalam": the first philosopher to articulate it was probably Plato, but then Ibn Sina. "Kalam" means "argument." Anselm and Plantinga are spokesmen for the Ontological Argument, not the Kalam. William Lane Craig is the greatest advocate of the Kalam in modern times.

Which bit doesn't make sense?

Any of it. You've blended the Kalam with the Ontological Argument, and then got both wrong. Sorry.

Check it out: you'll see I'm right.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:26 am You can only claim evidence for your own personal God. You cannot deny what someone else claims. Is that clear to you?

Not at all. I understand the words you are using, but I think the form an untrue claim.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:55 pm

tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:40 amWhich bit doesn't make sense?

Any of it. You've blended the Kalam with the Ontological Argument, and then got both wrong. Sorry.

Check it out: you'll see I'm right.

Ah yes, you're quite right; I'm throwing in cosmological arguments with ontological. We can make it as broad as necessary to include any other logical arguments that aim to demonstrate the existence of God, because they all fail for the same reason. Logic can only prove that an argument is valid, it cannot prove any premises are true. If you happen to believe the premises of logical arguments for God, it is because they appeal to you. And we're back to aesthetics.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:42 amNow show me love, happiness, compassion, empathy, morality etc.

And we're back to aesthetics.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:46 pm And we're back to aesthetics.

Are we?

Show me aesthetics.

And if you cant, I expect a rejection of existence from you.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:49 pmShow me aesthetics.

You either feel it, or you don't.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:51 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:49 pmShow me aesthetics.

You either feel it, or you don't.

Don't worry about me... You show me aesthetics.

If YOU can't show me aesthetics . Why do YOU claim they exist?

And I can go on ad-infinitum attacking every single concept, feeling or idea you've ever have in your head.

And you aren't going to like it.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:53 pmAnd I can go on ad-infinitum attacking every single concept, feeling or idea you've ever have in your head.

I know. That is the Socratic method.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:53 pmAnd you aren't going to like it.

You're a bit late. It's basic philosophical training.