Are Libertarian and logic incompatible?

[jab1]

Inspired by this thread:

As we all know, it's a fool's dream to obtain physical evidence of the Almighty, and since I am no fool, I shall prove beyond all doubt that that God (who is Love, as we all know, "all" excluding the heathens, of course) truly exists using nothing more than logic, of which I am an undisputed master.

Ahem...

God is the very bestest, most loving, most perfect entity there can possibly be in this or any other world. He wuvs you THIS much [arms spread out all the way].

The universe could not exist without Him (trust me on this one; it is self-evident and does not need explanation; only a close-minded atheist would dare challenge this marvelous, beautiful axiom).

Therefore He exists.

Beautiful, isn't it? It's so simple, so elegant, it MUST be true, and only a blind chimpanzee could not see it.

If you want to know the math behind my proof, here it is, but be warned: Only someone of my brilliant intellect can possibly comprehend it.

1. G=G
2. O=O
3. D=D
4. L=L
5. O=O
6. V=V
7. E=E

Therefore God= Love and since we know that love exists, God must exist too!

Pardon me while I pat myself on the back for my ingenuity. I now await your praise and adulation....

[Ferrous]

Well jab1, as a parodist, you're no Libertarian.

Your subject matter, however, is spot-on. That ontowhatchamajigger symbolomatic proof of the existence of the magical sky pixie gives me a serious headache.

[Liberal]

You're crazy as a lune!!!!!!!! You can't say thangs like that cause I don't like it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You're first sentince is awl wrong too!

Neener neener. Why don't you show us why we're wrong??

I'm folding my arms and scowling, so you better lissen. Your not right so their!?!!

[xenophon41]

1. G=G
2. O=O
3. D=D
4. L=L
5. O=O
6. V=V
7. E=E

I disagree.









I thought it was A = A . . .

[jab1]

Lib, I and others have showed you why you were wrong numerous times on that thread. You either ignored us or were smug and condescending to us (as you often are). I just thought I'd show you how rude and ridiculous you've been.

Please knock it off and remember that you, too, can be wrong.

[Liberal]

Aw, dangit, Jab. You stepped out of character too soon and ruined your own thread. We could have had some fun. (You should have stayed in character and reacted with great indignation and used a lot of big words.) Oh well, it's yours to ruin. With all due respect, I'm gonna kinda weigh it this way...

Left hand: Every logician and philosopher of note in the western world in modern times.

vs

Right hand: A couple of hand-stabbing materialists on the SDMB.

Hmm... I'll have to think long and hard, I reckon.

[cercaria]

1. G=G
2. O=O
3. D=D
4. M=M
5. E=E

...and that settles it.

[pldennison]

Hmmm . . . I lurked throughout that entire thread, and noticed that:

1. Most everybody in the thread who has had any formal training in logic agreed that the argument as presented was formally correct and not deficient in structure. In other words, that the argument was logically correct.

2. Most everybody in the thread, including Libertarian, agreed that the structure of the argument, and its conclusion, carried no particular metaphysical implication whatsoever.

So what was the problem again?

[xenophon41]

Yeah, it was pretty much sheer determination that kept the thread going after we settled on "no particular metaphysical implication".

(Oops! Did I say "determination"? I meant free will, of course.)

[Gatopescado]

1. G=G
2. O=O
3. D=D
4. L=L
5. O=O
6. V=V
7. E=E

Lemme see here..........by using the above math..............a little change over here..................substitute this value there............................

Eureka! You can also prove that: Dog=Glove. Knowing that gloves are for putting your hands in, it can reasonably be extrapolated that fisting your dog is okay!

Ah, Science and Nowledge! (thats what the "N" on Big Red's football helmets stand for, by the way!)

________________
Damn! I have forgotten to not become drunken again!

[jab1]

Originally posted by pldennison
So what was the problem again?

The pointlessness of it all. If he never actually proved that God does exist in the world we live in, the actual, real world, what was the point of it all? It's just mental masturbation. It feels good, but what else does it do? (And I'm tired of his condescension and smugness. I thought I made that clear.)

I see above that Lib is subject to the fallacious reasoning that the more popular the belief, the more likely it is to be true. Lib, has it ever occurred to you that all the "logician(s) and philosopher(s) of note in the western world in modern times" may be wrong, may have been victims of that human tendency to accept conclusions we find comfortable (there is a God) and try mightily to deny the conclusions we find uncomfortable, perhaps even frightening (there is no God)?

The small percentage of humanity who are atheists just may be the ones who are right, and I think that possibility scares you.

[ultrafilter]

jab, please provide a quote from Libertarian in that thread where he said (or hell, even implied) that he was proving the existence of the Christian God.

You can't? No surprise.

The point of the thread was to show that the ontological argument for the existence of God (perhaps a poorly chosen word, but that's what it's stuck with) is in fact valid, and may present a problem for materialists. If you don't understand, or don't agree, or don't care, then act appropriately. Don't demand that people defend something they didn't even say.

[Liberal]

Yep, that's right Ultra. And thanks, Phil, for mentioning the truth.

That's why I kept thinking that some of the respondents weren't reading anything I wrote. Not that I care if they ignore what I write, but when they both ignore and then accuse, it's over the line.

I explained, using an entire post, that the argument DOES prove that God exists in the "real" world. This world. The final inference in the argument, G, means "God actually exists".

As Phil said, I have no idea what the metaphysical implications might be for others (certainly, I know what they are for me). And as Ultra said, the argument presents a problem for materialists, not the least of which is whether they will face it with intellectual honesty the way theists must face similar arguments that have shown them to be wrong about such things as the watchmaker argument.

[pldennison]

It feels good, but what else does it do? (And I'm tired of his condescension and smugness. I thought I made that clear.)

Oh, abundantly. You know, the obvious solution for a mature human being would be to not read his posts anymore, if they frustrate you so much. If you feel that he is consistently smug and condescending, and you choose to engage him in argument anyway, whose fault is it when you walk away pissed off?

[jab1]

Call me deluded, but I believe that I can show him where he's wrong.

Now look above, if you will. ultrafilter says

please provide a quote from Libertarian in that thread where he said (or hell, even implied) that he was proving the existence of the Christian God.

You can't? No surprise.

The point of the thread was to show that the ontological argument for the existence of God (perhaps a poorly chosen word, but that's what it's stuck with) is in fact valid, and may present a problem for materialists.

And then Lib says

Yep, that's right Ultra.

[stuff deleted]

I explained, using an entire post, that the argument DOES prove that God exists in the "real" world. This world. The final inference in the argument, G, means "God actually exists".

If Lib and ultra's statements don't contradict, if they agree, then I must be losing my mind. Ultra claims that Lib was never trying to prove that God really exists, then Lib says he agrees with ultra and then says he WAS trying to prove that God really exists and has accomplished this!

Which one of us is being illogical, me or Lib? which one of us is crazy?

I honestly don't know.

[Liberal]

Who knows, Jab? We might both be crazy.

But saying that God exists as Supreme (necessary) Being (existence) might imply the Christian God, but then again, it might not — it might imply just the universe as God. And I said that very thing over and over in that thread. I have my opinion, but I understand (and I want you to understand) that my opinion in that regard has no bearing on the proof and is not derived from it.

[ultrafilter]

Y'know, jab, people do use the word "God" to refer to a being other than Yahweh. Go ask a Buddhist some time; you'll learn a lot.

[cmkeller]

gatopescado:

Eureka! You can also prove that: Dog=Glove. Knowing that gloves are for putting your hands in, it can reasonably be extrapolated that fisting your dog is okay!

Quite frankly, this explains a lot of what's scary about Michael Jackson.

[jab1]

Originally posted by ultrafilter
Y'know, jab, people do use the word "God" to refer to a being other than Yahweh.

I know that. But Libertarian never has before. Every other time he has used the word (the things that I've read, anyway), he was referring to the being described in the Bible. Hell, he's said that God is a libertarian!

[InkBlot]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Who knows, Jab? We might both be crazy.

But saying that God exists as Supreme (necessary) Being (existence) might imply the Christian God, but then again, it might not — it might imply just the universe as God. And I said that very thing over and over in that thread. I have my opinion, but I understand (and I want you to understand) that my opinion in that regard has no bearing on the proof and is not derived from it.

Wait, so let me get this straight. You present this argument in support of theists, because it presents a "problem for materialists." However, metaphysically speaking, the God which you're proving could be the Christian God (a very theistic concept), or it might just prove the universe as God, which as I understand it is a very materialistic concept. Am I clear so far?



inkblot

[ultrafilter]

Fair enough. Still, it was stated in the thread that the God in question was not the Christian God.

[jab1]

Originally posted by Libertarian
saying that God exists as Supreme (necessary) Being (existence) might imply the Christian God, but then again, it might not — it might imply just the universe as God.

But if that is all it implies, then all you've proven is that the universe exists. What kind of person needs proof that the universe exists?

I'm not going to try to answer that one.

I'm done with this thread and that other one.

[robertliguori]

Look, logic aside, the continued survival of teenage boys disproves the Juedo-Christian God. (Look up Onan.) Also, the problem of evil shows that while the universe may be God, It doesn't care about anyone.
Smile, Lib, you've just disproved every religion I've heard of.

[Larry Mudd]

[nitpick]
Psst. Onan wasn't a wanker.

He took his late brother's wife as his own, and wanted to have sex with her without impregnating her, so he pulled out at the last minute and spilled his seed in the dust. God got mad.
[/nitpick]

Carry on.

[Big Kahuna Burger]

xenophon41:

I disagree.

I thought it was A = A . . .

You just made my night.

[Ringo]

From this site we get:

The Ontological Argument:
• Everyone, even the atheist has a concept of God.
• This concept entails that God is a perfect (the Greatest Conceivable) Being.
• It is more perfect to exist than not to exist.
• Q.E.D.: God Must Exist - it is a metaphysical neccessity.

That is not quite the Cartesian proof I remember but cannot find at the moment, but that MIA Cartesian argument made a similar leap along the lines of:

- God is by definition all-powerful
- If an all powerful being can exist, it will, by definition, exist

Too much for me...

[Halo13]

Logic can be reguarded as a process, as in the algorithim for the coding of computer program. The process, to have an output must also have an input. In other words any logical arguement is based on something percieved as factual, an assumption or something thought to be true in a sense. So logic does not necessary prove anything, and can prove nothing if based on the false or an assumption. Right?

[ultrafilter]

Originally posted by Halo13
Logic can be reguarded as a process, as in the algorithim for the coding of computer program. The process, to have an output must also have an input. In other words any logical arguement is based on something percieved as factual, an assumption or something thought to be true in a sense. So logic does not necessary prove anything, and can prove nothing if based on the false or an assumption. Right?

Basically, yes, although I'm a little uncomfortable with the comparison of logic to an algorithm.

[kambuckta]

Yeah, if your premisses are incorrect in the first place, your conclusion, while entirely logically CONSISTENT, will not 'prove' any truths about the world.

Thus, in the cite provided by Ringo that: 'It is more perfect to exist than not to exist', one could quite properly question the truth of that statement. Could throw the entire ontological argument's validity into doubt.

[Liberal]

Set aside for the moment that the argument cited by Ringo (DesCartes' argument) is but one of many ontological arguments. (Most modern modal tableaux are directly based on Anselm's argument. His second one, to be exact.) So, you'd have to round all of them up and deal with them in order to through their validity into doubt. But like I said, forget that.

How can nonexistence be as perfect or more perfect than existence when nonexistence implies that there is no perfection (or anything else)? You can't even have a concept like perfection when concepts don't exist.

[ultrafilter]

Originally posted by Libertarian
How can nonexistence be as perfect or more perfect than existence when nonexistence implies that there is no perfection (or anything else)? You can't even have a concept like perfection when concepts don't exist.

Now hold on a second. I read the premise in the argument cited as "It is more perfect [for this object] to exist than to not exist". That's what I take objection to, not that existence is better than non-existence.

[Liberal]

Ultra

Okay, but that's not what was quoted by, just a sec, Kambuckta.

'It is more perfect to exist than not to exist'

It is clearly absurd to say otherwise (for the reasons I've cited.)

But let me check the site for context. Hang on.

Okay, it went on to say,

Imagine two things, one which exists and one which does not - which is the greater of the two things?

Well, that's easy. Name any attribute that may be assigned to a nonexistent thing (note that nonexistence is a state, not an attribute). Is it red? Is it round? Is it plump and juicy when you cook it? No, it isn't any of those things. And it isn't great, either. Not to any degree whatsoever. It has zero attributes.

Therefore, the thing that exists is greater.

[matt_mcl]

Non sequitur. Why is something with no qualities better than something with qualities? Still haven't shown it, not by logic at any rate and certainly not with regards to deities.

_{As for me, I think like Alice Walker that existence is better than nonexistence only because it is less boring and has fresh peaches in it.}

[matt_mcl]

Oh, a direct counterexample: is a murder that takes place better than nothing?

[ultrafilter]

How can you compare the greatness of something against an object that has no attributes? "object x is greater than object y" implies that you can assign a measure of greatness to object y, which you're saying can't be done.

[ElvisL1ves]

Paging Saint Anselm ... pick up the white courtesy phone for a message about your ontological proof, please ... paging Saint Anselm ...

[MercuryPenguin]

Also, nonexistence has a certain symmetry that just can't be matched by existence.

[MercuryPenguin]

Proof (probably not?) that god = universe
If god must be able to be the greatest in any attribute, he must be able to have the greatest mass. Assuming:
1) Mass cannot be negative
2) Mass cannot be infinite (infinity = bad)

We split everything into two section:
g - entity that is a candidate for being god (could be anything from the null set to a toaster to beyond)
u - the rest of the universe

g must have the greatest possible mass, so g >= u. But wait! The god/universe system is an entity itself, so god must have more mass than itself and the universe combined (g >= (g + u)). The only solutions for this equation are that u <= 0 or g = infinity. u cannot be smaller than 0 (no negative masses), and if it is zero then we've simply stated that god is all the matter in the universe. g cannot be infinite (no infinite masses).

Complaints:
1) god is immaterial (Then he wouldn't be able to interact with the universe unless he manifested himself in a physical manner, but then the manifestation would come under this 'proof').
2) Why can't mass be infinite? (Too icky)

[Liberal]

Non sequitur. Why is something with no qualities better than something with qualities?

It isn't. Remarkably, what you're calling a non sequitur is backwards from what I said. Something with no qualities cannot be even "good" (a quality), much less "better".

How can you compare the greatness of something against an object that has no attributes? "object x is greater than object y" implies that you can assign a measure of greatness to object y, which you're saying can't be done.

You can assign a measure of greatness to object "y" — the measure that I gave you in the post you responded to: zero.

[ultrafilter]

Originally posted by Libertarian
You can assign a measure of greatness to object "y" — the measure that I gave you in the post you responded to: zero.

If an object has zero greatness, it has the attribute of having zero greatness. So nothingness can't be assigned a measure of greatness if you want it to have no attributes.

[Liberal]

Your argument is compelling, Ultra, and forces me to change my mind. Indeed, an assignment of any value, including zero, to the greatness of nonexistence is akin to assigning any value, including zero, to 1/0.

Perhaps it is more accurate to say that existence is great (or terrible, or any arbitrary attribute), and nonexistence isn't. (It isn't great, nor is it anything else.) Greatness in ontology typically is a measure of ordinal extreme. Therefore, necessary existence is greater than possible existence.

So, I agree that existence is not greater than nonexistence. Nor is a thing that exists greater than a thing that doesn't. It is important to note, however, that we cannot bend to sloppy reasoning and assert that object "x" and object "y" are equally great. In fact, the term "object 'y'" is meaningless.

Are we close to agreement?

[ultrafilter]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Your argument is compelling, Ultra, and forces me to change my mind. Indeed, an assignment of any value, including zero, to the greatness of nonexistence is akin to assigning any value, including zero, to 1/0.

Perhaps it is more accurate to say that existence is great (or terrible, or any arbitrary attribute), and nonexistence isn't. (It isn't great, nor is it anything else.) Greatness in ontology typically is a measure of ordinal extreme. Therefore, necessary existence is greater than possible existence.

So, I agree that existence is not greater than nonexistence. Nor is a thing that exists greater than a thing that doesn't. It is important to note, however, that we cannot bend to sloppy reasoning and assert that object "x" and object "y" are equally great. In fact, the term "object 'y'" is meaningless.

Are we close to agreement?

Yes.

[clairobscur]

But saying that God exists as Supreme (necessary) Being (existence) might imply the Christian God, but then again, it might not

Then, why did you write the word "god" in your thread's title instead of "necessary existence" or whatever else?


That's the major problem with your GD thread. You arbitraly
called necessary existence god. Though you admitted yourself in the thread that you could use whatever else word instead, like "cblunz", for instance (can't remember the unexisting word you used).


You could similarily state : everybody agree that the universe exist. I decide to call the universe "god". Therefore, everybody agree that god exists.


By choosing the word "god" to qualify what you were attempting to logically prove the existence of, you strongly twisted the consequences of your reasonning, in favor of an hypothesis which doesn't logically follow from it. God isn't a neuter word.

[Liberal]

Then, why did you write the word "god" (sic) in your thread's title instead of "necessary existence" or whatever else?

[...blank stare...]

Supreme Being

[rsa]

[...blank stare...]

Supreme Being

[...blank stare...]

God

(That "blank stare" thing is getting old)

[InkBlot]

Don't hold your breath, clairobscur, I'm still waiting on the simple answer to my question, because if my summation is correct, I just don't understand what Libertarian thought he'd accomplish in the first place. All he's done is proven a metaphysically undefined concept which can be defined in terms acceptable to any theistic or materialistic worldview.

[Liberal]

That "blank stare" thing is getting old

Of course, the "getting old" thing is still fresh and alive.

All he's done is proven a metaphysically undefined concept which can be defined in terms acceptable to any theistic or materialistic worldview.

Uh oh. No no, Nanette. Pantheism and materialism certainly are not the same. And the definition is coherent.

[InkBlot]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Uh oh. No no, Nanette. Pantheism and materialism certainly are not the same. And the definition is coherent.

I never said pantheism and materialism are the same, I said the conclusion you've drawn can be interpreted in a materialistic manner. Whatever definition you're referring to can be coherent as you want, but on several occasions you refused to elaborate on "Supreme Being" other than what you feel the most basic definiton implies. However, if a materialist defines the entire universe colllectively as the greatest possible existance, your argument serves only to further their belief. So what have you done here?


inkblot

[Liberal]

The reason why materialists who accept the argument's soundness do so with such dramatic reluctance is that, even with a pantheistic interpretation of the tableau's "G", they are according to the universe such qualities as sentience, power, and knowledge. It doesn't just imply that the universe exists, but that the universe has, for example, all possible knowledge (even more than Cecil). That's the sort of thing the definition means.

[Liberal]

Oh, and by the way, Supreme Being is just a paraphrase of necessary existence: Supreme :: necessary, Being :: existence