Mike

Ex-preacher,

My post was not addressed to all of you, but specifically to Roger who asked if I thought we should seriously consider every outlandish claim that comes along. My answer was maybe not, but keep an open mind. Also, I suggested that his example of alien abductions was not analogous to the existence of God, as the relative implications, to my mind, wouldn't compare.

I am interested though in what god you were unable to find evidence for during your extensive studies. I've known some members of the Church of Christ, but am not completely familiar with their conception of god.

Mike

Cosym,

You were onto something if I understood what you were trying to say (it is very likely that I did not). But if you add the biblical claim that God is of our race, the argument becomes even stronger and many objections fall by the way. For example if God has the maximal characteristics that are potentially possible for one of our race, and are generally desireable, then the problem of dichotomous variables is once again thwarted. If you drop the maximal assumption, however, and just suggest that God is the best and the brightest of our race, as the bible suggests, then you may have a logically necessary God. If you consider only the biblical assumption that he is the first of our race, then you defininately have a logically necessary God.

Cosym

---First, existence is not a determining predicate.---

Which is why this arguement doesn't treat it as one. Unlike the conventional modal arguement, "greatest existence" has an operational definition.

---Therefore, "G = []G" (or 1; I'm not sure why you stated "G = []G" at the beginning) is false.---

Uh... why? G=[]G is a definition, taken directly from the idea of a supreme being. Would not a necessary being of intrinsic maximal characteristics, if it existed, rightly be called god?

---"If a necessary being exists, then this necessary being exists necessarily," as it is to make sense of "It is possible that a necessary being exists." These are encapsulated in your "<>G" and your 1.---

Neither of these concepts are in the proof, but you seem to be substituting, for instance G[] for the G in <>G. There's nothing to justify that: <>G is not just G with a trivial modifier, it's a complete statement.

---Kant's second criticism seems more damaging. ---

I'm not sure I see how. Kant's criticism wouldn't seem to have much relevance to modal logic, in which it is perfectly meaningful to speak of necessary existence.

---Therefore, again, we ought not accept "G = []G".---

Why? Is this definition inconsistent with god?

---Think of Plantingan "nunicorns" as parallel to his "eunicorns."---

Just a note: Plantinga helped forumlate this new arguement.

---Finally, a parody, this one inviolate, I think. Replace "G" in your above argument with G': "The Necessary God-Destroying Device."---

Unfortunately, you can't just switch out for any term you please so easily. That is the virtue of the role of the definition.

---The conclusion of this argument is that G' exists, which contradicts the conclusion of your original argument. These parallel arguments have contradictory conclusions, so there must be a mistake in the form somewhere.---

If you substitute any false nonsense into any arguement, you get a false conclusion. So? This simply challenges the _soundness_ of that particular strange premise, not the validity of the arguement for a sound premise.

---Hold, you might say: "<>G'" is false, because God's existence is necessary so it would be impossible to destroy Him.---

If God's non-existence is necessary, then how can you argue that it is possible? And if you can't use the axiom, you can't possibly be talking about the same proof.

ex-preacher

More than once in this thread, you have said or implied that we have tried the right formula or haven't experienced the God thing. Bakc on page 2, you said:


Slightly different analogy: Suppose that everyone insisted that the moon was made out of cheese. I'm here to tell you, Mike, I've been to the moon and it ain't cheesy! Or to put it in plain terms, I have throughly studied the claims of Christianity and I don't buy them anymore.


<strong> And you keep an open mind about that moon-cheese thing.

<strong> Well, that may be true. Perhaps, instead of alien abductions, he should have suggested that you seriously investigate Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Mormonism, Wicca, Taoism, every variant of Christianity other than your own, and every other known religion. Who knows, perhaps one (or more) of them is right and you are dead wrong. Maybe Yahweh is a bad boy escaped from the continuum like Q on Star Trek:TNG. Maybe Satan is really the good one and the Bible is a supernatural hoax concocted by the evil one whom you call God. Have you seriously considered each of these possibilities?

Speaking of, you didn't answer my question in my earlier post. Have you seriously considered the idea that God might not exist? I'd like to know exactly what your investigation consisted of.

<strong> I think you'll find their conception of God is virtually identical to that claimed by most Christian groups. They believe in the inspiration of Scripture, a literal virgin birth and resurrection, a second coming, etc.

Many of them also believe that they are the one true church, and everyone else is an apostate. You know, Mike, they could be right - and you don't know anything about them. You had better get with it, because if they're right you will burn in hell for eternity. How's that for a heavy implication?

My study was not focused on verifying "Church of Christism" but on looking at the basic tenets of Christianity and theism.

And now, the question you've been waiting for: So, will you please tell us about the god you found and how you found him?

Cosym

---Given that ‘possible necessity’ in modal logic always entails instantation, to assume &lt;&gt;X[] in any way shape or form is to implicitly beg the question of whether X exists.---

Sigh. &lt;&gt;X[] means "it is possible that truth X is necessary" However, this statement is not present in the premises of the arguement. Like TM, you also seem to think that you can simply swtich out G[] for just the G in &lt;&gt;G. Nope. And getting to &lt;&gt;X[] is simply not the approach of the proof in the first place. The key step is Brouer's theorem: which is not making an arguement about &lt;&gt;G[].

---Yes, several additional steps are required.---

You can keep repeating this over and over till you turn blue in the face, and insulting my intelligence all you want. It does not make the arguement conclude at any point that &lt;&gt;G[], nor does it make it appear in the premises.

---Yes, several additional steps are required. That you think this makes any difference demonstrates that you do not understand question-begging, assurances to the contrary notwithstanding.---

You own link agrees with me: the question begging must occur IN the premise. The "additional steps" are inferences drawn from the premises: are you seriously arguing that being able to combine premises to draw new inferences automatically implies begging the question?

---You’re right. One can claim that anything is modally possibly necessary and hence exists. That’s why such forms of argument have no force. ---

And why this proof doesn't use that line of arguement.

---Don’t be such a fool.---

You know, your absuiveness has done nothing to convince me that yours is the position of truth.

---It follows directly from the definition of God (being necessary), the assumption of his possibility and from the structure of modal logic (wherein the instantiation of a necessary being in some possible world---

How so? "His"?
Look: &lt;&gt;G[] is not a statement that can simply be made and anyone is going to accept: it has to be justified. G=G[] and &lt;&gt;G do not justify it, and the proof doesn't attempt to make them do so. All throughout this, you have simply ignored what the arguement _actually_ does, in favor of a story about what you assume ontological arguements must do.

---The only relevant structural consideration is the notion of possible necessity which is assumed in both your argument and my argument.---

Again, you can keep saying this, but that doesn't make it so.

---There is no relevant disanalogy save in the language with which the argument is expressed.---

When you jumble up the language any way you please, the exercise becomes pointless, and the analougy void.

RogerLeeCooke

Mike,

In a famous phrase, there is such a thing as having a mind so open your brains fall out. It isn't a 0-1 thing. There are *degrees* of plausibility, determined not, as you imply, by the consequences of the proposition, but by its antecedent probability. Everybody has a threshold of plausibility below which a claim is not worth investigating. Nothing at all is gained by claiming to be undecided in such matters. Proclaiming oneself undecided in fact gives an entirely false impression, that you consider these beliefs have some credibility.

The mere fact that a proposition has important consequences if true doesn't make a very implausible claim, such as human survival of death, one whit more probable. It does, however, make people *eager* to accept bad arguments in its favor.

Devilnaut

Allow me to weigh in on the Ontological Argument.

I have not seen an incarnation of it that does not reduce to the following:

1. God is perfect.
2. It is more perfect to exist, than to not exist.

~3. God exists.

The problem with the argument seems to be that it begs the question. Existence is attached ad hoc to the definition of "perfection", meaning that the argument's fatal flaw lies in the fact that premise 1 is simply not true! God cannot simply be defined as "perfect", if to be "perfect" is understood to mean "factually existing". This argument is so idiotically simple that I seriously think that people should stop wasting time on it, and if I hear the "but people have studied it for hundreds of years and even those who oppose it take it seriously" line again, well I guess i'll just shrug and laugh again.

Why confuse yourself with modal logic when the argument is so utterly simplistic? I agree with Syn 100% that the main thrust of later versions of this argument is to simply confuse people.

devilnaut

Mike

Ex-preacher,

Thanks for your reply. I'm honored that you to the time. To honestly answer your first question: No, I haven't seriously considered the idea that God might not exist. I have considered it, but not seriously. The reason? Before I had the chance to consider this idea, I had already amassed a considerable amount of evidence that God does exist. Now this evidence would sound preposterous to you, just like your trip to the moon sounds preposterous to me, but of course it is as real as moon rock.

A beginning to the answer to your second question may be found in my post to Cosym which is two posts above your last post, I believe. I know that you have studied the bible extensively, and since your previous views of God coincided with the majority of christians, I can understand why you are now an atheist. But I can't completely understand why y'all missed the boat.

I take that back. I think it is because mainstream christianity doesn't take the bible literally enough that they mostly have missed the boat. At risk of being mocked by self-righteous, but (self-proclaimed) astute minds, I will humbly present the beginnings of my belief.

In order to believe in God you have to first have the idea that he exists. Check for most christians.

However, in order for that belief to begin to be unshakeable, you must also have a correct idea of his nature. Sorry, but most believers in the world have missed the boat here. Hence the strong position of atheism.

Before I go on to the third necessary condition (which you will most assuredly mock, but which you most certainly missed in you search for God--as almost all mortals have) I will back up some assertions about God's nature. Because of your familiarity with scripture, I won't talk baby talk to you, but will give it to you straight.

The bible asserts that Adam was the son of God. Mainstream christianity denies this because the bible also asserts that Christ is the only begotten, but they forget the qualification that Christ was begotten in the flesh--or in otherwords in mortality. Hence, the only begotten in the flesh. Adam, on the otherhand was begotten in immortality. According to Genesis, he was not subject to death until after the fall.

The bible also asserts in the Old Testament (which many Church of Christ adherents minimize--the Old Testament that is) the idea that "ye are gods, and children of the most high." Lest mainstream christianity complain that this is an Old Testament anomoly and that translation is to blame, it was reiterated in the New Testament by Christ himself. When confronted about his claim to divinity, Christ replied by quoting the scripture: "ye are gods." In otherwords, don't hold it against me when I say I'm the son of God, you are too. This idea was again reiterated by the apostles who said that we are "heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ." And again by Christ who said "be ye therefore perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect."

Very few in mainstream christianity take these scriptures literally, but there is no scriptural reason not too. There never was a scriptural claim that these assertions are figurative, but almost all christians believe they are. I believe they are in fact intented to be literal as a moon rock. Perhaps mainstream believers, like many atheist, are just afraid of the truth. It's a lot of responsibility living up to a heritage like that eg. "It was tough enough having an older brother who got straight A's AND was a great football player, now your telling me my father is God and he wants me to be perfect?"

So, if these claims are intended to be literal, then God is simply the first and the best of our race. Our literal father, and according to the apostles, he wants us to inherit the business. But what father will give any inheritance to a son that denies any relation to him?

Thus, the humanistic tradition is not too far off when it deifies humans. They just forget that we owe our very breath to the first of our race, just as we owe our breath to our mortal fathers.

There's a start for you ex-preacher, tear it to shreds if you want, but your logical meanderings will never change the truth.

I'm not sure if you really want to hear the third requirement for having the kind of faith that will bring you into the presence of God. It's just as obviously stated in the bible, though, and just as thoroughly minimized by mainstream christianity. You'll certainly say it's unreasonable and unfair, not intended to be literal, etc. etc., but that doesn't change the fact. If you don't like God and his requirements, that may give you a reason to deny him, but it doesn't make him cease to exist.

Mike

P.S.

Many Christians will reply that what I've just quoted from the bible shoots monotheism to hell. Not so. God is synonymous with "Father." How many mortal fathers do you have? If you're like most of us you have only one. But the fact that you have only one father does not suggest that other father's don't exist. Hence when God says there is no God besides him, what he is saying is that he is the only one that can claim exclusive fatherhood to the entire human race (including Adam). Worshipping any other God, but our common progenitor is a slap in the face. You see a similar phenomenon when kids think their coach, teacher, etc. is better than their dad. I remember arguing with my Dad and minimizing his point of view by quoting a physics teacher and disparaging my father's profession--I have never seen him so hurt, before or since.

P.P.S.

When I say "first of our race" I mean those belonging to what we call mother earth. Our collective Father may or may not be the first Father ever.

K

Cosym,

I think I have the proof that your proof absolutely begs the question. I define abosolutely begs the question to mean begs the question in all possible worlds - fair enough?

1. F -&gt; []F (if your proof absolutely begs the
question, then it necessarily
absolutely begs the question - this
is from the definition)

2. &lt;&gt;F (It is possible that your proof
absolutely begs the question)


F -&gt; []F (Definition of a proof absolutely
begging the question)

(F -&gt; [F]) -&gt; (&lt;&gt;F -&gt; F) (Brouer's)

(&lt;&gt;F -&gt; F) (If it's possible that your proof
absolutely begs the question, then
it does)

F (Your Proof absolutely begs the question).

This proof proceeds exactly as yours did, yet its conclusion is that your proof absolutely begs the quesition.