Semi Formal Proof for the Existence of G
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-12-2017, 07:10 AM
RE: Semi Formal Proof for the Existence of G
(13-12-2017 06:41 AM)unfogged Wrote:  [Image: emily-litella-never-mind.jpg]

What's all this I hear about the existence of dogs ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2017, 07:31 AM
RE: Semi Formal Proof for the Existence of G
To me, the introduction of "necessary" (must be true), with smuggling in "possible" (might be true), in order to gap the bridge between "i have nothing at all" and "there actually is a (my) god" is just an intellectual dishonest excercise.

If the person using this logc, in fact, had any actual evidence, anything but this (imho) silly argument, he would have brought this evidence to the table before bending over backwards philosophically.

As has been stated sumerous times. The fact that someone can present us with a logical system, in which a claim can be demonstrated to be consistent within said system, doesnt tell us that the conclusion claimed to be (existence in this case) actually is valid.
Logic or not, at the end you need to demonstrate that something is, not that it is possible, or that it must be, or could be, or should be.

There is, after all a reason for why i became an engeineer rather than a philosopher. I dont like this kinda "philosophising", it seems entirely dishonest to me.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Deesse23's post
13-12-2017, 01:14 PM
RE: Semi Formal Proof for the Existence of G
(13-12-2017 07:31 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  To me, the introduction of "necessary" (must be true), with smuggling in "possible" (might be true), in order to gap the bridge between "i have nothing at all" and "there actually is a (my) god" is just an intellectual dishonest excercise.

If the person using this logc, in fact, had any actual evidence, anything but this (imho) silly argument, he would have brought this evidence to the table before bending over backwards philosophically.

As has been stated sumerous times. The fact that someone can present us with a logical system, in which a claim can be demonstrated to be consistent within said system, doesnt tell us that the conclusion claimed to be (existence in this case) actually is valid.
Logic or not, at the end you need to demonstrate that something is, not that it is possible, or that it must be, or could be, or should be.

There is, after all a reason for why i became an engeineer rather than a philosopher. I dont like this kinda "philosophising", it seems entirely dishonest to me.

Such attempts at philosophy are either dishonest or incompetent.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
13-12-2017, 01:32 PM
RE: Semi Formal Proof for the Existence of G
(11-12-2017 11:49 PM)Renadt Wrote:  I do have a question to ask for any logic buffs in here. I have debated this dude named R L, who claims to have a semi-formal proof for the Existence of G. It is quite convoluted in its first iteration, and then released a "slightly less terse" version. I know the first two fallacies he makes, special pleading and circular reasoning, but I wonder if there is a fault in the actual logic. I tried reading this thing 5 times, to refute it, and it made my head hurt. So, I warn you, it might happen to you.


https://wiserobbie.blogspot.com/2015/06/...proof.html

https://wiserobbie.blogspot.com/2013/09/...-of-g.html

Posting links 5 posts in makes you look either like a troll, sock puppet or hit and run poster merely trying to advertise your own page.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2017, 03:04 PM
RE: Semi Formal Proof for the Existence of G
(13-12-2017 06:39 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Doesn't it die at premise 1 as well? It asserts an "entity" and then that it is "necessary"

Or is this an entirely self-contained axiom with no relevance to the outside world?

Premise 1 just sends up the bullshit alert.

Clause One is just a definition. It has no truth value in and of itself. It merely establishes what the argument is talking about.

Of course, most theists attempting to make use of the argument often try to turn Clause One into the entirety of their position. They simply say "God is an entity that necessarily exists (and the universe's existence is contingent on God's)", and then claim that they've won.

They haven't, obviously. Defining something doesn't make it actually true. I could define the TARDIS as necessary for the existence of the universe, but that wouldn't make the TARDIS real. That's why the rest of the clauses are included - to argue that the definition actually applies.

As you can see, they fail, but that's the general idea.

(13-12-2017 07:31 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  To me, the introduction of "necessary" (must be true), with smuggling in "possible" (might be true), in order to gap the bridge between "i have nothing at all" and "there actually is a (my) god" is just an intellectual dishonest excercise.

And you're correct. That's why Clause Three fails - it attempts to smuggle in the "possible" that allows the leap from definition to reality without actually establishing that it is actually possible.

The entire thing is basically defining God as "a thing that, if it possibly exists, exists" - but the argument fails to prove that it's possible for an entity with that property to exist. It doesn't even make the attempt, so it's a complete non-starter.

(13-12-2017 07:31 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  If the person using this logc, in fact, had any actual evidence, anything but this (imho) silly argument, he would have brought this evidence to the table before bending over backwards philosophically.

As has been stated sumerous times. The fact that someone can present us with a logical system, in which a claim can be demonstrated to be consistent within said system, doesnt tell us that the conclusion claimed to be (existence in this case) actually is valid.
Logic or not, at the end you need to demonstrate that something is, not that it is possible, or that it must be, or could be, or should be.

There is, after all a reason for why i became an engeineer rather than a philosopher. I dont like this kinda "philosophising", it seems entirely dishonest to me.

And you're entirely correct. The ontological argument isn't just bare assertion. It is fundamentally bare assertion; it is called the "ontological argument" because it is an attempt to prove the existence of God through logic alone - that is, with absolutely no requirement for any supporting evidence whatsoever.

Of course, this doesn't work, for obvious reasons. It's fucking stupid, and it's obviously fucking stupid for anyone who takes half a second to think about it. You can't prove that something is true without evidence. The argument may be valid, but it is not sound, and that cannot change unless you actually start presenting evidence - at which point it stops being an ontological argument.

Yes, it really is that incredibly stupid, and you are entirely correct in your assessment.

It says something that the ontological argument is generally considered the strongest argument for the existence of God.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Unbeliever's post
13-12-2017, 05:30 PM
RE: Semi Formal Proof for the Existence of G
I am sorry if you felt that. No, it is not my work. I myself tried to refute it with the individual to no avail. I actually started a new thread for this one. I actually was looking for a better way of tackling it and wanted some feedback on itn to see if I was missing something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Renadt's post
14-12-2017, 01:39 AM
RE: Semi Formal Proof for the Existence of G
(13-12-2017 05:30 PM)Renadt Wrote:  I am sorry if you felt that. No, it is not my work. I myself tried to refute it with the individual to no avail. I actually started a new thread for this one. I actually was looking for a better way of tackling it and wanted some feedback on itn to see if I was missing something.

I am not quite sure if you are adressing me (amongst others?), but in no way i claimed that this argument was yours. You just reported what someone else is arguing. I am also not surprised that the according person is resistant to counterarguments and refutation, if its true that this argument has a very specific purpose. I suggest not to waste much (more) of your time with him/her once you come to the same conclusion i/we do.

For the record, and to avoid any misunderstandings. I dont think that all of philosophy is dishonest or meaningless. But what has been tried in this case is, i have no reasonable doubt.
Philosophy is like any other trade, there are geniuses, averages, incompetents and quacks.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2017, 10:30 AM
RE: Semi Formal Proof for the Existence of G
Deesse, it was meant more towards Brian. I have actually learned quite a bit from your posts. Thank you for your insight into this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2017, 11:26 PM
RE: Semi Formal Proof for the Existence of G
I've kind of already made this point, but I thought of a way of restating it.

When you're dealing with facts, such as whether or not something currently exists, the word "possible" only pertains to uncertainty in the data that we have. Until it's discovered that the supposed fact is true, "possible" really means "consistent with current data"; in other words, "not yet shown to be impossible". So drawing a conclusion from this is the argument from ignorance fallacy. The very fact that you're admitting uncertainty indicates you are unable to prove anything.

If you have to construct a separate logical system which avoids the logical fallacy which is halting your conclusion, then clearly you're not interested in reality at all. The "result" would only apply to a reality where the truth value of claims can fluctuate based on current knowledge, making the existence of "God" in such a reality not consistent anyway. God somehow exists, until such time that I find some data which contradicts its existence, at which point it suddenly doesn't exist anymore.

If that is how such people view reality, no wonder they're so easily conned by religion and all this pseudo-philosophy.

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
14-12-2017, 11:45 PM
RE: Semi Formal Proof for the Existence of G
(14-12-2017 11:26 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  When you're dealing with facts, such as whether or not something currently exists, the word "possible" only pertains to uncertainty in the data that we have. Until it's discovered that the supposed fact is true, "possible" really means "consistent with current data"; in other words, "not yet shown to be impossible". So drawing a conclusion from this is the argument from ignorance fallacy. The very fact that you're admitting uncertainty indicates you are unable to prove anything.

If you have to construct a separate logical system which avoids the logical fallacy which is halting your conclusion, then clearly you're not interested in reality at all. The "result" would only apply to a reality where the truth value of claims can fluctuate based on current knowledge, making the existence of "God" in such a reality not consistent anyway. God somehow exists, until such time that I find some data which contradicts its existence, at which point it suddenly doesn't exist anymore.

I have to take this moment to stress that there is nothing wrong with the S1 axiom set. Nor is modal logic somehow less valid than non-modal logic. It allows us to draw valid and sound conclusions given specific types of input. Modal logic is not tied to theism, or vice-versa. It is an entirely valid subset of formal logic.

Theists did not construct modal logic. Nor is modal logic invalid. The S1 axiom set's rules about "possibly necessary" and "necessarily possible" existed prior to Alvin Plantinga's fallacious misuse of them.

The issue with the modal formulation of the ontological argument is that it asserts possibility where possibility has, for a variety of reasons, not been established. It is not in the actual system of logic used.

Your first paragraph about different meanings of "possible" is entirely correct. The modal ontological argument attempts to use "possible" as "well, it might be true, right?", where what it actually requires is demonstrable mechanisms that would allow such a thing to be true. That is its failing, not the use of modal logic itself.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: