Philosophy Now Forum

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 5:11 pm The question is always if God exists. IMO it cannot be answered simply because God doesn't exist. God IS. Existence is a process while Isness is a state of being. Existence is subject to the laws of time and space while Isness is beyond the limits of time and space. To say that God exists is to say that God is a creature of time and space. The eternal changing process of existence takes place within the eternal unchanging state of being or Isness.

You're right. It's always about God's existence -- even when it's not. Reality is not a thing, which is why I'm not a fan of theistic personalism notwithstanding my appreciation for Plantinga's argument. As I mentioned earlier, it's the difference between philosophical ontology and ontology in a non-philosophical context.

uwot wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 8:23 pmThe same way it did the last time you didn't bother to read it:

Dear Nick_A, Reflex, and other theists:

Please read the following very carefully.

You guys, and there is no exception, don't read all words of all responses to your posts. You A. glide over stuff you don't agree with, or B. you ignore it, or C. you don't understand it.

This action by you is exactly what is the seed of all debate about god on this forum. You purposefully or in un-understanding, ignore all arguments that are valid but are detrimental to your beliefs, to your arguments.

I suggest that your ignoring very valid points is what leads to frustration by your argumenting opponents. In a debate things are said, and the speaker RIGHTFULLY expects that the other party takes in the statements. This is the basis for talking, so much in debates here, as in every other endeavour where talking (also in written form) occurs.

Eventually the debating partners get fed up by the purposeful ignoring of their points by their debating partners, and thus those who practice not considering the said things in the conversation drive the partners to such heights of frustration, that the frustrated persons either 1. Quit the site 2. quit ever talking to a frustrating member or 3. they put him on ignore.

This YOU MUST NOT mistake for any sort of positive experience.

You are on a philosophy site where we debate things; if you ignore the said things that are said to you in direct response to your statements, then you are not worthy of participating on this or any other philosophy site.

You can measure this by how many people leave you alone in frustration, and god only knows you know how and when you ignore arguments pertinent to the topic, which arguments destroy yours.

So I ask you to please shape up, and act like philosophers: read all parts of an answer to your position, and don't willfully ignore any parts of it. Consider and respond to all parts, or else you will be branded an unfair, frustrating debating person.

-1- wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 9:56 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 8:23 pmThe same way it did the last time you didn't bother to read it:

Dear Nick_A, Reflex, and other theists:

Please read the following very carefully.

You guys, and there is no exception, don't read all words of all responses to your posts. You A. glide over stuff you don't agree with, or B. you ignore it, or C. you don't understand it.

This action by you is exactly what is the seed of all debate about god on this forum. You purposefully or in un-understanding, ignore all arguments that are valid but are detrimental to your beliefs, to your arguments.

I suggest that your ignoring very valid points is what leads to frustration by your argumenting opponents. In a debate things are said, and the speaker RIGHTFULLY expects that the other party takes in the statements. This is the basis for talking, so much in debates here, as in every other endeavour where talking (also in written form) occurs.

Eventually the debating partners get fed up by the purposeful ignoring of their points by their debating partners, and thus those who practice not considering the said things in the conversation drive the partners to such heights of frustration, that the frustrated persons either 1. Quit the site 2. quit ever talking to a frustrating member or 3. they put him on ignore.

This YOU MUST NOT mistake for any sort of positive experience.

You are on a philosophy site where we debate things; if you ignore the said things that are said to you in direct response to your statements, then you are not worthy of participating on this or any other philosophy site.

You can measure this by how many people leave you alone in frustration, and god only knows you know how and when you ignore arguments pertinent to the topic, which arguments destroy yours.

So I ask you to please shape up, and act like philosophers: read all parts of an answer to your position, and don't willfully ignore any parts of it. Consider and respond to all parts, or else you will be branded an unfair, frustrating debating person.

That's funny. I was thinking the same thing about "you guys."

uwot wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 3:29 pm I am an atheist. I do say "I don't believe God exists but it's at least possible". I understand the argument very well and if Plantinga's definition of God is such that it makes his argument valid, then it is meaningless and there is no compulsion for any atheist to change their mind.

Why?

Reflex wrote: ↑Tue May 15, 2018 12:10 am

-1- wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 9:56 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 8:23 pmThe same way it did the last time you didn't bother to read it:

Dear Nick_A, Reflex, and other theists:

Please read the following very carefully.

You guys, and there is no exception, don't read all words of all responses to your posts. You A. glide over stuff you don't agree with, or B. you ignore it, or C. you don't understand it.

This action by you is exactly what is the seed of all debate about god on this forum. You purposefully or in un-understanding, ignore all arguments that are valid but are detrimental to your beliefs, to your arguments.

I suggest that your ignoring very valid points is what leads to frustration by your argumenting opponents. In a debate things are said, and the speaker RIGHTFULLY expects that the other party takes in the statements. This is the basis for talking, so much in debates here, as in every other endeavour where talking (also in written form) occurs.

Eventually the debating partners get fed up by the purposeful ignoring of their points by their debating partners, and thus those who practice not considering the said things in the conversation drive the partners to such heights of frustration, that the frustrated persons either 1. Quit the site 2. quit ever talking to a frustrating member or 3. they put him on ignore.

This YOU MUST NOT mistake for any sort of positive experience.

You are on a philosophy site where we debate things; if you ignore the said things that are said to you in direct response to your statements, then you are not worthy of participating on this or any other philosophy site.

You can measure this by how many people leave you alone in frustration, and god only knows you know how and when you ignore arguments pertinent to the topic, which arguments destroy yours.

So I ask you to please shape up, and act like philosophers: read all parts of an answer to your position, and don't willfully ignore any parts of it. Consider and respond to all parts, or else you will be branded an unfair, frustrating debating person.

That's funny. I was thinking the same thing about "you guys."

I knew you would before I posted the script.

You are very transparent, Reflex. You fit the description of a person ignoring the crux of your debating opponent's arguments to a tee, and you fit the prototype of the "Christian fighter to the last one standing" regardless of reason. In other words, you are a disgusting little creature.

The only things you lack and which could possibly be redeeming qualities in your persona, are an ability to reason and some brains. Instead, you have a pile of out-dated old lines of reasoning, which have been successfully debunked, so in history as now in front of your very eyes. And you still stick with them, for lack of a better ego protection.

And one thing you can't show: that "us" do not respond to your reasoning. We respond, and you ignore it. You can't show that that happens the other way around.

But you are good at grade three character-assassination arguments. Like "That's funny. I was thinking the same thing about you guys." That says nothing, it shows nothing, it is nothing but a to your mental age age-appropriate put-down. You are lazy in your thinking, you are stuck in some fallacious arguments, that you can't be talked out of, and the only thing you can rely on in arguments is grade-three type come-backs.

You can now say, "I was going to say the same thing about you" again. Go ahead, make my day.

Reflex wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 9:43 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 5:11 pm The question is always if God exists. IMO it cannot be answered simply because God doesn't exist. God IS. Existence is a process while Isness is a state of being. Existence is subject to the laws of time and space while Isness is beyond the limits of time and space. To say that God exists is to say that God is a creature of time and space. The eternal changing process of existence takes place within the eternal unchanging state of being or Isness.

You're right. It's always about God's existence -- even when it's not. Reality is not a thing, which is why I'm not a fan of theistic personalism notwithstanding my appreciation for Plantinga's argument. As I mentioned earlier, it's the difference between philosophical ontology and ontology in a non-philosophical context.

This is especially true in regards the question of God. Consider these two observations”

"God is the eternal unchanging"

“The Only Thing That Is Constant Is Change -”― Heraclitus

Plato describes the involution of the eternal unchanging, pure consciousness, into an eternal universal process in constant change derived from the eternal forms and laws within pure being.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-timaeus/

In the Timaeus Plato presents an elaborately wrought account of the formation of the universe and an explanation of its impressive order and beauty. The universe, he proposes, is the product of rational, purposive, and beneficent agency. It is the handiwork of a divine Craftsman (“Demiurge,” dêmiourgos, 28a6) who, imitating an unchanging and eternal model, imposes mathematical order on a preexistent chaos to generate the ordered universe (kosmos). The governing explanatory principle of the account is teleological: the universe as a whole as well as its various parts are so arranged as to produce a vast array of good effects. For Plato this arrangement is not fortuitous, but the outcome of the deliberate intent of Intellect (nous), anthropomorphically represented by the figure of the Craftsman who plans and constructs a world that is as excellent as its nature permits it to be.
The beautiful orderliness of the universe is not only the manifestation of Intellect; it is also the model for rational souls to understand and to emulate. Such understanding and emulation restores those souls to their original state of excellence, a state that was lost in their embodiment. There is, then, an explicit ethical and religious dimension to the discourse…………………………..

At one time there was a certain joy in trying to become able to contemplate such ideas rather than restrict them to binary associative thought. Thos days are over. Now the joy is obtained through condemning whatever opposes secularism and condemning Donald Trump. That is what is important. Why bother with what some primitive stupid Greeks thought? Now secularism has defined what is important and what a person should believe and condemn. Leave those stupid Greeks in their grave. We have evolved past such superstition and are now educated.

As Emile Chartier said: some love and some hate ideas including explaining the connection between the eternal unchanging and the universe in constant change . I’m old fashioned and still love and hold them in the highest regard. We are all too familiar with the modern mindset that hates them.

I'm with Emile Chartier.

Reflex wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 8:50 amThe modal ontological argument goes like this:

Premise 1: It is possible that God exists.
Premise 2: If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds.
Premise 3: If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds.
Premise 4: If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world.
Premise 5: If God exists in the actual world, then God exists.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

What's interesting about this argument is that it attempts to show that if God's existence is merely possible, then it would be necessary. Or to put it another way, the only way God couldn't exist is if his existence is impossible. Thus if Plantinga is right, any atheist who says "I don't believe God exists but it's at least possible" would, if he properly understands the argument and Plantinga's definition of God, be logically compelled to change his mind.

If the argument holds, it would also mean we can't say there's a 50%/50% chance of God existing, or that the odds are 10% or 90%. The only possibilities are 0% or 100%. Either God's existence is impossible (0%) or it's possible and therefore necessary (100%).

Hence, no soft-peddling allowed.

This series fails at step #2 because "possible worlds" are not the same as "existent worlds". They may be, but not necessarily. So sitting on the fence remains the most logical approach. God remains neither proved nor disproved.

This also works nicely in terms of a Pascal's wager approach because, if NDEs carry any weight beyond what we know, all reports suggest that things work out fine for atheists and agnostics who just try to live good lives.

What is lost without belief is the confidence that true believers can enjoy from feeling like they have backup, that they are not on their own during their struggles. There are a number of top tier musicians and sportspeople who say that when they play, they feel as though they are being played by God (or whatever) and this makes them feel extremely confident. I certainly would not argue against belief (in anything) being a powerful life hack.

Reflex wrote:However, if the God-concept is necessary in order for us to grow towards something, practically speaking it doesn't matter.

Greta wrote:That is the God concept as an ideal and IMO an intuition and imagining of evolution's potential, a la de Chardin.

Reflex wrote:Among others, yes. I like to say, "We are gods in embryo." Many theists see this as a valid biblical concept.

I have long thought the creation passages of Genesis were really just some clever ancient fellow noticing how everything evolves and trying to describe his insight. Metaphor and poetry were the only means with which to communicate such ideas before scientific terminology. More than once I have wondered if the writer of that passage would have laughed or put his head in his hands if he knew how many people took him literally!

No, no, Greta and uwot. There is a much simpler way to show the inadequacy of the argument.

Just change sides. Turn the table around, and there you have it.

Premise 1: It is possible that God does not exist.
Premise 2: If it is possible that God does not exist, then God does not exist in some possible worlds.
Premise 3: If God does not exist in some possible worlds, then God does not exist in all possible worlds.
Premise 4: If God does not exist in all possible worlds, then God does not exist in the actual world.
Premise 5: If God does not exist in the actual world, then God does not exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist.

What's interesting about this argument is that it is fully reversed. Its premises are no more false than the premises of the forward argument, and its logic is the same.

Since the logic is the same, and the premises are reversed, and the premises in both forward and reversed directions are insane, illogical and false, it follows that the conclusion is inconclusive, no matter whether you want to prove the existence or the non-existence of god.

What's interesting about this argument is that it attempts to show that if God's non-existence is merely possible, then it would be necessary. Or to put it another way, the only way God could exist is if his existence is possible. Thus if Plantinga is right, any theist who says "I believe God exists but its non-existence is at least possible" would, if he properly understands the argument and Plantinga's definition of God, be logically compelled to change his mind.

If the argument holds, it would also mean we can't say there's a 50%/50% chance of God existing, or that the odds are 10% or 90%. The only possibilities are 0% or 100%. Either God's non-existence is impossible (0%) or it's possible and therefore necessary (100%).

Greta wrote: ↑Tue May 15, 2018 5:41 am

Reflex wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 8:50 amThe modal ontological argument goes like this:

Premise 1: It is possible that God exists.
Premise 2: If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds.
Premise 3: If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds.
Premise 4: If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world.
Premise 5: If God exists in the actual world, then God exists.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

What's interesting about this argument is that it attempts to show that if God's existence is merely possible, then it would be necessary. Or to put it another way, the only way God couldn't exist is if his existence is impossible. Thus if Plantinga is right, any atheist who says "I don't believe God exists but it's at least possible" would, if he properly understands the argument and Plantinga's definition of God, be logically compelled to change his mind.

If the argument holds, it would also mean we can't say there's a 50%/50% chance of God existing, or that the odds are 10% or 90%. The only possibilities are 0% or 100%. Either God's existence is impossible (0%) or it's possible and therefore necessary (100%).

Hence, no soft-peddling allowed.

This series fails at step #2 because "possible worlds" are not the same as "existent worlds". They may be, but not necessarily. So sitting on the fence remains the most logical approach. God remains neither proved nor disproved.

Ah, if it were only so simple as many skeptics seem to think. Here's a video of Plantinga himself (among others talking about the ontological argument) explaining his thoughts:
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/arguing-god-being

I have long thought the creation passages of Genesis were really just some clever ancient fellow noticing how everything evolves and trying to describe his insight. Metaphor and poetry were the only means with which to communicate such ideas before scientific terminology. More than once I have wondered if the writer of that passage would have laughed or put his head in his hands if he knew how many people took him literally!

It's kinda funny. More than one theologian has expressed dismay at the "New Atheists" being much like religious fundamentalists in that department. I think we should put them both on a shelf and let them fight among themselves.

BTW, Plantinga's argument isn't about "proof."

-1- wrote: ↑Tue May 15, 2018 7:52 am No, no, Greta and uwot. There is a much simpler way to show the inadequacy of the argument.

Just change sides. Turn the table around, and there you have it.

Premise 1: It is possible that God does not exist.
Premise 2: If it is possible that God does not exist, then God does not exist in some possible worlds.
Premise 3: If God does not exist in some possible worlds, then God does not exist in all possible worlds.
Premise 4: If God does not exist in all possible worlds, then God does not exist in the actual world.
Premise 5: If God does not exist in the actual world, then God does not exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist.

What's interesting about this argument is that it is fully reversed. Its premises are no more false than the premises of the forward argument, and its logic is the same.

Since the logic is the same, and the premises are reversed, and the premises in both forward and reversed directions are insane, illogical and false, it follows that the conclusion is inconclusive, no matter whether you want to prove the existence or the non-existence of god.

What's interesting about this argument is that it attempts to show that if God's non-existence is merely possible, then it would be necessary. Or to put it another way, the only way God could exist is if his existence is possible. Thus if Plantinga is right, any theist who says "I believe God exists but its non-existence is at least possible" would, if he properly understands the argument and Plantinga's definition of God, be logically compelled to change his mind.

If the argument holds, it would also mean we can't say there's a 50%/50% chance of God existing, or that the odds are 10% or 90%. The only possibilities are 0% or 100%. Either God's non-existence is impossible (0%) or it's possible and therefore necessary (100%).

Not exactly original, but that's okay. Your argument is the whole point of Plantinga's argument. It makes my case for me. Logic compels you to say "yes" or "no." Period. None of this "I don't believe in God but God is possible" BS.

-1- wrote: ↑Tue May 15, 2018 7:52 am What's interesting about this argument is that it is fully reversed. Its premises are no more false than the premises of the forward argument, and its logic is the same.

Since the logic is the same, and the premises are reversed, and the premises in both forward and reversed directions are insane, illogical and false, it follows that the conclusion is inconclusive, no matter whether you want to prove the existence or the non-existence of god.

That’s obviously true. A perfect absurdity is one where its opposite is equally absurd cancelling each other out. Too bad Alvin couldn’t figure that out but you have to remember he’s a theist desperate to rinse out some credibility for God’s existence...and there’s not much left to do it with!

As all these statements of imagined possibilities also make clear you can’t add up a series of them and conclude with a certainty. It just doesn’t work that way. A reasonably intelligent kid could figure out that much!

There is no point in arguing with any theist when their philosophic mentors are no smarter than they are in spite of all their "sophisticated" logic!

You are also quite correct in saying that they will never acknowledge a question or response which defeats them. They’ll either remain silent or pretentiously wave you off with tepid one liners secure in their superiority of being one of god’s crusaders.

What are theists truly? Just leftover remnants of old dogmas determined to not silently fade away!

There is only ONE fact regarding god. You'll never rinse one out of the ether by any logic regardless of methodology; not now or ten thousand years from now; any attempt to apply logic ending with "therefore god exists" is useless, stupid and insane. Logic ends where god is concerned.

Reflex wrote: ↑Tue May 15, 2018 10:21 am
Not exactly original, but that's okay. Your argument is the whole point of Plantinga's argument. It makes my case for me. Logic compels you to say "yes" or "no." Period. None of this "I don't believe in God but God is possible" BS.

Reflex, you are not talking to five-year-old children. You are not backing up what you claim. Your words are empty. Your opinion is worthless as something to consider by others, although they may be important to you.

You just make statements without any depth, credibility or convincing power.

You have the right to live in your own world. But in the world of philosophy you just don't cut the mustard.

Dubious, for me the most important point in your text is this:

"There is no point in arguing with any theist when their philosophic mentors are no smarter than they are in spite of all their "sophisticated" logic!"

And it felt good to read this:

"You are also quite correct in saying that they will never acknowledge a question or response which defeats them. They’ll either remain silent or pretentiously wave you off with tepid one liners secure in their superiority of being one of god’s crusaders."

That's just it. Their security is threatened. I am not sure if the motivation background of being "Immovably committed to a cause" is the case. It might be in some cases, such as in Nick_A's. But in the case of Reflex, I believe his surety or secure basis in his faith is just simply not there. I could not prove this, it is an instinctual, gut feeling, maybe intuition. I just noticed he is more vulnerable, Reflex is, than Nick_A. Nick_A is also much smarter than Reflex. But I opine, without the pretension of stating I know for sure, that Reflex is desperate, he does feel threatened that he might lose his faith, and that is not something he wants to go through. Or in a way he feels threatened that he might lose the object of his faith, which will render his faith redundant, unnecessary.

This is why Reflex desperately wants to find proof, and he will go into great lengths, and unavoidably also down the wrong paths. Nick_A is satisfied in his own faith, he does not feel he needs to present proof; he feels unassailable, and actually, he is, in my opinion. That is, he is psychologically unassailable, not philosophically speaking.

I may only want to add to this that the theists on this forum are trying to do the impossible: to prove the existence of god. In my opinion, and there are proofs around to support my opinion, the existence of god can not be proven or disproved. The biggest fallacy the theists commit is their wanting to find an infallible proof, and as long as they keep on doing that, they fall down.

While I acknowledge that god and/or gods may or may not exist, I also insist that humans ought not to attach qualities to god. We have no evidence of god's qualities at all. Whatever we experience in life and by inquiry, can be explained by a god-belief, and also without a god-belief. There is nothing humans know about that we can say with certainly "this has got to be god" or "this has got to be god's work". Without such evidence, and in the lack of any other evidence, attributing any qualities to god is mere fiction, speculation, and thus philosophically invalid.

Reflex wrote: ↑Tue May 15, 2018 1:53 am

uwot wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 3:29 pm I am an atheist. I do say "I don't believe God exists but it's at least possible". I understand the argument very well and if Plantinga's definition of God is such that it makes his argument valid, then it is meaningless and there is no compulsion for any atheist to change their mind.

Why?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xgx4k83zzc