Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04/18/02 1:14pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "Muddling a simple point" on 04/16/02 3:47pm
>>You appear to be confused about the meaning of
>>conditional statements. Conditional statements don’t
>>assume the existence of anything. For example, the
>>statement, “If I jump off a cliff, I’ll be dead,”
>>doesn’t actually assume cliffs and death exists.
>
>Is that right? Then why not just say If I jump off a
>dromedary camel dandelions will sprout from my nose?
>Or how about, if I jump off a jluereghou I will
>ahouerewll?
As long as they logically follow from the definitions etc., go right ahead.
>It doesn't make any sense to use a
>conditional about something that doesn't exist, just
>like it doesn't make any sense to use it on the Easter
>Bunny.
It can indeed. Indirect proofs and reductio ad absurdum are some usages of using conditional statements of things that do not or cannot exist.
>This argument assumes those primitive concepts
>exist,(at least as a logical possibility) whether or
>not you wish to admit it, and that really is the
>bottom line.
They don’t have to assume that the concepts exist even on a logical possibility. There is nothing in definitions of conditional statements that imply that at all. (Confer indirect proofs.)
> >But
>>if they do, and if I jump off a cliff, then I’ll be
>>dead. That’s all that the statement says. As an
>>analogy, “If I get shot by death rays, I’ll be dead.”
>>This statement is true, even if there are no such
>>thing as “death rays.” But if they did exist,
>>and I got shot by them, then I’ll be dead. That’s all
>>that the statement says.
>
>Those are two conditionals coupled. If I get shot by
>death rays, I'll be dead is not the same as saying if
>there are such a thing as death rays and I get shot by
>one, I will be dead
It is functionally the same. Take the antecedent of the statement: “If I get shot by death rays” logically presupposes the “If death rays exist” conditional as part of the statement. In any case, even if your criticism were true it would not apply to the one the ontological argumuent used, which is, “If God exists, then…” It blatently includes the condition that the statement holds true if God exists.
>>>In the same vein, your first statement of "If there is
>>>a God he exists necessarily" assumes that God exists.
>>
>>As I explained above, that does not logically follow.
>>The statement just says that if repeat,
>>IF God exists, he exists necessarily. God
>>doesn't have to exist for this statement to be
>correct.
>
>Why would you issue an If God exists statement if he
>didn't exist?
As a thought experiment, or an indirect proof etc. But in any case, your question is completely irrelevant as it pertains to the truth of the premise. The origins and motives of the statement don’t matter. My motives could be utterly insane and it wouldn’t change the statement’s truth-value. A monkey could be the one who randomly typed up the statement and it wouldn’t change the statement’s truth-value. Remember, the premise only says “If God exists, then he exists necessarily.” God not existing is not in any way contradictory to the premise. Because of this, the statement does not presuppose the existence of God unless you can clearly explain to me how the statement “God does not exist” contradicts the premise.
>>>If he doesn't exist, why bother making a conditional
>>>about him in the first place?
>>
>>As a thought experiment perhaps. But the reasons of
>>forming the statement are irrelevant to its
>>truthfulness. That is, the statement can be true
>>regardless of the reason it was formed. A monkey
>>could randomly type the statement and it can still be
>>correct.
>
>It could, but why not talk about my spaced out
>grasshopper instead?
Go ahead.
>>Well, yes. You could input a statement “If God
>>doesn’t exist, then he does not necessarily exist.” I
>>would not and do not disagree with that statement.
>>But you couldn’t use that statement by itself to
>>disprove God’s existence.
>
>
>Nor could you use the other to affirm God's existance,
You could in conjunction with another premise, as I have already proved. I did use a formal proof to demonstrate this after all. Do you have any shred of evidence whatsoever that the proof is unsound? If not, I suggest you bow out of this discussion.
>>I’d like to see how you can prove the Easter Bunny
>>using formal logic. I really don’t think you can.
>
>I didn't say I could prove it. I said we could prove
>statements saying something to the effect of if the
>Easter Bunny exists then this this and that, and it
>would be the same sort of proof that you've conncocted
>for God. If the Easter Bunny exists, he exist
>necessarily, and so on and so on.
You could not prove statements like the existence of the Easter Bunny because the premises just wouldn’t hold true. The statement “If the Easter Bunny exists, he exists necessarily” is not correct. Whereas some claim that the two premises do hold true for theism for reasons I have already explained.
>>“If God exists, he exists necessarily.” The
>>justification that has been provided for that premise
>>is that we define God as the greatest possible
>>being.
>
>But there isn't any reason to define God as the
>greatest possible being initially
On the contrary, there is a very good reason to do so. The form of theism I’m referring to does define God as the greatest possible being. Ask this theist, “What are you referring to when you say, ‘God’? How do you define God? What exactly is God?” and the theist would reply, “the greatest possible being.” Here, God quite literally is the greatest possible being. Note also that this definition does not really point to any theistic belief system in particular. There are many such systems, not just Christianity, that contain a notion of the greatest possible being. I’m not specifically referring to the Christian God when discussing the ontological argument I’ve told you about.
>>The greatest possible being would by
>>definition have the greatest form of existence
>>possible, i.e. necessary existence. So it logically
>>follows that if God exists he exists necessarily. If
>>you can’t give any reason to doubt this premise (or
>>the second premise) then perhaps you should just bow
>>out. I will not lose any respect for you if you did
>>that.
>
>Let me break this down for you very clearly so as
>there isn't any more resulting confusion. Your proof
>doesn't matter to a hill of beans if there isn't a
>God. It doesn't matter how you define God initially,
>it doesn't matter if you used symbolic logic, it
>doesn't matter if you use propostional calculus, it
>doesn't matter if you issue five hundred postulates
>about what should follow if God exists. You can build
>intricate towers of logic about if this and this, but
>it doesn't matter if the base assumption is wrong. I
>question your first premise If God exists, just as you
>would question a premise If God doesn't exist.
>Something can be valid and it can still be "wrong" if
>the base assumptions are wrong.
Evidently there is still confusion. The first premise does not, repeat, Not, and to repeat again, does NOT presuppose the existence of God, and you have yet to provide any shred of evidence to demonstrate otherwise. Yes, the argument would be wrong if God doesn’t exist, just like many scientists would be wrong if gravity doesn’t exist. But scientists can only be wrong about gravity if they have somehow misinterpreted the seemingly overwhelming supporting evidence, and God can only not exist if one of the two premises is wrong, and you have yet to demonstrate that any of the two premises are wrong.
So if you think the proof is unsound, please explain to me clearly what is wrong with the fist two premises. For a recap, the first two premises are:- If God exists, then he exists necessarily.
- It is possible for God to exist.
The purpose of the proof was to show that the statement, “God necessarily exists” must be true if the first two premises are true. And the proof is quite valid (i.e. the conclusion must be true if the premises are true). If you can’t give any shred of evidence for doubting those two premises, then I suggest you bow out.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 