Mountain Man

Since gods are not logically possible, the argument ends there.

John A. Broussard

And every illogically possible universe exists, and every logically impossible universe exists, and every logically possible universe doesn't exist.

It's fun playing with meaningless combinations of words that can be proven neither true nor false.

Manakin

1. Every logically possible universe exists.
2. A universe uninfluenced by god(s) is logically possible.

Therefore
3. There exists a universe which is uninfluenced by god(s).

This directly contradicts (6a).

-M

Phixphi

I've been informed that is generally wrong not to respond to an argument that you've produced even when it is a bad and clealy dead argument -- good old deontology. Obviously, this argument was too close to a Hegelian ontological argument in that it asserted too much without adequate reasons, which was repeatedly observed. Beyond the particular case of the argument that I made, I'm not sure why an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god is logically impossible -- do you mean meaninglesss? Otherwise, perhaps a better ontological argument that doesn't appeal only to theists can be made at some other time.

Cheers,

P.

PoodleLovinPessimist

Depends. If you mean really omni-, not bullshit kind of, or half-assed omni-, then omnipotence and omniscience are logically contradictory. A no-bullshit omnipotent god can both create a rock so big he cannot lift it, and lift it as well. A "whole-assedly" omniscient god can know the validity of all well-formed statements, contra Godel.

But what is logically contradictory about the modal argument is not the god itself. It is the idea that a logically possible modal statement (a statement asserting necessity or possibility) is true in some possible world by virtue of that logical possibility. This argument simply uses modal logic in an internally contradictory way.

Phixphi

By the way, it was stated that,

For example the way we often define a universe is that if there are two universes X and Y then by definition nothing in X can affect Y and nothing in Y can affect X in any way. Thus, to assume that a being can affect any universe other than the one he is in appears to be non-sensical.


String theory -- not that I'm an expert -- postulates more than one universe and some theorists postulate universes crashing in to each other. Hypothetically, then, you have an universe X, which comes about by way of a big bang and you have a universe Y, which comes about via a big bang and both universes are expanding because of their respective big bang (the main cause of expansion). X and Y expand until they hit each other. OK, you know where this speculation is going, X and Y hit each other because each has had a big bang which is peculiar to each universe causing disturbances in the other universe. That is, a big bang in X caused X to expand, X hit Y. Hence, the expansion within X caused X to hit Y, thus altering the interior of Y universe in some way (you can imagine what would happen if two universes crashed) and vice versa. Events within a universe, then, can effect events within another universe.

P.S., even if you disagree that the big bang happened in the universe -- that is, you want to say that the universe was caused by the big bang -- the expansion that resulted from the big bang still occurs in the closed universe X or Y.

FatherMithras

GAH!!! stop using the argument my dad uses! It's M theory that states that or something though.

Phixphi

Luke, I am your father -- Philosophy, not Freud. Yes M.

Phixphi

It was stated that,

Just because a being is logically possible does not imply that she can do the logically impossible. My rebuttle: an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being cannot create a rock heavier than herself because it's logically impossible. Such a being cannot also change the fact that '1+1=2'. Just because a being has maximal properties does not mean that that being can do anything,

It was also stated that,

But what is logically contradictory about the modal argument is not the god itself. It is the idea that a logically possible modal statement (a statement asserting necessity or possibility) is true in some possible world by virtue of that logical possibility. This argument simply uses modal logic in an internally contradictory way.

I'm not totally sure what you mean here. Please enlighten us to the contradiction?

starling

Even if (1) is true, this is a misunderstanding of the many-worlds argument to quantum uncertainty. Every logically possible quantum state exists. That means one "universe" at one moment in time, not one "universe" over time. (5) contradicts (4) because an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being could not fit in any one "universe" or verse.

Plus, you cannot claim an infinitely powerful God exists via many verses, even through time. You can say that in a sufficiently large number of verses, someone in one of those timelines is going to be pretty damn powerful. But we're talking about different definitions of infinity here; "infinite" verses still speaks in limits and spectrum. Even if there were "infinite" verses, they might well be much like our own, not containing any god. See, your assumption (4) changes your definition of omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent to simply "most powerful in all quantum states," "most knowledgeable in..." etc. Therefore:

False, false, false. By your definition (4) of omnipotent, God does not have the power to affect events in any timeline besides its own. By your definition of omniscient, God cannot be aware of any timeline beside its own. By your definition of omnipresent, God exists only in the timeline that contains God. And that timeline is not our own.

If you instead retract your claim of (4), then you once again can't prove that God exists except in tautology.