Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Atheist go over the edge on pretense of disproving God

 photo pWorlds.png

Atheists have basically taken over the possible world's business. Possible worlds were initially a means of demonstrating the concept of necessity and contingency. Several Mathematicians and philosohpers developed their own versions of them.

Although ‘possible world’ has been part of the philosophical lexicon at least since Leibniz, the notion became firmly entrenched in contemporary philosophy with the development of possible world semantics for the languages of modal logic. In addition to the usual Boolean sentence operators of classical logic such as ‘and’ (‘∧’), ‘or’ (‘∨’), ‘not’ (‘¬’), and ‘if...then’ (‘→’), these languages contain operators intended to represent the modal adverbs ‘necessarily’ (‘□’) and ‘possibly’ (‘◇’). Although a prominent aspect of logic in both Aristotle's work and the work of many medieval philosophers, modal logic was largely ignored from the modern period to the mid-20th century. And even though a variety of modal deductive systems had in fact been rigorously developed in the early 20th century, notably by Lewis and Langford (1932), there was for the languages of those systems nothing comparable to the elegant semantics that Tarski had provided for the languages of classical first-order predicate logic. Consequently, there was no rigorous account of what it means for a sentence in those languages to be true and, hence, no account of the critical semantic notions of validity and logical consequence to underwrite the corresponding deductive notions of theoremhood and provability. A concomitant philosophical casualty of this void in modal logic was a deep skepticism, voiced most prominently by Quine, toward any appeal to modal notions in metaphysics generally, notably, the notion of an essential property. (See Quine 1953 and 1956, and the appendix to Plantinga 1974.) The purpose of the following two subsections is to provide a simple and largely ahistorical overview of how possible world semantics fills this void; the final subsection presents two important applications of the semantics. (Readers familiar with basic possible world semantics can skip to §2 with no significant loss of continuity.)[1]
Atheists have just gone hog wild creating bogus silly impossible worlds that they think are possible merely because they can conceive of a general idea.


 I've never understood why the impossibility of God doesn't enjoy more support on this forum. The consensus is that God does not exist but that it's not impossible for God to exist. From there is goes that if God is not impossible, then God is possible, but not probable. When asked what the difference is between possible and probable, you get it could be the case verses it's likely the case. So God is possible, but with subjective degrees of "unlikely". For example, a "strong" atheist would say that the existence of God is highly unlikely, while a "weak" atheist would say that the existence of God is somewhat unlikely. All would compare the existence of God to Santa Claus, which is also unlikely, but certainly not impossible. The same is true for Sasquatch, although I'd guess that, while it's unlikely that Sasquatch exists, it's probably considered more likely to exist than Santa Claus or God. These "positions" are considered "reasonable".

So I wanted to ask our Atheist forum members this question: Is it possible that God is impossible or is it not possible that God is impossible? Why or why not? (For the purpose of this thread I'm talking about the Judeo-Christian God.)


 Yes, God is impossible.Why? Because God is contingent. And to be God, He must be necessary and non-contingent.However, I can conceive without contradiction of a possible world in which there is no God, so he cannot be logically necessary.

Secondly, God, like any other contingency, would be himself contingent upon and conditioned by necessary truths such as mathematical and logical truth. Since there are things which transcend and condition God, the very concept of God is incoherent and impossible.

 Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
arbitrary nonsense. contingent means contingent upon something. that's what contingency is.
Fleet's first argument (can conceive of a world without God) is really based upon his general doubt about God in this world, which is really begging the question. He's asserting the point of contingent in order to prove his position on the point of contention, which is what he's using as proof. that's totally circular.

you have to do more to say that you conceive of a world without God, you have to actually have a contradiction in the concept of God. He thinks he has it with no but that's also fallacious. No two is based upon the idea if God creates then his being creator is contingent upon his act of creation and thus he is contingent. The answer is that doesn't effect God's essence it only effects a title and relationship not God himself. To be contingent God's very existence must depend upon something higher than himself, which there is nothing, or it must be able to fail or cease to be, neither of which is possible if God is real.

That just leaves us back at the beginning of the modal arugment where God is either necessary or impossible. It does not make God contingent.

You are wrong. Logical contingency is not contingency upon something. That is not what logical contingency is.

bait and switch. First the atheist switched the kind of broadly logical necessity that the Modal argument uses for a priori reasoning. Now you do another switch where contiguity is not based upon the meaning of the word but upon your little a prpori reasoning that is not prat of the modal argument.

you are kidnapping the terms and demanding that they have to be used your way so you can reverse all the stuff you can't disprove.

contingent has always meant dependent upon some priro thing. that still does.

even if it didn't you have given no reason for God to be contigne.t you just want him to be so you assert he must be.

you are tired of beating your head against the brick wall. this is your cynical parody of thew you think the OA is doing.

we have to give up truth and forget it because you can't accept it.
In other words he's using the wrong definition of Necessity and contingency and he's doing it becuase it's the only way he has anything to say.

Originally Posted by fleetmouse View Post
God in the relevant sense must be non-contingent - which is to say, not dependent upon anything else for his existence. God must be uncaused.

However, a Godless possible world is logically conceivable.

No it's not. you are just asserting that by begging the question about this world.

you never answer that. I've said that over and over and you never never answer it. you have lost until you answer that.
Since there are one or more possible worlds that are Godless 

truly that is based upon the fallacies I discuss above.
No they are not. that is a just an assertion for which you have no basis. until you answer my point about begging the question on this world, you lost. you can't win if you don't answer the argument. you lost the arguemnt because you answer the point that beats your point.

show some proof for a change.
if God is to exist at all, he must do so contingently, in some but not all possible worlds - and according to the principle of sufficient reason, there must be something different about those possible worlds that causes or allows his existence. 


that makes no kind of sense God can't be contingent or he's not God. He must be necessary and it's ridiculous to say that unless he contingent he can't exist. There's no reason given.

(1) you have no basis for assertion of a possible world that is Godless.

(2) It's a matter of dispute bewteen the leaders of the field as to whether or not a possible world is continued by merely conceiving it.

(3) I don't accept you have conceived it. no more than you have conceived of square circles. you can say the words "I have conceived of a world made of square circles." that does not mean you have.

But this is impossible, given that God is defined as non-contingent.
Therefore, the only "gods" that could possibly exist are beings like Zeus - god-like beings with god-like powers, but which are nonetheless contingent and non-transcendent. (I could make a parallel argument about non-transcendence, but I leave it to the intelligent reader to work that out for himself)

of course that assume what you are not willing to prove. you are begging the question on this world and using that as the basis for a projection to other worlds "without god," supposedly.

*how are you going to have a concept of a world without something is beyond our understanding?
if you don't understand it anyway, your conception of it not being is nothing more than just not to penetrate the vial of ignorance.

* If God is being itself then God must be found where ever there is being. that means there can't be world without god. How do you conceive of a world in being which has no being?

 [1] Christopher Menzel, "possible worlds and model Logic."First published Fri Oct 18, 2013; substantive revision Mon Oct 21, 2013 on line
one section in an article "Possible Worlds"

No comments: