Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-04-2015, 08:53 PM
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
Questions:

(1) If the logic of this argument is valid, can we not derive the necessity of the possibility of a maximally unjust world, in the same manner in which the author of this proof derived the necessity of the possibility of a maximally just world, except with the removal of due goods rather than their restoration?

(2) By the possibility-of-necessity-implying-necessity part of this argument, would (1) not necessitate maximal injustice by the logic of this argument, in the same way that this argument wishes to imply the necessity of maximal justice?

(3) Having concluded necessarily both maximal justice and maximal injustice, is not the law of non-contradiction violated?

(4) Does this not, in turn, show that the same logic, which can be used to arrive at both of these contradictory points, to be invalid?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Reltzik's post
11-04-2015, 08:54 PM
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
(11-04-2015 08:38 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  
(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.

Can you replace the word god in your argument with magical unicorns and have it remain internally coherent ?

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, 08:56 PM
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
Reltzik, thanks for the critique man. I'll read through it and see what I think.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2015, 09:06 PM
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
(11-04-2015 07:17 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  
(11-04-2015 07:13 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ... who apparently is so lazy and uninterested that he allows thousands of innocent babies to starve every week, and thousands of other innocent children to suffer and die from cancer every month. You can cook up any being you like in your imagination. Doesn't make it real.

Get your Catholic head out of your rear end. There is no "apology" sufficient for your god(s). Ask your self this. Why is it, your god has created EXACTLY and PRECISELY the VERY same world one would expect to see, if there was no god ?

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?"
.... Epicurus (c. 341 - c. 270 BC)
Is the evaluative standard by which you don't like innocent children starving and dying of cancer coherent? If so you've accepted the only premise of this argument which isn't a truth of logic...

I won't answer your appeal to the problem of evil here, not because I don't have an answer, but because it would take us too far off-topic to discuss it on this thread.

You don't have a coherent answer. If you think you do, you are deluded.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2015, 09:24 PM
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
Human infant children require a real live being that exists to provide for their needs, protection and we'll being.

Without a real live existing being, infants will perish.

How does that fit in with divine injustice ?

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, 09:32 PM
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
http://www.examiner.com/article/atheism-...l-argument

Quote: Way back in the eleventh century, Anselm of Canterbury attempted to prove the existence of God through logic alone, probably because he couldn't find any real evidence for his belief. Despite Anselm’s own claim that his argument was only convincing to those already convinced, the Ontological Argument remains a popular argument among Christians today.

Anselm starts the argument by defining God as a being in which no greater being can be conceived. He then reasons that it is greater to actually exist than it is to not actually exist. Therefore, he concludes that God must actually exist.

This argument is of course ridiculous.

Philosophy, in general, is mental masturbation.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Minimalist's post
11-04-2015, 09:34 PM
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
(11-04-2015 09:32 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  http://www.examiner.com/article/atheism-...l-argument

Quote: Way back in the eleventh century, Anselm of Canterbury attempted to prove the existence of God through logic alone, probably because he couldn't find any real evidence for his belief. Despite Anselm’s own claim that his argument was only convincing to those already convinced, the Ontological Argument remains a popular argument among Christians today.

Anselm starts the argument by defining God as a being in which no greater being can be conceived. He then reasons that it is greater to actually exist than it is to not actually exist. Therefore, he concludes that God must actually exist.

This argument is of course ridiculous.

Philosophy, in general, is mental masturbation.

Not all of philosophy, but certainly theology is.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
11-04-2015, 09:34 PM
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
(11-04-2015 09:32 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  http://www.examiner.com/article/atheism-...l-argument

Quote: Way back in the eleventh century, Anselm of Canterbury attempted to prove the existence of God through logic alone, probably because he couldn't find any real evidence for his belief. Despite Anselm’s own claim that his argument was only convincing to those already convinced, the Ontological Argument remains a popular argument among Christians today.

Anselm starts the argument by defining God as a being in which no greater being can be conceived. He then reasons that it is greater to actually exist than it is to not actually exist. Therefore, he concludes that God must actually exist.

This argument is of course ridiculous.

Philosophy, in general, is mental masturbation.

[Image: ontological_argument.png]

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Reltzik's post
11-04-2015, 09:42 PM (This post was last modified: 11-04-2015 09:57 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
(11-04-2015 09:32 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  http://www.examiner.com/article/atheism-...l-argument

Quote: Way back in the eleventh century, Anselm of Canterbury attempted to prove the existence of God through logic alone, probably because he couldn't find any real evidence for his belief. Despite Anselm’s own claim that his argument was only convincing to those already convinced, the Ontological Argument remains a popular argument among Christians today.

Anselm starts the argument by defining God as a being in which no greater being can be conceived. He then reasons that it is greater to actually exist than it is to not actually exist. Therefore, he concludes that God must actually exist.

This argument is of course ridiculous.

Philosophy, in general, is mental masturbation.

Which is what I said in the first reply. Logic proves nothing. There are all kinds of perfectly elegant, internally consistent, logical systems which we know do not obtain in reality. Logic is necessary, but not sufficient. Even if this guy's argument were flawless, it would not lead to any god. The idea of a god itself is incoherent in 2015. The only thing left is evidence. The universe we see is exactly the universe one would expect to see if there were no gods. There is no evidence for that nonsense any longer. The fact that he actually thinks it might be an argument for the existence of a god simply demonstrates how out of touch with reality some people are. It's also theologically unsound, as was pointed out also above. No one can "argue" their way to a position of faith. And reading the first page of that tractatus dude's nonsense is equally stupid. He talks about a "necessary" god. A god that is necessary cannot be the creator of the Realty for obvious reasons.

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
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
11-04-2015, 10:01 PM
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
Reltzik, many thanks for the well-thought out reply. Reading through it (I didn't read through your critique of the YouTube video, if you insist I may later), there are four main points you made which I will attempt to address:

1. You seemed to be framing modal logic in terms of epistemology. That isn't the way it is used here. What you seem to be missing is that there could be, for all we know, a contradiction in a concept that we just don't know about. This is why, for instance, the "standard" formulations of the MOA, which assume as a premise that God is possible, don't work- the burden of proof is too heavy to sustain.

2. Similar to the above, you seem to be granting that specific evaluative standards are coherent as the "benefit of the doubt". This doesn't work for the reason above. There do seem to be evaluative standards that are NOT coherent. For instance, one could argue that any moral standard, in order to be coherent, has to be framed in terms of the well-being of others in some way. When you say that an evaluative standard is coherent, you are assuming that that standard doesn't break down in some way that you are unaware.

Now, you could say that every evaluative standard breaks down in a similar way- this argument does allow you to say that. The only problem is that we use SOME kind of evaluative standard all the time- even in this very thread people are using them.

3. Your critique of the premise that if justice is situationally necessary, and yet there is sense to the concept of injustice, then there must be an infallible justice-making power. You say this is arbitrary, like how some say that since logic exists it must be created. It actually isn't- it's quite straightforward actually. Because there is sense to the concept of injustice, we know that not everything is just in of itself (you mentioned things like child rape and genocide). But, if justice is situationally necessary nonetheless, that means there must be something else that RENDERS everything just.

4. Your questioning of whether the attributes commonly attributed to God (you referenced personhood) follows from the concept of an infallible justice-making power. To be honest this is the step which I myself am most hung up on, but one clue is mentioned near the end of the post, where I argue that this being must be that than which none greater can be conceived. Another clue is the question of whether there can be a being which guarantees the justice of everything, without having knowledge of what to make just. I am not so sure how much legs that last one has though.

All in all, thanks for the response. It was stimulating and very-well thought out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: