But if P is an element of U, it doesn’t follow that there is a P.
If everything possible exists, and nothing impossible exists, then possibility is equivalent existence. Why should we have two terms to refer to the same concept?
Instead, we use the word ‘possible’ to refer to a different type of concept.
If something is actual, it is possible. But if something is possible, it may or may not be actual.
Is the universal set U defined by what is possible, or what is actual?
The actual is necessarily possible, but the possible can extend beyond the actual. That’s the key flaw in Libertarian’s ontological argument for the existence of God: the leap from possibility to necessary existence is a large one. It may be the case that necessary existence is impossible; or it might not. Without a truly revolutionary philosophical/logical breakthrough of epic proportions, there’s simply no way to determine which is the case – which means that the ontological argument may never be able to be evaluated.
Arg, now I gotta go stick my head in the sand for a few hours, after spending 20 minutes on this sentance alone. I’m duly embarrased, trying to be less so (we’re all growing), and glad to see you posting again on a more regular basis. I feel bad about our past history, in that there seemed to be quite a bit of unresolved misunderstanding.
Before I suck sand, perhaps I can broaden the OP again: in regards to 4 and 5, do people agree or disagree that there can be valid cause to believe something which relies upon elements available to only individual people? I certainly think so, and though I agree that such things can easily involve mistake, limited imagination of other possibilities (including other supernatural possibilities), I also find it hard to see how one could justify rejecting that path to belief outright without also rejecting all manner of things which make discussion even possible (for instance, the actual existence of one’s fellow discussors!) One can certianly point out problems with someone’s stated interpretation of internal (or even external but sole witness) experiences, but there are often elements that simply can’t be expressed that are no less real, and ultimately it’s up to the person in question to put it all together.
I always have to chuckle a bit whenever somebody tries to use logic to “prove” something having to do with the essential nature of the universe.
The following is a perfectly valid argument, and I challenge anybody to prove otherwise:
Of course, simply because the logic is impeccably valid doesn’t mean that my cat, Hobbes, is currently fluttering around the ceiling.
Nobody knows for sure what the original state of the Universe was, whether there was something which preceded the “Big Bang”, or whether there can possibly exist something “outside” of what we call the universe. Therefore, any arguments that begin by positing something about the unknown nature of the universe, while perhaps logically valid, have no claim whatsoever to being truer than any other argument.
Besides, you really need to define the terms “nothing,” “outside” and “universe” that you used in your original premise and prove that they are correct before your argument can hold any weight whatsoever.
Regards,
Barry
I agree. I don’t think it is absolutely ruled out. Were God to reveal Himself to me in a convincing way, I imagine I would believe it. But that hasn’t happened, and I have yet in my life to hear anyone’s personal reasons for believing that have been sufficient to convince me. The faithful are often reluctant to discuss their personal evidence, but when they do, I have always found that alternate explanations make more sense. Some examples:
A friend wanted to convince me to believe, and related to me how he acquired his faith. He explained that he had challenged God in his mind to reveal Himself, and that soon afterwards certain things improved in his life. It may have been very convincing to my friend, but to me it’s easily explainable merely by his own change in attitude.
Many people claim that their prayers get answered, yet when I further question them, the results of their prayers don’t seem to differ in any significant way from random chance.
Charismatic Christians consider physical manifestations such as tremors or speaking in tongues as evidence of the presence of God. It’s certainly evidence of strong emotions, but doesn’t convince me of anything supernatural. And if I’m not mistaken, even most other branches of Christianity don’t agree with this evidence.
The most common personal evidence of God I have heard from people is that they simply have a “feeling” that convinces them, or they just “know”. I have no doubt that such an experience can be quite moving and cathartic, but I also know that the human mind is quite capable of producing such feelings on its own. The fact that intense emotions can be artificially induced with drugs or even magnetic fields tends to cast doubt on the reliability of such emotions as evidence of supernatural entities.
Some people have reported actual physical contact with God and/or having experienced supernatural events or miracles. Such experiences are relatively rare, generally lack objective evidence, and often aren’t even believed by other theists.
In short, I don’t rule out “personal evidence” as a matter of course, I simply have never heard any that is convincing. The idea of compelling personal evidence sounds promising on its face, but when one starts to delve into it, one finds little substance there. I see no reason to evaluate such claims with any less skepticism than claims of extraterrestrial visitation or the like.
By the very definition of the term, an Atheist is one who denies the existance of God.
Any person who says they arent convinced there is a God while still holding to the position that the possibility exists but has not been proven yet is either a Skeptic or Agnostic.
Well, the word “agnostic” is a fairly recent invention (it was coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge). I am aware of the dictionary definition of “atheist,” however, which is why I stated “most so-called atheists…”
In other words, most people who call themselves atheists might perhaps better be called “skeptics.” As I said, I consider myself an atheist in the strict sense of the word with regard to historical definitions of God which have all involved claims which are falsifiable. As to other definitions of God (including that of a mysterious force which started the universe up and does not interact with the physical world), I remain “merely” skeptical.
In other words, I disbelieve in this or that particular concept of God that has been espoused, but I grant that there may be some concept of God that actually exists. I don’t claim to be representative of all, or even most, atheists, however.
Regards,
Barry
Time for Voyager’s Challenge.
Believers: If we grant you that some sort of god is responsible for the origin of the universe (which I don’t, but let’s suppose) please provide me a chain or reasoning connecting the god you believe in with this event.
A deist has no problem with this, since he claims nothing more than that there is a god who did it, a god who hasn’t bugged us since. Other theists, or at least ones with god inspired creation stories, have a bit more of a problem.
After all, maybe god did create the universe - but it was the god of some race in another galaxy who lived 8 billion years ago, went off to heaven, and we’re just living in the universe left over after the important events happened.
BTW, saying that the Bible says there is a beginning, we found there indeed was a beginning, so the Bible is true and we can just ignore the details doesn’t cut it.
Wrong. The prefix “a-” means without. The word you are looking for would be “anti-theist”.
Main Entry: (2) a-
Function: prefix
Etymology: Latin & Greek; Latin, from Greek – more at UN-
: not : without
Atheist simply means NOT theist or WITHOUT theism, in the same way that amoral means neither moral nor immoral.
Feel free to substitute “the unknown process that resulted in the Big Bang”, then.
My point was that positing “God did it” as the origin of the Big Bang is slightly less preferred (by way of the Razor) than “Some unknown natural process did it.”
Unless, of course, you want to define “natural” as occuring within the confines of the known universe, define “supernatural” as anything that occurs outside (whether in time or space) of the knonn universe, and then define God as “that supernatural process by which the universe was created.”
Which is all well and good until, as Voyager points out, you start ascribing all sorts of additional words and deeds to that “God.” It’s certainly not the God of Christianity, that’s for sure.
Personally, I don’t have any problems with that particular notion of God, since it isn’t a God that has any bearing whatsoever on how I live my life.
Barry
…WTF??!
why dont you use that Meriam-Webster Online dictionary and look up the word “Atheist” instead of just the prefix “a-”.
The logic is flawed because the primary premise “All cats can fly” is false. While the connection from flying cats to Hobbes is correct, any logic based on a false premise is also false. Therefore, the fact that your cat cannot get airborne without outside help is logical.
Because Meriam-Webster Online isn’t as accurate as it should be. My dictionary defines “atheism” as:
“Disbelief in the existance of God.”
That’s not the same thing as denying that God exists. It’s a very fine distinction, to be sure, but there is a difference between
“Disbelief in the existance of God.”
and
“Belief in the non-existance of God.”
That tends to be the dividing line between “hard” and “soft” atheists.
Nope. The logic not false at all. The only way for logic to be false if its rules are not followed when creating a proof. Any logical argument that will give a true answer if its premises are true is termed valid.
The distinction you’re looking for is that the above logic is not sound. A sound argument is one that is both valid and has true premises.
Semantics, semantics.
To me, it just doesn´t matter. I simply don´t belief in this Big Bang Hocus Pocus. Will the Big Bang pay my bills? Will the Big Bang feed me? Will the Big Bang smite my enemies?
Hardly! 
The Big Bang has paid your bills (at least, so far). The Big Bang has fed you (so far). And presumably the Big Bang will get around to smiting your enemies, probably with old age.
Remember: Big Bang is watching you!
Your word in Big Bang´s ear! Yeah, people told me before that the Big Bang was watching me (stalker?) and I´ve also heard that I´ll go to some horrible place after my death, if I don´t believe in and worship the Big Bang.
shrugs
I´ll check back with the followers of Og on this and will get back to you. Maybe.
My bad. I shouldn’t post so much when it gets that late at night. I mixed up the terms “cosmologists” and “astronomers.” I was hoping nobody would notice…heh
btw, I read two of Hawking’s popular works, and I gotta say I wasn’t impressed. I don’t think his “economy of words” style lends itself to insight for the layman. (Can’t blame him for the style, though. Poor guy.)
Calm down, son - don’t pee your pants.
Because I’m trying to show you what the word means etymologically. You may think you have proved your point because you found a dictionary that says what you want it to say, but dictionaries often reveal the bias of the author. For example, here’s dictionary.com’s definition for atheism:
Immorality?!!! Whoever wrote that obviously has an axe to grind. And look at the choice of quotes used as examples. Do you really think the author of this dictionary was interested in providing an honest and unbiased definition? Looks more like he just wanted to bash atheists, doesn’t it?
You see, many theists, including some who write dictionaries, apparently, have their own view of what atheism means, but it’s based on their own bias against atheists. Problem is, that’s just not how the word is used in this day and age. Were we to use your definition, most of the people who call themselves atheists are not atheists. There are all kinds of people who happen not to believe in God, and they lack belief for all kinds of different reasons. What is really hilarious is that the same people who espouse the “atheism is a belief system” definition will turn around and say “Gee, there sure aren’t many atheists”, but conveniently fail to mention that they have so narrowly defined the word as to define most of us out of existence. If the tables were turned, and a vindictive atheist wrote the dictionary definition for “theist”, he could say something like “One who believes silly fantasies and is opposed to logic”.
The other problem is that dictionaries tend to err on the side of reflecting usage, even when that usage comes from ignorant people. It would be like saying “gay” means silly or stupid. Some people use it that way, but they do so out of ignorance.