theghostinthemachine

And I never once said that! In fact buckaroo, I said the exact opposite.

I am afraid you have seriously misunderstood the argument. Plantinga was very careful to note this distinction. Here it is:

"(with regards to free will and omnisceince)

"(49a) Necessarily, if God knows in advance that X will do A, then indeed X will do A.

(49b) If God knows in advance that X will do A, then it necessarily follows that X will do A."

(49a) only states that X will do A, (49b) states that X must do A. The atheological argument needs (49b) to elicit a contradiction. The only thing (49a) states is what you have unwittenly agreed with above (and which I never denied) - "It is necessarily true that God knows that proposition P is true, then P is true. But it does not follow that if God knows that proposition P is true, that proposition P is necvessarily true."

God, Freedom, and Evil p.67"

I even gave you the page number, so you could look it up. And here you are saying I said (49b) what I never said. I said (49a). Have you been reading Duane guish lately? That is some serious quote mining.

Plantinga is talking about the truth of counterfactuals.

Gee...thanks for ignoring most of my post. But (had you read it), you would have realized your mistake. Plantinga stated that necessarily God knows X will do A - not that X must necessarily do A. From this, it only follows that X will do A, not that X must do A. While your confusion of necessary truths is astounding (as evidenced by your follow up post on Sacramento being the capital of Texas- which shows a complete lack of understanding of the issue of free will and omniceince), please read up some. It may (and I stress may) help you. But being that you have the atheist blinders on, I doubt it - you see what you want to see.

Koyaanisqatsi

By the way and just so you know, I have dyslexia, so kindly adjust obvious mistakes accordingly. Thanks.

How? You keep forgetting the salient point. How is the absence of belief in a god or gods based on a false premise that is presupposed to be true? For that to be the case, there would have to first exist compelling evidence that would tend to prove a god or gods exist.

Unless you are holding out, there is none. There are only the claims of two to five thousand year old cult authors that, for some as yet unexplained reason, you are simply accepting to be true (i.e., irrationally accepting as true).

Ok, tiger.

How, if there are five?

I am and anyone else who examines the evidence. Recall your admission that this was not about solipsism?

No, I am not, but please don't let that fact deter you from making another solipsist-based response.

I won't have to deny anything. I can demonstrate that there are five apples by simply counting them and asking others to count them in order to verify my results, thus proving that your assessment of there only being two apples is demonstrably incorrect. To which, you can only deny the conclusion.

The fact of five apples existing on a table is independent of your's or my existence. That's what it means to exist in an objective reality.

Or are you going to once again negate your god's existence and claim that objective reality doesn't exist?

I sure do.

Ahh, so it's to be solipsism again. Are there five apples on the table or not? It's not a matter of "belief," it's a fact of objective reality or it is not.

If not, then no objective reality exists, which disproves the existence of your god.

So, which is it? Five apples exist independently of your perception of their existence or not? If not, then you've negated objective reality and therefore negated your god. A god cannot exist independently of your perception without objective reality, so either your god exists independently of your mind (and, literally, everything else) or not.

Which is it you are going to argue; that nothing exists independently of your perception of it, or everything exists independently of your perception of it?

If the latter, then there are five apples objectively existing and your "belief" that there are only two is objectively and demonstrably false to all but you, who, apparently is incapable, for some objectively definable reason, of acknowledging this fact.

You've only got three choices; everything is literally a figment of your imagination (including your god); you are mentally disabled in some manner; or everything exists independently of your existence (i.e., objective reality).

Which is it?

Are there five apples on the table or two? If you claim that you only have personally verifiable evidence of two, then you are mentally disabled in some manner, in denial (of objective reality), or you are claiming that only you and your own perceptions exist.

Which is it?

If you are concluding that there are two apples and not five, then you are incorrect in your conclusion. Period. Again, you may deny that you are incorrect, but that won't change the objective fact that there are five apples.

The five apples exist independently of your perception of them, unless, again, you are going to continue to argue for solipsism (or mental malfunction).

So, again, which is it? Only you exist, in which case there are however many apples you want; you are mentally disabled in some way and can't properly count how many apples there are; or you are objectively incorrect and there are, in fact, five apples?

That's all you get. Unless, of course, you don't accept my independent existence in order to mandate such choices according to objective logical restrictions, in which case, again, you're arguing for solipsism and this debate is instantly rendered pointless (which is my vote, considering).

That isn't solipsism. That's denial of objectivity.

Sigh. Then you wasted everyone's time arguing baseless rhetoric and you're now backpeddling in order to cover your ass for spewing out it without taking it to its logical extreme.

So, we can now, officially dispense with any more arguments regarding solipsism, yes? Objective reality exists and five apples on a table are five apples on a table, regardless of whether or not you personally believe there are only two, yes?

That means that you can not "verify" that only two apples are on the table, which, in turn, would mean that you are demonstrably incorrect to believe there are only two apples on the table, yes? Which further means that your belief that there are only two can be easily demonstrated to be baseless, yes?

Yes.

See how easy that is?

Logic is not subject to my beliefs. If it were, then it would not have existed prior to my existence, yes?

Are you getting what it means to live in an objective reality? If not, then please continue to argue against it, as it will only affirm that you are, necessarily, disproving the objective existence of a god.

I'll reiterate; if nothing exists independently of your mind, then neither does a god. You cannot escape this, except to throw your solipsist trump and end all debate and human interaction forever.

You're right. It was.

It is illogical to argue that objective reality does not exist and that everything is, therefore, entirely up to the solipsist to decide what is or is not "true." To whom would you be arguing?

"Truth" is not in the eye of the beholder; only beauty . Thus, the individual is a subject of "truth" (to be pedantic about it), and not the other way around (as you argued).

Therefore, either there are five apples or there are not. What you perceive or personally believe is therefore irrelevant to the truth claim of "five apples."

I am red/green color blind (which means I have difficulty in discerning hues). To me, "dark blue" is "black." However, "black" is the absence of color, so it can be objectively demonstrated (by a spectrogram, at least) that I am incorrect in my perception of "dark blue" as "black."

Do you understand what that means? When I perceive something as "dark blue," I am, in fact, incorrect. It is not "dark blue," it is "black."

It is therefore irrelevant how much I protest and say, "But, to me it is 'dark blue.'" I am demonstrably incorrect, due to a faulty color recognition mechanism.

Get it?

If you believe that there are two apples when in fact there are five, then you are demonstrably incorrect, due to a faulty perception mechanism.

Now, you (and I) can protest and deny that we are incorrect and that the rest of the world is actually the incorrect ones, but we would be wrong.

Dark blue is a specific wavelength that I can't properly discern. So whenever I say, "That's black" and it can be independantly verified (taking my claim and testing it) to be "black," then I am wrong; I am incorrect.

So what does that mean? That means I have two choices. I can either deny the facts or I can recognize, acknowledge and accept that I have a faulty color recognition mechanism.

Now, what is the qualitative difference (I hope you ask) in relation to my personal experience? Very simple. I must accept the fact that what I think is "black" is actually "dark blue;" I must accept the fact that I am wrong and others are right (i.e., correct and incorrect).

What effect does this have on my perception of reality? Profound. It means that I do not have the ability to effectively argue or discuss matters of hue differential. Now, I can either deny this fact or I can accept it and adjust my thinking accordingly (i.e., compensate for my malfunction), which, considering the business I am in (filmmaking) has far-reaching and possibly dire consequences to my continued existence.

Do you see any real world application of that analogy in regard to theist beliefs; where one's faulty mechanisms for discerning the truth independent of one's faulty perception of it, could result in dire consequences? If not, then I would point you to just about any history book; even the ones biased by pro-theological presupposition (if not the bible directly).

Your perceptions are not always correct, even to yourself and at the detriment of yourself, which is why the "scientific method" was developed to being with; to account for such malfunctions in individual perception.

Got it now? One's personal beliefs are largely irrelevant when compared to the objective reality of existence. One is always subordinate to the facts in evidence, which is why the scientific method was developed; because human perception if faulty and not to be trusted to discern the "truth;" if, indeed that is a goal of yours.

If not, then, again, stop speaking to anybody always, since if you're not interested in discerning the objective truth, then you might as well believe in any stupid thing that comes along. If that's the case, then you have no more justification for believing in Jesus than you do Santa Clause.

So I must reiterate again? I wasn't "condemning only theists to this practice," I was "condemning" (for the third time, your word) theist for irrational presuppositions; for baseless, unsupportable presuppositions.

Yes, it would have been a strawman, if there were no evidence of solipsism in your response, which there was and I demonstrated.

I did already, if you'll recall. Fine, so, good. You are not arguing solipsism, which means that you are demonstrably incorrect in your "belief" that there are only two apples on the table.

So. Do you still wish to deny there are actually five apples on the table, or do you have integrity enough to vacate your baseless claim and acknowledge the objective truth of five apples on the table?

Careful, it's a trick question .

False. Unproved claims that characters from ancient mythology are non-fictional beings does not constitute a "belief" in any manner, just as unproved claims that Holden Caulfied (from Catcher in the Rye) is a non-fictional being constitutes in a "belief" in his factual (i.e., non-fictional) existence in any manner. Characters form ancient mythology do not factually exist (i.e, are non-fictional) just because the authors of those myths claim that they do. If that were the case, then just about every character from any book on the shelf factually exists, yes?

Now, if you had some sort of evidence to contravene this tautology, we'd have a different ball game. But, presupposing that Holden Caulfied factually exists is neither warranted, nor supportable, yes?

Which are, in turn, subject to varrious tests to determine their validity. If not, then all myths are "true" just because the authors claimed they were "true."

Perhaps, but you can argue that one who likes "blocky things" who is, in fact, refering to a "non-blocky thing" as an example of a "blocky thing" is incorrect in their assessment of what constitutes a "blocky thing." All it takes is mutually agreed upon definitions and applied critical thinking.

Whether or not the person denies the outcome is irrelevant to the truth of the outcome, yes?

Sage advice.

Then you accept that there are five apples on the table and you would be objectively incorrect to believe that there are only two.

I hold no such belief, so you are, once again, incorrect. "Truth" has no "authority" in which to "believe in." It is either objectively true that five apples are on a table or not.

If not, then, again, you're arguing something you've already granted you aren't arguing.

False. I do not "believe that what I believe has an authority on truth" nor have I ever stated (directly or indirectly) that "what I believe is true."

This post should demonstrate that to you, but I doubt it, since it negates your polemic. But, by all means, now that you have granted objective reality, please continue to assail my careful delineation.

Nothing stimulates me more than to see the worm turn.

Steven Carr

Ghost continues to drive headlong into a wall.

Ghost :-
'But (had you read it), you would have realized your mistake. Plantinga stated that necessarily God knows X will do A - not that X must necessarily do A.'

Let me see.

God knows X will do A. God cannot know things which are false, but it is not necessarily true either.

Perhaps Ghost can tell us which things cannot possibly be false, but are not necessarily true either.

I am going to love this one!

Given God's knowledge that X will do A, it cannot be the case that X will not do A. Therefore, X must do A.

Let me apply some logic I read on the web :-
'I know infallibly that I ate wheaties for breakfast yesterday. The only truth that necessarily follows from this, is that I did eat wheaties'

So if I know infallibly that X will do A, the only truth that necessarily follows from this, is X will do A.

And if it necessarily follows that it is true that X will do A, then X must do A.....

Or is Ghost claiming that it is true that X will do A, but that we might possibly see X not doing A.

Normal

Here is your fatal mistake. I'm not assuming it is a false premise, you are.

Why are we to believe you, if I say there are two, and verifiable at that.

And if I have people agreeing with me that there are only two apples? Are you willing to change your position?

Why is that fact necessarily written by you? I say there are two apples.

And I count and say there are only two. And other people agree with me. Are you willing to change your conclusion? If not, your presuppositions are over-riding the popular opinion.

The fact of two apples existing on a table is independend of your or my existence. Don't you see how this works both ways?

It's an objective fact as there are two apples as there are five. Prove me wrong.

Clear missing the point.

Why aren't there two apples again? Oh yeah, it is objectively and demonstrably false that five apples are on the table, so you are in denial, as other people who agree with me will attest to.

False Trilemma. Perhaps you are mentally disabled. Or perhaps everything exists outside of your mind and there are really two apples.

And what exactly do you claim? Not personal verifiable evidence? I have to say that's very interesting.

Wow, that nasty presupposition of your keeps croping up again and again. Here it is: What I believe is the truth. You see, you are wrong. There are only two apples on the table.

Why do you have authority on objectivity? Oh yeah, presuppositions.

You see, not all statements are made to be taken to the logical extreme. See the "slippery slope" fallacy, which is pretty common in logic.

Actually, I can verify there are two, you are the one that cannot verify there are five. Your belief can easily be demonstrated to be baseless, yes?

Again, straw manning my argument into solipsist jargon.

That was a fairly large rant about solipsistic beliefs. Too bad it's a straw man for my argument, as no where to I mention nor imply solipsistic beliefs.

All presuppositions are "unsupportable". Perhaps you have heard of Godel's incompleteness theorm? How can you possibly prove "What I believe is the authority on reality"? Oh yeah, you can't.

Not demonstrated, merely asserted.

This is again, untrue. Why are there five apples on the table? Because you and a bunch of people demonstrate that? Well, me and a bunch of people demonstrate otherwise, so whose right? Can't you tell?

The objective truth is judged by who? You? Sorry, but my presuppositional beliefs are telling me otherwise, just like your presuppositional beliefs are telling you not to believe me.

Look, it's the law of excluded middle, which has been popular since Aristotle's time. Either you believe there is sufficient evidence to believe in X, or you believe there is insufficient evidence to believe in X. If the former, you believe, if the latter, you don't believe. That you said that assertion was false shows a fundamental error in logic.

Of course they are subject to various tests. And when they pass my tests and fail your tests, what are we to believe?

But someone who believes in blocky things will prefer the square, and someone who prefers round things will prefer the circle. It is a value judgement, unprovable and "irrational", just like all presuppositions.

Again: Says who? Who is the objective authority and why do you think you are?

Then you admit the fact that you believe there are five apples on the table has no bearing on objective truth, so you admit there is a possibility I am right.

False, you did when you said "Objectively there are five apples on the table.", that is implying authority of objective truth, which you now deny. So which is it?

I love watching the worm turn

Normal

And you are doing the same. Special pleading.

It's not transcendental, it's presuppositional. That you automatically do is a given.

Steven Carr

I think Ghost and I may be talking at cross-purposes.

A few questions to help me understand his position.

Suppose Plantinga is right and that God knows what person X will freely choose in very situation S.

Suppose God knows X will bowl 300 tomorrow if in situation S1.


Suppose God knows X will bowl 110 tomorrow if in situation S2.

If God actualises S1, must X bowl 300 tomorrow, or can he bowl something else?


If God actualises S2, must X bowl 110 tomorrow, or can he bowl something else?

If God actualises people he knows will suffer from Transworld Depravity, must they freely choose evil or do they not have to freely choose evil?

mosaic

**I'm gonna butt in and comment on your debate with Koyan. He's stating his arguments alot better than I am but this demands some attention**


Your argument is merely a problem of language not logic. The way I see it, whether or not you refer to five apples as two apples does not mean that the quantity "five apples" represents doesnt exist. Whether or not we call atoms 'atoms' or call them 'napkins' doesnt change the fact of their existence. So unless you have an equation that shows that five apples equals two your sophistry is nonsense. Five apples, being a quantity. With the arbitray words "five" or "two" to describe it. Thes words themselves represent concepts however, and this is where your argument fails. If the quantity that we label "five" is shown to exist,and inherent in its existence is the fact that it cant be same quanity that we label "two,"(since we label them based on their obvious difference) then your argument fails miserably. Simply playing with words dont cut it, since the concepts itself exists independent of its label.

And you didnt answer how I've decided that I have the authority to. Did the mind think itself into existence? And you're only confirming my "blowing out of proportion" with these replies to Koyan. hy dnt we just yell to each other that the other is special pleading? Everything reduces to this if you adhere to this absurdity.

streamline

You're welcome! I am glad you finally remembered that God is dead. It took long enough.

Well, I'm glad your glad. I think these debates move along so much more nicely when we're all glad about something. It's quite easy for me to admit I have no respect for the notion of personal gods -- see, did it again -- including the one that resides in your head. I am not sure what part of that previous sentence you don't understand the meaning of, though...? As for my rebuttal of the ontological argument, I am quite sure I wrote in my OP that I wasn't going to bother with it ... like I said in my OP, there are ample opportunities to read just such solid (and scathing) rebuttals in the Krueger vs McHugh debate thread (not to mention, Krueger's rebuttal to McHugh in the debate itself). I didn't see the point, really, to simply repeating it all, as I was after answers to a different question(s). I was asking other atheists/non-theists if they wondered the same thing I wondered when debating theists; that is, do theists who maintain their belief is based on reason, arguments and rational thinking, when faced with this supposedly rational support severely weakening and/or collapsing under the successful attacks of critics -- do these theists actually fall back into non-theist/atheist status in their own minds? Something akin to the status they held before the time they chose a particular god (and its accompanying theology) out of the multitudes available to believe in and commit themselves to..? At least, that is, until they come up with a new argument(s) supposedly proving the existence of this chosen (by them) god, an argument(s) they haven't yet heard successfully refuted by critics..? In short, I wonder, isn't this the actual up-and-down emotional rollercoaster of uncertainty that any intellectually honest theist must endure? (again, referring only to those theists who base their god-beliefs on reason and evidence, rather than blind faith) I can't help but think this would be a somewhat stressful way to live, as you (theist) never know just when someone (non-theist and/or believer in a god or gods different than your god) is going to come along and shoot holes in your current line-up of god-proving arguments, and force you to once again walk around without a god of your own...at least until you resurrect the fallen arguments with a new twist, or just outright choose a new and different god on for size. Then again, perhaps this isn't at all what it is like, and the theist never fears losing an argument, and by extension, his or her god, as he or she has (blind) faith in the truth of any statement affirming the existence of (his or her) god. That is, the debates might be a fun time-killer for the theist..or a chance to testify to a non-theist..or an opportunity to hear him/herself talk..but, ultimately, any such debates have no bearing on the theist's belief in (his or her own personal) god ... AND IF THIS IS INDEED THE CASE, then, as I titled my OP, I find myself questioning the legitimacy of debates, period.

As to the interesting and protracted side debates that seem to have materialized in this thread -- thus far, I am enjoying the back and forth. Anyone other than theghostinthemachine want to address my thoughts above? ...Anyone?

Again..? I think the only thing I said I don't care about are your rants and insults. Well, no...that's not entirely true...there are a whole slew of adjectives that immediately come to mind when I think of you, but I just don't care (enough) to type them here. In fact, I'd rather just not think of you, at all.

Nowhere357

Scientific method is a technical term - even the generic Merriam-Webster knows that. The principles and procedures are well established.

Main Entry: scientific method
Function: noun
Date: 1854
: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

Edited to add: 1000 posts!

Stephen T-B

This is all way above my head, so I’m keeping it simple.

Ghost is offended by the fact that Steamline can state he has no respect for the notion of personal gods.
His own posts, I note, clearly show that he has no respect for an atheist’s notion of there NOT being personal gods.

I know someone who believes in fairies.
I do not respect that belief.

I do respect the right of my acquaintance to hold that belief. There is a crucial difference.

I have another point to make: we discover, in the course of our lives, that when we are rude and offensive to other people, they tend to be rude and offensive to us. This will, of course, distort our view of the world because everyone we meet is rude and offensive. Giving as good as we get simply completes the vicious circle.

I am still curious, Ghost:
Do you require other people to share your beliefs?

Could you ever be sure, if I stopped being an atheist, that I did share your belief?