Thursday, February 4, 2010

HRG Hides from My Challenge

I have been sparing with the alleged mathematician for about eight years now on CARM, and  I'm tired of him making the same assertions that I disprove over and over again. This is chronic among atheists on the net, that they are back saying the same distorted errors the very day after you disprove them. Now HRG--aka "Hans" (Hans Reginald Grum) has extended his incredulity arguments too many times. I challenged him to prove his assertions and he has ran from the chalelnge completely.

here is where he demonstates his true lack of kowledge.

 Hans says:Given the logical errors that Plantinga has committed in his arguments, I don't regard him as an authority.

Quote: ME
you get it wrong. go read Hartshorne. been about 8 years now and you still have not done that, so you just refuse to learn.
Has says:
Given the logical errors that Hartshorne has committed in his arguments, I don't regard him as an authority either.
he's saying here that the two most highly regarded modal logic men in the world in the last century make logical errors. I'm sure they would say they do /did at times but I just think Hans not the guy to point them out. So here's what I challenge on this: (challenge 1)

to show where they make these alleged mistakes and document it with page number and source just like in foot note. Prove that it is a mistake according to S5 modal logic.

Rather than do that he starts an argument about the modal arguemnt so he wont have to document and show that he can't find any mistakes in Platinga or Hartshorne.

Of me he says:

"I have never seen a valid answer. Just special pleading."

So I challenged him on this: (challenge 2)

I suggest Hans doesn't know what valid means in a logical sense. I want him to do two things here:

(1) explain the distinction between sound and valid

(2) show by the rules of logic why m y arguments are not valid.

he has said nothing about the first challenge on Hartshorne and Plantinga. He's carefually avoiding saying a word about it. He's made many posts harping on a read herring issue bu the has not answered the arguemnts at all.

He is running full tilt form the challenge.

Now the red herring might be mistaken for an asnwer to challenge 2 but it' not.

 Hans says:

And as Chad and I have pointed out several years ago, it is invariant under the interchange "g <=> ~g". Thus if it was valid to prove "g", it would also be valid to prove "~g". An argument which proves a self-contradiction is invalid. Period.
You might think that this is answering the second challenge because it's suppossedly showing an invalid argument. But it actually doesn't applly to the validaity issue. What it really applys to is the idea that he disagrees with the conclusion of the arugment, not becuase the logic doesn't demand it, but because he doesn't like where the logic goes.

He actually is trying to change the terms of the argument. When he says "g <=>~g" he's saying something that is logically impossible and demanding that it be true. This is because he thinks that if he can imagine a world where there's no God that proves that it's possible for there not to be a God. But ti doesn't even touch the issue. The issue is not "can you bring yourself not to believe in God." the issue is God is either necessary or impossible. IF there is no God then God is impossible. You can't demand that be so merely because you can conceive of it.

none of this has anything to do with hte validity of an argument. Validity means only that the argument conforms to and contains the basic structure of logic and doesn't violate any obvious rules of logic, for example the premise doesn't rest on the conclusion. Arguments that are not sound, that is arguemnts that obviously contradict reality are unsound. But unsound arguments can be valid because valid doesnt' "true" it means fits the sturcutre of logic.

For exampe the follow arguemnt is valid but not sound:

If I can toss heads with a coin I can play basketball as well as Michel Jordon

I can toss heads with a coin

therefore, I can play basketball as well as Michael Jordon.

This argument, which is obviously absurd in terms of being true is actually valid because it fits the basis of logic. The difference is it is not a sound. To say "that is not true" is simply what one says in the phrase "not sound." So it's a simple matter, the form of the argument is right but the conclusion is untrue because the founding premise is wrong, even tough it's not a violation of logical protocol.

When he says I've never made a valid argument and He's a big mathematician who constrained brags about his knowledge of modal logic, then he uses the phrase form modal logic "valid" but uses it in the popular way that has nothing to do with the rules of logic, I find that fishy.

His argument is  a priori not true, the argument is valid. what we are talking about is the modal arguemnt. a non formal version of it in popular parlance would say this:

(1) If God exists, he must exist necessarily, if God does not exist his existence is impossible.

(2) Therefore, God is either necessary or impossible.

(3) God can be conceived without contradiction

(4) therefore, God is not impossible

(5) Since God is not impossible he must be necessary.

(6) Since god is necessary he must exist.

But I present it in modal logic as well, which is the formal presentation:

g --> N(g)
N(g) v ~N(g)
~N(g) --> N(~N(g))
N(g) v N(~N(g))
N(~N(g)) --> N(~g)
N(g) v N(~g)
N(g) --> g

that looks like nothing but a bunch of squiggles but it's actually model logic in symbolic terms. that's what he's talking about up there where he says "g <=>~g." 

the argument is said to be valid and explined in terms by the guy I got it from:

by Ed Stoebenau Hartshorne's ontological argument is based on Anselm's second argument and claims that God's existence is logically necessary. Hartshorne's argument is given here, where "N(A)" means "it is logically necessary that A," "~A" means "it is not the case that A," "-->" is strict implication, "v" means "or," and "g" means "God exists":

g --> N(g)
N(g) v ~N(g)
~N(g) --> N(~N(g))
N(g) v N(~N(g))
N(~N(g)) --> N(~g)
N(g) v N(~g)
N(g) --> g

This argument is valid. Furthermore, given an Anselmian conception of God, premises one and five are sound. Premise two is just the law of the excluded middle, and premise three is a law of the modal logic S5. Premise nine is obviously sound, so this leaves premise seven as the only premise to question. Premise seven says that it is logically possible that God exists.
What this means is Hans is actually using the term "valid" to mean "I disagree." So when he says I never presented a valid argument he is really saying "I disagree with your views." That means nothing in term so fmy loigc being  good or bad.

Next time I will show why the argument is true and God must exist.

No comments: