Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-04-2015, 11:17 PM (This post was last modified: 11-04-2015 11:22 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
(11-04-2015 10:01 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  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:

Don't bother with the video critique. The main things to extract from my responses to the video is that I think the guy is a poor communicator, and I don't believe the "fish" got proven by it. Though I did go on to mention that I'd make a disproof in the next post in the thread.

(11-04-2015 10:01 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  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.

Epistemological modal logic is how I was originally interpreting it. It wasn't until the video that I realized that this was supposed to be alethic modal logic rather than epistemic modal logic.

(11-04-2015 10:01 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  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.

Not so. I simply said that a moral standard that was elementary simple -- that is, consisted of one basic rule -- had to be coherent. This is because to be incoherent in a logical sense, it had to be self-contradictory, meaning that there would be two or more rules in conflict at some point. An elementary standard wouldn't have two rules that could conflict. In any event, this point in my counter became moot when I attempted to salvage the phrasing of the argument.

As a humanist, I'd be inclined to agree that morality is correctly framed in terms of the well-beings of others. But I don't think that's needed for a standard of evaluation to be coherent. Nor is the well-being of others a universally accepted standard -- quite a few people would base their moral standard on adherence to the perceived requirements of some god or another, even at the expense of the well-being of others, and demand that morality is meaningless without a moral-giver.

(11-04-2015 10:01 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  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.

Which doesn't keep us from all goofing it up. But no, I don't take that position. I just think that most people get their morality wrong in some detail or another, even if by and large most of them are mostly right. Still, it's cause to suspect and examine carefully. No reason to assume one way or the other.

(11-04-2015 10:01 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  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.

Which leaves the question. Are the existence of child rape and genocide just? If not, why have they not been rendered away? If so, what the hell kind of justice is this?

(11-04-2015 10:01 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  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.

And why should a sense of justice diluted and distracted by conscious desires and wants be greater than a pure, elemental right-being like the Tao? Something that knows the direction to justice the way that gravity knows the direction to down -- without needing to think, or even being capable of thinking? At some point the greatness argument falls afoul of subjectivity. Either the entire concept of greatness is subjective and thus the argument becomes incoherent, or our comprehension of it is greatly diverse and for most people flawed. Either way, it's not enough to stand an argument on.

(11-04-2015 10:01 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  All in all, thanks for the response. It was stimulating and very-well thought out.

You're welcome! Though I'd suggest that you read the very next post after that one, which I think constitutes a solid disproof of this argument. In short: The same logic used to prove a necessarily maximally just world and thus an infallible justice-making force, can be used to prove a necessarily maximally unjust world and thus a infallible injustice-making force. Since these two forces (due to their direct opposition, mutual infallibility, and basis in mutually exclusive conditions) cannot coexist, it follows that any chain of logic that can show both to be necessary must be flawed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
11-04-2015, 11:20 PM
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
Argh double-post ignore this.

"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
11-04-2015, 11:49 PM
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
Modal logic?

Because if we actually had evidence, we wouldn't need semantics and word games, now would we?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like EvolutionKills's post
12-04-2015, 02:46 AM
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
can someone explain this to me in simple terms, I know full well its world play with pseudo jargon but I have no idea what its even trying to say
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2015, 05:54 AM
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
(12-04-2015 02:46 AM)Ace Wrote:  can someone explain this to me in simple terms, I know full well its world play with pseudo jargon but I have no idea what its even trying to say

GOD = CHECKMATE ATHEISTS..

or something to that effect....

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

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
[+] 1 user Likes onlinebiker's post
12-04-2015, 06:03 AM
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
(12-04-2015 02:46 AM)Ace Wrote:  can someone explain this to me in simple terms, I know full well its world play with pseudo jargon but I have no idea what its even trying to say

That's the whole point of philosophy - you need a philosopher to explain it to ya. Thumbsup

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2015, 06:32 AM
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
(12-04-2015 06:03 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(12-04-2015 02:46 AM)Ace Wrote:  can someone explain this to me in simple terms, I know full well its world play with pseudo jargon but I have no idea what its even trying to say

That's the whole point of philosophy - you need a philosopher to explain it to ya. Thumbsup

I thought that was the point of lawyers? Going to school to learn a language only they understand... Undecided

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2015, 08:55 AM
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
(12-04-2015 02:46 AM)Ace Wrote:  can someone explain this to me in simple terms, I know full well its world play with pseudo jargon but I have no idea what its even trying to say

In simple terms, it sounds like the first part about injustice is redefining it as something that lacks a good quality according to a consistent set of values. So in other words, objectively immoral.

And of course if you have a set of objective immoral values then there must be an immoral value giver. Since we know that injustice does happen, then the god of the bible must be real and immoral.

Its all so coherent that it must be true.

I've calculated the causal non-speculative modal logical indicators and found that the derivative of all actions that aren't physical directly corresponds to the cumulative refractive index.

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
12-04-2015, 09:36 AM
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
(11-04-2015 05:22 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  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.

Why does a coherent standard have to be an objective one? You may (and probably do) have a standard of justice that would conflict in may instances with my standard. How are you defining coherent? How are you defining justice?

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2015, 10:22 AM
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
Unjust is simply that act of being unfair, meaning that not all people are treated equally when it comes to the law.

Life isn't fair and it's not just. That's why we have rules of law to help balance out that injustice. That's why we have to do something to create justice because there are no other beings beyond ourselves that can.

If you believe in a god then that god is naturally unjust and cruel and capricious and immoral.

Our entire justice system rails against religious people, because these people don't want a fair and just punishment for a crime. They want torture that is unending. They want to feed the most sadist part of their personality.

The christian should be labeled a sadist.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: