Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2017 6:44 pm
Me: And we can only answer that if we know what the existence of the Supreme Being is supposed to entail.

We do.

There would be a "being."

And this "being" would be supreme.

See Plantinga.

Does the being have any physical, material existence - or does it exist is some form that is unconnected to the physical world - or is it simply an idea in your head; a 'possibility'?

Plantinga manages to find forms of words that avoid saying.

Me: It might be self-contradictory therefore impossible.

Explain the possibly self-contradictory element in the above. It should be easy...like "married bachelor."

If, for example, it was supposed to be completely outside the material world but also interacts with it in some way.

But I sense you have given up on this one.

DavidM wrote:

With respect to the “conceptual coherence” of a “supreme being,” this is going to depend on how one defines “supreme” and “being.” I think that the traditional Christian concept of God entails at least one logical impossibility, which means such a being cannot exist at any possible world (i.e., is necessarily non-existent).

Doesn't Incarnation for Christian Trinitarians, and revelation by the angel Gabriel for Muslims, bring God into the world of time and relativity?

Londoner wrote: ↑Wed Jul 12, 2017 9:30 am Does the being have any physical, material existence - or does it exist is some form that is unconnected to the physical world - or is it simply an idea in your head; a 'possibility'?

That's pretty clear, actually. In the conclusion, it's the normal meaning of "exist." The difficulty davidm is having is figuring out how "possible" can be a stage on the way to that conclusion. He'll find his answer when he grasps the concept of "Supreme Being" itself...if he wishes to grasp it. I'm not sure whether he actually wants to understand the OA, or just to maintain the misunderstanding that enables him to dismiss it. Only he'll know the answer to that question.

If, for example, it was supposed to be completely outside the material world but also interacts with it in some way. But I sense you have given up on this one.

I can't imagine where you're getting that sense from. It seems to me I'm still looking for that alleged example of something that is analytically self-contradictory and yet exists empirically.

duplicate

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:54 pm
Me: Does the being have any physical, material existence - or does it exist is some form that is unconnected to the physical world - or is it simply an idea in your head; a 'possibility'?

That's pretty clear, actually. In the conclusion, it's the normal meaning of "exist."

I'm glad it's clear. Then you will have no problem telling me what that meaning is, with respect to the Supreme Being.

Me: But I sense you have given up on this one.

I can't imagine where you're getting that sense from. It seems to me I'm still looking for that alleged example of something that is analytically self-contradictory and yet exists empirically.

I do not understand what this riddle has to do with the subject.

A self-contradictory idea is just an idea. And a not-self-contradictory idea is also just an idea. Neither exist empirically.

To say that something exists empirically is to say that we know it through our senses. We do not smell, touch, hear, see or taste ideas.

Things that exist empirically (i.e. objects) are neither self-contradictory, or not self-contradictory, because they do not assert anything.

I'm never dissappointed as to how confused a theist can be, I just listened to a youtube broadcast of "The Atheist Experience" and the caller tried to claim that an atom was very complex and must have been created. The hosts then got her to agree that God was more complex than an atom but when asked what created God she tried to say that God didn't need to be created. The hosts then called her on it by saying that she was trying to change the rules. Then she kept trying to change the subject by asking a lot of irrelevant questions and she couldn't answer the question or kept trying to dodge it, "since God is more complex than an atom and the atom must have been created because it is so complex, who created God?", and she wouldn't answer. She kept claiming that God didn't need a creator even though God was more complex than an atom and an atom must have been created because it is so complex.

I tried to call in to that show once but since I wasn't foisting a claim that was easily refuted the person taking the calls would not put me though to the hosts on air, I suppose I wasn't controversial enough and I wasn't proposing some claim that was easily refuted. After listening to a few shows I noticed that they would take calls only from the most ridiculous callers with the lamest claims. None of the callers showed any clear signs of intelligence even though most claim some education, but the claimed education didn't show in their comments.

And I never cease to be amazed at how simple-minded and evasive atheists can be. I mean, someone who needs `essence` to be defined for them has no business posting in a philosophy of religion forum.

Doc, pantheists claim that nature is the cause of itself.

Theists and deists claim that God which is the cause of itself is the cause of nature.

Atheists are not homogenous: Reflex, please note.

Reflex, don't be so snooty. There are different academic levels and we are all here to learn. If you want to teach what 'essence' means, please go ahead and do so. I suggest you proceed via physical analogies such as perfumery or cookery.

Reflex wrote: ↑Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:12 pm I mean, someone who needs `essence` to be defined for them

They just don't like it being called God.

Yet they have no qualms about calling themselves Tom, Dick or Harry or Harbal

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:30 pm Doc, pantheists claim that nature is the cause of itself.

Theists and deists claim that God which is the cause of itself is the cause of nature.

Atheists are not homogenous: Reflex, please note.

Reflex, don't be so snooty. There are different academic levels and we are all here to learn. If you want to teach what 'essence' means, please go ahead and do so. I suggest you proceed via physical analogies such as perfumery or cookery.

Don't be so self-righteous, Belinda. Theists and deists are not as homogeneous as you suggest, not everyone is here to learn, atheists are homogeneous because they are functionally the same, and analogies are ineffective.

Here's analogy: Quantum mechanics is the transition between essence and existence, between analogue and digital, between unity and diversity. But if an atheist assents to this -- and there is no logical or scientific reason why they shouldn't -- they will have let "the divine foot" in the door. And they must avoid that at any cost so they will ask, like Londoner, that 'essence' be defined.

Dontaskme hit the nail on the head.

davidm wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2017 10:02 pmNothing in the two-slit experiment entails any logical impossibility, so this would not fit his criterion. Two-slit just shows that the universe is really, really weird — much weirder than we had ever suspected. It also shows we don’t really grasp the ontology of the universe — whether it is collapse or no-collapse. It can’t be both, but we have no empirical way currently to decide between these two interpretations.

Well, collapse or no-collapse is epistemological, in my view; it's a mathematical model, after all. The ontology is what it is; whether we can ever grasp the ontology of the universe, is a moot point, but we can certainly grasp the ontology of the versions of quantum mechanics that have one, the different quantum field theories, for example. In that context, the universe isn't nearly so weird as classical assumptions would have us believe.
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. He's very keen on the law of the excluded middle, for example, which is a problem from an ontological point of view.

davidm wrote:I Can would do well to really study modal logic — because it could actually help at least some of his arguments.

I think it unlikely that he will take you up on that. He has a narrative that is cobbled together from the less abstruse blatherings of William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga and a bunch of even lighter weight pop-apologists. In fairness, it is, on the face of it fairly coherent, in the way that valid arguments founded on unsound premises often are. He wants to believe it. It makes sense to him. If it ain't broke; don't fix it.

davidm wrote:Modal logic deals with possible worlds, which means logically possible worlds.

I'm no logician, but I get that much.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:54 pmThe difficulty davidm is having is figuring out how "possible" can be a stage on the way to that conclusion. He'll find his answer when he grasps the concept of "Supreme Being" itself...if he wishes to grasp it. I'm not sure whether he actually wants to understand the OA, or just to maintain the misunderstanding that enables him to dismiss it. Only he'll know the answer to that question.

That didn't take long, Mr Can. Anyone who knows what they are talking about is guilty of 'bad faith'? Come, come, Mr Can; even you should aspire to more.

Londoner wrote: ↑Wed Jul 12, 2017 3:51 pm I do not understand what this riddle has to do with the subject.

Simple.

You said you saw no value in establishing conceptual coherence.

I said it was crucial, because that which is not conceptually coherent is also not something that can exist.

You said you thought that maybe it could.

I asked what your example would be.

You offered "black holes," which are not conceptually incoherent, even if a lot of empirical stuff about them remains unknown.

So I was still waiting for an example of something not conceptually coherent, but still real.

There we are.

If you cannot find such an entity, then it's pretty obvious that conceptual coherence does matter. Lack of it means that the entity in question cannot exist. And as the OA establishes, the presence of it in the (case of the Supreme Being) is sufficient to establish the necessity of God's real existence as well. So it all matters.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 12, 2017 10:49 pm

If you cannot find such an entity, then it's pretty obvious that conceptual coherence does matter. Lack of it means that the entity in question cannot exist. And as the OA establishes, the presence of it in the (case of the Supreme Being) is sufficient to establish the necessity of God's real existence as well. So it all matters.

I guess uwot is right.You have cobbled together a pretty story and refuse to learn anything about what's wrong with it.

Anselm's argument establishes no such thing. Attempts have been made by a number of people, including Kurt Godel, to modalize the ontological argument. The best they have accomplished is not to demonstrate that God exists, but to show either that he necessarily exits or necessarily fails to exist. That is not a proof of god.

As for Plantinga's modal OA, it is pure drivel as I have explained. I used the exact same reasoning to "prove" that Goldbach's Conjecture is true. Did you find that persuasive? Do you think any mathematician would?

You do not do philosophy, I Can. You do apologetics, which is inherently dishonest because it is high-falutin' propaganda gussied up in the rhetoric of philosophy but without the substance.

Reflex wrote: ↑Wed Jul 12, 2017 7:50 pmHere's analogy: Quantum mechanics is the transition between essence and existence, between analogue and digital, between unity and diversity. But if an atheist assents to this -- and there is no logical or scientific reason why they shouldn't -- they will have let "the divine foot" in the door.

Funny how no quantum physicists have noticed this (whatever it is supposed to mean).