religion = invention

[umop_ap_sdn]

@Liberal

Your post makes no sense.

!

:eek:

?

Exactly which part were you not clear on?

[Liberal]

I’m afraid I understood none of it. I did try. But just when I thought I might be grasping a point, the rug would come out from under me. You seemed to have some problem with the modal modus tollens, for example, confusing it with an ordinary modus tollens. But then suddenly, you seemed to be expressing something close to what the difference is. And as for the S, P, and Q thing, you seemed to be suggesting that God’s existence was assumed in the definition, but without understanding that the definition is not a part of the proof.Your usage of the nomenclature of logic was somewhere between wrong, correct, and just made up. You just lost me, that’s all.

[umop_ap_sdn]

I do not understand the difference between modal modus tollens and regular modus tollens. :o In my inaccurate understanding of your logic, applying it that way seemed to be stating that the proof was implicitly required by the definition. One cannot prove something exists just by defining it, but I see now that’s not what you were trying to do.

[Liberal]

Well, a modal modus tollens applies to the modality only. Thus…

A -> ~~A

~(~~A)

::

~A

An ordinary modus tollens applied to the same assertion would be…

A -> ~~A

~~(~A)

::

~A

[Voyager]

@Liberal

He would not tell you whether a moral decision was right or wrong, but whether it was — to Him — valuable. He would not answer on behalf of others because we all are free moral agents. We decide for ourselves what we value. If what we value coincides with what He values, then we are one with Him. Atheist, theist, deist, pagan, wiccan, Christian, Jew, Muslim, whatever — these are irrelevant.

But he won’t tell us what he values? Your situation makes god’s discussion with people functionally indistinguishable from people talking to themselves - that is no test can distinguish these two situations. Well, that’s where I thought we’d end up, so I’m not surprised.

[Voyager]

@Liberal

I did. Ontological perfection. But now, no doubt, you will ask me to define that as well. There is no materialist philosopher that I know of who pretends not to know what is meant by God in this argument. I reject categorically any attempt at obfuscation that is born of nothing more than dissatisfaction with the argument’s conclusion. So should you.

Oh piffle. If you tell me I should worship a garglesnarfer, and I ask you why worship something undefined, you shouldn’t ask me to define “why.” The whole argument rests on whether a Supreme Being is possible. You’re just assuming that one is, and I don’t know what you mean by it, and I don’t believe ontological perfection is possible either. Actually I do know what is meant by a Supreme being, but it involves inherent contradictions, and is thus not possible.

For instance, surely a being that is omnipotent is more supreme than one that is not. By omnipotent, I mean can perform any action, without hindrance

Also, a being that is omniscient is more supreme than one that is not. A being ominiscient in the future as well as the past is more ominiscient than one not in the past.

But if a being knows what will happen in the future, he limits his choices. If he can do anything in the future, without constraint, he limits his knowledge of what he can do. So a being cannot be both, is not supreme in at least one aspect, and thus is not a supreme being.

The ordinarilly accepted ordering, for rather obvious reasons, is that an ontologically necessary being is supreme. That is because such a being exists in all possible worlds. Since it is impossible to exist in more worlds than that, it is the supreme existence.

That’s not an ordering, that’s a definition. You can have an element greater than any in the lattice, but such is not guaranteed to exist. If the possibility of a supreme being is crucial, you can’t assume one.

Again, nonsense. The halting problem has been proved to be undecidable. That is what an omniscient being would know. You are asking for there to be knowledge where knowledge is irrelevant. You’re not omniscient, but you can do arithmetic, right? What is the whole number solution to the square root of 2? You can’t answer, not because you don’t have the knowledge, but because there is no answer. That is what you know.

The halting problem is generally undecidable, but there are obviously programs you can prove will halt, or even observe to halt. The problem is with programs that would run until infinity. If god is omniscient, and is truly eternal, he can look into infinity and tell us if the program will ever halt. God is obviously not a Turing machine, after all!

I’m afraid you need to go back to the drawing board.

No, I’m afraid that you do. Pulling a supreme being out of your hat, while practicing misdirection through a complex yet solid proof, is a splendid bit of magic. But it won’t do.

[SentientMeat]

A hopefully useful summary for Voyager and cityboy.

[Contrapuntal]

@SentientMeat

A hopefully useful summary for Voyager and cityboy.

I’ve been following this thread (and others which have preceded it) and I found the link quite useful. If you find the time could you expand on this?

"Now, if one accepts the existence of the metaphysical, one must accept the axiom that Necessary Existence is true. That is: there is something metaphysical which exists in every possible world. Something with Necessary Existence (hereafter “NE”) cannot not exist. "

[Liberal]

@Voyager

But he won’t tell us what he values?

Um, here is what I said: “He would not tell you whether a moral decision was right or wrong, but whether it was — to Him — valuable.” He values goodness.

Oh piffle. If you tell me I should worship a garglesnarfer, and I ask you why worship something undefined, you shouldn’t ask me to define “why.”

You shouldn’t say that garglesnarfer is undefined if it has indeed been defined coherently.

The whole argument rests on whether a Supreme Being is possible.

That’s correct.

You’re just assuming that one is…

Well, I’m stating it as a premise, and I believe that the premise is justifiable since I can prove that necessary existence is true.

…and I don’t know what you mean by it…

I suspect it is the case that you don’t want to know. I say that because I know you’re not dumber than the myriad of materialist philosophers who “get it”. A supreme being is one that exists in all possible worlds. It’s not some big mind-bender.

…and I don’t believe ontological perfection is possible either.

But it absolutely is. Setting aside the outright obvious absurdity of stating that the greatest possible existence isn’t possible, there is straightforward analytic proof:

Prove

For every x, it is necessary that there exists y, such that y = x.

Definitions

Let A = for every

Let = modal necessity

Let E = there exists

Argument

1. x = x Identity Axiom

2. Ay(y != x) -> (x != x) Quantifier Axiom

3. x = x -> ~Ay(y != x) Contrapositive of 2

4. x = x -> Ey(y = x) Definition of E

5. Ey(y = x) Modus ponens from 1 and 4

6. Ey(y = x) Rule of Necessitation

Conclusion

7. AxEy(y = x) Rule of Generalization

QED

Actually I do know what is meant by a Supreme being, but it involves inherent contradictions, and is thus not possible.

Now, stop going all Kerry on me. You just said you didn’t know what is meant. At any rate, it cannot be a contradiction because its opposite is a contradiction. Ontological perfection MUST exist, as I proved above.

For instance, surely a being that is omnipotent is more supreme than one that is not. By omnipotent, I mean can perform any action, without hindrance

Also, a being that is omniscient is more supreme than one that is not. A being ominiscient in the future as well as the past is more ominiscient than one not in the past.

But if a being knows what will happen in the future, he limits his choices. If he can do anything in the future, without constraint, he limits his knowledge of what he can do. So a being cannot be both, is not supreme in at least one aspect, and thus is not a supreme being.

Setting aside that what you said makes no sense, keep in mind that we’re talking about ontology here — existence. It isn’t a question of what a being can or cannot do, but of in what states a being can or cannot be. Ontological perfection implies existence in every possible state. There is no existence (or being) more supreme. There CANNOT be.

That’s not an ordering, that’s a definition. You can have an element greater than any in the lattice, but such is not guaranteed to exist. If the possibility of a supreme being is crucial, you can’t assume one.

Nonsense. Are you saying that no argument can have a premise or axiom? Does arithmetic fail because not only does Peano leave successor undefined, but his fifth postulate assumes that every number has one?

The halting problem is generally undecidable, but there are obviously programs you can prove will halt, or even observe to halt. The problem is with programs that would run until infinity. If god is omniscient, and is truly eternal, he can look into infinity and tell us if the program will ever halt. God is obviously not a Turing machine, after all!

That red herring has already been answered. If the knowledge exists, then the omniscient being knows it. But if there is no knowledge TO exist (as in the whole number square root of 2), then THAT is what the omniscient being knows.

No, I’m afraid that you do. Pulling a supreme being out of your hat, while practicing misdirection through a complex yet solid proof, is a splendid bit of magic. But it won’t do.

Suit yourself. For me, what won’t do is proclaiming the greatness of reason when it suits my purposes, but condemning it as “magic” when it does not.

[SentientMeat]

If you find the time could you expand on this?
: Necessary Existence is true.

I’m glad that’s useful, td, but I’m not sure I can lead you much further than that very page. If metaphysical things exist, ontology is the branch dealing with their existence. “Necessary existence is true” is perhaps ontology’s equivalent of “1+1=2”. The “possible worlds” of ontology are perhaps the equivalent of “the universe” in physics. “NE is true in all possible worlds” comes from the very definition of “True”.

[Liberal]

@SentientMeat

A hopefully useful summary for Voyager and cityboy.

There have been two people in the history of the board whom I trust so much that, as far as I’m concerned, they may speak for me, and I will have no concern about any misrepresentation or misunderstanding. Spiritus Mundi is one, and you are the other.

[SentientMeat]

That is high praise indeed, friend. Thanks.

[Contrapuntal]

@SentientMeat

I’m glad that’s useful, td, but I’m not sure I can lead you much further than that very page. If metaphysical things exist, ontology is the branch dealing with their existence. “Necessary existence is true” is perhaps ontology’s equivalent of “1+1=2”. The “possible worlds” of ontology are perhaps the equivalent of “the universe” in physics. “NE is true in all possible worlds” comes from the very definition of “True”.

Thanks for the reply. I seem to have insufficient education to decipher the notation in the linked page. Once again, if you have the time, can you steer me somewhere I might educate myself? I just don’t know what the symbols mean.

[SentientMeat]

OK, transdallt, you asked for it!

[Contrapuntal]

@SentientMeat

OK, transdallt, you asked for it!

Thanks. It appears to formidable, but perhaps not hopeless.

[umop_ap_sdn]

@SentientMeat

A hopefully useful summary for Voyager and cityboy.

That clarifies a few things. But I’m still unclear how Lib makes the leap from (might theoretically exist) -> (must exist if the “metaphysical” exists). Surely, an entity could exist within the head of someone who only believes he/she/it is “supreme”. I admit to not being familiar with logic notation, e.g. “A -> ~~A” but will find some time to more thoroughly read the above cites and posts in an attempt to figure it out.

[Voyager]

@SentientMeat

A hopefully useful summary for Voyager and cityboy.

I was studying first order logic possibly before you were born, thank you very much.
First of all, I don’t accept that ideas have actual or metaphysical existence. Ideas are side effects of chemical and electrical processes in our brains. With nothing physical, no ideas. Were there ideas 10 seconds after the Big Bang? Did ideas exist on Earth when there were no lifeforms advanced enough to have them? The independent existence of ideas, or any other metaphysical concept, is yet to be proven. Thus I do not accept NE. It is not surprising that it is difficult for many people, after millennia of belief in metaphysics, to have a hard time with this.

Lib’s proof makes an unstate assumption that x exists, since I’m not sure that the identify axiom is valid if it does not. One can also prove the existence of anything in this way, since step 6 does not appear to depend on the identities of x and y. Unless this step has a hidden assumption, of course.

Now, more for Lib. Lib states that God is for goodness, but it is far from clear what goodness is, (besides what God is for). Is there a test that we can make to see if something is good? If the test consists of asking God, will we get the same answer in all instances. Lib seems to be saying no, which makes me doubt that we can be sure that it is not God and not internal reactions to goodness. I keep on asking the same question, and I’m not getting an answer that is not circular.

Now when Lib says that the greatest existence is not possible is absurd, he is reenforcing my point. What does greatest mean? Existence in all possible universes? Can we not posit a slime mold existing in all possible universes? Shall we worship it? By what criteria is an entity existing in all possible universes necessarily greater than one existing in all but one?

By the way, the omniscient vs. ominpotent argument (which is not mine) makes perfect sense, unless you believe a non-ominiscient omnipotent god is greater than an omnipotent one. I’m sorry Lib can’t follow the argument - it is clear to me. If you are disagreeing what greatest means, welcome to the club.

[umop_ap_sdn]

@Voyager

Can we not posit a slime mold existing in all possible universes? Shall we worship it?

That would make an excellent sig line. May I?

[Liberal]

@cityboy916

That clarifies a few things. But I’m still unclear how Lib makes the leap from (might theoretically exist) -> (must exist if the “metaphysical” exists). Surely, an entity could exist within the head of someone who only believes he/she/it is “supreme”. I admit to not being familiar with logic notation, e.g. “A -> ~~A” but will find some time to more thoroughly read the above cites and posts in an attempt to figure it out.

Here is an introductory reference for modal logic. In text based interfaces like this one, we use for necessity, and <> for possibility, rather than the traditional block and diamond. (Note: “possible” means the same as “not necessarily not” — that is, <> = ~~.)

[SentientMeat]

I was studying first order logic possibly before you were born, thank you very much.

If you read the thread that post was taken from, you’ll realise that I was replying to somebody who had just started studying logic.

First of all, I don’t accept that ideas have actual or metaphysical existence.

Me neither, which is why I think the MOAPGE is just a bunch of symbols which, like a great deal of pure maths, has little to no relevance to the universe. However, I would not impugn the veracity or validity of those mathematical proofs solely on that basis.

Can we not posit a slime mold existing in all possible universes?

Slime mold is known epistemically, not transcendentally, and so is ontologically irrelevant.

I no longer post to these MOAPGE discussions except to reference that summary for the same reason that I do not throw my atheistic spanner into Christian discussions of Scripture. If others wish to debate starting from premises I do not personally hold, it would be rude of me to barge into their cosy living room and keep dragging the debate back to the front door. I’ll just leave that note I referenced at the entrance and leave those inside to their meeting.