Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-04-2015, 07:54 PM
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
ON TOPIC????

Yer new here.....



BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHA!!!!!!

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2015, 07:57 PM
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
(11-04-2015 07:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(11-04-2015 07:51 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  The reason why I told you comment there is to keep this thread on-topic.

The fact is, the question WAS on topic. You just can't/won't answer it, as you *need* to do things in the rote fashion you've been indoctrinated in. And instead of answering it, all you did was post drivel from a crap Catholic site.
It was on-topic in the sense that it was about the existence of God, but it was off-topic because it didn't try to contest any of the premises of this particular argument (in fact, it AFFIRMED the main one).

There are numerous arguments against God's existence, but this thread would be taken in a thousand different directions if we had to talk about all of them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2015, 08:01 PM
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
So, can you define cruel and unusual punishment or not?

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2015, 08:01 PM
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
(11-04-2015 07:57 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  
(11-04-2015 07:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The fact is, the question WAS on topic. You just can't/won't answer it, as you *need* to do things in the rote fashion you've been indoctrinated in. And instead of answering it, all you did was post drivel from a crap Catholic site.
It was on-topic in the sense that it was about the existence of God, but it was off-topic because it didn't try to contest any of the premises of this particular argument (in fact, it AFFIRMED the main one).

There are numerous arguments against God's existence, but this thread would be taken in a thousand different directions if we had to talk about all of them.

No one said you had to "talk about all of them". I gave you a few. You couldn't answer any of them, AND you still haven't.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2015, 08:14 PM
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
(11-04-2015 08:01 PM)Dom Wrote:  So, can you define cruel and unusual punishment or not?
Dunno man. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2015, 08:19 PM
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
(11-04-2015 08:14 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  
(11-04-2015 08:01 PM)Dom Wrote:  So, can you define cruel and unusual punishment or not?
Dunno man. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Unfortunately your god apparently doesn't know either.

One of the reasons I am not catholic anymore.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2015, 08:22 PM
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
(11-04-2015 08:19 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(11-04-2015 08:14 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  Dunno man. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Unfortunately your god apparently doesn't know either.

One of the reasons I am not catholic anymore.

Like I said. "Ivory tower".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2015, 08:35 PM
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
The lack of evidence for any gods is coherent.

The physical world is consistent through the laws of physics. If you agree in this consistency then we can throw out any miracles and supernatural beings.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2015, 08:38 PM
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
(11-04-2015 08:35 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  The lack of evidence for any gods is coherent.

The physical world is consistent through the laws of physics. If you agree in this consistency then we can throw out any miracles and supernatural beings.
Again, there are plenty of arguments for/against God that could be discussed. I made the OP about a particular one for a reason.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2015, 08:52 PM (This post was last modified: 11-04-2015 09:32 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
(11-04-2015 05:22 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  For a while, I have been interested in the Modal Ontological Argument. Recently, I came across a new version of the argument which I think is better. It is featured on "Part I, Article III" of this page: http://newapologetics.com/the-tractatus

Oh. Joy. There's no bullshit like ontological bullshit. That shit stinks worse than any just because there has to be some maximally stinky shit. Still, SOMEONE'S got to break the argument down rather than just posting memes. It's a shitty job, but...

(11-04-2015 05:22 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  Note that I also think you should explore the site I linked to at some point, because some more interesting things are said in it.

... tell you what. I'll use this argument to make a provisional evaluation of the value of the rest of the site. You found it particularly impressive, impressive enough to repost here, so presumably it's in the upper tier of what the site has to offer. I'll go through it, disecting as I go (so the comments I make early will be before I read further on), and then make a final judgement at the end. If it's halfway decent, I'll glance at the other stuff. If not, if the top tier of stuff the site has to offer is NOT halfway decent, then I have better things to do with my time.

(11-04-2015 05:22 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  I will give an explanation of it here; if you don't understand it at first, that's fine, I didn't either. You can ask any questions you like.

I can?

ANY question?

Oh WOW.

Have you considered a career in writing blank checks? You'd be stupendous at it!

(11-04-2015 05:22 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  The explanation (which may or may not help):

Basically there are two foundational concepts in play here:

1) The definition of "injustice". Something is unjust if it can be said to be lacking of a due good by come coherent evaluative standard. The argument attempts to make the definition of injustice as wide-open as it could possibly be. This definition does not require a belief that what is just and unjust is objective (so you don't have to argue back and forth with an atheist about objective/subjective morality), although as you will see later on the argument tries to show that God exists, ad fulfills all coherent evaluative standards.

Okay, I haven't read ahead. Right now I'm just brainstorming implications of what I've already read.

So, let's see if I understand this right. So long as there is some coherent evaluation standard... ANY coherent evaluation standard... and if by such a standard labels that thing lacks a "due good" (presumably such an evaluation standard could render such a verdict), then by the bolded definition it is unjust. Am I understanding that correctly? Furthermore, am I correct in understanding that "coherent" simply means "not self-contradictory?"

Okay, then. Let's look at a plethora of... let's call them "elementary positive" standards, and let's make these standards as narrow as possible. These standards can apply to either situations or actions, and either render a verdict of them lacking a due good (whatever that is), or not render such a verdict. Each of these standards will be extremely narrow, applying only to one type of situation or one type of action. For example, "starvation in the world". The elementary positive "starvation in the world" standard, for example, describes a situation where, regardless of any other facters, there is starvation in the world, as lacking due good. If there is not starvation in the world, it is not lacking due good according to the elementary positive standard. This standard is obviously coherent, because for it to contradict on whether a situation is lacking due good, there most simultaneously both be and not be startvation in the world. Thus, ANY situation in which there is starvation in the world would be unjust, because there exists some (at least one! This one!) evaluation standard which renders a verdict of lacking due good.

Now let's consider another class of evaluation standard, which I'll call elementary negative. This one says a situation lacks due good if the described condition is NOT met. So the elementary negative standard "starvation in the world" says that there is a lack of due good if there is NOT starvation in the world. (I dunno, maybe there's someone who thinks that deprivation and mortification of the flesh is a good thing.) This must also be coherent due to its simplicity, the same as before. So this must ALSO be unjust by the above definition.

Since there will always either be starvation or not be starvation in the world, one or the other, and then for any situation there will be some coherent evaluation standard that describes that situation as unjust (one of the two I mentioned). Therefore, EVERY IMAGINIBLE situation will be unjust, under the bolded definition.

Note also that we can bifurcate on countless topics like this, and not all of them need involve a highly suspect moral statement like "there not being starvation in the world is unjust". Compare, for example, positive and negative elementary standards "mass murderers receive the death penalty". We can easilly argue that the worst criminals deserve the death penalty... or that NO ONE should be executed by the state. Both positions are debatable in our society, and neither is truly outre. By the bolded definition you provided, BOTH situations -- mass murderers receving the death penalty and them not receiving the death penalty -- would register as unjust, because for each there would exist some coherent evaluation system (the elementary positive and elementary negative) claiming that one or the other lacked due good.

In short, by the definition you've provided, every situation and everything and anything is unjust.

Given this, this definition very contrary to my notions of justice and injustice, and I am reclined to reject it. But I'll read on and see how it fits into the larger picture.

(11-04-2015 05:22 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  2) The concepts of modal logic being applied to situations. The same words "possible", "necessary", "impossible", etc. are transferred to talk about situations. So something is situationally necessary if it is true about all possible situations, situationally possible if it is true about some possible situations, etc.

Oh, wow, headachy vocabulary. Trying to put set-language into English-language is always a pain. Why can't they talk about sigma-algebras like good set theorists? But okay, point taken, we've got some degree of ignorance about what's true, and we can rank things as possible, necessary, and impossible. I hope they remember to account for the empty set and properly distinguish between universal and specific claims. Also, the methodology for determining what is possible, necessary, or impossible is of curiosity to me, and I forsee it as a potential sticking point.

I do recall from way back when that I regarded modal logic as highly suspect. I might go back and look up the details if they become relevant.

(11-04-2015 05:22 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  Once those two basic concepts are understood, two crucial axioms to understand:

1) If some property is not compatible with some other property (in the argument itself uses the example of property a being incompatible with b), then it is compatible with the negation of that property (so a would be compatible with not-b). This is true simply because property a has to be logically possible (logically impossible properties are not properties at all), and either b or not-b must be true. If you think about it, if a were incompatible with both b and not-b, a would be logically impossible. Now, one could always say that property a is impossible and that would mean it could be incompatible with both b and not-b, but that doesn't work in response to this argument, as will be seen later.

Law of non-contradiction. Got it. Pretty wordy way of saying it. I feel almost as if someone's trying to vocabulary my brain into a stupor in hopes that it will make me more suggestible. And I agree, not-a does not then contradict with both b and not-b.

(11-04-2015 05:22 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  2) If it is possible that a property is situationally necessary (i.e. if that property is compatible with situational necessity), that property is situationally necessary. This is a consequence of the S5 axiom of modal logic, which is used in the standard modal ontological argument. This video is I think a good defense of the S5 system of modal logic, if you feel it needs defending: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azHzZ2ADJkA

Whoa whoa whoa. Compatible with situationally necessary is equal to situational necessity? I'm DEFINITELY smelling a stink coming from that. Let's say I know nothing about proposition A. Because I know nothing about it, what I know about it is compatible (not contradictory) with proposition A being situationally necessary. (And also with proposition A being situationally impossible.) It DOES NOT FOLLOW from my ignorance that A is therefore situationally necessary! I'm also highly suspicious about how we determine whether or not it is possible that a property is situationally necessary. But I'll read on and see how this fits into the bigger argument before pitching a huge fit about it. It might be completely unnecessary.

(11-04-2015 05:22 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  Once these concepts are down, there are basically three other steps to the argument that are needed- the rest of the argument logically follows:

1) The property of situational necessity is incompatible with the property of injustice.

Wait. I've already established that any and every situation is unjust (under the weird definition of unjust provided) because it is possible to describe them as lacking due good by some coherent evaluation method. How the hell is this incompatible with the situational necessity of injustice? It is the DEFINITION of the situational necessity of injustice!

(11-04-2015 05:22 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  If you remember back when I talked about the first axiom, I mentioned saying the first property is impossible as a potential escape route, but that it won't work here. The reason it won't work here is because if the property of situational necessity was impossible, that fact would itself be situationally necessary, which is obviously self-defeating. Also, there are necessary truths of mathematics and logic that are situationally necessary.

Wow, way to just hand-wave math and logic away. WHAT necessary truths? I'm curious just because they're not being said! Anyhow, that doesn't matter. I'm using a different escape route... and by "escape" I mean "I was led here by your own definition and didn't even know this thing that I might or might not want to escape was coming and it missed me entirely without me having to dodge." ... which really isn't "escaping" so much as "what, there's something I'm supposed to be escaping from? I didn't notice", but that's the argument's language, so I'll stick with it.

So, fine, supposedly there's one escape route blocked off, BUT THAT'S NOT THE SAME AS ELIMINATING ALL OF THEM.

(11-04-2015 05:22 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  Now let's get back to the premise. Essentially, the premise says that for every unjust situation, there is a logically possible world in which it is "replaced" by a just one. So for instance, if an innocent man is unjustly found guilty in a court of law, there is a logically possible situation in which the same man is never accused. It seems that we only call things unjust in contrast to a coherent just situation.

False. As I established well before I ever read this part. Under the very loose definition of "unjust" provided, every situation is unjust, including the negation of those sitaution. Not only is this premise not established, it is in direct contradiction to the definitions provided. Now granted, in a looser, more conventional notion of justice, this premise might be something I could entertain. But not with the weird funky definition provided.

(11-04-2015 05:22 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  If you still have doubts about this, here are two additional angles from which you can see this:

So you can fix this definition with a new angle?

(11-04-2015 05:22 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  a) The axiom that "ought implies can". It doesn't seem that anyone can be said to have an obligation to do something if they are not able to do so.

Well, it's often said (look how often the American president is held responsible for economic circumstances that it was impossible for him to avert), but I'll agree with this statement on the moral level. It's not elemenatary enough for me to describe it as an axiom. I'd probably start somewhere a bit more basic and build up to this. But I'll agree with the principle.

(11-04-2015 05:22 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  b) The definition of injustice, used back when we talked about the "foundational concepts". Injustice is defined as something that can be said to be lacking a due good by some coherent evaluative standard. Now, if the due good cannot logically possibly exist in that situation, wouldn't that mean the standard itself is incoherent? If I were to say that "situation X is unjust because it doesn't contain square circles", that would not seem to be a coherent evaluative standard.

And HERE is the rub, I think. It is not incoherent, in a strictly logical sense, to describe every situation as unjust. Moreover, the argument has lost track of how different things being described as lacking due good by SOME system, then requires them to be considered unjust overall. Maybe it's a misstatement of the earlier definition, or maybe it's just losing track. I can't say. But it's sloppy work overall, and at this point I'm very sour to the idea of perusing the rest of the site.

But okay, let me be cooperative and charitable and see if I can't salvage this for the original author who fumbled it. They seem to be implying that a SINGLE coherent evaluation standard should be adhered too, even if their words literally read as otherwise. I'm troubled by the unclear meaning of "due good", but it seems to mean, as best as I can read between the lines, "some factor of goodness that we would be due", and the lack of that factor of goodness is what defines injustice.

With this correction, the argument starts to make a bit more sense. As things stand, I still agree with the axiom of non-contradiction and I still smell a stink off of compatibility-with-situational-necessary-equals-situational-necessity, but the premise is more sensible. I have certain questions about whether replacing one injustice with another, because it is mutually incompatible to have neither, is a good one. That seems to fall under the heading of can't-be-blamed-for-what-can't-be-avoided. But I'll read on, using this modified definition, and see if this salvage job can't work.

(11-04-2015 05:22 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  If you accept everything seen above, the conclusion can be reached that the property of justice is situationally necessary. This conclusion can be reached in the following way:

P1: The property of situational necessity is incompatible with the property of injustice.

Okay, so basically anything inevitable cannot be unjust under the can't-be-blamed-for-things-you-can't-change principle, so for any injustice it would be possible to avoid it.

I'm iffy on this. Just because it might be possible to avoid ANY SPECIFIC injustice, doesn't mean we can then avoid EVERY injustice.

(11-04-2015 05:22 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  P2: If some property a is incompatible with property b, it is compatible with its negation, not-b.

.... something about this wording seems off to me, but I'll go with it for now.

(11-04-2015 05:22 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  C1: The property of situational necessity is incompatible with the property of injustice.

Just rephrase this as injustice is unnecessary, for crying out loud. Just because obtuse language is situationally possible doesn't make obtuse language situationally necessary! But it's equivalent to P1, so I'll regard it in the same light.

(11-04-2015 05:22 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  P3: If a property is compatible with situational necessity, the property is situationally necessary (by the S5 axiom).

This, as I recall, is the part from earlier that I thought stank like a week-old-fish that had been tossed into a heavily-trafficked Port-a-Potty on Day 2.

(11-04-2015 05:22 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  C2: The property of justice is situationally necessary.

Following the port-a-potty fish, which I'm pretty sure I don't want to follow. I'm now almost dead certain that I want to give the axioms of Modal logic the fine-toothed-comb treatment before I accept this. But I'll continue, provisionally, just in case.

(11-04-2015 05:22 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  Now, let's resume to go over the last two steps to the argument.

2) Since the property of justice is situationally necessary, either there is no sense to the concept of injustice, or there exists an infallible justice-making power.

Oh HELL no. Not the stupid "it exists, therefore something creates it" argument. This is like saying "logic exists, therefore god must be enforcing it!" Which is the typical ontological bullshit. I'm going to need more evidence than just this asser- oh, wait, the evidence might be coming. Reading on...

(11-04-2015 05:22 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  This may sound like a false dichotomy, but think through the logic here: we have already concluded that justice is situationally necessary- that everything is just.

Wait, is THAT what is meant by "the property of justice is situationally necessary?" It means EVERYTHING IS JUST? *reads back* Damn, that IS what it means.

Okay, then. I'm just going to stop reading and call this argument bogus crap. AND ME DOING SO IS JUST EITHER WAY!

... nah, I'm having too much fun with this to take that out.

But still, think about what's being said here. If priests abuse alter boys? MUST BE JUST BECAUSE IT'S SITUATIONALLY NECESSARY! If nations perform genocide? MUST BE JUST BECAUSE THE PROPERTY OF JUSTICE IS SITUATIONALLY NECESSARY! The world trade center attacks? JUST BECAUSE THE PROPERTY OF JUSTICE IS SITUATIONALLY NECESSARY!

Dang, and I thought that fish couldn't smell any worse than it already did. BOY WAS I WRONG.

(11-04-2015 05:22 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  That would mean that either nothing can logically possibly be considered unjust, or that unjust situations are transformed.

We've still got pedophile priests, that hasn't been transformed, so.... yay justice?

(11-04-2015 05:22 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  Whatever transforms unjust situations must itself be a being whose existence can't be said to be an unjust situation (otherwise such a situation would itself need to be transformed, and we have an infinite regress).

Okay, not that it matters by this point, but could some philosopher, somewhere, anywhere, PLEASE entertain the possibility that infinite regress means something other than "wrong"? I mean this argument's pretty well on my shit list by now, but STILL, you just had to throw in my OCD-mathematician pet peeve, didn't you?

(11-04-2015 05:22 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  If you remember back to the definition of injustice from before, this means that this being cannot be said to lack any goods by any coherent evaluative standard.

... so modifying this wording by my salvage effort, this should read that the being can't be said to lack a due good by whichever coherent evaluative standard we have chosen. Which... okay, that part at least is okay.

(11-04-2015 05:22 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  In other words, there would have to exist a being that than which none greater can be conceived.

And NO. Assuming everything you had was right up to this point, you'd be partway there, but you'd still have to demonstrate finite closure of the increasing set, and you haven't, which is ANOTHER SIGN OF PEOPLE WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND INFINITY! You haven't eliminated the possibility of increase without bound! There might be no maximal element at all! *froths and twitches and gnaws on shield* LO! I AM A MATHEMATICIAN! I WIELD AT LEAST SOME COMPETENCE ON THE SUBJECT OF INFINITY! ALL PHILOSOPHERS WET YOURSELVES AND FLEE BEFORE ME, FOR I HAVE MASTERED WHAT YOU FEAR TO EVER CONSIDER!

stupidgreekmathematicsanditsstupidarbitrarywrongrejectionofinfinityinfectingphil​osophyforeverevenaftermathitselfgotfixedgrumblegrumble.

Grrrrrr.

But okay. The PROOF of this point failed, but it's provable through more competent means, so I'll still allow it. The overall proof is still deader in the water than the fish.

(11-04-2015 05:22 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  3) There is a sense to the concept of injustice.
As the final step of the argument, we have one of the most indisputable premises one could come up with. Every time you say that a certain situation sucks, you are saying that that situation lacks a due good by a standard of evaluation. The only other step left in order to get to this premise is that one of those standards by which we say something is unjust is a coherent one. To deny this, not only do you have to deny that these standards are objective, you have to say there is something incoherent about them. You have to hold all of these standards hostage until you admit this premise.

Eh, I've noticed that MOST people have a pretty incoherent notion of what is or isn't just. But actually I'm willing to accept this for the sake of argument with little complaint.

(11-04-2015 05:22 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  By the second and third steps, the conclusion follows: There exists an infallible justice-making power.

As was explained before, this justice-making power must be that than which none greater can be conceived.

ALL HAIL MA'AT!

.... that's the justice-making power you were talking about, right?

.... the same one that you simply asserted, rather than proved? Facepalm

... also, there's MORE, to this right?

RIGHT?

I mean this is supposed to be a proof of a god, right? Not just some arbitrary elemental force like gravity, but a GOD. Not just some unthinking flow of right-being like the Tao, but a GOD. A thinking, sapient, personal, acting GOD. You've not gotten there. Your only property is justice-making. You need more than justice-making to mean a god.

AND THAT'S IF I ALLOW THE LATRINE FISH!

Okay, so it seems to mostly come down to the fish, and so I reluctantly admit it's time to give that disgusting fish a closer look. Erf. Lo, Wikipedia, I call thee! Reveal unto me the axioms of modal logic!

.... and lo, wikipedia did reveal unto me that there are multiple different axiomizations of modal logic. Feh.

But S5 has its own wikipedia page. Which has the following statements (how are these not all separate axioms?)

The possibility of P implies the necessity OF THE POSSIBILITY of P, OR BOTH OF

1) The necessity of A implies the necessity of the necessity of A, AND
2) A implies the necessity of the possibility of A.

*scans back up*

Oh, this is being asserted as a theorem based ON S5, not S5 itself. Sigh. youtube time.

@2:10 .... okay, so he answered my "ignorance is not proof" objection by specifying alethic logic. Withdrawn, but I sense a parallel issue lurking. Continuing viewing.

@2:30 .... okay, so here's the fish. He's saying it's there in alethic logic. .... waiting for the proof of the fish.

@2:40 "In one possible world, it is necessarily true that X is possible in ALL possible worlds." ... um, if you've confined yourself to a single world, how are you then in all worlds at once? This fish is getting fishier.

@2:55 Oh, wow, aside from the obtuse vocabulary this guy isn't even TRYING to be subtle. He's taking the fish and DELIBERATELY CHOOSING AXIOMS on the grounds of whether they can prove the fish or not. Talk about reasoning from the conclusion!

@3:05: Possibly P implies possibly P in all worlds? It's almost like he doesn't get the point of "possible worlds" as a way of describing possibility. ... come to think of it, I don't know of a single ontological argument that DOESN'T flip-flop between "true about one world" and "true about all worlds" in whatever inconsistent manner it finds convenient.

@3:55 What he's SAYING is garbage, but the propositions on screen are valid.

@4:20 Okay, he's getting sane again. For the moment.

@4:30 "S5 is the only system that can do this." WOW. BOLD CLAIM. Does that include all the systems that have not been invented yet? I can't wait to hear him prove this. (I say, as I pause the video and wait to hear him prove this while I type that I can't wait to hear him prove this. This isn't lying. It's sarcasm.)

@4:55 Okay... stacking operators collapse into the LAST operator? I can see how that assertion would prove that possibility of the necessity of p implies the necessity of p... but where's the proof of this assertion?

@5:25 OMG wall of text learn to produce! Also, learn to SCRIPT. Please don't refer to "C0" without defining that.

@5:40: Okay, picking up C0 from context... geez, this guy is a TERRIBLE communicator.

@6:20: "There must be at least one fundamental truth that must not vary between worlds." Oooh! Oooh! I pick the law of non-contradiction! A implies not-not-A! He agreed with me earlier! Good, now whatever other thing you're going to propose as a fundamental truth will need some proof other than "it must be SOMETHING, what else?"

@7:10 OMG get to the point already. When you referred us to this video you could at LEAST have flagged what time frames were important.

@8:00 ... wait, is he wasting THIS MUCH TIME dismissing a bad counterargument... just to then claim that the fact that one counterargument was bad in turn implies that the original argument was good? It's looking like that.

@9:30 ... and he's STILL ON IT.

@10:45 ... Still. On. It.

... okay. Finished. At least he didn't assert something at random for the one fundamental truth. ...and the fish is still disguisting.

Essentially, when he linked this video, he promised it would demonstrate that the possibility of the necessity of P implied the necessity of P. He asserted, but failed to satisfactorilly demonstrate, a broader proposition which, if true, I would admit to including that more specific proposition. My relevant responses were @3:05 and @4:55. (EDIT: Also @2:45.) Almost the entire rest of the video was irrelevant to this point and a waste of time, and the relevant point was not proven.

In short, I am unconvinced of the whole collapsing operator thing, and even with that, other key elements of the proof are clear fallacies.

....

Thinking on the matter for a moment, I think a straightforward dismissal of this whole proof is possible, would in turn become either a disproof of the collapsing-opperator proposition, or at least a demonstration that it was being critically misused in this case. Either way, the logic employed in this entire proof would be shown to be invalid.

... in fact, I think this line of counterargument debunks not only this particular argument, but MOST of the "greatest-possible" ontological arguments.

I'm about to start posing questions here. I'll bold this part so you'll notice it apart from my other ramblings. ... actually, no. I'll make it a separate post so as to really distinguish it. Right after this one.

In any event, I am NOT inspired to explore this guy's website further. If this is the top tier of what he has to offer, I am not impressed. Even if the logic were valid, which I'm convinced it is not, he's such an awful communicator that it would be too head-deskingly frustrating for me to extract anything of use.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Reltzik's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: