Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
Call of the wild
Before you get too far in a new argument could you answer this question?
No, there is no possible world at which a MGB doesn't exist.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Call of the wild
Before you get too far in a new argument could you answer this question?
No, there is no possible world at which a MGB doesn't exist.
Yeah actually, that's pretty much it- he assumes that it is possibly necessary that God exists, in order to conclude that God exists. However, in modal logic, "X possibly exists" is equivalent to "X necessarily exists"- so one of his premises is essentially "God necessarily exists"... Well, if you need to assume that God necessarily exists to prove that God in fact exists, what's the point of that?So your argument is
God exists therefore God exists
Concise but more a statement than an argument
How does that work? An entity that has all the properties your MGB has, but has one more- whichever one of the maximal virtues I've mentioned which your MGB lacks- would pretty clearly be slightly greater than your MGB. But then, your MGB would not be the greatest being- a contradiction.But they don't, as those properties that you mention are not great making properties.
That's. The. Exact. Same. Thing.Or the ability to do anything that is LOGICALLY possible.
If X is perfect, then X is perfect for something; today is a perfect day for ice fishing, but a terrible day for swimming, this is a perfect tackhammer, but a terrible sledgehammer, etc. Perfection for X excludes perfection for not-X, and saying X is just perfect, but not for anything in particular, is incoherent just like saying "I am to the right of." (as in, to the right of, but not to the right of anything)Well being imperfect for what? Give an example.
Because a maximally cautious or wise being would be greater than one that was not.Excuse, pardon the french, but why the HELL would a MGB need to be maximally cautious?? That just make absolutely no sense whatsoever.
So we aren't talking about virtues, or positive/valuable attributes, but magical superpowers? Lol! Ok, well my MGB has the power of flight and farts fireballs the size of Escalades!I just want proper definitions of the terms. What the heck is maximal justice and maximal prudence? Those are not even great making properties. If you are a comic book fan, what superhero or villian had the power of prudence or justice? Seriously, is that the best you have?
Your memory is very poor. Usually we exchange a few posts, with you failing to address the handful of salient points, before you disappear. The unfortunate part for you here is that these threads are on the internet, which means they are a matter of public record. Oops...We had a day after day, week after week discussion of this very subject at which we went back and forth, yet I "fail to respond to criticism", and I "always runs away leaving objections on the table". Makes no sense.
For one thing, OBVIOUSLY, arguments are not decided by comparing credentials. For another, I have a degree in philosophy, albeit a bachelors. For yet another, I'm not going to give out people's names or give any information that could lead to their identity becoming disclosed, so yeah, not going to go there. The handful of posters who are OK with that have personal information posted on their profile, but I'm afraid you'll have to look for yourself. Or, you can worry about dealing with their arguments, rather than trying to advance an ad hominem (which, I guess I should remind you, is fallacious). Or, you could even worry about addressing the handful of criticisms I've offered here- that the argument is question-begging, that one of the premises is false, and that the argument is invalid in most systems of modal logic anyways; you have to walk before you can run, after all.So name me one philosopher that actually has a DEGREE in this kind of stuff...name me one that offers the same refutations to the argument that you do. They are just silly.
Yeah actually, that's pretty much it- he assumes that it is possibly necessary that God exists, in order to conclude that God exists. However, in modal logic, "X possibly exists" is equivalent to "X necessarily exists"- so one of his premises is essentially "God necessarily exists"... Well, if you need to assume that God necessarily exists to prove that God in fact exists, what's the point of that?
See that's exactly what I'm talking about. Its easy to agree with your unbelieving buddies and cheer-lead each others posts, but from the looks of things it is hard to make a claim that is based on truth value.
Since you are the Modal logic guy, I would expect you to already know that the argument does not assume that God exists necessarily. The conclusion is based on the fact that it is possible for God to exist, and if it is possible for God to exist as a MGB, then it follows that God necessarily exist. See the way that works?
How does that work? An entity that has all the properties your MGB has, but has one more- whichever one of the maximal virtues I've mentioned which your MGB lacks- would pretty clearly be slightly greater than your MGB. But then, your MGB would not be the greatest being- a contradiction.
That's. The. Exact. Same. Thing.
If X is perfect, then X is perfect for something; today is a perfect day for ice fishing, but a terrible day for swimming, this is a perfect tackhammer, but a terrible sledgehammer, etc. Perfection for X excludes perfection for not-X, and saying X is just perfect, but not for anything in particular, is incoherent just like saying "I am to the right of." (as in, to the right of, but not to the right of anything)
Because a maximally cautious or wise being would be greater than one that was not.
Your memory is very poor. Usually we exchange a few posts, with you failing to address the handful of salient points, before you disappear. The unfortunate part for you here is that these threads are on the internet, which means they are a matter of public record. Oops...
For one thing, OBVIOUSLY, arguments are not decided by comparing credentials. For another, I have a degree in philosophy, albeit a bachelors.
For yet another, I'm not going to give out people's names or give any information that could lead to their identity becoming disclosed, so yeah, not going to go there. The handful of posters who are OK with that have personal information posted on their profile, but I'm afraid you'll have to look for yourself. Or, you can worry about dealing with their arguments, rather than trying to advance an ad hominem (which, I guess I should remind you, is fallacious). Or, you could even worry about addressing the handful of criticisms I've offered here- that the argument is question-begging, that one of the premises is false, and that the argument is invalid in most systems of modal logic anyways; you have to walk before you can run, after all.
I am only speaking for myself Wild.
You said it was not possible for an MGB to not exist in a possible
So you are not saying God is possible you say He exists
See the difference?
I know how the argument works (more than we can say of you). Plantinga has stipulated that an MGB must, by definition, have maximally great properties in every possible world- in other words, he has already assumed that, if a MGB exists, it does so necessarily. But then, assuming that it IS possible that a MGB exist is tantamount to assuming that a MGB necessarily exists, since "it is possibly necessary that X" and "necessarily X" are equivalent. So adi2d's paraphrase was ironically accurate.See that's exactly what I'm talking about. Its easy to agree with your unbelieving buddies and cheer-lead each others posts, but from the looks of things it is hard to make a claim that is based on truth value.
Since you are the Modal logic guy, I would expect you to already know that the argument does not assume that God exists necessarily. The conclusion is based on the fact that it is possible for God to exist, and if it is possible for God to exist as a MGB, then it follows that God necessarily exist. See the way that works?
I believe the word you were looking for was "obvious", not "ridiculous". If two entities are the same in every respect, except one has some positive/valuable/good property (or virtue) to a maximal degree while the other one does not, that entity is pretty clearly greater than the other. In other words, a MGB must, to actually be a MGB, possess every good or valuable property to a maximal degree. Which is incoherent.So basically you are saying if a being had more of a sense of humor than the God that I defined, that would make that being greater? That is ridiculous.
Do you understand English? Which part don't you understand, "maximal" or "justice"? Since we've already given you a definition of "prudence", it must be one of these.I am still waiting on what the heck does maximal justice and maximal prudence...what DOES THAT MEAN?
That's cool. They're exactly the same.I actually like my definition better.
That isn't really true, and it isn't relevant anyways. If there is no ice, my preference is not part of it- its just a bad day for ice fishing. Perfection consists in suitability for a given task or function; but this entails that being perfect for one task or function will make something imperfect for a task or function that is sufficiently different. And being just plain perfect, without respect to anything else, is nonsense.You are using "perfect" in a subjective sense. Suppose I like to go swimming in the ice water? Maybe it is perfect for swimming based on my preference? You ever think about that?
Oh dear. I'm afraid you're missing the point. As above-Are you crazy? Why would an ominipotent being need to be cautious about anything? If God is maximally great and in sovereign control of everything, what does he need to be cautious about? And omniscience would IMPLY maximal "wiseness". Cmon now.
Which is, as I already noted, sort of funny; apparently you like people seeing you with your pants around your ankles. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.Yet I am the one that referred people to the thread...hmmm
Well, since every thread we broach the subject in ends with your running away, we know there's no worry there. But what I said before holds true- I'm more than willing to do whatever you like here on this forum, but I'm not going to download instant messaging software just so you can change the venue. If you like, sign up for a one-on-one debate on the debate section of this forum, I'd be happy to oblige.I actually want a voice chat/discussion with you over this subject or any other subject you want to discuss. Now lets see who is running and who is ready to intellectually fight.
I know how the argument works (more than we can say of you). Plantinga has stipulated that an MGB must, by definition, have maximally great properties in every possible world- in other words, he has already assumed that, if a MGB exists, it does so necessarily. But then, assuming that it IS possible that a MGB exist is tantamount to assuming that a MGB necessarily exists, since "it is possibly necessary that X" and "necessarily X" are equivalent. So adi2d's paraphrase was ironically accurate.
The ironic part is you, either through insight or luck, saw through a load of technical jargon and basically struck to the heart of the issue. The argument is valid in some systems of modal logic, but trivially so, because it basically assumes the truth of the conclusion; it is question-begging, and therefore pointless, even if its validity is granted (which it need not be, since the modal axiom required for its validity is far from intuitively obvious).Nice to see someone thinks I'm accurate. Not sure what's ironic but that's probably my pea brain not seeing the big picture
See that's exactly what I'm talking about. Its easy to agree with your unbelieving buddies and cheer-lead each others posts, but from the looks of things it is hard to make a claim that is based on truth value.
Since you are the Modal logic guy, I would expect you to already know that the argument does not assume that God exists necessarily. The conclusion is based on the fact that it is possible for God to exist, and if it is possible for God to exist as a MGB, then it follows that God necessarily exist. See the way that works?
Before I dissect this argument, I don't know what "intrinsically indifferent towards creation" means. Explain that to me.
I know how the argument works (more than we can say of you). Plantinga has stipulated that an MGB must, by definition, have maximally great properties in every possible world- in other words, he has already assumed that, if a MGB exists, it does so necessarily. But then, assuming that it IS possible that a MGB exist is tantamount to assuming that a MGB necessarily exists, since "it is possibly necessary that X" and "necessarily X" are equivalent. So adi2d's paraphrase was ironically accurate.
I believe the word you were looking for was "obvious", not "ridiculous". If two entities are the same in every respect, except one has some positive/valuable/good property (or virtue) to a maximal degree while the other one does not, that entity is pretty clearly greater than the other. In other words, a MGB must, to actually be a MGB, possess every good or valuable property to a maximal degree. Which is incoherent.
Do you understand English? Which part don't you understand, "maximal" or "justice"? Since we've already given you a definition of "prudence", it must be one of these.
That isn't really true, and it isn't relevant anyways. If there is no ice, my preference is not part of it- its just a bad day for ice fishing.
Perfection consists in suitability for a given task or function; but this entails that being perfect for one task or function will make something imperfect for a task or function that is sufficiently different. And being just plain perfect, without respect to anything else, is nonsense.
Oh dear. I'm afraid you're missing the point. As above-
"If two entities are the same in every respect, except one has some positive/valuable/good property (or virtue) to a maximal degree while the other one does not, that entity is pretty clearly greater than the other. In other words, a MGB must, to actually be a MGB, possess every good or valuable property to a maximal degree. Which is incoherent."
Well, since every thread we broach the subject in ends with your running away, we know there's no worry there. But what I said before holds true- I'm more than willing to do whatever you like here on this forum, but I'm not going to download instant messaging software just so you can change the venue. If you like, sign up for a one-on-one debate on the debate section of this forum, I'd be happy to oblige.
This "if something is possible, then it is necessary" bit looks like nonsense to me.
For example, it is possible that some radioactive atom is decaying just now, but it happens not to be.