All Apologetic Arguments can be summed up in this simple thread

[Half-Life]

After reading many apologetic arguments in my lifetime, I have come to the following conclusion after reading them over from this new perspective of a non-believer:


"God exists because he exists. Nobody wants to go to Hell. Now sit down and read the goddamn Bible and go to Heaven when you die. No more complaints or questions."

Any thoughts?

[Huon]

1 - Why "goddamn" Bible ? You should be more respectful of this old book.
2 - Why read the Bible ? This is a protestant view of the question. A catholic does not read the Bible, except when he is a priest or a monk, or perhaps a Pope (very rare situation). A good catholic goes to the mass on Easter and Christmas, and listens to what the parish priest says, which is the truth.

[ELECTROGOD]

Why "goddamn" Bible ? You should be more respectful of this old book.
That convoluted and contradictory book of myths that has plagued the world deserves no respect...old or not.

[Demon]

...

[Deleet]

No. Perhaps you are correct about their intend, but your summary is wrong.

There is at least:
Cosmological arguments.
Design arguments.
Ontological arguments.
Bible arguments.
Moral arguments.
Random stupid arguments, like argument from random authority (Newton...), equivocation about the word law.

In the end, they are all unsound and many of them are invalid.

[Demon]

No. Perhaps you are correct about their intend, but your summary is wrong.

There is at least:
Cosmological arguments.
Design arguments.
Ontological arguments.
Bible arguments.
Moral arguments.
Random stupid arguments, like argument from random authority (Newton...), equivocation about the word law.

In the end, they are all unsound and many of them are invalid.

You forgot:
- arguments from ignorance / worship of gaps
- Pascal's Wager
- argument from personal comfort
- appeal to the majority (well, most peoplez beleevz in Gawd therefore Gawd exists).
- argumentum ad Stalinem (i.e. OMG teh n0nbelieverz iz b@d therefore Gawd ex1sts!)
- argument from "personal experience"
- argument from unlikely good events (i.e. "I survived a car accident therefore God exists!")

[Deleet]

No. Perhaps you are correct about their intend, but your summary is wrong.

There is at least:
Cosmological arguments.
Design arguments.
Ontological arguments.
Bible arguments.
Moral arguments.
Random stupid arguments, like argument from random authority (Newton...), equivocation about the word law.

In the end, they are all unsound and many of them are invalid.

You forgot:
- arguments from ignorance / worship of gaps
- Pascal's Wager
- argument from personal comfort
- appeal to the majority (well, most peoplez beleevz in Gawd therefore Gawd exists).
- argumentum ad Stalinem (i.e. OMG teh n0nbelieverz iz b@d therefore Gawd ex1sts!)
- argument from "personal experience"
- argument from unlikely good events (i.e. "I survived a car accident therefore God exists!")

They are all under "Random stupid arguments". Or perhaps not. I ought to add a Pragmatic arguments category and place Pascal's in there.

[Adonael]

I think the ontological arguments get a worse wrap than then they deserve. I enjoy some of Plantinga and Leftow's versions.

[Deleet]

I think the ontological arguments get a worse wrap than then they deserve. I enjoy some of Plantinga and Leftow's versions.

Feel free to argue them in the EoG forum--when your done with your formal debate, that is.

[Adonael]

I think the ontological arguments get a worse wrap than then they deserve. I enjoy some of Plantinga and Leftow's versions.

Feel free to argue them in the EoG forum--when your done with your formal debate, that is.

I can discuss them here. There is one version that I enjoy although I'm not sure if it is sound:


1.That "some being is unsurpassably great" is logically possible. ◊(∃x)Ux

2. Any being that is unsurpassably great is, in all possible worlds, omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect. □(x)(Ux→□Ox)
C.Someone is omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect. (∃x)Ox


This is a valid argument in S5. 1 seems to be reasonable and 2 is true by definition.

[Half-Life]

Feel free to argue them in the EoG forum--when your done with your formal debate, that is.

I can discuss them here. There is one version that I enjoy although I'm not sure if it is sound:


1.That "some being is unsurpassably great" is logically possible. ◊(∃x)Ux

2. Any being that is unsurpassably great is, in all possible worlds, omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect. □(x)(Ux→□Ox)
C.Someone is omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect. (∃x)Ox


This is a valid argument in S5. 1 seems to be reasonable and 2 is true by definition.

Did you get that from Fraudtinga?

All you did was make up a God and gave him qualities. Where's the evidence he's real and has these qualities instead of just assuming he has these qualities?

[Half-Life]

No. Perhaps you are correct about their intend, but your summary is wrong.

There is at least:
Cosmological arguments.
Design arguments.
Ontological arguments.
Bible arguments.
Moral arguments.
Random stupid arguments, like argument from random authority (Newton...), equivocation about the word law.

In the end, they are all unsound and many of them are invalid.

But all those still come out to the same point:

Cosmological - "God exists because he created everything and we know he created everything because God exists."

Design arguments - "God exists because of the design in nature and we know there is design in nature because God designed everything."

Isn't the ontological basically "God exists because I said so, so there?"

Bible arguments - "God is real because the Bible says so and we know the Bible is true because God is real and inspired the very words on those holy holy holy pages my brothers!"

moral arguments - "If God didn't exist, I'd be a murderer. Since you disbelieve in God and are not a murderer, you must believe in God because God gives us morals. And we know morals are from God because God exists you idiot!"

:D

[Adonael]

I can discuss them here. There is one version that I enjoy although I'm not sure if it is sound:


1.That "some being is unsurpassably great" is logically possible. ◊(∃x)Ux

2. Any being that is unsurpassably great is, in all possible worlds, omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect. □(x)(Ux→□Ox)
C.Someone is omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect. (∃x)Ox


This is a valid argument in S5. 1 seems to be reasonable and 2 is true by definition.

Did you get that from Fraudtinga?

All you did was make up a God and gave him qualities. Where's the evidence he's real and has these qualities instead of just assuming he has these qualities?


Plantinga is not a fraud. He is an intellectual heavyweight that has made great contributions to epistemology, the philosophy of religion and metaphysics. I cant imagine any philosopher that believes differently.

As for your questions, I don't need evidence that God is real. I just need reasons to believe that such a person is possible and that if there were such a person, then these are the traits that they'd have by definition of their unsurpassablness. After all, if this someone were not omnipotent or omniscient, then they'd be surpassable. But, this cannot be true by definition.

[Adonael]

No. Perhaps you are correct about their intend, but your summary is wrong.

There is at least:
Cosmological arguments.
Design arguments.
Ontological arguments.
Bible arguments.
Moral arguments.
Random stupid arguments, like argument from random authority (Newton...), equivocation about the word law.

In the end, they are all unsound and many of them are invalid.

But all those still come out to the same point:

Cosmological - "God exists because he created everything and we know he created everything because God exists."

Design arguments - "God exists because of the design in nature and we know there is design in nature because God designed everything."

Isn't the ontological basically "God exists because I said so, so there?"

Bible arguments - "God is real because the Bible says so and we know the Bible is true because God is real and inspired the very words on those holy holy holy pages my brothers!"

moral arguments - "If God didn't exist, I'd be a murderer. Since you disbelieve in God and are not a murderer, you must believe in God because God gives us morals. And we know morals are from God because God exists you idiot!"

:D

A series of strawmen.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

I can discuss them here. There is one version that I enjoy although I'm not sure if it is sound:


1.That "some being is unsurpassably great" is logically possible. ◊(∃x)Ux

2. Any being that is unsurpassably great is, in all possible worlds, omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect. □(x)(Ux→□Ox)
C.Someone is omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect. (∃x)Ox


This is a valid argument in S5. 1 seems to be reasonable and 2 is true by definition.

Did you get that from Fraudtinga?

All you did was make up a God and gave him qualities. Where's the evidence he's real and has these qualities instead of just assuming he has these qualities?

"Omni" is hard to defend. How can anything know everything? It's impossible to go from reason to God via the omnis. The only way is to argue from God to the omnis: only if God manifested himself in power and glory and said he was omni one could conlude omni was possible, but until then, it's going to be very hard.

Of course it is logically possible for there to be an entity more powerful, more capable, more knowledgeable and more beneficient than any other... it's just the jump to "omni" that challenges imagination. Reason can arrive to "best-ness" but not to the "omnimax-ness".

[Lógos Sokratikós]

(Whatever he said)


A series of strawmen.

I sympathize, Adonael. Most of what has been posted in this thread is not even half serious.

An appeal to QC (Quality Control), folks!

[ziffel]

As for your questions, I don't need evidence that God is real. I just need reasons to believe that such a person is possible and that if there were such a person, then these are the traits that they'd have by definition of their unsurpassablness. After all, if this someone were not omnipotent or omniscient, then they'd be surpassable. But, this cannot be true by definition.

All your pseudo-intellectual fluff-talk and pretentious mathematical formulas aside, can you not simply observe the world we live in and easily determine that an omnipotent, morally perfect god does not exist?

Reality is very, very different from your 'philosophical' musings and formulas.

[Adonael]

All your pseudo-intellectual fluff-talk and pretentious mathematical formulas aside, can you not simply observe the world we live in and easily determine that an omnipotent, morally perfect god does not exist? pseudo? mathematics? :confused:

Reality is very, very different from your 'philosophical' musings and formulas.

like?

[Lógos Sokratikós]

can you not simply observe the world we live in and easily determine that an omnipotent, morally perfect god does not exist?


Has it occured to you that the structure of reality is not that obvious, Ziffel?

[Adonael]

"The structure of reality is obviously unobvious."

Problematic?

[HelpingHand]

I can discuss them here. There is one version that I enjoy although I'm not sure if it is sound:


1.That "some being is unsurpassably great" is logically possible. ◊(∃x)Ux

2. Any being that is unsurpassably great is, in all possible worlds, omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect. □(x)(Ux→□Ox)
C.Someone is omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect. (∃x)Ox


This is a valid argument in S5. 1 seems to be reasonable and 2 is true by definition.

1 'seems to be reasonable' is not enough. It needs to be true.
It cannot be established that an unsurpassably great being is logically possible because we don't have a clear definition of 'unsurpassably great', nor of 'omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect for that matter. If we do not know what these things ential, we cannot judge whether they are logically possible or not.
2 is true by definition? The same problem: we do not know what these terms mean or that they have any meaning at all.

But the main problem is that your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises.
What your argument says is that everything that is logicaly possible must exist in all possible worlds. And I don't think that is true.

Greetings

Walter

[Adonael]

1 'seems to be reasonable' is not enough. It needs to be true. It needs to be true in order for it to be actually sound. Whether we can accept it is based upon whether it is reasonable to believe.

It cannot be established that an unsurpassably great being is logically possible because we don't have a clear definition of 'unsurpassably great', nor of 'omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect for that matter. If we do not know what these things ential, we cannot judge whether they are logically possible or not.


There is a difference between having a definition for X and knowing what X would entail. But, who's "we"? I certainly did not offer a definition of those terms and so i am curious as to who you are including with the word "we"?




But the main problem is that your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises.
What your argument says is that everything that is logicaly possible must exist in all possible worlds. And I don't think that is true.

Greetings

Walter

walter, if the above is your honest assessment, then you likely don't understand modal predicate logic and if that's the case, then why are we discussing this issue?

Proving its validity:

1.◊(∃x)Ux
2. □(x)(Ux→□Ox)
3.assumption: ~(◊∃x)Ox
4. W: (∃x)Ux (from 1)
5. (x)~Ox (from 3)
6. W: Ua (from 4)
7.W: (x)(Ux→□Ox) (from 2)
8. ~Oa (from 5)
9: W: (Ua→□Oa) (from 7)
10: □Oa (from 6 and 9)
11: Oa(from 10)
C: (∃x)Ox (from 3; 8 contradicts 11)

[Prof]

After reading and encountering more apologetics than is good for any human
to imbibe, I find that easily the most common theme runnig through apologetics is:

*opens the envelope*

Special Pleading.

It's almost inevitable to knock up against it during any debate with someone using apologetics.

Prof.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

1.◊(∃x)Ux
2. □(x)(Ux→□Ox)
3.assumption: ~(◊∃x)Ox
4. W: (∃x)Ux (from 1)
5. (x)~Ox (from 3)
6. W: Ua (from 4)
7.W: (x)(Ux→□Ox) (from 2)
8. ~Oa (from 5)
9: W: (Ua→□Oa) (from 7)
10: □Oa (from 6 and 9)
11: Oa(from 10)
C: (∃x)Ox (from 3; 8 contradicts 11)

Translation? When every argument has been reduced to a letter, it's hard to keep up. At least post what you mean by each letter so the readers can find out what you're "thereforing", negating and "far all _ such that_"-ing about! :)

[Adonael]

After reading and encountering more apologetics than is good for any human
to imbibe, I find that easily the most common theme runnig through apologetics is:

*opens the envelope*

Special Pleading.

It's almost inevitable to knock up against it during any debate with someone using apologetics.

Prof.

My experience is that quite a few atheists on this forum do not even know what the fallacy of special pleading constitutes and its limitations. This is evident from the thread concerning Craig and Dawkins.

[Demon]

You forgot:
- arguments from ignorance / worship of gaps
- Pascal's Wager
- argument from personal comfort
- appeal to the majority (well, most peoplez beleevz in Gawd therefore Gawd exists).
- argumentum ad Stalinem (i.e. OMG teh n0nbelieverz iz b@d therefore Gawd ex1sts!)
- argument from "personal experience"
- argument from unlikely good events (i.e. "I survived a car accident therefore God exists!")

They are all under "Random stupid arguments". Or perhaps not. I ought to add a Pragmatic arguments category and place Pascal's in there.

Yes, but since they get used so often I thought I'd list them anyway. This is especially true with the "argument from ignorance" or the "argument from unlikely good events." I can't remember how many people I've seen who think the fact that this or that natural phenomenon isn't known yet it automaticly means "proof" of the Abrahamic God's existence.
It's also not uncommon for a person to have something extremely rare/unlikely but extremely fortunate happen to them i.e. they survive a car accident, therefore God exists.

[Adonael]

1.◊(∃x)Ux
2. □(x)(Ux→□Ox)
3.assumption: ~(◊∃x)Ox
4. W: (∃x)Ux (from 1)
5. (x)~Ox (from 3)
6. W: Ua (from 4)
7.W: (x)(Ux→□Ox) (from 2)
8. ~Oa (from 5)
9: W: (Ua→□Oa) (from 7)
10: □Oa (from 6 and 9)
11: Oa(from 10)
C: (∃x)Ox (from 3; 8 contradicts 11)

Translation? When every argument has been reduced to a letter, it's hard to keep up. At least post what you mean by each letter so the readers can find out what you're "thereforing", negating and "far all _ such that_"-ing about! :)
the logic is actually used for the purposes of clarity. i gave the translations of the first two premises. if you cannot follow from there, then you probably are not familiar with logic, anyhow.

[ELECTROGOD]

My experience is that quite a few atheists on this forum do not even know what the fallacy of special pleading constitutes and its limitations.
Boy, if the atheists on this board (and everywhere else) were even half as stupid as Christians who come here claiming their god-being without ANY proof/evidence make us out to be then we wouldn't be here discussing such topics (from our own past experiences) and most certainly would still believe in one god-idea or another......doesn't really matter which since Christianity has no more proof/evidence (or actual truth) than all those other god-ideas.

[ELECTROGOD]

I don't need evidence that God is real. I just need reasons to believe that such a person is possible.
Hence the Flying Spaghetti Monster......which I guessing that you don't believe in for some inexplicable reason.

[Hedshaker]

My experience is that quite a few atheists on this forum do not even know what the fallacy of special pleading constitutes and its limitations. This is evident from the thread concerning Craig and Dawkins.

This is several times now you have implied that atheists on this board are too dumb to understand things. So please, if we're so below your massive intellect, feel free to not waste another second of your valuable time here. There must be numerous Christian forums that can benefit from your huge intellect.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[WWJD4aKlondikeBar]

After reading and encountering more apologetics than is good for any human
to imbibe, I find that easily the most common theme runnig through apologetics is:

*opens the envelope*

Special Pleading.

It's almost inevitable to knock up against it during any debate with someone using apologetics.

Prof.

My experience is that quite a few atheists on this forum do not even know what the fallacy of special pleading constitutes and its limitations. This is evident from the thread concerning Craig and Dawkins.Well thank Cthulhu that your experience does not equal the sum of reality. I was recently thinking of starting a sarcastic thread like this, condensing all of the apologetic arguments. Prof has it right: any sustained argument breaks down to special pleading.

No matter which argument we start with, points and counterpoints inevitably bring us to the fallacy of belief in something without sufficient evidence (a.k.a. superstition). The theist in question either abandons the thread, stays but refuses to comprehend the implications of where the discussion has led, or they break out with the special pleading (as Adonael said, not always understanding the philosophical construct) which usually involves assigning characteristics to God that are not otherwise indicated anywhere outside of the corner that they've backed themselves into.



Nobody you have ever met or heard of knows the mind of God. Nobody.

[ziffel]

Translation? When every argument has been reduced to a letter, it's hard to keep up. At least post what you mean by each letter so the readers can find out what you're "thereforing", negating and "far all _ such that_"-ing about! :)
the logic is actually used for the purposes of clarity. i gave the translations of the first two premises. if you cannot follow from there, then you probably are not familiar with logic, anyhow.

You keep saying things like the section I've highlighted. Your formulas, (math, logic, whatever you want to call them) and the constant reminder that your readers aren't as well educated as you are = pretentious bullshit. Sorry, that's how I view you. Your message is lost in your medium. Please try again, and this time lose the "uber intellectual" act.

You'll do far more for your viewpoints if you can properly communicate them to your audience. Nevermind that we "don't get it". I understand that. You're bloody brilliant. I get it.

edit: I posted this without reading the other responses, and I see I'm not the only who is interpreting you this way. I've run into other theists in the past who use this schtick -"God exists, but you're too dumb to understand why".

[Adonael]

just a note: it's not actually a proof that is meant to show that god exists.

[beforHim]

"God exists, but you're too dumb to understand why".

I don't think this is how Adoneal is coming off, but I can definitely understand why its being seen this way. I agree that Adoneal needs to explain it for the common "arm-chair" philosopher. Not uber intellectual, but not patronizing either. Hopefully this being my first thread doesn't make my comment automatically void.

- - - - -

"God exists because he exists. Nobody wants to go to Hell. Now sit down and read the goddamn Bible and go to Heaven when you die. No more complaints or questions."

Any thoughts?

I actually put out what evidence I know of that is pertinent to the situation, and that's it. Only whenever someone truly accepts propositions do I then do the special pleading. You should only plead what a person gives to you. Maybe more Christians/theists in general are doing this than we realize, but we're too shallow to see it from the skeptical side of the fence. I have a hard time with Christians/theists in general who use emotional arguments as well, but also a hard time with guys who leave them out when necessary, which usually is not the case (them being necessary).

[Deus Ex]

I don't see how philosophical arguments, for the 'possible' existence of God, offer any evidence that Christianity is the one true religion?

I am an agnostic, who does not exclude the possibility of a Prime Mover. I just do not believe in revealed religions. If someone is going to try to convince me that Trinitarian Christianity is Truth, it is going to take more than Ontological, Teleological, or Cosmological type arguments.

[Huon]

A proposition is said to be :

- possible if it is not necessarily false (regardless of whether it actually is true or false);
- necessary if it is not possibly false;
- contingent if it is possibly true and possibly false.

The basic unary operator Necessary is written □ (square).
The basic unary operator Possibly is written ◊ (diamond).

In his post #10 of this thread, Adonael writes :

1 - That "some being is unsurpassably great" is logically possible. ◊(∃x)Ux

U could mean possibly (◊ !) "Unsurpassably great".


2 - Any being that is unsurpassably great is, in all possible worlds, omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect. □(x)(Ux→□Ox)

O could mean possibly (◊ !) "Omnipotent etc...".

C.Someone is omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect. (∃x)Ox

C could mean possibly (◊ !) Conclusion.

[robo_mojo]

- argument from personal comfort
At least these folks will eventually leave you alone... as long as they are comfortable in their beliefs. You can usually get away from them pretty easily, though not without a "well, you're going to hell" remark. Although I really can't understand how someone can feel so comfortable about damning others to hell...!

- argumentum ad Stalinem
LOL. But this is usually just an extension of the "morals come from god" one. It is just the old us vs them mentality, all bad people are the same and all good people are the same.

- argument from unlikely good events (i.e. "I survived a car accident therefore God exists!")
This is the one I hear and read the most from the local sources. I wonder if that has any connection to why the state lottery is so popular around here.

[Half-Life]

But, all the arguments that are used for "God's existence" can also be used for the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Most theists would laugh about an IPU existing no matter how many arguments you use to prove it exists just as we atheists laugh at the theistic arguments that were made up hundreds of years ago and still used today.

Yet, if you just replace it with the word "God" it somehow becomes OK and proves Jesus.

Not understandable in my opinion.

I just want and hope that all the theists pray for Jesus to give them the best argument ever that nobody can refute. Jesus should be willing and able to provide the argument to his fellow army of Christian soldiers to fight the evil atheists. ;)

[Half-Life]

I don't need evidence that God is real. I just need reasons to believe that such a person is possible.
Hence the Flying Spaghetti Monster......which I guessing that you don't believe in for some inexplicable reason.

I just prayed and the flying spaghetti monster told me that every time we eat a bowl of spaghetti, we are reminded of his holy presence in the world and in our spirit. You know that warm feeling you get inside you when you eat hot spaghetti? That's the noodles setting our spirits on fire with the holiness of the monster.

How about that? Spaghetti proves the flying spaghetti monster exists. Whoever does not eat the noodles with sauce has no life in them. If you really want to get his holy spirit in you, make a few extra meatballs and eat those for the meatballs, sauce, and noodles make up the holy trinity.

I bless myself every time a bowl of spaghetti is placed in front of me.

And since we all know spaghetti is food and food is necessary to live, the flying spaghetti monster is logically necessary to exist. Spaghetti has to come from somewhere! It can't "just exist." :D

[HelpingHand]

1 'seems to be reasonable' is not enough. It needs to be true. It needs to be true in order for it to be actually sound. Whether we can accept it is based upon whether it is reasonable to believe.


There is a difference between having a definition for X and knowing what X would entail. But, who's "we"? I certainly did not offer a definition of those terms and so i am curious as to who you are including with the word "we"?




But the main problem is that your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises.
What your argument says is that everything that is logicaly possible must exist in all possible worlds. And I don't think that is true.

Greetings

Walter

walter, if the above is your honest assessment, then you likely don't understand modal predicate logic and if that's the case, then why are we discussing this issue?



I shall repeat my assessment, Adonael.

What your argument says is that everything that is logicaly possible must exist in all possible worlds. And I don't think that is true.

You seem to think I just say this because I don't understand modal predicate logic, and you are right in that, when I first made this assessment, I was just responding to your argument in English. But I still maintain my assessment is true.
I shall try to prove it by using a slightly different form of your argument.

1.That "some being is pink" is logically possible. ◊(∃x)Px

2. Any being that is pink is, in all possible worlds, pink. □(x)(Px→□Px)

C.Someone is pink. (∃x)Px

This is a valid argument in S5. 1 seems to be reasonable and 2 is true by definition( in fact it's a tautology)

Proving its validity

1.◊(∃x)Px
2. □(x)(Px→□Px)
3.assumption: ~(◊∃x)Px
4. W: (∃x)Px (from 1)
5. (x)~Px (from 3)
6. W: Pa (from 4)
7.W: (x)(Px→□Px) (from 2)
8. ~Pa (from 5)
9: W: (Pa→□Pa) (from 7)
10: □Pa (from 6 and 9)
11: Pa(from 10)
C: (∃x)Px (from 3; 8 contradicts 11)

Conclusion: there is a necessary pink being.
Now, insert anything you want in premsie 1 and, by using the same S5 logic, you will always get the conclusion that whatever you use in premise 1 (and can logically exist) must necessarily exist.
IOW: Everything that is logically possible must exist in all possible worlds.

Greetings

Walter

[Huon]

With logic, you get what you have entered. It reminds me of a saying in use with programmers : garbage in, garbage out...

[ELECTROGOD]

"God exists, but you're too dumb to understand why".

I don't think this is how Adoneal is coming off, but I can definitely understand why its being seen this way.
Ah but that is EXACTLY how he is coming off......which is why you can understand why it's being seen that way.
(We see it all the time here because it's what people often do when they can't actually back up their claims of "god".)

[Adonael]

I don't think this is how Adoneal is coming off, but I can definitely understand why its being seen this way.
Ah but that is EXACTLY how he is coming off......which is why you can understand why it's being seen that way.
(We see it all the time here because it's what people often do when they can't actually back up their claims of "god".)

It might be due to the fact that few of you understand the higher arenas of philosophical thought, but yet most of you show no hestitation to make judgements within such arenas.

[Joe Bloe]

I can discuss them here. There is one version that I enjoy although I'm not sure if it is sound:


1.That "some being is unsurpassably great" is logically possible. ◊(∃x)Ux

2. Any being that is unsurpassably great is, in all possible worlds, omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect. □(x)(Ux→□Ox)
C.Someone is omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect. (∃x)Ox


This is a valid argument in S5. 1 seems to be reasonable and 2 is true by definition.
It doesn't look sound to me:

Logical possibility does not entail or imply actuality. So even if 1 is logically possible, it can't necessarily follow that it is actually possible.

But is "some being is unsurpassably great" logically possible in the first place? If there were an actual being that is unsurpassably great, wouldn't that mean that greatness is limited? If so, how great is it, really? Is there, for example, an unsurpassably large number? While I don't claim to have proven here that it is impossible, I think I can reasonably conclude that the claim that it is logically possible is questionable.

Also, since the argument includes moral perfection in its definition of 'greatness', how do you deal, for example, with the conflict between justice and mercy? Both are considered good, but they necessarily conflict: mercy is an undeserved reprieve from a just punishment. So, perfect justice leaves no room for mercy, and mercy is technically an injustice. Since one being cannot be both maximally perfectly just and maximally perfectly merciful, one being cannot maximally contain all perfections.

You can do the same with the concept of 'omnipotence.' The question "Can God create a rock too heavy for him to lift?" is often dismissed as a silly question, noting that God can do all things logically possible. But, what is the source of the logical impossibility in the question? Not in the concept of being able to make something too heavy for the maker to lift: I've done that, such as when I built a shed for firewood which is too heavy for me to lift. So being able to make something the maker can't lift is logically possible. Neither is it in the concept of being able to lift anything you make: chimpanzees can make simple tools, and they can lift those tools; they don't have the cognitive capacity to design and construct something so heavy they can't lift it. Well, I suppose technically a chimp could make a large pile of rocks that it couldn't lift; but then, I don't think a chimp would think to do such a thing, I don't think it would come up with a reason for it so it's probably not something a chimp would ever do. In any case, certainly the idea of being able to lift anything you can make is a logically possible notion. What doesn't work is to say one and the same being can both make something it can't lift and at the same time be able to lift anything it can make. In other words, the logical contradiction is in the concept of 'omnipotence' itself, the idea that one being can do everything that is logically possible: some logically possible things are incompatible with other logically possible things, so no one being can do them all.

Another problem is in the conclusion, which slips in something extra by saying someone is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. Where did the 'one' come from, the notion of personhood? The premises posited a 'being', which could be something. Why would this maximally perfect being have to be a person?

[thedistillers]

All apologetic arguments fail.

First the traditional arguments for the existence of God fail, because they rely on some premises that you'll only accept if you want the conclusion to be true.

I have never seen anyone running to church after reading the ontological argument or the cosmological argument. Those are arguments to confort people who already believe. We could come up with an infinite list of logical arguments with the conclusion "therefore God exists".

Specific Christian apologetics arguments are also a failure. I'm not even going to bother with the I-know-Christianity-is-true-because-of-the-inner-testimony-of-the-holy-spirit. The moral argument is idiotic, but probably the most persuasive. The historical argument (ie the resurrection is the best explanation) is equally idiotic, but also persuasive I guess.

I suppose Plantinga reformed epistemology emerged and gained popularity because people slowly but surely start to realize how all arguments for Christianity fail. The only option left for apologetics is to affirm no evidence or argument is needed to be Christian.

[Half-Life]

Ah but that is EXACTLY how he is coming off......which is why you can understand why it's being seen that way.
(We see it all the time here because it's what people often do when they can't actually back up their claims of "god".)

It might be due to the fact that few of you understand the higher arenas of philosophical thought, but yet most of you show no hestitation to make judgements within such arenas.

It doesn't matter. A Hindu can just use the same argument and "prove" Vishnu and Krishna exist. But, you would dismiss that as silly. Scientologists can use it to prove Xenu.

Same thing with Poseidon and Odin. Or I can use the old "Thunder proves Thor exists."

[Anaximanchild]

just a note: it's not actually a proof that is meant to show that god exists.

just another note: Your argument has already been eviscerated in the thread you started here (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=244080). Hawking it to another audience will not make it any better.