He doesn't understand the difference between epistemic and modal possibility. That's the point. But I've already explained this numerous times in this very thread.
100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist
Re: 100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist
Re: 100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist
You have to look at previous posts to follow what I'm saying. Plantinga's argument begins with it is possible for God to exist, with which you seem to agree. But here's what atheists seem to miss: virtually all theistic religions teach that God is necessary being. Basically, what Plantinga does with the rest of his argument is remove the option of retreating into agnosticism: either God does exist, or he cannot exist. There is no middle ground.
Now, Plantinga is a theistic personalist (God is a being), so I wouldn't be surprised if he has a different take on his own argument:
Like I said, this is not proof of God's existence, but it does remove the option to retreat into agnosticism, which by your own admission, atheists do all the time. However, I'm not fan of the argument. IMV, it's irrelevant because atheism and agnosticism are functionally the same thing -- it's a distinction without a difference.If it is possible that God exists, then there is some possible world in which God exists. If God exists in some possible world, though, then, because he is a necessary being, he exists in all possible worlds. God, then, exists in all possible worlds. If God exists in all possible worlds, though, then he certainly exists in this one. God, therefore, exists.
A more formal analysis of this argument goes like this:
(1) If God exists then he has necessary existence.
(2) Either God has necessary existence, or he doesn‘t.
(3) If God doesn‘t have necessary existence, then he necessarily doesn‘t.
Therefore:
(4) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn‘t.
(5) If God necessarily doesn‘t have necessary existence, then God necessarily doesn‘t exist.
Therefore:
(6) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn‘t exist.
(7) It is not the case that God necessarily doesn‘t exist.
Therefore:
(8) God has necessary existence.
(9) If God has necessary existence, then God exists.
Therefore:
(10) God exists.
This won't make David happy, but given that God is necessay being, he is epistemically necessary (or must be the case), or epistemically impossible. There is no middle ground.
Re: 100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist
No, you're still confused on the difference between epistemic and modal possibility. To say, "It is possible god exists" on the epistemic account of possibility is just to say that IF he exists, then he NECESSARILY exists (per definition of God) But if he does not exist, then he NECESSARILY fails to exist, because God (per definition) cannot be contingent (existing at some possible worlds but not at others).This notion of possible worlds is the modal notion of possibility.
The upshot of course is that ontological arguments, even after modalized, do not and cannot prove that god exists.
Nor does this have anything to do with agnosticism. 'Agnosticism derives from gnosis, knowledge. The agnostic says (rightly) that I don't know that God exists, and that I don't know that he fails to exist.
The upshot of course is that ontological arguments, even after modalized, do not and cannot prove that god exists.
Nor does this have anything to do with agnosticism. 'Agnosticism derives from gnosis, knowledge. The agnostic says (rightly) that I don't know that God exists, and that I don't know that he fails to exist.
Re: 100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist
Thanks for repeating for my benefit.
Saying that I don't deny that it is possible for a god (notice I said "a god" and not "God", as if there is some known/defined) to exist, is no different than me saying I don't deny it is possible that faeries exist, or that anything else exists. I pretty much think anything is possible... therefore, I don't really see "a god" as a big deal. Why would I get hung up over the idea of a god, when ANYTHING is possible?
The limited human perspective distorts and condenses things down into a form that can be grasped by the human, and manipulated for the human's purposes. Any "god" would know this. Just like talking to a baby... you wouldn't expect the baby to understand much of anything. That's just a fraction of how vast I think things are beyond our limited human perspective... and that's why it doesn't make sense to me that there's some god totally consumed with our human level. When humans say that we are in "this god's" image, and he is our "father", it's not hard to see what that's all about (on our level).
So, back to the argument: I would replace the word "God" with the word "All". That makes as much sense as anything, because there's no reason to single out the idea of the possibility of a god existing, when we can consider the possibility of anything existing.
Re: 100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist
True, but only when it is applied to "theistic personalism." But many theists contend that God is being itself, or more precisely, the power to be.
The idea of God is just a pointer, but what good is a pointer if it points in the wrong direction? On top of that, you hit upon the reason why atheists who hold to the idea that anything that happens happens (an argument some atheists use to explain away the 'fine tuning' of the universe) have a doubly difficult time. If anything that can happen happens, then either God happens or is impossible -- again, no middle ground.I pretty much think anything is possible... therefore, I don't really see "a god" as a big deal. Why would I get hung up over the idea of a god, when ANYTHING is possible?
I agree, but in a debate about the so-called problem of evil this works against the atheist. (It's a meaningless argument anyway because to make it a point of contention, atheists have to point to values and ideals beyond themselves from which they draw their rationale.) You might like this:The limited human perspective distorts and condenses things down into a form that can be grasped by the human, and manipulated for the human's purposes. Any "god" would know this. Just like talking to a baby... you wouldn't expect the baby to understand much of anything. That's just a fraction of how vast I think things are beyond our limited human perspective... and that's why it doesn't make sense to me that there's some god totally consumed with our human level. When humans say that we are in "this god's" image, and he is our "father", it's not hard to see what that's all about (on our level).
“Humans consider themselves unique, so they've rooted their whole theory of existence on their uniqueness. 'One' is their unit of measure. But it's not. All social systems we've put into place are a mere sketch. 'One plus one equals two.' That's all we've learned. But one plus one has never equaled two. There are, in fact, no numbers and no letters. We've codified our existence to bring it down to human size, to make it comprehensible. We've created a scale so we can forget its unfathomable scale.” — Lucy (from the movie Lucy)
You could, and some do. But in some theologies, most notably in the theology of Paul Tillich (with whom I agree on this), God is the power to overcome nonexistence. In other words, God is the power behind everything that exists and yet ontologically distinct from them.So, back to the argument: I would replace the word "God" with the word "All". That makes as much sense as anything, because there's no reason to single out the idea of the possibility of a god existing, when we can consider the possibility of anything existing.
Last edited by Reflex on Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:48 am, edited 2 times in total.
Re: 100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist
Uh, Dave? That's what I said. The problem is when atheists retreat into agnosticism, i.e., when they say they don't believe in God but refuse to say he cannot exist.davidm wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2017 6:00 am No, you're still confused on the difference between epistemic and modal possibility. To say, "It is possible god exists" on the epistemic account of possibility is just to say that IF he exists, then he NECESSARILY exists (per definition of God) But if he does not exist, then he NECESSARILY fails to exist, because God (per definition) cannot be contingent (existing at some possible worlds but not at others).
Re: 100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist
What's wrong with that?
We are little creatures scuttling around the surface of a world that is one of many within a galaxy that itself lies within clusters and superclusters that make up a cosmic web of unknown dimensions. So why would the little creatures be certain about the ultimate nature of reality? We don't even properly understand the Earth or our solar system.
Re: 100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist
Reflex, so often there are many points of view as to what 'God' refers to. Would you please say what you think is the defining and ineradicable difference between God=Being, and God=Nature ?
I myself can see no practical or metaphysical difference between God=Being and God=Nature.
I myself can see no practical or metaphysical difference between God=Being and God=Nature.
Re: 100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist
The middle ground is the lack of clear meaning in the words 'happen' or 'exist'.If anything that can happen happens, then either God happens or is impossible -- again, no middle ground.
Does 'God happens' mean 'a palpable physical body enters our universe'? Or 'an idea enters my mind'? Or something else? If I say 'I don't know whether God exists' it is because I do not know what whoever I am talking to means by 'exist'.
As I've said to Immanuel Can, if God is supposed to exist as a concept, then I absolutely accept that he does. If he is supposed to be a material object in the universe, then I would have to say 'I have no reason to think he does but I cannot prove a negative'. And so on. Until I know what the person means by 'exist', then I cannot know myself!
What is clear is that when we use 'happen' or 'exist' about God, it doesn't usually resemble what we mean when we use those words about anything else. For example:
In this formula, the same problem is extended to the word 'power'. This power can 'overcome nonexistence'. Does that mean that there is a rival power of non-existence that God has to overpower? But if that power of non-existence exists, then God must have created it...You could, and some do. But in some theologies, most notably in the theology of Paul Tillich (with whom I agree on this), God is the power to overcome nonexistence. In other words, God is the power behind everything that exists and yet ontologically distinct from them.
Or is 'power' the wrong word? Is 'God' identical with 'exist'? Are the two words synonyms? No, because God is also ontologically different from 'things that exist'. So God 'exists' in a different way to how we think of things 'existing'. But in that case, what does it mean to assert 'God exists'?
We must get these problems as long as 'exist' still has no meaning. But if we give it a meaning by applying it to anything in particular then we do not need God. For example, if we ask 'how do rocks exist? or 'how do thoughts exist?' we have no problem answering. It only becomes a problem when we have no subject and ask 'how does existence exist?' To which I think the answers is; 'It doesn't'. Only particular things exist.
(I think the formula you refer to is not really about existence, but adapted from earlier arguments about 'cause', where God is seen as the 'final (meaning underlying)cause' of the physical universe. But to see the necessity for such a cause requires us to see our physical universe as having meaning, purpose. For people who found the argument from design convincing, to describe God as the 'cause' is much the same as saying he is the 'designer'. As an argument, I do not think it is very sophisticated; it is not a form of the ontological argument)
Re: 100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist
'Things' including time-space are made of Information, Light, and are kind of like holographic in nature-it all exists as evidence of Something Real behind it. The body and brain and heart and organs are evidence 'after the Fact' of the Infinite Unseen Light reflecting as 'things'
..."things' are made in the image of God. Images, things are the mirror reflection of Something Unknowable that is not created and is Unseen.
.
..."things' are made in the image of God. Images, things are the mirror reflection of Something Unknowable that is not created and is Unseen.
.
Re: 100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist
So... energy? Why give it a name?
The idea of God as a pointer has to be based on the human ideas of direction -- not the limitless beyond. That's why it seems to me that God is manmade.The idea of God is just a pointer, but what good is a pointer if it points in the wrong direction?
I don't see it this way. I think we simply don't know, and there are no "this or thats".If anything that can happen happens, then either God happens or is impossible -- again, no middle ground.
That makes sense to me.You might like this: "We've created a scale so we can forget its unfathomable scale.”
That's an IDEA. So, God is an IDEA. Can ANY idea exist? Sure... in the mind of the one who holds the idea. In that way, there seem to be many different layers of "existence". People can actually create, for themselves, what they believe. (Such that they seem quite mad to those around them.) How real is that... and should it be real to everyone?God is the power to overcome nonexistence. In other words, God is the power behind everything that exists and yet ontologically distinct from them.
Does creative energy exist? Seems certain, as we see it continually flowing through everything. But what would be the purpose of naming it God? When we name something, do we not start attributing all kinds of things to it... and claiming that we KNOW it? Don't we do that to elevate ourselves as "knowers" and therefore "keepers and custodians and teachers" of that idea/ideal/power?
Wouldn't it be more reasonable to respectfully observe, so as to not obstruct the flow with our egos and puny ideas, but rather to FLOW WITH IT in the most natural and efficient manner, thereby having more clarity from our attunement?
Re: 100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist
God=Being=Necessary Being, but God=Nature=contingent being. The former cannot cease to be; everything in the the latter can.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 am Reflex, so often there are many points of view as to what 'God' refers to. Would you please say what you think is the defining and ineradicable difference between God=Being, and God=Nature ?
I myself can see no practical or metaphysical difference between God=Being and God=Nature.
Nothing -- if you don't mind ignoring the logic of what was said.
Sorry, but I'm not going to let semantical games sidetrack me. I think I spoke quite succinctly.Londoner wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2017 9:47 am
The middle ground is the lack of clear meaning in the words 'happen' or 'exist'.
Does 'God happens' mean 'a palpable physical body enters our universe'? Or 'an idea enters my mind'? Or something else? If I say 'I don't know whether God exists' it is because I do not know what whoever I am talking to means by 'exist'.
As I've said to Immanuel Can, if God is supposed to exist as a concept, then I absolutely accept that he does. If he is supposed to be a material object in the universe, then I would have to say 'I have no reason to think he does but I cannot prove a negative'. And so on. Until I know what the person means by 'exist', then I cannot know myself!
What is clear is that when we use 'happen' or 'exist' about God, it doesn't usually resemble what we mean when we use those words about anything else. For example:
In this formula, the same problem is extended to the word 'power'. This power can 'overcome nonexistence'. Does that mean that there is a rival power of non-existence that God has to overpower? But if that power of non-existence exists, then God must have created it...You could, and some do. But in some theologies, most notably in the theology of Paul Tillich (with whom I agree on this), God is the power to overcome nonexistence. In other words, God is the power behind everything that exists and yet ontologically distinct from them.
Or is 'power' the wrong word? Is 'God' identical with 'exist'? Are the two words synonyms? No, because God is also ontologically different from 'things that exist'. So God 'exists' in a different way to how we think of things 'existing'. But in that case, what does it mean to assert 'God exists'?
We must get these problems as long as 'exist' still has no meaning. But if we give it a meaning by applying it to anything in particular then we do not need God. For example, if we ask 'how do rocks exist? or 'how do thoughts exist?' we have no problem answering. It only becomes a problem when we have no subject and ask 'how does existence exist?' To which I think the answers is; 'It doesn't'. Only particular things exist.
(I think the formula you refer to is not really about existence, but adapted from earlier arguments about 'cause', where God is seen as the 'final (meaning underlying)cause' of the physical universe. But to see the necessity for such a cause requires us to see our physical universe as having meaning, purpose. For people who found the argument from design convincing, to describe God as the 'cause' is much the same as saying he is the 'designer'. As an argument, I do not think it is very sophisticated; it is not a form of the ontological argument)
To distinguish between formative energy and blind, static-reactive energies.
It is, but mind can never hope to grasp the concept of an Absolute without attempting first to break the unity of such a reality. Mind is unifying of all divergencies, but in the very absence of such divergencies, mind finds no basis upon which to attempt to formulate understanding concepts. Just like what Lucy said.The idea of God is just a pointer, but what good is a pointer if it points in the wrong direction?The idea of God as a pointer has to be based on the human ideas of direction -- not the limitless beyond. That's why it seems to me that God is manmade.
It's not a matter of knowing or not knowing, it's a matter of logic. It's fine to to say that anything that happens happens as a way to explain the fine tuning of the universe without there being some kind of intelligence involved, but by adding the caveat "therefore God is not necessary," you're implicitly saying God cannot exist.I don't see it this way. I think we simply don't know, and there are no "this or thats".If anything that can happen happens, then either God happens or is impossible -- again, no middle ground.
Do all ideas have the same cosmic value?That's an IDEA. So, God is an IDEA. Can ANY idea exist? Sure... in the mind of the one who holds the idea. In that way, there seem to be many different layers of "existence". People can actually create, for themselves, what they believe. (Such that they seem quite mad to those around them.) How real is that... and should it be real to everyone?God is the power to overcome nonexistence. In other words, God is the power behind everything that exists and yet ontologically distinct from them.
There are hidden dangers and unintended consequences in everything we think, say and do. It comes with the territory of being finite.Does creative energy exist? Seems certain, as we see it continually flowing through everything. But what would be the purpose of naming it God? When we name something, do we not start attributing all kinds of things to it... and claiming that we KNOW it? Don't we do that to elevate ourselves as "knowers" and therefore "keepers and custodians and teachers" of that idea/ideal/power?
How far do you want to take "going with the flow"? We have to strike a balance. I mean, baboons "go with the flow" more than humans do, but exploiting the environment in the name of progress has disastrous consequences. Does that mean we should live like baboons?Wouldn't it be more reasonable to respectfully observe, so as to not obstruct the flow with our egos and puny ideas, but rather to FLOW WITH IT in the most natural and efficient manner, thereby having more clarity from our attunement?
Re: 100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist
Why wouldn't they?
And who assigns the value?
Keeping that in mind is helpful when discussing ideas about gods.There are hidden dangers and unintended consequences in everything we think, say and do. It comes with the territory of being finite.
If you are truly observing, respectfully and with clarity, you do not act like a baboon. I'm suggesting that we notice and remain aware of how our ideas obstruct and distort. Rather than always pushing for what we want, and rather than feeding our ravenous egos -- consider appreciation of all, observe the unfoldings and the flows, and respect being a part of it by not bombarding it with constant demands and noise.How far do you want to take "going with the flow"? We have to strike a balance. I mean, baboons "go with the flow" more than humans do, but exploiting the environment in the name of progress has disastrous consequences. Does that mean we should live like baboons?
Re: 100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist
You may not want to admit it, but even you pass judgment on the relative value of ideas.
Community. I am convinced that human values will evolve to embrace the community values of all creation -- if we don't annihilate ourselves first.And who assigns the value?
It sounds to me you want to suppress creativity. From the moment in which an entity is no longer content with mere existence, the principle of mere observation has been violated.If you are truly observing, respectfully and with clarity, you do not act like a baboon. I'm suggesting that we notice and remain aware of how our ideas obstruct and distort. Rather than always pushing for what we want, and rather than feeding our ravenous egos -- consider appreciation of all, observe the unfoldings and the flows, and respect being a part of it by not bombarding it with constant demands and noise.
Re: 100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist
Well, sure! But your question was "Do all ideas have the same cosmic value?" In the bigger scheme of things (which is what I thought you were referring to by using the word "cosmic") I'm not sure one idea matters over another. They're all just available options.
I don't know how you came up with that. No, I do not want to suppress creativity at all. Do I look like MY creativity is suppressed? There are many ways to create and to be. Noisy bombardment that ignores all else and imposes its will on everything is ONE WAY. I'm suggesting possibilities beyond that -- and it could be as simple as recognizing what we're doing, and being aware of how limiting and contrived it is. So, actually, seeking more conscious creativity than unconscious creativity! By being in better alignment and clarity with a larger flow/scope that we/all are a part of, we have (I'm guessing) access to broader ideas and creativity that better support the ongoing alignment and clarity of a broader nature.Reflex wrote: ↑Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:59 pmIt sounds to me you want to suppress creativity. From the moment in which an entity is no longer content with mere existence, the principle of mere observation has been violated.Lacewing wrote: If you are truly observing, respectfully and with clarity, you do not act like a baboon. I'm suggesting that we notice and remain aware of how our ideas obstruct and distort. Rather than always pushing for what we want, and rather than feeding our ravenous egos -- consider appreciation of all, observe the unfoldings and the flows, and respect being a part of it by not bombarding it with constant demands and noise.