One of the best arguments for God

[AquinasForGod]

One of the best arguments for God is the response to the modal ontological argument.

To read my full argument, go here - https://www.freelymeditate.com/single-p ... ts-for-god

And to read about ontological arguments and the modal ontological argument go to the Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/onto ... n%20alone.

Question for Debate: Can atheists prove God is impossible?

The reason that is the question for debate is because that is the counter to Plantinga's ontological argument. If you read the link to the SFP, provided above, you will notice that his ontological argument is valid. This means that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. Thus to show the argument is not sound, you must show one of the premises are untrue. The only premise that you can really do that with is the first premise, which is that God is possible.

You could reject modal logic, I suppose, but that doesn't seem reasonable.

Also, the so-called defeater to this argument is why this argument is so good. It runs the argument in reverse, called a symmetry breaker. However, to run this argument in reverse is simply to state that God is impossible. Who argues that? Thus my question for debate. Can you argue that God is impossible?

If you wish to use the so-caleld symmetry breaker to the modal ontological argument to claim you defeated the argument, then you must defend the first premise, which is that God cannot exist in any possible world, yet that seems wrong. Why would God be impossible?

If you cannot defend the first premise, then you haven't defeated the argument. In other words, if you agree that God is possible, then Plantinga's argument goes through. It is sound and thus God is true.

In other words, you have to claim Plantinga's first premise is not true, which states that God is possible. If that premise is false, then you are saying God is impossible.

His argument is so powerful because it only leaves you with a few options.

1. God exists.
2. God is impossible, and cannot possibly exist. (Good luck trying to argue that. )
3. Reject modal logic.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #60]

P1: Sure, but the whole problem with Anselm was that just because we could imagine something, e.g an entity that could tamper with all multiverses (while the 'verses couldn't mess with each other except in Sci Fi movies where one only needs to encounter a handy spacial anomaly) and must of course, be Intelligent, it didn't mean that entity actually had to exist.

P2: Explain how we are able to imagine anything?
The point of this type of discussion is to go through the variables and apply what we know in relation to what can reasonably be imagined.
That is also why we can imagine Sci Fi universes and separate them from one another. Looking for and finding anomalies which exist, is part of that process which involves imagination.
Importantly, we need not conflate imaginative theories with "burden of proof" as long as no claim is attached to said theories.

P1: No, such a thing needs to be validated and that means better evidence from you than 'I'm not claiming anything' and 'you have as much to prove as I do' or words to that effect.

P2: Which is also why I quoted the capable AI - and one should notice that the AI did not treat the concept presented, as some "claim which needed to be proved", before it could give feedback.

It - a language-based machine - understands the difference, so there is no reason why you can't also understand the difference.

If you want to insist that I have to present proof, this conversation can end here.

___________________-

William: Greetings OAI. This is William-I-Am-Not-A-Robot...
I have a story that I would like to get some feedback from you on...

Open AI: Of course, William-I-Am-Not-A-Robot. I'd be happy to give you feedback on your story. Please go ahead and share it with me.

William: P1 and P2 are at the fireside, discussing the deep and meaningful, under a starry sky, the moon a slither of a crescent half hidden behind the Twelve Judges Mountain Range.
The context of their discussion is as follows.

[provides AI with the narrative]

P2 thinks that there is no point in continuing the discussion if P1 insists P2 has to prove the case for a Universal Mind existing


Open AI: That is a valid viewpoint for P2 to hold. In a philosophical or scientific discussion, it is important to establish a mutual understanding of the terms and concepts being discussed. If P1 insists on proof for the concept of a Universal Mind, but P2 does not believe that proof is necessary or possible, then it may be difficult for them to have a productive conversation on the topic.

It would be worth exploring in your story how P1 and P2 come to a resolution or understanding on this point, or if they are unable to find common ground and decide to end the discussion. It could also be interesting to see how this disagreement impacts their relationship or their future discussions.

William: Thanks for your feedback

Open AI: You're welcome, William-I-Am-Not-A-Robot. I'm glad I could help. If you have any other questions or need further feedback, please feel free to ask.

William: I think what is happening in the conversation between P1 and P2 is Extrapolate - estimate or conclude (something) extend (a graph, curve, or range of values) by inferring unknown values from trends in the known data.

Open AI: Yes, that is one way to interpret the conversation between P1 and P2. It appears that they are discussing the concept of a Universal Mind and exploring different possibilities and implications of its existence. They are using their imagination to infer unknown values and trends, and they are trying to estimate or conclude something based on the information they have. Extrapolating is a common practice in scientific research and philosophy, and it is a way to explore the unknown and to generate new ideas.

William: And extrapolating is able to be done, because there is no burden of proof required

Open AI: Extrapolating is a process of inferring unknown values or trends based on known data. In scientific research and philosophy, extrapolation can be used to generate hypotheses, theories or ideas which can be further investigated. The process of extrapolation does not necessarily require a burden of proof, but rather it relies on the available information and logical reasoning to make predictions or explore possibilities.

It is important to note that the results of extrapolation should not be treated as established facts or proven theories, but rather as a starting point for further investigation. The burden of proof would only be required if one wants to make a claim or assert something as true. Extrapolation is a way to explore, generate ideas, and make predictions, but it is not a way to prove anything.

[TRANSPONDER]

Sorry, Unexplaineds are NOT evidence for a Cosmic mind. Basic gap for God fallacy.

I can say that from what I learn, it is down to an evolved survival mechanism related to problem solving and danger anticipation and attraction to survival enhancing things like tasty fruits and tasty mating partners. Just how the mental electronics work that I can't explain, but I see no reason whatsoever to ascribe it to a cosmic mind. Perhaps I should ask you to explain why imagination should be ascribed to a cosmic intelligence rather than to an enhanced survival mechanism?

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #62]

Sorry, Unexplaineds are NOT evidence for a Cosmic mind. Basic gap for God fallacy.

We agree.

I can say that from what I learn, it is down to an evolved survival mechanism related to problem solving and danger anticipation and attraction to survival enhancing things like tasty fruits and tasty mating partners. Just how the mental electronics work that I can't explain, but I see no reason whatsoever to ascribe it to a cosmic mind.

Either way, it is possible. More is required from both arguments as neither can be accepted as fact, without proof.
Just how the mental electronics work I can't explain either so unexplaineds are NOT evidence for it being simply mental electronics. There is a gap, but there is no proof that either idea has filled said gap. "Gap for God" or "Gap for mental electronics" it still is fallacy to assume either as being correct, without due evidence to support any claims made, should any claim actually be made.

Perhaps I should ask you to explain why imagination should be ascribed to a cosmic intelligence rather than to an enhanced survival mechanism?

No. Imagination is being applied to both theories. It is not a case of 'rather than' but a case of either could be true, so which is, and how does one go about finding out?

Thus we Extrapolate.
Re, that, as an Agnostic Neutral, my approach to the problem of God differs from that of your own, coming as you do, from the position of Agnostic Atheist.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #62]

Sorry, Unexplaineds are NOT evidence for a Cosmic mind. Basic gap for God fallacy.

We agree.

I can say that from what I learn, it is down to an evolved survival mechanism related to problem solving and danger anticipation and attraction to survival enhancing things like tasty fruits and tasty mating partners. Just how the mental electronics work that I can't explain, but I see no reason whatsoever to ascribe it to a cosmic mind.

Either way, it is possible. More is required from both arguments as neither can be accepted as fact, without proof.
Just how the mental electronics work I can't explain either so unexplaineds are NOT evidence for it being simply mental electronics. There is a gap, but there is no proof that either idea has filled said gap. "Gap for God" or "Gap for mental electronics" it still is fallacy to assume either as being correct, without due evidence to support any claims made, should any claim actually be made.

Perhaps I should ask you to explain why imagination should be ascribed to a cosmic intelligence rather than to an enhanced survival mechanism?

No. Imagination is being applied to both theories. It is not a case of 'rather than' but a case of either could be true, so which is, and how does one go about finding out?

Thus we Extrapolate.
Re, that, as an Agnostic Neutral, my approach to the problem of God differs from that of your own, coming as you do, from the position of Agnostic Atheist.

Right. Sure it depends on where one is standing, but it's the old problem with Philosophy. It seems to ignore science and speculate on a pure theoretical basis, which is fine to to work out 'what if'hypotheses. But the science -based materialist theory is a validated basis to stand on and when the finger is pointed at materialism "Why is the burden of proof on me?" that's the validated basis which is the default theory and the validated evidence supports it and philosophical hypotheses need to find evidential support or they are never going to compete.

[Purple Knight]

Technically, what?

What makes an observer tamper with itself, simply by observing?

If the observed universe isn't affected by being observed, it's just the same as it was if it hadn't been observed. It is the observer who gains new information he would not have had without the other universe. He is the tamperer, and he tampers with his own universe. His universe is now different.

It may be only consciousness that interacts, but the universes that contain the consciousnesses that interacted are different because those conscious beings are different for having perceived beyond that veil.

Please expand on this for the sake of clarity.

Let's say I observe a bunch of other universes through one of these experiences because I am conscious. I haven't done this yet, so I know it's possible not to. But let's say it's also possible to do that. If my actions can change anything, upon gaining knowledge I can act differently and alter my own universe accordingly.

If everything happens somewhere there must be a universe of maximum mundaneness where nobody ever perceived anything else.

You mean - a universe where there is consciousness within it, experiencing said maximum mundaneness where said consciousness never perceived lack of maximum mundaneness?

I mean a universe where nobody ever perceived another universe.

It is possible not to do so.

Please explain how.

I don't know how, but I know I haven't had these experiences of perceiving other universes, so I know not perceiving other universes is possible. (I mean, I know within a reasonable margin of error. I could be wrong but I could also be wrong that I'm not a cat.)

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #64]
Nitpicking Philosophy

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #65]

If the observed universe isn't affected by being observed, it's just the same as it was if it hadn't been observed.

What premise are you building this off?

It is the observer who gains new information he would not have had without the other universe. He is the tamperer, and he tampers with his own universe. His universe is now different.

How is it different? Please give the reader an example in order to help clarify what you are arguing.

Let's say I observe a bunch of other universes through one of these experiences because I am conscious. I haven't done this yet, so I know it's possible not to. But let's say it's also possible to do that. If my actions can change anything, upon gaining knowledge I can act differently and alter my own universe accordingly.

You appear to be saying that consciousness is altered.

If everything happens somewhere there must be a universe of maximum mundaneness where nobody ever perceived anything else.

You mean - a universe where there is consciousness within it, experiencing said maximum mundaneness where said consciousness never perceived lack of maximum mundaneness?

I mean a universe where nobody ever perceived another universe.

Why would that be considered "a universe of maximum mundaneness"?

It is possible not to do so.

Please explain how.

I don't know how, but I know I haven't had these experiences of perceiving other universes, so I know not perceiving other universes is possible.

We started off this conversation because you said you could perceive colors which others could not.

[Purple Knight]

If the observed universe isn't affected by being observed, it's just the same as it was if it hadn't been observed.

What premise are you building this off?

I think it's common sense. I can look at a monkey scratching his bottom, and if he doesn't see me observing him, he proceeds as if I am not observing him. Some things in the micro do seem to be affected by being observed, but that's why I said "if it wasn't affected."

It is the observer who gains new information he would not have had without the other universe. He is the tamperer, and he tampers with his own universe. His universe is now different.

How is it different? Please give the reader an example in order to help clarify what you are arguing.

Let's say I observe a bunch of other universes through one of these experiences because I am conscious. I haven't done this yet, so I know it's possible not to. But let's say it's also possible to do that. If my actions can change anything, upon gaining knowledge I can act differently and alter my own universe accordingly.

You appear to be saying that consciousness is altered.

I'm saying that new information gained from observation affects us, and so, our universe. If I look into another universe and see a monkey scratch himself, I've now seen that and even if I don't do anything about it, my memories and experiences are different than they were and as an indirect consequence, my choices may be different. I tell you, I saw that monkey, and you respond, and that is an effect. It's reasonable to assume that effect has even more consequences.

I mean a universe where nobody ever perceived another universe.

Why would that be considered "a universe of maximum mundaneness"?

That's just what I'm calling it. If absolutely every possibility happens.

It is possible not to do so.

Please explain how.

I don't know how, but I know I haven't had these experiences of perceiving other universes, so I know not perceiving other universes is possible.

We started off this conversation because you said you could perceive colors which others could not.

I can. I don't see colours the same as others, I seem to see a bit into the UV spectrum, and I've passed every test for colourblindness they've thrown at me. But it's also possible not to see UV light. It's possible to see it, it's possible not to see it, it's possible to see no colours at all and be blind.

And if every possibility happens somewhere, there is a universe where I can see UV light, one where I can't, and even one where I'm blind.

There is a universe where everybody is blind.

There is a universe where nobody ever perceived another universe. That is, if every possibility happens, somewhere.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #67]

That's just what I'm calling it. If absolutely every possibility happens.

Any universe which is not observed, may as well not exist.

[JoeyKnothead]

If the observed universe isn't affected by being observed, it's just the same as it was if it hadn't been observed.

What premise are you building this off?

I think it's common sense. I can look at a monkey scratching his bottom, and if he doesn't see me observing him, he proceeds as if I am not observing him. Some things in the micro do seem to be affected by being observed, but that's why I said "if it wasn't affected."

It is the observer who gains new information he would not have had without the other universe. He is the tamperer, and he tampers with his own universe. His universe is now different.

How is it different? Please give the reader an example in order to help clarify what you are arguing.

Let's say I observe a bunch of other universes through one of these experiences because I am conscious. I haven't done this yet, so I know it's possible not to. But let's say it's also possible to do that. If my actions can change anything, upon gaining knowledge I can act differently and alter my own universe accordingly.

You appear to be saying that consciousness is altered.

I'm saying that new information gained from observation affects us, and so, our universe. If I look into another universe and see a monkey scratch himself, I've now seen that and even if I don't do anything about it, my memories and experiences are different than they were and as an indirect consequence, my choices may be different. I tell you, I saw that monkey, and you respond, and that is an effect. It's reasonable to assume that effect has even more consequences.

I mean a universe where nobody ever perceived another universe.

Why would that be considered "a universe of maximum mundaneness"?

That's just what I'm calling it. If absolutely every possibility happens.

It is possible not to do so.

Please explain how.

I don't know how, but I know I haven't had these experiences of perceiving other universes, so I know not perceiving other universes is possible.

We started off this conversation because you said you could perceive colors which others could not.

I can. I don't see colours the same as others, I seem to see a bit into the UV spectrum, and I've passed every test for colourblindness they've thrown at me. But it's also possible not to see UV light. It's possible to see it, it's possible not to see it, it's possible to see no colours at all and be blind.

And if every possibility happens somewhere, there is a universe where I can see UV light, one where I can't, and even one where I'm blind.

There is a universe where everybody is blind.

There is a universe where nobody ever perceived another universe. That is, if every possibility happens, somewhere.

Oh dear god, that means there's a universe where I get married again!

But I agree completely. If we posit that there's "all possible universes", well dangit, any of y'all know a good divorce attorney?

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #67]

That's just what I'm calling it. If absolutely every possibility happens.

Any universe which is not observed, may as well not exist.

It may be observed but only by people inside of it.