Richard Dawkins forum implodes

[Prosperity]

What exactly is a characteristic of "necessarily existing"? And why can't this be applied to absolutely anything and everything that does and doesn't exist?

well some philosopher go about that by saying God is perfect, and to be perfect something must necessarily exist, because necessary existence is obviously greater than contingent existence. Nobody says Santa clause is perfect.

Plantinga's argument:

It is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and

It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.

Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)

Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. (By S5)

Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

it's not the logic of the argument that is problematic, it's whether anyone can really conceive of a perfect being. It's easy to say it, but I don't think anyone really can... at best maybe glimmers of a perfect being.

[alexey]

well some philosopher go about that by saying God is perfect, and to be perfect something must necessarily exist, because necessary existence is obviously greater than contingent existence. Nobody says Santa clause is perfect.

Actually, I'm pretty sure a number of children out there do think that Santa Clause is perfect, and that he necessarily exists

The funny thing is, who's to say that grownups know better? Our Santa Clause may be fancier, but that's about it

it's not the logic of the argument that is problematic, it's whether anyone can really conceive of a perfect being. It's easy to say it, but I don't think anyone really can... at best maybe glimmers of a perfect being.

In my view the fundamental problem is trying to establish something outside of a system by using a mechanism from within the system. It's like saying that humans can lift themselves up by pulling on their own head.

[Prosperity]

Actually, I'm pretty sure a number of children out there do think that Santa Clause is perfect, and that he necessarily exists

The funny thing is, who's to say that grownups know better? Our Santa Clause may be fancier, but that's about it

In my view the fundamental problem is trying to establish something outside of a system by using a mechanism from within the system. It's like saying that humans can lift themselves up by pulling on their own head.

I think therefore I exist (the existence could be considered outside of thought right?)

mostly, I was admiring the logic of the argument. It doesn't convince me that there is God. I thought possibly necessary---->necessary was complete nonsense until I learned more about it. On the plus side, it does help me annoy the atheists in my philosophy classes...

[brandymac27]

well some philosopher go about that by saying God is perfect, and to be perfect something must necessarily exist, because necessary existence is obviously greater than contingent existence. Nobody says Santa clause is perfect.

Plantinga's argument:

it's not the logic of the argument that is problematic, it's whether anyone can really conceive of a perfect being. It's easy to say it, but I don't think anyone really can... at best maybe glimmers of a perfect being.

But if I can conceive of a perfect being, and you can't, then does that make the being necessarily true b/c only 1 of us can conceive of this being?

[Prosperity]

But if I can conceive of a perfect being, and you can't, then does that make the being necessarily true b/c only 1 of us can conceive of this being?

yes, nobody has to actually even conceive of it... the important point is that it can be. What I mean by saying "can be conceived" is to say that it is logically consistent. An idea can be logically consistent without anyone in the universe actually conceiving it. Conceiving an idea merely proves that it is logically consistent and if it is logically consistent the it is "possible" in the way I was describing possibility earlier.

[brandymac27]

yes, nobody has to actually even conceive of it... the important point is that it can be. What I mean by saying "can be conceived" is to say that it is logically consistent. An idea can be logically consistent without anyone in the universe actually conceiving it. Conceiving an idea merely proves that it is logically consistent and if it is logically consistent the it is "possible" in the way I was describing possibility earlier.

So, anything is possible, according to what you said. Even if we've never imagined or conceived it. And if we can conceive it, it just helps prove all the more the truth to the idea or being.

[Prosperity]

So, anything is possible, according to what you said. Even if we've never imagined or conceived it. And if we can conceive it, it just helps prove all the more the truth to the idea or being.

yes exactly

anything that can be conceived is logically possible (logically consistent)

logically inconsistent things are impossible

logically consistent things are possible

[brandymac27]

yes exactly

anything that can be conceived is logically possible (logically consistent)

logically inconsistent things are impossible

logically consistent things are possible

And the only things that are false are things that can't be conceived?

[Prosperity]

And the only things that are false are things that can't be conceived?

no, those things are necessarily false

things that are possible may be true or false... unless they are necessarily true, then they are always true.

To say santa clause actually exists in the north pole is possible, but it isn't necessarily true

[brandymac27]

no, those things are necessarily false

things that are possible may be true or false... unless they are necessarily true, then they are always true.

To say santa clause actually exists in the north pole is possible, but it isn't necessarily true

The "necessarily" part is what's screwing me up.

[Prosperity]

The "necessarily" part is what's screwing me up.

think about this way:

is it true that a triangle as 3 points?

yes

could it be false?

no, it can never be false. You put a triangle on a flat plane, or a sphere, or whatever shape you want, and the triangle will always have three points.

because it's true that a triangle has 3 points and because it will ALWAYS be true.. it is necessarily true

=========

is it true that square-triangles exist?

no, I've never seen one

could it be true?

No, they have such contrary natures that something can NEVER be both a triangle and a square in the same way at the same time.

because it's false, and because it will ALWAYS be false...it is necessarily false

===========

is it true that Santa exists?

no santa doesn't actually exist, except in my imagination

could it be true?

yes I suppose I can think of a world where there actually is a fat guy flying around giving kids presents.

because that statement could be true or false depending on the context of the world, that statement is said to be "contingent"

things that are contingent can be true or false...they can exist or not exist

necessary things either ALWAYS exist, or can NEVER exist

========

does that clear it up?

[brandymac27]

^^^^^^^

Ok, that helps. I'm starting to get it now.

[Seabee1973]

Alexey,

A few years ago, I considered myself to be agnostic. I honestly didn't know if there was a God, if Jesus really was divine, I knew nothing about textual criticism(which was a big issue for me as an agnostic), etc. After reading and researching most of what Techboy shared (mentioned above) along with other books that I came across on my own, I came to realize that there is a lot more evidence for God than I could have ever imagined. I also learned that a lot of what I had previously thought about man editing the Bible was totally incorrect.

For me, I needed this "proof" or "evidence". I needed to see that what I thought all along was wrong, and that there is in fact evidence that the modern Bible is actually quite accurate. I also needed to understand the evidence for the resurrection, empty tomb, etc.

?

The bible mentions that certain things about this others you ahve to read the Bible and believe that with God anything is possible. Some people have a hard time fathoming that God could have created a world this corrupt. but for those that read teh bible know teh answer to this question.

[alexey]

I think therefore I exist (the existence could be considered outside of thought right?)

I exist therefore I think (the thought cannot be considered outside of existence, right?)

I thought possibly necessary---->necessary was complete nonsense until I learned more about it.

I still think it is. Thinking that we are going outside of existence does not take us outside of existence.

[alexey]

The bible mentions that certain things about this others you ahve to read the Bible and believe that with God anything is possible. Some people have a hard time fathoming that God could have created a world this corrupt. but for those that read teh bible know teh answer to this question.

What about this, he is talking about having a hard time seeing existence of a good, loving God:

Back in my days as a flight-deck firefighter, when our ship's helicopter was on rescue missions, we had to stand around in our gear in case of a crash. There was usually very little to do, so we told stories. One I heard was about a rescue swimmer. She had to pull a family out of the water from a capsized boat, but by the time the chopper got there, it appeared everyone had drowned except the mother, who was for that reason shedding her life vest and trying to drown herself. The swimmer dove in to rescue her, but she kicked and screamed and yelled to let her die. She even gave the swimmer a whopping black eye. But the swimmer said to hell with that, I'm bringing you in! And she did, enduring her curses and blows all the way.

Later, it turned out that one of the victim's children, her daughter, had survived. She had drifted pretty far from the wreck, but the rescue team pulled her out, and the woman who had beaten the crap out of her rescuer apologized and thanked her for saving her against her will. Everyone in my group agreed the rescue swimmer had done the right thing, and we all would have done the same--because that is what a loving, caring being does. It follows that if God is a loving being, he will do no less for us. In the real world, kind people don't act like some stubborn, pouting God who abandons the drowning simply because they don't want to be helped. They act like this rescue swimmer. They act like us.

Hence anything God would refrain from doing can be no different than what any other good people refrain from. Children must learn, often the hard way. But that never in a million years means letting them get hit by a car so they can learn not to cross the road without looking. People must know struggle, so they feel they have earned and learned what matters. But that never in a million years means letting them be tortured or decimated or wracked with debilitating disease so they can appreciate being healthy or living in peace. No loving person could ever bear using such cruel methods of teaching, or ever imagine any purpose justifying them. Indeed, a loving person would suffer miserably if he could do nothing to stop such things... or worse, if he actually caused them!

Source = http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/whynotchristian.html