tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post8875536920471753755..comments2023-08-05T21:48:58.831-04:00Comments on Philochristos: How to prove God does not existSam Harperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-57262330636040765612010-09-14T23:15:31.618-04:002010-09-14T23:15:31.618-04:00Man's logic...no thank you. I'm sticking w...Man's logic...no thank you. I'm sticking with the One who created the universe(s).The Princess Warriorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16590717272779379443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-33201673351846557642010-09-12T17:33:28.962-04:002010-09-12T17:33:28.962-04:00P.S.
There is a false premise in the satire of co...P.S.<br /><br />There is a false premise in the satire of course.Psiomniachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01102719882200943549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-27397946403018049492010-09-12T17:31:19.770-04:002010-09-12T17:31:19.770-04:00The connection is that merely considering logical ...The connection is that merely considering logical contradictions is supposed to dictate what can or cannot exist in reality. So Anselm wanted to show that a logical contradiction forces an existential conclusion. The same is true with actual infinities, where we might well work through our logic and derive a contradiction, only to confront an actual infinity and be left scratching our heads about our logic. Douglas Adams satirised this in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (Hume also points out the flaw I think):<br />"Population: <br />None. Although you might see people from time to time, they are most likely products of your imagination. Simple mathematics tells us that the population of the Universe must be zero. Why? Well given that the volume of the universe is infinite there must be an infinite number of worlds. But not all of them are populated; therefore only a finite number are. Any finite number divided by infinity is as close to zero as makes no odds, therefore we can round the average population of the Universe to zero, and so the total population must be zero." <br /><br />I've set out the modal logic version of the foreknowledge problem in reply on my blog.Psiomniachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01102719882200943549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-90679960789326537512010-09-12T15:34:04.205-04:002010-09-12T15:34:04.205-04:00I don't understand the connection you're m...I don't understand the connection you're making between the ontological argument and actual infinities. Could you explain that a little?Sam Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-72401638689936886082010-09-12T15:25:46.820-04:002010-09-12T15:25:46.820-04:00Thanks, I have read that post of yours about Ethel...Thanks, I have read that post of yours about Ethel before, and I agree with it.<br /><br />I know that the usual objection to Anselm's formulation of The Ontological Argument is that 'existence is not a predicate'. However I'm of the view that the real problem is that you can't use logic in this way to show what does or does not exist, and that includes actual infinities.Psiomniachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01102719882200943549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-84893085947824385252010-09-11T23:59:08.695-04:002010-09-11T23:59:08.695-04:00What I mean when I say that you can't define t...What I mean when I say that you can't define things in and out of existence, is that you can't simply add "existence" or "non-existence" to a list of something's properties and then conclude that it therefore exists or doesn't exist. That's the problem with Anselm's ontological argument for God. He treats existence as if it were a property alongside other properties. In Dhorpatan's case, he simply defines the universe in such a way that it excludes the existence of anything non-material, like God.<br /><br />Bill Craig doesn't simply define actual infinities out of existence. He argues that they can't exist because they produce paradoxes and contradictions.<br /><br />I'll look at your blog, but in the meantime, I did <a href="http://philochristos.blogspot.com/2005/04/is-free-will-compatible-with-gods.html" rel="nofollow">post something</a> about that a long time ago.Sam Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-82040605455675216632010-09-11T19:51:00.558-04:002010-09-11T19:51:00.558-04:00I'm a bit puzzled by this actual infinities ca...I'm a bit puzzled by this actual infinities cannot exist idea. I know William Lane Craig thinks he has an argument for this principle, but surely this is suspect if 'you cannot define things in and out of existence.'<br /><br />By the way, I'd appreciate your input on divine foreknowledge and free will, because I know you've thought about it a lot. I've just posted something on my blog about it.Psiomniachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01102719882200943549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-76308435007636564562010-08-12T23:06:05.438-04:002010-08-12T23:06:05.438-04:00though i dont think the equivocation was intention...though i dont think the equivocation was intentional, it was glaring. however to avoid the equivocation when i am speaking on this topic i use the term "eternal" when speaking of God's existance, since infinite is actual or potential and discribes more often than not a quantity. and either in insufficient in reference to God.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03867801199373448861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-33621892681562907032010-08-11T13:07:18.686-04:002010-08-11T13:07:18.686-04:00Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, bec...Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-81949891383112193482010-08-06T08:04:18.930-04:002010-08-06T08:04:18.930-04:00Well, I did have to make a few guesses since you d...Well, I did have to make a few guesses since you didn't explicitly define all your terms, especially how you were using "infinity." It sounds like I guessed wrong. I can't imagine how your argument could avoid equivocation and still be sound, though.Sam Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-36270177813148940582010-08-06T06:59:21.458-04:002010-08-06T06:59:21.458-04:00Your refutation did not refute my argument since y...Your refutation did not refute my argument since you used several strawman arguments. You strawmanned my definition of infinity, you straw-manned on your syllogism of my argument, and you strawmanned on the distinction between Quantitative infinities and qualitative infinities. Which also means your claim that I committed an equivocation fallacy was illegitimate.The Secular Walkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08342572056569966450noreply@blogger.com