100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: 100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist

Post by Immanuel Can »

davidm wrote: Tue Jul 18, 2017 10:00 pm I did not even ad hom him
So you didn't write the words:
In any case, it is quite clear that Plantinga is deliberately equivocating between the natural language sense and the modal sense of "possible" -- which makes him dishonest. He is hoping to wow the hoi-polloi with word games.
:shock: :shock: :shock:
Reflex
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: 100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist

Post by Reflex »

davidm wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2017 2:24 am You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't know what the ontological argument is, you don't know what the modal ontological argument is, you don't know what begging the question is. Go sit at the children's table.
LOL! You're silly argument doesn't work for a number of reasons, not the least of which it's a childish attempt to turn the tables.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: 100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist

Post by Belinda »

Reflex wrote:
LOL! You're silly argument doesn't work for a number of reasons, not the least of which it's a childish attempt to turn the tables.
You yourself would be most welcome to present a reasoned argument .
Reflex
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: 100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist

Post by Reflex »

Belinda wrote: Wed Jul 19, 2017 8:09 am Reflex wrote:
LOL! You're silly argument doesn't work for a number of reasons, not the least of which it's a childish attempt to turn the tables.
You yourself would be most welcome to present a reasoned argument .
How many atheists in this forum have admitted it is possible for God, by definition necessary being, to exist? Damn near all of them! By that admission, they are, according to the argument, admitting to God's existence. On the other hand, Dave's "argument" redefines God as being less than necessary and then he claims to have proven his case. It's even worse for atheists who stand by the idea that anything that can happen happens. It takes away their refuge in agnosticism.

All in all, I don't think it's an argument for God's existence as much as it is a description of the atheist's dilemma.

The argument is so childishly absurd that I've paid little attention.
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: 100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist

Post by Londoner »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jul 18, 2017 2:17 pm
Guess...probability estimate...taking a shot...

These terms are distinct only by the variable of how much information is potentially involved in each case -- if at all. It's not really clear at which point an "estimate of probability," an "empirical judgment," or a "shot" turns into a "guess," in fact, nor how one ranks these. They are not completely distinct processes, since all involve some degree of uncertainty and some degree of information, rather than absolute certainty in any case.

So if you're going to advance a stimulative set of definitions for these, perhaps you'd stipulate them in advance, so we don't end up speaking at cross-purposes. It's usually a good idea to make terms clear from the get-go.
Your original term was 'probability'. I told you what that means. You are now replacing 'probability' with these various other words so it is for you to say what you might mean by them.

You say they relate to 'the variable of how much information is potentially involved in each case -- if at all.' That makes no sense.

If you don't know whether any information at all is available, then how can this lack of knowledge become a 'variable'?

And how do you quantify information?

And what do you mean by information being potentially involved?

The reason for all these strange formula is that something essential is missing. Normally, when we are making judgement, looking at probability, seeking evidence, they are all directed to some object. Is X the case? And we can do these things effectively if, and only if, we know what we mean by 'X'. But with God, there is no such clarity. We reason we cannot know what (if anything) counts as information is that we have no idea what it would be information about.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: 100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist

Post by Belinda »

Reflex wrote:
How many atheists in this forum have admitted it is possible for God, by definition necessary being, to exist? Damn near all of them! By that admission, they are, according to the argument, admitting to God's existence. On the other hand, Dave's "argument" redefines God as being less than necessary and then he claims to have proven his case. It's even worse for atheists who stand by the idea that anything that can happen happens. It takes away their refuge in agnosticism.

All in all, I don't think it's an argument for God's existence as much as it is a description of the atheist's dilemma.
But you write a necessary being. There is only one necessary being that is being. Surely you are not claiming that God is an entity among other entities only more powerful etc..
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: 100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist

Post by davidm »

Reflex wrote: Wed Jul 19, 2017 8:27 am
Belinda wrote: Wed Jul 19, 2017 8:09 am Reflex wrote:
LOL! You're silly argument doesn't work for a number of reasons, not the least of which it's a childish attempt to turn the tables.
You yourself would be most welcome to present a reasoned argument .
How many atheists in this forum have admitted it is possible for God, by definition necessary being, to exist? Damn near all of them! By that admission, they are, according to the argument, admitting to God's existence.
:lol:

You clearly don't understand the difference between epistemic and modal possibility do you? Even though I've spared no effort to explain it.
On the other hand, Dave's "argument" redefines God as being less than necessary and then he claims to have proven his case.
I've made no such argument. You're clueless.
Reflex
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: 100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist

Post by Reflex »

Belinda wrote: Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:38 am Reflex wrote:
How many atheists in this forum have admitted it is possible for God, by definition necessary being, to exist? Damn near all of them! By that admission, they are, according to the argument, admitting to God's existence. On the other hand, Dave's "argument" redefines God as being less than necessary and then he claims to have proven his case. It's even worse for atheists who stand by the idea that anything that can happen happens. It takes away their refuge in agnosticism.

All in all, I don't think it's an argument for God's existence as much as it is a description of the atheist's dilemma.
But you write a necessary being. There is only one necessary being that is being. Surely you are not claiming that God is an entity among other entities only more powerful etc..
Read it again. There is no "a."
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: 100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist

Post by Immanuel Can »

Londoner wrote: Wed Jul 19, 2017 8:54 am You say they relate to 'the variable of how much information is potentially involved in each case -- if at all.' That makes no sense.
All I meant was that some people would say a "guess" was more certain than a "shot," and less information-rich than a "probability calculation" or "scientific test." I don't know whether that includes you, or whether you would rank those words that way.

I was just waiting to see.
If you don't know whether any information at all is available, then how can this lack of knowledge become a 'variable'?

Because it's not "any," nor per se, a "lack."

For one thing, all "guesses" or "shots" or "probability calculations" are composed of both information and the projecting of an estimate beyond that information. Both are always present: maybe only the proportions are at issue.
And how do you quantify information?
Easy. You can quantify it as facts or data. For example, a man who knows water is wet and potentially dangerous knows precisely one more thing than the man who only knows it's wet.
The reason for all these strange formula is that something essential is missing. Normally, when we are making judgement, looking at probability, seeking evidence, they are all directed to some object. Is X the case? And we can do these things effectively if, and only if, we know what we mean by 'X'. But with God, there is no such clarity.
There would not be, apart from God revealing it. But if the Supreme Being did decide to make you know the nature of that particular "X," then there is can we see any reason why the Supreme Being would be unable to do it?

I think not.
Last edited by Immanuel Can on Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reflex
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: 100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist

Post by Reflex »

davidm wrote: Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:19 pm
Reflex wrote: Wed Jul 19, 2017 8:27 am On the other hand, Dave's "argument" redefines God as being less than necessary and then he claims to have proven his case.
I've made no such argument. You're clueless.
It's been me experience that few atheists know what "necessary being" entails.

Although Plantinga's argument (perverted by Dave) doesn't prove God's existence, it forces the atheist to deny the first premise: it is possible for God to exist. The atheist is then forced to say God cannot exist -- no more retreating into agnosticism. The perverted form of the argument, "it is possible that God does not exist," leaves the theist wondering whether the person making it knows what "necessary being" means. The theist can deny the premise on the grounds that it's simply incoherent.

With respect to the OP: I'm a theist that says, "Right on!"
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: 100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist

Post by Belinda »

Reflex wrote:
But you write a necessary being. There is only one necessary being that is being. Surely you are not claiming that God is an entity among other entities only more powerful etc..
Read it again. There is no "a."
Quite right Reflex I was mistaken.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: 100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist

Post by davidm »

Reflex wrote: Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:10 pm
davidm wrote: Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:19 pm
Reflex wrote: Wed Jul 19, 2017 8:27 am On the other hand, Dave's "argument" redefines God as being less than necessary and then he claims to have proven his case.
I've made no such argument. You're clueless.
It's been me experience that few atheists know what "necessary being" entails.

Although Plantinga's argument (perverted by Dave) doesn't prove God's existence, it forces the atheist to deny the first premise: it is possible for God to exist.
:lol:

No, I, an atheist, completely accept P1 as an epistemic statement of possibility -- not as a modal version of possibility. As I explained, if Plantinga intends P1 as a modal statement of possibility, he begs the question. If he intends it as an epistemic statement of possibility, he cannot derive P2 from P1. What part of this are you unable to grasp?
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: 100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist

Post by Lacewing »

Reflex wrote: Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:10 pm Although Plantinga's argument (perverted by Dave) doesn't prove God's existence, it forces the atheist to deny the first premise: it is possible for God to exist.
Do atheists deny it is possible for a god to exist? I don't... and my atheist friends don't. It's simply that:

A) I see no evidence of any such god as human beings describe

B) I think that any idea of god from the human perspective may be highly distorted

For example, if there are greater entities, they probably aren't concerned with us, even though we might believe them to be gods -- much as a small bug might think we are gods, but we're just bigger and we don't care uniquely about the bug.

Theists on this forum keep trying to claim what atheists think, which apparently many theists cannot really grasp/acknowledge accurately because DOING SO ACCURATELY would give too much validity to atheists. But dishonest theists are obvious, and such desperate behavior only serves to support atheism.
Reflex
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: 100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist

Post by Reflex »

Lacewing wrote: Thu Jul 20, 2017 1:23 am
Reflex wrote: Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:10 pm Although Plantinga's argument (perverted by Dave) doesn't prove God's existence, it forces the atheist to deny the first premise: it is possible for God to exist.
Do atheists deny it is possible for a god to exist? I don't... and my atheist friends don't.
That's the point.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: 100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist

Post by Lacewing »

Reflex wrote: Thu Jul 20, 2017 1:44 am
Lacewing wrote: Thu Jul 20, 2017 1:23 am
Reflex wrote: Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:10 pm Although Plantinga's argument (perverted by Dave) doesn't prove God's existence, it forces the atheist to deny the first premise: it is possible for God to exist.
Do atheists deny it is possible for a god to exist? I don't... and my atheist friends don't.
That's the point.
Am I misreading something? What's the point?... please explain.
Post Reply