Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mageth · 08-14-2002, 10:20 AM

You mentioned applying formulas. I'll guess that the "Jesus Formula" is according to you something along the lines of "emulat[ing] the original witnesses."

Been there, done that.

Adrian Selby · 08-14-2002, 10:41 AM

"Most commonly, that would be a supreme being: i.e. a being that is maximal in all possible characteristics"

I never understood this mind, and I am aware I'm digressing slightly, but I don't understand what it means to say, for one characteristic, that a being would be maximally good, how can one be perfectly good? Do we know what good means, and can such a concept or propensity to behave have ascribed to it an infinite quantitative property.

Also, if a being is maximally large, then just how large is that?

These sound like silly questions, but its one thing to say there is a being with maximal characteristics, and there's another thing to conceive of it, to try to understand what that sentence means, and what the ramifications of it are when we press the sentence with analysis of the terms and their referents.

Also, I never understood the modal arguments that invoke possible worlds, how does thinking about worlds that don't exist but could if we pretend they might change anything about this notion of God? Do they need to be invoked to escape the existence is not a predicate thing?

Adrian

WJ · 08-14-2002, 10:47 AM

Black!

ehem! It would be your logic; not mine. The thread is testomony to that! Andrew, don't waist your time with these chowderheads. They're just making political statements again.

walrus

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]

Mike · 08-14-2002, 10:49 AM

Mageth,

Well then, specifically what did you do? Where did you get your information? Whom did you emulate? If you have a "Ph.D" in this "Jesus formula" and it is indeed a "placebo." Then I would like to know specifically what to avoid so that I don't waste my time. Not all claims to religious authority are equal, not all interpretations the same. What was your paradigm? Help a fellow out.

Mike.

P.S. Please don't tell me that the proliferation of competing paradigms is evidence they are all wrong. Not all random rocket launches will get one to the moon, but I believe at least one will. Help me narrow the field.

Cosym · 08-14-2002, 12:04 PM

---I never understood this mind, and I am aware I'm digressing slightly, but I don't understand what it means to say, for one characteristic, that a being would be maximally good, how can one be perfectly good?---

Normally, that would be a problem: but this proof actually has an operational definition (i.e. reasonable limits): regardless of whatever "perfectly good" means (and it's not clear that that's a characteristic this proof demonstrates in the first place), the characteristics are as maximal as _possible_. That is, they are limited by logical possibility.

The proof also has an excellent defense for this sort of criticism, because the critic very quickly finds themselves claiming that the "greatest possible being" is not possible, which is a logically incoherent statement.

I.e., in this case, a defender of the proof could say "Are you really claiming that the most moral being possible is not possible?"

---Do we know what good means, and can such a concept or propensity to behave have ascribed to it an infinite quantitative property.---

Again, not really an issue. If it means anything, and if it is relevant to the proof, then it means "as good as is possible")

---Also, if a being is maximally large, then just how large is that?---

As large as possible.

---These sound like silly questions, but its one thing to say there is a being with maximal characteristics, and there's another thing to conceive of it, to try to understand what that sentence means, and what the ramifications of it are when we press the sentence with analysis of the terms and their referents.---

So are you saying that you at least agree with the validity of the proof, regardless of it's potential implications?

---Also, I never understood the modal arguments that invoke possible worlds, how does thinking about worlds that don't exist but could if we pretend they might change anything about this notion of God?---

You might want to check out this intro to modal logic, which is used all the time in chemistry, physics, and philosophy: <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/" target="_blank">http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/</a>

The idea of "possible worlds" is a way to think about logical statements concerning possibility. Modal logic isn't saying that possible worlds exist in any real sense (it isn't the same thing as the MWI of Quantum theory): rather it is analyzing the logic of statements about possibility and necessity.

So, no, possible worlds are not being "invoked" into existence in any meaningful sense.

---Do they need to be invoked to escape the existence is not a predicate thing?---

The modal ontological arguement does indeed not have that flaw, which the traditional ontological arguement falls prey to (and Kant pretty soundly refuted). There needs be no silly worrying about whether a being that exists is greater than one that doesn't, and such.

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: Cosym ]

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: Cosym ]

RogerLeeCooke · 08-14-2002, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike:

The so called supernatural is only considered so because it has not been observed by the masses, but neither has a microscopic flagellum (which by the way is an irreducibly commplex micro-organism that cannot be explained by evolution and is necessary for our existence). If you want to have a personal experience with a flagellum, jump through the hoops and become a Ph.D in molecular biology. If you want to have a personal experience with God, emulate the original witnesses. You might pay for it by being crucified, or by being boiled in oil, or simply laughed to scorn like some of them were, but if you're not willing to pay the price, don't complain about not having the natural result.

You are wrong, Mike. Supernatural explanations are rejected not just because the masses don't experience them, but because there are naturalistic explanations of supernatural claims. And you reject them along with all the rest of us, I'm rather sure, when they come from Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.

I know lots of people who take the plunge that you advocated. Some of them are called Christian Scientists, and I've seen the havoc that often results from their emulation of all those people who thought they were in direct contact with God, enough to make me *very* confident that the alleged contact with God was an illusion or a lie.

Kuglo · 08-14-2002, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cosym:
---Tell us why God is logically necessary.
Tell us which logic you are talking of, May be your own!!!!---

1. G -> []G (if god exists, then god necessarily exists, or "God must exist necessarily IF He even exists at all.")

2. (G -> []G) -> (<>G -> G) (plugging G into the valid modal form of (p -> []p) -> (<>p -> p) (i.e., that necessary existence of any p implies actual existence of p))

3.<>G -> G (if it is possible that god exists, then god exists)- found by using inference 1 with inference 2 in a modus ponens

4. G (modus ponens, using the axiom and inference 3)

If A then A, therefore A. Nice question begging there. This is just a rehatch of Descartes's Ontological argument for the existence of god. The crux of your fallacy is step 2. Necessary existence is part of your definition of god, just as screaming loud enough to be heard all over the world at least once a day on Earth, is part of my definition of a banshee. Yet I hear no screaming banshee, because none exists. Just because banshees have the necessary property of screaming and being heard all across the world, doesn't mean it's going to happen if there are no banshees. And your god can have the property of necessary existence, but it doesn't make a difference unless god exists to begin with.

Cosym · 08-14-2002, 12:20 PM

---The thread is testomony to that! Andrew, don't waist your time with these chowderheads. They're just making political statements again.---

That's not a very honest way to address anyone's arguements: speaking for myself, I made no "political statement" (whatever the heck THAT is in a philosophical discussion). If you cannot raise or respond to substantive points, what purpose is served by calling people names?

Mike · 08-14-2002, 12:31 PM

Roger,

All I was saying is that what at first seems supernatural is often later discovered to be natural. eg. flight, magnetism, electricity. And that since the alleged witnesses were appealing to natural sensory experience the discussion about natural vs. supernatural might not be relevant. But a simple attempt at replication might. Thus what currently appears supernatural eg. resurrection, parting of the red sea, converting water into wine might at some point be found to have technological possibility. Scientists are already experimenting with similar possibilities eg. cloning.

I don't know anything about christian science, and have no argument about the possibility of hallucination and deception. But since when was science fear driven? If you can't hang with the test, don't, but don't complain either. If you don't know, all you can do is guess. There may very well have been hallucinations, but we don't know for sure. Are you confident in your ability to tell the difference between the real and the imagined in your own experience? If not, then how can you even know that your everyday "natural" experiences are not in fact your imagination?

Cosym · 08-14-2002, 12:36 PM

---If A then A, therefore A.---

Where does the proof ever say that?

I certainly don't agree with the conclusion of the proof anymore than you do, but at least I don't make such gross misrepresentations of it when I criticize it.

---The crux of your fallacy is step 2.---

Please: report this fallacy to a logic journal immediately, because this inference is used all the time! It's known as Bouer's Theorem, and you can find a more formal proof of by studying K logic, which is hardly a device of theology (it was developed by materialists, in fact, and is commonly used in several sciences).

---Necessary existence is part of your definition of god---

Indeed, as some characteristic is part of any definition. But nowhere in the proof is there a step G[]->G There isn't even an inference of G[]!

In case you don't know, -> means that statements are connected with "if... then" Thus, G->G[] means "IF G exists, THEN G exists necessarily" There is no conclusion of existence or even of necessary existence in this statement.

---Yet I hear no screaming banshee, because none exists.---

There's no reason to believe that the banshee exists, since there is no proof of its existence. This a proof of existence: so where do you think it goes wrong?

You are again being very sloppy with your criticisms. NOWHERE in the proof does it say that god exists simply because god is defined as having necessary existence. Follow the logic again: where is this illegitimate step you claim that the proof takes?

---And your god can have the property of necessary existence, but it doesn't make a difference unless god exists to begin with.---

I agree... but the existence of G is what the proof then goes about _demonstrating_.

You are also incorrect by calling it "my god." I don't have a god. Surely someone can raise an arguement (in response to someone's query about necessary existence) and discuss it rationally regardless of their belief or non-belief.

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: Cosym ]

08-14-2002, 10:47 AM	#53
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Black! ehem! It would be your logic; not mine. The thread is testomony to that! Andrew, don't waist your time with these chowderheads. They're just making political statements again. walrus [ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

08-14-2002, 12:04 PM	#55
Cosym Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: New York Posts: 22	---I never understood this mind, and I am aware I'm digressing slightly, but I don't understand what it means to say, for one characteristic, that a being would be maximally good, how can one be perfectly good?--- Normally, that would be a problem: but this proof actually has an operational definition (i.e. reasonable limits): regardless of whatever "perfectly good" means (and it's not clear that that's a characteristic this proof demonstrates in the first place), the characteristics are as maximal as _possible_. That is, they are limited by logical possibility. The proof also has an excellent defense for this sort of criticism, because the critic very quickly finds themselves claiming that the "greatest possible being" is not possible, which is a logically incoherent statement. I.e., in this case, a defender of the proof could say "Are you really claiming that the most moral being possible is not possible?" ---Do we know what good means, and can such a concept or propensity to behave have ascribed to it an infinite quantitative property.--- Again, not really an issue. If it means anything, and if it is relevant to the proof, then it means "as good as is possible") ---Also, if a being is maximally large, then just how large is that?--- As large as possible. ---These sound like silly questions, but its one thing to say there is a being with maximal characteristics, and there's another thing to conceive of it, to try to understand what that sentence means, and what the ramifications of it are when we press the sentence with analysis of the terms and their referents.--- So are you saying that you at least agree with the validity of the proof, regardless of it's potential implications? ---Also, I never understood the modal arguments that invoke possible worlds, how does thinking about worlds that don't exist but could if we pretend they might change anything about this notion of God?--- You might want to check out this intro to modal logic, which is used all the time in chemistry, physics, and philosophy: <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/" target="_blank">http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/</a> The idea of "possible worlds" is a way to think about logical statements concerning possibility. Modal logic isn't saying that possible worlds exist in any real sense (it isn't the same thing as the MWI of Quantum theory): rather it is analyzing the logic of statements about possibility and necessity. So, no, possible worlds are not being "invoked" into existence in any meaningful sense. ---Do they need to be invoked to escape the existence is not a predicate thing?--- The modal ontological arguement does indeed not have that flaw, which the traditional ontological arguement falls prey to (and Kant pretty soundly refuted). There needs be no silly worrying about whether a being that exists is greater than one that doesn't, and such. [ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: Cosym ] [ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: Cosym ]</p>

08-14-2002, 12:36 PM	#60
Cosym Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: New York Posts: 22	---If A then A, therefore A.--- Where does the proof ever say that? I certainly don't agree with the conclusion of the proof anymore than you do, but at least I don't make such gross misrepresentations of it when I criticize it. ---The crux of your fallacy is step 2.--- Please: report this fallacy to a logic journal immediately, because this inference is used all the time! It's known as Bouer's Theorem, and you can find a more formal proof of by studying K logic, which is hardly a device of theology (it was developed by materialists, in fact, and is commonly used in several sciences). ---Necessary existence is part of your definition of god--- Indeed, as some characteristic is part of any definition. But nowhere in the proof is there a step G[]->G There isn't even an inference of G[]! In case you don't know, -> means that statements are connected with "if... then" Thus, G->G[] means "IF G exists, THEN G exists necessarily" There is no conclusion of existence or even of necessary existence in this statement. ---Yet I hear no screaming banshee, because none exists.--- There's no reason to believe that the banshee exists, since there is no proof of its existence. This a proof of existence: so where do you think it goes wrong? You are again being very sloppy with your criticisms. NOWHERE in the proof does it say that god exists simply because god is defined as having necessary existence. Follow the logic again: where is this illegitimate step you claim that the proof takes? ---And your god can have the property of necessary existence, but it doesn't make a difference unless god exists to begin with.--- I agree... but the existence of G is what the proof then goes about _demonstrating_. You are also incorrect by calling it "my god." I don't have a god. Surely someone can raise an arguement (in response to someone's query about necessary existence) and discuss it rationally regardless of their belief or non-belief. [ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: Cosym ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-14-2002, 10:20 AM	#51
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	You mentioned applying formulas. I'll guess that the "Jesus Formula" is according to you something along the lines of "emulat[ing] the original witnesses." Been there, done that.

08-14-2002, 10:41 AM	#52
Adrian Selby Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Farnham, UK Posts: 859	"Most commonly, that would be a supreme being: i.e. a being that is maximal in all possible characteristics" I never understood this mind, and I am aware I'm digressing slightly, but I don't understand what it means to say, for one characteristic, that a being would be maximally good, how can one be perfectly good? Do we know what good means, and can such a concept or propensity to behave have ascribed to it an infinite quantitative property. Also, if a being is maximally large, then just how large is that? These sound like silly questions, but its one thing to say there is a being with maximal characteristics, and there's another thing to conceive of it, to try to understand what that sentence means, and what the ramifications of it are when we press the sentence with analysis of the terms and their referents. Also, I never understood the modal arguments that invoke possible worlds, how does thinking about worlds that don't exist but could if we pretend they might change anything about this notion of God? Do they need to be invoked to escape the existence is not a predicate thing? Adrian

08-14-2002, 10:49 AM	#54
Mike Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 100	Mageth, Well then, specifically what did you do? Where did you get your information? Whom did you emulate? If you have a "Ph.D" in this "Jesus formula" and it is indeed a "placebo." Then I would like to know specifically what to avoid so that I don't waste my time. Not all claims to religious authority are equal, not all interpretations the same. What was your paradigm? Help a fellow out. Mike. P.S. Please don't tell me that the proliferation of competing paradigms is evidence they are all wrong. Not all random rocket launches will get one to the moon, but I believe at least one will. Help me narrow the field.

08-14-2002, 12:20 PM	#58
Cosym Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: New York Posts: 22	---The thread is testomony to that! Andrew, don't waist your time with these chowderheads. They're just making political statements again.--- That's not a very honest way to address anyone's arguements: speaking for myself, I made no "political statement" (whatever the heck THAT is in a philosophical discussion). If you cannot raise or respond to substantive points, what purpose is served by calling people names?

08-14-2002, 12:31 PM	#59
Mike Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 100	Roger, All I was saying is that what at first seems supernatural is often later discovered to be natural. eg. flight, magnetism, electricity. And that since the alleged witnesses were appealing to natural sensory experience the discussion about natural vs. supernatural might not be relevant. But a simple attempt at replication might. Thus what currently appears supernatural eg. resurrection, parting of the red sea, converting water into wine might at some point be found to have technological possibility. Scientists are already experimenting with similar possibilities eg. cloning. I don't know anything about christian science, and have no argument about the possibility of hallucination and deception. But since when was science fear driven? If you can't hang with the test, don't, but don't complain either. If you don't know, all you can do is guess. There may very well have been hallucinations, but we don't know for sure. Are you confident in your ability to tell the difference between the real and the imagined in your own experience? If not, then how can you even know that your everyday "natural" experiences are not in fact your imagination?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.