Shadow thread for MOA H2H Debate

[rikuoamero]

As the title says, this is a shadow thread for the Head-to-Head debate currently in progress here
viewtopic.php?t=32046

Other than this post, I will NOT interact with this thread. I merely wanted to provide a set space for discussion on the debate for other users.

[Divine Insight]

I'm saying that step # 4 is what shows that the MOA is a False Argument.

The records shows otherwise.

One LAST TIME (hopefully: ...

That is my argument against the MOA.

You know full well what you said. Don't make me quote you again.

Step #4 is only a tautology as long as the MGB doesn't exist.

The moment you claim that the MGB does exist, then step #4 becomes necessarily false.

Why? Because P would be TRUE and Q would be FALSE and if you look at the truth table for a conditional statement you'll see that this makes the overall conditional statement false.

Keep in mind that FtK has been arguing that the MGB cannot fail to exist. If he is going to hold to that then step #4 has to be FALSE.

But it can't be false because it's an obvious tautology right?

BINGO!

This argument has come to a logical contradiction. So we have FAILURE by logical contradiction.

Q. E. D.

So there you go. In the context of how FtK was arguing it's perfectly fine to point out this HIS ARGUMENTS leads to step #4 being necessarily false, when it clearly can't be false.

Therefore the only logical conclusion is that he's wrong in demanding that the MGB cannot fail to exist.

So in that line of thinking it's fine to say that (In the MOA) step #4 would clearly need to be "False".

And that's the "GOTCHA" right there.

Keep in mind that we are talking about failed logic here. We are talking about an argument that arrives at a logical contradiction.

Yet you seem to want to demand that everything must be perfectly logical. If that were the case then there would be nothing wrong with the argument.

Step #4 is the gold that shows that the MOA leads to a logical contradiction.

[Bust Nak]

Step #4 is only a tautology as long as the MGB doesn't exist.

Incorrect. Step #4 is true regardless of whether the MGB doesn't exist.

The moment you claim that the MGB does exist, then step #4 becomes necessarily false.

Incorrect. The moment you claim that the MGB does exist, then the conclusion plus its implication (such as a perfect world) of step #4 becomes true.

Because P would be TRUE and Q would be FALSE...

Well that cannot happen. When P would be TRUE and Q would be TRUE because P->Q.

and if you look at the truth table for a conditional statement you'll see that this makes the overall conditional statement false.

Incorrect, if you look at the truth table for a conditional statement you'll see that this makes either P FALSE OR Q TRUE.

Keep in mind that FtK has been arguing that the MGB cannot fail to exist. If he is going to hold to that then step #4 has to be FALSE.

Keep in mind that I am not FtK.

But it can't be false because it's an obvious tautology right?

No need to tell me. You are the one who keep trying to convince me that the statement can be false under some circumstances.

Yet you seem to want to demand that everything must be perfectly logical.

I do.

If that were the case then there would be nothing wrong with the argument.

Again I remind you that what is logical may not be sound.

Step #4 is the gold that shows that the MOA leads to a logical contradiction.

That was never disputed by me. My two claims were: Step #1 through #3 is enough to generate a logical contradiction; and step #4 is necessarily true and trivially so. You were given ample opportunities to correct yourself with "okay I said step #4 was false but what I actually meant was..." instead you doubled down and it wasn't until last Friday did you change your tone. Me telling you that I considered that matter resolved when you confirmed that step #4 was a tautologically true, was supposed to be the prompt for you to exit this debate gracefully. And yet here we are, seemingly starting all over again with your claim that "step #4 is only a tautology as long as the MGB doesn't exist..."

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE COULD STEP #4 BE FALSE - you know this, quit so saying otherwise.

[Divine Insight]

Step #4 is only a tautology as long as the MGB doesn't exist.

Incorrect. Step #4 is true regardless of whether the MGB doesn't exist.

Sorry, but that's just flat out wrong.

This is a very common mistake that almost everyone makes with conditional statements.

Look at the truth table: Conditional statements are NOT tautologies, even though they may "appear" to be a tautology to a layman.



There is a situation where the conditional the conditional statement if false. It's given on line #2.

You need to exam that very closely.

If P is TRUE and Q is FALSE then the overall statement is said to be false. Whether this makes any intuitive sense to you or not is totally irrelevant. And this is the part that most people can't wrap their minds around.

So if you claim that the MGB exists (and is omnipresent and omnibenevolent) then you are demanding that P is TRUE. You are free to demand that if you want to, especially if no one has yet proven that it can't be true. And this is precisely what the proponents of the MOA are doing. They are claiming that their MGB cannot fail to exist, and that it is both omnipresent and omnibenevolent.

So they are demanding that P is TRUE.

However, we can look at the real world and recognize that the real world does not match up with omnibenevolence. Therefore Q cannot be true. Q MUST BE FALSE. This is mandatory by reality and cannot be contested. In other words, we have PROOF that Q is False.

So what does the truth table then claim the truth value is for this overall conditional statement?

Look at the truth table:



Clearly if P is held to be true, and Q has been shown to be false, then this conditional statement is itself false by the RULES OF LOGIC.

Now you may argue: "But if Q is false then P can't be true!" Fine. Then you have just shown that there is a serious problem in the logic of the MOA argument.

That's how logic works.

The moment you claim that the MGB does exist, then step #4 becomes necessarily false.

Incorrect. The moment you claim that the MGB does exist, then the conclusion plus its implication (such as a perfect world) of step #4 becomes true.

Exactly! But clearly that's not the case. So it must be FALSE to say that the MGB does exist. This is how we show that the MOA is a faulty argument. They must either give up omnipresence, or omnibenevolence if they want their MGB to exist.

And of course the moment they give up either of those their MGB can no longer be said to be "Maximally Great". So the argument fails.

Keep in mind here that we are discussing an argument that fails. The MOA is a logically contradictory argument. So you can't be expecting everything to work out in harmony with perfect unadulterated logic.

Because P would be TRUE and Q would be FALSE...

Well that cannot happen. When P would be TRUE and Q would be TRUE because P->Q.

LOOK AT THE TRUTH TABLE!



If P is TRUE and Q is FALSE then the whole conditional statement is simply WRONG! It's FALSE OVERALL.

That's seems to be the part that you aren't getting. You seem to think that the overall statement must be accepted as TRUE at all cost. But that's where your mistake is. If the overall conditional statement is FALSE, then what its claiming is no longer TRUE!

I have proven using the REAL WORLD that Q is false. Therefore no amount of fiddling with silly logical statements is going to change that. You can't use pure logic to change the real world.

and if you look at the truth table for a conditional statement you'll see that this makes the overall conditional statement false.

Incorrect, if you look at the truth table for a conditional statement you'll see that this makes either P FALSE OR Q TRUE.

Exactly!

That's the only reasonable conclusion in the end. And this is how we have proven that the MGB cannot exist as it is defined. P must be false.

This is the ULTIMATE CONCLUSION.

And this is why we have just proven that the MOA contains a logical fallacy and that it's proposed MGB cannot exist as defined.

Keep in mind that FtK has been arguing that the MGB cannot fail to exist. If he is going to hold to that then step #4 has to be FALSE.

Keep in mind that I am not FtK.

Keep in mind that this is the Shadow thread for the MOA H2H Debate. It was NEVER about YOU at any time.

But it can't be false because it's an obvious tautology right?

No need to tell me. You are the one who keep trying to convince me that the statement can be false under some circumstances.

Technically it can be a false statement LOOK at the truth table!



You may not like line #2 but it's part of the definition of the truth values for a conditional statement.

This is the part that most people have difficulty wrapping their minds around, and this is very common. In fact, I have met very few people who have ever claimed to understand this intuitively.

The thing is that if you can show that Q is false, then it doesn't matter that you have claimed the P is true the overall statement is still false.

In other words it's FALSE to say that if the MGB exists in all possible worlds then it exists in the real world.

It's false to say that because it's clearly NOT TRUE. Even though it may appear to be a "tautology" to a layman.

Yet you seem to want to demand that everything must be perfectly logical.

I do.

Well things are not going to be perfectly logical in a logically contradictory argument.

This is why we can clearly say that the MOA is a logically contradictory argument why so it fails. If it didn't contain any logical contradictions or fallacies we couldn't say anything against it.

If that were the case then there would be nothing wrong with the argument.

Again I remind you that what is logical may not be sound.

Well, in the case of the MOA it's neither logical nor sound. So in this case we have both going on simultaneously. Perhaps this adds to the confusion.

Step #4 is the gold that shows that the MOA leads to a logical contradiction.

That was never disputed by me. My two claims were: Step #1 through #3 is enough to generate a logical contradiction;

How can you generate a logical contradiction using only steps #1 through #3.

You would need to first prove that step #1 is false. But how can you do that without using everything we already used in Step #4?

You have claimed that you can just imagine a world without beings as being "Possible" thus creating a contradictory possibility from the MGB. But that's hardly a proof of anything.

At that point all you would end up with is an argument like the following:

MOA: I can imagine an MGB.

BN: So? I can imagine an empty world where your MGB cannot exist.

MOA: prove your empty world exists!

BN: I don't need to prove it, I can imagine it.

MOA: Well I can imagine an MGB so there!

BN: But my empty world violates the omnipresence of your MGB so your MGB cannot exist.

MOA: I can imagine that your imaginary empty world doesn't exist.

BN: Too late, I already imagined that it does.

MOA: Mommy, BN isn't playing nice!

I mean seriously. Where's that going in terms of any concrete logical arguments?

What I've done by waiting until we get to Step #4 is to end up using the MOA directly against itself with real world evidence that cannot be denied.

So I'll stick with my rebuttal of the MOA, and you can stick with yours.

[Bust Nak]

This is a very common mistake that almost everyone makes with conditional statements...

There is a situation where the conditional the conditional statement if false. It's given on line #2.

You need to exam that very closely.

No, YOU need to examine that very closely. P & !Q is impossible. There are NO situation where that could be true. Therefore there can be NO situation where the conditional statement is false.

If P is TRUE and Q is FALSE then the overall statement is said to be false.

That cannot ever happen. It literally is impossible.

So if you claim that the MGB exists (and is omnipresent and omnibenevolent) then you are demanding that P is TRUE. You are free to demand that if you want to, especially if no one has yet proven that it can't be true. And this is precisely what the proponents of the MOA are doing. They are claiming that their MGB cannot fail to exist, and that it is both omnipresent and omnibenevolent.

So they are demanding that P is TRUE.

However, we can look at the real world and recognize that the real world does not match up with omnibenevolence. Therefore Q cannot be true. Q MUST BE FALSE.
This is mandatory by reality and cannot be contested. In other words, we have PROOF that Q is False.

Therefore P cannot be TRUE, this has nothing to do with the truth value of the conditional statement in question.

So what does the truth table then claim the truth value is for this overall conditional statement?

Look at the truth table:

It clearly says when P is FALSE and Q is TRUE, the conditional statement is itself TRUE by the RULES OF LOGIC. Look at third line.

Clearly if P is held to be true, and Q has been shown to be false, then this conditional statement is itself false by the RULES OF LOGIC.

Incorrect, it means that the person holding P to be TRUE is wrong, it doesn't mean the conditional statement is false by any means. THAT is the rules of logic.

Now you may argue: "But if Q is false then P can't be true!" Fine. Then you have just shown that there is a serious problem in the logic of the MOA argument.

That was never in question, what is being debated here is this: UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE COULD STEP #4 BE FALSE - you know this, quit so saying otherwise.

THAT's how logic works.

Exactly! But clearly that's not the case. So it must be FALSE to say that the MGB does exist. This is how we show that the MOA is a faulty argument. They must either give up omnipresence, or omnibenevolence if they want their MGB to exist.

So say that instead, don't say the conditional statement is false, as it is trivially true.

Keep in mind here that we are discussing an argument that fails.

Don't you try and pull that on me. You keep in mind that we are discussing your claim that the conditional statement is false.

LOOK AT THE TRUTH TABLE!

If P is TRUE and Q is FALSE then the whole conditional statement is simply WRONG! It's FALSE OVERALL.

YOU LOOK AT THE TRUTH TABLE!

IF P is TRUE then Q is simply TRUE because the whole conditional statement CANNOT be WRONG! It's TRUE BY NECESSITY.

That's seems to be the part that you aren't getting. You seem to think that the overall statement must be accepted as TRUE at all cost.

Correct! It MUST be accepted as TRUE at all cost. Because it is TRUE. This is not debatable, this is not negotiable.

If the overall conditional statement is FALSE, then what its claiming is no longer TRUE!

That's moot since the overall conditional statement is TRUE.

I have proven using the REAL WORLD that Q is false. Therefore no amount of fiddling with silly logical statements is going to change that. You can't use pure logic to change the real world.

There is no need to change the real world, because pure logic ALWAYS match up with the real world.

That's the only reasonable conclusion in the end. And this is how we have proven that the MGB cannot exist as it is defined. P must be false.

This is the ULTIMATE CONCLUSION.

Right, so stop saying step #4 is false.

Keep in mind that this is the Shadow thread for the MOA H2H Debate. It was NEVER about YOU at any time.

Right, it is not about me, it is about truth., it's about you making false claims.

Technically it can be a false statement LOOK at the truth table!



You may not like line #2 but it's part of the definition of the truth values for a conditional statement.

This is the part that most people have difficulty wrapping their minds around, and this is very common. In fact, I have met very few people who have ever claimed to understand this intuitively.

Consider the following truth table:

Code: Select all

Married | Bachelor | Married & Bachelor
   T    |    T     |         T
   T    |    F     |         F
   F    |    T     |         F
   F    |    F     |         F

You may not like line #1 but it's part of the definition of the truth values for the & operator...

I challenge you to state for world to hear, "technically there can be a married bachelor, even though their impossibility may appear to be a 'tautology' to a layman." Go on. Do this, and I will drop the whole thing.

I looked up the definition for the word "technically," no where does it suggest that it can be use the way you are using it. So no, technically the conditional statement cannot be false.

The thing is that if you can show that Q is false, then it doesn't matter that you have claimed the P is true the overall statement is still false.

In other words it's FALSE to say that if the MGB exists in all possible worlds then it exists in the real world.

Is there a typo here? When P is false and Q is false, it's TRUE to say that P->Q, regardless of what P and Q are.

It's false to say that because it's clearly NOT TRUE.

Incorrect. It's TRUE to say that because it's clearly TRUE.

Well things are not going to be perfectly logical in a logically contradictory argument.

You are forgetting about soundness and validity again. An argument that generates a contradiction is necessarily unsound, but that doesn't mean it is not valid.

Well, in the case of the MOA it's neither logical nor sound.

What exactly do you mean by "logical?" I have to ask because the MOA is not invalid.

How can you generate a logical contradiction using only steps #1 through #3.

You would need to first prove that step #1 is false. But how can you do that without using everything we already used in Step #4?

I've already shown you how, you don't even have to appeal to an imaginary world, you can appeal to the same incompatibly between the real but imperfect world and a supposedly perfect being that you are using with step #4.

You have claimed that you can just imagine a world without beings as being "Possible" thus creating a contradictory possibility from the MGB. But that's hardly a proof of anything.

That came up because you insisted that I don't appeal to real world example. The same argument you used can be jiggle slightly without bringing step #4 into the counter argument.

At that point all you would end up with is an argument like the following:

MOA: I can imagine an MGB.

BN: So? I can imagine an empty world where your MGB cannot exist.

MOA: prove your empty world exists!

BN: I don't need to prove it, I can imagine it.

MOA: Well I can imagine an MGB so there!

BN: But my empty world violates the omnipresence of your MGB so your MGB cannot exist.

MOA: I can imagine that your imaginary empty world doesn't exist.

BN: Too late, I already imagined that it does.

MOA: Mommy, BN isn't playing nice!

I mean seriously. Where's that going in terms of any concrete logical arguments?

It demonstrates the question begging nature of the MOA - the whole thing hinges on whether the MGB as defined, is actually possible or not, a claim that they cannot support. I told you that already. I said that alone is enough to sink it, remember? Also, chances are the MOA proponent would grant me that he too can imagine an empty world. Which reminds me, you never told me explicitly whether you think you can imagine an empty world or not.

[benchwarmer]

No, YOU need to examine that very closely. P & !Q is impossible. There are NO situation where that could be true. Therefore there can be NO situation where the conditional statement is false.

If peanut then strawberry.

[Looks at Oh Henry chocolate bar]

False. No strawberries in my peanut infused chocolate bar.

If/Then statement is incorrect or 'false'

QED

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 115 by benchwarmer]

Can't tell if humor or missing the point, peanut & !strawberry is not impossible.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 115 by benchwarmer]

Can't tell if humor or missing the point, peanut & !strawberry is not impossible.

Ok, I'm confused.

First you say "P & !Q is impossible."

Then you say "peanut & !strawberry is not impossible".

Which is it?

I gave an If/then statement that is clearly not correct. Just because peanuts are present doesn't mean strawberries are. By stating "If peanut, then strawberry" I have made an incorrect or false statement.

i.e. P & !S (or !Q in your example) is false. Line 2 of DI's truth table.

I have a feeling we are both missing something and talking past each other. Wouldn't be the first time on these here boards

[Divine Insight]

No, YOU need to examine that very closely. P & !Q is impossible. There are NO situation where that could be true. Therefore there can be NO situation where the conditional statement is false.

Exactly. And this is precisely how we can prove that the MOA is logically contradictory argument. The MOA needs for P to be TRUE. But if P is true and Q is false then this leads to an obvious tautology being false.

Thus we have proof that the MOA is a logically contradictory argument.

Q.E.D.

You got it!

I mean seriously. Where's that going in terms of any concrete logical arguments?

It demonstrates the question begging nature of the MOA - the whole thing hinges on whether the MGB as defined, is actually possible or not, a claim that they cannot support. I told you that already. I said that alone is enough to sink it, remember?

But dismissing the argument simply as "question begging" doesn't resolve anything. It simply dismisses the argument as being a question that has been unresolved.

Sure, it might invalidate their final conclusion, but it doesn't PROVE that their conclusion is wrong. It simply says that they haven't proved their conclusion to be undeniably true.

So when you dismiss it as "question begging" you've left it unresolved.

Also, chances are the MOA proponent would grant me that he too can imagine an empty world. Which reminds me, you never told me explicitly whether you think you can imagine an empty world or not.

I did answer this question in great detail several times already.

I can't say whether I can imagine a "Logically Consistent" empty world or not. I can certainly imagine in my mind a void. But is a void logically consistent? I can't say whether it is or not. According to known physics a true void is impossible. And according to General Relativity a universe that has no gravity at all is "ill-defined". I believe there are logical contradictions associated with that idea as well.

So just because I THINK I can imagine something doesn't make it "Logically Consistent".

~~~~~

Also I can easily imagine a world that is NOT omnibenevolent (I actually live in one). So not only can I imagine such a world, but I have evidence that such a world actually exists so it must be logically consistent. That too would destroy the MGB or the MOA.

In fact, that's precisely what we PROVE to be the case in step #4.

~~~~~

So while you are arguing for merely dismissing the MOA as "question begging" and leaving it unresolved, I prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the MGB of the MOA cannot possibly exist.

I prove that the MGB is impossible.

I don't leave anything unresolved as mere "question begging".

So once again, you are more than welcome to address the MOA however you see fit. In the meantime I'll stick with my rock-solid proof that the MGB, as defined in the MOA, cannot possibly exist. It's impossible as it has been defined.

Q.E.D.

If they forfeit either omnipresence or benevolence they can come back with a new argument. But if they forfeit either one of those then they also forfeit "Maximally Great". So their new argument cannot be for an "MGB". They would need to argue for the existence of some other lesser entity.

[Bust Nak]

Ok, I'm confused.

First you say "P & !Q is impossible."

Then you say "peanut & !strawberry is not impossible".

Which is it?

Both!

"P & !Q is impossible" where P = "there is a sock in every drawer" and Q = "there is a sock in this drawer;" where P = "MGB exists in every world" and Q ="MGB exists in this world."

AND

"Peanut & !strawberry is not impossible."

I have a feeling we are both missing something and talking past each other. Wouldn't be the first time on these here boards

Right you are. "The conditional statement" refers to one specific conditional statement; "the conditional statements in question" refers to one specific group of conditional statements.

[Bust Nak]

Exactly. And this is precisely how we can prove that the MOA is logically contradictory argument...

That was never in dispute, the sticking point is, you stated on multiple occasion that step #4 is false and/or invalid when it was in fact true and valid. You are STILL claiming that step #4 could under circumstances be false. You claimed, and I quote, "technically [the conditional statement] can be a false statement LOOK at the truth table!"

I challenged you to say, "technically there can be a married bachelor, even though their impossibility may appear to be a 'tautology' to a layman." I noticed you didn't address that.

But dismissing the argument simply as "question begging" doesn't resolve anything. It simply dismisses the argument as being a question that has been unresolved.

Sure, it might invalidate their final conclusion, but it doesn't PROVE that their conclusion is wrong. It simply says that they haven't proved their conclusion to be undeniably true.

Mission completed. What more needs to be done to counter an argument? Job done.

I did answer this question in great detail several times already.

You said you can't say whether you can imagine a "Logically Consistent" empty world or not, but you never did tell me if you think you can imagine an empty world or not.

I can certainly imagine in my mind a void. But is a void logically consistent? I can't say whether it is or not.

That sounded very much like you think you can imagine an empty world. That's why I asked you for an explicit conformation.

According to known physics a true void is impossible...

That's irrelevant since physics need not hold in other possible worlds. You mentioned metaphysical possibility before, remember?

I prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the MGB of the MOA cannot possibly exist...

Good luck convincing the proponents of the MOA of that. I told you, I have nothing against appealing to the problem of evil, of which your proof is a variation of. All I am saying is, if the problem of evil was enough to convince them, they would not be theists in the first place.