A Philosophical Argument for the Existence of God

[TheChristianEgoist]

This argument is different from many others (including the Kalam argument on this forum) in that it does not require (or really tolerate) the minutia of various theories of the special Sciences (like physics). It thoroughly anticipates and dismisses most major objections in the structure of the argument, itself.
You can find a full post of my argument, along with many clarifying comments and objections answered here: http://thechristianegoist.wordpress.com ... ble-mover/

1) Things can only act according to their natures. This is the law of causality.

2) Regarding action, the nature of a thing is either purposeful or accidental – meaning that an action is either purposeful or un-purposeful, intentional or unintentional. This is the law of the excluded middle applied to the nature of action.

3) Accidental actions are necessarily the result of some sort of interaction – which means that every accidental action necessitates a prior action of some kind.

4) There cannot be an infinite regress of accidental actions. An infinite regress of a series cannot exist because a series must have a beginning in order to exist.

5) There must have been an action which triggered the beginning of accidental action (3 & 4), and this ‘trigger’ action could not, itself, have been accidental (3).

6) If the beginning to accidental action could not have been accidental, then it must have been purposeful (2).

7) A purposeful action is a volitional action and volition presupposes a mind and values.

8) An actor with mind, values, and volition is a person.

9) A personal actor began all accidental action in the universe.

[nayrbsnilloc]

[Replying to post 189 by Filthy Tugboat]

If the top card of a standard 52-card deck is to be turned over, without knowing what the card is beforehand, it is possible that the card will the Ace of Spades.
Regardless of what actually gets turned over, that statement is true.

You are mistaking the purpose of probability. The entire purpose is to state what is possible to occur given a certain amount of information, most commonly an amount of information that isn't sufficient to determine a definite outcome.

As instantc points out, using possibility to denote what WILL happen instead of what COULD happen defeats the purpose of the concept. Possibility/Probability is used to illustrate what "may be possible" (as you say) because we do not have sufficient information at the current moment to exactly determine the outcome.

[olavisjo]

.

What we think or know about the circumstances does not change this fact.

But it does change the fact.

According to Schrödinger, until you look at the first card, the first card is not yet determined, it could be any card in the deck.

Same with the dice, until you look, it is possible for any possibility to be true. Even if only two dice are found it was still possible to roll 18 at the time because it had not yet been determined how many dice there would be.

[scourge99]

[Replying to post 189 by Filthy Tugboat]

If the top card of a standard 52-card deck is to be turned over, without knowing what the card is beforehand, it is possible that the card will the Ace of Spades.
Regardless of what actually gets turned over, that statement is true.

You are mistaking the purpose of probability. The entire purpose is to state what is possible to occur given a certain amount of information, most commonly an amount of information that isn't sufficient to determine a definite outcome.

As instantc points out, using possibility to denote what WILL happen instead of what COULD happen defeats the purpose of the concept. Possibility/Probability is used to illustrate what "may be possible" (as you say) because we do not have sufficient information at the current moment to exactly determine the outcome.

1a) If i roll a die is it possible to roll a 6? Yes.

2a) If i roll a die is it possible to get a 7? No.

3a) If i roll an unknown number of dice in a bag, is it possible to get an 18?

To use your example :
1b) if i shuffle a deck of cards, is it possible that the Ace of Spades is on top? Yes.

2b) if i shuffle a deck of cards without an ace of Spades, is it possible that the Ace of Spades is on top? No.

3b) if i shuffle a deck of cards that may or may not have an ace of Spades, is it possible that the ace of Spades is on top?


I think questions 1 & 2 are similar. I think question 3 is fundamentally different.

[instantc]

To use your example :
1b) if i shuffle a deck of cards, is it possible that the Ace of Spades is on top? Yes.

2b) if i shuffle a deck of cards without an ace of Spades, is it possible that the Ace of Spades is on top? No.

3b) if i shuffle a deck of cards that may or may not have an ace of Spades, is it possible that the ace of Spades is on top?

If the answer to 1B is affirmative, then the answer to 3B is' yes' as well. In both cases the top card either is or is not the ace of spades, the word possible indicates that we don't know whether that's the case.

2B is different, as here you have disclosed the information that the top card is not an ace of spades.

[nayrbsnilloc]

[Replying to scourge99]

3b) is almost a good analogy.

I would say a better way to show the addition of the new variable is like this:
You have two decks of cards, one with the ace of spades and one without (introduction of a new variable like the number of dice) you shuffle them separately and then choose one at random and flip the top card. Is it possible that the flipped card is the ace of spades? The answer would be a resounding yes.

[Nickman]

[Replying to scourge99]

3b) is almost a good analogy.

I would say a better way to show the addition of the new variable is like this:
You have two decks of cards, one with the ace of spades and one without (introduction of a new variable like the number of dice) you shuffle them separately and then choose one at random and flip the top card. Is it possible that the flipped card is the ace of spades? The answer would be a resounding yes.

Possible but odds are that you wont get the ace even on the river.

[scourge99]

To use your example :
1b) if i shuffle a deck of cards, is it possible that the Ace of Spades is on top? Yes.

2b) if i shuffle a deck of cards without an ace of Spades, is it possible that the Ace of Spades is on top? No.

3b) if i shuffle a deck of cards that may or may not have an ace of Spades, is it possible that the ace of Spades is on top?

If the answer to 1B is affirmative, then the answer to 3B is' yes' as well. In both cases the top card either is or is not the ace of spades, the word possible indicates that we don't know whether that's the case.

I agree that the word "possible" indicates that we don't know whether or not its true the Ace of Spades is on top of the deck. But that isn't the complete definition. That is an implication of the definition.

The word "possible" to me in this context means that there is some possible world in which the Ace of Spades is on the top of the deck. If there is no ace of Spades in the deck then its not true in any possible world. Thus it's not possible. Its impossible.

This is why its possible to role a 6 but impossible to roll a 7 with one die.

If we don't know how many dice we are dealing with then the possibility or impossibility is unknown. The possibility or impossibility is CONTINGENT upon the number of dice.


If you claim that its possible to roll an 18 and then it's revealed there is only two dice in the bag, then a contradiction has occurred. It can't be impossible now but possible then. That is a contradiction. It was always impossible. If you said it was possible before then you were wrong. That is, things cannot change from being impossible to possible or vice versa.

2B is different, as here you have disclosed the information that the top card is not an ace of spades.

No. Its different because you now know that the ace of Spades is not any card in the deck.

2b is a straightforward example that an ace of Spades cannot be drawn in any possible world. Thus, its impossible to draw an ace of Spades.

[scourge99]

[Replying to scourge99]

3b) is almost a good analogy.

I would say a better way to show the addition of the new variable is like this:
You have two decks of cards, one with the ace of spades and one without (introduction of a new variable like the number of dice) you shuffle them separately and then choose one at random and flip the top card. Is it possible that the flipped card is the ace of spades? The answer would be a resounding yes.

I disagree. I think you've added more to the example than you think.

With my previous example, you don't have any idea whether or not an ace is in the deck or not. That is, its unknown whether an ace is possible in any world or no worlds But in your example an ace is known to be in one of the decks. Now we know that in some possible worlds the ace is in the deck you choose from. Whereas in my example, its still unknown whether there even is an ace. I think that is a fundamental difference.

And that leads to an important point. Ignorance does not create knowledge about possibility. You can't claim to know something about the deck by affirming ignorance about the deck.

[Filthy Tugboat]

The problem is you are reducing possibility/impossibility to a subjective level, a nonsensical thing to do. If something is possible or impossible then it is objectively so. Something cannot be possible at one point in time and impossible at another, the specific thing is either possible or impossible at all times. What we think or know about the circumstances does not change this fact.

Provided the deterministic nature of the universe, things either happen or they don't. The only meaningful function of the word possible is to entail that we don't know whether something will happen or not.

This is incorrect when discussing formal logic and arguments based on possibility/impossibility. When people use those words while trying to conclude something else, and then saying, "yeah but it's possible" well it may not be and because we don't know that it is you conclusion is invalid until you can prove that it is. In speaking casually to peers, you can say whatever the hell you want.

Can we say that it is possible that it will rain tomorrow? Given your definition of the word we can't.

We could say, "I don't see why it won't." "There's a good chance it will rain tomorrow (refer to weather forecast)." Or, since this is casual conversation and you're not trying to make a point that is particularly important, you could turn around and say, "sure, it's possible." Given that is a common use of the word, even if not appropriate for logical argument or for scientific reasoning.

If it turns out to be a sunny day, then it was never possible for it to rain. This will render the whole word pointless, and instead of what we used to describe as possible we will then describe as 'may be possible'.

Try it, try saying "it may be possible" instead of possible when you just have no idea. You'll find it's not that much different.

People incorrectly use the word possible and then build arguments off of their incorrect word use. I see it with theists positing God more often than I can count. They say, that because God's existence is possible, yada yada yada. Well guess what, I can stop them right on premise one and say, "Is it?" "Show me how it's possible." They say that ignorance of something means it is possible. Which is stupid and not logical argument at all. You are insisting it is valid.

So I suppose a simpler way to put it, which I should have done right away, is that "possible" means a few different things and people substitute the different meanings as it suits them, which is a logical fallacy.

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 189 by Filthy Tugboat]

If the top card of a standard 52-card deck is to be turned over, without knowing what the card is beforehand, it is possible that the card will the Ace of Spades.
Regardless of what actually gets turned over, that statement is true.

You are mistaking the purpose of probability. The entire purpose is to state what is possible to occur given a certain amount of information, most commonly an amount of information that isn't sufficient to determine a definite outcome.

As instantc points out, using possibility to denote what WILL happen instead of what COULD happen defeats the purpose of the concept. Possibility/Probability is used to illustrate what "may be possible" (as you say) because we do not have sufficient information at the current moment to exactly determine the outcome.

The distinction I make, I have only just realized is between different definitions of "possible" when discussing logic or science for that matter there is a big difference to common use of the word. When saying that something is "possible" as an affirmative fact, you are making an informed statement, whereas an alternative use denotes ignorance. So as I said to instantc earlier I see people arguing that God's existence is possible and then saying, since it is possible, this is why it is probable. Here they mixed up the two definitions, claiming possibility out of ignorance(I asked them to show me what makes it possible) but then asserting it as an affirmative fact.