The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

Religion & Spirituality

A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

Whether you believe in a higher power or not, this forum is dedicated to the topic of religion and spirituality. We live in a diverse world with different morals and ideas when it comes to our beliefs, so come in and share your thoughts.

Postby humphreys » Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:49 pm

khanster wrote:
humphreys wrote:
God is only necessary if he exists. If he isn't real, then he is not a necessary being, he is a non-existent being.

You can't just say something has to exist because you've defined him as necessary.



Necessary versus contingent existence...



I know the difference.

See my above post, Kant made the exact same objection and it is sound.

God is only necessary if he exists.
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."

- Sam Harris
User avatar
humphreys
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:51 pm
Location: Inside your head.

Postby khanster » Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:08 pm

humphreys wrote:
Kant made the exact same objection and it is sound.

God is only necessary if he exists.


God is the totality of all that exists by definition. So God cannot not exist.

http://www.doxa.ws/Ontological/modal.html

1) God can be analytically concieved without contradiction.
2) Therefore God is not impossible.
3) By definition God cannot be contingent.
4) Therefore God is either necessary or impossible.
5) God is not impossible (from 2) therefore, God is necessary.
6) Whatever is necessary by the force of Becker's modal theorem must necessarily exist.


Kan't appeared to have made a mistake in reasoning due to his equating the possibility of God with possibility of completely imaginary objects.
User avatar
khanster
 
Posts: 691
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:18 am

Postby humphreys » Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:52 pm

No, Kant is bang on for me.

Again, God is defined as such that he is necessary, which means if God is real, he must match that definition. But, if God is not real, then all you have is a definition of a non-existent being.
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."

- Sam Harris
User avatar
humphreys
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:51 pm
Location: Inside your head.

Postby khanster » Sat Jun 09, 2012 3:15 pm

Humpreys illustrates the reason why the ontological proof is not universally accepted. It is a lack of comprehension.
User avatar
khanster
 
Posts: 691
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:18 am

Postby humphreys » Sat Jun 09, 2012 4:19 pm

Look at the problem a simpler way. What is logically impossible about our world not having a god? Because if there is no logical objection to a godless world the ontological argument must be wrong.
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."

- Sam Harris
User avatar
humphreys
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:51 pm
Location: Inside your head.

Postby at1with0 » Sat Jun 09, 2012 4:50 pm

It would be logically impossible for the totality of all that exists to not exist.
"it is easy to grow crazy"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9176
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Postby humphreys » Sat Jun 09, 2012 5:15 pm

That's just a tautological statement that tells us nothing other than "existence exists", oh and then labelled it God.

Silly word games.
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."

- Sam Harris
User avatar
humphreys
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:51 pm
Location: Inside your head.

Postby at1with0 » Sat Jun 09, 2012 5:29 pm

To provide any definition of God is a word game?

You won't get far in philosophy if every definition is a word game.
"it is easy to grow crazy"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9176
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Postby humphreys » Sat Jun 09, 2012 5:41 pm

So god is all that exists. That means the ontological argument proves that everything that exists exists.

That doesn't seem silly to you?
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."

- Sam Harris
User avatar
humphreys
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:51 pm
Location: Inside your head.

Postby khanster » Sat Jun 09, 2012 5:53 pm

You could say that God is an all inclusive entity that is inclusive of "Being".

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/dawkins- ... l-argument

Now in his version of the argument, Plantinga conceives of God as a being which is "maximally excellent" in every possible world. Plantinga takes maximal excellence to include such properties as omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection. A being which has maximal excellence in every possible world would have what Plantinga calls "maximal greatness." So Plantinga argues:

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.


[...]

In his book Dawkins devotes six full pages, brimming with ridicule and invective, to the ontological argument, without raising any serious objection to this argument. (He notes in passing Immanuel Kant's objection that existence is not a perfection; but since Plantinga's argument doesn't presuppose that it is, we can leave that irrelevance aside.) He then cites the parody of the argument you mention above, which is designed to show that God does not exist because a God "who created everything while not existing" is greater than one who exists and created everything.

Ironically, this parody, far from undermining the ontological argument, actually reinforces it! For a being who creates everything while not existing is a logical incoherence and is therefore impossible: there is no possible world which includes a non-existent being which creates the world. If the atheist is to maintain—as he must—that God's existence is impossible, the concept of God would have to be similarly incoherent. But to all appearances it's not. That supports the plausibility of premiss (1) of Plantinga's argument.

I think you can see that Dawkins doesn't even understand the logic of the ontological argument, which moves from the logical possibility of God's existence to its actuality. A parody of the argument that moves from a logical impossibility to actuality is not parallel to the argument.


User avatar
khanster
 
Posts: 691
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:18 am

PreviousNext

Return to Religion & Spirituality

  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests