Latest post of the previous page:
Mickeyd, in which dictionary did you find a definition for the phrase, "absolute being" please? I can't find it in my Oxford Dictionary of English.INFORMATION
This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.
For further information, see our Privacy Policy.
Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.
We are not accepting any new registrations.
This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.
For further information, see our Privacy Policy.
Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.
We are not accepting any new registrations.
Arguments for the existence of God
Re: Arguments for the existence of God
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015
Me, 2015
Re: Arguments for the existence of God
Mickeyd, do you really think that these are "proof" of God's existence in the strong sense of the word? Even if you had expressed your arguments more carefully, they are still only that - arguments - the force of which depend entirely on each individual's judgement of the premises.
Re: Arguments for the existence of God
Seen a lot of logic chopped but I am still awaiting proof that God exists - like a sign that can have no other possible origin.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015
Me, 2015
Re: Arguments for the existence of God
Hi Maria,
“Mickeyd, in which dictionary did you find a definition for the phrase, "absolute being" please? I can't find it in my Oxford Dictionary of English.”
A strange question. I might as well ask “In which dictionary did you find a definition for the phrase “atheism is true””? Presumably you would look up the definitions for “atheism”, “is” and “true” and combine them.
Regards,
Mickeyd
“Mickeyd, in which dictionary did you find a definition for the phrase, "absolute being" please? I can't find it in my Oxford Dictionary of English.”
A strange question. I might as well ask “In which dictionary did you find a definition for the phrase “atheism is true””? Presumably you would look up the definitions for “atheism”, “is” and “true” and combine them.
Regards,
Mickeyd
Re: Arguments for the existence of God
Do you mean a necessary being (as opposed to a contingent one)? 'Absolute' is used in many different senses, and not regularly used in philosophical discourse as a qualifier of 'being'.mickeyd wrote:“Mickeyd, in which dictionary did you find a definition for the phrase, "absolute being" please? I can't find it in my Oxford Dictionary of English.”
A strange question. I might as well ask “In which dictionary did you find a definition for the phrase “atheism is true””? Presumably you would look up the definitions for “atheism”, “is” and “true” and combine them.
Re: Arguments for the existence of God
Hi Matthew,
Yes I at least meant a necessary being.
Regards,
Mickeyd
Yes I at least meant a necessary being.
Regards,
Mickeyd
Re: Arguments for the existence of God
Hi Maria,
“Thus, in response to my protestation that I find it perfectly easy to conceive of an absolute being not existing, you effectively tell me that I'm not doing it right.”
‘Saying’ and ‘doing’ are two different things. I could say I can swim the Atlantic but I couldn’t do it.
Do it now, why not? Conceive of a necessary being; now try and conceive of its non-existence. You can’t; no-one can.
Regards,
Mickeyd
“Thus, in response to my protestation that I find it perfectly easy to conceive of an absolute being not existing, you effectively tell me that I'm not doing it right.”
‘Saying’ and ‘doing’ are two different things. I could say I can swim the Atlantic but I couldn’t do it.
Do it now, why not? Conceive of a necessary being; now try and conceive of its non-existence. You can’t; no-one can.
Regards,
Mickeyd
Re: Arguments for the existence of God
Yep just done that, thought about my dad as a necessary being (for my existence) then thought about his non existence (he's been dead 33 years) no problems there. Next question.mickeyd
Do it now, why not? Conceive of a necessary being; now try and conceive of its non-existence. You can’t; no-one can.
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.
Re: Arguments for the existence of God
What are the premises of your (Anselmian) ontological argument (stated as clearly as possible)?mickeyd wrote:Do it now, why not? Conceive of a necessary being; now try and conceive of its non-existence. You can’t; no-one can.
Re: Arguments for the existence of God
Hi Matthew,
I've stated the ontological proof several times on this forum; I invite you to consider what I've said and state precisely what you disagree with. The only point I make here (see my original post) is that the Anselmian version of the proof is incomplete.
Regards,
Mickeyd
I've stated the ontological proof several times on this forum; I invite you to consider what I've said and state precisely what you disagree with. The only point I make here (see my original post) is that the Anselmian version of the proof is incomplete.
Regards,
Mickeyd
Re: Arguments for the existence of God
Alan,
A necessary being has no beginning or ending.
(by the way, as a Christian I don't believe your Dad no longer exists).
Regards,
Mickeyd
A necessary being has no beginning or ending.
(by the way, as a Christian I don't believe your Dad no longer exists).
Regards,
Mickeyd
Re: Arguments for the existence of God
Hi Matthew,
Mickeyd, do you really think that these are "proof" of God's existence in the strong sense of the word?
I'm not aware of a weak sense of the word. 'Probabilistic proof' is a contradiction in terms.
Regards,
Mickeyd
Mickeyd, do you really think that these are "proof" of God's existence in the strong sense of the word?
I'm not aware of a weak sense of the word. 'Probabilistic proof' is a contradiction in terms.
Regards,
Mickeyd
Re: Arguments for the existence of God
It is difficult to interpret and evaluate a logical argument without numbered premises, and I haven't found a post of yours doing this (I have to admit that in general I'm finding your unusual use of wording and phrasing in your first post difficult to understand.) If your argument is a cogent one, it should be very simple to separate the ideas in it into simple premises from which the validity of the argument will be clear. I don't want to make a judgement of your argument before it is formulated in an appropriate way. By the way, I'm also a theist, so please don't read me as being over-critical! I find the Anselmian formulations of an OA (and yours appears to be in the Anselmian tradition by your use of 'conceive') in general very dodgy.mickeyd wrote:I've stated the ontological proof several times on this forum; I invite you to consider what I've said and state precisely what you disagree with. The only point I make here (see my original post) is that the Anselmian version of the proof is incomplete.
Re: Arguments for the existence of God
Well there's no answer to that is there? As an Atheist I think pink Unicorns exist, let's debate.mickeyd
(by the way, as a Christian I don't believe your Dad no longer exists).
Not having known my father; where do you suppose he is? Heaven? Hell? Limbo ? Eh! Please explain where you think he is and why.
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.
Re: Arguments for the existence of God
Well the strong sense of proof means establishing a conclusion with absolute certainty (as in Mathematics, given certain axioms). The weaker senses of proof (as used in Science, History, Law, most other disciplines) mean establishing one with high probability. The problem with the nature of any argument is that a reason for rejecting the conclusion which is independent of the argument can be used to argue against the truth of one of the premises.mickeyd wrote:I'm not aware of a weak sense of the word. 'Probabilistic proof' is a contradiction in terms.
So for example, take the simple moral argument (MA) for God's existence:
(P1) If God does not exist, objective moral obligations don't exist.
(P2) Objective moral obligations exist.
(C) God exists.
The argument can be reversed, so that:
(P1) If God does not exist, objective moral obligations don't exist.
(P2) God does not exist. (Based on some reason independent of consideration of moral obligations)
(C*) Objective moral obligations don't exist.
So while MA is a deductive "proof" of God's existence, it in no way establishes God's existence with absolute certainty. It all depends on how each individual weighs the evidence for the different premises.
Re: Arguments for the existence of God
Started reading from the top of the page and got to this:
I think you've missed the point of Dave's question.
I'll read the rest of the posts now.
This question was from Dave B, not me. If you want to quote from someone's post like this, the way to do it is to click on the quote button in the post you want to quote from. If you do this, you can't attribute the quote to the wrong person.mickeyd wrote:Hi Maria,
“Mickeyd, in which dictionary did you find a definition for the phrase, "absolute being" please? I can't find it in my Oxford Dictionary of English.”
A strange question. I might as well ask “In which dictionary did you find a definition for the phrase “atheism is true””? Presumably you would look up the definitions for “atheism”, “is” and “true” and combine them.
Regards,
Mickeyd
I think you've missed the point of Dave's question.
I'll read the rest of the posts now.
Re: Arguments for the existence of God
Interesting last post, Matthew. Thanks.
Similarly, is goodness good because your god says so, or does your god say things are good because they are good?
If the former, then there is no such thing as goodness. If the latter, your god is not the measure of goodness.
Similarly, is goodness good because your god says so, or does your god say things are good because they are good?
If the former, then there is no such thing as goodness. If the latter, your god is not the measure of goodness.
Re: Arguments for the existence of God
The very simple moral argument I used as an example (which I'm not particularly interesting in defending) is talking about moral obligations, not moral values. So Euthyphro doesn't really come into the picture. But we can discuss the "dilemma" if you like.Nick wrote:Interesting last post, Matthew. Thanks.
Similarly, is goodness good because your god says so, or does your god say things are good because they are good?
If the former, then there is no such thing as goodness. If the latter, your god is not the measure of goodness.
Re: Arguments for the existence of God
The only think I can't conceive of is how you can possibly think that is any way credible as an argument.mickeyd wrote:Do it now, why not? Conceive of a necessary being; now try and conceive of its non-existence. You can’t; no-one can.
Oh yes, I also can't conceive a "necessary being" - I see no possibility of nor evidence for such a being's existence.
Re: Arguments for the existence of God
Hi Matthew,
Re. the MA: If the first syllogism proves the existence of God then we're done, God exists. That's what proof means. You cannot then have another syllogism which disproves God's existence. There is no tertium quid, existence and non-existence are contraries. Therefore the second syllogism must involve epistemological and/or formal and/or factual errors, and/or psychological prejudice.
Re: ontological proof:
Definitions:
absolute: free from restriction, exception, qualification
being: something that actually exists
(Merriam Webster)
Combine:
absolute being: unrestricted, un-excepted, unqualified, existent something
Proof:
(P1) We can think of an absolute being (via negation)
(P2) We cannot think of an absolute being not existing (because contradictory)
(P3) Thinking is prior to believing, because we cannot believe what we have not first thought is to be believed (Augustine)
(C) We cannot believe in the non-existence of an absolute being
Kant objected that existence is not a predicate: existence adds nothing to what is absolute because absoluteness already implies existence. But this is precisely the point that makes the proof: it is because absoluteness implies existence that it must exist. So in one sense Kant is right (in his analysis) but in another sense wrong (in his conclusion). Of course existence cannot add anything to God because God is Existence, Total Existence. The proof doesn’t add the property of existence to God, it observes God as necessary existence – and then draws the only logically valid conclusion, namely, that we cannot observe necessary existence and say “it does not exist.”
As I understand it, Kant also objected that the concept of an absolute being is unintelligible, in part because it is merely definitional and therefore cannot be regarded as a concept of any thing (de dicto not de re). But I think this amounts to saying that the words “necessary”, “infinite”, “absolute” etc should be struck out of the dictionary. Sure we can’t understand their meanings directly but the words “contingent”, “finite” and “relative” are meaningless apart from their opposites. So these would have to be struck out of the dictionary also. If two concepts relate as contraries, and one of them is unintelligible, then so is the other.
Kant strikes me, in his objection to premise (1) above, as a radical agnostic. Most atheists, when pressed, eventually resort to some form of agnosticism, but it’s merely a delaying tactic, and the more radical the agnosticism the shorter the delay. It involves, essentially, substituting God in the argument with “unknowable”. But of course if “unknowable” ‘is’ totally unknowable, then not even unknowability could be predicated of it. Indeed, it wouldn’t even have crossed the mind, never mind be spoken by the mouth! Radical agnosticism is inescapably mired in contradiction.
Regards,
Mickey
Re. the MA: If the first syllogism proves the existence of God then we're done, God exists. That's what proof means. You cannot then have another syllogism which disproves God's existence. There is no tertium quid, existence and non-existence are contraries. Therefore the second syllogism must involve epistemological and/or formal and/or factual errors, and/or psychological prejudice.
Re: ontological proof:
Definitions:
absolute: free from restriction, exception, qualification
being: something that actually exists
(Merriam Webster)
Combine:
absolute being: unrestricted, un-excepted, unqualified, existent something
Proof:
(P1) We can think of an absolute being (via negation)
(P2) We cannot think of an absolute being not existing (because contradictory)
(P3) Thinking is prior to believing, because we cannot believe what we have not first thought is to be believed (Augustine)
(C) We cannot believe in the non-existence of an absolute being
Kant objected that existence is not a predicate: existence adds nothing to what is absolute because absoluteness already implies existence. But this is precisely the point that makes the proof: it is because absoluteness implies existence that it must exist. So in one sense Kant is right (in his analysis) but in another sense wrong (in his conclusion). Of course existence cannot add anything to God because God is Existence, Total Existence. The proof doesn’t add the property of existence to God, it observes God as necessary existence – and then draws the only logically valid conclusion, namely, that we cannot observe necessary existence and say “it does not exist.”
As I understand it, Kant also objected that the concept of an absolute being is unintelligible, in part because it is merely definitional and therefore cannot be regarded as a concept of any thing (de dicto not de re). But I think this amounts to saying that the words “necessary”, “infinite”, “absolute” etc should be struck out of the dictionary. Sure we can’t understand their meanings directly but the words “contingent”, “finite” and “relative” are meaningless apart from their opposites. So these would have to be struck out of the dictionary also. If two concepts relate as contraries, and one of them is unintelligible, then so is the other.
Kant strikes me, in his objection to premise (1) above, as a radical agnostic. Most atheists, when pressed, eventually resort to some form of agnosticism, but it’s merely a delaying tactic, and the more radical the agnosticism the shorter the delay. It involves, essentially, substituting God in the argument with “unknowable”. But of course if “unknowable” ‘is’ totally unknowable, then not even unknowability could be predicated of it. Indeed, it wouldn’t even have crossed the mind, never mind be spoken by the mouth! Radical agnosticism is inescapably mired in contradiction.
Regards,
Mickey
Re: Arguments for the existence of God
Mickey, I put to you that you cannot think of an "absolute being", because you don't actually know what one is. Your imagination simply isn't up to conjuring up something so complete - all you're doing is fooling yourself into thinking that you've thought of it, therefore it exists. Which is about as fucking stupid as any argument I have ever heard. Ever.