Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-05-2014, 12:48 PM
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
(26-05-2014 12:11 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Edit: wrong site. MindForgedManacle has been over on AF claiming Alvin Plantinga's modal ontological argument is logically valid, and undisputed:

Quote:P(1): It is possible that God exists.
P(2): If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds.
P(3): If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4): If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world.
P(5): If God exists in the actual world, then God exists.
C(1): Therefore, God exists.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...l_argument

OK this one's just disingenious because it relies on the ambiguity of the phrase "possible" which can be used to describe either ignorance about the probability of something being true or to describe something as being physically possible but not necessarily what has happened in reality. It might be useful though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2014, 12:49 PM
Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
(26-05-2014 12:27 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  Well it's served my purposes. Thanks guys!

Any more classic arguments like this please send them my way.

I'll wait for the next troll to come along if Jeremy doesn't return.

This is turning out to be quite fun.

Oh just seen Rampant's next post! Now to start work on Alvin Plantinga's modal ontological argument.

It's a non-starter. Plantinga himself ended the paper the modal ontological argument was presented in with:

Quote:[57] But obviously this isn't a proof; no one who didn't already accept the conclusion, would accept the first premise. The ontological argument we've been examining isn't just like this one, of course, but it must be conceded that not everyone who understands and reflects on its central premise -- that the existence of a maximally great being is possible -- will accept it. Still, it is evident, I think, that there is nothing contrary to reason or irrational in accepting this premise. What I claim for this argument, therefore, is that it establishes, not thetruth of theism, but its rational acceptability. And hence it accomplishes at least one of the aims of the tradition of natural theology.

http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/r...tinga.html

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
26-05-2014, 12:51 PM
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
(26-05-2014 12:11 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  P(1): It is possible that God exists.
P(2): If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds.
P(3): If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4): If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world.
P(5): If God exists in the actual world, then God exists.
C(1): Therefore, God exists.

Replace "God" with "Stegasaurus":

P(1): It is possible that Stegasaurus exists.
P(2): If it is possible that Stegasaurus exists, then Stegasaurus exists in some possible worlds.
P(3): If Stegasaurus exists in some possible worlds, then Stegasaurus exists in all possible worlds.
P(4): If Stegasaurus exists in all possible worlds, then Stegasaurus exists in the actual world.
P(5): If Stegasaurus exists in the actual world, then Stegasaurus exists.
C(1): Therefore, Stegasaurus exists.
C(2): Did exist, but went extinct. God is extinct. (Good riddance).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Airportkid's post
26-05-2014, 01:10 PM
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
(26-05-2014 12:11 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  T minus 10 until MFM is in here arguing Leibniz's argument is" logically sound, and no one has raised a valid objection to it."

Edit: wrong site. MindForgedManacle has been over on AF claiming Alvin Plantinga's modal ontological argument is logically valid, and undisputed:

Quote:P(1): It is possible that God exists.
P(2): If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds.
P(3): If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4): If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world.
P(5): If God exists in the actual world, then God exists.
C(1): Therefore, God exists.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...l_argument
What's interesting about that argument is that you can turn it around by 180° and it still works. Heck, even William Lane Craig admits it.

P1: It is possible that God doesn't exist.
P2: If it is possible that God doesn't exist, then God doesn't exist in some possible worlds.
P3: If God doesn't exist in some possible worlds, then God doesn't exist in all possible worlds.
P4: If God doesn't exist in all possible worlds, then God doesn't exist in the actual world.
P5: If God doesn't exist in the actual world, then God doesn't exist.
C1: Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Q.E.D. Bowing

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Vosur's post
26-05-2014, 01:14 PM
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
OK Alvin Plantinga's modal ontological argument has proved useful for my nefarious purposes as well.

The original argument makes the assumption in step 3 that God is omnipresent and therefore exists over all possible spaces. If it wasn't after his time I would have suspected that he had lifted the idea from Terry Pratchett's L-space.

Oook.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
26-05-2014, 01:23 PM (This post was last modified: 26-05-2014 01:40 PM by Mathilda.)
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
No wonder most philosophers end up working in Burger King.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mathilda's post
26-05-2014, 02:34 PM
Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
(26-05-2014 01:23 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  No wonder most philosophers end up working in Burger King.

It is described in most philosophy departments as "majoring in Fast Food."

I found it fascinating, but unless you go into law, buisiness or psychiatry, the degree goes nowhere.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2014, 04:52 PM
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
Wow, nine pages already.

(24-05-2014 03:29 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Kalam

Premise 1

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
a. something cannot come from nothing. - René Descartes > Meditations on First Philosophy

Let us start here.

Now, what about things that have "always" existed, or at least existed before there was time? I'm assuming you feel your god falls into this category. Christians always use the first cause argument as a universal law to assert proof for God, then immediately demand special pleading exception to said rule when people ask about God's cause.

If you're willing to accept that God (or anything, really) can exist without a cause, what makes you think the universe has a cause?

The first cause argument does not offer proof for God and raises as many questions as it answers. At best, all it does is kick the "I don't know" can one step further back. Nothing new here. Moving on...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RobbyPants's post
26-05-2014, 05:03 PM
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
(26-05-2014 04:52 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  The first cause argument does not offer proof for God and raises as many questions as it answers. At best, all it does is kick the "I don't know" can one step further back. Nothing new here. Moving on...

Yes, but every time someone tears the argument a new asshole, it just starts leaking even more shit onto our nice, clean floors.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
26-05-2014, 05:26 PM
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
(26-05-2014 12:48 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(26-05-2014 12:11 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Edit: wrong site. MindForgedManacle has been over on AF claiming Alvin Plantinga's modal ontological argument is logically valid, and undisputed:


http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...l_argument

OK this one's just disingenious because it relies on the ambiguity of the phrase "possible" which can be used to describe either ignorance about the probability of something being true or to describe something as being physically possible but not necessarily what has happened in reality. It might be useful though.

I think Alvin is senile.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: