The battle of evolution vs creationism

[idav]

The argument is if something is possibly NECESSARY, then it is NECESSARILY true.

Supernatural being possibly necessary doesn't make it so, especially when we can't show the supernatural exists.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

This is like saying "it is possible that the victim has multiple gunshot wounds" is equivalent to saying "it is possible the victim was shot more than one time". It doesn't matter what is being said, the question is whether or not the premises are true. If the premises are true then the conclusion follows whether you like it or not. You are right, they are equivalent, but if it is true then it is true based on reality, not based how we phrase it.

If I say "adi2d's existence is possibly necessary", that is equivalent to "adi2d's existence is necessary"....the only problem is, both statements are FALSE and it is false because the statements do not reflect reality.

I've seen you make the same case before as if that is a defeater of the argument, which is rather dubious, because it isn't.

It is a defeater in the sense that, in order for the conclusion to follow, we have to assume the truth of a premise which is equivalent to the conclusion.

This is called "begging the question".

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The only problem is outside of knowledge, power, presence, and benevolence, there are no more great making properties.

This is simply a matter of your own preference. I say that good properties are "great making", and I'd imagine this would strike most people as intuitively obvious- if X is, for instance, more wise or prudent than Y, all else being equal its pretty clear that X is in some sense "greater" than Y.

Of course, you're essentially conceding a flaw in your own argument here- that what makes something great is probably subjective, and so a "maximally great being" is not something which can be properly defined in the first place (yet another flaw to add to the laundry list).,

Well, its been already explained to that prudence has no barren on a MGB, so why you continue to use it, I don't know. My question is, what does it mean to have maximal justice? Give me an example of maximal justice.

What does it mean to be maximally just, to be maximally powerful, to be maximally good? These are all vague phrases, not just maximal justice- if you have a problem, you have a problem with all of them and like above, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Nice back-track. You originally said "it is a perfect day for ice fishing; but terrible day for swimming"...and all I did was point out how SUBJECTIVE the example is, as I may like swimming in ice water for all you know, so it isn't a terrible day for swimming to me. Now you are giving a scenario at which there is no ice at all, so of course it is a bad day for ice fishing.

Which would be a case where subjectivity has no part of it. In any case, the point still stands; being maximally great in one respect entails being less than maximally great in another, just as being perfect for one thing entails being imperfect for something else. Maximal greatness in every respect, or absolute perfection, are contradictory no less than being all black and all white all over.

Yeah, I expect a MGB do be veryyyyy cautious with his creations...his creations may suddenly surprise him with something, despite the fact that he is omniscient. His creations may hide from him, despite him being omnipresent. Yeah, he should be veryyy cautious. Very prudent.

Care to try again, maybe actually address the point this time?

Forget about it then. Open challenge to anyone else then.

Ah, so you're too scared to do a one-on-one debate, out in the open where everyone can see it? Can't say I'm surprised.

 

[johnb21]

The answer is-Genesis 3:15. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her Seed; It shall bruise thy head, and thou shall bruise His heel. The one great central truth of all prophecy –the coming of One, Who, though he should suffer, should in the end crush the head of the old serpent, the Devil.
But, where are we to open this book? Where are we to break into this circle of the Zodiacal signs?
Through the “Precession of the Equinoxes” the sun gradually shifts it’s position a little each year, till in about every 2000 years it begins the year in a different sign. This was foreseen; and it was also foreseen that succeeding generations would not know when and where the sun began it’s course, and where the teaching of this Heavenly Book commenced, and where we were to open it’s first page. Hence the “Sphinx” was invented as a memorial.
It had the head of a woman and the body and tail of a lion, to tell us this book, written in the Heavens, began with the sign “Virgo” (Virgin), and will end with the sign “Leo” (Lion). The word “Sphinx”is from the Greek Sphingo, to join; because it binds together the two ends of this circle of the heavens.
The number of the signs is twelve, the number of governmental perfection or “rule”: It is the number or factor of all numbers connected with government: whether by Tribes or Apostles, or in measurements of time,or in things which have to do with government in the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:18. And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: And God saw that it was good.
JohnB21

 

[adi2d]

The answer is-Genesis 3:15. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her Seed; It shall bruise thy head, and thou shall bruise His heel. The one great central truth of all prophecy –the coming of One, Who, though he should suffer, should in the end crush the head of the old serpent, the Devil.
But, where are we to open this book? Where are we to break into this circle of the Zodiacal signs?
Through the “Precession of the Equinoxes” the sun gradually shifts it’s position a little each year, till in about every 2000 years it begins the year in a different sign. This was foreseen; and it was also foreseen that succeeding generations would not know when and where the sun began it’s course, and where the teaching of this Heavenly Book commenced, and where we were to open it’s first page. Hence the “Sphinx” was invented as a memorial.
It had the head of a woman and the body and tail of a lion, to tell us this book, written in the Heavens, began with the sign “Virgo” (Virgin), and will end with the sign “Leo” (Lion). The word “Sphinx”is from the Greek Sphingo, to join; because it binds together the two ends of this circle of the heavens.
The number of the signs is twelve, the number of governmental perfection or “rule”: It is the number or factor of all numbers connected with government: whether by Tribes or Apostles, or in measurements of time,or in things which have to do with government in the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:18. And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: And God saw that it was good.
JohnB21

Can't argue with logic like that

 

[Simurgh]

Can't argue with logic like that

I want to try. How about Nietzsche?

Error has transformed animals into men; is truth perhaps capable of changing man back into an animal?
(Human, all too Human)

 

[johnb21]

Error has transformed animals into men; is truth perhaps capable of changing man back into an animal? (Human, all too Human) Simurgh.

What formed men into animals is the transgression of Eve with Lucifer and we now pay the price on this fallen earth; Flesh Age, which is shortly coming to an end Man will not be changed back into animal, but be transformed. Ecc 12:7
1 Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
You will need to see my website to learn more. There is not enough room here.
JohnB

 

[McBell]

Error has transformed animals into men; is truth perhaps capable of changing man back into an animal? (Human, all too Human) Simurgh.

What formed men into animals is the transgression of Eve with Lucifer and we now pay the price on this fallen earth; Flesh Age, which is shortly coming to an end Man will not be changed back into animal, but be transformed. Ecc 12:7
1 Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
You will need to see my website to learn more. There is not enough room here.
JohnB

Interesting.
Especially considering:

Deuteronomy 24:16
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
​

and

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him​

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It is a defeater in the sense that, in order for the conclusion to follow, we have to assume the truth of a premise which is equivalent to the conclusion.

This is called "begging the question".

Instead of making the complete argument, all we have to do is just simply say "it is possible for God to exist", which would imply that God exists. Either way, either the statement is true or false...if it is true, then it follows that God exists, and vice versa.

Still begging the question?

 

[McBell]

Instead of making the complete argument, all we have to do is just simply say "it is possible for God to exist", which would imply that God exists. Either way, either the statement is true or false...if it is true, then it follows that God exists, and vice versa.

Still begging the question?

No.
Because you left out the hook.

You went from "if it is possible for god to exist then god has to exist" to simply "it is possible for god to exist."

The first one is begging the question.
the second one isn't.

 

[Runewolf1973]

It is not necessary for God to exist, therefore God likely does not exist.

 

[McBell]

It is not necessary for God to exist, therefore God likely does not exist.

It is not necessary for me to be a millionaire to be happy, since I am happy, there are no millionaires.

 

[Runewolf1973]

It is not necessary for me to be a millionaire to be happy, since I am happy, there are no millionaires.

But for this modern world to function the way it does, it is necessary to have people with millions of dollars.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Perhaps I should be more clear...

Based on the evidence for natural processes like evolution, it is not necessary for God to exist. There is no reason to think that things couldn't just happen naturally.


---

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

This is simply a matter of your own preference. I say that good properties are "great making", and I'd imagine this would strike most people as intuitively obvious- if X is, for instance, more wise or prudent than Y, all else being equal its pretty clear that X is in some sense "greater" than Y.

Still using prudence, huh? And how can something be more wiser than a being that is omniscient?

Of course, you're essentially conceding a flaw in your own argument here- that what makes something great is probably subjective, and so a "maximally great being" is not something which can be properly defined in the first place (yet another flaw to add to the laundry list).,

Whether or not you think it is subjective is irrelevant to whether or not such a being AS DEFINED in the argument exists. Necessary truths, or possible necessary truths are true regardless of who thinks they are false. How Big Foot is defined by those that allegedly saw it may be subjective to me, but that does not mean that somewhere in this vast world unbeknownst to me in my finite knowledge and presence that such a being exists.

The argument defines a certain being, you may disagree with the definition, but the definition still stands, and whether or not you agree with the definition does NOT affect the truth value of whether such a being exists.

What does it mean to be maximally just, to be maximally powerful, to be maximally good? These are all vague phrases, not just maximal justice- if you have a problem, you have a problem with all of them and like above, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

I need you to show me a direct contradiction based on the attributes as defined by the argument. I need an example. So far all you've done is throw out phrases without even ATTEMPTING to explain the correlation. And you continue to do it, post after post despite me asking you to elaborate on what exactly do you mean.

Which would be a case where subjectivity has no part of it. In any case, the point still stands; being maximally great in one respect entails being less than maximally great in another, just as being perfect for one thing entails being imperfect for something else. Maximal greatness in every respect, or absolute perfection, are contradictory no less than being all black and all white all over.

Ok, so God disapproves of adult-related comedic material. So he does not have a maximally great sense of humor because he doesn't find it funny...so that makes him less great than a being with equal attributes, but an additional attribute of being omini-humorous?

Is that your logic? Once again, I have to ask...have you ever wondered why philosophers of the past and present NEVER took your position?? Did you ever ask yourself that question?

Ah, so you're too scared to do a one-on-one debate, out in the open where everyone can see it? Can't say I'm surprised.

Isn't that what we've been doing?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Perhaps I should be more clear...

Based on the evidence for natural processes like evolution, it is not necessary for God to exist. There is no reason to think that things couldn't just happen naturally.


---

You see, people? See this position? This is a far cry from, "maybe God could have used evolution". See the difference? Yet certain people argued me down over whether or not people actually holds this position. Pathetic.

 

[Ouroboros]

You see, people? See this position? This is a far cry from, "maybe God could have used evolution". See the difference? Yet certain people argued me down over whether or not people actually holds this position. Pathetic.

Runewolf and I are two different people with different views and opinions.

You see people? Cotw can't even distinguish between different people or viewpoints! Weak.

By the way, which people are you talking about that you want to see this? Are they the same people as the people who's arguing you down, or the people who potentially could hold different positions?

---

You have to understand that Runewolf is talking out from a different perspective. In essence, nature is what God created it to be. Nature does what God wants it to do. Yes? That means that Nature are doing things without God has to interfere. In science, the position is to explain things in nature based on natural reasons and natural explanations. Since God is supernatural, you can't use God as an explanation for a natural phenomenon when you're trying to explain it's natural attributes and functions. For instance, is 1+1=2 because God says so or God created it so? Or perhaps God is making 1+1 equal 2 each time you write it? Or perhaps it's a fact of Nature that has its source in an infinite, eternal truth which is part of God's nature and attributes? Explaining why 1 and 1 equals 2 doesn't require God regardless if the mathematical truth somehow came from God originally. Evolution can be explained without God... BUT, it doesn't mean that God DIDN'T create Evolution as the main process for his/her/its design. Just like game programmers design games using evolutionary algorithms, God could have used evolutionary algorithms to create the world. But it doesn't mean that we have to have God to explain how the algorithm works in itself.

Put it this way. Chef Robert Irvine gives you a recipe for pistachio crusted halibut and garlic mashed potatoes. The process of making the food is an algorithm. You can now take this process and teach someone else. Will this recipe only work if Robert Irvine is the source? No. You can make it without even knowing that he made it. The process of making the food is the natural process. Chef Irvine is the source. But the cooking part can be done with or without knowledge about Irvine.

 

[McBell]

You see, people? See this position? This is a far cry from, "maybe God could have used evolution". See the difference? Yet certain people argued me down over whether or not people actually holds this position. Pathetic.

English isn't your native language, is it?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Instead of making the complete argument, all we have to do is just simply say "it is possible for God to exist", which would imply that God exists.

No. Here we are going in a circle again. "Possibly X->X" is not a theorem in ANY system of modal logic. You can not infer that X exists from X possibly exists. Which is why Plantinga requires, as a premise, that it is possibly necessary that God exists. But then, that is equivalent to God necessarily existing.

Still begging the question?

Nope, just plain old invalid. Unfortunately, this is the dilemma for ANY deductive proof of God's existence: beg the question, or be invalid. For if "God exists" appears in the conclusion of the argument, it MUST appear in one of the premises, else the argument would have to be invalid. But then, having God's existence figure as a premise in an argument for God's existence is bound to be question-begging.

In other words, damned if you do and damned if you don't.

 

[Simurgh]

No. Here we are going in a circle again. "Possibly X->X" is not a theorem in ANY system of modal logic. You can not infer that X exists from X possibly exists. Which is why Plantinga requires, as a premise, that it is possibly necessary that God exists. But then, that is equivalent to God necessarily existing.


Nope, just plain old invalid. Unfortunately, this is the dilemma for ANY deductive proof of God's existence: beg the question, or be invalid. For if "God exists" appears in the conclusion of the argument, it MUST appear in one of the premises, else the argument would have to be invalid. But then, having God's existence figure as a premise in an argument for God's existence is bound to be question-begging.

In other words, damned if you do and damned if you don't.

why don't you just humor him and let him imply what he wants. the rest of us can follow the logical argument and know better. you have done this circular thing long enough now and CotW still has not understood any of it. Are we waiting for a bolt from the heavens and hope that divine inspiration may hit him?

knowing what we know, that will be a really, really long wait. Might as well pull up that lounge chair, get some coffee, stock up on the chocolate, and some books and prepare for a prolonged tanning session...and then i need pillows and...