Question for theists

Page 3 of 4 [ 62 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

13 May 2009, 8:20 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Thirdly, the theist might argue that the concept of God demands the existence of God, which can be expressed by Alvin Plantinga, who used the modal axiom S5(which is often accepted in advanced logic).

1. It is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. (By Axiom S5)
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

Based upon this logic, God cannot not exist, unless Plantinga's theoretical God is either incoherent, or unless the logic proves too much. But it is an argument that the very nature of reality demands the existence of deity.

That's an interesting version of the argument; I had not seen (or noticed?) it before. It certainly seems much more elegant than Goedel and Leibnitz' versions.

_________________
* here for the nachos.

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,533
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

13 May 2009, 10:27 pm

Henriksson wrote:

Atheism = Lack of belief
Agnosticism = Lack of balls

Agnosticism - I don't see the evidence of a God in any traditional or religious sense, not too sure on deist philosophy either, but I know enough to realize that my concept of reality is fragile, that the human mind can only grab so many paradigms at once with what limited knowledge about the universe and beyond that we have, and as reality is built on sand and the world has as much intricacy as it is; I'd be showing an unusual amount of braggadocio in claiming to know what lies beyond my capacities to know.

Atheism - I'm willing to not only wager that the answers to everything are real easy and anything seemingly more complicated is just us exercising too much acumen on fantasy. Not only am I willing to wager that there's nothing here but what science, only 2000 years after the 'bronze age', has unveiled - apparently we've hit the climax of discovery, we're here, we've proven there's no God beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm willing to wager, from that point, that everyone who doesn't believe what I do for whatever reason (usually either emotional weakness or ignorance, usually both) - is just flat out wrong and needs to admit it. We know everything there is and ever will be to know, we know that there is no God because we have all the evidence in front of us, people just need to drop their baby blankets and stop clinging to their mother's skirts.

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

13 May 2009, 10:38 pm

Magnus wrote:

Well, think of the ramifications of enforcing your subjective (yes subjective because you cannot prove that there is no non-material lifeforms that reside within our vast universe) would affect those who have a different point of view. Would that make the world better?
Why do you care what we believe? Ask yourself that. If it doesn't hurt you but only brings enrichment to a theist's life, why do you care? Even if you do care so much, if you really cared you'd let go of it and let us be. Caring and controlling are polar opposites. They are constant companions.

See heres the rub, a great many religious believers go around trying to force people into living their lives according to the rules set forth by a god that they do not believe in. So yes I do believe that the world would be a better place without religion, this also explains why I care about religious beliefs, because they do affect more than just the lives of the believer.

_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

13 May 2009, 10:51 pm

twoshots wrote:

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

That's an interesting version of the argument; I had not seen (or noticed?) it before. It certainly seems much more elegant than Goedel and Leibnitz' versions.

It is the newest version, as Plantinga is still alive while the others aren't. It is considered by most people to be a lot more elegant than the other versions, as it is an ontological argument that people can take more seriously(and still walk away unconvinced by in all likelihood). You probably understand the modal logic better than I would though.

twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

14 May 2009, 12:42 am

Let me see if I have this right, based on the usual language of modal logic (using L for necessity, M for possibility):
1. Def: Ax<=>[something]
2. Def: Bx<=>LAx
3. Premise: M(∃x:Bx) {<=>M(∃x:LAx)}
4. Theorem: ML∃x:Ax
5. Theorem: L∃x:Ax
I'm not too clear on modal logic with quantification, but I'm going to assume that theorem 4 is valid (seems reasonable enough). But this illustrates the problem here: A is entirely arbitrary, I could stick "is a mugato" in there without affecting the argument; premise 3 is therefore not at all trivial, although possible existence is certainly a weaker proposition than necessary existence.

_________________
* here for the nachos.

ToadOfSteel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,157
Location: New Jersey

14 May 2009, 12:49 am

Henriksson wrote:

Atheism = Lack of belief
Agnosticism = Lack of balls

You're the one who wants to engage in logical debate, and yet you readily fling insults?

Unless, of course, you're matter-of-factly making the claim that all agnostics (at least the male ones) have been castrated (in which case I would ask you for the evidence to back up that claim), I'm assuming that such a claim is just an insult...

Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,372
Location: Claremont, California

14 May 2009, 1:07 am

DentBentArthur wrot

Quote:

e:

See heres the rub, a great many religious believers go around trying to force people into living their lives according to the rules set forth by a god that they do not believe in. So yes I do believe that the world would be a better place without religion, this also explains why I care about religious beliefs, because they do affect more than just the lives of the believer.

How far would you go to abolish religion? You say the world would be a better place without religion but that is just your opinion. Religionists may cause harm at times but so do politicians. Should we abolish all forms of government? Where do you draw the line and just say that some things are really none of your business?

Sacred texts reveal mysteries that unfold when the mind is able to grasp it. It would be a shame to burn all those books. I think it would be wiser for atheists to drop the anger and become more tolerant of those who have different view points.

_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.

-Pythagoras

ToadOfSteel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,157
Location: New Jersey

14 May 2009, 1:17 am

Magnus wrote:

Sacred texts reveal mysteries that unfold when the mind is able to grasp it. It would be a shame to burn all those books. I think it would be wiser for atheists to drop the anger and become more tolerant of those who have different view points.

Just remember that such works both ways... I try to be tolerant, and even moreso, accepting, of other people with other views, but extremism of any kind, regardless of the dogma fueling it, is dangerous...

Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

14 May 2009, 1:30 am

I just don't see why the distinction atheism and agnosticism is useful, when there really isn't anything convincing about the so-called god concept.

I can make a lot of spurious claims, but none of them are useful or convincing unless I have evidence to back them up.

_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

14 May 2009, 4:44 am

Henriksson wrote:

What difference in the world would there be if there was no god?

In terms of the physical universe, I would think it would be in a state of nullity.

In terms of the cultures of people, assuming abiogenesis worked, it would be Epicureanism.

Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

14 May 2009, 4:48 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Henriksson wrote:

What difference in the world would there be if there was no god?

In terms of the physical universe, I would think it would be in a state of nullity.

In terms of the cultures of people, assuming abiogenesis worked, it would be Epicureanism.

But god is perfectly fine with not having a 'creator' or something like that? Or does it need a supergod?

_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

scorpileo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 764
Location: cornwall uk

14 May 2009, 5:24 am

Well.... god has always existed if it's real or not, humanity has always explained the wolrd with ultamate being(s)

_________________
existence is your only oblitgation
Quietly fighting for the greater good.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

14 May 2009, 5:33 am

scorpileo wrote:

Well.... god has always existed if it's real or not, humanity has always explained the wolrd with ultamate being(s)

Of course, the real problem is when people said "God did it" nobody found anything out about the universe. There were no people to discover that suns were atomic conflagrations or that outer space was a vacuum that didn't start a few inches above the mountain tops etc. "God did it" solves everything and everybody was happy and ignorant. Just like the dinosaurs.

ouinon
Supporting Member

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

14 May 2009, 6:23 am

Sand wrote:

Of course, the real problem is when people said "God did it" nobody found anything out about the universe.

Yeah, right! :lol:

... like we only started finding anything out about it in the 1700's, or later. Like theists/believers, monks, and other members of religious organisations, etc, weren't making huge discoveries about the universe before then!

.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

14 May 2009, 6:42 am

ouinon wrote:

Sand wrote:

Of course, the real problem is when people said "God did it" nobody found anything out about the universe.

Yeah, right! :lol:

Even though atheists have been around at least since the time of Marcus Terullius Cicero, about 60 B.C. as they are mentioned by name as well as the opposition in the dialogue Of The Nature Of The Gods aka De Natura Deorum, they weren't really promoting science/knowledge, but just freedom from fear of the Roman/Greek gods. Epicurus' atomic model for explaining everything was merely a rhetorical device employed for the purpose of verbal explanation. The stoicistic model of design inferring supernatural intelligence is a model which enables scientific discovery. Think of it this way: which offers more motivation be learned about, (1)splotches of paint randomly thrown on a canvas for a futile attempt to be called art, (2)or something with design and purpose such as a computer?

Last edited by iamnotaparakeet on 14 May 2009, 6:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

scorpileo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 764
Location: cornwall uk

14 May 2009, 6:46 am

Well you're right but that is because humanity did't realy look until then.

Please note: when I speak of humanity I speack of it in genral not individuals.

_________________
existence is your only oblitgation
Quietly fighting for the greater good.

Page 3 of 4 [ 62 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Jump to:

Similar Topics
question in General Autism Discussion	08 Feb 2025, 7:06 am timf
I have a question for women 40 and over in Women's Discussion	20 Feb 2025, 2:24 am Jakki
Grammar question in Random Discussion	30 Dec 2024, 7:14 pm CockneyRebel
Hi my question how do you create Relationships ? in Love and Dating	24 Feb 2025, 11:21 am nick007

Question for theists Post Reply New Topic

Question for theists