Evidence

[Thief]

Talking about the "purpose" of a species is incoherent. Purpose implies teleology.

And what's wrong with implications?
And you would argue your body has no design?

 

[Willamena]

Talking about the "purpose" of a species is incoherent. Purpose implies teleology.

Homo sapiens is a species. Humanity is a condition.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Do you seriously not notice the contradiction in saying "God was atemporal prior to...", given the sense of atemporality mentioned already?

God was timeless before creation and became temporal after. As I said, however you want to put it, I’ve already explained the concept.

That's not relevant. You were laying out all the possible options, not assessing their likelihood. And you left out half of them.

Either the universe was a result of a First Cause, or it is a result of a past-eternal naturalistic chain, or it popped in to being uncaused out of nothing. Those are the only three options (even though the third option is so absurd I didn’t consider it the first time).

There are only three options and whatever postulation you have about the origins of the universe, it will fall under one of those three options. So all of this “you left out half” crap is bogus…no, those are the only three and if you feel deep down within your inner soul that there is more, please enlighten me.

In any case, simply pointing to an infinite regression isn't a refutation, if this is what you mean by "the infinity problem". I've asked you already what this supposed "problem" is, and why it is a problem at all- still waiting.

I addressed this before, but after seeing it being ignored almost throughout the entire thread I just say “the infinity” problem. The problem is simple; Infinite time leads to absurdities…you can’t traverse infinity, nor can you reach infinity by successive addition. This is what you will ultimately run in to if you postulate a naturalistic cause for the universe. There isn’t a scientists or mathematician that can help you out with this either.

In any case, the infinite/finite causal sequence issue is not pertinent to the ontological argument or the modal ontological argument, so this is moot.

But it is pertinent to the KA, which is an argument that has been mentioned on here a few times. And no one said it was pertinent to the OA, I am just merely saying it is logical proof that the universe is finite.

You're begging the question.

How am I begging the question?

It's all I need. If a MGB is not maximally frugal, it is not maximally great. Conversely, if a MGB is not maximally generous, it is not maximally great. I'd imagine we can come up with any number of mutually exclusive attributes such that a MGB could not possess the maxima of both attributes, and thus not be maximally great.

Ok so what does it mean to be maximally generous? Does that mean being able to give anyone what they want without saying no? Well if that is the case, you would have to give them everything; the good and the bad…and this contradicts an omnibenevolent God. And what does it mean to be maximally frugal? This would mean to not use his power to discipline, judge, reward, bless, etc. This also contradicts a omnibenevolent God that would want to do these things.

Conversely, if a MGB is not maximally generous, it is not maximally great. I'd imagine we can come up with any number of mutually exclusive attributes such that a MGB could not possess the maxima of both attributes, and thus not be maximally great.

The two things that you mentioned contradict one of the attributes of a maximally great being.

Do you think the phrase "infinity problem" has magical powers, like "abracadabra" or something? What does it matter how many times you've said this phrase?

Actually it does have magical powers. It has the magical powers to refute any naturalistic explanation that you or anyone else will/can/did use when attempting to explain the origin of the universe. It is a “defeater”.

And the infinite regression has nothing to do with the claim in question, so this won't help you anyways... Try again.

As long as the KA is mentioned or anything relating to the origin of the universe, it is relevant.

That's the claim you need to establish for your argument to be successful, that it is possibly necessary a MGB exists- if it is possibly necessary that a MGB exists, then "it is not possible that "a MGB does not exist" is contradictory" must be contradictory. Show me.

All possible necessary truths must be true in reality. For the 12th time (at least), the mere concept of a MGB is not incoherent. It is a logically valid claim and thus could be true in some possible world.

Because the words you typed after quoting that section of my post were not really a response- they didn't address the issue. Which is still waiting to be addressed. The crucial inference in the argument is not a universally acceptable modal principle, and you've yet to establish the antecedent for your conditional inference. Your argument is stuck in neutral at this point.

Name me one philosopher (or otherwise) that disagree with the notion of all possible necessary truths must be possibly necessarily true in all possible worlds. And if it is possibly necessarily true in all possible worlds, there is no potentially for it to not be true in ANY world. Every philosopher agrees with this. Those that disagree with the argument don’t dispute this. The dispute comes from the premise of God’s existence being possibly necessarily true in the first place. And those that disagree with that must offer a reason why the concept of a MGB is incoherent and so far no one has done so.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The fact is, the people who wrote the Bible in all likelihood did NOT intend it to be understood as a history, geography, biology, or any other sort of textbook.

I agree with you about biology or any other kind of science, but what I am trying to figure out is how can you say "the people who wrote the Bible in all likelihood did NOT intend it to be understood as a history" when the bible gives names of men and places that can be historically verified?

It is closer to poetry than to prose- its primarily intent is not obviously to relate facts.

There are a couple books in the bible that are poetic and contains proverbs, but to say the whole bible is closer to poetry is being disingenuous, don't you think?

When we keep this in mind, the fact that the Bible is so frequently factually mistaken becomes less of a surprise, and less of an objection; after all, is it any knock against MacBeth that it is not factually accurate?

The bible is historically accurate and the only errors come from copyist errors as it was translated from one language to another, but the context remains the same.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If we're not, if we're not we vs. them, then we also have no primary function that is ours.

Exactly where are you going with this? Survival and passing on our genes is the primary function of every living thing on earth from bacteria to Elephants. We are not unique in that regard. How we go about that differs greatly. Those are what separate us as a different species. That and our DNA.

Or, alternately, humanity is a construct whose purpose is being ignored so that a point about life, rather than humanity, can be made.

Also confused about where you are going with this. Are you insinuating that humanity is a construct of someone or something with an innate purpose? If so I would ask for evidence for it.

That's unfortunate for you. Must be hard getting to work in the morning not knowing how to get there, and hard to cook your favorite dish since you don't know what the ingredients are, and hard for you to pass your math class since you don't know what any of the solutions are.

Wow. I don't know if this even dignifies a serious response. Did you legitimately not know what I meant or are you feigning ignorance to accentuate a point?

Science as the cultural institution, or science as a method? The former is certainly flawed, seeing as it requires people to carry it out (and people necessarily bring flaws to the table), but the latter doesn't appear to be- in fact, the scientific method seems to be the most successful strategy for interacting with the world (in terms of obtaining evidence about it and navitaging in it) that we have.

Very true. Its why I trust in science. I am saying that science doesn't have all the answers....yet. You are trying to rip down science as some flawed system that only god can fill the answers in for. I disagree as its the very best thing we have at understanding the world around us. In fact I argue that its the ONLY thing that allows us to understand our world.

 

[Willamena]

Exactly where are you going with this? Survival and passing on our genes is the primary function of every living thing on earth from bacteria to Elephants. We are not unique in that regard. How we go about that differs greatly. Those are what separate us as a different species. That and our DNA.

I just have a pet peeve about people claiming that humanity's function (or purpose), especially prime function, is procreation. Our function is no more procreation than it is breathing or drooling--these are just things that life-forms happen to do.

Also confused about where you are going with this. Are you insinuating that humanity is a construct of someone or something with an innate purpose? If so I would ask for evidence for it.

Yes: us. We constructed humanity as the categorizer of the world. But that's no point that I was making. My point was that to equivocate any particular with the gross category "life," and assign life's "purpose" to be the purpose of any particular, trivializes the very reason for having that particular in the first place.

 

[adi2d]

I just have a pet peeve about people claiming that humanity's function (or purpose), especially prime function, is procreation. Our function is no more procreation than it is breathing or drooling--these are just things that life-forms happen to do.


Yes: us. We constructed humanity as the categorizer of the world. But that's no point that I was making. My point was that to equivocate any particular with the gross category "life," and assign life's "purpose" to be the purpose of any particular, trivializes the very reason for having that particular in the first place.

Ok. What do YOU think our (all of humanity) purpose in life?
I'm trying to do what I feel is right for me.

 

[Willamena]

Ok. What do YOU think our (all of humanity) purpose in life?

That's not important, but because you asked, I favour the mythic image of Adam wandering around the Garden of Eden naming things. Our purpose, as intellects, and as humanity, is to know the bits of the world.

 

[adi2d]

That's not important, but because you asked, I favour the mythic image of Adam wandering around the Garden of Eden naming things. Our purpose, as intellects, and as humanity, is to know the bits of the world.

Wat a minute. You say learning is our primary function but then say its not important?

We don't know all the bits of the world so we need to continue on to the next generation. And the next and the next...

After Adam named all he saw he still had purpose in his life.

 

[Willamena]

Wat a minute. You say learning is our primary function but then say its not important?

We don't know all the bits of the world so we need to continue on to the next generation. And the next and the next...

After Adam named all he saw he still had purpose in his life.

No, I said my answer to your question isn't important. You may have a different answer.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

And what's wrong with implications?

When the implication appears to constitute a category error then we know we've gone wrong with our reasoning.

And you would argue your body has no design?

Yes. Biological organisms are not designed or created, but born and grown. Purpose and teleology is a property of artifacts- things created for something or other (i.e. achieving a particular goal or function); and it is this "for something" that is a things purpose.

And if you're thinking of the argument from design, i.e. Paley's watchmaker, intelligent design, etc., let me stop you right there. For one thing, if biological structures are evidence of design, they are evidence of poor design. Take the human eye for instance, which is so frequently touted as proof of intelligent design or so called "irreducible" complexity- the human eye is essentially "built" (i.e. evolved) upside down and backwards. This looks more like natural selection working with pre-existing resources that are not necessarily arranged ideally- "making the best with what we have", as it were- rather than the result of any intentional process of design.

In any case, arguing over whether biological structures are well designed or not is moot, since the fact remains that we simply have no idea what "design" on the cosmic scale would look like - absolutely anything could be claimed as "evidence of design", because we have no idea what evidence of design would actually look like.So actually claiming that we have sufficient evidence that we were in fact designed is absolutely ludicrous.

Rather, the best, defeasible and verifiable understanding of biological organisms and structures is provided by... you guessed it, biology and evolutionary theory, which precludes any teleology relating to species or organisms. According to our best and most sound understanding, we are not "for" anything.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Homo sapiens is a species. Humanity is a condition.

Right. Which doesn't imply any teleology, doesn't imply any inherent purpose.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Wow. I don't know if this even dignifies a serious response. Did you legitimately not know what I meant or are you feigning ignorance to accentuate a point?

I understand what you were trying to say, but it was still ludicrous. We know plenty of things, because knowledge does not require any apodictic certainty. Extreme skepticism about truth and knowledge is not only self-refuting, it is nonsensical.

You are trying to rip down science as some flawed system that only god can fill the answers in for.

Um.... what?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I understand what you were trying to say, but it was still ludicrous. We know plenty of things, because knowledge does not require any apodictic certainty. Extreme skepticism about truth and knowledge is not only self-refuting, it is nonsensical.

I am many things. Nonsensical is not one of them. I am making the argument that nothing can be known for certain. How do you know that you aren't really in a coma and this is all a dream? How do we know god didn't make us 5 seconds ago with all our memories the way they are? How do we know we're not in the matrix?

This was what I had assumed you were leading your argument towards. That is a nonsensical proposition in that while true its unfalsifiable and does not have have any evidence to provide reason to believe in such things.

My argument is, has been and continues to be that logic and reason should dictate our actions and be served with a healthy amount of scrutiny.

Um.... what?

Unless I am misreading where you were going on this was that not your intention? You were putting religion and science on par which even when I was a Theist felt was unnecessary and unequal. Please feel free to correct me if I was wrong. Its easy to misunderstand what people are trying to say over text in a forum.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I just have a pet peeve about people claiming that humanity's function (or purpose), especially prime function, is procreation. Our function is no more procreation than it is breathing or drooling--these are just things that life-forms happen to do.

I stated the we as humans have that as our primary function. Humanity is an illusion we have created with our vast imaginations. However it is functional and allows us to live together in great numbers. But our prime function as a living organism is in fact procreation. Without it we cease to exist. Our intelligence, culture, discoveries, and everything else are merely means to an end .

Yes: us. We constructed humanity as the categorizer of the world. But that's no point that I was making. My point was that to equivocate any particular with the gross category "life," and assign life's "purpose" to be the purpose of any particular, trivializes the very reason for having that particular in the first place.

I am not assigning a purpose to anything. The FUNCTION and let me repeat the primary function that precedes all else in importance is successful procreation of offspring. Purpose does not exist in the natural world beyond our own creation of it.

 

[Thief]

I stated the we as humans have that as our primary function. Humanity is an illusion we have created with our vast imaginations. However it is functional and allows us to live together in great numbers. But our prime function as a living organism is in fact procreation. Without it we cease to exist. Our intelligence, culture, discoveries, and everything else are merely means to an end .


I am not assigning a purpose to anything. The FUNCTION and let me repeat the primary function that precedes all else in importance is successful procreation of offspring. Purpose does not exist in the natural world beyond our own creation of it.

This reduces all of life on this planet to an extreme exercise of chemistry.
And it all will end.

So on a more personal level.....
You intend to do your chemistry.....and fail (continued existence).

So much for the obvious design of your....chemistry.

 

[Thief]

When the implication appears to constitute a category error then we know we've gone wrong with our reasoning.

Yes. Biological organisms are not designed or created, but born and grown. Purpose and teleology is a property of artifacts- things created for something or other (i.e. achieving a particular goal or function); and it is this "for something" that is a things purpose.

And if you're thinking of the argument from design, i.e. Paley's watchmaker, intelligent design, etc., let me stop you right there. For one thing, if biological structures are evidence of design, they are evidence of poor design. Take the human eye for instance, which is so frequently touted as proof of intelligent design or so called "irreducible" complexity- the human eye is essentially "built" (i.e. evolved) upside down and backwards. This looks more like natural selection working with pre-existing resources that are not necessarily arranged ideally- "making the best with what we have", as it were- rather than the result of any intentional process of design.

In any case, arguing over whether biological structures are well designed or not is moot, since the fact remains that we simply have no idea what "design" on the cosmic scale would look like - absolutely anything could be claimed as "evidence of design", because we have no idea what evidence of design would actually look like.So actually claiming that we have sufficient evidence that we were in fact designed is absolutely ludicrous.

Rather, the best, defeasible and verifiable understanding of biological organisms and structures is provided by... you guessed it, biology and evolutionary theory, which precludes any teleology relating to species or organisms. According to our best and most sound understanding, we are not "for" anything.

Not giving much credit to anything at all......are you?
Nothing Greater than yourself?
Top of the line life form are you?
Not a chance that out of several billions copies of a learning device......
some of us might actually succeed in becoming more than chemistry?

Billions to none.......really?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I am many things. Nonsensical is not one of them. I am making the argument that nothing can be known for certain.

Right. And it does not follow that nothing can be known, from the fact that nothing can be known with apodictic certainty.

Knowledge does not preclude the possibility of error.

Unless I am misreading where you were going on this was that not your intention? You were putting religion and science on par which even when I was a Theist felt was unnecessary and unequal. Please feel free to correct me if I was wrong. Its easy to misunderstand what people are trying to say over text in a forum.

I never said anything to this effect; I was basically saying the exact opposite.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Not giving much credit to anything at all......are you?
Nothing Greater than yourself?

"Greater" in what sense?

Top of the line life form are you?

Again, I don't know what that means. "Top of the line"? In the evolutionary sense that, in order for me to be sitting here right now my ancestors had to manage the "survival of the fittest" to reproduce and pass on their genes, I suppose so... But then again, the same is true of any organism- any organism that exists is "top of the line" in that its ancestors were more successful in surviving and passing on their genes than the ones which did not get naturally selected for...

Other than that, and I'm guessing this is not what you had in mind, I'm not sure what you mean.

Not a chance that out of several billions copies of a learning device......
some of us might actually succeed in becoming more than chemistry?

You really need to be more clear... "More than" chemistry how?

Say what you mean, for Chrissakes!

 

[Enai de a lukal]

God was timeless before creation and became temporal after. As I said, however you want to put it, I’ve already explained the concept.

You didn't answer my question. You don't see the (rather glaring) problem in claiming that something was atemporal (in the sense that they are not subject to temporal relations) "prior to" (a temporal relation) something else? (hint: this is contradictory)

Either the universe was a result of a First Cause, or it is a result of a past-eternal naturalistic chain, or it popped in to being uncaused out of nothing. Those are the only three options (even though the third option is so absurd I didn’t consider it the first time).

This is not what you said before. You said-

Here is what we know. We know that we exist. We also know that the universe exists. Now, either the universe (that is all physical reality, anywhere) is eternal and never began to exist, or there was a supernatural creator that created the universe, and this supernatural creator is eternal and never began to exist.

Which leaves out the possibility that the universe had a beginning, and was caused, but was caused by something other than "a supernatural creator" (for instance- the "zero-energy proposal"). To argue otherwise is to commit an argument from ignorance.

The problem is simple; Infinite time leads to absurdities…you can’t traverse infinity, nor can you reach infinity by successive addition. This is what you will ultimately run in to if you postulate a naturalistic cause for the universe. There isn’t a scientists or mathematician that can help you out with this either.

Are you serious? You need to do your homework my friend- any mathematician acquainted with calculus can help us with the "traverse infinity" business, and the claim that infinite time leads to absurdities is flat wrong. It is argued- by William Craig, for instance- that "actual infinities" lead to counter-intuitive situations (e.g. Hilbert's Hotel); not any "absurdities" in the logical sense (i.e. contradictions).

To wit, the "infinity problem" is not a problem.

But it is pertinent to the KA, which is an argument that has been mentioned on here a few times. And no one said it was pertinent to the OA, I am just merely saying it is logical proof that the universe is finite.

Since the infinite regress cannot be established as anything worse than counter-intuitive, the causal argument is shipwrecked. Nor does the causal argument prove the existence of (the Christian) God, even if we grant its premises.

Ok so what does it mean to be maximally generous?

You're the one positing "maximal" attributes- something I'm not sure is coherent to begin with- so you'll have to tell me. But prima facie, no single entity could possess the maximal degree of two traits which are opposed to one another, like the pairs I mentioned.

Actually it does have magical powers. It has the magical powers to refute any naturalistic explanation that you or anyone else will/can/did use when attempting to explain the origin of the universe. It is a “defeater”.

I suppose it would be, if it could have successfully ruled out an infinite regress- but it doesn't, so it isn't.

All possible necessary truths must be true in reality.

This is what is in question. This is a modal principle that is not universally accepted, as I've pointed out to you. It is not a valid inference in Von Wright’s system M, nor any of the Lewis systems weaker than S5 (you do know what a formal system in logic is, yes?).

In any case, IF we grant this inference, then YOU must grant the following argument-

P1. It is possible that a slightly less-than-maximally great being (LGMB) exists necessarily. (i.e there is some possible world W such that "a LGMB exists necessarily" is true)
-if you claim that its coherent and possible for a MGB to exist necessarily, then by the same token this applies to a LGMB

C1, from P2- It is possibly necessary that a LGMB exists.

C2, from C1 and the questionable modal principle- It is necessary that a LGMB exists.

Now, we've just deduced the existence of a slightly-less-than-maximally great being that exists necessarily. That is to say that its existence is not contingent upon God- and so God cannot be responsible for everything, and would appear to not be maximally great since a being which is responsible for everything would be greater than God. Now, contrary to the hypothesis, God is not the maximally great being- a contradiction.

So, if we don't allow the modal principle from "X is possibly necessary" to "necessarily, X" (as in M and the Lewis systems which do not include it), your argument is invalid. But if we do allow it, your argument leads to a contradiction...

As it happens, kids these days have a phrase for this sort of scenario- "epic fail".

For the 12th time (at least), the mere concept of a MGB is not incoherent.

This is a bare assertion. It remains to be seen whether it is coherent.