Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-04-2015, 10:53 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

It's an attempt to use word play in lieu of actual evidence. That's what all of this philosophical mental masturbation is, I'll leave it to others to deconstruct this nonsense.

Even if somehow there was no response as a counterargument, all that's left is a philosophical proof for an infallible justice-making force, so we can all bow down to Thor because there are no frost giants, thus Thor is the justice-force.

And we all know Frost giants are very unjust. Dodgy

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
12-04-2015, 11:56 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

The basic pattern of modal ontological arguments is this.

0) Introduce modal logic, which in addition to the normal existence and universality operators of ordinary logic also possess operators for POSSIBLE and NECESSARY. (This optional step is not recommended, as this argument is more effective when people can't understand what you're saying and are forced to accept modal logic as an argument from authority, rather than as something they have the comprehension to go back and check.)
1) Argue that a certain attribute is possible.
2) (Optional but recommended for purposes of obfuscation) describe this in terms of it being true in some possible world.
3) Using some gimmic, argue that this possibility equates to a necessity. Bonus points if you can use the awesomeness of the attribute to make it necessary out of sheer awesomeness.
4) Equate this attribute with whatever god you're trying to prove. Don't worry about being called on this point. By now, you should have used enough fancy modal logic vocabulary that people won't be able to actually follow what you're saying.

The typical modal ontological argument uses an attribute of greatness. In this version, the attribute is an ideal situation of maximal justice.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
12-04-2015, 08:47 PM
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
I'm not sure if I'll be responding beyond this... you guys may be able to get the last word.

Bucky Ball: in a valid deductive argument such as this one, the conclusion follows NECESSARILY from the premises. The premises cannot be true and the conclusion false, simply because the inference is made using basic truths of logic (such as modus ponens, modus tollens, etc.)

unfogged: You misread what I said a bit. You asked how a coherent standard has to be objective, when I distinguished between the two in the excerpt of mine that you quoted.

Reltzik:

- It does seem that a complaint which just has one condition can be an incoherent one. For instance, take one based upon the existence of God. God as a purportedly necessary being, must be either necessary or impossible. This means either complaining "I don't like this because God exists!" or "I don't like this because God does not exist!" is incoherent, depending on whether the theist or atheist is right.

- Rape, genocide, etc., when considered in of themselves, are unjust. This is why there is a need for a justice-making power- there must be something external to the rape, genocide, etc. themselves, such that when these things are seen in terms of it, become just. I would consider thid to be the redemption. Essentially, God being loving is opposed to our suffering, but He can take on those sufferings for our sake.

- "The Tao" doesn't have the properties needed to recognize justice; given that it is only we persons that evaluate injustice. As for the diversity of standards, there do seem to be some sort of common thread between them all- for instance, it seems that we all want to be happy.

- I never saw a post immediately after your latest response, but I think I saw you reference a possible parody of this argument which proved an "injustice-making power", or something like that. Essentially, the problem is that injustice (remember the definition) is in terms of justice, and not vice versa. So the premise that injustice isn't situationally necessary because injustice is in contrast to a possible just situation isn't reversible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2015, 09:41 PM
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
(11-04-2015 06:31 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  
(11-04-2015 05:36 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  (Yawn)

Let me give you a clue pal. Revised variants of bullshit arguments remain inherently bullshit.

How many altar boys have your pervert priests raped recently. When you figure that out you can tell me how good your fucking church is.
What makes the ontological argument bullshit, and how does that criticism still apply to this version?

Is the evaluative standard by which you don't like pervert priests raping boys a coherent one? If so, you have accepted a key premise of this argument. The other ones are truths of logic.

What your fucking pervert priests do with their dicks has to do with the arrogance of power, only. They are scum. And like a fish, your church stinks from the head down.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
12-04-2015, 10:13 PM
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
I hope you're a Red Sox fan.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2015, 10:37 PM (This post was last modified: 13-04-2015 09:21 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
(12-04-2015 08:47 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  Bucky Ball: in a valid deductive argument such as this one, the conclusion follows NECESSARILY from the premises. The premises cannot be true and the conclusion false, simply because the inference is made using basic truths of logic (such as modus ponens, modus tollens, etc.)

That's part of the problem. Anything about a god that is *necessary* in Reality means that god is neither omnipotent, nor the creator of the reality in which it must "necessarily" be or do anything. I realize you people *need* cognitive closure and have a low tolerance for ambiguity, but there are no "proofs" for any of the gods. Your conclusion may be *true* logically and correct in terms of the syllogism, but it proves nothing. Logic is necessary but not sufficient. Reality has been proven to be "non-intuitive" to human brains, (Relativity, Uncertainty, the math of Dirac). You have no EVIDENCE for your claims concerning your deity, and you never will. Your word games are a twisted, dishonest, pathetic game, as you *need* (psychologically) to tell yourself the universe makes sense with a pathetic deity who could prevent evil but can't/won't. No one here cares about what you think about your god, and certainly no one here cares about the idiocy of your "redemption" nonsense, a concept that was actually not original to your cult, and that was LATER grafted onto it, to compete with the other religions of the day. Scholars have debunked "salvation" as making any sense in terms of having grown out of Hebrew origins, (Buber among others), and it's evidence that most Christians have not the slightest clue about their own roots and historical realities.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid160188

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
12-04-2015, 10:48 PM
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
(12-04-2015 08:47 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  Bucky Ball: in a valid deductive argument such as this one, the conclusion follows NECESSARILY from the premises. The premises cannot be true and the conclusion false, simply because the inference is made using basic truths of logic (such as modus ponens, modus tollens, etc.)

But without evidence, it's still vapid and unsubstantiated. Logic is necessary, but not sufficient. Logic used to dictate that the universe revolved around the Earth, then we discovered better evidence and the paradigm shifted, as did the logic to accommodate the new evidence.


(12-04-2015 08:47 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  - Rape, genocide, etc., when considered in of themselves, are unjust. This is why there is a need for a justice-making power- there must be something external to the rape, genocide, etc. themselves, such that when these things are seen in terms of it, become just.

That's a Utilitarian definition of justice.

"...utilitarian thinkers including John Stuart Mill argued that justice is what has the best consequences"

The problem is, your god is also the supposed all-powerful creator of the universe. There can never be a situation where rape is the option with the best consequences, because your god is all powerful and can use literally any and all other methods to get his objective across without the use of rape. Thus, rape is never justified, because there can never be a situation where a god doesn't have a better option.

Q.E.D. bitch Drinking Beverage



(12-04-2015 08:47 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  I would consider thid to be the redemption. Essentially, God being loving is opposed to our suffering, but He can take on those sufferings for our sake.


Scapegoating isn't any less bullshit when it's performed by the all-powerful creator of the universe who can instantly magic away all suffering in an instant, if of course he actually gave a fuck.



(12-04-2015 08:47 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  - I never saw a post immediately after your latest response, but I think I saw you reference a possible parody of this argument which proved an "injustice-making power", or something like that. Essentially, the problem is that injustice (remember the definition) is in terms of justice, and not vice versa. So the premise that injustice isn't situationally necessary because injustice is in contrast to a possible just situation isn't reversible.


The point being, whenever I can use your identical train of thought and logic to justify the the exact opposite thing you are arguing for, then your whole line of reasoning is bogus. If it can be used to equally support two conclusions with diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive conclusions, your argument is fundamentally flawed.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
13-04-2015, 12:02 AM
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
(12-04-2015 08:47 PM)CatholicSoxFan Wrote:  I'm not sure if I'll be responding beyond this... you guys may be able to get the last word.

Bucky Ball: in a valid deductive argument such as this one, the conclusion follows NECESSARILY from the premises. The premises cannot be true and the conclusion false, simply because the inference is made using basic truths of logic (such as modus ponens, modus tollens, etc.)

unfogged: You misread what I said a bit. You asked how a coherent standard has to be objective, when I distinguished between the two in the excerpt of mine that you quoted.

Reltzik:

- It does seem that a complaint which just has one condition can be an incoherent one. For instance, take one based upon the existence of God. God as a purportedly necessary being, must be either necessary or impossible. This means either complaining "I don't like this because God exists!" or "I don't like this because God does not exist!" is incoherent, depending on whether the theist or atheist is right.

- Rape, genocide, etc., when considered in of themselves, are unjust. This is why there is a need for a justice-making power- there must be something external to the rape, genocide, etc. themselves, such that when these things are seen in terms of it, become just. I would consider thid to be the redemption. Essentially, God being loving is opposed to our suffering, but He can take on those sufferings for our sake.

- "The Tao" doesn't have the properties needed to recognize justice; given that it is only we persons that evaluate injustice. As for the diversity of standards, there do seem to be some sort of common thread between them all- for instance, it seems that we all want to be happy.

- I never saw a post immediately after your latest response, but I think I saw you reference a possible parody of this argument which proved an "injustice-making power", or something like that. Essentially, the problem is that injustice (remember the definition) is in terms of justice, and not vice versa. So the premise that injustice isn't situationally necessary because injustice is in contrast to a possible just situation isn't reversible.

So you're taking the position that rape, genocide, etc are just, or have been made just, or something. I disagree strongly on that point.

You're begging the question of whether the Tao, or some other abstract right-ness force like it, would NEED the capacity to recognize what is or isn't just. Again, consider the example of whether gravity knows which way down is.

And actually, you defined justice solely as the removal of unjust things. Unjust things were defined as things lacking a due good, and your linked argument posited that for every situation where a due good is lacking, we can posit a mirror circumstance where that due good is present. Just as easily, for any situation in which some due good is present, we can posit a circumstance where that due good is lacking. The argument works in both directions.

"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
13-04-2015, 12:02 AM (This post was last modified: 13-04-2015 01:45 AM by Robvalue.)
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
Ugh, this again?

There is no such thing as objective morality or justice. At some point, a distinction must be made. If it's just an arbitrary distinction that happens to exist, then it's irrelevant to us. What does it matter if something is "universally unjust" if it helps me and those around me?

If it is to have any relevance to us, there needs to be a standard by which things are judged to be helpful or harmful. And it is subjective to whoever or whatever makes that distinction. If that's "God", it's subjective to God. I don't care what God thinks.

To a neutral universe, there is no such thing as just or unjust. It's stuff happening, nothing more.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2015, 03:35 AM (This post was last modified: 13-04-2015 04:25 AM by Variant.)
RE: Modal Ontological Argument from Divine Justice
I took the time to dig out the rotten core of this argument on another forum and Google alerted me to the fact that it had also been posted here too by the same person.

I actually went to the source of this and read the argument in it's original form and it occurred to me:

Source:
http://newapologetics.com/the-tractatus

"Axiom 2: The property of “being situationally necessary” is not compatible with the property “being an unjust situation.” [For any instance of injustice, there is a logically possible situation in which a just state of affairs replaces the unjust one. For example, if a guilty man is unjustly acquitted, there is a logically possible situation in which he is found guilty. If an innocent man is unjustly condemned, there is a logically possible situation in which he is never accused. A given situation is unjust only in contrast to a logically possible just version of that situation.]"

This is a big fat problem right here.

Lets rewrite this as:

" Counter Axiom 2: The property of “being situationally necessary” is not compatible with the property “being a just situation.” [For any instance of justice, there is a logically possible situation in which a unjust state of affairs replaces the just one. For example, if a innocent man is justly acquitted, there is a logically possible situation in which he is found guilty. If an guilty man is justly condemned, there is a logically possible situation in which he is never accused. A given situation is just only in contrast to a logically possible unjust version of that situation.]"

This presents absolutely no problems by the very same reasoning as the argument only reversed. Just situations necessarily imply unjust situations just as unjust situations imply just ones.

Soooo, this means that:

"If the property of “being situationally necessary” is not compatible with another given property, then it is compatible with the complement of that property. [from Axiom 1]"

Or in the OP

"P2: If some property a is incompatible with property b, it is compatible with its negation, not-b."


This is incorrect.

Situational necessity is only a trait of very specific things (like math and logic), so the negation of it being compatible for one thing does not imply that it is necessary for the negation of that thing.

So, this argument is based on a basic contradiction. First the arguer states that ~A is incompatible with situational necessity (property B) by pointing to there being a dichotomy between A vs. ~A, and then turns around and says that if ~A is incompatible with property B then A must be compatible with it.

This is obviously untrue because the very same dichotomy that showed ~A incompatible with property B also applies to A.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Variant's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: