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.

[wiploc]

When an argument is logically sound is exactly when it does prove something.

And my argument ...

P1: If a then b.
P2: a
C: Therefore, b.

... is valid, not sound. We have no idea whether a. We have no idea whether if a then b. We don't even know what a and b stand for. An argument couldn't be more abstract. Soundness doesn't come into it.

In fact, you could actually do the following:

P1: If a then b.
P2: a is false
C: Therefore, P1 must be true!

Just look at the truth table, anytime "a" is false "If a then b" is necessarily TRUE.



You CAN say:

P1: If a then b is true
P2: a is true
C: Therefore, b must also be true.

That would be ok. That's just stating line #1 in the truth table.

But your original argument never even stated that "If a then b" is TRUE much less made a case for it.

If you want to state as a premise that "If a then b" is TRUE then you need to justify why you are assuming that to be the case.

Let a stand for "Socrates is a man."

If I say "a," that is the same as saying "Socrates is a man." Your position is that I haven't claimed that Socrates is a man until I say "Socrates is a man is true." That seems like pettifoggery.

If I said, "Socrates is a man is true," wouldn't you just protest that I haven't yet said that Socrates is a man is true is true?

When you said, "That's just stating line #1 in the truth table," you didn't say that was true. You didn't say "That's just stating line #1 in the truth table is true."

Do you want us both to start adding "is true" to the end of every sentence?

I thought we were having a conversation, but I'm not willing to continue if you stay with this nonsense.

[Divine Insight]

I thought we were having a conversation, but I'm not willing to continue if you stay with this nonsense.

Excuse me, but I'm not the one who is claiming that every line of an argument needs to be accepted as a premise. That's ridiculous. If you accept that line of thinking then you would need to accept every argument that was ever made to you in that fashion.

And that's not what the MOA is doing anyway.

The MOA doesn't claim that every line of its argument is itself a premise. To the contrary it tries to pass each argument off as being "obviously true". But clearly they aren't true. And so that's the problem with the MOA.

If you are looking at the MOA as nothing more than a list of premises that must be accepted then its no wonder you think that you would have no choice but to agree with the conclusion.

In fact, if you accept that, then what's your argument against the MOA? That these premises are invalid?

Well, if that's your argument then you clearly aren't accepting the MOA argument as being a list of premises.

So how do you dismiss the MOA then?

[wiploc]

I thought we were having a conversation, but I'm not willing to continue if you stay with this nonsense.

Excuse me, but I'm not the one who is claiming that every line of an argument needs to be accepted as a premise.

I never said that.

That's ridiculous. If you accept that line of thinking then you would need to accept every argument that was ever made to you in that fashion.

And that's not what the MOA is doing anyway.

Agreed.

The MOA doesn't claim that every line of its argument is itself a premise.

Agreed.

To the contrary it tries to pass each argument off as being "obviously true". But clearly they aren't true. And so that's the problem with the MOA.

P1 is false. P3 I'm not clear about. P1 and P3 are what's wrong with the MOA. If P1 were true, then P3 would have to be false, and vice versa.

If you are looking at the MOA as nothing more than a list of premises that must be accepted then its no wonder you think that you would have no choice but to agree with the conclusion.

I don't know why you're on about this.

I asked if you're willing to give up your position that I have to say "is true" at the end of every sentence. Or whatever it is that you were trying to say.

In fact, if you accept that, then what's your argument against the MOA? That these premises are invalid?

I think you don't know validity from truth from soundness. I'm willing to explain if you're willing to be cooperative.

Well, if that's your argument then you clearly aren't accepting the MOA argument as being a list of premises.

Right. I've pointed out repeatedly that I don't know whether 3 is intended as a premise.

So how do you dismiss the MOA then?

Other business first.

[Divine Insight]

I thought we were having a conversation, but I'm not willing to continue if you stay with this nonsense.

Excuse me, but I'm not the one who is claiming that every line of an argument needs to be accepted as a premise.

I never said that.

But there aren't any IF-THEN statements in any of the premises of the MOA. The only place the IF-THEN statements show up is in the argument section, and they haven't been proven to be "True" in that context. So it's valid to ask whether or not they are true.

Showing why they need to be true would then be the responsibility of the person supporting the MOA. But the MOA doesn't contain any arguments for why any of the IF-THEN statements used should be true.

So that's where it fails.

You say:

P1 is false. P3 I'm not clear about. P1 and P3 are what's wrong with the MOA. If P1 were true, then P3 would have to be false, and vice versa.

What are you calling P1 and P3?

I see P1 and P3 as being from the following list of the four premises in the MOA:

P1: Omniscient: All knowing, knowing the truth value of all propositions.
P2: Omnipotent: Can do anything that is logically possible.
P3: Omnipresent: Presence is manifested, whether physically or spiritually, everywhere, at any given time
P4: Omnibenevolent: The ultimate source of goodness, morally perfect.


How do you know P1 is false? And how do P1 and P3 conflict?

Or are you taking about the actual argument?

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world (our world).
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

If you are talking about the actual argument how do you know #1 is false?

Also, how do #1 and #3 conflict?

Or are you calling something else P1 and P3?

[wiploc]

But there aren't any IF-THEN statements in any of the premises of the MOA. The only place the IF-THEN statements show up is in the argument section, and they haven't been proven to be "True" in that context. So it's valid to ask whether or not they are true.

Fine.

[Bust Nak]

For one thing the MOA is not logically sound. For one thing step # 6 is totally non sequitur. It does not follow from this argument that this MGB must therefore exist.

If you grant it its premises then it does. Which is why I kept banging on about the soundness because the argument itself is valid.

Keep in mind that a premise does not need to be true for a logical argument to be "sound"...

NO NO NO. This is completely backwards. Look up the difference between soundness and validity. You are referencing to proof by contradiction.

At no point did the MOA ever establish the actual existence of this MGB.

But it was going to, as you were granted it step by step up to #4 which you thought was somehow invalid.

We can't go back to the premise to use the premise as 'proof' of itself because we had never established that the premise was true before stating it...

Right, but that doesn't mean the argument is not valid. And that's the point. You were calling non sequitur when it was perfectly logical. You can't do that, it's irrational.

But as you saw in the proof-by-contradiction for the square root of 2, you can indeed start with premises that aren't true and then worth though logic that actually proves that the premise must be false.

But that doesn't mean any of the steps are somehow non sequitur or invalid. That's the whole point of my complain. You are calling a step invalid because it generated a contradiction. That's illogical.

Step #4 is fine logically, but only if we recognize and acknowledge that the MBG cannot exist in our world becasue our would is not omnibenevolent.

NO NO NO. Step #4 is fine logically, REGARDLESS of MBG can or cannot exist in our world! THIS IS NOT NEOGOTIABLE. I am getting angry just from reading this. Quit it.

IF X exists in every possible world, THEN it exists in the actual world (our world.) FOR ALL X, even married bachelors. The fact that married bachelors cannot exist, does not change a thing.

[Bust Nak]

I just did unless you have observed pink unicorns...

That does not follow at all. There are no observed pink unicorns does not imply "If pink unicorns exist, then we can logically assume that some unicorns are pink" is somehow false.

Basically I have imagined an object and made a logical statement about that object. i.e. if it exists, then the following can also logically follow.

And it was a) perfectly logical and b) matches up to our observation 100%. Which is why you need to come up with another example.

Whether we ever observe the object does not change the logic in the statement. It does however call into question the definition of the object in the first place.

And that's the point I am making, the logic itself is fine, the problem is with its premises - you can't call it invalid because it isn't. It is merely unsound.

[Bust Nak]

Consider the following argument:

Definition of our omnipresent Jolly Green Giant

Omnipresent: Presence is manifested, whether physically or spiritually, everywhere, at any given time


We can assume that the above entity can exist at least in our imagination (i.e. in the world of pure unrestrained thought)

So now let's start our Jolly Green Giant argument... [argument cropped]

Is the above a valid logical argument?

Yes, it is.

If so, the an Omnipresent Jolly Green Giant must necessarily exist.

Incorrect, that does not follow. The argument is not sound. Only sound arguments cab produce necessarily true conclusions.

How is that not getting across!? This is supposed to be trivial.

[Kenisaw]

Pardon my butting in of your conversation, but I noticed something that needed commenting on.

Pure logic is spot on...in the world of logic. Reality is most certainly not the world of logic. The two worlds are NOT the same thing. Logic can be error free in it's world, and observation of reality can be error free in it's world, and they can contradict because they don't inhabit the same space.

There is a difference between a truth and a fact. Logical truths are not always facts in reality.

Same request as above, can you show me an example of a logically sound argument, that generated an incorrect conclusion about reality? Show me a logical truth that is not also a fact in reality.

You are always welcome to comment on my ramblings, Bust.

Pardon my laziness for not looking it up, but the one I always remember had to do with Lois Lane believes Clark Kent works at the Daily Planet, and Lois Lane believing Superman works at the Daily Planet. Even though Clark Kent and Superman are the same, you can't swap them in that statement, affecting the outcome. I think they call that intenstional context. There was a website that went into all that, but the last time I looked for it I couldn't find it.

"Formal logic was invented in Classical Greece and integrated into a `system' of thought by Aristotle. It was, for him, a tool for finding truth, but it didn't keep him from making the most profound errors of thought. Nearly every argument and conclusion he made about physical science was wrong and misguided. Any tool can be misused, and in these pre-scientific days logic was misused repeatedly."

Exactly my point - where logical conclusion does not match observation, a tool was misused. Or as I put it, there is either an error in logic, or an error in observations. I guess you were suggesting that Aristotle's incorrect conclusion about reality were "logical truths?" I would object to that. With false premises, his faulty conclusion are not logical truths.

They aren't logical truths now. They were then. All based on observation too.

[Kenisaw]

http://www.debate.org/forums/philosophy/topic/67856/1/

For information's sake, here is another MOA discussion at a different board I sometimes haunt that mirrored part of the ongoing discussion here. I post it in case anyone would be curious to read such a thing. Keep up the good work.