.
Greetings. A couple of years ago, I created a similar thread on the Modal Ontological Argument for the existence of God. It was a fun thread, with some by some interesting exchanges.
I thought we should reexamine the argument and why I feel it is just one of many valid/sound arguments for the existence of God.
The Modal Ontological Argument (MOA), of course, using “modal” logic…and this frame of logic relies heavily on “possible world” semantics. This is the great Alvin Plantiga’s version of it…and it is extremely elegant, I must say.
But lets define some stuff first..
What is a possible world? A possible world (PW) is a complete and consistent way the world is or could have been. In other words, there is a “possible world at which Lebron James wins MVP at least twice in his career”.
What this is saying is that there are a set of circumstances which will allow for the said proposition to be true.
There is also a possible world at which the said proposition will be false (should at the end of his career, he didn't win MVP at least twice).
So, when PW semantics is being used, it is just describing a set of circumstances which may/may not be true (or possible).
That being said, lets distinguish two concepts of truths..
Contingent truth: is a true proposition that could have been false; a contingent falsehood is a false proposition that could have been true. This is sometimes expressed by saying that a contingent proposition is one that is true in some possible worlds and not in others.
For example, the fact that I currently live in the United States is a contingent truth…because there are a set of circumstances at which I could possibly currently live in another country…so where I live is based on a variety of circumstances.
Necessary truth: is a proposition that could not possibly have been false. This can be expressed by saying that a necessary truth is a proposition that is true in every possible world. An example of a truth that many philosophers take to be necessary in this sense is: 2+2 = 4.
Good examples of necessary truths are mathematical, as 2+2=4 in all possible worlds, with no exceptions…making its truth necessary.
Now, we’ve defined possible worlds, we’ve defined the two concepts of truths…now, lets define God..
God, at least in the Christian tradition, has been defined as..
Omnipotent: All powerful
Ominicient: All knowing
Omnipresent: Active and in control everywhere at all times
Eternal: Having no beginning, or end, not depending on anything for its existence. An existence which is..necessary (which means under no circumstance can it cease existing).
For sake of the argument, we call this being a Maximally Great Being (MGB).
Now, the question is; does such a being exists or not?? Which brings forth the argument..
See next post..
Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument
Moderator: Moderators
- We_Are_VENOM
- Banned
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
-
- Savant
- Posts: 9864
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Re: Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument
Post #161What are you talkin about? You asked me to prove that you need to prove your claim. What my expectations are is irrelevant.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 3:50 pm Hmm. I don't recall making a claim that I expect you (my opponent) to prove that claim. Try again.
Well that wasn't what you typed, hence me asking, was there a typo?You stated I need to prove that I can imagine a MGB. I'd like proof that I need to prove that to you, sir.
What is and isn't a logical fallacy isn't a matter of opinion. My demonstration is based on logic, in contrast with yours being based on testimony.Sure, you can do that, if you want to waste your time.. because I will reject your demonstration, because I am of the opinion that I did prove it...and if you don't like my justifications, then we just have to agree to disagree.
Now prove that the concept a MGB is coherent, and no laws of logic are being violated based on the mere concept without presuming it is possible for a MGB to exist or that the existence of a MGB is conceivable. Last time I asked you to prove that, you said a) it was logical because you can conceive of the MGB, and b) told me prove that it is illogical. a) was a circular argument, and b) shifting your burden.I already took the "demonstrate it in some other way" option. If that isn't good enough for you, then I can't help you.
My argument stands..it is possible for a MGB to exist, because the existence of a MGB is conceivable.
Prove it? Because the concept of a MGB is coherent, and no laws of logic are being violated based on the mere concept.
So why did you ask me to prove something that I never claimed?Yup, I understand the difference. Next.
Because that's not how validity is measured; a false premise with a false conclusion doesn't necessarily mean the argument is invalid.Well, you have a false premise with a false conclusion...why wouldn't I think it is invalid?
Because you made the claim that you can, as support for an argument you presented for debate.But, "I am imagining a MGB when I conceive the thought of God". Why are you asking me to prove I can think of something?
What does that have to do with the cartoonish, bearded man of my imagination?If God manifests himself as a cartoonish, bearded man...that does fit the definition, giving it necessarily existence.
Why even wait? Whether I can prove my claim or not, doesn't stop you from proving your own, does it?Irrelevant, because the claim that you did make needs to be proven, which is what I await.
-
- Savant
- Posts: 9864
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Re: Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument
Post #162Then stop bringing new points up, if you are not going to address my counter and fall back to "previously given reasons."We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 3:59 pm Clarification unwarranted. The argument is still fails for previously given reasons.
Existence being possible doesn't matter though. My argument does not contradict such a premise, it's still look very much like you didn't read my argument properly.Because existence is possible in this world...and in all possible worlds, this world is included in the bunch. Pretty simple, right?
Looks like a non-sequitur. How do you get from "from nothing, nothing comes" to existence is necessary? Perhaps more to the point, why are you even talking about "existence is possible" if you think you can make the case that existence is necessary?Because, assuming that "from nothing, nothing comes", existence is necessary.
That doesn't mean the argument is invalid though, even if I grant you that premise 1 is faulty.The argument was doomed from Premise 1.
- We_Are_VENOM
- Banned
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
Re: Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument
Post #163"Previously given reasons" is enough to demonstrate why your argument fails.
Whether I bring up "new points" to show why the argument fails...or appeal to "previously given reasons" why the argument fails.
The key point to note is; your argument fails.
1) 1. It is possible that nothing what-so-ever exists.Bust Nak wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 11:26 amExistence being possible doesn't matter though. My argument does not contradict such a premise, it's still look very much like you didn't read my argument properly.Because existence is possible in this world...and in all possible worlds, this world is included in the bunch. Pretty simple, right?
The premise is false. I will advise you to stop trying to give CPR to an argument that is dead.
We can address how I can easily draw such a conclusion later. First acknowledge that your argument is flawed, and then we can move on to bigger and better things.
That is like saying "It doesn't mean X is dead, even if I grant you that X is deceased".
Deceased/dead <----take your pick. I will be fine with whichever you want to call it, whether it be invalid or faulty.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!
- We_Are_VENOM
- Banned
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
Re: Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument
Post #164Reading comprehension, old friend. Re-read what you said to me, and what I said to you as it pertains to this matter.Bust Nak wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 11:16 amWhat are you talkin about? You asked me to prove that you need to prove your claim. What my expectations are is irrelevant.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 3:50 pm Hmm. I don't recall making a claim that I expect you (my opponent) to prove that claim. Try again.
"I'd like proof that I need to prove that to you, sir."
Well, that is what I typed as of now, isn't it? With no typo.
The problem is, the logic is sick ("ill" logic).
Prove to me that no laws of logic are being violated as it pertains to the logic/illogic of your question to me?Bust Nak wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 11:16 am Now prove that the concept a MGB is coherent, and no laws of logic are being violated based on the mere concept without presuming it is possible for a MGB to exist or that the existence of a MGB is conceivable. Last time I asked you to prove that, you said a) it was logical because you can conceive of the MGB, and b) told me prove that it is illogical. a) was a circular argument, and b) shifting your burden.
And yeah, when I stated to you that a MGB is logical because you can conceive of it, then you implied that I needed to prove to you that I can conceive of it.
And then when I said "prove to me that you can't conceive of a MGB", you stated that you never claimed that you could/couldn't conceive of a MGB (something like that).
So now, let me str8 up ask you; can you conceive of a MGB?
If you answer..
Yes: Then why are we having this conversation.
No: Then I will challenge you to prove to me that you can't (which is of course ridiculous, but hey).
I asked that question based on implication and the flow of the conversation...now, if I was wrong, then I was wrong.
However, we are about to fix that right now, once you answer the above question..
I mean, you could always plead the fifth or say "I don't know"...at which either response will be just as good as a yes for me.
So, either way...
Well, I can care less what you call a false premise with a false conclusion, just as long as you don't call it true.
But then again, this is just another case where you are clearly wrong.
"Valid: an argument is valid if and only if it is necessary that if all of the premises are true, then the conclusion is true; if all the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true; it is impossible that all the premises are true and the conclusion is false."
https://web.stanford.edu/~bobonich/term ... 0is%20true.
Do you see this -------> ".....if ALL OF THE PREMISES ARE TRUE"
Premise 1 of your argument <----false
We are gonna see about that one.
Hmm. Same question I asked you when you first mentioned this bearded man, what does that have to do with the MGB of my imagination?
Remember that? But then again, I can challenge you to prove to me that you are imagining a cartoonish, bearded man sitting on the clouds.
As a matter of fact, I will; please prove to me that you can conceive of a cartoonish, bearded man sitting on the clouds.
Why not wait? Whether I can prove my argument, doesn't stop you from proving the validity of your counter-argument, does it?
Venni Vetti Vecci!!
- We_Are_VENOM
- Banned
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
Re: Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument
Post #165Showing the flaws in my argumentation? Is that what you are doing?benchwarmer wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:58 pm Patting myself on the back?? I'm simply showing the flaws in your line of argumentation. No back patting necessary.
First off, that isn't what I was referring to...I was referring to the squared circle thingy...the one where I stated to draw it and then I can see it and can finally stop using the "squared circle" example...and I even provided a smilie to emphasize the playful challenge.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:58 pm That's odd, you've made the same 'playful' request to multiple people now.
Remember this?
Didn't sound too playful. Sounded like the screech of goal post movement. Now that the spotlight is back on you because of this, it was "playful". Right.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:56 pm Tell ya what, draw a picture of a one-sided stick and share it with the "class". Until you do that, I am not going to entertain any of, in my opinion, such foolishness.
So, "gotcha moment"....fail.
Anywayz..
Gotcha.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:58 pm Second, how can you possibly know how serious I am being? Just because many of use are showing serious flaws in your line of reasoning doesn't mean we are all of a sudden 'taking things seriously'. What we are doing is responding to your arguments. This is a debate site after all. If there was no disagreement and banter back and forth this site would be boring.
They are learning something; from me. They are learning how to give valid/sound arguments for the existence of God.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:58 pm Again, transference of emotion. I'm not being 'gung ho' I'm simply pointing out the obvious problems with the current line of reasoning. Only readers will know if anything has been accomplished. I'm sure they are busy munching their popcorn and maybe learning something from one/both/neither of us.
Free education.
So, how long is this one sided stick you can imagine so tough?benchwarmer wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:58 pm Well I can conceive of a one sided stick. So well in fact I provided a concept rendering of it and even described in detail how I could use if for nefarious purposes. If I can describe something ludicrous, surely I have imagined it. I certainly didn't find a real one sided stick on the side of the road.
*sigh* SMH.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:58 pm When you found that inconvenient for your narrative, you opted (as clearly shown here) for the special pleading fallacy.
Can you conceive of a MGB, as depicted in the argument?benchwarmer wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:58 pm IMHO, I think a better tactic to take would have been to try and show some evidence for the MGB you have imagined rather than trying to disprove what other people can imagine. I certainly cannot provide any evidence for a one sided stick so you providing evidence of an MGB would surely win the day and be a feather in your cap for persuading people to your side of the debate.
Again, can you imagine the existence of a MGB?benchwarmer wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:58 pm And there we go right back to it. Some thinly veiled insults and stamping your feet insisting what others can or can't imagine based on whether we can draw it or not. I thought you said YOU were being playful? I'm not playing games, so...
Because shapes can be drawn, and minds cannot be drawn. Again, my argument is based on the fact that certain things cannot be conceived..and your ability to draw a shape that you claim you are imagining will cause the ULTIMATE DEATH to the MOA.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:58 pm Well, I did quote you above where you said you would not "entertain such foolishness".
Isn't that what you want?
I don't have any problem admitting that I cannot draw a MGB, because again, a mind cannot be drawn, which is why I had to "prove" my claim in other fashions.
You, however, have a "one-up" on me, because your concept can (if it is possible) be drawn. So, draw it.
Yup.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:58 pm Are you now saying you believe it's possible for something to exist that I can't manage to draw?
It is possible for God to exist, therefore, God exists. Back to the argument.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:58 pm Well, you said something close enough, those are your words I quoted above. If you won't "entertain my foolishness" because I won't "share with the class" a drawing, what else am I supposed to think?
How about be absolutely clear what is required to prove to you that I have imagined anything? I think that might save us some time. This time remember your rules apply to everyone, you included.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2347
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
- Has thanked: 2005 times
- Been thanked: 785 times
Re: Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument
Post #166I'm just going to cut to this as we are going in circles on the rest.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 4:53 pm It is possible for God to exist, therefore, God exists. Back to the argument.
It has not yet been shown that it is possible for God to exist. I also thought we were talking about an MGB not a specific god (I'm assuming 'God' is the Christian one here).
This entire MOA depends entirely on the equivocation fallacy. You ask people if something is 'possible' and they nod their head yes because they are taking 'possible' in the "I don't know, so maybe" way. The trouble is, it may actually NOT be possible for the MGB as described to exist. In order to know that requires knowing the conditions OUTSIDE our universe. This is impossible and claiming knowledge of anything outside our known universe is simply called 'guessing'.
So while we don't know if a god can exist or not we colloquially say "It's possible".
Unfortunately for the MOA, we need to be using the term 'possible' more rigorously as in "it either is or it isn't". And since we can't know this, you can't simply equivocate from the first meaning to the second.
What does all that mean? It means the first premise:
falls flat on it's face as we don't know if it's possible or not in the sense of "can it be or can it not be". The only way it's 'possible' is in the "I don't know" sense .1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
Trying to trap people into agreeing with that based on colloquial meaning and then switching to actual possibility is pure logical fallacy territory.
The only way to make progress beyond the first premise is to actually show an MBG really is possible. Imagining one does not make it actually possible as we have proven by imagining other ridiculous things. Unless you can fix the argument as presented, the MOA is DOA at premise 1.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2117
- Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
- Location: St Louis, MO, USA
- Has thanked: 18 times
- Been thanked: 61 times
Re: Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument
Post #167That's funny. You move the goal posts, and claim others are being childish. At least be an adult and admit when you've changed your standards to fit the moment. Taxi-cab fallacy indeed my boy. You said if it could be imagined...your words, not mine.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 4:04 pmI was not implying that it is the standard...I am merely stating that since shapes can be drawn, to draw the shape...because it is bad enough that the mere concept is incoherent..but if you still want to maintain that you can imagine a incoherent concept, then draw it for me.
It is more of a favor being asked, not a standard. But of course, you or anyone else can't draw it or imagine it...so the whole thing is useless, anyway.
Just more red herrings being added to the already huge pile of other red herrings.
The argument can't be refuted so we've stooped to childish, elementary school levels.
The Ontological argument has already been refuted, your failure to admit it does not change that. It has been shown in this thread and others that:
-Omniscience is impossible.
-Omnipotence is impossible.
-Everpresent is impossible.
-The claim that the universe had a cause cannot be substantiated.
-Gods always existing is a logical impossibility.
There isn't anything left to discuss about Ontological.
-
- Savant
- Posts: 9864
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Re: Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument
Post #168That doesn't address what I said: don't bring up points that you aren't willing to address, this holds whether the argument fails or not.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 3:47 pm "Previously given reasons" is enough to demonstrate why your argument fails.
Whether I bring up "new points" to show why the argument fails...or appeal to "previously given reasons" why the argument fails.
Now that you've repeatedly made this claim, can you prove it?The premise is false.
How about no, I wait until you have justified your conclusion before I acknowledge your conclusion? That's how debates usually works.We can address how I can easily draw such a conclusion later. First acknowledge that your argument is flawed, and then we can move on to bigger and better things.
Incorrect, it isn't like saying that, because dead means the same thing as deceased; the same does not hold for "false premise" and "invalid," they mean very different things.That is like saying "It doesn't mean X is dead, even if I grant you that X is deceased".
How about we call it valid instead?Deceased/dead <----take your pick. I will be fine with whichever you want to call it, whether it be invalid or faulty.
-
- Savant
- Posts: 9864
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Re: Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument
Post #169Well, it doesn't.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 4:32 pm Reading comprehension, old friend. Re-read what you said to me, and what I said to you as it pertains to this matter.
There isn't a typo now sounded a lot like accepting there was a typo."I'd like proof that I need to prove that to you, sir."
Well, that is what I typed as of now, isn't it? With no typo.
Then you should be able to prove it, go ahead.The problem is, the logic is sick ("ill" logic).
Yep, and that's a circular argument followed by shifting the burden, just like I said.Prove to me that no laws of logic are being violated as it pertains to the logic/illogic of your question to me?
And yeah, when I stated to you that a MGB is logical because you can conceive of it, then you implied that I needed to prove to you that I can conceive of it.
And then when I said "prove to me that you can't conceive of a MGB", you stated that you never claimed that you could/couldn't conceive of a MGB (something like that).
How about this answer: I don't know, I don't want to speculate, nor do I want to make claims that I am unable/unwilling to support.So now, let me str8 up ask you; can you conceive of a MGB?
If you answer..
Yes: Then why are we having this conversation.
No: Then I will challenge you to prove to me that you can't (which is of course ridiculous, but hey).
Ha, so you knew there was an easy way out and still thought to ask me that question?However, we are about to fix that right now, once you answer the above question..
I mean, you could always plead the fifth or say "I don't know"...at which either response will be just as good as a yes for me.
But I care what you call it, or rather, not call it: it's not invalid.Well, I can care less what you call a false premise with a false conclusion, just as long as you don't call it true.
*Facepalm* Yes, this is exactly why the argument is valid. Read what you presented here again very slowly, in particular this last bit you highlighted."Valid: an argument is valid if and only if it is necessary that if all of the premises are true, then the conclusion is true; if all the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true; it is impossible that all the premises are true and the conclusion is false."
Do you see this -------> ".....if ALL OF THE PREMISES ARE TRUE"
But if all of the premises are true, then would the conclusion be true, or would it be false?Premise 1 of your argument <----false
I have my doubts about that, I am still waiting for you to make a new thread like you said you would.We are gonna see about that one.
Yeah. That was relevant because you claim that atheists and theists alike was able to image god as support for your argument. Where as I made no such claim.Same question I asked you when you first mentioned this bearded man, what does that have to do with the MGB of my imagination?
Remember that?
How about I draw him out? That seemed to be an acceptable proof by your standard?But then again, I can challenge you to prove to me that you are imagining a cartoonish, bearded man sitting on the clouds.
How can I refuse after you said please:As a matter of fact, I will; please prove to me that you can conceive of a cartoonish, bearded man sitting on the clouds.
Because it gives the impression that you can't.Why not wait?
Correct! Which is why I go the extra mile to prove my point.Whether I can prove my argument, doesn't stop you from proving the validity of your counter-argument, does it?
- We_Are_VENOM
- Banned
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
Re: Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument
Post #170Yeah, you do that.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 7:05 pmI'm just going to cut to this as we are going in circles on the rest.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 4:53 pm It is possible for God to exist, therefore, God exists. Back to the argument.
If you can conceive it, it is possible. Illogical/incoherent concepts cannot be conceived, therefore not possible.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 7:05 pm It has not yet been shown that it is possible for God to exist.
The argument does not state which God exists, but rather, that a god exists.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 7:05 pm I also thought we were talking about an MGB not a specific god (I'm assuming 'God' is the Christian one here).
If they don't know, then they need to say "I don't know". Easy solution.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 7:05 pm This entire MOA depends entirely on the equivocation fallacy. You ask people if something is 'possible' and they nod their head yes because they are taking 'possible' in the "I don't know, so maybe" way.
That which is not possible cannot be conceived. A MGB (God) can/has been conceived each and every day.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 7:05 pm The trouble is, it may actually NOT be possible for the MGB as described to exist.
The conditions outside of our universe is irrelevant...all we need to know is that the universe began to exist...so, whatever gave it its beginning must be OUTSIDE of our universe...and once you get yourself to acknowledge that brute fact, then you can piece together what kind of causal agent could cause such an effect...and with careful and critical thinking, you should and oughta eventually draw the "God" conclusion.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 7:05 pm In order to know that requires knowing the conditions OUTSIDE our universe.
That is, unless, of course...
I call it "appealing to the best explanation."benchwarmer wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 7:05 pm This is impossible and claiming knowledge of anything outside our known universe is simply called 'guessing'.
All possible necessary truths must be actually true.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 7:05 pm So while we don't know if a god can exist or not we colloquially say "It's possible".
If it can be conceived, it is possible <---based on this fundamental principle, I do know this.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 7:05 pm Unfortunately for the MOA, we need to be using the term 'possible' more rigorously as in "it either is or it isn't". And since we can't know this, you can't simply equivocate from the first meaning to the second.
If you can conceive it, you do know that it is possible...and "I don't know" just simply doesn't work here.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 7:05 pm What does all that mean? It means the first premise:
falls flat on it's face as we don't know if it's possible or not in the sense of "can it be or can it not be". The only way it's 'possible' is in the "I don't know" sense .1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
In a way, it is a trap....but then again, the people that become trapped are trapped inside the room of "truth".benchwarmer wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 7:05 pm Trying to trap people into agreeing with that based on colloquial meaning and then switching to actual possibility is pure logical fallacy territory.
It is a place where people should want to stay locked in, instead of trying to get out of there.
I don't know about you people, but I cannot imagine a squared circle or 2+2=96 (which are the main two we were discussing).benchwarmer wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 7:05 pm The only way to make progress beyond the first premise is to actually show an MBG really is possible. Imagining one does not make it actually possible as we have proven by imagining other ridiculous things. Unless you can fix the argument as presented, the MOA is DOA at premise 1.
But I can imagine a MGB. So why can I imagine one and not the others? Because the other two are logically absurd, and logical absurdities cannot exist in reality and therefore cannot be imagined.
But things that can exist in reality CAN be imagined.
Dont fight it...embrace it.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!